FCPS Ready to Screw Poorer/GenEd Kids Again

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many of those on here that are against this move will be at the hearing on the 22nd when this will be voted on? Raise your hands please..

Not living in the area, I may not show up. I know the school board has read these threads and have talked to them personally about the issues. I have also talked to facilities. It's their responsibility to make a sound decision. I do not feel obligated to show up just to make sure they do the right thing. I cannot show up to every hearing and it is not my responsibility. What if I was sick or had an obligation? These are the people we elected. The responsibility is on their shoulders.

But you are not the only one carrying the weight of the opposition on your shoulders, pp (or are you?). I thought there were a few hundred based on the length of this thread.

While I get your point about the county needing to worry about this vs us, they cannot make any decisions if they have to worry about 3rd and 4th order consequences of every decision.

The issue they are addressing is overcrowding at LJ.
Potential solutions - Move kids to Thoreau (which has overcapacity). I'm sure parents were involved in pushing for this solution (OES and the other two schools).
Move kids to Poe - Where are the parents asking for this? If not them, who else will? You will not find OES parents asking for this. In fact, if someone had proposed this, they would have vehemently shot it down because the school is just too far away!

I don't think it's fair for someone to pontificate on this when they are not personally involved.

Other issues you and other bring up such as :LJ will become a "poor people" school, performance will decrease, property values will decrease, etc are second/third order issues that FCPS just doesn't have the mental bandwidth/capacity/ability to address. Once you bring those issues in you will not be able to change anything.

This is nothing more than your conspiracy theory. The plan to move these particular schools into Thoreau was hatched by the facilities people long ago in the CIP. Parents at OES, MWES and MRES had nothing to do with it. OES parents were more unhappy with LJ b/c they were a split ES... so some kids were going to TMS and some to LJ. That did drive a feeling of some kids getting a higher end school while their friends got somethign else. MWES was not a split feeder.... people there were fully on-board with LJ and weren't agitating to leave. Not sure about the MRES kids. They were a much smaller part of the MRES population.

There was no effort on the part of the ES to get themselves picked to be rezoned. FCPS simply looked at the map and it was obvious who should move. You want to social engineer the situation to suit your property values. Admit that.

The whole zoning in the county is social engineering. The Town of Vienna itself is manufactured social engineering. One Fairfax IS a social engineering principle based on previous social engineering that congregated low income properties together. You seem to have a problem with One Fairfax.

I have a problem with how some people are trying to use "One Fairfax" as a weapon. I do not believe it was intended to be used as some on this thread are trying to use it. I believe it was intended to be used simply as an aspirational statement and as a general goal to make all parts of the county prosperous (i.e. when putting resources toward business development zones, let's not put all the $$ in Tysons and ignore Rt. 1). I don't think anyone ever intended for One Fairfax to be dictating school rezoning. It should be used, to make sure that the same classes are offered to the kids at LJ as are offered to the kids at TMS and the kids at Whitman MS and the kids at Liberty MS.

One Fairfax, to me, means that the country distributes resources to each school and to each part of the county with an eye toward making sure all areas/schools have similar (not identical) opportunities. It does not mean that the county should start re-balancing the number of black kids/white kids/asian kids/hispanic kids/Farms kids/IEP kids/ etc. in each school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many of those on here that are against this move will be at the hearing on the 22nd when this will be voted on? Raise your hands please..

Not living in the area, I may not show up. I know the school board has read these threads and have talked to them personally about the issues. I have also talked to facilities. It's their responsibility to make a sound decision. I do not feel obligated to show up just to make sure they do the right thing. I cannot show up to every hearing and it is not my responsibility. What if I was sick or had an obligation? These are the people we elected. The responsibility is on their shoulders.

But you are not the only one carrying the weight of the opposition on your shoulders, pp (or are you?). I thought there were a few hundred based on the length of this thread.

While I get your point about the county needing to worry about this vs us, they cannot make any decisions if they have to worry about 3rd and 4th order consequences of every decision.

The issue they are addressing is overcrowding at LJ.
Potential solutions - Move kids to Thoreau (which has overcapacity). I'm sure parents were involved in pushing for this solution (OES and the other two schools).
Move kids to Poe - Where are the parents asking for this? If not them, who else will? You will not find OES parents asking for this. In fact, if someone had proposed this, they would have vehemently shot it down because the school is just too far away!

I don't think it's fair for someone to pontificate on this when they are not personally involved.

Other issues you and other bring up such as :LJ will become a "poor people" school, performance will decrease, property values will decrease, etc are second/third order issues that FCPS just doesn't have the mental bandwidth/capacity/ability to address. Once you bring those issues in you will not be able to change anything.

This is nothing more than your conspiracy theory. The plan to move these particular schools into Thoreau was hatched by the facilities people long ago in the CIP. Parents at OES, MWES and MRES had nothing to do with it. OES parents were more unhappy with LJ b/c they were a split ES... so some kids were going to TMS and some to LJ. That did drive a feeling of some kids getting a higher end school while their friends got somethign else. MWES was not a split feeder.... people there were fully on-board with LJ and weren't agitating to leave. Not sure about the MRES kids. They were a much smaller part of the MRES population.

There was no effort on the part of the ES to get themselves picked to be rezoned. FCPS simply looked at the map and it was obvious who should move. You want to social engineer the situation to suit your property values. Admit that.

The whole zoning in the county is social engineering. The Town of Vienna itself is manufactured social engineering. One Fairfax IS a social engineering principle based on previous social engineering that congregated low income properties together. You seem to have a problem with One Fairfax.

I have a problem with how some people are trying to use "One Fairfax" as a weapon. I do not believe it was intended to be used as some on this thread are trying to use it. I believe it was intended to be used simply as an aspirational statement and as a general goal to make all parts of the county prosperous (i.e. when putting resources toward business development zones, let's not put all the $$ in Tysons and ignore Rt. 1). I don't think anyone ever intended for One Fairfax to be dictating school rezoning. It should be used, to make sure that the same classes are offered to the kids at LJ as are offered to the kids at TMS and the kids at Whitman MS and the kids at Liberty MS.

One Fairfax, to me, means that the country distributes resources to each school and to each part of the county with an eye toward making sure all areas/schools have similar (not identical) opportunities. It does not mean that the county should start re-balancing the number of black kids/white kids/asian kids/hispanic kids/Farms kids/IEP kids/ etc. in each school.

The problem with your analysis is that both the Board of Supervisors and the FCPS School Board expressly adopted the One Fairfax resolution.

If it simply meant business as usual for FCPS, there would have been no need for FCPS to debate the resolution or ratify it.

Scott Brabrand has been very clear that he was prepared to consider equity more explicitly than FCPS has done in the past. I think his staff has dropped the ball on this one, perhaps because the plans were hatched before Brabrand was hired. But the Jackson-to-Thoreau proposal is not consistent with One Fairfax.

For example, community outreach was limited to those in the wealthier Jackson neighborhoods, who were likely to support a redistricting. In comparison, One Fairfax provides: "To foster civil discourse and dialogue, community engagement shall ensure that the breadth of interests, ideas, and values of all people are heard and considered. Outreach and public participation processes will be inclusive of diverse races, cultures, ages, and other social statuses. Effective listening, transparency, flexibility, and adaptability will be utilized to overcome barriers (geography, language, time, design, etc.) that prevent or limit participation in public processes. Fairfax County Government and Fairfax County Public Schools will engage with sectors such as higher education, business, nonprofit, faith, philanthropy, civic and others to collectively address barriers to opportunity."

Similarly, FCPS has only looked at the short-term impact on enrollments of moving certain Jackson students to Thoreau. In comparison, One Fairfax provides: "Consideration will be given to whole community benefits and burdens, identifying strategies to mitigate negative impacts, and promoting success for all people in planning and decision making. Equity tools such as structured questions, equity impact analyses, disparity studies, etc. will be used to ensure that equity is considered intentionally in decision-making and the One Fairfax policy is operationalized."

[Anonymous]

The One Fairfax policy identifies 17 areas of focus to promote equity including community and economic development, housing, education, environment, and transportation. It also creates shared definitions, along with a process to implement the policy.

The proof is already there that boundary redistributions that segregate high income housing from low income housing is not working well. The areas in the county where this has been done show declining investment and those areas have been the impetus for One Fairfax in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The One Fairfax policy identifies 17 areas of focus to promote equity including community and economic development, housing, education, environment, and transportation. It also creates shared definitions, along with a process to implement the policy.

The proof is already there that boundary redistributions that segregate high income housing from low income housing is not working well. The areas in the county where this has been done show declining investment and those areas have been the impetus for One Fairfax in the first place.

And the economic analysis indicates that the cost of policies that promote segregation/resegregation outweigh the short-term benefits that accrue to others (here, the bump that some Oakton/Vienna residents will get if they are rezoned to Thoreau).

It's not rocket science. FCPS has already done the equivalent of educational red-lining with respect to inside-the-Beltway Annandale, with no plans in sight to shore up Poe MS/Annandale HS. It drives higher-income people and investors away and deprives the county of tax revenues. Now they want to do the same thing with part of inside-the-Beltway Falls Church that was actually starting to improve.

[Anonymous]

But Falls Church's boundaries aren't changing at all. If Falls Church can be improving without the Oakton-area students, surely Jackson will do fine as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As long as LJ becomes less crowded then this is a fine solution.

Winner!

And how about a little faith that kids who remain at LJ are capable of doing well in school? Why does the opposition (to the rezoning) assume that these kids (at LJ) are just going to fail and drive the school into the ground?

This is the right answer. LJ is way overcrowded. Changing the boundary fixes that. The rest is gobbledygook.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But Falls Church's boundaries aren't changing at all. If Falls Church can be improving without the Oakton-area students, surely Jackson will do fine as well.

Falls Church is not improving compared to other areas. Where did you get that statistic?

[Anonymous]

There is a PP on here who keeps conflating a change in LJ MIDDLE school students with rezoning several HIGH schools. People mainly buy houses for the HIGH SCHOOL pyramid. Those who are in the Falls Church pyramid are still going to be in the Falls Church HS pyramid. You may have had a bit of a benefit at LJ b/c of the Oakton kids (that you seem to think have driven up the scores at LJ) and you will still get the benefit of having an AAP center masking the true achievements of the base school.

You've been experiencing a benefit to your housing values b/c of these students and programs that is unrelated to the true housing-value of your pyramid (Falls Church). Now, that you may lose that un-earned value, you are fighting to keep it.

If you bought a house in the Falls Church pyramid, you are entitled to Falls Church pyramid premiums (or discounts). You will still have that -- in a more accurate way now -- no longer inflated by kids from Oakton HS pyramid pumping up the LJ/Falls Church pyramid scores. (Note, that it is you who argues that the rezoning group is propping up LJ, not I.) Based on your arguments, I would suggest that removing this group is actually quite just. Home owners in Falls Church pyramid have been riding on the Oakton coattails (at the MS level).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But Falls Church's boundaries aren't changing at all. If Falls Church can be improving without the Oakton-area students, surely Jackson will do fine as well.

Flawed logic on your part. When you change the demographics of one of FCHS's two middle school feeders, you are virtually guaranteed to affect the high school as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is a PP on here who keeps conflating a change in LJ MIDDLE school students with rezoning several HIGH schools. People mainly buy houses for the HIGH SCHOOL pyramid. Those who are in the Falls Church pyramid are still going to be in the Falls Church HS pyramid. You may have had a bit of a benefit at LJ b/c of the Oakton kids (that you seem to think have driven up the scores at LJ) and you will still get the benefit of having an AAP center masking the true achievements of the base school.

You've been experiencing a benefit to your housing values b/c of these students and programs that is unrelated to the true housing-value of your pyramid (Falls Church). Now, that you may lose that un-earned value, you are fighting to keep it.

If you bought a house in the Falls Church pyramid, you are entitled to Falls Church pyramid premiums (or discounts). You will still have that -- in a more accurate way now -- no longer inflated by kids from Oakton HS pyramid pumping up the LJ/Falls Church pyramid scores. (Note, that it is you who argues that the rezoning group is propping up LJ, not I.) Based on your arguments, I would suggest that removing this group is actually quite just. Home owners in Falls Church pyramid have been riding on the Oakton coattails (at the MS level).

That's a highly convoluted way of claiming that some Oakton families have been unfairly penalized by having to send their kids to middle school with less wealthy kids. Cry me a river.

In any event, it's a load of BS. Real estate values reflect all the school assignments, not just the high schools. FCPS had reasonably sensible boundaries at Jackson that kept the ESOL/FARMS rates below the level that its own research had suggested was a tipping point. And now they want to ignore that research, and push Jackson past that tipping point. All you have to do is look at the demographic changes at Poe MS/Annandale HS over the past decade to see how incremental boundary changes can torpedo a school when families perceive those changes as a signal that FCPS is happy to concentrate poverty in select areas and schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is a PP on here who keeps conflating a change in LJ MIDDLE school students with rezoning several HIGH schools. People mainly buy houses for the HIGH SCHOOL pyramid. Those who are in the Falls Church pyramid are still going to be in the Falls Church HS pyramid. You may have had a bit of a benefit at LJ b/c of the Oakton kids (that you seem to think have driven up the scores at LJ) and you will still get the benefit of having an AAP center masking the true achievements of the base school.

You've been experiencing a benefit to your housing values b/c of these students and programs that is unrelated to the true housing-value of your pyramid (Falls Church). Now, that you may lose that un-earned value, you are fighting to keep it.

If you bought a house in the Falls Church pyramid, you are entitled to Falls Church pyramid premiums (or discounts). You will still have that -- in a more accurate way now -- no longer inflated by kids from Oakton HS pyramid pumping up the LJ/Falls Church pyramid scores. (Note, that it is you who argues that the rezoning group is propping up LJ, not I.) Based on your arguments, I would suggest that removing this group is actually quite just. Home owners in Falls Church pyramid have been riding on the Oakton coattails (at the MS level).

LOL. It's the Jackson/Oakton parents who want the advantage of a middle school that feeds mostly to Madison, which is better than Oakton.

[Anonymous]

News flash --- Falls Church HS is not a sought-after HS. It's not surprising that the MS feeding into it would be similar in terms of achievement and demographics.

Are you as worked up about Falls Church HS as you are about Jackson MS? B/c that's where you're kids are headed, right? Shouldn't you be advocating for re-zoning Falls Church as well? The part of LJMS that you find unacceptable IS the same grouping that IS Falls Church HS.

Are you (FCHS pyramid residents) really demanding that you have a better MS mix than your HS? Or were you planning to send your kid to parochial/private for HS? Why so worked up about the MS (which is still going to be propped up by having the AAP center) when the HS is exactly the same situation?

[Anonymous]

Falls Church HS = "4" for academics (no shame -- it's not the only one in FCPS).

Jackson MS = "7" for academics (it's the AAP center and, possibly, the Oakton pyramid kids propping the scores up at LJ).

The scores at LJ after the rezoning will probably match the Falls Church HS scores (with a bump from the AAP center).

It's not a high performing area.... does that mean FCPS has to rig the MS to make it look like it is higher than it really is? Apparently, to date, the FC pyramid kids aren't really getting that much out of having peers from Oakton pyramid in MS. When the FC crowd gets to HS, they still have the same issues they always had. Their higher income MS peers (at LJ under current conditions) didn't turn them into stellar students. The only thing that will happen is that LJ's test scores will better reflect the academic achievement of Falls Church pyramid. It's not a change so much as it is the truth coming to light about kids in the Falls Church pyramid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:News flash --- Falls Church HS is not a sought-after HS. It's not surprising that the MS feeding into it would be similar in terms of achievement and demographics.

Are you as worked up about Falls Church HS as you are about Jackson MS? B/c that's where you're kids are headed, right? Shouldn't you be advocating for re-zoning Falls Church as well? The part of LJMS that you find unacceptable IS the same grouping that IS Falls Church HS.

Are you (FCHS pyramid residents) really demanding that you have a better MS mix than your HS? Or were you planning to send your kid to parochial/private for HS? Why so worked up about the MS (which is still going to be propped up by having the AAP center) when the HS is exactly the same situation?

Why shouldn't they? It's not their fault that Fairfax hasn't put any investment into that location? Yes, they were benefitting from an AAP center at LJ and Oakton kids attending there. There's nothing wrong with that. Fairfax hasn't invested in the Falls Church area of the county for some time.

[Anonymous]

And, btw, the white and asian kids at Falls Church HS seem to be doing quite well, even if their hispanic and black peers are not.

So, you cannot assume that this will harm the "good" students at LJMS. Those that want to take advantage of the opportunities are. Those that have extra hurdles (language/poverty) are not going to do as well, but that has not hurt the white and asian students at LJMS or FCHS.