School Boundaries and "One Fairfax"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What they need to do is figure out all of their priorities and then measure where every school is relative to these priorities. And then redraw boundaries to fix deficiencies to a tolerable level. It shouldn't be one priority above all. Some schools have different and larger deficiencies than others.

This sounds like the priority is to fix how things look on paper.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is it with some white people and “community” schools?

Here's a little clue: Most people like community schools. Remember how the Hispanic community fought --and failed--to keep Graham Rd in their community?

I taught in a school where kids were bused. I've posted on here before about it. The people who were bused in from a school in their own community had difficulty getting to the school. If the kids missed the bus (which they frequently did) they were out of luck. Absenteeism was a result. Conferences were difficult. Parents usually didn't show. My class performed in a play--only a handful of parents came from that community. Open House--almost none.

Kids were sweet--though there was a lot of fighting. This is not the way to get family support--which is one of the most important factors in a child's education. Calling this "One Fairfax" won't help them. It will just cover up problems.

I see. So the status quo should prevail?

What do you mean by status quo? Things are changing in FCPS in terms of diversity regardless of whether there are community schools or widespread cross-county bussing (which is both impractical and beyond our means in any event).

Status quo regarding boundaries. Obviously.

Boundaries regularly need to change, primarily due to overcrowding. Your question makes no sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What they need to do is figure out all of their priorities and then measure where every school is relative to these priorities. And then redraw boundaries to fix deficiencies to a tolerable level. It shouldn't be one priority above all. Some schools have different and larger deficiencies than others.

This sounds like the priority is to fix how things look on paper.

And what is wrong with paper? Data is often more honest than opinions. Right now they don't look good on paper. Langley only has 2% of children on free and reduced lunch. Mount Vernon and Herndon each have 56% on free and reduced lunch. This is a huge difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What they need to do is figure out all of their priorities and then measure where every school is relative to these priorities. And then redraw boundaries to fix deficiencies to a tolerable level. It shouldn't be one priority above all. Some schools have different and larger deficiencies than others.

This sounds like the priority is to fix how things look on paper.

And what is wrong with paper? Data is often more honest than opinions. Right now they don't look good on paper. Langley only has 2% of children on free and reduced lunch. Mount Vernon and Herndon each have 56% on free and reduced lunch. This is a huge difference.

And will how will bringing Langley's FARMs rate up to 29% help FARMs children?

It doesn't seem that the goal is to help them, but to make people feel better about their own schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a person currently stuck living in MoCo for commute reasons, I sure hope FCPS passes these laws and means business, or we'll lose all of our UMC families in a hurry. It may happen either way, honestly.

That said, I cannot wait until reasonably priced academically vigorous smalk private schools start popping up all over the DMV because SOMEONE needs to educate high achievers. Clearly the education boards are not considering it a priority anymore.

I live in a part of Fairfax that's sort of overlooked-- most of the schools don't qualify for Title I, but they're in the 35-45% FRM range and the 3-5 GS ratings range. So, not in danger of losing accreditation but could definitely use more support for a lot of needy students. My kids play in a local sports league that chooses teams loosely based on your assigned public school's proximity to practice locations. Probably half the kids on my children's teams go to local private schools and they all live in our school pyramid. I don't know about the pricing, but at least three new private schools have been built in my area in the past 10 years. I suspect they're staying full or else they would've gone out of business.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What they need to do is figure out all of their priorities and then measure where every school is relative to these priorities. And then redraw boundaries to fix deficiencies to a tolerable level. It shouldn't be one priority above all. Some schools have different and larger deficiencies than others.

This sounds like the priority is to fix how things look on paper.

And what is wrong with paper? Data is often more honest than opinions. Right now they don't look good on paper. Langley only has 2% of children on free and reduced lunch. Mount Vernon and Herndon each have 56% on free and reduced lunch. This is a huge difference.

And will how will bringing Langley's FARMs rate up to 29% help FARMs children?

It doesn't seem that the goal is to help them, but to make people feel better about their own schools.

There are studies after studies that say that FARM children do better when placed with children of parents who have means. You obviously are not that informed on the subject.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What they need to do is figure out all of their priorities and then measure where every school is relative to these priorities. And then redraw boundaries to fix deficiencies to a tolerable level. It shouldn't be one priority above all. Some schools have different and larger deficiencies than others.

This sounds like the priority is to fix how things look on paper.

And what is wrong with paper? Data is often more honest than opinions. Right now they don't look good on paper. Langley only has 2% of children on free and reduced lunch. Mount Vernon and Herndon each have 56% on free and reduced lunch. This is a huge difference.

And will how will bringing Langley's FARMs rate up to 29% help FARMs children?

It doesn't seem that the goal is to help them, but to make people feel better about their own schools.

There are studies after studies that say that FARM children do better when placed with children of parents who have means. You obviously are not that informed on the subject.

I am informed enough to know that a widely agreed upon tipping point is 20 %.

FARMs is at 30% in FCPS.

Bring Langley to 29% FARMS and watch what happens. It won't achieve what people want it to unless the goal is to eliminate the existence of the "rich public school". That goal is very achievable.

[Anonymous]

You think Langley being at 25 percent FARMS and Herndon at 30 percent won't help Fairfax? It will.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What they need to do is figure out all of their priorities and then measure where every school is relative to these priorities. And then redraw boundaries to fix deficiencies to a tolerable level. It shouldn't be one priority above all. Some schools have different and larger deficiencies than others.

This sounds like the priority is to fix how things look on paper.

And what is wrong with paper? Data is often more honest than opinions. Right now they don't look good on paper. Langley only has 2% of children on free and reduced lunch. Mount Vernon and Herndon each have 56% on free and reduced lunch. This is a huge difference.

And will how will bringing Langley's FARMs rate up to 29% help FARMs children?

It doesn't seem that the goal is to help them, but to make people feel better about their own schools.

There are studies after studies that say that FARM children do better when placed with children of parents who have means. You obviously are not that informed on the subject.

I am informed enough to know that a widely agreed upon tipping point is 20 %.

FARMs is at 30% in FCPS.

Bring Langley to 29% FARMS and watch what happens. It won't achieve what people want it to unless the goal is to eliminate the existence of the "rich public school". That goal is very achievable.

So you think it's fair that some schools are at 2% and others close to 60% knowing that the tipping point is 20% and the average for the county is 30%? I would love to hear how you think this benefits the children in Fairfax as a whole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What they need to do is figure out all of their priorities and then measure where every school is relative to these priorities. And then redraw boundaries to fix deficiencies to a tolerable level. It shouldn't be one priority above all. Some schools have different and larger deficiencies than others.

This sounds like the priority is to fix how things look on paper.

And what is wrong with paper? Data is often more honest than opinions. Right now they don't look good on paper. Langley only has 2% of children on free and reduced lunch. Mount Vernon and Herndon each have 56% on free and reduced lunch. This is a huge difference.

And will how will bringing Langley's FARMs rate up to 29% help FARMs children?

It doesn't seem that the goal is to help them, but to make people feel better about their own schools.

There are studies after studies that say that FARM children do better when placed with children of parents who have means. You obviously are not that informed on the subject.

I am informed enough to know that a widely agreed upon tipping point is 20 %.

FARMs is at 30% in FCPS.

Bring Langley to 29% FARMS and watch what happens. It won't achieve what people want it to unless the goal is to eliminate the existence of the "rich public school". That goal is very achievable.

So you think it's fair that some schools are at 2% and others close to 60% knowing that the tipping point is 20% and the average for the county is 30%? I would love to hear how you think this benefits the children in Fairfax as a whole.

We can fix the demos so that there aren't vast differences from one school to the next.

You talked about studies that point to how the presence of children of means improves outcomes of poor children.

I reference studies that show there are limits to what the rich kid sitting across the table can do with her mere presence once the percentage of poor kids reaches a certain point.

I didn't create the realities, I am commenting on them.

Parents will have their say, the school board will make their decision, and we will see how it all looks a few years after the new boundaries take effect.

[Anonymous]

What studies are you referencing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What they need to do is figure out all of their priorities and then measure where every school is relative to these priorities. And then redraw boundaries to fix deficiencies to a tolerable level. It shouldn't be one priority above all. Some schools have different and larger deficiencies than others.

This sounds like the priority is to fix how things look on paper.

And what is wrong with paper? Data is often more honest than opinions. Right now they don't look good on paper. Langley only has 2% of children on free and reduced lunch. Mount Vernon and Herndon each have 56% on free and reduced lunch. This is a huge difference.

FCPS reported Herndon at 43% FARMS as of June 2019. The VDOE report had Herndon at 41% as of October 2018.

Still a big difference from Langley, but would it really hurt to get your facts right? When your facts are wrong, your proffered solutions are more likely to be ill-considered as well.

[Anonymous]

With FCPS at 30% FARMS, the 20% tipping point is moot. However, the more significant tipping point in that study was 40%, the threshold that Herndon has recently crossed. Obviously keeping Langley at 2% distorts the demographics at other schools.

[Anonymous]

I got my data from the school profiles. Mount Vernon was correct at 56% FARMS and Herndon was 56% non-FARMS an 44% FARMS so it was an honest mistake just mixing up the numbers. I don't really see how one of the schools having slightly less FARMS but still over 40% more than Langley has much bearing on the argument. You still haven't pointed to studies that say otherwise. One Fairfax is modeled after studies that say lower FARMS rates benefit schools, but if you are having too much difficulty finding these studies, I'd be glad to provide you with several of many.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is it with some white people and “community” schools?

It’s not just white people who prefer community schools. A black family in Louisville sued the Jefferson County schools because their child wasn’t able to attend the high school in their neighborhood under that county’s school assignment plan. Locally, in FCPS, there were a lot families - by no means all white - who were unhappy at first that FCPS reassigned them to Oakton when Chantilly was closer.

This area is very congested. If you can live near your kids’ schools, it is way more convenient for both you and your kids.

Unless you are Langley and then you only argue about commute when you ask for a closure of an interstate exit to allow your children to ride home between school and afterschool verses being reassigned to a closer high school. I find it funny that Langley parents argued for their own redistricting through the Georgetown Pike closure. Takes One Fairfax partly out of the equation and shows they aren't as smart as they say they are.