FCPS HS Boundary

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or maybe instead of bickering over whose kids should get screwed in a county redistricting, perhaps we should all just admit that the redistricting would be a colossal mistake and that redistricting arbitrarily picks winners and losers.

As if the current gerrymandered boundaries don't do the exact same thing. They should hire consultants from outside the area with no skin in the game to draw up boundaries that make logical sense and fully utilize county resources.

Lake Braddock is the main gerrymandered high school.

But that is because for a long time it was the catch all school any time new neighborhoods were built.

Nothing nefarious, but definitely gerrymandered.

Lewis, Edison, Hayfield and West Springfield all have very compact borders.

Any rezoning to those schools will create geerymandering, not eliminate it.

Have you ever looked at a map? Hayfield's boundary shape puts Louisiana congressional districts to shame

Same for Key/Lewis. Many of the students live closer to West Springfield or South County. Saratoga should be in the South County pyramid if geography is the main consideration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The smartest and least distuptive way for FCPS to address Lewis, would be to turn Lewis into a trades/skilled trades magnet, including moving the academy classes at any overcrowded school to Lewis.

Give Lewis zoned kids priority guaranteed placement in the magnet program.

Rezone the remaining students to Edison, Hayfield, Lake Braddock and South County, based strictly on the closest commute. So, for example, Saratoga would go to South County. Crestview would go to Hayfield. Etc. Etc.

Grandfather any current high school students who want to graduate from Lewis. As they graduate, increase the magnate slots for the trades academy.

Isn't Edison about 2 miles from Lewis? Why would they put another trades/skills option HS so close to each other?

Move the academies from Edison and Mount Vernon and consolidate them at Lewis. Make it a full-time program so that kids aren’t shuttled back and forth from their base schools. Move the kids from Lewis who don’t want to attend a magnet trade school to Edison, Mount Vernon, Hayfield, Annandale, or SoCo.

The more "ideas" I see that don't involve West Springfield at all, yet would be disruptive to other schools, the more convinced I am that the starting point should be to redistrict West Springfield kids to Lewis. It's the combination of completely insulating West Springfield while imposing burdens and potential overcrowding on other schools that's so over-the-top.

Agreed. Take all of the kids south of the FC Parkway as well as Daventry and send them to Lewis. Of course, most of those parents will then just go private, but at least you'll get kids out of WSHS.

Why do you want kids out of WSHS so badly? Besides, if you’re looking at capacity + length of bus commute/need for fewer buses, it makes more sense to send at least the south of the parkway kids to South County via probably Newington Forest. And dump the split feeder at Sangster and send all the kids to LB.

How does that help populate Lewis? I thought that's what people were focused on. Lewis is under-populated and we have to find ways to send more kids there to prop it up. I haven't heard WSHS parents complain about school over-crowding but plenty of people are complaining that Lewis doesn't have enough kids. So we're going to redraw boundaries to force more kids over there.

Or maybe instead of bickering over whose kids should get screwed in a county redistricting, perhaps we should all just admit that the redistricting would be a colossal mistake and that redistricting arbitrarily picks winners and losers.

Or think about the kids who are currently screwed because of the current imbalances of the district lines and would benefit from a countywide assessment instead of drips and drabs sprinkled over a decade or two. The ones in over crowded schools that don’t have room for them and the ones in under-enrolled schools that impacts the course offerings.

Their parents picked the school.

Are you involved in PTA leadership at Lewis?

Even a small core group of parent volunteers can make a tremendous difference in a school.

Oh, please, how can I pick to go to Langley? I don't want the language transfer application that can be denied at the principal's discretion. I want to pick to attend Langley.

You move there. We took into consideration the ES, MS, and HS that our child would be attending when we bought a house. We were aware that we might look at private for high school when we bought the house but were happy with the ES and MS. There were larger houses that were more affordable that we looked at an said no to because none of the schools were not what we wanted. We did not want to stretch to buy a house in McLean or Langley because we wanted to be able to save for college and retirement and take vacations.

It was an informed choice.

We also knew that boundaries could shift and we might need to adjust our plans. That is a part of the deal when you live in an area with school districts set the way that they are. FCPS is far too big and needs to be broken into smaller districts but I doubt that will happen any time soon. This areas school system works very differently then the New England style districts I grew up with or my husbands experience in the Mid-West.

I know plenty of families who moved into a Title 1 schools catchment area because they wanted the bigger house and smaller mortgage. They either sent their kids to private school or they applied to a language immersion program or magnate program or they worked hard to get their kid into AAP and sent their kid to the Center school. A good number moved after Kindergarten because they realized that the school situation was not working for them and they bought a smaller place in a better school catchment area.

[Anonymous]

^^ Please stop using “magnate” when you mean “magnet.” A magnate is a rich, powerful, and influential person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^ Please stop using “magnate” when you mean “magnet.” A magnate is a rich, powerful, and influential person.

DP. Let it go. We all know what was meant. For all you know, spellcheck is changing it back after she’s moved onto tapping out another word. I hate modern spellcheck more than earlier spellcheckers.

[Anonymous]

I also wish that PP would learn that it’s “magnet.” The silver lining to the ongoing error is that it is easy to tell which (and how many) posts that person writes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I also wish that PP would learn that it’s “magnet.” The silver lining to the ongoing error is that it is easy to tell which (and how many) posts that person writes.

I will also use magnate to annoy you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And could you imagine what will happen when the consultant with no skin in the game comes back and says that county-wide redistricting is a huge mistake that’ll be a net negative for the county? Then their plans are ruined.

That'll never happen. The number one consideration when selecting consultants is to pick one that will come to whatever your desired conclusion is, regardless of facts. Then you hide all the meetings/communication with them by saying that all their work is proprietary, or client-attorney privileged, or whatever other things protect it from FOIA disclosure. Then when they come back with exactly the report you want you trumpet it as if the consultant is a completely independent and impartial world-class expert instead of ten leftist lawyers in cheap rented office space.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And could you imagine what will happen when the consultant with no skin in the game comes back and says that county-wide redistricting is a huge mistake that’ll be a net negative for the county? Then their plans are ruined.

That'll never happen. The number one consideration when selecting consultants is to pick one that will come to whatever your desired conclusion is, regardless of facts. Then you hide all the meetings/communication with them by saying that all their work is proprietary, or client-attorney privileged, or whatever other things protect it from FOIA disclosure. Then when they come back with exactly the report you want you trumpet it as if the consultant is a completely independent and impartial world-class expert instead of ten leftist lawyers in cheap rented office space.

They already retained the first consultant and got the report back that said best practice is that a boundary review should be done at least every five years. The second consultant will be given the job of coming up with new boundaries, without being asked if there should be a boundary review. My only hope is that this takes a long time and my kids will be done, because this is going to be a disaster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or maybe instead of bickering over whose kids should get screwed in a county redistricting, perhaps we should all just admit that the redistricting would be a colossal mistake and that redistricting arbitrarily picks winners and losers.

As if the current gerrymandered boundaries don't do the exact same thing. They should hire consultants from outside the area with no skin in the game to draw up boundaries that make logical sense and fully utilize county resources.

Lake Braddock is the main gerrymandered high school.

But that is because for a long time it was the catch all school any time new neighborhoods were built.

Nothing nefarious, but definitely gerrymandered.

Lewis, Edison, Hayfield and West Springfield all have very compact borders.

Any rezoning to those schools will create geerymandering, not eliminate it.

Have you ever looked at a map? Hayfield's boundary shape puts Louisiana congressional districts to shame

It's definitely not compact like Chantilly and West Springfield, but everything zoned to Hayfield is close to Telegraph Road.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And could you imagine what will happen when the consultant with no skin in the game comes back and says that county-wide redistricting is a huge mistake that’ll be a net negative for the county? Then their plans are ruined.

That'll never happen. The number one consideration when selecting consultants is to pick one that will come to whatever your desired conclusion is, regardless of facts. Then you hide all the meetings/communication with them by saying that all their work is proprietary, or client-attorney privileged, or whatever other things protect it from FOIA disclosure. Then when they come back with exactly the report you want you trumpet it as if the consultant is a completely independent and impartial world-class expert instead of ten leftist lawyers in cheap rented office space.

They already retained the first consultant and got the report back that said best practice is that a boundary review should be done at least every five years. The second consultant will be given the job of coming up with new boundaries, without being asked if there should be a boundary review. My only hope is that this takes a long time and my kids will be done, because this is going to be a disaster.

The first consultant reported back that:

* The main reason families participating in outreach chose their current residences was to attend the base schools to which they are currently assigned.

* The preferred response to overcrowding is the construction of additions to existing schools or new schools, rather than boundary changes.

* The preferred response to under-enrolled schools is the addition of new programs to entice students to attend those schools, rather than boundary changes.

* A majority of families believe that, when boundary changes do occur, all students already attending a school should be grandfathered at their existing schools.

* The recommendation to evaluate boundaries every five years did not mean county-wide boundary revisions, and might only involve tweaks to existing boundaries.

So, really, the inference from the consultant's research should have been that boundary changes are a last resort, not a preferred solution.

But here's where we are heading: (1) there obviously is a problem at Lewis; (2) the School Board wants to redistrict rather than address the root causes that have led to chronic under-enrollment at Lewis; (3) most likely part of West Springfield is going to get moved to Lewis; and (4) in order to create more background noise so that West Springfield can't complain that it is being "singled out," they are going to change a bunch of other boundaries at schools that do not present situations anything like the situation at Lewis; and (5) people who can will continue to exploit transfer options within FCPS and, if that doesn't work, leave FCPS entirely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ Please stop using “magnate” when you mean “magnet.” A magnate is a rich, powerful, and influential person.

DP. Let it go. We all know what was meant. For all you know, spellcheck is changing it back after she’s moved onto tapping out another word. I hate modern spellcheck more than earlier spellcheckers.

Spellcheck doesn’t do that with these two words. Anyway, I happen to agree with her post but the totally glaring error is a distraction, as evidence by you and I arguing over it 😬

[Anonymous]

And yes, I see “evidence” should be “evidenced.” I’m going to give PP the benefit of the doubt by assuming she didn’t wear her reading glasses, like I am not either but clearly should be. I’ll show myself out now.

[Anonymous]

What exactly is the goal here- is it to raise enrollment at Lewis or is it to decrease enrollment at WSHS? Or both?

I live near Hunt Valley- in a part I assume will stay with WSHS- but if we do get rezoned to Lewis, I’ll send my kids to private school. I’d rather them go to South County which is definitely closer than Lewis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And could you imagine what will happen when the consultant with no skin in the game comes back and says that county-wide redistricting is a huge mistake that’ll be a net negative for the county? Then their plans are ruined.

That'll never happen. The number one consideration when selecting consultants is to pick one that will come to whatever your desired conclusion is, regardless of facts. Then you hide all the meetings/communication with them by saying that all their work is proprietary, or client-attorney privileged, or whatever other things protect it from FOIA disclosure. Then when they come back with exactly the report you want you trumpet it as if the consultant is a completely independent and impartial world-class expert instead of ten leftist lawyers in cheap rented office space.

They already retained the first consultant and got the report back that said best practice is that a boundary review should be done at least every five years. The second consultant will be given the job of coming up with new boundaries, without being asked if there should be a boundary review. My only hope is that this takes a long time and my kids will be done, because this is going to be a disaster.

The first consultant reported back that:

* The main reason families participating in outreach chose their current residences was to attend the base schools to which they are currently assigned.

* The preferred response to overcrowding is the construction of additions to existing schools or new schools, rather than boundary changes.

* The preferred response to under-enrolled schools is the addition of new programs to entice students to attend those schools, rather than boundary changes.

* A majority of families believe that, when boundary changes do occur, all students already attending a school should be grandfathered at their existing schools.

* The recommendation to evaluate boundaries every five years did not mean county-wide boundary revisions, and might only involve tweaks to existing boundaries.

So, really, the inference from the consultant's research should have been that boundary changes are a last resort, not a preferred solution.

But here's where we are heading: (1) there obviously is a problem at Lewis; (2) the School Board wants to redistrict rather than address the root causes that have led to chronic under-enrollment at Lewis; (3) most likely part of West Springfield is going to get moved to Lewis; and (4) in order to create more background noise so that West Springfield can't complain that it is being "singled out," they are going to change a bunch of other boundaries at schools that do not present situations anything like the situation at Lewis; and (5) people who can will continue to exploit transfer options within FCPS and, if that doesn't work, leave FCPS entirely.

I agree with your summary of the report and the survey findings, but as you know that is not what the School Board took from it. They read we must revise Policy 8130 and implement boundary changes ASAP and that is what they are doing. I hear you on Lewis and that is one issue but I don't think the School Board is zeroed in on just Lewis. There are a number of underperforming schools and rather than address the core issues which are admittedly hard to remedy they want to shuffle kids around to try to even things up and make each of the schools look about the same. To do that, they want balance the schools based on socioeconomic factors but have been told by legal that they cannot use race as a factor. They are going to use the guise of capacity and operational efficiency to try to achieve the same result. There will be legal challenges but the School Board has a lot of discretion here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And could you imagine what will happen when the consultant with no skin in the game comes back and says that county-wide redistricting is a huge mistake that’ll be a net negative for the county? Then their plans are ruined.

That'll never happen. The number one consideration when selecting consultants is to pick one that will come to whatever your desired conclusion is, regardless of facts. Then you hide all the meetings/communication with them by saying that all their work is proprietary, or client-attorney privileged, or whatever other things protect it from FOIA disclosure. Then when they come back with exactly the report you want you trumpet it as if the consultant is a completely independent and impartial world-class expert instead of ten leftist lawyers in cheap rented office space.

They already retained the first consultant and got the report back that said best practice is that a boundary review should be done at least every five years. The second consultant will be given the job of coming up with new boundaries, without being asked if there should be a boundary review. My only hope is that this takes a long time and my kids will be done, because this is going to be a disaster.

The first consultant reported that distance and consistancy should be the primary concerns.

It was not a recommendation to rezone.