How did Herndon/Westfield HS go from top to bottom?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. I am wondering why Langley is even discussed on this thread. Langley has nothing to do with Herndon/Westfield/SLHS’s performance.

2. Herndon used to on a par with other FCPS high schools and one notch above South Lakes. For some reason a large hispanic population flocked to Herndon and that didn’t help the school academically. Aside from the gang problem, much of school resource is being used for Spanish speakers.

3. Westfield is still an OK school. But many condos and townhouses have been built in that area.

4. South Lakes did become a little (much?) better thanks to the boundary change in 2007. Some people said its IB program attracts students from other wealthier areas. But my observation is that most out of boundary kids are from Herndon, resulting in even worse situation at HHS.

What I understand from this post is:

1. Children who live in townhouses and apartments are undesirable.
2. Spanish speaking students are a thing to avoid.

Got it.

¡Muchas gracias!

-Una mamá hispana

Also a URM here, and racism is indeed a reality in Fairfax County. Every time a school board member has reassured the public in a live meeting that boundaries are not changing (during the recent MGT boundary consultation, for example), they were specifically addressing their racist constituents who choose schools to avoid URM/poverty populations at all costs.

[Anonymous]

Also a URM here, and racism is indeed a reality in Fairfax County. Every time a school board member has reassured the public in a live meeting that boundaries are not changing (during the recent MGT boundary consultation, for example), they were specifically addressing their racist constituents who choose schools to avoid URM/poverty populations at all costs.

Your assumption is based on your opinion--not necessarily facts.

1. I don't know what MGT boundary is---so I cannot address that.

2. Over the years I have been actively involved in four boundary disputes--middle and high. My neighborhood actively lobbied to stay in our current boundary each time. NONE of these were related to racial issue or FARMS. In one of these cases, the results would have been for our neighborhood to go to a much more affluent school.

Most people want their kids to stay in their current boundaries.

Get rid of programs that allow parents to pupil place: IB, for one. Also, has there been any study done on the immersion programs? Does this encourage PP for reasons other than a great desire for a foreign language? Do many kids leave for AAP? Do many PP in high school in order to continue the language?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Also a URM here, and racism is indeed a reality in Fairfax County. Every time a school board member has reassured the public in a live meeting that boundaries are not changing (during the recent MGT boundary consultation, for example), they were specifically addressing their racist constituents who choose schools to avoid URM/poverty populations at all costs.

Your assumption is based on your opinion--not necessarily facts.

1. I don't know what MGT boundary is---so I cannot address that.

2. Over the years I have been actively involved in four boundary disputes--middle and high. My neighborhood actively lobbied to stay in our current boundary each time. NONE of these were related to racial issue or FARMS. In one of these cases, the results would have been for our neighborhood to go to a much more affluent school.

Most people want their kids to stay in their current boundaries.

Get rid of programs that allow parents to pupil place: IB, for one. Also, has there been any study done on the immersion programs? Does this encourage PP for reasons other than a great desire for a foreign language? Do many kids leave for AAP? Do many PP in high school in order to continue the language?

I assume MGT is the name of the consulting firm working with FCPS on boundary policy.

I also assume you are the Chantilly poster who posts regularly about how people wanted to stay at Chantilly and not get moved to Oakton. That was also an unusual situation where the Chantilly parents ended up having to travel considerably further to Oakton. And the differences between Chantilly and Oakton weren't and aren't that great.

There are many other situations where FCPS has displayed its racism by conducting boundary changes that move kids from poorer to wealthier schools while favoring other schools with additions so kids would not have to attend poorer schools. That has absolutely been the predominant pattern in FCPS for over a decade, and Jeff Platenberg and the Democrat-controlled School Boards are responsible for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Also a URM here, and racism is indeed a reality in Fairfax County. Every time a school board member has reassured the public in a live meeting that boundaries are not changing (during the recent MGT boundary consultation, for example), they were specifically addressing their racist constituents who choose schools to avoid URM/poverty populations at all costs.

Get rid of programs that allow parents to pupil place: IB, for one. Also, has there been any study done on the immersion programs? Does this encourage PP for reasons other than a great desire for a foreign language? Do many kids leave for AAP? Do many PP in high school in order to continue the language?

I am sure there are many parents who pupil placed their kids from less desirable schools to more desirable schools through these special progams such as language and AP/IB. The AAP is another option for qualified students. But is this necessarily bad?

For parents who cannot afford to move to a better school district or send their kids to private schools, this seems like a good option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Also a URM here, and racism is indeed a reality in Fairfax County. Every time a school board member has reassured the public in a live meeting that boundaries are not changing (during the recent MGT boundary consultation, for example), they were specifically addressing their racist constituents who choose schools to avoid URM/poverty populations at all costs.

Get rid of programs that allow parents to pupil place: IB, for one. Also, has there been any study done on the immersion programs? Does this encourage PP for reasons other than a great desire for a foreign language? Do many kids leave for AAP? Do many PP in high school in order to continue the language?

I am sure there are many parents who pupil placed their kids from less desirable schools to more desirable schools through these special progams such as language and AP/IB. The AAP is another option for qualified students. But is this necessarily bad?

For parents who cannot afford to move to a better school district or send their kids to private schools, this seems like a good option.

And for those who can't FCPS is happy to leave you behind in your pariah school. Hell, they may even expand a nearby school while your school is under-capacity just to drive home the message.

There is no bigger group of racists in NoVa than the Democrats on the FCPS School Board. For bonus points, they layer hypocrisy on top of their racism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Also a URM here, and racism is indeed a reality in Fairfax County. Every time a school board member has reassured the public in a live meeting that boundaries are not changing (during the recent MGT boundary consultation, for example), they were specifically addressing their racist constituents who choose schools to avoid URM/poverty populations at all costs.

Your assumption is based on your opinion--not necessarily facts.

1. I don't know what MGT boundary is---so I cannot address that.

2. Over the years I have been actively involved in four boundary disputes--middle and high. My neighborhood actively lobbied to stay in our current boundary each time. NONE of these were related to racial issue or FARMS. In one of these cases, the results would have been for our neighborhood to go to a much more affluent school.

Most people want their kids to stay in their current boundaries.

Get rid of programs that allow parents to pupil place: IB, for one. Also, has there been any study done on the immersion programs? Does this encourage PP for reasons other than a great desire for a foreign language? Do many kids leave for AAP? Do many PP in high school in order to continue the language?

No, we will not be getting rid of the option to pupil place for a different program solely because MOST people don’t choose to. That’s ridiculous. Some kids want AP or they can handle IB or whatever. We’re not going to prevent t he at just because YOU don’t want them to have the choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Also a URM here, and racism is indeed a reality in Fairfax County. Every time a school board member has reassured the public in a live meeting that boundaries are not changing (during the recent MGT boundary consultation, for example), they were specifically addressing their racist constituents who choose schools to avoid URM/poverty populations at all costs.

Get rid of programs that allow parents to pupil place: IB, for one. Also, has there been any study done on the immersion programs? Does this encourage PP for reasons other than a great desire for a foreign language? Do many kids leave for AAP? Do many PP in high school in order to continue the language?

I am sure there are many parents who pupil placed their kids from less desirable schools to more desirable schools through these special progams such as language and AP/IB. The AAP is another option for qualified students. But is this necessarily bad?

For parents who cannot afford to move to a better school district or send their kids to private schools, this seems like a good option.

It's not necessarily bad- however the pupil placement is happening within the SAME school district. I would think the goal would be to make the "less desirable" schools more desirable- keep the programs- why not AAP at Herndon as opposed to SL? Kids could still PP for IB- if SL is open to transfers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Also a URM here, and racism is indeed a reality in Fairfax County. Every time a school board member has reassured the public in a live meeting that boundaries are not changing (during the recent MGT boundary consultation, for example), they were specifically addressing their racist constituents who choose schools to avoid URM/poverty populations at all costs.

Get rid of programs that allow parents to pupil place: IB, for one. Also, has there been any study done on the immersion programs? Does this encourage PP for reasons other than a great desire for a foreign language? Do many kids leave for AAP? Do many PP in high school in order to continue the language?

I am sure there are many parents who pupil placed their kids from less desirable schools to more desirable schools through these special progams such as language and AP/IB. The AAP is another option for qualified students. But is this necessarily bad?

For parents who cannot afford to move to a better school district or send their kids to private schools, this seems like a good option.

It's not necessarily bad- however the pupil placement is happening within the SAME school district. I would think the goal would be to make the "less desirable" schools more desirable- keep the programs- why not AAP at Herndon as opposed to SL? Kids could still PP for IB- if SL is open to transfers.

SLHS is not an AAP center. In fact, there is no such thing for high schools. Hughes is an AAP center but I think eventually every middle school will become center.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Also a URM here, and racism is indeed a reality in Fairfax County. Every time a school board member has reassured the public in a live meeting that boundaries are not changing (during the recent MGT boundary consultation, for example), they were specifically addressing their racist constituents who choose schools to avoid URM/poverty populations at all costs.

Get rid of programs that allow parents to pupil place: IB, for one. Also, has there been any study done on the immersion programs? Does this encourage PP for reasons other than a great desire for a foreign language? Do many kids leave for AAP? Do many PP in high school in order to continue the language?

I am sure there are many parents who pupil placed their kids from less desirable schools to more desirable schools through these special progams such as language and AP/IB. The AAP is another option for qualified students. But is this necessarily bad?

For parents who cannot afford to move to a better school district or send their kids to private schools, this seems like a good option.

It's not necessarily bad- however the pupil placement is happening within the SAME school district. I would think the goal would be to make the "less desirable" schools more desirable- keep the programs- why not AAP at Herndon as opposed to SL? Kids could still PP for IB- if SL is open to transfers.

SLHS is not an AAP center. In fact, there is no such thing for high schools. Hughes is an AAP center but I think eventually every middle school will become center.

Hughes (SL) has AAP at Middle School. Herndon (HMS) does not. Numerous kids from Herndon pyramid attend Hughes for AAP- and then attend SLHS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Also a URM here, and racism is indeed a reality in Fairfax County. Every time a school board member has reassured the public in a live meeting that boundaries are not changing (during the recent MGT boundary consultation, for example), they were specifically addressing their racist constituents who choose schools to avoid URM/poverty populations at all costs.

Get rid of programs that allow parents to pupil place: IB, for one. Also, has there been any study done on the immersion programs? Does this encourage PP for reasons other than a great desire for a foreign language? Do many kids leave for AAP? Do many PP in high school in order to continue the language?

I am sure there are many parents who pupil placed their kids from less desirable schools to more desirable schools through these special progams such as language and AP/IB. The AAP is another option for qualified students. But is this necessarily bad?

For parents who cannot afford to move to a better school district or send their kids to private schools, this seems like a good option.

It's not necessarily bad- however the pupil placement is happening within the SAME school district. I would think the goal would be to make the "less desirable" schools more desirable- keep the programs- why not AAP at Herndon as opposed to SL? Kids could still PP for IB- if SL is open to transfers.

How is it a problem that the district offers a variety of programs, they would be wrong not to, the county is huge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Also a URM here, and racism is indeed a reality in Fairfax County. Every time a school board member has reassured the public in a live meeting that boundaries are not changing (during the recent MGT boundary consultation, for example), they were specifically addressing their racist constituents who choose schools to avoid URM/poverty populations at all costs.

Your assumption is based on your opinion--not necessarily facts.

1. I don't know what MGT boundary is---so I cannot address that.

2. Over the years I have been actively involved in four boundary disputes--middle and high. My neighborhood actively lobbied to stay in our current boundary each time. NONE of these were related to racial issue or FARMS. In one of these cases, the results would have been for our neighborhood to go to a much more affluent school.

Most people want their kids to stay in their current boundaries.

Get rid of programs that allow parents to pupil place: IB, for one. Also, has there been any study done on the immersion programs? Does this encourage PP for reasons other than a great desire for a foreign language? Do many kids leave for AAP? Do many PP in high school in order to continue the language?

I assume MGT is the name of the consulting firm working with FCPS on boundary policy.

I also assume you are the Chantilly poster who posts regularly about how people wanted to stay at Chantilly and not get moved to Oakton. That was also an unusual situation where the Chantilly parents ended up having to travel considerably further to Oakton. And the differences between Chantilly and Oakton weren't and aren't that great.

There are many other situations where FCPS has displayed its racism by conducting boundary changes that move kids from poorer to wealthier schools while favoring other schools with additions so kids would not have to attend poorer schools. That has absolutely been the predominant pattern in FCPS for over a decade, and Jeff Platenberg and the Democrat-controlled School Boards are responsible for it.

Classism is not the same as racism

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. I am wondering why Langley is even discussed on this thread. Langley has nothing to do with Herndon/Westfield/SLHS’s performance.

2. Herndon used to on a par with other FCPS high schools and one notch above South Lakes. For some reason a large hispanic population flocked to Herndon and that didn’t help the school academically. Aside from the gang problem, much of school resource is being used for Spanish speakers.

3. Westfield is still an OK school. But many condos and townhouses have been built in that area.

4. South Lakes did become a little (much?) better thanks to the boundary change in 2007. Some people said its IB program attracts students from other wealthier areas. But my observation is that most out of boundary kids are from Herndon, resulting in even worse situation at HHS.

What I understand from this post is:

1. Children who live in townhouses and apartments are undesirable.
2. Spanish speaking students are a thing to avoid.

Got it.

¡Muchas gracias!

-Una mamá hispana

Also a URM here, and racism is indeed a reality in Fairfax County. Every time a school board member has reassured the public in a live meeting that boundaries are not changing (during the recent MGT boundary consultation, for example), they were specifically addressing their racist constituents who choose schools to avoid URM/poverty populations at all costs.

They correctly informed the public that they were discussing policy and that actual implementation would of be addressed during the work session.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Also a URM here, and racism is indeed a reality in Fairfax County. Every time a school board member has reassured the public in a live meeting that boundaries are not changing (during the recent MGT boundary consultation, for example), they were specifically addressing their racist constituents who choose schools to avoid URM/poverty populations at all costs.

Your assumption is based on your opinion--not necessarily facts.

1. I don't know what MGT boundary is---so I cannot address that.

2. Over the years I have been actively involved in four boundary disputes--middle and high. My neighborhood actively lobbied to stay in our current boundary each time. NONE of these were related to racial issue or FARMS. In one of these cases, the results would have been for our neighborhood to go to a much more affluent school.

Most people want their kids to stay in their current boundaries.

Get rid of programs that allow parents to pupil place: IB, for one. Also, has there been any study done on the immersion programs? Does this encourage PP for reasons other than a great desire for a foreign language? Do many kids leave for AAP? Do many PP in high school in order to continue the language?

I assume MGT is the name of the consulting firm working with FCPS on boundary policy.

I also assume you are the Chantilly poster who posts regularly about how people wanted to stay at Chantilly and not get moved to Oakton. That was also an unusual situation where the Chantilly parents ended up having to travel considerably further to Oakton. And the differences between Chantilly and Oakton weren't and aren't that great.

There are many other situations where FCPS has displayed its racism by conducting boundary changes that move kids from poorer to wealthier schools while favoring other schools with additions so kids would not have to attend poorer schools. That has absolutely been the predominant pattern in FCPS for over a decade, and Jeff Platenberg and the Democrat-controlled School Boards are responsible for it.

Classism is not the same as racism

You should brush up on your Intersectionality 101.

[Anonymous]

"Classism is not the same as racism"

+1
I find it really frustrating how they are conflated all the time. Poverty is the issue - not race.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. I am wondering why Langley is even discussed on this thread. Langley has nothing to do with Herndon/Westfield/SLHS’s performance.

2. Herndon used to on a par with other FCPS high schools and one notch above South Lakes. For some reason a large hispanic population flocked to Herndon and that didn’t help the school academically. Aside from the gang problem, much of school resource is being used for Spanish speakers.

3. Westfield is still an OK school. But many condos and townhouses have been built in that area.

4. South Lakes did become a little (much?) better thanks to the boundary change in 2007. Some people said its IB program attracts students from other wealthier areas. But my observation is that most out of boundary kids are from Herndon, resulting in even worse situation at HHS.

What I understand from this post is:

1. Children who live in townhouses and apartments are undesirable.
2. Spanish speaking students are a thing to avoid.

Got it.

¡Muchas gracias!

-Una mamá hispana

Also a URM here, and racism is indeed a reality in Fairfax County. Every time a school board member has reassured the public in a live meeting that boundaries are not changing (during the recent MGT boundary consultation, for example), they were specifically addressing their racist constituents who choose schools to avoid URM/poverty populations at all costs.

They correctly informed the public that they were discussing policy and that actual implementation would of be addressed during the work session.
[/qu

The entire reason they hired a consultant was to avoid revising their policy during 2019, an election year. They can tinker with the policy for years to come - but there’s a difference between deciding what parts of the consultant’s recommendations they want to incorporate in the FCPS policy (to be discussed again and unlikely to result in any big changes from the current policy, which affords them enormous discretion) and then actually “implementing” it.