FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So what is the solution that those who are opposed to this redistricting plan (which allegedly hasn't been formulated yet) seeking?

Is it to:
A.) Not do any redistricting, and allow our overcrowded schools to stay overcrowded, while underutilizing schools elsewhere?
B.) Only do redistricting within existing pyramids (which can only partially address the problem)?
C.) Accept that redistricting needs to be done, but rally the people in your neighborhood to scream the loudest so that it isn't done to your kids?
D.) Is there another proposed outcome I'm missing?

#1. Eliminate IB, switching all schools to AP, with a phase out for juniors and seniors who are actually pursuing the IB diploma, which is a TINY number of students. This closes the IB transfer loophole.

#2 In 4 years, look at enrollment numbers and test scores post IB. Schools that lose a lot if studdnts through the IB loophole should show enrollment growth by hundreds of high performing students in some cases, like Lewis HS, as kids who are zoned to Lewis return to their neighborhood high school

AND

#3 Put an AAP program in every middle school, closing the middle school AAP transfers. This will also bring dozens or hundreds of high performing studdnts back to the failing high school pyramids. Thrse students attending AAP out of pyramid for middle school often use whatever loophole they can find to stay with their friends for high school in the AAP pyramid.

Doing #2 and #3 will fix many of the issues in 2-4 years. It will balance enrollment in high schools and middle schools without rezoning, save money on busses, improve test scores of lower ranked high schools without rezoning a single student, and will save money by eliminating unwanted, expensive IB.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what is the solution that those who are opposed to this redistricting plan (which allegedly hasn't been formulated yet) seeking?

Is it to:
A.) Not do any redistricting, and allow our overcrowded schools to stay overcrowded, while underutilizing schools elsewhere?
B.) Only do redistricting within existing pyramids (which can only partially address the problem)?
C.) Accept that redistricting needs to be done, but rally the people in your neighborhood to scream the loudest so that it isn't done to your kids?
D.) Is there another proposed outcome I'm missing?

None of the above.

Start by being honest about when overcrowding is really so acute as to require a boundary change and by gaining a better understanding as to why certain schools may be significantly under-enrolled. For example, is it because a school has IB or because it currently serves neighborhoods with an aging population? If so, they should consider getting rid of IB or waiting until the neighborhoods in question turn over.

Prior school boards routinely said that it was fine for schools to be somewhat (up to 115%) over capacity and they certainly took modular seats into account in determining capacity.

This school board is now taking a different position and it’s not because they care more about kids. It’s because they want to seize any opportunity to redistribute kids to advance ann equity agenda.

A - because their numbers are incorrect. I have a kid at WSHS which is supposedly stuffed to the gills. It's simply not true. His classes all have about 25 kids. He's had zero problem getting in to the electives and courses he wants. The cafeteria has open tables at every lunch hour. They don't have or need any modulars/trailers. Yes, sports and clubs are competitive, but he likes that they are also very strong and competitive with other high schools. All of the upcoming classes are smaller from what I've seen, and Springfield has no room to build new housing so that isn't an issue. If there was an actual need to redraw boundaries to relieve over crowding, I think the people attending the school would know. And I've never heard anyone suggest that since we got our recent renovation. That's why people don't want to break up our very compact, community boundary to accommodate 6th in middle/universal pre-k or to fill out numbers at a nearby school.

THIS ^^^^^^^^^

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've no idea how many Langley people are on here--probably a lot read it. However, there are plenty of others who are very concerned about this. It is not about being sent to a lower performing school, it is about staying where you are.
I just remember when some Chantilly families were sent to the "better" Oakton. They were very upset. Why? Kids had grown up playing CYA sports. They had siblings at Chantilly and lived VERY close to Chantilly. One parent later attacked Kathy Smith when she was running for Supervisor because she was on the School Board. Neighborhoods were pitted against neighborhoods.
Boundaries should not be changed unless it is absolutely necessary.

Amen. This school board thinks kids are just interchangeable cogs in the FCPS machine.

I’m always floored that the SB has such disdain for its students.

Well technically they are interchangeable for purposes of redistricting. Your house location serves as a proxy for SES and fits the profile of the type of kids they want to move. Anyone who can afford your house will do. There is nothing unique about your child that another child whose parents are in the same economic range couldn't achieve.

I think that this comment right here represents the school board’s thinking.

Everyone should understand that this is how the school board thinks. “F your kids, they aren’t special, and your kids’ community doesn’t matter.”

This is how Sniveling Sandy Anderson views your kids. This is how Marcia St. John- Cunning views your kids, this is how Robyn Lady views your kids. The school board members do not care about your kids as part of this process. They want to equalize the FARMs rate set each school, your kid’s welfare be damned.

They take Fairfax families for granted. Shame on them.

How thick are you? Equalized FARMs rates across the county would kill Title I. They want Title I for all the kids who benefit most from it. If anything that's an argument for concentrating FARMS, not equalizing it.

Title 1 is Federal funding isn’t it? I doubt we can count on that in the current administration. Yes, pretty much no matter how they draw the boundaries, some schools are going to be a lot more difficult in terms of the FARMS/ESOL rate than others simply due to the populations. But the current problem seems to be more the new state regulations and requirements on school quality and accreditation, not anything federal.

NP.

FCPS claims they are facing a “fiscal shortfall,” but FCPS alone decides WHAT they will purchase/fund with their budget;

FCPS has - so far - chosen to keep paying the high salary of Chief Equity Officer, Nardos King, along with her staff of over 60 full time DEI officers;

The only threat to FCPS continuing to receive federal funding is FCPS insistence on maintaining their costly DEI office.


Are the FCPS Board, Michele Reid, and Gatehouse seriously going to cost our kids the Federal funding they need, AND continue paying the 60+ member DEI department?

Any idea what percentage of the $4b budget this department makes up?

$6.4 million…it is criminal for them to maintain this in the face of federal funding removal threat

https://www.fairfaxtimes.com/articles/pricetag-of-equity-in-fairfax-county-schools-6-4-million/article_6e14ee46-db8a-11ef-ba7b-4b737bdff938.html?

So to confirm, your position is that allocating 0.15% of the budget to help ensure that our schools and programs and instruction are equitably and inclusively serving the needs of the diverse students and communities that make up our great county is "criminal"?

The actual threat to remove federal funds is the only thing that feels "criminal" here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've no idea how many Langley people are on here--probably a lot read it. However, there are plenty of others who are very concerned about this. It is not about being sent to a lower performing school, it is about staying where you are.
I just remember when some Chantilly families were sent to the "better" Oakton. They were very upset. Why? Kids had grown up playing CYA sports. They had siblings at Chantilly and lived VERY close to Chantilly. One parent later attacked Kathy Smith when she was running for Supervisor because she was on the School Board. Neighborhoods were pitted against neighborhoods.
Boundaries should not be changed unless it is absolutely necessary.

Amen. This school board thinks kids are just interchangeable cogs in the FCPS machine.

I’m always floored that the SB has such disdain for its students.

Well technically they are interchangeable for purposes of redistricting. Your house location serves as a proxy for SES and fits the profile of the type of kids they want to move. Anyone who can afford your house will do. There is nothing unique about your child that another child whose parents are in the same economic range couldn't achieve.

I think that this comment right here represents the school board’s thinking.

Everyone should understand that this is how the school board thinks. “F your kids, they aren’t special, and your kids’ community doesn’t matter.”

This is how Sniveling Sandy Anderson views your kids. This is how Marcia St. John- Cunning views your kids, this is how Robyn Lady views your kids. The school board members do not care about your kids as part of this process. They want to equalize the FARMs rate set each school, your kid’s welfare be damned.

They take Fairfax families for granted. Shame on them.

How thick are you? Equalized FARMs rates across the county would kill Title I. They want Title I for all the kids who benefit most from it. If anything that's an argument for concentrating FARMS, not equalizing it.

Title 1 is Federal funding isn’t it? I doubt we can count on that in the current administration. Yes, pretty much no matter how they draw the boundaries, some schools are going to be a lot more difficult in terms of the FARMS/ESOL rate than others simply due to the populations. But the current problem seems to be more the new state regulations and requirements on school quality and accreditation, not anything federal.

NP.

FCPS claims they are facing a “fiscal shortfall,” but FCPS alone decides WHAT they will purchase/fund with their budget;

FCPS has - so far - chosen to keep paying the high salary of Chief Equity Officer, Nardos King, along with her staff of over 60 full time DEI officers;

The only threat to FCPS continuing to receive federal funding is FCPS insistence on maintaining their costly DEI office.


Are the FCPS Board, Michele Reid, and Gatehouse seriously going to cost our kids the Federal funding they need, AND continue paying the 60+ member DEI department?

Any idea what percentage of the $4b budget this department makes up?

$6.4 million…it is criminal for them to maintain this in the face of federal funding removal threat

https://www.fairfaxtimes.com/articles/pricetag-of-equity-in-fairfax-county-schools-6-4-million/article_6e14ee46-db8a-11ef-ba7b-4b737bdff938.html?

Jeez! Get rid of the useless DEI office and use the savings for the middle school afterschool program and middle school camp that the county wants to cut, and still have 2 million left over. No brainer.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what is the solution that those who are opposed to this redistricting plan (which allegedly hasn't been formulated yet) seeking?

Is it to:
A.) Not do any redistricting, and allow our overcrowded schools to stay overcrowded, while underutilizing schools elsewhere?
B.) Only do redistricting within existing pyramids (which can only partially address the problem)?
C.) Accept that redistricting needs to be done, but rally the people in your neighborhood to scream the loudest so that it isn't done to your kids?
D.) Is there another proposed outcome I'm missing?

#1. Eliminate IB, switching all schools to AP, with a phase out for juniors and seniors who are actually pursuing the IB diploma, which is a TINY number of students. This closes the IB transfer loophole.

#2 In 4 years, look at enrollment numbers and test scores post IB. Schools that lose a lot if studdnts through the IB loophole should show enrollment growth by hundreds of high performing students in some cases, like Lewis HS, as kids who are zoned to Lewis return to their neighborhood high school

AND

#3 Put an AAP program in every middle school, closing the middle school AAP transfers. This will also bring dozens or hundreds of high performing studdnts back to the failing high school pyramids. Thrse students attending AAP out of pyramid for middle school often use whatever loophole they can find to stay with their friends for high school in the AAP pyramid.

Doing #2 and #3 will fix many of the issues in 2-4 years. It will balance enrollment in high schools and middle schools without rezoning, save money on busses, improve test scores of lower ranked high schools without rezoning a single student, and will save money by eliminating unwanted, expensive IB.

AND

The big one is do a county wide residency check of all grades in high school, followed by a yearly residency check when kids promote to the next building (Kindergarten/elementary enrollment, 7th grade, 9th grade)

We have multiple families who live out of our zone, who somehow send their kids to our high school that have been closed to transfers for at least a decade. I know several who moved in elementary or middle school who stayed at our school through graduation, in spite living in other pyramids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what is the solution that those who are opposed to this redistricting plan (which allegedly hasn't been formulated yet) seeking?

Is it to:
A.) Not do any redistricting, and allow our overcrowded schools to stay overcrowded, while underutilizing schools elsewhere?
B.) Only do redistricting within existing pyramids (which can only partially address the problem)?
C.) Accept that redistricting needs to be done, but rally the people in your neighborhood to scream the loudest so that it isn't done to your kids?
D.) Is there another proposed outcome I'm missing?

Yep. Redistrict as needed to address capacity issues like they have been doing (albeit poorly) for the last forty years. Their first consultant's finding, which they have ignored, is that stability is one of the most important issues for kids, and is the issue parents care about most. There is absolutely no need or appetite for a start from scratch boundary review, especially one tainted by the overwhleming evidence that the school board's primary driver is socioeconomic rebalancing/One Fairfax and not capacity and utilizaton optimization.

If School Board members like Stu Gibson, Kathy Smith and Elaine Tholen hadn’t been so obviously biased and self-serving in orchestrating prior one-off boundary changes, they wouldn’t have felt the need to move to a different process. You can thank them if you don’t like how it turns out this time.

So your assertion is -checks notes- that these school board reps should not listen to their constituents?

DP, in the case of the Langley/McLean transfer under Tholen, she listened to one minority segment of her consituents, and ignored the rest (as well as FCPS staff recommendation). I think the assertion is more 1/ that sometimes a broader view is needed than constraining things within certain boundary pyramids given the evolution of our county over time, and 2/ that if/when we are going to do things local to a particular community or section of the county, that the SB reps should still listen ALL of their constituents, not just selectively those whose interests on an issue are aligned with their own personal preference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Before they throw the baby out with the bathwater, they need to 1) get rid of IB and 2) do a thorough check of residences. Many many students are not attending their zoned schools. Transferring for languages should not be allowed-there should be a section of fairfax online academy for the more obscure languages, or FCPS could just drop them and offer only the the standard spanish/french at every school.
Once everyone is back at their assigned school, THEN the SB can properly assess which schools are actually overcrowded and which have space.

I would have said they also need an updated renovation queue so that they are allocating capital resources appropriately and doing more to meet the needs of students where they actually live. But this part gets ignored if you are at a school that recently got renovated and expanded. You got yours and to hell with others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've no idea how many Langley people are on here--probably a lot read it. However, there are plenty of others who are very concerned about this. It is not about being sent to a lower performing school, it is about staying where you are.
I just remember when some Chantilly families were sent to the "better" Oakton. They were very upset. Why? Kids had grown up playing CYA sports. They had siblings at Chantilly and lived VERY close to Chantilly. One parent later attacked Kathy Smith when she was running for Supervisor because she was on the School Board. Neighborhoods were pitted against neighborhoods.
Boundaries should not be changed unless it is absolutely necessary.

Amen. This school board thinks kids are just interchangeable cogs in the FCPS machine.

I’m always floored that the SB has such disdain for its students.

Well technically they are interchangeable for purposes of redistricting. Your house location serves as a proxy for SES and fits the profile of the type of kids they want to move. Anyone who can afford your house will do. There is nothing unique about your child that another child whose parents are in the same economic range couldn't achieve.

I think that this comment right here represents the school board’s thinking.

Everyone should understand that this is how the school board thinks. “F your kids, they aren’t special, and your kids’ community doesn’t matter.”

This is how Sniveling Sandy Anderson views your kids. This is how Marcia St. John- Cunning views your kids, this is how Robyn Lady views your kids. The school board members do not care about your kids as part of this process. They want to equalize the FARMs rate set each school, your kid’s welfare be damned.

They take Fairfax families for granted. Shame on them.

How thick are you? Equalized FARMs rates across the county would kill Title I. They want Title I for all the kids who benefit most from it. If anything that's an argument for concentrating FARMS, not equalizing it.

Title 1 is Federal funding isn’t it? I doubt we can count on that in the current administration. Yes, pretty much no matter how they draw the boundaries, some schools are going to be a lot more difficult in terms of the FARMS/ESOL rate than others simply due to the populations. But the current problem seems to be more the new state regulations and requirements on school quality and accreditation, not anything federal.

NP.

FCPS claims they are facing a “fiscal shortfall,” but FCPS alone decides WHAT they will purchase/fund with their budget;

FCPS has - so far - chosen to keep paying the high salary of Chief Equity Officer, Nardos King, along with her staff of over 60 full time DEI officers;

The only threat to FCPS continuing to receive federal funding is FCPS insistence on maintaining their costly DEI office.


Are the FCPS Board, Michele Reid, and Gatehouse seriously going to cost our kids the Federal funding they need, AND continue paying the 60+ member DEI department?

Any idea what percentage of the $4b budget this department makes up?

$6.4 million…it is criminal for them to maintain this in the face of federal funding removal threat

https://www.fairfaxtimes.com/articles/pricetag-of-equity-in-fairfax-county-schools-6-4-million/article_6e14ee46-db8a-11ef-ba7b-4b737bdff938.html?

So to confirm, your position is that allocating 0.15% of the budget to help ensure that our schools and programs and instruction are equitably and inclusively serving the needs of the diverse students and communities that make up our great county is "criminal"?

The actual threat to remove federal funds is the only thing that feels "criminal" here.

Fact.

Since opening the equity office and deciding to focus everything on One Fairfax, student achievement in FCPS has gone dramatically downward by every impartial metric, and budget deficits have gone up, in spite of the budget steadily increasing to over 4 billion.

If the equity office had any value, the test scores and savings would reflect that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what is the solution that those who are opposed to this redistricting plan (which allegedly hasn't been formulated yet) seeking?

Is it to:
A.) Not do any redistricting, and allow our overcrowded schools to stay overcrowded, while underutilizing schools elsewhere?
B.) Only do redistricting within existing pyramids (which can only partially address the problem)?
C.) Accept that redistricting needs to be done, but rally the people in your neighborhood to scream the loudest so that it isn't done to your kids?
D.) Is there another proposed outcome I'm missing?

Yep. Redistrict as needed to address capacity issues like they have been doing (albeit poorly) for the last forty years. Their first consultant's finding, which they have ignored, is that stability is one of the most important issues for kids, and is the issue parents care about most. There is absolutely no need or appetite for a start from scratch boundary review, especially one tainted by the overwhleming evidence that the school board's primary driver is socioeconomic rebalancing/One Fairfax and not capacity and utilizaton optimization.

If School Board members like Stu Gibson, Kathy Smith and Elaine Tholen hadn’t been so obviously biased and self-serving in orchestrating prior one-off boundary changes, they wouldn’t have felt the need to move to a different process. You can thank them if you don’t like how it turns out this time.

So your assertion is -checks notes- that these school board reps should not listen to their constituents?

If they’d been listening to all their constituents, or thought about the interests of others besides their own neighbors, we might be in a different situation now.

But here we are, with third-party consultants and a county-wide review. If you don’t like what emerges, you can think the likes of Kathy Smith and Elaine Tholen for setting the stage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what is the solution that those who are opposed to this redistricting plan (which allegedly hasn't been formulated yet) seeking?

Is it to:
A.) Not do any redistricting, and allow our overcrowded schools to stay overcrowded, while underutilizing schools elsewhere?
B.) Only do redistricting within existing pyramids (which can only partially address the problem)?
C.) Accept that redistricting needs to be done, but rally the people in your neighborhood to scream the loudest so that it isn't done to your kids?
D.) Is there another proposed outcome I'm missing?

Yep. Redistrict as needed to address capacity issues like they have been doing (albeit poorly) for the last forty years. Their first consultant's finding, which they have ignored, is that stability is one of the most important issues for kids, and is the issue parents care about most. There is absolutely no need or appetite for a start from scratch boundary review, especially one tainted by the overwhleming evidence that the school board's primary driver is socioeconomic rebalancing/One Fairfax and not capacity and utilizaton optimization.

If School Board members like Stu Gibson, Kathy Smith and Elaine Tholen hadn’t been so obviously biased and self-serving in orchestrating prior one-off boundary changes, they wouldn’t have felt the need to move to a different process. You can thank them if you don’t like how it turns out this time.

So your assertion is -checks notes- that these school board reps should not listen to their constituents?

DP, in the case of the Langley/McLean transfer under Tholen, she listened to one minority segment of her consituents, and ignored the rest (as well as FCPS staff recommendation). I think the assertion is more 1/ that sometimes a broader view is needed than constraining things within certain boundary pyramids given the evolution of our county over time, and 2/ that if/when we are going to do things local to a particular community or section of the county, that the SB reps should still listen ALL of their constituents, not just selectively those whose interests on an issue are aligned with their own personal preference.

Why have a representative school board then? Seems like you are arguing against representative democracy and for socialism.

At some point, you and the school board will learn people in the county are generally generous, but very very few will go along with their kids being upended in the name of some theoretical greater good (which as discussed wouldn’t even materialize).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've no idea how many Langley people are on here--probably a lot read it. However, there are plenty of others who are very concerned about this. It is not about being sent to a lower performing school, it is about staying where you are.
I just remember when some Chantilly families were sent to the "better" Oakton. They were very upset. Why? Kids had grown up playing CYA sports. They had siblings at Chantilly and lived VERY close to Chantilly. One parent later attacked Kathy Smith when she was running for Supervisor because she was on the School Board. Neighborhoods were pitted against neighborhoods.
Boundaries should not be changed unless it is absolutely necessary.

Amen. This school board thinks kids are just interchangeable cogs in the FCPS machine.

I’m always floored that the SB has such disdain for its students.

Well technically they are interchangeable for purposes of redistricting. Your house location serves as a proxy for SES and fits the profile of the type of kids they want to move. Anyone who can afford your house will do. There is nothing unique about your child that another child whose parents are in the same economic range couldn't achieve.

I think that this comment right here represents the school board’s thinking.

Everyone should understand that this is how the school board thinks. “F your kids, they aren’t special, and your kids’ community doesn’t matter.”

This is how Sniveling Sandy Anderson views your kids. This is how Marcia St. John- Cunning views your kids, this is how Robyn Lady views your kids. The school board members do not care about your kids as part of this process. They want to equalize the FARMs rate set each school, your kid’s welfare be damned.

They take Fairfax families for granted. Shame on them.

How thick are you? Equalized FARMs rates across the county would kill Title I. They want Title I for all the kids who benefit most from it. If anything that's an argument for concentrating FARMS, not equalizing it.

Title 1 is Federal funding isn’t it? I doubt we can count on that in the current administration. Yes, pretty much no matter how they draw the boundaries, some schools are going to be a lot more difficult in terms of the FARMS/ESOL rate than others simply due to the populations. But the current problem seems to be more the new state regulations and requirements on school quality and accreditation, not anything federal.

NP.

FCPS claims they are facing a “fiscal shortfall,” but FCPS alone decides WHAT they will purchase/fund with their budget;

FCPS has - so far - chosen to keep paying the high salary of Chief Equity Officer, Nardos King, along with her staff of over 60 full time DEI officers;

The only threat to FCPS continuing to receive federal funding is FCPS insistence on maintaining their costly DEI office.


Are the FCPS Board, Michele Reid, and Gatehouse seriously going to cost our kids the Federal funding they need, AND continue paying the 60+ member DEI department?

Any idea what percentage of the $4b budget this department makes up?

$6.4 million…it is criminal for them to maintain this in the face of federal funding removal threat

https://www.fairfaxtimes.com/articles/pricetag-of-equity-in-fairfax-county-schools-6-4-million/article_6e14ee46-db8a-11ef-ba7b-4b737bdff938.html?

So to confirm, your position is that allocating 0.15% of the budget to help ensure that our schools and programs and instruction are equitably and inclusively serving the needs of the diverse students and communities that make up our great county is "criminal"?

The actual threat to remove federal funds is the only thing that feels "criminal" here.

If they don't have enough money, then fluff like this needs to be cut.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what is the solution that those who are opposed to this redistricting plan (which allegedly hasn't been formulated yet) seeking?

Is it to:
A.) Not do any redistricting, and allow our overcrowded schools to stay overcrowded, while underutilizing schools elsewhere?
B.) Only do redistricting within existing pyramids (which can only partially address the problem)?
C.) Accept that redistricting needs to be done, but rally the people in your neighborhood to scream the loudest so that it isn't done to your kids?
D.) Is there another proposed outcome I'm missing?

#1. Eliminate IB, switching all schools to AP, with a phase out for juniors and seniors who are actually pursuing the IB diploma, which is a TINY number of students. This closes the IB transfer loophole.

#2 In 4 years, look at enrollment numbers and test scores post IB. Schools that lose a lot if studdnts through the IB loophole should show enrollment growth by hundreds of high performing students in some cases, like Lewis HS, as kids who are zoned to Lewis return to their neighborhood high school

AND

#3 Put an AAP program in every middle school, closing the middle school AAP transfers. This will also bring dozens or hundreds of high performing studdnts back to the failing high school pyramids. Thrse students attending AAP out of pyramid for middle school often use whatever loophole they can find to stay with their friends for high school in the AAP pyramid.

Doing #2 and #3 will fix many of the issues in 2-4 years. It will balance enrollment in high schools and middle schools without rezoning, save money on busses, improve test scores of lower ranked high schools without rezoning a single student, and will save money by eliminating unwanted, expensive IB.

AND

The big one is do a county wide residency check of all grades in high school, followed by a yearly residency check when kids promote to the next building (Kindergarten/elementary enrollment, 7th grade, 9th grade)

We have multiple families who live out of our zone, who somehow send their kids to our high school that have been closed to transfers for at least a decade. I know several who moved in elementary or middle school who stayed at our school through graduation, in spite living in other pyramids.

Curious how your residency check idea would be implemented? Show a utility bill in your name or similar? Tons of busy work for admins incurring additional costs with marginal if any benefit change from the status quo. Literally follow kids home from school to ensure they live actually live where they say they do? I think that's a tad more of a 1984 dystopian that most county residents are interested in pursuing. I'm not saying there isn't a problem here or that we shouldn't try to prevent people from violating the rules/law, but just unclear what an actual realistic solution would look like that would meaningfully address the issue without being overbearing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've no idea how many Langley people are on here--probably a lot read it. However, there are plenty of others who are very concerned about this. It is not about being sent to a lower performing school, it is about staying where you are.
I just remember when some Chantilly families were sent to the "better" Oakton. They were very upset. Why? Kids had grown up playing CYA sports. They had siblings at Chantilly and lived VERY close to Chantilly. One parent later attacked Kathy Smith when she was running for Supervisor because she was on the School Board. Neighborhoods were pitted against neighborhoods.
Boundaries should not be changed unless it is absolutely necessary.

Amen. This school board thinks kids are just interchangeable cogs in the FCPS machine.

I’m always floored that the SB has such disdain for its students.

Well technically they are interchangeable for purposes of redistricting. Your house location serves as a proxy for SES and fits the profile of the type of kids they want to move. Anyone who can afford your house will do. There is nothing unique about your child that another child whose parents are in the same economic range couldn't achieve.

I think that this comment right here represents the school board’s thinking.

Everyone should understand that this is how the school board thinks. “F your kids, they aren’t special, and your kids’ community doesn’t matter.”

This is how Sniveling Sandy Anderson views your kids. This is how Marcia St. John- Cunning views your kids, this is how Robyn Lady views your kids. The school board members do not care about your kids as part of this process. They want to equalize the FARMs rate set each school, your kid’s welfare be damned.

They take Fairfax families for granted. Shame on them.

How thick are you? Equalized FARMs rates across the county would kill Title I. They want Title I for all the kids who benefit most from it. If anything that's an argument for concentrating FARMS, not equalizing it.

Title 1 is Federal funding isn’t it? I doubt we can count on that in the current administration. Yes, pretty much no matter how they draw the boundaries, some schools are going to be a lot more difficult in terms of the FARMS/ESOL rate than others simply due to the populations. But the current problem seems to be more the new state regulations and requirements on school quality and accreditation, not anything federal.

NP.

FCPS claims they are facing a “fiscal shortfall,” but FCPS alone decides WHAT they will purchase/fund with their budget;

FCPS has - so far - chosen to keep paying the high salary of Chief Equity Officer, Nardos King, along with her staff of over 60 full time DEI officers;

The only threat to FCPS continuing to receive federal funding is FCPS insistence on maintaining their costly DEI office.


Are the FCPS Board, Michele Reid, and Gatehouse seriously going to cost our kids the Federal funding they need, AND continue paying the 60+ member DEI department?

Any idea what percentage of the $4b budget this department makes up?

$6.4 million…it is criminal for them to maintain this in the face of federal funding removal threat

https://www.fairfaxtimes.com/articles/pricetag-of-equity-in-fairfax-county-schools-6-4-million/article_6e14ee46-db8a-11ef-ba7b-4b737bdff938.html?

So to confirm, your position is that allocating 0.15% of the budget to help ensure that our schools and programs and instruction are equitably and inclusively serving the needs of the diverse students and communities that make up our great county is "criminal"?

The actual threat to remove federal funds is the only thing that feels "criminal" here.

Most people would agree that if cuts have to be made, office like this are not crucial. Really, $6.4 million?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what is the solution that those who are opposed to this redistricting plan (which allegedly hasn't been formulated yet) seeking?

Is it to:
A.) Not do any redistricting, and allow our overcrowded schools to stay overcrowded, while underutilizing schools elsewhere?
B.) Only do redistricting within existing pyramids (which can only partially address the problem)?
C.) Accept that redistricting needs to be done, but rally the people in your neighborhood to scream the loudest so that it isn't done to your kids?
D.) Is there another proposed outcome I'm missing?

Yep. Redistrict as needed to address capacity issues like they have been doing (albeit poorly) for the last forty years. Their first consultant's finding, which they have ignored, is that stability is one of the most important issues for kids, and is the issue parents care about most. There is absolutely no need or appetite for a start from scratch boundary review, especially one tainted by the overwhleming evidence that the school board's primary driver is socioeconomic rebalancing/One Fairfax and not capacity and utilizaton optimization.

If School Board members like Stu Gibson, Kathy Smith and Elaine Tholen hadn’t been so obviously biased and self-serving in orchestrating prior one-off boundary changes, they wouldn’t have felt the need to move to a different process. You can thank them if you don’t like how it turns out this time.

So your assertion is -checks notes- that these school board reps should not listen to their constituents?

If they’d been listening to all their constituents, or thought about the interests of others besides their own neighbors, we might be in a different situation now.

But here we are, with third-party consultants and a county-wide review. If you don’t like what emerges, you can think the likes of Kathy Smith and Elaine Tholen for setting the stage.

Repeating yourself isn’t enlightening. It also doesn’t address my point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what is the solution that those who are opposed to this redistricting plan (which allegedly hasn't been formulated yet) seeking?

Is it to:
A.) Not do any redistricting, and allow our overcrowded schools to stay overcrowded, while underutilizing schools elsewhere?
B.) Only do redistricting within existing pyramids (which can only partially address the problem)?
C.) Accept that redistricting needs to be done, but rally the people in your neighborhood to scream the loudest so that it isn't done to your kids?
D.) Is there another proposed outcome I'm missing?

#1. Eliminate IB, switching all schools to AP, with a phase out for juniors and seniors who are actually pursuing the IB diploma, which is a TINY number of students. This closes the IB transfer loophole.

#2 In 4 years, look at enrollment numbers and test scores post IB. Schools that lose a lot if studdnts through the IB loophole should show enrollment growth by hundreds of high performing students in some cases, like Lewis HS, as kids who are zoned to Lewis return to their neighborhood high school

AND

#3 Put an AAP program in every middle school, closing the middle school AAP transfers. This will also bring dozens or hundreds of high performing studdnts back to the failing high school pyramids. Thrse students attending AAP out of pyramid for middle school often use whatever loophole they can find to stay with their friends for high school in the AAP pyramid.

Doing #2 and #3 will fix many of the issues in 2-4 years. It will balance enrollment in high schools and middle schools without rezoning, save money on busses, improve test scores of lower ranked high schools without rezoning a single student, and will save money by eliminating unwanted, expensive IB.

AND

The big one is do a county wide residency check of all grades in high school, followed by a yearly residency check when kids promote to the next building (Kindergarten/elementary enrollment, 7th grade, 9th grade)

We have multiple families who live out of our zone, who somehow send their kids to our high school that have been closed to transfers for at least a decade. I know several who moved in elementary or middle school who stayed at our school through graduation, in spite living in other pyramids.

Curious how your residency check idea would be implemented? Show a utility bill in your name or similar? Tons of busy work for admins incurring additional costs with marginal if any benefit change from the status quo. Literally follow kids home from school to ensure they live actually live where they say they do? I think that's a tad more of a 1984 dystopian that most county residents are interested in pursuing. I'm not saying there isn't a problem here or that we shouldn't try to prevent people from violating the rules/law, but just unclear what an actual realistic solution would look like that would meaningfully address the issue without being overbearing.

FCPS owes it to the taxpayers to be a steward of their funds. FCPS just educated 30+ prince william county students for free at Hayfield. They aren't even going after the families for tuition reimbursement. Come on, that's absurd.

Sending kids back to Loudoun or Prince William or Alexandria City to be educated will save FCPS a lot of money and space.