School Boundaries and "One Fairfax"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does every thread in this forum turn into a thread about TJ?

Because the lack of underrepresented minorities is unconscionable, correct?

...and what about students with disabilities who have the academic chops to get into TJ, but need the support an IEP or 504 provides? Does anyone have numbers on those students?

My kid has one and is a rising senior who will make it to graduation. And because my kid has one, I have actively sought out parents of other kids who have one. 2e (especially ADHD boys) is more common than you would think. But, the kid has to be able to fully participate in the curriculum. They will do extended time, small group testing type accommodations. They will not excuse projects or water down the curriculum.

[Anonymous]

Those kids won’t be walking in any event, as they’d have to cross both Dolley Madison and Georgetown Pike. So FCPS can look at alternatives that would increase the diversity at Langley. The draft revisions to the boundary policy certainly don’t seem to contemplate that the School Board would go with the option that makes the wealthiest school richer, but who knows.

When is the vote on that, anyway?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Those kids won’t be walking in any event, as they’d have to cross both Dolley Madison and Georgetown Pike. So FCPS can look at alternatives that would increase the diversity at Langley. The draft revisions to the boundary policy certainly don’t seem to contemplate that the School Board would go with the option that makes the wealthiest school richer, but who knows.

When is the vote on that, anyway?

Nothing on the 2019-20 calendar yet. Obviously the Democrats control the School Board and will decide how much follow-up there will be before the fall election.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I mean this in the nicest way. What should we do? Because this thread is a perfect example of the nonsense when it comes to making decisions. We are doing things to avoid blow back from parents who don't want certain populations in their schools, we are getting blow back from parents and board members who want to pursue changes but only if we make sure we are taking into account poverty. I spent hours in meetings where we basically go back and forth. We have the data to do a massive boundary change now to essentially have no school over 110 percent capacity (so, minimum modulars and trailers folks). It is basically dead in the water. Because building more is an easy yes and I am just doing my job and I really have no power to make these choices where blow back is inevitable.

Unfortunately, there's no pleasing all of the people all of the time.
I don't envy anyone in this situation who is actually trying to do their job.

Present your best recommendations with the evidence to justify them. Have a back up or two that may be less unpopular if you anticipate massive resistance, and let the school board make their decision.

I too notice that, assuming you are who you say you are, that some school board members are willing to waste money on an outside consultant.

Honestly, thank you for understanding how difficult things are for us.

The consultant is cover. It may result in absolutely nothing, fwiw.

The issue is what has occurred in this thread. No one wants change. So, we went bigger. But truthfully, I don't know what will happen unless we can all accept that change is inevitable and nobody will be completely thrilled with the outcome unless they care about efficient use of school facilities (which let's be honest isn't something that most people would rank as something that drives them to vote or call and yell at a politician or Board member).

I actually like my job and I am a parent in the system and think there's a way to do this in an efficient, effective manner. But we all have to agree that it will happen.

Oh, that Western High school would be useful as well. I wish they would pursue the funding and construction for that facility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I mean this in the nicest way. What should we do? Because this thread is a perfect example of the nonsense when it comes to making decisions. We are doing things to avoid blow back from parents who don't want certain populations in their schools, we are getting blow back from parents and board members who want to pursue changes but only if we make sure we are taking into account poverty. I spent hours in meetings where we basically go back and forth. We have the data to do a massive boundary change now to essentially have no school over 110 percent capacity (so, minimum modulars and trailers folks). It is basically dead in the water. Because building more is an easy yes and I am just doing my job and I really have no power to make these choices where blow back is inevitable.

Unfortunately, there's no pleasing all of the people all of the time.
I don't envy anyone in this situation who is actually trying to do their job.

Present your best recommendations with the evidence to justify them. Have a back up or two that may be less unpopular if you anticipate massive resistance, and let the school board make their decision.

I too notice that, assuming you are who you say you are, that some school board members are willing to waste money on an outside consultant.

Honestly, thank you for understanding how difficult things are for us.

The consultant is cover. It may result in absolutely nothing, fwiw.

The issue is what has occurred in this thread. No one wants change. So, we went bigger. But truthfully, I don't know what will happen unless we can all accept that change is inevitable and nobody will be completely thrilled with the outcome unless they care about efficient use of school facilities (which let's be honest isn't something that most people would rank as something that drives them to vote or call and yell at a politician or Board member).

I actually like my job and I am a parent in the system and think there's a way to do this in an efficient, effective manner. But we all have to agree that it will happen.

Oh, that Western High school would be useful as well. I wish they would pursue the funding and construction for that facility.

NP here. I'm struggling to understand your office's past decisions.

If you "went bigger" because "no one wants change," why expand Langley HS when its enrollment has been declining for years? Either you assumed that you'd move kids from McLean or some other high school to Langley, or you just went along with a decision to waste taxpayer money and expand a school that didn't need the additional seats. Under what scenario is the latter defensible?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Honestly, thank you for understanding how difficult things are for us.

The consultant is cover. It may result in absolutely nothing, fwiw.

The issue is what has occurred in this thread. No one wants change. So, we went bigger. But truthfully, I don't know what will happen unless we can all accept that change is inevitable and nobody will be completely thrilled with the outcome unless they care about efficient use of school facilities (which let's be honest isn't something that most people would rank as something that drives them to vote or call and yell at a politician or Board member).

I actually like my job and I am a parent in the system and think there's a way to do this in an efficient, effective manner. But we all have to agree that it will happen.

Oh, that Western High school would be useful as well. I wish they would pursue the funding and construction for that facility.

I do try to consider what other people are dealing with.

[Anonymous]

When is that western hs going to be built anyway?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I mean this in the nicest way. What should we do? Because this thread is a perfect example of the nonsense when it comes to making decisions. We are doing things to avoid blow back from parents who don't want certain populations in their schools, we are getting blow back from parents and board members who want to pursue changes but only if we make sure we are taking into account poverty. I spent hours in meetings where we basically go back and forth. We have the data to do a massive boundary change now to essentially have no school over 110 percent capacity (so, minimum modulars and trailers folks). It is basically dead in the water. Because building more is an easy yes and I am just doing my job and I really have no power to make these choices where blow back is inevitable.

Unfortunately, there's no pleasing all of the people all of the time.
I don't envy anyone in this situation who is actually trying to do their job.

Present your best recommendations with the evidence to justify them. Have a back up or two that may be less unpopular if you anticipate massive resistance, and let the school board make their decision.

I too notice that, assuming you are who you say you are, that some school board members are willing to waste money on an outside consultant.

Honestly, thank you for understanding how difficult things are for us.

The consultant is cover. It may result in absolutely nothing, fwiw.

The issue is what has occurred in this thread. No one wants change. So, we went bigger. But truthfully, I don't know what will happen unless we can all accept that change is inevitable and nobody will be completely thrilled with the outcome unless they care about efficient use of school facilities (which let's be honest isn't something that most people would rank as something that drives them to vote or call and yell at a politician or Board member).

I actually like my job and I am a parent in the system and think there's a way to do this in an efficient, effective manner. But we all have to agree that it will happen.

Oh, that Western High school would be useful as well. I wish they would pursue the funding and construction for that facility.

NP here. I'm struggling to understand your office's past decisions.

If you "went bigger" because "no one wants change," why expand Langley HS when its enrollment has been declining for years? Either you assumed that you'd move kids from McLean or some other high school to Langley, or you just went along with a decision to waste taxpayer money and expand a school that didn't need the additional seats. Under what scenario is the latter defensible?

Np here. This is a total guess but probably to accommodate tysons real estate growth? Those kids will need to go to high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When is that western hs going to be built anyway?

It's all theory right now. Nothing is in the pipeline.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I mean this in the nicest way. What should we do? Because this thread is a perfect example of the nonsense when it comes to making decisions. We are doing things to avoid blow back from parents who don't want certain populations in their schools, we are getting blow back from parents and board members who want to pursue changes but only if we make sure we are taking into account poverty. I spent hours in meetings where we basically go back and forth. We have the data to do a massive boundary change now to essentially have no school over 110 percent capacity (so, minimum modulars and trailers folks). It is basically dead in the water. Because building more is an easy yes and I am just doing my job and I really have no power to make these choices where blow back is inevitable.

Unfortunately, there's no pleasing all of the people all of the time.
I don't envy anyone in this situation who is actually trying to do their job.

Present your best recommendations with the evidence to justify them. Have a back up or two that may be less unpopular if you anticipate massive resistance, and let the school board make their decision.

I too notice that, assuming you are who you say you are, that some school board members are willing to waste money on an outside consultant.

Honestly, thank you for understanding how difficult things are for us.

The consultant is cover. It may result in absolutely nothing, fwiw.

The issue is what has occurred in this thread. No one wants change. So, we went bigger. But truthfully, I don't know what will happen unless we can all accept that change is inevitable and nobody will be completely thrilled with the outcome unless they care about efficient use of school facilities (which let's be honest isn't something that most people would rank as something that drives them to vote or call and yell at a politician or Board member).

I actually like my job and I am a parent in the system and think there's a way to do this in an efficient, effective manner. But we all have to agree that it will happen.

Oh, that Western High school would be useful as well. I wish they would pursue the funding and construction for that facility.

NP here. I'm struggling to understand your office's past decisions.

If you "went bigger" because "no one wants change," why expand Langley HS when its enrollment has been declining for years? Either you assumed that you'd move kids from McLean or some other high school to Langley, or you just went along with a decision to waste taxpayer money and expand a school that didn't need the additional seats. Under what scenario is the latter defensible?

Np here. This is a total guess but probably to accommodate tysons real estate growth? Those kids will need to go to high school.

In that case they will need boundary changes before the new western high school is built. Tysons currently feeds into Marshall and McLean, not Langley. I don’t think PP really appreciates the dynamics in that area or the implications of what she said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I mean this in the nicest way. What should we do? Because this thread is a perfect example of the nonsense when it comes to making decisions. We are doing things to avoid blow back from parents who don't want certain populations in their schools, we are getting blow back from parents and board members who want to pursue changes but only if we make sure we are taking into account poverty. I spent hours in meetings where we basically go back and forth. We have the data to do a massive boundary change now to essentially have no school over 110 percent capacity (so, minimum modulars and trailers folks). It is basically dead in the water. Because building more is an easy yes and I am just doing my job and I really have no power to make these choices where blow back is inevitable.

Unfortunately, there's no pleasing all of the people all of the time.
I don't envy anyone in this situation who is actually trying to do their job.

Present your best recommendations with the evidence to justify them. Have a back up or two that may be less unpopular if you anticipate massive resistance, and let the school board make their decision.

I too notice that, assuming you are who you say you are, that some school board members are willing to waste money on an outside consultant.

While I sympathize even if they present what's "best" for everyone even showing the data to back it up, individual families will always look out for their child(ren) first. Those with means who don't like the new changes will leave. No matter what happens the affluent will be least impacted. And like it or not the children of the affluent are what drives test scores which is what drives overcrowding to get to the best schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

As a taxpayer, I would rather have tax money "bussed" to schools that need additional resources and have them spend it in ways that will help the populations that need it, including parenting classes, ESOL for parents, night school, whatever. Break the cycle in the communities that suffer from the cycle.

This.
It's a lot easier to get parents involved if they are comfortable in the environment.

+1.

This has been tried (segregation) and has failed all over the US prompting the federal government to get involved starting with Bush. We are learning from our mistakes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

As a taxpayer, I would rather have tax money "bussed" to schools that need additional resources and have them spend it in ways that will help the populations that need it, including parenting classes, ESOL for parents, night school, whatever. Break the cycle in the communities that suffer from the cycle.

This.
It's a lot easier to get parents involved if they are comfortable in the environment.

+1.

Now you guys are finally getting it!
Take a page out of the North Arlington Democrat playbook
Here are your key phrases
“Respect immigrant communities”
“allow 40% FRL schools to continue to be vibrant”
“Don’t tear communities apart”
“ keep communities together to honor them”
“ it’s a micro-aggression to point out the achievement gap”
“ it’s better to keep higher needs populations together, so they more effectively receive wrap around services”
Also:
You can also go down the environmental aspects of busing, and how it’s terrible for our carbon footprint.

You don’t have to make a conservative argument. North Arlington has practically written a bible of “progressive” ones.

It's better than busing. Busing does not work.

Clearly it does if you live in a boundary island or in Langley or go to TJ in Fairfax. I also just saw a special on magnet schools that are being created in inner city schools to encourage bussing of suburban kids to cities as the best hope for these inner city schools to improve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

As a taxpayer, I would rather have tax money "bussed" to schools that need additional resources and have them spend it in ways that will help the populations that need it, including parenting classes, ESOL for parents, night school, whatever. Break the cycle in the communities that suffer from the cycle.

This.
It's a lot easier to get parents involved if they are comfortable in the environment.

+1.

Now you guys are finally getting it!
Take a page out of the North Arlington Democrat playbook
Here are your key phrases
“Respect immigrant communities”
“allow 40% FRL schools to continue to be vibrant”
“Don’t tear communities apart”
“ keep communities together to honor them”
“ it’s a micro-aggression to point out the achievement gap”
“ it’s better to keep higher needs populations together, so they more effectively receive wrap around services”
Also:
You can also go down the environmental aspects of busing, and how it’s terrible for our carbon footprint.

You don’t have to make a conservative argument. North Arlington has practically written a bible of “progressive” ones.

It's better than busing. Busing does not work.

Clearly it does if you live in a boundary island or in Langley or go to TJ in Fairfax. I also just saw a special on magnet schools that are being created in inner city schools to encourage bussing of suburban kids to cities as the best hope for these inner city schools to improve.

I have no idea about the research but I could see that there might be a difference if the people being bused are choosing to be bused as opposed to people being bused just to balance a district.

The difference, to me, is that parents who are interested in a magnet program/language immersion program/STEM program are invested in their child's education and intend to follow their child's progress and development. The level of parental involvement and interest will likely lead to a child who is completing homework and assignments and engaged in learning because it is expected of the child.

A child who is bused to balance a district racially or SES wise might very well be a child whose parents are not invested or involved in the child's education. That could be because the parents are not educated and don't know how to help their child. It could be that the parents are struggling and working a great deal and cannot be invested because they have jobs that don't allow them to miss work. It could be that the parents are battling mental illness or addiction and cannot be invested in their child because they are too ill. Whatever the reason, the lack of parental involvement and investment is likely to be problematic even at a higher performing school. It could be that some kids are able to grasp the opportunities offered without their parents help, there are kids like that, but those kids are the minority.

The larger issue is not how to disperse the kids but how to help parents invest in their kids education. And that is a problem that has existed for a long time that we are still struggling to find an answer for. We see it in the families that have a family cycle of dropping out of school. We know that immigrant kids have a higher drop out rate, there is an article on this problem in Montgomery County on WTOP today, due to language issues and the lack of earlier education.

They are not easy problems but I doubt that busing is the solution.

Correct me if I am wrong, but FCPS only buses kids to TJ but they do not bus kids to magnet schools or language immersion schools. I know the kids who attend the language immersion program at my kids ES who are out of boundary are responsible for their child's transportation. They are not bused to the school by FCPS.

[Anonymous]

Clearly it does if you live in a boundary island or in Langley or go to TJ in Fairfax. I also just saw a special on magnet schools that are being created in inner city schools to encourage bussing of suburban kids to cities as the best hope for these inner city schools to improve.

That's not new, and it does not work.

And, Langley does not have busing --getting on a bus is not "busing." Those GF kids go to Langley because it is the only logical alternative.
1. Langley has space. Herndon does not.
2. Contiguous boundary
3. Keeps neighborhood school together.

That is not busing as commonly used.