Anonymous wrote:What is it about GenEd kids that makes people so afraid to share a classroom with them? I definitely think kids should strive to meet their potential, be we can't all be great at everything. What are you really afraid of?
I suspect it's exposure to ethnic groups and socio-economic groups the that have perceived behavioral problems or aren't "serious" students b/c they aren't in the AP classes.
“Perceived” behavioral problems, lmao. Not just perceived but reported to the state.
2022-2023 Offenses
Behaviors that Impede Academic Progress 506
Behaviors related to School Operations 496
Relationship Behaviors without Physical Harm 375
Behaviors of a Safety Concern 204
Behaviors that Endanger the Health, Safety, or Welfare of Self or Others 36
Numbers will go down with the rebounders. I finally got around to watching some of the board meeting and every indication is that they will follow through with a county-wide redraw.
Every indication is that they will attempt to follow through with a county-wide redraw. Whether they succeed in light of the onslaught of pushback that they will get and their inability to predict out more than a year, that is the question. They aren’t going to want to redistrict a school in the name of equity just to have it overcrowded a couple years later.
You and PP are trying so hard to get people riled up over the looming “county-wide redraw” but failing, probably because the last time this came up the obstacles to the School Board pulling this off successfully got aired in some detail. These folks can’t even get one-off boundary changes right, so no one really expects them to try to go for the whole enchilada.
I’m definitely not trying to get anyone riled up. I personally think a county-wide redistricting is a misguided waste of resources and that every school board member who votes for it should lose their job.
That said, I listened to the 2/8 board meeting, and member after member talked a big game (particularly McDaniel). I hope they aren’t crazy enough to try any big redistricting, but they just might. No need to get riled up, but likewise don’t get too complacent if your kids might be impacted.
It's a new board at the beginning of their four-year term. They're allowed, and even perhaps expected, to say some things they walk back later.
The motivation behind the talk of a county-wide redistricting was the desire on the part of some new School Board members to remove and/or insulate themselves from responsibility for boundary changes by suggesting they could just rely on staff or some third party to come up with a county-wide redistricting proposal.
What they will soon realize, if they haven't realized it since 2/8, is that ultimately they will be held accountable for any boundary changes. There is little demand among parents for sweeping changes, and the opposition they would face would be substantial.
Little demand. LOL. Then we should have no complaints about ANY school being overcrowded. Put two students to a desk, split students into morning and afternoon schools in the same building. Do not spend another dollar on expansions. Maintain what we have, because there is no overcrowding issues in FCPS.
Under-enrollment and/or overcrowding at some schools is not the same thing as any significant demand among county residents for a county-wide redistricting. The outreach that FCPS conducted a few years ago suggested just the opposite.
"Some" schools quickly turns into multiples of that figure because solving the overcrowding issues of one building inevitably affects the surrounding pyramids. And as has been discussed by the Board, piecemeal approaches are only band-aids that shift the problem around temporarily.
I don’t like them, but they are right. It makes sense to do boundaries from scratch every so often.
Boundary changes are disruptive, and a county-wide one more so. Therefore it needs to be on a regular but infrequent interval, something like every 25-30 years.
From-scratch boundaries will necessarily leave many many neighborhoods at the same school, but would change the edges of every pyramid.
As to the board being afraid of the blowback, the county is now firmly blue. They have survived recall efforts and triumphed in the last election despite their bungling of the COVID response, using taxpayer funds to buy sexually explicit material for school libraries, ignoring staff recommendations to enact a last minute switcheroo for the Langley/Mclean boundary, wasting money and causing disruption with the Dunn Loring fiasco, and more.
They can be confident that people will suck it up and come back for more. If a few are particularly vulnerable at the next election cycle, they will just step down and bide their time for a future elected position or just work for the party behind the scenes. The new (dem) members will be easily won because they will have no blame for the new boundaries, which—again—will not affect everyone. We could even be looking at a change that leaves 80% of the people where they are and some may be glad to be moved.
I don't see much logic here - just a blanket suggestion that they should redraw all the boundaries every 25-30 years because they can do so with relative impunity.
They shouldn't change boundaries just because they can, but only because there is a clearly articulated and compelling reason to do so, taking into account that people may have chosen where to live in part based on specific programs available at certain schools, whether it's an Academy program, AP, IB, a foreign language sequence, or something else. The reality is that things are different now than when they last did county-wide changes in the mid-1980s, when the degree of standardization when it came to academic programs was far greater than it is today.
And, by the way, the most significant change over the past 50 years when it comes to the School Board is the replacement of a board appointed by the Board of Supervisors with an elected board, which occurred due to dissatisfaction with boundary changes in the 1980s and early 1990s and related school closures. In those cases, as might be the case here, it did not matter that certain recommendations may have originated with staff; the subsequent dissatisfaction was aimed at the board members.
Under enrollment and over enrollment at various schools across the county is a mess. They should redraw as a matter of fiscal responsibility. No unnecessary expansions or new buildings.
We can be sure that with this particular board, they will want to make changes based also on demographics, and that they a where they are wrong.
But the voters chose them, and I am sure that not a single Democrat voter will voice an objection to “equity.”
You seem grumpy and punitive. But, sure, let’s burn the whole house down because you’re in a bad mood.
Silly rabbit, Trix are for kids.
A boundary change for capacity is not a punishment. Boundary changes for “equity,” and in fact curriculum, policies, facilities management et al for “equity” is what the voters chose when they voted for this board.
So which do you want - boundary changes for capacity reasons or boundary changes for “equity”? They aren’t necessarily the same thing and in fact could be at cross-purposes. Either way the criteria should be clearly defined with changes made only when truly necessary.
Do not that “equity” does not mean bussing for diversity, which is now controversial due to many communities of color not wanting to be bussed to schools farther away and also due to the current legal climate. Equity is more about offerings (academic and extra curricular) at every school. It also concerns equity among facilities, a point the Falls Church HS community brought up for years prior to its renovation.
Anonymous wrote:What is it about GenEd kids that makes people so afraid to share a classroom with them? I definitely think kids should strive to meet their potential, be we can't all be great at everything. What are you really afraid of?
I suspect it's exposure to ethnic groups and socio-economic groups the that have perceived behavioral problems or aren't "serious" students b/c they aren't in the AP classes.
“Perceived” behavioral problems, lmao. Not just perceived but reported to the state.
2022-2023 Offenses
Behaviors that Impede Academic Progress 506
Behaviors related to School Operations 496
Relationship Behaviors without Physical Harm 375
Behaviors of a Safety Concern 204
Behaviors that Endanger the Health, Safety, or Welfare of Self or Others 36
Numbers will go down with the rebounders. I finally got around to watching some of the board meeting and every indication is that they will follow through with a county-wide redraw.
Every indication is that they will attempt to follow through with a county-wide redraw. Whether they succeed in light of the onslaught of pushback that they will get and their inability to predict out more than a year, that is the question. They aren’t going to want to redistrict a school in the name of equity just to have it overcrowded a couple years later.
You and PP are trying so hard to get people riled up over the looming “county-wide redraw” but failing, probably because the last time this came up the obstacles to the School Board pulling this off successfully got aired in some detail. These folks can’t even get one-off boundary changes right, so no one really expects them to try to go for the whole enchilada.
I’m definitely not trying to get anyone riled up. I personally think a county-wide redistricting is a misguided waste of resources and that every school board member who votes for it should lose their job.
That said, I listened to the 2/8 board meeting, and member after member talked a big game (particularly McDaniel). I hope they aren’t crazy enough to try any big redistricting, but they just might. No need to get riled up, but likewise don’t get too complacent if your kids might be impacted.
It's a new board at the beginning of their four-year term. They're allowed, and even perhaps expected, to say some things they walk back later.
The motivation behind the talk of a county-wide redistricting was the desire on the part of some new School Board members to remove and/or insulate themselves from responsibility for boundary changes by suggesting they could just rely on staff or some third party to come up with a county-wide redistricting proposal.
What they will soon realize, if they haven't realized it since 2/8, is that ultimately they will be held accountable for any boundary changes. There is little demand among parents for sweeping changes, and the opposition they would face would be substantial.
Little demand. LOL. Then we should have no complaints about ANY school being overcrowded. Put two students to a desk, split students into morning and afternoon schools in the same building. Do not spend another dollar on expansions. Maintain what we have, because there is no overcrowding issues in FCPS.
Under-enrollment and/or overcrowding at some schools is not the same thing as any significant demand among county residents for a county-wide redistricting. The outreach that FCPS conducted a few years ago suggested just the opposite.
"Some" schools quickly turns into multiples of that figure because solving the overcrowding issues of one building inevitably affects the surrounding pyramids. And as has been discussed by the Board, piecemeal approaches are only band-aids that shift the problem around temporarily.
I don’t like them, but they are right. It makes sense to do boundaries from scratch every so often.
Boundary changes are disruptive, and a county-wide one more so. Therefore it needs to be on a regular but infrequent interval, something like every 25-30 years.
From-scratch boundaries will necessarily leave many many neighborhoods at the same school, but would change the edges of every pyramid.
As to the board being afraid of the blowback, the county is now firmly blue. They have survived recall efforts and triumphed in the last election despite their bungling of the COVID response, using taxpayer funds to buy sexually explicit material for school libraries, ignoring staff recommendations to enact a last minute switcheroo for the Langley/Mclean boundary, wasting money and causing disruption with the Dunn Loring fiasco, and more.
They can be confident that people will suck it up and come back for more. If a few are particularly vulnerable at the next election cycle, they will just step down and bide their time for a future elected position or just work for the party behind the scenes. The new (dem) members will be easily won because they will have no blame for the new boundaries, which—again—will not affect everyone. We could even be looking at a change that leaves 80% of the people where they are and some may be glad to be moved.
I don't see much logic here - just a blanket suggestion that they should redraw all the boundaries every 25-30 years because they can do so with relative impunity.
They shouldn't change boundaries just because they can, but only because there is a clearly articulated and compelling reason to do so, taking into account that people may have chosen where to live in part based on specific programs available at certain schools, whether it's an Academy program, AP, IB, a foreign language sequence, or something else. The reality is that things are different now than when they last did county-wide changes in the mid-1980s, when the degree of standardization when it came to academic programs was far greater than it is today.
And, by the way, the most significant change over the past 50 years when it comes to the School Board is the replacement of a board appointed by the Board of Supervisors with an elected board, which occurred due to dissatisfaction with boundary changes in the 1980s and early 1990s and related school closures. In those cases, as might be the case here, it did not matter that certain recommendations may have originated with staff; the subsequent dissatisfaction was aimed at the board members.
Under enrollment and over enrollment at various schools across the county is a mess. They should redraw as a matter of fiscal responsibility. No unnecessary expansions or new buildings.
We can be sure that with this particular board, they will want to make changes based also on demographics, and that they a where they are wrong.
But the voters chose them, and I am sure that not a single Democrat voter will voice an objection to “equity.”
You seem grumpy and punitive. But, sure, let’s burn the whole house down because you’re in a bad mood.
Silly rabbit, Trix are for kids.
A boundary change for capacity is not a punishment. Boundary changes for “equity,” and in fact curriculum, policies, facilities management et al for “equity” is what the voters chose when they voted for this board.
So which do you want - boundary changes for capacity reasons or boundary changes for “equity”? They aren’t necessarily the same thing and in fact could be at cross-purposes. Either way the criteria should be clearly defined with changes made only when truly necessary.
Do not that “equity” does not mean bussing for diversity, which is now controversial due to many communities of color not wanting to be bussed to schools farther away and also due to the current legal climate. Equity is more about offerings (academic and extra curricular) at every school. It also concerns equity among facilities, a point the Falls Church HS community brought up for years prior to its renovation.
So articulated, county-wide redistricting would do little to advance equity goals, as it would move students around without focusing on differences in programs or disparities in facilities.
Anonymous wrote:What is it about GenEd kids that makes people so afraid to share a classroom with them? I definitely think kids should strive to meet their potential, be we can't all be great at everything. What are you really afraid of?
I suspect it's exposure to ethnic groups and socio-economic groups the that have perceived behavioral problems or aren't "serious" students b/c they aren't in the AP classes.
“Perceived” behavioral problems, lmao. Not just perceived but reported to the state.
2022-2023 Offenses
Behaviors that Impede Academic Progress 506
Behaviors related to School Operations 496
Relationship Behaviors without Physical Harm 375
Behaviors of a Safety Concern 204
Behaviors that Endanger the Health, Safety, or Welfare of Self or Others 36
Numbers will go down with the rebounders. I finally got around to watching some of the board meeting and every indication is that they will follow through with a county-wide redraw.
Every indication is that they will attempt to follow through with a county-wide redraw. Whether they succeed in light of the onslaught of pushback that they will get and their inability to predict out more than a year, that is the question. They aren’t going to want to redistrict a school in the name of equity just to have it overcrowded a couple years later.
You and PP are trying so hard to get people riled up over the looming “county-wide redraw” but failing, probably because the last time this came up the obstacles to the School Board pulling this off successfully got aired in some detail. These folks can’t even get one-off boundary changes right, so no one really expects them to try to go for the whole enchilada.
I’m definitely not trying to get anyone riled up. I personally think a county-wide redistricting is a misguided waste of resources and that every school board member who votes for it should lose their job.
That said, I listened to the 2/8 board meeting, and member after member talked a big game (particularly McDaniel). I hope they aren’t crazy enough to try any big redistricting, but they just might. No need to get riled up, but likewise don’t get too complacent if your kids might be impacted.
It's a new board at the beginning of their four-year term. They're allowed, and even perhaps expected, to say some things they walk back later.
The motivation behind the talk of a county-wide redistricting was the desire on the part of some new School Board members to remove and/or insulate themselves from responsibility for boundary changes by suggesting they could just rely on staff or some third party to come up with a county-wide redistricting proposal.
What they will soon realize, if they haven't realized it since 2/8, is that ultimately they will be held accountable for any boundary changes. There is little demand among parents for sweeping changes, and the opposition they would face would be substantial.
Little demand. LOL. Then we should have no complaints about ANY school being overcrowded. Put two students to a desk, split students into morning and afternoon schools in the same building. Do not spend another dollar on expansions. Maintain what we have, because there is no overcrowding issues in FCPS.
Under-enrollment and/or overcrowding at some schools is not the same thing as any significant demand among county residents for a county-wide redistricting. The outreach that FCPS conducted a few years ago suggested just the opposite.
"Some" schools quickly turns into multiples of that figure because solving the overcrowding issues of one building inevitably affects the surrounding pyramids. And as has been discussed by the Board, piecemeal approaches are only band-aids that shift the problem around temporarily.
I don’t like them, but they are right. It makes sense to do boundaries from scratch every so often.
Boundary changes are disruptive, and a county-wide one more so. Therefore it needs to be on a regular but infrequent interval, something like every 25-30 years.
From-scratch boundaries will necessarily leave many many neighborhoods at the same school, but would change the edges of every pyramid.
As to the board being afraid of the blowback, the county is now firmly blue. They have survived recall efforts and triumphed in the last election despite their bungling of the COVID response, using taxpayer funds to buy sexually explicit material for school libraries, ignoring staff recommendations to enact a last minute switcheroo for the Langley/Mclean boundary, wasting money and causing disruption with the Dunn Loring fiasco, and more.
They can be confident that people will suck it up and come back for more. If a few are particularly vulnerable at the next election cycle, they will just step down and bide their time for a future elected position or just work for the party behind the scenes. The new (dem) members will be easily won because they will have no blame for the new boundaries, which—again—will not affect everyone. We could even be looking at a change that leaves 80% of the people where they are and some may be glad to be moved.
I don't see much logic here - just a blanket suggestion that they should redraw all the boundaries every 25-30 years because they can do so with relative impunity.
They shouldn't change boundaries just because they can, but only because there is a clearly articulated and compelling reason to do so, taking into account that people may have chosen where to live in part based on specific programs available at certain schools, whether it's an Academy program, AP, IB, a foreign language sequence, or something else. The reality is that things are different now than when they last did county-wide changes in the mid-1980s, when the degree of standardization when it came to academic programs was far greater than it is today.
And, by the way, the most significant change over the past 50 years when it comes to the School Board is the replacement of a board appointed by the Board of Supervisors with an elected board, which occurred due to dissatisfaction with boundary changes in the 1980s and early 1990s and related school closures. In those cases, as might be the case here, it did not matter that certain recommendations may have originated with staff; the subsequent dissatisfaction was aimed at the board members.
Under enrollment and over enrollment at various schools across the county is a mess. They should redraw as a matter of fiscal responsibility. No unnecessary expansions or new buildings.
We can be sure that with this particular board, they will want to make changes based also on demographics, and that they a where they are wrong.
But the voters chose them, and I am sure that not a single Democrat voter will voice an objection to “equity.”
You seem grumpy and punitive. But, sure, let’s burn the whole house down because you’re in a bad mood.
Silly rabbit, Trix are for kids.
A boundary change for capacity is not a punishment. Boundary changes for “equity,” and in fact curriculum, policies, facilities management et al for “equity” is what the voters chose when they voted for this board.
So which do you want - boundary changes for capacity reasons or boundary changes for “equity”? They aren’t necessarily the same thing and in fact could be at cross-purposes. Either way the criteria should be clearly defined with changes made only when truly necessary.
Do not that “equity” does not mean bussing for diversity, which is now controversial due to many communities of color not wanting to be bussed to schools farther away and also due to the current legal climate. Equity is more about offerings (academic and extra curricular) at every school. It also concerns equity among facilities, a point the Falls Church HS community brought up for years prior to its renovation.
So articulated, county-wide redistricting would do little to advance equity goals, as it would move students around without focusing on differences in programs or disparities in facilities.
For any county-wide or large scale redistricting proposal to have a chance, it would have to address disparities in school programs.
Anonymous wrote:What is it about GenEd kids that makes people so afraid to share a classroom with them? I definitely think kids should strive to meet their potential, be we can't all be great at everything. What are you really afraid of?
I suspect it's exposure to ethnic groups and socio-economic groups the that have perceived behavioral problems or aren't "serious" students b/c they aren't in the AP classes.
“Perceived” behavioral problems, lmao. Not just perceived but reported to the state.
2022-2023 Offenses
Behaviors that Impede Academic Progress 506
Behaviors related to School Operations 496
Relationship Behaviors without Physical Harm 375
Behaviors of a Safety Concern 204
Behaviors that Endanger the Health, Safety, or Welfare of Self or Others 36
Numbers will go down with the rebounders. I finally got around to watching some of the board meeting and every indication is that they will follow through with a county-wide redraw.
Every indication is that they will attempt to follow through with a county-wide redraw. Whether they succeed in light of the onslaught of pushback that they will get and their inability to predict out more than a year, that is the question. They aren’t going to want to redistrict a school in the name of equity just to have it overcrowded a couple years later.
You and PP are trying so hard to get people riled up over the looming “county-wide redraw” but failing, probably because the last time this came up the obstacles to the School Board pulling this off successfully got aired in some detail. These folks can’t even get one-off boundary changes right, so no one really expects them to try to go for the whole enchilada.
I’m definitely not trying to get anyone riled up. I personally think a county-wide redistricting is a misguided waste of resources and that every school board member who votes for it should lose their job.
That said, I listened to the 2/8 board meeting, and member after member talked a big game (particularly McDaniel). I hope they aren’t crazy enough to try any big redistricting, but they just might. No need to get riled up, but likewise don’t get too complacent if your kids might be impacted.
It's a new board at the beginning of their four-year term. They're allowed, and even perhaps expected, to say some things they walk back later.
The motivation behind the talk of a county-wide redistricting was the desire on the part of some new School Board members to remove and/or insulate themselves from responsibility for boundary changes by suggesting they could just rely on staff or some third party to come up with a county-wide redistricting proposal.
What they will soon realize, if they haven't realized it since 2/8, is that ultimately they will be held accountable for any boundary changes. There is little demand among parents for sweeping changes, and the opposition they would face would be substantial.
Little demand. LOL. Then we should have no complaints about ANY school being overcrowded. Put two students to a desk, split students into morning and afternoon schools in the same building. Do not spend another dollar on expansions. Maintain what we have, because there is no overcrowding issues in FCPS.
Under-enrollment and/or overcrowding at some schools is not the same thing as any significant demand among county residents for a county-wide redistricting. The outreach that FCPS conducted a few years ago suggested just the opposite.
"Some" schools quickly turns into multiples of that figure because solving the overcrowding issues of one building inevitably affects the surrounding pyramids. And as has been discussed by the Board, piecemeal approaches are only band-aids that shift the problem around temporarily.
I don’t like them, but they are right. It makes sense to do boundaries from scratch every so often.
Boundary changes are disruptive, and a county-wide one more so. Therefore it needs to be on a regular but infrequent interval, something like every 25-30 years.
From-scratch boundaries will necessarily leave many many neighborhoods at the same school, but would change the edges of every pyramid.
As to the board being afraid of the blowback, the county is now firmly blue. They have survived recall efforts and triumphed in the last election despite their bungling of the COVID response, using taxpayer funds to buy sexually explicit material for school libraries, ignoring staff recommendations to enact a last minute switcheroo for the Langley/Mclean boundary, wasting money and causing disruption with the Dunn Loring fiasco, and more.
They can be confident that people will suck it up and come back for more. If a few are particularly vulnerable at the next election cycle, they will just step down and bide their time for a future elected position or just work for the party behind the scenes. The new (dem) members will be easily won because they will have no blame for the new boundaries, which—again—will not affect everyone. We could even be looking at a change that leaves 80% of the people where they are and some may be glad to be moved.
I don't see much logic here - just a blanket suggestion that they should redraw all the boundaries every 25-30 years because they can do so with relative impunity.
They shouldn't change boundaries just because they can, but only because there is a clearly articulated and compelling reason to do so, taking into account that people may have chosen where to live in part based on specific programs available at certain schools, whether it's an Academy program, AP, IB, a foreign language sequence, or something else. The reality is that things are different now than when they last did county-wide changes in the mid-1980s, when the degree of standardization when it came to academic programs was far greater than it is today.
And, by the way, the most significant change over the past 50 years when it comes to the School Board is the replacement of a board appointed by the Board of Supervisors with an elected board, which occurred due to dissatisfaction with boundary changes in the 1980s and early 1990s and related school closures. In those cases, as might be the case here, it did not matter that certain recommendations may have originated with staff; the subsequent dissatisfaction was aimed at the board members.
Under enrollment and over enrollment at various schools across the county is a mess. They should redraw as a matter of fiscal responsibility. No unnecessary expansions or new buildings.
We can be sure that with this particular board, they will want to make changes based also on demographics, and that they a where they are wrong.
But the voters chose them, and I am sure that not a single Democrat voter will voice an objection to “equity.”
You seem grumpy and punitive. But, sure, let’s burn the whole house down because you’re in a bad mood.
Silly rabbit, Trix are for kids.
A boundary change for capacity is not a punishment. Boundary changes for “equity,” and in fact curriculum, policies, facilities management et al for “equity” is what the voters chose when they voted for this board.
So which do you want - boundary changes for capacity reasons or boundary changes for “equity”? They aren’t necessarily the same thing and in fact could be at cross-purposes. Either way the criteria should be clearly defined with changes made only when truly necessary.
Do not that “equity” does not mean bussing for diversity, which is now controversial due to many communities of color not wanting to be bussed to schools farther away and also due to the current legal climate. Equity is more about offerings (academic and extra curricular) at every school. It also concerns equity among facilities, a point the Falls Church HS community brought up for years prior to its renovation.
So articulated, county-wide redistricting would do little to advance equity goals, as it would move students around without focusing on differences in programs or disparities in facilities.
Right. New boundaries would have nothing to do with equity.
Anonymous wrote:This begins and ends with uneven housing policies that already created winners and losers. Now let’s finish what we started and solidify the school boundaries.
$$$$$$
Ha. WE didn’t start anything. The board members certainly didn’t run on this platform when they were running for the board last year.
You’re like the extreme left fringe’s hype-man.
+100
Exactly. I only tune in to this forum to see how many threads the nutty PP is spamming with her desperate insistence that the SB is going to do a district-wide boundary change. It's so entertaining to count how often she makes this claim.
DP
This thread is for Herndon HS parents to respond. You can talk about boundaries in another thread or the others that were recently discussed Glasgow etc.
Forum Index
»
Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS)
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}