School Boundaries and "One Fairfax"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TJ is long overdue for the use of creative mechanisms other than quotas for bringing in a more diverse population. It has to happen. No reasonable person could support the status quo.

I think TJ would be glad to hear specific ideas from you. TJ and TJ students and TJPF and FCPS is moving heaven and Earth to diversify TJ. Including community outreach and working with the JK Cook foundation to mentor promising low SES kids and instituting Young Scholars as a pipeline to AAP, which is a pipeline to TJ. But they can’t seem to move the needle. Here’s reality— it takes years of living in a home environment that is highly supportive of education and provides a lot of enrichment to get into TJ, and the whole family has to sacrifice and support the kid to make it work once the kid is there. With pure merit based admissions, it has proven impossible to overcome a kid living in a family that isn’t focused on academic success from a young age. And even then, 15% to 20% of a class won’t make it through. TJ is an unforgiving and kids who aren’t qualified won’t make it very far.

So, in all seriousness, if you have a suggestion to get lower SES kids in the door, please share it.

+1000

The added reality is that low SES kids tend to have parents that work 2 jobs to just make ends meet. They simply cannot put in the extra effort to give their kids the extra economic advantages that High SES kids have. But I think that there is a solution.

Honestly, Fairfax County is partially there. I say this, because I really mean partially there.

Most kids in the summer go to summer camps or enrichment. Those that can afford it, pay $$$$/week for their kids to get into the competitive programs and pay for the testing to enter into said programs. Low SES kids do not-- and if they do, it's usually REC-PAC. REC-PAC is $50/week for low SES, but they don't actually teach the kid anything. If kids were taught things (instead of just crafts) we would have a better time with the issues of summer slump and making the difference between low and high SES less.

My solution: get education majors to teach over the summer. This wouldn't interfere with their studies, could be applied to their experience quota, and would be an efficiacious in helping the kids learn extra for the new year. Open up REC-PAC for pre-kindergarten kids in schools with 10% or more low SES for this very reason and allow for the low-SES pay a low amount for this. And if the schools actually reached out to these parents to explain to them the low cost and educational benefit, you could do a long term study on closing the gap. Pay for the summer teachers. And see the data after five years.

I honestly think that the achievement gap would be closed by true year round school for low SES. In fact, if we just had year long school all of the time, it would be way better. But no one will want to pay for that.

[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.

Busing works. It's weird, but a lot of people say it doesn't, it did:

Research shows that school desegregation — often including “busing” — helped black students in the long run.
https://chalkbeat.org/posts/us/2019/07/01/busing-for-school-integration-succeed-work-research/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Let’s be clear here. There are definitely alternatives to Langley for kids in Great Falls. They would just require more extensive redistricting than you want to see undertaken.

Langley always gets favored treatment, whether it’s the creation of boundaries that stretch across the entire county yet manage to include no apartments, or an expansion that was added when the school’s enrollment was declining.

[Anonymous]

Langley always gets favored treatment, whether it’s the creation of boundaries that stretch across the entire county yet manage to include no apartments, or an expansion that was added when the school’s enrollment was declining.

No. Langley did not get favored treatment. The only illogical neighborhoods that attend Langley are on the Herndon side of Rt 7. It was the builder's side of Rt 7. But, why did SB approve those/ Likely pressure from BOS because of the tax revenue that it generated. And, Langley had the space.

It was the builders that got favored treatment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Langley always gets favored treatment, whether it’s the creation of boundaries that stretch across the entire county yet manage to include no apartments, or an expansion that was added when the school’s enrollment was declining.

No. Langley did not get favored treatment. The only illogical neighborhoods that attend Langley are on the Herndon side of Rt 7. It was the builder's side of Rt 7. But, why did SB approve those/ Likely pressure from BOS because of the tax revenue that it generated. And, Langley had the space.

It was the builders that got favored treatment.

Herndon is overcrowded anyway.

Doesn't seem illogical to zone those neighborhoods for Langley if they can handle the afterschool and before school trips. I'm sure the builders were familiar with the school renovation schedule.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Langley always gets favored treatment, whether it’s the creation of boundaries that stretch across the entire county yet manage to include no apartments, or an expansion that was added when the school’s enrollment was declining.

No. Langley did not get favored treatment. The only illogical neighborhoods that attend Langley are on the Herndon side of Rt 7. It was the builder's side of Rt 7. But, why did SB approve those/ Likely pressure from BOS because of the tax revenue that it generated. And, Langley had the space.

It was the builders that got favored treatment.

Semantics.

[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?

I can explain this. The mandate is that all renovations include expanded capacity. Doesn't matter the population and what the projections look like. The folks above us are so afraid of making a boundary change that they would rather spend the money that isn't necessarily needed to avoid backlash. It is almost an insurance policy if that makes sense?

One example, a project I worked on with many others was the West Springfield renovation. We knew the expanded capacity would fix things somewhat, but the renovation would have been cheaper if we didn't include the expanded capacity and conducted a reassignment (that included sending a feeder to Lake Braddock and a feeder/split feeder to Lee). What happened was the exact opposite. We were told to move more kids into the zone to help justify the expansion despite the cost. We had good data, it was disregarded, but the people who run FCPS and the Board are terrified of you all parents. The goal is to avoid backlash.

Like I said, this thread (which someone is probably reading) is a perfect example of the drama and hysterics that arise when we talk about boundary changes.

[Anonymous]

Would you just go ahead and balance the enrollments at Langley and McLean? It’s not rocket science, and all the talk about “pushback” doesn’t seem relevant when we’re talking about getting kids out of trailers. Thanks!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Would you just go ahead and balance the enrollments at Langley and McLean? It’s not rocket science, and all the talk about “pushback” doesn’t seem relevant when we’re talking about getting kids out of trailers. Thanks!

Honestly, I think that is a fine idea but it is not getting traction because on the other side of the county, Herndon is overcrowded and needs relief. Oakton is not great either, fwiw. And we just finished Justice's expansion but looking at the elementary data, it will be incredibly overcrowded. Falls Church is coming up on a reno but I can guarantee that there is going to be a capacity expansion baked into the project.

Truthfully, I wish the people we work for would listen to us and accept that we need that Western High School and a pretty large boundary change across a big part of the county. I know it is upsetting, I know your home values reflect your assigned school, but I wish the system would actually focus on running it efficiently and effectively and less on upsetting people.

I do have to say it was really hard to get South County off the ground. It took years of pointing out population trends, overcrowded, etc. But when we got the school and did the redistricting schools like Robinson, Lake Braddock and Hayfield are now not bursting at the seams (even though they are by design large secondary schools). It was a difficult effort, leaders were willing to take the heat, and there were many "deals" to satisfy groups that were angry and making a lot of noise. I imagine the Western High School effort will follow a similar tack.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Langley always gets favored treatment, whether it’s the creation of boundaries that stretch across the entire county yet manage to include no apartments, or an expansion that was added when the school’s enrollment was declining.

No. Langley did not get favored treatment. The only illogical neighborhoods that attend Langley are on the Herndon side of Rt 7. It was the builder's side of Rt 7. But, why did SB approve those/ Likely pressure from BOS because of the tax revenue that it generated. And, Langley had the space.

It was the builders that got favored treatment.

Semantics.

Langley residents have fought apartments for years. The recent fight over the sunrise living that would have generated no traffic and took up a year's worth of everyone's time was just an example of the ridiculousness of their arguments over the years. Herndon has more apartments because the BOS didn't want to fight Mclean and Langley residents. Lets put some apartments now in Great Falls. Even things out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Langley always gets favored treatment, whether it’s the creation of boundaries that stretch across the entire county yet manage to include no apartments, or an expansion that was added when the school’s enrollment was declining.

No. Langley did not get favored treatment. The only illogical neighborhoods that attend Langley are on the Herndon side of Rt 7. It was the builder's side of Rt 7. But, why did SB approve those/ Likely pressure from BOS because of the tax revenue that it generated. And, Langley had the space.

It was the builders that got favored treatment.

Semantics.

Langley residents have fought apartments for years. The recent fight over the sunrise living that would have generated no traffic and took up a year's worth of everyone's time was just an example of the ridiculousness of their arguments over the years. Herndon has more apartments because the BOS didn't want to fight Mclean and Langley residents. Lets put some apartments now in Great Falls. Even things out.

Honestly, Langley and McLean could use some affordable housing. And some decent shopping centers. And perhaps some road expansion. Sunrise would be fine so that people in their 1 mill homes can move to the same neighborhood and let their kids live in their mcmansions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Langley always gets favored treatment, whether it’s the creation of boundaries that stretch across the entire county yet manage to include no apartments, or an expansion that was added when the school’s enrollment was declining.

No. Langley did not get favored treatment. The only illogical neighborhoods that attend Langley are on the Herndon side of Rt 7. It was the builder's side of Rt 7. But, why did SB approve those/ Likely pressure from BOS because of the tax revenue that it generated. And, Langley had the space.

It was the builders that got favored treatment.

Semantics.

Langley residents have fought apartments for years. The recent fight over the sunrise living that would have generated no traffic and took up a year's worth of everyone's time was just an example of the ridiculousness of their arguments over the years. Herndon has more apartments because the BOS didn't want to fight Mclean and Langley residents. Lets put some apartments now in Great Falls. Even things out.

That won't be happening.

You did make me laugh, though.

[Anonymous]

In a few years when Langley will be overenrolled because they moved McLean kids to Langley, and Herndon will be underenrolled due the renovations they are planning. This is all silly to argue about now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Langley always gets favored treatment, whether it’s the creation of boundaries that stretch across the entire county yet manage to include no apartments, or an expansion that was added when the school’s enrollment was declining.

No. Langley did not get favored treatment. The only illogical neighborhoods that attend Langley are on the Herndon side of Rt 7. It was the builder's side of Rt 7. But, why did SB approve those/ Likely pressure from BOS because of the tax revenue that it generated. And, Langley had the space.

It was the builders that got favored treatment.

Semantics.

Langley residents have fought apartments for years. The recent fight over the sunrise living that would have generated no traffic and took up a year's worth of everyone's time was just an example of the ridiculousness of their arguments over the years. Herndon has more apartments because the BOS didn't want to fight Mclean and Langley residents. Lets put some apartments now in Great Falls. Even things out.

Honestly, Langley and McLean could use some affordable housing. And some decent shopping centers. And perhaps some road expansion. Sunrise would be fine so that people in their 1 mill homes can move to the same neighborhood and let their kids live in their mcmansions.

New complexes in Tysons with over a certain number of units all have AH set-asides. All those apartments feed into Marshall and McLean. None currently go to Langley.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In a few years when Langley will be overenrolled because they moved McLean kids to Langley, and Herndon will be underenrolled due the renovations they are planning. This is all silly to argue about now.

Insider here. Not true, though they probably should move McLean and Marshall feeders to Langley. Herndon will look a lot like Justice. When you look at elementary projections, the schools even with an addition will likely be a few hundred over capacity (and we are talking about 2,600 kids here at capacity).

I am giving up on this thread. People want to complain and dicker about Langley but the problem is much bigger. It's not as bad as Arlington (though I work with people who worked there and had horror stories), but if that is what people want, there isn't much for someone like me who works in a cubicle analyzing population data and putting them into spreadsheets is going to do to convince you all that you're short sighted, you're wrong and you are probably hurting your own children because these huge schools, while they provide some benefits) are problematic on many levels.

Continue fighting about nonsense...