FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[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.

Where can I find the results of this first study? When was it done? I'd like to see the information.

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/C9L3KJ073EA6/$file/MGT%20Boundary%20Policy%20Presentation.pdf

Of particular note:

Page 27: #1 reason respondents picked their current residence was to have kids attend a particular base schoool

Page 33: Highest priority to address overcrowding should be the construction of addition or additional facilities on school grounds

Page 34: Highest priority to address under-enrolled schools should be program modifications rather than boundary changes

Page 36: When boundary changes are being made, "balance" to reflect county-wide demographics and elminating attendance islands are low priorities

Page 37: Highest priority for implementation of boundary changes is grandfathering of students within existing pyramid

FCPS was desperately hoping the #1 conclusion would be “to further racial equity.” When that did not happen, they buried the results of the study they paid for (with our tax dollars).

No doubt. Their hired experts said that the best practice is to have "stability" as one of the core tenets of any boundary policy, and the survey results confirmed that this is what the school board's constituents wanted. Then, because they know best and have their own agenda, the school board revised the boundary policy and did not make stability one of the four tenets.

[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.

Where can I find the results of this first study? When was it done? I'd like to see the information.

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/C9L3KJ073EA6/$file/MGT%20Boundary%20Policy%20Presentation.pdf

Of particular note:

Page 27: #1 reason respondents picked their current residence was to have kids attend a particular base schoool

Page 33: Highest priority to address overcrowding should be the construction of addition or additional facilities on school grounds

Page 34: Highest priority to address under-enrolled schools should be program modifications rather than boundary changes

Page 36: When boundary changes are being made, "balance" to reflect county-wide demographics and elminating attendance islands are low priorities

Page 37: Highest priority for implementation of boundary changes is grandfathering of students within existing pyramid

FCPS was desperately hoping the #1 conclusion would be “to further racial equity.” When that did not happen, they buried the results of the study they paid for (with our tax dollars).

It's not like the questions that the prior consultant (MGT Consulting) asked weren't leading, but they still got feedback that should have made clear parents generally favor alternatives to boundary changes.

Now they've hired a new consultant (Thru Consulting) that is even less objective and more committed to coming up with whatever Reid and the School Board members want to justify boundary changes in return for collecting a fat check. They coordinate a bunch of "community meetings" and then selectively summarize the feedback to support the pre-existing agenda. It's a sham, but they know why they are getting paid.

It's not really how a school system committed to education should conduct business, but it helps when you realize that the School Board isn't really a group of people who care about education so much as the minor league training grounds for one political party.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

#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.

DP.

FCPS - which is admittedly an enormous school system - employs exactly ONE person tasked with residency enforcement. One (1) person.

As for the approved methods that FCPS employee uses, why don’t you do your homework, PP, instead of building straw-man arguments like you did in your post?

So you are happy with the current methods, you just think they are understaffed. How much do you want to spend on staffing up residency enforcement, and what are the estimates for how much will be saved?

How many students attend FCPS schools while living in neighboring jurisdictions?

Oh wait: FCPS has no idea because they do not want to find out. My guess is as good as anyone’s guess and I guess 25%; prove me wrong.

I only have two kids and I personally know of 4 who live outside of the county.

[Anonymous]

Thats $80,000 right there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Where can I find the results of this first study? When was it done? I'd like to see the information.

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/C9L3KJ073EA6/$file/MGT%20Boundary%20Policy%20Presentation.pdf

Of particular note:

Page 27: #1 reason respondents picked their current residence was to have kids attend a particular base schoool

Page 33: Highest priority to address overcrowding should be the construction of addition or additional facilities on school grounds

Page 34: Highest priority to address under-enrolled schools should be program modifications rather than boundary changes

Page 36: When boundary changes are being made, "balance" to reflect county-wide demographics and elminating attendance islands are low priorities

Page 37: Highest priority for implementation of boundary changes is grandfathering of students within existing pyramid

FCPS was desperately hoping the #1 conclusion would be “to further racial equity.” When that did not happen, they buried the results of the study they paid for (with our tax dollars).

It's not like the questions that the prior consultant (MGT Consulting) asked weren't leading, but they still got feedback that should have made clear parents generally favor alternatives to boundary changes.

Now they've hired a new consultant (Thru Consulting) that is even less objective and more committed to coming up with whatever Reid and the School Board members want to justify boundary changes in return for collecting a fat check. They coordinate a bunch of "community meetings" and then selectively summarize the feedback to support the pre-existing agenda. It's a sham, but they know why they are getting paid.

It's not really how a school system committed to education should conduct business, but it helps when you realize that the School Board isn't really a group of people who care about education so much as the minor league training grounds for one political party.

The beauty of these community meetings (for the SB) is that the school board is not required to do anything with the input they get from the meetings. They are checking the box that they provided notice, but nothing in their revised policy requires them to take any of the input into account. These 24 or 48 meetings they have planned are a waste of time and money. If they aren't going to listen to their hired consultants, why would they listen to a bunch of parents?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

#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.

DP.

FCPS - which is admittedly an enormous school system - employs exactly ONE person tasked with residency enforcement. One (1) person.

As for the approved methods that FCPS employee uses, why don’t you do your homework, PP, instead of building straw-man arguments like you did in your post?

So you are happy with the current methods, you just think they are understaffed. How much do you want to spend on staffing up residency enforcement, and what are the estimates for how much will be saved?

How many students attend FCPS schools while living in neighboring jurisdictions?

Oh wait: FCPS has no idea because they do not want to find out. My guess is as good as anyone’s guess and I guess 25%; prove me wrong.

Elementary school:
Residency enforcement should not be that hard. First, the parent presents the address. The registrar cannot know for sure what the situation is, but there should be some red flags--ex. a pediatrician who works in Woodbridge or Gainesville might be a red flag.
At the first faculty meeting, the principal might mention that if a teacher senses there is somehting unusual about where the child lives, to let the registrar know.
Other parents are quick to squeal. If a parent does, it is not that hard to ask why they think that. Administration does not have to share information with the parent, but should refer the case to the investigator.
Chidren also share information about other kids. "Oh, Larla isn't here today because her mom couldn't bring her......"

Middle and High school: if someone reports it, then it should be investigated Pay special attention to sports' teams.
It's a little more difficult at that level to get squealers.

Today with cell phones rather than residential phones, it is a little more difficult to verify.

[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.

Residency checks are common in many districts.

You show a utility bill or lease when you pick up your kids MS or HS schedule, or bring it to back to school night when the elementary kids drop off school supplies and meet their teacher.

The receptionist then plugs your street address into the FCPS school boundary software available to anyone online, which confirms you are at the correct school.

It takes a few seconds to enter the address and get a school assignment.

No match, send them off to the correct school to register.

https://boundary.fcps.edu/boundary/

People who are cheating the system know they are cheating the system.

Put this check in place at transitional grades, and people will stop doing it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

Good lord you have reading comprehension issues. I'd like it if the school board reps actually, you know, represented their constituents... not selectively represented a small minority community of them.

Got it, so you just want to listen to the equity warriors in the district. Only follow the will of your constituents when it suits your agenda. 🤡

[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?

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.

Where can I find the results of this first study? When was it done? I'd like to see the information.

The first two-three pages of this thread has around a dozen posts with links to critical boundary policy information, including the original boundary work.

The posts are bulleted with titles, provide links, and in the case of videos, time stamped.

Go back and read the first two-three pages.

The information is right there in this thread, easy to locate and access.

The work is done for you.

You just need to skim the first 2-3 pages and follow the links

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OK, so ensuring 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 no longer "criminal", but now it is "fluff"?

Your ill-considered opinions are the only "fluff" that needs to be cut.

How has minority student achievement improved since FCPS started the equity office and made One Fairfax the governing policy of the district?

I will give you a hint. It hasn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

#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.

DP.

FCPS - which is admittedly an enormous school system - employs exactly ONE person tasked with residency enforcement. One (1) person.

As for the approved methods that FCPS employee uses, why don’t you do your homework, PP, instead of building straw-man arguments like you did in your post?

So you are happy with the current methods, you just think they are understaffed. How much do you want to spend on staffing up residency enforcement, and what are the estimates for how much will be saved?

Move half the equity office to biundary checks.

[Anonymous]

How many students attend FCPS schools while living in neighboring jurisdictions?

Oh wait: FCPS has no idea because they do not want to find out. My guess is as good as anyone’s guess and I guess 25%; prove me wrong.


Are we really employing the "let's deport the criminal migrants! its all their fault!" tactic here at the local level now? Wow. I mean, I guess it worked for you guys so you do you, but this is nutty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

Good lord you have reading comprehension issues. I'd like it if the school board reps actually, you know, represented their constituents... not selectively represented a small minority community of them.

Got it, so you just want to listen to the equity warriors in the district. Only follow the will of your constituents when it suits your agenda. 🤡

DP, but if I were paraphrasing your post it would be: "Got it, anyone who doesn't always prioritize the interests of Great Falls over everyone else in Dranesville must be an 'equity warrior'."

[Anonymous]

FCPS employs only ONE (1) person tasked with “boundary compliance.”

One.

It is painfully obvious that Reid, the SB, and Gatehouse are happy to spend your tax-dollars educating kids who live in surrounding districts, but whose parents contribute ZERO to funding FCPS.

Why does FCPS encourage this type of cheating / fraud ?

[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.

Where can I find the results of this first study? When was it done? I'd like to see the information.

The first two-three pages of this thread has around a dozen posts with links to critical boundary policy information, including the original boundary work.

The posts are bulleted with titles, provide links, and in the case of videos, time stamped.

Go back and read the first two-three pages.

The information is right there in this thread, easy to locate and access.

The work is done for you.

You just need to skim the first 2-3 pages and follow the links

To be fair, I don't think any of those links go to the MGT Boundary Study Report. FCPS seems to not be relying on that or linking to it any more.