FCPS HS Boundary

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: The one that makes the most sense out of all the elementary schools geographically is Keene Mill, which would also bring an AAP center to the Lewis pyramid.

This would take KMES from a part of a walkable pyramid to a 100% bussing HS connection. It would be terrible on multiple fronts, and the KMES boundary is a huge portion of WSHS's non-white demographic, which would be a huge step backward for WSHS.

Keene Mill busses to WSHS.

Honestly, though, there are empty classrooms at WSHS and zero trailers.

How does that justify emergency rezoning when there is plenty of space at that high school?

[Anonymous]

Keene could do irving to Lewis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

After what happened with LCPS and Youngkin, reminding parents where there is a state wide election is going to be part of the GOP playbook. Sure you can't vote against the board, but you can punish their party

Correct. For that reason I think they will pass the new boundary policy as quickly as possible, then stay quiet until December when they will suddenly pop up a board meeting item with a fully-formed new map ready for voting.

And people pissed off about it in December will get another reminder when school starts in the fall and then they can vote republican that November

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
It backfires because it leads to a few higher SES schools that border lower SES school taking the brunt of the burden of balancing while the wealthier schools stay the same. The farms rate in the county is out of control and going to get worse thanks to the county board welcoming affordable housing as fast as it can be build. All of that housing is concentrated in a few regions. Even the 'good schools' in those regions are now high farms. Meanwhile, neighboring schools have negligible farms rates

You are correct that the party in control of the county is one of the big reasons that the FARMs rate is skyrocketing, and their "solution" of spreading it out is going to lead to pain for everyone, in particular those students with high potential. Not to mention a big hit to property tax income as a lot of very expensive houses drop in value by 25%, which they will have to make up for by raising property and sales taxes, further burdening the poor.

The best thing to do is concentrate the failing students in a small number of schools, so their needs can be focused on without impacting students who actually want to learn. Let the high potential students transfer out to AAP/Honors/etc. centers elsewhere. The goal should be to make most of Fairfax county a great place to live, work, and learn, rather than making the whole of the county mediocre.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

After what happened with LCPS and Youngkin, reminding parents where there is a state wide election is going to be part of the GOP playbook. Sure you can't vote against the board, but you can punish their party

Correct. For that reason I think they will pass the new boundary policy as quickly as possible, then stay quiet until December when they will suddenly pop up a board meeting item with a fully-formed new map ready for voting.

And people pissed off about it in December will get another reminder when school starts in the fall and then they can vote republican that November

The things that really piss people off linger so the exact timing becomes less important. Closing Clifton ES left a bad taste for a long time and ensured Elizabeth Schultz’s election in 2011. Unwanted boundary changes may well have the same effect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It backfires because it leads to a few higher SES schools that border lower SES school taking the brunt of the burden of balancing while the wealthier schools stay the same. The farms rate in the county is out of control and going to get worse thanks to the county board welcoming affordable housing as fast as it can be build. All of that housing is concentrated in a few regions. Even the 'good schools' in those regions are now high farms. Meanwhile, neighboring schools have negligible farms rates

You are correct that the party in control of the county is one of the big reasons that the FARMs rate is skyrocketing, and their "solution" of spreading it out is going to lead to pain for everyone, in particular those students with high potential. Not to mention a big hit to property tax income as a lot of very expensive houses drop in value by 25%, which they will have to make up for by raising property and sales taxes, further burdening the poor.

The best thing to do is concentrate the failing students in a small number of schools, so their needs can be focused on without impacting students who actually want to learn. Let the high potential students transfer out to AAP/Honors/etc. centers elsewhere. The goal should be to make most of Fairfax county a great place to live, work, and learn, rather than making the whole of the county mediocre.

But isn't that equity?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It backfires because it leads to a few higher SES schools that border lower SES school taking the brunt of the burden of balancing while the wealthier schools stay the same. The farms rate in the county is out of control and going to get worse thanks to the county board welcoming affordable housing as fast as it can be build. All of that housing is concentrated in a few regions. Even the 'good schools' in those regions are now high farms. Meanwhile, neighboring schools have negligible farms rates

You are correct that the party in control of the county is one of the big reasons that the FARMs rate is skyrocketing, and their "solution" of spreading it out is going to lead to pain for everyone, in particular those students with high potential. Not to mention a big hit to property tax income as a lot of very expensive houses drop in value by 25%, which they will have to make up for by raising property and sales taxes, further burdening the poor.

The best thing to do is concentrate the failing students in a small number of schools, so their needs can be focused on without impacting students who actually want to learn. Let the high potential students transfer out to AAP/Honors/etc. centers elsewhere. The goal should be to make most of Fairfax county a great place to live, work, and learn, rather than making the whole of the county mediocre.

Fairfax just elected a 12-0 Democratic School Board and a 9-1 Board of Supervisors committed to "One Fairfax." Coming on here and arguing that they should concentrate "failing students" in "failing schools" is antithetical to that - it's something they may have done in practice, perhaps inadvertently, but it's certainly not something they've espoused.

If you want to derail the redistricting train, I'd suggest the following:

1. Point out that very few schools are overcrowded to the extent that FCPS has traditionally said warrant boundary changes;

2. Point out that very few of their constituents are asking for boundary changes and that their own hired consultants found in a survey that few families wanted them;

3. Emphasize how much you like your current schools and took specific schools into account when buying/renting your current residences;

4. Challenge the latest CIP projections, which suspiciously reflect big swings in projections (compared to the preceding CIP) at certain schools like Herndon, Lewis, and Langley;

5. Focus on how much FCPS has changed - in terms of the variety of programs offered at different schools - since the last county-wide redistricting, which adds a whole layer of complexity that didn't exist decades ago when they did the last county-wide redistricting;

6. Note that FCPS needs to release an updated renovation queue before moving kids based largely on projects completed or planned based on an outdate queue that's now over 15 years old; and

7. Point out that, regardless of whether they purport to change boundaries based on recommendations from FCPS staff or a third-party consultant, the School Board members themselves ultimately decide and will be held accountable for their decisions.

Of course, we may make these arguments and still get blown off, but at least we'd be appealing to their better selves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It backfires because it leads to a few higher SES schools that border lower SES school taking the brunt of the burden of balancing while the wealthier schools stay the same. The farms rate in the county is out of control and going to get worse thanks to the county board welcoming affordable housing as fast as it can be build. All of that housing is concentrated in a few regions. Even the 'good schools' in those regions are now high farms. Meanwhile, neighboring schools have negligible farms rates

You are correct that the party in control of the county is one of the big reasons that the FARMs rate is skyrocketing, and their "solution" of spreading it out is going to lead to pain for everyone, in particular those students with high potential. Not to mention a big hit to property tax income as a lot of very expensive houses drop in value by 25%, which they will have to make up for by raising property and sales taxes, further burdening the poor.

The best thing to do is concentrate the failing students in a small number of schools, so their needs can be focused on without impacting students who actually want to learn. Let the high potential students transfer out to AAP/Honors/etc. centers elsewhere. The goal should be to make most of Fairfax county a great place to live, work, and learn, rather than making the whole of the county mediocre.

But isn't that equity?

No. Equity is giving each kid what he or she or they need to be a successful adult. It isn’t the same for all. It also isn’t getting a whole bunch of kids who don’t need much support to hide the ones who do.

[Anonymous]

I understand some families being upset if rezoning puts them underwater on their mortgage. Anybody would be upset by that.

Our school got rezoned when I was in high school, and they only grandfathered the seniors. It turned out okay, because they moved a LOT of kids. Everybody kept a good core group of friends. It’s actually better to go big than to nibble around the edges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I understand some families being upset if rezoning puts them underwater on their mortgage. Anybody would be upset by that.

Our school got rezoned when I was in high school, and they only grandfathered the seniors. It turned out okay, because they moved a LOT of kids. Everybody kept a good core group of friends. It’s actually better to go big than to nibble around the edges.

They will face massive blowback if they do not grandfather all the kids already attending a high school. And rightly so. No one elected them to “go big” on boundaries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
But isn't that equity?

No. Equity, as defined by the leftist in charge here, is where the government ensures equal outcomes, which they achieve by driving everyone towards the same mediocrity. Equality is giving everyone an even playing field and realizing that not everyone will succeed to the same level.

We wouldn't say we want health equity where everyone has a cold - we recognize that most people are usually healthy but some people are really sick, so we concentrate those people in hospitals because that's where the doctors and specialists are. We don't send surgeons around to every house.

We wouldn't say we want crime equity where everyone is subjected to the same level of violent crime - we concentrate the violent criminals in prisons because that's where the guards are.

Some kids need to be in an intensive ELL environment. Some kids need to be in a far more structured disciplinary environment. Some kids have severe learning disabilities. Rather than spreading underperforming kids out, and putting those specialists and resources everywhere - not to mention the extra expense as well as the impact of reduced attention on higher-acheiving kids - they would be best served by concentrating them where the specialists are. Yes, it might cost more to bus them around, but bus drivers are cheap compared to learning specialists, and in a decade the buses will drive themselves and be solar powered anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
But isn't that equity?

No. Equity, as defined by the leftist in charge here, is where the government ensures equal outcomes, which they achieve by driving everyone towards the same mediocrity. Equality is giving everyone an even playing field and realizing that not everyone will succeed to the same level.

We wouldn't say we want health equity where everyone has a cold - we recognize that most people are usually healthy but some people are really sick, so we concentrate those people in hospitals because that's where the doctors and specialists are. We don't send surgeons around to every house.

We wouldn't say we want crime equity where everyone is subjected to the same level of violent crime - we concentrate the violent criminals in prisons because that's where the guards are.

Some kids need to be in an intensive ELL environment. Some kids need to be in a far more structured disciplinary environment. Some kids have severe learning disabilities. Rather than spreading underperforming kids out, and putting those specialists and resources everywhere - not to mention the extra expense as well as the impact of reduced attention on higher-acheiving kids - they would be best served by concentrating them where the specialists are. Yes, it might cost more to bus them around, but bus drivers are cheap compared to learning specialists, and in a decade the buses will drive themselves and be solar powered anyway.

The analogies here are crass and the fact that you make them will increase the SB’s zeal to send your kids to a re-education camp (a more diverse school with plenty of SEL training).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
But isn't that equity?

No. Equity, as defined by the leftist in charge here, is where the government ensures equal outcomes, which they achieve by driving everyone towards the same mediocrity. Equality is giving everyone an even playing field and realizing that not everyone will succeed to the same level.

We wouldn't say we want health equity where everyone has a cold - we recognize that most people are usually healthy but some people are really sick, so we concentrate those people in hospitals because that's where the doctors and specialists are. We don't send surgeons around to every house.

We wouldn't say we want crime equity where everyone is subjected to the same level of violent crime - we concentrate the violent criminals in prisons because that's where the guards are.

Some kids need to be in an intensive ELL environment. Some kids need to be in a far more structured disciplinary environment. Some kids have severe learning disabilities. Rather than spreading underperforming kids out, and putting those specialists and resources everywhere - not to mention the extra expense as well as the impact of reduced attention on higher-acheiving kids - they would be best served by concentrating them where the specialists are. Yes, it might cost more to bus them around, but bus drivers are cheap compared to learning specialists, and in a decade the buses will drive themselves and be solar powered anyway.

Siloing everyone doesn’t work either. You could have ESL students who qualify for AAP and have IEPs. The populations overlap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Keene could do irving to Lewis.

That will never happen. It all needs to stay in the same region. And the split feeder middle wouldn’t be ideal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
But isn't that equity?

No. Equity, as defined by the leftist in charge here, is where the government ensures equal outcomes, which they achieve by driving everyone towards the same mediocrity. Equality is giving everyone an even playing field and realizing that not everyone will succeed to the same level.

We wouldn't say we want health equity where everyone has a cold - we recognize that most people are usually healthy but some people are really sick, so we concentrate those people in hospitals because that's where the doctors and specialists are. We don't send surgeons around to every house.

We wouldn't say we want crime equity where everyone is subjected to the same level of violent crime - we concentrate the violent criminals in prisons because that's where the guards are.

Some kids need to be in an intensive ELL environment. Some kids need to be in a far more structured disciplinary environment. Some kids have severe learning disabilities. Rather than spreading underperforming kids out, and putting those specialists and resources everywhere - not to mention the extra expense as well as the impact of reduced attention on higher-acheiving kids - they would be best served by concentrating them where the specialists are. Yes, it might cost more to bus them around, but bus drivers are cheap compared to learning specialists, and in a decade the buses will drive themselves and be solar powered anyway.

Siloing everyone doesn’t work either. You could have ESL students who qualify for AAP and have IEPs. The populations overlap.

Only when those factors are used as benchmarks when looking at AAP applications. In absence of scoring based on equity, household income is one of the the best predictors of academic success. FARMs rates is the best predictor of school test scores.