FCPS HS Boundary

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It will be very interesting when they take the kids with IEP's and kids who are ELLs and behavior problems out of WSHS and concentrate them somewhere else. If you think people are upset now, just wait. FCPS will not have a chance of winning the ensuing civil rights lawsuit. All federal money for those kids will be pulled in a heartbeat. And it's not a small sum of money. Your house value will definitely go down when your property taxes get jacked up.

what PP suggested is illegal at the state and federal level, but even if federal per pupil funding was pulled, the county would end up better off because the amount of money needed to educate those kids is more than the feds provide

You're saying it's illegal to have kids with special needs go to separate schools where they can receive focused attention? Someone better tell Key, Kilmer, Bryant, Mountain View, Cedar Lane, Quander Road, etc etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It will be very interesting when they take the kids with IEP's and kids who are ELLs and behavior problems out of WSHS and concentrate them somewhere else. If you think people are upset now, just wait. FCPS will not have a chance of winning the ensuing civil rights lawsuit. All federal money for those kids will be pulled in a heartbeat. And it's not a small sum of money. Your house value will definitely go down when your property taxes get jacked up.

what PP suggested is illegal at the state and federal level, but even if federal per pupil funding was pulled, the county would end up better off because the amount of money needed to educate those kids is more than the feds provide

I taught in a school where they experimented with putting ALL the ESOL kids in one class. That teacher had a terrible year. Terrible. Then got fired.

[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.

FCPS provides instruction in English. If kids don't know the language then they won't be able to follow any other classes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Was just at the governance meeting and I can assure you that extremely limited grandfathering is the plan.

They discussed seniors being grandfathered, eighth graders being grandfathered, and six graders being grandfathered and that’s it. One proposed making it juniors and seniors. One proposed maybe 7th and 8th grade, none said freshmen and sophomores. The board member proposing it said that she was just at a business roundabout and that the business leaders told her that Fairfax county kids were soft. She seems to want to limit grandfathering to toughen them up.

Ironically, the board member who suggested it had spoken twenty minutes before about the need to have certain redistricting occur at the staff level without a school board vote because of the intense negative public reaction her predecessor had received. It was a weird split screen.

Good luck with that. They will have to vote on it and there will be blowback. The County Board will then have to vote to fund it and there will be blowback there too.

The weird thing with this group is that they are mostly new and haven't really dealt with an issue before where a significant number of parents showed up at a public hearing to challenge or criticize them.

And now they are taking on one of the most controversial things that a school board touches - attendance boundaries - and going about it in a way that is maximizing public anxiety by talking about county-wide changes (which might affect only a limited number of boundaries in total, but still...) and limited grandfathering, even at the high school level where continuity is most important

Either they are masochists or they have no idea what they are going to be dealing with later. And if the criticism is fierce enough, the Board of Supervisors and other local elected officials won't hesitate for a second to throw them under a bus. Kind of like what they're apparently getting ready to do to our kids.

Yeah, this is all why I can’t fathom any of it actually happening.

Yeah, well reading over that document, the superintendent can move 15% of a student body at will. I mean you get a newspaper article in the paper, 7 days later hold a hearing to “hear” and then do what you want:

btain public comment through a public hearing not less than seven days after reasonable notice to the public in a newspaper of general circulation in the school division prior to providing (i) for the consolidation of schools...(iii)...for redistricting of school boundaries or adopting any pupil assignment plan affecting the assignment of 15 percent or more of the pupils in average daily membership in the affected school

That is the VA law quoted, and how they will ram it through. Im guessing none of them care about reelection.

The school board is exaggerating the numbers for WSHS in order to get the elementary schools unders that 15% threshold.

They also removed total attendance for WSHS from the transfer dashboard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It will be very interesting when they take the kids with IEP's and kids who are ELLs and behavior problems out of WSHS and concentrate them somewhere else. If you think people are upset now, just wait. FCPS will not have a chance of winning the ensuing civil rights lawsuit. All federal money for those kids will be pulled in a heartbeat. And it's not a small sum of money. Your house value will definitely go down when your property taxes get jacked up.

what PP suggested is illegal at the state and federal level, but even if federal per pupil funding was pulled, the county would end up better off because the amount of money needed to educate those kids is more than the feds provide

I taught in a school where they experimented with putting ALL the ESOL kids in one class. That teacher had a terrible year. Terrible. Then got fired.

What do you mean "experiment"? Do you realize your exact scenario happens every year at schools with courses under English Language Development that are specifically made for having ALL the ESOL kids in one classroom and they succeed in improving their English?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


It will be very interesting when they take the kids with IEP's and kids who are ELLs and behavior problems out of WSHS and concentrate them somewhere else. If you think people are upset now, just wait. FCPS will not have a chance of winning the ensuing civil rights lawsuit. All federal money for those kids will be pulled in a heartbeat. And it's not a small sum of money. Your house value will definitely go down when your property taxes get jacked up.


what PP suggested is illegal at the state and federal level, but even if federal per pupil funding was pulled, the county would end up better off because the amount of money needed to educate those kids is more than the feds provide

That makes no sense. How could the county be better off with less money coming in from the state and feds? They would still have to educate the same kids.

I do t know about these specific laws but some only apply if you take the associated monies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gotcha- can anyone explain what an emergency situation is that would require 15% of a student body moved? Is an “emergency” a school losing accreditation?

fire, flood, power failure, condemning of part of school,

That’s one way to deal with McLean infrastructure. LOL. Condemn it and then see what happens.

[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.


FCPS provides instruction in English. If kids don't know the language then they won't be able to follow any other classes.

Have you ever studied another language? Do you speak another language? There are various levels of ESOL. Even the "American" kids are still learning English! Just go into a Biology classroom (lots of new vocabulary there) if you don't believe this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:


That makes no sense. How could the county be better off with less money coming in from the state and feds? They would still have to educate the same kids.


I do t know about these specific laws but some only apply if you take the associated monies.

You have to have ESOL and Special Education (under federal law) whether or not you "take the money". So it's kind of a good idea to "take the money". These are civil rights issues and they have gone to the Supreme Court. Maybe SCOTUS can rule that these children have no right to these programs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
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.


It will be very interesting when they take the kids with IEP's and kids who are ELLs and behavior problems out of WSHS and concentrate them somewhere else. If you think people are upset now, just wait. FCPS will not have a chance of winning the ensuing civil rights lawsuit. All federal money for those kids will be pulled in a heartbeat. And it's not a small sum of money. Your house value will definitely go down when your property taxes get jacked up.


what PP suggested is illegal at the state and federal level, but even if federal per pupil funding was pulled, the county would end up better off because the amount of money needed to educate those kids is more than the feds provide


You're saying it's illegal to have kids with special needs go to separate schools where they can receive focused attention? Someone better tell Key, Kilmer, Bryant, Mountain View, Cedar Lane, Quander Road, etc etc.

The sites that you mention (and they are program sites, not officially "schools") are small and at the highest levels of exclusion. None of them are for ESOL students. Key and Kilmer are for severely disabled students (many need medical interventions like feeding tubes, medications, and diapers). Mountain View is for adult students. Cedar Lane and Quander are for severely emotionally disturbed students (very, very small numbers there). Those schools are very expensive on a per student basis. Those students have very significant IEPs. They are only legal because every other level was tried or has been verified as not being appropriate. IEPs are federally mandated documents that must be followed carefully.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think everyone is assuming that the SB will make changes to justify the expansion and that is why people in Dranesville are freaking out. Hopefully there is a lawsuit and we get to see behind the scenes how they came up with these numbers that were so very wrong and whether there was another agenda behind the dramatic over-expansion of Herndon.

They have offered no reason for expanding Herndon so dramatically, so one can only assume they have a plan they haven't shared. They've now made room at Herndon for all of Forestville and Great Falls Elementary schools, so they can now move a lot of the Tysons-area apartment buildup into Langley to achieve their desired FARMS rates.

The last time they tried modifying the boundary policy to include socioeconomic balance as the key driver, there was immediate and immense pushback from a lot of places. The lessons they learned from this are (1) keep everything as quiet as possible (hide things in unrecorded work sessions, behind attorney/client privilege and absurdly expensive FOIA searches), (2) push things through as quickly as possible with as little stakeholder notification and involvement as possible, and (3) do it right after the new school board is seated so there's plenty of time before any of them need to stand for elections again, hoping people will forget that their kids and property values got screwed.

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

Yes, this is son frustrating, The county needs to stop encouraging people who don't contribute their share of taxes to move here ugh. It's becoming a fiscal death spiral and it's completely unsustainable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think everyone is assuming that the SB will make changes to justify the expansion and that is why people in Dranesville are freaking out. Hopefully there is a lawsuit and we get to see behind the scenes how they came up with these numbers that were so very wrong and whether there was another agenda behind the dramatic over-expansion of Herndon.

They have offered no reason for expanding Herndon so dramatically, so one can only assume they have a plan they haven't shared. They've now made room at Herndon for all of Forestville and Great Falls Elementary schools, so they can now move a lot of the Tysons-area apartment buildup into Langley to achieve their desired FARMS rates.

The last time they tried modifying the boundary policy to include socioeconomic balance as the key driver, there was immediate and immense pushback from a lot of places. The lessons they learned from this are (1) keep everything as quiet as possible (hide things in unrecorded work sessions, behind attorney/client privilege and absurdly expensive FOIA searches), (2) push things through as quickly as possible with as little stakeholder notification and involvement as possible, and (3) do it right after the new school board is seated so there's plenty of time before any of them need to stand for elections again, hoping people will forget that their kids and property values got screwed.

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

Yes, this is son frustrating, The county needs to stop encouraging people who don't contribute their share of taxes to move here ugh. It's becoming a fiscal death spiral and it's completely unsustainable.

Please let your SB representative know. I think they are slowly getting the message, but we need everyone to reach out to let them know how negatively impactful county wide redistricting will be.

[Anonymous]

A focus right now should be the policy they are working on - 8130.

Everyone should let them know, whether you think you’re up for a boundary change or not, that it is unacceptable to only grandfather in high school seniors to a boundary change. At a minimum, juniors and seniors should have the option to finish high school where they started. I’d personally prefer changes to start with a freshman class.

And they are working on language for “expedited boundary changes” needing only public notice vs. public hearings if less than 15% of the school is moved.

If you communicate with a SB member right now, they are passing the buck, saying their only focus is policy 8130 and the Superintendent will use it to implement changes.

Let’s make sure those two reasonable items are included in that policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A focus right now should be the policy they are working on - 8130.

Everyone should let them know, whether you think you’re up for a boundary change or not, that it is unacceptable to only grandfather in high school seniors to a boundary change. At a minimum, juniors and seniors should have the option to finish high school where they started. I’d personally prefer changes to start with a freshman class.

And they are working on language for “expedited boundary changes” needing only public notice vs. public hearings if less than 15% of the school is moved.

If you communicate with a SB member right now, they are passing the buck, saying their only focus is policy 8130 and the Superintendent will use it to implement changes.

Let’s make sure those two reasonable items are included in that policy.

Yep, let the board know if you want your freshman or sophomore to stay with their friends in high school, rather than be sent to a brand new school as a sophomore or Junior because the SB believes they are too soft and that the stress of a forced new high school would be good character development for them.

This is not hyperbole. That is the sentiment expressed in the governance meeting yesterday.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A focus right now should be the policy they are working on - 8130.

Everyone should let them know, whether you think you’re up for a boundary change or not, that it is unacceptable to only grandfather in high school seniors to a boundary change. At a minimum, juniors and seniors should have the option to finish high school where they started. I’d personally prefer changes to start with a freshman class.

And they are working on language for “expedited boundary changes” needing only public notice vs. public hearings if less than 15% of the school is moved.

If you communicate with a SB member right now, they are passing the buck, saying their only focus is policy 8130 and the Superintendent will use it to implement changes.

Let’s make sure those two reasonable items are included in that policy.

Yep, let the board know if you want your freshman or sophomore to stay with their friends in high school, rather than be sent to a brand new school as a sophomore or Junior because the SB believes they are too soft and that the stress of a forced new high school would be good character development for them.

This is not hyperbole. That is the sentiment expressed in the governance meeting yesterday.

Right and with their education degrees (?) and psychology degrees (?) of which they have none, I’m sure they are qualified to give treatment to anxious kids.