FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maps by June sounds pretty aggressive given where they are now.

Looks like this boundary review is going to run into the buzz saw that is the 2027 school board elections. That’s a dream come true for me.

+1 the longer they take, the more chance we have to stop this entirely or cut way back on the scale of the changes. Not complaining about it!

They should take care of the two ES that are seriously overcrowded (Coates and Parklawn) and put the rest of this ill-considered boundary review on hold indefinitely.

If they really want to do this, they need to address the fundamentals first, such as the desired MS model (6-8 vs. 7-8), the future of AAP centers, IB, and Academy programs, and the disparities in foreign language availability. Right now it's all ass-backwards.

+1 Fix Coates and Parklawn and then stop.

We can have 1 of 3 things at a time: a large scale boundary review of all the schools, a serious effort to move 6th to middle - knowing that it may involve converting some elementary schools into middle schools - or a universal PreK 3/4 program. We can’t have all three at once and have the changes ready to go in 1.25 school years. That’s crazy. Especially if you start to fold a later middle school start time into the equation as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maps by June sounds pretty aggressive given where they are now.

Looks like this boundary review is going to run into the buzz saw that is the 2027 school board elections. That’s a dream come true for me.

+1 the longer they take, the more chance we have to stop this entirely or cut way back on the scale of the changes. Not complaining about it!

They should take care of the two ES that are seriously overcrowded (Coates and Parklawn) and put the rest of this ill-considered boundary review on hold indefinitely.

If they really want to do this, they need to address the fundamentals first, such as the desired MS model (6-8 vs. 7-8), the future of AAP centers, IB, and Academy programs, and the disparities in foreign language availability. Right now it's all ass-backwards.

+1 Fix Coates and Parklawn and then stop.

We can have 1 of 3 things at a time: a large scale boundary review of all the schools, a serious effort to move 6th to middle - knowing that it may involve converting some elementary schools into middle schools - or a universal PreK 3/4 program. We can’t have all three at once and have the changes ready to go in 1.25 school years. That’s crazy. Especially if you start to fold a later middle school start time into the equation as well.

Need to decide on the bolded first, plus what, if anything is being done with AAP and IB. Then and only then can a comprehensive boundary study be attempted with input from the precursor decisions that have to made first.

Obvious to even a middle schooler but not obvious to the SB, Superintendent or consultant. Another $500K wasted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maps by June sounds pretty aggressive given where they are now.

Looks like this boundary review is going to run into the buzz saw that is the 2027 school board elections. That’s a dream come true for me.

+1 the longer they take, the more chance we have to stop this entirely or cut way back on the scale of the changes. Not complaining about it!

They should take care of the two ES that are seriously overcrowded (Coates and Parklawn) and put the rest of this ill-considered boundary review on hold indefinitely.

If they really want to do this, they need to address the fundamentals first, such as the desired MS model (6-8 vs. 7-8), the future of AAP centers, IB, and Academy programs, and the disparities in foreign language availability. Right now it's all ass-backwards.

+1 Fix Coates and Parklawn and then stop.

We can have 1 of 3 things at a time: a large scale boundary review of all the schools, a serious effort to move 6th to middle - knowing that it may involve converting some elementary schools into middle schools - or a universal PreK 3/4 program. We can’t have all three at once and have the changes ready to go in 1.25 school years. That’s crazy. Especially if you start to fold a later middle school start time into the equation as well.

Need to decide on the bolded first, plus what, if anything is being done with AAP and IB. Then and only then can a comprehensive boundary study be attempted with input from the precursor decisions that have to made first.

Obvious to even a middle schooler but not obvious to the SB, Superintendent or consultant. Another $500K wasted.

Much more already.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maps by June sounds pretty aggressive given where they are now.

Looks like this boundary review is going to run into the buzz saw that is the 2027 school board elections. That’s a dream come true for me.

+1 the longer they take, the more chance we have to stop this entirely or cut way back on the scale of the changes. Not complaining about it!

They should take care of the two ES that are seriously overcrowded (Coates and Parklawn) and put the rest of this ill-considered boundary review on hold indefinitely.

If they really want to do this, they need to address the fundamentals first, such as the desired MS model (6-8 vs. 7-8), the future of AAP centers, IB, and Academy programs, and the disparities in foreign language availability. Right now it's all ass-backwards.

+1 Fix Coates and Parklawn and then stop.

We can have 1 of 3 things at a time: a large scale boundary review of all the schools, a serious effort to move 6th to middle - knowing that it may involve converting some elementary schools into middle schools - or a universal PreK 3/4 program. We can’t have all three at once and have the changes ready to go in 1.25 school years. That’s crazy. Especially if you start to fold a later middle school start time into the equation as well.

Need to decide on the bolded first, plus what, if anything is being done with AAP and IB. Then and only then can a comprehensive boundary study be attempted with input from the precursor decisions that have to made first.

Obvious to even a middle schooler but not obvious to the SB, Superintendent or consultant. Another $500K wasted.

That's the downside of having an inexperienced superintendent and a school board that's a one-party echo chamber. No one was asking the hard questions or challenging each other. And they hand pick people for their advisory committees to rubber stamp their poor decisions.

Reid should be fired and this School Board replaced in 2027. They are a total disaster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why on earth does anyone think making middle schools 6-8 is a good idea? Our kids are already growing up too fast. I don't want my 6th grader in a middle school with vaping and sexually active 7th and 8th graders. How incredibly shortsighted.

Reid and the SB want universal Pre-K. Only way to make that happen is to bump 6th grade out to have the classrooms available.

But in these tight budgetary times where is the money coming from to support universal Pre-K and how many students will be in the program?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maps by June sounds pretty aggressive given where they are now.

Looks like this boundary review is going to run into the buzz saw that is the 2027 school board elections. That’s a dream come true for me.

+1 the longer they take, the more chance we have to stop this entirely or cut way back on the scale of the changes. Not complaining about it!

They should take care of the two ES that are seriously overcrowded (Coates and Parklawn) and put the rest of this ill-considered boundary review on hold indefinitely.

If they really want to do this, they need to address the fundamentals first, such as the desired MS model (6-8 vs. 7-8), the future of AAP centers, IB, and Academy programs, and the disparities in foreign language availability. Right now it's all ass-backwards.

+1 Fix Coates and Parklawn and then stop.

We can have 1 of 3 things at a time: a large scale boundary review of all the schools, a serious effort to move 6th to middle - knowing that it may involve converting some elementary schools into middle schools - or a universal PreK 3/4 program. We can’t have all three at once and have the changes ready to go in 1.25 school years. That’s crazy. Especially if you start to fold a later middle school start time into the equation as well.

Need to decide on the bolded first, plus what, if anything is being done with AAP and IB. Then and only then can a comprehensive boundary study be attempted with input from the precursor decisions that have to made first.

Obvious to even a middle schooler but not obvious to the SB, Superintendent or consultant. Another $500K wasted.

That's the downside of having an inexperienced superintendent and a school board that's a one-party echo chamber. No one was asking the hard questions or challenging each other. And they hand pick people for their advisory committees to rubber stamp their poor decisions.

Reid should be fired and this School Board replaced in 2027. They are a total disaster.

One of the many problems continues to be that Reid only has worked in districts with 1-2 HS and just a couple ES and MS and so she sees no issues to make any kind of change and doesn’t or is not able to consider the bigger picture/challenges of a bigger school district. She will continue to propose changes like moving to 6-8 schools because for her it can work to move 2 classes of ES to MS to create 6-8 so why not do it for 142 elementary schools and 5,000 kids. Same for boundaries issues… but instead of seeing this, this school board early voted to renew her contract. Hmmmm.

[Anonymous]

I don’t put the blame squarely on Reid. Don’t get me wrong, I’m by no means a fan, but it seems like this 6-8 detour could be meant to bog down the boundary changes so that fall of 2026 becomes untenable.

She might see the perils of these changes a bit more clearly than Sniveling Sandy Anderson and her lapdogs Robyn Lady and Kyle McDaniel do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maps by June sounds pretty aggressive given where they are now.

Looks like this boundary review is going to run into the buzz saw that is the 2027 school board elections. That’s a dream come true for me.

+1 the longer they take, the more chance we have to stop this entirely or cut way back on the scale of the changes. Not complaining about it!

They should take care of the two ES that are seriously overcrowded (Coates and Parklawn) and put the rest of this ill-considered boundary review on hold indefinitely.

If they really want to do this, they need to address the fundamentals first, such as the desired MS model (6-8 vs. 7-8), the future of AAP centers, IB, and Academy programs, and the disparities in foreign language availability. Right now it's all ass-backwards.

+1 Fix Coates and Parklawn and then stop.

We can have 1 of 3 things at a time: a large scale boundary review of all the schools, a serious effort to move 6th to middle - knowing that it may involve converting some elementary schools into middle schools - or a universal PreK 3/4 program. We can’t have all three at once and have the changes ready to go in 1.25 school years. That’s crazy. Especially if you start to fold a later middle school start time into the equation as well.

Need to decide on the bolded first, plus what, if anything is being done with AAP and IB. Then and only then can a comprehensive boundary study be attempted with input from the precursor decisions that have to made first.

Obvious to even a middle schooler but not obvious to the SB, Superintendent or consultant. Another $500K wasted.

That's the downside of having an inexperienced superintendent and a school board that's a one-party echo chamber. No one was asking the hard questions or challenging each other. And they hand pick people for their advisory committees to rubber stamp their poor decisions.

Reid should be fired and this School Board replaced in 2027. They are a total disaster.

One of the many problems continues to be that Reid only has worked in districts with 1-2 HS and just a couple ES and MS and so she sees no issues to make any kind of change and doesn’t or is not able to consider the bigger picture/challenges of a bigger school district. She will continue to propose changes like moving to 6-8 schools because for her it can work to move 2 classes of ES to MS to create 6-8 so why not do it for 142 elementary schools and 5,000 kids. Same for boundaries issues… but instead of seeing this, this school board early voted to renew her contract. Hmmmm.

Moving 6th to middle school moves over 10,000 6th graders, not 5,000 kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maps by June sounds pretty aggressive given where they are now.

Looks like this boundary review is going to run into the buzz saw that is the 2027 school board elections. That’s a dream come true for me.

+1 the longer they take, the more chance we have to stop this entirely or cut way back on the scale of the changes. Not complaining about it!

They should take care of the two ES that are seriously overcrowded (Coates and Parklawn) and put the rest of this ill-considered boundary review on hold indefinitely.

If they really want to do this, they need to address the fundamentals first, such as the desired MS model (6-8 vs. 7-8), the future of AAP centers, IB, and Academy programs, and the disparities in foreign language availability. Right now it's all ass-backwards.

+1 Fix Coates and Parklawn and then stop.

We can have 1 of 3 things at a time: a large scale boundary review of all the schools, a serious effort to move 6th to middle - knowing that it may involve converting some elementary schools into middle schools - or a universal PreK 3/4 program. We can’t have all three at once and have the changes ready to go in 1.25 school years. That’s crazy. Especially if you start to fold a later middle school start time into the equation as well.

Need to decide on the bolded first, plus what, if anything is being done with AAP and IB. Then and only then can a comprehensive boundary study be attempted with input from the precursor decisions that have to made first.

Obvious to even a middle schooler but not obvious to the SB, Superintendent or consultant. Another $500K wasted.

That's the downside of having an inexperienced superintendent and a school board that's a one-party echo chamber. No one was asking the hard questions or challenging each other. And they hand pick people for their advisory committees to rubber stamp their poor decisions.

Reid should be fired and this School Board replaced in 2027. They are a total disaster.

I agree 100%.

[Anonymous]

It’s human nature to get kids in the best school possible. Everyone is doing it despite their race and class.

Not sure those in charge of this boundary review recognize that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s human nature to get kids in the best school possible. Everyone is doing it despite their race and class.

Not sure those in charge of this boundary review recognize that.

They won’t even acknowledge that some schools are better than others. Easier to call people racist than address the harder issues of why some schools are failing.

[Anonymous]

Today seems like a pretty good day for the school board to stand down on the boundary review, so that it can consolidate its support instead of directly targeting kids in certain families (including many families that support democrats) based on their zip code.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Today seems like a pretty good day for the school board to stand down on the boundary review, so that it can consolidate its support instead of directly targeting kids in certain families (including many families that support democrats) based on their zip code.

There was a work session cancelled yesterday. Does anyone know what it was supposed to be?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Today seems like a pretty good day for the school board to stand down on the boundary review, so that it can consolidate its support instead of directly targeting kids in certain families (including many families that support democrats) based on their zip code.

There was a work session cancelled yesterday. Does anyone know what it was supposed to be?

[Anonymous]

Federal RIFs (reduction in force; ie - firings ), have not even begun yet, but the federal RIFs will hit FCPS very hard. This is the official plan:

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25545392/omb-opm-memo.pdf

Phase II plans by each .gov agency are due on April 14. Soon after, the federal firings will begin. Read the memo I just posted.

Private employers in FFX county will feel a “ripple effect;” many people who work for private companies will lose their jobs.

These job losses will result in people leaving FCPS to find work elsewhere. Some federal agencies will be relocated outside the area.

The plan is clearly spelled out in the memorandum.

FCPS is being reckless and aloof by continuing their boundary adjustment before they experience and understand the foreseeable consequences of the coming RIFs.

Stop the boundary adjust for at least one year, FCPS.