FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Plenty of blame to go around for the current situation in FCPS:

- Federal Government - lax enforcement of immigration laws for an extended period of time
- Fairfax County zoning - the lack of apartments or more affordable homes in some areas (or very little anyway) is one example, with too many apartments in other areas
- FCPS - sticking with bad programs that drove people away, AAP structure, making bad decisions in earlier boundary adjustments that made some schools worse off, liberal pupil placement that allowed families with more means to live in one school zone and attend another (not something poorer families can do)
- FCPS residents (current and former) - self segregating by only looking at schools with Great Schools above 7; over time this drove schools below a 7 down even further (a very insidious change).

So FCPS is not crazy to try to raise the scores of the schools by making some boundary changes. The schools themselves aren't necessarily bad - the administrators, faculty, and facilities are fine, but the schools are faced with high ELL and FRL numbers that set them up for trouble. If they continue to fail does the state step in? FCPS doesn't want that.

Now they could certainly try some things first - eliminate IB and getting rid of AAP middle school centers are a couple of examples.

[Anonymous]

Whattttt im so confused. Per the new FAQ:

“The timeline for implementing new boundaries has not yet been determined, as it will depend on the outcomes of the boundary review process and the decisions made by the Fairfax County School Board. Similarly, any other related implementation decisions, including allowing current students to remain at their existing schools, have not yet been determined. These considerations will take into account operational feasibility and the district's educational goals.”

[Anonymous]

I thought the earlier schedule was proposal June and implemented following year. Perhaps clearer minds are prevailing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honest question: does anyone think that this shift will result in better schools? If so, please tell what you expect will be the results of these shifts.

FCPS has already said what it perceives to be the benefits of boundary changes: https://www.fcps.edu/about-fcps/maps/school-boundary-adjustments/boundary-policy-review-during-2024

I wish the people who are so bent out of shape over potential boundary changes had spoken up more when they built additions that weren't needed at some schools and ignored other schools that needed extra seats. Now they want to move kids around to cover up for their bad planning, and they aren't wrong when they claim that adding more seats now would cost additional money. It's just a shame the money wasn't allocated sensibly and they are still planning to waste money on boondoggles like the $85 million Dunn Loring ES.

I see how it would be hard though to yammer on with an opinion about a neighborhood and community that are not your own. It doesn’t feel right.

[Anonymous]

[img]

Anonymous wrote:I thought the earlier schedule was proposal June and implemented following year. Perhaps clearer minds are prevailing.

It was! They’ve clearly forgotten what they have and have not communicated.

Could this be the start of the downfall? Here’s hoping!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Plenty of blame to go around for the current situation in FCPS:

- Federal Government - lax enforcement of immigration laws for an extended period of time
- Fairfax County zoning - the lack of apartments or more affordable homes in some areas (or very little anyway) is one example, with too many apartments in other areas
- FCPS - sticking with bad programs that drove people away, AAP structure, making bad decisions in earlier boundary adjustments that made some schools worse off, liberal pupil placement that allowed families with more means to live in one school zone and attend another (not something poorer families can do)
- FCPS residents (current and former) - self segregating by only looking at schools with Great Schools above 7; over time this drove schools below a 7 down even further (a very insidious change).

So FCPS is not crazy to try to raise the scores of the schools by making some boundary changes. The schools themselves aren't necessarily bad - the administrators, faculty, and facilities are fine, but the schools are faced with high ELL and FRL numbers that set them up for trouble. If they continue to fail does the state step in? FCPS doesn't want that.

Now they could certainly try some things first - eliminate IB and getting rid of AAP middle school centers are a couple of examples.

This is crazy. Schools are definitely not all the same, some are good and some are really bad. High achieving schools are good because the PARENTS are investing in making sure their kids are learning. FCPS needs to improve the bad schools, not move children and use those kids to improve schools instead of doing the work of improving struggling schools. Moving kids around is just socialist ideology and uses kids like pawns instead of educating children. This SB just uses other people’s children as their own resource to carry out their social agenda and cover up the terrible job they are doing of educating. The SB and Reid and her gatehouse employees act with impunity, hide behind taxpayer (parent) funded lawyers and big law firms and appear to believe they have no accountability to students and parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Plenty of blame to go around for the current situation in FCPS:

- Federal Government - lax enforcement of immigration laws for an extended period of time
- Fairfax County zoning - the lack of apartments or more affordable homes in some areas (or very little anyway) is one example, with too many apartments in other areas
- FCPS - sticking with bad programs that drove people away, AAP structure, making bad decisions in earlier boundary adjustments that made some schools worse off, liberal pupil placement that allowed families with more means to live in one school zone and attend another (not something poorer families can do)
- FCPS residents (current and former) - self segregating by only looking at schools with Great Schools above 7; over time this drove schools below a 7 down even further (a very insidious change).

So FCPS is not crazy to try to raise the scores of the schools by making some boundary changes. The schools themselves aren't necessarily bad - the administrators, faculty, and facilities are fine, but the schools are faced with high ELL and FRL numbers that set them up for trouble. If they continue to fail does the state step in? FCPS doesn't want that.

Now they could certainly try some things first - eliminate IB and getting rid of AAP middle school centers are a couple of examples.

This is crazy. Schools are definitely not all the same, some are good and some are really bad. High achieving schools are good because the PARENTS are investing in making sure their kids are learning. FCPS needs to improve the bad schools, not move children and use those kids to improve schools instead of doing the work of improving struggling schools. Moving kids around is just socialist ideology and uses kids like pawns instead of educating children. This SB just uses other people’s children as their own resource to carry out their social agenda and cover up the terrible job they are doing of educating. The SB and Reid and her gatehouse employees act with impunity, hide behind taxpayer (parent) funded lawyers and big law firms and appear to believe they have no accountability to students and parents.

+1 How many of those big law firms are going to take notice of what happened to Paul Weiss and run for cover rather than push the FCPS agenda?

[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.

I agree 100%.

DP. I agree too, but this is what was said about the last SB, yet here we are again with an all-D SB. Some people will simply never stop voting for Democrats, no matter how bad the outcome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Plenty of blame to go around for the current situation in FCPS:

- Federal Government - lax enforcement of immigration laws for an extended period of time
- Fairfax County zoning - the lack of apartments or more affordable homes in some areas (or very little anyway) is one example, with too many apartments in other areas
- FCPS - sticking with bad programs that drove people away, AAP structure, making bad decisions in earlier boundary adjustments that made some schools worse off, liberal pupil placement that allowed families with more means to live in one school zone and attend another (not something poorer families can do)
- FCPS residents (current and former) - self segregating by only looking at schools with Great Schools above 7; over time this drove schools below a 7 down even further (a very insidious change).

So FCPS is not crazy to try to raise the scores of the schools by making some boundary changes. The schools themselves aren't necessarily bad - the administrators, faculty, and facilities are fine, but the schools are faced with high ELL and FRL numbers that set them up for trouble. If they continue to fail does the state step in? FCPS doesn't want that.

Now they could certainly try some things first - eliminate IB and getting rid of AAP middle school centers are a couple of examples.

This is crazy. Schools are definitely not all the same, some are good and some are really bad. High achieving schools are good because the PARENTS are investing in making sure their kids are learning. FCPS needs to improve the bad schools, not move children and use those kids to improve schools instead of doing the work of improving struggling schools. Moving kids around is just socialist ideology and uses kids like pawns instead of educating children. This SB just uses other people’s children as their own resource to carry out their social agenda and cover up the terrible job they are doing of educating. The SB and Reid and her gatehouse employees act with impunity, hide behind taxpayer (parent) funded lawyers and big law firms and appear to believe they have no accountability to students and parents.

You can't see the forest for the trees. Poor and ELL students have ended up concentrated at certain FCPS schools because of the reasons cited. That is why the school results look so different. In FCPS this is primarily a development over the last 15-20 years. It has essentially been the opposite of trying to balance out the numbers in FCPS schools. Everything cited has made things worse for certain schools. Policies have literally encouraged people to flee. Lee and Herndon weren't avoided like the plague 20 years ago. Do you think WS or Langley could do better with the Lewis and Herndon student bodies?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Plenty of blame to go around for the current situation in FCPS:

- Federal Government - lax enforcement of immigration laws for an extended period of time
- Fairfax County zoning - the lack of apartments or more affordable homes in some areas (or very little anyway) is one example, with too many apartments in other areas
- FCPS - sticking with bad programs that drove people away, AAP structure, making bad decisions in earlier boundary adjustments that made some schools worse off, liberal pupil placement that allowed families with more means to live in one school zone and attend another (not something poorer families can do)
- FCPS residents (current and former) - self segregating by only looking at schools with Great Schools above 7; over time this drove schools below a 7 down even further (a very insidious change).

So FCPS is not crazy to try to raise the scores of the schools by making some boundary changes. The schools themselves aren't necessarily bad - the administrators, faculty, and facilities are fine, but the schools are faced with high ELL and FRL numbers that set them up for trouble. If they continue to fail does the state step in? FCPS doesn't want that.

Now they could certainly try some things first - eliminate IB and getting rid of AAP middle school centers are a couple of examples.

This is crazy. Schools are definitely not all the same, some are good and some are really bad. High achieving schools are good because the PARENTS are investing in making sure their kids are learning. FCPS needs to improve the bad schools, not move children and use those kids to improve schools instead of doing the work of improving struggling schools. Moving kids around is just socialist ideology and uses kids like pawns instead of educating children. This SB just uses other people’s children as their own resource to carry out their social agenda and cover up the terrible job they are doing of educating. The SB and Reid and her gatehouse employees act with impunity, hide behind taxpayer (parent) funded lawyers and big law firms and appear to believe they have no accountability to students and parents.

You can't see the forest for the trees. Poor and ELL students have ended up concentrated at certain FCPS schools because of the reasons cited. That is why the school results look so different. In FCPS this is primarily a development over the last 15-20 years. It has essentially been the opposite of trying to balance out the numbers in FCPS schools. Everything cited has made things worse for certain schools. Policies have literally encouraged people to flee. Lee and Herndon weren't avoided like the plague 20 years ago. Do you think WS or Langley could do better with the Lewis and Herndon student bodies?

The answer is to teach the kids. It seems that is not even addressed. It's hard. I taught Title I, but they can at least improve the education where they are. Pouring in more affluent kids will not change anything for the students. You must start where they are and teach them.
If you really want more affluent kids there, I suggest eliminating the options to pupil place by having IB in some schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Plenty of blame to go around for the current situation in FCPS:

- Federal Government - lax enforcement of immigration laws for an extended period of time
- Fairfax County zoning - the lack of apartments or more affordable homes in some areas (or very little anyway) is one example, with too many apartments in other areas
- FCPS - sticking with bad programs that drove people away, AAP structure, making bad decisions in earlier boundary adjustments that made some schools worse off, liberal pupil placement that allowed families with more means to live in one school zone and attend another (not something poorer families can do)
- FCPS residents (current and former) - self segregating by only looking at schools with Great Schools above 7; over time this drove schools below a 7 down even further (a very insidious change).

So FCPS is not crazy to try to raise the scores of the schools by making some boundary changes. The schools themselves aren't necessarily bad - the administrators, faculty, and facilities are fine, but the schools are faced with high ELL and FRL numbers that set them up for trouble. If they continue to fail does the state step in? FCPS doesn't want that.

Now they could certainly try some things first - eliminate IB and getting rid of AAP middle school centers are a couple of examples.

This is crazy. Schools are definitely not all the same, some are good and some are really bad. High achieving schools are good because the PARENTS are investing in making sure their kids are learning. FCPS needs to improve the bad schools, not move children and use those kids to improve schools instead of doing the work of improving struggling schools. Moving kids around is just socialist ideology and uses kids like pawns instead of educating children. This SB just uses other people’s children as their own resource to carry out their social agenda and cover up the terrible job they are doing of educating. The SB and Reid and her gatehouse employees act with impunity, hide behind taxpayer (parent) funded lawyers and big law firms and appear to believe they have no accountability to students and parents.

You can't see the forest for the trees. Poor and ELL students have ended up concentrated at certain FCPS schools because of the reasons cited. That is why the school results look so different. In FCPS this is primarily a development over the last 15-20 years. It has essentially been the opposite of trying to balance out the numbers in FCPS schools. Everything cited has made things worse for certain schools. Policies have literally encouraged people to flee. Lee and Herndon weren't avoided like the plague 20 years ago. Do you think WS or Langley could do better with the Lewis and Herndon student bodies?

Who’s missing the first for the trees? Anyone advocating for these boundary changes is clearly missing the brain drain that will occur which will set the county back to exactly where it is now but missing a few hundred more high performing kids who will choose loudoun or private.

Really shortsighted tree gazing by the SB.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honest question: does anyone think that this shift will result in better schools? If so, please tell what you expect will be the results of these shifts.

we want fewer costs and the boundary changes are supposed to reduce costs.

Yeah, they won't reduce costs. Transportation is such a small part of the FCPS budget that moving a few kids around and shortening a few bus routes won't make a dent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honest question: does anyone think that this shift will result in better schools? If so, please tell what you expect will be the results of these shifts.

we want fewer costs and the boundary changes are supposed to reduce costs.

Yeah, they won't reduce costs. Transportation is such a small part of the FCPS budget that moving a few kids around and shortening a few bus routes won't make a dent.

Net effect will be MORE transportation costs in total with even just one year of grandfathering.

[Anonymous]

From the new FAQs:

“Will the data used for boundary decisions be accessible to the public?

Yes, Fairfax County Public Schools is committed to transparency throughout the comprehensive boundary review process. The data used to inform decision-making, such as enrollment projections, school capacity, demographic information, and transportation considerations, will be made available to the public whenever possible.

However, any personally identifiable information (PII) and sensitive data will be protected and not shared to ensure the privacy and security of students and families. Some data may be summarized or protected as necessary, but every effort will be made to provide relevant information in a clear and accessible manner while maintaining confidentiality.”

Although FCPS states that it is “committed to transparency,” it remains to be seen how FCPS meets the stated commitment to make the relevant data available to the public.

When and how will this data become available? It is only useful if it is presented completely and in a useable format concurrently with any proposal on which the data is based. The data should also be made available in the same manner in which it is available to those creating the proposals, without requiring the public to use specialized software that is only available to FCPS. Otherwise, any “opportunity to comment” is illusory.

Timing for comments/responding to surveys should allow for sufficient processing of the data by the public. Otherwise, survey results will not reflect a fully informed public.

[Anonymous]

An eleventh hour dump of terabytes of incomplete and unparsable data may pass for an aggressive “bury them in discovery” tactic for high priced litigators, but it won’t pass muster for genuine “transparency” that accommodates the varying resources available to a diverse public.

Anything less than full disclosure that is fully accessible to all members of the public with sufficient time to sort and understand the data on the same level as those making the proposal denies the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment.