FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They've stated what the priority criteria for this process are, it's in their presentations if you attend any of the community meetings. Equity is not one of them.

6th grade MS would indeed require some changes... more or bigger MS (could potentially repurpose some of the admin centers similar to Dunn-Loring) and/or create some more secondary schools. They might need to phase it in over time rather than in one fell swoop. A 6th grade academy program would be a nice idea, but given the transport issues they're already dealing with trying to shift start times, etc. I doubt it would be realistic to implement. Anyway, point is I think there are options other than whatever massive rezoning you imagine as the only plausible alternative.

I don't think there's anything ridiculous about wanting both HS and MS students to start at 830a or later as research suggests is best. I also don't think balancing capacity across schools periodically is idiotic, it's a sane best practice.

The problem is there have been so few changes for so long that many (vocal) people are ossified into this view that they're somehow entitled to attend the school they are currently zoned for in perpetuity. If you're looking for arrogance and ridiculousness, start there.

Ha you have a LOT to learn about the way school systems run
Did you WaATCH or attend any work sessions or board meetings about policy 8130?
This is definitely about equity. Both sandy anderson (whose kids go to majority white elementary schools) and st John’s Cummings have had tirades about parents who they think are racist in not wanting their kids moved. In fact Cummings said “equity is at the heart of this policy”

No one wants their kid moved in high school. No one wants their kid moved in middle school. Stability is important.

I think if you are talkin by about entitled people having a bunch of teens never ever have to wake up early with ensure these kids are late for work and never make that early college class because the logic in entitlement will spill over.

T
Yiu have some warped
priorities

If stabilty is so important, why do so many parents say they will move their kids to private if they get re-zoned?

DP. Guess they are saying that if there is going to be disruption either way, they will make the best of the situation.

Another DP and I agree with this. If you’re going to blow up a school community and kids end up going to a different school from their friends, might as well go private and get to choose the school environment. I think it also depends on the age of people’s kids. If your kids are still young and they have this policy that they can review every 5 years and make more changes, then maybe you go private to make sure your kids can stay at the same school from K-8 or whatever.

It’s concerning to me that people who are in favor of these large scale boundary changes don’t seem capable of thinking through all the different scenarios and how different families might respond.

Reid and the school board do not care about individual schools or students. They care about getting test scores to be more similar across schools because the disparities (and some schools “failing”) makes them look bad. If you believe otherwise you are falling for some BS.

I get to decide whether or not these people use my kids in order to make themselves look better. If my kids get moved to a lower performing school so they can try to bring that school up, we are out… either a move to a different county or private. I suspect many others feel the same way.

Not everybody has the means for private school. Real estate is already incredibly expensive around here, so this is a very privileged response. Note everybody is able to spend 20-40k PER year PER kid for school. I do recognize that much of FFX likely can, but many in those income brackets are already sending their kids to private.

But ask yourself, honestly, think about this, is there a correlation between SES and academic performance that will end up blunting any of these boundary equity moves when they occur? If all the families that can move or go private do, is that substantially a better population at those poorer performing schools? Or are you just adding LMC to those schools?

Then ask yourself if you are doing a disservice to the LMC kids that you move, and whether the school board is contributing to a further degradation and segregation of schools?

I have always considered public school a public good, that’s why, even though we can afford private we haven’t sent our kids there. This has been a fundamental Democratic Party platform plank over the years. We will contribute more to certain populations’ education, but don’t mess with our kids’ ability to get a good education. But the school board doesn’t seem to get this democratic pillar and instead seems hell bent on making UMC go private or elsewhere.

This is exactly what will happen. I must be one of the few people here who grew up in a place where the school boundaries were crazy in order to balance demographics. The majority of people MC and above do what it takes to make private school work. I knew very few people who went to public, even people who really didn’t have a lot of money found a way to make it work.

Nobody felt an ounce of guilt for doing this either. Normal people do what they feel is best for their kids. It’s a very weird DC area (and maybe SF?) thing to be like “I need to send my kids to public school no matter what because I believe in it”. Who cares if other people think you are privileged for choosing private school. It’s none of their business and not your fault if other people can’t afford it.

It’s wild to me that FCPS wants to push forward with sticking it to the ‘privileged’ in order to achieve equity when the recent election showed that this thinking is clearly being rejected by the American people… including working class people and including Fairfax County which had much closer margins than 2020. I guess the school board wants Winsome Sears to be the next governor.

Hate to beat a dead horse, but before we imported a large amount of poverty, FCPS high schools were much more balanced. Over the last 25 years that poverty, combined with sites like Great Schools, very open pupil placement, and boundary changes that moved wealthier families to wealthier schools, the Fairfax population has managed to segregate itself. Just facts. Now it is not palatable to many families to make adjustments. So here we are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, Lewis is actually overcrowded, according to teachers and insiders, and the Principal is a failed DEI hire with high turnover and he has failed to raise any standards at Lewis, then why are we are still trying to send high achieving non-minority students to Lewis to a school that is twice as far as away from their current base school, through the Mixing Bowl during both rush hours?

PP calling to close Lewis and turn it into an adult HS has the best idea so far.

Love this idea. Where would the Lewis kids go? Is there space b/w Edison and WSHS?

The Saratoga neighborhood and surrounding areas could go to South County, which has space and is closer to them.

The Rolling Valley split feeder sould be sent back to WSHS, closing a split feeder, and Sangster split feeder closed, sending kids from WSHS to Lake Braddock. It would be an equal swap student wise.

Lake Braddock has space.

Hayfield has space

Annandale has space.

All 4 (SoCo, LB, Annandale, Hayfield) are adjacent to Hayfield boundaries and are viable options to accept Lewis zoned kids. Whether they could each absorb a few hundred Lewis kids is a different question.

I think Edison is closed to transfers, as is West Springfield, so neither of them are options other than the RV/Sangster split feeder options mentioned above.

But there are 4 other high schools adjacent to Lewis that could absorb students.

Really, though, most large provate high schools are around 1200 students, several hundred smaller than Lewis.

Wouldn't the small Lewis size of 1500+/- students be an ideal size for a low performing high school? You could spread out the kids and have very small class sizes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They've stated what the priority criteria for this process are, it's in their presentations if you attend any of the community meetings. Equity is not one of them.

6th grade MS would indeed require some changes... more or bigger MS (could potentially repurpose some of the admin centers similar to Dunn-Loring) and/or create some more secondary schools. They might need to phase it in over time rather than in one fell swoop. A 6th grade academy program would be a nice idea, but given the transport issues they're already dealing with trying to shift start times, etc. I doubt it would be realistic to implement. Anyway, point is I think there are options other than whatever massive rezoning you imagine as the only plausible alternative.

I don't think there's anything ridiculous about wanting both HS and MS students to start at 830a or later as research suggests is best. I also don't think balancing capacity across schools periodically is idiotic, it's a sane best practice.

The problem is there have been so few changes for so long that many (vocal) people are ossified into this view that they're somehow entitled to attend the school they are currently zoned for in perpetuity. If you're looking for arrogance and ridiculousness, start there.

Ha you have a LOT to learn about the way school systems run
Did you WaATCH or attend any work sessions or board meetings about policy 8130?
This is definitely about equity. Both sandy anderson (whose kids go to majority white elementary schools) and st John’s Cummings have had tirades about parents who they think are racist in not wanting their kids moved. In fact Cummings said “equity is at the heart of this policy”

No one wants their kid moved in high school. No one wants their kid moved in middle school. Stability is important.

I think if you are talkin by about entitled people having a bunch of teens never ever have to wake up early with ensure these kids are late for work and never make that early college class because the logic in entitlement will spill over.

T
Yiu have some warped
priorities

If stabilty is so important, why do so many parents say they will move their kids to private if they get re-zoned?

DP. Guess they are saying that if there is going to be disruption either way, they will make the best of the situation.

Another DP and I agree with this. If you’re going to blow up a school community and kids end up going to a different school from their friends, might as well go private and get to choose the school environment. I think it also depends on the age of people’s kids. If your kids are still young and they have this policy that they can review every 5 years and make more changes, then maybe you go private to make sure your kids can stay at the same school from K-8 or whatever.

It’s concerning to me that people who are in favor of these large scale boundary changes don’t seem capable of thinking through all the different scenarios and how different families might respond.

Reid and the school board do not care about individual schools or students. They care about getting test scores to be more similar across schools because the disparities (and some schools “failing”) makes them look bad. If you believe otherwise you are falling for some BS.

I get to decide whether or not these people use my kids in order to make themselves look better. If my kids get moved to a lower performing school so they can try to bring that school up, we are out… either a move to a different county or private. I suspect many others feel the same way.

Not everybody has the means for private school. Real estate is already incredibly expensive around here, so this is a very privileged response. Note everybody is able to spend 20-40k PER year PER kid for school. I do recognize that much of FFX likely can, but many in those income brackets are already sending their kids to private.

But ask yourself, honestly, think about this, is there a correlation between SES and academic performance that will end up blunting any of these boundary equity moves when they occur? If all the families that can move or go private do, is that substantially a better population at those poorer performing schools? Or are you just adding LMC to those schools?

Then ask yourself if you are doing a disservice to the LMC kids that you move, and whether the school board is contributing to a further degradation and segregation of schools?

I have always considered public school a public good, that’s why, even though we can afford private we haven’t sent our kids there. This has been a fundamental Democratic Party platform plank over the years. We will contribute more to certain populations’ education, but don’t mess with our kids’ ability to get a good education. But the school board doesn’t seem to get this democratic pillar and instead seems hell bent on making UMC go private or elsewhere.

This is exactly what will happen. I must be one of the few people here who grew up in a place where the school boundaries were crazy in order to balance demographics. The majority of people MC and above do what it takes to make private school work. I knew very few people who went to public, even people who really didn’t have a lot of money found a way to make it work.

Nobody felt an ounce of guilt for doing this either. Normal people do what they feel is best for their kids. It’s a very weird DC area (and maybe SF?) thing to be like “I need to send my kids to public school no matter what because I believe in it”. Who cares if other people think you are privileged for choosing private school. It’s none of their business and not your fault if other people can’t afford it.

It’s wild to me that FCPS wants to push forward with sticking it to the ‘privileged’ in order to achieve equity when the recent election showed that this thinking is clearly being rejected by the American people… including working class people and including Fairfax County which had much closer margins than 2020. I guess the school board wants Winsome Sears to be the next governor.

Hate to beat a dead horse, but before we imported a large amount of poverty, FCPS high schools were much more balanced. Over the last 25 years that poverty, combined with sites like Great Schools, very open pupil placement, and boundary changes that moved wealthier families to wealthier schools, the Fairfax population has managed to segregate itself. Just facts. Now it is not palatable to many families to make adjustments. So here we are.

None of the above is the fault of individual families. Those were choices made by Fairfax County and/or FCPS. Most of us don't appreciate being punished for bad choices made by others. If they want to make their poor planning my problem, I'm out.

[Anonymous]

They could use the Lewis building for a special ed center. Fcps is desperately in need of more special ed seats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They've stated what the priority criteria for this process are, it's in their presentations if you attend any of the community meetings. Equity is not one of them.

6th grade MS would indeed require some changes... more or bigger MS (could potentially repurpose some of the admin centers similar to Dunn-Loring) and/or create some more secondary schools. They might need to phase it in over time rather than in one fell swoop. A 6th grade academy program would be a nice idea, but given the transport issues they're already dealing with trying to shift start times, etc. I doubt it would be realistic to implement. Anyway, point is I think there are options other than whatever massive rezoning you imagine as the only plausible alternative.

I don't think there's anything ridiculous about wanting both HS and MS students to start at 830a or later as research suggests is best. I also don't think balancing capacity across schools periodically is idiotic, it's a sane best practice.

The problem is there have been so few changes for so long that many (vocal) people are ossified into this view that they're somehow entitled to attend the school they are currently zoned for in perpetuity. If you're looking for arrogance and ridiculousness, start there.

Ha you have a LOT to learn about the way school systems run
Did you WaATCH or attend any work sessions or board meetings about policy 8130?
This is definitely about equity. Both sandy anderson (whose kids go to majority white elementary schools) and st John’s Cummings have had tirades about parents who they think are racist in not wanting their kids moved. In fact Cummings said “equity is at the heart of this policy”

No one wants their kid moved in high school. No one wants their kid moved in middle school. Stability is important.

I think if you are talkin by about entitled people having a bunch of teens never ever have to wake up early with ensure these kids are late for work and never make that early college class because the logic in entitlement will spill over.

T
Yiu have some warped
priorities

If stabilty is so important, why do so many parents say they will move their kids to private if they get re-zoned?

People also say they're going to leave the country if [opposing party candidate they disdain] is elected President. Doesn't really happen beyond some tiny fringe (who was probably often planning on moving anyway and just leveraging the opportunity to try and make some self-aggrandizing point).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They've stated what the priority criteria for this process are, it's in their presentations if you attend any of the community meetings. Equity is not one of them.

6th grade MS would indeed require some changes... more or bigger MS (could potentially repurpose some of the admin centers similar to Dunn-Loring) and/or create some more secondary schools. They might need to phase it in over time rather than in one fell swoop. A 6th grade academy program would be a nice idea, but given the transport issues they're already dealing with trying to shift start times, etc. I doubt it would be realistic to implement. Anyway, point is I think there are options other than whatever massive rezoning you imagine as the only plausible alternative.

I don't think there's anything ridiculous about wanting both HS and MS students to start at 830a or later as research suggests is best. I also don't think balancing capacity across schools periodically is idiotic, it's a sane best practice.

The problem is there have been so few changes for so long that many (vocal) people are ossified into this view that they're somehow entitled to attend the school they are currently zoned for in perpetuity. If you're looking for arrogance and ridiculousness, start there.

Ha you have a LOT to learn about the way school systems run
Did you WaATCH or attend any work sessions or board meetings about policy 8130?
This is definitely about equity. Both sandy anderson (whose kids go to majority white elementary schools) and st John’s Cummings have had tirades about parents who they think are racist in not wanting their kids moved. In fact Cummings said “equity is at the heart of this policy”

No one wants their kid moved in high school. No one wants their kid moved in middle school. Stability is important.

I think if you are talkin by about entitled people having a bunch of teens never ever have to wake up early with ensure these kids are late for work and never make that early college class because the logic in entitlement will spill over.

T
Yiu have some warped
priorities

If stabilty is so important, why do so many parents say they will move their kids to private if they get re-zoned?

DP. Guess they are saying that if there is going to be disruption either way, they will make the best of the situation.

Another DP and I agree with this. If you’re going to blow up a school community and kids end up going to a different school from their friends, might as well go private and get to choose the school environment. I think it also depends on the age of people’s kids. If your kids are still young and they have this policy that they can review every 5 years and make more changes, then maybe you go private to make sure your kids can stay at the same school from K-8 or whatever.

It’s concerning to me that people who are in favor of these large scale boundary changes don’t seem capable of thinking through all the different scenarios and how different families might respond.

Reid and the school board do not care about individual schools or students. They care about getting test scores to be more similar across schools because the disparities (and some schools “failing”) makes them look bad. If you believe otherwise you are falling for some BS.

I get to decide whether or not these people use my kids in order to make themselves look better. If my kids get moved to a lower performing school so they can try to bring that school up, we are out… either a move to a different county or private. I suspect many others feel the same way.

Not everybody has the means for private school. Real estate is already incredibly expensive around here, so this is a very privileged response. Note everybody is able to spend 20-40k PER year PER kid for school. I do recognize that much of FFX likely can, but many in those income brackets are already sending their kids to private.

But ask yourself, honestly, think about this, is there a correlation between SES and academic performance that will end up blunting any of these boundary equity moves when they occur? If all the families that can move or go private do, is that substantially a better population at those poorer performing schools? Or are you just adding LMC to those schools?

Then ask yourself if you are doing a disservice to the LMC kids that you move, and whether the school board is contributing to a further degradation and segregation of schools?

I have always considered public school a public good, that’s why, even though we can afford private we haven’t sent our kids there. This has been a fundamental Democratic Party platform plank over the years. We will contribute more to certain populations’ education, but don’t mess with our kids’ ability to get a good education. But the school board doesn’t seem to get this democratic pillar and instead seems hell bent on making UMC go private or elsewhere.

This is exactly what will happen. I must be one of the few people here who grew up in a place where the school boundaries were crazy in order to balance demographics. The majority of people MC and above do what it takes to make private school work. I knew very few people who went to public, even people who really didn’t have a lot of money found a way to make it work.

Nobody felt an ounce of guilt for doing this either. Normal people do what they feel is best for their kids. It’s a very weird DC area (and maybe SF?) thing to be like “I need to send my kids to public school no matter what because I believe in it”. Who cares if other people think you are privileged for choosing private school. It’s none of their business and not your fault if other people can’t afford it.

It’s wild to me that FCPS wants to push forward with sticking it to the ‘privileged’ in order to achieve equity when the recent election showed that this thinking is clearly being rejected by the American people… including working class people and including Fairfax County which had much closer margins than 2020. I guess the school board wants Winsome Sears to be the next governor.

Hate to beat a dead horse, but before we imported a large amount of poverty, FCPS high schools were much more balanced. Over the last 25 years that poverty, combined with sites like Great Schools, very open pupil placement, and boundary changes that moved wealthier families to wealthier schools, the Fairfax population has managed to segregate itself. Just facts. Now it is not palatable to many families to make adjustments. So here we are.

That stratification occurred over more than 25 years. More like over a 40-year period.

So just about everyone with school-age kids bought into their current school areas knowing what they are getting.

It’s not a binary system - apart from one high school that is undeniably lacking in economic diversity, every high school has some meaningful economic diversity ranging from about 15% to 60% FARMS with most in the middle.

The School Board answers primarily to MC/UMC families (mostly White) who bought in a catchment area with higher levels of poverty and think they should be rewarded for their nobility by having the SB redistrict more MC/UMC families into their schools. Conversely, others who made different choices would like to see their choices respected rather than to see their kids be treated as pawns.

Enrollment in FCPS is flat, even down. At a macro level, birth rates are declining and, of course, Trump is threatening to take a sledgehammer to the federal government. So there’s a lot going on now that might argue in favor of not taking on a big boundary project until FCPS has a far better handle on enrollment trends.

Even so, the instinct of the likes of Karl Frisch, Sandy Anderson, and Robyn Lady will be to continue to serve their political patrons, so we’re in for a ride. This will ultimately be a political decision that shows whose voices carry the day in Fairfax. If they can redistrict for what really are equity rather than efficiency reasons, and stick it to those who were willing to pay more for certain schools, they should have every reason to expect flight of a substantial number of MC/UMC families and an acceleration in the number of high FARMS schools. They would like to act as if they are omnipotent, but there is simply more that they don’t control than what they do control.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They've stated what the priority criteria for this process are, it's in their presentations if you attend any of the community meetings. Equity is not one of them.

6th grade MS would indeed require some changes... more or bigger MS (could potentially repurpose some of the admin centers similar to Dunn-Loring) and/or create some more secondary schools. They might need to phase it in over time rather than in one fell swoop. A 6th grade academy program would be a nice idea, but given the transport issues they're already dealing with trying to shift start times, etc. I doubt it would be realistic to implement. Anyway, point is I think there are options other than whatever massive rezoning you imagine as the only plausible alternative.

I don't think there's anything ridiculous about wanting both HS and MS students to start at 830a or later as research suggests is best. I also don't think balancing capacity across schools periodically is idiotic, it's a sane best practice.

The problem is there have been so few changes for so long that many (vocal) people are ossified into this view that they're somehow entitled to attend the school they are currently zoned for in perpetuity. If you're looking for arrogance and ridiculousness, start there.

Ha you have a LOT to learn about the way school systems run
Did you WaATCH or attend any work sessions or board meetings about policy 8130?
This is definitely about equity. Both sandy anderson (whose kids go to majority white elementary schools) and st John’s Cummings have had tirades about parents who they think are racist in not wanting their kids moved. In fact Cummings said “equity is at the heart of this policy”

No one wants their kid moved in high school. No one wants their kid moved in middle school. Stability is important.

I think if you are talkin by about entitled people having a bunch of teens never ever have to wake up early with ensure these kids are late for work and never make that early college class because the logic in entitlement will spill over.

T
Yiu have some warped
priorities

If stabilty is so important, why do so many parents say they will move their kids to private if they get re-zoned?

People also say they're going to leave the country if [opposing party candidate they disdain] is elected President. Doesn't really happen beyond some tiny fringe (who was probably often planning on moving anyway and just leveraging the opportunity to try and make some self-aggrandizing point).

It’s a little easier to avoid a school than to move to Canada. Not really a great analogy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They've stated what the priority criteria for this process are, it's in their presentations if you attend any of the community meetings. Equity is not one of them.

6th grade MS would indeed require some changes... more or bigger MS (could potentially repurpose some of the admin centers similar to Dunn-Loring) and/or create some more secondary schools. They might need to phase it in over time rather than in one fell swoop. A 6th grade academy program would be a nice idea, but given the transport issues they're already dealing with trying to shift start times, etc. I doubt it would be realistic to implement. Anyway, point is I think there are options other than whatever massive rezoning you imagine as the only plausible alternative.

I don't think there's anything ridiculous about wanting both HS and MS students to start at 830a or later as research suggests is best. I also don't think balancing capacity across schools periodically is idiotic, it's a sane best practice.

The problem is there have been so few changes for so long that many (vocal) people are ossified into this view that they're somehow entitled to attend the school they are currently zoned for in perpetuity. If you're looking for arrogance and ridiculousness, start there.

Ha you have a LOT to learn about the way school systems run
Did you WaATCH or attend any work sessions or board meetings about policy 8130?
This is definitely about equity. Both sandy anderson (whose kids go to majority white elementary schools) and st John’s Cummings have had tirades about parents who they think are racist in not wanting their kids moved. In fact Cummings said “equity is at the heart of this policy”

No one wants their kid moved in high school. No one wants their kid moved in middle school. Stability is important.

I think if you are talkin by about entitled people having a bunch of teens never ever have to wake up early with ensure these kids are late for work and never make that early college class because the logic in entitlement will spill over.

T
Yiu have some warped
priorities

If stabilty is so important, why do so many parents say they will move their kids to private if they get re-zoned?

My kid is in an AP pyramid. The only real possibility of rezoning will be an IB school. By the time this happens, they will be either a sophomore or a junior and it will be too late for an IB diploma. The choice is private with a curriculum that aligns with their current curriculum or jumping into IB even though IB has to be started earlier than they will have a chance to start it.

Yeah it's a bit of a mess because my understanding is the use of "equitable" in the boundary change context is in regards to the stated priorities, e.g. trying to minimize commute times so some kids aren't on busses for 2 hours a day. It also explicitly notes equitable access to instruction, which I think most agree means primarily AP vs. IB programs in terms of differences between schools today. So if they don't harmonize access to these programs at all schools, then they'd have to continue to allow pupil placement based on program offering (i.e., in the scenario you describe, your student could transfer to an AP school, most likely the one they previously attended). But of course then you'd probably have large numbers of students pursuing that option, although maybe somewhat balanced by the former IB kids transferring back in to continue their program? Don't know, but until they provide more clarity on these types of things it seems like they're setting themselves up for some very messy implementation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They've stated what the priority criteria for this process are, it's in their presentations if you attend any of the community meetings. Equity is not one of them.

6th grade MS would indeed require some changes... more or bigger MS (could potentially repurpose some of the admin centers similar to Dunn-Loring) and/or create some more secondary schools. They might need to phase it in over time rather than in one fell swoop. A 6th grade academy program would be a nice idea, but given the transport issues they're already dealing with trying to shift start times, etc. I doubt it would be realistic to implement. Anyway, point is I think there are options other than whatever massive rezoning you imagine as the only plausible alternative.

I don't think there's anything ridiculous about wanting both HS and MS students to start at 830a or later as research suggests is best. I also don't think balancing capacity across schools periodically is idiotic, it's a sane best practice.

The problem is there have been so few changes for so long that many (vocal) people are ossified into this view that they're somehow entitled to attend the school they are currently zoned for in perpetuity. If you're looking for arrogance and ridiculousness, start there.

Ha you have a LOT to learn about the way school systems run
Did you WaATCH or attend any work sessions or board meetings about policy 8130?
This is definitely about equity. Both sandy anderson (whose kids go to majority white elementary schools) and st John’s Cummings have had tirades about parents who they think are racist in not wanting their kids moved. In fact Cummings said “equity is at the heart of this policy”

No one wants their kid moved in high school. No one wants their kid moved in middle school. Stability is important.

I think if you are talkin by about entitled people having a bunch of teens never ever have to wake up early with ensure these kids are late for work and never make that early college class because the logic in entitlement will spill over.

T
Yiu have some warped
priorities

If stabilty is so important, why do so many parents say they will move their kids to private if they get re-zoned?

My kid is in an AP pyramid. The only real possibility of rezoning will be an IB school. By the time this happens, they will be either a sophomore or a junior and it will be too late for an IB diploma. The choice is private with a curriculum that aligns with their current curriculum or jumping into IB even though IB has to be started earlier than they will have a chance to start it.

Yeah it's a bit of a mess because my understanding is the use of "equitable" in the boundary change context is in regards to the stated priorities, e.g. trying to minimize commute times so some kids aren't on busses for 2 hours a day. It also explicitly notes equitable access to instruction, which I think most agree means primarily AP vs. IB programs in terms of differences between schools today. So if they don't harmonize access to these programs at all schools, then they'd have to continue to allow pupil placement based on program offering (i.e., in the scenario you describe, your student could transfer to an AP school, most likely the one they previously attended). But of course then you'd probably have large numbers of students pursuing that option, although maybe somewhat balanced by the former IB kids transferring back in to continue their program? Don't know, but until they provide more clarity on these types of things it seems like they're setting themselves up for some very messy implementation.

They are setting themselves up for governor Sears and vouchers or transfer by right imposed by Richmond

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They've stated what the priority criteria for this process are, it's in their presentations if you attend any of the community meetings. Equity is not one of them.

6th grade MS would indeed require some changes... more or bigger MS (could potentially repurpose some of the admin centers similar to Dunn-Loring) and/or create some more secondary schools. They might need to phase it in over time rather than in one fell swoop. A 6th grade academy program would be a nice idea, but given the transport issues they're already dealing with trying to shift start times, etc. I doubt it would be realistic to implement. Anyway, point is I think there are options other than whatever massive rezoning you imagine as the only plausible alternative.

I don't think there's anything ridiculous about wanting both HS and MS students to start at 830a or later as research suggests is best. I also don't think balancing capacity across schools periodically is idiotic, it's a sane best practice.

The problem is there have been so few changes for so long that many (vocal) people are ossified into this view that they're somehow entitled to attend the school they are currently zoned for in perpetuity. If you're looking for arrogance and ridiculousness, start there.

Ha you have a LOT to learn about the way school systems run
Did you WaATCH or attend any work sessions or board meetings about policy 8130?
This is definitely about equity. Both sandy anderson (whose kids go to majority white elementary schools) and st John’s Cummings have had tirades about parents who they think are racist in not wanting their kids moved. In fact Cummings said “equity is at the heart of this policy”

No one wants their kid moved in high school. No one wants their kid moved in middle school. Stability is important.

I think if you are talkin by about entitled people having a bunch of teens never ever have to wake up early with ensure these kids are late for work and never make that early college class because the logic in entitlement will spill over.

T
Yiu have some warped
priorities

If stabilty is so important, why do so many parents say they will move their kids to private if they get re-zoned?

My kid is in an AP pyramid. The only real possibility of rezoning will be an IB school. By the time this happens, they will be either a sophomore or a junior and it will be too late for an IB diploma. The choice is private with a curriculum that aligns with their current curriculum or jumping into IB even though IB has to be started earlier than they will have a chance to start it.

Yeah it's a bit of a mess because my understanding is the use of "equitable" in the boundary change context is in regards to the stated priorities, e.g. trying to minimize commute times so some kids aren't on busses for 2 hours a day. It also explicitly notes equitable access to instruction, which I think most agree means primarily AP vs. IB programs in terms of differences between schools today. So if they don't harmonize access to these programs at all schools, then they'd have to continue to allow pupil placement based on program offering (i.e., in the scenario you describe, your student could transfer to an AP school, most likely the one they previously attended). But of course then you'd probably have large numbers of students pursuing that option, although maybe somewhat balanced by the former IB kids transferring back in to continue their program? Don't know, but until they provide more clarity on these types of things it seems like they're setting themselves up for some very messy implementation.

The bolded is a complete misunderstanding of what "equitable" means to the school board and rezoning process.

Settle down with some wine and popcorn, light a fire, and curl up on the couch to watch the school board daytime work sessions.

What the school board is orchestrating behind the scenes is VERY different than what they tell a constituent that might yell at them or email them incessantly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They've stated what the priority criteria for this process are, it's in their presentations if you attend any of the community meetings. Equity is not one of them.

6th grade MS would indeed require some changes... more or bigger MS (could potentially repurpose some of the admin centers similar to Dunn-Loring) and/or create some more secondary schools. They might need to phase it in over time rather than in one fell swoop. A 6th grade academy program would be a nice idea, but given the transport issues they're already dealing with trying to shift start times, etc. I doubt it would be realistic to implement. Anyway, point is I think there are options other than whatever massive rezoning you imagine as the only plausible alternative.

I don't think there's anything ridiculous about wanting both HS and MS students to start at 830a or later as research suggests is best. I also don't think balancing capacity across schools periodically is idiotic, it's a sane best practice.

The problem is there have been so few changes for so long that many (vocal) people are ossified into this view that they're somehow entitled to attend the school they are currently zoned for in perpetuity. If you're looking for arrogance and ridiculousness, start there.

Ha you have a LOT to learn about the way school systems run
Did you WaATCH or attend any work sessions or board meetings about policy 8130?
This is definitely about equity. Both sandy anderson (whose kids go to majority white elementary schools) and st John’s Cummings have had tirades about parents who they think are racist in not wanting their kids moved. In fact Cummings said “equity is at the heart of this policy”

No one wants their kid moved in high school. No one wants their kid moved in middle school. Stability is important.

I think if you are talkin by about entitled people having a bunch of teens never ever have to wake up early with ensure these kids are late for work and never make that early college class because the logic in entitlement will spill over.

T
Yiu have some warped
priorities

If stabilty is so important, why do so many parents say they will move their kids to private if they get re-zoned?

My kid is in an AP pyramid. The only real possibility of rezoning will be an IB school. By the time this happens, they will be either a sophomore or a junior and it will be too late for an IB diploma. The choice is private with a curriculum that aligns with their current curriculum or jumping into IB even though IB has to be started earlier than they will have a chance to start it.

Yeah it's a bit of a mess because my understanding is the use of "equitable" in the boundary change context is in regards to the stated priorities, e.g. trying to minimize commute times so some kids aren't on busses for 2 hours a day. It also explicitly notes equitable access to instruction, which I think most agree means primarily AP vs. IB programs in terms of differences between schools today. So if they don't harmonize access to these programs at all schools, then they'd have to continue to allow pupil placement based on program offering (i.e., in the scenario you describe, your student could transfer to an AP school, most likely the one they previously attended). But of course then you'd probably have large numbers of students pursuing that option, although maybe somewhat balanced by the former IB kids transferring back in to continue their program? Don't know, but until they provide more clarity on these types of things it seems like they're setting themselves up for some very messy implementation.

The bolded is a complete misunderstanding of what "equitable" means to the school board and rezoning process.

Settle down with some wine and popcorn, light a fire, and curl up on the couch to watch the school board daytime work sessions.

What the school board is orchestrating behind the scenes is VERY different than what they tell a constituent that might yell at them or email them incessantly.

Precisely, I’ve never heard anyone ever try to tie equity to transportation. That poster is way off base.

[Anonymous]

New Question:


Why did enrollment in Chantilly go up 30 since September? It went up 18 in November alone.

I cannot find any other nearby high schools that has an enrollment increase anywhere near this.

This cannot be attributed to new construction. That is a lot of growth--and seems to be unique to Chantilly.

[Anonymous]

If enrollment is steady or declining, there is definitely no reason to continue expanding schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, Lewis is actually overcrowded, according to teachers and insiders, and the Principal is a failed DEI hire with high turnover and he has failed to raise any standards at Lewis, then why are we are still trying to send high achieving non-minority students to Lewis to a school that is twice as far as away from their current base school, through the Mixing Bowl during both rush hours?

PP calling to close Lewis and turn it into an adult HS has the best idea so far.

Love this idea. Where would the Lewis kids go? Is there space b/w Edison and WSHS?

The Saratoga neighborhood and surrounding areas could go to South County, which has space and is closer to them.

The Rolling Valley split feeder sould be sent back to WSHS, closing a split feeder, and Sangster split feeder closed, sending kids from WSHS to Lake Braddock. It would be an equal swap student wise.

Lake Braddock has space.

Hayfield has space

Annandale has space.

All 4 (SoCo, LB, Annandale, Hayfield) are adjacent to Hayfield boundaries and are viable options to accept Lewis zoned kids. Whether they could each absorb a few hundred Lewis kids is a different question.

I think Edison is closed to transfers, as is West Springfield, so neither of them are options other than the RV/Sangster split feeder options mentioned above.

But there are 4 other high schools adjacent to Lewis that could absorb students.

Really, though, most large provate high schools are around 1200 students, several hundred smaller than Lewis.

Wouldn't the small Lewis size of 1500+/- students be an ideal size for a low performing high school? You could spread out the kids and have very small class sizes.

Annandale doesn’t have space if you exclude the modular. And you can’t move kids to Hayfield without bumping Hayfield kids to Mount Vernon and/or West Potomac. Did you ask anyone at Hayfield if they wanted these changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, Lewis is actually overcrowded, according to teachers and insiders, and the Principal is a failed DEI hire with high turnover and he has failed to raise any standards at Lewis, then why are we are still trying to send high achieving non-minority students to Lewis to a school that is twice as far as away from their current base school, through the Mixing Bowl during both rush hours?

PP calling to close Lewis and turn it into an adult HS has the best idea so far.

Love this idea. Where would the Lewis kids go? Is there space b/w Edison and WSHS?

The Saratoga neighborhood and surrounding areas could go to South County, which has space and is closer to them.

The Rolling Valley split feeder sould be sent back to WSHS, closing a split feeder, and Sangster split feeder closed, sending kids from WSHS to Lake Braddock. It would be an equal swap student wise.

Lake Braddock has space.

Hayfield has space

Annandale has space.

All 4 (SoCo, LB, Annandale, Hayfield) are adjacent to Hayfield boundaries and are viable options to accept Lewis zoned kids. Whether they could each absorb a few hundred Lewis kids is a different question.

I think Edison is closed to transfers, as is West Springfield, so neither of them are options other than the RV/Sangster split feeder options mentioned above.

But there are 4 other high schools adjacent to Lewis that could absorb students.

Really, though, most large provate high schools are around 1200 students, several hundred smaller than Lewis.

Wouldn't the small Lewis size of 1500+/- students be an ideal size for a low performing high school? You could spread out the kids and have very small class sizes.

Annandale doesn’t have space if you exclude the modular. And you can’t move kids to Hayfield without bumping Hayfield kids to Mount Vernon and/or West Potomac. Did you ask anyone at Hayfield if they wanted these changes?

Nobody, anywhere wants the changes except for a handful of upper middle class households (childless in many cases) zoned for Lewis.