FCPS HS Boundary

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sharing an interesting FCPS report from 2019. They identified 16 factors that school districts across the country have used to make boundary decisions. This data was shared with the School Board, who requested a follow-up study to include the examination of educational research around the 16 factors impacting boundary decisions.

The Conclusion

“Based on the available research, boundary decisions should seek first to address balancing student diversity, consider the impact of school transfers and split feeders on students’ social and emotional well-
being, minimize travel time, and alleviate overcrowding should it exist, as these factors most directly impact teaching and learning. While resource stewardship is important, the remaining factors should not outweigh
the Division’s commitment to making boundary decisions that best facilitate student success and a caring culture.”

The Link:

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/B9N2E866049D/$file/Research%20on%20Boundary%20Decsion%20Marking.pdf

In light of the recent Supreme Court decisions, they’ve had to pivot to pretending to care about fiscal prudence instead of diversity. That’s why one of their prominent factors is “extra sleep time” for the kids. They are just grasping at straws as a pretext for diversity.

Btw, anyone else find it funny that the SB calls Fairfax County kids soft, while at the same time saying they need a tiny little bit more sleep time. She’s so inconsistent but somehow always wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sharing an interesting FCPS report from 2019. They identified 16 factors that school districts across the country have used to make boundary decisions. This data was shared with the School Board, who requested a follow-up study to include the examination of educational research around the 16 factors impacting boundary decisions.

The Conclusion

“Based on the available research, boundary decisions should seek first to address balancing student diversity, consider the impact of school transfers and split feeders on students’ social and emotional well-
being, minimize travel time, and alleviate overcrowding should it exist, as these factors most directly impact teaching and learning. While resource stewardship is important, the remaining factors should not outweigh
the Division’s commitment to making boundary decisions that best facilitate student success and a caring culture.”

The Link:

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/B9N2E866049D/$file/Research%20on%20Boundary%20Decsion%20Marking.pdf

Yes, that's what they tried last time around. After a whole lot of pushback (and probably advice of their lawyers about making changes based on race/ethnicity or socioeconomic status which is a proxy for the former) they thought better of it.

You mean they sat on it for a few years to focus on getting kids back in school post Covid, finding a new Super, and seating a new SB?

It’s clear that facts mean nothing to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sharing an interesting FCPS report from 2019. They identified 16 factors that school districts across the country have used to make boundary decisions. This data was shared with the School Board, who requested a follow-up study to include the examination of educational research around the 16 factors impacting boundary decisions.

The Conclusion

“Based on the available research, boundary decisions should seek first to address balancing student diversity, consider the impact of school transfers and split feeders on students’ social and emotional well-
being, minimize travel time, and alleviate overcrowding should it exist, as these factors most directly impact teaching and learning. While resource stewardship is important, the remaining factors should not outweigh
the Division’s commitment to making boundary decisions that best facilitate student success and a caring culture.”

The Link:

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/B9N2E866049D/$file/Research%20on%20Boundary%20Decsion%20Marking.pdf

Yes, that's what they tried last time around. After a whole lot of pushback (and probably advice of their lawyers about making changes based on race/ethnicity or socioeconomic status which is a proxy for the former) they thought better of it.

You mean they sat on it for a few years to focus on getting kids back in school post Covid, finding a new Super, and seating a new SB?

It’s clear that facts mean nothing to you.

DP. The PP is right despite your attempts to spin that last disaster. It’s clear that facts mean nothing to you, and even worse you’re advocating for horrible policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sharing an interesting FCPS report from 2019. They identified 16 factors that school districts across the country have used to make boundary decisions. This data was shared with the School Board, who requested a follow-up study to include the examination of educational research around the 16 factors impacting boundary decisions.

The Conclusion

“Based on the available research, boundary decisions should seek first to address balancing student diversity, consider the impact of school transfers and split feeders on students’ social and emotional well-
being, minimize travel time, and alleviate overcrowding should it exist, as these factors most directly impact teaching and learning. While resource stewardship is important, the remaining factors should not outweigh
the Division’s commitment to making boundary decisions that best facilitate student success and a caring culture.”

The Link:

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/B9N2E866049D/$file/Research%20on%20Boundary%20Decsion%20Marking.pdf

Yes, that's what they tried last time around. After a whole lot of pushback (and probably advice of their lawyers about making changes based on race/ethnicity or socioeconomic status which is a proxy for the former) they thought better of it.

You mean they sat on it for a few years to focus on getting kids back in school post Covid, finding a new Super, and seating a new SB?

It’s clear that facts mean nothing to you.

DP. The PP is right despite your attempts to spin that last disaster. It’s clear that facts mean nothing to you, and even worse you’re advocating for horrible policy.

Spin or facts? Again, you seem to be having trouble with the latter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, that's what they tried last time around. After a whole lot of pushback (and probably advice of their lawyers about making changes based on race/ethnicity or socioeconomic status which is a proxy for the former) they thought better of it.

Yep. And now they're going to try to accomplish the same goal, except without saying the quiet part out loud.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What a lying bunch of scumbags. They want to save money? They could start by canceling Karl Frisch's personal boondoggle - Dunn Loring ES - an ES that isn't needed in the wrong location even to meet future needs now projected to cost over $80M.

But they won't, because they are total hypocrites.

+1
I'm in shock that that school hasn't been axed yet. $80+ million for a school that isn't even needed!!!! What a travesty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sharing an interesting FCPS report from 2019. They identified 16 factors that school districts across the country have used to make boundary decisions. This data was shared with the School Board, who requested a follow-up study to include the examination of educational research around the 16 factors impacting boundary decisions.

The Conclusion

“Based on the available research, boundary decisions should seek first to address balancing student diversity, consider the impact of school transfers and split feeders on students’ social and emotional well-
being, minimize travel time, and alleviate overcrowding should it exist, as these factors most directly impact teaching and learning. While resource stewardship is important, the remaining factors should not outweigh
the Division’s commitment to making boundary decisions that best facilitate student success and a caring culture.”

The Link:

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/B9N2E866049D/$file/Research%20on%20Boundary%20Decsion%20Marking.pdf

Yes, that's what they tried last time around. After a whole lot of pushback (and probably advice of their lawyers about making changes based on race/ethnicity or socioeconomic status which is a proxy for the former) they thought better of it.

You mean they sat on it for a few years to focus on getting kids back in school post Covid, finding a new Super, and seating a new SB?

It’s clear that facts mean nothing to you.

DP. The PP is right despite your attempts to spin that last disaster. It’s clear that facts mean nothing to you, and even worse you’re advocating for horrible policy.

Spin or facts? Again, you seem to be having trouble with the latter.

Question for you: do you believe that Fairfax County kids are soft and need to be redistricted to toughen them up like the SB member who said that yesterday at the governance meeting? Would you consider that one of your “facts”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone needs to bring this to the attention of Youngkin, Sears, and Miyares. This is a PR goldmine for Republicans wanting to highlight how out-of-touch and despotic the local Democrats have become in NoVa.

I plan to reach out to Youngkin on this soon. It really is such a boon for their party.

I suspect Youngkin will be hesitant to shout "stop the integration of Fairfax County Public Schools" from the rooftops.

Sure, he’ll let it go through and then push for vouchers, which I’ve never supported until this latest SB disaster. I also think this leaves the state ripe for a Prop 13 style limitation on property tax increases, which again, I would never have supported previously, but makes sense where you have such an utterly incompetent board screwing things up so royally.

The republicans can largely sit back and watch this intraparty conflict play out.

Yep, the republicans are political losers in Fairfax county no matter what. Just grab some popcorn and wait to see who gets called a racist.

Republicans will never win here, but if they can tighten margins in Fairfax, they win state wide. If my kids' schools end up worse, I'll happily vote R

Same. And that’s the broader point. A 5-point swing in Fairfax brings Virginia from reliable blue to a swing state. Ironically it could be the National republicans who stand to benefit from this.

Signed, a formerly reliable Fairfax county democrat

It’s really weird that you would make local school board action affect your state and national votes.

Well, I’ve always been willing to pay my fair share to support others. This is different- this is the school board picking specific and significant losers across the country under the guise of busing and sleep time, both absurd reasons (because their lawyer has told them not to discuss equity).

As much as I generally support the Democratic platform, when elected officials take so much from you and your community, it makes you reconsider the stance. At least it made me reconsider. I won’t vote for TFG, but everyone else is on the table. A self-inflicted wound.

So because your school boundaries MIGHT change (remember no changes have been suggested yet - this entire thread is speculation), you would vote R at the state, nationa level and against gun reform, recognizing election results, environmental efforts, women’s rights… wow.

Yep. And that is my right. I am immensely disappointed with the SB and Fairfax democrats who seem to support this approach (or at least are not trying to prevent it). If this ends up on the cutting room floor then I would reconsider, but they’ve lost me if they go through with this.

It’s not a MIGHT when school board members are giving timing for operationalizing the policy.

You vote democrat and for little to no border enforcement, but now when it might come back to bite YOU it is suddenly a problem. Some FCPS schools have been facing this for years. This is the hypocrisy that just screams limousine liberal. And it is democrat voting and the adopted policies/laws at all levels of government that are to blame. The liberal, 12-0 Democrat School Board is just implementing a policy at a level that may hit very close to home for you. You should have considered this years ago.

+100
What do Democrats love to call this phenomenon? Oh, right - the leopard eating faces party.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

SO, they can do what they want I guess as long as it is fair. Which shoots all magnet and immersion languages out of the water because not everyone gets access to Japanese or German (as examples) at their schools? What about IB and what does access to programs REALLY mean, gatehouse people on this board?

There is no reason for FCPS to be offering Japanese and German at all. The only foreign language that remotely makes sense for kids to learn is Spanish, and you could maybe add French. Almost no students are going to get any use out of taking high school Japanese or Mandarin. And don't get me started on the immersion programs.

So yeah, just have every high school and middle school offer Spanish and French. Problem solved. You can cut back on expenses that way too.

DP. Russian is a very valuable language to offer, especially nowadays. Probably Mandarin too.

[Anonymous]

So, to recap - no boundary revisions are being considered after all?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

SO, they can do what they want I guess as long as it is fair. Which shoots all magnet and immersion languages out of the water because not everyone gets access to Japanese or German (as examples) at their schools? What about IB and what does access to programs REALLY mean, gatehouse people on this board?

There is no reason for FCPS to be offering Japanese and German at all. The only foreign language that remotely makes sense for kids to learn is Spanish, and you could maybe add French. Almost no students are going to get any use out of taking high school Japanese or Mandarin. And don't get me started on the immersion programs.

So yeah, just have every high school and middle school offer Spanish and French. Problem solved. You can cut back on expenses that way too.

You’re gonna put French above Mandarin? LOL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

SO, they can do what they want I guess as long as it is fair. Which shoots all magnet and immersion languages out of the water because not everyone gets access to Japanese or German (as examples) at their schools? What about IB and what does access to programs REALLY mean, gatehouse people on this board?

There is no reason for FCPS to be offering Japanese and German at all. The only foreign language that remotely makes sense for kids to learn is Spanish, and you could maybe add French. Almost no students are going to get any use out of taking high school Japanese or Mandarin. And don't get me started on the immersion programs.

So yeah, just have every high school and middle school offer Spanish and French. Problem solved. You can cut back on expenses that way too.

You’re gonna put French above Mandarin? LOL

NP. Have you tried to learn Mandarin? I have. It’s flipping hard, and I’m sort of good at languages. Kids need a choice beyond Spanish. I have never, ever been able to roll my Rs, so i didn’t want to take a language where there are points taken off the top.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

SO, they can do what they want I guess as long as it is fair. Which shoots all magnet and immersion languages out of the water because not everyone gets access to Japanese or German (as examples) at their schools? What about IB and what does access to programs REALLY mean, gatehouse people on this board?

There is no reason for FCPS to be offering Japanese and German at all. The only foreign language that remotely makes sense for kids to learn is Spanish, and you could maybe add French. Almost no students are going to get any use out of taking high school Japanese or Mandarin. And don't get me started on the immersion programs.

So yeah, just have every high school and middle school offer Spanish and French. Problem solved. You can cut back on expenses that way too.

You’re gonna put French above Mandarin? LOL

Yes. Anyone who speaks Mandarin and is likely to do business with an American will speak English. Same with Russians. Both of those countries are demographically screwed and will be in decline in the next 5 years anyway.

Spanish is the most useful world language for American students because the US has a large Spanish speaking population, plus there's an entire continent south of us where it comes in handy where we will be doing more business as globalization wanes and we decouple from Asia.

French is not terribly useful, true, but there are developing countries in Africa that speak it, and even though if you go to France or Quebec many people speak English, they are not likely to admit it. But it would make the most sense to just have kids do two years of Spanish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, to recap - no boundary revisions are being considered after all?

You think they're going to modify the boundary policy such that it becomes very easy for them to make changes to boundaries with a minimal amount of public notification and input, and then NOT make huge changes to boundaries?

[Anonymous]

So goodbye TJ because it has academic programs that are not available to all? The problem with the language the board is using is that even if THIS board doesn’t mean that, the next board can use “academic access” to nix any special programs except sped which is federally mandated. This board is not thinking.