FCPS HS Boundary

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Seriously? If you don’t like the way your tax dollars are spent and your kids are being used for some misguided socioeconomic rebalancing, just shut up and take it? No thanks.

There won’t be huge changes because the current boundaries are generally compact. There will be some tweaking that affects a small minority of addresses.

They are literally telegraphing holistic county wide changes. Websites, newsletters, speeches, proclamations, etc.

You can’t pretend this away.

Now is the time to make your opposition known. Once they commit to a stupid idea there is no reasoning with them.

They’ve committed to changes, the specifics of which are TBD. However, you seem keen on creating uproar over something that will only impact a small percentage of the school population.

Build a bridge and get over it 🙄

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

There won’t be huge changes because the current boundaries are generally compact. There will be some tweaking that affects a small minority of addresses.

They are literally telegraphing holistic county wide changes. Websites, newsletters, speeches, proclamations, etc.

You can’t pretend this away.

Now is the time to make your opposition known. Once they commit to a stupid idea there is no reasoning with them.

They’ve committed to changes, the specifics of which are TBD. However, you seem keen on creating uproar over something that will only impact a small percentage of the school population.

Build a bridge and get over it 🙄

Seriously? If you don’t like the way your tax dollars are spent and your kids are being used for some misguided socioeconomic rebalancing, just shut up and take it? No thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People are losing confidence in the ability of public school systems like FCPS to run themselves with anything approaching competence. They seem to be an excuse for hefty tax increases but then the money is spent in ways that provide the least return to those paying the most taxes.

The SB's agenda is to use "capacity" and "transportation" as a false pretense to close socioeconomic gaps. I would argue they have been somewhat competent because they're already close to changing the policy by opaque means that will allow the superintendent to make <15% population boundary changes with no public hearing.

The 15% was already there in the last policy. The biggest change is the ability to use academic programs and access as a reason for redistricting. Also that 7 days are now required, not 10 for a hearing.

this is the old policy:

The School Board shall “obtain public comment through a public hearing not less than ten days after reasonable notice to the public in a newspaper of general circulation in the school division prior to providing (i) for the consolidation of schools...(iii)...for redistricting of school boundaries or adopting any pupil assignment plan affecting the assignment of fifteen percent or more of the pupils in average daily membership in the affected school.” [Code of Virginia: Section 22.1-79 (8)]
For administrative boundary adjustments or expedited boundary study adjustments affecting the assignment of less than fifteen percent of the pupils in average daily membership in the affected school, no public hearing shall be required.

What is the justification for reducing from 10 to 7? The only intended purpose is to prevent tax payers/parents from being able to interact and engage. We should expect the news to be published on a Monday during summer break. The SB clearly wants to minimize the public's ability to react.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

There won’t be huge changes because the current boundaries are generally compact. There will be some tweaking that affects a small minority of addresses.

They are literally telegraphing holistic county wide changes. Websites, newsletters, speeches, proclamations, etc.

You can’t pretend this away.

Now is the time to make your opposition known. Once they commit to a stupid idea there is no reasoning with them.

They’ve committed to changes, the specifics of which are TBD. However, you seem keen on creating uproar over something that will only impact a small percentage of the school population.

Build a bridge and get over it 🙄

Those who expect they will be unaffected or are salivating for these changes are more than happy to minimize the likely impact on others.

The school board is already an echo chamber; they don’t need their slimy proxies working overtime for them as well.

Where were the outraged people when the changes were made on the margin? Some folks protested but not all that many. It affected those communities and people told us to get over it and stop hoarding resources and not to worry and that it was necessary. But now that the change could affect everyone there is outrage? Although, I will say that the kids have been fine and are doing well, mainly people want AP and not IB. I do know people who moved and I know people who have placed their kids at AP schools.

I would love to see them use one of the under-enrolled schools as an IB school and another under enrolled school as a true vo-tech school. Kids who want to take IB are bussed to the IB school. The kids attending should be committed to completing the IB degree. There is a real chance that this school would do well because of the people coming from over-seas whose kids were in an IB program or coming from countries with a similar school structure.

Kids who want any of the academy programs are bussed full time to the vo-tech school. Make them full time programs in their own buildings. More kids would be interested in the Academy classes if they were a part of their regular day and not a pain in the butt to get to and take. Also, putting those classes in one building and allowing the kids who are taking them to take all of their classes together will help develop a supportive community. My small town in Massachusetts sent kids to the regional vo-tech school and that worked well. Kids interested in a trade learned a trade. They had great outcomes.

All other high schools become AP schools and guarantee multiple sections of the core AP courses (History, Math, Science, LA). One of the issues right now is that there are schools with so few kids taking AP classes that it is hard to even get a core AP class because there are not enough kids to offer multiple sections and fitting it into schedules is challenging.

I have no problem with the different languages offered. My kid is in the Japanese program and it has been great for him. It is a different type of challenge and that has it’s benefits. I get that Japanese is not as widely used but I would hope that exposure to a different alphabet(s), sound structure, sentence structure and the like will let him know that he can probably learn Spanish or French or Russian or Arabic or Mandarin at some point in time if he wants. The LI schools attract people from the countries where those languages are taught and that benefits the kids through exposure to different cultures. And yes, people lottery in to our ES to get away from Title 1 schools in the area. Others lottery in because they are part Japanese and want to expose their kids to a part of their families culture.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, can FCPS be sued if rising Juniors have no one to go to for teacher recommendations because they have all been switched due to boundary changes? I guess this is my biggest worry; that after building years of good will my kid will be starting all over again. And his recommendations will be crap because the teachers haven’t know him very long.

Probably not because you won't be able to show a cognizable harm. Were you unable to get a rec? Is your rec worse than the hypothetical rec that you will never receive? Unfortunately that one isn't going anywhere.

Gotcha. One of the first questions they ask is how long have you known the applicant and 2.5 years sounds like a whole lot better than 3 months.

Think about student government, club presidencies and team captainships that so many colleges say they care about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

There won’t be huge changes because the current boundaries are generally compact. There will be some tweaking that affects a small minority of addresses.

They are literally telegraphing holistic county wide changes. Websites, newsletters, speeches, proclamations, etc.

You can’t pretend this away.

Now is the time to make your opposition known. Once they commit to a stupid idea there is no reasoning with them.

They’ve committed to changes, the specifics of which are TBD. However, you seem keen on creating uproar over something that will only impact a small percentage of the school population.

Build a bridge and get over it 🙄

Those who expect they will be unaffected or are salivating for these changes are more than happy to minimize the likely impact on others.

The school board is already an echo chamber; they don’t need their slimy proxies working overtime for them as well.

Or “fellow parents who disagree with you.” You really need to calm down. Your rhetoric is unhinged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

There won’t be huge changes because the current boundaries are generally compact. There will be some tweaking that affects a small minority of addresses.

They are literally telegraphing holistic county wide changes. Websites, newsletters, speeches, proclamations, etc.

You can’t pretend this away.

Now is the time to make your opposition known. Once they commit to a stupid idea there is no reasoning with them.

They’ve committed to changes, the specifics of which are TBD. However, you seem keen on creating uproar over something that will only impact a small percentage of the school population.

Build a bridge and get over it 🙄

Those who expect they will be unaffected or are salivating for these changes are more than happy to minimize the likely impact on others.

The school board is already an echo chamber; they don’t need their slimy proxies working overtime for them as well.

Or “fellow parents who disagree with you.” You really need to calm down. Your rhetoric is unhinged.

School Board members who unleash a big redistricting plan that they didn’t have the courage to run on are slimy and so are their proxies who come in here and say it’s no big deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

There won’t be huge changes because the current boundaries are generally compact. There will be some tweaking that affects a small minority of addresses.

They are literally telegraphing holistic county wide changes. Websites, newsletters, speeches, proclamations, etc.

You can’t pretend this away.

Now is the time to make your opposition known. Once they commit to a stupid idea there is no reasoning with them.

They’ve committed to changes, the specifics of which are TBD. However, you seem keen on creating uproar over something that will only impact a small percentage of the school population.

Build a bridge and get over it 🙄

Those who expect they will be unaffected or are salivating for these changes are more than happy to minimize the likely impact on others.

The school board is already an echo chamber; they don’t need their slimy proxies working overtime for them as well.

Or “fellow parents who disagree with you.” You really need to calm down. Your rhetoric is unhinged.

+10000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

There won’t be huge changes because the current boundaries are generally compact. There will be some tweaking that affects a small minority of addresses.

They are literally telegraphing holistic county wide changes. Websites, newsletters, speeches, proclamations, etc.

You can’t pretend this away.

Now is the time to make your opposition known. Once they commit to a stupid idea there is no reasoning with them.

They’ve committed to changes, the specifics of which are TBD. However, you seem keen on creating uproar over something that will only impact a small percentage of the school population.

Build a bridge and get over it 🙄

Those who expect they will be unaffected or are salivating for these changes are more than happy to minimize the likely impact on others.

The school board is already an echo chamber; they don’t need their slimy proxies working overtime for them as well.

Or “fellow parents who disagree with you.” You really need to calm down. Your rhetoric is unhinged.

+10000

OK, Kyle

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

There won’t be huge changes because the current boundaries are generally compact. There will be some tweaking that affects a small minority of addresses.

They are literally telegraphing holistic county wide changes. Websites, newsletters, speeches, proclamations, etc.

You can’t pretend this away.

Now is the time to make your opposition known. Once they commit to a stupid idea there is no reasoning with them.

They’ve committed to changes, the specifics of which are TBD. However, you seem keen on creating uproar over something that will only impact a small percentage of the school population.

Build a bridge and get over it 🙄

Those who expect they will be unaffected or are salivating for these changes are more than happy to minimize the likely impact on others.

The school board is already an echo chamber; they don’t need their slimy proxies working overtime for them as well.

Or “fellow parents who disagree with you.” You really need to calm down. Your rhetoric is unhinged.

School Board members who unleash a big redistricting plan that they didn’t have the courage to run on are slimy and so are their proxies who come in here and say it’s no big deal.

I’ll go ahead and plus 1 on this. Very accurate.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

There won’t be huge changes because the current boundaries are generally compact. There will be some tweaking that affects a small minority of addresses.

They are literally telegraphing holistic county wide changes. Websites, newsletters, speeches, proclamations, etc.

You can’t pretend this away.

Now is the time to make your opposition known. Once they commit to a stupid idea there is no reasoning with them.

They’ve committed to changes, the specifics of which are TBD. However, you seem keen on creating uproar over something that will only impact a small percentage of the school population.

Build a bridge and get over it 🙄

Those who expect they will be unaffected or are salivating for these changes are more than happy to minimize the likely impact on others.

The school board is already an echo chamber; they don’t need their slimy proxies working overtime for them as well.

Where were the outraged people when the changes were made on the margin? Some folks protested but not all that many. It affected those communities and people told us to get over it and stop hoarding resources and not to worry and that it was necessary. But now that the change could affect everyone there is outrage? Although, I will say that the kids have been fine and are doing well, mainly people want AP and not IB. I do know people who moved and I know people who have placed their kids at AP schools.

I would love to see them use one of the under-enrolled schools as an IB school and another under enrolled school as a true vo-tech school. Kids who want to take IB are bussed to the IB school. The kids attending should be committed to completing the IB degree. There is a real chance that this school would do well because of the people coming from over-seas whose kids were in an IB program or coming from countries with a similar school structure.

Kids who want any of the academy programs are bussed full time to the vo-tech school. Make them full time programs in their own buildings. More kids would be interested in the Academy classes if they were a part of their regular day and not a pain in the butt to get to and take. Also, putting those classes in one building and allowing the kids who are taking them to take all of their classes together will help develop a supportive community. My small town in Massachusetts sent kids to the regional vo-tech school and that worked well. Kids interested in a trade learned a trade. They had great outcomes.

All other high schools become AP schools and guarantee multiple sections of the core AP courses (History, Math, Science, LA). One of the issues right now is that there are schools with so few kids taking AP classes that it is hard to even get a core AP class because there are not enough kids to offer multiple sections and fitting it into schedules is challenging.

This really is the best answer. ALL kids get what they need. I have family members who went to a technical high school and they’ve done well. One has done amazingly well. Piddly half-day vo-tech programs are weak. I’d never have my kids do that, but I would absolutely have my SN child go to a full-day program because I’ve seen the positive outcomes. It would give them an edge in the job market that they very badly need.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

There won’t be huge changes because the current boundaries are generally compact. There will be some tweaking that affects a small minority of addresses.

They are literally telegraphing holistic county wide changes. Websites, newsletters, speeches, proclamations, etc.

You can’t pretend this away.

Now is the time to make your opposition known. Once they commit to a stupid idea there is no reasoning with them.

They’ve committed to changes, the specifics of which are TBD. However, you seem keen on creating uproar over something that will only impact a small percentage of the school population.

Build a bridge and get over it 🙄

Those who expect they will be unaffected or are salivating for these changes are more than happy to minimize the likely impact on others.

The school board is already an echo chamber; they don’t need their slimy proxies working overtime for them as well.

Where were the outraged people when the changes were made on the margin? Some folks protested but not all that many. It affected those communities and people told us to get over it and stop hoarding resources and not to worry and that it was necessary. But now that the change could affect everyone there is outrage? Although, I will say that the kids have been fine and are doing well, mainly people want AP and not IB. I do know people who moved and I know people who have placed their kids at AP schools.

I would love to see them use one of the under-enrolled schools as an IB school and another under enrolled school as a true vo-tech school. Kids who want to take IB are bussed to the IB school. The kids attending should be committed to completing the IB degree. There is a real chance that this school would do well because of the people coming from over-seas whose kids were in an IB program or coming from countries with a similar school structure.

Kids who want any of the academy programs are bussed full time to the vo-tech school. Make them full time programs in their own buildings. More kids would be interested in the Academy classes if they were a part of their regular day and not a pain in the butt to get to and take. Also, putting those classes in one building and allowing the kids who are taking them to take all of their classes together will help develop a supportive community. My small town in Massachusetts sent kids to the regional vo-tech school and that worked well. Kids interested in a trade learned a trade. They had great outcomes.

All other high schools become AP schools and guarantee multiple sections of the core AP courses (History, Math, Science, LA). One of the issues right now is that there are schools with so few kids taking AP classes that it is hard to even get a core AP class because there are not enough kids to offer multiple sections and fitting it into schedules is challenging.

This really is the best answer. ALL kids get what they need. I have family members who went to a technical high school and they’ve done well. One has done amazingly well. Piddly half-day vo-tech programs are weak. I’d never have my kids do that, but I would absolutely have my SN child go to a full-day program because I’ve seen the positive outcomes. It would give them an edge in the job market that they very badly need.

Lets say MVHS becomes an IB magnet. What happens to the kids who don't want IB? Are they bussed somewhere else? Does one school grow enough to accomodate them all of are they split up making Whitman a middle school outside of any pyramid. The same questions goes for kids who want an AP track zoned for whatever school becomes the vocational magnet

[Anonymous]

All this talk of votech and IB/AP is avoiding the real issue and what these boundary changes are meant to address.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All this talk of votech and IB/AP is avoiding the real issue and what these boundary changes are meant to address.

If diversity and equity are the goals, draw line that result in region 3 schools having similar farms rates to region 1. Absent busing it's impossible. The only way to meet the goal is either busing or making every school that borders a bad school just as bad. FCPS itself says that 40% FARMs is the tipping point and there is no way way to distribute high FARMS students to neighboring school in a way that balances those rates without pulling all of the schools over 40%. FCPS doing this now makes me wonder whether they are being advised by Youngkin or the Trump campaign

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All this talk of votech and IB/AP is avoiding the real issue and what these boundary changes are meant to address.

Agree. They ought to be looking harder at IB but mostly they just want to lay the foundation to move kids around to advance their equity agenda by calling it “efficiency.” Given how profligate they are otherwise with taxpayer money, it’s very transparent what they want to accomplish.