FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This. Keep middle school 2 years and early start. They will survive. I promise if you move 6th to middle school and have a late start with everyone commuting home during rush hour there will be plenty of complaints.

Why force them to "survive" something (as you put it) unnecessarily when they don't have to? You just want kids today to be as miserable as you were? There is no reason we shouldn't try to make things better if we have the opportunity to do so.

You want to see truancy go up? Have middle schoolers on their own in the morning while mom and dad are at work.

Again, we changed high school start times because "studies show" that it is better. Yet, mental health and academic scores have gone down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is about boundary changes, not the merits of AAP. Can you all please cut it out and take it to the whole forum that was created for these sorts of arguments?

When are they expected to use their modeling software to spit out actual scenarios? Not just the supposedly fake ones re: 6-8 schools and returning kids to their home schools?

We owe it to Dr. Reid and the community to take a serious look at 6-8 middle school, not just throw up a slide that says it’s not feasible.

The BRAC should continue to look at this scenario, and flesh it out a bit.

DP. The 6-8 proposal is ridiculous, for so many reasons. That’s the last thing this board should be focused on. It benefits no one.

Well, except for the vast majority of 6th graders who might progress through FCPS in the coming decades, so ballpark a couple hundred thousand students over time?

How does having 6th grades benefit them? I went to a 6th-8th school and the kids were way more advanced. Keeping them young for one more year is a good thing. Secondly, teachers are certified for K-6. So they will be limited on what they teach and if they want to change will need additional certifications or move back down to ES. Middle School teachers can’t teach 6th without an endorsement and certain classes.

Wrong. Many middle school teachers have a subject-specific license to teach 6-8. So if they currently teach 8th grade, they can also teach 6th grade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reid wants 6-8 middle school to make space in elementary schools for universal pre-k. Would have made sense at one time but times have changed.

Reid wants 6-8 middle school because she thinks it's what's best for 6th graders. Many FCPS parents (and the vast majority of researchers and the rest of the USA) agree.

Many FCPS parents do not agree at all on this. We just had a PTA meeting and no one is for this. And no, the rest of the USA does not agree on much of anything, you undercut your own position by writing this non-sensical statement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is about boundary changes, not the merits of AAP. Can you all please cut it out and take it to the whole forum that was created for these sorts of arguments?

When are they expected to use their modeling software to spit out actual scenarios? Not just the supposedly fake ones re: 6-8 schools and returning kids to their home schools?

We owe it to Dr. Reid and the community to take a serious look at 6-8 middle school, not just throw up a slide that says it’s not feasible.

The BRAC should continue to look at this scenario, and flesh it out a bit.

DP. The 6-8 proposal is ridiculous, for so many reasons. That’s the last thing this board should be focused on. It benefits no one.

Well, except for the vast majority of 6th graders who might progress through FCPS in the coming decades, so ballpark a couple hundred thousand students over time?

How does having 6th grades benefit them? I went to a 6th-8th school and the kids were way more advanced. Keeping them young for one more year is a good thing. Secondly, teachers are certified for K-6. So they will be limited on what they teach and if they want to change will need additional certifications or move back down to ES. Middle School teachers can’t teach 6th without an endorsement and certain classes.

Wrong. Many middle school teachers have a subject-specific license to teach 6-8. So if they currently teach 8th grade, they can also teach 6th grade.

In my experience, more often than not, middle school teaches have the 7-12 subject area endorsement.

[Anonymous]

There is no rational plane of existence where middle school 6-8 is implemented for the 2026-27 school year. Even having it implemented for the 2031-32 school year for the next review is a pipe dream. The facilities were designed to support 2 grades. No one will take a scenario seriously when the substance boils down to: “Wow 180% capacity is a lot, but is it too much? Who knows! The possibilities are endless!”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You want to see truancy go up? Have middle schoolers on their own in the morning while mom and dad are at work.

I'm not about to pretend to care about your theory on how degenerate kids will skip school if the bus comes an hour later. There is no reason my kid should have a 6:20am bus pick up time, .3 miles from our house. The sleep, growth, and well-being of thousands of 7-8th graders is more important. Those same kids managed to get to elementary school for 9am starts for years, they can manage to get them on a bus after the sun rises in stead of while it's still pitch black outside. Maybe even have time to feed them a real breakfast too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You want to see truancy go up? Have middle schoolers on their own in the morning while mom and dad are at work.

I'm not about to pretend to care about your theory on how degenerate kids will skip school if the bus comes an hour later. There is no reason my kid should have a 6:20am bus pick up time, .3 miles from our house. The sleep, growth, and well-being of thousands of 7-8th graders is more important. Those same kids managed to get to elementary school for 9am starts for years, they can manage to get them on a bus after the sun rises in stead of while it's still pitch black outside. Maybe even have time to feed them a real breakfast too.

Do not be fooled into thinking that the recent focus and upcoming survey about MS start times is all just about FCPS concern for your MS students.

Gatehouse has an easy solution for those of you who express a reasonable concern about the early start times (a problem FCPS has control over creating or removing):

Oh, you hate those early start times? We hear your concerns. That is why we are weighting proximity to middle schools as the primary reason we are moving your ES into another pyramid as part of our boundary review proposal: to address your concerns. What’s that you say? You aren’t a split feeder ES? There was never anything in the CIP to raise capacity or boundary concerns for your ES in your pyramid? The move would create an attendance island? Don’t worry, we can “fix” any of the other “issues” that shifting your ES to the next pyramid creates with a domino effect that cascades schools that are further away from your current pyramid HS into your current (but soon to be former) pyramid. That’s why it’s “comprehensive” review. Hey, making those other moves “fixes” an attendance island! Wow, awesome!

Anybody who thinks these FCPS surveys are anything less than a self serving data grab to support moving your “edge of the boundary” school into another pyramid (that just “happens” to have a giant FARMS disparity with your pyramid) has been played. FCPS needs “some reason,” to cover up the real reason for the move.

Careful about the record you make for FCPS and consider how they intend to use your response to surveys that “will likely be considered as part of the comprehensive boundary review.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is about boundary changes, not the merits of AAP. Can you all please cut it out and take it to the whole forum that was created for these sorts of arguments?

When are they expected to use their modeling software to spit out actual scenarios? Not just the supposedly fake ones re: 6-8 schools and returning kids to their home schools?

We owe it to Dr. Reid and the community to take a serious look at 6-8 middle school, not just throw up a slide that says it’s not feasible.

The BRAC should continue to look at this scenario, and flesh it out a bit.

DP. The 6-8 proposal is ridiculous, for so many reasons. That’s the last thing this board should be focused on. It benefits no one.

Well, except for the vast majority of 6th graders who might progress through FCPS in the coming decades, so ballpark a couple hundred thousand students over time?

How does having 6th grades benefit them? I went to a 6th-8th school and the kids were way more advanced. Keeping them young for one more year is a good thing. Secondly, teachers are certified for K-6. So they will be limited on what they teach and if they want to change will need additional certifications or move back down to ES. Middle School teachers can’t teach 6th without an endorsement and certain classes.

Wrong. Many middle school teachers have a subject-specific license to teach 6-8. So if they currently teach 8th grade, they can also teach 6th grade.

Some do. Many are 7-12 subject specific.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You want to see truancy go up? Have middle schoolers on their own in the morning while mom and dad are at work.

I'm not about to pretend to care about your theory on how degenerate kids will skip school if the bus comes an hour later. There is no reason my kid should have a 6:20am bus pick up time, .3 miles from our house. The sleep, growth, and well-being of thousands of 7-8th graders is more important. Those same kids managed to get to elementary school for 9am starts for years, they can manage to get them on a bus after the sun rises in stead of while it's still pitch black outside. Maybe even have time to feed them a real breakfast too.

Do not be fooled into thinking that the recent focus and upcoming survey about MS start times is all just about FCPS concern for your MS students.

Gatehouse has an easy solution for those of you who express a reasonable concern about the early start times (a problem FCPS has control over creating or removing):

Oh, you hate those early start times? We hear your concerns. That is why we are weighting proximity to middle schools as the primary reason we are moving your ES into another pyramid as part of our boundary review proposal: to address your concerns. What’s that you say? You aren’t a split feeder ES? There was never anything in the CIP to raise capacity or boundary concerns for your ES in your pyramid? The move would create an attendance island? Don’t worry, we can “fix” any of the other “issues” that shifting your ES to the next pyramid creates with a domino effect that cascades schools that are further away from your current pyramid HS into your current (but soon to be former) pyramid. That’s why it’s “comprehensive” review. Hey, making those other moves “fixes” an attendance island! Wow, awesome!

Anybody who thinks these FCPS surveys are anything less than a self serving data grab to support moving your “edge of the boundary” school into another pyramid (that just “happens” to have a giant FARMS disparity with your pyramid) has been played. FCPS needs “some reason,” to cover up the real reason for the move.

Careful about the record you make for FCPS and consider how they intend to use your response to surveys that “will likely be considered as part of the comprehensive boundary review.”

The only way 6-8 will work is if there are 2 middle schools per pyramid. But that would take many years. You also cannot just make an ES a middle school because the spaces are not the same. You would have to do a full fledged renovation.

[Anonymous]

So is Michelle Reid totally clueless or is this a crafty way to try and torpedo the boundary review by distracting people with a side project that would take many years, many millions of dollars, and wholesale revisions to the CIP to implement?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You want to see truancy go up? Have middle schoolers on their own in the morning while mom and dad are at work.

I'm not about to pretend to care about your theory on how degenerate kids will skip school if the bus comes an hour later. There is no reason my kid should have a 6:20am bus pick up time, .3 miles from our house. The sleep, growth, and well-being of thousands of 7-8th graders is more important. Those same kids managed to get to elementary school for 9am starts for years, they can manage to get them on a bus after the sun rises in stead of while it's still pitch black outside. Maybe even have time to feed them a real breakfast too.

I love the early schedule as it allows me to see my middle schooler in the morning. I drive her to school on the way to work. As I commute toward DC, we of course have to get up before dawn, like most work out of the home people do. This is the only 2 years we have that time together and I like it. Middle school is hard and this schedule lets me connect with my kid in a way I wouldn’t get to if they change the times because work and commuting times make most adults get up early. Think of this as prep for life…my kid is growing fine and has excellent grades BTW.
Maybe think about driving your kid to school. I do understand if that isn’t feasible for you do that for your kid. Even you can’t “pretend to care” about anyone else’s ideas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is about boundary changes, not the merits of AAP. Can you all please cut it out and take it to the whole forum that was created for these sorts of arguments?

When are they expected to use their modeling software to spit out actual scenarios? Not just the supposedly fake ones re: 6-8 schools and returning kids to their home schools?

We owe it to Dr. Reid and the community to take a serious look at 6-8 middle school, not just throw up a slide that says it’s not feasible.

The BRAC should continue to look at this scenario, and flesh it out a bit.

DP. The 6-8 proposal is ridiculous, for so many reasons. That’s the last thing this board should be focused on. It benefits no one.

Well, except for the vast majority of 6th graders who might progress through FCPS in the coming decades, so ballpark a couple hundred thousand students over time?

How does having 6th grades benefit them? I went to a 6th-8th school and the kids were way more advanced. Keeping them young for one more year is a good thing. Secondly, teachers are certified for K-6. So they will be limited on what they teach and if they want to change will need additional certifications or move back down to ES. Middle School teachers can’t teach 6th without an endorsement and certain classes.

Wrong. Many middle school teachers have a subject-specific license to teach 6-8. So if they currently teach 8th grade, they can also teach 6th grade.

DP. No one has answered WHY 6th graders should be moved to middle school. There are no good reasons to do so.

[Anonymous]

If you live .3 mi from middle school can’t your kid just walk?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is about boundary changes, not the merits of AAP. Can you all please cut it out and take it to the whole forum that was created for these sorts of arguments?

When are they expected to use their modeling software to spit out actual scenarios? Not just the supposedly fake ones re: 6-8 schools and returning kids to their home schools?

We owe it to Dr. Reid and the community to take a serious look at 6-8 middle school, not just throw up a slide that says it’s not feasible.

The BRAC should continue to look at this scenario, and flesh it out a bit.

DP. The 6-8 proposal is ridiculous, for so many reasons. That’s the last thing this board should be focused on. It benefits no one.

Well, except for the vast majority of 6th graders who might progress through FCPS in the coming decades, so ballpark a couple hundred thousand students over time?

How does having 6th grades benefit them? I went to a 6th-8th school and the kids were way more advanced. Keeping them young for one more year is a good thing. Secondly, teachers are certified for K-6. So they will be limited on what they teach and if they want to change will need additional certifications or move back down to ES. Middle School teachers can’t teach 6th without an endorsement and certain classes.

Wrong. Many middle school teachers have a subject-specific license to teach 6-8. So if they currently teach 8th grade, they can also teach 6th grade.

In my experience, more often than not, middle school teaches have the 7-12 subject area endorsement.

I looked up licenses for 30 general education teachers at one FCPS middle school. Nineteen of those 30 have licenses to cover 6-8 (they either have 6-8 or they have elementary licenses in addition to MS/HS). Six of those nineteen have both 6-8 and general subject ("English" or "Social Studies"). The other eleven do not seem to have grade 6 licenses.

[Anonymous]

6-8 is not feasible. Not sure why so many are spending so much time discussing it. I think this is a distraction technique by Reid.