FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

That would have been far more sensible. But addressing significant under-enrollment should be added to the mix as well.

Addressing significant under-enrollment is not fixed by redistricting. It is fixed by analyzing and acknowledging the elephant in the room: special programs (IB, for example) which enable the family to request transfer.
Foreign language is another. Unless there is an extremely good reason why a student wants a particular foreign language, that should not be a good reason for transfer. (There might be some good reasons, but I personally know kids who transferred for sports based on a foreign language not offered at base school.)

Or, perhaps, offer an online option for the language.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That would have been far more sensible. But addressing significant under-enrollment should be added to the mix as well.

Addressing significant under-enrollment is not fixed by redistricting. It is fixed by analyzing and acknowledging the elephant in the room: special programs (IB, for example) which enable the family to request transfer.
Foreign language is another. Unless there is an extremely good reason why a student wants a particular foreign language, that should not be a good reason for transfer. (There might be some good reasons, but I personally know kids who transferred for sports based on a foreign language not offered at base school.)

Or, perhaps, offer an online option for the language.

+1

There should be a menu of foreign languages available in person at every high school. The remainder should be offered solely on an online platform.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That would have been far more sensible. But addressing significant under-enrollment should be added to the mix as well.

Addressing significant under-enrollment is not fixed by redistricting. It is fixed by analyzing and acknowledging the elephant in the room: special programs (IB, for example) which enable the family to request transfer.
Foreign language is another. Unless there is an extremely good reason why a student wants a particular foreign language, that should not be a good reason for transfer. (There might be some good reasons, but I personally know kids who transferred for sports based on a foreign language not offered at base school.)

Or, perhaps, offer an online option for the language.

+1

There should be a menu of foreign languages available in person at every high school. The remainder should be offered solely on an online platform.

+1
But this needs phased out. Can’t just drop them for kids that started already.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That would have been far more sensible. But addressing significant under-enrollment should be added to the mix as well.

Addressing significant under-enrollment is not fixed by redistricting. It is fixed by analyzing and acknowledging the elephant in the room: special programs (IB, for example) which enable the family to request transfer.
Foreign language is another. Unless there is an extremely good reason why a student wants a particular foreign language, that should not be a good reason for transfer. (There might be some good reasons, but I personally know kids who transferred for sports based on a foreign language not offered at base school.)

Or, perhaps, offer an online option for the language.

+1

Then phase it out. That could be done just as soon as this boundary review.

There should be a menu of foreign languages available in person at every high school. The remainder should be offered solely on an online platform.

+1
But this needs phased out. Can’t just drop them for kids that started already.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That would have been far more sensible. But addressing significant under-enrollment should be added to the mix as well.

Addressing significant under-enrollment is not fixed by redistricting. It is fixed by analyzing and acknowledging the elephant in the room: special programs (IB, for example) which enable the family to request transfer.
Foreign language is another. Unless there is an extremely good reason why a student wants a particular foreign language, that should not be a good reason for transfer. (There might be some good reasons, but I personally know kids who transferred for sports based on a foreign language not offered at base school.)

Or, perhaps, offer an online option for the language.

+1

There should be a menu of foreign languages available in person at every high school. The remainder should be offered solely on an online platform.

+1
But this needs phased out. Can’t just drop them for kids that started already.

-1 foreign language needs to be practiced and learned in front of people. you are completely ignorant of language learning if you think online/computer based language learning works well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That would have been far more sensible. But addressing significant under-enrollment should be added to the mix as well.

Addressing significant under-enrollment is not fixed by redistricting. It is fixed by analyzing and acknowledging the elephant in the room: special programs (IB, for example) which enable the family to request transfer.
Foreign language is another. Unless there is an extremely good reason why a student wants a particular foreign language, that should not be a good reason for transfer. (There might be some good reasons, but I personally know kids who transferred for sports based on a foreign language not offered at base school.)

Or, perhaps, offer an online option for the language.

+1

There should be a menu of foreign languages available in person at every high school. The remainder should be offered solely on an online platform.

+1
But this needs phased out. Can’t just drop them for kids that started already.

-1 foreign language needs to be practiced and learned in front of people. you are completely ignorant of language learning if you think online/computer based language learning works well.

So, phase it out. We cannot offer all languages to all students. Allow transfers for those who have proof of real need to learn the language or with a close association to it. It has been abused far too much for those who want to be on a better sports team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That would have been far more sensible. But addressing significant under-enrollment should be added to the mix as well.

Addressing significant under-enrollment is not fixed by redistricting. It is fixed by analyzing and acknowledging the elephant in the room: special programs (IB, for example) which enable the family to request transfer.
Foreign language is another. Unless there is an extremely good reason why a student wants a particular foreign language, that should not be a good reason for transfer. (There might be some good reasons, but I personally know kids who transferred for sports based on a foreign language not offered at base school.)

Or, perhaps, offer an online option for the language.

+1

There should be a menu of foreign languages available in person at every high school. The remainder should be offered solely on an online platform.

+1
But this needs phased out. Can’t just drop them for kids that started already.

-1 foreign language needs to be practiced and learned in front of people. you are completely ignorant of language learning if you think online/computer based language learning works well.

So, phase it out. We cannot offer all languages to all students. Allow transfers for those who have proof of real need to learn the language or with a close association to it. It has been abused far too much for those who want to be on a better sports team.

Not really.

What about turning Lewis into a foreign language magnet for languages like Japanese, Mandarin, Russian, Urdu, etc?

Keep the bigger language programs of Spanish, French and German where they are, but put the smaller language programs all in one place.

Make Lewis the IB magnet too, for all of the schools in that part of the county.

Eliminate the useless "leadership" academy.

A foreign language and IB magnet at Lewis would surely grow the school by around 50-100+/- high achieving students per grade.

A side benefit of doing something this is that the kind of kids that would seek out IB and language magnets are likely to also strong in math and sciences, which would raise Lewis test scores across the board. These students would heavily trend towards music students, which would increase the quality and profile of Lewis' orchestra, band and marching band.

FCPS could easily and quickly turn around Lewis' test scores and rankings, while filling the enrollment with high schieving students who want to attend the school, with very little effort or disruption of an unwanted rezoning that won't make one bit of change to Lewis' status.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That would have been far more sensible. But addressing significant under-enrollment should be added to the mix as well.

Addressing significant under-enrollment is not fixed by redistricting. It is fixed by analyzing and acknowledging the elephant in the room: special programs (IB, for example) which enable the family to request transfer.
Foreign language is another. Unless there is an extremely good reason why a student wants a particular foreign language, that should not be a good reason for transfer. (There might be some good reasons, but I personally know kids who transferred for sports based on a foreign language not offered at base school.)

Or, perhaps, offer an online option for the language.

+1

There should be a menu of foreign languages available in person at every high school. The remainder should be offered solely on an online platform.

+1
But this needs phased out. Can’t just drop them for kids that started already.

-1 foreign language needs to be practiced and learned in front of people. you are completely ignorant of language learning if you think online/computer based language learning works well.

So, phase it out. We cannot offer all languages to all students. Allow transfers for those who have proof of real need to learn the language or with a close association to it. It has been abused far too much for those who want to be on a better sports team.

Not really.

What about turning Lewis into a foreign language magnet for languages like Japanese, Mandarin, Russian, Urdu, etc?

Keep the bigger language programs of Spanish, French and German where they are, but put the smaller language programs all in one place.

Make Lewis the IB magnet too, for all of the schools in that part of the county.

Eliminate the useless "leadership" academy.

A foreign language and IB magnet at Lewis would surely grow the school by around 50-100+/- high achieving students per grade.

A side benefit of doing something this is that the kind of kids that would seek out IB and language magnets are likely to also strong in math and sciences, which would raise Lewis test scores across the board. These students would heavily trend towards music students, which would increase the quality and profile of Lewis' orchestra, band and marching band.

FCPS could easily and quickly turn around Lewis' test scores and rankings, while filling the enrollment with high schieving students who want to attend the school, with very little effort or disruption of an unwanted rezoning that won't make one bit of change to Lewis' status.

Sounds like you basically want to pull electives and programs out of other schools so your kids aren't at risk of getting rezoned to Lewis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That would have been far more sensible. But addressing significant under-enrollment should be added to the mix as well.

Addressing significant under-enrollment is not fixed by redistricting. It is fixed by analyzing and acknowledging the elephant in the room: special programs (IB, for example) which enable the family to request transfer.
Foreign language is another. Unless there is an extremely good reason why a student wants a particular foreign language, that should not be a good reason for transfer. (There might be some good reasons, but I personally know kids who transferred for sports based on a foreign language not offered at base school.)

Or, perhaps, offer an online option for the language.

+1

There should be a menu of foreign languages available in person at every high school. The remainder should be offered solely on an online platform.

+1
But this needs phased out. Can’t just drop them for kids that started already.

-1 foreign language needs to be practiced and learned in front of people. you are completely ignorant of language learning if you think online/computer based language learning works well.

So, phase it out. We cannot offer all languages to all students. Allow transfers for those who have proof of real need to learn the language or with a close association to it. It has been abused far too much for those who want to be on a better sports team.

We can continue offering what we do without trying to judge everybody by the bad apples.
Also, who is supposed to be a judge of "what's a good reason"? I'm a heritage speaker of a language, and want to reinforce that for my kids in school. I know of others that hope to live in countries where particular languages are spoken. And I know of many who just read the research on learning multiple languages and think it's a good idea. How would the school system decide what of those is a "good" reason and weed out those wanting to use it for particular schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That would have been far more sensible. But addressing significant under-enrollment should be added to the mix as well.

Addressing significant under-enrollment is not fixed by redistricting. It is fixed by analyzing and acknowledging the elephant in the room: special programs (IB, for example) which enable the family to request transfer.
Foreign language is another. Unless there is an extremely good reason why a student wants a particular foreign language, that should not be a good reason for transfer. (There might be some good reasons, but I personally know kids who transferred for sports based on a foreign language not offered at base school.)

Or, perhaps, offer an online option for the language.

+1

There should be a menu of foreign languages available in person at every high school. The remainder should be offered solely on an online platform.

+1
But this needs phased out. Can’t just drop them for kids that started already.

-1 foreign language needs to be practiced and learned in front of people. you are completely ignorant of language learning if you think online/computer based language learning works well.

So, phase it out. We cannot offer all languages to all students. Allow transfers for those who have proof of real need to learn the language or with a close association to it. It has been abused far too much for those who want to be on a better sports team.

We can continue offering what we do without trying to judge everybody by the bad apples.
Also, who is supposed to be a judge of "what's a good reason"? I'm a heritage speaker of a language, and want to reinforce that for my kids in school. I know of others that hope to live in countries where particular languages are spoken. And I know of many who just read the research on learning multiple languages and think it's a good idea. How would the school system decide what of those is a "good" reason and weed out those wanting to use it for particular schools?

If equitable access to programming is a serious goal, they cannot continue the current system where certain schools offer far more robust foreign languages offerings than others and families who want to avail of that have to pay an application fee to pupil place and then arrange for their kids' transportation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That would have been far more sensible. But addressing significant under-enrollment should be added to the mix as well.

Addressing significant under-enrollment is not fixed by redistricting. It is fixed by analyzing and acknowledging the elephant in the room: special programs (IB, for example) which enable the family to request transfer.
Foreign language is another. Unless there is an extremely good reason why a student wants a particular foreign language, that should not be a good reason for transfer. (There might be some good reasons, but I personally know kids who transferred for sports based on a foreign language not offered at base school.)

Or, perhaps, offer an online option for the language.

+1

There should be a menu of foreign languages available in person at every high school. The remainder should be offered solely on an online platform.

+1
But this needs phased out. Can’t just drop them for kids that started already.

-1 foreign language needs to be practiced and learned in front of people. you are completely ignorant of language learning if you think online/computer based language learning works well.

So, phase it out. We cannot offer all languages to all students. Allow transfers for those who have proof of real need to learn the language or with a close association to it. It has been abused far too much for those who want to be on a better sports team.

We can continue offering what we do without trying to judge everybody by the bad apples.
Also, who is supposed to be a judge of "what's a good reason"? I'm a heritage speaker of a language, and want to reinforce that for my kids in school. I know of others that hope to live in countries where particular languages are spoken. And I know of many who just read the research on learning multiple languages and think it's a good idea. How would the school system decide what of those is a "good" reason and weed out those wanting to use it for particular schools?

If equitable access to programming is a serious goal, they cannot continue the current system where certain schools offer far more robust foreign languages offerings than others and families who want to avail of that have to pay an application fee to pupil place and then arrange for their kids' transportation.

You cannot possibly offer all languages at all schools.

[Anonymous]

We can continue offering what we do without trying to judge everybody by the bad apples.
Also, who is supposed to be a judge of "what's a good reason"? I'm a heritage speaker of a language, and want to reinforce that for my kids in school. I know of others that hope to live in countries where particular languages are spoken. And I know of many who just read the research on learning multiple languages and think it's a good idea. How would the school system decide what of those is a "good" reason and weed out those wanting to use it for particular schools?

I think that having a parent as a "heritage speaker" is a good reason that would be acceptable. But, I personally know kids who transferred to another high school for sports purposes and gave the language as a reason. The language had no connection to the family. It was used like some people use IB/AP to transfer.
Transferring for sports is far more common than most realize.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That would have been far more sensible. But addressing significant under-enrollment should be added to the mix as well.

Addressing significant under-enrollment is not fixed by redistricting. It is fixed by analyzing and acknowledging the elephant in the room: special programs (IB, for example) which enable the family to request transfer.
Foreign language is another. Unless there is an extremely good reason why a student wants a particular foreign language, that should not be a good reason for transfer. (There might be some good reasons, but I personally know kids who transferred for sports based on a foreign language not offered at base school.)

Or, perhaps, offer an online option for the language.

+1

There should be a menu of foreign languages available in person at every high school. The remainder should be offered solely on an online platform.

+1
But this needs phased out. Can’t just drop them for kids that started already.

-1 foreign language needs to be practiced and learned in front of people. you are completely ignorant of language learning if you think online/computer based language learning works well.

So, phase it out. We cannot offer all languages to all students. Allow transfers for those who have proof of real need to learn the language or with a close association to it. It has been abused far too much for those who want to be on a better sports team.

We can continue offering what we do without trying to judge everybody by the bad apples.
Also, who is supposed to be a judge of "what's a good reason"? I'm a heritage speaker of a language, and want to reinforce that for my kids in school. I know of others that hope to live in countries where particular languages are spoken. And I know of many who just read the research on learning multiple languages and think it's a good idea. How would the school system decide what of those is a "good" reason and weed out those wanting to use it for particular schools?

If equitable access to programming is a serious goal, they cannot continue the current system where certain schools offer far more robust foreign languages offerings than others and families who want to avail of that have to pay an application fee to pupil place and then arrange for their kids' transportation.

You cannot possibly offer all languages at all schools.

You can offer some languages at all schools and the rest online. That’s an obvious solution although not attractive to the privilege hoarders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That would have been far more sensible. But addressing significant under-enrollment should be added to the mix as well.

Addressing significant under-enrollment is not fixed by redistricting. It is fixed by analyzing and acknowledging the elephant in the room: special programs (IB, for example) which enable the family to request transfer.
Foreign language is another. Unless there is an extremely good reason why a student wants a particular foreign language, that should not be a good reason for transfer. (There might be some good reasons, but I personally know kids who transferred for sports based on a foreign language not offered at base school.)

Or, perhaps, offer an online option for the language.

+1

There should be a menu of foreign languages available in person at every high school. The remainder should be offered solely on an online platform.

+1
But this needs phased out. Can’t just drop them for kids that started already.

-1 foreign language needs to be practiced and learned in front of people. you are completely ignorant of language learning if you think online/computer based language learning works well.

So, phase it out. We cannot offer all languages to all students. Allow transfers for those who have proof of real need to learn the language or with a close association to it. It has been abused far too much for those who want to be on a better sports team.

We can continue offering what we do without trying to judge everybody by the bad apples.
Also, who is supposed to be a judge of "what's a good reason"? I'm a heritage speaker of a language, and want to reinforce that for my kids in school. I know of others that hope to live in countries where particular languages are spoken. And I know of many who just read the research on learning multiple languages and think it's a good idea. How would the school system decide what of those is a "good" reason and weed out those wanting to use it for particular schools?

If equitable access to programming is a serious goal, they cannot continue the current system where certain schools offer far more robust foreign languages offerings than others and families who want to avail of that have to pay an application fee to pupil place and then arrange for their kids' transportation.

You cannot possibly offer all languages at all schools.

You can offer some languages at all schools and the rest online. That’s an obvious solution although not attractive to the privilege hoarders.

As mentioned in many comments above, online is not really a great way to learn a language or attempt to do immersion. Especially for the younger ages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That would have been far more sensible. But addressing significant under-enrollment should be added to the mix as well.

Addressing significant under-enrollment is not fixed by redistricting. It is fixed by analyzing and acknowledging the elephant in the room: special programs (IB, for example) which enable the family to request transfer.
Foreign language is another. Unless there is an extremely good reason why a student wants a particular foreign language, that should not be a good reason for transfer. (There might be some good reasons, but I personally know kids who transferred for sports based on a foreign language not offered at base school.)

Or, perhaps, offer an online option for the language.

+1

There should be a menu of foreign languages available in person at every high school. The remainder should be offered solely on an online platform.

+1
But this needs phased out. Can’t just drop them for kids that started already.

-1 foreign language needs to be practiced and learned in front of people. you are completely ignorant of language learning if you think online/computer based language learning works well.

So, phase it out. We cannot offer all languages to all students. Allow transfers for those who have proof of real need to learn the language or with a close association to it. It has been abused far too much for those who want to be on a better sports team.

We can continue offering what we do without trying to judge everybody by the bad apples.
Also, who is supposed to be a judge of "what's a good reason"? I'm a heritage speaker of a language, and want to reinforce that for my kids in school. I know of others that hope to live in countries where particular languages are spoken. And I know of many who just read the research on learning multiple languages and think it's a good idea. How would the school system decide what of those is a "good" reason and weed out those wanting to use it for particular schools?

If equitable access to programming is a serious goal, they cannot continue the current system where certain schools offer far more robust foreign languages offerings than others and families who want to avail of that have to pay an application fee to pupil place and then arrange for their kids' transportation.

You cannot possibly offer all languages at all schools.

You can offer some languages at all schools and the rest online. That’s an obvious solution although not attractive to the privilege hoarders.

As mentioned in many comments above, online is not really a great way to learn a language or attempt to do immersion. Especially for the younger ages.

And....anybody who had an elementary aged kid during covid shutdown can attest to this.