FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

+1, one of the best ideas I've seen on this thread.

There's a significant unmet demand for Mandarin immersion in FCPS. There's also a substantial heritage speaker community for Hindi-Urdu that could benefit from services. That covers the two most populous countries of the world.

Add in some other K-6 magnets in the Lewis Pyramid (e.g. Montessori) and you might retain zoned students and attract others.

Another interesting idea from a PP be to greatly expand the vocational programs at Edison and transfer part of the general student population to Lewis. And provide some advanced STEM options as well.

Fair capital improvements to bring facilities to comparable facilities nearby would also help.

- UMC family in Lewis Pyramid considering moving or pupil placing, but would much rather be offered reasons to stay.

Lewis is not located well enough to attract those from all over the county.

What do you mean by not in a desirable.location? It's at the intersection of the beltway, close to the FFX county parkway.

Look at a map. If you live in Lewis district, would you send your kid to Westfield every day? To Herndon? To South Lakes?

Absolutely not, but to that end you could say no school is in a "desirable location" if you're far away. People.pupil place for the programs not.location.

DP. For TJHSST, yes. For some, even Langley. For what you're proposing at Lewis, probably not.

I'm a separate poster than the one offering some solutions for Lewis, but my point was just that - if Lewis was performing at a Langley level or offered programs at TJ, you'd get transfers. So exactly what I said, it's not locations - it's the programs.

[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:

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.

Hoarding what privilege?

DP. A frequent poster on this board believes that if your kids go to a school that is better performing than her kids, that their school should be brought down to her kids’ school’s level. It’s a selfish approach to life, but you’ll forgive her for being so bitter.

Schools don't perform; students do. But some schools provide access to opportunities in FCPS that others do not, and it aligns largely with the wealth of the community.

If FCPS cares about equitable access, it has to tackle this and stop indulging those like you who offer little but insults and condescension to everyone else.

So FCPS is denying opportunities to schools with lower middle-class families? Why haven't they been sued for providing lower quality facilities and programming on the basis of income?

[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:

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.

Hoarding what privilege?

DP. A frequent poster on this board believes that if your kids go to a school that is better performing than her kids, that their school should be brought down to her kids’ school’s level. It’s a selfish approach to life, but you’ll forgive her for being so bitter.

Schools don't perform; students do. But some schools provide access to opportunities in FCPS that others do not, and it aligns largely with the wealth of the community.

If FCPS cares about equitable access, it has to tackle this and stop indulging those like you who offer little but insults and condescension to everyone else.

And, some of those "extras" are provided by parents who volunteer for extracurricular activities. The only way to even it out is to quit offering those options. Equity from the top down, in other words.

[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:

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.

Hoarding what privilege?

DP. A frequent poster on this board believes that if your kids go to a school that is better performing than her kids, that their school should be brought down to her kids’ school’s level. It’s a selfish approach to life, but you’ll forgive her for being so bitter.

Schools don't perform; students do. But some schools provide access to opportunities in FCPS that others do not, and it aligns largely with the wealth of the community.

If FCPS cares about equitable access, it has to tackle this and stop indulging those like you who offer little but insults and condescension to everyone else.

So FCPS is denying opportunities to schools with lower middle-class families? Why haven't they been sued for providing lower quality facilities and programming on the basis of income?

So you think families in those schools have the same ready access to lawyers as families elsewhere in the county? It would make a good pro bono case, though.

[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:

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.

Hoarding what privilege?

DP. A frequent poster on this board believes that if your kids go to a school that is better performing than her kids, that their school should be brought down to her kids’ school’s level. It’s a selfish approach to life, but you’ll forgive her for being so bitter.

Schools don't perform; students do. But some schools provide access to opportunities in FCPS that others do not, and it aligns largely with the wealth of the community.

If FCPS cares about equitable access, it has to tackle this and stop indulging those like you who offer little but insults and condescension to everyone else.

And, some of those "extras" are provided by parents who volunteer for extracurricular activities. The only way to even it out is to quit offering those options. Equity from the top down, in other words.

Some are, and some aren't. They shouldn't discourage parents from providing "extras" but they can do more to make sure the schools themselves offer students similar opportunities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents shouldn’t be involved. That’s how you get these absurd little cutouts and gerrymanders. Let the consultants draw the maps.

Yeah, let the out of state no bid consultants who have never done anything like this before who advertised themselves as being broadband consultants do the work. They are much more qualified to determine the fate of FCPS students than parents.

In a sea of dumb SJW ideas…

The consultants are only here for cover. Reid a the school board have made their decisions. Parents are only being given lip service. How many times does this same shell game have to be played before Fairfax county voters and parents catch on?

Since you’re so omniscient, fill us in on these already-made decisions.

Happy to lay it out for you. The twin pillars of Reid's equity at all cost and board members self interest will result in the following. Boundaries that move high performing students to low performing schools based on the friend groups of board members, resulting in boundaries that would make heavily gerrymandered congressional districts look sane. The parents of those high performing kids will move to non-public alternatives and school performance across FCPS will plummet. School vouchers enter the VA landscape, Reid retires with a big nest egg and board members move on to other political offices. Everyone wins, except for FCPS students and parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents shouldn’t be involved. That’s how you get these absurd little cutouts and gerrymanders. Let the consultants draw the maps.

Yeah, let the out of state no bid consultants who have never done anything like this before who advertised themselves as being broadband consultants do the work. They are much more qualified to determine the fate of FCPS students than parents.

In a sea of dumb SJW ideas…

The consultants are only here for cover. Reid a the school board have made their decisions. Parents are only being given lip service. How many times does this same shell game have to be played before Fairfax county voters and parents catch on?

Since you’re so omniscient, fill us in on these already-made decisions.

Happy to lay it out for you. The twin pillars of Reid's equity at all cost and board members self interest will result in the following. Boundaries that move high performing students to low performing schools based on the friend groups of board members, resulting in boundaries that would make heavily gerrymandered congressional districts look sane. The parents of those high performing kids will move to non-public alternatives and school performance across FCPS will plummet. School vouchers enter the VA landscape, Reid retires with a big nest egg and board members move on to other political offices. Everyone wins, except for FCPS students and parents.

🤣🤣🤣 you all are wild. You keep repeating it over and over like it's fact. No decisions have been made that's why there is a review.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents shouldn’t be involved. That’s how you get these absurd little cutouts and gerrymanders. Let the consultants draw the maps.

Yeah, let the out of state no bid consultants who have never done anything like this before who advertised themselves as being broadband consultants do the work. They are much more qualified to determine the fate of FCPS students than parents.

In a sea of dumb SJW ideas…

The consultants are only here for cover. Reid a the school board have made their decisions. Parents are only being given lip service. How many times does this same shell game have to be played before Fairfax county voters and parents catch on?

Since you’re so omniscient, fill us in on these already-made decisions.

Happy to lay it out for you. The twin pillars of Reid's equity at all cost and board members self interest will result in the following. Boundaries that move high performing students to low performing schools based on the friend groups of board members, resulting in boundaries that would make heavily gerrymandered congressional districts look sane. The parents of those high performing kids will move to non-public alternatives and school performance across FCPS will plummet. School vouchers enter the VA landscape, Reid retires with a big nest egg and board members move on to other political offices. Everyone wins, except for FCPS students and parents.

Nope. People can't just afford "non public alternatives ". Sure some of fcps can, but many of the young fed/mil/contractors/single parent incomes are NOT making g private school money.
It's so irritating when people throw this out as an easy alternative or an inevitable outcome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents shouldn’t be involved. That’s how you get these absurd little cutouts and gerrymanders. Let the consultants draw the maps.

Yeah, let the out of state no bid consultants who have never done anything like this before who advertised themselves as being broadband consultants do the work. They are much more qualified to determine the fate of FCPS students than parents.

In a sea of dumb SJW ideas…

The consultants are only here for cover. Reid a the school board have made their decisions. Parents are only being given lip service. How many times does this same shell game have to be played before Fairfax county voters and parents catch on?

Since you’re so omniscient, fill us in on these already-made decisions.

Happy to lay it out for you. The twin pillars of Reid's equity at all cost and board members self interest will result in the following. Boundaries that move high performing students to low performing schools based on the friend groups of board members, resulting in boundaries that would make heavily gerrymandered congressional districts look sane. The parents of those high performing kids will move to non-public alternatives and school performance across FCPS will plummet. School vouchers enter the VA landscape, Reid retires with a big nest egg and board members move on to other political offices. Everyone wins, except for FCPS students and parents.

Can you be clear about which FCPS parents and students lose, exactly? UMC families will still win as they would pay for private and stay within wealthy circles. It sounds like you're implying the middle class would not "win" as the wealthy leave them behind post-boundary changes. Fair enough. But right now the lower middle class and the poor are absolutely not winning either in their bad schools. It sounds like your fire has been lit only because it now affects you, but you were not willing to stand up for those below you.

[Anonymous]

It is a lot easier to shift students than to give them good instruction.

That is the SB choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents shouldn’t be involved. That’s how you get these absurd little cutouts and gerrymanders. Let the consultants draw the maps.

Yeah, let the out of state no bid consultants who have never done anything like this before who advertised themselves as being broadband consultants do the work. They are much more qualified to determine the fate of FCPS students than parents.

In a sea of dumb SJW ideas…

The consultants are only here for cover. Reid a the school board have made their decisions. Parents are only being given lip service. How many times does this same shell game have to be played before Fairfax county voters and parents catch on?

Since you’re so omniscient, fill us in on these already-made decisions.

Happy to lay it out for you. The twin pillars of Reid's equity at all cost and board members self interest will result in the following. Boundaries that move high performing students to low performing schools based on the friend groups of board members, resulting in boundaries that would make heavily gerrymandered congressional districts look sane. The parents of those high performing kids will move to non-public alternatives and school performance across FCPS will plummet. School vouchers enter the VA landscape, Reid retires with a big nest egg and board members move on to other political offices. Everyone wins, except for FCPS students and parents.

Nope. People can't just afford "non public alternatives ". Sure some of fcps can, but many of the young fed/mil/contractors/single parent incomes are NOT making g private school money.
It's so irritating when people throw this out as an easy alternative or an inevitable outcome.

But rich people can, right? The very people that the SJWs try to soak are the ones who will not be directly impacted by the school board’s equity crusade.

That’s why you’ll always be unfulfilled. The UC and really the UMC are untouchable. This of course will make the school system worse for those that remain, with this race to the bottom.

[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:

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.

Hoarding what privilege?

DP. A frequent poster on this board believes that if your kids go to a school that is better performing than her kids, that their school should be brought down to her kids’ school’s level. It’s a selfish approach to life, but you’ll forgive her for being so bitter.

Schools don't perform; students do. But some schools provide access to opportunities in FCPS that others do not, and it aligns largely with the wealth of the community.

If FCPS cares about equitable access, it has to tackle this and stop indulging those like you who offer little but insults and condescension to everyone else.

Give me that county government cheese!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

+1, one of the best ideas I've seen on this thread.

There's a significant unmet demand for Mandarin immersion in FCPS. There's also a substantial heritage speaker community for Hindi-Urdu that could benefit from services. That covers the two most populous countries of the world.

Add in some other K-6 magnets in the Lewis Pyramid (e.g. Montessori) and you might retain zoned students and attract others.

Another interesting idea from a PP be to greatly expand the vocational programs at Edison and transfer part of the general student population to Lewis. And provide some advanced STEM options as well.

Fair capital improvements to bring facilities to comparable facilities nearby would also help.

- UMC family in Lewis Pyramid considering moving or pupil placing, but would much rather be offered reasons to stay.

Lewis is not located well enough to attract those from all over the county.

The bolded is simply untrue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

+1, one of the best ideas I've seen on this thread.

There's a significant unmet demand for Mandarin immersion in FCPS. There's also a substantial heritage speaker community for Hindi-Urdu that could benefit from services. That covers the two most populous countries of the world.

Add in some other K-6 magnets in the Lewis Pyramid (e.g. Montessori) and you might retain zoned students and attract others.

Another interesting idea from a PP be to greatly expand the vocational programs at Edison and transfer part of the general student population to Lewis. And provide some advanced STEM options as well.

Fair capital improvements to bring facilities to comparable facilities nearby would also help.

- UMC family in Lewis Pyramid considering moving or pupil placing, but would much rather be offered reasons to stay.

Lewis is not located well enough to attract those from all over the county.

What do you mean by not in a desirable.location? It's at the intersection of the beltway, close to the FFX county parkway.

Different poster adding that it is accessible to Alexandria, Fairfax and Burke and Annandale using backroads without having to drive one mile on the highways. It is also walkable to the springfield metro.

Lewis currently has a lot of negatives, but its location for a magnet school is perfect (a much better location for a magnet than the TJ campus)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

+1, one of the best ideas I've seen on this thread.

There's a significant unmet demand for Mandarin immersion in FCPS. There's also a substantial heritage speaker community for Hindi-Urdu that could benefit from services. That covers the two most populous countries of the world.

Add in some other K-6 magnets in the Lewis Pyramid (e.g. Montessori) and you might retain zoned students and attract others.

Another interesting idea from a PP be to greatly expand the vocational programs at Edison and transfer part of the general student population to Lewis. And provide some advanced STEM options as well.

Fair capital improvements to bring facilities to comparable facilities nearby would also help.

- UMC family in Lewis Pyramid considering moving or pupil placing, but would much rather be offered reasons to stay.

Lewis is not located well enough to attract those from all over the county.

What do you mean by not in a desirable.location? It's at the intersection of the beltway, close to the FFX county parkway.

Look at a map. If you live in Lewis district, would you send your kid to Westfield every day? To Herndon? To South Lakes?

We are at a school that might get rezoned.

If that happens, we would put our kid in private.

If Lewis was an application based foreign language magnet, one of mine would have likely apply. They came from the AAP middle school and knew very few kids at the local high school. They plan to pursuing a college degree in one of the foreign languages on that list. The FCPS school that offers it is too far and inconvenient for our family, but if they could have applied to a nearby language magnet with the opportunity to take additional obscure languages, they would have jumped on it.