FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a second magnet school was in the cards, don't you think we would have heard about this by now? Seems like it would be a natural topic for feedback at these regional meetings.

But there's been no suggestion that FCPS wants to convert another high school to a magnet program. If one of their priorities is equitable access to programming, they already have to play mental gymnastics to pretend kids at the other high/secondary schools have the same opportunities as students at TJ. They'd only magnify this problem with yet another magnet program with courses not available at other schools. There would be a fresh round of scrutiny over who gets admitted, and whether the admissions are truly "merit-based," etc. Yes, Richmond has Maggie Walker, but it doesn't have a TJ. Opening another magnet in FCPS is pretty much the exact opposite of the direction in which Reid and the School Board are taking FCPS.

We are just saying that if FCPS was,serious about actually fixing the Lewis problem, a magnet school for languages, humanities, IB, new arrivals/esol, trades, non traditional students, etc would be a better, more effective, less diruptive and more popular way to fix the problem long term, than the virtue signaling ineffective bandaid of rezoning and moving kids around based on their demographics to try to mask low performance at Lewis.

Problem is this really isn't credible.

It's not clear how much of a market there would be for the school you're describing generally, and at that location in particular. So not clearly "more effective."

If you turn Lewis into a magnet, you have to start by reassigning about 1900 kids (1600 at Lewis and 300 pupil placed) to new high schools, which could have ripple effects on boundaries. So not clearly "less disruptive."

This reshuffling might be more popular among those who do not want to attend or be redistricted to Lewis, but not with others, and magnet schools breed never-ending controversy over access and admissions. So not clearly "more popular."

More feasible is completely ridding Lewis of IB; adding a full menu of AP courses; ensuring that its course electives are comparable with those available at other schools; de-emphasizing the lightweight "leadership" program; and overhauling the Lewis administration to assign some of FCPS's top staff there. Give that five years and then make a decision whether to redistrict kids there or close it entirely.

So essentially push this out until your kids aren't impacted.
Some of you are so transparent.

BINGO! It’s gross!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a second magnet school was in the cards, don't you think we would have heard about this by now? Seems like it would be a natural topic for feedback at these regional meetings.

But there's been no suggestion that FCPS wants to convert another high school to a magnet program. If one of their priorities is equitable access to programming, they already have to play mental gymnastics to pretend kids at the other high/secondary schools have the same opportunities as students at TJ. They'd only magnify this problem with yet another magnet program with courses not available at other schools. There would be a fresh round of scrutiny over who gets admitted, and whether the admissions are truly "merit-based," etc. Yes, Richmond has Maggie Walker, but it doesn't have a TJ. Opening another magnet in FCPS is pretty much the exact opposite of the direction in which Reid and the School Board are taking FCPS.

We are just saying that if FCPS was,serious about actually fixing the Lewis problem, a magnet school for languages, humanities, IB, new arrivals/esol, trades, non traditional students, etc would be a better, more effective, less diruptive and more popular way to fix the problem long term, than the virtue signaling ineffective bandaid of rezoning and moving kids around based on their demographics to try to mask low performance at Lewis.

Problem is this really isn't credible.

It's not clear how much of a market there would be for the school you're describing generally, and at that location in particular. So not clearly "more effective."

If you turn Lewis into a magnet, you have to start by reassigning about 1900 kids (1600 at Lewis and 300 pupil placed) to new high schools, which could have ripple effects on boundaries. So not clearly "less disruptive."

This reshuffling might be more popular among those who do not want to attend or be redistricted to Lewis, but not with others, and magnet schools breed never-ending controversy over access and admissions. So not clearly "more popular."

More feasible is completely ridding Lewis of IB; adding a full menu of AP courses; ensuring that its course electives are comparable with those available at other schools; de-emphasizing the lightweight "leadership" program; and overhauling the Lewis administration to assign some of FCPS's top staff there. Give that five years and then make a decision whether to redistrict kids there or close it entirely.

So essentially push this out until your kids aren't impacted.
Some of you are so transparent.

I recently spoke with an empty nester from one of the schools potentially in the rezoning mix who is VERY pro rezoning and politically involved.

They parrot many of the rezoning for equity talking points in this thread, along with some doozies about neighboring schools that were simply untrue internet gossip, probably from this site or reddit.

What it seemed to boil down to, in spite of the mask of "equity" was that they want rezoning so their neighborhood is more desireable so their property value goes up. They also agreed that unless the core problems are visibly fixed at their high school, rezoning won't work, and that rezoning won't fix those issues. But they still wanted rezoning, with no grandfathering, even if it is doomed to fail, and even if it disrupted many kids and destroyed the property values of other people. I got the impression that they don't want a solution. They want rezoning out of spite.

I hope my impression is wrong. Spite is a terrible reason to disrupt people's lives.

You are advocating for your property values (among other things), why shouldn’t they?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a second magnet school was in the cards, don't you think we would have heard about this by now? Seems like it would be a natural topic for feedback at these regional meetings.

But there's been no suggestion that FCPS wants to convert another high school to a magnet program. If one of their priorities is equitable access to programming, they already have to play mental gymnastics to pretend kids at the other high/secondary schools have the same opportunities as students at TJ. They'd only magnify this problem with yet another magnet program with courses not available at other schools. There would be a fresh round of scrutiny over who gets admitted, and whether the admissions are truly "merit-based," etc. Yes, Richmond has Maggie Walker, but it doesn't have a TJ. Opening another magnet in FCPS is pretty much the exact opposite of the direction in which Reid and the School Board are taking FCPS.

We are just saying that if FCPS was,serious about actually fixing the Lewis problem, a magnet school for languages, humanities, IB, new arrivals/esol, trades, non traditional students, etc would be a better, more effective, less diruptive and more popular way to fix the problem long term, than the virtue signaling ineffective bandaid of rezoning and moving kids around based on their demographics to try to mask low performance at Lewis.

Problem is this really isn't credible.

It's not clear how much of a market there would be for the school you're describing generally, and at that location in particular. So not clearly "more effective."

If you turn Lewis into a magnet, you have to start by reassigning about 1900 kids (1600 at Lewis and 300 pupil placed) to new high schools, which could have ripple effects on boundaries. So not clearly "less disruptive."

This reshuffling might be more popular among those who do not want to attend or be redistricted to Lewis, but not with others, and magnet schools breed never-ending controversy over access and admissions. So not clearly "more popular."

More feasible is completely ridding Lewis of IB; adding a full menu of AP courses; ensuring that its course electives are comparable with those available at other schools; de-emphasizing the lightweight "leadership" program; and overhauling the Lewis administration to assign some of FCPS's top staff there. Give that five years and then make a decision whether to redistrict kids there or close it entirely.

So essentially push this out until your kids aren't impacted.
Some of you are so transparent.

BINGO! It’s gross!

Or maybe you should have done more research before you tried to offload your problems on others. Just a thought.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a second magnet school was in the cards, don't you think we would have heard about this by now? Seems like it would be a natural topic for feedback at these regional meetings.

But there's been no suggestion that FCPS wants to convert another high school to a magnet program. If one of their priorities is equitable access to programming, they already have to play mental gymnastics to pretend kids at the other high/secondary schools have the same opportunities as students at TJ. They'd only magnify this problem with yet another magnet program with courses not available at other schools. There would be a fresh round of scrutiny over who gets admitted, and whether the admissions are truly "merit-based," etc. Yes, Richmond has Maggie Walker, but it doesn't have a TJ. Opening another magnet in FCPS is pretty much the exact opposite of the direction in which Reid and the School Board are taking FCPS.

We are just saying that if FCPS was,serious about actually fixing the Lewis problem, a magnet school for languages, humanities, IB, new arrivals/esol, trades, non traditional students, etc would be a better, more effective, less diruptive and more popular way to fix the problem long term, than the virtue signaling ineffective bandaid of rezoning and moving kids around based on their demographics to try to mask low performance at Lewis.

Problem is this really isn't credible.

It's not clear how much of a market there would be for the school you're describing generally, and at that location in particular. So not clearly "more effective."

If you turn Lewis into a magnet, you have to start by reassigning about 1900 kids (1600 at Lewis and 300 pupil placed) to new high schools, which could have ripple effects on boundaries. So not clearly "less disruptive."

This reshuffling might be more popular among those who do not want to attend or be redistricted to Lewis, but not with others, and magnet schools breed never-ending controversy over access and admissions. So not clearly "more popular."

More feasible is completely ridding Lewis of IB; adding a full menu of AP courses; ensuring that its course electives are comparable with those available at other schools; de-emphasizing the lightweight "leadership" program; and overhauling the Lewis administration to assign some of FCPS's top staff there. Give that five years and then make a decision whether to redistrict kids there or close it entirely.

So essentially push this out until your kids aren't impacted.
Some of you are so transparent.

I recently spoke with an empty nester from one of the schools potentially in the rezoning mix who is VERY pro rezoning and politically involved.

They parrot many of the rezoning for equity talking points in this thread, along with some doozies about neighboring schools that were simply untrue internet gossip, probably from this site or reddit.

What it seemed to boil down to, in spite of the mask of "equity" was that they want rezoning so their neighborhood is more desireable so their property value goes up. They also agreed that unless the core problems are visibly fixed at their high school, rezoning won't work, and that rezoning won't fix those issues. But they still wanted rezoning, with no grandfathering, even if it is doomed to fail, and even if it disrupted many kids and destroyed the property values of other people. I got the impression that they don't want a solution. They want rezoning out of spite.

I hope my impression is wrong. Spite is a terrible reason to disrupt people's lives.

You are advocating for your property values (among other things), why shouldn’t they?

DP. It’s not really FCPS’s mandate to redistribute home equity. When they lose sight of their limited role, it’s ultimately not good for anyone, as education suffers and their attempts at social engineering invariably fail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a second magnet school was in the cards, don't you think we would have heard about this by now? Seems like it would be a natural topic for feedback at these regional meetings.

But there's been no suggestion that FCPS wants to convert another high school to a magnet program. If one of their priorities is equitable access to programming, they already have to play mental gymnastics to pretend kids at the other high/secondary schools have the same opportunities as students at TJ. They'd only magnify this problem with yet another magnet program with courses not available at other schools. There would be a fresh round of scrutiny over who gets admitted, and whether the admissions are truly "merit-based," etc. Yes, Richmond has Maggie Walker, but it doesn't have a TJ. Opening another magnet in FCPS is pretty much the exact opposite of the direction in which Reid and the School Board are taking FCPS.

Second? FCPS technically has three STEM academies already, including TJ. Chantilly HS is designated by VDOE as the "Governor’s STEM Academy at Chantilly High School." Edison HS houses the Global STEM Challenges Academy aligned with the National Academy of Engineering. Lewis could easily be chosen to stand up some other academy.

It would help if you folks were clear about whether you mean a magnet school or an academy program. They aren’t the same thing.

The main problem with Lewis isn’t the lack of an academy program, but the fact that the core academics there are perceived as ill-suited to the student body (IB) and weak.

Edison is confusing because they also have a "traditional" vocational academy on site. However the Global STEM Challenges Academy at Edison is completely different and is essentially a magnet for pupil-placement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a second magnet school was in the cards, don't you think we would have heard about this by now? Seems like it would be a natural topic for feedback at these regional meetings.

But there's been no suggestion that FCPS wants to convert another high school to a magnet program. If one of their priorities is equitable access to programming, they already have to play mental gymnastics to pretend kids at the other high/secondary schools have the same opportunities as students at TJ. They'd only magnify this problem with yet another magnet program with courses not available at other schools. There would be a fresh round of scrutiny over who gets admitted, and whether the admissions are truly "merit-based," etc. Yes, Richmond has Maggie Walker, but it doesn't have a TJ. Opening another magnet in FCPS is pretty much the exact opposite of the direction in which Reid and the School Board are taking FCPS.

We are just saying that if FCPS was,serious about actually fixing the Lewis problem, a magnet school for languages, humanities, IB, new arrivals/esol, trades, non traditional students, etc would be a better, more effective, less diruptive and more popular way to fix the problem long term, than the virtue signaling ineffective bandaid of rezoning and moving kids around based on their demographics to try to mask low performance at Lewis.

Problem is this really isn't credible.

It's not clear how much of a market there would be for the school you're describing generally, and at that location in particular. So not clearly "more effective."

If you turn Lewis into a magnet, you have to start by reassigning about 1900 kids (1600 at Lewis and 300 pupil placed) to new high schools, which could have ripple effects on boundaries. So not clearly "less disruptive."

This reshuffling might be more popular among those who do not want to attend or be redistricted to Lewis, but not with others, and magnet schools breed never-ending controversy over access and admissions. So not clearly "more popular."

More feasible is completely ridding Lewis of IB; adding a full menu of AP courses; ensuring that its course electives are comparable with those available at other schools; de-emphasizing the lightweight "leadership" program; and overhauling the Lewis administration to assign some of FCPS's top staff there. Give that five years and then make a decision whether to redistrict kids there or close it entirely.

So essentially push this out until your kids aren't impacted.
Some of you are so transparent.

I recently spoke with an empty nester from one of the schools potentially in the rezoning mix who is VERY pro rezoning and politically involved.

They parrot many of the rezoning for equity talking points in this thread, along with some doozies about neighboring schools that were simply untrue internet gossip, probably from this site or reddit.

What it seemed to boil down to, in spite of the mask of "equity" was that they want rezoning so their neighborhood is more desireable so their property value goes up. They also agreed that unless the core problems are visibly fixed at their high school, rezoning won't work, and that rezoning won't fix those issues. But they still wanted rezoning, with no grandfathering, even if it is doomed to fail, and even if it disrupted many kids and destroyed the property values of other people. I got the impression that they don't want a solution. They want rezoning out of spite.

I hope my impression is wrong. Spite is a terrible reason to disrupt people's lives.

You are advocating for your property values (among other things), why shouldn’t they?

DP. It’s not really FCPS’s mandate to redistribute home equity. When they lose sight of their limited role, it’s ultimately not good for anyone, as education suffers and their attempts at social engineering invariably fail.

Everybody is advocating for their own interests. I'm not seeing anybody doing anything altruistically here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a second magnet school was in the cards, don't you think we would have heard about this by now? Seems like it would be a natural topic for feedback at these regional meetings.

But there's been no suggestion that FCPS wants to convert another high school to a magnet program. If one of their priorities is equitable access to programming, they already have to play mental gymnastics to pretend kids at the other high/secondary schools have the same opportunities as students at TJ. They'd only magnify this problem with yet another magnet program with courses not available at other schools. There would be a fresh round of scrutiny over who gets admitted, and whether the admissions are truly "merit-based," etc. Yes, Richmond has Maggie Walker, but it doesn't have a TJ. Opening another magnet in FCPS is pretty much the exact opposite of the direction in which Reid and the School Board are taking FCPS.

Second? FCPS technically has three STEM academies already, including TJ. Chantilly HS is designated by VDOE as the "Governor’s STEM Academy at Chantilly High School." Edison HS houses the Global STEM Challenges Academy aligned with the National Academy of Engineering. Lewis could easily be chosen to stand up some other academy.

It would help if you folks were clear about whether you mean a magnet school or an academy program. They aren’t the same thing.

The main problem with Lewis isn’t the lack of an academy program, but the fact that the core academics there are perceived as ill-suited to the student body (IB) and weak.

Edison is confusing because they also have a "traditional" vocational academy on site. However the Global STEM Challenges Academy at Edison is completely different and is essentially a magnet for pupil-placement.

There is very little pupil placement into Edison for that program

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a second magnet school was in the cards, don't you think we would have heard about this by now? Seems like it would be a natural topic for feedback at these regional meetings.

But there's been no suggestion that FCPS wants to convert another high school to a magnet program. If one of their priorities is equitable access to programming, they already have to play mental gymnastics to pretend kids at the other high/secondary schools have the same opportunities as students at TJ. They'd only magnify this problem with yet another magnet program with courses not available at other schools. There would be a fresh round of scrutiny over who gets admitted, and whether the admissions are truly "merit-based," etc. Yes, Richmond has Maggie Walker, but it doesn't have a TJ. Opening another magnet in FCPS is pretty much the exact opposite of the direction in which Reid and the School Board are taking FCPS.

We are just saying that if FCPS was,serious about actually fixing the Lewis problem, a magnet school for languages, humanities, IB, new arrivals/esol, trades, non traditional students, etc would be a better, more effective, less diruptive and more popular way to fix the problem long term, than the virtue signaling ineffective bandaid of rezoning and moving kids around based on their demographics to try to mask low performance at Lewis.

Problem is this really isn't credible.

It's not clear how much of a market there would be for the school you're describing generally, and at that location in particular. So not clearly "more effective."

If you turn Lewis into a magnet, you have to start by reassigning about 1900 kids (1600 at Lewis and 300 pupil placed) to new high schools, which could have ripple effects on boundaries. So not clearly "less disruptive."

This reshuffling might be more popular among those who do not want to attend or be redistricted to Lewis, but not with others, and magnet schools breed never-ending controversy over access and admissions. So not clearly "more popular."

More feasible is completely ridding Lewis of IB; adding a full menu of AP courses; ensuring that its course electives are comparable with those available at other schools; de-emphasizing the lightweight "leadership" program; and overhauling the Lewis administration to assign some of FCPS's top staff there. Give that five years and then make a decision whether to redistrict kids there or close it entirely.

So essentially push this out until your kids aren't impacted.
Some of you are so transparent.

I recently spoke with an empty nester from one of the schools potentially in the rezoning mix who is VERY pro rezoning and politically involved.

They parrot many of the rezoning for equity talking points in this thread, along with some doozies about neighboring schools that were simply untrue internet gossip, probably from this site or reddit.

What it seemed to boil down to, in spite of the mask of "equity" was that they want rezoning so their neighborhood is more desireable so their property value goes up. They also agreed that unless the core problems are visibly fixed at their high school, rezoning won't work, and that rezoning won't fix those issues. But they still wanted rezoning, with no grandfathering, even if it is doomed to fail, and even if it disrupted many kids and destroyed the property values of other people. I got the impression that they don't want a solution. They want rezoning out of spite.

I hope my impression is wrong. Spite is a terrible reason to disrupt people's lives.

You are advocating for your property values (among other things), why shouldn’t they?

DP. It’s not really FCPS’s mandate to redistribute home equity. When they lose sight of their limited role, it’s ultimately not good for anyone, as education suffers and their attempts at social engineering invariably fail.

Everybody is advocating for their own interests. I'm not seeing anybody doing anything altruistically here.

Even if that's true, naked appeals to FCPS to make decisions about school boundaries with the goal of redistributing household wealth is patently offensive. Those are decisions best entrusted to others, and it's not like they are currently performing the tasks that are within their mandate competently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a second magnet school was in the cards, don't you think we would have heard about this by now? Seems like it would be a natural topic for feedback at these regional meetings.

But there's been no suggestion that FCPS wants to convert another high school to a magnet program. If one of their priorities is equitable access to programming, they already have to play mental gymnastics to pretend kids at the other high/secondary schools have the same opportunities as students at TJ. They'd only magnify this problem with yet another magnet program with courses not available at other schools. There would be a fresh round of scrutiny over who gets admitted, and whether the admissions are truly "merit-based," etc. Yes, Richmond has Maggie Walker, but it doesn't have a TJ. Opening another magnet in FCPS is pretty much the exact opposite of the direction in which Reid and the School Board are taking FCPS.

Second? FCPS technically has three STEM academies already, including TJ. Chantilly HS is designated by VDOE as the "Governor’s STEM Academy at Chantilly High School." Edison HS houses the Global STEM Challenges Academy aligned with the National Academy of Engineering. Lewis could easily be chosen to stand up some other academy.

It would help if you folks were clear about whether you mean a magnet school or an academy program. They aren’t the same thing.

The main problem with Lewis isn’t the lack of an academy program, but the fact that the core academics there are perceived as ill-suited to the student body (IB) and weak.

Edison is confusing because they also have a "traditional" vocational academy on site. However the Global STEM Challenges Academy at Edison is completely different and is essentially a magnet for pupil-placement.

There is very little pupil placement into Edison for that program

Edison has 179 transfers into the school this year, but only 60 are characterized as pursuant to the student transfer regulations, which is supposed to cover those pupil placing for the Edison Academy program as well as IB. Most transfers (109) are just listed as "Miscellaneous," which is a catch-all residual category.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a second magnet school was in the cards, don't you think we would have heard about this by now? Seems like it would be a natural topic for feedback at these regional meetings.

But there's been no suggestion that FCPS wants to convert another high school to a magnet program. If one of their priorities is equitable access to programming, they already have to play mental gymnastics to pretend kids at the other high/secondary schools have the same opportunities as students at TJ. They'd only magnify this problem with yet another magnet program with courses not available at other schools. There would be a fresh round of scrutiny over who gets admitted, and whether the admissions are truly "merit-based," etc. Yes, Richmond has Maggie Walker, but it doesn't have a TJ. Opening another magnet in FCPS is pretty much the exact opposite of the direction in which Reid and the School Board are taking FCPS.

We are just saying that if FCPS was,serious about actually fixing the Lewis problem, a magnet school for languages, humanities, IB, new arrivals/esol, trades, non traditional students, etc would be a better, more effective, less diruptive and more popular way to fix the problem long term, than the virtue signaling ineffective bandaid of rezoning and moving kids around based on their demographics to try to mask low performance at Lewis.

Problem is this really isn't credible.

It's not clear how much of a market there would be for the school you're describing generally, and at that location in particular. So not clearly "more effective."

If you turn Lewis into a magnet, you have to start by reassigning about 1900 kids (1600 at Lewis and 300 pupil placed) to new high schools, which could have ripple effects on boundaries. So not clearly "less disruptive."

This reshuffling might be more popular among those who do not want to attend or be redistricted to Lewis, but not with others, and magnet schools breed never-ending controversy over access and admissions. So not clearly "more popular."

More feasible is completely ridding Lewis of IB; adding a full menu of AP courses; ensuring that its course electives are comparable with those available at other schools; de-emphasizing the lightweight "leadership" program; and overhauling the Lewis administration to assign some of FCPS's top staff there. Give that five years and then make a decision whether to redistrict kids there or close it entirely.

So essentially push this out until your kids aren't impacted.
Some of you are so transparent.

I recently spoke with an empty nester from one of the schools potentially in the rezoning mix who is VERY pro rezoning and politically involved.

They parrot many of the rezoning for equity talking points in this thread, along with some doozies about neighboring schools that were simply untrue internet gossip, probably from this site or reddit.

What it seemed to boil down to, in spite of the mask of "equity" was that they want rezoning so their neighborhood is more desireable so their property value goes up. They also agreed that unless the core problems are visibly fixed at their high school, rezoning won't work, and that rezoning won't fix those issues. But they still wanted rezoning, with no grandfathering, even if it is doomed to fail, and even if it disrupted many kids and destroyed the property values of other people. I got the impression that they don't want a solution. They want rezoning out of spite.

I hope my impression is wrong. Spite is a terrible reason to disrupt people's lives.

You are advocating for your property values (among other things), why shouldn’t they?

DP. It’s not really FCPS’s mandate to redistribute home equity. When they lose sight of their limited role, it’s ultimately not good for anyone, as education suffers and their attempts at social engineering invariably fail.

It's not really FCPS's mandate to protect your home equity by keeping zones the same forever either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a second magnet school was in the cards, don't you think we would have heard about this by now? Seems like it would be a natural topic for feedback at these regional meetings.

But there's been no suggestion that FCPS wants to convert another high school to a magnet program. If one of their priorities is equitable access to programming, they already have to play mental gymnastics to pretend kids at the other high/secondary schools have the same opportunities as students at TJ. They'd only magnify this problem with yet another magnet program with courses not available at other schools. There would be a fresh round of scrutiny over who gets admitted, and whether the admissions are truly "merit-based," etc. Yes, Richmond has Maggie Walker, but it doesn't have a TJ. Opening another magnet in FCPS is pretty much the exact opposite of the direction in which Reid and the School Board are taking FCPS.

We are just saying that if FCPS was,serious about actually fixing the Lewis problem, a magnet school for languages, humanities, IB, new arrivals/esol, trades, non traditional students, etc would be a better, more effective, less diruptive and more popular way to fix the problem long term, than the virtue signaling ineffective bandaid of rezoning and moving kids around based on their demographics to try to mask low performance at Lewis.

Problem is this really isn't credible.

It's not clear how much of a market there would be for the school you're describing generally, and at that location in particular. So not clearly "more effective."

If you turn Lewis into a magnet, you have to start by reassigning about 1900 kids (1600 at Lewis and 300 pupil placed) to new high schools, which could have ripple effects on boundaries. So not clearly "less disruptive."

This reshuffling might be more popular among those who do not want to attend or be redistricted to Lewis, but not with others, and magnet schools breed never-ending controversy over access and admissions. So not clearly "more popular."

More feasible is completely ridding Lewis of IB; adding a full menu of AP courses; ensuring that its course electives are comparable with those available at other schools; de-emphasizing the lightweight "leadership" program; and overhauling the Lewis administration to assign some of FCPS's top staff there. Give that five years and then make a decision whether to redistrict kids there or close it entirely.

So essentially push this out until your kids aren't impacted.
Some of you are so transparent.

I recently spoke with an empty nester from one of the schools potentially in the rezoning mix who is VERY pro rezoning and politically involved.

They parrot many of the rezoning for equity talking points in this thread, along with some doozies about neighboring schools that were simply untrue internet gossip, probably from this site or reddit.

What it seemed to boil down to, in spite of the mask of "equity" was that they want rezoning so their neighborhood is more desireable so their property value goes up. They also agreed that unless the core problems are visibly fixed at their high school, rezoning won't work, and that rezoning won't fix those issues. But they still wanted rezoning, with no grandfathering, even if it is doomed to fail, and even if it disrupted many kids and destroyed the property values of other people. I got the impression that they don't want a solution. They want rezoning out of spite.

I hope my impression is wrong. Spite is a terrible reason to disrupt people's lives.

You are advocating for your property values (among other things), why shouldn’t they?

DP. It’s not really FCPS’s mandate to redistribute home equity. When they lose sight of their limited role, it’s ultimately not good for anyone, as education suffers and their attempts at social engineering invariably fail.

It's not really FCPS's mandate to protect your home equity by keeping zones the same forever either.

Fair enough, but that's not the direction in which PP was heading. Impacts on home equity should be incidental, not intentional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a second magnet school was in the cards, don't you think we would have heard about this by now? Seems like it would be a natural topic for feedback at these regional meetings.

But there's been no suggestion that FCPS wants to convert another high school to a magnet program. If one of their priorities is equitable access to programming, they already have to play mental gymnastics to pretend kids at the other high/secondary schools have the same opportunities as students at TJ. They'd only magnify this problem with yet another magnet program with courses not available at other schools. There would be a fresh round of scrutiny over who gets admitted, and whether the admissions are truly "merit-based," etc. Yes, Richmond has Maggie Walker, but it doesn't have a TJ. Opening another magnet in FCPS is pretty much the exact opposite of the direction in which Reid and the School Board are taking FCPS.

We are just saying that if FCPS was,serious about actually fixing the Lewis problem, a magnet school for languages, humanities, IB, new arrivals/esol, trades, non traditional students, etc would be a better, more effective, less diruptive and more popular way to fix the problem long term, than the virtue signaling ineffective bandaid of rezoning and moving kids around based on their demographics to try to mask low performance at Lewis.

Problem is this really isn't credible.

It's not clear how much of a market there would be for the school you're describing generally, and at that location in particular. So not clearly "more effective."

If you turn Lewis into a magnet, you have to start by reassigning about 1900 kids (1600 at Lewis and 300 pupil placed) to new high schools, which could have ripple effects on boundaries. So not clearly "less disruptive."

This reshuffling might be more popular among those who do not want to attend or be redistricted to Lewis, but not with others, and magnet schools breed never-ending controversy over access and admissions. So not clearly "more popular."

More feasible is completely ridding Lewis of IB; adding a full menu of AP courses; ensuring that its course electives are comparable with those available at other schools; de-emphasizing the lightweight "leadership" program; and overhauling the Lewis administration to assign some of FCPS's top staff there. Give that five years and then make a decision whether to redistrict kids there or close it entirely.

So essentially push this out until your kids aren't impacted.
Some of you are so transparent.

I recently spoke with an empty nester from one of the schools potentially in the rezoning mix who is VERY pro rezoning and politically involved.

They parrot many of the rezoning for equity talking points in this thread, along with some doozies about neighboring schools that were simply untrue internet gossip, probably from this site or reddit.

What it seemed to boil down to, in spite of the mask of "equity" was that they want rezoning so their neighborhood is more desireable so their property value goes up. They also agreed that unless the core problems are visibly fixed at their high school, rezoning won't work, and that rezoning won't fix those issues. But they still wanted rezoning, with no grandfathering, even if it is doomed to fail, and even if it disrupted many kids and destroyed the property values of other people. I got the impression that they don't want a solution. They want rezoning out of spite.

I hope my impression is wrong. Spite is a terrible reason to disrupt people's lives.

You are advocating for your property values (among other things), why shouldn’t they?

DP. It’s not really FCPS’s mandate to redistribute home equity. When they lose sight of their limited role, it’s ultimately not good for anyone, as education suffers and their attempts at social engineering invariably fail.

It's not really FCPS's mandate to protect your home equity by keeping zones the same forever either.

+1. YEP. Their decisions should be independent of that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a second magnet school was in the cards, don't you think we would have heard about this by now? Seems like it would be a natural topic for feedback at these regional meetings.

But there's been no suggestion that FCPS wants to convert another high school to a magnet program. If one of their priorities is equitable access to programming, they already have to play mental gymnastics to pretend kids at the other high/secondary schools have the same opportunities as students at TJ. They'd only magnify this problem with yet another magnet program with courses not available at other schools. There would be a fresh round of scrutiny over who gets admitted, and whether the admissions are truly "merit-based," etc. Yes, Richmond has Maggie Walker, but it doesn't have a TJ. Opening another magnet in FCPS is pretty much the exact opposite of the direction in which Reid and the School Board are taking FCPS.

We are just saying that if FCPS was,serious about actually fixing the Lewis problem, a magnet school for languages, humanities, IB, new arrivals/esol, trades, non traditional students, etc would be a better, more effective, less diruptive and more popular way to fix the problem long term, than the virtue signaling ineffective bandaid of rezoning and moving kids around based on their demographics to try to mask low performance at Lewis.

Problem is this really isn't credible.

It's not clear how much of a market there would be for the school you're describing generally, and at that location in particular. So not clearly "more effective."

If you turn Lewis into a magnet, you have to start by reassigning about 1900 kids (1600 at Lewis and 300 pupil placed) to new high schools, which could have ripple effects on boundaries. So not clearly "less disruptive."

This reshuffling might be more popular among those who do not want to attend or be redistricted to Lewis, but not with others, and magnet schools breed never-ending controversy over access and admissions. So not clearly "more popular."

More feasible is completely ridding Lewis of IB; adding a full menu of AP courses; ensuring that its course electives are comparable with those available at other schools; de-emphasizing the lightweight "leadership" program; and overhauling the Lewis administration to assign some of FCPS's top staff there. Give that five years and then make a decision whether to redistrict kids there or close it entirely.

So essentially push this out until your kids aren't impacted.
Some of you are so transparent.

I recently spoke with an empty nester from one of the schools potentially in the rezoning mix who is VERY pro rezoning and politically involved.

They parrot many of the rezoning for equity talking points in this thread, along with some doozies about neighboring schools that were simply untrue internet gossip, probably from this site or reddit.

What it seemed to boil down to, in spite of the mask of "equity" was that they want rezoning so their neighborhood is more desireable so their property value goes up. They also agreed that unless the core problems are visibly fixed at their high school, rezoning won't work, and that rezoning won't fix those issues. But they still wanted rezoning, with no grandfathering, even if it is doomed to fail, and even if it disrupted many kids and destroyed the property values of other people. I got the impression that they don't want a solution. They want rezoning out of spite.

I hope my impression is wrong. Spite is a terrible reason to disrupt people's lives.

You are advocating for your property values (among other things), why shouldn’t they?

DP. It’s not really FCPS’s mandate to redistribute home equity. When they lose sight of their limited role, it’s ultimately not good for anyone, as education suffers and their attempts at social engineering invariably fail.

Everybody is advocating for their own interests. I'm not seeing anybody doing anything altruistically here.

Even if that's true, naked appeals to FCPS to make decisions about school boundaries with the goal of redistributing household wealth is patently offensive. Those are decisions best entrusted to others, and it's not like they are currently performing the tasks that are within their mandate competently.

+1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a second magnet school was in the cards, don't you think we would have heard about this by now? Seems like it would be a natural topic for feedback at these regional meetings.

But there's been no suggestion that FCPS wants to convert another high school to a magnet program. If one of their priorities is equitable access to programming, they already have to play mental gymnastics to pretend kids at the other high/secondary schools have the same opportunities as students at TJ. They'd only magnify this problem with yet another magnet program with courses not available at other schools. There would be a fresh round of scrutiny over who gets admitted, and whether the admissions are truly "merit-based," etc. Yes, Richmond has Maggie Walker, but it doesn't have a TJ. Opening another magnet in FCPS is pretty much the exact opposite of the direction in which Reid and the School Board are taking FCPS.

We are just saying that if FCPS was,serious about actually fixing the Lewis problem, a magnet school for languages, humanities, IB, new arrivals/esol, trades, non traditional students, etc would be a better, more effective, less diruptive and more popular way to fix the problem long term, than the virtue signaling ineffective bandaid of rezoning and moving kids around based on their demographics to try to mask low performance at Lewis.

Problem is this really isn't credible.

It's not clear how much of a market there would be for the school you're describing generally, and at that location in particular. So not clearly "more effective."

If you turn Lewis into a magnet, you have to start by reassigning about 1900 kids (1600 at Lewis and 300 pupil placed) to new high schools, which could have ripple effects on boundaries. So not clearly "less disruptive."

This reshuffling might be more popular among those who do not want to attend or be redistricted to Lewis, but not with others, and magnet schools breed never-ending controversy over access and admissions. So not clearly "more popular."

More feasible is completely ridding Lewis of IB; adding a full menu of AP courses; ensuring that its course electives are comparable with those available at other schools; de-emphasizing the lightweight "leadership" program; and overhauling the Lewis administration to assign some of FCPS's top staff there. Give that five years and then make a decision whether to redistrict kids there or close it entirely.

So essentially push this out until your kids aren't impacted.
Some of you are so transparent.

I recently spoke with an empty nester from one of the schools potentially in the rezoning mix who is VERY pro rezoning and politically involved.

They parrot many of the rezoning for equity talking points in this thread, along with some doozies about neighboring schools that were simply untrue internet gossip, probably from this site or reddit.

What it seemed to boil down to, in spite of the mask of "equity" was that they want rezoning so their neighborhood is more desireable so their property value goes up. They also agreed that unless the core problems are visibly fixed at their high school, rezoning won't work, and that rezoning won't fix those issues. But they still wanted rezoning, with no grandfathering, even if it is doomed to fail, and even if it disrupted many kids and destroyed the property values of other people. I got the impression that they don't want a solution. They want rezoning out of spite.

I hope my impression is wrong. Spite is a terrible reason to disrupt people's lives.

You are advocating for your property values (among other things), why shouldn’t they?

DP. It’s not really FCPS’s mandate to redistribute home equity. When they lose sight of their limited role, it’s ultimately not good for anyone, as education suffers and their attempts at social engineering invariably fail.

It's not really FCPS's mandate to protect your home equity by keeping zones the same forever either.

Fair enough, but that's not the direction in which PP was heading. Impacts on home equity should be incidental, not intentional.

You mean the PP who completely made up in their heads what the intentions and motives are for a random member of the community?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a second magnet school was in the cards, don't you think we would have heard about this by now? Seems like it would be a natural topic for feedback at these regional meetings.

But there's been no suggestion that FCPS wants to convert another high school to a magnet program. If one of their priorities is equitable access to programming, they already have to play mental gymnastics to pretend kids at the other high/secondary schools have the same opportunities as students at TJ. They'd only magnify this problem with yet another magnet program with courses not available at other schools. There would be a fresh round of scrutiny over who gets admitted, and whether the admissions are truly "merit-based," etc. Yes, Richmond has Maggie Walker, but it doesn't have a TJ. Opening another magnet in FCPS is pretty much the exact opposite of the direction in which Reid and the School Board are taking FCPS.

We are just saying that if FCPS was,serious about actually fixing the Lewis problem, a magnet school for languages, humanities, IB, new arrivals/esol, trades, non traditional students, etc would be a better, more effective, less diruptive and more popular way to fix the problem long term, than the virtue signaling ineffective bandaid of rezoning and moving kids around based on their demographics to try to mask low performance at Lewis.

Problem is this really isn't credible.

It's not clear how much of a market there would be for the school you're describing generally, and at that location in particular. So not clearly "more effective."

If you turn Lewis into a magnet, you have to start by reassigning about 1900 kids (1600 at Lewis and 300 pupil placed) to new high schools, which could have ripple effects on boundaries. So not clearly "less disruptive."

This reshuffling might be more popular among those who do not want to attend or be redistricted to Lewis, but not with others, and magnet schools breed never-ending controversy over access and admissions. So not clearly "more popular."

More feasible is completely ridding Lewis of IB; adding a full menu of AP courses; ensuring that its course electives are comparable with those available at other schools; de-emphasizing the lightweight "leadership" program; and overhauling the Lewis administration to assign some of FCPS's top staff there. Give that five years and then make a decision whether to redistrict kids there or close it entirely.

So essentially push this out until your kids aren't impacted.
Some of you are so transparent.

I recently spoke with an empty nester from one of the schools potentially in the rezoning mix who is VERY pro rezoning and politically involved.

They parrot many of the rezoning for equity talking points in this thread, along with some doozies about neighboring schools that were simply untrue internet gossip, probably from this site or reddit.

What it seemed to boil down to, in spite of the mask of "equity" was that they want rezoning so their neighborhood is more desireable so their property value goes up. They also agreed that unless the core problems are visibly fixed at their high school, rezoning won't work, and that rezoning won't fix those issues. But they still wanted rezoning, with no grandfathering, even if it is doomed to fail, and even if it disrupted many kids and destroyed the property values of other people. I got the impression that they don't want a solution. They want rezoning out of spite.

I hope my impression is wrong. Spite is a terrible reason to disrupt people's lives.

You are advocating for your property values (among other things), why shouldn’t they?

DP. It’s not really FCPS’s mandate to redistribute home equity. When they lose sight of their limited role, it’s ultimately not good for anyone, as education suffers and their attempts at social engineering invariably fail.

It's not really FCPS's mandate to protect your home equity by keeping zones the same forever either.

Fair enough, but that's not the direction in which PP was heading. Impacts on home equity should be incidental, not intentional.

You mean the PP who completely made up in their heads what the intentions and motives are for a random member of the community?

No, the PP who clearly implied it's fair game to ask the SB to make decisions with the specific goal of redistributing household wealth.