FCPS HS Boundary

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There have been times when parents really pushed for boundary changes to address overcrowding.

I know that's what some DCUM posters want, for reasons that aren't always articulated, but there's no evidence of any significant group of parents at any school asking to be moved elsewhere. And the only schools where people had really been agitating are either the subject of a recent boundary change (Kent Gardens ES) or a current boundary study (Glasgow MS, Parklawn ES, Coates ES). If others want to exit their overcrowded schools, they can pupil place without changing the boundaries for others.

Otherwise, people want to stay at their schools and for FCPS to come up with an updated renovation queue so they know where their schools stand. That seems quite reasonable.

That’s factual inaccurate. It’s not guaranteed to pupil place and there are many schools you can’t pupil place at that parents would prefer vs current assigned schools due to overcrowding and student enrollment limitations.

You can still pupil place. It just might not be to your first choice.

The whole point of the original point of the pupil place comment was let families find another school that want to pupil place. The point of the second posting is correct families can’t just pupil place wherever they want. That’s now how the FCPS system works and you can’t choose a school. You are only given what is not overcrowded so often it’s not even a choice for many families when there are no options avail because of overcrowding. Our neighbors have tried. It doesn’t work like the original poster cited.

No, the original point wasn't that you can always pupil place to a school you'd like your kid to attend, regardless of how you chose to interpret it. It was that if you are dissatisfied with your base school because it is overcrowded, you can ultimately pupil place your kid to a school with capacity. Again, that may or may not be your first choice, but you can almost surely get a slot at a school that isn't overcrowded.

But, not worth arguing over too much, because people at the schools that are currently overcrowded generally would prefer to stay there than voluntarily pupil place or involuntary get reassigned to another school. They would like to know when FCPS plans to renovate and/or expand them next, but in the interim people generally will tolerate a certain level of overcrowding.

Just because people want to stay at their current school doesn't mean county taxpayers have to fork out more money to expand them. The FIRST option for overcrowding should always be use of existing seats. Sadly the county set a very bad precedent in the last 14 or so years by NOT using available seats first.

You are ignorant if you think the county set a new precedent “in the last 14 years or so.” As discussed earlier, 40 years ago the county was closing schools at the same time as schools were opening elsewhere in the county where there was more growth. More recently, schools have been expanded even when an alternative might have been to bus kids longer distances to under-enrolled schools (which are largely concentrated in certain areas). It’s what most families prefer, and the fact that this preference generally has been recognized is a good thing, not something to criticize.

You don't make sense. Closing schools can be a very hard and politically unpopular thing to do, but the county made those tough choices years ago. The last tough boundary choice FCPS made was the South Lakes change. And that was about 14 years ago. Now the county won't make tough choices. They just spend more taxpayer money and leave unused seats open. It is not a good thing from a taxpayer point of view and it reinforces the perception that some schools are not good.

The point is that they added capacity where it was actually needed rather than just moved kids around like widgets.

You want kids reshuffled to fill some under-enrolled schools, but you ignore the fact that this would often result in higher recurring transportation costs.

Maybe the county could concentrate on figuring out what’s led to certain schools being under-enrolled and address those underlying factors, rather than suggest they may just move kids around to cover up problems and back-fill schools that can’t retain students.

Yeah the board decided in 2019 that what made some schools undesirable is too many poor kids and wanted to rearrange schools to make them close enough in poverty percentage that it would discourage parents with options from moving to be in a certain zone.

They didn’t “decide” anything relating to boundaries in 2019 other than to retain an outside consultant to advise on “best practices” relating to boundary adjustments so that they could put off any further discussion of the topic until after the fall 2019 School Board elections.

Tell that to someone who didn’t watch the work sessions, and who didn’t also see them conclude that many white people, (no matter how progressive lol) will avoid a school that is not white enough to suit them.

Did the school board conclude that? Or is that what you wanted them to conclude?

Serious question for you: why do you live in relatively affluent Fairfax County? I would have thought with your views that you’d want to live in an area of the country with higher pockets of poverty. For that matter, why do you live in the US? Shouldn’t your definition of a loyal progressive compel you to move your family to a third world country? Why do your views on progressivism stop at the point where it suits you?

+100
People who are arrogant enough to opine where OTHER people’s kids should attend school should be required to send their own kids to Lewis, Mt. Vernon, etc.

Why should anyone have an issue with those schools? You seem to be insinuating they are not good.

Oh, my mistake! So then, you'd be first in line to volunteer your kids for a transfer to those schools, or possibly Justice or Annandale? If not, do tell us why!

Surprise! My kid is at one of them. I’m waiting to hear why they aren’t good enough for your kid.

I'll just quote 7:34, who summed it up succinctly:

"They aren't good. Pull any metric- test scores, discipline, college attendance, and they are terrible compared to other FCPS high schools"

That’s judging a book by its cover. You forget that the MC kids scores at many of these schools are good.

I’ll bet you’re also the person who is mystified that the student shot yesterday after school and the suspect are from Westfield and not Herndon. You can take a look at that thread starting around 03/21/2024 19:06.

Schools with higher average scores are not really any better. Just more privileged.

No, I’m not the person you referenced, nor have I participated in that thread at all. But maybe you’re the person who thinks they can tell other parents what school their kids should attend in the name of “equity.”

Regardless, I think you’d be hard-pressed to find any parent willing to transfer their kids out of a high ranking school and into a low ranking one. But good luck to you on this futile quest.

No, I’m the poster who doesn’t want your knuckle dragging privileged kids from ivory towers in our supposedly inferior schools.

Well, then, guess it’s settled. Leave the boundaries alone.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There have been times when parents really pushed for boundary changes to address overcrowding.

I know that's what some DCUM posters want, for reasons that aren't always articulated, but there's no evidence of any significant group of parents at any school asking to be moved elsewhere. And the only schools where people had really been agitating are either the subject of a recent boundary change (Kent Gardens ES) or a current boundary study (Glasgow MS, Parklawn ES, Coates ES). If others want to exit their overcrowded schools, they can pupil place without changing the boundaries for others.

Otherwise, people want to stay at their schools and for FCPS to come up with an updated renovation queue so they know where their schools stand. That seems quite reasonable.

That’s factual inaccurate. It’s not guaranteed to pupil place and there are many schools you can’t pupil place at that parents would prefer vs current assigned schools due to overcrowding and student enrollment limitations.

You can still pupil place. It just might not be to your first choice.

The whole point of the original point of the pupil place comment was let families find another school that want to pupil place. The point of the second posting is correct families can’t just pupil place wherever they want. That’s now how the FCPS system works and you can’t choose a school. You are only given what is not overcrowded so often it’s not even a choice for many families when there are no options avail because of overcrowding. Our neighbors have tried. It doesn’t work like the original poster cited.

No, the original point wasn't that you can always pupil place to a school you'd like your kid to attend, regardless of how you chose to interpret it. It was that if you are dissatisfied with your base school because it is overcrowded, you can ultimately pupil place your kid to a school with capacity. Again, that may or may not be your first choice, but you can almost surely get a slot at a school that isn't overcrowded.

But, not worth arguing over too much, because people at the schools that are currently overcrowded generally would prefer to stay there than voluntarily pupil place or involuntary get reassigned to another school. They would like to know when FCPS plans to renovate and/or expand them next, but in the interim people generally will tolerate a certain level of overcrowding.

Just because people want to stay at their current school doesn't mean county taxpayers have to fork out more money to expand them. The FIRST option for overcrowding should always be use of existing seats. Sadly the county set a very bad precedent in the last 14 or so years by NOT using available seats first.

You are ignorant if you think the county set a new precedent “in the last 14 years or so.” As discussed earlier, 40 years ago the county was closing schools at the same time as schools were opening elsewhere in the county where there was more growth. More recently, schools have been expanded even when an alternative might have been to bus kids longer distances to under-enrolled schools (which are largely concentrated in certain areas). It’s what most families prefer, and the fact that this preference generally has been recognized is a good thing, not something to criticize.

You don't make sense. Closing schools can be a very hard and politically unpopular thing to do, but the county made those tough choices years ago. The last tough boundary choice FCPS made was the South Lakes change. And that was about 14 years ago. Now the county won't make tough choices. They just spend more taxpayer money and leave unused seats open. It is not a good thing from a taxpayer point of view and it reinforces the perception that some schools are not good.

The point is that they added capacity where it was actually needed rather than just moved kids around like widgets.

You want kids reshuffled to fill some under-enrolled schools, but you ignore the fact that this would often result in higher recurring transportation costs.

Maybe the county could concentrate on figuring out what’s led to certain schools being under-enrolled and address those underlying factors, rather than suggest they may just move kids around to cover up problems and back-fill schools that can’t retain students.

Yeah the board decided in 2019 that what made some schools undesirable is too many poor kids and wanted to rearrange schools to make them close enough in poverty percentage that it would discourage parents with options from moving to be in a certain zone.

They didn’t “decide” anything relating to boundaries in 2019 other than to retain an outside consultant to advise on “best practices” relating to boundary adjustments so that they could put off any further discussion of the topic until after the fall 2019 School Board elections.

Tell that to someone who didn’t watch the work sessions, and who didn’t also see them conclude that many white people, (no matter how progressive lol) will avoid a school that is not white enough to suit them.

Did the school board conclude that? Or is that what you wanted them to conclude?

Serious question for you: why do you live in relatively affluent Fairfax County? I would have thought with your views that you’d want to live in an area of the country with higher pockets of poverty. For that matter, why do you live in the US? Shouldn’t your definition of a loyal progressive compel you to move your family to a third world country? Why do your views on progressivism stop at the point where it suits you?

+100
People who are arrogant enough to opine where OTHER people’s kids should attend school should be required to send their own kids to Lewis, Mt. Vernon, etc.

Why should anyone have an issue with those schools? You seem to be insinuating they are not good.

Oh, my mistake! So then, you'd be first in line to volunteer your kids for a transfer to those schools, or possibly Justice or Annandale? If not, do tell us why!

Surprise! My kid is at one of them. I’m waiting to hear why they aren’t good enough for your kid.

I'll just quote 7:34, who summed it up succinctly:

"They aren't good. Pull any metric- test scores, discipline, college attendance, and they are terrible compared to other FCPS high schools"

That’s judging a book by its cover. You forget that the MC kids scores at many of these schools are good.

I’ll bet you’re also the person who is mystified that the student shot yesterday after school and the suspect are from Westfield and not Herndon. You can take a look at that thread starting around 03/21/2024 19:06.

Schools with higher average scores are not really any better. Just more privileged.

No, I’m not the person you referenced, nor have I participated in that thread at all. But maybe you’re the person who thinks they can tell other parents what school their kids should attend in the name of “equity.”

Regardless, I think you’d be hard-pressed to find any parent willing to transfer their kids out of a high ranking school and into a low ranking one. But good luck to you on this futile quest.

No, I’m the poster who doesn’t want your knuckle dragging privileged kids from ivory towers in our supposedly inferior schools.

Well, then, guess it’s settled. Leave the boundaries alone.

And leave the buildings alone too.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There have been times when parents really pushed for boundary changes to address overcrowding.

I know that's what some DCUM posters want, for reasons that aren't always articulated, but there's no evidence of any significant group of parents at any school asking to be moved elsewhere. And the only schools where people had really been agitating are either the subject of a recent boundary change (Kent Gardens ES) or a current boundary study (Glasgow MS, Parklawn ES, Coates ES). If others want to exit their overcrowded schools, they can pupil place without changing the boundaries for others.

Otherwise, people want to stay at their schools and for FCPS to come up with an updated renovation queue so they know where their schools stand. That seems quite reasonable.

That’s factual inaccurate. It’s not guaranteed to pupil place and there are many schools you can’t pupil place at that parents would prefer vs current assigned schools due to overcrowding and student enrollment limitations.

You can still pupil place. It just might not be to your first choice.

The whole point of the original point of the pupil place comment was let families find another school that want to pupil place. The point of the second posting is correct families can’t just pupil place wherever they want. That’s now how the FCPS system works and you can’t choose a school. You are only given what is not overcrowded so often it’s not even a choice for many families when there are no options avail because of overcrowding. Our neighbors have tried. It doesn’t work like the original poster cited.

No, the original point wasn't that you can always pupil place to a school you'd like your kid to attend, regardless of how you chose to interpret it. It was that if you are dissatisfied with your base school because it is overcrowded, you can ultimately pupil place your kid to a school with capacity. Again, that may or may not be your first choice, but you can almost surely get a slot at a school that isn't overcrowded.

But, not worth arguing over too much, because people at the schools that are currently overcrowded generally would prefer to stay there than voluntarily pupil place or involuntary get reassigned to another school. They would like to know when FCPS plans to renovate and/or expand them next, but in the interim people generally will tolerate a certain level of overcrowding.

Just because people want to stay at their current school doesn't mean county taxpayers have to fork out more money to expand them. The FIRST option for overcrowding should always be use of existing seats. Sadly the county set a very bad precedent in the last 14 or so years by NOT using available seats first.

You are ignorant if you think the county set a new precedent “in the last 14 years or so.” As discussed earlier, 40 years ago the county was closing schools at the same time as schools were opening elsewhere in the county where there was more growth. More recently, schools have been expanded even when an alternative might have been to bus kids longer distances to under-enrolled schools (which are largely concentrated in certain areas). It’s what most families prefer, and the fact that this preference generally has been recognized is a good thing, not something to criticize.

You don't make sense. Closing schools can be a very hard and politically unpopular thing to do, but the county made those tough choices years ago. The last tough boundary choice FCPS made was the South Lakes change. And that was about 14 years ago. Now the county won't make tough choices. They just spend more taxpayer money and leave unused seats open. It is not a good thing from a taxpayer point of view and it reinforces the perception that some schools are not good.

The point is that they added capacity where it was actually needed rather than just moved kids around like widgets.

You want kids reshuffled to fill some under-enrolled schools, but you ignore the fact that this would often result in higher recurring transportation costs.

Maybe the county could concentrate on figuring out what’s led to certain schools being under-enrolled and address those underlying factors, rather than suggest they may just move kids around to cover up problems and back-fill schools that can’t retain students.

Yeah the board decided in 2019 that what made some schools undesirable is too many poor kids and wanted to rearrange schools to make them close enough in poverty percentage that it would discourage parents with options from moving to be in a certain zone.

They didn’t “decide” anything relating to boundaries in 2019 other than to retain an outside consultant to advise on “best practices” relating to boundary adjustments so that they could put off any further discussion of the topic until after the fall 2019 School Board elections.

Tell that to someone who didn’t watch the work sessions, and who didn’t also see them conclude that many white people, (no matter how progressive lol) will avoid a school that is not white enough to suit them.

Did the school board conclude that? Or is that what you wanted them to conclude?

Serious question for you: why do you live in relatively affluent Fairfax County? I would have thought with your views that you’d want to live in an area of the country with higher pockets of poverty. For that matter, why do you live in the US? Shouldn’t your definition of a loyal progressive compel you to move your family to a third world country? Why do your views on progressivism stop at the point where it suits you?

+100
People who are arrogant enough to opine where OTHER people’s kids should attend school should be required to send their own kids to Lewis, Mt. Vernon, etc.

Why should anyone have an issue with those schools? You seem to be insinuating they are not good.

Oh, my mistake! So then, you'd be first in line to volunteer your kids for a transfer to those schools, or possibly Justice or Annandale? If not, do tell us why!

Surprise! My kid is at one of them. I’m waiting to hear why they aren’t good enough for your kid.

I'll just quote 7:34, who summed it up succinctly:

"They aren't good. Pull any metric- test scores, discipline, college attendance, and they are terrible compared to other FCPS high schools"

That’s judging a book by its cover. You forget that the MC kids scores at many of these schools are good.

I’ll bet you’re also the person who is mystified that the student shot yesterday after school and the suspect are from Westfield and not Herndon. You can take a look at that thread starting around 03/21/2024 19:06.

Schools with higher average scores are not really any better. Just more privileged.

No, I’m not the person you referenced, nor have I participated in that thread at all. But maybe you’re the person who thinks they can tell other parents what school their kids should attend in the name of “equity.”

Regardless, I think you’d be hard-pressed to find any parent willing to transfer their kids out of a high ranking school and into a low ranking one. But good luck to you on this futile quest.

No, I’m the poster who doesn’t want your knuckle dragging privileged kids from ivory towers in our supposedly inferior schools.

Well, then, guess it’s settled. Leave the boundaries alone.

And leave the buildings alone too.

The people who pay the taxes should reap the benefits.

See how easy that was to be snarky.

[Anonymous]

In the end, people withe resources will resist rezoning to certain schools.

If they are rezoned anyway, they will simply decline to send them.

No one wants their daughter to end up like the young woman still fighting FCPS for what happened to her at Rachel Carson and their part in it, and if they have the money to avoid sending her somewhere like that they will consider it money well spent.

[Anonymous]

You think private schools are more transparent? Or safer from sexual abuse? LOL.
- private school survivor

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In the end, people withe resources will resist rezoning to certain schools.

If they are rezoned anyway, they will simply decline to send them.

No one wants their daughter to end up like the young woman still fighting FCPS for what happened to her at Rachel Carson and their part in it, and if they have the money to avoid sending her somewhere like that they will consider it money well spent.

That middle school is pretty affluent though isn’t it? Looks like it’s only 16% FARMS, which is comparable to Irving and Thoreau, both of which have solid reputations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the end, people withe resources will resist rezoning to certain schools.

If they are rezoned anyway, they will simply decline to send them.

No one wants their daughter to end up like the young woman still fighting FCPS for what happened to her at Rachel Carson and their part in it, and if they have the money to avoid sending her somewhere like that they will consider it money well spent.

That middle school is pretty affluent though isn’t it? Looks like it’s only 16% FARMS, which is comparable to Irving and Thoreau, both of which have solid reputations.

Carson has been the top feeder to TJ for years. Big school with a huge AAP center. In some ways it may make it more likely that the problems there get swept under the rug.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There have been times when parents really pushed for boundary changes to address overcrowding.

I know that's what some DCUM posters want, for reasons that aren't always articulated, but there's no evidence of any significant group of parents at any school asking to be moved elsewhere. And the only schools where people had really been agitating are either the subject of a recent boundary change (Kent Gardens ES) or a current boundary study (Glasgow MS, Parklawn ES, Coates ES). If others want to exit their overcrowded schools, they can pupil place without changing the boundaries for others.

Otherwise, people want to stay at their schools and for FCPS to come up with an updated renovation queue so they know where their schools stand. That seems quite reasonable.

That’s factual inaccurate. It’s not guaranteed to pupil place and there are many schools you can’t pupil place at that parents would prefer vs current assigned schools due to overcrowding and student enrollment limitations.

You can still pupil place. It just might not be to your first choice.

The whole point of the original point of the pupil place comment was let families find another school that want to pupil place. The point of the second posting is correct families can’t just pupil place wherever they want. That’s now how the FCPS system works and you can’t choose a school. You are only given what is not overcrowded so often it’s not even a choice for many families when there are no options avail because of overcrowding. Our neighbors have tried. It doesn’t work like the original poster cited.

No, the original point wasn't that you can always pupil place to a school you'd like your kid to attend, regardless of how you chose to interpret it. It was that if you are dissatisfied with your base school because it is overcrowded, you can ultimately pupil place your kid to a school with capacity. Again, that may or may not be your first choice, but you can almost surely get a slot at a school that isn't overcrowded.

But, not worth arguing over too much, because people at the schools that are currently overcrowded generally would prefer to stay there than voluntarily pupil place or involuntary get reassigned to another school. They would like to know when FCPS plans to renovate and/or expand them next, but in the interim people generally will tolerate a certain level of overcrowding.

Just because people want to stay at their current school doesn't mean county taxpayers have to fork out more money to expand them. The FIRST option for overcrowding should always be use of existing seats. Sadly the county set a very bad precedent in the last 14 or so years by NOT using available seats first.

You are ignorant if you think the county set a new precedent “in the last 14 years or so.” As discussed earlier, 40 years ago the county was closing schools at the same time as schools were opening elsewhere in the county where there was more growth. More recently, schools have been expanded even when an alternative might have been to bus kids longer distances to under-enrolled schools (which are largely concentrated in certain areas). It’s what most families prefer, and the fact that this preference generally has been recognized is a good thing, not something to criticize.

You don't make sense. Closing schools can be a very hard and politically unpopular thing to do, but the county made those tough choices years ago. The last tough boundary choice FCPS made was the South Lakes change. And that was about 14 years ago. Now the county won't make tough choices. They just spend more taxpayer money and leave unused seats open. It is not a good thing from a taxpayer point of view and it reinforces the perception that some schools are not good.

The point is that they added capacity where it was actually needed rather than just moved kids around like widgets.

You want kids reshuffled to fill some under-enrolled schools, but you ignore the fact that this would often result in higher recurring transportation costs.

Maybe the county could concentrate on figuring out what’s led to certain schools being under-enrolled and address those underlying factors, rather than suggest they may just move kids around to cover up problems and back-fill schools that can’t retain students.

Yeah the board decided in 2019 that what made some schools undesirable is too many poor kids and wanted to rearrange schools to make them close enough in poverty percentage that it would discourage parents with options from moving to be in a certain zone.

They didn’t “decide” anything relating to boundaries in 2019 other than to retain an outside consultant to advise on “best practices” relating to boundary adjustments so that they could put off any further discussion of the topic until after the fall 2019 School Board elections.

Tell that to someone who didn’t watch the work sessions, and who didn’t also see them conclude that many white people, (no matter how progressive lol) will avoid a school that is not white enough to suit them.

Did the school board conclude that? Or is that what you wanted them to conclude?

Serious question for you: why do you live in relatively affluent Fairfax County? I would have thought with your views that you’d want to live in an area of the country with higher pockets of poverty. For that matter, why do you live in the US? Shouldn’t your definition of a loyal progressive compel you to move your family to a third world country? Why do your views on progressivism stop at the point where it suits you?

+100
People who are arrogant enough to opine where OTHER people’s kids should attend school should be required to send their own kids to Lewis, Mt. Vernon, etc.

Why should anyone have an issue with those schools? You seem to be insinuating they are not good.

Oh, my mistake! So then, you'd be first in line to volunteer your kids for a transfer to those schools, or possibly Justice or Annandale? If not, do tell us why!

Surprise! My kid is at one of them. I’m waiting to hear why they aren’t good enough for your kid.

I'll just quote 7:34, who summed it up succinctly:

"They aren't good. Pull any metric- test scores, discipline, college attendance, and they are terrible compared to other FCPS high schools"

That’s judging a book by its cover. You forget that the MC kids scores at many of these schools are good.

I’ll bet you’re also the person who is mystified that the student shot yesterday after school and the suspect are from Westfield and not Herndon. You can take a look at that thread starting around 03/21/2024 19:06.

Schools with higher average scores are not really any better. Just more privileged.

No, I’m not the person you referenced, nor have I participated in that thread at all. But maybe you’re the person who thinks they can tell other parents what school their kids should attend in the name of “equity.”

Regardless, I think you’d be hard-pressed to find any parent willing to transfer their kids out of a high ranking school and into a low ranking one. But good luck to you on this futile quest.

No, I’m the poster who doesn’t want your knuckle dragging privileged kids from ivory towers in our supposedly inferior schools.

Great, then we seem to be in agreement! What’s the problem again?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You think private schools are more transparent? Or safer from sexual abuse? LOL.
- private school survivor

You still think in binary “government vs. private” for school options.

Poor lil tink tink.

As to most parents , I am sure they believe, justifiably that their child is less likely to be gang raped and trafficked by MS-13 members at a private school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the end, people withe resources will resist rezoning to certain schools.

If they are rezoned anyway, they will simply decline to send them.

No one wants their daughter to end up like the young woman still fighting FCPS for what happened to her at Rachel Carson and their part in it, and if they have the money to avoid sending her somewhere like that they will consider it money well spent.

That middle school is pretty affluent though isn’t it? Looks like it’s only 16% FARMS, which is comparable to Irving and Thoreau, both of which have solid reputations.

Someone once posted here that “almost” every FCPS high and middle school has MS-13.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the end, people withe resources will resist rezoning to certain schools.

If they are rezoned anyway, they will simply decline to send them.

No one wants their daughter to end up like the young woman still fighting FCPS for what happened to her at Rachel Carson and their part in it, and if they have the money to avoid sending her somewhere like that they will consider it money well spent.

That middle school is pretty affluent though isn’t it? Looks like it’s only 16% FARMS, which is comparable to Irving and Thoreau, both of which have solid reputations.

Someone once posted here that “almost” every FCPS high and middle school has MS-13.

That is why Longfellow has so many after school activities. 20? Years ago now, MS-13 showed up and the Principal at the time started after school activities so students would stay at the school until more parents came home. It was a way to keep them safe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the end, people withe resources will resist rezoning to certain schools.

If they are rezoned anyway, they will simply decline to send them.

No one wants their daughter to end up like the young woman still fighting FCPS for what happened to her at Rachel Carson and their part in it, and if they have the money to avoid sending her somewhere like that they will consider it money well spent.

That middle school is pretty affluent though isn’t it? Looks like it’s only 16% FARMS, which is comparable to Irving and Thoreau, both of which have solid reputations.

Someone once posted here that “almost” every FCPS high and middle school has MS-13.

I mean honestly I can believe it, but the thing about MS-13 and other gangs connected to Central America is that they target exclusively kids from Central America. and of that, mostly kids who are recent arrivals, or here without their parent(s), or who have some other type of instability in their lives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You think private schools are more transparent? Or safer from sexual abuse? LOL.
- private school survivor

You still think in binary “government vs. private” for school options.

Poor lil tink tink.

As to most parents , I am sure they believe, justifiably that their child is less likely to be gang raped and trafficked by MS-13 members at a private school.

“Private schools allow gang rape too” is a helluva defense of FCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the end, people withe resources will resist rezoning to certain schools.

If they are rezoned anyway, they will simply decline to send them.

No one wants their daughter to end up like the young woman still fighting FCPS for what happened to her at Rachel Carson and their part in it, and if they have the money to avoid sending her somewhere like that they will consider it money well spent.

That middle school is pretty affluent though isn’t it? Looks like it’s only 16% FARMS, which is comparable to Irving and Thoreau, both of which have solid reputations.

Someone once posted here that “almost” every FCPS high and middle school has MS-13.

I mean honestly I can believe it, but the thing about MS-13 and other gangs connected to Central America is that they target exclusively kids from Central America. and of that, mostly kids who are recent arrivals, or here without their parent(s), or who have some other type of instability in their lives.

That may very well be the case, but I’d still strongly prefer to minimize my kids’ exposure to gangs, even if they are unlikely to be targeted by them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You think private schools are more transparent? Or safer from sexual abuse? LOL.
- private school survivor

You still think in binary “government vs. private” for school options.

Poor lil tink tink.

As to most parents , I am sure they believe, justifiably that their child is less likely to be gang raped and trafficked by MS-13 members at a private school.

“Private schools allow gang rape too” is a helluva defense of FCPS.

Rape is rape. Fleeing to a private school does not ensure protection. Whether the rapist is a gang member, teacher/ administrator or fellow student is irrelevant.