FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[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:No wonder why Gen Z kids are notoriously entitled and selfish. They're raised by parents like the ones commenting on this thread.

Agree. It is beyond entitled and selfish to demand you know what's best for other people's kids.

+1. She loves telling us what’s best for our kids.

It's insane to argue that there shouldn't even be a review because your kid may be negatively affected by it. Guess what, some kids will be better off, others will be worse off, but on balance the changes should benefit most. That's called public policy. If you have doubts or worries about the process being fair or balanced, then you should get off your couch and volunteer to be on the review committee or advocate some other way. Lazy armchair advocacy won't get you anywhere. But it's just so much easier to be a victim, isn't it? The immediate gratification of shouting at someone on an anonymous board is so so sweet.

Please give specifics on how some kids currently failing will be better off? Because it sounds like the school board really just wants the averages to go up without actually helping kids in need.
-dp

DP. Some students may be better off if their school can offer more advanced classes or more instances of those classes.

If kids are failing general ed classes how would they do better with the school offering more advanced classes?

Sorry, read that as failing schools. But that point still stands.

As for failing students. Some you will never get through to and they could be at any school. They just don't care and aren't going to try.

It is really the borderline cases where there could be a difference where more positive role model students could make a difference. And where perhaps not having all the more difficult students concentrated in the same schools would ease the burden on staff and free up time to help those kids who might do better.

Certainly having a very poor and small Lewis next to considerably wealthier and larger West Springfield is going to work out much better for one group of students than the other.

But fine, let's just keep everything as it is.

No, the point does not still stand. Putting hundreds of UMC kids into Lewis from WSHS will not help the poor ELL students currently at Lewis. It doesn't even help the UMC kids currently at Lewis. The only thing it helps is FCPS and the school board to not look as bad on paper because having more UMC kids will bring up the average test scores and metrics. UMC kids are being used as cover because adults are bad at their jobs.

When they moved Daventry to West Springfield the West Springfield principal said he was happy to get more students because he could keep more classes and staff. That means the school losing those students, Lee, would have fewer classes. And Lee was already smaller.

WSHS is not Lewis. Saying you want to keep more classes and staff at a solid school is not the same as what is happening at Lewis.

The majority of the kids are failing, thus the school is failing. Pouring UMC kids into a failing school will not fix the failing kids. They will continue to fail but in this instance, FCPS can go on to look better on paper, especially after they implement the new criteria for school accreditation.

The new VDOE standards on accreditation aren’t based on educational goals. It’s a Trump-like response from Youngkin to stoke anti-immigrant sentiment and build support for vouchers.

The Youngkin supporters will get hoisted by their own petard if systems like FCPS then respond by moving kids around to try and meet accreditation standards. But I’m not sure FCPS will bother. A lot of its schools will not meet the new standards regardless of whether they do things like move a WS feeder to Lewis.

When FCPS moves students they’re going to create a passionate new horde of voucher proponents. Not so sure that Youngkin will be hoisted by his own petard. Seems like he’ll achieve his ends perfectly, with an assist from the SB.

[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:No wonder why Gen Z kids are notoriously entitled and selfish. They're raised by parents like the ones commenting on this thread.

Agree. It is beyond entitled and selfish to demand you know what's best for other people's kids.

+1. She loves telling us what’s best for our kids.

It's insane to argue that there shouldn't even be a review because your kid may be negatively affected by it. Guess what, some kids will be better off, others will be worse off, but on balance the changes should benefit most. That's called public policy. If you have doubts or worries about the process being fair or balanced, then you should get off your couch and volunteer to be on the review committee or advocate some other way. Lazy armchair advocacy won't get you anywhere. But it's just so much easier to be a victim, isn't it? The immediate gratification of shouting at someone on an anonymous board is so so sweet.

Please give specifics on how some kids currently failing will be better off? Because it sounds like the school board really just wants the averages to go up without actually helping kids in need.
-dp

DP. Some students may be better off if their school can offer more advanced classes or more instances of those classes.

If kids are failing general ed classes how would they do better with the school offering more advanced classes?

Sorry, read that as failing schools. But that point still stands.

As for failing students. Some you will never get through to and they could be at any school. They just don't care and aren't going to try.

It is really the borderline cases where there could be a difference where more positive role model students could make a difference. And where perhaps not having all the more difficult students concentrated in the same schools would ease the burden on staff and free up time to help those kids who might do better.

Certainly having a very poor and small Lewis next to considerably wealthier and larger West Springfield is going to work out much better for one group of students than the other.

But fine, let's just keep everything as it is.

No, the point does not still stand. Putting hundreds of UMC kids into Lewis from WSHS will not help the poor ELL students currently at Lewis. It doesn't even help the UMC kids currently at Lewis. The only thing it helps is FCPS and the school board to not look as bad on paper because having more UMC kids will bring up the average test scores and metrics. UMC kids are being used as cover because adults are bad at their jobs.

When they moved Daventry to West Springfield the West Springfield principal said he was happy to get more students because he could keep more classes and staff. That means the school losing those students, Lee, would have fewer classes. And Lee was already smaller.

WSHS is not Lewis. Saying you want to keep more classes and staff at a solid school is not the same as what is happening at Lewis.

The majority of the kids are failing, thus the school is failing. Pouring UMC kids into a failing school will not fix the failing kids. They will continue to fail but in this instance, FCPS can go on to look better on paper, especially after they implement the new criteria for school accreditation.

The new VDOE standards on accreditation aren’t based on educational goals. It’s a Trump-like response from Youngkin to stoke anti-immigrant sentiment and build support for vouchers.

The Youngkin supporters will get hoisted by their own petard if systems like FCPS then respond by moving kids around to try and meet accreditation standards. But I’m not sure FCPS will bother. A lot of its schools will not meet the new standards regardless of whether they do things like move a WS feeder to Lewis.

When FCPS moves students they’re going to create a passionate new horde of voucher proponents. Not so sure that Youngkin will be hoisted by his own petard. Seems like he’ll achieve his ends perfectly, with an assist from the SB.

What most people would prefer are stable boundaries for schools that state officials aren’t jumping to label as “failing” schools in order to advance a political agenda. Not sure either party gets that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are the boundary consultants going to suggest a site for the new High Scholol?

Nope. That’s dead in the water, but they keep up the fiction for some reason.

\

Didn't the voters approve bond money for it?

Only for land acquisition but it’s a very small fraction of what the total cost would be and they don’t appear to have a site.

I hope these or some other consultants help FCPS pick out a site adjacent to or within a proposed residential or mixed use development convenient to homes. It’s not an impossible hurdle to overcome .

Then they will have to do boundaries to create the new pyramid , and that will avoid causing an uproar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are the boundary consultants going to suggest a site for the new High Scholol?

Nope. That’s dead in the water, but they keep up the fiction for some reason.

\

Didn't the voters approve bond money for it?

Only for land acquisition but it’s a very small fraction of what the total cost would be and they don’t appear to have a site.

I hope these or some other consultants help FCPS pick out a site adjacent to or within a proposed residential or mixed use development convenient to homes. It’s not an impossible hurdle to overcome .

Then they will have to do boundaries to create the new pyramid , and that will avoid causing an uproar.

There is no need to build another high school in western Fairfax. If you really wanted one you should have spoken up when FCPS was expanding just about every school there (Herndon, South Lakes, Oakton, Madison, and now Centreville). Chantilly is overcrowded but that can be addressed either by moving kids to an expanded Centreville or by moving Chantilly kids to Westfield and Westfield kids to expanded Herndon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are the boundary consultants going to suggest a site for the new High Scholol?

Nope. That’s dead in the water, but they keep up the fiction for some reason.

\

Didn't the voters approve bond money for it?

Only for land acquisition but it’s a very small fraction of what the total cost would be and they don’t appear to have a site.

So they haven't even identified any locations?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are the boundary consultants going to suggest a site for the new High Scholol?

Nope. That’s dead in the water, but they keep up the fiction for some reason.

\

Didn't the voters approve bond money for it?

Only for land acquisition but it’s a very small fraction of what the total cost would be and they don’t appear to have a site.

I hope these or some other consultants help FCPS pick out a site adjacent to or within a proposed residential or mixed use development convenient to homes. It’s not an impossible hurdle to overcome .

Then they will have to do boundaries to create the new pyramid , and that will avoid causing an uproar.

There is no need to build another high school in western Fairfax. If you really wanted one you should have spoken up when FCPS was expanding just about every school there (Herndon, South Lakes, Oakton, Madison, and now Centreville). Chantilly is overcrowded but that can be addressed either by moving kids to an expanded Centreville or by moving Chantilly kids to Westfield and Westfield kids to expanded Herndon.

Ah I see. Makes sense given the preferred expansion plans over the last decade-plus. So it’s probably off the table then. No new western high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are the boundary consultants going to suggest a site for the new High Scholol?

Nope. That’s dead in the water, but they keep up the fiction for some reason.

\

Didn't the voters approve bond money for it?

Only for land acquisition but it’s a very small fraction of what the total cost would be and they don’t appear to have a site.

I hope these or some other consultants help FCPS pick out a site adjacent to or within a proposed residential or mixed use development convenient to homes. It’s not an impossible hurdle to overcome .

Then they will have to do boundaries to create the new pyramid , and that will avoid causing an uproar.

There is no need to build another high school in western Fairfax. If you really wanted one you should have spoken up when FCPS was expanding just about every school there (Herndon, South Lakes, Oakton, Madison, and now Centreville). Chantilly is overcrowded but that can be addressed either by moving kids to an expanded Centreville or by moving Chantilly kids to Westfield and Westfield kids to expanded Herndon.

Ah I see. Makes sense given the preferred expansion plans over the last decade-plus. So it’s probably off the table then. No new western high school.

I doubt it will happen any time soon enough to affect any kids currently enrolled in FCPS. As a county, enrollment is flat or dropping. The county isn’t growing as much, and according to FCPS’s own calculations and maps, in 5 years the only HS’s “in the red” in terms of over-enrollment will be WSHS and Woodson.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No wonder why Gen Z kids are notoriously entitled and selfish. They're raised by parents like the ones commenting on this thread.

Agree. It is beyond entitled and selfish to demand you know what's best for other people's kids.

+1. She loves telling us what’s best for our kids.

It's insane to argue that there shouldn't even be a review because your kid may be negatively affected by it. Guess what, some kids will be better off, others will be worse off, but on balance the changes should benefit most. That's called public policy. If you have doubts or worries about the process being fair or balanced, then you should get off your couch and volunteer to be on the review committee or advocate some other way. Lazy armchair advocacy won't get you anywhere. But it's just so much easier to be a victim, isn't it? The immediate gratification of shouting at someone on an anonymous board is so so sweet.

I’ve already wrote letters to board members.
Again you are failing to address my point, so I will repeat it. The school board is not a business. They represent their individual constituencies. They are a part of the community. They have stated repeatedly that they put student mental health and building strong relationships as the key to a solid education.
There is no way to reconcile those points with the lack of grandfathering. They put in the policy. It is hypocracy at its finest. I do not trust people who have show that they
1 lie and say the boundary revision policy was only a new policy- not that they are going to use it, just they they rewrote it. Clearly they are using it immediately.
2- hired a company to redo the boundaries with little transparency into the process
3- didn’t even THINK about the grandfathering clause until the day of the votes.
4 think 6 grade can magically be placed into over crowded middle schools
5- think they have enough money for public Prek when they can’t pay for buses


So if you want to naively carry on about “necessary adjustments” while trusting this board to do it- feel free. They have told me all I need to know about themselves and how they go about making decisions. If their public policy is to take care of student mental health and they then stomp on the first foundations of that (providing stability) for those same students they clearly don’t want to be taken at their word.

It sounds to me like you are taking a pretty narrow view of child mental health.

It is completely understandable for one to fear change and the unknown when the status quo is working well for one’s kids. Be mindful, however, that there are also many parents in other schools who feel like the status quo is not working well for their kids. These are kids who take nearly all their classes in trailers where the A/C routinely fails during the summer months, leaving them to try to learn in a 90 degree heat. These are skids in classrooms with 40 other kids who receive little or no individual attention. These are kids in classrooms where teachers have no space to move other disruptive kids who make learning difficult for everyone else. These are challenges the County needs to somehow address.

Comprehensive grandfathering to ensure “friends can remain with all their friends” also equates to grandfathering of the unacceptable status quo in other schools. By arguing for grandfathering, one is effectively suggesting that children who have endured unsatisfactory learning conditions for two years should have to continue endure those conditions for another two years so your kids can remain in classes with their current friends. Again, it is completely understandable to want what is best for one own’s kids, just recognize that the status quo is detrimental to other kids, and FCPS must consider their mental health too.

You are not saying what these ‘unsatisfactory conditions” are. Not enough AP? And yes it is a detriment to move a kid in high school. Why is something in FCPS “unacceptable?

[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:No wonder why Gen Z kids are notoriously entitled and selfish. They're raised by parents like the ones commenting on this thread.

Agree. It is beyond entitled and selfish to demand you know what's best for other people's kids.

+1. She loves telling us what’s best for our kids.

It's insane to argue that there shouldn't even be a review because your kid may be negatively affected by it. Guess what, some kids will be better off, others will be worse off, but on balance the changes should benefit most. That's called public policy. If you have doubts or worries about the process being fair or balanced, then you should get off your couch and volunteer to be on the review committee or advocate some other way. Lazy armchair advocacy won't get you anywhere. But it's just so much easier to be a victim, isn't it? The immediate gratification of shouting at someone on an anonymous board is so so sweet.

Please give specifics on how some kids currently failing will be better off? Because it sounds like the school board really just wants the averages to go up without actually helping kids in need.
-dp

DP. Some students may be better off if their school can offer more advanced classes or more instances of those classes.

If kids are failing general ed classes how would they do better with the school offering more advanced classes?

Sorry, read that as failing schools. But that point still stands.

As for failing students. Some you will never get through to and they could be at any school. They just don't care and aren't going to try.

It is really the borderline cases where there could be a difference where more positive role model students could make a difference. And where perhaps not having all the more difficult students concentrated in the same schools would ease the burden on staff and free up time to help those kids who might do better.

Certainly having a very poor and small Lewis next to considerably wealthier and larger West Springfield is going to work out much better for one group of students than the other.

But fine, let's just keep everything as it is.

No, the point does not still stand. Putting hundreds of UMC kids into Lewis from WSHS will not help the poor ELL students currently at Lewis. It doesn't even help the UMC kids currently at Lewis. The only thing it helps is FCPS and the school board to not look as bad on paper because having more UMC kids will bring up the average test scores and metrics. UMC kids are being used as cover because adults are bad at their jobs.

When they moved Daventry to West Springfield the West Springfield principal said he was happy to get more students because he could keep more classes and staff. That means the school losing those students, Lee, would have fewer classes. And Lee was already smaller.

WSHS is not Lewis. Saying you want to keep more classes and staff at a solid school is not the same as what is happening at Lewis.

The majority of the kids are failing, thus the school is failing. Pouring UMC kids into a failing school will not fix the failing kids. They will continue to fail but in this instance, FCPS can go on to look better on paper, especially after they implement the new criteria for school accreditation.

The new VDOE standards on accreditation aren’t based on educational goals. It’s a Trump-like response from Youngkin to stoke anti-immigrant sentiment and build support for vouchers.

The Youngkin supporters will get hoisted by their own petard if systems like FCPS then respond by moving kids around to try and meet accreditation standards. But I’m not sure FCPS will bother. A lot of its schools will not meet the new standards regardless of whether they do things like move a WS feeder to Lewis.

The push to re-arrange schools by demographics precedes the election of red vest guy.
It comes from One Fairfax and has been in the works since 2018/19.

[Anonymous]

Wait- you think because kids are going to move the a/c will get fixed?

Fo real????? I’ve been a teacher for 25 years and the a/c isn’t going to magically get fixed because kids are moved around. The a/c goes out a lot everywhere. And most teachers I know LOVE the trailers because you can control your own heating and cooling out there when you can’t from the building classrooms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No wonder why Gen Z kids are notoriously entitled and selfish. They're raised by parents like the ones commenting on this thread.

Agree. It is beyond entitled and selfish to demand you know what's best for other people's kids.

+1. She loves telling us what’s best for our kids.

It's insane to argue that there shouldn't even be a review because your kid may be negatively affected by it. Guess what, some kids will be better off, others will be worse off, but on balance the changes should benefit most. That's called public policy. If you have doubts or worries about the process being fair or balanced, then you should get off your couch and volunteer to be on the review committee or advocate some other way. Lazy armchair advocacy won't get you anywhere. But it's just so much easier to be a victim, isn't it? The immediate gratification of shouting at someone on an anonymous board is so so sweet.

I’ve already wrote letters to board members.
Again you are failing to address my point, so I will repeat it. The school board is not a business. They represent their individual constituencies. They are a part of the community. They have stated repeatedly that they put student mental health and building strong relationships as the key to a solid education.
There is no way to reconcile those points with the lack of grandfathering. They put in the policy. It is hypocracy at its finest. I do not trust people who have show that they
1 lie and say the boundary revision policy was only a new policy- not that they are going to use it, just they they rewrote it. Clearly they are using it immediately.
2- hired a company to redo the boundaries with little transparency into the process
3- didn’t even THINK about the grandfathering clause until the day of the votes.
4 think 6 grade can magically be placed into over crowded middle schools
5- think they have enough money for public Prek when they can’t pay for buses


So if you want to naively carry on about “necessary adjustments” while trusting this board to do it- feel free. They have told me all I need to know about themselves and how they go about making decisions. If their public policy is to take care of student mental health and they then stomp on the first foundations of that (providing stability) for those same students they clearly don’t want to be taken at their word.

It sounds to me like you are taking a pretty narrow view of child mental health.

It is completely understandable for one to fear change and the unknown when the status quo is working well for one’s kids. Be mindful, however, that there are also many parents in other schools who feel like the status quo is not working well for their kids. These are kids who take nearly all their classes in trailers where the A/C routinely fails during the summer months, leaving them to try to learn in a 90 degree heat. These are skids in classrooms with 40 other kids who receive little or no individual attention. These are kids in classrooms where teachers have no space to move other disruptive kids who make learning difficult for everyone else. These are challenges the County needs to somehow address.

Comprehensive grandfathering to ensure “friends can remain with all their friends” also equates to grandfathering of the unacceptable status quo in other schools. By arguing for grandfathering, one is effectively suggesting that children who have endured unsatisfactory learning conditions for two years should have to continue endure those conditions for another two years so your kids can remain in classes with their current friends. Again, it is completely understandable to want what is best for one own’s kids, just recognize that the status quo is detrimental to other kids, and FCPS must consider their mental health too.

You are not saying what these ‘unsatisfactory conditions” are. Not enough AP? And yes it is a detriment to move a kid in high school. Why is something in FCPS “unacceptable?

If there were “many parents” who were upset about the situations PP describes, we’d be regularly hearing about it at School Board meetings and during public hearings on the CIP and perhaps even the budget.

But we really aren’t because the number of parents upset about the occasional trailer is relatively small compared to the much larger number of parents who don’t want to see boundaries changed. The “problem” that FCPS is purporting to solve here is largely being manufactured by some FCPS loyalists, such as those behind the “4 Public Education” group, who think they’ll keep getting appointed to FCPS advisory groups as long as they support every SB-led initiative.

With a few possible exceptions, there is no reason for an overhaul of boundaries now. Enrollments are not increasing. The ability of FCPS to keep inflicting self-inflicted wounds never ceases to amaze.

[Anonymous]

I just don't get how all these new data centers can be going up in Western Fairfax County but there's no space for a new high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just don't get how all these new data centers can be going up in Western Fairfax County but there's no space for a new high school.

Most of these new data centers are going up in Loudoun.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No wonder why Gen Z kids are notoriously entitled and selfish. They're raised by parents like the ones commenting on this thread.

Agree. It is beyond entitled and selfish to demand you know what's best for other people's kids.

+1. She loves telling us what’s best for our kids.

It's insane to argue that there shouldn't even be a review because your kid may be negatively affected by it. Guess what, some kids will be better off, others will be worse off, but on balance the changes should benefit most. That's called public policy. If you have doubts or worries about the process being fair or balanced, then you should get off your couch and volunteer to be on the review committee or advocate some other way. Lazy armchair advocacy won't get you anywhere. But it's just so much easier to be a victim, isn't it? The immediate gratification of shouting at someone on an anonymous board is so so sweet.

I’ve already wrote letters to board members.
Again you are failing to address my point, so I will repeat it. The school board is not a business. They represent their individual constituencies. They are a part of the community. They have stated repeatedly that they put student mental health and building strong relationships as the key to a solid education.
There is no way to reconcile those points with the lack of grandfathering. They put in the policy. It is hypocracy at its finest. I do not trust people who have show that they
1 lie and say the boundary revision policy was only a new policy- not that they are going to use it, just they they rewrote it. Clearly they are using it immediately.
2- hired a company to redo the boundaries with little transparency into the process
3- didn’t even THINK about the grandfathering clause until the day of the votes.
4 think 6 grade can magically be placed into over crowded middle schools
5- think they have enough money for public Prek when they can’t pay for buses


So if you want to naively carry on about “necessary adjustments” while trusting this board to do it- feel free. They have told me all I need to know about themselves and how they go about making decisions. If their public policy is to take care of student mental health and they then stomp on the first foundations of that (providing stability) for those same students they clearly don’t want to be taken at their word.

It sounds to me like you are taking a pretty narrow view of child mental health.

It is completely understandable for one to fear change and the unknown when the status quo is working well for one’s kids. Be mindful, however, that there are also many parents in other schools who feel like the status quo is not working well for their kids. These are kids who take nearly all their classes in trailers where the A/C routinely fails during the summer months, leaving them to try to learn in a 90 degree heat. These are skids in classrooms with 40 other kids who receive little or no individual attention. These are kids in classrooms where teachers have no space to move other disruptive kids who make learning difficult for everyone else. These are challenges the County needs to somehow address.

Comprehensive grandfathering to ensure “friends can remain with all their friends” also equates to grandfathering of the unacceptable status quo in other schools. By arguing for grandfathering, one is effectively suggesting that children who have endured unsatisfactory learning conditions for two years should have to continue endure those conditions for another two years so your kids can remain in classes with their current friends. Again, it is completely understandable to want what is best for one own’s kids, just recognize that the status quo is detrimental to other kids, and FCPS must consider their mental health too.

You are not saying what these ‘unsatisfactory conditions” are. Not enough AP? And yes it is a detriment to move a kid in high school. Why is something in FCPS “unacceptable?

Mlittle school board friend it isn’t about remaining with friends. It is about navigating a new environment, gettin college applications done learning a new counselor, getting back in sports teams and reproving yourself to the new coaching team. Getting placed in a new orchestra where the teacher doesn’t know you and on and on.
This isn’t just about friendships.

You also fail to mention relationship building which dr Reid brings up again and again. As a teacher well versed in using the CLASS system relationship building among children and teachers is paramount to all. You are busting that apart. The entire class
Rating scale built upon it. I’m betting you have zero clue about instructional relationships. You will also have to move teachers who need to build new support systems in their new buildings if they don’t decide to switch districts.

In short you are messing with several different educational supports: teacher supports children and staff relationships and children’s progress by NOT GRandfatheting. As both a teacher and parent I expect better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are the boundary consultants going to suggest a site for the new High Scholol?

Nope. That’s dead in the water, but they keep up the fiction for some reason.

\

Didn't the voters approve bond money for it?

Only for land acquisition but it’s a very small fraction of what the total cost would be and they don’t appear to have a site.

I hope these or some other consultants help FCPS pick out a site adjacent to or within a proposed residential or mixed use development convenient to homes. It’s not an impossible hurdle to overcome .

Then they will have to do boundaries to create the new pyramid , and that will avoid causing an uproar.

There is no need to build another high school in western Fairfax. If you really wanted one you should have spoken up when FCPS was expanding just about every school there (Herndon, South Lakes, Oakton, Madison, and now Centreville). Chantilly is overcrowded but that can be addressed either by moving kids to an expanded Centreville or by moving Chantilly kids to Westfield and Westfield kids to expanded Herndon.

You consider Oakton and Madison to be in the western part of the county? Geography isn't your forte, is it?