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:If the idea is to raise lower-performing school ratings - what did the research say as to why they are lower performing? Can they not address that problem without creating more problems?

Research shows that once you move past 20% FARMS, the school starts to suffer. Past 40% and the whole student body becomes lower performing.

So the school board wants to equitize the schools to make them all lower performing? What could go wrong?

Is there proof that sending higher-performing students to a lower-performing school raises the grades of the lower-performing students? Isn't there a different way to help raise grades of the students that need help?

No. But it will hide the data of the lower-performing kids....or a certain demographic of kids that are causing the school to look a certain way.

This makes me want to puke. This won't help kids then who need it. It will only make them feel worse!!! WTF. And the kids with good grades will have their lives upheaval with no benefit to them. WTF???

Lewis is past the second tipping point where the number of FARMS students harms the performance of all students. Pushing the number down gives better performing students a larger cohort

That assumes that families that currently pupil place out of Lewis would suddenly attend Lewis and not go private or move, as everyone else is threatening to do when faced with being transferred there.

Threats are cheap. The actual costs of avoiding a school reassignment are considerably higher. That’s not to say they shouldn’t consider what the actual student yields following a boundary change would be. It doesn’t serve FCPS’s interests to drive too many more MC/UMC families away from the system.

It’s also cheap to minimize potential impacts before a boundary change, but once families leave, it’s really hard to pull them back in.

Sure, maybe UMC/MC families are all talk, but almost by definition these groups are rabidly focused on their kids’ educations. Just don’t think an extra couple thousand a month is going to deter most of them from choosing an alternative.

What are the solid private school options for $24K annually per kid that are readily available to families in West Springfield and Great Falls, and do families in those areas (the former in particular) really have that extra cash available?

The Catholic schools are quite good in tgis area and many parishes give tuition scholarships to registered members who send their kids to Catholic high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How is a boundary change messing with the free market? A perfect market already factors in the possibility that areas on the periphery of a school boundary in a county-wide system may be more susceptible to being rezoned to a less “desirable” school.

Of course, the art is properly calculating that possibility, and perhaps most have understood that there should be compelling reasons to redistrict based on severe overcrowding or under-enrollment. But in that case your stronger argument is that those conditions do not currently exist, not that FCPS is interfering with a free housing market. You are still completely free to buy and sell properties at market terms.

Please show me a real estate listing in Fairfax that mentions that caveat.

When a neighborhood is decades old and has been assigned to the same school since its existence, one can jump to the conclusion that it is "safe from redistricting." That is, unless it has UMC kids. Then, the SB eyes it with glee..

Prices in a perfect or mature market take all information into account, not just information in a real estate listing.

And if you jumped to a conclusion that neighborhoods at the periphery of a boundary or that are assigned to an overcrowded school are immune from redistricting, you made that leap at your own peril.

When the school board changes the rules of the game? it’s cute that you think that constitutes a perfect or mature market.

-DP

The rules haven’t changed; it’s just that your expectations may turn out to have been unfounded. They have always had the authority to change boundaries and they have exercised it on numerous occasions.

[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:If the idea is to raise lower-performing school ratings - what did the research say as to why they are lower performing? Can they not address that problem without creating more problems?

Research shows that once you move past 20% FARMS, the school starts to suffer. Past 40% and the whole student body becomes lower performing.

So the school board wants to equitize the schools to make them all lower performing? What could go wrong?

Is there proof that sending higher-performing students to a lower-performing school raises the grades of the lower-performing students? Isn't there a different way to help raise grades of the students that need help?

No. But it will hide the data of the lower-performing kids....or a certain demographic of kids that are causing the school to look a certain way.

This makes me want to puke. This won't help kids then who need it. It will only make them feel worse!!! WTF. And the kids with good grades will have their lives upheaval with no benefit to them. WTF???

Lewis is past the second tipping point where the number of FARMS students harms the performance of all students. Pushing the number down gives better performing students a larger cohort

That assumes that families that currently pupil place out of Lewis would suddenly attend Lewis and not go private or move, as everyone else is threatening to do when faced with being transferred there.

Threats are cheap. The actual costs of avoiding a school reassignment are considerably higher. That’s not to say they shouldn’t consider what the actual student yields following a boundary change would be. It doesn’t serve FCPS’s interests to drive too many more MC/UMC families away from the system.

It’s also cheap to minimize potential impacts before a boundary change, but once families leave, it’s really hard to pull them back in.

Sure, maybe UMC/MC families are all talk, but almost by definition these groups are rabidly focused on their kids’ educations. Just don’t think an extra couple thousand a month is going to deter most of them from choosing an alternative.

What are the solid private school options for $24K annually per kid that are readily available to families in West Springfield and Great Falls, and do families in those areas (the former in particular) really have that extra cash available?

Renting an apartment and letting it sit empty (Reid supports residency shenanigans - see Hayfield). Religious schools. Biting the bullet and moving. I know many people who want to stay in current pyramid but would not go to the possible rezoned school.

$24k is the going rate for preschool in the area. Not ideal to plunk down that type of cash, but certainly doable for many/most families in my area.

Again, talk is cheap, and maybe my neighbors are all talk, but I’ve seen enough neighbors move based on the mere threat of redistricting. And again, once they leave, they aren’t coming back. Fcps will have broken the implicit arrangement in the county.

There aren't enough cheap apartments in good districts to go around and there aren't enough seats at affordable privates either

I’m pretty certain landlords can legally rent out a unit based on credit scores and income, so i don’t think you’re really thinking this through. It might displace some of the LC/LMC families, but that’s the free market at work, I guess.

Most would rather not displace someone in need from relatively affordable housing, but FCPS could force theirs hand. The blame would lie squarely with Fcps.

How many cheap apartments do you think there are in good pyramids?

Hundreds of cheap rental apartments abound. Pretty easy to find one for a few years to avoid the school board’s equity agenda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How is a boundary change messing with the free market? A perfect market already factors in the possibility that areas on the periphery of a school boundary in a county-wide system may be more susceptible to being rezoned to a less “desirable” school.

Of course, the art is properly calculating that possibility, and perhaps most have understood that there should be compelling reasons to redistrict based on severe overcrowding or under-enrollment. But in that case your stronger argument is that those conditions do not currently exist, not that FCPS is interfering with a free housing market. You are still completely free to buy and sell properties at market terms.

Please show me a real estate listing in Fairfax that mentions that caveat.

When a neighborhood is decades old and has been assigned to the same school since its existence, one can jump to the conclusion that it is "safe from redistricting." That is, unless it has UMC kids. Then, the SB eyes it with glee..

Prices in a perfect or mature market take all information into account, not just information in a real estate listing.

And if you jumped to a conclusion that neighborhoods at the periphery of a boundary or that are assigned to an overcrowded school are immune from redistricting, you made that leap at your own peril.

When the school board changes the rules of the game? it’s cute that you think that constitutes a perfect or mature market.

-DP

The rules haven’t changed; it’s just that your expectations may turn out to have been unfounded. They have always had the authority to change boundaries and they have exercised it on numerous occasions.

Someone is not aware of the change to policy 8130. Learn more before you speak.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the idea is to raise lower-performing school ratings - what did the research say as to why they are lower performing? Can they not address that problem without creating more problems?

Research shows that once you move past 20% FARMS, the school starts to suffer. Past 40% and the whole student body becomes lower performing.

So the school board wants to equitize the schools to make them all lower performing? What could go wrong?

Is there proof that sending higher-performing students to a lower-performing school raises the grades of the lower-performing students? Isn't there a different way to help raise grades of the students that need help?

No. But it will hide the data of the lower-performing kids....or a certain demographic of kids that are causing the school to look a certain way.

This makes me want to puke. This won't help kids then who need it. It will only make them feel worse!!! WTF. And the kids with good grades will have their lives upheaval with no benefit to them. WTF???

Lewis is past the second tipping point where the number of FARMS students harms the performance of all students. Pushing the number down gives better performing students a larger cohort

That assumes that families that currently pupil place out of Lewis would suddenly attend Lewis and not go private or move, as everyone else is threatening to do when faced with being transferred there.

It assumes that there are currently enrolled students getting a subpar education because the school is so focused on remediation

Do high schools teach different biology courses? A different Algebra 2? (Let me answer for you here. It's a no.)

In high school, remediation happens after school or during the student's free period. It's that way with every high school. Students can also re-take tests and turn in late work during those times.

A main difference between a higher SES school and a lower one is that the ones with more money can pay for tutors. Or they have the higher education necessary to tutor their child themselves, as well as the time to devote to helping their child.

The answer is yes. Anyone thinking the answer is no has never had a kid attend a high FARMS school. If you think the difference is tutoring, you are beyond out of touch. Kids not knowing answer isn't the problem, it's kids not caring that a class is occurring

THIS. This is so accurate and what I'm afraid of. We live paycheck to paycheck to own our house for this neighborhood. The next neighborhood over has a lot of violent crimes. If we get rezoned there it's going to be a problem for my household.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the idea is to raise lower-performing school ratings - what did the research say as to why they are lower performing? Can they not address that problem without creating more problems?

Research shows that once you move past 20% FARMS, the school starts to suffer. Past 40% and the whole student body becomes lower performing.

So the school board wants to equitize the schools to make them all lower performing? What could go wrong?

Is there proof that sending higher-performing students to a lower-performing school raises the grades of the lower-performing students? Isn't there a different way to help raise grades of the students that need help?

No. But it will hide the data of the lower-performing kids....or a certain demographic of kids that are causing the school to look a certain way.

This makes me want to puke. This won't help kids then who need it. It will only make them feel worse!!! WTF. And the kids with good grades will have their lives upheaval with no benefit to them. WTF???

Lewis is past the second tipping point where the number of FARMS students harms the performance of all students. Pushing the number down gives better performing students a larger cohort

That assumes that families that currently pupil place out of Lewis would suddenly attend Lewis and not go private or move, as everyone else is threatening to do when faced with being transferred there.

Threats are cheap. The actual costs of avoiding a school reassignment are considerably higher. That’s not to say they shouldn’t consider what the actual student yields following a boundary change would be. It doesn’t serve FCPS’s interests to drive too many more MC/UMC families away from the system.

It’s also cheap to minimize potential impacts before a boundary change, but once families leave, it’s really hard to pull them back in.

Sure, maybe UMC/MC families are all talk, but almost by definition these groups are rabidly focused on their kids’ educations. Just don’t think an extra couple thousand a month is going to deter most of them from choosing an alternative.

What are the solid private school options for $24K annually per kid that are readily available to families in West Springfield and Great Falls, and do families in those areas (the former in particular) really have that extra cash available?

Based on the Hayfield football example, Dr. Reid and FCPS condones such creative solutions as using an ABnB temporary address, splitting a rental address and rent with multiple families, and if all else fails, using a commercial address like Planet Fitness. We would go with private school or homeschool, if pupil placement at our neighborhood school and extensive grandfathering are not allowed, but there are certainly families that will follow the more creative Hayfield game plan, especially since the district has given its tacit approval to these methods.

[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:If the idea is to raise lower-performing school ratings - what did the research say as to why they are lower performing? Can they not address that problem without creating more problems?

Research shows that once you move past 20% FARMS, the school starts to suffer. Past 40% and the whole student body becomes lower performing.

So the school board wants to equitize the schools to make them all lower performing? What could go wrong?

Is there proof that sending higher-performing students to a lower-performing school raises the grades of the lower-performing students? Isn't there a different way to help raise grades of the students that need help?

No. But it will hide the data of the lower-performing kids....or a certain demographic of kids that are causing the school to look a certain way.

This makes me want to puke. This won't help kids then who need it. It will only make them feel worse!!! WTF. And the kids with good grades will have their lives upheaval with no benefit to them. WTF???

Lewis is past the second tipping point where the number of FARMS students harms the performance of all students. Pushing the number down gives better performing students a larger cohort

That assumes that families that currently pupil place out of Lewis would suddenly attend Lewis and not go private or move, as everyone else is threatening to do when faced with being transferred there.

Threats are cheap. The actual costs of avoiding a school reassignment are considerably higher. That’s not to say they shouldn’t consider what the actual student yields following a boundary change would be. It doesn’t serve FCPS’s interests to drive too many more MC/UMC families away from the system.

It’s also cheap to minimize potential impacts before a boundary change, but once families leave, it’s really hard to pull them back in.

Sure, maybe UMC/MC families are all talk, but almost by definition these groups are rabidly focused on their kids’ educations. Just don’t think an extra couple thousand a month is going to deter most of them from choosing an alternative.

What are the solid private school options for $24K annually per kid that are readily available to families in West Springfield and Great Falls, and do families in those areas (the former in particular) really have that extra cash available?

Renting an apartment and letting it sit empty (Reid supports residency shenanigans - see Hayfield). Religious schools. Biting the bullet and moving. I know many people who want to stay in current pyramid but would not go to the possible rezoned school.

$24k is the going rate for preschool in the area. Not ideal to plunk down that type of cash, but certainly doable for many/most families in my area.

Again, talk is cheap, and maybe my neighbors are all talk, but I’ve seen enough neighbors move based on the mere threat of redistricting. And again, once they leave, they aren’t coming back. Fcps will have broken the implicit arrangement in the county.

There aren't enough cheap apartments in good districts to go around and there aren't enough seats at affordable privates either

I’m pretty certain landlords can legally rent out a unit based on credit scores and income, so i don’t think you’re really thinking this through. It might displace some of the LC/LMC families, but that’s the free market at work, I guess.

Most would rather not displace someone in need from relatively affordable housing, but FCPS could force theirs hand. The blame would lie squarely with Fcps.

How many cheap apartments do you think there are in good pyramids?

Hundreds of cheap rental apartments abound. Pretty easy to find one for a few years to avoid the school board’s equity agenda.

For instance, if I’m searching Zillow right, there are 24 available rental units zoned to west Springfield high school under $2500 per month.

[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:If the idea is to raise lower-performing school ratings - what did the research say as to why they are lower performing? Can they not address that problem without creating more problems?

Research shows that once you move past 20% FARMS, the school starts to suffer. Past 40% and the whole student body becomes lower performing.

So the school board wants to equitize the schools to make them all lower performing? What could go wrong?

Is there proof that sending higher-performing students to a lower-performing school raises the grades of the lower-performing students? Isn't there a different way to help raise grades of the students that need help?

No. But it will hide the data of the lower-performing kids....or a certain demographic of kids that are causing the school to look a certain way.

This makes me want to puke. This won't help kids then who need it. It will only make them feel worse!!! WTF. And the kids with good grades will have their lives upheaval with no benefit to them. WTF???

Lewis is past the second tipping point where the number of FARMS students harms the performance of all students. Pushing the number down gives better performing students a larger cohort

That assumes that families that currently pupil place out of Lewis would suddenly attend Lewis and not go private or move, as everyone else is threatening to do when faced with being transferred there.

Threats are cheap. The actual costs of avoiding a school reassignment are considerably higher. That’s not to say they shouldn’t consider what the actual student yields following a boundary change would be. It doesn’t serve FCPS’s interests to drive too many more MC/UMC families away from the system.

It’s also cheap to minimize potential impacts before a boundary change, but once families leave, it’s really hard to pull them back in.

Sure, maybe UMC/MC families are all talk, but almost by definition these groups are rabidly focused on their kids’ educations. Just don’t think an extra couple thousand a month is going to deter most of them from choosing an alternative.

What are the solid private school options for $24K annually per kid that are readily available to families in West Springfield and Great Falls, and do families in those areas (the former in particular) really have that extra cash available?

The Catholic schools are quite good in tgis area and many parishes give tuition scholarships to registered members who send their kids to Catholic high school.

How long are the waiting lists and where are the 9-12 schools located?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How is a boundary change messing with the free market? A perfect market already factors in the possibility that areas on the periphery of a school boundary in a county-wide system may be more susceptible to being rezoned to a less “desirable” school.

Of course, the art is properly calculating that possibility, and perhaps most have understood that there should be compelling reasons to redistrict based on severe overcrowding or under-enrollment. But in that case your stronger argument is that those conditions do not currently exist, not that FCPS is interfering with a free housing market. You are still completely free to buy and sell properties at market terms.

Please show me a real estate listing in Fairfax that mentions that caveat.

When a neighborhood is decades old and has been assigned to the same school since its existence, one can jump to the conclusion that it is "safe from redistricting." That is, unless it has UMC kids. Then, the SB eyes it with glee..

Prices in a perfect or mature market take all information into account, not just information in a real estate listing.

And if you jumped to a conclusion that neighborhoods at the periphery of a boundary or that are assigned to an overcrowded school are immune from redistricting, you made that leap at your own peril.

When the school board changes the rules of the game? it’s cute that you think that constitutes a perfect or mature market.

-DP

The rules haven’t changed; it’s just that your expectations may turn out to have been unfounded. They have always had the authority to change boundaries and they have exercised it on numerous occasions.

Someone is not aware of the change to policy 8130. Learn more before you speak.

DP, Policy 8130 added a comprehensive review of boundaries every 5 years. Even before the revision, the school board could and has changed boundaries. They could open a boundary study specifically around Lewis enrollment numbers, as they have with other schools. They didn’t need to change the policy to achieve that agenda. The threat had always been there.

[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:If the idea is to raise lower-performing school ratings - what did the research say as to why they are lower performing? Can they not address that problem without creating more problems?

Research shows that once you move past 20% FARMS, the school starts to suffer. Past 40% and the whole student body becomes lower performing.

So the school board wants to equitize the schools to make them all lower performing? What could go wrong?

Is there proof that sending higher-performing students to a lower-performing school raises the grades of the lower-performing students? Isn't there a different way to help raise grades of the students that need help?

No. But it will hide the data of the lower-performing kids....or a certain demographic of kids that are causing the school to look a certain way.

This makes me want to puke. This won't help kids then who need it. It will only make them feel worse!!! WTF. And the kids with good grades will have their lives upheaval with no benefit to them. WTF???

Lewis is past the second tipping point where the number of FARMS students harms the performance of all students. Pushing the number down gives better performing students a larger cohort

That assumes that families that currently pupil place out of Lewis would suddenly attend Lewis and not go private or move, as everyone else is threatening to do when faced with being transferred there.

It assumes that there are currently enrolled students getting a subpar education because the school is so focused on remediation

Do high schools teach different biology courses? A different Algebra 2? (Let me answer for you here. It's a no.)

In high school, remediation happens after school or during the student's free period. It's that way with every high school. Students can also re-take tests and turn in late work during those times.

A main difference between a higher SES school and a lower one is that the ones with more money can pay for tutors. Or they have the higher education necessary to tutor their child themselves, as well as the time to devote to helping their child.

The answer is yes. Anyone thinking the answer is no has never had a kid attend a high FARMS school. If you think the difference is tutoring, you are beyond out of touch. Kids not knowing answer isn't the problem, it's kids not caring that a class is occurring

THIS. This is so accurate and what I'm afraid of. We live paycheck to paycheck to own our house for this neighborhood. The next neighborhood over has a lot of violent crimes. If we get rezoned there it's going to be a problem for my household.

Everyone has their individual situation. Which is why parental preference should not be considered. Your choices and situations are you problems, as harsh as that sounds. It has to be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How is a boundary change messing with the free market? A perfect market already factors in the possibility that areas on the periphery of a school boundary in a county-wide system may be more susceptible to being rezoned to a less “desirable” school.

Of course, the art is properly calculating that possibility, and perhaps most have understood that there should be compelling reasons to redistrict based on severe overcrowding or under-enrollment. But in that case your stronger argument is that those conditions do not currently exist, not that FCPS is interfering with a free housing market. You are still completely free to buy and sell properties at market terms.

Please show me a real estate listing in Fairfax that mentions that caveat.

When a neighborhood is decades old and has been assigned to the same school since its existence, one can jump to the conclusion that it is "safe from redistricting." That is, unless it has UMC kids. Then, the SB eyes it with glee..

Prices in a perfect or mature market take all information into account, not just information in a real estate listing.

And if you jumped to a conclusion that neighborhoods at the periphery of a boundary or that are assigned to an overcrowded school are immune from redistricting, you made that leap at your own peril.

When the school board changes the rules of the game? it’s cute that you think that constitutes a perfect or mature market.

-DP

The rules haven’t changed; it’s just that your expectations may turn out to have been unfounded. They have always had the authority to change boundaries and they have exercised it on numerous occasions.

Someone is not aware of the change to policy 8130. Learn more before you speak.

The revised policy 8130 streamlines the prior version of 8130, but there’s really nothing they can do under the revised policy that they couldn’t (and didn’t) do under its predecessor. Learn more before YOU speak.

[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:If the idea is to raise lower-performing school ratings - what did the research say as to why they are lower performing? Can they not address that problem without creating more problems?

Research shows that once you move past 20% FARMS, the school starts to suffer. Past 40% and the whole student body becomes lower performing.

So the school board wants to equitize the schools to make them all lower performing? What could go wrong?

Is there proof that sending higher-performing students to a lower-performing school raises the grades of the lower-performing students? Isn't there a different way to help raise grades of the students that need help?

No. But it will hide the data of the lower-performing kids....or a certain demographic of kids that are causing the school to look a certain way.

This makes me want to puke. This won't help kids then who need it. It will only make them feel worse!!! WTF. And the kids with good grades will have their lives upheaval with no benefit to them. WTF???

Lewis is past the second tipping point where the number of FARMS students harms the performance of all students. Pushing the number down gives better performing students a larger cohort

That assumes that families that currently pupil place out of Lewis would suddenly attend Lewis and not go private or move, as everyone else is threatening to do when faced with being transferred there.

It assumes that there are currently enrolled students getting a subpar education because the school is so focused on remediation

Do high schools teach different biology courses? A different Algebra 2? (Let me answer for you here. It's a no.)

In high school, remediation happens after school or during the student's free period. It's that way with every high school. Students can also re-take tests and turn in late work during those times.

A main difference between a higher SES school and a lower one is that the ones with more money can pay for tutors. Or they have the higher education necessary to tutor their child themselves, as well as the time to devote to helping their child.

The answer is yes. Anyone thinking the answer is no has never had a kid attend a high FARMS school. If you think the difference is tutoring, you are beyond out of touch. Kids not knowing answer isn't the problem, it's kids not caring that a class is occurring

My children have attended both high-FARMs schools and low-FARMs schools. They're both in high-FARMs school now and excelling.

And we're an Ivy-league educated, UMC family, and yes, we know what we're talking about. How about you? Please provide your personal experience.

The worst teachers we ever experienced came from a school with a super high SES enrollment, and yes, there was more than one. When the parents know more than the teachers on the subject matter, that's not a good sign.

The worst school environment we ever experienced came from a school with a super high SES enrollment. When the students enjoy spending their time after school hurling rocks at passing cars, that's not a good sign.

How often is a fight broken up in your kids' classroom? Weekly for my daughter's art class

[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:If the idea is to raise lower-performing school ratings - what did the research say as to why they are lower performing? Can they not address that problem without creating more problems?

Research shows that once you move past 20% FARMS, the school starts to suffer. Past 40% and the whole student body becomes lower performing.

So the school board wants to equitize the schools to make them all lower performing? What could go wrong?

Is there proof that sending higher-performing students to a lower-performing school raises the grades of the lower-performing students? Isn't there a different way to help raise grades of the students that need help?

No. But it will hide the data of the lower-performing kids....or a certain demographic of kids that are causing the school to look a certain way.

This makes me want to puke. This won't help kids then who need it. It will only make them feel worse!!! WTF. And the kids with good grades will have their lives upheaval with no benefit to them. WTF???

Lewis is past the second tipping point where the number of FARMS students harms the performance of all students. Pushing the number down gives better performing students a larger cohort

That assumes that families that currently pupil place out of Lewis would suddenly attend Lewis and not go private or move, as everyone else is threatening to do when faced with being transferred there.

It assumes that there are currently enrolled students getting a subpar education because the school is so focused on remediation

Do high schools teach different biology courses? A different Algebra 2? (Let me answer for you here. It's a no.)

In high school, remediation happens after school or during the student's free period. It's that way with every high school. Students can also re-take tests and turn in late work during those times.

A main difference between a higher SES school and a lower one is that the ones with more money can pay for tutors. Or they have the higher education necessary to tutor their child themselves, as well as the time to devote to helping their child.

The answer is yes. Anyone thinking the answer is no has never had a kid attend a high FARMS school. If you think the difference is tutoring, you are beyond out of touch. Kids not knowing answer isn't the problem, it's kids not caring that a class is occurring

THIS. This is so accurate and what I'm afraid of. We live paycheck to paycheck to own our house for this neighborhood. The next neighborhood over has a lot of violent crimes. If we get rezoned there it's going to be a problem for my household.

Everyone has their individual situation. Which is why parental preference should not be considered. Your choices and situations are you problems, as harsh as that sounds. It has to be.

That should go on the Sears for governor signs. I can't wait for vouchers to get shoved down FCPS's throat

[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:If the idea is to raise lower-performing school ratings - what did the research say as to why they are lower performing? Can they not address that problem without creating more problems?

Research shows that once you move past 20% FARMS, the school starts to suffer. Past 40% and the whole student body becomes lower performing.

So the school board wants to equitize the schools to make them all lower performing? What could go wrong?

Is there proof that sending higher-performing students to a lower-performing school raises the grades of the lower-performing students? Isn't there a different way to help raise grades of the students that need help?

No. But it will hide the data of the lower-performing kids....or a certain demographic of kids that are causing the school to look a certain way.

This makes me want to puke. This won't help kids then who need it. It will only make them feel worse!!! WTF. And the kids with good grades will have their lives upheaval with no benefit to them. WTF???

Lewis is past the second tipping point where the number of FARMS students harms the performance of all students. Pushing the number down gives better performing students a larger cohort

That assumes that families that currently pupil place out of Lewis would suddenly attend Lewis and not go private or move, as everyone else is threatening to do when faced with being transferred there.

Threats are cheap. The actual costs of avoiding a school reassignment are considerably higher. That’s not to say they shouldn’t consider what the actual student yields following a boundary change would be. It doesn’t serve FCPS’s interests to drive too many more MC/UMC families away from the system.

It’s also cheap to minimize potential impacts before a boundary change, but once families leave, it’s really hard to pull them back in.

Sure, maybe UMC/MC families are all talk, but almost by definition these groups are rabidly focused on their kids’ educations. Just don’t think an extra couple thousand a month is going to deter most of them from choosing an alternative.

What are the solid private school options for $24K annually per kid that are readily available to families in West Springfield and Great Falls, and do families in those areas (the former in particular) really have that extra cash available?

Renting an apartment and letting it sit empty (Reid supports residency shenanigans - see Hayfield). Religious schools. Biting the bullet and moving. I know many people who want to stay in current pyramid but would not go to the possible rezoned school.

$24k is the going rate for preschool in the area. Not ideal to plunk down that type of cash, but certainly doable for many/most families in my area.

Again, talk is cheap, and maybe my neighbors are all talk, but I’ve seen enough neighbors move based on the mere threat of redistricting. And again, once they leave, they aren’t coming back. Fcps will have broken the implicit arrangement in the county.

There aren't enough cheap apartments in good districts to go around and there aren't enough seats at affordable privates either

I’m pretty certain landlords can legally rent out a unit based on credit scores and income, so i don’t think you’re really thinking this through. It might displace some of the LC/LMC families, but that’s the free market at work, I guess.

Most would rather not displace someone in need from relatively affordable housing, but FCPS could force theirs hand. The blame would lie squarely with Fcps.

How many cheap apartments do you think there are in good pyramids?

Hundreds of cheap rental apartments abound. Pretty easy to find one for a few years to avoid the school board’s equity agenda.

For instance, if I’m searching Zillow right, there are 24 available rental units zoned to west Springfield high school under $2500 per month.

24 units does not sound like "hundreds of cheap rental apartments."

[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:If the idea is to raise lower-performing school ratings - what did the research say as to why they are lower performing? Can they not address that problem without creating more problems?

Research shows that once you move past 20% FARMS, the school starts to suffer. Past 40% and the whole student body becomes lower performing.

So the school board wants to equitize the schools to make them all lower performing? What could go wrong?

Is there proof that sending higher-performing students to a lower-performing school raises the grades of the lower-performing students? Isn't there a different way to help raise grades of the students that need help?

No. But it will hide the data of the lower-performing kids....or a certain demographic of kids that are causing the school to look a certain way.

This makes me want to puke. This won't help kids then who need it. It will only make them feel worse!!! WTF. And the kids with good grades will have their lives upheaval with no benefit to them. WTF???

Lewis is past the second tipping point where the number of FARMS students harms the performance of all students. Pushing the number down gives better performing students a larger cohort

That assumes that families that currently pupil place out of Lewis would suddenly attend Lewis and not go private or move, as everyone else is threatening to do when faced with being transferred there.

It assumes that there are currently enrolled students getting a subpar education because the school is so focused on remediation

Do high schools teach different biology courses? A different Algebra 2? (Let me answer for you here. It's a no.)

In high school, remediation happens after school or during the student's free period. It's that way with every high school. Students can also re-take tests and turn in late work during those times.

A main difference between a higher SES school and a lower one is that the ones with more money can pay for tutors. Or they have the higher education necessary to tutor their child themselves, as well as the time to devote to helping their child.

The answer is yes. Anyone thinking the answer is no has never had a kid attend a high FARMS school. If you think the difference is tutoring, you are beyond out of touch. Kids not knowing answer isn't the problem, it's kids not caring that a class is occurring

THIS. This is so accurate and what I'm afraid of. We live paycheck to paycheck to own our house for this neighborhood. The next neighborhood over has a lot of violent crimes. If we get rezoned there it's going to be a problem for my household.

Everyone has their individual situation. Which is why parental preference should not be considered. Your choices and situations are you problems, as harsh as that sounds. It has to be.

That should go on the Sears for governor signs. I can't wait for vouchers to get shoved down FCPS's throat

I don't think a few precincts in Dranesville and Springfield shifting to the right are going to deliver the governor's race to Sears. Most people won't be affected and won't care about boundary changes and some affected may view the changes favorably.

Keep huffing and puffing.