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:

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."

I won’t dunk on you for not realizing that there are other high school pyramids in the county.

That dunk wouldn't make much of a splash, since you're trying to avoid pyramids that have any significant number of cheap rental apartments.

You are not very good at this. Fortunately, for the MC/UMC families who might be adversely affected, they can do this analysis a lot better than you.

[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..

Absolutely. +100. Even now, unsuspecting families are buying homes in the school board’s crosshairs in part because they are advertising the sought after school districts in the mls listings.

All these caveat emptor posters really are something else.

Ethically, realtors and real estate listings are actually not able to speak to purported school performance – but the scores are allowed into the listings via Great Schools and people can read into that what they wish. Realtors and the actual listings have to be very objective, otherwise they can be violating Fair Housing laws.

Right, and the equity warriors clamor that the buyers should just magically know they are buying into boundary changes. Really bizarre.

What do you mean by equity warrior? Genuinely curious because people keep throwing that saying around on this forum. Some things need to change as the burgeoning population of FFX County has caused issues. But no, don't think anybody is saying they should magically know....moreso saying, sucks for you. As another poster said, individual family problems are their own.

[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.

I agree with this one. And my kids go to school in a middle of the pack pyramid, so I've got nothing to lose. IMHO, they should do a comprehensive verification of residency in conjunction with an analysis of what the spread of students would be with no AAP, SPED, or pupil placement and see where the students are physically located and go from there.

+1, although I'd say going from there should mean (1) not just getting rid of pupil placement, but also eliminating the disparities in programs that were used to pupil place like IB; and (2) taking a hard look at future development and developing a new renovation queue before decisions are made whether to move kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Over the past 16 years neighborhoods zoned to Annandale, Chantilly, Fairfax, Lewis, Madison, McLean, Oakton, Westfield, and Woodson have all been redistricted into different schools.

I’m not sure why some people at Langley and West Springfield think a different set of rules applies to them.

Actually, it’s that different rules are being applied to them that are so offensive.

The rules have not changed in any material way. The most meaningful change is the commitment to revisit boundaries every five years and that's not what you're complaining about.

What really bothers you isn't that the rules have changed so much as they may actually be applied to you when you thought you'd continue to get preferential treatment.

Being able to maintain the school zones that you paid a pretty penny to live in is not "preferential treatment."

Preferential treatment is choosing to pay less for a bigger home knowing you are buying in a lower performing pyramid in order to get the deal on your house, then lobbying for the school board to disrupt and use other peoples kids, rezoning them to your school with the hopes that those 50-100 kids will raise your property values, with no care or consideration for the other families and the impact on their kids.

[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..

Absolutely. +100. Even now, unsuspecting families are buying homes in the school board’s crosshairs in part because they are advertising the sought after school districts in the mls listings.

All these caveat emptor posters really are something else.

Ethically, realtors and real estate listings are actually not able to speak to purported school performance – but the scores are allowed into the listings via Great Schools and people can read into that what they wish. Realtors and the actual listings have to be very objective, otherwise they can be violating Fair Housing laws.

Right, and the equity warriors clamor that the buyers should just magically know they are buying into boundary changes. Really bizarre.

What do you mean by equity warrior? Genuinely curious because people keep throwing that saying around on this forum. Some things need to change as the burgeoning population of FFX County has caused issues. But no, don't think anybody is saying they should magically know....moreso saying, sucks for you. As another poster said, individual family problems are their own.

The school age population of FCPS is trending downward due to declining birthrates.

[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: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."

I won’t dunk on you for not realizing that there are other high school pyramids in the county.

That dunk wouldn't make much of a splash, since you're trying to avoid pyramids that have any significant number of cheap rental apartments.

You are not very good at this. Fortunately, for the MC/UMC families who might be adversely affected, they can do this analysis a lot better than you.

Since I'm not complaining every. single. day. like you I'm guessing I'm a lot better "at this" than you are.

[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: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.

I wonder if LCPS supports thought the same thing when they enraged voters and got is Youngkin

Right? And it’s like the SJWs already forgot last months’ election shellacking

Are you talking about the election in which Kaine, Beyer, Subramanyam, and Connolly were elected or re-elected? Have you forgotten where you live, sweet child?

DP. Please go ahead and explain to us how any of those individuals have any influence on state level education policies.

If there’s one thing we learned in November, it’s that Democrats do not at all have their finger on the pulse of how the majority feels, particularly when it comes to education. Look what happened to McAuliffe in the last governor election. He really stepped in it with his comment about parents and it likely cost him the election. Democrats seem determined to make the same mistakes over and over again.

[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: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.

I wonder if LCPS supports thought the same thing when they enraged voters and got is Youngkin

Right? And it’s like the SJWs already forgot last months’ election shellacking

Are you talking about the election in which Kaine, Beyer, Subramanyam, and Connolly were elected or re-elected? Have you forgotten where you live, sweet child?

Go one level bigger and you’ll start to get a better sense of why vouchers are likely in the next couple of years. Have you forgotten that you live in the Commonwealth too?

So you're thinking some mom in Short Pump is now going to vote R because your school boundaries got changed (Joe Bob in Lee County has been R for decades)? Dream on.

No, i just understand that in a purple state it is a game of inches. Ignore at your own peril, Equity Sue.

[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..

Absolutely. +100. Even now, unsuspecting families are buying homes in the school board’s crosshairs in part because they are advertising the sought after school districts in the mls listings.

All these caveat emptor posters really are something else.

Ethically, realtors and real estate listings are actually not able to speak to purported school performance – but the scores are allowed into the listings via Great Schools and people can read into that what they wish. Realtors and the actual listings have to be very objective, otherwise they can be violating Fair Housing laws.

Right, and the equity warriors clamor that the buyers should just magically know they are buying into boundary changes. Really bizarre.

What do you mean by equity warrior? Genuinely curious because people keep throwing that saying around on this forum. Some things need to change as the burgeoning population of FFX County has caused issues. But no, don't think anybody is saying they should magically know....moreso saying, sucks for you. As another poster said, individual family problems are their own.

PP just uses "equity warrior" to refer to anyone who challenges the notion that they have a right in perpetuity to attend Langley High School.

[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.

Says the empty nester who hasn't had kids in FCPS for a very long time, who is trying to hide behind "equity" to use someone else's kids to bump up their property value.

I think the actualy equity that the more callous pro rezoners are actually concerned about is raising their home equity.

[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: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."

I won’t dunk on you for not realizing that there are other high school pyramids in the county.

That dunk wouldn't make much of a splash, since you're trying to avoid pyramids that have any significant number of cheap rental apartments.

You are not very good at this. Fortunately, for the MC/UMC families who might be adversely affected, they can do this analysis a lot better than you.

Since I'm not complaining every. single. day. like you I'm guessing I'm a lot better "at this" than you are.

Funny to hear someone who complains nonstop about their neighbors because of perceived wealth differences pretend that she’s an infrequent poster.

Anyway, Zillow is public and it’s pretty easy for anyone to verify whether your claim of limited cheaper rentals is accurate or not.

[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.

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.

I agree with this one. And my kids go to school in a middle of the pack pyramid, so I've got nothing to lose. IMHO, they should do a comprehensive verification of residency in conjunction with an analysis of what the spread of students would be with no AAP, SPED, or pupil placement and see where the students are physically located and go from there.

+1, although I'd say going from there should mean (1) not just getting rid of pupil placement, but also eliminating the disparities in programs that were used to pupil place like IB; and (2) taking a hard look at future development and developing a new renovation queue before decisions are made whether to move kids.

+1 - agree with some/much of that, but you can't get rid of legitimate pupil placement until you are able to offer every single program at every single school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Over the past 16 years neighborhoods zoned to Annandale, Chantilly, Fairfax, Lewis, Madison, McLean, Oakton, Westfield, and Woodson have all been redistricted into different schools.

I’m not sure why some people at Langley and West Springfield think a different set of rules applies to them.

Actually, it’s that different rules are being applied to them that are so offensive.

The rules have not changed in any material way. The most meaningful change is the commitment to revisit boundaries every five years and that's not what you're complaining about.

What really bothers you isn't that the rules have changed so much as they may actually be applied to you when you thought you'd continue to get preferential treatment.

Being able to maintain the school zones that you paid a pretty penny to live in is not "preferential treatment."

Preferential treatment is choosing to pay less for a bigger home knowing you are buying in a lower performing pyramid in order to get the deal on your house, then lobbying for the school board to disrupt and use other peoples kids, rezoning them to your school with the hopes that those 50-100 kids will raise your property values, with no care or consideration for the other families and the impact on their kids.

Actually, it is. There was a list earlier of schools that have been redistricted over the past 15 years, and many of those parents paid a pretty penny as well. You want to be treated differently than they were because you think you are special. You aren't.

As for those who paid less and may now be lobbying the SB to revise boundaries, there's nothing to suggest they can just snap their fingers and make that happen. The burden is on them to come up with data that supports any such changes, and those who don't want the boundaries changed have every right to poke holes at the data and subject it to rigorous scrutiny. But what you don't have is the right to get a pass just because you paid a particular price for your home or live in a certain area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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..

Absolutely. +100. Even now, unsuspecting families are buying homes in the school board’s crosshairs in part because they are advertising the sought after school districts in the mls listings.

All these caveat emptor posters really are something else.

Ethically, realtors and real estate listings are actually not able to speak to purported school performance – but the scores are allowed into the listings via Great Schools and people can read into that what they wish. Realtors and the actual listings have to be very objective, otherwise they can be violating Fair Housing laws.

Right, and the equity warriors clamor that the buyers should just magically know they are buying into boundary changes. Really bizarre.

What do you mean by equity warrior? Genuinely curious because people keep throwing that saying around on this forum. Some things need to change as the burgeoning population of FFX County has caused issues. But no, don't think anybody is saying they should magically know....moreso saying, sucks for you. As another poster said, individual family problems are their own.

PP just uses "equity warrior" to refer to anyone who challenges the notion that they have a right in perpetuity to attend Langley High School.

Just haven’t heard any compelling reason to redistrict, and even the capacity issues (Fcps doesn’t really factor in residential development so garbage in garbage out on this front) and transportation (commutes less than an hour don’t hurt sleep time or academics according to the Fcps study and negative transportation savings from grandfathering). The only thing left is equity. And that’s all we hear you incessantly carry on about.

[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: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."

I won’t dunk on you for not realizing that there are other high school pyramids in the county.

That dunk wouldn't make much of a splash, since you're trying to avoid pyramids that have any significant number of cheap rental apartments.

You are not very good at this. Fortunately, for the MC/UMC families who might be adversely affected, they can do this analysis a lot better than you.

Since I'm not complaining every. single. day. like you I'm guessing I'm a lot better "at this" than you are.

Funny to hear someone who complains nonstop about their neighbors because of perceived wealth differences pretend that she’s an infrequent poster.

Anyway, Zillow is public and it’s pretty easy for anyone to verify whether your claim of limited cheaper rentals is accurate or not.

Do you always conflate posters when you think it's in your interests to do so? That's just silly.