FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[Anonymous]

What is the reason behind the boundary changes? When can we see where they are suggesting the new boundaries will be? Will it be all schools in FCPS? Why would anyone by a house close to a school to have their kids bused out in a further direction??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

\

Didn't the voters approve bond money for it?

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

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

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

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

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

I have a really good sense of geography, thanks. The schools may be closer to the center of Fairfax, but the boundaries of each - and particularly Oakton - extend well to the west. Madison includes areas in Oakton that are south of Reston, and Oakton includes areas in Herndon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

\

Didn't the voters approve bond money for it?

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

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

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

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

Since you're listing west county expansions, let's not forgot that Westfield was built larger than FCPS policy (new HS no larger than 2000 students) then within a couple years needed R-wing because staff can't count to save their lives. The 2000 policy shined up/trotted out by the SB and staff for the South Lakes redistricting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

\

Didn't the voters approve bond money for it?

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

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

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

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

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

I have a really good sense of geography, thanks. The schools may be closer to the center of Fairfax, but the boundaries of each - and particularly Oakton - extend well to the west. Madison includes areas in Oakton that are south of Reston, and Oakton includes areas in Herndon.

No one lived in western Fairfax when Oakton HS was built.

When Carson was built, it was designed to be expanded to a secondary school. But that's unworkable since the land was sold to the Saudis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

\

Didn't the voters approve bond money for it?

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

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

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

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

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

I have a really good sense of geography, thanks. The schools may be closer to the center of Fairfax, but the boundaries of each - and particularly Oakton - extend well to the west. Madison includes areas in Oakton that are south of Reston, and Oakton includes areas in Herndon.

No one lived in western Fairfax when Oakton HS was built.

When Carson was built, it was designed to be expanded to a secondary school. But that's unworkable since the land was sold to the Saudis.

Oakton has had kids from western Fairfax ever since it was built. Still does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

\

Didn't the voters approve bond money for it?

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

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

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

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

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

I have a really good sense of geography, thanks. The schools may be closer to the center of Fairfax, but the boundaries of each - and particularly Oakton - extend well to the west. Madison includes areas in Oakton that are south of Reston, and Oakton includes areas in Herndon.

No one lived in western Fairfax when Oakton HS was built.

When Carson was built, it was designed to be expanded to a secondary school. But that's unworkable since the land was sold to the Saudis.

Oakton has had kids from western Fairfax ever since it was built. Still does.

Sorry... Next to no one. As the western Fairfax population expanded, they should have built multiple 2000 student HSes for that population. Instead, they built Westfield at 2500 and have incrementally added seats to all of them.

[Anonymous]

Did any relevant questions get asked of the superintendent yesterday in her community conversation session?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Honestly very few MS+ kids lived in Daventry at the time it was moved. That was the kind of place people rented in (lots of military renters) or lived in with kids in ES and moved elsewhere in WS when the kids hit MS. Now that they fixed the neighborhood as a split feeder (which BTW is one of the stated goals of the boundary re-drawing - removing split feeders and attendance islands) people can live there all of their kids’ school careers and not have to move. And now they have more MS/HS kids in the neighborhood.

I don't think it's a coincidence that Sandy Anderson ended up as vice chair at a time when the boundary review bullseye is on her district that is already a mess with overlapping magesterial and school boundary lines. Langley/Herndon has an easy geography/bussing justification, but Springfield district is a tough nut to crack in figuring out how to export UMC kids to Lewis while not creating split feeders and not creating longer bus routes. But PP is right, it's a shame that we have a cohort of elected officials who are prioritizing their collective equity agenda over advocating for their individual districts. I think Dunne, Marek, and Ricardy Anderson are the only SB members who deserve a shred of credibility in this boundary review process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Honestly very few MS+ kids lived in Daventry at the time it was moved. That was the kind of place people rented in (lots of military renters) or lived in with kids in ES and moved elsewhere in WS when the kids hit MS. Now that they fixed the neighborhood as a split feeder (which BTW is one of the stated goals of the boundary re-drawing - removing split feeders and attendance islands) people can live there all of their kids’ school careers and not have to move. And now they have more MS/HS kids in the neighborhood.

I don't think it's a coincidence that Sandy Anderson ended up as vice chair at a time when the boundary review bullseye is on her district that is already a mess with overlapping magesterial and school boundary lines. Langley/Herndon has an easy geography/bussing justification, but Springfield district is a tough nut to crack in figuring out how to export UMC kids to Lewis while not creating split feeders and not creating longer bus routes. But PP is right, it's a shame that we have a cohort of elected officials who are prioritizing their collective equity agenda over advocating for their individual districts. I think Dunne, Marek, and Ricardy Anderson are the only SB members who deserve a shred of credibility in this boundary review process.

Langley will be a tough nut to crack because of the middle school/high school capacity mismatches

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Honestly very few MS+ kids lived in Daventry at the time it was moved. That was the kind of place people rented in (lots of military renters) or lived in with kids in ES and moved elsewhere in WS when the kids hit MS. Now that they fixed the neighborhood as a split feeder (which BTW is one of the stated goals of the boundary re-drawing - removing split feeders and attendance islands) people can live there all of their kids’ school careers and not have to move. And now they have more MS/HS kids in the neighborhood.

I don't think it's a coincidence that Sandy Anderson ended up as vice chair at a time when the boundary review bullseye is on her district that is already a mess with overlapping magesterial and school boundary lines. Langley/Herndon has an easy geography/bussing justification, but Springfield district is a tough nut to crack in figuring out how to export UMC kids to Lewis while not creating split feeders and not creating longer bus routes. But PP is right, it's a shame that we have a cohort of elected officials who are prioritizing their collective equity agenda over advocating for their individual districts. I think Dunne, Marek, and Ricardy Anderson are the only SB members who deserve a shred of credibility in this boundary review process.

Langley will be a tough nut to crack because of the middle school/high school capacity mismatches

Membership at HMS this fall is 905. Assume 170 kids from Forestville were added. An enrollment of 1075 puts HMS at 91% of the school's design capacity.

Further assume AAP centers are eliminated and 100 more kids return to Herndon from Hughes. An enrollment of 1175 puts HMS at about full capacity.

Of course other things could lead to variances in either direction but the HMS capacity doesn't necessarily prevent kids from the Langley pyramid being moved 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:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Honestly very few MS+ kids lived in Daventry at the time it was moved. That was the kind of place people rented in (lots of military renters) or lived in with kids in ES and moved elsewhere in WS when the kids hit MS. Now that they fixed the neighborhood as a split feeder (which BTW is one of the stated goals of the boundary re-drawing - removing split feeders and attendance islands) people can live there all of their kids’ school careers and not have to move. And now they have more MS/HS kids in the neighborhood.

I don't think it's a coincidence that Sandy Anderson ended up as vice chair at a time when the boundary review bullseye is on her district that is already a mess with overlapping magesterial and school boundary lines. Langley/Herndon has an easy geography/bussing justification, but Springfield district is a tough nut to crack in figuring out how to export UMC kids to Lewis while not creating split feeders and not creating longer bus routes. But PP is right, it's a shame that we have a cohort of elected officials who are prioritizing their collective equity agenda over advocating for their individual districts. I think Dunne, Marek, and Ricardy Anderson are the only SB members who deserve a shred of credibility in this boundary review process.

Langley will be a tough nut to crack because of the middle school/high school capacity mismatches

Membership at HMS this fall is 905. Assume 170 kids from Forestville were added. An enrollment of 1075 puts HMS at 91% of the school's design capacity.

Further assume AAP centers are eliminated and 100 more kids return to Herndon from Hughes. An enrollment of 1175 puts HMS at about full capacity.

Of course other things could lead to variances in either direction but the HMS capacity doesn't necessarily prevent kids from the Langley pyramid being moved there.

Facilities projects 406-452 students from TRG alone. That’s all Herndon. That doesn’t consider HTOC or the other development either.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Honestly very few MS+ kids lived in Daventry at the time it was moved. That was the kind of place people rented in (lots of military renters) or lived in with kids in ES and moved elsewhere in WS when the kids hit MS. Now that they fixed the neighborhood as a split feeder (which BTW is one of the stated goals of the boundary re-drawing - removing split feeders and attendance islands) people can live there all of their kids’ school careers and not have to move. And now they have more MS/HS kids in the neighborhood.

I don't think it's a coincidence that Sandy Anderson ended up as vice chair at a time when the boundary review bullseye is on her district that is already a mess with overlapping magesterial and school boundary lines. Langley/Herndon has an easy geography/bussing justification, but Springfield district is a tough nut to crack in figuring out how to export UMC kids to Lewis while not creating split feeders and not creating longer bus routes. But PP is right, it's a shame that we have a cohort of elected officials who are prioritizing their collective equity agenda over advocating for their individual districts. I think Dunne, Marek, and Ricardy Anderson are the only SB members who deserve a shred of credibility in this boundary review process.

Langley will be a tough nut to crack because of the middle school/high school capacity mismatches

Membership at HMS this fall is 905. Assume 170 kids from Forestville were added. An enrollment of 1075 puts HMS at 91% of the school's design capacity.

Further assume AAP centers are eliminated and 100 more kids return to Herndon from Hughes. An enrollment of 1175 puts HMS at about full capacity.

Of course other things could lead to variances in either direction but the HMS capacity doesn't necessarily prevent kids from the Langley pyramid being moved there.

Facilities projects 406-452 students from TRG alone. That’s all Herndon. That doesn’t consider HTOC or the other development either.

Please provide a link.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Honestly very few MS+ kids lived in Daventry at the time it was moved. That was the kind of place people rented in (lots of military renters) or lived in with kids in ES and moved elsewhere in WS when the kids hit MS. Now that they fixed the neighborhood as a split feeder (which BTW is one of the stated goals of the boundary re-drawing - removing split feeders and attendance islands) people can live there all of their kids’ school careers and not have to move. And now they have more MS/HS kids in the neighborhood.

I don't think it's a coincidence that Sandy Anderson ended up as vice chair at a time when the boundary review bullseye is on her district that is already a mess with overlapping magesterial and school boundary lines. Langley/Herndon has an easy geography/bussing justification, but Springfield district is a tough nut to crack in figuring out how to export UMC kids to Lewis while not creating split feeders and not creating longer bus routes. But PP is right, it's a shame that we have a cohort of elected officials who are prioritizing their collective equity agenda over advocating for their individual districts. I think Dunne, Marek, and Ricardy Anderson are the only SB members who deserve a shred of credibility in this boundary review process.

The irony of Sandy Anderson chastizing parents who already send their kids to majority minority schools as being racist and not wanting to send their kids to lower performing schools will never leave me. Her kids school, silverbrook is over 60% white something which doesn’t happen much here is Springfield or west Springfield.
What a hypocrite!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Honestly very few MS+ kids lived in Daventry at the time it was moved. That was the kind of place people rented in (lots of military renters) or lived in with kids in ES and moved elsewhere in WS when the kids hit MS. Now that they fixed the neighborhood as a split feeder (which BTW is one of the stated goals of the boundary re-drawing - removing split feeders and attendance islands) people can live there all of their kids’ school careers and not have to move. And now they have more MS/HS kids in the neighborhood.

I don't think it's a coincidence that Sandy Anderson ended up as vice chair at a time when the boundary review bullseye is on her district that is already a mess with overlapping magesterial and school boundary lines. Langley/Herndon has an easy geography/bussing justification, but Springfield district is a tough nut to crack in figuring out how to export UMC kids to Lewis while not creating split feeders and not creating longer bus routes. But PP is right, it's a shame that we have a cohort of elected officials who are prioritizing their collective equity agenda over advocating for their individual districts. I think Dunne, Marek, and Ricardy Anderson are the only SB members who deserve a shred of credibility in this boundary review process.

The irony of Sandy Anderson chastizing parents who already send their kids to majority minority schools as being racist and not wanting to send their kids to lower performing schools will never leave me. Her kids school, silverbrook is over 60% white something which doesn’t happen much here is Springfield or west Springfield.
What a hypocrite!

These personal attacks will never get you anywhere. And South County HS has a higher minority population than West Springfield HS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Honestly very few MS+ kids lived in Daventry at the time it was moved. That was the kind of place people rented in (lots of military renters) or lived in with kids in ES and moved elsewhere in WS when the kids hit MS. Now that they fixed the neighborhood as a split feeder (which BTW is one of the stated goals of the boundary re-drawing - removing split feeders and attendance islands) people can live there all of their kids’ school careers and not have to move. And now they have more MS/HS kids in the neighborhood.

I don't think it's a coincidence that Sandy Anderson ended up as vice chair at a time when the boundary review bullseye is on her district that is already a mess with overlapping magesterial and school boundary lines. Langley/Herndon has an easy geography/bussing justification, but Springfield district is a tough nut to crack in figuring out how to export UMC kids to Lewis while not creating split feeders and not creating longer bus routes. But PP is right, it's a shame that we have a cohort of elected officials who are prioritizing their collective equity agenda over advocating for their individual districts. I think Dunne, Marek, and Ricardy Anderson are the only SB members who deserve a shred of credibility in this boundary review process.

The irony of Sandy Anderson chastizing parents who already send their kids to majority minority schools as being racist and not wanting to send their kids to lower performing schools will never leave me. Her kids school, silverbrook is over 60% white something which doesn’t happen much here is Springfield or west Springfield.
What a hypocrite!

These personal attacks will never get you anywhere. And South County HS has a higher minority population than West Springfield HS.

It’s an anonymous forum, not a letter or statement to the board. Of course calling her out on this will never result in her changing anything. It won’t change the fact that she was overly aggressive at that meeting and yes she is definitely a hypocrite. She is clearly living in what she would say a parent believes to be a “good section” of the area. I don’t send my kids to a school with that many white children because I like the diversity. She chose differently. Don’t call others racist when she herself has chosen schools with a larger racist divide than others.