FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[Anonymous]

It is heartening that parents are honing in on the real issues within FCPS. It’s become clear that Karl Frisch and Michelle Reid don’t have a clue and, absent objection, would be prepared to destroy what people still like about FCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is heartening that parents are honing in on the real issues within FCPS. It’s become clear that Karl Frisch and Michelle Reid don’t have a clue and, absent objection, would be prepared to destroy what people still like about FCPS.

+1, but add most of the school board members names to your list. I hope none of them have aspirations for political careers after this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope they do actually listen and make the changes that really make sense - like fixing elementary school attendance islands, fixing some of the split feeders where it's desired by parents, and looking at limiting pupil placement and making the home school most desirable. Eliminate IB.

It sounds like they are overwhelmingly hearing that that is where they should start in this first look.

Why eliminate IB? Resource sucker? By that logic, TJ should be returned to a neighborhood HS. We need more High Schools.

Actually, we won't need new high schools in a few years.

Look at the by grade population post covid.

There are some oddly inflated grades for the 2 years of covid school where people red shirted their kindergartners to avoid computer screen kindergarten. And that strange baby boom of 2007-2009 affecting the very large graduating classes of 2025/2026/2027.

But after that, the population in FCPS drops significantly. Look at the current kindergarten numbers once covid red shirting ended. They are down by a big margin.

[Anonymous]

Apart from the table that seemed to endorse busing to equalize racial composition at each school, I heard a steady drumbeat of opposition to boundary changes. Perhaps the school board will consider pausing their efforts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope they do actually listen and make the changes that really make sense - like fixing elementary school attendance islands, fixing some of the split feeders where it's desired by parents, and looking at limiting pupil placement and making the home school most desirable. Eliminate IB.

It sounds like they are overwhelmingly hearing that that is where they should start in this first look.

Why eliminate IB? Resource sucker? By that logic, TJ should be returned to a neighborhood HS. We need more High Schools.

DP, if you are rezoning kids into IB with no grandfathering, your are preventing them from taking advantage of a school's top choice. IB has to be planned early, AP can be take a la carte. A sophomore or junior going from AP to IB will not be able to get an IB diploma. Worse, their math won't line up with the IB math track either. What do you tell a junior who was signed up for AP Calc BC when they are suddenly zoned for IB?

Simply replacing IB with AP does not fix the gap though.

Go to the school profiles and compare pass rates between schools.

Some of them are quite stark which speaks to a big discrepancy in program quality and student preparation, not just in the AP class years but the funnel leading up to it.

Assuming that the AP kids at all of the schools are the stronger students, there should not be a 50-60 point difference in AP pass rates between schools if the issue was as simple as just adding the AP classes and hitting the rezone button.

The preparation starts at the elementary, middle school and 9th/10th grade levels for any of these advanced classes. If the students are unprepared and the teachers & programs undeveloped, just adding AP and moving over a few dozen kids is not going be effective, and will actually provode harm to the kids being transferred.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of upset parents tonight at the boundary meeting. I wonder if the school board is getting the message when they keep hearing from parents over and over again that they don’t want the boundary changes.

Upset parents wanting rezoning? Or against rezoning?

If the vibe was against rezoning, I ber they were caught off guard.

Parents against rezoning.

I’m sure the SB was NOT caught off guard by parents against rezoning.

Normally, yes.

But this is the pyramid that has schools that the school board is using to justify rezoning. I am sure they did not expect that the Lewis parents would be just as much against the disruptions of rezoning and just as strongly wanting to keep their kids in their neighborhood schools, as all of the other parents at other schools

I am not surprised, but I bet the school board was surprised, along with some of the pro rezoning non parents who post here regularly.

The Mount Vernon HS meeting with lots of Lewis folks was back on Monday, and the parents there were generally supportive of making changes and having saner boundaries than some of the craziness of the current setup.

Tonight's meeting was at Annandale, and the feedback was most uniformly supportive of changes that would allow more equitable access to programming, and specifically access for students WITHIN THEIR PYRAMID. Saying you can technically "access" a program but to do so you have to be bussed over to some other pyramid doesn't count. This seems mainly about local AAP and also the AP/IB split. But overall folks seemed more concerned about this programming issue than the boundary lines, but also understood that one could impact the other.

There was also some incongruent feedback, for example one table emphasized making sure that when they do this that they make purposeful changes that actually have an impact, don't just bow to the fear of "making the fewest people upset about changes". But on the other hand the most common phrase was "minimize disruptions", yet in the same breath many of those same groups were also supportive of some changes, especially pertaining to islands and split feeders. So minimize disruptions =/= no disruptions, it seems... basically, "only disruptions that I personally think are reasonable".

Finally, some requested looking at "more creative" changes than boundary adjustments, and one said that overcrowding wasn't the worst thing, a sense of school community is more important, and different communities want different things.

Really one sided summary. At my table, and from the reporters, the responses to the boundary changes was very negative.

There was a table who asked to make sure that each school has a similar composition of race. Definitely illegal, but curious that there are people who still think like that.

The one-sided-ness would be characterizing the feedback as "very negative". There may have been some negative elements, sure, but there were also some positive ones, and again moreso than at other meetings the emphasis was on access to programming with in the pyramid, which is a currently-related but potentially-independent issue from boundary changes (depending what programmatic changes they might make to equalize offerings across pyramids).

I think you are interpreting the consistent feedback of "minimize disruptions" as people being opposed to any changes, but that's not what I heard at my table or in the group readouts. There was only one person at our table who wanted no changes, of course driven by the fact they don't want changes for themselves and their individual child, and not thinking about the problem system-wide. Most people on the other hand are recognizing there need to be some adjustments made. Frankly, it's some reallly impressive mental gymnastics if you can look so much as glance at a feeder map and not quickly come to the same conclusion. People seem to be asking that the changes be kept to a minimum possible to achieve some of the understood goals (e.g. eliminating islands and split feeders, haven't heard a single person argue against rezoning for that purpose) and also emphasize neighborhoods/communities staying together. They don't want them to start from whole cloth and make changes just for the sake of it. But they're also not saying "no changes, period".

There is mental gymnastics occurring if you look at the compact WSHS map and argue that the school should be rezoned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope they do actually listen and make the changes that really make sense - like fixing elementary school attendance islands, fixing some of the split feeders where it's desired by parents, and looking at limiting pupil placement and making the home school most desirable. Eliminate IB.

It sounds like they are overwhelmingly hearing that that is where they should start in this first look.

Why eliminate IB? Resource sucker? By that logic, TJ should be returned to a neighborhood HS. We need more High Schools.

DP, if you are rezoning kids into IB with no grandfathering, your are preventing them from taking advantage of a school's top choice. IB has to be planned early, AP can be take a la carte. A sophomore or junior going from AP to IB will not be able to get an IB diploma. Worse, their math won't line up with the IB math track either. What do you tell a junior who was signed up for AP Calc BC when they are suddenly zoned for IB?

Simply replacing IB with AP does not fix the gap though.

Go to the school profiles and compare pass rates between schools.

Some of them are quite stark which speaks to a big discrepancy in program quality and student preparation, not just in the AP class years but the funnel leading up to it.

Assuming that the AP kids at all of the schools are the stronger students, there should not be a 50-60 point difference in AP pass rates between schools if the issue was as simple as just adding the AP classes and hitting the rezone button.

The preparation starts at the elementary, middle school and 9th/10th grade levels for any of these advanced classes. If the students are unprepared and the teachers & programs undeveloped, just adding AP and moving over a few dozen kids is not going be effective, and will actually provode harm to the kids being transferred.

That being the case people would still rather be at Hayfield than Mount Vernon and at Falls Church than Lewis. IB in low-performing schools is a failed experiment. Get rid of it and stem the pupil placements out of those schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope they do actually listen and make the changes that really make sense - like fixing elementary school attendance islands, fixing some of the split feeders where it's desired by parents, and looking at limiting pupil placement and making the home school most desirable. Eliminate IB.

It sounds like they are overwhelmingly hearing that that is where they should start in this first look.

Why eliminate IB? Resource sucker? By that logic, TJ should be returned to a neighborhood HS. We need more High Schools.

DP, if you are rezoning kids into IB with no grandfathering, your are preventing them from taking advantage of a school's top choice. IB has to be planned early, AP can be take a la carte. A sophomore or junior going from AP to IB will not be able to get an IB diploma. Worse, their math won't line up with the IB math track either. What do you tell a junior who was signed up for AP Calc BC when they are suddenly zoned for IB?

Simply replacing IB with AP does not fix the gap though.

Go to the school profiles and compare pass rates between schools.

Some of them are quite stark which speaks to a big discrepancy in program quality and student preparation, not just in the AP class years but the funnel leading up to it.

Assuming that the AP kids at all of the schools are the stronger students, there should not be a 50-60 point difference in AP pass rates between schools if the issue was as simple as just adding the AP classes and hitting the rezone button.

The preparation starts at the elementary, middle school and 9th/10th grade levels for any of these advanced classes. If the students are unprepared and the teachers & programs undeveloped, just adding AP and moving over a few dozen kids is not going be effective, and will actually provode harm to the kids being transferred.

That being the case people would still rather be at Hayfield than Mount Vernon and at Falls Church than Lewis. IB in low-performing schools is a failed experiment. Get rid of it and stem the pupil placements out of those schools.

Getting rid of it in the schools that are succeeding would stem the flow out from underperforming schools. Example: Herndon to South Lakes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope they do actually listen and make the changes that really make sense - like fixing elementary school attendance islands, fixing some of the split feeders where it's desired by parents, and looking at limiting pupil placement and making the home school most desirable. Eliminate IB.

It sounds like they are overwhelmingly hearing that that is where they should start in this first look.

Why eliminate IB? Resource sucker? By that logic, TJ should be returned to a neighborhood HS. We need more High Schools.

DP, if you are rezoning kids into IB with no grandfathering, your are preventing them from taking advantage of a school's top choice. IB has to be planned early, AP can be take a la carte. A sophomore or junior going from AP to IB will not be able to get an IB diploma. Worse, their math won't line up with the IB math track either. What do you tell a junior who was signed up for AP Calc BC when they are suddenly zoned for IB?

Simply replacing IB with AP does not fix the gap though.

Go to the school profiles and compare pass rates between schools.

Some of them are quite stark which speaks to a big discrepancy in program quality and student preparation, not just in the AP class years but the funnel leading up to it.

Assuming that the AP kids at all of the schools are the stronger students, there should not be a 50-60 point difference in AP pass rates between schools if the issue was as simple as just adding the AP classes and hitting the rezone button.

The preparation starts at the elementary, middle school and 9th/10th grade levels for any of these advanced classes. If the students are unprepared and the teachers & programs undeveloped, just adding AP and moving over a few dozen kids is not going be effective, and will actually provode harm to the kids being transferred.

That being the case people would still rather be at Hayfield than Mount Vernon and at Falls Church than Lewis. IB in low-performing schools is a failed experiment. Get rid of it and stem the pupil placements out of those schools.

Mt Vernon's boundary includes Belvoir. Military brats can transfer by right. Closing IB is not going to get those kids to attend Mt Vernon

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of upset parents tonight at the boundary meeting. I wonder if the school board is getting the message when they keep hearing from parents over and over again that they don’t want the boundary changes.

Upset parents wanting rezoning? Or against rezoning?

If the vibe was against rezoning, I ber they were caught off guard.

Parents against rezoning.

I’m sure the SB was NOT caught off guard by parents against rezoning.

Normally, yes.

But this is the pyramid that has schools that the school board is using to justify rezoning. I am sure they did not expect that the Lewis parents would be just as much against the disruptions of rezoning and just as strongly wanting to keep their kids in their neighborhood schools, as all of the other parents at other schools

I am not surprised, but I bet the school board was surprised, along with some of the pro rezoning non parents who post here regularly.

The Mount Vernon HS meeting with lots of Lewis folks was back on Monday, and the parents there were generally supportive of making changes and having saner boundaries than some of the craziness of the current setup.

Tonight's meeting was at Annandale, and the feedback was most uniformly supportive of changes that would allow more equitable access to programming, and specifically access for students WITHIN THEIR PYRAMID. Saying you can technically "access" a program but to do so you have to be bussed over to some other pyramid doesn't count. This seems mainly about local AAP and also the AP/IB split. But overall folks seemed more concerned about this programming issue than the boundary lines, but also understood that one could impact the other.

There was also some incongruent feedback, for example one table emphasized making sure that when they do this that they make purposeful changes that actually have an impact, don't just bow to the fear of "making the fewest people upset about changes". But on the other hand the most common phrase was "minimize disruptions", yet in the same breath many of those same groups were also supportive of some changes, especially pertaining to islands and split feeders. So minimize disruptions =/= no disruptions, it seems... basically, "only disruptions that I personally think are reasonable".

Finally, some requested looking at "more creative" changes than boundary adjustments, and one said that overcrowding wasn't the worst thing, a sense of school community is more important, and different communities want different things.

Really one sided summary. At my table, and from the reporters, the responses to the boundary changes was very negative.

There was a table who asked to make sure that each school has a similar composition of race. Definitely illegal, but curious that there are people who still think like that.

The one-sided-ness would be characterizing the feedback as "very negative". There may have been some negative elements, sure, but there were also some positive ones, and again moreso than at other meetings the emphasis was on access to programming with in the pyramid, which is a currently-related but potentially-independent issue from boundary changes (depending what programmatic changes they might make to equalize offerings across pyramids).

I think you are interpreting the consistent feedback of "minimize disruptions" as people being opposed to any changes, but that's not what I heard at my table or in the group readouts. There was only one person at our table who wanted no changes, of course driven by the fact they don't want changes for themselves and their individual child, and not thinking about the problem system-wide. Most people on the other hand are recognizing there need to be some adjustments made. Frankly, it's some reallly impressive mental gymnastics if you can look so much as glance at a feeder map and not quickly come to the same conclusion. People seem to be asking that the changes be kept to a minimum possible to achieve some of the understood goals (e.g. eliminating islands and split feeders, haven't heard a single person argue against rezoning for that purpose) and also emphasize neighborhoods/communities staying together. They don't want them to start from whole cloth and make changes just for the sake of it. But they're also not saying "no changes, period".

There is mental gymnastics occurring if you look at the compact WSHS map and argue that the school should be rezoned.

You’d also need to be Simone Biles to think that rezoning is going to somehow fix Lewis.

The only equitable outcome for Lewis students is send them elsewhere. It’s past the point of “fixing”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope they do actually listen and make the changes that really make sense - like fixing elementary school attendance islands, fixing some of the split feeders where it's desired by parents, and looking at limiting pupil placement and making the home school most desirable. Eliminate IB.

It sounds like they are overwhelmingly hearing that that is where they should start in this first look.

Why eliminate IB? Resource sucker? By that logic, TJ should be returned to a neighborhood HS. We need more High Schools.

Actually, we won't need new high schools in a few years.

Look at the by grade population post covid.

There are some oddly inflated grades for the 2 years of covid school where people red shirted their kindergartners to avoid computer screen kindergarten. And that strange baby boom of 2007-2009 affecting the very large graduating classes of 2025/2026/2027.

But after that, the population in FCPS drops significantly. Look at the current kindergarten numbers once covid red shirting ended. They are down by a big margin.

This is definitely the case at our elementary feeder to Irving/WSHS. I know some of those elementaries in our area are crowded, but ours has lost significant population. And what is interesting is we have some of the lowest income housing, including apartments, in West Springfield. We almost only had enough kindergarteners this year for ONE classroom!!

[Anonymous]

The astroturfing that goes on here by members of the school board and the committee is absolutely insane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is heartening that parents are honing in on the real issues within FCPS. It’s become clear that Karl Frisch and Michelle Reid don’t have a clue and, absent objection, would be prepared to destroy what people still like about FCPS.

Another person who gets it, up to a handful now, no where near enough to stop the death spiral.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is heartening that parents are honing in on the real issues within FCPS. It’s become clear that Karl Frisch and Michelle Reid don’t have a clue and, absent objection, would be prepared to destroy what people still like about FCPS.

+1, but add most of the school board members names to your list. I hope none of them have aspirations for political careers after this.

They all do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope they do actually listen and make the changes that really make sense - like fixing elementary school attendance islands, fixing some of the split feeders where it's desired by parents, and looking at limiting pupil placement and making the home school most desirable. Eliminate IB.

It sounds like they are overwhelmingly hearing that that is where they should start in this first look.

Why eliminate IB? Resource sucker? By that logic, TJ should be returned to a neighborhood HS. We need more High Schools.

Actually, we won't need new high schools in a few years.

Look at the by grade population post covid.

There are some oddly inflated grades for the 2 years of covid school where people red shirted their kindergartners to avoid computer screen kindergarten. And that strange baby boom of 2007-2009 affecting the very large graduating classes of 2025/2026/2027.

But after that, the population in FCPS drops significantly. Look at the current kindergarten numbers once covid red shirting ended. They are down by a big margin.

But there's also a sustained increase in the number of kids the last few years (post-2021) entering the school system in 1st-6th grades, so you can't just look at kindergarten alone. There's an average of 1% additional students entering the system at every ES grade level compared to pre-pandemic, so whatever your starting cohort size is of K students, you'll end up with ~7% more kids in that grade cohort by the end of ES.