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: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.

FCPS facilities knows which memo.

[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: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.

FCPS facilities knows which memo.

Until FCPS has enough faith in these projections to incorporate them in the CIP, there's no reason to rely on them as a basis to analyze a potential Langley/Herndon boundary change differently than any other potential change. Staff could prepare all sorts of "back-of-the-envelope" projections.

[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: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.

FCPS facilities knows which memo.

Until FCPS has enough faith in these projections to incorporate them in the CIP, there's no reason to rely on them as a basis to analyze a potential Langley/Herndon boundary change differently than any other potential change. Staff could prepare all sorts of "back-of-the-envelope" projections.

Ha. Don’t look behind the curtain, am i right?

They’re facilities own projections. Stop advocating to ignore the data.

[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: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.

FCPS facilities knows which memo.

Until FCPS has enough faith in these projections to incorporate them in the CIP, there's no reason to rely on them as a basis to analyze a potential Langley/Herndon boundary change differently than any other potential change. Staff could prepare all sorts of "back-of-the-envelope" projections.

Ha. Don’t look behind the curtain, am i right?

They’re facilities own projections. Stop advocating to ignore the data.

Because you say so?

Post it or prepare to be ignored.

[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.

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.

When has she called people racist? Maybe she has, or maybe you’re putting words in her mouth?

[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.

Slow down. HMS program capacity is 1062 and they’re using 6 trailers. You only get option A or option B. Not both.

[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: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.

When has she called people racist? Maybe she has, or maybe you’re putting words in her mouth?

Maybe before she rants in front of the school board, she should have thought twice about the choices she herself made for her kids vs the people she was ranting against. I looked up her info after the meeting and once I found out where her kids went and what her choices were, I was less than impressed. She was not very judicious taking parents to task for having their kids in a school with a higher minority level than her own and not wanting their kids moved. Mind you these are her constituents she is supposed to represent. It was a while ago and you know the saying about how someone’s words might not stick with you, but their tone and the way they made you feel will? She was definitley defensive and anngry. I find it funny that she was ranting about parents who have their kids in a school with more diversity than her own kids being scared of diversity. It is funny and clueless and not great leadership.

[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: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.

FCPS facilities knows which memo.

Until FCPS has enough faith in these projections to incorporate them in the CIP, there's no reason to rely on them as a basis to analyze a potential Langley/Herndon boundary change differently than any other potential change. Staff could prepare all sorts of "back-of-the-envelope" projections.

Ha. Don’t look behind the curtain, am i right?

They’re facilities own projections. Stop advocating to ignore the data.

Because you say so?

Post it or prepare to be ignored.

It’s a February 2024 facilities memo. Can’t post to it because it isn’t public yet.

Here’s a source that is: https://herndon.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=2645&meta_id=126433

Search for “942 schoolchildren” in that link. That’s the third party consultant’s estimate of the number of schoolchildren TRG will bring in. Even if you go with the 406-452 estimate from the 2/2024 facilities memo, tell me how this doesn’t crowd Herndon Middle?

[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!

Silverbrook is up there with the very least FARMS, least ESOL schools in all of FCPS. 9% FARMS and 5% ESOL. But it’s easy to play games with other people’s kids when you live in a pretty uniformly wealthy area and you shunt off the working class kids to literally every other school in the pyramid.

[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.

Slow down. HMS program capacity is 1062 and they’re using 6 trailers. You only get option A or option B. Not both.

Program capacity can be adjusted to align with design capacity..

[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: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.

FCPS facilities knows which memo.

Until FCPS has enough faith in these projections to incorporate them in the CIP, there's no reason to rely on them as a basis to analyze a potential Langley/Herndon boundary change differently than any other potential change. Staff could prepare all sorts of "back-of-the-envelope" projections.

Ha. Don’t look behind the curtain, am i right?

They’re facilities own projections. Stop advocating to ignore the data.

Because you say so?

Post it or prepare to be ignored.

It’s a February 2024 facilities memo. Can’t post to it because it isn’t public yet.

Here’s a source that is: https://herndon.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=2645&meta_id=126433

Search for “942 schoolchildren” in that link. That’s the third party consultant’s estimate of the number of schoolchildren TRG will bring in. Even if you go with the 406-452 estimate from the 2/2024 facilities memo, tell me how this doesn’t crowd Herndon Middle?

DP and yes it does crowd HMS, HOWEVER FCPS doesn’t take into account “planned” development, only development where ground has actually been broken. So expect some sudden big upward revisions when the construction gets growing. Whether this is before or after they start possibly moving kids out of Cooper/Langley and then find out oops HMS is too crowded remains to be seen.

[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: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.

FCPS facilities knows which memo.

Until FCPS has enough faith in these projections to incorporate them in the CIP, there's no reason to rely on them as a basis to analyze a potential Langley/Herndon boundary change differently than any other potential change. Staff could prepare all sorts of "back-of-the-envelope" projections.

Ha. Don’t look behind the curtain, am i right?

They’re facilities own projections. Stop advocating to ignore the data.

Because you say so?

Post it or prepare to be ignored.

It’s a February 2024 facilities memo. Can’t post to it because it isn’t public yet.

Here’s a source that is: https://herndon.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=2645&meta_id=126433

Search for “942 schoolchildren” in that link. That’s the third party consultant’s estimate of the number of schoolchildren TRG will bring in. Even if you go with the 406-452 estimate from the 2/2024 facilities memo, tell me how this doesn’t crowd Herndon Middle?

DP and yes it does crowd HMS, HOWEVER FCPS doesn’t take into account “planned” development, only development where ground has actually been broken. So expect some sudden big upward revisions when the construction gets growing. Whether this is before or after they start possibly moving kids out of Cooper/Langley and then find out oops HMS is too crowded remains to be seen.

Not sure that the best approach is to play ostrich and alleviate overcrowding at McLean while overcrowding schools in the Herndon pyramid.

Also not sure why anyone would advocate for that approach.

[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: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.

FCPS facilities knows which memo.

Until FCPS has enough faith in these projections to incorporate them in the CIP, there's no reason to rely on them as a basis to analyze a potential Langley/Herndon boundary change differently than any other potential change. Staff could prepare all sorts of "back-of-the-envelope" projections.

Ha. Don’t look behind the curtain, am i right?

They’re facilities own projections. Stop advocating to ignore the data.

Because you say so?

Post it or prepare to be ignored.

It’s a February 2024 facilities memo. Can’t post to it because it isn’t public yet.

Here’s a source that is: https://herndon.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=2645&meta_id=126433

Search for “942 schoolchildren” in that link. That’s the third party consultant’s estimate of the number of schoolchildren TRG will bring in. Even if you go with the 406-452 estimate from the 2/2024 facilities memo, tell me how this doesn’t crowd Herndon Middle?

The link is to a business case document. There aren’t any projections in there that align with how FCPS forecasts enrollment for capital planning or short to intermediate-term boundary decisions.

[Anonymous]

Because planned developments don’t always materialize.

Regardless the Great Falls people who keep bringing up some Herndon development never have an answer when people point out that there are way more planned developments in other areas, such as Tysons. So even if policy were changed to count planned developments, the Herndon ones wouldn’t stand out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because planned developments don’t always materialize.

Regardless the Great Falls people who keep bringing up some Herndon development never have an answer when people point out that there are way more planned developments in other areas, such as Tysons. So even if policy were changed to count planned developments, the Herndon ones wouldn’t stand out.

Right so just shift the kids around every 5 years! What is this planning stuff? Why bother? Kids are like boxes- they don’t need stability just pile em in a different school - right facilities and planning!?