FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Did an equity AI bot write this drivel? 🤡

I wish, I know I'm wasting my time trying to get through to people who see "equity" as a dirty word. I'm just out here trying desperately not to lose all faith in humanity... and my neighbors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the person at 11:31, I moved my kids because one of them was being targeted and assaulted by another group of kids in the hallways. It was racially motivated. This school is such a mess (still) that I knew anything I did would just make things worse. I also know that it takes a ridiculous amount of work and documentation to get the kids that causae this kind of trouble into the alternative schools they should be in - it can take years - even when they seriously hurt others. Frankly, I don't think kids that create unsafe environments and threaten other students deserve to be in other schools with kids at all. They can do online school for all I care. The school we moved to isn't the best in the world, but my kids said that at least they feel safe.

Moving to another boundary was still the hardest thing we ever did and my kids were not in high school at the time.

Also, the only way you know your kids will be fine is if you have so much wealth you know they won't have to work. You are also discounting the impact of other trauma outside your control on their mental health. I don't know if my kids will be fine, but I'm trying to prepare them the best I can with the resources I have. A boundary change on top of a previous move to escape the trauma of another FCPS school on top of the Covid setback isn't something I'm going to roll over for and say "you'll be fine kid. You've got me."

I feel for your kid - truly. And agree that we need to be doing more and a better job addressing bullying and those kinds of disruptive kids and behaviors in the school system as a whole. Honestly I think that aspect of our school system is something that is broken, but I don't know enough about those specific needs to know what good policy there would be. But at the same time, you simply can't make district policy revolve around the very individual needs of specific students. The very best we can strive for is to maximize the possible outcomes, given constrained resources, for the largest number of students in our care.

I'm not discounting trauma outside your control, I'm saying a boundary change is a drop in the bucket compared to a lifetime of experiences. We all experience trauma. Some far greater than others. A boundary change is not traumatic enough to move the needle on lifetime outcomes for your child. And if you believe that it would, I'm fully confident that you, being an excellent parent, would use every resource at your disposal to perhaps move, or secure a boundary exception of some sort. But trying to take individual specific needs into account when creating districtwide policy is just impossible. The answer to individual trauma, is individual solutions (and therapy). It isn't fighting a boundary change that would positively impact a larger number of kids. Which, we don't even know yet if it would. Because there is no plan yet. I've been honestly searching for those "leaked maps" and haven't turned them up yet.

The thing that has me so exasperated is that all of this hand wringing is truly just parents saying, preemptively, "better not be me." Its either, "not my neighborhood", or "not this year" (hoping your kids will be gone before it can affect them), or "eliminate IB instead" (because we all know that would affect the kids whose parents bought in a neighborhood knowing they could use the loophole to transfer out - IE not your kids).

FCPS hasn't don't a comprehensive boundary review in 40 years. Just let them do their review. I don't think that it is too much to ask our community to come to the table with honesty and a desire to truly do what is best, for the greatest number of kids in the district. Not the loudest ones.

FCPS has spent the past 40 years inviting parents to research schools carefully by installing different programs that, for the most part didn't exist 40 years ago (IB, Academies, language immersion, language electives, AAP centers, etc.) at different schools, and you want people to pretend they should approach boundaries like it's 1985 again.

The School Board may think this way as well, but if so they are clueless. Add to that the fact that enrollments are essentially flat, and will likely decline in the coming years, and it's obvious there's no real need to be changing boundaries right now.

It won't end well for them.

[Anonymous]

People: get real. FCPS is a high FARMS school system. Shifting kids won't change that.

A better approach is to acknowledge that we have a lot of high FARMS kids and start teaching them rather than trying to hide them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Did an equity AI bot write this drivel? 🤡

I wish, I know I'm wasting my time trying to get through to people who see "equity" as a dirty word. I'm just out here trying desperately not to lose all faith in humanity... and my neighbors.

Oh, please. Pat yourself on the back any harder and you'll have permanent scars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you and your neighbors move en masse, maybe we see a slight decrease in your home’s price when you sell. Then someone slightly less wealthy, who sees where the school boundary is and doesn’t mind, will buy it. Incremental wealth redistribution and better neighbors all in one go 👍

The wealth distribution we need is from people whose kids go to expensive private schools and who care nothing about this whole boundary debate, not the families who managed to buy something in a public school district 15 years ago when it was more affordable and now have high school aged kids. You are attacking the wrong people with your snide remark.

Don't count on home values to drop though. Population is increasing and housing hasn't kept up for decades. Home values won't drop without a full on recession - regardless of boundary changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

So you don’t think removing 25% of likely umc students had or will have an effect on the rest of the kids? Because all I hear about from your comrades is that high farms supposedly really cripples opportunities for those schools.

At some point you’re arguing for a system that is equitized at really high farms level. The SJWs and the far right have gone so far extreme that they have now joined together at the other end of the circle. I wish you luck in that system, but you’ll lose a lot of us along the way, and don’t expect us to support taking more of our resources to realize your equity vision.

The research I've seen has suggested a "tipping point" of somewhere between 20-40% FARMS rate at any given school negatively affecting test score outcomes for ALL students. So it would really depend on exactly what the makeup of those left in the school would wind up being. Given our districtwide FARMS rate of 35%, it becomes clear that while comprehensive redistricting could move the needle at some schools, it would be impossible to get every single school below that tipping point mark.

Which is why I suggested above that there are much better and more effective solutions. Like Universal Pre-K! That can actually help lift children out of poverty (by allowing their mothers to work) while creating a strong foundation for later learning! And it's on the table at FCPS, suddenly! It's an evidence based solution that can help families up and down the economic spectrum, but it is dismissed as "impossible" and "unnecessary". Especially since we might need to move some things around to make it happen. So let's just keep fighting for the status quo for YOUR kids. Yay.

Coincidentally, Universal Free Lunch and Breakfast is another program that has been proven to improve educational outcomes, but we just had a proposal for Universal Free Breakfast shot down in the VA General Assembly once again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Did an equity AI bot write this drivel? 🤡

I wish, I know I'm wasting my time trying to get through to people who see "equity" as a dirty word. I'm just out here trying desperately not to lose all faith in humanity... and my neighbors.

Try making the equity movement a less racist.

Right now, over the past 4 years, your movement only sees people and kids by a purity test of skin tone, ethnicity, politics or sexuality,.

It also pushes going after people with vengeance if they don't toe the line.

When you swing your pendulum so far to the extreme, as they did over the last 4 years, the snap back to the middle unfortunately is equally as sharp.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People: get real. FCPS is a high FARMS school system. Shifting kids won't change that.

A better approach is to acknowledge that we have a lot of high FARMS kids and start teaching them rather than trying to hide them.

How does that actually play out from the accreditation perspective?

I thought that, to stay accredited, schools needed to demonstrate that different cohorts of students were performing adequately, or making progress, on various tests like the SOLs. So, for example, a school could end up in trouble from an accreditation standpoint if Hispanic students consistently weren't doing well enough at math, even if the average scores were OK.

Is this wrong - in other words, does continued accreditation only depend on school-wide averages? If VDOE is still looking at cohorts, then moving high FARMS kids around won't necessarily avoid the accreditation issues down the road, even if it makes some School Board members or local activists feel better if the average scores at their schools improve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Don't count on home values to drop though. Population is increasing and housing hasn't kept up for decades. Home values won't drop without a full on recession - regardless of boundary changes.

I agree - which is why the threat of "people will vote with their feet and dollars" is toothless.

If I could redistribute wealth from the private school families to low income families, I would, believe me. I suggest a targeted child tax credit. Let's get the movement started!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So you don’t think removing 25% of likely umc students had or will have an effect on the rest of the kids? Because all I hear about from your comrades is that high farms supposedly really cripples opportunities for those schools.

At some point you’re arguing for a system that is equitized at really high farms level. The SJWs and the far right have gone so far extreme that they have now joined together at the other end of the circle. I wish you luck in that system, but you’ll lose a lot of us along the way, and don’t expect us to support taking more of our resources to realize your equity vision.

The research I've seen has suggested a "tipping point" of somewhere between 20-40% FARMS rate at any given school negatively affecting test score outcomes for ALL students. So it would really depend on exactly what the makeup of those left in the school would wind up being. Given our districtwide FARMS rate of 35%, it becomes clear that while comprehensive redistricting could move the needle at some schools, it would be impossible to get every single school below that tipping point mark.

Which is why I suggested above that there are much better and more effective solutions. Like Universal Pre-K! That can actually help lift children out of poverty (by allowing their mothers to work) while creating a strong foundation for later learning! And it's on the table at FCPS, suddenly! It's an evidence based solution that can help families up and down the economic spectrum, but it is dismissed as "impossible" and "unnecessary". Especially since we might need to move some things around to make it happen. So let's just keep fighting for the status quo for YOUR kids. Yay.

Coincidentally, Universal Free Lunch and Breakfast is another program that has been proven to improve educational outcomes, but we just had a proposal for Universal Free Breakfast shot down in the VA General Assembly once again.

This is the kind of rhetoric that gives away someone who just loves to virtue signal.

You think universal pre-K is a great idea. Fine. Then come up with a REAL plan to make it happen, and make sure you're the first in line to pay the additional taxes it would entail.

Right now we have a lot of folks just pretending we can turn all the ES into pre-K to 5 schools, and all the middle schools into 6-8 schools (and secondary schools into 6-12 schools). That's a huge logistical challenge and financial commitment, but you pretend that the only impediment is people who only care about their own kids.

It's the combination of empty virtue signaling and horrendous planning that is likely going to sink FCPS unless they clean up their act. They want to do brain surgery on the system, and they've yet to demonstrate that they can take care of a few hangnails.

[Anonymous]

I taught first grade Title I many years ago.

All the kids were poor. Black and white. Later I taught more mixed race kids, but, at that time it was Black and white kids. All poor.

Some were smart. Some were not. Some were clean and neat. Some were not. Some were behavior problems. Some were well behaved.

One thing: I believe they were all loved at home. Some parents did not know how to take care of them properly--and some did. But, I do believe all the parents or caregivers (many grandparents) loved these children.

The thing that was clear to me --and it was the current philosophy at that time--was to determine what the "starting point" was for each child and begin there and push and pull them forward. Some moved fast and some moved slow. But, all could move forward.

That seems to be missing in Fairfax County.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So you don’t think removing 25% of likely umc students had or will have an effect on the rest of the kids? Because all I hear about from your comrades is that high farms supposedly really cripples opportunities for those schools.

At some point you’re arguing for a system that is equitized at really high farms level. The SJWs and the far right have gone so far extreme that they have now joined together at the other end of the circle. I wish you luck in that system, but you’ll lose a lot of us along the way, and don’t expect us to support taking more of our resources to realize your equity vision.

The research I've seen has suggested a "tipping point" of somewhere between 20-40% FARMS rate at any given school negatively affecting test score outcomes for ALL students. So it would really depend on exactly what the makeup of those left in the school would wind up being. Given our districtwide FARMS rate of 35%, it becomes clear that while comprehensive redistricting could move the needle at some schools, it would be impossible to get every single school below that tipping point mark.

Which is why I suggested above that there are much better and more effective solutions. Like Universal Pre-K! That can actually help lift children out of poverty (by allowing their mothers to work) while creating a strong foundation for later learning! And it's on the table at FCPS, suddenly! It's an evidence based solution that can help families up and down the economic spectrum, but it is dismissed as "impossible" and "unnecessary". Especially since we might need to move some things around to make it happen. So let's just keep fighting for the status quo for YOUR kids. Yay.

Coincidentally, Universal Free Lunch and Breakfast is another program that has been proven to improve educational outcomes, but we just had a proposal for Universal Free Breakfast shot down in the VA General Assembly once again.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So you don’t think removing 25% of likely umc students had or will have an effect on the rest of the kids? Because all I hear about from your comrades is that high farms supposedly really cripples opportunities for those schools.

At some point you’re arguing for a system that is equitized at really high farms level. The SJWs and the far right have gone so far extreme that they have now joined together at the other end of the circle. I wish you luck in that system, but you’ll lose a lot of us along the way, and don’t expect us to support taking more of our resources to realize your equity vision.

The research I've seen has suggested a "tipping point" of somewhere between 20-40% FARMS rate at any given school negatively affecting test score outcomes for ALL students. So it would really depend on exactly what the makeup of those left in the school would wind up being. Given our districtwide FARMS rate of 35%, it becomes clear that while comprehensive redistricting could move the needle at some schools, it would be impossible to get every single school below that tipping point mark.

Which is why I suggested above that there are much better and more effective solutions. Like Universal Pre-K! That can actually help lift children out of poverty (by allowing their mothers to work) while creating a strong foundation for later learning! And it's on the table at FCPS, suddenly! It's an evidence based solution that can help families up and down the economic spectrum, but it is dismissed as "impossible" and "unnecessary". Especially since we might need to move some things around to make it happen. So let's just keep fighting for the status quo for YOUR kids. Yay.

Coincidentally, Universal Free Lunch and Breakfast is another program that has been proven to improve educational outcomes, but we just had a proposal for Universal Free Breakfast shot down in the VA General Assembly once again.

This is the kind of rhetoric that gives away someone who just loves to virtue signal.

You think universal pre-K is a great idea. Fine. Then come up with a REAL plan to make it happen, and make sure you're the first in line to pay the additional taxes it would entail.

Right now we have a lot of folks just pretending we can turn all the ES into pre-K to 5 schools, and all the middle schools into 6-8 schools (and secondary schools into 6-12 schools). That's a huge logistical challenge and financial commitment, but you pretend that the only impediment is people who only care about their own kids.

It's the combination of empty virtue signaling and horrendous planning that is likely going to sink FCPS unless they clean up their act. They want to do brain surgery on the system, and they've yet to demonstrate that they can take care of a few hangnails.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So you don’t think removing 25% of likely umc students had or will have an effect on the rest of the kids? Because all I hear about from your comrades is that high farms supposedly really cripples opportunities for those schools.

At some point you’re arguing for a system that is equitized at really high farms level. The SJWs and the far right have gone so far extreme that they have now joined together at the other end of the circle. I wish you luck in that system, but you’ll lose a lot of us along the way, and don’t expect us to support taking more of our resources to realize your equity vision.

The research I've seen has suggested a "tipping point" of somewhere between 20-40% FARMS rate at any given school negatively affecting test score outcomes for ALL students. So it would really depend on exactly what the makeup of those left in the school would wind up being. Given our districtwide FARMS rate of 35%, it becomes clear that while comprehensive redistricting could move the needle at some schools, it would be impossible to get every single school below that tipping point mark.

Which is why I suggested above that there are much better and more effective solutions. Like Universal Pre-K! That can actually help lift children out of poverty (by allowing their mothers to work) while creating a strong foundation for later learning! And it's on the table at FCPS, suddenly! It's an evidence based solution that can help families up and down the economic spectrum, but it is dismissed as "impossible" and "unnecessary". Especially since we might need to move some things around to make it happen. So let's just keep fighting for the status quo for YOUR kids. Yay.

Coincidentally, Universal Free Lunch and Breakfast is another program that has been proven to improve educational outcomes, but we just had a proposal for Universal Free Breakfast shot down in the VA General Assembly once again.

+1

UPK will not solve the current problem. We need to start where we are. We need to address the students in school currently. Until we can educate the students we have, we do not need to add more.
It hasn't been that many years since we had half day K in FCPS.

The issue is the students in school NOW. There is some pre-K, but I don't know much about it. There is also Head Start.

But, does anyone else find it troubling that our School Board thinks that putting in wealthier kids to poor schools will help the struggling students? Are they that naive? Or that fake?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So you don’t think removing 25% of likely umc students had or will have an effect on the rest of the kids? Because all I hear about from your comrades is that high farms supposedly really cripples opportunities for those schools.

At some point you’re arguing for a system that is equitized at really high farms level. The SJWs and the far right have gone so far extreme that they have now joined together at the other end of the circle. I wish you luck in that system, but you’ll lose a lot of us along the way, and don’t expect us to support taking more of our resources to realize your equity vision.

The research I've seen has suggested a "tipping point" of somewhere between 20-40% FARMS rate at any given school negatively affecting test score outcomes for ALL students. So it would really depend on exactly what the makeup of those left in the school would wind up being. Given our districtwide FARMS rate of 35%, it becomes clear that while comprehensive redistricting could move the needle at some schools, it would be impossible to get every single school below that tipping point mark.

Which is why I suggested above that there are much better and more effective solutions. Like Universal Pre-K! That can actually help lift children out of poverty (by allowing their mothers to work) while creating a strong foundation for later learning! And it's on the table at FCPS, suddenly! It's an evidence based solution that can help families up and down the economic spectrum, but it is dismissed as "impossible" and "unnecessary". Especially since we might need to move some things around to make it happen. So let's just keep fighting for the status quo for YOUR kids. Yay.

Coincidentally, Universal Free Lunch and Breakfast is another program that has been proven to improve educational outcomes, but we just had a proposal for Universal Free Breakfast shot down in the VA General Assembly once again.

This is the kind of rhetoric that gives away someone who just loves to virtue signal.

You think universal pre-K is a great idea. Fine. Then come up with a REAL plan to make it happen, and make sure you're the first in line to pay the additional taxes it would entail.

Right now we have a lot of folks just pretending we can turn all the ES into pre-K to 5 schools, and all the middle schools into 6-8 schools (and secondary schools into 6-12 schools). That's a huge logistical challenge and financial commitment, but you pretend that the only impediment is people who only care about their own kids.

It's the combination of empty virtue signaling and horrendous planning that is likely going to sink FCPS unless they clean up their act. They want to do brain surgery on the system, and they've yet to demonstrate that they can take care of a few hangnails.

You call this virtual signaling because YOU don't want to pay for it. I happily would. But it would be even better if we could get the 1% to pay for it. Gotta ramp up that progressive taxation.

And coming up with a real plan to make it happen is precisely what I'm suggesting we allow the school board to do, as part of the comprehensive boundary review or outside of it. My background isn't in school district logistics, but I'd be happy to pitch in if it would be helpful.