FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Gross" are those who want to increase their property values at the cost of kids stuck in unfavorable facilities and low-quality programs. Talk about cognitive dissonance. That group is likely to otherwise support free markets and small government intervention, yet in this case are desperately seeking for the school system to continue enacting policies that inflate and protect their real estate investments. It's all written in the MGT consultant survey comments. It's hard to empathize with those who only have dollar signs in their eyes.

You think it is okay to take kids out of schools where they are happy in order to improve the scores of another school?
They are not going to "improve" another school, they are just going to make the scores look better.

There are lots of less expensive and more effective ways to improve struggling schools. It would be a lot cheaper to add some higher level classes than to shift boundaries. It would be a lot cheaper to eliminate IB so that families don't have the option of pupil placement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Gross" are those who want to increase their property values at the cost of kids stuck in unfavorable facilities and low-quality programs. Talk about cognitive dissonance. That group is likely to otherwise support free markets and small government intervention, yet in this case are desperately seeking for the school system to continue enacting policies that inflate and protect their real estate investments. It's all written in the MGT consultant survey comments. It's hard to empathize with those who only have dollar signs in their eyes.

It sounds like the people wanting to move high school stufents to their own low performing schools in order to raise their own property values are the people pushing rezoning due to dollar signs in their own eyes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Gross" are those who want to increase their property values at the cost of kids stuck in unfavorable facilities and low-quality programs. Talk about cognitive dissonance. That group is likely to otherwise support free markets and small government intervention, yet in this case are desperately seeking for the school system to continue enacting policies that inflate and protect their real estate investments. It's all written in the MGT consultant survey comments. It's hard to empathize with those who only have dollar signs in their eyes.

You think it is okay to take kids out of schools where they are happy in order to improve the scores of another school?
They are not going to "improve" another school, they are just going to make the scores look better.

There are lots of less expensive and more effective ways to improve struggling schools. It would be a lot cheaper to add some higher level classes than to shift boundaries. It would be a lot cheaper to eliminate IB so that families don't have the option of pupil placement.

Whatever. The same argument repeats itself like every 25 pages on this thread.
No, boundary changes need to happen because a lot has changed since they were originally drawn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Gross" are those who want to increase their property values at the cost of kids stuck in unfavorable facilities and low-quality programs. Talk about cognitive dissonance. That group is likely to otherwise support free markets and small government intervention, yet in this case are desperately seeking for the school system to continue enacting policies that inflate and protect their real estate investments. It's all written in the MGT consultant survey comments. It's hard to empathize with those who only have dollar signs in their eyes.

Maintaining current school boundaries at a time of flat enrollment isn’t enacting a new policy.

Changing the boundaries has little impact on school facilities. That’s a function of the outdated 2008 renovation queue and whatever updated queue eventually gets released.

Similarly, differences in programs have little to do with boundaries. FCPS does not have to change boundaries to offer AP at all its schools and replace IB programs that have been unsuccessful at all but a few schools where they are offered. And the specialized Academy programs typically have been added to schools with more, not less, poverty.

It sounds like you think adding kids from certain backgrounds to certain schools is some type of magic pixie dust. It’s a bit odd, because you’re dripping with disdain for the parents of these kids, yet it’s clear that you think the addition of these kids is going to transform these schools. But the kids who are struggling to achieve may continue to face the same challenges; the only difference is that it will be easier to overlook those challenges if some other kids are papering them over by raising the average test scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Gross" are those who want to increase their property values at the cost of kids stuck in unfavorable facilities and low-quality programs. Talk about cognitive dissonance. That group is likely to otherwise support free markets and small government intervention, yet in this case are desperately seeking for the school system to continue enacting policies that inflate and protect their real estate investments. It's all written in the MGT consultant survey comments. It's hard to empathize with those who only have dollar signs in their eyes.

You think it is okay to take kids out of schools where they are happy in order to improve the scores of another school?
They are not going to "improve" another school, they are just going to make the scores look better.

There are lots of less expensive and more effective ways to improve struggling schools. It would be a lot cheaper to add some higher level classes than to shift boundaries. It would be a lot cheaper to eliminate IB so that families don't have the option of pupil placement.

Whatever. The same argument repeats itself like every 25 pages on this thread.
No, boundary changes need to happen because a lot has changed since they were originally drawn.

Numerous boundaries have been adjusted at various times. This notion that boundaries were “originally drawn” and have never since been revisited is a complete fiction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The majority of families don't care about boundary changes. Maybe on a forum like this, but the day-to-day, nope. People are more concerned about losing their jobs and paying for groceries. Some might even be worried about getting deported. School board crap, not at all.

The majority of parents DO care. They are just not aware. There is very little local news about this and most people assume their kids will stay where they are.

If you’re ensconced in the middle of a district, you don’t have to care. If you are zoned to a good high school surrounded by good schools, you don’t have to care. There are a very few terrible schools parents are worried about out and there is one situation where parents are looking and being shifted from the best school to an mediocre school

And, guess what? If those kids get rezoned to that “mediocre school”, they will be just fine, or even better. They might get to be the big fish in the pond. It is not the end of the world.

My kid graduated from one of those “mediocre schools”. She is now at a top 25 university. Had she gone to Langley, Oakton or Mclean, she would have had more competition in the admission process. Some might think her “mediocre school” did not prepare her well, this was not her experience. She is working her rear off, and getting good grades. Yes, there were few students taking advanced courses at her high school, but they were a tightknit group, and they supported each other. Not cut throat at all.

There were also fewer sections of advanced courses, but it all worked out in the end. Many universities want your kids to take those super advanced stem courses on their campuses anyway.

We are zoned for WSHS but on a boundary line. Not one that's often talked about as moving to Lewis, but you never know. I have kids who will graduate in 2028 and 2032. I'm being totally honest that if my 2032 kid gets moved to Key/Lewis (with a decent amount of kids so he still has a friend group there) we would not complain and get invested in the school and I think it would really be fine. But I will be LIVID if my 2028 kid has to move schools as a rising junior. He is putting in so much work already with sports teams and club/leadership opportunities. And he has a good idea of the AP classes he wants to take through senior year. Moving kids at that point - which the school board left as a very real possibility - is criminal.

100%. I'm in a very similar boat and agree with you. I could support a measured approach. Moving kids between 10th and 11th grade is absolutely callous. I feel like there are extremes om both sides of this argument, people who don't want boundaries touched at all and those who want kids moved yesterday, consequences be darned.

Yeah, but then you are just advocating for boundary moves that don’t impact your kids. It’s gross.

Did you read these at all? We all put forward the, I think, very moderate view that we're willing to have our younger kids moved to a different high school, but not our kids who are in the middle of high school. I can't think of anything less "gross" than that.

No, the "it's gross" person doesn't actually read/comprehend any of the nuanced conversations it appears.

I understand it well. I just think it’s absurd to stake out a position that potentially screws over your neighbors’ kid but saves your own. I care about my community

Fwiw, I don’t think there should be any boundary changes, but it would be repugnant to advocate for others to be impacted while protecting my own kids.

[Anonymous]

I was driving on Prosperity today (Fairfax between Little River and 50) and there are a ton of “don’t rezone us,” signs. Sounds like those houses along prosperity currently go to mantua-frost-Woodson but the closest neighbors in Camelot go to Camelot- Jackson- falls church. I assume they want them in that pyramid? Also it seems like a nominal amount of kids so not super changing to the current boundary. (Plus kids who live much further away will still feed into frost/woodson)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The majority of families don't care about boundary changes. Maybe on a forum like this, but the day-to-day, nope. People are more concerned about losing their jobs and paying for groceries. Some might even be worried about getting deported. School board crap, not at all.

The majority of parents DO care. They are just not aware. There is very little local news about this and most people assume their kids will stay where they are.

If you’re ensconced in the middle of a district, you don’t have to care. If you are zoned to a good high school surrounded by good schools, you don’t have to care. There are a very few terrible schools parents are worried about out and there is one situation where parents are looking and being shifted from the best school to an mediocre school

And, guess what? If those kids get rezoned to that “mediocre school”, they will be just fine, or even better. They might get to be the big fish in the pond. It is not the end of the world.

My kid graduated from one of those “mediocre schools”. She is now at a top 25 university. Had she gone to Langley, Oakton or Mclean, she would have had more competition in the admission process. Some might think her “mediocre school” did not prepare her well, this was not her experience. She is working her rear off, and getting good grades. Yes, there were few students taking advanced courses at her high school, but they were a tightknit group, and they supported each other. Not cut throat at all.

There were also fewer sections of advanced courses, but it all worked out in the end. Many universities want your kids to take those super advanced stem courses on their campuses anyway.

We are zoned for WSHS but on a boundary line. Not one that's often talked about as moving to Lewis, but you never know. I have kids who will graduate in 2028 and 2032. I'm being totally honest that if my 2032 kid gets moved to Key/Lewis (with a decent amount of kids so he still has a friend group there) we would not complain and get invested in the school and I think it would really be fine. But I will be LIVID if my 2028 kid has to move schools as a rising junior. He is putting in so much work already with sports teams and club/leadership opportunities. And he has a good idea of the AP classes he wants to take through senior year. Moving kids at that point - which the school board left as a very real possibility - is criminal.

100%. I'm in a very similar boat and agree with you. I could support a measured approach. Moving kids between 10th and 11th grade is absolutely callous. I feel like there are extremes om both sides of this argument, people who don't want boundaries touched at all and those who want kids moved yesterday, consequences be darned.

Yeah, but then you are just advocating for boundary moves that don’t impact your kids. It’s gross.

Um, no. I have a younger child that would be impacted in middle school. I am 100% advocating for FCPS to not screw over rising juniors. If something is “gross,” it’s forcibly moving kids at a critical juncture.

Fascinating. Would be great to do a study on all these people willing to sacrifice their second kid’s education to save their first.

It’s like Sophie’s Choice 2.0 but where she is a callous monster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The majority of families don't care about boundary changes. Maybe on a forum like this, but the day-to-day, nope. People are more concerned about losing their jobs and paying for groceries. Some might even be worried about getting deported. School board crap, not at all.

The majority of parents DO care. They are just not aware. There is very little local news about this and most people assume their kids will stay where they are.

If you’re ensconced in the middle of a district, you don’t have to care. If you are zoned to a good high school surrounded by good schools, you don’t have to care. There are a very few terrible schools parents are worried about out and there is one situation where parents are looking and being shifted from the best school to an mediocre school

And, guess what? If those kids get rezoned to that “mediocre school”, they will be just fine, or even better. They might get to be the big fish in the pond. It is not the end of the world.

My kid graduated from one of those “mediocre schools”. She is now at a top 25 university. Had she gone to Langley, Oakton or Mclean, she would have had more competition in the admission process. Some might think her “mediocre school” did not prepare her well, this was not her experience. She is working her rear off, and getting good grades. Yes, there were few students taking advanced courses at her high school, but they were a tightknit group, and they supported each other. Not cut throat at all.

There were also fewer sections of advanced courses, but it all worked out in the end. Many universities want your kids to take those super advanced stem courses on their campuses anyway.

We are zoned for WSHS but on a boundary line. Not one that's often talked about as moving to Lewis, but you never know. I have kids who will graduate in 2028 and 2032. I'm being totally honest that if my 2032 kid gets moved to Key/Lewis (with a decent amount of kids so he still has a friend group there) we would not complain and get invested in the school and I think it would really be fine. But I will be LIVID if my 2028 kid has to move schools as a rising junior. He is putting in so much work already with sports teams and club/leadership opportunities. And he has a good idea of the AP classes he wants to take through senior year. Moving kids at that point - which the school board left as a very real possibility - is criminal.

100%. I'm in a very similar boat and agree with you. I could support a measured approach. Moving kids between 10th and 11th grade is absolutely callous. I feel like there are extremes om both sides of this argument, people who don't want boundaries touched at all and those who want kids moved yesterday, consequences be darned.

Yeah, but then you are just advocating for boundary moves that don’t impact your kids. It’s gross.

Um, no. I have a younger child that would be impacted in middle school. I am 100% advocating for FCPS to not screw over rising juniors. If something is “gross,” it’s forcibly moving kids at a critical juncture.

Fascinating. Would be great to do a study on all these people willing to sacrifice their second kid’s education to save their first.

It’s like Sophie’s Choice 2.0 but where she is a callous monster.

So dramatic. "Sacrificing a second kids education" is not equal to going to potentially going to another school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The majority of families don't care about boundary changes. Maybe on a forum like this, but the day-to-day, nope. People are more concerned about losing their jobs and paying for groceries. Some might even be worried about getting deported. School board crap, not at all.

The majority of parents DO care. They are just not aware. There is very little local news about this and most people assume their kids will stay where they are.

If you’re ensconced in the middle of a district, you don’t have to care. If you are zoned to a good high school surrounded by good schools, you don’t have to care. There are a very few terrible schools parents are worried about out and there is one situation where parents are looking and being shifted from the best school to an mediocre school

And, guess what? If those kids get rezoned to that “mediocre school”, they will be just fine, or even better. They might get to be the big fish in the pond. It is not the end of the world.

My kid graduated from one of those “mediocre schools”. She is now at a top 25 university. Had she gone to Langley, Oakton or Mclean, she would have had more competition in the admission process. Some might think her “mediocre school” did not prepare her well, this was not her experience. She is working her rear off, and getting good grades. Yes, there were few students taking advanced courses at her high school, but they were a tightknit group, and they supported each other. Not cut throat at all.

There were also fewer sections of advanced courses, but it all worked out in the end. Many universities want your kids to take those super advanced stem courses on their campuses anyway.

We are zoned for WSHS but on a boundary line. Not one that's often talked about as moving to Lewis, but you never know. I have kids who will graduate in 2028 and 2032. I'm being totally honest that if my 2032 kid gets moved to Key/Lewis (with a decent amount of kids so he still has a friend group there) we would not complain and get invested in the school and I think it would really be fine. But I will be LIVID if my 2028 kid has to move schools as a rising junior. He is putting in so much work already with sports teams and club/leadership opportunities. And he has a good idea of the AP classes he wants to take through senior year. Moving kids at that point - which the school board left as a very real possibility - is criminal.

100%. I'm in a very similar boat and agree with you. I could support a measured approach. Moving kids between 10th and 11th grade is absolutely callous. I feel like there are extremes om both sides of this argument, people who don't want boundaries touched at all and those who want kids moved yesterday, consequences be darned.

Yeah, but then you are just advocating for boundary moves that don’t impact your kids. It’s gross.

Um, no. I have a younger child that would be impacted in middle school. I am 100% advocating for FCPS to not screw over rising juniors. If something is “gross,” it’s forcibly moving kids at a critical juncture.

Fascinating. Would be great to do a study on all these people willing to sacrifice their second kid’s education to save their first.

It’s like Sophie’s Choice 2.0 but where she is a callous monster.

Do you even know what Sophie's choice is about?! God damn.
You're equating that to maybe having to go to a school that is a 7 instead of a 9?! Or what if it has....gasp...more ESL kids?! I can't believe the audacity of people on this forum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The majority of families don't care about boundary changes. Maybe on a forum like this, but the day-to-day, nope. People are more concerned about losing their jobs and paying for groceries. Some might even be worried about getting deported. School board crap, not at all.

The majority of parents DO care. They are just not aware. There is very little local news about this and most people assume their kids will stay where they are.

If you’re ensconced in the middle of a district, you don’t have to care. If you are zoned to a good high school surrounded by good schools, you don’t have to care. There are a very few terrible schools parents are worried about out and there is one situation where parents are looking and being shifted from the best school to an mediocre school

And, guess what? If those kids get rezoned to that “mediocre school”, they will be just fine, or even better. They might get to be the big fish in the pond. It is not the end of the world.

My kid graduated from one of those “mediocre schools”. She is now at a top 25 university. Had she gone to Langley, Oakton or Mclean, she would have had more competition in the admission process. Some might think her “mediocre school” did not prepare her well, this was not her experience. She is working her rear off, and getting good grades. Yes, there were few students taking advanced courses at her high school, but they were a tightknit group, and they supported each other. Not cut throat at all.

There were also fewer sections of advanced courses, but it all worked out in the end. Many universities want your kids to take those super advanced stem courses on their campuses anyway.

We are zoned for WSHS but on a boundary line. Not one that's often talked about as moving to Lewis, but you never know. I have kids who will graduate in 2028 and 2032. I'm being totally honest that if my 2032 kid gets moved to Key/Lewis (with a decent amount of kids so he still has a friend group there) we would not complain and get invested in the school and I think it would really be fine. But I will be LIVID if my 2028 kid has to move schools as a rising junior. He is putting in so much work already with sports teams and club/leadership opportunities. And he has a good idea of the AP classes he wants to take through senior year. Moving kids at that point - which the school board left as a very real possibility - is criminal.

100%. I'm in a very similar boat and agree with you. I could support a measured approach. Moving kids between 10th and 11th grade is absolutely callous. I feel like there are extremes om both sides of this argument, people who don't want boundaries touched at all and those who want kids moved yesterday, consequences be darned.

Yeah, but then you are just advocating for boundary moves that don’t impact your kids. It’s gross.

Um, no. I have a younger child that would be impacted in middle school. I am 100% advocating for FCPS to not screw over rising juniors. If something is “gross,” it’s forcibly moving kids at a critical juncture.

Fascinating. Would be great to do a study on all these people willing to sacrifice their second kid’s education to save their first.

It’s like Sophie’s Choice 2.0 but where she is a callous monster.

Do you even know what Sophie's choice is about?! God damn.
You're equating that to maybe having to go to a school that is a 7 instead of a 9?! Or what if it has....gasp...more ESL kids?! I can't believe the audacity of people on this forum.

Most people want to stay where they are. You cannot understand that you are suggesting that you disrupt families, schools, and communities. Families and kids have built relationships with others who go to the same schools.
We chose our neighborhood because proximity was very important to us. My neighborhood walks to elementary school. The high school is very close--and very large. But it works. The other high schools in the area are not in our community. You are not thinking of the kids that this will effect. In some cases, it could be a handful of kids in a school that get moved to another school where they will be the outliers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The majority of families don't care about boundary changes. Maybe on a forum like this, but the day-to-day, nope. People are more concerned about losing their jobs and paying for groceries. Some might even be worried about getting deported. School board crap, not at all.

The majority of parents DO care. They are just not aware. There is very little local news about this and most people assume their kids will stay where they are.

If you’re ensconced in the middle of a district, you don’t have to care. If you are zoned to a good high school surrounded by good schools, you don’t have to care. There are a very few terrible schools parents are worried about out and there is one situation where parents are looking and being shifted from the best school to an mediocre school

And, guess what? If those kids get rezoned to that “mediocre school”, they will be just fine, or even better. They might get to be the big fish in the pond. It is not the end of the world.

My kid graduated from one of those “mediocre schools”. She is now at a top 25 university. Had she gone to Langley, Oakton or Mclean, she would have had more competition in the admission process. Some might think her “mediocre school” did not prepare her well, this was not her experience. She is working her rear off, and getting good grades. Yes, there were few students taking advanced courses at her high school, but they were a tightknit group, and they supported each other. Not cut throat at all.

There were also fewer sections of advanced courses, but it all worked out in the end. Many universities want your kids to take those super advanced stem courses on their campuses anyway.

We are zoned for WSHS but on a boundary line. Not one that's often talked about as moving to Lewis, but you never know. I have kids who will graduate in 2028 and 2032. I'm being totally honest that if my 2032 kid gets moved to Key/Lewis (with a decent amount of kids so he still has a friend group there) we would not complain and get invested in the school and I think it would really be fine. But I will be LIVID if my 2028 kid has to move schools as a rising junior. He is putting in so much work already with sports teams and club/leadership opportunities. And he has a good idea of the AP classes he wants to take through senior year. Moving kids at that point - which the school board left as a very real possibility - is criminal.

100%. I'm in a very similar boat and agree with you. I could support a measured approach. Moving kids between 10th and 11th grade is absolutely callous. I feel like there are extremes om both sides of this argument, people who don't want boundaries touched at all and those who want kids moved yesterday, consequences be darned.

Yeah, but then you are just advocating for boundary moves that don’t impact your kids. It’s gross.

Um, no. I have a younger child that would be impacted in middle school. I am 100% advocating for FCPS to not screw over rising juniors. If something is “gross,” it’s forcibly moving kids at a critical juncture.

Fascinating. Would be great to do a study on all these people willing to sacrifice their second kid’s education to save their first.

It’s like Sophie’s Choice 2.0 but where she is a callous monster.

Are you saying that because we cannot afford a home in one of those “desired” school districts, we are sacrificing our kids’ education? Now, that is a gross!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was driving on Prosperity today (Fairfax between Little River and 50) and there are a ton of “don’t rezone us,” signs. Sounds like those houses along prosperity currently go to mantua-frost-Woodson but the closest neighbors in Camelot go to Camelot- Jackson- falls church. I assume they want them in that pyramid? Also it seems like a nominal amount of kids so not super changing to the current boundary. (Plus kids who live much further away will still feed into frost/woodson)

A true story is that decades ago FCPS was considering splitting Camelot ES between Woodson and Falls Church and the community came together and told the School Board that, if they could not all go to Woodson, they’d all prefer to go Falls Church rather than be split between the two schools.

Camelot isn’t pushing for Mantua to be redistricted from Woodson to Falls Church. Mantua just worries about getting redistricted because the idea is floated every now and then, Falls Church is being expanded, and the Mantua AAP center is attended by a lot of kids in the Falls Church pyramid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Gross" are those who want to increase their property values at the cost of kids stuck in unfavorable facilities and low-quality programs. Talk about cognitive dissonance. That group is likely to otherwise support free markets and small government intervention, yet in this case are desperately seeking for the school system to continue enacting policies that inflate and protect their real estate investments. It's all written in the MGT consultant survey comments. It's hard to empathize with those who only have dollar signs in their eyes.

Exactly how does moving upper-middle class kids to an "unfavorable facility" improve that facility and its programs? Be specific.

[Anonymous]

It’s particularly ominous for posters to advocate locking the thread in advance of the next boundary meeting this Wednesday.

Trying to stifle dissent is an undemocratic move.