FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[Anonymous]

Quick update on the Boundary Review Advisory Committee: the BRAC meets again sometime this week (tonight possibly?) and they have not given us the list of people on the committee.

We don’t know who the likely hand-picked special interest members of the committee are who will be the ones guiding the principal in boundary changes. We don’t know who the supposedly random members are either. We have no way to discuss with our pyramid’s representatives our thoughts.

This is starting to feel really sinister. Democracy dies in the darkness, as we learned with the hayfield scandal.

[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.

THANK YOU!

[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.

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!

Gross! And selfish.

[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.

Here we have one half of the coin (pun intended). This is a battle of the "equity warriors" vs the "status quo". For the equity warriors it is about achieving mediocrity across the board in education and property values, while the status quo folks want to retain a meritocracy. It will be an epic battle but the equity warriors hold all the cards in this game. So they will win, kids will lose, and we will have to wait and see who cares about this debacle long enough to vote responsibly in the next school board election.

[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.

Here we have one half of the coin (pun intended). This is a battle of the "equity warriors" vs the "status quo". For the equity warriors it is about achieving mediocrity across the board in education and property values, while the status quo folks want to retain a meritocracy. It will be an epic battle but the equity warriors hold all the cards in this game. So they will win, kids will lose, and we will have to wait and see who cares about this debacle long enough to vote responsibly in the next school board election.

Public school systems don’t need UMC/MC families to support them. Right? Right??

[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.[/quote

Actually, what’s gross is pretending to care about kids at “bad” schools when all you care about is increasing average scores by bringing kids from “good” schools so you can fly your equity flag.

If you truly cared about the kids at the “bad” schools and weren’t just virtue signaling - you would find actual solutions to fix the “bad” schools.

You are pathetic.

[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.[/quote

Actually, what’s gross is pretending to care about kids at “bad” schools when all you care about is increasing average scores by bringing kids from “good” schools so you can fly your equity flag.

If you truly cared about the kids at the “bad” schools and weren’t just virtue signaling - you would find actual solutions to fix the “bad” schools.

You are pathetic.

My kid is zoned for the “bad” school. So I am, in fact, looking for solutions, one of which is to have your UMC join mine, so that TOGETHER they can help improve the conditions at Lewis overall.

If that makes me pathetic, so be it.

[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.[/quote

Actually, what’s gross is pretending to care about kids at “bad” schools when all you care about is increasing average scores by bringing kids from “good” schools so you can fly your equity flag.

If you truly cared about the kids at the “bad” schools and weren’t just virtue signaling - you would find actual solutions to fix the “bad” schools.

You are pathetic.

My kid is zoned for the “bad” school. So I am, in fact, looking for solutions, one of which is to have your UMC join mine, so that TOGETHER they can help improve the conditions at Lewis overall.

If that makes me pathetic, so be it.

That doesn’t fix Lewis. At all. No one will join it willingly in the current state.

Fight to fix it or close it.

[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.[/quote

Actually, what’s gross is pretending to care about kids at “bad” schools when all you care about is increasing average scores by bringing kids from “good” schools so you can fly your equity flag.

If you truly cared about the kids at the “bad” schools and weren’t just virtue signaling - you would find actual solutions to fix the “bad” schools.

You are pathetic.

My kid is zoned for the “bad” school. So I am, in fact, looking for solutions, one of which is to have your UMC join mine, so that TOGETHER they can help improve the conditions at Lewis overall.

If that makes me pathetic, so be it.

You're just not going to find people willing to send their kids there until drastic improvement is made quickly. Frankly that means a good portion of the ESL kids need to go. Maybe to a magnet like previously suggested upthread or elsewhere. There is no way around that. Even if you pull back all the UMC kids who pupil placed out and rezoned others, you wouldnt be able to pull the scores up enough to save the school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Quick update on the Boundary Review Advisory Committee: the BRAC meets again sometime this week (tonight possibly?) and they have not given us the list of people on the committee.

We don’t know who the likely hand-picked special interest members of the committee are who will be the ones guiding the principal in boundary changes. We don’t know who the supposedly random members are either. We have no way to discuss with our pyramid’s representatives our thoughts.

This is starting to feel really sinister. Democracy dies in the darkness, as we learned with the hayfield scandal.

Look at the Parklawn boundary study. FCPS provides gross numbers then added a map with K-5 students per SPA number. Student Planning area. So I guess all concerned need to make their own spreadsheet? Given the make it all K-5 r K-6 fr FCPS the thing should have K-6 also. I guess FCPS doesn't want to provide user friendly info. https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/Parklawn-Area-Boundary-Maps.pdf

1. IB on FCPS v IB on VDOE
2. lack of detailed transfer information spreadsheet, program participation
3. lack of per school program costs
4. CIP and academies

[Anonymous]

My kid is zoned for the “bad” school. So I am, in fact, looking for solutions, one of which is to have your UMC join mine, so that TOGETHER they can help improve the conditions at Lewis overall.

Wouldn't a better place to start be to bring back the roughly 300 of your upper middle class and middle class Lewis zoned neighbors who are pupil placing out of Lewis to other schools?

Returning 300 actual Lewis students back to Lewis seems the most logical first step long before rezoning of a single WSHS student should be considered, let alone 300 replacement students from WSHS.

Send those Lewis students back to Lewis, using actual Lewis zoned families to see if transfering in a few hundred UMC families into Lewis is the actual elixir that makes everything better. Prove your theory with people who purchased in the Lewis zone and who are currently attending other high schools.

If your theory and FCPS is valid, bringing back Lewis zoned students should fix the issue overnight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Quick update on the Boundary Review Advisory Committee: the BRAC meets again sometime this week (tonight possibly?) and they have not given us the list of people on the committee.

We don’t know who the likely hand-picked special interest members of the committee are who will be the ones guiding the principal in boundary changes. We don’t know who the supposedly random members are either. We have no way to discuss with our pyramid’s representatives our thoughts.

This is starting to feel really sinister. Democracy dies in the darkness, as we learned with the hayfield scandal.

Still no list as promised a week ago. Wonder if it’s because people are balking at having their names disclosed or Reid’s office knows there’s going to blowback when it turns out they stacked the committee (beyond the random selections) with the usual suspects.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

My kid is zoned for the “bad” school. So I am, in fact, looking for solutions, one of which is to have your UMC join mine, so that TOGETHER they can help improve the conditions at Lewis overall.

Wouldn't a better place to start be to bring back the roughly 300 of your upper middle class and middle class Lewis zoned neighbors who are pupil placing out of Lewis to other schools?

Returning 300 actual Lewis students back to Lewis seems the most logical first step long before rezoning of a single WSHS student should be considered, let alone 300 replacement students from WSHS.

Send those Lewis students back to Lewis, using actual Lewis zoned families to see if transfering in a few hundred UMC families into Lewis is the actual elixir that makes everything better. Prove your theory with people who purchased in the Lewis zone and who are currently attending other high schools.

If your theory and FCPS is valid, bringing back Lewis zoned students should fix the issue overnight.

You can’t impose restrictions on pupil placements out of Lewis that don’t apply to kids at West Springfield, Robinson, or other schools. You could make pupil placements less likely by getting rid of IB there and elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

You can’t impose restrictions on pupil placements out of Lewis that don’t apply to kids at West Springfield, Robinson, or other schools. You could make pupil placements less likely by getting rid of IB there and elsewhere.

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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!

Gross! And selfish.

This is 100% accurate. I live paycheck to paycheck to be in our school's neighborhood. If I knew my kids would end up in crap schools anyways, I would have saved money and moved to a crap school neighborhood.