FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did DC have the equivalent of people moving from WSHS to Lewis or Langley to Herndon? Do those people consider the review successful?

So, what kids are they going to exchange for those they are taking out? Shouldn't this work both ways?

Simple solution, repeated often on this thread: Get rid of IB. Which schools will benefit?
Lewis (leaving for AP)
Herndon (leaving for IB)
Mount Vernon (leaving for AP)

That's what I glean from this thread--but I am sure there are many more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did DC have the equivalent of people moving from WSHS to Lewis or Langley to Herndon? Do those people consider the review successful?

So, what kids are they going to exchange for those they are taking out? Shouldn't this work both ways?

Simple solution, repeated often on this thread: Get rid of IB. Which schools will benefit?
Lewis (leaving for AP)
Herndon (leaving for IB)
Mount Vernon (leaving for AP)

That's what I glean from this thread--but I am sure there are many more.

So the solution is to close the door that kids use to exit failing schools and get a better education?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did DC have the equivalent of people moving from WSHS to Lewis or Langley to Herndon? Do those people consider the review successful?

So, what kids are they going to exchange for those they are taking out? Shouldn't this work both ways?

Simple solution, repeated often on this thread: Get rid of IB. Which schools will benefit?
Lewis (leaving for AP)
Herndon (leaving for IB)
Mount Vernon (leaving for AP)

That's what I glean from this thread--but I am sure there are many more.

So the solution is to close the door that kids use to exit failing schools and get a better education?

You prefer taking kids out of current schools and sending them there? You think that is the answer.

If you get rid of IB you open doors for all. When 100+kids leave a school for an academic program, you have a problem.
IB is also far more expensive. The funds could be better spent.

[Anonymous]

Where is the link for CURRENT pupil placements and the IB/AP transfers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did DC have the equivalent of people moving from WSHS to Lewis or Langley to Herndon? Do those people consider the review successful?

You'll have to do your own research....as I mentioned, not entirely sure how the residents felt. But, from some cursory research it appears the residents had some very similar concerns to those on this forum, but, I think they had a near promise of grandfathering relatively early on in the process. Grandfathering students (not addresses) to promote stability for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did DC have the equivalent of people moving from WSHS to Lewis or Langley to Herndon? Do those people consider the review successful?

So, what kids are they going to exchange for those they are taking out? Shouldn't this work both ways?

Simple solution, repeated often on this thread: Get rid of IB. Which schools will benefit?
Lewis (leaving for AP)
Herndon (leaving for IB)
Mount Vernon (leaving for AP)

That's what I glean from this thread--but I am sure there are many more.

So the solution is to close the door that kids use to exit failing schools and get a better education?

You prefer taking kids out of current schools and sending them there? You think that is the answer.

If you get rid of IB you open doors for all. When 100+kids leave a school for an academic program, you have a problem.
IB is also far more expensive. The funds could be better spent.

The kids are escaping the environment, not the curriculum. I think the solution is to allow anyone who wishes to transfer out of a school if they are either unable to offer a full advanced curriculum or the test scores drop below a certain threshold, or if disciplinary incidents cross a threshold.

[Anonymous]

I don’t believe the comprehensive review is necessary or wanted by community members. That said, I think that people who are trying to save their own kids at the expense of others by arguing for boundary changes and grandfathering are engaged in a morally bankrupt attempt to throw other Fcps students under the bus.

If you want your kids to be grandfathered, then you should be opposed to the comprehensive review altogether.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did DC have the equivalent of people moving from WSHS to Lewis or Langley to Herndon? Do those people consider the review successful?

So, what kids are they going to exchange for those they are taking out? Shouldn't this work both ways?

Simple solution, repeated often on this thread: Get rid of IB. Which schools will benefit?
Lewis (leaving for AP)
Herndon (leaving for IB)
Mount Vernon (leaving for AP)

That's what I glean from this thread--but I am sure there are many more.

So the solution is to close the door that kids use to exit failing schools and get a better education?

Why do you think removing kids from their neighborhood schools to replace kids leaving your failing school the answer?

Kids are not pawns to replace your neighbors or boost your property values.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t believe the comprehensive review is necessary or wanted by community members. That said, I think that people who are trying to save their own kids at the expense of others by arguing for boundary changes and grandfathering are engaged in a morally bankrupt attempt to throw other Fcps students under the bus.

If you want your kids to be grandfathered, then you should be opposed to the comprehensive review altogether.

I respectfully disagree. I think if you allow grandfathering of students, you then allow people who - for example, might have one year left in a school to finish out rather than to cause a disruption in their lives and then over time course correct attendance at schools.
For those that are opposed to it overall, the argument seems to be property value. For those that think grandfathering is a good compromise, I think we are most concerned about supporting effective change but also protecting current studetns from too much disruption in their education, sports, extracurriculars, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t believe the comprehensive review is necessary or wanted by community members. That said, I think that people who are trying to save their own kids at the expense of others by arguing for boundary changes and grandfathering are engaged in a morally bankrupt attempt to throw other Fcps students under the bus.

If you want your kids to be grandfathered, then you should be opposed to the comprehensive review altogether.

I respectfully disagree. I think if you allow grandfathering of students, you then allow people who - for example, might have one year left in a school to finish out rather than to cause a disruption in their lives and then over time course correct attendance at schools.
For those that are opposed to it overall, the argument seems to be property value. For those that think grandfathering is a good compromise, I think we are most concerned about supporting effective change but also protecting current studetns from too much disruption in their education, sports, extracurriculars, etc.

I'm all for grandfathering of students at the final years of a particular school. However, no sibling transfer requests should be honored. 12th grade, 8th, 6th/5th.

FCPS also needs to be transparent with the current transfers. How many are sibling transfers? How many are hardship with child care? Emotional issues?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t believe the comprehensive review is necessary or wanted by community members. That said, I think that people who are trying to save their own kids at the expense of others by arguing for boundary changes and grandfathering are engaged in a morally bankrupt attempt to throw other Fcps students under the bus.

If you want your kids to be grandfathered, then you should be opposed to the comprehensive review altogether.

I respectfully disagree. I think if you allow grandfathering of students, you then allow people who - for example, might have one year left in a school to finish out rather than to cause a disruption in their lives and then over time course correct attendance at schools.
For those that are opposed to it overall, the argument seems to be property value. For those that think grandfathering is a good compromise, I think we are most concerned about supporting effective change but also protecting current studetns from too much disruption in their education, sports, extracurriculars, etc.

If you think it’s property value at this point then you haven’t paid attention to anything. You’re just towing the school board’s line and are trying to have it both ways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they move a whole elementary school, how is that breaking up the community?

I feel that the formerly-zoned Lewis families are throwing every excuse out there.

You can't claim South County is ok, but not Lewis on the basis of community. Especially if they move the whole neighborhood or school.

You seriously think each little elementary school is a sealed community with no interaction with anyone outside of it? My kids are friends with kids from all over our pyramid, not just kids from our elementary school. My kids are now in HS and I do have a 2028 kid who'd be moved his junior year, which I desperately do not want. My older kid is in her junior year and it's a crucial year in the college application timeline. They've literally had a a decade of engagement with other kids from across schools in our pyramid, through church, sports, and other activities. You would indeed be breaking up a community by moving just one elementary school.

What about the kids that can't afford a 4-year school? Your privilege is showing with this response. Just like another poster that complains about the drive the kids have to make in their own cars. Another privilege complaint.

What about them? What does that have to do with the topic? It's not anyone's responsibility to get other people's kids to 4- year colleges. Strange post.

Not a strange post. Why should one family's concern over getting accepted into a 4 year school trump another family's concern about getting access to higher level math classes and more elective options. The kid worried about getting into a 4 year school still has that option; the latter doesn't. You can't create a class.

DP. Do you really want or expect the exact same offerings at every school regardless of demand or preparedness? Perhaps we need to disband the Marshall Academy because Langley kids don’t have the same on-site access to cosmetology and auto mechanics classes.

For hard sciences and math, yes. Why else is there an extreme push for math changes at the elementary level? Kids aren't prepared at some schools. If they are changing the elementary curriculum, it is for a reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t believe the comprehensive review is necessary or wanted by community members. That said, I think that people who are trying to save their own kids at the expense of others by arguing for boundary changes and grandfathering are engaged in a morally bankrupt attempt to throw other Fcps students under the bus.

If you want your kids to be grandfathered, then you should be opposed to the comprehensive review altogether.

I respectfully disagree. I think if you allow grandfathering of students, you then allow people who - for example, might have one year left in a school to finish out rather than to cause a disruption in their lives and then over time course correct attendance at schools.
For those that are opposed to it overall, the argument seems to be property value. For those that think grandfathering is a good compromise, I think we are most concerned about supporting effective change but also protecting current studetns from too much disruption in their education, sports, extracurriculars, etc.

Few few districts have such good schools bordering terrible schools. Say what you will about USnews or Niche, but they have WSHS as 10th and 38th respectively and Lewis at 101 and 172. FCPS is to blame for letting the disparity get that bad, but that's the difference between a great education (the kid FCPS pretends that it offers at every school) and a horrible education

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t believe the comprehensive review is necessary or wanted by community members. That said, I think that people who are trying to save their own kids at the expense of others by arguing for boundary changes and grandfathering are engaged in a morally bankrupt attempt to throw other Fcps students under the bus.

If you want your kids to be grandfathered, then you should be opposed to the comprehensive review altogether.

If the proposed changes are widespread enough, grandfathering won’t even be feasible. If they had committed to grandfathering in advance that would put an effective ceiling on the number of kids they could move based on transportation constraints.

This School Board is a perfect storm of very radical and extremely stupid. When the sh*t really hits the fan next year they will get quite a wake-up call. If you’ve seen how inept Michelle Reid looked addressing the Hayfield debacle, rest assured that was just the warm-up act.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where is the link for CURRENT pupil placements and the IB/AP transfers?

Virginia DOE has a spreadsheet showing AP, IB and DE participation by school.

The lower performing schools have very dismal IB participation, especially Lewis and Mount Vernon.

Seniors graduating with an IB degree is in the very low single digits for those schools, with a less than 50% degree rate for the low number of seniors who actually pursue an IB degree. The rates are very dismal.

For example, VA dept of education shows that in 2022-23, Lewis had 6 seniors attempt an IB degree, and only 3 students achieving it. Mount Vernon had 15 seniors attempt an IB degree, and only 4 students achieving it.

Annandale and Justice are quite a bit better, sitting at 29/44 for Annandale and 38/84 for Justice.

The other IB schools listed on the VA DOE site, have much high participation and achievement rates.

South Lakes 42 out of 54
Edison 42 out of 59
Marshall 78 out of 82
Robinson 93 out of 131

Looking at those numbers, perhaps FCPS should remove IB from Lewis and Mount Vernon, make Edison the IB magnet for the area since they are doing well with it, and move the Edison academy classes to Lewis, instead of rezoning.