FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Question: Has any "suggestions" been made about particular moves? Or is everyone just confused?

Do we have theories on who would be moved?

So the starting point would be the schools that are severely overcrowded. Taking those schools and trying to shift those populations to schools not as crowded.

https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/media/pdf/Proposed-FCPS-FY-2025-29-CIP.pdf

Langley at 98% capacity and Herndon at 71% should have great falls worried

Nope. Westfield to Herndon first.

I say leave McLean, Westfield, and Chantilly alone.

McLean needs a renovation plan, not a boundary change. McLean kids deserve better than to be treated as a foil for moving Great Falls kids from Langley to Herndon.

The Westfield kids who would move to Herndon (Coates) would further drive up the poverty at HHS. That doesn’t seem too smart.

Chantilly kids can move, if necessary, after Centreville has been expanded.

Ummm, you realize the only pretext for moving Great Falls to HHS is if they move some of McLean to Langley? Langley is under capacity. McLean kids wouldn’t be the foil in any way shape or form.

Gotta get your facts straight before trying to stir up a hornets nest.

McLean kids do not want to go to Langley.

Kids already at McLean don't want to go to Langley. The schools are rivals.

But the families of the younger kids at Spring Hill ES, which is a split feeder to Langley/McLean, who are zoned for McLean now likely would be happy to get moved there. Those kids are in the Tysons "attendance island." Spring Hill splits about 65-70% to Langley and 30-35% to McLean now.

As to whether moving those kids to Cooper/Langley, considered in conjunction with the additional growth planned in that part of Tysons, would play into the SB's potentially moving part of
Great Falls from Langley to Herndon is a question best left to others.

Well, if we’re going to consider growth in Tyson’s shouldn’t we also factor in the many thousands of units coming online in Herndon over the coming years? Or are we just planning to alleviate overcrowding at McLean by overcrowding Herndon?

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Question: Has any "suggestions" been made about particular moves? Or is everyone just confused?

Do we have theories on who would be moved?

So the starting point would be the schools that are severely overcrowded. Taking those schools and trying to shift those populations to schools not as crowded.

https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/media/pdf/Proposed-FCPS-FY-2025-29-CIP.pdf

Langley at 98% capacity and Herndon at 71% should have great falls worried

You’re using last year’s numbers. Enrollment is down a lot at Langley, they can absorb the McLean attendance island without going above capacity.

There are two Mclean attendance islands, and they are most definitely on the block to be absorbed.

I know, but the one to its south isn’t going to Langley because that’d be an even worse attendance island.

The one should go to Falls Church HS, then they might actually put some money in that school and it would raise its performance overall. The other should go to Marshall. The would be help in equity.

Makes no sense. One island, if moved, would go to Langley and the other to Falls Church or Marshall.

Moving the southern island to Falls Church would be neutral in terms of FCHS’s performance. It basically has the same overall demographics as Falls Church. It’s poorer than Marshall and moving it there would reduce Marshall’s overall academic scores.

I don’t have any objection to the McLean attendance island going to Langley. It doesn’t put Langley over capacity, even without any other moves.

Your issue isn't going to be whether you "consent" to the McLean attendance island going to Langley. It's whether it becomes the pretext to move a chunk of Great Falls to Herndon. They have the authority to do that regardless of whether Langley is then sitting at 95% capacity, 99% capacity, or 101% capacity, if they're projecting Herndon will be at 71% capacity in five years.

As you know, the issue isn’t Herndon High, is Herndon Middle, which would be significantly overcapacity with that move.

And I’m not sure why the school board would want to pick a fight with residents by moving a school that isn’t crowded.

I'm not going to argue with you. You're at their disposal, not mine, but some of them would likely relish picking a fight with you.

Would love to know who and why they would relish a “fight” with constituents especially when it involved impacting children.

Have you really not been paying attention?

First, eight of the Board members (a 2/3 majority) don't consider you to be their constituents and some of them think it will enhance their reputation with their constituents if they move McLean and Langley kids around.

Second, two of the four who should be viewing you as their constituents (Lady and McDaniel) seem all-in on boundary changes. Moon and McElveen seem much less enthusiastic about county-wide changes, but will they go to bat for people or just distance themselves from what's happening around them?

Pretty messed up to enhance their reputation by sticking it to a bunch of kids for no reason. But maybe I’ve come to expect too much from elected officials in Fairfax county.

They will have a grab bag of justifications if they so choose. In terms of reasons, claiming that they are shortening commutes and avoiding 29% under-enrollment at HHS will stack up nicely with eliminating an attendance island, which was OK to have around for 40 years not doing anyone any harm (and perhaps doing some kids some good) but is now apparently intolerable.

The whole study is a mess borne of a desire to avoid accountability and now spiraling into something potentially much worse.

Just to reiterate though, Herndon middle is the one that’ll be overcrowded. And by their own hand-picked study (provided to the boundary review advisory committee on December 6), only commutes over an hour has any detrimental impact on academics or sleep. It’ll be a move made in spite and would likely cause political damage to the school board and its party.

You don't think shifting around the rest of the county including sending kids from good schools to bad schools while leaving Langley (with no poor kids and one of the most affluent student bodies in the state) alone wouldn't be even worse for their political careers?

I think there are really only two or three areas in their sights, so there is a world, as others have mentioned, where they fix the split feeders and call it a day.

Way better outcome all around (including for their political careers) than moves for the sake of sticking it to people based on stereotypes of perceived wealth.

Politically, the best move would be to live boundaries alone and make it easier for families zoned for bad schools to easily transfer

You are literally arguing to deal these schools their finally blow. The state could then get involved and direct other changes that could include distribution of those students to surrounding schools.

And what of the students that can't transfer?

FCPS needs to do everything possible to stop the transfers.

If those schools have to reorganize as academies or magnets, good. Kids shouldn’t be zoned to failing schools in a district that has some of the best schools in the state

People shouldn't refer to "failing" schools without clear, objective, and reasonable metrics for what constitutes "failure" or "success."

Some schools that get tagged as "failing" may have the most dedicated teachers and staff and may be doing more to raise a kid's performance than some of the "top" schools. It all depends on the starting point of the students when they enter the school.

Those are things you say when the test scores are far lower than neighboring schools

You clearly don't understand demographics. I question your education.

Demographics are destiny for schools. The schools are objectively bad and parents who don’t want that for their kids should have a way out

Let's do a thought experiment. Starting point the year 2000. Numbers just made up for the thought experiment. School A has scores of 85% passing. School B has scores of 90% passing. Transient population. Seemingly very little difference.

Year 2005. Word spreads that School B does slightly better than School A on scores, so new community members move to school B zone. Now School A drops to 80% passing, while School B stays at 90% passing.

Year 2010. Word spreads that School B now does even better than School A, so even more new community members move to School B. School A passing rate drops to 70% and enrollment falls, increasingly made up of families new to the country...School B continues to hum along at 90% passing.

Year 2015. Great Schools shows a disparity in rankings between Schools A and B. Even more new community members move to School B, while less fortunate immigrants are not able to make that choice. Scores drop at School A to 60% passing while School B continues to pass at 90%.

Year 2020. Now the problem is a glaring disparity to the point where people absolutely have no intention of ever sending their kids to School A. Enrollment number continues to fall and become even poorer at School A. Passing rate at School A drops to 50%. School B continues to pass at 90%.

None of this is necessarily the fault of the school or teachers at School A. They are dealing with a completely different population. It demonstrates that a disparity like this doesn't pop up overnight but happens over years.

Fairfax and its transient population have MADE these schools what they are.

Regardless of what made them bad schools, they are still bad schools. The reason has less to do with transient populations and more to do with county zoning concentrating poverty

You can't prove they are bad schools. Under your logic, the teachers at School B, with better test scores, are 'better' than the teachers at School A and could make the students at School A score better. But that ignores the vast difference in the starting points of students at School A and School B.

Now, if you compared two schools that look to be very similar demographically, such as Oakton and Madison, but one scored much better than the other, you might have something to say about the quality of teaching.

For all we know, the teachers at Annandale, Falls Church, Herndon, Justice, Lewis, and Mt. Vernon are doing wonders (based on the students starting points).

VDOE disagrees that those schools are succeeding

https://www.doe.virginia.gov/state-board-data-funding/accreditation-accountability/school-performance-and-support-framework/spsf-overview

If you traded the populations at WS and Lewis what do you think would happen to test results?

Yes, the students are why the school is bad. Is anyone disagreeing?

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Question: Has any "suggestions" been made about particular moves? Or is everyone just confused?

Do we have theories on who would be moved?

So the starting point would be the schools that are severely overcrowded. Taking those schools and trying to shift those populations to schools not as crowded.

https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/media/pdf/Proposed-FCPS-FY-2025-29-CIP.pdf

Langley at 98% capacity and Herndon at 71% should have great falls worried

You’re using last year’s numbers. Enrollment is down a lot at Langley, they can absorb the McLean attendance island without going above capacity.

There are two Mclean attendance islands, and they are most definitely on the block to be absorbed.

I know, but the one to its south isn’t going to Langley because that’d be an even worse attendance island.

The one should go to Falls Church HS, then they might actually put some money in that school and it would raise its performance overall. The other should go to Marshall. The would be help in equity.

Makes no sense. One island, if moved, would go to Langley and the other to Falls Church or Marshall.

Moving the southern island to Falls Church would be neutral in terms of FCHS’s performance. It basically has the same overall demographics as Falls Church. It’s poorer than Marshall and moving it there would reduce Marshall’s overall academic scores.

I don’t have any objection to the McLean attendance island going to Langley. It doesn’t put Langley over capacity, even without any other moves.

Your issue isn't going to be whether you "consent" to the McLean attendance island going to Langley. It's whether it becomes the pretext to move a chunk of Great Falls to Herndon. They have the authority to do that regardless of whether Langley is then sitting at 95% capacity, 99% capacity, or 101% capacity, if they're projecting Herndon will be at 71% capacity in five years.

As you know, the issue isn’t Herndon High, is Herndon Middle, which would be significantly overcapacity with that move.

And I’m not sure why the school board would want to pick a fight with residents by moving a school that isn’t crowded.

I'm not going to argue with you. You're at their disposal, not mine, but some of them would likely relish picking a fight with you.

Would love to know who and why they would relish a “fight” with constituents especially when it involved impacting children.

Have you really not been paying attention?

First, eight of the Board members (a 2/3 majority) don't consider you to be their constituents and some of them think it will enhance their reputation with their constituents if they move McLean and Langley kids around.

Second, two of the four who should be viewing you as their constituents (Lady and McDaniel) seem all-in on boundary changes. Moon and McElveen seem much less enthusiastic about county-wide changes, but will they go to bat for people or just distance themselves from what's happening around them?

Pretty messed up to enhance their reputation by sticking it to a bunch of kids for no reason. But maybe I’ve come to expect too much from elected officials in Fairfax county.

They will have a grab bag of justifications if they so choose. In terms of reasons, claiming that they are shortening commutes and avoiding 29% under-enrollment at HHS will stack up nicely with eliminating an attendance island, which was OK to have around for 40 years not doing anyone any harm (and perhaps doing some kids some good) but is now apparently intolerable.

The whole study is a mess borne of a desire to avoid accountability and now spiraling into something potentially much worse.

Just to reiterate though, Herndon middle is the one that’ll be overcrowded. And by their own hand-picked study (provided to the boundary review advisory committee on December 6), only commutes over an hour has any detrimental impact on academics or sleep. It’ll be a move made in spite and would likely cause political damage to the school board and its party.

You don't think shifting around the rest of the county including sending kids from good schools to bad schools while leaving Langley (with no poor kids and one of the most affluent student bodies in the state) alone wouldn't be even worse for their political careers?

I think there are really only two or three areas in their sights, so there is a world, as others have mentioned, where they fix the split feeders and call it a day.

Way better outcome all around (including for their political careers) than moves for the sake of sticking it to people based on stereotypes of perceived wealth.

Politically, the best move would be to live boundaries alone and make it easier for families zoned for bad schools to easily transfer

You are literally arguing to deal these schools their finally blow. The state could then get involved and direct other changes that could include distribution of those students to surrounding schools.

And what of the students that can't transfer?

FCPS needs to do everything possible to stop the transfers.

If those schools have to reorganize as academies or magnets, good. Kids shouldn’t be zoned to failing schools in a district that has some of the best schools in the state

People shouldn't refer to "failing" schools without clear, objective, and reasonable metrics for what constitutes "failure" or "success."

Some schools that get tagged as "failing" may have the most dedicated teachers and staff and may be doing more to raise a kid's performance than some of the "top" schools. It all depends on the starting point of the students when they enter the school.

Those are things you say when the test scores are far lower than neighboring schools

You clearly don't understand demographics. I question your education.

Demographics are destiny for schools. The schools are objectively bad and parents who don’t want that for their kids should have a way out

Let's do a thought experiment. Starting point the year 2000. Numbers just made up for the thought experiment. School A has scores of 85% passing. School B has scores of 90% passing. Transient population. Seemingly very little difference.

Year 2005. Word spreads that School B does slightly better than School A on scores, so new community members move to school B zone. Now School A drops to 80% passing, while School B stays at 90% passing.

Year 2010. Word spreads that School B now does even better than School A, so even more new community members move to School B. School A passing rate drops to 70% and enrollment falls, increasingly made up of families new to the country...School B continues to hum along at 90% passing.

Year 2015. Great Schools shows a disparity in rankings between Schools A and B. Even more new community members move to School B, while less fortunate immigrants are not able to make that choice. Scores drop at School A to 60% passing while School B continues to pass at 90%.

Year 2020. Now the problem is a glaring disparity to the point where people absolutely have no intention of ever sending their kids to School A. Enrollment number continues to fall and become even poorer at School A. Passing rate at School A drops to 50%. School B continues to pass at 90%.

None of this is necessarily the fault of the school or teachers at School A. They are dealing with a completely different population. It demonstrates that a disparity like this doesn't pop up overnight but happens over years.

Fairfax and its transient population have MADE these schools what they are.

Regardless of what made them bad schools, they are still bad schools. The reason has less to do with transient populations and more to do with county zoning concentrating poverty

You can't prove they are bad schools. Under your logic, the teachers at School B, with better test scores, are 'better' than the teachers at School A and could make the students at School A score better. But that ignores the vast difference in the starting points of students at School A and School B.

Now, if you compared two schools that look to be very similar demographically, such as Oakton and Madison, but one scored much better than the other, you might have something to say about the quality of teaching.

For all we know, the teachers at Annandale, Falls Church, Herndon, Justice, Lewis, and Mt. Vernon are doing wonders (based on the students starting points).

VDOE disagrees that those schools are succeeding

https://www.doe.virginia.gov/state-board-data-funding/accreditation-accountability/school-performance-and-support-framework/spsf-overview

If you traded the populations at WS and Lewis what do you think would happen to test results?

Yes, the students are why the school is bad. Is anyone disagreeing?

And, therein lies the problem. The goal should be to educate the students. Instead, we focus on test scores--which are a part of accountability.
Just maybe--we should consider educating the kids for the workforce. All students are not going to be engineers--nor should they. All are not going to be foreign diplomats--nor should they. All are not going to be doctors, etc.

The goal should be to prepare our citizens for the future. Somehow, instead, the School Board seems to be focusing on turning them into equity robots.

AP stands for ADVANCED placement. Should we expect ALL students to be ADVANCED? All should have the opportunity to be advanced--but taking an AP class does not make a student advanced.

The School Board needs to wake up and smell the coffee. Boundary reassignments is not going to result in smarter kids. Hopefully, it does not result in dumber ones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m sure they will update the website with the names of the people on the BRAC at … 4 PM on Friday right before the holiday break. Same when they dropped the news of the monthly 3 hour early releases on us right when summer break started. Happy Holidays peasants!

I would honestly be terrified of being on the BRAC, just based on the amount of crazy in this thread alone. Membership should probably not be advertised.

Sounds like you represent one of the pyramids
.

Nah those are the sour grapes of one of the “interest groups” that carries water for the school board, for sure. Most parents, no matter where you’re located, don’t support massive boundary changes.

There aren't going to be massive boundary changes. Most schools sit in the middle of their zones or have other reasons for being the shape they are. But there are some old, gerrymandered boundaries that need adjustments, and if they can help with overcrowding and proximity, all the better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m sure they will update the website with the names of the people on the BRAC at … 4 PM on Friday right before the holiday break. Same when they dropped the news of the monthly 3 hour early releases on us right when summer break started. Happy Holidays peasants!

I would honestly be terrified of being on the BRAC, just based on the amount of crazy in this thread alone. Membership should probably not be advertised.

Sounds like you represent one of the pyramids
.

Nah those are the sour grapes of one of the “interest groups” that carries water for the school board, for sure. Most parents, no matter where you’re located, don’t support massive boundary changes.

There aren't going to be massive boundary changes. Most schools sit in the middle of their zones or have other reasons for being the shape they are. But there are some old, gerrymandered boundaries that need adjustments, and if they can help with overcrowding and proximity, all the better.

I'm not an expert, but I can look at a map. The ones with the really odd boundaries are not going to alleviate overcrowding. That's not why they are doing this.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Question: Has any "suggestions" been made about particular moves? Or is everyone just confused?

Do we have theories on who would be moved?

So the starting point would be the schools that are severely overcrowded. Taking those schools and trying to shift those populations to schools not as crowded.

https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/media/pdf/Proposed-FCPS-FY-2025-29-CIP.pdf

Langley at 98% capacity and Herndon at 71% should have great falls worried

You’re using last year’s numbers. Enrollment is down a lot at Langley, they can absorb the McLean attendance island without going above capacity.

There are two Mclean attendance islands, and they are most definitely on the block to be absorbed.

I know, but the one to its south isn’t going to Langley because that’d be an even worse attendance island.

The one should go to Falls Church HS, then they might actually put some money in that school and it would raise its performance overall. The other should go to Marshall. The would be help in equity.

Makes no sense. One island, if moved, would go to Langley and the other to Falls Church or Marshall.

Moving the southern island to Falls Church would be neutral in terms of FCHS’s performance. It basically has the same overall demographics as Falls Church. It’s poorer than Marshall and moving it there would reduce Marshall’s overall academic scores.

I don’t have any objection to the McLean attendance island going to Langley. It doesn’t put Langley over capacity, even without any other moves.

Your issue isn't going to be whether you "consent" to the McLean attendance island going to Langley. It's whether it becomes the pretext to move a chunk of Great Falls to Herndon. They have the authority to do that regardless of whether Langley is then sitting at 95% capacity, 99% capacity, or 101% capacity, if they're projecting Herndon will be at 71% capacity in five years.

As you know, the issue isn’t Herndon High, is Herndon Middle, which would be significantly overcapacity with that move.

And I’m not sure why the school board would want to pick a fight with residents by moving a school that isn’t crowded.

I'm not going to argue with you. You're at their disposal, not mine, but some of them would likely relish picking a fight with you.

Would love to know who and why they would relish a “fight” with constituents especially when it involved impacting children.

Have you really not been paying attention?

First, eight of the Board members (a 2/3 majority) don't consider you to be their constituents and some of them think it will enhance their reputation with their constituents if they move McLean and Langley kids around.

Second, two of the four who should be viewing you as their constituents (Lady and McDaniel) seem all-in on boundary changes. Moon and McElveen seem much less enthusiastic about county-wide changes, but will they go to bat for people or just distance themselves from what's happening around them?

Pretty messed up to enhance their reputation by sticking it to a bunch of kids for no reason. But maybe I’ve come to expect too much from elected officials in Fairfax county.

They will have a grab bag of justifications if they so choose. In terms of reasons, claiming that they are shortening commutes and avoiding 29% under-enrollment at HHS will stack up nicely with eliminating an attendance island, which was OK to have around for 40 years not doing anyone any harm (and perhaps doing some kids some good) but is now apparently intolerable.

The whole study is a mess borne of a desire to avoid accountability and now spiraling into something potentially much worse.

Just to reiterate though, Herndon middle is the one that’ll be overcrowded. And by their own hand-picked study (provided to the boundary review advisory committee on December 6), only commutes over an hour has any detrimental impact on academics or sleep. It’ll be a move made in spite and would likely cause political damage to the school board and its party.

You don't think shifting around the rest of the county including sending kids from good schools to bad schools while leaving Langley (with no poor kids and one of the most affluent student bodies in the state) alone wouldn't be even worse for their political careers?

I think there are really only two or three areas in their sights, so there is a world, as others have mentioned, where they fix the split feeders and call it a day.

Way better outcome all around (including for their political careers) than moves for the sake of sticking it to people based on stereotypes of perceived wealth.

Politically, the best move would be to live boundaries alone and make it easier for families zoned for bad schools to easily transfer

You are literally arguing to deal these schools their finally blow. The state could then get involved and direct other changes that could include distribution of those students to surrounding schools.

And what of the students that can't transfer?

FCPS needs to do everything possible to stop the transfers.

If those schools have to reorganize as academies or magnets, good. Kids shouldn’t be zoned to failing schools in a district that has some of the best schools in the state

People shouldn't refer to "failing" schools without clear, objective, and reasonable metrics for what constitutes "failure" or "success."

Some schools that get tagged as "failing" may have the most dedicated teachers and staff and may be doing more to raise a kid's performance than some of the "top" schools. It all depends on the starting point of the students when they enter the school.

Those are things you say when the test scores are far lower than neighboring schools

You clearly don't understand demographics. I question your education.

Demographics are destiny for schools. The schools are objectively bad and parents who don’t want that for their kids should have a way out

Let's do a thought experiment. Starting point the year 2000. Numbers just made up for the thought experiment. School A has scores of 85% passing. School B has scores of 90% passing. Transient population. Seemingly very little difference.

Year 2005. Word spreads that School B does slightly better than School A on scores, so new community members move to school B zone. Now School A drops to 80% passing, while School B stays at 90% passing.

Year 2010. Word spreads that School B now does even better than School A, so even more new community members move to School B. School A passing rate drops to 70% and enrollment falls, increasingly made up of families new to the country...School B continues to hum along at 90% passing.

Year 2015. Great Schools shows a disparity in rankings between Schools A and B. Even more new community members move to School B, while less fortunate immigrants are not able to make that choice. Scores drop at School A to 60% passing while School B continues to pass at 90%.

Year 2020. Now the problem is a glaring disparity to the point where people absolutely have no intention of ever sending their kids to School A. Enrollment number continues to fall and become even poorer at School A. Passing rate at School A drops to 50%. School B continues to pass at 90%.

None of this is necessarily the fault of the school or teachers at School A. They are dealing with a completely different population. It demonstrates that a disparity like this doesn't pop up overnight but happens over years.

Fairfax and its transient population have MADE these schools what they are.

Regardless of what made them bad schools, they are still bad schools. The reason has less to do with transient populations and more to do with county zoning concentrating poverty

You can't prove they are bad schools. Under your logic, the teachers at School B, with better test scores, are 'better' than the teachers at School A and could make the students at School A score better. But that ignores the vast difference in the starting points of students at School A and School B.

Now, if you compared two schools that look to be very similar demographically, such as Oakton and Madison, but one scored much better than the other, you might have something to say about the quality of teaching.

For all we know, the teachers at Annandale, Falls Church, Herndon, Justice, Lewis, and Mt. Vernon are doing wonders (based on the students starting points).

VDOE disagrees that those schools are succeeding

https://www.doe.virginia.gov/state-board-data-funding/accreditation-accountability/school-performance-and-support-framework/spsf-overview

If you traded the populations at WS and Lewis what do you think would happen to test results?

Yes, the students are why the school is bad. Is anyone disagreeing?

And, therein lies the problem. The goal should be to educate the students. Instead, we focus on test scores--which are a part of accountability.
Just maybe--we should consider educating the kids for the workforce. All students are not going to be engineers--nor should they. All are not going to be foreign diplomats--nor should they. All are not going to be doctors, etc.

The goal should be to prepare our citizens for the future. Somehow, instead, the School Board seems to be focusing on turning them into equity robots.

AP stands for ADVANCED placement. Should we expect ALL students to be ADVANCED? All should have the opportunity to be advanced--but taking an AP class does not make a student advanced.

The School Board needs to wake up and smell the coffee. Boundary reassignments is not going to result in smarter kids. Hopefully, it does not result in dumber ones.

The only way that works is letting kids leave those schools. There aren’t enough students at Lewis to justify tracks ranging from workforce education to AP with enough offering to make them credible

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Question: Has any "suggestions" been made about particular moves? Or is everyone just confused?

Do we have theories on who would be moved?

So the starting point would be the schools that are severely overcrowded. Taking those schools and trying to shift those populations to schools not as crowded.

https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/media/pdf/Proposed-FCPS-FY-2025-29-CIP.pdf

Langley at 98% capacity and Herndon at 71% should have great falls worried

You’re using last year’s numbers. Enrollment is down a lot at Langley, they can absorb the McLean attendance island without going above capacity.

There are two Mclean attendance islands, and they are most definitely on the block to be absorbed.

I know, but the one to its south isn’t going to Langley because that’d be an even worse attendance island.

The one should go to Falls Church HS, then they might actually put some money in that school and it would raise its performance overall. The other should go to Marshall. The would be help in equity.

Makes no sense. One island, if moved, would go to Langley and the other to Falls Church or Marshall.

Moving the southern island to Falls Church would be neutral in terms of FCHS’s performance. It basically has the same overall demographics as Falls Church. It’s poorer than Marshall and moving it there would reduce Marshall’s overall academic scores.

I don’t have any objection to the McLean attendance island going to Langley. It doesn’t put Langley over capacity, even without any other moves.

Your issue isn't going to be whether you "consent" to the McLean attendance island going to Langley. It's whether it becomes the pretext to move a chunk of Great Falls to Herndon. They have the authority to do that regardless of whether Langley is then sitting at 95% capacity, 99% capacity, or 101% capacity, if they're projecting Herndon will be at 71% capacity in five years.

As you know, the issue isn’t Herndon High, is Herndon Middle, which would be significantly overcapacity with that move.

And I’m not sure why the school board would want to pick a fight with residents by moving a school that isn’t crowded.

I'm not going to argue with you. You're at their disposal, not mine, but some of them would likely relish picking a fight with you.

Would love to know who and why they would relish a “fight” with constituents especially when it involved impacting children.

Have you really not been paying attention?

First, eight of the Board members (a 2/3 majority) don't consider you to be their constituents and some of them think it will enhance their reputation with their constituents if they move McLean and Langley kids around.

Second, two of the four who should be viewing you as their constituents (Lady and McDaniel) seem all-in on boundary changes. Moon and McElveen seem much less enthusiastic about county-wide changes, but will they go to bat for people or just distance themselves from what's happening around them?

Pretty messed up to enhance their reputation by sticking it to a bunch of kids for no reason. But maybe I’ve come to expect too much from elected officials in Fairfax county.

They will have a grab bag of justifications if they so choose. In terms of reasons, claiming that they are shortening commutes and avoiding 29% under-enrollment at HHS will stack up nicely with eliminating an attendance island, which was OK to have around for 40 years not doing anyone any harm (and perhaps doing some kids some good) but is now apparently intolerable.

The whole study is a mess borne of a desire to avoid accountability and now spiraling into something potentially much worse.

Just to reiterate though, Herndon middle is the one that’ll be overcrowded. And by their own hand-picked study (provided to the boundary review advisory committee on December 6), only commutes over an hour has any detrimental impact on academics or sleep. It’ll be a move made in spite and would likely cause political damage to the school board and its party.

You don't think shifting around the rest of the county including sending kids from good schools to bad schools while leaving Langley (with no poor kids and one of the most affluent student bodies in the state) alone wouldn't be even worse for their political careers?

I think there are really only two or three areas in their sights, so there is a world, as others have mentioned, where they fix the split feeders and call it a day.

Way better outcome all around (including for their political careers) than moves for the sake of sticking it to people based on stereotypes of perceived wealth.

Politically, the best move would be to live boundaries alone and make it easier for families zoned for bad schools to easily transfer

You are literally arguing to deal these schools their finally blow. The state could then get involved and direct other changes that could include distribution of those students to surrounding schools.

And what of the students that can't transfer?

FCPS needs to do everything possible to stop the transfers.

If those schools have to reorganize as academies or magnets, good. Kids shouldn’t be zoned to failing schools in a district that has some of the best schools in the state

People shouldn't refer to "failing" schools without clear, objective, and reasonable metrics for what constitutes "failure" or "success."

Some schools that get tagged as "failing" may have the most dedicated teachers and staff and may be doing more to raise a kid's performance than some of the "top" schools. It all depends on the starting point of the students when they enter the school.

Those are things you say when the test scores are far lower than neighboring schools

You clearly don't understand demographics. I question your education.

Demographics are destiny for schools. The schools are objectively bad and parents who don’t want that for their kids should have a way out

Let's do a thought experiment. Starting point the year 2000. Numbers just made up for the thought experiment. School A has scores of 85% passing. School B has scores of 90% passing. Transient population. Seemingly very little difference.

Year 2005. Word spreads that School B does slightly better than School A on scores, so new community members move to school B zone. Now School A drops to 80% passing, while School B stays at 90% passing.

Year 2010. Word spreads that School B now does even better than School A, so even more new community members move to School B. School A passing rate drops to 70% and enrollment falls, increasingly made up of families new to the country...School B continues to hum along at 90% passing.

Year 2015. Great Schools shows a disparity in rankings between Schools A and B. Even more new community members move to School B, while less fortunate immigrants are not able to make that choice. Scores drop at School A to 60% passing while School B continues to pass at 90%.

Year 2020. Now the problem is a glaring disparity to the point where people absolutely have no intention of ever sending their kids to School A. Enrollment number continues to fall and become even poorer at School A. Passing rate at School A drops to 50%. School B continues to pass at 90%.

None of this is necessarily the fault of the school or teachers at School A. They are dealing with a completely different population. It demonstrates that a disparity like this doesn't pop up overnight but happens over years.

Fairfax and its transient population have MADE these schools what they are.

Regardless of what made them bad schools, they are still bad schools. The reason has less to do with transient populations and more to do with county zoning concentrating poverty

You can't prove they are bad schools. Under your logic, the teachers at School B, with better test scores, are 'better' than the teachers at School A and could make the students at School A score better. But that ignores the vast difference in the starting points of students at School A and School B.

Now, if you compared two schools that look to be very similar demographically, such as Oakton and Madison, but one scored much better than the other, you might have something to say about the quality of teaching.

For all we know, the teachers at Annandale, Falls Church, Herndon, Justice, Lewis, and Mt. Vernon are doing wonders (based on the students starting points).

VDOE disagrees that those schools are succeeding

https://www.doe.virginia.gov/state-board-data-funding/accreditation-accountability/school-performance-and-support-framework/spsf-overview

If you traded the populations at WS and Lewis what do you think would happen to test results?

Yes, the students are why the school is bad. Is anyone disagreeing?

Well yes, people are saying the school itself (teachers, admin) is bad.

[Anonymous]

The only way that works is letting kids leave those schools. There aren’t enough students at Lewis to justify tracks ranging from workforce education to AP with enough offering to make them credible

How many pupil place out of Lewis for AP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Question: Has any "suggestions" been made about particular moves? Or is everyone just confused?

Do we have theories on who would be moved?

So the starting point would be the schools that are severely overcrowded. Taking those schools and trying to shift those populations to schools not as crowded.

https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/media/pdf/Proposed-FCPS-FY-2025-29-CIP.pdf

Langley at 98% capacity and Herndon at 71% should have great falls worried

Nope. Westfield to Herndon first.

I say leave McLean, Westfield, and Chantilly alone.

McLean needs a renovation plan, not a boundary change. McLean kids deserve better than to be treated as a foil for moving Great Falls kids from Langley to Herndon.

The Westfield kids who would move to Herndon (Coates) would further drive up the poverty at HHS. That doesn’t seem too smart.

Chantilly kids can move, if necessary, after Centreville has been expanded.

Ummm, you realize the only pretext for moving Great Falls to HHS is if they move some of McLean to Langley? Langley is under capacity. McLean kids wouldn’t be the foil in any way shape or form.

Gotta get your facts straight before trying to stir up a hornets nest.

McLean kids do not want to go to Langley.

Kids already at McLean don't want to go to Langley. The schools are rivals.

But the families of the younger kids at Spring Hill ES, which is a split feeder to Langley/McLean, who are zoned for McLean now likely would be happy to get moved there. Those kids are in the Tysons "attendance island." Spring Hill splits about 65-70% to Langley and 30-35% to McLean now.

As to whether moving those kids to Cooper/Langley, considered in conjunction with the additional growth planned in that part of Tysons, would play into the SB's potentially moving part of
Great Falls from Langley to Herndon is a question best left to others.

Well, if we’re going to consider growth in Tyson’s shouldn’t we also factor in the many thousands of units coming online in Herndon over the coming years? Or are we just planning to alleviate overcrowding at McLean by overcrowding Herndon?

Comstock just pulled out of its planned development in Herndon. So you shouldn’t count it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m sure they will update the website with the names of the people on the BRAC at … 4 PM on Friday right before the holiday break. Same when they dropped the news of the monthly 3 hour early releases on us right when summer break started. Happy Holidays peasants!

I would honestly be terrified of being on the BRAC, just based on the amount of crazy in this thread alone. Membership should probably not be advertised.

Sounds like you represent one of the pyramids
.

Nah those are the sour grapes of one of the “interest groups” that carries water for the school board, for sure. Most parents, no matter where you’re located, don’t support massive boundary changes.

I only support boundary changes when you take high performing areas and move them to lower performing schools to help raise the school.

[Anonymous]

Are they thinking of putting AAP in every elem school and getting rid of centers? If so, they would have to redraw boundaries to re-fill the former AAP schools, and also reduce the boundaries of the feeder schools in many cases.

[Anonymous]

Nah those are the sour grapes of one of the “interest groups” that carries water for the school board, for sure. Most parents, no matter where you’re located, don’t support massive boundary changes.

You don't think there are "equity warriors" on the committee. They will protect their own neighborhoods, but will gladly let others move out.

That said, it is true that most people want to stay where they are. Some just want "others" to join them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Question: Has any "suggestions" been made about particular moves? Or is everyone just confused?

Do we have theories on who would be moved?

So the starting point would be the schools that are severely overcrowded. Taking those schools and trying to shift those populations to schools not as crowded.

https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/media/pdf/Proposed-FCPS-FY-2025-29-CIP.pdf

Langley at 98% capacity and Herndon at 71% should have great falls worried

Nope. Westfield to Herndon first.

I say leave McLean, Westfield, and Chantilly alone.

McLean needs a renovation plan, not a boundary change. McLean kids deserve better than to be treated as a foil for moving Great Falls kids from Langley to Herndon.

The Westfield kids who would move to Herndon (Coates) would further drive up the poverty at HHS. That doesn’t seem too smart.

Chantilly kids can move, if necessary, after Centreville has been expanded.

Ummm, you realize the only pretext for moving Great Falls to HHS is if they move some of McLean to Langley? Langley is under capacity. McLean kids wouldn’t be the foil in any way shape or form.

Gotta get your facts straight before trying to stir up a hornets nest.

McLean kids do not want to go to Langley.

Kids already at McLean don't want to go to Langley. The schools are rivals.

But the families of the younger kids at Spring Hill ES, which is a split feeder to Langley/McLean, who are zoned for McLean now likely would be happy to get moved there. Those kids are in the Tysons "attendance island." Spring Hill splits about 65-70% to Langley and 30-35% to McLean now.

As to whether moving those kids to Cooper/Langley, considered in conjunction with the additional growth planned in that part of Tysons, would play into the SB's potentially moving part of
Great Falls from Langley to Herndon is a question best left to others.

Well, if we’re going to consider growth in Tyson’s shouldn’t we also factor in the many thousands of units coming online in Herndon over the coming years? Or are we just planning to alleviate overcrowding at McLean by overcrowding Herndon?

It would be great if they were more forward-looking wherever growth is occurring or anticipated. In recent years, they have been slow and only selectively forward-looking.

In general, more growth is happening and planned in Tysons than Herndon, as you'd expect. It will probably be a bit like squeezing a balloon.

I've seen multiple Langley posters say Cooper/Langley can take on that Tysons island without overcrowding those schools. Whether the School Board leaves them alone, or bumps part of Great Falls into Herndon schools, isn't my call. But if they do, simultaneously moving part of Tysons to Langley could be part of the narrative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are they thinking of putting AAP in every elem school and getting rid of centers? If so, they would have to redraw boundaries to re-fill the former AAP schools, and also reduce the boundaries of the feeder schools in many cases.

Yes that’s another sticky wicket that no one seems to be clear on. Some schools send a large number of 3-6 to the center. If those kids were returned to their base schools it would change the enrollment calculus for sure. Even if they kept centers but put LLIV in every school, it would change things. Yet another thing they needed to figure out before messing around with the boundaries, but yet here we are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are they thinking of putting AAP in every elem school and getting rid of centers? If so, they would have to redraw boundaries to re-fill the former AAP schools, and also reduce the boundaries of the feeder schools in many cases.

Yes that’s another sticky wicket that no one seems to be clear on. Some schools send a large number of 3-6 to the center. If those kids were returned to their base schools it would change the enrollment calculus for sure. Even if they kept centers but put LLIV in every school, it would change things. Yet another thing they needed to figure out before messing around with the boundaries, but yet here we are.

The AAP centers are not needed. Go back to GT and make them much smaller. Parents complain and get their kids in AAP.