FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:West Springfield is almost 50% white. I don't think that makes it a shining example of diversity.

Fairfax High School is more diverse, and it's got a score of a 6 on Great Schools. (Though Great Schools doesn't give good ratings to Fairfax's Hispanic population, and the first review there is a very angry Spanish review.)

Edison with its STEM feeder program is a 5 on Great Schools.

Lewis, with more than 50% Hispanic, is a 4 on Great Schools. Just one point behind Edison, despite not having a feeder program and having 1/3 of the student population in ELL.

No one is talking about how horrible the teaching programs are at the schools with lower test results. They're only talking about the students. But here's the thing: sitting next to a student with a lower test score will not make your child score lower. The teachers are not teaching a different curriculum, and any student that needs assistance will get it after school or during advisory.

Maybe, just maybe, the schools aren't that far apart in their ability to teach students as folks here seem to think they are.

If your kid is surrounded by enough students who can’t follow a lesson, he or she will learn less and score lower. The teacher may be teaching the same subject, but a watered-down version of it, and the students who might benefit the most from additional help may never seek it out.

No one will be fooled by your “every school is equally good” rhetoric. The fact that FCPS leadership answers primarily to those perpetrating this nonsense is a clear sign of the race to the bottom under Michelle Reid and Karl Frisch.

Or maybe it's painful to think that you've spent $100,000 more on housing to buy into a "better school district" when it has no bearing on your child's academic success. When a child at a "poor kid's school" can end up being as successful as a kid at a "rich kid's school."

My kid's testing at the top 10% of Fairfax County (all of Fairfax County), and we go to a "poor kid's school." And we saved a whole heck of a lot of money on mortgage and taxes. And no, my kid's not the smartest kid at our poor little school.

Thanks for your anecdote, which indicates there’s no compelling reason to adjust boundaries when a kid like yours can succeed anywhere.

Precisely, kids will succeed anywhere. Glad we can all agree on that. The most important reason for boundary changes is that we stop wasting money, soon be measured in half-billions each, on capacity additions when that money could go towards teachers and kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:West Springfield is almost 50% white. I don't think that makes it a shining example of diversity.

Fairfax High School is more diverse, and it's got a score of a 6 on Great Schools. (Though Great Schools doesn't give good ratings to Fairfax's Hispanic population, and the first review there is a very angry Spanish review.)

Edison with its STEM feeder program is a 5 on Great Schools.

Lewis, with more than 50% Hispanic, is a 4 on Great Schools. Just one point behind Edison, despite not having a feeder program and having 1/3 of the student population in ELL.

No one is talking about how horrible the teaching programs are at the schools with lower test results. They're only talking about the students. But here's the thing: sitting next to a student with a lower test score will not make your child score lower. The teachers are not teaching a different curriculum, and any student that needs assistance will get it after school or during advisory.

Maybe, just maybe, the schools aren't that far apart in their ability to teach students as folks here seem to think they are.

What proof do you have of "horrible teaching programs"? SES is extremely difficult, though not impossible, to overcome. Teachers at schools like WSHS and Langley start out on third base by and large. You often have more experienced teachers at those schools because as people gain seniority and experience, they seek out school assignments in stronger schools. Test scores alone are a not a reliable measure of teaching effectiveness since so much else impacts students's performance. (Yes, there are studies that support this, but that is another topic.) You may have less experienced teachers in the lower performing schools because those schools are often the "foot in the door" jobs for newer teachers, but stating that the teaching is horrible is not fair at all to teachers who slog it out under less than ideal circumstances in schools like Lewis.

The test scores are a reliable indicator of the capability of the student body. Do you really think honors freshman english at Langley and Mount Vernon are going to look anything alike even if the syllabi are the same? Which class do you think will move faster and cover more material?

That point I agree on, and that does make a difference. Honestly, open enrollment honors and AP classes mean that anyone can take them, and the capabilities of the students in each class will vary quite a bit, and it does impact the pace of the course and the quality of class discussions.

I admittedly read the OP wrong, but my contention was was what I initially saw to be a condemnation of the teachers at schools like Lewis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:West Springfield is almost 50% white. I don't think that makes it a shining example of diversity.

Fairfax High School is more diverse, and it's got a score of a 6 on Great Schools. (Though Great Schools doesn't give good ratings to Fairfax's Hispanic population, and the first review there is a very angry Spanish review.)

Edison with its STEM feeder program is a 5 on Great Schools.

Lewis, with more than 50% Hispanic, is a 4 on Great Schools. Just one point behind Edison, despite not having a feeder program and having 1/3 of the student population in ELL.

No one is talking about how horrible the teaching programs are at the schools with lower test results. They're only talking about the students. But here's the thing: sitting next to a student with a lower test score will not make your child score lower. The teachers are not teaching a different curriculum, and any student that needs assistance will get it after school or during advisory.

Maybe, just maybe, the schools aren't that far apart in their ability to teach students as folks here seem to think they are.

What proof do you have of "horrible teaching programs"? SES is extremely difficult, though not impossible, to overcome. Teachers at schools like WSHS and Langley start out on third base by and large. You often have more experienced teachers at those schools because as people gain seniority and experience, they seek out school assignments in stronger schools. Test scores alone are a not a reliable measure of teaching effectiveness since so much else impacts students's performance. (Yes, there are studies that support this, but that is another topic.) You may have less experienced teachers in the lower performing schools because those schools are often the "foot in the door" jobs for newer teachers, but stating that the teaching is horrible is not fair at all to teachers who slog it out under less than ideal circumstances in schools like Lewis.

The test scores are a reliable indicator of the capability of the student body. Do you really think honors freshman english at Langley and Mount Vernon are going to look anything alike even if the syllabi are the same? Which class do you think will move faster and cover more material?

That point I agree on, and that does make a difference. Honestly, open enrollment honors and AP classes mean that anyone can take them, and the capabilities of the students in each class will vary quite a bit, and it does impact the pace of the course and the quality of class discussions.

I admittedly read the OP wrong, but my contention was was what I initially saw to be a condemnation of the teachers at schools like Lewis.

Which is why kids can get a better education at a school filled with kids actually capable of taking the classes not just registering for them. I haven't read anyone bash teachers, I've read a lot of people down on the schools. There is a difference

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:West Springfield is almost 50% white. I don't think that makes it a shining example of diversity.

Fairfax High School is more diverse, and it's got a score of a 6 on Great Schools. (Though Great Schools doesn't give good ratings to Fairfax's Hispanic population, and the first review there is a very angry Spanish review.)

Edison with its STEM feeder program is a 5 on Great Schools.

Lewis, with more than 50% Hispanic, is a 4 on Great Schools. Just one point behind Edison, despite not having a feeder program and having 1/3 of the student population in ELL.

No one is talking about how horrible the teaching programs are at the schools with lower test results. They're only talking about the students. But here's the thing: sitting next to a student with a lower test score will not make your child score lower. The teachers are not teaching a different curriculum, and any student that needs assistance will get it after school or during advisory.

Maybe, just maybe, the schools aren't that far apart in their ability to teach students as folks here seem to think they are.

So, Lewis is less diverse than West Springfield? Since Lewis is more than 50% Hispanic and West Springfield is less than 50% white.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:West Springfield is almost 50% white. I don't think that makes it a shining example of diversity.

Fairfax High School is more diverse, and it's got a score of a 6 on Great Schools. (Though Great Schools doesn't give good ratings to Fairfax's Hispanic population, and the first review there is a very angry Spanish review.)

Edison with its STEM feeder program is a 5 on Great Schools.

Lewis, with more than 50% Hispanic, is a 4 on Great Schools. Just one point behind Edison, despite not having a feeder program and having 1/3 of the student population in ELL.

No one is talking about how horrible the teaching programs are at the schools with lower test results. They're only talking about the students. But here's the thing: sitting next to a student with a lower test score will not make your child score lower. The teachers are not teaching a different curriculum, and any student that needs assistance will get it after school or during advisory.

Maybe, just maybe, the schools aren't that far apart in their ability to teach students as folks here seem to think they are.

What proof do you have of "horrible teaching programs"? SES is extremely difficult, though not impossible, to overcome. Teachers at schools like WSHS and Langley start out on third base by and large. You often have more experienced teachers at those schools because as people gain seniority and experience, they seek out school assignments in stronger schools. Test scores alone are a not a reliable measure of teaching effectiveness since so much else impacts students's performance. (Yes, there are studies that support this, but that is another topic.) You may have less experienced teachers in the lower performing schools because those schools are often the "foot in the door" jobs for newer teachers, but stating that the teaching is horrible is not fair at all to teachers who slog it out under less than ideal circumstances in schools like Lewis.

The test scores are a reliable indicator of the capability of the student body. Do you really think honors freshman english at Langley and Mount Vernon are going to look anything alike even if the syllabi are the same? Which class do you think will move faster and cover more material?

That point I agree on, and that does make a difference. Honestly, open enrollment honors and AP classes mean that anyone can take them, and the capabilities of the students in each class will vary quite a bit, and it does impact the pace of the course and the quality of class discussions.

I admittedly read the OP wrong, but my contention was was what I initially saw to be a condemnation of the teachers at schools like Lewis.

Which is why kids can get a better education at a school filled with kids actually capable of taking the classes not just registering for them. I haven't read anyone bash teachers, I've read a lot of people down on the schools. There is a difference

I was mistaken on the OP I responded to a page or so back. So, if that OP is still reading, my apologies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:West Springfield is almost 50% white. I don't think that makes it a shining example of diversity.

Fairfax High School is more diverse, and it's got a score of a 6 on Great Schools. (Though Great Schools doesn't give good ratings to Fairfax's Hispanic population, and the first review there is a very angry Spanish review.)

Edison with its STEM feeder program is a 5 on Great Schools.

Lewis, with more than 50% Hispanic, is a 4 on Great Schools. Just one point behind Edison, despite not having a feeder program and having 1/3 of the student population in ELL.

No one is talking about how horrible the teaching programs are at the schools with lower test results. They're only talking about the students. But here's the thing: sitting next to a student with a lower test score will not make your child score lower. The teachers are not teaching a different curriculum, and any student that needs assistance will get it after school or during advisory.

Maybe, just maybe, the schools aren't that far apart in their ability to teach students as folks here seem to think they are.

If your kid is surrounded by enough students who can’t follow a lesson, he or she will learn less and score lower. The teacher may be teaching the same subject, but a watered-down version of it, and the students who might benefit the most from additional help may never seek it out.

No one will be fooled by your “every school is equally good” rhetoric. The fact that FCPS leadership answers primarily to those perpetrating this nonsense is a clear sign of the race to the bottom under Michelle Reid and Karl Frisch.

Or maybe it's painful to think that you've spent $100,000 more on housing to buy into a "better school district" when it has no bearing on your child's academic success. When a child at a "poor kid's school" can end up being as successful as a kid at a "rich kid's school."

My kid's testing at the top 10% of Fairfax County (all of Fairfax County), and we go to a "poor kid's school." And we saved a whole heck of a lot of money on mortgage and taxes. And no, my kid's not the smartest kid at our poor little school.

I’m going to refrain from dunking on you with your top 10% comment because that might represent a real achievement for your family.

We couldn’t disagree more about school quality and academic success, but that’s why it’s so great that you got to chose your pyramid and we got to chose ours.

No. You chose where to buy a home. Boundaries change. Period.

Some of us want what’s best for our kids’ educations. Glad for you that you are happy with mediocre outcomes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:West Springfield is almost 50% white. I don't think that makes it a shining example of diversity.

Fairfax High School is more diverse, and it's got a score of a 6 on Great Schools. (Though Great Schools doesn't give good ratings to Fairfax's Hispanic population, and the first review there is a very angry Spanish review.)

Edison with its STEM feeder program is a 5 on Great Schools.

Lewis, with more than 50% Hispanic, is a 4 on Great Schools. Just one point behind Edison, despite not having a feeder program and having 1/3 of the student population in ELL.

No one is talking about how horrible the teaching programs are at the schools with lower test results. They're only talking about the students. But here's the thing: sitting next to a student with a lower test score will not make your child score lower. The teachers are not teaching a different curriculum, and any student that needs assistance will get it after school or during advisory.

Maybe, just maybe, the schools aren't that far apart in their ability to teach students as folks here seem to think they are.

If your kid is surrounded by enough students who can’t follow a lesson, he or she will learn less and score lower. The teacher may be teaching the same subject, but a watered-down version of it, and the students who might benefit the most from additional help may never seek it out.

No one will be fooled by your “every school is equally good” rhetoric. The fact that FCPS leadership answers primarily to those perpetrating this nonsense is a clear sign of the race to the bottom under Michelle Reid and Karl Frisch.

Or maybe it's painful to think that you've spent $100,000 more on housing to buy into a "better school district" when it has no bearing on your child's academic success. When a child at a "poor kid's school" can end up being as successful as a kid at a "rich kid's school."

My kid's testing at the top 10% of Fairfax County (all of Fairfax County), and we go to a "poor kid's school." And we saved a whole heck of a lot of money on mortgage and taxes. And no, my kid's not the smartest kid at our poor little school.

Thanks for your anecdote, which indicates there’s no compelling reason to adjust boundaries when a kid like yours can succeed anywhere.

Precisely, kids will succeed anywhere. Glad we can all agree on that. The most important reason for boundary changes is that we stop wasting money, soon be measured in half-billions each, on capacity additions when that money could go towards teachers and kids.

You do know the capital improvement cash is not fungible. It is to be used for capital improvements.

I would suggest that instead of spending money on boundary study and the resulting shifts, that the Supe and the SB work on improving programs in the schools as they are. No high school is too small. Some of the gargantuan schools are extremely successful.

The major problem with the demographics is the English Learners --most of whom have not been here very long. The young elementary kids usually pick up the language fairly easily (I taught many primary grade kids who were not fluent when they came to me.) But, the high schools are a different issue. Changing boundaries is not going to fix that.
They need to do their job and figure out a different model.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:West Springfield is almost 50% white. I don't think that makes it a shining example of diversity.

Fairfax High School is more diverse, and it's got a score of a 6 on Great Schools. (Though Great Schools doesn't give good ratings to Fairfax's Hispanic population, and the first review there is a very angry Spanish review.)

Edison with its STEM feeder program is a 5 on Great Schools.

Lewis, with more than 50% Hispanic, is a 4 on Great Schools. Just one point behind Edison, despite not having a feeder program and having 1/3 of the student population in ELL.

No one is talking about how horrible the teaching programs are at the schools with lower test results. They're only talking about the students. But here's the thing: sitting next to a student with a lower test score will not make your child score lower. The teachers are not teaching a different curriculum, and any student that needs assistance will get it after school or during advisory.

Maybe, just maybe, the schools aren't that far apart in their ability to teach students as folks here seem to think they are.

If your kid is surrounded by enough students who can’t follow a lesson, he or she will learn less and score lower. The teacher may be teaching the same subject, but a watered-down version of it, and the students who might benefit the most from additional help may never seek it out.

No one will be fooled by your “every school is equally good” rhetoric. The fact that FCPS leadership answers primarily to those perpetrating this nonsense is a clear sign of the race to the bottom under Michelle Reid and Karl Frisch.

Or maybe it's painful to think that you've spent $100,000 more on housing to buy into a "better school district" when it has no bearing on your child's academic success. When a child at a "poor kid's school" can end up being as successful as a kid at a "rich kid's school."

My kid's testing at the top 10% of Fairfax County (all of Fairfax County), and we go to a "poor kid's school." And we saved a whole heck of a lot of money on mortgage and taxes. And no, my kid's not the smartest kid at our poor little school.

Thanks for your anecdote, which indicates there’s no compelling reason to adjust boundaries when a kid like yours can succeed anywhere.

Precisely, kids will succeed anywhere. Glad we can all agree on that. The most important reason for boundary changes is that we stop wasting money, soon be measured in half-billions each, on capacity additions when that money could go towards teachers and kids.

Said like someone like Robyn Lady or Mateo Dunne whose own schools (Herndon, West Potomac) have been renovated and/or expanded and is now more than happy to screw over others. And your numbers regarding additions are ridiculous. They could expand two crowded high schools for the cost of Karl Frisch’s ridiculous Dunn Loring project.

Sorry, but this “heads I win, tails you lose” bullshit isn’t going to fly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:West Springfield is almost 50% white. I don't think that makes it a shining example of diversity.

Fairfax High School is more diverse, and it's got a score of a 6 on Great Schools. (Though Great Schools doesn't give good ratings to Fairfax's Hispanic population, and the first review there is a very angry Spanish review.)

Edison with its STEM feeder program is a 5 on Great Schools.

Lewis, with more than 50% Hispanic, is a 4 on Great Schools. Just one point behind Edison, despite not having a feeder program and having 1/3 of the student population in ELL.

No one is talking about how horrible the teaching programs are at the schools with lower test results. They're only talking about the students. But here's the thing: sitting next to a student with a lower test score will not make your child score lower. The teachers are not teaching a different curriculum, and any student that needs assistance will get it after school or during advisory.

Maybe, just maybe, the schools aren't that far apart in their ability to teach students as folks here seem to think they are.

If your kid is surrounded by enough students who can’t follow a lesson, he or she will learn less and score lower. The teacher may be teaching the same subject, but a watered-down version of it, and the students who might benefit the most from additional help may never seek it out.

No one will be fooled by your “every school is equally good” rhetoric. The fact that FCPS leadership answers primarily to those perpetrating this nonsense is a clear sign of the race to the bottom under Michelle Reid and Karl Frisch.

Or maybe it's painful to think that you've spent $100,000 more on housing to buy into a "better school district" when it has no bearing on your child's academic success. When a child at a "poor kid's school" can end up being as successful as a kid at a "rich kid's school."

My kid's testing at the top 10% of Fairfax County (all of Fairfax County), and we go to a "poor kid's school." And we saved a whole heck of a lot of money on mortgage and taxes. And no, my kid's not the smartest kid at our poor little school.

Thanks for your anecdote, which indicates there’s no compelling reason to adjust boundaries when a kid like yours can succeed anywhere.

Precisely, kids will succeed anywhere. Glad we can all agree on that. The most important reason for boundary changes is that we stop wasting money, soon be measured in half-billions each, on capacity additions when that money could go towards teachers and kids.

You do know the capital improvement cash is not fungible. It is to be used for capital improvements.

I would suggest that instead of spending money on boundary study and the resulting shifts, that the Supe and the SB work on improving programs in the schools as they are. No high school is too small. Some of the gargantuan schools are extremely successful.

The major problem with the demographics is the English Learners --most of whom have not been here very long. The young elementary kids usually pick up the language fairly easily (I taught many primary grade kids who were not fluent when they came to me.) But, the high schools are a different issue. Changing boundaries is not going to fix that.
They need to do their job and figure out a different model.

Yep, we always talk about meeting kids where they are, but then expect older newcomers to perform on the same level as native speakers in an unreasonably short time period. The new state accreditation standards have entirely unrealistic expectations for ESOL students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:West Springfield is almost 50% white. I don't think that makes it a shining example of diversity.

Fairfax High School is more diverse, and it's got a score of a 6 on Great Schools. (Though Great Schools doesn't give good ratings to Fairfax's Hispanic population, and the first review there is a very angry Spanish review.)

Edison with its STEM feeder program is a 5 on Great Schools.

Lewis, with more than 50% Hispanic, is a 4 on Great Schools. Just one point behind Edison, despite not having a feeder program and having 1/3 of the student population in ELL.

No one is talking about how horrible the teaching programs are at the schools with lower test results. They're only talking about the students. But here's the thing: sitting next to a student with a lower test score will not make your child score lower. The teachers are not teaching a different curriculum, and any student that needs assistance will get it after school or during advisory.

Maybe, just maybe, the schools aren't that far apart in their ability to teach students as folks here seem to think they are.

If your kid is surrounded by enough students who can’t follow a lesson, he or she will learn less and score lower. The teacher may be teaching the same subject, but a watered-down version of it, and the students who might benefit the most from additional help may never seek it out.

No one will be fooled by your “every school is equally good” rhetoric. The fact that FCPS leadership answers primarily to those perpetrating this nonsense is a clear sign of the race to the bottom under Michelle Reid and Karl Frisch.

Or maybe it's painful to think that you've spent $100,000 more on housing to buy into a "better school district" when it has no bearing on your child's academic success. When a child at a "poor kid's school" can end up being as successful as a kid at a "rich kid's school."

My kid's testing at the top 10% of Fairfax County (all of Fairfax County), and we go to a "poor kid's school." And we saved a whole heck of a lot of money on mortgage and taxes. And no, my kid's not the smartest kid at our poor little school.

Thanks for your anecdote, which indicates there’s no compelling reason to adjust boundaries when a kid like yours can succeed anywhere.

Precisely, kids will succeed anywhere. Glad we can all agree on that. The most important reason for boundary changes is that we stop wasting money, soon be measured in half-billions each, on capacity additions when that money could go towards teachers and kids.

Says the school board shill. What money are we wasting? Because all I see in the projections is a massive centreville expansion that I hear none of them complain about.

Face it, nobody buys the cost argument from the school board. The only people who claim that’s the reason are all in on the equity bring everyone down path.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:West Springfield is almost 50% white. I don't think that makes it a shining example of diversity.

Fairfax High School is more diverse, and it's got a score of a 6 on Great Schools. (Though Great Schools doesn't give good ratings to Fairfax's Hispanic population, and the first review there is a very angry Spanish review.)

Edison with its STEM feeder program is a 5 on Great Schools.

Lewis, with more than 50% Hispanic, is a 4 on Great Schools. Just one point behind Edison, despite not having a feeder program and having 1/3 of the student population in ELL.

No one is talking about how horrible the teaching programs are at the schools with lower test results. They're only talking about the students. But here's the thing: sitting next to a student with a lower test score will not make your child score lower. The teachers are not teaching a different curriculum, and any student that needs assistance will get it after school or during advisory.

Maybe, just maybe, the schools aren't that far apart in their ability to teach students as folks here seem to think they are.

If your kid is surrounded by enough students who can’t follow a lesson, he or she will learn less and score lower. The teacher may be teaching the same subject, but a watered-down version of it, and the students who might benefit the most from additional help may never seek it out.

No one will be fooled by your “every school is equally good” rhetoric. The fact that FCPS leadership answers primarily to those perpetrating this nonsense is a clear sign of the race to the bottom under Michelle Reid and Karl Frisch.

Or maybe it's painful to think that you've spent $100,000 more on housing to buy into a "better school district" when it has no bearing on your child's academic success. When a child at a "poor kid's school" can end up being as successful as a kid at a "rich kid's school."

My kid's testing at the top 10% of Fairfax County (all of Fairfax County), and we go to a "poor kid's school." And we saved a whole heck of a lot of money on mortgage and taxes. And no, my kid's not the smartest kid at our poor little school.

Thanks for your anecdote, which indicates there’s no compelling reason to adjust boundaries when a kid like yours can succeed anywhere.

Precisely, kids will succeed anywhere. Glad we can all agree on that. The most important reason for boundary changes is that we stop wasting money, soon be measured in half-billions each, on capacity additions when that money could go towards teachers and kids.

You do know the capital improvement cash is not fungible. It is to be used for capital improvements.

I would suggest that instead of spending money on boundary study and the resulting shifts, that the Supe and the SB work on improving programs in the schools as they are. No high school is too small. Some of the gargantuan schools are extremely successful.

The major problem with the demographics is the English Learners --most of whom have not been here very long. The young elementary kids usually pick up the language fairly easily (I taught many primary grade kids who were not fluent when they came to me.) But, the high schools are a different issue. Changing boundaries is not going to fix that.
They need to do their job and figure out a different model.

Yep, we always talk about meeting kids where they are, but then expect older newcomers to perform on the same level as native speakers in an unreasonably short time period. The new state accreditation standards have entirely unrealistic expectations for ESOL students.

We expect kids to meet standards for their grade level and ultimately for a diploma

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:West Springfield is almost 50% white. I don't think that makes it a shining example of diversity.

Fairfax High School is more diverse, and it's got a score of a 6 on Great Schools. (Though Great Schools doesn't give good ratings to Fairfax's Hispanic population, and the first review there is a very angry Spanish review.)

Edison with its STEM feeder program is a 5 on Great Schools.

Lewis, with more than 50% Hispanic, is a 4 on Great Schools. Just one point behind Edison, despite not having a feeder program and having 1/3 of the student population in ELL.

No one is talking about how horrible the teaching programs are at the schools with lower test results. They're only talking about the students. But here's the thing: sitting next to a student with a lower test score will not make your child score lower. The teachers are not teaching a different curriculum, and any student that needs assistance will get it after school or during advisory.

Maybe, just maybe, the schools aren't that far apart in their ability to teach students as folks here seem to think they are.

If your kid is surrounded by enough students who can’t follow a lesson, he or she will learn less and score lower. The teacher may be teaching the same subject, but a watered-down version of it, and the students who might benefit the most from additional help may never seek it out.

No one will be fooled by your “every school is equally good” rhetoric. The fact that FCPS leadership answers primarily to those perpetrating this nonsense is a clear sign of the race to the bottom under Michelle Reid and Karl Frisch.

Or maybe it's painful to think that you've spent $100,000 more on housing to buy into a "better school district" when it has no bearing on your child's academic success. When a child at a "poor kid's school" can end up being as successful as a kid at a "rich kid's school."

My kid's testing at the top 10% of Fairfax County (all of Fairfax County), and we go to a "poor kid's school." And we saved a whole heck of a lot of money on mortgage and taxes. And no, my kid's not the smartest kid at our poor little school.

Thanks for your anecdote, which indicates there’s no compelling reason to adjust boundaries when a kid like yours can succeed anywhere.

Precisely, kids will succeed anywhere. Glad we can all agree on that. The most important reason for boundary changes is that we stop wasting money, soon be measured in half-billions each, on capacity additions when that money could go towards teachers and kids.

You do know the capital improvement cash is not fungible. It is to be used for capital improvements.

I would suggest that instead of spending money on boundary study and the resulting shifts, that the Supe and the SB work on improving programs in the schools as they are. No high school is too small. Some of the gargantuan schools are extremely successful.

The major problem with the demographics is the English Learners --most of whom have not been here very long. The young elementary kids usually pick up the language fairly easily (I taught many primary grade kids who were not fluent when they came to me.) But, the high schools are a different issue. Changing boundaries is not going to fix that.
They need to do their job and figure out a different model.

Yep, we always talk about meeting kids where they are, but then expect older newcomers to perform on the same level as native speakers in an unreasonably short time period. The new state accreditation standards have entirely unrealistic expectations for ESOL students.

We expect kids to meet standards for their grade level and ultimately for a diploma

Yes, but penalising schools with a high ESOL population (especially secondary newcomers) is ridiculous. I agree on graduation requirements but grade level is not realistic in the short term for many newcomers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:West Springfield is almost 50% white. I don't think that makes it a shining example of diversity.

Fairfax High School is more diverse, and it's got a score of a 6 on Great Schools. (Though Great Schools doesn't give good ratings to Fairfax's Hispanic population, and the first review there is a very angry Spanish review.)

Edison with its STEM feeder program is a 5 on Great Schools.

Lewis, with more than 50% Hispanic, is a 4 on Great Schools. Just one point behind Edison, despite not having a feeder program and having 1/3 of the student population in ELL.

No one is talking about how horrible the teaching programs are at the schools with lower test results. They're only talking about the students. But here's the thing: sitting next to a student with a lower test score will not make your child score lower. The teachers are not teaching a different curriculum, and any student that needs assistance will get it after school or during advisory.

Maybe, just maybe, the schools aren't that far apart in their ability to teach students as folks here seem to think they are.

If your kid is surrounded by enough students who can’t follow a lesson, he or she will learn less and score lower. The teacher may be teaching the same subject, but a watered-down version of it, and the students who might benefit the most from additional help may never seek it out.

No one will be fooled by your “every school is equally good” rhetoric. The fact that FCPS leadership answers primarily to those perpetrating this nonsense is a clear sign of the race to the bottom under Michelle Reid and Karl Frisch.

Or maybe it's painful to think that you've spent $100,000 more on housing to buy into a "better school district" when it has no bearing on your child's academic success. When a child at a "poor kid's school" can end up being as successful as a kid at a "rich kid's school."

My kid's testing at the top 10% of Fairfax County (all of Fairfax County), and we go to a "poor kid's school." And we saved a whole heck of a lot of money on mortgage and taxes. And no, my kid's not the smartest kid at our poor little school.

Thanks for your anecdote, which indicates there’s no compelling reason to adjust boundaries when a kid like yours can succeed anywhere.

Precisely, kids will succeed anywhere. Glad we can all agree on that. The most important reason for boundary changes is that we stop wasting money, soon be measured in half-billions each, on capacity additions when that money could go towards teachers and kids.

Says the school board shill. What money are we wasting? Because all I see in the projections is a massive centreville expansion that I hear none of them complain about.

Face it, nobody buys the cost argument from the school board. The only people who claim that’s the reason are all in on the equity bring everyone down path.

Exactly right. They and their shills have been lying through their teeth so long that it comes naturally to them now. Spending money is no problem as long as it’s something they want. It’s only when it gets in the way of their equity agenda that they pretend to be fiscally prudent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:West Springfield is almost 50% white. I don't think that makes it a shining example of diversity.

Fairfax High School is more diverse, and it's got a score of a 6 on Great Schools. (Though Great Schools doesn't give good ratings to Fairfax's Hispanic population, and the first review there is a very angry Spanish review.)

Edison with its STEM feeder program is a 5 on Great Schools.

Lewis, with more than 50% Hispanic, is a 4 on Great Schools. Just one point behind Edison, despite not having a feeder program and having 1/3 of the student population in ELL.

No one is talking about how horrible the teaching programs are at the schools with lower test results. They're only talking about the students. But here's the thing: sitting next to a student with a lower test score will not make your child score lower. The teachers are not teaching a different curriculum, and any student that needs assistance will get it after school or during advisory.

Maybe, just maybe, the schools aren't that far apart in their ability to teach students as folks here seem to think they are.

If your kid is surrounded by enough students who can’t follow a lesson, he or she will learn less and score lower. The teacher may be teaching the same subject, but a watered-down version of it, and the students who might benefit the most from additional help may never seek it out.

No one will be fooled by your “every school is equally good” rhetoric. The fact that FCPS leadership answers primarily to those perpetrating this nonsense is a clear sign of the race to the bottom under Michelle Reid and Karl Frisch.

Or maybe it's painful to think that you've spent $100,000 more on housing to buy into a "better school district" when it has no bearing on your child's academic success. When a child at a "poor kid's school" can end up being as successful as a kid at a "rich kid's school."

My kid's testing at the top 10% of Fairfax County (all of Fairfax County), and we go to a "poor kid's school." And we saved a whole heck of a lot of money on mortgage and taxes. And no, my kid's not the smartest kid at our poor little school.

Ehh, all you seem to want, then, is a boost in your housing equity to reward you for being so damn clever. Let others enjoy the schools they picked rather than cram boundary changes down their throats just because you want some further validation.

No. Your kid doesn’t actually compare. They are easier on kids the low performing schools. So your kid compared to a higher ranking school would be in the top 20% not 10%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:West Springfield is almost 50% white. I don't think that makes it a shining example of diversity.

Fairfax High School is more diverse, and it's got a score of a 6 on Great Schools. (Though Great Schools doesn't give good ratings to Fairfax's Hispanic population, and the first review there is a very angry Spanish review.)

Edison with its STEM feeder program is a 5 on Great Schools.

Lewis, with more than 50% Hispanic, is a 4 on Great Schools. Just one point behind Edison, despite not having a feeder program and having 1/3 of the student population in ELL.

No one is talking about how horrible the teaching programs are at the schools with lower test results. They're only talking about the students. But here's the thing: sitting next to a student with a lower test score will not make your child score lower. The teachers are not teaching a different curriculum, and any student that needs assistance will get it after school or during advisory.

Maybe, just maybe, the schools aren't that far apart in their ability to teach students as folks here seem to think they are.

If your kid is surrounded by enough students who can’t follow a lesson, he or she will learn less and score lower. The teacher may be teaching the same subject, but a watered-down version of it, and the students who might benefit the most from additional help may never seek it out.

No one will be fooled by your “every school is equally good” rhetoric. The fact that FCPS leadership answers primarily to those perpetrating this nonsense is a clear sign of the race to the bottom under Michelle Reid and Karl Frisch.

Or maybe it's painful to think that you've spent $100,000 more on housing to buy into a "better school district" when it has no bearing on your child's academic success. When a child at a "poor kid's school" can end up being as successful as a kid at a "rich kid's school."

My kid's testing at the top 10% of Fairfax County (all of Fairfax County), and we go to a "poor kid's school." And we saved a whole heck of a lot of money on mortgage and taxes. And no, my kid's not the smartest kid at our poor little school.

Thanks for your anecdote, which indicates there’s no compelling reason to adjust boundaries when a kid like yours can succeed anywhere.

Precisely, kids will succeed anywhere. Glad we can all agree on that. The most important reason for boundary changes is that we stop wasting money, soon be measured in half-billions each, on capacity additions when that money could go towards teachers and kids.

Said like someone like Robyn Lady or Mateo Dunne whose own schools (Herndon, West Potomac) have been renovated and/or expanded and is now more than happy to screw over others. And your numbers regarding additions are ridiculous. They could expand two crowded high schools for the cost of Karl Frisch’s ridiculous Dunn Loring project.

Sorry, but this “heads I win, tails you lose” bullshit isn’t going to fly.

Centreville's expansion was predicted to cost $140 million after the 2021 bond gave funding for the planning phase. FCPS's 2025 budget document shows the latest total cost estimate for Centreville, now at $290 million just for expenditures in 2025-29 and construction hasn't even started yet and isn't estimated to finish until 2033. This will surpass half a billion when it's over. And the next high school will no doubt be above that.

Everyone should be paying more attention to how these costs have ballooned. It is not going to be sustainable for the taxpayer to maintain cutting-edge, spacious facilities and teacher salaries. This is where boundaries come into play.