FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How are these schools being penalized by not rezoning?

Rezoning penalizes students and parents who purchased homes in a specific district, but are now being moved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Apologies if this was already discussed in this thread - but Reid said at the last meeting that she wanted to move 6th grade to middle school to help with capacity and other issues. Did she say that at any other meeting? I don’t understand how that would help with capacity?

Moving 6th to middle school will put most of our middle schools far over capacity.

Moving 6th grade to middle school also blows a huge hole in our transportation budget, becuase it turns ten thousand current walkers to their neighborhood elementary schools, to kids that now have to be bussed across town. We don't have the busses or bus drivers to move 6th grade to middle school.

Reid is trying to make changes simply for the act of making changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Apologies if this was already discussed in this thread - but Reid said at the last meeting that she wanted to move 6th grade to middle school to help with capacity and other issues. Did she say that at any other meeting? I don’t understand how that would help with capacity?

It would help with capacity in elementary schools that can't provide pre-K programs. If they want to eventually do universal pre-K, a Dem priority, they'd first need to have space in all of the ES's for those programs. She didn't seem to be thinking about the problem of the middle schools, which don't have space for 6th graders.

We don't need to overcorwd middle schools with 6th graders to add preK.

It is just not worth the drawbacks.

We also don't have the budget to add universal preK.

We can't even give our teachers the raises they were promised.

Reid is so short sighted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You ever see the videos of people protesting segregation in the 1960s?

I really hate to say it, but there's a level on this forum that's dipping into that part of history.

It's the people saying, "We're good at OUR school. Keep them in THEIR school."

There will be nothing in heaven or on earth that will convince anyone to allow for a boundary change. No logic, nothing, because nothing will convince them that their kids will get a decent education unless they are with kids of a similar class and of a "good" race.

Yes, there's racism, as the negative focus tends to be on schools that are primarily Hispanic and ELL. It's a bit of classism, with rich people not wanting to interact with poor people. And it's ugly all over.

So dumb, but if you are going to make stuff up, at least call it desegregation, not segregation🙄

People have refuted your drivel ad naseaum on this board, but the only card you have left to pay is that one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Apologies if this was already discussed in this thread - but Reid said at the last meeting that she wanted to move 6th grade to middle school to help with capacity and other issues. Did she say that at any other meeting? I don’t understand how that would help with capacity?

Moving 6th to middle school will put most of our middle schools far over capacity.

Moving 6th grade to middle school also blows a huge hole in our transportation budget, becuase it turns ten thousand current walkers to their neighborhood elementary schools, to kids that now have to be bussed across town. We don't have the busses or bus drivers to move 6th grade to middle school.

Reid is trying to make changes simply for the act of making changes.

This seems to be a thing for Ricardy Anderson, who really dislikes that the middle schools in Mason (Glasgow, Holmes, and Poe) are 6-8 outliers when all the other schools are either 7-8 middle schools or part of a larger 7-12 secondary school.

But it's also a reflection of Reid's lack of familiarity with FCPS schools to suggest this could be easily achieved. They can't make any decision about this without deciding the fate of middle school AAP centers, and they'd probably have to turn some elementary schools into middle schools. It is just another thing that could chew up a lot of time and result in nothing, when they could be focusing on more important things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How are these schools being penalized by not rezoning?

Rezoning penalizes students and parents who purchased homes in a specific district, but are now being moved.

The new state level accreditation standards penalize schools with higher ESOL populations, which I suspect is part of the motivation for boundary changes. Rather than helping ESOL kids, FCPS is going to hide the problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You ever see the videos of people protesting segregation in the 1960s?

I really hate to say it, but there's a level on this forum that's dipping into that part of history.

It's the people saying, "We're good at OUR school. Keep them in THEIR school."

There will be nothing in heaven or on earth that will convince anyone to allow for a boundary change. No logic, nothing, because nothing will convince them that their kids will get a decent education unless they are with kids of a similar class and of a "good" race.

Yes, there's racism, as the negative focus tends to be on schools that are primarily Hispanic and ELL. It's a bit of classism, with rich people not wanting to interact with poor people. And it's ugly all over.

You could always start with some logic, because most of what I see now is a School Board and superintendent very cynically suggesting that they are looking at boundaries to achieve efficiencies, when they are wasting dollars head over heels elsewhere with projects like the unnecessary Dunn Loring ES and selectively favoring some schools like Justice HS with additions while doing nothing to add capacity to McLean HS, which is more overcrowded and serves an area slated for more growth than the Baileys Crossroads/Culmore area.

Come out with a CIP that kills off Dunn Loring, scales back the Centreville renovation (last indication was it would be built out to a whopping 3000 seats), and deals honestly for once as to whether a new western HS is actually going to get built, and there might be some logic in the room. Right now there's just a lot of posturing, with a bunch of School Board sycophants beating the drum for county-wide boundary changes which the School Board already knew or should have known (from the earlier survey) did not have wide support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Apologies if this was already discussed in this thread - but Reid said at the last meeting that she wanted to move 6th grade to middle school to help with capacity and other issues. Did she say that at any other meeting? I don’t understand how that would help with capacity?

It would help with capacity in elementary schools that can't provide pre-K programs. If they want to eventually do universal pre-K, a Dem priority, they'd first need to have space in all of the ES's for those programs. She didn't seem to be thinking about the problem of the middle schools, which don't have space for 6th graders.

We don't need to overcorwd middle schools with 6th graders to add preK.

It is just not worth the drawbacks.

We also don't have the budget to add universal preK.

We can't even give our teachers the raises they were promised.

Reid is so short sighted.

VPI (Virginia preschool initiative) grants can be used by public schools, center based day cares and home day cares who take a certain number of low income children. FCPS doesn’t use these funds the same way other districts (PWCPS or APS/ACPS do). They use Head Start funds rather and a lot of VPI. They need to change and add more gen ed preschool slots to allow the SPED preschool to have inclusion peers because that is a new mandate by the state.

ECE centers could be based in store fronts, or Parks and rec land (Lee district RECcenter has preschool initiative it) and still staffed with certified teachers paid by FCPS annd under FCPS administration.

They do NOT have to put preschool into elementary schools nor do they have the capacity to make all middle schools 6-8.

[Anonymous]

They just changed the boundaries for McLean HS in 2021 and for the elementary school feeders last year. If there's any area that deserves a pass from additional boundary changes, and instead needs a real plan to deal with the growth in and near Tysons, it's that pyramid. We're not falling for the line about how no one has looked at boundaries in 40 years, because that's not the case where our pyramid is concerned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How are these schools being penalized by not rezoning?

Rezoning penalizes students and parents who purchased homes in a specific district, but are now being moved.

The new state level accreditation standards penalize schools with higher ESOL populations, which I suspect is part of the motivation for boundary changes. Rather than helping ESOL kids, FCPS is going to hide the problem.

Yup.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You ever see the videos of people protesting segregation in the 1960s?

I really hate to say it, but there's a level on this forum that's dipping into that part of history.

It's the people saying, "We're good at OUR school. Keep them in THEIR school."

There will be nothing in heaven or on earth that will convince anyone to allow for a boundary change. No logic, nothing, because nothing will convince them that their kids will get a decent education unless they are with kids of a similar class and of a "good" race.

Yes, there's racism, as the negative focus tends to be on schools that are primarily Hispanic and ELL. It's a bit of classism, with rich people not wanting to interact with poor people. And it's ugly all over.

Get upset about our school board who thinks they can "fix" schools by adding "rich white kids". That's bullshit and not helping the kids who actually need a better education and better school environment than FCPS is providing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Who is penalizing them? Sending kids over there that don't want to be there and making their classes more crowded sounds like punishment to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Who is penalizing them? Sending kids over there that don't want to be there and making their classes more crowded sounds like punishment to me.

The state has changed its accreditation standards. These new standards give a much shorter timeframe for English proficiency, which will likely result in schools with high ESOL populations having even lower SOL scores, and thus increased danger of losing accreditation.

That was what I meant and should have been clearer about.

I agree with you. Boundary changes will just mask problems rather than solve them, and the new state standards may create unsolvable problems.

[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: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.

How are these schools being penalized by not rezoning?

Rezoning penalizes students and parents who purchased homes in a specific district, but are now being moved.

The new state level accreditation standards penalize schools with higher ESOL populations, which I suspect is part of the motivation for boundary changes. Rather than helping ESOL kids, FCPS is going to hide the problem.

Yup.

+1 I really think this whole exercise is because they are afraid of what’s going to happen with the new school quality metrics and accreditation when they are finally all rolled out. If they can shovel enough higher-performing kids into low performing schools - or vice-versa, move a high poverty ESOL area into the boundaries of a high performing area - you effectively “gerrymander” away a problem population.

[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: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.

How are these schools being penalized by not rezoning?

Rezoning penalizes students and parents who purchased homes in a specific district, but are now being moved.

The new state level accreditation standards penalize schools with higher ESOL populations, which I suspect is part of the motivation for boundary changes. Rather than helping ESOL kids, FCPS is going to hide the problem.

Yup.

+1 I really think this whole exercise is because they are afraid of what’s going to happen with the new school quality metrics and accreditation when they are finally all rolled out. If they can shovel enough higher-performing kids into low performing schools - or vice-versa, move a high poverty ESOL area into the boundaries of a high performing area - you effectively “gerrymander” away a problem population. [/quote]

Or, you end up having more schools fail.

Figure out a way to teach the kids! Lobby for reasonable concesstions.