FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[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: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.

Reasonable concessions would be acknowledging that kids who show up in HS are never going to catch up to kids who were born here fluent in English in just a few years. Ridiculous to pretend it can be done.

[Anonymous]

“ 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.”

No. That don’t. If they had one group of preschoolers in FCps who were Gen Ed and another that is sped and they are intentionally keeping them segregated then yes that would apply. But having a service that is only offered to sped does not mean it now needs offered to all the Gen Ed kids too. That makes zero sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

How do you plan to deal with growth in and near Tysons without considering boundary changes for McLean and Langley?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

How do you plan to deal with growth in and near Tysons without considering boundary changes for McLean and Langley?

McLean has already had a boundary change in 2021. It's past time to start planning for a renovation and addition, given that it serves a growth area. Other schools that haven't had boundary changes can take their turn with boundary adjustments if they want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

How do you plan to deal with growth in and near Tysons without considering boundary changes for McLean and Langley?

McLean has already had a boundary change in 2021. It's past time to start planning for a renovation and addition, given that it serves a growth area. Other schools that haven't had boundary changes can take their turn with boundary adjustments if they want.

By that logic, Langley also had a boundary change in 2021 and also should not have one this round. Besides, it will be at least four years before any more changes happen, how long should a HS be exempt from boundary changes, in your opinion? Keep in mind, the policy is to review every five years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

How do you plan to deal with growth in and near Tysons without considering boundary changes for McLean and Langley?

McLean has already had a boundary change in 2021. It's past time to start planning for a renovation and addition, given that it serves a growth area. Other schools that haven't had boundary changes can take their turn with boundary adjustments if they want.

Why build an addition when Langley and Fall Church High Schools have space to accommodate McLean’s overage? Seems like a waste of resources.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

How do you plan to deal with growth in and near Tysons without considering boundary changes for McLean and Langley?

McLean has already had a boundary change in 2021. It's past time to start planning for a renovation and addition, given that it serves a growth area. Other schools that haven't had boundary changes can take their turn with boundary adjustments if they want.

By that logic, Langley also had a boundary change in 2021 and also should not have one this round. Besides, it will be at least four years before any more changes happen, how long should a HS be exempt from boundary changes, in your opinion? Keep in mind, the policy is to review every five years.

No one got moved out of Langley in 2021, so logic fail on your part.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

How do you plan to deal with growth in and near Tysons without considering boundary changes for McLean and Langley?

McLean has already had a boundary change in 2021. It's past time to start planning for a renovation and addition, given that it serves a growth area. Other schools that haven't had boundary changes can take their turn with boundary adjustments if they want.

Why build an addition when Langley and Fall Church High Schools have space to accommodate McLean’s overage? Seems like a waste of resources.

If there was any waste of resources, it was expanding Langley and Falls Church when the growth is in the Tysons/McLean area. Those schools may well see more kids over time, but McLean - which serves a growing area but has or will have the smallest number of permanent seats of any FCPS high school - fully deserves an addition.

Here's what the now-Chair of the School Board said in writing back in 2019:

"Though it may take years to complete, we should begin scoping for a permanent addition/expansion to McLean High School to further address capacity issues. That may require adjusting the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) renovation calendar and including additional funding for planning and construction in the next school bond referendum. There has been some chatter about a modular trailer being relocated to McLean High School using funds from the 2019 school bond referendum. This would be a welcome alternative to a traditional classroom trailer, but it is important that this capacity stopgap be tied directly to plans for a physical expansion of McLean High School – and that it not be used as a permanent solution."

​

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

How do you plan to deal with growth in and near Tysons without considering boundary changes for McLean and Langley?

McLean has already had a boundary change in 2021. It's past time to start planning for a renovation and addition, given that it serves a growth area. Other schools that haven't had boundary changes can take their turn with boundary adjustments if they want.

By that logic, Langley also had a boundary change in 2021 and also should not have one this round. Besides, it will be at least four years before any more changes happen, how long should a HS be exempt from boundary changes, in your opinion? Keep in mind, the policy is to review every five years.

No one got moved out of Langley in 2021, so logic fail on your part.

You said boundary change - Langley had a boundary change - McLean kids moved in. That’s a boundary change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

How do you plan to deal with growth in and near Tysons without considering boundary changes for McLean and Langley?

McLean has already had a boundary change in 2021. It's past time to start planning for a renovation and addition, given that it serves a growth area. Other schools that haven't had boundary changes can take their turn with boundary adjustments if they want.

By that logic, Langley also had a boundary change in 2021 and also should not have one this round. Besides, it will be at least four years before any more changes happen, how long should a HS be exempt from boundary changes, in your opinion? Keep in mind, the policy is to review every five years.

No one got moved out of Langley in 2021, so logic fail on your part.

You said boundary change - Langley had a boundary change - McLean kids moved in. That’s a boundary change.

Do you really think it's as disruptive to a school community to add kids as to redistrict communities out of the school? If so, you're not playing with a full deck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

How do you plan to deal with growth in and near Tysons without considering boundary changes for McLean and Langley?

McLean has already had a boundary change in 2021. It's past time to start planning for a renovation and addition, given that it serves a growth area. Other schools that haven't had boundary changes can take their turn with boundary adjustments if they want.

Why build an addition when Langley and Fall Church High Schools have space to accommodate McLean’s overage? Seems like a waste of resources.

If there was any waste of resources, it was expanding Langley and Falls Church when the growth is in the Tysons/McLean area. Those schools may well see more kids over time, but McLean - which serves a growing area but has or will have the smallest number of permanent seats of any FCPS high school - fully deserves an addition.

Here's what the now-Chair of the School Board said in writing back in 2019:

"Though it may take years to complete, we should begin scoping for a permanent addition/expansion to McLean High School to further address capacity issues. That may require adjusting the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) renovation calendar and including additional funding for planning and construction in the next school bond referendum. There has been some chatter about a modular trailer being relocated to McLean High School using funds from the 2019 school bond referendum. This would be a welcome alternative to a traditional classroom trailer, but it is important that this capacity stopgap be tied directly to plans for a physical expansion of McLean High School – and that it not be used as a permanent solution."

Wishful thinking on an addition - they moved students to Langley and added in the modular. It’s been five years and the overcrowding is easing.

[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.

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.

But why should they have years to become proficient?

Kids all over the planet, including my own, become quickly proficient in foreign languages doing full immersion.

If FCPS cannot get these kids fluent, or at least proficient, then there is something wrong with the program used by FCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

How do you plan to deal with growth in and near Tysons without considering boundary changes for McLean and Langley?

McLean has already had a boundary change in 2021. It's past time to start planning for a renovation and addition, given that it serves a growth area. Other schools that haven't had boundary changes can take their turn with boundary adjustments if they want.

By that logic, Langley also had a boundary change in 2021 and also should not have one this round. Besides, it will be at least four years before any more changes happen, how long should a HS be exempt from boundary changes, in your opinion? Keep in mind, the policy is to review every five years.

No one got moved out of Langley in 2021, so logic fail on your part.

You said boundary change - Langley had a boundary change - McLean kids moved in. That’s a boundary change.

Do you really think it's as disruptive to a school community to add kids as to redistrict communities out of the school? If so, you're not playing with a full deck.

Now you are putting words in my mouth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

How do you plan to deal with growth in and near Tysons without considering boundary changes for McLean and Langley?

McLean has already had a boundary change in 2021. It's past time to start planning for a renovation and addition, given that it serves a growth area. Other schools that haven't had boundary changes can take their turn with boundary adjustments if they want.

Why build an addition when Langley and Fall Church High Schools have space to accommodate McLean’s overage? Seems like a waste of resources.

If there was any waste of resources, it was expanding Langley and Falls Church when the growth is in the Tysons/McLean area. Those schools may well see more kids over time, but McLean - which serves a growing area but has or will have the smallest number of permanent seats of any FCPS high school - fully deserves an addition.

Here's what the now-Chair of the School Board said in writing back in 2019:

"Though it may take years to complete, we should begin scoping for a permanent addition/expansion to McLean High School to further address capacity issues. That may require adjusting the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) renovation calendar and including additional funding for planning and construction in the next school bond referendum. There has been some chatter about a modular trailer being relocated to McLean High School using funds from the 2019 school bond referendum. This would be a welcome alternative to a traditional classroom trailer, but it is important that this capacity stopgap be tied directly to plans for a physical expansion of McLean High School – and that it not be used as a permanent solution."

​

The joke is on you for believing anything Karl Frisch ever had to say. Lying is second nature to him.

Now you are looking at more boundary changes. They want to shrink McLean and bump more kids to Langley so they can move part of Great Falls to Herndon. If that means uprooting kids, destaffing teachers, and gutting successful extra-curricular programs, Frisch, Lady, and their cronies will happily do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

How do you plan to deal with growth in and near Tysons without considering boundary changes for McLean and Langley?

McLean has already had a boundary change in 2021. It's past time to start planning for a renovation and addition, given that it serves a growth area. Other schools that haven't had boundary changes can take their turn with boundary adjustments if they want.

By that logic, Langley also had a boundary change in 2021 and also should not have one this round. Besides, it will be at least four years before any more changes happen, how long should a HS be exempt from boundary changes, in your opinion? Keep in mind, the policy is to review every five years.

No one got moved out of Langley in 2021, so logic fail on your part.

You said boundary change - Langley had a boundary change - McLean kids moved in. That’s a boundary change.

Do you really think it's as disruptive to a school community to add kids as to redistrict communities out of the school? If so, you're not playing with a full deck.

It is mostly disruptive to the students who are moved in the middle of high school. I would say that the school that is joined by the transferring students are impacted slightly more as they will have to make sure the transferring students have as smooth a transfer as possible. This area is very transient - people move in and out frequently. For the students that moved, another boundary change five years later will not affect them.