FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Loudoun has 10 high schools with a lower enrollment than Lewis (Broad Run, Dominion, Heritage, Loudoun County, Loudoun Valley, Park View, Rock Ridge, Stone Bridge, Tuscarora, and Woodgrove) and only 7 with a larger enrollment (Briar Woods, Freedom, Independence, John Champe, Lightridge, Potomac Falls, and Riverside).

Why is it treated as such a crisis that Lewis has about 1650 kids?

Because it is relatively small by FCPS measures AND poor AND high ESL. That combination makes it hard to support advanced classes. I haven't looked at those smaller Loudoun schools. Do any of them have the same combination as Lewis?

Yes.

Park View in Sterling is the one most similar. Not sure that is working out well either.

[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:Does anyone know where I can find information on how the schools in the Edison pyramid might be affected by boundary changes? Folks seem to have a lot of info in this thread about the likelihood/possibility of shifts in other pyramids, but I’m having trouble finding anything on how the Edison schools might shift.

If you are in a good school district you are at risk. The only kids who are likely completely safe are the ones who go to school with the school board members’ kids. Those kids miraculously won’t be impacted.

Correction: if you at or near an overcrowded school, you are at risk NOT because you are at a “good” school.

Too bad they short-change some of the overcrowded schools, while wasting our money on unnecessary projects like Dunn Loring ES. With better management of resources, some of these potential boundary changes would be off the table.

Considering the analysis has not been completed and no proposals have been provided you have no idea what is on the table.

Dear SB Shill,

We know that you like to parrot this talking point any chance you get, but you are a pernicious gaslighter when you make this claim, because there is ample evidence at this point what their ambitions are.

So, just own the SB trash. If you believe that they should try to make equity-based changes that’ll negatively impact mental health across the county and decimate communities, you should just own it. If you think you are on the righteous side, don’t try to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes.

If you’re right, you should be able to convince us why our kids should be used as pawns in the SB’s equity game and how this won’t decimate an already strained school system as many UMC families go elsewhere.

We have a good idea who the shills are - the same group of SB sycophants who get appointed to advisory committee after committee while normal people w/kids are effectively shut out. It’s how the FCDC machine works.

So, basically anyone that does not support your opinion is a shill?

So basically you should learn to read.

It might not have been you, but several times I have posted something that the anti boundary change posters deem pro-boundary change I am accused of being a shill and once a school board member.

If the shoe fits?

Just don’t post trying to minimize their goals and agenda. Minimizing the aims of the boundary review only serves the school board’s purpose and stifles dissent.

Can you give me an example?

DP. To me one example is identifying “equitable access to programming” as a basis for boundary changes. They have not explained what they have in mind and can invoke this to justify whatever they want to do.

If they really cared about access to programming, they’d be having a policy discussion up-front about the future of AAP centers, IB, and Academy program; reach conclusions as a board; and let those conclusions inform any future boundary adjustments. But they are totally incapable of any such serious work, so they just toss out a phrase like “equitable access to programming” as if it’s apple pie - while people it’s just intended to give them discretion to act arbitrarily to stick it to some schools and favor others.

[Anonymous]

To me: "Equitable access" should mean that every child should get instruction at his own level and encouragement to advance from there.

To the School Board: "Equitable access" means that every child should perform at the same level.

Depends on what you mean by "access."

[Anonymous]

Youngkin proposing vouchers for lower income families. Open those floodgates, Governor!

The start of the school board F’ing around and finding out… womp womp.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Youngkin proposing vouchers for lower income families. Open those floodgates, Governor!

The start of the school board F’ing around and finding out… womp womp.

I think that would be great, but for all.families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Youngkin proposing vouchers for lower income families. Open those floodgates, Governor!

The start of the school board F’ing around and finding out… womp womp.

I think that would be great, but for all.families.

A voucher for $10K that only families making less than $80K can get….won’t help anyone around here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Youngkin proposing vouchers for lower income families. Open those floodgates, Governor!

The start of the school board F’ing around and finding out… womp womp.

I think that would be great, but for all.families.

A voucher for $10K that only families making less than $80K can get….won’t help anyone around here.

Nothing Karl Frisch and his fellow miscreants do helps all families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Youngkin proposing vouchers for lower income families. Open those floodgates, Governor!

The start of the school board F’ing around and finding out… womp womp.

I think that would be great, but for all.families.

A voucher for $10K that only families making less than $80K can get….won’t help anyone around here.

It is a start. Open those floodgates! Fcps deserves nothing less.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Youngkin proposing vouchers for lower income families. Open those floodgates, Governor!

The start of the school board F’ing around and finding out… womp womp.

I think that would be great, but for all.families.

A voucher for $10K that only families making less than $80K can get….won’t help anyone around here.

It is a start. Open those floodgates! Fcps deserves nothing less.

The intention is to siphon off even more of NOVA funds for ROVA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Youngkin proposing vouchers for lower income families. Open those floodgates, Governor!

The start of the school board F’ing around and finding out… womp womp.

I think that would be great, but for all.families.

A voucher for $10K that only families making less than $80K can get….won’t help anyone around here.

It is a start. Open those floodgates! Fcps deserves nothing less.

The intention is to siphon off even more of NOVA funds for ROVA.

Like a race to the bottom type scenario? I think the FCPS school board has perfected that technique, no need for help from Richmond

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Youngkin proposing vouchers for lower income families. Open those floodgates, Governor!

The start of the school board F’ing around and finding out… womp womp.

I think that would be great, but for all.families.

A voucher for $10K that only families making less than $80K can get….won’t help anyone around here.

It is a start. Open those floodgates! Fcps deserves nothing less.

The intention is to siphon off even more of NOVA funds for ROVA.

There was a time when almost everyone in NoVa might have objected. With the current School Board doing its best to run FCPS into the ground many would now say “bring it on.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Youngkin proposing vouchers for lower income families. Open those floodgates, Governor!

The start of the school board F’ing around and finding out… womp womp.

You think FCPS would be upset about an exudes of FARMs students? Scores would skyrocket

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To me: "Equitable access" should mean that every child should get instruction at his own level and encouragement to advance from there.

To the School Board: "Equitable access" means that every child should perform at the same level.

Depends on what you mean by "access."

In practice, it’s the same thing because schools have students with a range of abilities. Unless you assume that meeting a kid where they are justifies a lack of advanced classes at Lewis and a lack of academy classes at Langley

[Anonymous]

It will be interesting to see if Sears proposes vouchers for all in her campaign. I'd consider voting for her if she did that. Also waiting to see how the sanctuary policy Youngkin is proposing shakes out

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It will be interesting to see if Sears proposes vouchers for all in her campaign. I'd consider voting for her if she did that. Also waiting to see how the sanctuary policy Youngkin is proposing shakes out

+1. We don’t need it to afford private, but FCPS school board does not deserve our funding after this equity-based redistricting.