FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I guess we should/could attend the current high school meeting and the high school our kids may attend.

Remember the kids are watching and those minority income kids want to see their ‘white saviors” excited about moving in the middle of high school!

How exactly does the school board believe berating people into feeling bad about wanting high performing schools for their kids will help the kids?

All children deserve high-performance schools.
The board can make that happen by starting from scratch and moving enough high-performing children to schools that need them.
In the end, all the schools and the children in them will be better off.

Just say you favor busing to achieve demographic "equity."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This seems relevant. Once the school board pushes through these unpopular and unnecessary boundary changes, vouchers are going to become much more likely in our state.

https://abcnews.go.com/538/2024-election-big-impact-education-policy/story?id=114849832

The school board will win the battle and lose the war. I’m done with their nonsense and salivating over the prospect of vouchers.

+1
Vouchers are definitely the way to go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I guess we should/could attend the current high school meeting and the high school our kids may attend.

Remember the kids are watching and those minority income kids want to see their ‘white saviors” excited about moving in the middle of high school!

How exactly does the school board believe berating people into feeling bad about wanting high performing schools for their kids will help the kids?

All children deserve high-performance schools.
The board can make that happen by starting from scratch and moving enough high-performing children to schools that need them.
In the end, all the schools and the children in them will be better off.

That only works with extensive bussing which will never happen

Children already ride buses 🚌 to school.

If you are saying that transit times would drastically increase trying to distribute family incomes EQUALLY, you are correct.
That would result in ridiculously gerrymandered boundaries.

We can make things less drastically imbalanced with boundaries that decrease transit times substantially for some children, increase it insignificantly for some, and keep it the same for many others.

That's not how things work. West Potomac HS was formed by the merger of Fort Hunt HS and Groveton HS. In today's terms, Fort Hunt was like Langley and Groveton was like Annandale or Falls Church. The schools combined and, over time, West Potomac ended up looking a lot more like Groveton than Fort Hunt.

We can’t keep the status quo. It’s untenable for the disparities to be so vast in the same system.

Poverty in concentrated. Draw boundaries that take MVHS bellow 40% FARMS with out putting West Potomac and Hayfield well above 40%. Now draw boundaries that get Langley to even 15%. Neither is possible

DP. It would be possible to get Langley close to 15% FARMS by drawing contiguous boundaries that dip further south into Tysons and especially Reston, but not as far west in Great Falls.

What high school do your kids attend? I'd like to redraw the boundaries for you.
DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I guess we should/could attend the current high school meeting and the high school our kids may attend.

Remember the kids are watching and those minority income kids want to see their ‘white saviors” excited about moving in the middle of high school!

How exactly does the school board believe berating people into feeling bad about wanting high performing schools for their kids will help the kids?

All children deserve high-performance schools.
The board can make that happen by starting from scratch and moving enough high-performing children to schools that need them.
In the end, all the schools and the children in them will be better off.

Just say you favor busing to achieve demographic "equity."

It’s implicit in what they are saying. For them it’s a math problem to exactly equalize farms. Existing friendships and stability? They don’t even consider it.

Again, really f’ing gross.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I guess we should/could attend the current high school meeting and the high school our kids may attend.

Remember the kids are watching and those minority income kids want to see their ‘white saviors” excited about moving in the middle of high school!

How exactly does the school board believe berating people into feeling bad about wanting high performing schools for their kids will help the kids?

All children deserve high-performance schools.
The board can make that happen by starting from scratch and moving enough high-performing children to schools that need them.
In the end, all the schools and the children in them will be better off.

Just say you favor busing to achieve demographic "equity."

It’s implicit in what they are saying. For them it’s a math problem to exactly equalize farms. Existing friendships and stability? They don’t even consider it.

Again, really f’ing gross.

I think they just say it because you’re so easily triggered. No one expects it to happen.

And then you turn around and repeat it because you seem to think it’s the only way to convince others to take your side.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I guess we should/could attend the current high school meeting and the high school our kids may attend.

Remember the kids are watching and those minority income kids want to see their ‘white saviors” excited about moving in the middle of high school!

How exactly does the school board believe berating people into feeling bad about wanting high performing schools for their kids will help the kids?

All children deserve high-performance schools.
The board can make that happen by starting from scratch and moving enough high-performing children to schools that need them.
In the end, all the schools and the children in them will be better off.

Just say you favor busing to achieve demographic "equity."

It’s implicit in what they are saying. For them it’s a math problem to exactly equalize farms. Existing friendships and stability? They don’t even consider it.

Again, really f’ing gross.

I think they just say it because you’re so easily triggered. No one expects it to happen.

And then you turn around and repeat it because you seem to think it’s the only way to convince others to take your side.

I don’t care about anonymous poster posting drivel. I am concerned that they are gatehouse employees and are just parroting their bosses’ sentiment.

Hopefully not, but they sound a lot like gatehouse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This seems relevant. Once the school board pushes through these unpopular and unnecessary boundary changes, vouchers are going to become much more likely in our state.

https://abcnews.go.com/538/2024-election-big-impact-education-policy/story?id=114849832

The school board will win the battle and lose the war. I’m done with their nonsense and salivating over the prospect of vouchers.

+1
Vouchers are definitely the way to go.

That would be a win-win situation since those of us who are currently attending failing pyramids but can't afford private are effectively stuck. If boundary changes are what it takes to have publicly funded vouchers for not-wealthy kids so they can attend a school that isn't failing, then that's a positive change in my book.

[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:So I guess we should/could attend the current high school meeting and the high school our kids may attend.

Remember the kids are watching and those minority income kids want to see their ‘white saviors” excited about moving in the middle of high school!

How exactly does the school board believe berating people into feeling bad about wanting high performing schools for their kids will help the kids?

All children deserve high-performance schools.
The board can make that happen by starting from scratch and moving enough high-performing children to schools that need them.
In the end, all the schools and the children in them will be better off.

That only works with extensive bussing which will never happen

Children already ride buses 🚌 to school.

If you are saying that transit times would drastically increase trying to distribute family incomes EQUALLY, you are correct.
That would result in ridiculously gerrymandered boundaries.

We can make things less drastically imbalanced with boundaries that decrease transit times substantially for some children, increase it insignificantly for some, and keep it the same for many others.

That's not how things work. West Potomac HS was formed by the merger of Fort Hunt HS and Groveton HS. In today's terms, Fort Hunt was like Langley and Groveton was like Annandale or Falls Church. The schools combined and, over time, West Potomac ended up looking a lot more like Groveton than Fort Hunt.

We can’t keep the status quo. It’s untenable for the disparities to be so vast in the same system.

Poverty in concentrated. Draw boundaries that take MVHS bellow 40% FARMS with out putting West Potomac and Hayfield well above 40%. Now draw boundaries that get Langley to even 15%. Neither is possible

DP. It would be possible to get Langley close to 15% FARMS by drawing contiguous boundaries that dip further south into Tysons and especially Reston, but not as far west in Great Falls.

Nope. Herndon perhaps, but those $900,000 homes in Reston aren’t going to yield any significant FARMS. Also, to get from Reston to Langley requires a LONG LONG commute, including across 7 during rush hour, and I keep hearing commute time as the only purported justification for moving Forestville (or part of Forestville) to Herndon.

Make up your mind.

Do you think there’s some magic Express Lane that gets kids to Langley from Forestville?

Assign part of Tysons, including the new all-affordable housing off Spring Hill Road, to Langley, along with a feeder like Lake Anne (about 50% FARMS), move a good chunk of Great Falls to other pyramids, and you get Langley fairly close to 15% FARMS.

I’m not even advocating for this, mind you, just disputing the false assertion that, by dint of geography and zoning, Langley can never be over 4% FARMS.

You don’t have to cherry pick a far off elementary school that doesn’t have a continuous boundary. Pick up the Spring Hill attendance island and swap Forestville for Westgate. You could potentially hit 10%

That would be great for McLean! Drop that FARMS rate!

You can’t have high McLean and Langley farms rates without busing. Sorry social engineers.

The majority of McLean's FARMS rate comes from the Timber Lane attendance island. This wouldn't significantly shift their farms rate.

[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:So I guess we should/could attend the current high school meeting and the high school our kids may attend.

Remember the kids are watching and those minority income kids want to see their ‘white saviors” excited about moving in the middle of high school!

How exactly does the school board believe berating people into feeling bad about wanting high performing schools for their kids will help the kids?

All children deserve high-performance schools.
The board can make that happen by starting from scratch and moving enough high-performing children to schools that need them.
In the end, all the schools and the children in them will be better off.

That only works with extensive bussing which will never happen

Children already ride buses 🚌 to school.

If you are saying that transit times would drastically increase trying to distribute family incomes EQUALLY, you are correct.
That would result in ridiculously gerrymandered boundaries.

We can make things less drastically imbalanced with boundaries that decrease transit times substantially for some children, increase it insignificantly for some, and keep it the same for many others.

That's not how things work. West Potomac HS was formed by the merger of Fort Hunt HS and Groveton HS. In today's terms, Fort Hunt was like Langley and Groveton was like Annandale or Falls Church. The schools combined and, over time, West Potomac ended up looking a lot more like Groveton than Fort Hunt.

We can’t keep the status quo. It’s untenable for the disparities to be so vast in the same system.

Poverty in concentrated. Draw boundaries that take MVHS bellow 40% FARMS with out putting West Potomac and Hayfield well above 40%. Now draw boundaries that get Langley to even 15%. Neither is possible

DP. It would be possible to get Langley close to 15% FARMS by drawing contiguous boundaries that dip further south into Tysons and especially Reston, but not as far west in Great Falls.

Nope. Herndon perhaps, but those $900,000 homes in Reston aren’t going to yield any significant FARMS. Also, to get from Reston to Langley requires a LONG LONG commute, including across 7 during rush hour, and I keep hearing commute time as the only purported justification for moving Forestville (or part of Forestville) to Herndon.

Make up your mind.

Do you think there’s some magic Express Lane that gets kids to Langley from Forestville?

Assign part of Tysons, including the new all-affordable housing off Spring Hill Road, to Langley, along with a feeder like Lake Anne (about 50% FARMS), move a good chunk of Great Falls to other pyramids, and you get Langley fairly close to 15% FARMS.

I’m not even advocating for this, mind you, just disputing the false assertion that, by dint of geography and zoning, Langley can never be over 4% FARMS.

You don’t have to cherry pick a far off elementary school that doesn’t have a continuous boundary. Pick up the Spring Hill attendance island and swap Forestville for Westgate. You could potentially hit 10%

That would be great for McLean! Drop that FARMS rate!

You can’t have high McLean and Langley farms rates without busing. Sorry social engineers.

The majority of McLean's FARMS rate comes from the Timber Lane attendance island. This wouldn't significantly shift their farms rate.

Getting rid of attendance islands is one of the main criteria. They’re going to deal with the Timberlane attendance island as part of this process. All the people advocating to move the FARMS kids to Langley are just trading them from McLean to Langley.

Maybe you could have them start their day at one school and then bus them for the afternoon? That’d help you fill your quota.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This seems relevant. Once the school board pushes through these unpopular and unnecessary boundary changes, vouchers are going to become much more likely in our state.

https://abcnews.go.com/538/2024-election-big-impact-education-policy/story?id=114849832

The school board will win the battle and lose the war. I’m done with their nonsense and salivating over the prospect of vouchers.

+1
Vouchers are definitely the way to go.

That would be a win-win situation since those of us who are currently attending failing pyramids but can't afford private are effectively stuck. If boundary changes are what it takes to have publicly funded vouchers for not-wealthy kids so they can attend a school that isn't failing, then that's a positive change in my book.

Not sure it’s the win that you think it is for that demographic. Maybe for you the extra money ($10k?) will be enough to send your kids private, but I’m guessing most families “stuck” in the “failing pyramids” do not have enough disposable income to pull that off. If they did, query why they would’ve moved to the “failing pyramid” in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This seems relevant. Once the school board pushes through these unpopular and unnecessary boundary changes, vouchers are going to become much more likely in our state.

https://abcnews.go.com/538/2024-election-big-impact-education-policy/story?id=114849832

The school board will win the battle and lose the war. I’m done with their nonsense and salivating over the prospect of vouchers.

+1
Vouchers are definitely the way to go.

That would be a win-win situation since those of us who are currently attending failing pyramids but can't afford private are effectively stuck. If boundary changes are what it takes to have publicly funded vouchers for not-wealthy kids so they can attend a school that isn't failing, then that's a positive change in my book.

Not sure it’s the win that you think it is for that demographic. Maybe for you the extra money ($10k?) will be enough to send your kids private, but I’m guessing most families “stuck” in the “failing pyramids” do not have enough disposable income to pull that off. If they did, query why they would’ve moved to the “failing pyramid” in the first place.

DP. Most people still live in homes that at $600k+. If you can afford that, a voucher is all you need and the balance is manageable. I also think that most technically can move but don't want to. It's the truly poor that a $10k voucher wouldn't help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This seems relevant. Once the school board pushes through these unpopular and unnecessary boundary changes, vouchers are going to become much more likely in our state.

https://abcnews.go.com/538/2024-election-big-impact-education-policy/story?id=114849832

The school board will win the battle and lose the war. I’m done with their nonsense and salivating over the prospect of vouchers.

+1
Vouchers are definitely the way to go.

That would be a win-win situation since those of us who are currently attending failing pyramids but can't afford private are effectively stuck. If boundary changes are what it takes to have publicly funded vouchers for not-wealthy kids so they can attend a school that isn't failing, then that's a positive change in my book.

Not sure it’s the win that you think it is for that demographic. Maybe for you the extra money ($10k?) will be enough to send your kids private, but I’m guessing most families “stuck” in the “failing pyramids” do not have enough disposable income to pull that off. If they did, query why they would’ve moved to the “failing pyramid” in the first place.

DP. Most people still live in homes that at $600k+. If you can afford that, a voucher is all you need and the balance is manageable. I also think that most technically can move but don't want to. It's the truly poor that a $10k voucher wouldn't help.

I don’t buy your generalization that a voucher is “all you need”. Perhaps for a handful, or for a Catholic school if you are in the dioceses.

If a family that owns a $600k home is in a “failing” school pyramid and is close to being able to afford private school, then likely either they don’t value private school enough to cut spending elsewhere or they don’t care about these types of issues.

I’m not saying that none of the families in $600k houses will be helped by vouchers-ten thousand dollars is enough that it could put some families over the threshold, but you are grossly overstating that all these families need are vouchers to solve their school problems.

Vouchers are generally for the people who will choose private no matter what (bonus!), or for families that can readily afford private schools but were happy to send their kids to good public schools, but not “failing” public schools. My family is in the latter camp. I liked that my kids were going to go to public school, but they won’t be going to a different public school than the one they are currently zoned for. It just isn’t going to happen, and I’ve heard that sentiment echoed more times than I can count in my area.

The school board is about to find out how many families fall into that camp. From certain areas, including mine, the numbers will be significant. It won’t be all of us, but it’ll be many.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This seems relevant. Once the school board pushes through these unpopular and unnecessary boundary changes, vouchers are going to become much more likely in our state.

https://abcnews.go.com/538/2024-election-big-impact-education-policy/story?id=114849832

The school board will win the battle and lose the war. I’m done with their nonsense and salivating over the prospect of vouchers.

+1
Vouchers are definitely the way to go.

That would be a win-win situation since those of us who are currently attending failing pyramids but can't afford private are effectively stuck. If boundary changes are what it takes to have publicly funded vouchers for not-wealthy kids so they can attend a school that isn't failing, then that's a positive change in my book.

Not sure it’s the win that you think it is for that demographic. Maybe for you the extra money ($10k?) will be enough to send your kids private, but I’m guessing most families “stuck” in the “failing pyramids” do not have enough disposable income to pull that off. If they did, query why they would’ve moved to the “failing pyramid” in the first place.

DP. Most people still live in homes that at $600k+. If you can afford that, a voucher is all you need and the balance is manageable. I also think that most technically can move but don't want to. It's the truly poor that a $10k voucher wouldn't help.

I don’t buy your generalization that a voucher is “all you need”. Perhaps for a handful, or for a Catholic school if you are in the dioceses.

If a family that owns a $600k home is in a “failing” school pyramid and is close to being able to afford private school, then likely either they don’t value private school enough to cut spending elsewhere or they don’t care about these types of issues.

I’m not saying that none of the families in $600k houses will be helped by vouchers-ten thousand dollars is enough that it could put some families over the threshold, but you are grossly overstating that all these families need are vouchers to solve their school problems.

Vouchers are generally for the people who will choose private no matter what (bonus!), or for families that can readily afford private schools but were happy to send their kids to good public schools, but not “failing” public schools. My family is in the latter camp. I liked that my kids were going to go to public school, but they won’t be going to a different public school than the one they are currently zoned for. It just isn’t going to happen, and I’ve heard that sentiment echoed more times than I can count in my area.

The school board is about to find out how many families fall into that camp. From certain areas, including mine, the numbers will be significant. It won’t be all of us, but it’ll be many.

The bolded is the key. These types of families likely have successful elementary schools in the pyramid that they like but the high school is failing. They currently have the option to transfer out. If you take away the option to transfer out or add the availability of vouchers you will see a lot of families leaving FCPS. If boundaries change you will see people leaving FCPS rather than go to a failing school. Moving is always a nightmare even in the best of conditions. If families have a voucher option, that would be a game changer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This seems relevant. Once the school board pushes through these unpopular and unnecessary boundary changes, vouchers are going to become much more likely in our state.

https://abcnews.go.com/538/2024-election-big-impact-education-policy/story?id=114849832

The school board will win the battle and lose the war. I’m done with their nonsense and salivating over the prospect of vouchers.

+1
Vouchers are definitely the way to go.

That would be a win-win situation since those of us who are currently attending failing pyramids but can't afford private are effectively stuck. If boundary changes are what it takes to have publicly funded vouchers for not-wealthy kids so they can attend a school that isn't failing, then that's a positive change in my book.

Not sure it’s the win that you think it is for that demographic. Maybe for you the extra money ($10k?) will be enough to send your kids private, but I’m guessing most families “stuck” in the “failing pyramids” do not have enough disposable income to pull that off. If they did, query why they would’ve moved to the “failing pyramid” in the first place.

DP. Most people still live in homes that at $600k+. If you can afford that, a voucher is all you need and the balance is manageable. I also think that most technically can move but don't want to. It's the truly poor that a $10k voucher wouldn't help.

I love that on DCUM a $300k+ HHI is scraping by on a tight budget, yet in the next breath, living in a $600k+ house means you’re wealthy enough to afford private school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This seems relevant. Once the school board pushes through these unpopular and unnecessary boundary changes, vouchers are going to become much more likely in our state.

https://abcnews.go.com/538/2024-election-big-impact-education-policy/story?id=114849832

The school board will win the battle and lose the war. I’m done with their nonsense and salivating over the prospect of vouchers.

+1
Vouchers are definitely the way to go.

I'd be fine with transfer by right. If a school is failing, students should have the right to transfer to any other school in the county regardless of capacity (because we all know that schools like Langley would immediately find ways to reduce capacity and be closed to transfers otherwise). If nothing else, that would incentivize the county to fix the failing schools