Future Western High School

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s good to know some consider the inequities so tolerable.

Again - what inequities?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s good to know some consider the inequities so tolerable.

I guess I don’t know if I see that much inequity from school to school. Yes, some have better educated students but that isn’t because of what the schools do or don’t offer. Children are being “educated” every moment they live and breathe because that is what it means to have such an impressionable and plastic brain. Parents are a kid’s first teachers and they act as life-long teachers. Children from families whose parents don’t have the time, resources, skills, or knowledge to teach them are almost always going to be “behind.” They haven’t had the kind of “private tutoring” that their more fortunate peers have from their parents. Classroom teachers can’t substitute or compensate for that lack given their workload and the number of children they are responsible for.

+1
I'm not sure what the PP would like to see happen. Some vague, "equitable" plan - when the schools offer the same classes and curriculum to all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DP. It's a false dichotomy intended to distract.

No. It is a valid question. Seems some people on here have lost sight of why we have schools. They seem to think that shifting kids around will improve their education.

Yeah, God forbid more poor kids have the opportunity to take language or math classes at the wealthier schools that their schools don't offer.

DP. What classes are offered at "wealthier" schools that are not offered at other schools? Be specific.

you have to look school to school. Classes have to have a minimum number of students to sign up to be able to have them. As a result, in schools where there are a higher % of students taking multiple APs, there will be more offered and more classes of each. When you have more classes of each, it makes it much easier to schedule. Same with language classes, if you have more students taking them, the school can support a variety of languages to offer. Size matter too, the larger schools have an advantage too.

So why don't more students sign up for classes in their current schools?

Some schools have fewer students than others. Obviously FCPS favors Langley when they expand the school to accommodate almost 2400 kids when it's one of the most under-enrolled schools in the least convenient locations in the county, and then starts moving kids there to fill seats that should have been built elsewhere.

And if you're asking why more students at poorer schools aren't signing up for the classes that have multiple sessions at Langley, it's a function of the education the kids are getting before they arrive as freshmen at Langley. But it creates a vicious cycle where parents of higher-achieving kids hear that their kids may not be able to arrange their class schedules at other schools to get into the classes they'd like to take, and so they move into certain pyramids where that's less likely to be a barrier.

The privilege hoarding in FCPS, especially in one pyramid, is very real.

What high school do your kids attend?

[Anonymous]

The privilege hoarding in FCPS, especially in one pyramid, is very real.

What does this even mean?

All children can learn, but some start ahead of others. That does not occur at school. It occurs much, much earlier. And, it is not about money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The privilege hoarding in FCPS, especially in one pyramid, is very real.

What does this even mean?

All children can learn, but some start ahead of others. That does not occur at school. It occurs much, much earlier. And, it is not about money.

If schools didn't matter, y'all wouldn't be dragging out a thread to keep saying it's impossible that something might happen to change your school's boundaries in a decade.

[Anonymous]

Parents/Lower SES kids want to go to a higher SES/higher performing school for the exact same reason parents who can afford it buy in the Langley pyramid. Cohort. Higher SES schools have higher achievement, higher test scores, involved parents, highly educated parents, high expectations for college, and resources raised by parent groups. Langley provides so many advantages - not because of the admin/teachers/curriculum - but because of the community. Of course the parents living in Langley boundaries don't want that to change. And of course the parents living outside those boundaries want Langley to share the wealth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Parents/Lower SES kids want to go to a higher SES/higher performing school for the exact same reason parents who can afford it buy in the Langley pyramid. Cohort. Higher SES schools have higher achievement, higher test scores, involved parents, highly educated parents, high expectations for college, and resources raised by parent groups. Langley provides so many advantages - not because of the admin/teachers/curriculum - but because of the community. Of course the parents living in Langley boundaries don't want that to change. And of course the parents living outside those boundaries want Langley to share the wealth.

It’s not an unreasonable expectation given the School Board has spent the past five years talking about equity and One Fairfax. It turns out they are totally full of shit, especially members like Corbett Sanders and Tholen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents/Lower SES kids want to go to a higher SES/higher performing school for the exact same reason parents who can afford it buy in the Langley pyramid. Cohort. Higher SES schools have higher achievement, higher test scores, involved parents, highly educated parents, high expectations for college, and resources raised by parent groups. Langley provides so many advantages - not because of the admin/teachers/curriculum - but because of the community. Of course the parents living in Langley boundaries don't want that to change. And of course the parents living outside those boundaries want Langley to share the wealth.

It’s not an unreasonable expectation given the School Board has spent the past five years talking about equity and One Fairfax. It turns out they are totally full of shit, especially members like Corbett Sanders and Tholen.

So, it is clear what you mean by "share the wealth." You seem to think that the wealthier kids should be spread around in order to help the low income kids? That is essentially what you said. The school reflects the population.

ALL FCPS schools offer challenging classes. Please tell me a class that your child cannot get that he/she needs. I asked a similar question earlier. No one has come up with an example. Naturally, TJ should not be included here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents/Lower SES kids want to go to a higher SES/higher performing school for the exact same reason parents who can afford it buy in the Langley pyramid. Cohort. Higher SES schools have higher achievement, higher test scores, involved parents, highly educated parents, high expectations for college, and resources raised by parent groups. Langley provides so many advantages - not because of the admin/teachers/curriculum - but because of the community. Of course the parents living in Langley boundaries don't want that to change. And of course the parents living outside those boundaries want Langley to share the wealth.

It’s not an unreasonable expectation given the School Board has spent the past five years talking about equity and One Fairfax. It turns out they are totally full of shit, especially members like Corbett Sanders and Tholen.

So, it is clear what you mean by "share the wealth." You seem to think that the wealthier kids should be spread around in order to help the low income kids? That is essentially what you said. The school reflects the population.

ALL FCPS schools offer challenging classes. Please tell me a class that your child cannot get that he/she needs. I asked a similar question earlier. No one has come up with an example. Naturally, TJ should not be included here.

The school reflects the population that attends the school when the boundaries are drawn and then adjusted over the years to ensure a particular demographic.

[Anonymous]

The school reflects the population that attends the school when the boundaries are drawn and then adjusted over the years to ensure a particular demographic.

Or, when the boundary is logical due to geography and enrollment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The school reflects the population that attends the school when the boundaries are drawn and then adjusted over the years to ensure a particular demographic.

Or, when the boundary is logical due to geography and enrollment.

Hmm. That might be Chantilly. Certainly not Langley.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The school reflects the population that attends the school when the boundaries are drawn and then adjusted over the years to ensure a particular demographic.

Or, when the boundary is logical due to geography and enrollment.

Hmm. That might be Chantilly. Certainly not Langley.

If you have a proposal for a better boundary that keeps Langley at a reasonable enrollment and materially increases diversity (or whatever other metric may be important), please share. But please also account for the other school boundary changes that would be needed to make that work too. If you look at where Langley is located -- and where the other high schools around Langley (i.e. McLean and Marshall) are located -- it is hard to see a reasonable way to fill Langley (it isn't even close to full now) without a large boundary and bussing someone a long distance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The school reflects the population that attends the school when the boundaries are drawn and then adjusted over the years to ensure a particular demographic.

Or, when the boundary is logical due to geography and enrollment.

Hmm. That might be Chantilly. Certainly not Langley.

If you have a proposal for a better boundary that keeps Langley at a reasonable enrollment and materially increases diversity (or whatever other metric may be important), please share. But please also account for the other school boundary changes that would be needed to make that work too. If you look at where Langley is located -- and where the other high schools around Langley (i.e. McLean and Marshall) are located -- it is hard to see a reasonable way to fill Langley (it isn't even close to full now) without a large boundary and bussing someone a long distance.

It would be interesting to see from a survey of parents at McLean/Marshall/Herndon, etc whether they would be willing to have the additional commute to attend Langley. I am a TJ parent and have always been amazed at the commutes TJ families are willing to put up with to attend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The school reflects the population that attends the school when the boundaries are drawn and then adjusted over the years to ensure a particular demographic.

Or, when the boundary is logical due to geography and enrollment.

Hmm. That might be Chantilly. Certainly not Langley.

If you have a proposal for a better boundary that keeps Langley at a reasonable enrollment and materially increases diversity (or whatever other metric may be important), please share. But please also account for the other school boundary changes that would be needed to make that work too. If you look at where Langley is located -- and where the other high schools around Langley (i.e. McLean and Marshall) are located -- it is hard to see a reasonable way to fill Langley (it isn't even close to full now) without a large boundary and bussing someone a long distance.

Langley’s boundary is very shallow on the east and southern side. They could have easily included the Tyson’s portion of Springhill in the most recent change and yet they only chose to include SFH areas in the transfer. They could have included the Westgate students that currently attend McLean and move them to Langley, but they did not. Both of those areas are far closer to Langley than Great Falls.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The school reflects the population that attends the school when the boundaries are drawn and then adjusted over the years to ensure a particular demographic.

Or, when the boundary is logical due to geography and enrollment.

Hmm. That might be Chantilly. Certainly not Langley.

If you have a proposal for a better boundary that keeps Langley at a reasonable enrollment and materially increases diversity (or whatever other metric may be important), please share. But please also account for the other school boundary changes that would be needed to make that work too. If you look at where Langley is located -- and where the other high schools around Langley (i.e. McLean and Marshall) are located -- it is hard to see a reasonable way to fill Langley (it isn't even close to full now) without a large boundary and bussing someone a long distance.

It would be interesting to see from a survey of parents at McLean/Marshall/Herndon, etc whether they would be willing to have the additional commute to attend Langley. I am a TJ parent and have always been amazed at the commutes TJ families are willing to put up with to attend.

Some McLean students would have a shorter commute to Langley. The two schools are only 3 miles apart.