FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[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.

Any established schools that accept vouchers (more than a few would opt out to avoid the paperwork) would just raise tuition by the amount of the voucher and pocket the extra money

[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 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.

Surely you know that a range of people post on DCUM and this area has a range of private school cost options. Not everyone is paying $40k+/year for privates

[Anonymous]

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.

You won’t eliminate disparities except by driving wealthier families and high-achieving kids out of FCPS. Classic race to the bottom.

We can’t discard our principles for the sake of catering to the privileged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Any established schools that accept vouchers (more than a few would opt out to avoid the paperwork) would just raise tuition by the amount of the voucher and pocket the extra money

I won’t dispute that it would likely result in tuition increases as demand increases, but it wouldn’t be the full amount of the waiver.

Plus, pocketing the extra money in the non profit world isn’t the same as it is in the for-profit world. That extra money would help the private schools and their endowment, so while the public schools would decline as the UMC families look elsewhere, the private schools would gain.

It’s just how the market works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Any established schools that accept vouchers (more than a few would opt out to avoid the paperwork) would just raise tuition by the amount of the voucher and pocket the extra money

I won’t dispute that it would likely result in tuition increases as demand increases, but it wouldn’t be the full amount of the waiver.

Plus, pocketing the extra money in the non profit world isn’t the same as it is in the for-profit world. That extra money would help the private schools and their endowment, so while the public schools would decline as the UMC families look elsewhere, the private schools would gain.

It’s just how the market works.

Why not? There is already more demand than space at the good schools. Every county resident would now have an extra 10k. It's just how the market works

[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.

You won’t eliminate disparities except by driving wealthier families and high-achieving kids out of FCPS. Classic race to the bottom.

We can’t discard our principles for the sake of catering to the privileged.

You aren’t as noble as you think you are, sweetie. And the PP is right, you’re going to do more damage to the very schools and students that you are trying to help.

[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."

Equity is at the center of everything we do.

[Anonymous]

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.

You won’t eliminate disparities except by driving wealthier families and high-achieving kids out of FCPS. Classic race to the bottom.

We can’t discard our principles for the sake of catering to the privileged.

You aren’t as noble as you think you are, sweetie. And the PP is right, you’re going to do more damage to the very schools and students that you are trying to help.

You think after decades of progressives watching “progressive” policies worsen conditions, that the goal of their leadership is to help?
lol 😂 oh you sweet summer child!

The goal is to be a “good person” who believes in the “right ideas/policies,” good results are a bonus but not required. And the richest and most connected will pay no price for their harmful decisions.

[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."

Equity is at the center of everything we do.

You may be disappointed when this entire exercise results in cleaning up some/most of the attendance islands and strange borders mostly at the elementary level and that’s about it. Especially if they aren’t touching the renovation queue or the AAP center situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Saw this linked in the weekly newsletter. Looks like draft scenarios will be out in the April/May timeframe.

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/D9UJD64C86AD/$file/FCPS%20Project%20Planning%20Presentation_FINAL%2010-08-24.pdf

Just took a look at this. It looks like with the boundary scenario tool they are using when they shift boundaries it reports potential enrollment, FARMS %, special ed %, race, and home language (Slide 23). If they are looking for socioeconomic rebalancing, this tool will do it for them.

[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.

You won’t eliminate disparities except by driving wealthier families and high-achieving kids out of FCPS. Classic race to the bottom.

We can’t discard our principles for the sake of catering to the privileged.

The privileged are the ones who pay for the goodies your principles want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saw this linked in the weekly newsletter. Looks like draft scenarios will be out in the April/May timeframe.

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/D9UJD64C86AD/$file/FCPS%20Project%20Planning%20Presentation_FINAL%2010-08-24.pdf

Just took a look at this. It looks like with the boundary scenario tool they are using when they shift boundaries it reports potential enrollment, FARMS %, special ed %, race, and home language (Slide 23). If they are looking for socioeconomic rebalancing, this tool will do it for them.

Most public school districts like nearby Arlington have removed that demographic data when it becomes necessary to redraw boundaries, as with opening a new school or expanding one. Balancing demographics was also removed as a priority, since all the new boundaries have been shifting demographics in the opposite, more unbalanced direction. Everyone (including the local NAACP) is against bussing for diversity there, with memories of bussing in the 1970s still fresh and painful for many families.

People in this conversation have brought up the new One Fairfax Policy as the driving force with the FCPS boundary initiative. There is no such policy in the neighboring jurisdictions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saw this linked in the weekly newsletter. Looks like draft scenarios will be out in the April/May timeframe.

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/D9UJD64C86AD/$file/FCPS%20Project%20Planning%20Presentation_FINAL%2010-08-24.pdf

Just took a look at this. It looks like with the boundary scenario tool they are using when they shift boundaries it reports potential enrollment, FARMS %, special ed %, race, and home language (Slide 23). If they are looking for socioeconomic rebalancing, this tool will do it for them.

Using race in any way shape or form in this process will get them instantly, and likely successfully, sued.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saw this linked in the weekly newsletter. Looks like draft scenarios will be out in the April/May timeframe.

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/D9UJD64C86AD/$file/FCPS%20Project%20Planning%20Presentation_FINAL%2010-08-24.pdf

Just took a look at this. It looks like with the boundary scenario tool they are using when they shift boundaries it reports potential enrollment, FARMS %, special ed %, race, and home language (Slide 23). If they are looking for socioeconomic rebalancing, this tool will do it for them.

Using race in any way shape or form in this process will get them instantly, and likely successfully, sued.

In this one instance it seems like race isn't the factor that they want to "balance out" it's FARMS and ELL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Saw this linked in the weekly newsletter. Looks like draft scenarios will be out in the April/May timeframe.

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/D9UJD64C86AD/$file/FCPS%20Project%20Planning%20Presentation_FINAL%2010-08-24.pdf

Just took a look at this. It looks like with the boundary scenario tool they are using when they shift boundaries it reports potential enrollment, FARMS %, special ed %, race, and home language (Slide 23). If they are looking for socioeconomic rebalancing, this tool will do it for them.

Using race in any way shape or form in this process will get them instantly, and likely successfully, sued.

Yes. That’s the other reason why neighborhood schools districts no longer factor in demographic data like this. Especially race. That is a huge no no in this day and age.