FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I listened to the sessions that FairFACTS Matters and then the Great Falls Citizens Association had with Robyn Lady earlier this year. The references to Herndon from Langley-zoned parents were quite disparaging.

Well, this statement intrigued me, so I googled and found the GFCA webinar with Robyn Lady. I heard nothing disparaging. I did hear lots of concerns about the shift, but not like that.

At one point, Robyn Lady brought up the demographics as the reason the school is rated lower. Someone did ask about the safety stats. The moderator mentioned (I am paraphrasing) that they might consider addressing that issue before shifting kids.
I've stated on this thread before that I have never heard anyone address fixing the problem at the struggling schools rather than covering it up with higher SES scoring kids.

Lady also mentioned that the teachers prefer teaching upper level classes. I did not hear anyone ask a question about how the school plans to staff the schools that get more kids as a result of boundary lines. (Teachers generally do not like being reassigned against their will.)

What about the insulting question "Does Herndon even meet the minimal requirements to offer AP courses"? Like really?

DP.

Oh my vapors.

You have boundary change proponents on here spewing racial slurs like they’re back in the 50s, but you’re upset at that question? Such transparently faux outrage.

The “boundary change proponents“ aren’t spewing racial slurs. In some instances they are ascribing views to Langley posters based on their past conduct and statements.

You aren’t fooling anyone, including the School Board, by suggesting otherwise. They know very well by now what you’re all about.

DP. But that is false, and everyone knows this. Langley posters aren't making racist statements, you are simply fabricating this (lying) to further your narrative. All we've said is that we do not want to switch schools. There is nothing at all racist about wanting to remain at a school rather than change. There's also nothing racist about comparing the test scores at both schools. It's people like you who are determined to make this into a racial issue when it is not.

What’s the comparison with kids of similar race? How are the white kids scores at Herndon? Asian?

It isn’t as simple as looking at overall scores and data.

Once again: it is YOU who is focused on race. Thanks for proving the point.

And why shouldn’t a parent focus on race? It is another factor when thinking about an environment.

WHAT?!?! Your poor kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I listened to the sessions that FairFACTS Matters and then the Great Falls Citizens Association had with Robyn Lady earlier this year. The references to Herndon from Langley-zoned parents were quite disparaging.

Well, this statement intrigued me, so I googled and found the GFCA webinar with Robyn Lady. I heard nothing disparaging. I did hear lots of concerns about the shift, but not like that.

At one point, Robyn Lady brought up the demographics as the reason the school is rated lower. Someone did ask about the safety stats. The moderator mentioned (I am paraphrasing) that they might consider addressing that issue before shifting kids.
I've stated on this thread before that I have never heard anyone address fixing the problem at the struggling schools rather than covering it up with higher SES scoring kids.

Lady also mentioned that the teachers prefer teaching upper level classes. I did not hear anyone ask a question about how the school plans to staff the schools that get more kids as a result of boundary lines. (Teachers generally do not like being reassigned against their will.)

What about the insulting question "Does Herndon even meet the minimal requirements to offer AP courses"? Like really?

DP.

Oh my vapors.

You have boundary change proponents on here spewing racial slurs like they’re back in the 50s, but you’re upset at that question? Such transparently faux outrage.

The “boundary change proponents“ aren’t spewing racial slurs. In some instances they are ascribing views to Langley posters based on their past conduct and statements.

You aren’t fooling anyone, including the School Board, by suggesting otherwise. They know very well by now what you’re all about.

DP. But that is false, and everyone knows this. Langley posters aren't making racist statements, you are simply fabricating this (lying) to further your narrative. All we've said is that we do not want to switch schools. There is nothing at all racist about wanting to remain at a school rather than change. There's also nothing racist about comparing the test scores at both schools. It's people like you who are determined to make this into a racial issue when it is not.

What’s the comparison with kids of similar race? How are the white kids scores at Herndon? Asian?

It isn’t as simple as looking at overall scores and data.

Once again: it is YOU who is focused on race. Thanks for proving the point.

And why shouldn’t a parent focus on race? It is another factor when thinking about an environment.

I think is misguided, but I guess no objection from me if you want to focus on race. I was raised to believe in the fundamental principles of MLK to worry about content of one’s character, not skin color, but it seems that you disagree.

it is particularly pernicious for posters to outright lie by repeatedly claiming without evidence that Langley families are racist or posting racist things, when in reality it’s the exact opposite.

Langley posters will go to the mat to avoid sending their kids to a school with any significant number of Hispanic kids. MLK would be among the first to call you out were he alive today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I listened to the sessions that FairFACTS Matters and then the Great Falls Citizens Association had with Robyn Lady earlier this year. The references to Herndon from Langley-zoned parents were quite disparaging.

Well, this statement intrigued me, so I googled and found the GFCA webinar with Robyn Lady. I heard nothing disparaging. I did hear lots of concerns about the shift, but not like that.

At one point, Robyn Lady brought up the demographics as the reason the school is rated lower. Someone did ask about the safety stats. The moderator mentioned (I am paraphrasing) that they might consider addressing that issue before shifting kids.
I've stated on this thread before that I have never heard anyone address fixing the problem at the struggling schools rather than covering it up with higher SES scoring kids.

Lady also mentioned that the teachers prefer teaching upper level classes. I did not hear anyone ask a question about how the school plans to staff the schools that get more kids as a result of boundary lines. (Teachers generally do not like being reassigned against their will.)

What about the insulting question "Does Herndon even meet the minimal requirements to offer AP courses"? Like really?

DP.

Oh my vapors.

You have boundary change proponents on here spewing racial slurs like they’re back in the 50s, but you’re upset at that question? Such transparently faux outrage.

The “boundary change proponents“ aren’t spewing racial slurs. In some instances they are ascribing views to Langley posters based on their past conduct and statements.

You aren’t fooling anyone, including the School Board, by suggesting otherwise. They know very well by now what you’re all about.

DP. But that is false, and everyone knows this. Langley posters aren't making racist statements, you are simply fabricating this (lying) to further your narrative. All we've said is that we do not want to switch schools. There is nothing at all racist about wanting to remain at a school rather than change. There's also nothing racist about comparing the test scores at both schools. It's people like you who are determined to make this into a racial issue when it is not.

What’s the comparison with kids of similar race? How are the white kids scores at Herndon? Asian?

It isn’t as simple as looking at overall scores and data.

Once again: it is YOU who is focused on race. Thanks for proving the point.

And why shouldn’t a parent focus on race? It is another factor when thinking about an environment.

I think is misguided, but I guess no objection from me if you want to focus on race. I was raised to believe in the fundamental principles of MLK to worry about content of one’s character, not skin color, but it seems that you disagree.

it is particularly pernicious for posters to outright lie by repeatedly claiming without evidence that Langley families are racist or posting racist things, when in reality it’s the exact opposite.

Langley posters will go to the mat to avoid sending their kids to a school with any significant number of Hispanic kids. MLK would be among the first to call you out were he alive today.

You are the literal embodiment of a race baiter.

Anyone can go back through this thread and see that you are the only one bringing up race. It’s clearly not Langley posters. 🙄

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, any bets about how much the Langley projections will decrease in the upcoming CIP?

My over under is that the five year projection for Langley comes in around 88%/89% or 96% if absorbing the McLean attendance island.

Back of the envelope math, but we’ll see pretty soon how close to accurate that is.

Assuming it comes out on schedule the next CIP won’t say anything about the effect of a boundary change that hadn’t yet been decided.

True, but it’s trivially easy to calculate the additional burden of adding that attendance island to Langley, and it seems pretty likely that the Langley projection would still be under 100%.

Moving that attendance island alone would come really close to solving the McLean capacity issues. The 5 year projection for the school without modulars would be around 111%, and so moving that attendance island is the cleanest way to solve that issue.

If the school board members wanted to save themselves a lot of grief and realize a cleaner political path to retaining the school board, this would be the simplest solution for that neck of the woods.

It’s also the least disruptive option, and what I heard at each regional meeting that I attended is that stability matters for families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, any bets about how much the Langley projections will decrease in the upcoming CIP?

My over under is that the five year projection for Langley comes in around 88%/89% or 96% if absorbing the McLean attendance island.

Back of the envelope math, but we’ll see pretty soon how close to accurate that is.

Assuming it comes out on schedule the next CIP won’t say anything about the effect of a boundary change that hadn’t yet been decided.

True, but it’s trivially easy to calculate the additional burden of adding that attendance island to Langley, and it seems pretty likely that the Langley projection would still be under 100%.

Moving that attendance island alone would come really close to solving the McLean capacity issues. The 5 year projection for the school without modulars would be around 111%, and so moving that attendance island is the cleanest way to solve that issue.

If the school board members wanted to save themselves a lot of grief and realize a cleaner political path to retaining the school board, this would be the simplest solution for that neck of the woods.

It’s also the least disruptive option, and what I heard at each regional meeting that I attended is that stability matters for families.

The last CIP had Langley at 98% capacity in 2028-29. You are suggesting the next five-year projection will have Langley at 88-89%. I take it you're assuming a downward adjustment in the next CIP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, any bets about how much the Langley projections will decrease in the upcoming CIP?

My over under is that the five year projection for Langley comes in around 88%/89% or 96% if absorbing the McLean attendance island.

Back of the envelope math, but we’ll see pretty soon how close to accurate that is.

Assuming it comes out on schedule the next CIP won’t say anything about the effect of a boundary change that hadn’t yet been decided.

True, but it’s trivially easy to calculate the additional burden of adding that attendance island to Langley, and it seems pretty likely that the Langley projection would still be under 100%.

Moving that attendance island alone would come really close to solving the McLean capacity issues. The 5 year projection for the school without modulars would be around 111%, and so moving that attendance island is the cleanest way to solve that issue.

If the school board members wanted to save themselves a lot of grief and realize a cleaner political path to retaining the school board, this would be the simplest solution for that neck of the woods.

It’s also the least disruptive option, and what I heard at each regional meeting that I attended is that stability matters for families.

The last CIP had Langley at 98% capacity in 2028-29. You are suggesting the next five-year projection will have Langley at 88-89%. I take it you're assuming a downward adjustment in the next CIP?

Yep. The one coming out in the next few weeks. Membership for Langley and cooper both came in lower than expected in September 2024

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, any bets about how much the Langley projections will decrease in the upcoming CIP?

My over under is that the five year projection for Langley comes in around 88%/89% or 96% if absorbing the McLean attendance island.

Back of the envelope math, but we’ll see pretty soon how close to accurate that is.

Assuming it comes out on schedule the next CIP won’t say anything about the effect of a boundary change that hadn’t yet been decided.

True, but it’s trivially easy to calculate the additional burden of adding that attendance island to Langley, and it seems pretty likely that the Langley projection would still be under 100%.

Moving that attendance island alone would come really close to solving the McLean capacity issues. The 5 year projection for the school without modulars would be around 111%, and so moving that attendance island is the cleanest way to solve that issue.

If the school board members wanted to save themselves a lot of grief and realize a cleaner political path to retaining the school board, this would be the simplest solution for that neck of the woods.

It’s also the least disruptive option, and what I heard at each regional meeting that I attended is that stability matters for families.

The last CIP had Langley at 98% capacity in 2028-29. You are suggesting the next five-year projection will have Langley at 88-89%. I take it you're assuming a downward adjustment in the next CIP?

Yep. The one coming out in the next few weeks. Membership for Langley and cooper both came in lower than expected in September 2024

Elaine Tholen told people a few years ago that the families in this island didn't want to move to Langley and that moving it would overcrowd Cooper. But times change and actual enrollments differ from projections.

If those families want to move over to Cooper/Langley, and there's space, it would eliminate a split feeder/attendance island, and Langley can share in some of the future growth in Tysons with McLean and Marshall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, any bets about how much the Langley projections will decrease in the upcoming CIP?

My over under is that the five year projection for Langley comes in around 88%/89% or 96% if absorbing the McLean attendance island.

Back of the envelope math, but we’ll see pretty soon how close to accurate that is.

Assuming it comes out on schedule the next CIP won’t say anything about the effect of a boundary change that hadn’t yet been decided.

True, but it’s trivially easy to calculate the additional burden of adding that attendance island to Langley, and it seems pretty likely that the Langley projection would still be under 100%.

Moving that attendance island alone would come really close to solving the McLean capacity issues. The 5 year projection for the school without modulars would be around 111%, and so moving that attendance island is the cleanest way to solve that issue.

If the school board members wanted to save themselves a lot of grief and realize a cleaner political path to retaining the school board, this would be the simplest solution for that neck of the woods.

It’s also the least disruptive option, and what I heard at each regional meeting that I attended is that stability matters for families.

The last CIP had Langley at 98% capacity in 2028-29. You are suggesting the next five-year projection will have Langley at 88-89%. I take it you're assuming a downward adjustment in the next CIP?

Yep. The one coming out in the next few weeks. Membership for Langley and cooper both came in lower than expected in September 2024

Elaine Tholen told people a few years ago that the families in this island didn't want to move to Langley and that moving it would overcrowd Cooper. But times change and actual enrollments differ from projections.

If those families want to move over to Cooper/Langley, and there's space, it would eliminate a split feeder/attendance island, and Langley can share in some of the future growth in Tysons with McLean and Marshall.

Oh yeah, to be clear I’m not for any changes unless the families want to move, but the SB is focused on eliminating split feeders, so that’s one of the lower hanging fruits out there. Based on the recent change a few years ago there were approximately 181 kids in that island.

I think it makes strong sense to find out whether those kids want to stay at McLean, but who knows whether the school board would listen to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, any bets about how much the Langley projections will decrease in the upcoming CIP?

My over under is that the five year projection for Langley comes in around 88%/89% or 96% if absorbing the McLean attendance island.

Back of the envelope math, but we’ll see pretty soon how close to accurate that is.

Assuming it comes out on schedule the next CIP won’t say anything about the effect of a boundary change that hadn’t yet been decided.

True, but it’s trivially easy to calculate the additional burden of adding that attendance island to Langley, and it seems pretty likely that the Langley projection would still be under 100%.

Moving that attendance island alone would come really close to solving the McLean capacity issues. The 5 year projection for the school without modulars would be around 111%, and so moving that attendance island is the cleanest way to solve that issue.

If the school board members wanted to save themselves a lot of grief and realize a cleaner political path to retaining the school board, this would be the simplest solution for that neck of the woods.

It’s also the least disruptive option, and what I heard at each regional meeting that I attended is that stability matters for families.

The last CIP had Langley at 98% capacity in 2028-29. You are suggesting the next five-year projection will have Langley at 88-89%. I take it you're assuming a downward adjustment in the next CIP?

Yep. The one coming out in the next few weeks. Membership for Langley and cooper both came in lower than expected in September 2024

Elaine Tholen told people a few years ago that the families in this island didn't want to move to Langley and that moving it would overcrowd Cooper. But times change and actual enrollments differ from projections.

If those families want to move over to Cooper/Langley, and there's space, it would eliminate a split feeder/attendance island, and Langley can share in some of the future growth in Tysons with McLean and Marshall.

Oh yeah, to be clear I’m not for any changes unless the families want to move, but the SB is focused on eliminating split feeders, so that’s one of the lower hanging fruits out there. Based on the recent change a few years ago there were approximately 181 kids in that island.

I think it makes strong sense to find out whether those kids want to stay at McLean, but who knows whether the school board would listen to them.

PS, does anyone have a good read on the membership numbers of the southern McLean attendance island?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, any bets about how much the Langley projections will decrease in the upcoming CIP?

My over under is that the five year projection for Langley comes in around 88%/89% or 96% if absorbing the McLean attendance island.

Back of the envelope math, but we’ll see pretty soon how close to accurate that is.

Assuming it comes out on schedule the next CIP won’t say anything about the effect of a boundary change that hadn’t yet been decided.

True, but it’s trivially easy to calculate the additional burden of adding that attendance island to Langley, and it seems pretty likely that the Langley projection would still be under 100%.

Moving that attendance island alone would come really close to solving the McLean capacity issues. The 5 year projection for the school without modulars would be around 111%, and so moving that attendance island is the cleanest way to solve that issue.

If the school board members wanted to save themselves a lot of grief and realize a cleaner political path to retaining the school board, this would be the simplest solution for that neck of the woods.

It’s also the least disruptive option, and what I heard at each regional meeting that I attended is that stability matters for families.

The last CIP had Langley at 98% capacity in 2028-29. You are suggesting the next five-year projection will have Langley at 88-89%. I take it you're assuming a downward adjustment in the next CIP?

Yep. The one coming out in the next few weeks. Membership for Langley and cooper both came in lower than expected in September 2024

Elaine Tholen told people a few years ago that the families in this island didn't want to move to Langley and that moving it would overcrowd Cooper. But times change and actual enrollments differ from projections.

If those families want to move over to Cooper/Langley, and there's space, it would eliminate a split feeder/attendance island, and Langley can share in some of the future growth in Tysons with McLean and Marshall.

Oh yeah, to be clear I’m not for any changes unless the families want to move, but the SB is focused on eliminating split feeders, so that’s one of the lower hanging fruits out there. Based on the recent change a few years ago there were approximately 181 kids in that island.

I think it makes strong sense to find out whether those kids want to stay at McLean, but who knows whether the school board would listen to them.

PS, does anyone have a good read on the membership numbers of the southern McLean attendance island?

More of Timber Lane goes to McLean than it does Falls Church, as there are more apartments on the north side of 29. The FCHS portion is mostly SFH and a few smaller apartment complexes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, any bets about how much the Langley projections will decrease in the upcoming CIP?

My over under is that the five year projection for Langley comes in around 88%/89% or 96% if absorbing the McLean attendance island.

Back of the envelope math, but we’ll see pretty soon how close to accurate that is.

Assuming it comes out on schedule the next CIP won’t say anything about the effect of a boundary change that hadn’t yet been decided.

True, but it’s trivially easy to calculate the additional burden of adding that attendance island to Langley, and it seems pretty likely that the Langley projection would still be under 100%.

Moving that attendance island alone would come really close to solving the McLean capacity issues. The 5 year projection for the school without modulars would be around 111%, and so moving that attendance island is the cleanest way to solve that issue.

If the school board members wanted to save themselves a lot of grief and realize a cleaner political path to retaining the school board, this would be the simplest solution for that neck of the woods.

It’s also the least disruptive option, and what I heard at each regional meeting that I attended is that stability matters for families.

The last CIP had Langley at 98% capacity in 2028-29. You are suggesting the next five-year projection will have Langley at 88-89%. I take it you're assuming a downward adjustment in the next CIP?

Yep. The one coming out in the next few weeks. Membership for Langley and cooper both came in lower than expected in September 2024

Elaine Tholen told people a few years ago that the families in this island didn't want to move to Langley and that moving it would overcrowd Cooper. But times change and actual enrollments differ from projections.

If those families want to move over to Cooper/Langley, and there's space, it would eliminate a split feeder/attendance island, and Langley can share in some of the future growth in Tysons with McLean and Marshall.

Oh yeah, to be clear I’m not for any changes unless the families want to move, but the SB is focused on eliminating split feeders, so that’s one of the lower hanging fruits out there. Based on the recent change a few years ago there were approximately 181 kids in that island.

I think it makes strong sense to find out whether those kids want to stay at McLean, but who knows whether the school board would listen to them.

PS, does anyone have a good read on the membership numbers of the southern McLean attendance island?

More of Timber Lane goes to McLean than it does Falls Church, as there are more apartments on the north side of 29. The FCHS portion is mostly SFH and a few smaller apartment complexes.

To add, Timber Lane gets more complicated because the FCHS zoned portion has Graham Road Elementary school sitting in the middle of it, and a Pine Spring attendance island sitting beneath it, so those boundaries are likely to shift as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, any bets about how much the Langley projections will decrease in the upcoming CIP?

My over under is that the five year projection for Langley comes in around 88%/89% or 96% if absorbing the McLean attendance island.

Back of the envelope math, but we’ll see pretty soon how close to accurate that is.

Assuming it comes out on schedule the next CIP won’t say anything about the effect of a boundary change that hadn’t yet been decided.

True, but it’s trivially easy to calculate the additional burden of adding that attendance island to Langley, and it seems pretty likely that the Langley projection would still be under 100%.

Moving that attendance island alone would come really close to solving the McLean capacity issues. The 5 year projection for the school without modulars would be around 111%, and so moving that attendance island is the cleanest way to solve that issue.

If the school board members wanted to save themselves a lot of grief and realize a cleaner political path to retaining the school board, this would be the simplest solution for that neck of the woods.

It’s also the least disruptive option, and what I heard at each regional meeting that I attended is that stability matters for families.

The last CIP had Langley at 98% capacity in 2028-29. You are suggesting the next five-year projection will have Langley at 88-89%. I take it you're assuming a downward adjustment in the next CIP?

Yep. The one coming out in the next few weeks. Membership for Langley and cooper both came in lower than expected in September 2024

Elaine Tholen told people a few years ago that the families in this island didn't want to move to Langley and that moving it would overcrowd Cooper. But times change and actual enrollments differ from projections.

If those families want to move over to Cooper/Langley, and there's space, it would eliminate a split feeder/attendance island, and Langley can share in some of the future growth in Tysons with McLean and Marshall.

Oh yeah, to be clear I’m not for any changes unless the families want to move, but the SB is focused on eliminating split feeders, so that’s one of the lower hanging fruits out there. Based on the recent change a few years ago there were approximately 181 kids in that island.

I think it makes strong sense to find out whether those kids want to stay at McLean, but who knows whether the school board would listen to them.

PS, does anyone have a good read on the membership numbers of the southern McLean attendance island?

More of Timber Lane goes to McLean than it does Falls Church, as there are more apartments on the north side of 29. The FCHS portion is mostly SFH and a few smaller apartment complexes.

There's a document from about a decade ago that showed the Timber Lane split was about 65% McLean and 35% Falls Church. You can look at the enrollment numbers for Timber Lane and make a guess, but you'd also need to adjust for the Timber Lane kids who attend Haycock for AAP and the families who send their kids to private for K-6 or K-8 but eventually to McLean.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I listened to the sessions that FairFACTS Matters and then the Great Falls Citizens Association had with Robyn Lady earlier this year. The references to Herndon from Langley-zoned parents were quite disparaging.

Well, this statement intrigued me, so I googled and found the GFCA webinar with Robyn Lady. I heard nothing disparaging. I did hear lots of concerns about the shift, but not like that.

At one point, Robyn Lady brought up the demographics as the reason the school is rated lower. Someone did ask about the safety stats. The moderator mentioned (I am paraphrasing) that they might consider addressing that issue before shifting kids.
I've stated on this thread before that I have never heard anyone address fixing the problem at the struggling schools rather than covering it up with higher SES scoring kids.

Lady also mentioned that the teachers prefer teaching upper level classes. I did not hear anyone ask a question about how the school plans to staff the schools that get more kids as a result of boundary lines. (Teachers generally do not like being reassigned against their will.)

What about the insulting question "Does Herndon even meet the minimal requirements to offer AP courses"? Like really?

DP.

Oh my vapors.

You have boundary change proponents on here spewing racial slurs like they’re back in the 50s, but you’re upset at that question? Such transparently faux outrage.

The “boundary change proponents“ aren’t spewing racial slurs. In some instances they are ascribing views to Langley posters based on their past conduct and statements.

You aren’t fooling anyone, including the School Board, by suggesting otherwise. They know very well by now what you’re all about.

DP. But that is false, and everyone knows this. Langley posters aren't making racist statements, you are simply fabricating this (lying) to further your narrative. All we've said is that we do not want to switch schools. There is nothing at all racist about wanting to remain at a school rather than change. There's also nothing racist about comparing the test scores at both schools. It's people like you who are determined to make this into a racial issue when it is not.

What’s the comparison with kids of similar race? How are the white kids scores at Herndon? Asian?

It isn’t as simple as looking at overall scores and data.

Once again: it is YOU who is focused on race. Thanks for proving the point.

And why shouldn’t a parent focus on race? It is another factor when thinking about an environment.

WHAT?!?! Your poor kids.

Not my poor kids. A school can have a low graduation rate and overall low test scores, but still be a good school for my kid if their cohort does well. Unfortunately, it does come down to language-learners and income.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I listened to the sessions that FairFACTS Matters and then the Great Falls Citizens Association had with Robyn Lady earlier this year. The references to Herndon from Langley-zoned parents were quite disparaging.

Well, this statement intrigued me, so I googled and found the GFCA webinar with Robyn Lady. I heard nothing disparaging. I did hear lots of concerns about the shift, but not like that.

At one point, Robyn Lady brought up the demographics as the reason the school is rated lower. Someone did ask about the safety stats. The moderator mentioned (I am paraphrasing) that they might consider addressing that issue before shifting kids.
I've stated on this thread before that I have never heard anyone address fixing the problem at the struggling schools rather than covering it up with higher SES scoring kids.

Lady also mentioned that the teachers prefer teaching upper level classes. I did not hear anyone ask a question about how the school plans to staff the schools that get more kids as a result of boundary lines. (Teachers generally do not like being reassigned against their will.)

What about the insulting question "Does Herndon even meet the minimal requirements to offer AP courses"? Like really?

DP.

Oh my vapors.

You have boundary change proponents on here spewing racial slurs like they’re back in the 50s, but you’re upset at that question? Such transparently faux outrage.

The “boundary change proponents“ aren’t spewing racial slurs. In some instances they are ascribing views to Langley posters based on their past conduct and statements.

You aren’t fooling anyone, including the School Board, by suggesting otherwise. They know very well by now what you’re all about.

DP. But that is false, and everyone knows this. Langley posters aren't making racist statements, you are simply fabricating this (lying) to further your narrative. All we've said is that we do not want to switch schools. There is nothing at all racist about wanting to remain at a school rather than change. There's also nothing racist about comparing the test scores at both schools. It's people like you who are determined to make this into a racial issue when it is not.

What’s the comparison with kids of similar race? How are the white kids scores at Herndon? Asian?

It isn’t as simple as looking at overall scores and data.

Once again: it is YOU who is focused on race. Thanks for proving the point.

And why shouldn’t a parent focus on race? It is another factor when thinking about an environment.

I think is misguided, but I guess no objection from me if you want to focus on race. I was raised to believe in the fundamental principles of MLK to worry about content of one’s character, not skin color, but it seems that you disagree.

it is particularly pernicious for posters to outright lie by repeatedly claiming without evidence that Langley families are racist or posting racist things, when in reality it’s the exact opposite.

+1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I listened to the sessions that FairFACTS Matters and then the Great Falls Citizens Association had with Robyn Lady earlier this year. The references to Herndon from Langley-zoned parents were quite disparaging.

Well, this statement intrigued me, so I googled and found the GFCA webinar with Robyn Lady. I heard nothing disparaging. I did hear lots of concerns about the shift, but not like that.

At one point, Robyn Lady brought up the demographics as the reason the school is rated lower. Someone did ask about the safety stats. The moderator mentioned (I am paraphrasing) that they might consider addressing that issue before shifting kids.
I've stated on this thread before that I have never heard anyone address fixing the problem at the struggling schools rather than covering it up with higher SES scoring kids.

Lady also mentioned that the teachers prefer teaching upper level classes. I did not hear anyone ask a question about how the school plans to staff the schools that get more kids as a result of boundary lines. (Teachers generally do not like being reassigned against their will.)

What about the insulting question "Does Herndon even meet the minimal requirements to offer AP courses"? Like really?

DP.

Oh my vapors.

You have boundary change proponents on here spewing racial slurs like they’re back in the 50s, but you’re upset at that question? Such transparently faux outrage.

The “boundary change proponents“ aren’t spewing racial slurs. In some instances they are ascribing views to Langley posters based on their past conduct and statements.

You aren’t fooling anyone, including the School Board, by suggesting otherwise. They know very well by now what you’re all about.

DP. But that is false, and everyone knows this. Langley posters aren't making racist statements, you are simply fabricating this (lying) to further your narrative. All we've said is that we do not want to switch schools. There is nothing at all racist about wanting to remain at a school rather than change. There's also nothing racist about comparing the test scores at both schools. It's people like you who are determined to make this into a racial issue when it is not.

What’s the comparison with kids of similar race? How are the white kids scores at Herndon? Asian?

It isn’t as simple as looking at overall scores and data.

Once again: it is YOU who is focused on race. Thanks for proving the point.

And why shouldn’t a parent focus on race? It is another factor when thinking about an environment.

I think is misguided, but I guess no objection from me if you want to focus on race. I was raised to believe in the fundamental principles of MLK to worry about content of one’s character, not skin color, but it seems that you disagree.

it is particularly pernicious for posters to outright lie by repeatedly claiming without evidence that Langley families are racist or posting racist things, when in reality it’s the exact opposite.

Langley posters will go to the mat to avoid sending their kids to a school with any significant number of Hispanic kids. MLK would be among the first to call you out were he alive today.

You are the literal embodiment of a race baiter.

Anyone can go back through this thread and see that you are the only one bringing up race. It’s clearly not Langley posters. 🙄

+1
At this point, I think it’s time to start reporting the race baiters. They make up
the vast majority of this thread.