FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[Anonymous]

Vouchers will do nothing. When my son went to a (cheap) private there was a wait list. $10k vouchers will just increase the waitlist, raise tuition, or both. Likely both.

What it WILL do is motivate people to create tiny, sketchy private "schools" that cost exactly the amount of the voucher and provide trash education but can kick out whomever they like. Charter schools in all but name.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Vouchers will do nothing. When my son went to a (cheap) private there was a wait list. $10k vouchers will just increase the waitlist, raise tuition, or both. Likely both.

What it WILL do is motivate people to create tiny, sketchy private "schools" that cost exactly the amount of the voucher and provide trash education but can kick out whomever they like. Charter schools in all but name.

Well what the kids are getting in some of the publics is trash too so... someone has to find a solution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Vouchers will do nothing. When my son went to a (cheap) private there was a wait list. $10k vouchers will just increase the waitlist, raise tuition, or both. Likely both.

What it WILL do is motivate people to create tiny, sketchy private "schools" that cost exactly the amount of the voucher and provide trash education but can kick out whomever they like. Charter schools in all but name.

Regardless of the private school impact, I think we can all agree that vouchers will deprive public schools of funds. That will be the lasting impact of the school board’s boundary review.

[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.

FCPS used to show changes in FARMS rates when it was doing one-off boundary changes. The intent was as much to show that the changes wouldn’t change the profiles of the affected schools very much as that they were engaging in any “socioeconomic rebalancing.”

So with the South Lakes redistricting from 2007, they highlighted that the changes would reduce the FARMS rate at South Lakes, but have limited impact on Madison, Oakton, and Westfield (I think they ultimately turned out to be wrong when it came to Westfield, but that’s another story).

[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 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

I've looked at private and if you don't want to go to a religious school (Catholic or otherwise), you're looking at $36 to $40k/yr. I don't think a $10k voucher really helps all that much. I agree with another poster that schools will simply raise their tuition by that amount because they can.

[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.

FCPS used to show changes in FARMS rates when it was doing one-off boundary changes. The intent was as much to show that the changes wouldn’t change the profiles of the affected schools very much as that they were engaging in any “socioeconomic rebalancing.”

So with the South Lakes redistricting from 2007, they highlighted that the changes would reduce the FARMS rate at South Lakes, but have limited impact on Madison, Oakton, and Westfield (I think they ultimately turned out to be wrong when it came to Westfield, but that’s another story).

Did they hide the data for the Annandale redistricting?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

FCPS used to show changes in FARMS rates when it was doing one-off boundary changes. The intent was as much to show that the changes wouldn’t change the profiles of the affected schools very much as that they were engaging in any “socioeconomic rebalancing.”

So with the South Lakes redistricting from 2007, they highlighted that the changes would reduce the FARMS rate at South Lakes, but have limited impact on Madison, Oakton, and Westfield (I think they ultimately turned out to be wrong when it came to Westfield, but that’s another story).

Did they hide the data for the Annandale redistricting?

I’ll check later today but don’t think so. I believe it was back in 2011 and FCPS was still being more transparent at the time. At some point they stopped including that information in public presentations.

[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 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

I've looked at private and if you don't want to go to a religious school (Catholic or otherwise), you're looking at $36 to $40k/yr. I don't think a $10k voucher really helps all that much. I agree with another poster that schools will simply raise their tuition by that amount because they can.

What was written still stands. If you don't like the under $40k options, have fun in the publics. They are there though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

FCPS used to show changes in FARMS rates when it was doing one-off boundary changes. The intent was as much to show that the changes wouldn’t change the profiles of the affected schools very much as that they were engaging in any “socioeconomic rebalancing.”

So with the South Lakes redistricting from 2007, they highlighted that the changes would reduce the FARMS rate at South Lakes, but have limited impact on Madison, Oakton, and Westfield (I think they ultimately turned out to be wrong when it came to Westfield, but that’s another story).

Did they hide the data for the Annandale redistricting?

If you go to Board Docs you can see the information about the last Annandale redistricting (there had been some earlier ones) was presented to the Board at a July 28, 2011 open meeting.

The information relating to that change, which moved Annandale kids to Edison and Woodson, asserted that the change would increase the FARMS percentage at Annandale in 2012-13 from 41.2% to 44.1%, at Edison from 29.6% to 30.6%, and leave Woodson unaffected at 7.7%.

[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 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

I've looked at private and if you don't want to go to a religious school (Catholic or otherwise), you're looking at $36 to $40k/yr. I don't think a $10k voucher really helps all that much. I agree with another poster that schools will simply raise their tuition by that amount because they can.

Not for elementary. There are actually a decent number of secular, private, under $30k elementaries in the county. For secondary, yes.

[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 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

I've looked at private and if you don't want to go to a religious school (Catholic or otherwise), you're looking at $36 to $40k/yr. I don't think a $10k voucher really helps all that much. I agree with another poster that schools will simply raise their tuition by that amount because they can.

I know this wouldn't completely solve the disparity issue, but vouchers could simply only apply to schools where tuition is affordable, or be given to schools that only charge along a state approved sliding scale based on income (though income is sketchy because of all the people in professions that give housing allowances in this area). Yes some privates would decide they are too good for that and probably be the most sought after and prestigious. But maybe at least there'd be a mid-tier of privates that are better than what's on offer right now, offer more options for families to pick from, and are affordable.

And the argument about vouchers taking money from the publics is tired. Of course it would, but if the public school systems were good stewards of that money in the first place you wouldn't have such broad approval of vouchers across income and racial lines.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

FCPS used to show changes in FARMS rates when it was doing one-off boundary changes. The intent was as much to show that the changes wouldn’t change the profiles of the affected schools very much as that they were engaging in any “socioeconomic rebalancing.”

So with the South Lakes redistricting from 2007, they highlighted that the changes would reduce the FARMS rate at South Lakes, but have limited impact on Madison, Oakton, and Westfield (I think they ultimately turned out to be wrong when it came to Westfield, but that’s another story).

Did they hide the data for the Annandale redistricting?

If you go to Board Docs you can see the information about the last Annandale redistricting (there had been some earlier ones) was presented to the Board at a July 28, 2011 open meeting.

The information relating to that change, which moved Annandale kids to Edison and Woodson, asserted that the change would increase the FARMS percentage at Annandale in 2012-13 from 41.2% to 44.1%, at Edison from 29.6% to 30.6%, and leave Woodson unaffected at 7.7%.

Thanks. Going by FARMS percentages is by no means a perfect method, since that boundary change moved stable upper middle class neighborhoods out of Annandale.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 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

I've looked at private and if you don't want to go to a religious school (Catholic or otherwise), you're looking at $36 to $40k/yr. I don't think a $10k voucher really helps all that much. I agree with another poster that schools will simply raise their tuition by that amount because they can.

I know this wouldn't completely solve the disparity issue, but vouchers could simply only apply to schools where tuition is affordable, or be given to schools that only charge along a state approved sliding scale based on income (though income is sketchy because of all the people in professions that give housing allowances in this area). Yes some privates would decide they are too good for that and probably be the most sought after and prestigious. But maybe at least there'd be a mid-tier of privates that are better than what's on offer right now, offer more options for families to pick from, and are affordable.

And the argument about vouchers taking money from the publics is tired. Of course it would, but if the public school systems were good stewards of that money in the first place you wouldn't have such broad approval of vouchers across income and racial lines.

Can you name 1 even half way decent school in Fairfax county with a 10k tuition, just 1?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 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

I've looked at private and if you don't want to go to a religious school (Catholic or otherwise), you're looking at $36 to $40k/yr. I don't think a $10k voucher really helps all that much. I agree with another poster that schools will simply raise their tuition by that amount because they can.

I know this wouldn't completely solve the disparity issue, but vouchers could simply only apply to schools where tuition is affordable, or be given to schools that only charge along a state approved sliding scale based on income (though income is sketchy because of all the people in professions that give housing allowances in this area). Yes some privates would decide they are too good for that and probably be the most sought after and prestigious. But maybe at least there'd be a mid-tier of privates that are better than what's on offer right now, offer more options for families to pick from, and are affordable.

And the argument about vouchers taking money from the publics is tired. Of course it would, but if the public school systems were good stewards of that money in the first place you wouldn't have such broad approval of vouchers across income and racial lines.

Can you name 1 even half way decent school in Fairfax county with a 10k tuition, just 1?

I spent less than that yearly for multiple children in homeschool. Curriculum, classes, field trips, hell even community sports.

That was awhile back and now they are successful adults.
10k per child would’ve paid for some more amazing field trips and I’d add a couple tutors to lessen my workload.

[Anonymous]

Most people have to work outside the home. Vouchers are stupid.