FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

I believe that the OCRs have been let go or are on the list of people to cut. If the Department of Education is shuttered or massively scaled back, the Federal ability to track and force compliance for SPED programs will be massively hindered.

I'm not sure that is correct. Special Education mandates are law and can be enforced by DOJ. You do realize many of these laws were in place BEFORE there was a Dept of Education? I expect that the functions will be moved to another agency at some point or DOE will remain in a scaled down version. Honestly, the DOE is a waste of money, I think. I've posted before: I taught in Title I schools and, while the funds are ample, they do not get to the classroom. The bureaucrats/administrators slice it off at every level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish that the list of pyramid reps also included the neighborhood or elementary school they are in.
Look at the boundaries and tell me that a rep from the far north of a pyramid is going to rep the person on the far south of the pyramid.

And, also tell me what a special ed rep has to do with boundaries. Or an LGBTQ rep. Etc.

So the special ed reps are fairly critical to the rezoning process.

There are many specific special ed federal laws related to services, 504s, IEPs and Least Restrictive Environment that are critical for FCPS to follow to prevent lawsuits and OCR investigations.

For example, many special ed kids are bussed completely out of their pyramid for school, with no other options, giving hem very long bus rides and preventing them from being educated in the Least Restrictive Environment.

Rezoning impacts all of those federal requirements for special needs students, so having their advocacy groups as part of the rezoning process makes perfect sense and will hopefully save FCPS money on lawyers to defend lawsuits for violating federal special education law.

The same with having a military family representative on the committee.

Because of the high military population in FCPS, particularly the schools just outside of the Mixing Bowl, FCPS receives millions of dollars each year in federal Impact Aid. Military families are also protected by various federal laws that are unique to military dependents, and tied to this Impact Aid funding in some cases. Having a military family rep on the BRAC committee makes sense, as they are often experts in those laws and issues unique to military kids, such as transferring credits between states and continuity for military dependents who PCS into FCPS during high school.

Special Ed and Military Families are two special interest groups that belong on the committee to help FCPS to follow federal law unique to those two groups of students.

I believe that the OCRs have been let go or are on the list of people to cut. If the Department of Education is shuttered or massively scaled back, the Federal ability to track and force compliance for SPED programs will be massively hindered.

I was the poster who suggested that "equitable access to programs" while limiting student transfers might mean an IB program within each pyramid. I don't think for a second that FCPS would do that because it would be expensive and I don't think there is any demand for it. But if they are talking about equitable access that means that they need to have a way to provide the same or similar programs to all students.

My kid is scheduled to attend an IB program and would be thrilled if IB went away, we are planning to principal place to another school for AP.

Why would FVPS continue to throw away money on IB?

No one wants it.

Look at the Virginia Department of Education stats linked above. The participation rates and diploma rates for IB are abysmal, even in the two higher rated IB high schools.

IB is more expemsive, the outcomes and participation rates are in the toilet, and no one wants to take IB.

The only reason to have IB is a transfer loophole out of the IB schools, which is mesd3ing up high school enrollment numbers and school ratings at schools like Lewis, that lose 200-300 high performing students each year to AP schools.

FCPS needs to ditch IB entirely, tgen check back in 2-4 years to see what school enrollment, transfer out numbers, and test scores look like at the IB schools like Lewis.

By eliminating IB and closing the IB transfer loophole, FCPS might quickly discover that there is no need to rezone as there are more high performing students at schools like Lewis than current stats show, and the school isn't as under capacity as it looks like now with hundreds of kids transferring to AP schools.

[Anonymous]

Special Ed and Military Families are two special interest groups that belong on the committee to help FCPS to follow federal law unique to those two groups of students.

I speak as a spouse of retired military who taught in DOD schools. I don't see how membership on this committee will have any impact at all. It's very simple: military families would like some semblance of stability. Clearly, there is no stability in these plans. Military families in Virginia who live on military posts/bases are currently able to pupil place there children by law. Most local military families do NOT live on military property and do not have that ability to pupil place. They just want stability. They live all over Fairfax County. I suspect that Robinson, West Springfield, and South County likely have the largest percentage, but that is a guess. There is no way one military rep can make recommendations that make a difference--except to lobby to stop this process (which is unlikely, I guess.) I do not know the military rep, but would remind people that the people selected appear to be SB sycophants and she may be, too.

As far as the Special Ed reps. I find it quite disturbing (though possibly true) that you think that they know more about the law than FCPS staff. The Special Ed staff at Gatehouse should know the law backwards and forwards.

This whole thing is a mess and should be scuttled.

[Anonymous]

I could see how moving 6th to middle schools could cause some staffing issues as well. While there is a middle grades 6-8 subject area endorsement for each content area, I think most middle school teachers probably have the 7-12 subject area endorsements. It's just a matter of taking a test to add the 6-8 endorsement, but I'm not sure if too many teachers would want to spend the time and money for that. If you move an elementary K-6 endorsed person up to middle school, they are not going to be able to teach other grade levels of the same content, which gives the school less flexibility. In secondary schools, both middle and high schools, typically the subject area AP does the hiring, so they are likely less concerned with the ability of a teacher to move between subjects vs being able to move between grade levels in the same content area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I could see how moving 6th to middle schools could cause some staffing issues as well. While there is a middle grades 6-8 subject area endorsement for each content area, I think most middle school teachers probably have the 7-12 subject area endorsements. It's just a matter of taking a test to add the 6-8 endorsement, but I'm not sure if too many teachers would want to spend the time and money for that. If you move an elementary K-6 endorsed person up to middle school, they are not going to be able to teach other grade levels of the same content, which gives the school less flexibility. In secondary schools, both middle and high schools, typically the subject area AP does the hiring, so they are likely less concerned with the ability of a teacher to move between subjects vs being able to move between grade levels in the same content area.

BINGO!

Wonder if Reid has talked to middle school and sixth grade teachers......doubt it.

Ask yourself. If you are planning to move to a larger house, what do you consider first?
1. Budget--how big a house can you afford.
2. How long will it take to sell your current home? What do you have to do to prepare it for market?
3. Assuming you sell your house and qualify for the larger home, how do you prepare for the move?
Are you going to pack yourself or hire a mover? Are you going to be able to have a "seamless" move or are you going to have to first move into temporary quarters? Are you going to have to do some remodeling in your new home before ypu move in? How are you going to furnish it? Will you need new furnishings? Do you have the funds for the new furnishings?
4. If you are moving to a different area, how are you going to get to work? Are you going to need different transportation than in your other house? Will you have to catch the Metro at a different stop? Driving--will you have parking?
5. Childcare--how is your child going to get home from school? What time will they catch the bus? Where will they catch the bus? Are you going to do Kiss and Ride? Will that work for you?
etc.

If you look that list over, you can easily transfer the needs to this boundary confusion: budget; time; logistics; etc.

Somehow, I don't think any of this has been considered. One thing I do know: redrawing boundaries; shifting sixth graders; and adding UPK is going to be a mindnumbing effort. And, the budget required is not sustainable at this time.

You will notice that does not even touch the Special Ed requirements; AAP and magnets; language immersion; IB/AP issues; Academies; etc.

Wonder if any of these experts have ever taken an IQ test.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I could see how moving 6th to middle schools could cause some staffing issues as well. While there is a middle grades 6-8 subject area endorsement for each content area, I think most middle school teachers probably have the 7-12 subject area endorsements. It's just a matter of taking a test to add the 6-8 endorsement, but I'm not sure if too many teachers would want to spend the time and money for that. If you move an elementary K-6 endorsed person up to middle school, they are not going to be able to teach other grade levels of the same content, which gives the school less flexibility. In secondary schools, both middle and high schools, typically the subject area AP does the hiring, so they are likely less concerned with the ability of a teacher to move between subjects vs being able to move between grade levels in the same content area.

Another aspect of this is that FCPS just approved the five-year Capital Improvement Program for FY 2026-30 and there is absolutely nothing in there about setting aside money to build more middle schools or convert/expand any elementary schools to 6-8 middle schools.

It tells you just how disjointed all of FCPS's "plans" are under Reid that they are burying a potential major change (turning all the 7-8 middle schools into 6-8 schools and then potentially having to convert some elementary schools to middle schools) within a boundary change review, shortly after adopting the capital plans that do not address that possibility at all.

If they had even a scintilla of competence, they would first make the policy decisions around what programs and grade configurations they want at schools, second determine the associated costs, and finally adjust boundaries as needed to deal with their conclusions and the cost constraints. But instead this all gets thrown around out of order and incoherently, leaving people like PP wondering whether to move now to avoid potentia issues later.

We deserve much, much better than what we are getting under Michelle Reid. She needs to go.

[Anonymous]

then how can we get rid of Michelle Reid?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:then how can we get rid of Michelle Reid?

Vote for a new school board. She is not elected - she is hired by and can be replaced by the board.

[Anonymous]

Local community organizations should start adopting resolutions of "no confidence" in Reid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I could see how moving 6th to middle schools could cause some staffing issues as well. While there is a middle grades 6-8 subject area endorsement for each content area, I think most middle school teachers probably have the 7-12 subject area endorsements. It's just a matter of taking a test to add the 6-8 endorsement, but I'm not sure if too many teachers would want to spend the time and money for that. If you move an elementary K-6 endorsed person up to middle school, they are not going to be able to teach other grade levels of the same content, which gives the school less flexibility. In secondary schools, both middle and high schools, typically the subject area AP does the hiring, so they are likely less concerned with the ability of a teacher to move between subjects vs being able to move between grade levels in the same content area.

BINGO!

Wonder if Reid has talked to middle school and sixth grade teachers......doubt it.

Ask yourself. If you are planning to move to a larger house, what do you consider first?
1. Budget--how big a house can you afford.
2. How long will it take to sell your current home? What do you have to do to prepare it for market?
3. Assuming you sell your house and qualify for the larger home, how do you prepare for the move?
Are you going to pack yourself or hire a mover? Are you going to be able to have a "seamless" move or are you going to have to first move into temporary quarters? Are you going to have to do some remodeling in your new home before ypu move in? How are you going to furnish it? Will you need new furnishings? Do you have the funds for the new furnishings?
4. If you are moving to a different area, how are you going to get to work? Are you going to need different transportation than in your other house? Will you have to catch the Metro at a different stop? Driving--will you have parking?
5. Childcare--how is your child going to get home from school? What time will they catch the bus? Where will they catch the bus? Are you going to do Kiss and Ride? Will that work for you?
etc.

If you look that list over, you can easily transfer the needs to this boundary confusion: budget; time; logistics; etc.

Somehow, I don't think any of this has been considered. One thing I do know: redrawing boundaries; shifting sixth graders; and adding UPK is going to be a mindnumbing effort. And, the budget required is not sustainable at this time.

You will notice that does not even touch the Special Ed requirements; AAP and magnets; language immersion; IB/AP issues; Academies; etc.

Wonder if any of these experts have ever taken an IQ test.

I'm a middle school teacher in FCPS and no one has asked our opinion about this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Special Ed and Military Families are two special interest groups that belong on the committee to help FCPS to follow federal law unique to those two groups of students.

I speak as a spouse of retired military who taught in DOD schools. I don't see how membership on this committee will have any impact at all. It's very simple: military families would like some semblance of stability. Clearly, there is no stability in these plans. Military families in Virginia who live on military posts/bases are currently able to pupil place there children by law. Most local military families do NOT live on military property and do not have that ability to pupil place. They just want stability. They live all over Fairfax County. I suspect that Robinson, West Springfield, and South County likely have the largest percentage, but that is a guess. There is no way one military rep can make recommendations that make a difference--except to lobby to stop this process (which is unlikely, I guess.) I do not know the military rep, but would remind people that the people selected appear to be SB sycophants and she may be, too.

As far as the Special Ed reps. I find it quite disturbing (though possibly true) that you think that they know more about the law than FCPS staff. The Special Ed staff at Gatehouse should know the law backwards and forwards.

This whole thing is a mess and should be scuttled.

WSHS has the highest percentage in the state, with Lake Braddock, Hayfield, Robinson and South County not far behind.

WSHS and LB are the majority of military connected kids in northern Virginia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Special Ed and Military Families are two special interest groups that belong on the committee to help FCPS to follow federal law unique to those two groups of students.

I speak as a spouse of retired military who taught in DOD schools. I don't see how membership on this committee will have any impact at all. It's very simple: military families would like some semblance of stability. Clearly, there is no stability in these plans. Military families in Virginia who live on military posts/bases are currently able to pupil place there children by law. Most local military families do NOT live on military property and do not have that ability to pupil place. They just want stability. They live all over Fairfax County. I suspect that Robinson, West Springfield, and South County likely have the largest percentage, but that is a guess. There is no way one military rep can make recommendations that make a difference--except to lobby to stop this process (which is unlikely, I guess.) I do not know the military rep, but would remind people that the people selected appear to be SB sycophants and she may be, too.

As far as the Special Ed reps. I find it quite disturbing (though possibly true) that you think that they know more about the law than FCPS staff. The Special Ed staff at Gatehouse should know the law backwards and forwards.

This whole thing is a mess and should be scuttled.

WSHS has the highest percentage in the state, with Lake Braddock, Hayfield, Robinson and South County not far behind.

WSHS and LB are the majority of military connected kids in northern Virginia.

Is the point that WSHS and LB deserve special treatment because of the large number of military families, or that all families, including military families, want stability when it comes to school assignments?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Special Ed and Military Families are two special interest groups that belong on the committee to help FCPS to follow federal law unique to those two groups of students.

I speak as a spouse of retired military who taught in DOD schools. I don't see how membership on this committee will have any impact at all. It's very simple: military families would like some semblance of stability. Clearly, there is no stability in these plans. Military families in Virginia who live on military posts/bases are currently able to pupil place there children by law. Most local military families do NOT live on military property and do not have that ability to pupil place. They just want stability. They live all over Fairfax County. I suspect that Robinson, West Springfield, and South County likely have the largest percentage, but that is a guess. There is no way one military rep can make recommendations that make a difference--except to lobby to stop this process (which is unlikely, I guess.) I do not know the military rep, but would remind people that the people selected appear to be SB sycophants and she may be, too.

As far as the Special Ed reps. I find it quite disturbing (though possibly true) that you think that they know more about the law than FCPS staff. The Special Ed staff at Gatehouse should know the law backwards and forwards.

This whole thing is a mess and should be scuttled.

WSHS has the highest percentage in the state, with Lake Braddock, Hayfield, Robinson and South County not far behind.

WSHS and LB are the majority of military connected kids in northern Virginia.

Is the point that WSHS and LB deserve special treatment because of the large number of military families, or that all families, including military families, want stability when it comes to school assignments?

Just answering a different posters question about the population concentrations for that demographic, which carries some unique challenges, particularly for those students that pcs in high school. There are also some federal mandates unique to that population.

Additionally, the military impact aid, which brings in millions of dollars each year to FCPS, is supposed to be tied to the military connected students, but instead is put into the general FCPS money pot instead of going directly to the schools that have the military connected kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Special Ed and Military Families are two special interest groups that belong on the committee to help FCPS to follow federal law unique to those two groups of students.

I speak as a spouse of retired military who taught in DOD schools. I don't see how membership on this committee will have any impact at all. It's very simple: military families would like some semblance of stability. Clearly, there is no stability in these plans. Military families in Virginia who live on military posts/bases are currently able to pupil place there children by law. Most local military families do NOT live on military property and do not have that ability to pupil place. They just want stability. They live all over Fairfax County. I suspect that Robinson, West Springfield, and South County likely have the largest percentage, but that is a guess. There is no way one military rep can make recommendations that make a difference--except to lobby to stop this process (which is unlikely, I guess.) I do not know the military rep, but would remind people that the people selected appear to be SB sycophants and she may be, too.

As far as the Special Ed reps. I find it quite disturbing (though possibly true) that you think that they know more about the law than FCPS staff. The Special Ed staff at Gatehouse should know the law backwards and forwards.

This whole thing is a mess and should be scuttled.

WSHS has the highest percentage in the state, with Lake Braddock, Hayfield, Robinson and South County not far behind.

WSHS and LB are the majority of military connected kids in northern Virginia.

Is the point that WSHS and LB deserve special treatment because of the large number of military families, or that all families, including military families, want stability when it comes to school assignments?

I am not a West Springfield parent. I am a spouse of retired military. While my neighborhood is not heavy with military, I can assure you that military live all over Fairfax County. I agree with the PP's point of where the highest percentage live. I'm pretty sure she is not suggesting special treatment. Anyone with high school students wants stability---military or not. But, many military have made choices to stay in the area because they want stability. I've known many who chose retirement in order to keep kids in high school. I've also known military who deployed without their families so that the kids could stay in school here.

The SB and Reid are looking at kids as pawns on a chessboard. This is not acceptable. Sure, in extreme cases, boundaries may need to be drawn. New schools may need to be built. That is not the current situation. This is chaos created by the SB and Reid. There is no school so big that it is not functioning well. The concerns here are based on one thing and we all know what that is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Special Ed and Military Families are two special interest groups that belong on the committee to help FCPS to follow federal law unique to those two groups of students.

I speak as a spouse of retired military who taught in DOD schools. I don't see how membership on this committee will have any impact at all. It's very simple: military families would like some semblance of stability. Clearly, there is no stability in these plans. Military families in Virginia who live on military posts/bases are currently able to pupil place there children by law. Most local military families do NOT live on military property and do not have that ability to pupil place. They just want stability. They live all over Fairfax County. I suspect that Robinson, West Springfield, and South County likely have the largest percentage, but that is a guess. There is no way one military rep can make recommendations that make a difference--except to lobby to stop this process (which is unlikely, I guess.) I do not know the military rep, but would remind people that the people selected appear to be SB sycophants and she may be, too.

As far as the Special Ed reps. I find it quite disturbing (though possibly true) that you think that they know more about the law than FCPS staff. The Special Ed staff at Gatehouse should know the law backwards and forwards.

This whole thing is a mess and should be scuttled.

WSHS has the highest percentage in the state, with Lake Braddock, Hayfield, Robinson and South County not far behind.

WSHS and LB are the majority of military connected kids in northern Virginia.

Is the point that WSHS and LB deserve special treatment because of the large number of military families, or that all families, including military families, want stability when it comes to school assignments?

No, but it is especially egregious that FCPS touts its Purple Heart Schools to the public, meanwhile it not only targets the most military child dense school pyramid (WSHS) for boundary disruption, but also doesn't even use the federal money provided for educating military children to benefit those children. Instead, it goes to a $225K salary for a chief equity officer, a $239K salary for a chief experience officer, and other fraud, waste, and abuse at Gatehouse.