FCPS Skyview Boundary Revised Scenario 1 / 2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of Oak Hill should be at Skyview.

But the complaints from pretty much everyone about who is moving and the like pretty much makes the case for a magnate (sp) school.

The school was purchased to reduce overcrowding but the ES at the schools with the overcrowding don’t want to move, they want other people to move. They are fine with it being crowded if it means they don’t move.

A magnet will serve no purpose other than to have achieving students leave schools they do not like.

It will not resolve any of the overcrowding.

Skyview will:
help overcrowding at Chantilly
keep Westfield kids in a much closer school
appears that it will allow the Fox Mill families an escape from IB --which they never wanted

Gee. Doesn't it seem like if the School Board is making boundary decisions based on screaming parents, that they would listen to those who do not want IB? This is not exclusive to South Lakes.

This has gone on for far too long:
1. Overwhelmingly, the community prefers AP to IB
2. IB is more expensive. It used to be clear, but they are now hiding the specifics. As I recall, the total was close to twice as much with all the etra requirements.

It is time to address this. Where is the SB member who will step forward with this?

IB is a tougher issue for the School Board.

With boundary changes, they can claim they are addressing a problem created largely by factors beyond their control (residential growth or lack thereof, etc.) and listening to parents about how to address the problem.

With IB, it's a problem of their own making. They don't have the equivalent of a "Boundary Explorer Tool" to assess the degree of opposition to IB, or preference for AP, and they certainly don't want to put out surveys that would give them feedback they don't want.

IB also aligns philosophically with the politics of most of the School Board members. I've heard several of them say money is the main reason why they aren't replacing AP with IB at other schools. They think the IB curriculum aligns more closely with the FCPS "Portrait of a Graduate" than AP. They cheer on administrators who encourage kids at AP schools to take fewer AP classes, but love it when kids get IB diplomas.

So it would take a huge lift, and one championed by parents, to replace IB at any of the current IB schools. And that's unlikely because parents can (1) avoid IB schools entirely or (2) use IB as a grounds to pupil place their kids to an AP school, which more likely than not will be higher rated and wealthier than their IB school. That's not a bad deal if you can arrange for your kid's transportation.

With Skyview, they can clearly see that there's more enthusiasm among Fox Mill parents to leave South Lakes (IB) for Skyview (AP) than there is among Crossfield parents to leave Oakton (AP) for Skyview, but they have no incentive to explore why that might the case. Unless some School Board member surprises people and decides to make a big deal about the savings that could realized if Crossfield kids had a shorter commute to Skyview vs. Oakton, they'll just go with the flow and pat themselves on the back for "listening" to (noisy) parents. South Lakes will be left with both IB and fewer IB diploma candidates.

Some years ago, the budget questions from SB members asked about the differences in cost. It was pretty significant. Haven't been able to find anything lately about it. There are a number of factors that make IB more expensive. Training, personnel, tests, etc. It was a significant amount. Of course, since it is limited in number taking IB it is not readily apparent.

The more troubling aspect is that kids have no flexibility. You can take multiple AP classes that would not be workable with IB--especially with math. I assume the same thing is true with the sciences.

Telling them they could save money by reinstating AP at the IB schools is like telling them they could save money if Michelle Reid had fewer bodyguards, Nardos King oversaw a smaller "Chief Equity Office," or FCPS wasn't wasting tens of millions on Karl Frisch's boondoggle at Dunn Loring.

Not only do they not care, they will double down on why such expenditures are absolutely necessary to show who's running the show.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of Oak Hill should be at Skyview.

But the complaints from pretty much everyone about who is moving and the like pretty much makes the case for a magnate (sp) school.

The school was purchased to reduce overcrowding but the ES at the schools with the overcrowding don’t want to move, they want other people to move. They are fine with it being crowded if it means they don’t move.

A magnet will serve no purpose other than to have achieving students leave schools they do not like.

It will not resolve any of the overcrowding.

Skyview will:
help overcrowding at Chantilly
keep Westfield kids in a much closer school
appears that it will allow the Fox Mill families an escape from IB --which they never wanted

Gee. Doesn't it seem like if the School Board is making boundary decisions based on screaming parents, that they would listen to those who do not want IB? This is not exclusive to South Lakes.

This has gone on for far too long:
1. Overwhelmingly, the community prefers AP to IB
2. IB is more expensive. It used to be clear, but they are now hiding the specifics. As I recall, the total was close to twice as much with all the etra requirements.

It is time to address this. Where is the SB member who will step forward with this?

IB is a tougher issue for the School Board.

With boundary changes, they can claim they are addressing a problem created largely by factors beyond their control (residential growth or lack thereof, etc.) and listening to parents about how to address the problem.

With IB, it's a problem of their own making. They don't have the equivalent of a "Boundary Explorer Tool" to assess the degree of opposition to IB, or preference for AP, and they certainly don't want to put out surveys that would give them feedback they don't want.

IB also aligns philosophically with the politics of most of the School Board members. I've heard several of them say money is the main reason why they aren't replacing AP with IB at other schools. They think the IB curriculum aligns more closely with the FCPS "Portrait of a Graduate" than AP. They cheer on administrators who encourage kids at AP schools to take fewer AP classes, but love it when kids get IB diplomas.

So it would take a huge lift, and one championed by parents, to replace IB at any of the current IB schools. And that's unlikely because parents can (1) avoid IB schools entirely or (2) use IB as a grounds to pupil place their kids to an AP school, which more likely than not will be higher rated and wealthier than their IB school. That's not a bad deal if you can arrange for your kid's transportation.

With Skyview, they can clearly see that there's more enthusiasm among Fox Mill parents to leave South Lakes (IB) for Skyview (AP) than there is among Crossfield parents to leave Oakton (AP) for Skyview, but they have no incentive to explore why that might the case. Unless some School Board member surprises people and decides to make a big deal about the savings that could realized if Crossfield kids had a shorter commute to Skyview vs. Oakton, they'll just go with the flow and pat themselves on the back for "listening" to (noisy) parents. South Lakes will be left with both IB and fewer IB diploma candidates.

Plenty of people have been clear that AP is a reason for wanting to move to Skyview, the school board doesn’t want to read that or hear that. They have years of data showing kids pupil placing out from IB schools. They have years of data about lackluster IB diploma numbers. They have all the data that they need.

There are people who like IB, some for the actual program and some because they like the school within a school aspect. The bigger issue is that the people who feel strongly about AP leave the IB schools. The parents who don’t really care say nothing. The small percentage of the parents who like IB tell everyone how it is better than AP and the school board ohhs and ahhs over the language behind IB.

You would think that the issues around lewis and Mt. Vernon during the comprehensive review and now the people wanting to leave SLHS for AP would be sending up a huge red flag on IB but I don’t think it has.

[Anonymous]

I am a Crossfield parent and literally every Crossfield parent I've talked to wants to go to Skyview and is disappointed by this outcome. They've all commented on the boundary tool, sent out letters, talked to school board members, come to meetings, but they haven't been able to drown out the very loud RIO mommas. I haven't talked to anyone, literally anyone, who is active in RIO. I know a few people who are in the Facebook group for awareness, but even those people talk about how much closer Skyview is and it would be nice. So I don't understand what is going on here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would think that Oak Hill has to give up on walkers to Franklin if they want to stay together. They are trying to reduce split feeders, so they are not going to send the Franklin walkers to Skyview.

+1
Walking was most critical only for Oak Hill ES kids. Conversations with my neighbors in Western/South Franklin Farms, being sliced apart in the new scenario 2, say there is less concern about MS/HS walking distance and OK with Skyview.

The challenge here is that splitting up Western Franklin Farm sets the future precedence (rezoning in 2030) to then transfer those kids from Oak Hill to Lees Corner ES. (Eliminating walking/biking for the ES kids)

Let's be a little clearer here. I think we are on the same page, but just to be sure:

It is my understanding that Oak Hill families want to keep their entire group together at Oak Hill/ likely Carson/Skyview.
The Oak Hill families I know whose kids are walkers to Franklin are willing to give up Franklin for Carson/Skyview if it means staying with their Oak Hill friends. Of course, I cannot speak for all of them.
Not only does this keep them with their Oak Hill friends, but it also keeps them with their Franklin Farm neighbors who would not be separated from Oak Hill in the scenario that keeps them at Franklin/Chantilly. FWIW, southwestern Franklin Farm is on both sides of Franklin Farm Rd and all are in Oak Hill boundary.

Yes, when I say Western Franklin Farm, I am saying between FFX Cty Pkwy and Centreville Rd. The Franklin Farm boundary on the south is at Lees Corner and Thompson Rd. The north runs along Chantilly Highlands/treeline just below Oak Hill ES.

Scenario 2:
South: below Franklin Farm Rd. Being sent to Franklin/Chantilly,
North: above Franklin Farm Rd. Sent to Carson/Skyview. Both north and south stay together, or it creates and attendance island for the south portion.

I don't think preserving walkers in MS/HS is worth splitting the neighborhood (pool, parks, paths) and setting a future zoning "norm" to further separate and isolate the neighborhood sending those attending Oak Hill ES to Lees Corner ES. (Ending ES walkability)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I were oak Hill families, I would be leaving comments that you all want to move to Carson and Skyview. The people I know from Oak Hill who are going to Franklin and Chantilly are walkers to Franklin. I suspect that the walkers stay walkers outcry from the first three scenarios, caused this split. And then you had the outcry about Lee’s Corner and walking distance to Chantilly. There was a large enough out cry about walking that they probably interpreted the request as keeping all walkers as walkers.

I think that they will assign those Franklin walkers to Carson. This is not the same as the outcry about sending Lee's Corner to Westfield. Lees Corner is five miles from Westfield and, some of the students are more than six miles--and some are .5 miles from Chantilly. Almost all are far less than 2 miles from Chantilly.

The Franklin walkers from Oak Hill are 1.5 miles from Carson. That is a pretty big difference from Lee's Corner being 5 miles from Westfield.
I think eliminating split feeders and keeping neighborhoods together will win. Franklin walkers should go to Skyview. I'm guessing there are plenty in that area who already go to Carson for AAP.

None of Lees Corner are frozen "walkers". FCPS sends buses thru that whole neighborhood due to Route 50.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would think that Oak Hill has to give up on walkers to Franklin if they want to stay together. They are trying to reduce split feeders, so they are not going to send the Franklin walkers to Skyview.

+1
Walking was most critical only for Oak Hill ES kids. Conversations with my neighbors in Western/South Franklin Farms, being sliced apart in the new scenario 2, say there is less concern about MS/HS walking distance and OK with Skyview.

The challenge here is that splitting up Western Franklin Farm sets the future precedence (rezoning in 2030) to then transfer those kids from Oak Hill to Lees Corner ES. (Eliminating walking/biking for the ES kids)

Let's be a little clearer here. I think we are on the same page, but just to be sure:

It is my understanding that Oak Hill families want to keep their entire group together at Oak Hill/ likely Carson/Skyview.
The Oak Hill families I know whose kids are walkers to Franklin are willing to give up Franklin for Carson/Skyview if it means staying with their Oak Hill friends. Of course, I cannot speak for all of them.
Not only does this keep them with their Oak Hill friends, but it also keeps them with their Franklin Farm neighbors who would not be separated from Oak Hill in the scenario that keeps them at Franklin/Chantilly. FWIW, southwestern Franklin Farm is on both sides of Franklin Farm Rd and all are in Oak Hill boundary.

Yes, when I say Western Franklin Farm, I am saying between FFX Cty Pkwy and Centreville Rd. The Franklin Farm boundary on the south is at Lees Corner and Thompson Rd. The north runs along Chantilly Highlands/treeline just below Oak Hill ES.

Scenario 2:
South: below Franklin Farm Rd. Being sent to Franklin/Chantilly,
North: above Franklin Farm Rd. Sent to Carson/Skyview. Both north and south stay together, or it creates and attendance island for the south portion.

I don't think preserving walkers in MS/HS is worth splitting the neighborhood (pool, parks, paths) and setting a future zoning "norm" to further separate and isolate the neighborhood sending those attending Oak Hill ES to Lees Corner ES. (Ending ES walkability)

Well put.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am a Crossfield parent and literally every Crossfield parent I've talked to wants to go to Skyview and is disappointed by this outcome. They've all commented on the boundary tool, sent out letters, talked to school board members, come to meetings, but they haven't been able to drown out the very loud RIO mommas. I haven't talked to anyone, literally anyone, who is active in RIO. I know a few people who are in the Facebook group for awareness, but even those people talk about how much closer Skyview is and it would be nice. So I don't understand what is going on here.

Clearly that means people you have talked with, who wants to go sky view, are only a small part of Crossfield.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a Crossfield parent and literally every Crossfield parent I've talked to wants to go to Skyview and is disappointed by this outcome. They've all commented on the boundary tool, sent out letters, talked to school board members, come to meetings, but they haven't been able to drown out the very loud RIO mommas. I haven't talked to anyone, literally anyone, who is active in RIO. I know a few people who are in the Facebook group for awareness, but even those people talk about how much closer Skyview is and it would be nice. So I don't understand what is going on here.

Clearly that means people you have talked with, who wants to go sky view, are only a small part of Crossfield.

Or they're just not as loud and connected as other people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of Oak Hill should be at Skyview.

But the complaints from pretty much everyone about who is moving and the like pretty much makes the case for a magnate (sp) school.

The school was purchased to reduce overcrowding but the ES at the schools with the overcrowding don’t want to move, they want other people to move. They are fine with it being crowded if it means they don’t move.

A magnet will serve no purpose other than to have achieving students leave schools they do not like.

It will not resolve any of the overcrowding.

Skyview will:
help overcrowding at Chantilly
keep Westfield kids in a much closer school
appears that it will allow the Fox Mill families an escape from IB --which they never wanted

Gee. Doesn't it seem like if the School Board is making boundary decisions based on screaming parents, that they would listen to those who do not want IB? This is not exclusive to South Lakes.

This has gone on for far too long:
1. Overwhelmingly, the community prefers AP to IB
2. IB is more expensive. It used to be clear, but they are now hiding the specifics. As I recall, the total was close to twice as much with all the etra requirements.

It is time to address this. Where is the SB member who will step forward with this?

IB is a tougher issue for the School Board.

With boundary changes, they can claim they are addressing a problem created largely by factors beyond their control (residential growth or lack thereof, etc.) and listening to parents about how to address the problem.

With IB, it's a problem of their own making. They don't have the equivalent of a "Boundary Explorer Tool" to assess the degree of opposition to IB, or preference for AP, and they certainly don't want to put out surveys that would give them feedback they don't want.

IB also aligns philosophically with the politics of most of the School Board members. I've heard several of them say money is the main reason why they aren't replacing AP with IB at other schools. They think the IB curriculum aligns more closely with the FCPS "Portrait of a Graduate" than AP. They cheer on administrators who encourage kids at AP schools to take fewer AP classes, but love it when kids get IB diplomas.

So it would take a huge lift, and one championed by parents, to replace IB at any of the current IB schools. And that's unlikely because parents can (1) avoid IB schools entirely or (2) use IB as a grounds to pupil place their kids to an AP school, which more likely than not will be higher rated and wealthier than their IB school. That's not a bad deal if you can arrange for your kid's transportation.

With Skyview, they can clearly see that there's more enthusiasm among Fox Mill parents to leave South Lakes (IB) for Skyview (AP) than there is among Crossfield parents to leave Oakton (AP) for Skyview, but they have no incentive to explore why that might the case. Unless some School Board member surprises people and decides to make a big deal about the savings that could realized if Crossfield kids had a shorter commute to Skyview vs. Oakton, they'll just go with the flow and pat themselves on the back for "listening" to (noisy) parents. South Lakes will be left with both IB and fewer IB diploma candidates.

Plenty of people have been clear that AP is a reason for wanting to move to Skyview, the school board doesn’t want to read that or hear that. They have years of data showing kids pupil placing out from IB schools. They have years of data about lackluster IB diploma numbers. They have all the data that they need.

There are people who like IB, some for the actual program and some because they like the school within a school aspect. The bigger issue is that the people who feel strongly about AP leave the IB schools. The parents who don’t really care say nothing. The small percentage of the parents who like IB tell everyone how it is better than AP and the school board ohhs and ahhs over the language behind IB.

You would think that the issues around lewis and Mt. Vernon during the comprehensive review and now the people wanting to leave SLHS for AP would be sending up a huge red flag on IB but I don’t think it has.

The thrust of your comment seems to be that FCPS has enough information to revert to AP at IB schools, and I am telling you that there is a zero percent chance that will happen absent a far more organized and vocal campaign by parents at an IB school than we've seen since Woodson rebelled years ago and got them to abandon IB there.

They may have years of data showing kids pupil placing out of IB schools, but they can say that's just parents looking to transfer their kids to wealthier schools. And they can point to the pupil placements out of Herndon to South Lakes as an example of families preferring an IB school over an AP school.

They may also have years of data about lackluster IB diploma numbers, but they will just say that's a reflection of the rigors of IB and that the best way to increase the numbers is to add PYP and MYP programs within the IB pyramids.

Meanwhile, as you note, most people who prefer AP can vote with their feet, and they love to hear from the folks who tell them them IB is better than AP because it validates their past decisions and current biases.

On the other hand, if there is ever a truly organized group - think of the equivalent of FairFACTS Matters protecting Langley's boundaries or RIO protecting Oakton's boundaries, but demanding a program change at an IB school - they will listen because it will be clear the group has both money and votes. It hasn't materialized yet. If I had to pick a school where it most likely, it would be Robinson or Marshall, but even there you're going to find the same phenomenon of people who prefer AP avoiding those schools and IB supporters saying they moved into the areas specifically for IB (on the other hand, there are a lot of pupil placements out of Robinson into Lake Braddock and we've just seen how a Marshall neighborhood jumped at the chance to get redistricted to Madison). By no means is it a coincidence that South Lakes parents are more receptive than Oakton parents about the prospect of moving to Skyview.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am a Crossfield parent and literally every Crossfield parent I've talked to wants to go to Skyview and is disappointed by this outcome. They've all commented on the boundary tool, sent out letters, talked to school board members, come to meetings, but they haven't been able to drown out the very loud RIO mommas. I haven't talked to anyone, literally anyone, who is active in RIO. I know a few people who are in the Facebook group for awareness, but even those people talk about how much closer Skyview is and it would be nice. So I don't understand what is going on here.

Honestly, it sounds like there are a lot of Crossfield parents who are very vocal about wanting to stay at Oakton, a fair number of Crossfield parents who want to stay at Oakton but will humor those who want to move to Skyview, and some Crossfield parents who are very vocal about wanting to move to Skyview.

No one said they are a monolith, but it's a lot of noise compared to the wider support among Fox Mill parents for moving to Skyview. Under the circumstances, what do you think is the easy way out for Reid and the School Board?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of Oak Hill should be at Skyview.

But the complaints from pretty much everyone about who is moving and the like pretty much makes the case for a magnate (sp) school.

The school was purchased to reduce overcrowding but the ES at the schools with the overcrowding don’t want to move, they want other people to move. They are fine with it being crowded if it means they don’t move.

A magnet will serve no purpose other than to have achieving students leave schools they do not like.

It will not resolve any of the overcrowding.

Skyview will:
help overcrowding at Chantilly
keep Westfield kids in a much closer school
appears that it will allow the Fox Mill families an escape from IB --which they never wanted

Gee. Doesn't it seem like if the School Board is making boundary decisions based on screaming parents, that they would listen to those who do not want IB? This is not exclusive to South Lakes.

This has gone on for far too long:
1. Overwhelmingly, the community prefers AP to IB
2. IB is more expensive. It used to be clear, but they are now hiding the specifics. As I recall, the total was close to twice as much with all the etra requirements.

It is time to address this. Where is the SB member who will step forward with this?

IB is a tougher issue for the School Board.

With boundary changes, they can claim they are addressing a problem created largely by factors beyond their control (residential growth or lack thereof, etc.) and listening to parents about how to address the problem.

With IB, it's a problem of their own making. They don't have the equivalent of a "Boundary Explorer Tool" to assess the degree of opposition to IB, or preference for AP, and they certainly don't want to put out surveys that would give them feedback they don't want.

IB also aligns philosophically with the politics of most of the School Board members. I've heard several of them say money is the main reason why they aren't replacing AP with IB at other schools. They think the IB curriculum aligns more closely with the FCPS "Portrait of a Graduate" than AP. They cheer on administrators who encourage kids at AP schools to take fewer AP classes, but love it when kids get IB diplomas.

So it would take a huge lift, and one championed by parents, to replace IB at any of the current IB schools. And that's unlikely because parents can (1) avoid IB schools entirely or (2) use IB as a grounds to pupil place their kids to an AP school, which more likely than not will be higher rated and wealthier than their IB school. That's not a bad deal if you can arrange for your kid's transportation.

With Skyview, they can clearly see that there's more enthusiasm among Fox Mill parents to leave South Lakes (IB) for Skyview (AP) than there is among Crossfield parents to leave Oakton (AP) for Skyview, but they have no incentive to explore why that might the case. Unless some School Board member surprises people and decides to make a big deal about the savings that could realized if Crossfield kids had a shorter commute to Skyview vs. Oakton, they'll just go with the flow and pat themselves on the back for "listening" to (noisy) parents. South Lakes will be left with both IB and fewer IB diploma candidates.

Plenty of people have been clear that AP is a reason for wanting to move to Skyview, the school board doesn’t want to read that or hear that. They have years of data showing kids pupil placing out from IB schools. They have years of data about lackluster IB diploma numbers. They have all the data that they need.

There are people who like IB, some for the actual program and some because they like the school within a school aspect. The bigger issue is that the people who feel strongly about AP leave the IB schools. The parents who don’t really care say nothing. The small percentage of the parents who like IB tell everyone how it is better than AP and the school board ohhs and ahhs over the language behind IB.

You would think that the issues around lewis and Mt. Vernon during the comprehensive review and now the people wanting to leave SLHS for AP would be sending up a huge red flag on IB but I don’t think it has.

The thrust of your comment seems to be that FCPS has enough information to revert to AP at IB schools, and I am telling you that there is a zero percent chance that will happen absent a far more organized and vocal campaign by parents at an IB school than we've seen since Woodson rebelled years ago and got them to abandon IB there.

They may have years of data showing kids pupil placing out of IB schools, but they can say that's just parents looking to transfer their kids to wealthier schools. And they can point to the pupil placements out of Herndon to South Lakes as an example of families preferring an IB school over an AP school.

They may also have years of data about lackluster IB diploma numbers, but they will just say that's a reflection of the rigors of IB and that the best way to increase the numbers is to add PYP and MYP programs within the IB pyramids.

Meanwhile, as you note, most people who prefer AP can vote with their feet, and they love to hear from the folks who tell them them IB is better than AP because it validates their past decisions and current biases.

On the other hand, if there is ever a truly organized group - think of the equivalent of FairFACTS Matters protecting Langley's boundaries or RIO protecting Oakton's boundaries, but demanding a program change at an IB school - they will listen because it will be clear the group has both money and votes. It hasn't materialized yet. If I had to pick a school where it most likely, it would be Robinson or Marshall, but even there you're going to find the same phenomenon of people who prefer AP avoiding those schools and IB supporters saying they moved into the areas specifically for IB (on the other hand, there are a lot of pupil placements out of Robinson into Lake Braddock and we've just seen how a Marshall neighborhood jumped at the chance to get redistricted to Madison). By no means is it a coincidence that South Lakes parents are more receptive than Oakton parents about the prospect of moving to Skyview.

+1. Honestly the time to go after IB is now if parents have the motivation and time to do it. The School Board and Reid are vulnerable and have proven that they'll capitulate to the loudest, wealthiest voices.