FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think this thread needs to be hijacked simply so people with strong views about AAP can express them yet again.

The relevance, however, is that current boundaries in many cases have been drawn to reflect whether ES and MS are AAP centers. Do away with AAP centers and you may need to adjust boundaries to deal with former AAP centers that become under-enrolled or other schools that get overcrowded.

If they go through a "comprehensive" boundary review without addressing the future of AAP, it would appear they are locking themselves into the current AAP model until the next county-wide review in five years or so. It's unfortunate that they could be backing into decisions without actually addressing them on the merits first.

And frankly, students at poorer performing schools appear to be using these opportunities to go elsewhere. I don’t begrudge those families for making those decisions, but it’s bonkers that they’re looking to move others into those spots rather than having the students in the current pyramids return. Get rid of AAP Centers and IB, and capacity issues largely disappear.

They would disappear in some instances. For example, getting rid of high school IB programs would mitigate chronic under-enrollment issues at schools like Lewis and Mount Vernon HS. Getting rid of AP at Glasgow MS would also largely deal with the desire of Glasgow parents to reduce the enrollment there, as AAP kids would return to under-enrolled Holmes and Poe.

In some instances getting rid of ES IB programs would itself create capacity imbalances. For example, also in the Justice pyramid, getting rid of the AAP center at Belvedere ES would leave Belvedere, the base boundaries of which reflect that the school also draws from 11 elementary schools for AAP, significantly under-enrolled, and aggravate the current overcrowding at schools like Parklawn ES. You'd have to look at it on a case-by-case basis.

I don't really see "getting rid of IB" as the cure-all that folks seem to think it is. People are transferring out of Lewis and Mount Vernon because they believe if they attend a school with a wealthier demographic, a higher English-speaking population, and thus a higher range of test scores, their children will have higher scores and be more successful in life.

This belief is widespread across FCPS. It's why our school systems are so segregated by both economic status and race. It's why we have wealtheir schools and poorer schools. It's why property values are high in some places and lower in others.

Look at West Springfield's demographics.... There are 2,596 English proficient speakers, and 135 English learners. Compare that to Lewis with 1,103 English proficient speakers and 567 English learners. Yet the schools teach the same materials and are tested at the same levels, and it's no surprise that one school will test higher than the other. English learners are at a disadvantage, it goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway. If you moved to a country where you didn't know the language or the culture, you would also be at a disadvantage.

But FCPS parents have been spending arm and leg to ensure their children are in wealthier neighborhoods with English speakers and the higher ranking, higher testing schools. If parents want to spend arm and leg to put their children in private schools, that's great. That's fine. Go ahead.

But public schools are public. Which means they stand to benefit all populations, not just the wealthy. Not just the English proficient speakers. That means if the school board wants to balance a school by moving populations so schools aren't so segregated by class, race, and language, then they should do so.

If that’s what this School Board wants to do, then it should have the guts to say that is its intent, and then see if it survives either legal scrutiny or the court of public opinion. They haven’t said this is their goal at all; instead, we get a lot of pablum about how this boundary review is mandated by “efficiency” considerations and a looming “fiscal cliff.”

If they can’t be honest about their motivations, they shouldn’t have any role in public education.

They haven't said that. Yet 90% of the comments here believe it as gospel.

[Anonymous]

Getting rid of IB at multiple schools where the IB diploma rates are ridiculously low and replacing it with AP would save money and eliminate a common basis for pupil placement out of Lewis and some other IB schools. It would also mean that pupil placements out of a few AP schools to IB schools would decline if those IB programs were replaced with AP.

That’s not imposing a unique restriction on transfers out of Lewis. It’s just recognizing that, if a goal is to increase Lewis’s enrollment, you start by putting a more suitable advanced academic option back at Lewis rather than redistricting kids from other schools into Lewis (and then watching as they too look to exploit the existing IB to AP pupil placement option).

All you seem to want to do is redistrict kids in order to make the point that no one is above being reassigned to certain schools into a public school system, regardless of whether they want to or end up attending those schools. That’s a political power play that will simply drive more families out of FCPS and the county.

+1 People--except for the PP to whom you are responding--do not want to change schools. I do not understand how they can scream about "equity" and, yet, have two very different programs in neighboring schools. Get rid of IB. That will level the playing field without penalizing anyone. It will enable more kids to have more flexibility--and save money for the school system. It will likely save millions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think this thread needs to be hijacked simply so people with strong views about AAP can express them yet again.

The relevance, however, is that current boundaries in many cases have been drawn to reflect whether ES and MS are AAP centers. Do away with AAP centers and you may need to adjust boundaries to deal with former AAP centers that become under-enrolled or other schools that get overcrowded.

If they go through a "comprehensive" boundary review without addressing the future of AAP, it would appear they are locking themselves into the current AAP model until the next county-wide review in five years or so. It's unfortunate that they could be backing into decisions without actually addressing them on the merits first.

And frankly, students at poorer performing schools appear to be using these opportunities to go elsewhere. I don’t begrudge those families for making those decisions, but it’s bonkers that they’re looking to move others into those spots rather than having the students in the current pyramids return. Get rid of AAP Centers and IB, and capacity issues largely disappear.

They would disappear in some instances. For example, getting rid of high school IB programs would mitigate chronic under-enrollment issues at schools like Lewis and Mount Vernon HS. Getting rid of AP at Glasgow MS would also largely deal with the desire of Glasgow parents to reduce the enrollment there, as AAP kids would return to under-enrolled Holmes and Poe.

In some instances getting rid of ES IB programs would itself create capacity imbalances. For example, also in the Justice pyramid, getting rid of the AAP center at Belvedere ES would leave Belvedere, the base boundaries of which reflect that the school also draws from 11 elementary schools for AAP, significantly under-enrolled, and aggravate the current overcrowding at schools like Parklawn ES. You'd have to look at it on a case-by-case basis.

I don't really see "getting rid of IB" as the cure-all that folks seem to think it is. People are transferring out of Lewis and Mount Vernon because they believe if they attend a school with a wealthier demographic, a higher English-speaking population, and thus a higher range of test scores, their children will have higher scores and be more successful in life.

This belief is widespread across FCPS. It's why our school systems are so segregated by both economic status and race. It's why we have wealtheir schools and poorer schools. It's why property values are high in some places and lower in others.

Look at West Springfield's demographics.... There are 2,596 English proficient speakers, and 135 English learners. Compare that to Lewis with 1,103 English proficient speakers and 567 English learners. Yet the schools teach the same materials and are tested at the same levels, and it's no surprise that one school will test higher than the other. English learners are at a disadvantage, it goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway. If you moved to a country where you didn't know the language or the culture, you would also be at a disadvantage.

But FCPS parents have been spending arm and leg to ensure their children are in wealthier neighborhoods with English speakers and the higher ranking, higher testing schools. If parents want to spend arm and leg to put their children in private schools, that's great. That's fine. Go ahead.

But public schools are public. Which means they stand to benefit all populations, not just the wealthy. Not just the English proficient speakers. That means if the school board wants to balance a school by moving populations so schools aren't so segregated by class, race, and language, then they should do so.

If that’s what this School Board wants to do, then it should have the guts to say that is its intent, and then see if it survives either legal scrutiny or the court of public opinion. They haven’t said this is their goal at all; instead, we get a lot of pablum about how this boundary review is mandated by “efficiency” considerations and a looming “fiscal cliff.”

If they can’t be honest about their motivations, they shouldn’t have any role in public education.

They haven't said that. Yet 90% of the comments here believe it as gospel.

One of the pro-redistricting posters just assumed that was their actual intent, regardless of the language they’ve crafted to justify their boundary review.

[Anonymous]

Going by the numbers, if all the Franklin kids at Carson returned to Franklin it would be overcrowded. So it’s possible in that scenario they might want to adjust Franklin’s base boundaries with those of other schools.

Not by much. Carson is overcrowded now. Franklin would have just over one thousand. They can handle that. They have before.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Getting rid of IB at multiple schools where the IB diploma rates are ridiculously low and replacing it with AP would save money and eliminate a common basis for pupil placement out of Lewis and some other IB schools. It would also mean that pupil placements out of a few AP schools to IB schools would decline if those IB programs were replaced with AP.

That’s not imposing a unique restriction on transfers out of Lewis. It’s just recognizing that, if a goal is to increase Lewis’s enrollment, you start by putting a more suitable advanced academic option back at Lewis rather than redistricting kids from other schools into Lewis (and then watching as they too look to exploit the existing IB to AP pupil placement option).

All you seem to want to do is redistrict kids in order to make the point that no one is above being reassigned to certain schools into a public school system, regardless of whether they want to or end up attending those schools. That’s a political power play that will simply drive more families out of FCPS and the county.

+1 People--except for the PP to whom you are responding--do not want to change schools. I do not understand how they can scream about "equity" and, yet, have two very different programs in neighboring schools. Get rid of IB. That will level the playing field without penalizing anyone. It will enable more kids to have more flexibility--and save money for the school system. It will likely save millions.

+1. This discussion, like the discussion relating to AAP, should have taken place before the boundary review commenced.

There is a real possibility they will redistrict kids into IB schools against the wishes of their families and then justify it on the grounds that “all schools are good.” Then the parents of the redistricted kids who can swing transportation will pupil place them back, some families will leave, and they’ll end up with a much smaller number of additional kids who in many cases will be unhappy to have been reassigned. Not a great way to “improve” FCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Moving all the AAP kids from Franklin at Carson back to Franklin would immediately overcrowd Franklin. Rocky Run's very small base boundaries also reflect the fact that it's pulled AAP kids from other pyramids.

Or maybe they will shift some boundaries and send kids to stone or Herndon?

The troll’s back, everyone. She’s got nothing worthwhile to say, but damned if she won’t repeat herself incessantly.

DP, what are you talking about? This poster is speaking to AAP and how to adjust the middle schools after another poster commented on schools being lopsided.

Not sure. I'm the person she responded to. No need to transfer any. Franklin can easily absorb their boundary AAP kids. Still leaves Carson with more than half of their own boundary AAP kids. There is a troll that really wants kids from other places to transfer to Herndon. Don't know if it is the same one that wants all kids with "Herndon" zip.

I think you’re over-reacting. Going by the numbers, if all the Franklin kids at Carson returned to Franklin it would be overcrowded. So it’s possible in that scenario they might want to adjust Franklin’s base boundaries with those of other schools.

Aren’t Franklin and Carson both three way feeders between Chantilly, Westfield, and Oakton. I imagine they’ll try to rework the boundaries to at least reduce them down to split feeders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think this thread needs to be hijacked simply so people with strong views about AAP can express them yet again.

The relevance, however, is that current boundaries in many cases have been drawn to reflect whether ES and MS are AAP centers. Do away with AAP centers and you may need to adjust boundaries to deal with former AAP centers that become under-enrolled or other schools that get overcrowded.

If they go through a "comprehensive" boundary review without addressing the future of AAP, it would appear they are locking themselves into the current AAP model until the next county-wide review in five years or so. It's unfortunate that they could be backing into decisions without actually addressing them on the merits first.

And frankly, students at poorer performing schools appear to be using these opportunities to go elsewhere. I don’t begrudge those families for making those decisions, but it’s bonkers that they’re looking to move others into those spots rather than having the students in the current pyramids return. Get rid of AAP Centers and IB, and capacity issues largely disappear.

They would disappear in some instances. For example, getting rid of high school IB programs would mitigate chronic under-enrollment issues at schools like Lewis and Mount Vernon HS. Getting rid of AP at Glasgow MS would also largely deal with the desire of Glasgow parents to reduce the enrollment there, as AAP kids would return to under-enrolled Holmes and Poe.

In some instances getting rid of ES IB programs would itself create capacity imbalances. For example, also in the Justice pyramid, getting rid of the AAP center at Belvedere ES would leave Belvedere, the base boundaries of which reflect that the school also draws from 11 elementary schools for AAP, significantly under-enrolled, and aggravate the current overcrowding at schools like Parklawn ES. You'd have to look at it on a case-by-case basis.

I don't really see "getting rid of IB" as the cure-all that folks seem to think it is. People are transferring out of Lewis and Mount Vernon because they believe if they attend a school with a wealthier demographic, a higher English-speaking population, and thus a higher range of test scores, their children will have higher scores and be more successful in life.

This belief is widespread across FCPS. It's why our school systems are so segregated by both economic status and race. It's why we have wealtheir schools and poorer schools. It's why property values are high in some places and lower in others.

Look at West Springfield's demographics.... There are 2,596 English proficient speakers, and 135 English learners. Compare that to Lewis with 1,103 English proficient speakers and 567 English learners. Yet the schools teach the same materials and are tested at the same levels, and it's no surprise that one school will test higher than the other. English learners are at a disadvantage, it goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway. If you moved to a country where you didn't know the language or the culture, you would also be at a disadvantage.

But FCPS parents have been spending arm and leg to ensure their children are in wealthier neighborhoods with English speakers and the higher ranking, higher testing schools. If parents want to spend arm and leg to put their children in private schools, that's great. That's fine. Go ahead.

But public schools are public. Which means they stand to benefit all populations, not just the wealthy. Not just the English proficient speakers. That means if the school board wants to balance a school by moving populations so schools aren't so segregated by class, race, and language, then they should do so.

If that’s what this School Board wants to do, then it should have the guts to say that is its intent, and then see if it survives either legal scrutiny or the court of public opinion. They haven’t said this is their goal at all; instead, we get a lot of pablum about how this boundary review is mandated by “efficiency” considerations and a looming “fiscal cliff.”

If they can’t be honest about their motivations, they shouldn’t have any role in public education.

They haven't said that. Yet 90% of the comments here believe it as gospel.

One of the pro-redistricting posters just assumed that was their actual intent, regardless of the language they’ve crafted to justify their boundary review.

Hmm I'm pretty sure it's the anti-redistricting folks constantly misusing the term equity thar believe this is the motive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think this thread needs to be hijacked simply so people with strong views about AAP can express them yet again.

The relevance, however, is that current boundaries in many cases have been drawn to reflect whether ES and MS are AAP centers. Do away with AAP centers and you may need to adjust boundaries to deal with former AAP centers that become under-enrolled or other schools that get overcrowded.

If they go through a "comprehensive" boundary review without addressing the future of AAP, it would appear they are locking themselves into the current AAP model until the next county-wide review in five years or so. It's unfortunate that they could be backing into decisions without actually addressing them on the merits first.

And frankly, students at poorer performing schools appear to be using these opportunities to go elsewhere. I don’t begrudge those families for making those decisions, but it’s bonkers that they’re looking to move others into those spots rather than having the students in the current pyramids return. Get rid of AAP Centers and IB, and capacity issues largely disappear.

They would disappear in some instances. For example, getting rid of high school IB programs would mitigate chronic under-enrollment issues at schools like Lewis and Mount Vernon HS. Getting rid of AP at Glasgow MS would also largely deal with the desire of Glasgow parents to reduce the enrollment there, as AAP kids would return to under-enrolled Holmes and Poe.

In some instances getting rid of ES IB programs would itself create capacity imbalances. For example, also in the Justice pyramid, getting rid of the AAP center at Belvedere ES would leave Belvedere, the base boundaries of which reflect that the school also draws from 11 elementary schools for AAP, significantly under-enrolled, and aggravate the current overcrowding at schools like Parklawn ES. You'd have to look at it on a case-by-case basis.

I don't really see "getting rid of IB" as the cure-all that folks seem to think it is. People are transferring out of Lewis and Mount Vernon because they believe if they attend a school with a wealthier demographic, a higher English-speaking population, and thus a higher range of test scores, their children will have higher scores and be more successful in life.

This belief is widespread across FCPS. It's why our school systems are so segregated by both economic status and race. It's why we have wealtheir schools and poorer schools. It's why property values are high in some places and lower in others.

Look at West Springfield's demographics.... There are 2,596 English proficient speakers, and 135 English learners. Compare that to Lewis with 1,103 English proficient speakers and 567 English learners. Yet the schools teach the same materials and are tested at the same levels, and it's no surprise that one school will test higher than the other. English learners are at a disadvantage, it goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway. If you moved to a country where you didn't know the language or the culture, you would also be at a disadvantage.

But FCPS parents have been spending arm and leg to ensure their children are in wealthier neighborhoods with English speakers and the higher ranking, higher testing schools. If parents want to spend arm and leg to put their children in private schools, that's great. That's fine. Go ahead.

But public schools are public. Which means they stand to benefit all populations, not just the wealthy. Not just the English proficient speakers. That means if the school board wants to balance a school by moving populations so schools aren't so segregated by class, race, and language, then they should do so.

If that’s what this School Board wants to do, then it should have the guts to say that is its intent, and then see if it survives either legal scrutiny or the court of public opinion. They haven’t said this is their goal at all; instead, we get a lot of pablum about how this boundary review is mandated by “efficiency” considerations and a looming “fiscal cliff.”

If they can’t be honest about their motivations, they shouldn’t have any role in public education.

They haven't said that. Yet 90% of the comments here believe it as gospel.

One of the pro-redistricting posters just assumed that was their actual intent, regardless of the language they’ve crafted to justify their boundary review.

Hmm I'm pretty sure it's the anti-redistricting folks constantly misusing the term equity thar believe this is the motive.

So, what is the motive?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Moving all the AAP kids from Franklin at Carson back to Franklin would immediately overcrowd Franklin. Rocky Run's very small base boundaries also reflect the fact that it's pulled AAP kids from other pyramids.

Or maybe they will shift some boundaries and send kids to stone or Herndon?

The troll’s back, everyone. She’s got nothing worthwhile to say, but damned if she won’t repeat herself incessantly.

DP, what are you talking about? This poster is speaking to AAP and how to adjust the middle schools after another poster commented on schools being lopsided.

Not sure. I'm the person she responded to. No need to transfer any. Franklin can easily absorb their boundary AAP kids. Still leaves Carson with more than half of their own boundary AAP kids. There is a troll that really wants kids from other places to transfer to Herndon. Don't know if it is the same one that wants all kids with "Herndon" zip.

I think you’re over-reacting. Going by the numbers, if all the Franklin kids at Carson returned to Franklin it would be overcrowded. So it’s possible in that scenario they might want to adjust Franklin’s base boundaries with those of other schools.

Aren’t Franklin and Carson both three way feeders between Chantilly, Westfield, and Oakton. I imagine they’ll try to rework the boundaries to at least reduce them down to split feeders.

Carson’s base boundaries also include areas zoned to South Lakes. The only Chantilly-bound kids at Carson are AAP kids. Otherwise it’s Westfield, Oakton, and South Lakes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Moving all the AAP kids from Franklin at Carson back to Franklin would immediately overcrowd Franklin. Rocky Run's very small base boundaries also reflect the fact that it's pulled AAP kids from other pyramids.

Or maybe they will shift some boundaries and send kids to stone or Herndon?

The troll’s back, everyone. She’s got nothing worthwhile to say, but damned if she won’t repeat herself incessantly.

DP, what are you talking about? This poster is speaking to AAP and how to adjust the middle schools after another poster commented on schools being lopsided.

Not sure. I'm the person she responded to. No need to transfer any. Franklin can easily absorb their boundary AAP kids. Still leaves Carson with more than half of their own boundary AAP kids. There is a troll that really wants kids from other places to transfer to Herndon. Don't know if it is the same one that wants all kids with "Herndon" zip.

I think you’re over-reacting. Going by the numbers, if all the Franklin kids at Carson returned to Franklin it would be overcrowded. So it’s possible in that scenario they might want to adjust Franklin’s base boundaries with those of other schools.

Aren’t Franklin and Carson both three way feeders between Chantilly, Westfield, and Oakton. I imagine they’ll try to rework the boundaries to at least reduce them down to split feeders.

Carson’s base boundaries also include areas zoned to South Lakes. The only Chantilly-bound kids at Carson are AAP kids. Otherwise it’s Westfield, Oakton, and South Lakes.

This shows they need to stop AAP centers or AAP altogether for middle schools. It is ridiculous in the western part of the county.

Stop with AAP in middle and prevent AP/IB transfers; see how things shake out before major adjustments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think this thread needs to be hijacked simply so people with strong views about AAP can express them yet again.

The relevance, however, is that current boundaries in many cases have been drawn to reflect whether ES and MS are AAP centers. Do away with AAP centers and you may need to adjust boundaries to deal with former AAP centers that become under-enrolled or other schools that get overcrowded.

If they go through a "comprehensive" boundary review without addressing the future of AAP, it would appear they are locking themselves into the current AAP model until the next county-wide review in five years or so. It's unfortunate that they could be backing into decisions without actually addressing them on the merits first.

And frankly, students at poorer performing schools appear to be using these opportunities to go elsewhere. I don’t begrudge those families for making those decisions, but it’s bonkers that they’re looking to move others into those spots rather than having the students in the current pyramids return. Get rid of AAP Centers and IB, and capacity issues largely disappear.

They would disappear in some instances. For example, getting rid of high school IB programs would mitigate chronic under-enrollment issues at schools like Lewis and Mount Vernon HS. Getting rid of AP at Glasgow MS would also largely deal with the desire of Glasgow parents to reduce the enrollment there, as AAP kids would return to under-enrolled Holmes and Poe.

In some instances getting rid of ES IB programs would itself create capacity imbalances. For example, also in the Justice pyramid, getting rid of the AAP center at Belvedere ES would leave Belvedere, the base boundaries of which reflect that the school also draws from 11 elementary schools for AAP, significantly under-enrolled, and aggravate the current overcrowding at schools like Parklawn ES. You'd have to look at it on a case-by-case basis.

I don't really see "getting rid of IB" as the cure-all that folks seem to think it is. People are transferring out of Lewis and Mount Vernon because they believe if they attend a school with a wealthier demographic, a higher English-speaking population, and thus a higher range of test scores, their children will have higher scores and be more successful in life.

This belief is widespread across FCPS. It's why our school systems are so segregated by both economic status and race. It's why we have wealtheir schools and poorer schools. It's why property values are high in some places and lower in others.

Look at West Springfield's demographics.... There are 2,596 English proficient speakers, and 135 English learners. Compare that to Lewis with 1,103 English proficient speakers and 567 English learners. Yet the schools teach the same materials and are tested at the same levels, and it's no surprise that one school will test higher than the other. English learners are at a disadvantage, it goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway. If you moved to a country where you didn't know the language or the culture, you would also be at a disadvantage.

But FCPS parents have been spending arm and leg to ensure their children are in wealthier neighborhoods with English speakers and the higher ranking, higher testing schools. If parents want to spend arm and leg to put their children in private schools, that's great. That's fine. Go ahead.

But public schools are public. Which means they stand to benefit all populations, not just the wealthy. Not just the English proficient speakers. That means if the school board wants to balance a school by moving populations so schools aren't so segregated by class, race, and language, then they should do so.

If that’s what this School Board wants to do, then it should have the guts to say that is its intent, and then see if it survives either legal scrutiny or the court of public opinion. They haven’t said this is their goal at all; instead, we get a lot of pablum about how this boundary review is mandated by “efficiency” considerations and a looming “fiscal cliff.”

If they can’t be honest about their motivations, they shouldn’t have any role in public education.

They haven't said that. Yet 90% of the comments here believe it as gospel.

One of the pro-redistricting posters just assumed that was their actual intent, regardless of the language they’ve crafted to justify their boundary review.

Hmm I'm pretty sure it's the anti-redistricting folks constantly misusing the term equity thar believe this is the motive.

So, what is the motive?

A non cynical view would be they should have been doing a comprehensive review every 5-10 years previously. Making data based decisions should always be the goal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think this thread needs to be hijacked simply so people with strong views about AAP can express them yet again.

The relevance, however, is that current boundaries in many cases have been drawn to reflect whether ES and MS are AAP centers. Do away with AAP centers and you may need to adjust boundaries to deal with former AAP centers that become under-enrolled or other schools that get overcrowded.

If they go through a "comprehensive" boundary review without addressing the future of AAP, it would appear they are locking themselves into the current AAP model until the next county-wide review in five years or so. It's unfortunate that they could be backing into decisions without actually addressing them on the merits first.

And frankly, students at poorer performing schools appear to be using these opportunities to go elsewhere. I don’t begrudge those families for making those decisions, but it’s bonkers that they’re looking to move others into those spots rather than having the students in the current pyramids return. Get rid of AAP Centers and IB, and capacity issues largely disappear.

They would disappear in some instances. For example, getting rid of high school IB programs would mitigate chronic under-enrollment issues at schools like Lewis and Mount Vernon HS. Getting rid of AP at Glasgow MS would also largely deal with the desire of Glasgow parents to reduce the enrollment there, as AAP kids would return to under-enrolled Holmes and Poe.

In some instances getting rid of ES IB programs would itself create capacity imbalances. For example, also in the Justice pyramid, getting rid of the AAP center at Belvedere ES would leave Belvedere, the base boundaries of which reflect that the school also draws from 11 elementary schools for AAP, significantly under-enrolled, and aggravate the current overcrowding at schools like Parklawn ES. You'd have to look at it on a case-by-case basis.

I don't really see "getting rid of IB" as the cure-all that folks seem to think it is. People are transferring out of Lewis and Mount Vernon because they believe if they attend a school with a wealthier demographic, a higher English-speaking population, and thus a higher range of test scores, their children will have higher scores and be more successful in life.

This belief is widespread across FCPS. It's why our school systems are so segregated by both economic status and race. It's why we have wealtheir schools and poorer schools. It's why property values are high in some places and lower in others.

Look at West Springfield's demographics.... There are 2,596 English proficient speakers, and 135 English learners. Compare that to Lewis with 1,103 English proficient speakers and 567 English learners. Yet the schools teach the same materials and are tested at the same levels, and it's no surprise that one school will test higher than the other. English learners are at a disadvantage, it goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway. If you moved to a country where you didn't know the language or the culture, you would also be at a disadvantage.

But FCPS parents have been spending arm and leg to ensure their children are in wealthier neighborhoods with English speakers and the higher ranking, higher testing schools. If parents want to spend arm and leg to put their children in private schools, that's great. That's fine. Go ahead.

But public schools are public. Which means they stand to benefit all populations, not just the wealthy. Not just the English proficient speakers. That means if the school board wants to balance a school by moving populations so schools aren't so segregated by class, race, and language, then they should do so.

If that’s what this School Board wants to do, then it should have the guts to say that is its intent, and then see if it survives either legal scrutiny or the court of public opinion. They haven’t said this is their goal at all; instead, we get a lot of pablum about how this boundary review is mandated by “efficiency” considerations and a looming “fiscal cliff.”

If they can’t be honest about their motivations, they shouldn’t have any role in public education.

They haven't said that. Yet 90% of the comments here believe it as gospel.

One of the pro-redistricting posters just assumed that was their actual intent, regardless of the language they’ve crafted to justify their boundary review.

Hmm I'm pretty sure it's the anti-redistricting folks constantly misusing the term equity thar believe this is the motive.

So, what is the motive?

I’m against boundary changes but see a lot of daylight between the four 8130 reasons and the likely motives.

For insight, go back and look at the sb meetings from five/six years ago, where they explicitly talk about equity. I get that they never do now, but that’s likely because their lawyers say to avoid it because it is likely illegal to implement the way that they discussed a few years back.

The school board has discussed the One Fairfax policy’s application to this process. I’m extremely skeptical that the all Democrat board now is any different than the one a few years ago that discussed possible busing and overtly discussed the racial implications. I’m also skeptical that the school board gives two craps about a little more sleep time or taking a bus or two off the road. It seems from observing a lot of these board meetings and work sessions they are laser-focused on moving Fairfax kids to paper over certain issues at certain schools. I’d be happy to be wrong here, since the most logical fix didn’t involve moving kids like pawns. I fear that I’m right though.

I do think there are school board shills who frequent this thread who seek to minimize possible changes until it is too late. That’s why I’m always skeptical of anyone claiming that we should take a wait and see approach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think this thread needs to be hijacked simply so people with strong views about AAP can express them yet again.

The relevance, however, is that current boundaries in many cases have been drawn to reflect whether ES and MS are AAP centers. Do away with AAP centers and you may need to adjust boundaries to deal with former AAP centers that become under-enrolled or other schools that get overcrowded.

If they go through a "comprehensive" boundary review without addressing the future of AAP, it would appear they are locking themselves into the current AAP model until the next county-wide review in five years or so. It's unfortunate that they could be backing into decisions without actually addressing them on the merits first.

And frankly, students at poorer performing schools appear to be using these opportunities to go elsewhere. I don’t begrudge those families for making those decisions, but it’s bonkers that they’re looking to move others into those spots rather than having the students in the current pyramids return. Get rid of AAP Centers and IB, and capacity issues largely disappear.

They would disappear in some instances. For example, getting rid of high school IB programs would mitigate chronic under-enrollment issues at schools like Lewis and Mount Vernon HS. Getting rid of AP at Glasgow MS would also largely deal with the desire of Glasgow parents to reduce the enrollment there, as AAP kids would return to under-enrolled Holmes and Poe.

In some instances getting rid of ES IB programs would itself create capacity imbalances. For example, also in the Justice pyramid, getting rid of the AAP center at Belvedere ES would leave Belvedere, the base boundaries of which reflect that the school also draws from 11 elementary schools for AAP, significantly under-enrolled, and aggravate the current overcrowding at schools like Parklawn ES. You'd have to look at it on a case-by-case basis.

I don't really see "getting rid of IB" as the cure-all that folks seem to think it is. People are transferring out of Lewis and Mount Vernon because they believe if they attend a school with a wealthier demographic, a higher English-speaking population, and thus a higher range of test scores, their children will have higher scores and be more successful in life.

This belief is widespread across FCPS. It's why our school systems are so segregated by both economic status and race. It's why we have wealtheir schools and poorer schools. It's why property values are high in some places and lower in others.

Look at West Springfield's demographics.... There are 2,596 English proficient speakers, and 135 English learners. Compare that to Lewis with 1,103 English proficient speakers and 567 English learners. Yet the schools teach the same materials and are tested at the same levels, and it's no surprise that one school will test higher than the other. English learners are at a disadvantage, it goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway. If you moved to a country where you didn't know the language or the culture, you would also be at a disadvantage.

But FCPS parents have been spending arm and leg to ensure their children are in wealthier neighborhoods with English speakers and the higher ranking, higher testing schools. If parents want to spend arm and leg to put their children in private schools, that's great. That's fine. Go ahead.

But public schools are public. Which means they stand to benefit all populations, not just the wealthy. Not just the English proficient speakers. That means if the school board wants to balance a school by moving populations so schools aren't so segregated by class, race, and language, then they should do so.

If that’s what this School Board wants to do, then it should have the guts to say that is its intent, and then see if it survives either legal scrutiny or the court of public opinion. They haven’t said this is their goal at all; instead, we get a lot of pablum about how this boundary review is mandated by “efficiency” considerations and a looming “fiscal cliff.”

If they can’t be honest about their motivations, they shouldn’t have any role in public education.

They haven't said that. Yet 90% of the comments here believe it as gospel.

One of the pro-redistricting posters just assumed that was their actual intent, regardless of the language they’ve crafted to justify their boundary review.

Hmm I'm pretty sure it's the anti-redistricting folks constantly misusing the term equity thar believe this is the motive.

So, what is the motive?

A non cynical view would be they should have been doing a comprehensive review every 5-10 years previously. Making data based decisions should always be the goal.

Based on what data?
That is the issue. What is the data they are using? Why are they doing this? What is broken?

I think there are only two data points they care about: FARMS and English learners
That is the data. They think they can equitably distribute these numbers.
They cannot. But, they might destroy a good school system trying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think this thread needs to be hijacked simply so people with strong views about AAP can express them yet again.

The relevance, however, is that current boundaries in many cases have been drawn to reflect whether ES and MS are AAP centers. Do away with AAP centers and you may need to adjust boundaries to deal with former AAP centers that become under-enrolled or other schools that get overcrowded.

If they go through a "comprehensive" boundary review without addressing the future of AAP, it would appear they are locking themselves into the current AAP model until the next county-wide review in five years or so. It's unfortunate that they could be backing into decisions without actually addressing them on the merits first.

And frankly, students at poorer performing schools appear to be using these opportunities to go elsewhere. I don’t begrudge those families for making those decisions, but it’s bonkers that they’re looking to move others into those spots rather than having the students in the current pyramids return. Get rid of AAP Centers and IB, and capacity issues largely disappear.

They would disappear in some instances. For example, getting rid of high school IB programs would mitigate chronic under-enrollment issues at schools like Lewis and Mount Vernon HS. Getting rid of AP at Glasgow MS would also largely deal with the desire of Glasgow parents to reduce the enrollment there, as AAP kids would return to under-enrolled Holmes and Poe.

In some instances getting rid of ES IB programs would itself create capacity imbalances. For example, also in the Justice pyramid, getting rid of the AAP center at Belvedere ES would leave Belvedere, the base boundaries of which reflect that the school also draws from 11 elementary schools for AAP, significantly under-enrolled, and aggravate the current overcrowding at schools like Parklawn ES. You'd have to look at it on a case-by-case basis.

I don't really see "getting rid of IB" as the cure-all that folks seem to think it is. People are transferring out of Lewis and Mount Vernon because they believe if they attend a school with a wealthier demographic, a higher English-speaking population, and thus a higher range of test scores, their children will have higher scores and be more successful in life.

This belief is widespread across FCPS. It's why our school systems are so segregated by both economic status and race. It's why we have wealtheir schools and poorer schools. It's why property values are high in some places and lower in others.

Look at West Springfield's demographics.... There are 2,596 English proficient speakers, and 135 English learners. Compare that to Lewis with 1,103 English proficient speakers and 567 English learners. Yet the schools teach the same materials and are tested at the same levels, and it's no surprise that one school will test higher than the other. English learners are at a disadvantage, it goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway. If you moved to a country where you didn't know the language or the culture, you would also be at a disadvantage.

But FCPS parents have been spending arm and leg to ensure their children are in wealthier neighborhoods with English speakers and the higher ranking, higher testing schools. If parents want to spend arm and leg to put their children in private schools, that's great. That's fine. Go ahead.

But public schools are public. Which means they stand to benefit all populations, not just the wealthy. Not just the English proficient speakers. That means if the school board wants to balance a school by moving populations so schools aren't so segregated by class, race, and language, then they should do so.

If that’s what this School Board wants to do, then it should have the guts to say that is its intent, and then see if it survives either legal scrutiny or the court of public opinion. They haven’t said this is their goal at all; instead, we get a lot of pablum about how this boundary review is mandated by “efficiency” considerations and a looming “fiscal cliff.”

If they can’t be honest about their motivations, they shouldn’t have any role in public education.

They haven't said that. Yet 90% of the comments here believe it as gospel.

One of the pro-redistricting posters just assumed that was their actual intent, regardless of the language they’ve crafted to justify their boundary review.

Hmm I'm pretty sure it's the anti-redistricting folks constantly misusing the term equity thar believe this is the motive.

So, what is the motive?

A non cynical view would be they should have been doing a comprehensive review every 5-10 years previously. Making data based decisions should always be the goal.

Their data is often crap but it’s also an excuse more than a reason for their decisions.

If they were really guided by data they wouldn’t be doing crap like funding Karl Frisch’s ridiculous boondoggle in Vienna (Dunn Loring ES). Kill that sucker off and get rid of wasteful, under-performing IB programs and then we’ll listen about their “data-driven decisions.”

[Anonymous]

How about this data:

https://mvonthemove.com/fcps-pauses-plans-for-montessori-program-at-bucknell-es/


"Of particular concern to PTA members was language in the grant proposal that struck them as “derogatory” and “racially inflammatory.” According to excerpts of the proposal posted on the Nextdoor website, MSAP funds would be used to “desegregate the school” — language that is also used on the Education Department’s MSAP grant website — through a lottery-based process, though students already zoned for the school could remain there. The lottery-based slots would be marketed to “non-Hispanic, non-socioeconomically disadvantaged students from both the feeder schools and within the community, targeting families with young children who would typically send their student to private early childhood education centers.”"

I think we all know what the boundary study is supposed to do.