FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So no changes affecting Lewis? At all?

Guess well have to pupil place.

No objection to you pupil placing, but doesn’t make a lick of sense that the decision would have hinged on whether they brought students into your school.

^^ WSHS and Lewis pyramid BRAC members please take note. WSHS is at 105% after Thru's proposals. Betting if Lewis to WSHS transfers are returned to their base school then WSHS will reduce to 100%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So no changes affecting Lewis? At all?

Guess well have to pupil place.

This says it all. There have been parents throughout this boundary review process who only care about the potential for it to dilute their school's lower income, lower performing demographics. They don't care about solving the problems at the school they are zoned for, and they certainly don't care about impacts to kids who are rezoned.

When you see posts supporting the boundary review, keep in mind that it's primarily parents like this.

Hahah you mean, a parent advocating for the best possible outcomes for their children. Yep, that’s me!

How is rezoning kids to a different school which has an entirely different program (IB vs. AP at WSHS) giving anyone the “best possible outcome.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So no changes affecting Lewis? At all?

Guess well have to pupil place.

This says it all. There have been parents throughout this boundary review process who only care about the potential for it to dilute their school's lower income, lower performing demographics. They don't care about solving the problems at the school they are zoned for, and they certainly don't care about impacts to kids who are rezoned.

When you see posts supporting the boundary review, keep in mind that it's primarily parents like this.

Hahah you mean, a parent advocating for the best possible outcomes for their children. Yep, that’s me!

All parents posting here are advocating for their children or other children. There are 3 types: 1) Parents zoned for good schools who want to keep status quo because it is fair to their kids and communities. 2) Parents who believe in equity and want change to improve lower performing schools and create a positive result for collective kids at those schools. 3) Parasitic parents who offer nothing to their current school or community and want to funnel in higher-SES kids so their school improves and property value goes up. You clearly fall in category #3.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So no changes affecting Lewis? At all?

Guess well have to pupil place.

This says it all. There have been parents throughout this boundary review process who only care about the potential for it to dilute their school's lower income, lower performing demographics. They don't care about solving the problems at the school they are zoned for, and they certainly don't care about impacts to kids who are rezoned.

When you see posts supporting the boundary review, keep in mind that it's primarily parents like this.

Hahah you mean, a parent advocating for the best possible outcomes for their children. Yep, that’s me!

How is rezoning kids to a different school which has an entirely different program (IB vs. AP at WSHS) giving anyone the “best possible outcome.”

“Best possible outcome” FOR MY CHILDREN. Yes, I care more about mine than yours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So no changes affecting Lewis? At all?

Guess well have to pupil place.

This says it all. There have been parents throughout this boundary review process who only care about the potential for it to dilute their school's lower income, lower performing demographics. They don't care about solving the problems at the school they are zoned for, and they certainly don't care about impacts to kids who are rezoned.

When you see posts supporting the boundary review, keep in mind that it's primarily parents like this.

Hahah you mean, a parent advocating for the best possible outcomes for their children. Yep, that’s me!

How is rezoning kids to a different school which has an entirely different program (IB vs. AP at WSHS) giving anyone the “best possible outcome.”

“Best possible outcome” FOR MY CHILDREN. Yes, I care more about mine than yours.

Then why did you decide to live in a school pyramid you clearly believe does not provide the best possible outcome for your children? So much so that you are trying to find ways to transfer them out?

[Anonymous]

Hard truth: Moving in a few middle class neighborhoods, or even an entire middle class elementary school, isn’t going to meaningfully move the needle at Lewis or any other school with a similar population.

[Anonymous]

There is no way that the families with kids moving to South Lakes are going to accept that. At the very least, they are not going to want the IB program. Most are happy at Chantilly and will not want to move, even if SLHS was AP, but the IB is most likely a deal breaker.

From a SLHS perspective, adding 100 more kids who are likely to participate in IB would be great, it would increase the pool of kids and increase the chance that the HL classes are offered because there might be more interest. If this move does happen, I expect more principal placing into Oakton and Langley for AP and language purposes.

People don't want to move from AP to IB.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hard truth: Moving in a few middle class neighborhoods, or even an entire middle class elementary school, isn’t going to meaningfully move the needle at Lewis or any other school with a similar population.

SLHS test scores increased 20 years ago. SLHS is solidly in the middle of FCPS in mnay of the stats. I don't buy for a second that the kids who were struggling are doing any better but moving the kids that they did into the school balanced out many of the lower test scores. On paper, the school looks to be vastly improved. A good number of kids principal place in from Herndon and Westfield for IB, but many of those kids do not complete the diploma. I take that as a signal that there are parents who feel that SLHS is a better option then Herndon and Westfield.

The IB Diploma rates are low. The school relies on kids taking IBSL classes to point to kids having high level classes available to them. The IBHL classes are limited because there is not a large enough body of interested kids to run the HL classes in some of the sciences, maybe in some of the other areas as well. A good number of kids principal place out for AP, with the students divided between Herndon, Langley (AP/Russian) and Oakton (AP/Japanese). I suppose you could argue if those kids stayed there would be more HL classes offered because many of those kids are leaving to take the AP classes that are the equivalent to IBHL.

[Anonymous]

Maybe they won’t allow freshmen to transfer for IB/AP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is no way that the families with kids moving to South Lakes are going to accept that. At the very least, they are not going to want the IB program. Most are happy at Chantilly and will not want to move, even if SLHS was AP, but the IB is most likely a deal breaker.

From a SLHS perspective, adding 100 more kids who are likely to participate in IB would be great, it would increase the pool of kids and increase the chance that the HL classes are offered because there might be more interest. If this move does happen, I expect more principal placing into Oakton and Langley for AP and language purposes.

People don't want to move from AP to IB.

Chantilly kids would get moved to Westfield and Oakton (both AP), and some Westfield families would move to South Lakes. I don’t think anyone at Chantilly would be moved to South Lakes.

Pupil placing into Langley probably won’t be available much longer as it will be over 100% capacity with the reassignment of 200 McLean kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is no way that the families with kids moving to South Lakes are going to accept that. At the very least, they are not going to want the IB program. Most are happy at Chantilly and will not want to move, even if SLHS was AP, but the IB is most likely a deal breaker.

From a SLHS perspective, adding 100 more kids who are likely to participate in IB would be great, it would increase the pool of kids and increase the chance that the HL classes are offered because there might be more interest. If this move does happen, I expect more principal placing into Oakton and Langley for AP and language purposes.

People don't want to move from AP to IB.

I do not see anyone moving from Chantilly to South Lakes. Can you tell us where they live?

I agree about the IB issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So no changes affecting Lewis? At all?

Guess well have to pupil place.

This says it all. There have been parents throughout this boundary review process who only care about the potential for it to dilute their school's lower income, lower performing demographics. They don't care about solving the problems at the school they are zoned for, and they certainly don't care about impacts to kids who are rezoned.

When you see posts supporting the boundary review, keep in mind that it's primarily parents like this.

Hahah you mean, a parent advocating for the best possible outcomes for their children. Yep, that’s me!

How is rezoning kids to a different school which has an entirely different program (IB vs. AP at WSHS) giving anyone the “best possible outcome.”

“Best possible outcome” FOR MY CHILDREN. Yes, I care more about mine than yours.

Then why did you decide to live in a school pyramid you clearly believe does not provide the best possible outcome for your children? So much so that you are trying to find ways to transfer them out?

I've read a few comments here about how the boundary review did not serve its intended objective -- equity. I don't really know what that means. Does it mean that some families hoped to be rezoned from an underperforming school to a high-achieving one?

I’ve been reflecting on the different perspectives shared during the boundary review meetings, and I wanted to voice a concern that I imagine others might share. For families like mine, we made very intentional decisions, financially and personally, to live in a neighborhood aligned with specific schools. That investment wasn’t just monetary; it was years of planning and hard work.

At one of the meetings, I sat with several parents who seemed genuinely eager for boundary changes. At first, I was surprised. Why would anyone want to leave their current school communities? But then I realized some families may not feel satisfied with their current school options and are hoping the boundary changes might give their children access to higher-performing schools.

I understand the desire for every child to attend a great school. That’s something we all want. But it’s hard not to feel that this process might overlook families who have already made sacrifices to be in their current school zones. I believe we need solutions that support underperforming schools without destabilizing the communities that have already invested in them. Is there a way to lift all schools without pulling families apart?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So no changes affecting Lewis? At all?

Guess well have to pupil place.

This says it all. There have been parents throughout this boundary review process who only care about the potential for it to dilute their school's lower income, lower performing demographics. They don't care about solving the problems at the school they are zoned for, and they certainly don't care about impacts to kids who are rezoned.

When you see posts supporting the boundary review, keep in mind that it's primarily parents like this.

Hahah you mean, a parent advocating for the best possible outcomes for their children. Yep, that’s me!

How is rezoning kids to a different school which has an entirely different program (IB vs. AP at WSHS) giving anyone the “best possible outcome.”

“Best possible outcome” FOR MY CHILDREN. Yes, I care more about mine than yours.

Then why did you decide to live in a school pyramid you clearly believe does not provide the best possible outcome for your children? So much so that you are trying to find ways to transfer them out?

I've read a few comments here about how the boundary review did not serve its intended objective -- equity. I don't really know what that means. Does it mean that some families hoped to be rezoned from an underperforming school to a high-achieving one?

I’ve been reflecting on the different perspectives shared during the boundary review meetings, and I wanted to voice a concern that I imagine others might share. For families like mine, we made very intentional decisions, financially and personally, to live in a neighborhood aligned with specific schools. That investment wasn’t just monetary; it was years of planning and hard work.

At one of the meetings, I sat with several parents who seemed genuinely eager for boundary changes. At first, I was surprised. Why would anyone want to leave their current school communities? But then I realized some families may not feel satisfied with their current school options and are hoping the boundary changes might give their children access to higher-performing schools.

I understand the desire for every child to attend a great school. That’s something we all want. But it’s hard not to feel that this process might overlook families who have already made sacrifices to be in their current school zones. I believe we need solutions that support underperforming schools without destabilizing the communities that have already invested in them. Is there a way to lift all schools without pulling families apart?

This. We chose our community based on the schools--and the "community" feel. Some in my neighborhood are "picked" by THRU to go to a school that is not in our community boundary and is considered "better." The impact on our current school is minimal.
This is not right either.

[Anonymous]

Is there a way to lift all schools without pulling families apart?

Funny how that is seldom (never?) discussed at School Board meetings.

Kind of like if you decided to adopt a smart kid so it will rub off on your "not so smart" kid. Instead, you should work on helping your child do better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So no changes affecting Lewis? At all?

Guess well have to pupil place.

No objection to you pupil placing, but doesn’t make a lick of sense that the decision would have hinged on whether they brought students into your school.

^^ WSHS and Lewis pyramid BRAC members please take note. WSHS is at 105% after Thru's proposals. Betting if Lewis to WSHS transfers are returned to their base school then WSHS will reduce to 100%.

WSHS is closed to transfers, and the few that are allowed aren’t coming from Lewis. Fewer than 10 are. There is no smoking gun for fixing Lewis transfers. There’s not a high concentration of 200 students going to a specific school like with Herndon to South Lakes and Mount Vernon to Hayfield.