FCPS HS Boundary

[Anonymous]

Fcps desperately needs more dedicated special ed classrooms. They have a huge number of kids without school placements right now just sitting at home. Empty one of these underutilized high school biildings and turn it into a special ed center.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And your remark about "the dumbest kid" just says so much about you.

In the real world some people are smarter than others. Let's not ignore facts because you don't like them. It's an anonymous internet forum. No one is saying it to you or your kid's face. There's no need to protect anyone's feelings. Blunt and to the point is fine here.

The clustering you suggested, an "advanced" group with 2-3 other levels of variation per grade, where any kid can move between levels, is a pipe dream. Logistics (teachers per subject) won't allow all the levels to be taught at the same time for every grade, and when they occur at different times scheduling conflicts will result. AAP, honors, and gen ed is about the best we're ever going to get.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Could you folks take the AAP talk to another thread unless you’re specifically tying it to a discussion of boundaries? Thanks.

AAP programs influence boundaries just like any other program. AAP centers cause some schools to have a good number more kids and lead to near or over capacity ES. Returning kids to the base school could cause an ES to become over crowded. It is a part of the conversation. How the program is adminstered is not a part of the conversation except for the fact that the Center devotees swear that Center AAP is better then LLIV.

On the other hand, Irving is an example of an overcrowded middle school that is not an AAP center and that would be significantly more overcrowded if the AAP kids at Lake Braddock were at Irving instead.

Which is why we need a boundary study across the County so that over crowded schools are relieved of those issues and under enrolled schools are used to their full capacity.

The starting point is finding a way to keep the roughly 230 kids actually living in homes zoned for Lewis at Lewis.

This should be fixed before any discussion of rezoning.

There is no reason to force kids into a failing school with no plans to fix the school.

But you are pushing to rezone kids from a very successful high school to fill the spot of your kid who is zoned for Lewis so they can transfer someplace else?

My kids don't go to Lewis. I think Lewis should either be closed or enough kids from WSHS moved in to make it a viable option for parents who care. Forcing 200 kids just puts them in a failing school

That's why they will move all of Hunt Valley AND close the transfer loopholes to Hayfield.

You just can't stop with this nonsense can you. Seek help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:350 pages and counting.

Can we make it to 400?

Of course. Its the toilet that won't ever finish flushing. Truly wish the mods would nuke it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone have the stats for pupil placements? I can never find that in the FCPS website. I’m interested to see how many students follow their AAP pyramid and pupil place to that high school to stay with their cohorts. I still think a huge program reform would be to make sure there’s a dedicated AAP center in every high school pyramid, and to either put AAP into every middle school, or drop the program at that level. The AAP clusters bounce all over the place.

Why doesn’t Wolftrap go to Westbriar to follow cohorts to Kilmer? Why does Forestville go to Forest Edge instead of Colvin Run to tie into Cooper? Why does Wales Mill go to Hunters Woods instead of Navy to feed into Carson? And those are the easy ones…

AAP centers should be eliminated, period.

AAP centers should stay, period.

Nope. With LLIV in virtually all schools, centers are redundant - as is the extra busing required. They are also the epitome of inequity, since one group of kids gets to choose which school they attend while the other group does not. And we know this SB is all about *equity,* so it should be a no-brainer to get rid of centers.

It must be tough to accept your kid isn't advanced. Centers are staying.

You sound really mature. And we'll see about centers.

What's really immature is trying to sink an entire program because you're mad and jealous your kid didn't get in.

[Anonymous]

Lots of saber rattling by Langley parents at the board meeting last night threatening litigation if the School Board adopts revisions to the boundary policy.

They are the definition of “privilege hoarders” and they should be ordered to pay FCPS’s legal fees if they do bring a frivolous lawsuit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lots of saber rattling by Langley parents at the board meeting last night threatening litigation if the School Board adopts revisions to the boundary policy.

They are the definition of “privilege hoarders” and they should be ordered to pay FCPS’s legal fees if they do bring a frivolous lawsuit.

I heard it way differently than your spin. But I guess to someone who is a trying to foment class warfare, you gotta spin it your way.

It’s really sad how much some folks on this board hate their neighbors based on a perception that didn’t even align with reality.

Be well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of saber rattling by Langley parents at the board meeting last night threatening litigation if the School Board adopts revisions to the boundary policy.

They are the definition of “privilege hoarders” and they should be ordered to pay FCPS’s legal fees if they do bring a frivolous lawsuit.

I heard it way differently than your spin. But I guess to someone who is a trying to foment class warfare, you gotta spin it your way.

It’s really sad how much some folks on this board hate their neighbors based on a perception that didn’t even align with reality.

Be well.

The head of the Langley group definitely made veiled threats last night about litigation if the board adopts the policy revisions later this month.

They are bullies who don’t care about anyone else and can’t believe they might not always get their way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of saber rattling by Langley parents at the board meeting last night threatening litigation if the School Board adopts revisions to the boundary policy.

They are the definition of “privilege hoarders” and they should be ordered to pay FCPS’s legal fees if they do bring a frivolous lawsuit.

I heard it way differently than your spin. But I guess to someone who is a trying to foment class warfare, you gotta spin it your way.

It’s really sad how much some folks on this board hate their neighbors based on a perception that didn’t even align with reality.

Be well.

What may be more effective than litigation, folks should consider launching candidates to oppose sb members that vote in favor of the policy change in the 2027 election. It is remarkably undemocratic that these members did not make a peep about this change during their campaigns. They should be forced to defend their position at the ballot box.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of saber rattling by Langley parents at the board meeting last night threatening litigation if the School Board adopts revisions to the boundary policy.

They are the definition of “privilege hoarders” and they should be ordered to pay FCPS’s legal fees if they do bring a frivolous lawsuit.

I heard it way differently than your spin. But I guess to someone who is a trying to foment class warfare, you gotta spin it your way.

It’s really sad how much some folks on this board hate their neighbors based on a perception that didn’t even align with reality.

Be well.

What may be more effective than litigation, folks should consider launching candidates to oppose sb members that vote in favor of the policy change in the 2027 election. It is remarkably undemocratic that these members did not make a peep about this change during their campaigns. They should be forced to defend their position at the ballot box.

They can put new boundaries in place before 2027. Once the SB has voted to move kids who live 2-4 miles from Herndon there, rather than continue to bus them 10+ miles to Langley, that becomes hard to unwind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of saber rattling by Langley parents at the board meeting last night threatening litigation if the School Board adopts revisions to the boundary policy.

They are the definition of “privilege hoarders” and they should be ordered to pay FCPS’s legal fees if they do bring a frivolous lawsuit.

I heard it way differently than your spin. But I guess to someone who is a trying to foment class warfare, you gotta spin it your way.

It’s really sad how much some folks on this board hate their neighbors based on a perception that didn’t even align with reality.

Be well.

What may be more effective than litigation, folks should consider launching candidates to oppose sb members that vote in favor of the policy change in the 2027 election. It is remarkably undemocratic that these members did not make a peep about this change during their campaigns. They should be forced to defend their position at the ballot box.

Litigation can drag any changes out for years and make it a county wide issue. I would assume that along with litigation, they will pressure their county reps and state reps to oppose boundary changes.

[Anonymous]

It is literally part of their job to look at boundaries. They don't have to campaign on them. Fiscally it is the right thing to do instead of always building new capacity. This may include closing schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is literally part of their job to look at boundaries. They don't have to campaign on them. Fiscally it is the right thing to do instead of always building new capacity. This may include closing schools.

The people driving this waited until their own schools like West Potomac, Justice, Madison, and Oakton got additional capacity, and now they urge fiscal restraint and boundary changes?

They are from the same party that approved those prior decisions, so they don’t have a lot of legitimacy when they now claim there are no alternatives. It’s simply an opportunistic power play to move kids for social engineering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is literally part of their job to look at boundaries. They don't have to campaign on them. Fiscally it is the right thing to do instead of always building new capacity. This may include closing schools.

Let’s not pretend that changing 40 years of precedent where this used to be a bottom up process (schools/communities asked for changes if they felt it was a good idea) and replacing it with a top down system (the superintendent and sb hire a consultant to propose changes based on FCPS facilities team projections and only after the decision is 90% baked do they engage the community) should not be a campaign issue. It certainly should. And it will be.

If they try to make this type of fundamental change before the next election, I am confident they will face recall elections.

[Anonymous]

Don’t forget Herndon, Robyn Lady’s school. Also got a big expansion.