Boundary Review Meetings

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.youtube.com/live/TbgtB5bf6aE?si=oITAVuVqUzzLSWd6

Sandy starts at 3:50. It’s not as bad as mentioned on this board.

BUT. WSHS is hardly overcrowded. There are two trailers. Two. Absolutely no one who actually attends the school feels it’s too full. People on here will claim they do blabla but they have different motives and just are not telling the truth. Leave it alone. Get better numbers. Look at it in three years and see the natural reduction once the massive 2025 and 2026 classes are gone.

I think a lot of Springfield constituents have been banging their heads against the wall dealing with Anderson for months or years on this issue, so they know exactly what she means when she spoke last night about her long term plans for WSHS.

She has shared her plans with many people, even if she didn't expressly state them in her short statement last night.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m halfway through the YouTube video of last night’s meeting.

I’m often critical of the school board on these forums, but, I’ll give praise where it is due - several board members now seem focused on increasing enrollment for under enrolled schools through programming decisions and transfers. That’s welcome news.

I personally would rather see them just address it with programming, but a look at transfers should come before further boundary changes, if programming decisions don’t fix the issue. Further boundary changes should be a last resort after these two approaches have been exhausted.

Anyway, hopefully this is a sea change in how they approach capacity issues in the future.

I have not listened yet. However, they need to be realistic in their programming.

For example, when they renamed Lee to Lewis and chose to put in a social justice program that was thinly veiled as a "leadership program" , did anyone consider that this was sending a "message" about the school?

Transfers were specifically mentioned as a potential solution to Lewis. I would rather they just look at programming, but at least they are going to look at something other than disastrous and unwanted boundary moves.

What does that even mean? It would be one thing if they just stepped up and said we need to get rid of IB at Lewis and have a full set of AP courses. Saying they will look at transfers is sort of meaningless. You can’t have one set of transfer requirements to transfer out of Lewis and another set to pupil place out of Chantilly.

Oh but they’re going to have a meeting with Lewis families and reps later this month to talk about it and get feedback. I’m sure that won’t be a waste of time. The Lewis families have been very active and vocal on what they want. They deserve better than what’s happened in this process.

I support the Lewis meeting to figure out a solution, not moving boundaries as a band aid. As Sandy said yesterday, it’s clear that WSHS families aren’t interested in moving to Lewis, so they need to approach any concerns about capacity in a realistic way. That’s programming.

Good for FCPS for realizing this.

Putting a finer point on this. People don't want to move out of their WS schools period. It's not just folks not wanting to Lewis.

Yep. Looking back, I can see my comment was a like ambiguous.

Wshs families do not want to move. It’s time for the school board to come up with a realistic solution that does not involve further boundary changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m halfway through the YouTube video of last night’s meeting.

I’m often critical of the school board on these forums, but, I’ll give praise where it is due - several board members now seem focused on increasing enrollment for under enrolled schools through programming decisions and transfers. That’s welcome news.

I personally would rather see them just address it with programming, but a look at transfers should come before further boundary changes, if programming decisions don’t fix the issue. Further boundary changes should be a last resort after these two approaches have been exhausted.

Anyway, hopefully this is a sea change in how they approach capacity issues in the future.

I have not listened yet. However, they need to be realistic in their programming.

For example, when they renamed Lee to Lewis and chose to put in a social justice program that was thinly veiled as a "leadership program" , did anyone consider that this was sending a "message" about the school?

Transfers were specifically mentioned as a potential solution to Lewis. I would rather they just look at programming, but at least they are going to look at something other than disastrous and unwanted boundary moves.

What does that even mean? It would be one thing if they just stepped up and said we need to get rid of IB at Lewis and have a full set of AP courses. Saying they will look at transfers is sort of meaningless. You can’t have one set of transfer requirements to transfer out of Lewis and another set to pupil place out of Chantilly.

Oh but they’re going to have a meeting with Lewis families and reps later this month to talk about it and get feedback. I’m sure that won’t be a waste of time. The Lewis families have been very active and vocal on what they want. They deserve better than what’s happened in this process.

I support the Lewis meeting to figure out a solution, not moving boundaries as a band aid. As Sandy said yesterday, it’s clear that WSHS families aren’t interested in moving to Lewis, so they need to approach any concerns about capacity in a realistic way. That’s programming.

Good for FCPS for realizing this.

Putting a finer point on this. People don't want to move out of their WS schools period. It's not just folks not wanting to Lewis.

Yep. Looking back, I can see my comment was a like ambiguous.

Wshs families do not want to move. It’s time for the school board to come up with a realistic solution that does not involve further boundary changes.

WSHS parent here. Current 2027 kid and also a 2024. It’s not overcrowded. Not once have either kid complained about how many kids. I’m very close with many teachers. Zero complaints from them also. No changes needed, it’s crazy we are being told what’s best for us when no is asking for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m halfway through the YouTube video of last night’s meeting.

I’m often critical of the school board on these forums, but, I’ll give praise where it is due - several board members now seem focused on increasing enrollment for under enrolled schools through programming decisions and transfers. That’s welcome news.

I personally would rather see them just address it with programming, but a look at transfers should come before further boundary changes, if programming decisions don’t fix the issue. Further boundary changes should be a last resort after these two approaches have been exhausted.

Anyway, hopefully this is a sea change in how they approach capacity issues in the future.

I have not listened yet. However, they need to be realistic in their programming.

For example, when they renamed Lee to Lewis and chose to put in a social justice program that was thinly veiled as a "leadership program" , did anyone consider that this was sending a "message" about the school?

Transfers were specifically mentioned as a potential solution to Lewis. I would rather they just look at programming, but at least they are going to look at something other than disastrous and unwanted boundary moves.

What does that even mean? It would be one thing if they just stepped up and said we need to get rid of IB at Lewis and have a full set of AP courses. Saying they will look at transfers is sort of meaningless. You can’t have one set of transfer requirements to transfer out of Lewis and another set to pupil place out of Chantilly.

Oh but they’re going to have a meeting with Lewis families and reps later this month to talk about it and get feedback. I’m sure that won’t be a waste of time. The Lewis families have been very active and vocal on what they want. They deserve better than what’s happened in this process.

Agree with all of this!

How do I find out when/where this meeting will be?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The school board meeting was pretty concerning. The areas highlighted for further review will be addressed in between cycles. AAP centers at all middle schools will likely be implemented between cycles, but not all at once. The comprehensive review is looking to be a yearly battle.

They should be looking at borders for schools that are at 95% and over capacity, that is a part of their job. They need to get better projections for future growth and they need to make decisions that might not be popular but help students by lessing the effects of over crowding. Changing schools will never be popular, people don’t want it. The School Board needs to make the unpopular call from time to time. But they need to have a plan that makes sense that is defensible and it needs to be more then we want to balance population groups.

And they need to deal with one of the big causes of the problem, IB vs AP. Choose one and have it at every school. The complete program. Have 2 IB schools that kids can pupil place into. Set those at schools that are centered for half of the County to make it easier for all families to get there. Kids can opt-in to IB, just like the Academies. But the kids leaving IB schools for other schools is a part of the problem with under and over enrollment at some schools.

Nope.

FCPS should do a full residency check of any high school they are considering for rezoning as the very first step, sending back to their base schools all program tansfers and any student whose parents do not have current proof of residency.

No school with 50+ transfers into the school in spite of being "closed" to transfers for more than a decade, and a known history of people sending their kids to the school by using old addresses or someone else's addresses (cough cough, WSHS) should be considered for rezoning until FCPS is certain the the only students attending the school are those who live or rent in bounds.

Second, FCPS should revamp curriculum at any high school that has a critical mass of students, more than 50, transferring to other high schools.

If hundreds of families are using AP to transfer out from an undesired IB program, then eliminate IB and put AP into the dang school.

Third, put AAP at every middle school. This will solve many high school transfers of smart kids out of poor performing high schools.

These 3 steps need to be looked at before a single high school is considered for rezoning.

+1. Anyone arguing that FCPS should just adjust boundaries and ignore FCPS families is not a serious person and is just ignoring the reality of the situation.

The families at schools that are gradually stripped of kids or seeing declining enrollments are being ignored by FCPS.

The fact that some families scream bloody murder about potentially being moved doesn’t change the impact on those being left behind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The school board meeting was pretty concerning. The areas highlighted for further review will be addressed in between cycles. AAP centers at all middle schools will likely be implemented between cycles, but not all at once. The comprehensive review is looking to be a yearly battle.

They should be looking at borders for schools that are at 95% and over capacity, that is a part of their job. They need to get better projections for future growth and they need to make decisions that might not be popular but help students by lessing the effects of over crowding. Changing schools will never be popular, people don’t want it. The School Board needs to make the unpopular call from time to time. But they need to have a plan that makes sense that is defensible and it needs to be more then we want to balance population groups.

And they need to deal with one of the big causes of the problem, IB vs AP. Choose one and have it at every school. The complete program. Have 2 IB schools that kids can pupil place into. Set those at schools that are centered for half of the County to make it easier for all families to get there. Kids can opt-in to IB, just like the Academies. But the kids leaving IB schools for other schools is a part of the problem with under and over enrollment at some schools.

Nope.

FCPS should do a full residency check of any high school they are considering for rezoning as the very first step, sending back to their base schools all program tansfers and any student whose parents do not have current proof of residency.

No school with 50+ transfers into the school in spite of being "closed" to transfers for more than a decade, and a known history of people sending their kids to the school by using old addresses or someone else's addresses (cough cough, WSHS) should be considered for rezoning until FCPS is certain the the only students attending the school are those who live or rent in bounds.

Second, FCPS should revamp curriculum at any high school that has a critical mass of students, more than 50, transferring to other high schools.

If hundreds of families are using AP to transfer out from an undesired IB program, then eliminate IB and put AP into the dang school.

Third, put AAP at every middle school. This will solve many high school transfers of smart kids out of poor performing high schools.

These 3 steps need to be looked at before a single high school is considered for rezoning.

+1. Anyone arguing that FCPS should just adjust boundaries and ignore FCPS families is not a serious person and is just ignoring the reality of the situation.

The families at schools that are gradually stripped of kids or seeing declining enrollments are being ignored by FCPS.

The fact that some families scream bloody murder about potentially being moved doesn’t change the impact on those being left behind.

I think that's way looking and transfers and residency checks are far better for the community at large then simply changing the map itself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m halfway through the YouTube video of last night’s meeting.

I’m often critical of the school board on these forums, but, I’ll give praise where it is due - several board members now seem focused on increasing enrollment for under enrolled schools through programming decisions and transfers. That’s welcome news.

I personally would rather see them just address it with programming, but a look at transfers should come before further boundary changes, if programming decisions don’t fix the issue. Further boundary changes should be a last resort after these two approaches have been exhausted.

Anyway, hopefully this is a sea change in how they approach capacity issues in the future.

I have not listened yet. However, they need to be realistic in their programming.

For example, when they renamed Lee to Lewis and chose to put in a social justice program that was thinly veiled as a "leadership program" , did anyone consider that this was sending a "message" about the school?

Transfers were specifically mentioned as a potential solution to Lewis. I would rather they just look at programming, but at least they are going to look at something other than disastrous and unwanted boundary moves.

What does that even mean? It would be one thing if they just stepped up and said we need to get rid of IB at Lewis and have a full set of AP courses. Saying they will look at transfers is sort of meaningless. You can’t have one set of transfer requirements to transfer out of Lewis and another set to pupil place out of Chantilly.

Oh but they’re going to have a meeting with Lewis families and reps later this month to talk about it and get feedback. I’m sure that won’t be a waste of time. The Lewis families have been very active and vocal on what they want. They deserve better than what’s happened in this process.

Agree with all of this!

How do I find out when/where this meeting will be?

Reid mentioned it during the boundary review bit and had one of the staffers who's leading it talk about it. If you can find his name in the recording maybe you can contact him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The school board meeting was pretty concerning. The areas highlighted for further review will be addressed in between cycles. AAP centers at all middle schools will likely be implemented between cycles, but not all at once. The comprehensive review is looking to be a yearly battle.

They should be looking at borders for schools that are at 95% and over capacity, that is a part of their job. They need to get better projections for future growth and they need to make decisions that might not be popular but help students by lessing the effects of over crowding. Changing schools will never be popular, people don’t want it. The School Board needs to make the unpopular call from time to time. But they need to have a plan that makes sense that is defensible and it needs to be more then we want to balance population groups.

And they need to deal with one of the big causes of the problem, IB vs AP. Choose one and have it at every school. The complete program. Have 2 IB schools that kids can pupil place into. Set those at schools that are centered for half of the County to make it easier for all families to get there. Kids can opt-in to IB, just like the Academies. But the kids leaving IB schools for other schools is a part of the problem with under and over enrollment at some schools.

Nope.

FCPS should do a full residency check of any high school they are considering for rezoning as the very first step, sending back to their base schools all program tansfers and any student whose parents do not have current proof of residency.

No school with 50+ transfers into the school in spite of being "closed" to transfers for more than a decade, and a known history of people sending their kids to the school by using old addresses or someone else's addresses (cough cough, WSHS) should be considered for rezoning until FCPS is certain the the only students attending the school are those who live or rent in bounds.

Second, FCPS should revamp curriculum at any high school that has a critical mass of students, more than 50, transferring to other high schools.

If hundreds of families are using AP to transfer out from an undesired IB program, then eliminate IB and put AP into the dang school.

Third, put AAP at every middle school. This will solve many high school transfers of smart kids out of poor performing high schools.

These 3 steps need to be looked at before a single high school is considered for rezoning.

+1. Anyone arguing that FCPS should just adjust boundaries and ignore FCPS families is not a serious person and is just ignoring the reality of the situation.

The families at schools that are gradually stripped of kids or seeing declining enrollments are being ignored by FCPS.

The fact that some families scream bloody murder about potentially being moved doesn’t change the impact on those being left behind.

I think that's way looking and transfers and residency checks are far better for the community at large then simply changing the map itself.

100%, and we saw yesterday a glimmer of hope that the school board members realize scrutinizing programming and transfers is preferable to boundary changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m halfway through the YouTube video of last night’s meeting.

I’m often critical of the school board on these forums, but, I’ll give praise where it is due - several board members now seem focused on increasing enrollment for under enrolled schools through programming decisions and transfers. That’s welcome news.

I personally would rather see them just address it with programming, but a look at transfers should come before further boundary changes, if programming decisions don’t fix the issue. Further boundary changes should be a last resort after these two approaches have been exhausted.

Anyway, hopefully this is a sea change in how they approach capacity issues in the future.

I have not listened yet. However, they need to be realistic in their programming.

For example, when they renamed Lee to Lewis and chose to put in a social justice program that was thinly veiled as a "leadership program" , did anyone consider that this was sending a "message" about the school?

Transfers were specifically mentioned as a potential solution to Lewis. I would rather they just look at programming, but at least they are going to look at something other than disastrous and unwanted boundary moves.

What does that even mean? It would be one thing if they just stepped up and said we need to get rid of IB at Lewis and have a full set of AP courses. Saying they will look at transfers is sort of meaningless. You can’t have one set of transfer requirements to transfer out of Lewis and another set to pupil place out of Chantilly.

Oh but they’re going to have a meeting with Lewis families and reps later this month to talk about it and get feedback. I’m sure that won’t be a waste of time. The Lewis families have been very active and vocal on what they want. They deserve better than what’s happened in this process.

I support the Lewis meeting to figure out a solution, not moving boundaries as a band aid. As Sandy said yesterday, it’s clear that WSHS families aren’t interested in moving to Lewis, so they need to approach any concerns about capacity in a realistic way. That’s programming.

Good for FCPS for realizing this.

Putting a finer point on this. People don't want to move out of their WS schools period. It's not just folks not wanting to Lewis.

Yep. Looking back, I can see my comment was a like ambiguous.

Wshs families do not want to move. It’s time for the school board to come up with a realistic solution that does not involve further boundary changes.

WSHS parent here. Current 2027 kid and also a 2024. It’s not overcrowded. Not once have either kid complained about how many kids. I’m very close with many teachers. Zero complaints from them also. No changes needed, it’s crazy we are being told what’s best for us when no is asking for it.

I have spoken to several Admins at Irving who absolutely do not want kids moved from irving bc it means de-staffing, both instructional positions and an AP. THAT is what leads to bigger class sizes and more chaos. When suddenly there are only 3 Algebra 1 teachers as opposed to 4, classes grow way more than they do with the current 10 extra kids per grade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those that watched the meeting - was your sense they will approve this and then keep working on the other changes or make amendments now?

My impression after watching her speak is that Sandy Anderson is going to make changes to WSHS mid cycle, and possibly on the final map

Mid cycle, maybe. She seemed resolved to letting WSHS remain over capacity. At worst she might try to get that one Rolling Valley SPA moved from Lewis to WSHS, but I have no doubt Dunne will call her out for it. He was actually concerned about enrollment at Lewis and Mount Vernon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those that watched the meeting - was your sense they will approve this and then keep working on the other changes or make amendments now?

My impression after watching her speak is that Sandy Anderson is going to make changes to WSHS mid cycle, and possibly on the final map

Mid cycle, maybe. She seemed resolved to letting WSHS remain over capacity. At worst she might try to get that one Rolling Valley SPA moved from Lewis to WSHS, but I have no doubt Dunne will call her out for it. He was actually concerned about enrollment at Lewis and Mount Vernon.

Good. If Region 4 families are smart, they will vote her out next year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m halfway through the YouTube video of last night’s meeting.

I’m often critical of the school board on these forums, but, I’ll give praise where it is due - several board members now seem focused on increasing enrollment for under enrolled schools through programming decisions and transfers. That’s welcome news.

I personally would rather see them just address it with programming, but a look at transfers should come before further boundary changes, if programming decisions don’t fix the issue. Further boundary changes should be a last resort after these two approaches have been exhausted.

Anyway, hopefully this is a sea change in how they approach capacity issues in the future.

I have not listened yet. However, they need to be realistic in their programming.

For example, when they renamed Lee to Lewis and chose to put in a social justice program that was thinly veiled as a "leadership program" , did anyone consider that this was sending a "message" about the school?

Transfers were specifically mentioned as a potential solution to Lewis. I would rather they just look at programming, but at least they are going to look at something other than disastrous and unwanted boundary moves.

What does that even mean? It would be one thing if they just stepped up and said we need to get rid of IB at Lewis and have a full set of AP courses. Saying they will look at transfers is sort of meaningless. You can’t have one set of transfer requirements to transfer out of Lewis and another set to pupil place out of Chantilly.

Oh but they’re going to have a meeting with Lewis families and reps later this month to talk about it and get feedback. I’m sure that won’t be a waste of time. The Lewis families have been very active and vocal on what they want. They deserve better than what’s happened in this process.

I support the Lewis meeting to figure out a solution, not moving boundaries as a band aid. As Sandy said yesterday, it’s clear that WSHS families aren’t interested in moving to Lewis, so they need to approach any concerns about capacity in a realistic way. That’s programming.

Good for FCPS for realizing this.

Putting a finer point on this. People don't want to move out of their WS schools period. It's not just folks not wanting to Lewis.

Yep. Looking back, I can see my comment was a like ambiguous.

Wshs families do not want to move. It’s time for the school board to come up with a realistic solution that does not involve further boundary changes.

WSHS parent here. Current 2027 kid and also a 2024. It’s not overcrowded. Not once have either kid complained about how many kids. I’m very close with many teachers. Zero complaints from them also. No changes needed, it’s crazy we are being told what’s best for us when no is asking for it.

I have spoken to several Admins at Irving who absolutely do not want kids moved from irving bc it means de-staffing, both instructional positions and an AP. THAT is what leads to bigger class sizes and more chaos. When suddenly there are only 3 Algebra 1 teachers as opposed to 4, classes grow way more than they do with the current 10 extra kids per grade.

This is such an important point, especially with budget cuts on top of this. Losing capacity would eliminate positions. They would still be left with overwhelming needs and not enough staff. Losing an admin position is a huge impact.

[Anonymous]

I thought there were supposed to be cracking down on transferring for sports.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m halfway through the YouTube video of last night’s meeting.

I’m often critical of the school board on these forums, but, I’ll give praise where it is due - several board members now seem focused on increasing enrollment for under enrolled schools through programming decisions and transfers. That’s welcome news.

I personally would rather see them just address it with programming, but a look at transfers should come before further boundary changes, if programming decisions don’t fix the issue. Further boundary changes should be a last resort after these two approaches have been exhausted.

Anyway, hopefully this is a sea change in how they approach capacity issues in the future.

I have not listened yet. However, they need to be realistic in their programming.

For example, when they renamed Lee to Lewis and chose to put in a social justice program that was thinly veiled as a "leadership program" , did anyone consider that this was sending a "message" about the school?

Clearly MAGA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought there were supposed to be cracking down on transferring for sports.

You have to sit a year if you pupil place to a new school. If your family moves and your school changes you can play.