FCPS HS Boundary

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People keep asserting FCPS already has prepared new boundary maps that they'll unveil at some point, but that would be easy enough to FOIA if it were true. Seems like a conspiracy theory.

Oh yeah, they always produce documents under FOIA. They never ever try to bury the requester with costs.

Absurd post.

It would be a specific request so any claims by FCPS of exorbitant production costs could be readily challenged. But thanks for confirming you prefer to wallow in conspiracy theories.

I can’t tell if you are joking.

No. I just find it weird when people claim they’ve already decided what they are going to do and have already drawn up the new maps. If that were the case we’d have seen them already.

To your FOIA point claiming that is a simple low cost request, the county lawyers who will bill you several hundreds of dollars an hour to review any responsive documents would like a word. The staff time spent searching how many custodians’ in boxes would like a word too. These things are expensive by design.

To your broader point, you may want to participate in some conversations with the school board members and FPAC members.

In both instances you are just absolutely wrong, and just trying to carry the water for the school board. You call us conspiracy theorists as we fight against the school boards plans, but I’m guessing you are well aware of their plans too.

If these maps already exist, and you haven’t found a way to obtain and publicize and them yet, these advocacy groups like FairFACTS Matters must be all bluster and far less competent than they’d like people to believe.

But I don’t think they exist yet. Some School Board members may already have specific changes in mind, but I really doubt anything has been memorialized or agreed upon yet.

Prove me wrong.

I’m pretty sure in the governance meeting dr Reid said she had models already that included middle schools going 6-8.
Yiu can rewatch is you are so inclined and let us know if I’m right.

I don't think that anyone wants their 6th graders with the 8th graders.

8th graders are dating, drinking, and in many cases, sesxually active.

Half of the 6th graders are still playing with Legos and pying tag on the playground.

The 6th graders will lose recess if they are moved into middle school, and will be in a teen culture that is nt apprppriate for many of them.

What a terrible idea

Loundoun County as MS 6-8. I know plenty of school districts with 6-8 in California and across the Mid-West. Some schools have a separate wing for the 6th graders so that interaction with the 7-8th graders is limited. It is not a new concept and none of my friends in LCPS have complained.

California is probably the worst school model in the country.

Lets hope FCPS does not try to mimic failing California. We are better than that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People keep asserting FCPS already has prepared new boundary maps that they'll unveil at some point, but that would be easy enough to FOIA if it were true. Seems like a conspiracy theory.

Oh yeah, they always produce documents under FOIA. They never ever try to bury the requester with costs.

Absurd post.

It would be a specific request so any claims by FCPS of exorbitant production costs could be readily challenged. But thanks for confirming you prefer to wallow in conspiracy theories.

I can’t tell if you are joking.

No. I just find it weird when people claim they’ve already decided what they are going to do and have already drawn up the new maps. If that were the case we’d have seen them already.

To your FOIA point claiming that is a simple low cost request, the county lawyers who will bill you several hundreds of dollars an hour to review any responsive documents would like a word. The staff time spent searching how many custodians’ in boxes would like a word too. These things are expensive by design.

To your broader point, you may want to participate in some conversations with the school board members and FPAC members.

In both instances you are just absolutely wrong, and just trying to carry the water for the school board. You call us conspiracy theorists as we fight against the school boards plans, but I’m guessing you are well aware of their plans too.

If these maps already exist, and you haven’t found a way to obtain and publicize and them yet, these advocacy groups like FairFACTS Matters must be all bluster and far less competent than they’d like people to believe.

But I don’t think they exist yet. Some School Board members may already have specific changes in mind, but I really doubt anything has been memorialized or agreed upon yet.

Prove me wrong.

I’m pretty sure in the governance meeting dr Reid said she had models already that included middle schools going 6-8.
Yiu can rewatch is you are so inclined and let us know if I’m right.

I don't think that anyone wants their 6th graders with the 8th graders.

8th graders are dating, drinking, and in many cases, sesxually active.

Half of the 6th graders are still playing with Legos and pying tag on the playground.

The 6th graders will lose recess if they are moved into middle school, and will be in a teen culture that is nt apprppriate for many of them.

What a terrible idea

Loundoun County as MS 6-8. I know plenty of school districts with 6-8 in California and across the Mid-West. Some schools have a separate wing for the 6th graders so that interaction with the 7-8th graders is limited. It is not a new concept and none of my friends in LCPS have complained.

California is probably the worst school model in the country.

Let’s hope FCPS does not try to mimic failing California. We are better than that.

It’s not just California, it’s majority of the country. Middle school is 6-8 and junior high is 7-9. FCPS is an outlier, but changing from the 7-8 model would be very difficult to accomplish because few middle schools have the capacity, building out more middle schools requires land that the county doesn’t have, and the secondary schools are tied to the 7-12 model.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People keep asserting FCPS already has prepared new boundary maps that they'll unveil at some point, but that would be easy enough to FOIA if it were true. Seems like a conspiracy theory.

Oh yeah, they always produce documents under FOIA. They never ever try to bury the requester with costs.

Absurd post.

It would be a specific request so any claims by FCPS of exorbitant production costs could be readily challenged. But thanks for confirming you prefer to wallow in conspiracy theories.

I can’t tell if you are joking.

No. I just find it weird when people claim they’ve already decided what they are going to do and have already drawn up the new maps. If that were the case we’d have seen them already.

To your FOIA point claiming that is a simple low cost request, the county lawyers who will bill you several hundreds of dollars an hour to review any responsive documents would like a word. The staff time spent searching how many custodians’ in boxes would like a word too. These things are expensive by design.

To your broader point, you may want to participate in some conversations with the school board members and FPAC members.

In both instances you are just absolutely wrong, and just trying to carry the water for the school board. You call us conspiracy theorists as we fight against the school boards plans, but I’m guessing you are well aware of their plans too.

If these maps already exist, and you haven’t found a way to obtain and publicize and them yet, these advocacy groups like FairFACTS Matters must be all bluster and far less competent than they’d like people to believe.

But I don’t think they exist yet. Some School Board members may already have specific changes in mind, but I really doubt anything has been memorialized or agreed upon yet.

Prove me wrong.

I’m pretty sure in the governance meeting dr Reid said she had models already that included middle schools going 6-8.
Yiu can rewatch is you are so inclined and let us know if I’m right.

I don't think that anyone wants their 6th graders with the 8th graders.

8th graders are dating, drinking, and in many cases, sesxually active.

Half of the 6th graders are still playing with Legos and pying tag on the playground.

The 6th graders will lose recess if they are moved into middle school, and will be in a teen culture that is nt apprppriate for many of them.

What a terrible idea

Loundoun County as MS 6-8. I know plenty of school districts with 6-8 in California and across the Mid-West. Some schools have a separate wing for the 6th graders so that interaction with the 7-8th graders is limited. It is not a new concept and none of my friends in LCPS have complained.

California is probably the worst school model in the country.

Let’s hope FCPS does not try to mimic failing California. We are better than that.

It’s not just California, it’s majority of the country. Middle school is 6-8 and junior high is 7-9. FCPS is an outlier, but changing from the 7-8 model would be very difficult to accomplish because few middle schools have the capacity, building out more middle schools requires land that the county doesn’t have, and the secondary schools are tied to the 7-12 model.

Plenty of junior highs in California are now grades 7-8 today. Even though they are still called “junior high” in a large number of districts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People keep asserting FCPS already has prepared new boundary maps that they'll unveil at some point, but that would be easy enough to FOIA if it were true. Seems like a conspiracy theory.

Oh yeah, they always produce documents under FOIA. They never ever try to bury the requester with costs.

Absurd post.

It would be a specific request so any claims by FCPS of exorbitant production costs could be readily challenged. But thanks for confirming you prefer to wallow in conspiracy theories.

I can’t tell if you are joking.

No. I just find it weird when people claim they’ve already decided what they are going to do and have already drawn up the new maps. If that were the case we’d have seen them already.

To your FOIA point claiming that is a simple low cost request, the county lawyers who will bill you several hundreds of dollars an hour to review any responsive documents would like a word. The staff time spent searching how many custodians’ in boxes would like a word too. These things are expensive by design.

To your broader point, you may want to participate in some conversations with the school board members and FPAC members.

In both instances you are just absolutely wrong, and just trying to carry the water for the school board. You call us conspiracy theorists as we fight against the school boards plans, but I’m guessing you are well aware of their plans too.

If these maps already exist, and you haven’t found a way to obtain and publicize and them yet, these advocacy groups like FairFACTS Matters must be all bluster and far less competent than they’d like people to believe.

But I don’t think they exist yet. Some School Board members may already have specific changes in mind, but I really doubt anything has been memorialized or agreed upon yet.

Prove me wrong.

I’m pretty sure in the governance meeting dr Reid said she had models already that included middle schools going 6-8.
Yiu can rewatch is you are so inclined and let us know if I’m right.

I don't think that anyone wants their 6th graders with the 8th graders.

8th graders are dating, drinking, and in many cases, sesxually active.

Half of the 6th graders are still playing with Legos and pying tag on the playground.

The 6th graders will lose recess if they are moved into middle school, and will be in a teen culture that is nt apprppriate for many of them.

What a terrible idea

Loundoun County as MS 6-8. I know plenty of school districts with 6-8 in California and across the Mid-West. Some schools have a separate wing for the 6th graders so that interaction with the 7-8th graders is limited. It is not a new concept and none of my friends in LCPS have complained.

California is probably the worst school model in the country.

Lets hope FCPS does not try to mimic failing California. We are better than that.

Amen to that. Middle school should be grades 7-8. Elementary should be K-6.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People keep asserting FCPS already has prepared new boundary maps that they'll unveil at some point, but that would be easy enough to FOIA if it were true. Seems like a conspiracy theory.

Oh yeah, they always produce documents under FOIA. They never ever try to bury the requester with costs.

Absurd post.

It would be a specific request so any claims by FCPS of exorbitant production costs could be readily challenged. But thanks for confirming you prefer to wallow in conspiracy theories.

I can’t tell if you are joking.

No. I just find it weird when people claim they’ve already decided what they are going to do and have already drawn up the new maps. If that were the case we’d have seen them already.

To your FOIA point claiming that is a simple low cost request, the county lawyers who will bill you several hundreds of dollars an hour to review any responsive documents would like a word. The staff time spent searching how many custodians’ in boxes would like a word too. These things are expensive by design.

To your broader point, you may want to participate in some conversations with the school board members and FPAC members.

In both instances you are just absolutely wrong, and just trying to carry the water for the school board. You call us conspiracy theorists as we fight against the school boards plans, but I’m guessing you are well aware of their plans too.

If these maps already exist, and you haven’t found a way to obtain and publicize and them yet, these advocacy groups like FairFACTS Matters must be all bluster and far less competent than they’d like people to believe.

But I don’t think they exist yet. Some School Board members may already have specific changes in mind, but I really doubt anything has been memorialized or agreed upon yet.

Prove me wrong.

I’m pretty sure in the governance meeting dr Reid said she had models already that included middle schools going 6-8.
Yiu can rewatch is you are so inclined and let us know if I’m right.

I don't think that anyone wants their 6th graders with the 8th graders.

8th graders are dating, drinking, and in many cases, sesxually active.

Half of the 6th graders are still playing with Legos and pying tag on the playground.

The 6th graders will lose recess if they are moved into middle school, and will be in a teen culture that is nt apprppriate for many of them.

What a terrible idea

+100
There is absolutely no need to turn our middle schools into 6-8.

[Anonymous]

NP here. Both of my kids are now high school so no dog in the MS fight but I had no idea so many were opposed to 6-8, which is standard for where I grew up. My husband had middle school with 6-7, junior high with 8-9, and then high school 10-12, which I also found strange.

Not disagreeing that 6th mixing with 8th could be bad, but I will say that both of my kids were DONE with elementary school by 6th grade and very tired of being lumped in with Kers. .

[Anonymous]

I don't care at all between 6-8 or 7-8, but the logistics make zero sense. Our middle school is packed with just 7-8, how are they going to fit 600 more kids in the building?

[Anonymous]

Illinois, Texas, California, Itah, New York, etc., all have 7-8 grade junior highs. They are typically called “junior high” in those states. Or sometimes but less frequently “intermediates schools.”

There is no need for FCPS to suddenly transition to all 6-8 grade middle schools. For whatever reason most schools in this area except FCPS transitioned to the 6-8 middle school model by the 2000s. DCPS was the last hold out with the really old school 7-9 grade junior high model before converting those 15 years ago.

[Anonymous]

Changing MS structure is a logistical bridge too far for FCPS. Let's stay on topic for boundaries, since the SB is going to vote approval on the updated 8130 this Thursday the 18th.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Changing MS structure is a logistical bridge too far for FCPS. Let's stay on topic for boundaries, since the SB is going to vote approval on the updated 8130 this Thursday the 18th.

I am adamently opposed to Reid making decisions after reading about FCPS submitting a grant application to turn a school into a Montesorri Magnet. Parents, PTA, and school board member were unaware...Dunne from Mount Vernon District. https://mvonthemove.com/fcps-pauses-plans-for-montessori-program-at-bucknell-es/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR26DY80H5kBPqRXDfCkYZ-vGb_VlbsPW5keH7GYf8oluV-itSVaTLPefOI_aem_MA35dP-Vmn386En3XXFVJA

Is that 15m grant for a magnet only for Bucknell? That's an outrageouss amount of FIT $ so it is likely for more than 1 FCPS magnet. Grrants aren't annual so ...FCPS did the magnets to avoid boundary changes and this dolt Reid is talking about AAP centers and movement? That ship sailed when FCPS did many local level iv- maybe Reid wants to remove that and go back to busing for larger centers? In that case why bother with all this 8130 crap?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Changing MS structure is a logistical bridge too far for FCPS. Let's stay on topic for boundaries, since the SB is going to vote approval on the updated 8130 this Thursday the 18th.

I am adamently opposed to Reid making decisions after reading about FCPS submitting a grant application to turn a school into a Montesorri Magnet. Parents, PTA, and school board member were unaware...Dunne from Mount Vernon District. https://mvonthemove.com/fcps-pauses-plans-for-montessori-program-at-bucknell-es/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR26DY80H5kBPqRXDfCkYZ-vGb_VlbsPW5keH7GYf8oluV-itSVaTLPefOI_aem_MA35dP-Vmn386En3XXFVJA

Is that 15m grant for a magnet only for Bucknell? That's an outrageouss amount of FIT $ so it is likely for more than 1 FCPS magnet. Grrants aren't annual so ...FCPS did the magnets to avoid boundary changes and this dolt Reid is talking about AAP centers and movement? That ship sailed when FCPS did many local level iv- maybe Reid wants to remove that and go back to busing for larger centers? In that case why bother with all this 8130 crap?

For next year it’s just Bucknell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Changing MS structure is a logistical bridge too far for FCPS. Let's stay on topic for boundaries, since the SB is going to vote approval on the updated 8130 this Thursday the 18th.

I am adamently opposed to Reid making decisions after reading about FCPS submitting a grant application to turn a school into a Montesorri Magnet. Parents, PTA, and school board member were unaware...Dunne from Mount Vernon District. https://mvonthemove.com/fcps-pauses-plans-for-montessori-program-at-bucknell-es/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR26DY80H5kBPqRXDfCkYZ-vGb_VlbsPW5keH7GYf8oluV-itSVaTLPefOI_aem_MA35dP-Vmn386En3XXFVJA

Is that 15m grant for a magnet only for Bucknell? That's an outrageouss amount of FIT $ so it is likely for more than 1 FCPS magnet. Grrants aren't annual so ...FCPS did the magnets to avoid boundary changes and this dolt Reid is talking about AAP centers and movement? That ship sailed when FCPS did many local level iv- maybe Reid wants to remove that and go back to busing for larger centers? In that case why bother with all this 8130 crap?

For next year it’s just Bucknell.

So as usual there are separate rules /policies/ regulations for that area of the county? 2 elementary schools by Bucknell - Riverside [has AAP] and Groveton each have 10 room modulars. SY28-29 Groveton projected to be 95% cap with modular and 139% without. Then there is Bush Hill 115% Rosehill 133%.

Something is off here with that load a building with out of boundary students for Montesorri and/or AAP considering this [w]holistic boundary fresh start stuff.

[Anonymous]

52% capacity?! Something needs to be done to fill it. Boundary changes won’t be able to so a magnet makes sense. I think Montessori is great as is grant money but it does seem better to use a program fcps already has like immersion to fill it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:52% capacity?! Something needs to be done to fill it. Boundary changes won’t be able to so a magnet makes sense. I think Montessori is great as is grant money but it does seem better to use a program fcps already has like immersion to fill it.

Excuse me but the neighbors houses are full and there are 2 10 room modulars plus other schools with high projected enrollment. This is a clear example of sticking in a program rather than making difficult boundary adjustments.

It is total garbage considering what else is going on and just like the West Potomac addition does not sync with what should happen in a county wide school division.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:52% capacity?! Something needs to be done to fill it. Boundary changes won’t be able to so a magnet makes sense. I think Montessori is great as is grant money but it does seem better to use a program fcps already has like immersion to fill it.

Excuse me but the neighbors houses are full and there are 2 10 room modulars plus other schools with high projected enrollment. This is a clear example of sticking in a program rather than making difficult boundary adjustments.

It is total garbage considering what else is going on and just like the West Potomac addition does not sync with what should happen in a county wide school division.

If multiple neighboring schools are overcrowded, you are right, boundary changes could address the underenrollment. I should have looked more into it before making a comment.