FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most parents of kids currently in school don't want their kids moved because being split from a chunk of your friend group sucks. Unfortunately with so many split feeders in FCPS that happens every single year to a new group of kids. The boundary review is meant to reduce that as much as possible. I wish they were able to do more to make true pyramids, but the uneven distribution of schools prevents that.
It is understandable that current parents are fighting to stop it from happening once to their kids. They don't outweigh years and years of new kids starting school in future years who won't have to face it if the boundaries are fixed. (speaking about split feeders only)

I get that. But then offer grandfathering to kids and deal with that for a few years and then move on to the new boundaries. I will have kids the worst grades for this move (8,10,12) and their best friends are friends from elementary who are on the other side of a proposed split.

In a few years the schools might not need the boundary adjustment. That is the point.

Schools that are overcrowded, and I would put that at 101% or more, should have their boundaries adjusted. That is going to affect other schools nearby as kids are moved. Let's see how much of that can be used to fix the split feeders and attendance islands. I suspect most of the families in the attendance islands are happy where they are and don't feel the need to be moved anyway. And there are people at split feeders that don't want to move because they would be moving form a strong school to a weak school.

I get that. They should focus on untangling boundaries and not balancing capacity, unless the capacity issues are burdening the community. Phase in the changes over the next 5-6 years to allow for grandfathering. Look into fixing capacity issues, if needed, during the next round. Untangling the web of split feeders shouldn’t hinge on balancing capacity at Chantilly and West Springfield.

Boundary changes for thee, but not for me!

What a bunch of hypocrites. You’ll throw other areas under a bus in a heartbeat as long as it means you can avoid redistricting.

The fact is that they should either be all-in or just leave boundaries alone except for those two ES that are really overcrowded.

Actually, I’m in the Marshall pyramid which might be the most heavily impacted by changes. I’d love to see Kilmer and Thoreau detangled and minimize the number of split elementary schools. The problem is that the proposals to “fix” West Springfield and Chantilly is to create more split feeders, so they’re solving one problem by creating another and the first problem might not even exist in five years.

Then get them to align the Kilmer/Marshall boundaries and the Thoreau/Madison boundaries and leave the rest of us alone. They aren't doing anything about Thoreau being a three-way split feeder.

[Anonymous]

I actually do not care about split feeders - at all. In a different metro growing up, my neighborhood all went to the same ES, MS, and HS — but most at our ES went to a different MS (so 2 MSs fed from our ES) and then those ES students were split across 3 different HS. It wasn’t a problem for anyone.

City-wide, there weren’t any attempts to have strict pyramids. They also tweaked the boundaries for either ES or MS or HS every 3 years. So there were tiny annual boundary changes to one of the 3 types of school, one type per year, instead of FCPS stalling for many years and then making big changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most parents of kids currently in school don't want their kids moved because being split from a chunk of your friend group sucks. Unfortunately with so many split feeders in FCPS that happens every single year to a new group of kids. The boundary review is meant to reduce that as much as possible. I wish they were able to do more to make true pyramids, but the uneven distribution of schools prevents that.
It is understandable that current parents are fighting to stop it from happening once to their kids. They don't outweigh years and years of new kids starting school in future years who won't have to face it if the boundaries are fixed. (speaking about split feeders only)

I get that. But then offer grandfathering to kids and deal with that for a few years and then move on to the new boundaries. I will have kids the worst grades for this move (8,10,12) and their best friends are friends from elementary who are on the other side of a proposed split.

In a few years the schools might not need the boundary adjustment. That is the point.

Schools that are overcrowded, and I would put that at 101% or more, should have their boundaries adjusted. That is going to affect other schools nearby as kids are moved. Let's see how much of that can be used to fix the split feeders and attendance islands. I suspect most of the families in the attendance islands are happy where they are and don't feel the need to be moved anyway. And there are people at split feeders that don't want to move because they would be moving form a strong school to a weak school.

I get that. They should focus on untangling boundaries and not balancing capacity, unless the capacity issues are burdening the community. Phase in the changes over the next 5-6 years to allow for grandfathering. Look into fixing capacity issues, if needed, during the next round. Untangling the web of split feeders shouldn’t hinge on balancing capacity at Chantilly and West Springfield.

Boundary changes for thee, but not for me!

What a bunch of hypocrites. You’ll throw other areas under a bus in a heartbeat as long as it means you can avoid redistricting.

The fact is that they should either be all-in or just leave boundaries alone except for those two ES that are really overcrowded.

Actually, I’m in the Marshall pyramid which might be the most heavily impacted by changes. I’d love to see Kilmer and Thoreau detangled and minimize the number of split elementary schools. The problem is that the proposals to “fix” West Springfield and Chantilly is to create more split feeders, so they’re solving one problem by creating another and the first problem might not even exist in five years.

I am also in the Marshall Pyramid and have a question. A neighbor mentioned that implementing any one of the three options could increase the poverty rate in Marshall by 15-20 percent. Does anyone know if this statement is accurate?

Marshall was 27% FARMS last year. Do you mean that it would increase the poverty rate to 42-47% (15-20 percentage points) or to up to 31-32% (an increase in the current rate by 15-20%)?

The former would be an exaggeration. The latter seems possible given the proposed boundary changes.

I don't understand why they are proposing to move Tysons Green from Marshall to Madison. It is not necessary and makes the Wolftrap area that would stay at Marshall look almost like an attendance island.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most parents of kids currently in school don't want their kids moved because being split from a chunk of your friend group sucks. Unfortunately with so many split feeders in FCPS that happens every single year to a new group of kids. The boundary review is meant to reduce that as much as possible. I wish they were able to do more to make true pyramids, but the uneven distribution of schools prevents that.
It is understandable that current parents are fighting to stop it from happening once to their kids. They don't outweigh years and years of new kids starting school in future years who won't have to face it if the boundaries are fixed. (speaking about split feeders only)

I get that. But then offer grandfathering to kids and deal with that for a few years and then move on to the new boundaries. I will have kids the worst grades for this move (8,10,12) and their best friends are friends from elementary who are on the other side of a proposed split.

In a few years the schools might not need the boundary adjustment. That is the point.

Schools that are overcrowded, and I would put that at 101% or more, should have their boundaries adjusted. That is going to affect other schools nearby as kids are moved. Let's see how much of that can be used to fix the split feeders and attendance islands. I suspect most of the families in the attendance islands are happy where they are and don't feel the need to be moved anyway. And there are people at split feeders that don't want to move because they would be moving form a strong school to a weak school.

I get that. They should focus on untangling boundaries and not balancing capacity, unless the capacity issues are burdening the community. Phase in the changes over the next 5-6 years to allow for grandfathering. Look into fixing capacity issues, if needed, during the next round. Untangling the web of split feeders shouldn’t hinge on balancing capacity at Chantilly and West Springfield.

Boundary changes for thee, but not for me!

What a bunch of hypocrites. You’ll throw other areas under a bus in a heartbeat as long as it means you can avoid redistricting.

The fact is that they should either be all-in or just leave boundaries alone except for those two ES that are really overcrowded.

Actually, I’m in the Marshall pyramid which might be the most heavily impacted by changes. I’d love to see Kilmer and Thoreau detangled and minimize the number of split elementary schools. The problem is that the proposals to “fix” West Springfield and Chantilly is to create more split feeders, so they’re solving one problem by creating another and the first problem might not even exist in five years.

I am also in the Marshall Pyramid and have a question. A neighbor mentioned that implementing any one of the three options could increase the poverty rate in Marshall by 15-20 percent. Does anyone know if this statement is accurate?

Oh no! Do not let more poor people into my child’s school. 27% is more than enough!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most parents of kids currently in school don't want their kids moved because being split from a chunk of your friend group sucks. Unfortunately with so many split feeders in FCPS that happens every single year to a new group of kids. The boundary review is meant to reduce that as much as possible. I wish they were able to do more to make true pyramids, but the uneven distribution of schools prevents that.
It is understandable that current parents are fighting to stop it from happening once to their kids. They don't outweigh years and years of new kids starting school in future years who won't have to face it if the boundaries are fixed. (speaking about split feeders only)

I get that. But then offer grandfathering to kids and deal with that for a few years and then move on to the new boundaries. I will have kids the worst grades for this move (8,10,12) and their best friends are friends from elementary who are on the other side of a proposed split.

In a few years the schools might not need the boundary adjustment. That is the point.

Schools that are overcrowded, and I would put that at 101% or more, should have their boundaries adjusted. That is going to affect other schools nearby as kids are moved. Let's see how much of that can be used to fix the split feeders and attendance islands. I suspect most of the families in the attendance islands are happy where they are and don't feel the need to be moved anyway. And there are people at split feeders that don't want to move because they would be moving form a strong school to a weak school.

I get that. They should focus on untangling boundaries and not balancing capacity, unless the capacity issues are burdening the community. Phase in the changes over the next 5-6 years to allow for grandfathering. Look into fixing capacity issues, if needed, during the next round. Untangling the web of split feeders shouldn’t hinge on balancing capacity at Chantilly and West Springfield.

Boundary changes for thee, but not for me!

What a bunch of hypocrites. You’ll throw other areas under a bus in a heartbeat as long as it means you can avoid redistricting.

The fact is that they should either be all-in or just leave boundaries alone except for those two ES that are really overcrowded.

Actually, I’m in the Marshall pyramid which might be the most heavily impacted by changes. I’d love to see Kilmer and Thoreau detangled and minimize the number of split elementary schools. The problem is that the proposals to “fix” West Springfield and Chantilly is to create more split feeders, so they’re solving one problem by creating another and the first problem might not even exist in five years.

I am also in the Marshall Pyramid and have a question. A neighbor mentioned that implementing any one of the three options could increase the poverty rate in Marshall by 15-20 percent. Does anyone know if this statement is accurate?

Oh no! Do not let more poor people into my child’s school. 27% is more than enough!

I’m sure you’ve volunteered for your kids to be moved, right? Right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most parents of kids currently in school don't want their kids moved because being split from a chunk of your friend group sucks. Unfortunately with so many split feeders in FCPS that happens every single year to a new group of kids. The boundary review is meant to reduce that as much as possible. I wish they were able to do more to make true pyramids, but the uneven distribution of schools prevents that.
It is understandable that current parents are fighting to stop it from happening once to their kids. They don't outweigh years and years of new kids starting school in future years who won't have to face it if the boundaries are fixed. (speaking about split feeders only)

I get that. But then offer grandfathering to kids and deal with that for a few years and then move on to the new boundaries. I will have kids the worst grades for this move (8,10,12) and their best friends are friends from elementary who are on the other side of a proposed split.

In a few years the schools might not need the boundary adjustment. That is the point.

Schools that are overcrowded, and I would put that at 101% or more, should have their boundaries adjusted. That is going to affect other schools nearby as kids are moved. Let's see how much of that can be used to fix the split feeders and attendance islands. I suspect most of the families in the attendance islands are happy where they are and don't feel the need to be moved anyway. And there are people at split feeders that don't want to move because they would be moving form a strong school to a weak school.

I get that. They should focus on untangling boundaries and not balancing capacity, unless the capacity issues are burdening the community. Phase in the changes over the next 5-6 years to allow for grandfathering. Look into fixing capacity issues, if needed, during the next round. Untangling the web of split feeders shouldn’t hinge on balancing capacity at Chantilly and West Springfield.

Boundary changes for thee, but not for me!

What a bunch of hypocrites. You’ll throw other areas under a bus in a heartbeat as long as it means you can avoid redistricting.

The fact is that they should either be all-in or just leave boundaries alone except for those two ES that are really overcrowded.

Actually, I’m in the Marshall pyramid which might be the most heavily impacted by changes. I’d love to see Kilmer and Thoreau detangled and minimize the number of split elementary schools. The problem is that the proposals to “fix” West Springfield and Chantilly is to create more split feeders, so they’re solving one problem by creating another and the first problem might not even exist in five years.

I am also in the Marshall Pyramid and have a question. A neighbor mentioned that implementing any one of the three options could increase the poverty rate in Marshall by 15-20 percent. Does anyone know if this statement is accurate?

Oh no! Do not let more poor people into my child’s school. 27% is more than enough!

I’m sure you’ve volunteered for your kids to be moved, right? Right?

My kids attend a 50%+ FARMS school, and are doing just fine. Oh, and we live walking distance to the school, so we won’t get moved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most parents of kids currently in school don't want their kids moved because being split from a chunk of your friend group sucks. Unfortunately with so many split feeders in FCPS that happens every single year to a new group of kids. The boundary review is meant to reduce that as much as possible. I wish they were able to do more to make true pyramids, but the uneven distribution of schools prevents that.
It is understandable that current parents are fighting to stop it from happening once to their kids. They don't outweigh years and years of new kids starting school in future years who won't have to face it if the boundaries are fixed. (speaking about split feeders only)

I get that. But then offer grandfathering to kids and deal with that for a few years and then move on to the new boundaries. I will have kids the worst grades for this move (8,10,12) and their best friends are friends from elementary who are on the other side of a proposed split.

In a few years the schools might not need the boundary adjustment. That is the point.

Schools that are overcrowded, and I would put that at 101% or more, should have their boundaries adjusted. That is going to affect other schools nearby as kids are moved. Let's see how much of that can be used to fix the split feeders and attendance islands. I suspect most of the families in the attendance islands are happy where they are and don't feel the need to be moved anyway. And there are people at split feeders that don't want to move because they would be moving form a strong school to a weak school.

I get that. They should focus on untangling boundaries and not balancing capacity, unless the capacity issues are burdening the community. Phase in the changes over the next 5-6 years to allow for grandfathering. Look into fixing capacity issues, if needed, during the next round. Untangling the web of split feeders shouldn’t hinge on balancing capacity at Chantilly and West Springfield.

Boundary changes for thee, but not for me!

What a bunch of hypocrites. You’ll throw other areas under a bus in a heartbeat as long as it means you can avoid redistricting.

The fact is that they should either be all-in or just leave boundaries alone except for those two ES that are really overcrowded.

Actually, I’m in the Marshall pyramid which might be the most heavily impacted by changes. I’d love to see Kilmer and Thoreau detangled and minimize the number of split elementary schools. The problem is that the proposals to “fix” West Springfield and Chantilly is to create more split feeders, so they’re solving one problem by creating another and the first problem might not even exist in five years.

I am also in the Marshall Pyramid and have a question. A neighbor mentioned that implementing any one of the three options could increase the poverty rate in Marshall by 15-20 percent. Does anyone know if this statement is accurate?

Oh no! Do not let more poor people into my child’s school. 27% is more than enough!

I’m sure you’ve volunteered for your kids to be moved, right? Right?

My kids attend a 50%+ FARMS school, and are doing just fine. Oh, and we live walking distance to the school, so we won’t get moved.

Hypocrite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most parents of kids currently in school don't want their kids moved because being split from a chunk of your friend group sucks. Unfortunately with so many split feeders in FCPS that happens every single year to a new group of kids. The boundary review is meant to reduce that as much as possible. I wish they were able to do more to make true pyramids, but the uneven distribution of schools prevents that.
It is understandable that current parents are fighting to stop it from happening once to their kids. They don't outweigh years and years of new kids starting school in future years who won't have to face it if the boundaries are fixed. (speaking about split feeders only)

I get that. But then offer grandfathering to kids and deal with that for a few years and then move on to the new boundaries. I will have kids the worst grades for this move (8,10,12) and their best friends are friends from elementary who are on the other side of a proposed split.

In a few years the schools might not need the boundary adjustment. That is the point.

Schools that are overcrowded, and I would put that at 101% or more, should have their boundaries adjusted. That is going to affect other schools nearby as kids are moved. Let's see how much of that can be used to fix the split feeders and attendance islands. I suspect most of the families in the attendance islands are happy where they are and don't feel the need to be moved anyway. And there are people at split feeders that don't want to move because they would be moving form a strong school to a weak school.

I get that. They should focus on untangling boundaries and not balancing capacity, unless the capacity issues are burdening the community. Phase in the changes over the next 5-6 years to allow for grandfathering. Look into fixing capacity issues, if needed, during the next round. Untangling the web of split feeders shouldn’t hinge on balancing capacity at Chantilly and West Springfield.

Boundary changes for thee, but not for me!

What a bunch of hypocrites. You’ll throw other areas under a bus in a heartbeat as long as it means you can avoid redistricting.

The fact is that they should either be all-in or just leave boundaries alone except for those two ES that are really overcrowded.

Actually, I’m in the Marshall pyramid which might be the most heavily impacted by changes. I’d love to see Kilmer and Thoreau detangled and minimize the number of split elementary schools. The problem is that the proposals to “fix” West Springfield and Chantilly is to create more split feeders, so they’re solving one problem by creating another and the first problem might not even exist in five years.

I am also in the Marshall Pyramid and have a question. A neighbor mentioned that implementing any one of the three options could increase the poverty rate in Marshall by 15-20 percent. Does anyone know if this statement is accurate?

Oh no! Do not let more poor people into my child’s school. 27% is more than enough!

I’m sure you’ve volunteered for your kids to be moved, right? Right?

These folks always say they've happy at their high FARMS schools and yet nothing on earth seems to give them as much pleasure as the possibility that other kids will be redistricted into high FARMS schools or other schools will be turned into high FARMS schools.

"Live and let live" doesn't seem to be in their wheelhouse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most parents of kids currently in school don't want their kids moved because being split from a chunk of your friend group sucks. Unfortunately with so many split feeders in FCPS that happens every single year to a new group of kids. The boundary review is meant to reduce that as much as possible. I wish they were able to do more to make true pyramids, but the uneven distribution of schools prevents that.
It is understandable that current parents are fighting to stop it from happening once to their kids. They don't outweigh years and years of new kids starting school in future years who won't have to face it if the boundaries are fixed. (speaking about split feeders only)

I get that. But then offer grandfathering to kids and deal with that for a few years and then move on to the new boundaries. I will have kids the worst grades for this move (8,10,12) and their best friends are friends from elementary who are on the other side of a proposed split.

In a few years the schools might not need the boundary adjustment. That is the point.

Schools that are overcrowded, and I would put that at 101% or more, should have their boundaries adjusted. That is going to affect other schools nearby as kids are moved. Let's see how much of that can be used to fix the split feeders and attendance islands. I suspect most of the families in the attendance islands are happy where they are and don't feel the need to be moved anyway. And there are people at split feeders that don't want to move because they would be moving form a strong school to a weak school.

I get that. They should focus on untangling boundaries and not balancing capacity, unless the capacity issues are burdening the community. Phase in the changes over the next 5-6 years to allow for grandfathering. Look into fixing capacity issues, if needed, during the next round. Untangling the web of split feeders shouldn’t hinge on balancing capacity at Chantilly and West Springfield.

Boundary changes for thee, but not for me!

What a bunch of hypocrites. You’ll throw other areas under a bus in a heartbeat as long as it means you can avoid redistricting.

The fact is that they should either be all-in or just leave boundaries alone except for those two ES that are really overcrowded.

Actually, I’m in the Marshall pyramid which might be the most heavily impacted by changes. I’d love to see Kilmer and Thoreau detangled and minimize the number of split elementary schools. The problem is that the proposals to “fix” West Springfield and Chantilly is to create more split feeders, so they’re solving one problem by creating another and the first problem might not even exist in five years.

I am also in the Marshall Pyramid and have a question. A neighbor mentioned that implementing any one of the three options could increase the poverty rate in Marshall by 15-20 percent. Does anyone know if this statement is accurate?

Oh no! Do not let more poor people into my child’s school. 27% is more than enough!

Triggered much?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most parents of kids currently in school don't want their kids moved because being split from a chunk of your friend group sucks. Unfortunately with so many split feeders in FCPS that happens every single year to a new group of kids. The boundary review is meant to reduce that as much as possible. I wish they were able to do more to make true pyramids, but the uneven distribution of schools prevents that.
It is understandable that current parents are fighting to stop it from happening once to their kids. They don't outweigh years and years of new kids starting school in future years who won't have to face it if the boundaries are fixed. (speaking about split feeders only)

I get that. But then offer grandfathering to kids and deal with that for a few years and then move on to the new boundaries. I will have kids the worst grades for this move (8,10,12) and their best friends are friends from elementary who are on the other side of a proposed split.

In a few years the schools might not need the boundary adjustment. That is the point.

Schools that are overcrowded, and I would put that at 101% or more, should have their boundaries adjusted. That is going to affect other schools nearby as kids are moved. Let's see how much of that can be used to fix the split feeders and attendance islands. I suspect most of the families in the attendance islands are happy where they are and don't feel the need to be moved anyway. And there are people at split feeders that don't want to move because they would be moving form a strong school to a weak school.

I get that. They should focus on untangling boundaries and not balancing capacity, unless the capacity issues are burdening the community. Phase in the changes over the next 5-6 years to allow for grandfathering. Look into fixing capacity issues, if needed, during the next round. Untangling the web of split feeders shouldn’t hinge on balancing capacity at Chantilly and West Springfield.

Boundary changes for thee, but not for me!

What a bunch of hypocrites. You’ll throw other areas under a bus in a heartbeat as long as it means you can avoid redistricting.

The fact is that they should either be all-in or just leave boundaries alone except for those two ES that are really overcrowded.

Actually, I’m in the Marshall pyramid which might be the most heavily impacted by changes. I’d love to see Kilmer and Thoreau detangled and minimize the number of split elementary schools. The problem is that the proposals to “fix” West Springfield and Chantilly is to create more split feeders, so they’re solving one problem by creating another and the first problem might not even exist in five years.

I am also in the Marshall Pyramid and have a question. A neighbor mentioned that implementing any one of the three options could increase the poverty rate in Marshall by 15-20 percent. Does anyone know if this statement is accurate?

Oh no! Do not let more poor people into my child’s school. 27% is more than enough!

I’m sure you’ve volunteered for your kids to be moved, right? Right?

These folks always say they've happy at their high FARMS schools and yet nothing on earth seems to give them as much pleasure as the possibility that other kids will be redistricted into high FARMS schools or other schools will be turned into high FARMS schools.

"Live and let live" doesn't seem to be in their wheelhouse.

Or maybe they are annoyed by parents who try to prevent any meaningful change which may improve outcomes for a disproportionate number of kids in the District? Maybe they don't feel the sense of entitlement that seems to permeate on this forum? Are you all as libertarian in your general politics as you are when it comes to schooling? Never figured that Rand Paul was so popular in this area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That's a silly argument. If the SB moves someone from a good to a not-so-good school, and at the same time the government incentivizes better education by offering vouchers, why wouldn't one take that up?

Most folks have made their peace with their school pyramid.. And SB shaking it up at the same time as vouchers are offered gives every incentive to unhappy folks to jump ship... I would do it in a heartbeat too!

Good luck finding spots at QUALITY private schools in this area with enough space for the pro-voucher families. I taught at private school for many years. Many of the teachers who are close to retirement age tend to be good. The young teachers, willing to stay in the profession, and work for much less than at a public school, are either independently wealthy, and teach for fun/vocation, or are not good at their job. Working at a private school is often their last option. If they are decent teachers, they will jump ship as soon as they can.

Yes, maybe the students are better behaved in privates, but these parents, once they are “paying”, expect white glove treatment! This also pushes skilled teachers, with better options, to leave.

Sure, if we do get vouchers, how many “pop-up” private schools will open? How skilled will those teachers be? What accreditation will these new institutions have?

The grass isn’t always greener in private schools. Sure, some that charge $30K+ are fantastic, but it took them decades to reach that point.

Even the quality of education in the Catholic high schools ($20K+) is not superior than the honors and AP level classes at fcps. Your kid will however be shielded from the riff-raff at the 30% FARMS schools. So, I guess there is that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most parents of kids currently in school don't want their kids moved because being split from a chunk of your friend group sucks. Unfortunately with so many split feeders in FCPS that happens every single year to a new group of kids. The boundary review is meant to reduce that as much as possible. I wish they were able to do more to make true pyramids, but the uneven distribution of schools prevents that.
It is understandable that current parents are fighting to stop it from happening once to their kids. They don't outweigh years and years of new kids starting school in future years who won't have to face it if the boundaries are fixed. (speaking about split feeders only)

I get that. But then offer grandfathering to kids and deal with that for a few years and then move on to the new boundaries. I will have kids the worst grades for this move (8,10,12) and their best friends are friends from elementary who are on the other side of a proposed split.

In a few years the schools might not need the boundary adjustment. That is the point.

Schools that are overcrowded, and I would put that at 101% or more, should have their boundaries adjusted. That is going to affect other schools nearby as kids are moved. Let's see how much of that can be used to fix the split feeders and attendance islands. I suspect most of the families in the attendance islands are happy where they are and don't feel the need to be moved anyway. And there are people at split feeders that don't want to move because they would be moving form a strong school to a weak school.

I get that. They should focus on untangling boundaries and not balancing capacity, unless the capacity issues are burdening the community. Phase in the changes over the next 5-6 years to allow for grandfathering. Look into fixing capacity issues, if needed, during the next round. Untangling the web of split feeders shouldn’t hinge on balancing capacity at Chantilly and West Springfield.

Boundary changes for thee, but not for me!

What a bunch of hypocrites. You’ll throw other areas under a bus in a heartbeat as long as it means you can avoid redistricting.

The fact is that they should either be all-in or just leave boundaries alone except for those two ES that are really overcrowded.

Actually, I’m in the Marshall pyramid which might be the most heavily impacted by changes. I’d love to see Kilmer and Thoreau detangled and minimize the number of split elementary schools. The problem is that the proposals to “fix” West Springfield and Chantilly is to create more split feeders, so they’re solving one problem by creating another and the first problem might not even exist in five years.

I am also in the Marshall Pyramid and have a question. A neighbor mentioned that implementing any one of the three options could increase the poverty rate in Marshall by 15-20 percent. Does anyone know if this statement is accurate?

Oh no! Do not let more poor people into my child’s school. 27% is more than enough!

I’m sure you’ve volunteered for your kids to be moved, right? Right?

These folks always say they've happy at their high FARMS schools and yet nothing on earth seems to give them as much pleasure as the possibility that other kids will be redistricted into high FARMS schools or other schools will be turned into high FARMS schools.

"Live and let live" doesn't seem to be in their wheelhouse.

Or maybe they are annoyed by parents who try to prevent any meaningful change which may improve outcomes for a disproportionate number of kids in the District? Maybe they don't feel the sense of entitlement that seems to permeate on this forum? Are you all as libertarian in your general politics as you are when it comes to schooling? Never figured that Rand Paul was so popular in this area.

I could educate you on what's going on here but easier to just watch you stew in your generalized resentment and rage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most parents of kids currently in school don't want their kids moved because being split from a chunk of your friend group sucks. Unfortunately with so many split feeders in FCPS that happens every single year to a new group of kids. The boundary review is meant to reduce that as much as possible. I wish they were able to do more to make true pyramids, but the uneven distribution of schools prevents that.
It is understandable that current parents are fighting to stop it from happening once to their kids. They don't outweigh years and years of new kids starting school in future years who won't have to face it if the boundaries are fixed. (speaking about split feeders only)

I get that. But then offer grandfathering to kids and deal with that for a few years and then move on to the new boundaries. I will have kids the worst grades for this move (8,10,12) and their best friends are friends from elementary who are on the other side of a proposed split.

In a few years the schools might not need the boundary adjustment. That is the point.

Schools that are overcrowded, and I would put that at 101% or more, should have their boundaries adjusted. That is going to affect other schools nearby as kids are moved. Let's see how much of that can be used to fix the split feeders and attendance islands. I suspect most of the families in the attendance islands are happy where they are and don't feel the need to be moved anyway. And there are people at split feeders that don't want to move because they would be moving form a strong school to a weak school.

I get that. They should focus on untangling boundaries and not balancing capacity, unless the capacity issues are burdening the community. Phase in the changes over the next 5-6 years to allow for grandfathering. Look into fixing capacity issues, if needed, during the next round. Untangling the web of split feeders shouldn’t hinge on balancing capacity at Chantilly and West Springfield.

Boundary changes for thee, but not for me!

What a bunch of hypocrites. You’ll throw other areas under a bus in a heartbeat as long as it means you can avoid redistricting.

The fact is that they should either be all-in or just leave boundaries alone except for those two ES that are really overcrowded.

Actually, I’m in the Marshall pyramid which might be the most heavily impacted by changes. I’d love to see Kilmer and Thoreau detangled and minimize the number of split elementary schools. The problem is that the proposals to “fix” West Springfield and Chantilly is to create more split feeders, so they’re solving one problem by creating another and the first problem might not even exist in five years.

I am also in the Marshall Pyramid and have a question. A neighbor mentioned that implementing any one of the three options could increase the poverty rate in Marshall by 15-20 percent. Does anyone know if this statement is accurate?

Oh no! Do not let more poor people into my child’s school. 27% is more than enough!

I’m sure you’ve volunteered for your kids to be moved, right? Right?

These folks always say they've happy at their high FARMS schools and yet nothing on earth seems to give them as much pleasure as the possibility that other kids will be redistricted into high FARMS schools or other schools will be turned into high FARMS schools.

"Live and let live" doesn't seem to be in their wheelhouse.

Or maybe they are annoyed by parents who try to prevent any meaningful change which may improve outcomes for a disproportionate number of kids in the District? Maybe they don't feel the sense of entitlement that seems to permeate on this forum? Are you all as libertarian in your general politics as you are when it comes to schooling? Never figured that Rand Paul was so popular in this area.

Boundary change opponents see your “meaningful change” and know it doesn’t consider mental health of students, won’t actually lift disadvantaged students up, and will create a downward spiral in the county.

Come to think of it, I guess really bad negative change qualifies as “meaningful,” so I’m guessing that’s what you meant.

[Anonymous]

I wonder if the mental health of the low-income kids is taken into consideration as well.

[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:Most parents of kids currently in school don't want their kids moved because being split from a chunk of your friend group sucks. Unfortunately with so many split feeders in FCPS that happens every single year to a new group of kids. The boundary review is meant to reduce that as much as possible. I wish they were able to do more to make true pyramids, but the uneven distribution of schools prevents that.
It is understandable that current parents are fighting to stop it from happening once to their kids. They don't outweigh years and years of new kids starting school in future years who won't have to face it if the boundaries are fixed. (speaking about split feeders only)

I get that. But then offer grandfathering to kids and deal with that for a few years and then move on to the new boundaries. I will have kids the worst grades for this move (8,10,12) and their best friends are friends from elementary who are on the other side of a proposed split.

In a few years the schools might not need the boundary adjustment. That is the point.

Schools that are overcrowded, and I would put that at 101% or more, should have their boundaries adjusted. That is going to affect other schools nearby as kids are moved. Let's see how much of that can be used to fix the split feeders and attendance islands. I suspect most of the families in the attendance islands are happy where they are and don't feel the need to be moved anyway. And there are people at split feeders that don't want to move because they would be moving form a strong school to a weak school.

I get that. They should focus on untangling boundaries and not balancing capacity, unless the capacity issues are burdening the community. Phase in the changes over the next 5-6 years to allow for grandfathering. Look into fixing capacity issues, if needed, during the next round. Untangling the web of split feeders shouldn’t hinge on balancing capacity at Chantilly and West Springfield.

Boundary changes for thee, but not for me!

What a bunch of hypocrites. You’ll throw other areas under a bus in a heartbeat as long as it means you can avoid redistricting.

The fact is that they should either be all-in or just leave boundaries alone except for those two ES that are really overcrowded.

Actually, I’m in the Marshall pyramid which might be the most heavily impacted by changes. I’d love to see Kilmer and Thoreau detangled and minimize the number of split elementary schools. The problem is that the proposals to “fix” West Springfield and Chantilly is to create more split feeders, so they’re solving one problem by creating another and the first problem might not even exist in five years.

I am also in the Marshall Pyramid and have a question. A neighbor mentioned that implementing any one of the three options could increase the poverty rate in Marshall by 15-20 percent. Does anyone know if this statement is accurate?

Oh no! Do not let more poor people into my child’s school. 27% is more than enough!

I’m sure you’ve volunteered for your kids to be moved, right? Right?

These folks always say they've happy at their high FARMS schools and yet nothing on earth seems to give them as much pleasure as the possibility that other kids will be redistricted into high FARMS schools or other schools will be turned into high FARMS schools.

"Live and let live" doesn't seem to be in their wheelhouse.

Or maybe they are annoyed by parents who try to prevent any meaningful change which may improve outcomes for a disproportionate number of kids in the District? Maybe they don't feel the sense of entitlement that seems to permeate on this forum? Are you all as libertarian in your general politics as you are when it comes to schooling? Never figured that Rand Paul was so popular in this area.

Boundary change opponents see your “meaningful change” and know it doesn’t consider mental health of students, won’t actually lift disadvantaged students up, and will create a downward spiral in the county.

Come to think of it, I guess really bad negative change qualifies as “meaningful,” so I’m guessing that’s what you meant.

Ah, yes. That evil school board doing all they can to harm the kids in this district! Such villains!

If you are so ok with split feeders sending kids off to other schools every year without any real negative affects on their mental health... I am sure your kids can also transition into another school without having a mental health breakdown. Assuming they aren't snow flakes like their parents, which is probably not the greatest assumption. Just admit it. You think you are entitled and that the school district should pander to you.

Do you even understand the extent of your hypocrisy?