FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I attended one of the virtual boundary review meetings. If you haven’t, the breakout rooms are facilitated by FCPS staff members. The last section is “what questions do you want answered?” and one participant asked for more info on Thru Consulting. I felt like our staff member was a little naive to the sensitivity this entire exercise and explained they are starting with a clean slate and using GIS to redraw. This consulting firm is from up north - they have NO idea about the regional breakdown or impacts of Northern Virginia changes.

The staff member did say their preliminary suggestions will be released for more community feedback. They are going to be eaten alive!! But I also fear very minimal changes will be made post that draft release.

Mine said they were using “AI software” which made me roll my eyes. But agreed, fear that it’s going to be a complete new slate vs all these tiny movements.

It seems like there should be more transparency in their methodology. Is that FOIA-able?

It’s in their BRAC meeting minutes. It’s called Frontline GIS

https://www.fcps.edu/december-16-2024-superintendents-boundary-review-advisory-committee-meeting

From the Frontline GIS website:

“This powerful platform lets districts map the data that matters—schools, boundaries, student demographics, academic performance, staffing, and more—unlocking real-time insights that drive quicker, smarter decisions.”

https://www.frontlineeducation.com/analytics-software/school-mapping/

So, if FCPS is not redrawing boundaries based on test scores and demographics, why are they driving their boundary redraw effort using software that does exactly that?

It would be like an airline saying they do not charge different prices for passengers based on weight and then requiring all passengers to report their weight before setting individual prices for each passenger based on the “wealth of data” at their disposal.

Right.

Right? This is the “nuclear option”. But they can blame it on everyone’s favorite buzzword “artificial intelligence and machine learning”

[Anonymous]

Frontline GIS software cannot account for transfers due to Language or AP/IB

This is the real issue. If you shut down these transfers, that solves a huge part of the problem.

Why did they not get a program that can account for one of the things that drives the most motivated families out of certain schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You people act like school districts never redistricting kids! It’s actually regular practice in most districts. FCPS has not done it in decades because they always caved to the loudest voices. At the expense of running an efficient school system and reducing costs. FCPS needs to do the comprehensive look now, make changes that might be temporarily painful, and then revisit every five years for much smaller changes. You will be fine, your kids will be fine. And the system will be better run.

One can easily argue that the large over capacity school with some of the shortest commutes and tighest boundaries in the county and strong dedicated community involvement (WSHS) is one of the most effective models of taxpayer stewardship and should be duplicated wherever possible, instead of throwing money away and bussing kids all over for equity, lowering achievement and increasing taxpayer unhappiness.

If WSHS can successfully educate a larger number of students using fewer funds and maximizing space, and limiting commuting dollars spent bussing kids, then they are doing things right, being more efficient and effective, and should be left alone to do their thing.

WSHS was the beneficiary of a big expansion courtesy of taxpayers and a former Facilities head who was a WSHS graduate. If it got that expansion, still is above capacity, and borders a school with hundreds of available seats, it's hard to argue that it's poor stewardship to move some kids to the other school.

Otherwise you are basically arguing that there are good schools and bad schools, and that it's in the greater interests to triage and let the smaller schools decline with their students having access to fewer academic and extra-curricular opportunities. The "planned shrinkage" model was popular in the Reagan era among economists who argued that cities should deny basic services to areas like the South Bronx until they were totally depopulated and could then be redeveloped.

You argument holds no water

WSHS would be successful without the rezoning.

If WSHS was not renovated, not a single family would support rezoning to Lewis. They might be clamoring to get a renovation, but they wouldn't be asking to get rezoned.

WSHS is educating more kids effectively using fewer resources. They don't even have or need a single trailer, which is generally the first step to address overcrowding before rezoning is even mentioned.

Why do you want to target and punish WSHS kids for doing well in school, for having school admins and teachers who are successful at saving taxpayer money by successfully educating more kids for less money by having larger teacher/student ratios, and for having one the smallest boundary footprints in the entire FCPS?

I don't equate doing what's right by Lewis as "punishing" anyone. Your argument starts and ends with a flawed premise.

Also, if having compact boundaries ("smallest boundary footprints") is one of the top one or two considerations, then clearly revising the expansive Langley boundaries should be a top priority.

Why should Lewis take priority over the families of WSHS?

Equity rezoning is wildly unpopular.


Other people's kids are not your political pawns.

A few dozen posters on DCUM doesn't make potential redistricting "wildly unpopular," and "equity" isn't quite the dirty word you think it is.

In a county-wide system, boundary adjustments to deal with overcrowding, under-enrollment, transportation inefficiencies, and disparities in access to academic and extra-curricular opportunities are entirely prudent and certainly within the discretion of an elected school board under VA law.

If you don't like it, move, go private, or try to vote out the current SB in 2027. You have complete control over the first two options and the third will reveal whether the fine-tuning of boundaries is as "wildly unpopular" as you claim.

A few posters on dcum might not, but the community meetings showed that universally, even in districts like Lewis, Herndon and Mount Vernon, this rezoning is wildly unpopular.

Ask the committee members who are combing through the feedback.

Ironically, at the boundary meetings, I sat next to a parent at one of the lower performing under capacity schools frequently mentioned here as a recipient of rezoning.

Her response was interesting.

She wanted her high school renovated and the sports fields fixed to be comparable to all the other high schools.

She wanted IB out and AP in. To her, this addressed the equity.

She didn't want the leadership academy. She wanted AP so kids stop transferring out, and something more practical for the low performing kids, like a trades academy.

Her statement at the end summed it up " If you don't fix those three issues (the junky facilities, being an IB school, and no viable programs for the lower performing kids) then it doesn't matter who you transfer in because they will just find ways not to attend our school and the problems won't be fixed."

Just so you know, she didn't complain about the teachers and admin, or really the student population either.

Her issues were #1 the junky building and embarrassing sports fields compared to other high schools and #2 IB/IB transfer loophole and #3 FCPS taking the wrong approach for the sizeable low performing population

I wish this was a sticky at the top of this thread!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This is the real issue. If you shut down these transfers, that solves a huge part of the problem.

Why would you want to shut down equitable access to language or AP programs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I was in FCPS years ago, we got redistricted to a new high school in the spring of 8th grade. We'd already signed up for courses at one HS and got told to re-register for different courses at the other HS. Very few kids from our MS got moved, so the only kids we already knew at the second HS were kids from ES (our ES was a split feeder) or some kids we knew from the neighborhood pool.

We were redistricted because the enrollment at the second school had been declining and the local School Board member probably wanted more MC/UMC kids at the school. No one ever used the word "equity" to describe the purpose of the boundary change.

So this stuff is not new even if it hasn't happened recently. People were upset in the short term, and freshman year of HS wasn't great socially, but it worked out fine in the end.

Were the schools radically different in quality and educational outcomes?

The first school was more uniformly MC. The second school (the one I ended up attending) had more extremes - more wealthy kids but also a larger low-income and minority population.

The educational outcomes for my school were considered good. I can't really speak to the educational outcomes at the school I'd expected to attend. My older siblings went to the school I'd expected to attend and my parents said that, in their estimation, the teachers at the school I ended up attending were stronger.

I'm not going to argue if you want to contend there are bigger perceived differences among schools in FCPS now than years ago. Clearly there are. But my point was that redistricting to increase a school's enrollment and, perhaps, to add more MC/UMC kids to a particular school isn't a new idea in FCPS.

[Anonymous]

I bet the pitch to FCPS was grand:

“No, it’s fine. Look, we just put weighting factors on a bunch of other stuff, but we keep an eye on the metrics you care about (demographics and scores) as we adjust the outcomes of the boundaries. That way you say it’s not ALL about demographics, but you CONSIDERED demographics. But really the other stuff is weighed less than demographics. It’s just about demographics. Buy our software.”

Using an algorithm to redraw a boundary map based on demographics does not relieve FCPS of its legal obligations.

Conducting a more efficient discriminatory redraw does not make a discriminatory redraw legal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is the real issue. If you shut down these transfers, that solves a huge part of the problem.

Why would you want to shut down equitable access to language or AP programs?

Here’s an edited version of your text for clarity and flow:

99% of the families transferring to Langley are not doing so to learn Russian. They are choosing Langley to escape the Herndon or South Lakes HS.

Why should FCPS make it easier for families to bypass their zoned schools? Langley facilitates this by allowing a large bus to access the parking lot and drop off 20+ students. Robyn Lady is well aware of this issue and agrees that it needs to be addressed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You people act like school districts never redistricting kids! It’s actually regular practice in most districts. FCPS has not done it in decades because they always caved to the loudest voices. At the expense of running an efficient school system and reducing costs. FCPS needs to do the comprehensive look now, make changes that might be temporarily painful, and then revisit every five years for much smaller changes. You will be fine, your kids will be fine. And the system will be better run.

One can easily argue that the large over capacity school with some of the shortest commutes and tighest boundaries in the county and strong dedicated community involvement (WSHS) is one of the most effective models of taxpayer stewardship and should be duplicated wherever possible, instead of throwing money away and bussing kids all over for equity, lowering achievement and increasing taxpayer unhappiness.

If WSHS can successfully educate a larger number of students using fewer funds and maximizing space, and limiting commuting dollars spent bussing kids, then they are doing things right, being more efficient and effective, and should be left alone to do their thing.

WSHS was the beneficiary of a big expansion courtesy of taxpayers and a former Facilities head who was a WSHS graduate. If it got that expansion, still is above capacity, and borders a school with hundreds of available seats, it's hard to argue that it's poor stewardship to move some kids to the other school.

Otherwise you are basically arguing that there are good schools and bad schools, and that it's in the greater interests to triage and let the smaller schools decline with their students having access to fewer academic and extra-curricular opportunities. The "planned shrinkage" model was popular in the Reagan era among economists who argued that cities should deny basic services to areas like the South Bronx until they were totally depopulated and could then be redeveloped.

You argument holds no water

WSHS would be successful without the rezoning.

If WSHS was not renovated, not a single family would support rezoning to Lewis. They might be clamoring to get a renovation, but they wouldn't be asking to get rezoned.

WSHS is educating more kids effectively using fewer resources. They don't even have or need a single trailer, which is generally the first step to address overcrowding before rezoning is even mentioned.

Why do you want to target and punish WSHS kids for doing well in school, for having school admins and teachers who are successful at saving taxpayer money by successfully educating more kids for less money by having larger teacher/student ratios, and for having one the smallest boundary footprints in the entire FCPS?

I don't equate doing what's right by Lewis as "punishing" anyone. Your argument starts and ends with a flawed premise.

Also, if having compact boundaries ("smallest boundary footprints") is one of the top one or two considerations, then clearly revising the expansive Langley boundaries should be a top priority.

Tell us you don’t understand how housing density works without telling us.

It really is amateur hour with the boundary change proponents today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is the real issue. If you shut down these transfers, that solves a huge part of the problem.

Why would you want to shut down equitable access to language or AP programs?

If say, >100 students are transferring to another school for a specific program not offered at their home school, then perhaps the home school should be offering that program too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I bet the pitch to FCPS was grand:

“No, it’s fine. Look, we just put weighting factors on a bunch of other stuff, but we keep an eye on the metrics you care about (demographics and scores) as we adjust the outcomes of the boundaries. That way you say it’s not ALL about demographics, but you CONSIDERED demographics. But really the other stuff is weighed less than demographics. It’s just about demographics. Buy our software.”

Using an algorithm to redraw a boundary map based on demographics does not relieve FCPS of its legal obligations.

Conducting a more efficient discriminatory redraw does not make a discriminatory redraw legal.

Considering demographic factors such as socio-economic status when revising boundaries does not make boundary revisions illegal, either. Basing decisions on race is a different issue.

One AI response:

School districts can consider socioeconomic status (SES) when drawing or revising school boundaries, and many districts do this as part of their efforts to promote socioeconomic integration and educational equity.

Some key aspects of this practice:

The legal framework allows consideration of SES, as distinct from racial segregation. While explicit racial quotas have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, using socioeconomic factors in boundary decisions remains permissible.

Districts typically look at factors like:

Percentage of students qualifying for free/reduced lunch
Median household income in different neighborhoods
Parents' education levels
Census tract data on poverty rates
English language learner populations
Student mobility rates

Research suggests socioeconomic integration can have educational benefits:

Exposure to peers from different backgrounds
More equitable access to resources and experienced teachers
Improved academic outcomes for lower-income students without negative impacts on higher-income students
Reduced concentration of high-needs students in particular schools

However, these efforts often face practical challenges:

Transportation costs and logistics
Community resistance to boundary changes
Geographic constraints in highly segregated areas
Balance with other priorities like keeping neighborhoods together
Need to maintain manageable enrollment levels

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is the real issue. If you shut down these transfers, that solves a huge part of the problem.

Why would you want to shut down equitable access to language or AP programs?

If say, >100 students are transferring to another school for a specific program not offered at their home school, then perhaps the home school should be offering that program too.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is the real issue. If you shut down these transfers, that solves a huge part of the problem.

Why would you want to shut down equitable access to language or AP programs?

If say, >100 students are transferring to another school for a specific program not offered at their home school, then perhaps the home school should be offering that program too.

Sure. So the solution, as you stated, is to offer the program. Not deny students any opportunities in the name of equity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You people act like school districts never redistricting kids! It’s actually regular practice in most districts. FCPS has not done it in decades because they always caved to the loudest voices. At the expense of running an efficient school system and reducing costs. FCPS needs to do the comprehensive look now, make changes that might be temporarily painful, and then revisit every five years for much smaller changes. You will be fine, your kids will be fine. And the system will be better run.

One can easily argue that the large over capacity school with some of the shortest commutes and tighest boundaries in the county and strong dedicated community involvement (WSHS) is one of the most effective models of taxpayer stewardship and should be duplicated wherever possible, instead of throwing money away and bussing kids all over for equity, lowering achievement and increasing taxpayer unhappiness.

If WSHS can successfully educate a larger number of students using fewer funds and maximizing space, and limiting commuting dollars spent bussing kids, then they are doing things right, being more efficient and effective, and should be left alone to do their thing.

WSHS was the beneficiary of a big expansion courtesy of taxpayers and a former Facilities head who was a WSHS graduate. If it got that expansion, still is above capacity, and borders a school with hundreds of available seats, it's hard to argue that it's poor stewardship to move some kids to the other school.

Otherwise you are basically arguing that there are good schools and bad schools, and that it's in the greater interests to triage and let the smaller schools decline with their students having access to fewer academic and extra-curricular opportunities. The "planned shrinkage" model was popular in the Reagan era among economists who argued that cities should deny basic services to areas like the South Bronx until they were totally depopulated and could then be redeveloped.

You argument holds no water

WSHS would be successful without the rezoning.

If WSHS was not renovated, not a single family would support rezoning to Lewis. They might be clamoring to get a renovation, but they wouldn't be asking to get rezoned.

WSHS is educating more kids effectively using fewer resources. They don't even have or need a single trailer, which is generally the first step to address overcrowding before rezoning is even mentioned.

Why do you want to target and punish WSHS kids for doing well in school, for having school admins and teachers who are successful at saving taxpayer money by successfully educating more kids for less money by having larger teacher/student ratios, and for having one the smallest boundary footprints in the entire FCPS?

I don't equate doing what's right by Lewis as "punishing" anyone. Your argument starts and ends with a flawed premise.

Also, if having compact boundaries ("smallest boundary footprints") is one of the top one or two considerations, then clearly revising the expansive Langley boundaries should be a top priority.

Tell us you don’t understand how housing density works without telling us.

It really is amateur hour with the boundary change proponents today.

No, it's more like a rope-a-dope: "Compact boundaries are desirable, except when we decide they aren't."

One assumes they may be looking to make the Langley boundaries more compact, taking into account the low residential density in certain areas near the school and the higher residential density in other areas closer to the school than western Great Falls.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You people act like school districts never redistricting kids! It’s actually regular practice in most districts. FCPS has not done it in decades because they always caved to the loudest voices. At the expense of running an efficient school system and reducing costs. FCPS needs to do the comprehensive look now, make changes that might be temporarily painful, and then revisit every five years for much smaller changes. You will be fine, your kids will be fine. And the system will be better run.

One can easily argue that the large over capacity school with some of the shortest commutes and tighest boundaries in the county and strong dedicated community involvement (WSHS) is one of the most effective models of taxpayer stewardship and should be duplicated wherever possible, instead of throwing money away and bussing kids all over for equity, lowering achievement and increasing taxpayer unhappiness.

If WSHS can successfully educate a larger number of students using fewer funds and maximizing space, and limiting commuting dollars spent bussing kids, then they are doing things right, being more efficient and effective, and should be left alone to do their thing.

Please draw a "compact" boundary for Langley that does not encompass McLean High. Then draw a compact boundary for McLean. And, if Herndon is to encompass Forestville, that does not look very compact for Herndon Middle.

It appears that two of the high schools with the most compact boundaries are up for grabs because they are somewhat crowded. Yet, most seem to be very happy with the experience their children are having there,

WSHS was the beneficiary of a big expansion courtesy of taxpayers and a former Facilities head who was a WSHS graduate. If it got that expansion, still is above capacity, and borders a school with hundreds of available seats, it's hard to argue that it's poor stewardship to move some kids to the other school.

Otherwise you are basically arguing that there are good schools and bad schools, and that it's in the greater interests to triage and let the smaller schools decline with their students having access to fewer academic and extra-curricular opportunities. The "planned shrinkage" model was popular in the Reagan era among economists who argued that cities should deny basic services to areas like the South Bronx until they were totally depopulated and could then be redeveloped.

You argument holds no water

WSHS would be successful without the rezoning.

If WSHS was not renovated, not a single family would support rezoning to Lewis. They might be clamoring to get a renovation, but they wouldn't be asking to get rezoned.

WSHS is educating more kids effectively using fewer resources. They don't even have or need a single trailer, which is generally the first step to address overcrowding before rezoning is even mentioned.

Why do you want to target and punish WSHS kids for doing well in school, for having school admins and teachers who are successful at saving taxpayer money by successfully educating more kids for less money by having larger teacher/student ratios, and for having one the smallest boundary footprints in the entire FCPS?

I don't equate doing what's right by Lewis as "punishing" anyone. Your argument starts and ends with a flawed premise.

Also, if having compact boundaries ("smallest boundary footprints") is one of the top one or two considerations, then clearly revising the expansive Langley boundaries should be a top priority.

[Anonymous]

Equity: The commitment to promote fairness and justice in the formation of public policy that results in all residents – regardless of age, race, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, national origin, marital status, disability, socio-economic status or neighborhood of residence or other characteristics – having opportunity to fully participate in the region’s economic vitality, contribute to its readiness for the future, and connect to its assets and resources.

I don't have any problem with this. This can be achieved without moving students. Seems to me that they are moving students based on socio-economic status. Is that equitable?

If you want "equal opportunity" then get rid of IB.