FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Ha!!!

“AI says it’s ok.”

…if you think relying an AI for legal advice in this area is good idea…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Moving HVES to Lewis would be farther from their homes. Also, HVES is only about 52.6% white; it is hardly a segregated school. The issue is between high- and low-performers, not race.

FCPS doesn't have segregated schools.

Anymore

AAP schools are a form of segregation.

AKA special education and is needed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Ha!!!

“AI says it’s ok.”

…if you think relying an AI for legal advice in this area is good idea…

As it turns out, it's an accurate, and therefore convenient, summary, and more informative than continued suggestions that potential boundary revisions designed to comply with current law would be illegal.

I think you'll need to fall back on the argument that you won't go along with the boundary changes for your own snowflakes rather than contend FCPS (or the third-party consultant it's retained) can't take SES factors into account in developing potential boundary changes.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

Rope a dope doesn’t mean what you think it means.

Also, quotes should be for actually statements, not your warped perception of others’ arguments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Ha!!!

“AI says it’s ok.”

…if you think relying an AI for legal advice in this area is good idea…

As it turns out, it's an accurate, and therefore convenient, summary, and more informative than continued suggestions that potential boundary revisions designed to comply with current law would be illegal.

I think you'll need to fall back on the argument that you won't go along with the boundary changes for your own snowflakes rather than contend FCPS (or the third-party consultant it's retained) can't take SES factors into account in developing potential boundary changes.

Nice. Thank you for confirming that the focus of the boundary change is NOT capacity or transportation, but is socioeconomic driven. Good luck with that. Have fun on November 5th.

[Anonymous]

How can you say it is equitable for any student to be in a facility that is in poor repair?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good luck with that. Have fun on November 5th.

It would be interesting to hear Spanberger and Earle-Sears's positions on this. I can't find a contact email for Spanberger's campaign. Does someone have one?

[Anonymous]

Why would spanberger have a comment on a local school system’s decision? That is not a state issue.

[Anonymous]

FCPS can’t get out of its own way.

Shouting down at NoVa families that they have a legal right to redraw every neighborhood to fit their vision of socioeconomic balancing is no way for the Democrats to take Virginia in the fall.

[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?

No one wants to shut down AP.

We want to get rid of IB and switch all schools to AP.

We want more access, not less.

[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.

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.

Rope a dope doesn’t mean what you think it means.

Also, quotes should be for actually statements, not your warped perception of others’ arguments.

The quotes are intended to summarize the thrust of your voluminous complaints. Sorry, not sorry.

[Anonymous]

This boundary review is the gift that keeps on giving to Earle-Sears

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why would spanberger have a comment on a local school system’s decision? That is not a state issue.

Local school policies (and the broader issue of parent rights in education) were literally one of the defining campaign issues of the last gubernatorial election and part of the reason Youngkin won.

https://www.npr.org/2021/11/04/1052101647/education-parents-election-virginia-republicans

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Moving HVES to Lewis would be farther from their homes. Also, HVES is only about 52.6% white; it is hardly a segregated school. The issue is between high- and low-performers, not race.

FCPS doesn't have segregated schools.

Anymore

AAP schools are a form of segregation.

AKA special education and is needed.

AAP is NOT GT. It is not special education. Mainstream special ed. Mainstream GT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would spanberger have a comment on a local school system’s decision? That is not a state issue.

Local school policies (and the broader issue of parent rights in education) were literally one of the defining campaign issues of the last gubernatorial election and part of the reason Youngkin won.

https://www.npr.org/2021/11/04/1052101647/education-parents-election-virginia-republicans

This, exactly. The SB should read the room.