FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It is in the state of Virginia, no matter what you feel or want or what I feel or want.

Educate yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Don't be that obtuse. It's painful.

Clarifying that a school system can legally look at SES factors when adjusting boundaries does not say anything about whether a particular school system (in this case, FCPS) is making SES factors the "focus" of its potential boundary changes.

And November 5th? Really? The last time Trump started working his magic on Virginia residents it resulted in widespread disdain and a D sweep of the FCPS School Board in 2019. We can debate whether that was a good or bad development, but I certainly wouldn't assume the electorate is ready to reward the chaos already taken place in his second term with the election of Rs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Tell me you aren't a teacher without telling me you aren't a teacher.

[Anonymous]

My guess is the folks shouting on this board are Gatehouse, One Fairfax, true believers. They don’t seem to be aware of the real political cost of their radical vision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My guess is the folks shouting on this board are Gatehouse, One Fairfax, true believers. They don’t seem to be aware of the real political cost of their radical vision.

To include hypocritical members of the "committee."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Don't be that obtuse. It's painful.

Clarifying that a school system can legally look at SES factors when adjusting boundaries does not say anything about whether a particular school system (in this case, FCPS) is making SES factors the "focus" of its potential boundary changes.

And November 5th? Really? The last time Trump started working his magic on Virginia residents it resulted in widespread disdain and a D sweep of the FCPS School Board in 2019. We can debate whether that was a good or bad development, but I certainly wouldn't assume the electorate is ready to reward the chaos already taken place in his second term with the election of Rs.

You underestimate the impact of this boundary redraw. You sound like Joe Biden in May of last year. Your arrogance will cost many others a lot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My guess is the folks shouting on this board are Gatehouse, One Fairfax, true believers. They don’t seem to be aware of the real political cost of their radical vision.

Guess again. And it's already been pointed out that the "radical vision" would be similar to many prior boundary changes, albeit on a larger scale not seen for several decades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Don't be that obtuse. It's painful.

Clarifying that a school system can legally look at SES factors when adjusting boundaries does not say anything about whether a particular school system (in this case, FCPS) is making SES factors the "focus" of its potential boundary changes.

And November 5th? Really? The last time Trump started working his magic on Virginia residents it resulted in widespread disdain and a D sweep of the FCPS School Board in 2019. We can debate whether that was a good or bad development, but I certainly wouldn't assume the electorate is ready to reward the chaos already taken place in his second term with the election of Rs.

You underestimate the impact of this boundary redraw. You sound like Joe Biden in May of last year. Your arrogance will cost many others a lot.

It's difficult to overestimate or underestimate the impact of something that hasn't been made public and apparently is still in its early stages. I don't put any weight on the "leaked maps" stuff - it just seemed intended to stoke opposition to the broader review based on aggressive but unrealistic scenarios (such as adding three entire new ES feeders to Lewis).

[Anonymous]

Is Waples Mill to Fairfax HS true?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is Waples Mill to Fairfax HS true?

Completely speculative and conjectural.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is Waples Mill to Fairfax HS true?

Completely speculative and conjectural.

Well, that comment in an anonymous board sets me completely at ease.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is Waples Mill to Fairfax HS true?

Oh man, I’d love to see the look on WM parent faces if that were true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My guess is the folks shouting on this board are Gatehouse, One Fairfax, true believers. They don’t seem to be aware of the real political cost of their radical vision.

I’ve thought this for a while. Doubly suspicious because any time you make a claim like that “poof” the post disappears.

The school board is deep in its echo chamber as we see daily on this board. Not even the parents and community members at all the meetings overwhelmingly clamoring for no changes has deterred them. Voting booth poison pill, for sure.

[Anonymous]

Can we all agree that the school board members’ kids should ALL be moved as post of this process? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is Waples Mill to Fairfax HS true?

Completely speculative and conjectural.

Until the day it becomes a fact and it’s too late to do anything.