FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. How do teachers feel about having SPED kids "mainstreamed" into GenEd?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Absolutely. And to lesser schools, not better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I’m more curious about how many times some of these rabid anti boundary change folks have posted. I suspect it’s fewer than ten great falls people who have contributed paged and pages.

What an absolutely idiotic comment. As if posters from all over the county aren't worried about potential boundary changes - West Springfield? Chantilly? Marshall? McLean? Grow up.
DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I’m more curious about how many times some of these rabid anti boundary change folks have posted. I suspect it’s fewer than ten great falls people who have contributed paged and pages.

You'll never know unless Jeff starts sharing information he typically does not share.

I'm 100% sure the anti-boundary change posts come from others in addition to Great Falls posters. I would say, at a minimum, the posts come from:

* Great Falls and/or Forestville posters who do not want to be rezoned to Herndon;

* West Springfield posters who do not want to be rezoned to Lewis;

* People still smarting from earlier boundary changes, such as the redistricting of Westfield and Oakton kids to South Lakes in 2008; and

* Others who do not see a reason for disruptive boundary changes at a time when enrollments are flat and there are some big macro uncertainties (i.e., DOGE, immigration) looming that could affect future school enrollments, or who think FCPS should have made other decisions (i.e., regarding the future of AAP centers and IB) before embarking on a boundary study.

To the extent FCPS staff are reading this thread it would be a mistake, and inconsistent with the feedback at the community meetings, for them to think it's just folks from two pyramids with serious concerns about the boundary review and how they've approached it.

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That claim is an insult to ACTUAL special education. A faster curriculum - because that's all AAP is - is NOT a gifted program. GMAFB.
DP

Gifted education is considered special ed in Virginia and mandated by the state.

It has been for decades.

Yes, I'm aware. However, AAP =/= gifted education. I'm also aware that VA passes it off as such because no one has forced the issue, but we are all well aware that AAP is merely a slightly accelerated program. I honestly can't believe that they've gotten away with ending GT and pretending AAP is for "gifted" kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Absolutely. And to lesser schools, not better.

Just wow!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. How do teachers feel about having SPED kids "mainstreamed" into GenEd?

Um. Define “sped kids.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That claim is an insult to ACTUAL special education. A faster curriculum - because that's all AAP is - is NOT a gifted program. GMAFB.
DP

Gifted education is considered special ed in Virginia and mandated by the state.

It has been for decades.

Yes, I'm aware. However, AAP =/= gifted education. I'm also aware that VA passes it off as such because no one has forced the issue, but we are all well aware that AAP is merely a slightly accelerated program. I honestly can't believe that they've gotten away with ending GT and pretending AAP is for "gifted" kids.

It’s because everyone is exceptional in Fairfax County! Just ask them.

[Anonymous]

Ladies, there is an AAP forum whete you can argue the definition of truly gifted to your hearts content.

This thread is about rezoning

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They are not going about this in any way that is good.

Which schools are having problems? Not the ones with too many students.

What are the problems in the schools that ARE having problems?
Achievement
Truancy
etc

Are the students in the schools with problems going to be helped by more students? Does that even make sense?

So, what is the purpose?
to make the schools look better on paper.

That's it.

This is NOT about equity. This is simply about optics.

If it were about equity, they would be focused on helping the "underserved." They would be far more concerned about truancy, tutoring, and facilities.

This is all so spot on. Why can’t the SB understand this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are not going about this in any way that is good.

Which schools are having problems? Not the ones with too many students.

What are the problems in the schools that ARE having problems?
Achievement
Truancy
etc

Are the students in the schools with problems going to be helped by more students? Does that even make sense?

So, what is the purpose?
to make the schools look better on paper.

That's it.

This is NOT about equity. This is simply about optics.

If it were about equity, they would be focused on helping the "underserved." They would be far more concerned about truancy, tutoring, and facilities.

This is all so spot on. Why can’t the SB understand this?

They understand it. This was a major issue my group discussed at our boundary meeting: WHY do we even need this- what problem are we going to solve. They won’t address it and will point to capacity, but no one at the over-capacity schools is complaining so it isn’t really a problem.

[Anonymous]

Why aren’t we going to see any maps until June? The timeline was March-June2025 and now they are saying by June 2025. Why?
This is annoying in that they pushed the boundary policy meeting until the summer as well- like the knew people had vacations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why aren’t we going to see any maps until June? The timeline was March-June2025 and now they are saying by June 2025. Why?
This is annoying in that they pushed the boundary policy meeting until the summer as well- like the knew people had vacations.

I'm on the boundary review committee. We've had four meetings so far and haven't really done anything yet. We're still looking through the feedback from the community meetings that were held in November through January. There was one virtual meeting after our last meeting and I believe we're going to look through that info at our next meeting. So we haven't started discussing any boundary changes yet. You can read the "minutes" from what we've done - its at the bottom of this page.
https://www.fcps.edu/about-fcps/maps/2024-2026-boundary-review/superintendents-boundary-review-advisory-committee

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why aren’t we going to see any maps until June? The timeline was March-June2025 and now they are saying by June 2025. Why?
This is annoying in that they pushed the boundary policy meeting until the summer as well- like the knew people had vacations.

I'm on the boundary review committee. We've had four meetings so far and haven't really done anything yet. We're still looking through the feedback from the community meetings that were held in November through January. There was one virtual meeting after our last meeting and I believe we're going to look through that info at our next meeting. So we haven't started discussing any boundary changes yet. You can read the "minutes" from what we've done - its at the bottom of this page.
https://www.fcps.edu/about-fcps/maps/2024-2026-boundary-review/superintendents-boundary-review-advisory-committee

What is your take on community feedback?

I’ve attended boundary review meetings and read a lot of the comments myself but curious as to a BRAC members opinion? Is the reading in the room that community does not want this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why aren’t we going to see any maps until June? The timeline was March-June2025 and now they are saying by June 2025. Why?
This is annoying in that they pushed the boundary policy meeting until the summer as well- like the knew people had vacations.

I'm on the boundary review committee. We've had four meetings so far and haven't really done anything yet. We're still looking through the feedback from the community meetings that were held in November through January. There was one virtual meeting after our last meeting and I believe we're going to look through that info at our next meeting. So we haven't started discussing any boundary changes yet. You can read the "minutes" from what we've done - its at the bottom of this page.
https://www.fcps.edu/about-fcps/maps/2024-2026-boundary-review/superintendents-boundary-review-advisory-committee

What is your take on community feedback?

I’ve attended boundary review meetings and read a lot of the comments myself but curious as to a BRAC members opinion? Is the reading in the room that community does not want this?

+1. I hope that the message has shone through to the Committee that very very few people want their kids moved.