FCPS Boundary Review - New Maps

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm in the WSHS pyramid and it basically boils down to A. those (who are safe from being moved) who want others to be moved and B. those (at risk of being moved) who don't want to go.

You don't see anyone in favor of boundary review volunteering to pupil place their kids out of WSHS for the common good.

I'm in the HVES neighborhood (with kids at WSHS currently) and personally am not philosophically opposed to a boundary review but feel this is a bandaid and doesn't truly address underlying enrollment issues.

It will be interesting what the real maps look like.

If FCPS wants to rezone part of WSHS to Lewis, the neighborhoods that make the most sense are either Daventry (from West Springfield Elementary) or on the other side of Keene Mill Road, the neighborhoods from the Greeley stoplight to Tiverton near St. Bernadette Church (from Keene Mill Elementary) Both of those neighborhoods are the closest West Springfield High School neighborhoods to Lewis. Either one would make perfect sense to get rezoned to Lewis, if FCPS is trying to fill Lewis.

In the other direction, Gambrill Rd outside the Parkway (from Hunt Valley) is the closest to South County and the farthest from Lewis. If FCPS is trying to add to South County, the current Thru maps make sense to send some of the Gambril neighborhoods to SoCo. Sending that neighborhood to Lewis would be foolish.

The third option is the least disruptive and makes the most sense for WSHS. That option is sending all of Sangster to Lake Braddock, which is one of Thru's suggestions

Right now, there are supposedly several hundred houses, that split from the rest of Sangster and go to Irving, which is farther than Lake Braddock Middle School, and WSHS, which is about the same distance as Lake Braddock.

Keeping all of Sangster together and sending the entire school to Lake Braddock makes far more sense than rezoning any of the other WSHS neighborhoods.

Since your first point is the one I’m most familiar with, no it doesn’t make sense to move Keene Mill or Daventry kids out of WSHS because it will create more split feeders either at the elementary or middle school level. Also many of those kids walk to middle or high school.

And since that was so off, I’m guessing the rest of your post is nonsense tool.

Exactly. Send all of Hunt Valley to South County. Move kids in South County to Hayfield to make room for them alll. Then you can move in the Rolling Valley kids to WSHS that Sandy Anderson cares so much about. Because all of this is about making her and a handful of others happy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps we are not as vocal or have as much time to post as you seem to do, but we do exist and are ready to see some change.

And no I’m not going to explain exactly what that change is.

You’re very vocal, don’t lie.

We know you want equity by bringing the system down to the lowest level. You don’t need to explain it to us!

Haven’t posted in months. Me being a lurker is the only thing you’ve got right about me.

I think it’s ridiculous that all the title 1
ES schools in the area feed into the same high school.
I also think it unfair that children attending schools just a few miles from each other have such vastly differences experiences. If that makes me an equity warrior, so be it.

All shifting the boundaries will do is increase test scores by shifting who is taking the test. The average will increase but that will hide the fact that the poor kids are still scoring low.

Fixing the issue of low scores for low SES families and URM requires the families care about education and that tends not to be the case. You have kids being raised by drop outs or parents who didn’t attend school who were raised by drop outs and parents who didn’t attend school. Eight hours of school, five days a week rarely overcomes the home environment.

I agree, the issue of low scores for low SES families will not be fixed by boundary changes. But it would help students all students have a more equitable experience than their peers just up the road. It might discourage other MC/UMC families like mine from trying to avoiding the school by pupil placing, private, etc., and making the problem worse. The boundary review is a step in the right direction, not a solution intended to fix all problems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Until FCPS does a full residency check of our FCPS high school slated for rezoning using the previous month's utility bill, transfer out the kids whose parents are lying about their addresses, then moves out the dozens of approved transfers attending our school that is officially closed to transfers, I will work against rezoning. Do those 2 things, and if they don't find at least 20-30 kids who live in houses zoned for other high schools, along with returning the dozens of pupil placed students back to their own schools or to schools with capacity, I will suck it up and move my kids to their new middle and high school.

It is unfair and wrong for FCPS to rezone a single student who lives in boundary for a school, as long as they are allowing dozens of students to pupil place into that overcapacity school that has been officially closed to transfers for years.

It's also wrong for FCPS to refuse so do a residency check of overcrowded schools where it is an open secret that there are dozens of kids attending that school who live in adjacent high school zones, and did not follow proper channels when they enrolled in the school, or in many cases, moved to other pyramids in middle or elementary school, but never changed their addresses with the school so they can just continue to attend our school.

100% agree. Has anyone outright asked this of the school board? In this kind of plain and straightforward language?

A friend is a counselor at one of the high schools and they said there are many kids who should no longer be attending - kids who placed in to take xyz and then drop the class. There needs to be verification and an enrollment audit to ascertain who needs to return to their in-boundary school. I doubt it's an insignificant number.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps we are not as vocal or have as much time to post as you seem to do, but we do exist and are ready to see some change.

And no I’m not going to explain exactly what that change is.

You’re very vocal, don’t lie.

We know you want equity by bringing the system down to the lowest level. You don’t need to explain it to us!

Haven’t posted in months. Me being a lurker is the only thing you’ve got right about me.

I think it’s ridiculous that all the title 1
ES schools in the area feed into the same high school.
I also think it unfair that children attending schools just a few miles from each other have such vastly differences experiences. If that makes me an equity warrior, so be it.

All shifting the boundaries will do is increase test scores by shifting who is taking the test. The average will increase but that will hide the fact that the poor kids are still scoring low.

Fixing the issue of low scores for low SES families and URM requires the families care about education and that tends not to be the case. You have kids being raised by drop outs or parents who didn’t attend school who were raised by drop outs and parents who didn’t attend school. Eight hours of school, five days a week rarely overcomes the home environment.

I agree, the issue of low scores for low SES families will not be fixed by boundary changes. But it would help students all students have a more equitable experience than their peers just up the road. It might discourage other MC/UMC families like mine from trying to avoiding the school by pupil placing, private, etc., and making the problem worse. The boundary review is a step in the right direction, not a solution intended to fix all problems.

Gosh, willing to wager an entire school district on some social experiment with a shoddy-logic hypothesis.

What could go wrong!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps we are not as vocal or have as much time to post as you seem to do, but we do exist and are ready to see some change.

And no I’m not going to explain exactly what that change is.

You’re very vocal, don’t lie.

We know you want equity by bringing the system down to the lowest level. You don’t need to explain it to us!

Haven’t posted in months. Me being a lurker is the only thing you’ve got right about me.

I think it’s ridiculous that all the title 1
ES schools in the area feed into the same high school.
I also think it unfair that children attending schools just a few miles from each other have such vastly differences experiences. If that makes me an equity warrior, so be it.

All shifting the boundaries will do is increase test scores by shifting who is taking the test. The average will increase but that will hide the fact that the poor kids are still scoring low.

Fixing the issue of low scores for low SES families and URM requires the families care about education and that tends not to be the case. You have kids being raised by drop outs or parents who didn’t attend school who were raised by drop outs and parents who didn’t attend school. Eight hours of school, five days a week rarely overcomes the home environment.

I agree, the issue of low scores for low SES families will not be fixed by boundary changes. But it would help students all students have a more equitable experience than their peers just up the road. It might discourage other MC/UMC families like mine from trying to avoiding the school by pupil placing, private, etc., and making the problem worse. The boundary review is a step in the right direction, not a solution intended to fix all problems.

I'm confused by your post. You're trying to say that fixing the issue of low scores for kids from low SES families will make more MC/UMC kids want to go to school with them. But doing that requires a boundary review that transfers MC/UMC kids to schools with low income families. And that's the solution. But that doesn't make any sense. You aren't actually helping lower income kids via more eductional support, etc. You're just trying to move MC/UMC kids in to mask the problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps we are not as vocal or have as much time to post as you seem to do, but we do exist and are ready to see some change.

And no I’m not going to explain exactly what that change is.

You’re very vocal, don’t lie.

We know you want equity by bringing the system down to the lowest level. You don’t need to explain it to us!

Haven’t posted in months. Me being a lurker is the only thing you’ve got right about me.

I think it’s ridiculous that all the title 1
ES schools in the area feed into the same high school.
I also think it unfair that children attending schools just a few miles from each other have such vastly differences experiences. If that makes me an equity warrior, so be it.

All shifting the boundaries will do is increase test scores by shifting who is taking the test. The average will increase but that will hide the fact that the poor kids are still scoring low.

Fixing the issue of low scores for low SES families and URM requires the families care about education and that tends not to be the case. You have kids being raised by drop outs or parents who didn’t attend school who were raised by drop outs and parents who didn’t attend school. Eight hours of school, five days a week rarely overcomes the home environment.

I agree, the issue of low scores for low SES families will not be fixed by boundary changes. But it would help students all students have a more equitable experience than their peers just up the road. It might discourage other MC/UMC families like mine from trying to avoiding the school by pupil placing, private, etc., and making the problem worse. The boundary review is a step in the right direction, not a solution intended to fix all problems.

I'm confused by your post. You're trying to say that fixing the issue of low scores for kids from low SES families will make more MC/UMC kids want to go to school with them. But doing that requires a boundary review that transfers MC/UMC kids to schools with low income families. And that's the solution. But that doesn't make any sense. You aren't actually helping lower income kids via more eductional support, etc. You're just trying to move MC/UMC kids in to mask the problem.

I’m not proposing a solution because I’m not an expert in this area. What I am advocating for is a review process that may result in more equitable (I know some on this board hate this word 🥴) opportunities for students already attending or are in-bounds to attend the school. That it, that’s all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps we are not as vocal or have as much time to post as you seem to do, but we do exist and are ready to see some change.

And no I’m not going to explain exactly what that change is.

You’re very vocal, don’t lie.

We know you want equity by bringing the system down to the lowest level. You don’t need to explain it to us!

Haven’t posted in months. Me being a lurker is the only thing you’ve got right about me.

I think it’s ridiculous that all the title 1
ES schools in the area feed into the same high school.
I also think it unfair that children attending schools just a few miles from each other have such vastly differences experiences. If that makes me an equity warrior, so be it.

All shifting the boundaries will do is increase test scores by shifting who is taking the test. The average will increase but that will hide the fact that the poor kids are still scoring low.

Fixing the issue of low scores for low SES families and URM requires the families care about education and that tends not to be the case. You have kids being raised by drop outs or parents who didn’t attend school who were raised by drop outs and parents who didn’t attend school. Eight hours of school, five days a week rarely overcomes the home environment.

I agree, the issue of low scores for low SES families will not be fixed by boundary changes. But it would help students all students have a more equitable experience than their peers just up the road. It might discourage other MC/UMC families like mine from trying to avoiding the school by pupil placing, private, etc., and making the problem worse. The boundary review is a step in the right direction, not a solution intended to fix all problems.

I'm confused by your post. You're trying to say that fixing the issue of low scores for kids from low SES families will make more MC/UMC kids want to go to school with them. But doing that requires a boundary review that transfers MC/UMC kids to schools with low income families. And that's the solution. But that doesn't make any sense. You aren't actually helping lower income kids via more eductional support, etc. You're just trying to move MC/UMC kids in to mask the problem.

+1. Hard to take her argument seriously. Doesn’t come close to passing the smell test and ignores the students who are being moved to a poorer performing school to make her vision possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps we are not as vocal or have as much time to post as you seem to do, but we do exist and are ready to see some change.

And no I’m not going to explain exactly what that change is.

You’re very vocal, don’t lie.

We know you want equity by bringing the system down to the lowest level. You don’t need to explain it to us!

Haven’t posted in months. Me being a lurker is the only thing you’ve got right about me.

I think it’s ridiculous that all the title 1
ES schools in the area feed into the same high school.
I also think it unfair that children attending schools just a few miles from each other have such vastly differences experiences. If that makes me an equity warrior, so be it.

All shifting the boundaries will do is increase test scores by shifting who is taking the test. The average will increase but that will hide the fact that the poor kids are still scoring low.

Fixing the issue of low scores for low SES families and URM requires the families care about education and that tends not to be the case. You have kids being raised by drop outs or parents who didn’t attend school who were raised by drop outs and parents who didn’t attend school. Eight hours of school, five days a week rarely overcomes the home environment.

I agree, the issue of low scores for low SES families will not be fixed by boundary changes. But it would help students all students have a more equitable experience than their peers just up the road. It might discourage other MC/UMC families like mine from trying to avoiding the school by pupil placing, private, etc., and making the problem worse. The boundary review is a step in the right direction, not a solution intended to fix all problems.

Gosh, willing to wager an entire school district on some social experiment with a shoddy-logic hypothesis.

What could go wrong!

Gosh, over dramatic much? So do nothing, right?

What could (continue) to go wrong!?

[Anonymous]

So is the boundary review to fix capacity issues or is it to make things more "equitable?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps we are not as vocal or have as much time to post as you seem to do, but we do exist and are ready to see some change.

And no I’m not going to explain exactly what that change is.

You’re very vocal, don’t lie.

We know you want equity by bringing the system down to the lowest level. You don’t need to explain it to us!

Haven’t posted in months. Me being a lurker is the only thing you’ve got right about me.

I think it’s ridiculous that all the title 1
ES schools in the area feed into the same high school.
I also think it unfair that children attending schools just a few miles from each other have such vastly differences experiences. If that makes me an equity warrior, so be it.

All shifting the boundaries will do is increase test scores by shifting who is taking the test. The average will increase but that will hide the fact that the poor kids are still scoring low.

Fixing the issue of low scores for low SES families and URM requires the families care about education and that tends not to be the case. You have kids being raised by drop outs or parents who didn’t attend school who were raised by drop outs and parents who didn’t attend school. Eight hours of school, five days a week rarely overcomes the home environment.

I agree, the issue of low scores for low SES families will not be fixed by boundary changes. But it would help students all students have a more equitable experience than their peers just up the road. It might discourage other MC/UMC families like mine from trying to avoiding the school by pupil placing, private, etc., and making the problem worse. The boundary review is a step in the right direction, not a solution intended to fix all problems.

No, it won't. We are pupil placing out of SLHS. We don't like the IB program for our kid and pupil placing, based on AP and language, will lead to our kid being at a higher ranked HS. UMC and high SES families will continue to pupil place because there will be schools with stronger programs. If there are not, then they will go private. Parents who are invested in education will leave the public schools if they all become mediocre.

SLHS has a great community and many of our neighbors are happy there. It doesn't offer all the HL classes for the IB program because there are not enough students interested in those programs. The areas with more SL than HL classes tend to be the STEM classes where the HL class are harder and there is a smaller pool of kids interested. When you have 1/3 of the school who is not likely to take an IB class, the ESOL and FARMs students, then you shrink the pool of kids who are interested in the advanced classes. The advanced math and science classes are less attractive to many students as it is, I want my kid at a school where they can take the highest level math and science, so we will depart SLHS. If we can't pupil place, we will look for private as a sophomore.

Not to mention, you cannot draw the boundaries to balance all of the schools. The bussing that would be required is insane. You could offer that URM and FARMs families could choose to bus to undercrowded schools, like Langley. The kids who are most interested in being exposed to a better educational environment will have that chance, it isn't that different then TJ except that there doesn't have to be an application.

You will lose families if you try to make them move from a school with lots of classes and opportunities to a school with fewer choices. It is that simple.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps we are not as vocal or have as much time to post as you seem to do, but we do exist and are ready to see some change.

And no I’m not going to explain exactly what that change is.

You’re very vocal, don’t lie.

We know you want equity by bringing the system down to the lowest level. You don’t need to explain it to us!

Haven’t posted in months. Me being a lurker is the only thing you’ve got right about me.

I think it’s ridiculous that all the title 1
ES schools in the area feed into the same high school.
I also think it unfair that children attending schools just a few miles from each other have such vastly differences experiences. If that makes me an equity warrior, so be it.

All shifting the boundaries will do is increase test scores by shifting who is taking the test. The average will increase but that will hide the fact that the poor kids are still scoring low.

Fixing the issue of low scores for low SES families and URM requires the families care about education and that tends not to be the case. You have kids being raised by drop outs or parents who didn’t attend school who were raised by drop outs and parents who didn’t attend school. Eight hours of school, five days a week rarely overcomes the home environment.

I agree, the issue of low scores for low SES families will not be fixed by boundary changes. But it would help students all students have a more equitable experience than their peers just up the road. It might discourage other MC/UMC families like mine from trying to avoiding the school by pupil placing, private, etc., and making the problem worse. The boundary review is a step in the right direction, not a solution intended to fix all problems.

I'm confused by your post. You're trying to say that fixing the issue of low scores for kids from low SES families will make more MC/UMC kids want to go to school with them. But doing that requires a boundary review that transfers MC/UMC kids to schools with low income families. And that's the solution. But that doesn't make any sense. You aren't actually helping lower income kids via more eductional support, etc. You're just trying to move MC/UMC kids in to mask the problem.

+1. Hard to take her argument seriously. Doesn’t come close to passing the smell test and ignores the students who are being moved to a poorer performing school to make her vision possible.

We don't need another review to figure out how to help lower income kids or ESL learners. They need more eductional support, more dedicated classes and pull-outs for reading and language. And they need to get rid of IB at high SES high schools and institute AP, which is far more valuable for MC/UMC kids who are zoned for these schools. The school board knows what needs to be done. They just don't have the guts to do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So is the boundary review to fix capacity issues or is it to make things more "equitable?"

Based on the actual maps presented, it’s about balancing capacity (I wouldn’t call it “fixing” because the firm making the recommendations don’t know anything about the area.) The fixation on balancing equity and moving students from WSHS to Lewis does not reflect the current scenarios.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps we are not as vocal or have as much time to post as you seem to do, but we do exist and are ready to see some change.

And no I’m not going to explain exactly what that change is.

You’re very vocal, don’t lie.

We know you want equity by bringing the system down to the lowest level. You don’t need to explain it to us!

Haven’t posted in months. Me being a lurker is the only thing you’ve got right about me.

I think it’s ridiculous that all the title 1
ES schools in the area feed into the same high school.
I also think it unfair that children attending schools just a few miles from each other have such vastly differences experiences. If that makes me an equity warrior, so be it.

All shifting the boundaries will do is increase test scores by shifting who is taking the test. The average will increase but that will hide the fact that the poor kids are still scoring low.

Fixing the issue of low scores for low SES families and URM requires the families care about education and that tends not to be the case. You have kids being raised by drop outs or parents who didn’t attend school who were raised by drop outs and parents who didn’t attend school. Eight hours of school, five days a week rarely overcomes the home environment.

I agree, the issue of low scores for low SES families will not be fixed by boundary changes. But it would help students all students have a more equitable experience than their peers just up the road. It might discourage other MC/UMC families like mine from trying to avoiding the school by pupil placing, private, etc., and making the problem worse. The boundary review is a step in the right direction, not a solution intended to fix all problems.

I'm confused by your post. You're trying to say that fixing the issue of low scores for kids from low SES families will make more MC/UMC kids want to go to school with them. But doing that requires a boundary review that transfers MC/UMC kids to schools with low income families. And that's the solution. But that doesn't make any sense. You aren't actually helping lower income kids via more eductional support, etc. You're just trying to move MC/UMC kids in to mask the problem.

+1. Hard to take her argument seriously. Doesn’t come close to passing the smell test and ignores the students who are being moved to a poorer performing school to make her vision possible.

We don't need another review to figure out how to help lower income kids or ESL learners. They need more eductional support, more dedicated classes and pull-outs for reading and language. And they need to get rid of IB at high SES high schools and institute AP, which is far more valuable for MC/UMC kids who are zoned for these schools. The school board knows what needs to be done. They just don't have the guts to do it.

I agree about removing IB. I also want what’s best for my kids. See, there are some points we agree on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps we are not as vocal or have as much time to post as you seem to do, but we do exist and are ready to see some change.

And no I’m not going to explain exactly what that change is.

You’re very vocal, don’t lie.

We know you want equity by bringing the system down to the lowest level. You don’t need to explain it to us!

Haven’t posted in months. Me being a lurker is the only thing you’ve got right about me.

I think it’s ridiculous that all the title 1
ES schools in the area feed into the same high school.
I also think it unfair that children attending schools just a few miles from each other have such vastly differences experiences. If that makes me an equity warrior, so be it.

All shifting the boundaries will do is increase test scores by shifting who is taking the test. The average will increase but that will hide the fact that the poor kids are still scoring low.

Fixing the issue of low scores for low SES families and URM requires the families care about education and that tends not to be the case. You have kids being raised by drop outs or parents who didn’t attend school who were raised by drop outs and parents who didn’t attend school. Eight hours of school, five days a week rarely overcomes the home environment.

I agree, the issue of low scores for low SES families will not be fixed by boundary changes. But it would help students all students have a more equitable experience than their peers just up the road. It might discourage other MC/UMC families like mine from trying to avoiding the school by pupil placing, private, etc., and making the problem worse. The boundary review is a step in the right direction, not a solution intended to fix all problems.

I'm confused by your post. You're trying to say that fixing the issue of low scores for kids from low SES families will make more MC/UMC kids want to go to school with them. But doing that requires a boundary review that transfers MC/UMC kids to schools with low income families. And that's the solution. But that doesn't make any sense. You aren't actually helping lower income kids via more eductional support, etc. You're just trying to move MC/UMC kids in to mask the problem.

I’m not proposing a solution because I’m not an expert in this area. What I am advocating for is a review process that may result in more equitable (I know some on this board hate this word 🥴) opportunities for students already attending or are in-bounds to attend the school. That it, that’s all.

Increasing options for kids who are not going to use them while reducing options for kids who would use them is not a good solution. It just isn't. Screwing over kids to maybe, hopefully help other kids is not going to work. One reason for IB at the high FARMs school was to incentivize pupil placement at those schools because the IB program was a draw. It has failed miserably. The only school that has more inbound students from an AP school to an IB school is SLHS. Those are kids coming mainly from Herndon, which is poorer then SLHS, and there is no way to know how many of those kids are moving for language, Japanese, and who are moving for IB. What we do know is that only 50 kids out of a class off 500 or so complete the IB diploma. Every other high FARMs school sees far more transfers out then in.

IB is offered at W-L in APS and kids transfer for the program. I believe they have a higher rate of diploma completion because participation in the program is based on an application. It is an active choice to participate, not foisted on schools hoping to encourage stronger students to move for the program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So is the boundary review to fix capacity issues or is it to make things more "equitable?"

Based on the actual maps presented, it’s about balancing capacity (I wouldn’t call it “fixing” because the firm making the recommendations don’t know anything about the area.) The fixation on balancing equity and moving students from WSHS to Lewis does not reflect the current scenarios.

Not yet, but still optimistic that the final versions include some (positive) changes for Lewis.