FCPS Boundary Review - New Maps

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And in a few years we’re going to hit the natural demographic cliff of fewer children being born during the recession, so yeah let’s move a few hundred out of WSHS and leave the nice newer building under-utilized in 10 years. Sounds like a plan. BTW the proposed changes so far create an over 100% capacity situation at South County MS and a close to 100% situation at SCHS, but hey, that’s a problem for those kids, not for me!

Then they need to move some SCMS and SCHS kids out of there and down to Potomac or Mount Vernon where there is space. That leaves space for the WSHS kids to move to SCHS.

That WAS what they were going to do originally by moving some of Halley to Lorton Station and Hayfield. That would leave some room at the middle and high school (not a lot but it would not have been an over capacity situation, more of an at capacity situation but that’s not bad). Instead the new proposals move one small neighborhood of large SFH out of Silverbrook/SC to Sangster/LB, move the attendance island out of Halley to Gunston which keeps it at SC, AND ALSO moves up to 35% of Hunt Valley to SC. I’d also like to note this is clearly an equity motivated change from the initial proposals, because the island being moved out of Halley is predominantly low income and it was clear they wanted to keep it at the middle class to relatively more affluent SC vs. the middle class with more lower income areas Hayfield.

The Mason Neck Citizens Association does not want Hagel Circle reasoned to Gunston. I think there is going to be more pushback against that. The plan is to move Inlet Cove, which is a middle class neighborhood of nice townhomes and SHFs to Island Creek and replace with Hagel Circle. This was not initially proposed and instead showed up as a surprise in the maps. Gunston will become a Title I school if this happens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes.

Multiple people in the WSHS pyramid have asked for a residency, publicly and individually, to Reid and ther school board rep Sandy Anderson.

Both Reid and Anderson have acknowledged that there is residency fraud at WSHS and throughout FCPS, but have stated it is too much work to check residency of students because FCPS only has one person for 180,000 students assigned to residency checks.

[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.

She wants other people's kids to move to those schools

[Anonymous]

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

Before November 2024, rezoning was for Equity. There are videos on the FCPS website of school board meetings discussing policy 8130 where multiple members, Dr. Reid and the Chief Equity officer discuss how the point of the rezoning is centering the district on achieving One Fairfax, and that the Chief Equity Officer must be involved in every facet of the rezoning process, to ensure all rezoning aligns with One Fairfax.

At some point after November 2024, the school board flipped and created the 4 pillar thing as the basis for rezoning, and changed "equity" and One Fairfax to "equitable access to programs".

You can look up the pre October 2024 meetings and watch them. Several are linked to the other rezoning threads that were locked by the website moderators.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And in a few years we’re going to hit the natural demographic cliff of fewer children being born during the recession, so yeah let’s move a few hundred out of WSHS and leave the nice newer building under-utilized in 10 years. Sounds like a plan. BTW the proposed changes so far create an over 100% capacity situation at South County MS and a close to 100% situation at SCHS, but hey, that’s a problem for those kids, not for me!

Then they need to move some SCMS and SCHS kids out of there and down to Potomac or Mount Vernon where there is space. That leaves space for the WSHS kids to move to SCHS.

That WAS what they were going to do originally by moving some of Halley to Lorton Station and Hayfield. That would leave some room at the middle and high school (not a lot but it would not have been an over capacity situation, more of an at capacity situation but that’s not bad). Instead the new proposals move one small neighborhood of large SFH out of Silverbrook/SC to Sangster/LB, move the attendance island out of Halley to Gunston which keeps it at SC, AND ALSO moves up to 35% of Hunt Valley to SC. I’d also like to note this is clearly an equity motivated change from the initial proposals, because the island being moved out of Halley is predominantly low income and it was clear they wanted to keep it at the middle class to relatively more affluent SC vs. the middle class with more lower income areas Hayfield.

The Mason Neck Citizens Association does not want Hagel Circle reasoned to Gunston. I think there is going to be more pushback against that. The plan is to move Inlet Cove, which is a middle class neighborhood of nice townhomes and SHFs to Island Creek and replace with Hagel Circle. This was not initially proposed and instead showed up as a surprise in the maps. Gunston will become a Title I school if this happens.

Yes, I don’t think creating another Title 1 school is what we need at this point with everything going on with the federal government.

They could keep South County essentially the same and it would be fine. They can move Hagel Circle to Lorton Station and Hayfield and move some of WS’s current students to SC and it would be fine. They can’t have it both ways without putting both SCMS and HS over 100%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And in a few years we’re going to hit the natural demographic cliff of fewer children being born during the recession, so yeah let’s move a few hundred out of WSHS and leave the nice newer building under-utilized in 10 years. Sounds like a plan. BTW the proposed changes so far create an over 100% capacity situation at South County MS and a close to 100% situation at SCHS, but hey, that’s a problem for those kids, not for me!

Then they need to move some SCMS and SCHS kids out of there and down to Potomac or Mount Vernon where there is space. That leaves space for the WSHS kids to move to SCHS.

That WAS what they were going to do originally by moving some of Halley to Lorton Station and Hayfield. That would leave some room at the middle and high school (not a lot but it would not have been an over capacity situation, more of an at capacity situation but that’s not bad). Instead the new proposals move one small neighborhood of large SFH out of Silverbrook/SC to Sangster/LB, move the attendance island out of Halley to Gunston which keeps it at SC, AND ALSO moves up to 35% of Hunt Valley to SC. I’d also like to note this is clearly an equity motivated change from the initial proposals, because the island being moved out of Halley is predominantly low income and it was clear they wanted to keep it at the middle class to relatively more affluent SC vs. the middle class with more lower income areas Hayfield.

The Mason Neck Citizens Association does not want Hagel Circle reasoned to Gunston. I think there is going to be more pushback against that. The plan is to move Inlet Cove, which is a middle class neighborhood of nice townhomes and SHFs to Island Creek and replace with Hagel Circle. This was not initially proposed and instead showed up as a surprise in the maps. Gunston will become a Title I school if this happens.

Yes, I don’t think creating another Title 1 school is what we need at this point with everything going on with the federal government.

They could keep South County essentially the same and it would be fine. They can move Hagel Circle to Lorton Station and Hayfield and move some of WS’s current students to SC and it would be fine. They can’t have it both ways without putting both SCMS and HS over 100%.

I'm confident that Title I will be reinstated as soon as the Supreme Court rules in favor of Title IX and the girls.
FCPS will get Title I funds once more and, believe me, that is a goal of FCPS.

[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.

She wants other people's kids to move to those schools

DP. I believe all school districts should strive to keep all boundaries as compact as possible.

[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.

She wants other people's kids to move to those schools

DP. I believe all school districts should strive to keep all boundaries as compact as possible.

+1
But, I don't believe in moving kids so scores will go up at those schools.
Improve the school first by attacking the problem.

_

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And in a few years we’re going to hit the natural demographic cliff of fewer children being born during the recession, so yeah let’s move a few hundred out of WSHS and leave the nice newer building under-utilized in 10 years. Sounds like a plan. BTW the proposed changes so far create an over 100% capacity situation at South County MS and a close to 100% situation at SCHS, but hey, that’s a problem for those kids, not for me!

Then they need to move some SCMS and SCHS kids out of there and down to Potomac or Mount Vernon where there is space. That leaves space for the WSHS kids to move to SCHS.

That WAS what they were going to do originally by moving some of Halley to Lorton Station and Hayfield. That would leave some room at the middle and high school (not a lot but it would not have been an over capacity situation, more of an at capacity situation but that’s not bad). Instead the new proposals move one small neighborhood of large SFH out of Silverbrook/SC to Sangster/LB, move the attendance island out of Halley to Gunston which keeps it at SC, AND ALSO moves up to 35% of Hunt Valley to SC. I’d also like to note this is clearly an equity motivated change from the initial proposals, because the island being moved out of Halley is predominantly low income and it was clear they wanted to keep it at the middle class to relatively more affluent SC vs. the middle class with more lower income areas Hayfield.

The Mason Neck Citizens Association does not want Hagel Circle reasoned to Gunston. I think there is going to be more pushback against that. The plan is to move Inlet Cove, which is a middle class neighborhood of nice townhomes and SHFs to Island Creek and replace with Hagel Circle. This was not initially proposed and instead showed up as a surprise in the maps. Gunston will become a Title I school if this happens.

Yes, I don’t think creating another Title 1 school is what we need at this point with everything going on with the federal government.

They could keep South County essentially the same and it would be fine. They can move Hagel Circle to Lorton Station and Hayfield and move some of WS’s current students to SC and it would be fine. They can’t have it both ways without putting both SCMS and HS over 100%.

Hagel Circle has been bussed to Halley since South County opened. The could stop the equity virtue signaling and send the kids to Lorton Station which is within walking distance. Instead they’ve been sending kids to an elementary school which is further away than at least three others (Lorton Station, Laurel Hill and Gunston).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And really, all of this is just tinkering around the edges and for what? There are no new large neighborhoods of family-friendly 3 bedroom TH new builds springing up all over West Springfield and Lorton. It’s pretty well built up there now, Lorton has more room, but is getting mostly big SFH so the population isn’t growing too much. I really feel like they need to just leave well enough alone and concentrate on the KAA boundaries and the schools that need relief now.

There is a huge new apartment building opening soon at the Springfield Mall, walkable to Lewis though.

I doubt it will get many HS students but yes, there is more development slated for that area and in Alexandria zoned for Edison right down the road. I do think the excess capacity at Lewis will be useful sooner rather than later.

What does this mean?

There is development slated for the area, and it’s the type of development that attracts families. Pretty straightforward. They’ll have to go to school somewhere and boundaries between Edison and Lewis will need to be adjusted because of crowding at Edison.

They can deal with that later if the enrollment growth actually materializes. Also, part of Edison may get moved back to Annandale to eliminate the split feeder at Holmes.

The motivation for invoking the possibility of growth at Edison to keep Lewis under-enrolled indefinitely is fairly transparent.

The police station and government center is about to move out of its current spot off Franconia Rd. And over to the new building off Beulah by the Chili’s. As soon as the move is done, the old government center is getting razed and turned into townhomes. There’s also townhomes slated for the old Ruby Tuesday and Top Golf in Kingstowne. Borders will have to be adjusted sooner rather than later.

And if the local economy tanks and those things end up sitting vacant for awhile vs. being redeveloped right away, chances are West Springfield will lose enrollment too with federal job cuts, and there won’t be a need to move more students out.

Also, I know some of you are looking for big bumps to your Springfield property values by hoping that half of West Springfield comes to Lewis, but all of the maps shown so far have all of the proposed movement out of WS to LB and SC.

There’s also a new development off of Van Dorn in the residential area that was just in the Fairfax Now website today cause neighbors are complaining about it. SFHs near some townhomes. Those kids would go to Lewis.

That is an Edison zoned area, not Lewis. None of the planned Lewis developments will add significant numbers to the pyramid schools. Some students yes, but not significant numbers.

Yes but Edison can hardly add several new neighborhoods of students at this point due to the fact that it is landlocked on a busy corner. Lewis and Edison are so physically close to each other that it would be trivial to adjust their boundaries and no one would end up being bussed significantly farther away.

Sure it can, especially if Bren Mar Park ES moves back from Edison to Annandale.

1) Worth noting that one of the maps keeps Bren Mar Park at Edison and keeps Edison at over 110%. So that’s certainly a proposal that’s on the table.

2) The maps have a lot of irregularities when it comes to that area. They have BMP west of the beltway moving to North Springfield ES in all scenarios. They also have BMP picking up a small piece of Weyanoke (Lincolnia Park) in all scenarios, but they didn’t carefully look at this because scenarios 2 and 3, which have all of BMP at Annandale, have the Lincolnia Park neighborhood staying at Edison, thus creating an egregious attendance island. So I wouldn’t put too much stock in the draft maps there right now.

3) BMP is not a large school - it lists a total enrollment of 495 for last year, but some of those are Head Start and Preschool students, who may be attending school outside their neighborhood boundaries since not every elementary has a preschool program. If a bunch of new neighborhoods are built around Edison, I think you could easily see 400+ new children moving in to various schools to make up for the Bren Mar students who may be moving out.

I still think Lewis’s capacity will be needed in a few years to take students out of Edison. That section of Springfield/Alexandria is going to see new development, whereas West Springfield has no room for new neighborhoods and no plans to demolish any old shopping centers or anything to put in a bunch of new homes or apartments. The only thing going on in WS is the usual turnover of homes from older retirees to younger people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

She wants other people's kids to move to those schools

DP. I believe all school districts should strive to keep all boundaries as compact as possible.

+1
But, I don't believe in moving kids so scores will go up at those schools.
Improve the school first by attacking the problem.

_

Of course all schools should work on improving education for all students. However, schools can only do so much when students are constantly moving, are absent, and have challenging home lives.

So, by your logic, is it ok to only move kids to another school with similar academic levels? Geography should never be factored in if there is a disparity in scores between neighboring schools?

Does this mean students from wealthier schools should never be redistricted to a lower performing school, despite population changes?

I am trying to figure out your reasoning. Is redistricting good for some, but not for all?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And really, all of this is just tinkering around the edges and for what? There are no new large neighborhoods of family-friendly 3 bedroom TH new builds springing up all over West Springfield and Lorton. It’s pretty well built up there now, Lorton has more room, but is getting mostly big SFH so the population isn’t growing too much. I really feel like they need to just leave well enough alone and concentrate on the KAA boundaries and the schools that need relief now.

There is a huge new apartment building opening soon at the Springfield Mall, walkable to Lewis though.

I doubt it will get many HS students but yes, there is more development slated for that area and in Alexandria zoned for Edison right down the road. I do think the excess capacity at Lewis will be useful sooner rather than later.

What does this mean?

There is development slated for the area, and it’s the type of development that attracts families. Pretty straightforward. They’ll have to go to school somewhere and boundaries between Edison and Lewis will need to be adjusted because of crowding at Edison.

They can deal with that later if the enrollment growth actually materializes. Also, part of Edison may get moved back to Annandale to eliminate the split feeder at Holmes.

The motivation for invoking the possibility of growth at Edison to keep Lewis under-enrolled indefinitely is fairly transparent.

The police station and government center is about to move out of its current spot off Franconia Rd. And over to the new building off Beulah by the Chili’s. As soon as the move is done, the old government center is getting razed and turned into townhomes. There’s also townhomes slated for the old Ruby Tuesday and Top Golf in Kingstowne. Borders will have to be adjusted sooner rather than later.

And if the local economy tanks and those things end up sitting vacant for awhile vs. being redeveloped right away, chances are West Springfield will lose enrollment too with federal job cuts, and there won’t be a need to move more students out.

Also, I know some of you are looking for big bumps to your Springfield property values by hoping that half of West Springfield comes to Lewis, but all of the maps shown so far have all of the proposed movement out of WS to LB and SC.

There’s also a new development off of Van Dorn in the residential area that was just in the Fairfax Now website today cause neighbors are complaining about it. SFHs near some townhomes. Those kids would go to Lewis.

That is an Edison zoned area, not Lewis. None of the planned Lewis developments will add significant numbers to the pyramid schools. Some students yes, but not significant numbers.

Yes but Edison can hardly add several new neighborhoods of students at this point due to the fact that it is landlocked on a busy corner. Lewis and Edison are so physically close to each other that it would be trivial to adjust their boundaries and no one would end up being bussed significantly farther away.

Sure it can, especially if Bren Mar Park ES moves back from Edison to Annandale.

1) Worth noting that one of the maps keeps Bren Mar Park at Edison and keeps Edison at over 110%. So that’s certainly a proposal that’s on the table.

2) The maps have a lot of irregularities when it comes to that area. They have BMP west of the beltway moving to North Springfield ES in all scenarios. They also have BMP picking up a small piece of Weyanoke (Lincolnia Park) in all scenarios, but they didn’t carefully look at this because scenarios 2 and 3, which have all of BMP at Annandale, have the Lincolnia Park neighborhood staying at Edison, thus creating an egregious attendance island. So I wouldn’t put too much stock in the draft maps there right now.

3) BMP is not a large school - it lists a total enrollment of 495 for last year, but some of those are Head Start and Preschool students, who may be attending school outside their neighborhood boundaries since not every elementary has a preschool program. If a bunch of new neighborhoods are built around Edison, I think you could easily see 400+ new children moving in to various schools to make up for the Bren Mar students who may be moving out.

I still think Lewis’s capacity will be needed in a few years to take students out of Edison. That section of Springfield/Alexandria is going to see new development, whereas West Springfield has no room for new neighborhoods and no plans to demolish any old shopping centers or anything to put in a bunch of new homes or apartments. The only thing going on in WS is the usual turnover of homes from older retirees to younger people.

The map that keeps BMP at Edison ignores the goal of eliminating split feeders. BMP is the only ES feeder to Holmes that goes to Edison. If they want to avoid lopsided split feeders then they will move BMP back to Annandale. They are getting pushback to retain other split feeders, so it's unclear where they'll land.

North Springfield already goes to Annandale, so if they move part of BMP to North Springfield it's also exiting the Edison pyramid.

The issue with Lincolnia Park moving from Weyanoke to BMP seems to have been an oversight and you're correct it makes no sense.

In any event, they may reduce Edison's enrollment with the upcoming boundary changes, reducing the likelihood anyone gets moved from Edison to Lewis. The turnover of single-family homes from older retirees to younger buyers with kids in the WS pyramid could lead to more enrollment growth at WSHS than building more multi-family housing in the Edison pyramid would impact EHS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

She wants other people's kids to move to those schools

DP. I believe all school districts should strive to keep all boundaries as compact as possible.

+1
But, I don't believe in moving kids so scores will go up at those schools.
Improve the school first by attacking the problem.

_

Of course all schools should work on improving education for all students. However, schools can only do so much when students are constantly moving, are absent, and have challenging home lives.

So, by your logic, is it ok to only move kids to another school with similar academic levels? Geography should never be factored in if there is a disparity in scores between neighboring schools?

Does this mean students from wealthier schools should never be redistricted to a lower performing school, despite population changes?

I am trying to figure out your reasoning. Is redistricting good for some, but not for all?

I think we all want good education for all. But, as one of the SB supporters did, we also want to keep our kids where they are.
Of course, when a move is needed because of other reasons, it makes sense. But, not to improve test scores at a school. Putting in wealthier kids does not help poor kids.
The school can teach the kids where they are. And, it starts with being sure all kids in the school can get the courses they need. If they only have a small corhort, it is more challenging, but they should do it anyway.

And, believe me, the School Board is not concerned about improving education. Their concern is improving scores so the school looks better. Meanwhile, the struggling kids continue to struggle.

I'm strongly in favor of compact community schools. But, I also understand people who have attachment to their current schools. Schools fluctuate. A nearby school was more desirable than our in boundary school a few years ago. Now, our school is more desirable according to DCUM.

p.s. I do think that administration plays a HUGE role in a high school. When you read the profile page and the principal talks about DEI rather than academic achievement, it is a little troubling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

She wants other people's kids to move to those schools

DP. I believe all school districts should strive to keep all boundaries as compact as possible.

+1
But, I don't believe in moving kids so scores will go up at those schools.
Improve the school first by attacking the problem.

_

Of course all schools should work on improving education for all students. However, schools can only do so much when students are constantly moving, are absent, and have challenging home lives.

So, by your logic, is it ok to only move kids to another school with similar academic levels? Geography should never be factored in if there is a disparity in scores between neighboring schools?

Does this mean students from wealthier schools should never be redistricted to a lower performing school, despite population changes?

I am trying to figure out your reasoning. Is redistricting good for some, but not for all?

I think we all want good education for all. But, as one of the SB supporters did, we also want to keep our kids where they are.
Of course, when a move is needed because of other reasons, it makes sense. But, not to improve test scores at a school. Putting in wealthier kids does not help poor kids.
The school can teach the kids where they are. And, it starts with being sure all kids in the school can get the courses they need. If they only have a small corhort, it is more challenging, but they should do it anyway.

And, believe me, the School Board is not concerned about improving education. Their concern is improving scores so the school looks better. Meanwhile, the struggling kids continue to struggle.

I'm strongly in favor of compact community schools. But, I also understand people who have attachment to their current schools. Schools fluctuate. A nearby school was more desirable than our in boundary school a few years ago. Now, our school is more desirable according to DCUM.

p.s. I do think that administration plays a HUGE role in a high school. When you read the profile page and the principal talks about DEI rather than academic achievement, it is a little troubling.

Maybe the principal is highlighting DEI to make some underperforming / underrepresented groups want to go to school and be successful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

She wants other people's kids to move to those schools

DP. I believe all school districts should strive to keep all boundaries as compact as possible.

+1
But, I don't believe in moving kids so scores will go up at those schools.
Improve the school first by attacking the problem.

_

Of course all schools should work on improving education for all students. However, schools can only do so much when students are constantly moving, are absent, and have challenging home lives.

So, by your logic, is it ok to only move kids to another school with similar academic levels? Geography should never be factored in if there is a disparity in scores between neighboring schools?

Does this mean students from wealthier schools should never be redistricted to a lower performing school, despite population changes?

I am trying to figure out your reasoning. Is redistricting good for some, but not for all?

I think we all want good education for all. But, as one of the SB supporters did, we also want to keep our kids where they are.
Of course, when a move is needed because of other reasons, it makes sense. But, not to improve test scores at a school. Putting in wealthier kids does not help poor kids.
The school can teach the kids where they are. And, it starts with being sure all kids in the school can get the courses they need. If they only have a small corhort, it is more challenging, but they should do it anyway.

And, believe me, the School Board is not concerned about improving education. Their concern is improving scores so the school looks better. Meanwhile, the struggling kids continue to struggle.

I'm strongly in favor of compact community schools. But, I also understand people who have attachment to their current schools. Schools fluctuate. A nearby school was more desirable than our in boundary school a few years ago. Now, our school is more desirable according to DCUM.

p.s. I do think that administration plays a HUGE role in a high school. When you read the profile page and the principal talks about DEI rather than academic achievement, it is a little troubling.

Maybe the principal is highlighting DEI to make some underperforming / underrepresented groups want to go to school and be successful.

I’m guessing it’s also hard to talk about academic achievement when there is none.