FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[Anonymous]

Plucker report seems pretty costly. $168.1 million in federal funds to be precise.

[Anonymous]

Its wild that they are pushing thru all these unpopular changes that have nothing to do with academics or educational quality!

We don't have space for universal pre-K. Parents almost all prefer 6th grade in ES. The overwhelming feedback from the meetings is that people like their schools and don't want boundary changes.

[Anonymous]

FCPS loses a lot of credibility when their publicly facing website on boundary review makes no mention of middle school 6-8, universal pre-k, or reshaping AAP for equity, but their working meetings and supporting studies reveal that these are the driving factors that will reshape the maps. It’s a bad look. It comes across as very dishonest. If UPK and middle school 6-8 are as widely popular as the Gatehouse defenders on this thread argue, then stop hiding these actions from the public.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What a piece of garbage, wow. I shouldn’t have read the recommendations (p. 42) before bed, because they got my blood pressure up.

So, i went to the recommendations. "Garbage" is putting it mildly. Gibberish. And, lots more training. Now, let's guess--which consultant will get the contract for all this training? How much time will be spent training the principal and teachers. Lots of recommendations for more "experts" in the school who work with teachers--not kids.

Here's one of my favorites

Improve educator knowledge and skills regarding advanced learning and advanced learners
(Recommendation 4). The review team recommends a rethinking of who receives such training and
how that training is administered, with a priority being professional development for central
administrators and principals. The next priority would be continuing and strengthening professional
development of AART staff given the importance of AARTs to the success of advanced academic
programs in each school. Finally, all classroom teachers in FCPS should have an understanding of the
needs of diverse, advanced learners, including comprehensive knowledge of the Young Scholars
program and how best to support participating students. Providing access, including provision of
substitute teachers, should be a priority given the high quality professional development
programming that has already been developed.

Wonder how much FCPS paid for this study.

"Examination of the initial universal screening cutoff score. The current cut scores for NNAT or CogAT are extremely high – only the top ~2% of students in the country would be expected to be further considered for identification and placement in Level IV Centers, even fewer from traditionally underrepresented groups. If the referral pathway was restricted, the universal screening cut scores could be lowered without overburdening the Central Selection Committee process. Furthermore, if local (i.e., building-level) norms were used to make placements, the cut scores would (and should) vary considerably among building. "

How is it equal or fair to have "considerable" cut off thresholds for access to AAP based on equity goals, while actively trying to cut off access to the AAP program for specific demographics?

The school board and Reid are actively trying to discriminate against certain demographics during the rezoning process to create unequal access to the gifted program in the name of equity??

My understanding is the point of AAP is basically for a differentiated learning environment when a student's needs orpotential can't adequately be met in a GenEd classroom. Given that the overall level and pace of learning in GenEd classrooms can vary substantially by school site, it would seem obvious that the thresholds for differentiated learning in an AAP classroom should likewise vary substantially by school site.

Students in general education receive the same curriculum across the county regardless of the class has a cohort of students in the 98th/99th percentile that didn’t qualify for in pool cut off at their schools. The school doesn’t have to provide a differentiated learning environment or curriculum. This is 💯 not equitable with students having scores 10-20 points lower on cogat/NNAT qualifying at lower schools. These kids all get sent to the same AAP center schools. So you have kids at some schools that have to have 138 cogat scores and kids with 120 cogat scores at the centers and then leave the highly gifted kids at base schools with 98th/99th percentile IQs to be with a similar cohort of highly gifted kids who don’t qualify for the program?

I seriously doubt that there are Centers with kids from Title 1 schools and kids from UMC schools. The schools with score cut offs in the 140s are not in the same are as the few schools with cut offs in the high 120s. And parents from any where in the County can refer their kid. The 130 kids at the schools with higher cut offs have parents who know that and refer. Many are admitted to AAP.

There most certainly are. In my neck of the woods in Reston, there are two title 1 schools that go to the same center as the school bordering Oakton. In fact that school is the center. I presume to save on bussing costs and logistics? It's not even central to the AAP kids it serves. So the title one kids get to have a longer bus ride to the school in the UMC neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

It’d be interesting to look at the cross-section of people who argue until they’re red in the face that we must move boundaries to take a bus or two off the road at negligible to negative savings, who also dismiss $168 million as a drop in the bucket rounding error for FCPS.

Seems like FCPS is in the fafo stage. I’d be more supportive of the district, but the school board seems pretty intent on going after particular schools with the boundary change nonsense, despite overwhelming public opposition, especially with what’s going on assets the federal level. They’ve lost my support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It isn’t just to align 6th graders with middle school standards, curriculum, etc. It’s also to introduce universal pre-K into the elementary schools. They’re essentially adding on an entire new grade level’s worth of students. I assume they would have pre-K-4 for 4 year olds at first and then maybe expand to pre-K 3 within a few years. I don’t think it would be as large of a cohort as an elementary grade 1-12 because some parents would elect to stay at day cares for a better schedule with fewer holidays and breaks.

I’ll just take my kids’ school as an example, they have averaged around 75 Kindergarten students a year and this is generally a little smaller than 1-6, I’d assume due to kids going to private K or perhaps being homeschooled for a year. If half chose FCPS Pre-K as 4 year olds, that’s around 38 kids they have to find space for. You wouldn’t put 38 kids in one classroom, so you’d need 2 classrooms of 18-20. And a teacher for each class, and probably an assistant. When my younger kid was in the special needs preschool they ate lunch in their classrooms, so cafeteria space wasn’t affected. But they still got outdoor recess (at a special, self contained playground! Not every school has that unless they already have a preschool!), music, and library time. Multiply 38 kids times 141 elementary schools and you’re adding AT LEAST 5300 students to FCPS overnight. And that’s a conservative estimate just based on 4 year olds and based on half of parents continuing at day care/private pre K. The number would only increase as time went on and they fleshed out the programs some more.

To take this thought process a step further, how are they going to pay for that? They've already adopted a budget this year for teacher raises that they don't actually have the money for. They need the Board of Supervisors to increase the FCPS budget and it's not clear they're going to be able to do that. Especially now that we're seeing economic turmoil thanks to government worker and contractor layoffs.

I don't think you're wrong. They are 100 percent working to do all of this so they can add universal pre-K and be applauded by parents of young children everywhere. But Fairfax County doesn't have the money to do this and given what's happening with the local economy, they won't have the money to do this unless services are cut somewhere else. Do we cut fire and police department budgets? Cut the parks and libraries' budget?

The push for UPK is coming from Reid herself, the SB never mentioned it and still isn’t mentioning it. During one of his outreach meetings, Mateo Dunne didn’t mention the push for UPK and how it relates to 6th to Middle until directly asked by a meeting attendee. Reid wants to be the big savior introducing an expensive UPK program, but she and the board need to read the room about what’s going on nationally at the moment. Not to mention the governor’s race! I have to wonder if there will be any pressure from VA Dems to try to put the brakes on everything for a few months until after November?

Reid is not the one who pays the future political price.

It will be very difficult for SB members to pin this on Reid when the Dems further up the chain lose in November.

The SB fully supports and ratifies what Reid is doing. That is the message her recent, giant pay raise sends to everyone.

If the SB does not rein this in before the “proposal” comes out in June, it becomes a political mess akin to toothpaste squeezed out of a tube.

- long time democratic voter

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’d be interesting to look at the cross-section of people who argue until they’re red in the face that we must move boundaries to take a bus or two off the road at negligible to negative savings, who also dismiss $168 million as a drop in the bucket rounding error for FCPS.

Seems like FCPS is in the fafo stage. I’d be more supportive of the district, but the school board seems pretty intent on going after particular schools with the boundary change nonsense, despite overwhelming public opposition, especially with what’s going on assets the federal level. They’ve lost my support.

Same with the $86 million they are wasting on Dunn Loring. Members like Moon and McDaniel knew it’s a waste of money but they just shrugged and voted for it because their dear leader Frisch wants it. Screw the taxpayers, and screw the kids in schools that really need the money. They are despicable freaks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Plucker report seems pretty costly. $168.1 million in federal funds to be precise.

Could you please cite where you got these numbers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What a piece of garbage, wow. I shouldn’t have read the recommendations (p. 42) before bed, because they got my blood pressure up.

So, i went to the recommendations. "Garbage" is putting it mildly. Gibberish. And, lots more training. Now, let's guess--which consultant will get the contract for all this training? How much time will be spent training the principal and teachers. Lots of recommendations for more "experts" in the school who work with teachers--not kids.

Here's one of my favorites

Improve educator knowledge and skills regarding advanced learning and advanced learners
(Recommendation 4). The review team recommends a rethinking of who receives such training and
how that training is administered, with a priority being professional development for central
administrators and principals. The next priority would be continuing and strengthening professional
development of AART staff given the importance of AARTs to the success of advanced academic
programs in each school. Finally, all classroom teachers in FCPS should have an understanding of the
needs of diverse, advanced learners, including comprehensive knowledge of the Young Scholars
program and how best to support participating students. Providing access, including provision of
substitute teachers, should be a priority given the high quality professional development
programming that has already been developed.

Wonder how much FCPS paid for this study.

"Examination of the initial universal screening cutoff score. The current cut scores for NNAT or CogAT are extremely high – only the top ~2% of students in the country would be expected to be further considered for identification and placement in Level IV Centers, even fewer from traditionally underrepresented groups. If the referral pathway was restricted, the universal screening cut scores could be lowered without overburdening the Central Selection Committee process. Furthermore, if local (i.e., building-level) norms were used to make placements, the cut scores would (and should) vary considerably among building. "

How is it equal or fair to have "considerable" cut off thresholds for access to AAP based on equity goals, while actively trying to cut off access to the AAP program for specific demographics?

The school board and Reid are actively trying to discriminate against certain demographics during the rezoning process to create unequal access to the gifted program in the name of equity??

My understanding is the point of AAP is basically for a differentiated learning environment when a student's needs orpotential can't adequately be met in a GenEd classroom. Given that the overall level and pace of learning in GenEd classrooms can vary substantially by school site, it would seem obvious that the thresholds for differentiated learning in an AAP classroom should likewise vary substantially by school site.

Students in general education receive the same curriculum across the county regardless of the class has a cohort of students in the 98th/99th percentile that didn’t qualify for in pool cut off at their schools. The school doesn’t have to provide a differentiated learning environment or curriculum. This is 💯 not equitable with students having scores 10-20 points lower on cogat/NNAT qualifying at lower schools. These kids all get sent to the same AAP center schools. So you have kids at some schools that have to have 138 cogat scores and kids with 120 cogat scores at the centers and then leave the highly gifted kids at base schools with 98th/99th percentile IQs to be with a similar cohort of highly gifted kids who don’t qualify for the program?

I seriously doubt that there are Centers with kids from Title 1 schools and kids from UMC schools. The schools with score cut offs in the 140s are not in the same are as the few schools with cut offs in the high 120s. And parents from any where in the County can refer their kid. The 130 kids at the schools with higher cut offs have parents who know that and refer. Many are admitted to AAP.

Brookfield (Title 1) kids go to the center at Poplar Tree (UMC).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What a piece of garbage, wow. I shouldn’t have read the recommendations (p. 42) before bed, because they got my blood pressure up.

So, i went to the recommendations. "Garbage" is putting it mildly. Gibberish. And, lots more training. Now, let's guess--which consultant will get the contract for all this training? How much time will be spent training the principal and teachers. Lots of recommendations for more "experts" in the school who work with teachers--not kids.

Here's one of my favorites

Improve educator knowledge and skills regarding advanced learning and advanced learners
(Recommendation 4). The review team recommends a rethinking of who receives such training and
how that training is administered, with a priority being professional development for central
administrators and principals. The next priority would be continuing and strengthening professional
development of AART staff given the importance of AARTs to the success of advanced academic
programs in each school. Finally, all classroom teachers in FCPS should have an understanding of the
needs of diverse, advanced learners, including comprehensive knowledge of the Young Scholars
program and how best to support participating students. Providing access, including provision of
substitute teachers, should be a priority given the high quality professional development
programming that has already been developed.

Wonder how much FCPS paid for this study.

"Examination of the initial universal screening cutoff score. The current cut scores for NNAT or CogAT are extremely high – only the top ~2% of students in the country would be expected to be further considered for identification and placement in Level IV Centers, even fewer from traditionally underrepresented groups. If the referral pathway was restricted, the universal screening cut scores could be lowered without overburdening the Central Selection Committee process. Furthermore, if local (i.e., building-level) norms were used to make placements, the cut scores would (and should) vary considerably among building. "

How is it equal or fair to have "considerable" cut off thresholds for access to AAP based on equity goals, while actively trying to cut off access to the AAP program for specific demographics?

The school board and Reid are actively trying to discriminate against certain demographics during the rezoning process to create unequal access to the gifted program in the name of equity??

My understanding is the point of AAP is basically for a differentiated learning environment when a student's needs orpotential can't adequately be met in a GenEd classroom. Given that the overall level and pace of learning in GenEd classrooms can vary substantially by school site, it would seem obvious that the thresholds for differentiated learning in an AAP classroom should likewise vary substantially by school site.

Students in general education receive the same curriculum across the county regardless of the class has a cohort of students in the 98th/99th percentile that didn’t qualify for in pool cut off at their schools. The school doesn’t have to provide a differentiated learning environment or curriculum. This is 💯 not equitable with students having scores 10-20 points lower on cogat/NNAT qualifying at lower schools. These kids all get sent to the same AAP center schools. So you have kids at some schools that have to have 138 cogat scores and kids with 120 cogat scores at the centers and then leave the highly gifted kids at base schools with 98th/99th percentile IQs to be with a similar cohort of highly gifted kids who don’t qualify for the program?

I seriously doubt that there are Centers with kids from Title 1 schools and kids from UMC schools. The schools with score cut offs in the 140s are not in the same are as the few schools with cut offs in the high 120s. And parents from any where in the County can refer their kid. The 130 kids at the schools with higher cut offs have parents who know that and refer. Many are admitted to AAP.

There was an article recdntly about an elementary school that hot a huge influx of non English speaking migrants over the past 4 years. I think the article said it doubled in size and now has dozens of trailers. The school is failing because most of the kids don't speak English.

I looked up the school profile. It has a local level 4 program. The enrollment in the local level 4 program almost exactly corresponds with the number of non ESL students in the school. It appears that nearly every English speaking student at the school is now "AAP"

There is no way that all those kids meet the AAP threshold. But if the rest of the students at that school are so far behind, then there is really no good solution for the English speaking students than to throw them all into AAP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Plucker report seems pretty costly. $168.1 million in federal funds to be precise.

Could you please cite where you got these numbers?

https://www.ffxnow.com/2025/02/20/fcps-planning-for-the-worst-with-federal-aid-at-risk-and-limited-county-funding/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What a piece of garbage, wow. I shouldn’t have read the recommendations (p. 42) before bed, because they got my blood pressure up.

So, i went to the recommendations. "Garbage" is putting it mildly. Gibberish. And, lots more training. Now, let's guess--which consultant will get the contract for all this training? How much time will be spent training the principal and teachers. Lots of recommendations for more "experts" in the school who work with teachers--not kids.

Here's one of my favorites

Improve educator knowledge and skills regarding advanced learning and advanced learners
(Recommendation 4). The review team recommends a rethinking of who receives such training and
how that training is administered, with a priority being professional development for central
administrators and principals. The next priority would be continuing and strengthening professional
development of AART staff given the importance of AARTs to the success of advanced academic
programs in each school. Finally, all classroom teachers in FCPS should have an understanding of the
needs of diverse, advanced learners, including comprehensive knowledge of the Young Scholars
program and how best to support participating students. Providing access, including provision of
substitute teachers, should be a priority given the high quality professional development
programming that has already been developed.

Wonder how much FCPS paid for this study.

"Examination of the initial universal screening cutoff score. The current cut scores for NNAT or CogAT are extremely high – only the top ~2% of students in the country would be expected to be further considered for identification and placement in Level IV Centers, even fewer from traditionally underrepresented groups. If the referral pathway was restricted, the universal screening cut scores could be lowered without overburdening the Central Selection Committee process. Furthermore, if local (i.e., building-level) norms were used to make placements, the cut scores would (and should) vary considerably among building. "

How is it equal or fair to have "considerable" cut off thresholds for access to AAP based on equity goals, while actively trying to cut off access to the AAP program for specific demographics?

The school board and Reid are actively trying to discriminate against certain demographics during the rezoning process to create unequal access to the gifted program in the name of equity??

My understanding is the point of AAP is basically for a differentiated learning environment when a student's needs orpotential can't adequately be met in a GenEd classroom. Given that the overall level and pace of learning in GenEd classrooms can vary substantially by school site, it would seem obvious that the thresholds for differentiated learning in an AAP classroom should likewise vary substantially by school site.

Students in general education receive the same curriculum across the county regardless of the class has a cohort of students in the 98th/99th percentile that didn’t qualify for in pool cut off at their schools. The school doesn’t have to provide a differentiated learning environment or curriculum. This is 💯 not equitable with students having scores 10-20 points lower on cogat/NNAT qualifying at lower schools. These kids all get sent to the same AAP center schools. So you have kids at some schools that have to have 138 cogat scores and kids with 120 cogat scores at the centers and then leave the highly gifted kids at base schools with 98th/99th percentile IQs to be with a similar cohort of highly gifted kids who don’t qualify for the program?

I seriously doubt that there are Centers with kids from Title 1 schools and kids from UMC schools. The schools with score cut offs in the 140s are not in the same are as the few schools with cut offs in the high 120s. And parents from any where in the County can refer their kid. The 130 kids at the schools with higher cut offs have parents who know that and refer. Many are admitted to AAP.

There was an article recdntly about an elementary school that hot a huge influx of non English speaking migrants over the past 4 years. I think the article said it doubled in size and now has dozens of trailers. The school is failing because most of the kids don't speak English.

I looked up the school profile. It has a local level 4 program. The enrollment in the local level 4 program almost exactly corresponds with the number of non ESL students in the school. It appears that nearly every English speaking student at the school is now "AAP"

There is no way that all those kids meet the AAP threshold. But if the rest of the students at that school are so far behind, then there is really no good solution for the English speaking students than to throw them all into AAP.

Talking about Centre Ridge?

[Anonymous]

Alexandria City Schools had a meeting this week about redistricting. The minutes show a presentation on current boundaries, changes based on school proximity, changes based on capacity, and more. It talks about all the factors they are pulling in with the strategic plan called “equity for all”. I would imagine these maps and GIS data is the same FCPS will be using. If our neighbor county is doing this, it is for sure happening to Fairfax.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What a piece of garbage, wow. I shouldn’t have read the recommendations (p. 42) before bed, because they got my blood pressure up.

So, i went to the recommendations. "Garbage" is putting it mildly. Gibberish. And, lots more training. Now, let's guess--which consultant will get the contract for all this training? How much time will be spent training the principal and teachers. Lots of recommendations for more "experts" in the school who work with teachers--not kids.

Here's one of my favorites

Improve educator knowledge and skills regarding advanced learning and advanced learners
(Recommendation 4). The review team recommends a rethinking of who receives such training and
how that training is administered, with a priority being professional development for central
administrators and principals. The next priority would be continuing and strengthening professional
development of AART staff given the importance of AARTs to the success of advanced academic
programs in each school. Finally, all classroom teachers in FCPS should have an understanding of the
needs of diverse, advanced learners, including comprehensive knowledge of the Young Scholars
program and how best to support participating students. Providing access, including provision of
substitute teachers, should be a priority given the high quality professional development
programming that has already been developed.

Wonder how much FCPS paid for this study.

"Examination of the initial universal screening cutoff score. The current cut scores for NNAT or CogAT are extremely high – only the top ~2% of students in the country would be expected to be further considered for identification and placement in Level IV Centers, even fewer from traditionally underrepresented groups. If the referral pathway was restricted, the universal screening cut scores could be lowered without overburdening the Central Selection Committee process. Furthermore, if local (i.e., building-level) norms were used to make placements, the cut scores would (and should) vary considerably among building. "

How is it equal or fair to have "considerable" cut off thresholds for access to AAP based on equity goals, while actively trying to cut off access to the AAP program for specific demographics?

The school board and Reid are actively trying to discriminate against certain demographics during the rezoning process to create unequal access to the gifted program in the name of equity??

My understanding is the point of AAP is basically for a differentiated learning environment when a student's needs orpotential can't adequately be met in a GenEd classroom. Given that the overall level and pace of learning in GenEd classrooms can vary substantially by school site, it would seem obvious that the thresholds for differentiated learning in an AAP classroom should likewise vary substantially by school site.

Students in general education receive the same curriculum across the county regardless of the class has a cohort of students in the 98th/99th percentile that didn’t qualify for in pool cut off at their schools. The school doesn’t have to provide a differentiated learning environment or curriculum. This is 💯 not equitable with students having scores 10-20 points lower on cogat/NNAT qualifying at lower schools. These kids all get sent to the same AAP center schools. So you have kids at some schools that have to have 138 cogat scores and kids with 120 cogat scores at the centers and then leave the highly gifted kids at base schools with 98th/99th percentile IQs to be with a similar cohort of highly gifted kids who don’t qualify for the program?

I seriously doubt that there are Centers with kids from Title 1 schools and kids from UMC schools. The schools with score cut offs in the 140s are not in the same are as the few schools with cut offs in the high 120s. And parents from any where in the County can refer their kid. The 130 kids at the schools with higher cut offs have parents who know that and refer. Many are admitted to AAP.

There was an article recdntly about an elementary school that hot a huge influx of non English speaking migrants over the past 4 years. I think the article said it doubled in size and now has dozens of trailers. The school is failing because most of the kids don't speak English.

I looked up the school profile. It has a local level 4 program. The enrollment in the local level 4 program almost exactly corresponds with the number of non ESL students in the school. It appears that nearly every English speaking student at the school is now "AAP"

There is no way that all those kids meet the AAP threshold. But if the rest of the students at that school are so far behind, then there is really no good solution for the English speaking students than to throw them all into AAP.

Talking about Centre Ridge?

Parklawn Elementary

https://www.msn.com/en-us/public-safety-and-emergencies/general/fcps-board-member-says-resolving-overcrowding-at-elementary-school-is-urgent/ar-AA1vCJh7

The school profile shows I was incorrect. It is Level 3, not level 4 that most of the non ESL students are in.

https://schoolprofiles.fcps.edu/schlprfl/f?p=108:13::::0_CURRENT_SCHOOL_ID,P0_EDSL:102,0

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Alexandria City Schools had a meeting this week about redistricting. The minutes show a presentation on current boundaries, changes based on school proximity, changes based on capacity, and more. It talks about all the factors they are pulling in with the strategic plan called “equity for all”. I would imagine these maps and GIS data is the same FCPS will be using. If our neighbor county is doing this, it is for sure happening to Fairfax.

Do they still just have one giant high school in Alexandria? Seems like they need two.