FCPS High School Poverty and Enrollment

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. It seems to me that FCPS does fine by military families but there’s still a legitimate discussion to be had as to whether military families living at Ft. Belvoir should effectively have pupil placement options not available to other non-military families.

What is your objection? I think PP is the least we can do. It likely kept Ft Belvoir out of the boundary discussion when South County boundaries were being discussed.

My objection is giving military families living at Ft. Belvoir special pupil placement options that are not available to civilian families. It does not seem necessary.

Okay. Then, you or your spouse can join the military and be deployed for a year or more at a time. You can pick up and move on short notice and have to leave your children's friends and schools to start all over. Some military are deployed multiple times. Then, you can get pupil placement for your child if you live on Fort Belvoir.

Your post doesn’t really make much sense. People make different sacrifices and, while military service may be admirable, it’s not obvious it should be rewarded with pupil placement options denied others.

It’s ‘rewarded’ with pupil placement because historically schools just outside post, where many military kids live, have been underperforming. Essentially, servicemembers were forced to move, couldn’t afford to live further out or had to live close due to job duties, and had no option but a subpar school.

Then let them do their part to improve these underperforming American schools. After all, these people are supposed to be patriots, right?

If they aren’t prepared to do that, the state would be better off without the military base.

Sure, let's close down Belvoir and all the funds it brings to the local economy.
These patriots do plenty for you. They don't need to sacrifice their kids to your poor choices for running the local school system. Remember, they are not the ones who choose our School Board.
Thirteen of these patriots lost their lives in Afghanistan just a year ago. But, you can say that service members are NOT patriots because they want to send their kids to another school?

[Anonymous]

I recall someone lecturing earlier about how Fort Belvoir is really its own town and not part of the adjacent local communities so it’s not obvious whether they give or take more from the local economy.

Maybe when we have a better state government again we can take a fresh look at the special benefits being conferred on one group of families at the expense of others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. It seems to me that FCPS does fine by military families but there’s still a legitimate discussion to be had as to whether military families living at Ft. Belvoir should effectively have pupil placement options not available to other non-military families.

What is your objection? I think PP is the least we can do. It likely kept Ft Belvoir out of the boundary discussion when South County boundaries were being discussed.

My objection is giving military families living at Ft. Belvoir special pupil placement options that are not available to civilian families. It does not seem necessary.

Okay. Then, you or your spouse can join the military and be deployed for a year or more at a time. You can pick up and move on short notice and have to leave your children's friends and schools to start all over. Some military are deployed multiple times. Then, you can get pupil placement for your child if you live on Fort Belvoir.

Your post doesn’t really make much sense. People make different sacrifices and, while military service may be admirable, it’s not obvious it should be rewarded with pupil placement options denied others.

It’s ‘rewarded’ with pupil placement because historically schools just outside post, where many military kids live, have been underperforming. Essentially, servicemembers were forced to move, couldn’t afford to live further out or had to live close due to job duties, and had no option but a subpar school.

Then let them do their part to improve these underperforming American schools. After all, these people are supposed to be patriots, right?

If they aren’t prepared to do that, the state would be better off without the military base.

You want the kids to do their partriotic duty too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. It seems to me that FCPS does fine by military families but there’s still a legitimate discussion to be had as to whether military families living at Ft. Belvoir should effectively have pupil placement options not available to other non-military families.

What is your objection? I think PP is the least we can do. It likely kept Ft Belvoir out of the boundary discussion when South County boundaries were being discussed.

My objection is giving military families living at Ft. Belvoir special pupil placement options that are not available to civilian families. It does not seem necessary.

Okay. Then, you or your spouse can join the military and be deployed for a year or more at a time. You can pick up and move on short notice and have to leave your children's friends and schools to start all over. Some military are deployed multiple times. Then, you can get pupil placement for your child if you live on Fort Belvoir.

Your post doesn’t really make much sense. People make different sacrifices and, while military service may be admirable, it’s not obvious it should be rewarded with pupil placement options denied others.

It’s ‘rewarded’ with pupil placement because historically schools just outside post, where many military kids live, have been underperforming. Essentially, servicemembers were forced to move, couldn’t afford to live further out or had to live close due to job duties, and had no option but a subpar school.

Not sure if it is clear--but, reminder--only those who live on post are entitled to pupil placement. For high school, it is a very small number relatively. A high number in elementary school does not translate to high school because people retire at that point.

Yes, thank you for adding that. Just wanted to point out why the consideration came to be given.

-military family living off-post with kids attending the school for which they are zoned-which is <gasp> IB. No special treatment for us and that is okay. Our situation is different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. It seems to me that FCPS does fine by military families but there’s still a legitimate discussion to be had as to whether military families living at Ft. Belvoir should effectively have pupil placement options not available to other non-military families.

What is your objection? I think PP is the least we can do. It likely kept Ft Belvoir out of the boundary discussion when South County boundaries were being discussed.

My objection is giving military families living at Ft. Belvoir special pupil placement options that are not available to civilian families. It does not seem necessary.

Okay. Then, you or your spouse can join the military and be deployed for a year or more at a time. You can pick up and move on short notice and have to leave your children's friends and schools to start all over. Some military are deployed multiple times. Then, you can get pupil placement for your child if you live on Fort Belvoir.

Your post doesn’t really make much sense. People make different sacrifices and, while military service may be admirable, it’s not obvious it should be rewarded with pupil placement options denied others.

It’s ‘rewarded’ with pupil placement because historically schools just outside post, where many military kids live, have been underperforming. Essentially, servicemembers were forced to move, couldn’t afford to live further out or had to live close due to job duties, and had no option but a subpar school.

Then let them do their part to improve these underperforming American schools. After all, these people are supposed to be patriots, right?

If they aren’t prepared to do that, the state would be better off without the military base.

You want the kids to do their partriotic duty too?

It’s the parents making these decisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Back to the actual topic of this thread, I agree that FCPS really needs to reassess concentrating expensive, unpopular IB in the lowest performing schools in one part of the county.

FCPS could easily eliminate IB at most of those schools, leaving Lewis as an IB magnet for anyone in that half of the county who wants IB to attend.

This would save a ton of money, strengthen IB as a whole, significantly improve Lewis' test scores and improve the other schools losing kids to AP schools.

Curious. I live in Western Fairfax and am not very familiar with that area--but why would you choose Lewis to be the IB school?

I live in the area and would either find my kids an obscure language that MVHS doesn’t offer or I’d pay for Ireton if the AP option to transfer was ever removed

It’s better that you incur those out-of-pocket costs than that everyone else keep footing the bill for ineffective IB programs.

Even better would be to spread poverty across the county, but this is where we are

We have county leadership more committed to spreading poverty than eliminating it, so be careful what you wish for.

Remind me when rt7 looks anything like rt1

Route 1 was in trouble long before all the development on route 7.

What do you want the county to do? Condemn the housing along route 1 and build luxury housing?

That is what is starting to happen. There is huge development projects ramping up on Route 1.

The biggest one going in now is all low income housing

Isn't that an affordable housing unit for seniors? Not that relevant to schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. It seems to me that FCPS does fine by military families but there’s still a legitimate discussion to be had as to whether military families living at Ft. Belvoir should effectively have pupil placement options not available to other non-military families.

What is your objection? I think PP is the least we can do. It likely kept Ft Belvoir out of the boundary discussion when South County boundaries were being discussed.

My objection is giving military families living at Ft. Belvoir special pupil placement options that are not available to civilian families. It does not seem necessary.

Okay. Then, you or your spouse can join the military and be deployed for a year or more at a time. You can pick up and move on short notice and have to leave your children's friends and schools to start all over. Some military are deployed multiple times. Then, you can get pupil placement for your child if you live on Fort Belvoir.

Your post doesn’t really make much sense. People make different sacrifices and, while military service may be admirable, it’s not obvious it should be rewarded with pupil placement options denied others.

It’s ‘rewarded’ with pupil placement because historically schools just outside post, where many military kids live, have been underperforming. Essentially, servicemembers were forced to move, couldn’t afford to live further out or had to live close due to job duties, and had no option but a subpar school.

Then let them do their part to improve these underperforming American schools. After all, these people are supposed to be patriots, right?

If they aren’t prepared to do that, the state would be better off without the military base.

You want the kids to do their partriotic duty too?

It’s the parents making these decisions.

No, it’s the military making these decisions for families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. It seems to me that FCPS does fine by military families but there’s still a legitimate discussion to be had as to whether military families living at Ft. Belvoir should effectively have pupil placement options not available to other non-military families.

What is your objection? I think PP is the least we can do. It likely kept Ft Belvoir out of the boundary discussion when South County boundaries were being discussed.

My objection is giving military families living at Ft. Belvoir special pupil placement options that are not available to civilian families. It does not seem necessary.

Okay. Then, you or your spouse can join the military and be deployed for a year or more at a time. You can pick up and move on short notice and have to leave your children's friends and schools to start all over. Some military are deployed multiple times. Then, you can get pupil placement for your child if you live on Fort Belvoir.

Your post doesn’t really make much sense. People make different sacrifices and, while military service may be admirable, it’s not obvious it should be rewarded with pupil placement options denied others.

It’s ‘rewarded’ with pupil placement because historically schools just outside post, where many military kids live, have been underperforming. Essentially, servicemembers were forced to move, couldn’t afford to live further out or had to live close due to job duties, and had no option but a subpar school.

Then let them do their part to improve these underperforming American schools. After all, these people are supposed to be patriots, right?

If they aren’t prepared to do that, the state would be better off without the military base.

You want the kids to do their partriotic duty too?

It’s the parents making these decisions.

No, it’s the military making these decisions for families.

No, it's parents exercising the special privilege not afforded other families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. It seems to me that FCPS does fine by military families but there’s still a legitimate discussion to be had as to whether military families living at Ft. Belvoir should effectively have pupil placement options not available to other non-military families.

What is your objection? I think PP is the least we can do. It likely kept Ft Belvoir out of the boundary discussion when South County boundaries were being discussed.

My objection is giving military families living at Ft. Belvoir special pupil placement options that are not available to civilian families. It does not seem necessary.

Okay. Then, you or your spouse can join the military and be deployed for a year or more at a time. You can pick up and move on short notice and have to leave your children's friends and schools to start all over. Some military are deployed multiple times. Then, you can get pupil placement for your child if you live on Fort Belvoir.

Your post doesn’t really make much sense. People make different sacrifices and, while military service may be admirable, it’s not obvious it should be rewarded with pupil placement options denied others.

It’s ‘rewarded’ with pupil placement because historically schools just outside post, where many military kids live, have been underperforming. Essentially, servicemembers were forced to move, couldn’t afford to live further out or had to live close due to job duties, and had no option but a subpar school.

Then let them do their part to improve these underperforming American schools. After all, these people are supposed to be patriots, right?

If they aren’t prepared to do that, the state would be better off without the military base.

You want the kids to do their partriotic duty too?

It’s the parents making these decisions.

No, it’s the military making these decisions for families.

No, it's parents exercising the special privilege not afforded other families.

And, I am grateful they get that special privilege. Believe me, they give more than they get. They get orders to live here and some do not have a choice of whether or not to live in quarters. They do not get to vote for the SB-and most of us do.

I thank them for their service.