FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are now just 2 options under consideration, but that might change again.

Option #1

Return everyone to their base school

What does this mean?

Eliminate AAP centers and close AP/IB/language transfers.

Then I vote for this, adding eliminating IB in favor of AP and doing a one-time residency check, followed by checking residency for every school change (i.e. when you go to middle school and when you go to high school) just like you prove residency when starting kindergarten or whenever you join an elementary school.

Then, maybe, they can look at whether some of those bigger elementary schools that have been housing AAP centers could house a 6-8 middle school.

There is no need for AAP centers for 7-8 graders.

I get closing the language loop hole. I can see where there are communities where it makes sense to offer a more specialized language, like Farsi or Russian or Hindi or Chinese or German, but for the most part all schools offer Spanish and French, which should be enough for students.

Closing the IB/AP transfer is unfair to kids who are assigned to a program that is a bad fit. The kids who transfer for IB are actually interested in the program and required to work the degree program. There are kids who have no interest in the IB program and it is a bad fit for their interests who should be allowed to transfer for AP. If you are going to close that option then you need to get rid of one of the programs, which would obviously be the IB program.

I have no problem with the language immersion programs because parents are aware that they have to transport their kids if they want their kids to participate and it is out of boundary. That requirement continues for MS and HS if the child continues with the program. Some schools do not allow students outside of the school to participate in the lottery, and that is fine. Schools with space can open the program up to the lottery. It is a school-based choice. It is not a burden on busses and can be set up to prevent it from leading to an over crowded school.

AAP centers can be closed and those students returned to their base schools. Or offer the parents the option that they have to provide transportation if they choose the Center.

I would be interested to know how many in boundary kids at the IB schools take the courses compared to those who transfer in for IB.

I'm pretty sure most South Lakes in boundary would prefer AP. At least, the ones that I know.

Serious question: has FCPS ever done a serious unbiased survey to the parents in those school boundaries. Limited to the inboundary parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are now just 2 options under consideration, but that might change again.

Option #1

Return everyone to their base school

What does this mean?

Where is the source for this? The latest BRAC e-mail described them as the first two scenarios, meaning there would be more options presented at subsequent meetings:

Dr. Reid welcomed the group and reminded the committee that at the next meetings the first two scenarios will be reviewed, to include evaluation of 6th grade in middle school, and a scenario that assumes all students attend the school that they are zoned to attend based on the current boundary.

That is the source…it’s also on the last BRAC meeting website. I’m surprised they disclosed it

And yes, they will have more scenarios but most likely using these as a baseline. Would be interesting to see actual capacities with everyone at their base home vs the transfer weaves that have been created. As for the middle school transfer by Fall 2026, lunacy!

Maybe they’ll use the base capacities as a starting slate and then adjust boundaries. Right now, the current capacities are so convoluted because of transfers.

If they actually had “equitable” programming at in each pyramid, this would keep people at their home schools, help bus routes, and bring up scores.

They cannot get accurate numbers without a full residency check.

There are too many people lying about where they actually live.

A residency check should have been step one of this entire process.

Switching IB to AP at all high schools should have been step two.

Both of these should have occured prior to hiring the consultant

I am very much against people lying for boundary purposes. However, I seriously doubt that it is abused nearly as much as you seem to think.
I do, however, think that careful attention should be paid to those playing on sports teams in high school a la Hayfield.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are now just 2 options under consideration, but that might change again.

Option #1

Return everyone to their base school

What does this mean?

Eliminate AAP centers and close AP/IB/language transfers.

Then I vote for this, adding eliminating IB in favor of AP and doing a one-time residency check, followed by checking residency for every school change (i.e. when you go to middle school and when you go to high school) just like you prove residency when starting kindergarten or whenever you join an elementary school.

Then, maybe, they can look at whether some of those bigger elementary schools that have been housing AAP centers could house a 6-8 middle school.

There is no need for AAP centers for 7-8 graders.

I get closing the language loop hole. I can see where there are communities where it makes sense to offer a more specialized language, like Farsi or Russian or Hindi or Chinese or German, but for the most part all schools offer Spanish and French, which should be enough for students.

Closing the IB/AP transfer is unfair to kids who are assigned to a program that is a bad fit. The kids who transfer for IB are actually interested in the program and required to work the degree program. There are kids who have no interest in the IB program and it is a bad fit for their interests who should be allowed to transfer for AP. If you are going to close that option then you need to get rid of one of the programs, which would obviously be the IB program.

I have no problem with the language immersion programs because parents are aware that they have to transport their kids if they want their kids to participate and it is out of boundary. That requirement continues for MS and HS if the child continues with the program. Some schools do not allow students outside of the school to participate in the lottery, and that is fine. Schools with space can open the program up to the lottery. It is a school-based choice. It is not a burden on busses and can be set up to prevent it from leading to an over crowded school.

AAP centers can be closed and those students returned to their base schools. Or offer the parents the option that they have to provide transportation if they choose the Center.

It makes far more sense to offer Chinese than French these days. France really isn’t very important any longer.

You don’t necessarily pupil place to an IB school because you want to do the full diploma. It’s just become another vehicle to engage in demographic arbitrage. Only a small fraction of the Herndon kids transferring to South Lakes get the IB diploma. They need to get rid of IB.

[Anonymous]

Step one should be get rid of IB. Let those currently in high school for IB finish the program (Juniors).
Probably would require eliminating it in 2026-27. Start phasing in AP next year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. Before any discussion of changing boundaries, the SB needs to eliminate ALL AAP centers and just ensure every school has AAP classes. The skewing and confusion of borders is due in large part to the absurd busing of certain students to center schools. At this point, the center model is redundant and wasteful and needs to end.

Boundaries should only be addressed if there is a need to do so AFTER all kids are back in their community schools.

Agreed. At the next BRAC meeting, they are reviewing a scenario of everyone returning to their zoned school. So many of these inflated schools are influenced by those they allow attend from other zone, and often those over-achievers looking for more!

Bring students back to their home zones, offer fair and enticing programming within all pyramids and then assess capacity issues. See how testing and scores level out before their next equity brigade.

Was not aware this option was being considered (returning everyone to their zoned school). I think this is what many of us wanted as a start point for this whole review process, very pleased it's being presented to the BRAC.

There are now just 2 options under consideration, but that might change again.

Option #1

Return everyone to their base school


Option #2

Move 6th grade from elementary school to middle school, which will require extensive rezoning in every neighborhood and school, including converting some elementary schools to middle schools and moving 6th graders as young as 10 years old into the secondary schools with students as old as 21.

Most of the oldest students will be 18/19 or younger, but if they are severely special needs or a recent migrant, they can attend high school until they are 21, as long as they are 20 years old the first day of school.

The significant expense of Option #2 was not accounted for in the most recent CIP, but it is now Dr. Reid's #1 priority by her own words at multiple community meetings, so logic and expense be damned.

If I were a Robinson, SoCo, or Lake Braddock zoned parent of elementary kids, I would be raising holy hell with my school board reps about this, before they finalize the move.

The 21 year old migrant and special needs high school students are federal law. I would also be raising hell with Tim Kaine, Connolly and Mark Warner about the 21 year old migrant men being allowed to attend traditional high school. The special needs students makes sense, but perfectly capable adult men allowed to be students in high schools and secondary schools does not.

If they are old enough to be charged with statuatory rape if they date anyone in their high school class, then they do not belong in traditional high school, especially if FCPS is moving 10 and 11 year old 6th graders into the building and school busses.

Option #2 is “nuclear”, per previous FCPS words. Totally understand and agree that 6-8 is very common throughout the country but FCPS facilities has not, nor is, built to support this. The fact Reid is even considering this shows she doesn’t understand the county’s limitations.

How would an elementary school become a middle school? If it were, it would be 6th grade only and all the reasons Reid gave for moving 6th graders are moot anyway. THe gyms are too small, the math teachers wouldn’t be able to talk to other math teachers. And you take away walk zones.

I think this is a a negotiation tactic. Get everyone riled up so when the real maps are revealed, it is less disruptive and everyone says ok.

THe impracticality of it is ridiculous.

6th -8th grade middle schools are the norm in many school district, and is the case in many local jurisdiction.

I would like to see more secondary schools. Shrink the boundaries and eliminate middle schools entirely. HS should be 7th - 12th. The 21yr old student is a silly argument. Most 21yr olds will be out earning a living in the trades/construction regardless of educational attainment.

The middle schools can be repurposed as HS too, but with much smaller boundaries.

The they are going to rape my daughter is so offensive on so many levels. It’s very Trumpian actually. Fear and hate are corrosive.

The middle school buildings are not designed to be high schools


They don't have enough gym space. High schools have at least two full sized gyms.

They don't have enough sports field space. High schools have football stadiums, baseball diamonds, softball diamonds, tennis courts, and full sized quality tracks at a minimum. Creating these sports fields to high school standards, even no frills, will cost millions of dollars.

Middle schools do not have proper theaters, sized for high school, with proper lighting and sound, set shops and dressing rooms. Creating a proper high school quality theater at even one middle school building would cost millions of dollars, even to basic high school standards.

Middle schools do not have enough music rooms, and their music rooms are too small for high school orchestra, band and choir programs.

The middle school science rooms are insufficient for high school science programs.

The list goes on.

Converting middle schools to high schools is a project that FCPS does not have the funds or time.to do. It would be a multi year, multi million dollar project to do it for even one middle school.



And to your last point, there are a lot more issues with having 10 and 11 year old children attending school and riding busses with 17/18/19/20/21 year old men beyond the one you jumped to of "daughters getting raped" You know this is true. The issues of moving 6th graders into the secondary schools in particular far outweigh any possible benefit to the 10 or so 6th graders mature and smart enough to take algebra in 6th grade.

Converting elementary to middle school or middle school to high school are not tenable solutions, in my opinion given the facility upgrades required.

Converting more high schools to secondary schools is probably the most economical strategy, but mixing 6th graders with 12th graders is a reasonable concern, and I can’t see how this can be done without generating more middle school split feeders to distribute students across open seats.

The high schools are all full

They cannot be concerted to secondary schools.

Your idea woud require hundreds of millions of dollars to build multiple new secondary schools, on giant expensive plots of land that are not available in our county, using money that FCPS does not have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are now just 2 options under consideration, but that might change again.

Option #1

Return everyone to their base school

What does this mean?

Where is the source for this? The latest BRAC e-mail described them as the first two scenarios, meaning there would be more options presented at subsequent meetings:

Dr. Reid welcomed the group and reminded the committee that at the next meetings the first two scenarios will be reviewed, to include evaluation of 6th grade in middle school, and a scenario that assumes all students attend the school that they are zoned to attend based on the current boundary.

That is the source…it’s also on the last BRAC meeting website. I’m surprised they disclosed it

And yes, they will have more scenarios but most likely using these as a baseline. Would be interesting to see actual capacities with everyone at their base home vs the transfer weaves that have been created. As for the middle school transfer by Fall 2026, lunacy!

Maybe they’ll use the base capacities as a starting slate and then adjust boundaries. Right now, the current capacities are so convoluted because of transfers.

If they actually had “equitable” programming at in each pyramid, this would keep people at their home schools, help bus routes, and bring up scores.

They cannot get accurate numbers without a full residency check.

There are too many people lying about where they actually live.

A residency check should have been step one of this entire process.

Switching IB to AP at all high schools should have been step two.

Both of these should have occured prior to hiring the consultant

I am very much against people lying for boundary purposes. However, I seriously doubt that it is abused nearly as much as you seem to think.
I do, however, think that careful attention should be paid to those playing on sports teams in high school a la Hayfield.

I know of five at our high school, just off the top of my head.

Several did it starting in late elementary school when they moved to bigger houses in cheaper areas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are now just 2 options under consideration, but that might change again.

Option #1

Return everyone to their base school

What does this mean?

Eliminate AAP centers and close AP/IB/language transfers.

Then I vote for this, adding eliminating IB in favor of AP and doing a one-time residency check, followed by checking residency for every school change (i.e. when you go to middle school and when you go to high school) just like you prove residency when starting kindergarten or whenever you join an elementary school.

Then, maybe, they can look at whether some of those bigger elementary schools that have been housing AAP centers could house a 6-8 middle school.

There is no need for AAP centers for 7-8 graders.

I get closing the language loop hole. I can see where there are communities where it makes sense to offer a more specialized language, like Farsi or Russian or Hindi or Chinese or German, but for the most part all schools offer Spanish and French, which should be enough for students.

Closing the IB/AP transfer is unfair to kids who are assigned to a program that is a bad fit. The kids who transfer for IB are actually interested in the program and required to work the degree program. There are kids who have no interest in the IB program and it is a bad fit for their interests who should be allowed to transfer for AP. If you are going to close that option then you need to get rid of one of the programs, which would obviously be the IB program.

I have no problem with the language immersion programs because parents are aware that they have to transport their kids if they want their kids to participate and it is out of boundary. That requirement continues for MS and HS if the child continues with the program. Some schools do not allow students outside of the school to participate in the lottery, and that is fine. Schools with space can open the program up to the lottery. It is a school-based choice. It is not a burden on busses and can be set up to prevent it from leading to an over crowded school.

AAP centers can be closed and those students returned to their base schools. Or offer the parents the option that they have to provide transportation if they choose the Center.

Having parents that have 1) transportation means and 2) flexible work schedules to move their children to schools with more desirable programs goes against FCPS’s efforts to make everything accessible and equitable.

I can see them terminating all opportunities for this to support that goal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You know, FCPS could be focusing on real problems, like academics instead of this nonsense.

FCPS has repeatedly stressed their number one priority is NOT academics.

The actual decision-makers at FCPS are Michelle Reid, the school board, and the FCPS administration (Gatehouse). The message from all has been clear and consistent:

FCPS’s number one priority is DEIA, and specifically the “E” part, racial equity and “economic justice.”

The boundary realignment initiative is driven by racial equity goals. Every other reason or reasons (stated or unstated by FCPS) comes far down the list of real reasons.

This fact is why the true decision-makers here have no intention whatsoever of listening to any parental concerns which might conflict with their true motivation:

DEIA.

[Anonymous]

Is there a group or petition or serious discussion of getting rid of IB? I work at an IB school, have done IB courses and trainings and seen how amazing it can be in smaller/more flexible schools...and 1000% agree it doesn't work for FCPS and should be cut.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is there a group or petition or serious discussion of getting rid of IB? I work at an IB school, have done IB courses and trainings and seen how amazing it can be in smaller/more flexible schools...and 1000% agree it doesn't work for FCPS and should be cut.

No. People are reading the "equitable access to programs" portion of the revised policy to mean that all schools have to offer the same programs, and that cannot happen if some schools offer AP and other schools offer AP. Otherwise, people will just use that as a giant loophole to move to other schools (like they do now). Since this boundary change isn't really about improving academics or access to programming, it should not really be a surprise that there hasn't really been a discussion about how schools would actually offer equitable access to programs across the county.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there a group or petition or serious discussion of getting rid of IB? I work at an IB school, have done IB courses and trainings and seen how amazing it can be in smaller/more flexible schools...and 1000% agree it doesn't work for FCPS and should be cut.

No. People are reading the "equitable access to programs" portion of the revised policy to mean that all schools have to offer the same programs, and that cannot happen if some schools offer AP and other schools offer AP. Otherwise, people will just use that as a giant loophole to move to other schools (like they do now). Since this boundary change isn't really about improving academics or access to programming, it should not really be a surprise that there hasn't really been a discussion about how schools would actually offer equitable access to programs across the county.

Sorry, that should have read "that cannot happen if some schools offer AP and other schools offer IB."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am very much against people lying for boundary purposes. However, I seriously doubt that it is abused nearly as much as you seem to think.

Maybe you don't live in a "desirable" school district? Those of us who do all know of multiple families that do it. If FCPS actually cared to do anything about it, then setting up an anonymous tip form on the website like they VA has for car tax evaders would get them tons of hits.

[Anonymous]

This crowd will never get rid of IB. The white mommies whose kids were in the 5-10% of kids doing the IB programs at the IB schools are the types who run for the SB or have the ear of SB members and they never shut up about how great IB is. They don’t care if it’s an inferior program for most students and costs more.

Plus IB traffics in a lot of slogans that sound good to our SB members, such as creating “global citizens” and “lifelong learners.” They eat up that stuff.

They will shove kids into failing IB schools, claim IB is as good as if not better than AP, and say they are providing equitable access to advanced academics at the HS level.

This will never change unless the current SB and superintendent are replaced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Reid is the biggest idiot ever to become superintendent in FCPS. She doesn’t know the district she’s ostensibly supposed to lead, she can’t read a room to save her life, and all she knows how to do is toss out bad ideas that she picked up leading a tiny, homogeneous school district on the west coast.

Someone needs to step up and remove this woman from her responsibilities before she totally screws up FCPS. The school board is full of useless morons so it won’t lift a finger, but the board of supervisors or Youngkin need to step up. FCPS needs to be placed in receivership.

Scores need to get much worse for that to happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reid is the biggest idiot ever to become superintendent in FCPS. She doesn’t know the district she’s ostensibly supposed to lead, she can’t read a room to save her life, and all she knows how to do is toss out bad ideas that she picked up leading a tiny, homogeneous school district on the west coast.

Someone needs to step up and remove this woman from her responsibilities before she totally screws up FCPS. The school board is full of useless morons so it won’t lift a finger, but the board of supervisors or Youngkin need to step up. FCPS needs to be placed in receivership.

Scores need to get much worse for that to happen.

I don't think the board of supervisors or Youngkin have that power. Superintendent can be removed by the school board or the Superintendent of Public Instruction.