FCPS Boundary Review - New Maps

[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:

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.

I highly doubt neighborhood turnover from older sellers to younger buyers is going to increase growth - that’s how it’s always been. People have always bought and sold. If there is more contraction in the size of the government, or if it really starts to impact the size of the military bases here, the school age population will start to fall even further in West Springfield … never mind the already well-documented demographic cliff that is already affecting a lot of colleges.

Building new housing will for sure increase population and growth in the schools. Especially since a lot of the new development will be townhomes which will attract families. There’s already new townhomes going up on Beulah across from the new police station, although I think those will be in bounds for Hayfield.

[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

Bingo! Boundary changes for thee, but “heavens, no!” for me. That’s their thing. (Unless I missed where Kyle McDaniel volunteered to move his kid next year?)

[Anonymous]

Private middle school teacher here. We send students to high and low performing FCPS high schools and private ones. These kids’ college placements closely reflect their achievement levels in middle school, despite the high school they attended.

[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:

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.

Academic achievement reflects family income. I am sure you are aware of this. Higher income families at those schools, tend to do well in college admissions, and there is decent support for those kids as well.

I actually prefer my high achievers learn how to be more independent, and learn how to navigate high school with less hand holding. They may not get all the classes they want, but I assume that will also be the case when signing up for college courses. They can practice overcoming adversity at a younger age.

[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:

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.

Academic achievement reflects family income. I am sure you are aware of this. Higher income families at those schools, tend to do well in college admissions, and there is decent support for those kids as well.

I actually prefer my high achievers learn how to be more independent, and learn how to navigate high school with less hand holding. They may not get all the classes they want, but I assume that will also be the case when signing up for college courses. They can practice overcoming adversity at a younger age.

DP - sounds like you appreciated getting to choose where your children go to school. That’s exactly what everyone in the county is looking for.

[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:

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.

Academic achievement reflects family income. I am sure you are aware of this. Higher income families at those schools, tend to do well in college admissions, and there is decent support for those kids as well.

I actually prefer my high achievers learn how to be more independent, and learn how to navigate high school with less hand holding. They may not get all the classes they want, but I assume that will also be the case when signing up for college courses. They can practice overcoming adversity at a younger age.

DP - sounds like you appreciated getting to choose where your children go to school. That’s exactly what everyone in the county is looking for.

People move where they move and they know the schools they are zoned for when they move in.

[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:

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.

Academic achievement reflects family income. I am sure you are aware of this. Higher income families at those schools, tend to do well in college admissions, and there is decent support for those kids as well.

I actually prefer my high achievers learn how to be more independent, and learn how to navigate high school with less hand holding. They may not get all the classes they want, but I assume that will also be the case when signing up for college courses. They can practice overcoming adversity at a younger age.

DP - sounds like you appreciated getting to choose where your children go to school. That’s exactly what everyone in the county is looking for.

People move where they move and they know the schools they are zoned for when they move in.

Yep, that’s my point. The PP just told us what she values for her own children. Others just ask for the same courtesy by keeping the boundaries where they are absent a major problem (like Coates).

[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:

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.

Academic achievement reflects family income. I am sure you are aware of this. Higher income families at those schools, tend to do well in college admissions, and there is decent support for those kids as well.

I actually prefer my high achievers learn how to be more independent, and learn how to navigate high school with less hand holding. They may not get all the classes they want, but I assume that will also be the case when signing up for college courses. They can practice overcoming adversity at a younger age.

DP - sounds like you appreciated getting to choose where your children go to school. That’s exactly what everyone in the county is looking for.

People move where they move and they know the schools they are zoned for when they move in.

So what? Schools have worsened over time and your response is basically “too bad, so sad” Give me a break!

Nobody is asking or expecting Lewis to become the most sought after HS in FCPS, but please stop gaslighting parents of kids who are in-bound that they should be fine with their place at the bottom. Of course I feel bad about kids who might be moved. But something has to change. We should all want to see improvements at Lewis, even if we don’t agree on what those changes should be.

[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:

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.

Academic achievement reflects family income. I am sure you are aware of this. Higher income families at those schools, tend to do well in college admissions, and there is decent support for those kids as well.

I actually prefer my high achievers learn how to be more independent, and learn how to navigate high school with less hand holding. They may not get all the classes they want, but I assume that will also be the case when signing up for college courses. They can practice overcoming adversity at a younger age.

DP - sounds like you appreciated getting to choose where your children go to school. That’s exactly what everyone in the county is looking for.

People move where they move and they know the schools they are zoned for when they move in.

So what? Schools have worsened over time and your response is basically “too bad, so sad” Give me a break!

Nobody is asking or expecting Lewis to become the most sought after HS in FCPS, but please stop gaslighting parents of kids who are in-bound that they should be fine with their place at the bottom. Of course I feel bad about kids who might be moved. But something has to change. We should all want to see improvements at Lewis, even if we don’t agree on what those changes should be.

But you knew what the area and the school’s reputation was like when you bought there … and you paid less than some of the surrounding areas as well.

[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:

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.

Academic achievement reflects family income. I am sure you are aware of this. Higher income families at those schools, tend to do well in college admissions, and there is decent support for those kids as well.

I actually prefer my high achievers learn how to be more independent, and learn how to navigate high school with less hand holding. They may not get all the classes they want, but I assume that will also be the case when signing up for college courses. They can practice overcoming adversity at a younger age.

DP - sounds like you appreciated getting to choose where your children go to school. That’s exactly what everyone in the county is looking for.

People move where they move and they know the schools they are zoned for when they move in.

So what? Schools have worsened over time and your response is basically “too bad, so sad” Give me a break!

Nobody is asking or expecting Lewis to become the most sought after HS in FCPS, but please stop gaslighting parents of kids who are in-bound that they should be fine with their place at the bottom. Of course I feel bad about kids who might be moved. But something has to change. We should all want to see improvements at Lewis, even if we don’t agree on what those changes should be.

Well, let's hear your thoughts then. What are the problems at Lewis and what do you think should be done to solve them? Explain specifically why moving HVES kids to Lewis will help solve the issues you think Lewis has.

[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:

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.

Academic achievement reflects family income. I am sure you are aware of this. Higher income families at those schools, tend to do well in college admissions, and there is decent support for those kids as well.

I actually prefer my high achievers learn how to be more independent, and learn how to navigate high school with less hand holding. They may not get all the classes they want, but I assume that will also be the case when signing up for college courses. They can practice overcoming adversity at a younger age.

DP - sounds like you appreciated getting to choose where your children go to school. That’s exactly what everyone in the county is looking for.

People move where they move and they know the schools they are zoned for when they move in.

So what? Schools have worsened over time and your response is basically “too bad, so sad” Give me a break!

Nobody is asking or expecting Lewis to become the most sought after HS in FCPS, but please stop gaslighting parents of kids who are in-bound that they should be fine with their place at the bottom. Of course I feel bad about kids who might be moved. But something has to change. We should all want to see improvements at Lewis, even if we don’t agree on what those changes should be.

There it is. Your push for equity is based on a selfish motive. No altruism, just looking out for your kids. Transparent as always.

You could always move to a different school pyramid if you don’t like it.

[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:

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.

Academic achievement reflects family income. I am sure you are aware of this. Higher income families at those schools, tend to do well in college admissions, and there is decent support for those kids as well.

I actually prefer my high achievers learn how to be more independent, and learn how to navigate high school with less hand holding. They may not get all the classes they want, but I assume that will also be the case when signing up for college courses. They can practice overcoming adversity at a younger age.

DP - sounds like you appreciated getting to choose where your children go to school. That’s exactly what everyone in the county is looking for.

People move where they move and they know the schools they are zoned for when they move in.

So what? Schools have worsened over time and your response is basically “too bad, so sad” Give me a break!

Nobody is asking or expecting Lewis to become the most sought after HS in FCPS, but please stop gaslighting parents of kids who are in-bound that they should be fine with their place at the bottom. Of course I feel bad about kids who might be moved. But something has to change. We should all want to see improvements at Lewis, even if we don’t agree on what those changes should be.

But you knew what the area and the school’s reputation was like when you bought there … and you paid less than some of the surrounding areas as well.

Yes, we bought and paid for what we could afford at the time. So now, years later, despite the fact that the school struggles have gotten significantly worse over the years, we should just accept that? You love to advocate for the mental health of your kids and ”keeping our communities together” but our kids should just suck it up and deal or better yet, move or pupil place or private…no fcks given about OUR kids or communities.

But I’m the selfish one?

[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:

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.

Academic achievement reflects family income. I am sure you are aware of this. Higher income families at those schools, tend to do well in college admissions, and there is decent support for those kids as well.

I actually prefer my high achievers learn how to be more independent, and learn how to navigate high school with less hand holding. They may not get all the classes they want, but I assume that will also be the case when signing up for college courses. They can practice overcoming adversity at a younger age.

DP - sounds like you appreciated getting to choose where your children go to school. That’s exactly what everyone in the county is looking for.

People move where they move and they know the schools they are zoned for when they move in.

So what? Schools have worsened over time and your response is basically “too bad, so sad” Give me a break!

Nobody is asking or expecting Lewis to become the most sought after HS in FCPS, but please stop gaslighting parents of kids who are in-bound that they should be fine with their place at the bottom. Of course I feel bad about kids who might be moved. But something has to change. We should all want to see improvements at Lewis, even if we don’t agree on what those changes should be.

But you knew what the area and the school’s reputation was like when you bought there … and you paid less than some of the surrounding areas as well.

Reminder: we're discussing public schools. Last I checked the entire county pays the same property tax rate.

If you want to discuss payment for school that's completely fair but that applies to private school. I'd agree with you that if I was paying more tuition for one private school versus another I'd expect that private school to be better in many ways.

[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:

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.

Academic achievement reflects family income. I am sure you are aware of this. Higher income families at those schools, tend to do well in college admissions, and there is decent support for those kids as well.

I actually prefer my high achievers learn how to be more independent, and learn how to navigate high school with less hand holding. They may not get all the classes they want, but I assume that will also be the case when signing up for college courses. They can practice overcoming adversity at a younger age.

DP - sounds like you appreciated getting to choose where your children go to school. That’s exactly what everyone in the county is looking for.

People move where they move and they know the schools they are zoned for when they move in.

So what? Schools have worsened over time and your response is basically “too bad, so sad” Give me a break!

Nobody is asking or expecting Lewis to become the most sought after HS in FCPS, but please stop gaslighting parents of kids who are in-bound that they should be fine with their place at the bottom. Of course I feel bad about kids who might be moved. But something has to change. We should all want to see improvements at Lewis, even if we don’t agree on what those changes should be.

There it is. Your push for equity is based on a selfish motive. No altruism, just looking out for your kids. Transparent as always.

You could always move to a different school pyramid if you don’t like it.

Oh we’re considering it. But that doesn’t make it right. Just going to make the problem worse.

[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:

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.

Academic achievement reflects family income. I am sure you are aware of this. Higher income families at those schools, tend to do well in college admissions, and there is decent support for those kids as well.

I actually prefer my high achievers learn how to be more independent, and learn how to navigate high school with less hand holding. They may not get all the classes they want, but I assume that will also be the case when signing up for college courses. They can practice overcoming adversity at a younger age.

DP - sounds like you appreciated getting to choose where your children go to school. That’s exactly what everyone in the county is looking for.

People move where they move and they know the schools they are zoned for when they move in.

So what? Schools have worsened over time and your response is basically “too bad, so sad” Give me a break!

Nobody is asking or expecting Lewis to become the most sought after HS in FCPS, but please stop gaslighting parents of kids who are in-bound that they should be fine with their place at the bottom. Of course I feel bad about kids who might be moved. But something has to change. We should all want to see improvements at Lewis, even if we don’t agree on what those changes should be.

There it is. Your push for equity is based on a selfish motive. No altruism, just looking out for your kids. Transparent as always.

You could always move to a different school pyramid if you don’t like it.

Oh we’re considering it. But that doesn’t make it right. Just going to make the problem worse.

Ok, then don’t move and just suck it up. If you want your kids to be the savior of the school then go for it. Leave us the F out of it.