FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I still want to know which programs are currently distributed inequitably. What are they talking about???? They claim parents mentioned their concerns about inequitable programming. WHAT IS IT?
Doesn’t everyone get to lottery into magnet/immersion?
Doesn’t everyone get a choice between IB and AP and can transfer if their zoned school doesn’t offer the one they want?

Are they saying SPED kids get more resources and that isn’t fair? Or AAP kids get a choice and that isn’t fair?

Please, please tell me what this is!

They haven't a clue because they don't do the research and they don't actually care about the disparities. If they did, they would have gotten rid of failing IB programs years ago.

Instead, they are going to dump families who don't want IB into failing IB schools and then claim it provides equitable access to programming as well.

That is, if they can get away with it. Their processes are so corrupt that it's looking increasingly likely that other authorities or courts will intervene and that Reid may get sent packing at some point. She is not remotely up to the task of what she's trying to pull off here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The FCPS email sent this afternoon included:

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.

Can more details on these scenarios be found anywhere? In order to have "all students" attend the school they are zoned for, they'd have to eliminate AAP centers, magnet programs, language immersion, and other programs. I didn't think any of that was on the table. Am I wrong?

That seemed very ambiguous to me too - like keeping all boundaries the same but sending 6th to middle? Is that what they meant?

No, I don't think it would be keeping all boundaries the same but sending 6th to middle. It would probably just be one more addition to the chaos. But it doesn't even seem possible. Those middle school buildings can't hold three grades.

They will present the scenario of what it looks like to put 6th grade in middle school which will show crazy overcrowded schools and then they’ll say - but look how great it is if we move these elementary schools.
To justify the boundary changes they want by changing why they want them to mask the equity goal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I still want to know which programs are currently distributed inequitably. What are they talking about???? They claim parents mentioned their concerns about inequitable programming. WHAT IS IT?
Doesn’t everyone get to lottery into magnet/immersion?
Doesn’t everyone get a choice between IB and AP and can transfer if their zoned school doesn’t offer the one they want?

Are they saying SPED kids get more resources and that isn’t fair? Or AAP kids get a choice and that isn’t fair?

Please, please tell me what this is!

Access to language immersion and switching from IB to AP is based on the ability of the parents to drive their children to and from school. This is not a possibility for many families. Different languages are offered at different high schools. Different AP courses are offered at different high schools. Again, you may be able to transfer but you have to transport your kids which makes it inequitable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, I don't think it would be keeping all boundaries the same but sending 6th to middle. It would probably just be one more addition to the chaos. But it doesn't even seem possible. Those middle school buildings can't hold three grades.

I think that's the point. They will present one option of "not changing boundaries" but trying to shoehorn 6th into middle just to be able to say, "See, not changing the boundaries isn't a viable option."

I mean, it clearly isn’t, but changing boundaries and sending 6th to middle won’t work either. The 6th graders aren’t just going to disappear and there isn’t going to be space for 350-600 additional kids at each middle school, regardless of boundary changes …

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have they actually said One Fairfax is the goal or is this just assumptions?

Assumptions. Right up there with the “it’s all about EqUiTy” claim.

They said it on video, multiple times, including the October 8th planning meeting.

The FCPS webpage linked earlier explaining the history of this rezoning process also explicitly states rezoning is to align with One Fairfax and Equity

If they said it “multiple times” you should have no problem telling everyone the time marks so we can all see it for ourselves. Go ahead.

DP. Toward the end of the 10/8 work session (around 4:02), Dunne asks whether nardos king will be on some of the teams working on the boundary process, because “I just want to make sure someone whose lens is equity, because, you know, One Fairfax”. King is also on BRAC.

[Anonymous]

There is no way they can offer every languuage currently offered at every school.
Is that inequitable? I don't think so. As long as they offer four years of at least two languages, it seems okay to me.

Is every high school going to have to offer a Broadway style musical?

Look. We'd all like for all kids to have the very great teachers. Why don't they start with working on that? That would be a start at equity.

[Anonymous]

They are so full of sh*t.

If they want equity, get rid of THHSST. They can never provide the same programming to other students that TJ students get.

And then get rid of IB, which alone would free up funding to offer another foreign language at the failing IB schools.

But they won't do this. They'll pontificate, and change boundaries, and ruin kids' high school experiences because they are left-wing morons who don't have any principles, just a desire to screw over the lives of some families to placate others.

[Anonymous]

Way back when, FCPS took most of the underperforming HSs and made them IB schools. Instantly, their scores could not be compared with the mostly higher achieving AP schools. It was brilliant marketing because it covered up the disparity in educational achievement between the two sets of schools. Comparing IB with AP would be comparing apples to oranges after all.

If every HS offered AP, then one could compare outcomes between the two sets of schools and that would make Gatehouse look very incompetent. So they will continue down the current path.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still want to know which programs are currently distributed inequitably. What are they talking about???? They claim parents mentioned their concerns about inequitable programming. WHAT IS IT?
Doesn’t everyone get to lottery into magnet/immersion?
Doesn’t everyone get a choice between IB and AP and can transfer if their zoned school doesn’t offer the one they want?

Are they saying SPED kids get more resources and that isn’t fair? Or AAP kids get a choice and that isn’t fair?

Please, please tell me what this is!

Access to language immersion and switching from IB to AP is based on the ability of the parents to drive their children to and from school. This is not a possibility for many families. Different languages are offered at different high schools. Different AP courses are offered at different high schools. Again, you may be able to transfer but you have to transport your kids which makes it inequitable.

And SPED kids? Or ESL kids? How is it fair they get more resources?

The ONLY cost effective solution is to allow fewer choices. It has nothing to do with boundaries. And I would say as a family surviving on a lower than average income in the area, we have sacrificed vacations, fancy cars and many restaurant meals in order to have a SAHP transport our kids to immersion/school choice programs. We played by the rules to help our kids. How is it fair to mix all that up now? Can we get the income from those years back?

Nothing is fair. If everything is exactly equal, there are fewer choices. They can’t make more bus routes, or hire teachers for all the languages in every high school without a lot more money going into programs. Welcome to reality, some of this is impossible.

I believe that kids who need SPED services, get more money and ESL kids should get more money, but there is a line with what is “fair” and we can’t zero out the fact that people are different and need different things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Way back when, FCPS took most of the underperforming HSs and made them IB schools. Instantly, their scores could not be compared with the mostly higher achieving AP schools. It was brilliant marketing because it covered up the disparity in educational achievement between the two sets of schools. Comparing IB with AP would be comparing apples to oranges after all.

If every HS offered AP, then one could compare outcomes between the two sets of schools and that would make Gatehouse look very incompetent. So they will continue down the current path.

The intention was to stem white flight by holding out the idea that white parents could send their kids to a "school within a school" to pursue an IB diploma.

So the original intent was anything but equity-driven, and it failed at its intended purpose. Relatively few students pursue the IB diploma at these schools, and the program with its writing focus is particularly poorly suited to the schools that offer it.

It should have been junked years ago, but FCPS can't admit mistakes so they soldier on. IB schools have been the ones that ended up perceived as in crisis mode (South Lakes in 2007 and Lewis now) and the solution is always to dump more kids into these schools against their will and pretend the opportunities will be comparable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still want to know which programs are currently distributed inequitably. What are they talking about???? They claim parents mentioned their concerns about inequitable programming. WHAT IS IT?
Doesn’t everyone get to lottery into magnet/immersion?
Doesn’t everyone get a choice between IB and AP and can transfer if their zoned school doesn’t offer the one they want?

Are they saying SPED kids get more resources and that isn’t fair? Or AAP kids get a choice and that isn’t fair?

Please, please tell me what this is!

Access to language immersion and switching from IB to AP is based on the ability of the parents to drive their children to and from school. This is not a possibility for many families. Different languages are offered at different high schools. Different AP courses are offered at different high schools. Again, you may be able to transfer but you have to transport your kids which makes it inequitable.

And SPED kids? Or ESL kids? How is it fair they get more resources?

The ONLY cost effective solution is to allow fewer choices. It has nothing to do with boundaries. And I would say as a family surviving on a lower than average income in the area, we have sacrificed vacations, fancy cars and many restaurant meals in order to have a SAHP transport our kids to immersion/school choice programs. We played by the rules to help our kids. How is it fair to mix all that up now? Can we get the income from those years back?

Nothing is fair. If everything is exactly equal, there are fewer choices. They can’t make more bus routes, or hire teachers for all the languages in every high school without a lot more money going into programs. Welcome to reality, some of this is impossible.

I believe that kids who need SPED services, get more money and ESL kids should get more money, but there is a line with what is “fair” and we can’t zero out the fact that people are different and need different things.

+1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Way back when, FCPS took most of the underperforming HSs and made them IB schools. Instantly, their scores could not be compared with the mostly higher achieving AP schools. It was brilliant marketing because it covered up the disparity in educational achievement between the two sets of schools. Comparing IB with AP would be comparing apples to oranges after all.

If every HS offered AP, then one could compare outcomes between the two sets of schools and that would make Gatehouse look very incompetent. So they will continue down the current path.

The intention was to stem white flight by holding out the idea that white parents could send their kids to a "school within a school" to pursue an IB diploma.

So the original intent was anything but equity-driven, and it failed at its intended purpose. Relatively few students pursue the IB diploma at these schools, and the program with its writing focus is particularly poorly suited to the schools that offer it.

It should have been junked years ago, but FCPS can't admit mistakes so they soldier on. IB schools have been the ones that ended up perceived as in crisis mode (South Lakes in 2007 and Lewis now) and the solution is always to dump more kids into these schools against their will and pretend the opportunities will be comparable.

Mount Vernon is in crisis mode too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So FairFACTS Matters has now provided credible evidence that the BRAC selection process was manipulated by one of Reid's appointees to exclude a Langley applicant who was randomly selected but perhaps known to Lisa Youngblood-Hall to be skeptical of boundary changes. Youngblood-Hall intervened and apparently overrode the candidate's selection.

Between this and the manipulation of the process to give Woodson, unlike other high schools, three representatives, including a well known shill for the School Board (Vanessa), it appears that the process was repeatedly manipulated to include and exclude those Gatehouse wanted and did not want on the BRAC.

When you put this together with the mishandling of the Hayfield situation, enough is enough. Michelle Reid needs to be terminated immediately, and this boundary process put on hold until, at a minimum, a new BRAC appointed with integrity is selected. This Superintendent does not deserve to stay in FCPS one more week.

Obviously referrals will be made to other state and federal officials to investigate this tampering/corruption of the process.

Lisa is clearly in on the corrupt activity, and immediately goes into damage control mode at :40, making sure she talks over and cuts off the other two ladies. Her non verbals give her away and she stutters a couple times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Way back when, FCPS took most of the underperforming HSs and made them IB schools. Instantly, their scores could not be compared with the mostly higher achieving AP schools. It was brilliant marketing because it covered up the disparity in educational achievement between the two sets of schools. Comparing IB with AP would be comparing apples to oranges after all.

If every HS offered AP, then one could compare outcomes between the two sets of schools and that would make Gatehouse look very incompetent. So they will continue down the current path.

The intention was to stem white flight by holding out the idea that white parents could send their kids to a "school within a school" to pursue an IB diploma.

So the original intent was anything but equity-driven, and it failed at its intended purpose. Relatively few students pursue the IB diploma at these schools, and the program with its writing focus is particularly poorly suited to the schools that offer it.

It should have been junked years ago, but FCPS can't admit mistakes so they soldier on. IB schools have been the ones that ended up perceived as in crisis mode (South Lakes in 2007 and Lewis now) and the solution is always to dump more kids into these schools against their will and pretend the opportunities will be comparable.

Mount Vernon is in crisis mode too.

Not from an enrollment perspective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So FairFACTS Matters has now provided credible evidence that the BRAC selection process was manipulated by one of Reid's appointees to exclude a Langley applicant who was randomly selected but perhaps known to Lisa Youngblood-Hall to be skeptical of boundary changes. Youngblood-Hall intervened and apparently overrode the candidate's selection.

Between this and the manipulation of the process to give Woodson, unlike other high schools, three representatives, including a well known shill for the School Board (Vanessa), it appears that the process was repeatedly manipulated to include and exclude those Gatehouse wanted and did not want on the BRAC.

When you put this together with the mishandling of the Hayfield situation, enough is enough. Michelle Reid needs to be terminated immediately, and this boundary process put on hold until, at a minimum, a new BRAC appointed with integrity is selected. This Superintendent does not deserve to stay in FCPS one more week.

Obviously referrals will be made to other state and federal officials to investigate this tampering/corruption of the process.

Lisa is clearly in on the corrupt activity, and immediately goes into damage control mode at :40, making sure she talks over and cuts off the other two ladies. Her non verbals give her away and she stutters a couple times.

She’s not some random FCPS employee. She was specifically brought over by Reid from Washington State.

And there appears to be video evidence that she intentionally interfered with the “random” selection process to exclude a particular Langley applicant from the BRAC.

That squarely contradicts how Reid and the School Board represented BRAC members were selected from each pyramid. They have zero credibility at this point and, if Hall and Reid do not resign voluntarily, it will be up to others to force them out for their dishonesty. I’ve little doubt that state and federal officials will intervene if the School Board does not force their resignations.