FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Option #1

Return everyone to their base school

What does this mean?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I know parents at SLHS that like IB and would be upset if it went away. Several insist that it is superior to AP and don't get why people don't like it. The biggest supporters I know are European, so it is the program that they know. Most of the people I know would prefer AP but I suspect that there is more support for the program at the school then we know. And, realistically speaking, I am not sure that many of the families who don't take IB classes would care if it was IB or AP because I suspect that their kids are not going to take either. It probably comes down the opinions of the MC/UMC families at the IB schools.

That said, I would love for the County to actually ask the parents at each school what programs that they want and see what impact that has on the schools. Because I do think that the vast majority of parents at IB schools would prefer AP schools and I suspect that there are a good number of parents that would like to see votech programs that are not disruptive to a kids schedule, ie ditch the academies and start a votech school or offer better Votech offerings at all of the HS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Scores need to get much worse for that to happen.

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

"Youngkin" just means the state government. He (Youngkin) appointed the Superintendent of Public Instruction.

The state AG also needs to be investigating FCPS for the irregularities and bias apparent in the selection of the boundary review advisory committee (BRAC). FCPS leadership is not just incompetent; it's also corrupt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Option #1

Return everyone to their base school

What does this mean?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You know what? Being able to read historically great literature matters. While I know China has a long literary history (we read some translated Chinese literature in 10th grade English that still sticks with me), so does France.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Option #1

Return everyone to their base school

What does this mean?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I know parents at SLHS that like IB and would be upset if it went away. Several insist that it is superior to AP and don't get why people don't like it. The biggest supporters I know are European, so it is the program that they know. Most of the people I know would prefer AP but I suspect that there is more support for the program at the school then we know. And, realistically speaking, I am not sure that many of the families who don't take IB classes would care if it was IB or AP because I suspect that their kids are not going to take either. It probably comes down the opinions of the MC/UMC families at the IB schools.

That said, I would love for the County to actually ask the parents at each school what programs that they want and see what impact that has on the schools. Because I do think that the vast majority of parents at IB schools would prefer AP schools and I suspect that there are a good number of parents that would like to see votech programs that are not disruptive to a kids schedule, ie ditch the academies and start a votech school or offer better Votech offerings at all of the HS.

South Lakes had 635 seniors last year. 50 got IB diplomas.

A program that really only benefits 7.9% of the seniors (students taking IB a la carte would be better served by AP) isn't worth keeping when it costs more than the alternative.

You are absolutely right that they need to survey parents as to their preferences. I wonder why they don't bother asking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Option #1

Return everyone to their base school

What does this mean?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You know what? Being able to read historically great literature matters. While I know China has a long literary history (we read some translated Chinese literature in 10th grade English that still sticks with me), so does France.

Very few FCPS students taking French ever come close to the level of fluency needed to read Voltaire or Zola in French.

Fine if we make Chinese, French, and Spanish the languages offered at every school, but if we were limited to two French should be dropped rather than Chinese.

[Anonymous]

This IB/AP debate is interesting. I’m the parent of a middle-schooler in the Edison pyramid who will likely get into TJ. We are debating whether it would make more sense for DC to attend TJ or stay at Edison and do the IB and STEM programs. The IB program does feel somewhat special/intense in a way that AP doesn’t, and I don’t think my kid would be as torn about Edison vs. TJ if Edison only had AP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is the big advantage of 6-8? I can understand that this may have happened in some schools because of numbers, but why do it throughout the county.

I prefer 1-6. Just because much of the country does it, does not make it best.

Accelerated math, science and the arts. Kids who start advanced math in 7th are already behind, even if they start with algebra.

[Anonymous]

We don't need 6-8 middle schools in FCPS, and trying to adjust the facilities for that model would be a massive and very expensive undertaking.

If this School Board had any common sense at all they would be instructing Reid to shelve this idea indefinitely. They are putting us through enough turmoil already.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Option #1

Return everyone to their base school

What does this mean?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I know parents at SLHS that like IB and would be upset if it went away. Several insist that it is superior to AP and don't get why people don't like it. The biggest supporters I know are European, so it is the program that they know. Most of the people I know would prefer AP but I suspect that there is more support for the program at the school then we know. And, realistically speaking, I am not sure that many of the families who don't take IB classes would care if it was IB or AP because I suspect that their kids are not going to take either. It probably comes down the opinions of the MC/UMC families at the IB schools.

That said, I would love for the County to actually ask the parents at each school what programs that they want and see what impact that has on the schools. Because I do think that the vast majority of parents at IB schools would prefer AP schools and I suspect that there are a good number of parents that would like to see votech programs that are not disruptive to a kids schedule, ie ditch the academies and start a votech school or offer better Votech offerings at all of the HS.

According to the Virginia Department of Education stats, only around 50 seniors graduate each year from South Lakes with an IB diploma.

That is an abysmally small number for what IB costs, especially when you consider that most of the schools graduate a dozen or fewer IB diplomas, with some in the single digits.

Marshall graduates around 70.

The only school awarding more than a hundred IB diplomas is Robinson.

You could combine all the students in FCPS who want to earn an IB diploma into one high school, and the classes would still be too small to fill a school. The classes would make Lewis look mammoth, with only around 300 students per grade in a district with around 12,000 students per grade.

If parents and students truly wanted IB, there would be more than a handful kids pursuing the IB diploma each year.

IB is a wasted expense for FCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the big advantage of 6-8? I can understand that this may have happened in some schools because of numbers, but why do it throughout the county.

I prefer 1-6. Just because much of the country does it, does not make it best.

Accelerated math, science and the arts. Kids who start advanced math in 7th are already behind, even if they start with algebra.

Already behind if kids take Algebra in 7th grade? Honestly, I completely disagree. Pushing math doesn’t really help kids. I am gainfully employed with a Masters degree and I took Algebra in 8th. Kids have to go to college and if you max out math in high school
1. Colleges won’t even take the math credit if you major in math, so you end up retaking
2. Even having had calculus in high school, I never took math again in college. So why push harder if you never use it.

THis reeks of a social justice platform. Something like: Make sure ALL kids take Algebra in middle school.

I dont’ even want my white middle of the road student to take it until he is READY. Why push this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the big advantage of 6-8? I can understand that this may have happened in some schools because of numbers, but why do it throughout the county.

I prefer 1-6. Just because much of the country does it, does not make it best.

Accelerated math, science and the arts. Kids who start advanced math in 7th are already behind, even if they start with algebra.

There are so few 6th graders capable of taking algebra in 6th, maybe a half dozen per grade.

For those half dozen 6th graders per middle school who are ready to discover algebra in 6th, there will be dozens of 6th graders who will discover sex, vaping and pot a year earlier on the middle school busses and in the bathrooms, and hundreds who get bullied because they are too emotionally young for middle school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the big advantage of 6-8? I can understand that this may have happened in some schools because of numbers, but why do it throughout the county.

I prefer 1-6. Just because much of the country does it, does not make it best.

Accelerated math, science and the arts. Kids who start advanced math in 7th are already behind, even if they start with algebra.

Already behind if kids take Algebra in 7th grade? Honestly, I completely disagree. Pushing math doesn’t really help kids. I am gainfully employed with a Masters degree and I took Algebra in 8th. Kids have to go to college and if you max out math in high school
1. Colleges won’t even take the math credit if you major in math, so you end up retaking
2. Even having had calculus in high school, I never took math again in college. So why push harder if you never use it.

THis reeks of a social justice platform. Something like: Make sure ALL kids take Algebra in middle school.

I dont’ even want my white middle of the road student to take it until he is READY. Why push this?

Not sure who is making your kid take Algebra in MS - your kid can take Algebra in HS. If you don't like the fact that college admission might be impacted then roll the dice like everyone else. Making it available for a tiger mom shouldn't and doesn't force anything on you. A good school provides opportunity - the choice is up to you to use it or not. There's band not everyone uses that - it's there if you want it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are so few 6th graders capable of taking algebra in 6th, maybe a half dozen per grade.

I think you are vastly underestimating. My 7th grader is in Algebra and hasn't received less than a 95% on a quiz or test all year. He didn't do any outside enrichment and he isn't some kind of genius. He easily could have taken it last year. Almost every AAP kid in his school did well enough on the IAAT to qualify for Algebra in 7th - I bet many more than a half dozen would have scored high enough qualify if it was given a year earlier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the big advantage of 6-8? I can understand that this may have happened in some schools because of numbers, but why do it throughout the county.

I prefer 1-6. Just because much of the country does it, does not make it best.

Accelerated math, science and the arts. Kids who start advanced math in 7th are already behind, even if they start with algebra.

Already behind if kids take Algebra in 7th grade? Honestly, I completely disagree. Pushing math doesn’t really help kids. I am gainfully employed with a Masters degree and I took Algebra in 8th. Kids have to go to college and if you max out math in high school
1. Colleges won’t even take the math credit if you major in math, so you end up retaking
2. Even having had calculus in high school, I never took math again in college. So why push harder if you never use it.

THis reeks of a social justice platform. Something like: Make sure ALL kids take Algebra in middle school.

I dont’ even want my white middle of the road student to take it until he is READY. Why push this?

Not sure who is making your kid take Algebra in MS - your kid can take Algebra in HS. If you don't like the fact that college admission might be impacted then roll the dice like everyone else. Making it available for a tiger mom shouldn't and doesn't force anything on you. A good school provides opportunity - the choice is up to you to use it or not. There's band not everyone uses that - it's there if you want it.

The top middle schools and top feeders to TJ (even after all the machinations to limit admissions) are from 7-8 middle schools - Carson, Cooper, Kilmer, Longfellow, Rocky Run.

If you think 6-8 middle schools are such an advantage, then equity dictates what we're doing already, which is having 6-8 middle schools in the poorest parts of the county (Glasgow, Holmes, Poe). Let's give these kids that extra advantage that the kids at the 7-8 schools don't have so they can all end up in the same place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the big advantage of 6-8? I can understand that this may have happened in some schools because of numbers, but why do it throughout the county.

I prefer 1-6. Just because much of the country does it, does not make it best.

Accelerated math, science and the arts. Kids who start advanced math in 7th are already behind, even if they start with algebra.

Already behind if kids take Algebra in 7th grade? Honestly, I completely disagree. Pushing math doesn’t really help kids. I am gainfully employed with a Masters degree and I took Algebra in 8th. Kids have to go to college and if you max out math in high school
1. Colleges won’t even take the math credit if you major in math, so you end up retaking
2. Even having had calculus in high school, I never took math again in college. So why push harder if you never use it.

THis reeks of a social justice platform. Something like: Make sure ALL kids take Algebra in middle school.

I dont’ even want my white middle of the road student to take it until he is READY. Why push this?

Not sure who is making your kid take Algebra in MS - your kid can take Algebra in HS. If you don't like the fact that college admission might be impacted then roll the dice like everyone else. Making it available for a tiger mom shouldn't and doesn't force anything on you. A good school provides opportunity - the choice is up to you to use it or not. There's band not everyone uses that - it's there if you want it.

The top middle schools and top feeders to TJ (even after all the machinations to limit admissions) are from 7-8 middle schools - Carson, Cooper, Kilmer, Longfellow, Rocky Run.

If you think 6-8 middle schools are such an advantage, then equity dictates what we're doing already, which is having 6-8 middle schools in the poorest parts of the county (Glasgow, Holmes, Poe). Let's give these kids that extra advantage that the kids at the 7-8 schools don't have so they can all end up in the same place.

Just saying your kid doesn't need to take Algebra; Are you saying you want your kid to go to TJ and not take Algebra? What in the world does Algebra have to do with K-6, 6-8, vs 7-8?

If you don't want to take it then don't take it. If someone else does - what do you care?