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:

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.

Also, this seems like a good time to remind you that boundaries aren’t guaranteed in Fairfax County.

[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:

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.

Or maybe you could just take your high and mighty ass out of the PUBLIC SCHOOL system and go private. Isn’t that what was suggested to me?

[Anonymous]

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

I guess that is not true any longer if the leaders of FCPS get there way.

And, honestly, it has never been true.

Move in with no kids? It might not be a concern.
Move in with very young kids? Probably most concern about the elementary school.

I'm all for people staying put, but that is an arrogant statement--much like the comments given about a poster referring to the KAA issue.
And, all I can say is that I've lived here a long time--and schools change over time.

FCPS needs to worry about academics and quit trying to orchestrate changes just for scores.

High achievers at Lewis should have access to good programming Low achievers should have access to good, solid instruction.

[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.

What needs to change is whatever is causing nearly 300 in zone Lewis students to transfer to other high schools.

If those students who live in bounds for Lewis stayed at Lewis, then Lewis would be at full capacity.

Rezoning other kids from WSHS so the Lewis kids can continue to transfer to Lake Braddock, Edison and West Springfield, is not fair and should not happen.

[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.

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?

“Over the years” meaning you probably bought about 10 years ago. Well we did too and we were on a strict budget under $500k. There were plenty of TH’s at that price from Alexandria all the way to Fairfax. Springfield wasn’t the only place you could afford, be so for real right now. Hell we found the Saratoga/Rolling Road area to be somewhat over priced given the school quality. We knew if we had bought there we’d need to leave by early elementary.

[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:

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?

“Over the years” meaning you probably bought about 10 years ago. Well we did too and we were on a strict budget under $500k. There were plenty of TH’s at that price from Alexandria all the way to Fairfax. Springfield wasn’t the only place you could afford, be so for real right now. Hell we found the Saratoga/Rolling Road area to be somewhat over priced given the school quality. We knew if we had bought there we’d need to leave by early elementary.

What arrogance. Lots of people with kids approaching high school purchased far more than ten years ago.

You must not have grown up in the area. Schools change over time. I live in western Fairfax. Herndon used to be considered better than Chantilly and South Lakes. Westfield was considered better than Chantilly after it opened. It changes.

I'm not for changing districts except when needed. I am for improving ALL schools. That is not the focus of our Superintendent or School Board. Their focus is on politics.

I personally don't think that Great Falls should be districted out of Langley. There does not appear to be a current need--but there could be one in the future. Just a few short months ago, it was clear that Robyn Lady was open to and appeared to support moving some of them. Now. she has certainly walked it back. Ask yourself why? We all know why.

[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.

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.

I have lots of concerns as a potential Lewis parent that I don’t care to lay out for you and others to dissect. I dont know anything about HVES or claim to have the “right” solution, but throw us a bone at this point! To offer zero changes (as evidenced with the first round of maps) is completely unacceptable and frankly unfair to students in this part of Springfield.

But it sounds like this would be acceptable by many on this thread. Poorly performing school “for thee, not me”, right?

[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.

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.

I have lots of concerns as a potential Lewis parent that I don’t care to lay out for you and others to dissect. I dont know anything about HVES or claim to have the “right” solution, but throw us a bone at this point! To offer zero changes (as evidenced with the first round of maps) is completely unacceptable and frankly unfair to students in this part of Springfield.

But it sounds like this would be acceptable by many on this thread. Poorly performing school “for thee, not me”, right?

DP. No, I don’t wish a poorer performing school for your kids. I strongly encourage you to move, as you said you were considering.

What serves absolutely no one is continuing uncertainty every five years for everyone in the county.

[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:

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?

“Over the years” meaning you probably bought about 10 years ago. Well we did too and we were on a strict budget under $500k. There were plenty of TH’s at that price from Alexandria all the way to Fairfax. Springfield wasn’t the only place you could afford, be so for real right now. Hell we found the Saratoga/Rolling Road area to be somewhat over priced given the school quality. We knew if we had bought there we’d need to leave by early elementary.

We bought more than 10 years ago. Guess we should’ve moved, instead of expecting the school board to do its job and make responsible changes over time.

Well guess what, the opportunity is here now, and if that means advocating for a few students to move, doing residency checks on others, and tightening up loopholes to keep school communities compact, I am all for 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:

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.

I have lots of concerns as a potential Lewis parent that I don’t care to lay out for you and others to dissect. I dont know anything about HVES or claim to have the “right” solution, but throw us a bone at this point! To offer zero changes (as evidenced with the first round of maps) is completely unacceptable and frankly unfair to students in this part of Springfield.

But it sounds like this would be acceptable by many on this thread. Poorly performing school “for thee, not me”, right?

My suggestion would be that those currently at Lewis show some initiative and demand changes at the school, such as completely replacing IB with AP, beefing up foreign language offerings, and eliminating the silly "Leadership Program" (Lewis can offer "Leadership" as an elective just like many other schools).

That might show people in other pyramids that there's a community at Lewis that cares about their school.

Just trying to cherry pick MC and UMC kids from other schools with the hope that their parents will come along and do the work you haven't been willing to do isn't going to help. All it will lead to is an exit of additional MC and UMC families from FCPS.

Sorry if this sounds harsh but it's the reality.

[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:

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?

“Over the years” meaning you probably bought about 10 years ago. Well we did too and we were on a strict budget under $500k. There were plenty of TH’s at that price from Alexandria all the way to Fairfax. Springfield wasn’t the only place you could afford, be so for real right now. Hell we found the Saratoga/Rolling Road area to be somewhat over priced given the school quality. We knew if we had bought there we’d need to leave by early elementary.

We bought more than 10 years ago. Guess we should’ve moved, instead of expecting the school board to do its job and make responsible changes over time.

Well guess what, the opportunity is here now, and if that means advocating for a few students to move, doing residency checks on others, and tightening up loopholes to keep school communities compact, I am all for it!

Wow, you sound like a mooch - stealing opportunity from your neighbors is a bad look for an equity pusher.

[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.

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?

The selfish ones are the Lewis zoned families lying about addresses to send their kids to overcrowded WSHS.

There were posts from Lewis families in their region's comment sections on the Thru maps by at least one Lewis parent using the numbers of Lewis families lying about addresses to send their kids to WSHS as a reason why the homes all the way down the parkway near Greenspring should be rezoned to West Springfield.

Their argument was "So many families in our Lewis neighborhood are sending their kids to WSHS already using fake addresses, that FCPS needs to just rezone our entire neighborhood to WSHS so the handful of us who are honest can send our kids to WSHS too, instead of Lewis." I am paraphrasing, but you get the idea. You can read through all the comments if you want. It is right there.

FWIW, my kids know kids from that Lewis neighborhood who have attended WSHS the past few years, so there is at least a little truth to that parent's comment on the Thru maps.

I am not saying that WSHS shouldn't be rezoned. I am not even saying that the WSHS neighbohoods minutes from Lewis down Old Keene Mill Road shouldn't be rezoned back to Lewis, or that Hunt Valley outside the Parkway shouldn'tbe rezoned to South County. Maybe rezoning part of the Keene Mill side of WSHS closest to the mall to Lewis, or the Sangster part of WSHS to Lake Braddock, or the Hunt Valley Gambrill neighborhoods to South County are the best solutions, one of which needs to happen.

What I am saying is that when a school is overcapacity and facing disruptive rezoning, and there are multiple open incidents of residency fraud in that high school that Dr. Reid and the school board acknowledges, then FCPS owes it to the families facing rezoning to do a full residency check of all attending students, before rezoning a single person who lives in bound for the school.

The residency check should include parents submitting a current utility bill showing that they reside at their home.

The second part should be an audit of all legitimate student transfers into the school to make sure they are still taking the foreign language or AP classes they used to get the transfer into the school, as well as fully closing the transfers into the school instead of allowing dozens of students to transfer into a closed school.

If the full residency check shows that there are only 1 or 2 kids per grade falsifying residency, then by all means, rezone away.

But if the residency check shows that there are more than 4 or 5 kids per grade falsifying their addresses, then send those kids back to their base schools at the end of the year, and do not rezone the school or just do the minimum rezoning on the fringes to stabilized enrollment.

[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:

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.

I have lots of concerns as a potential Lewis parent that I don’t care to lay out for you and others to dissect. I dont know anything about HVES or claim to have the “right” solution, but throw us a bone at this point! To offer zero changes (as evidenced with the first round of maps) is completely unacceptable and frankly unfair to students in this part of Springfield.

But it sounds like this would be acceptable by many on this thread. Poorly performing school “for thee, not me”, right?

DP. No, I don’t wish a poorer performing school for your kids. I strongly encourage you to move, as you said you were considering.

What serves absolutely no one is continuing uncertainty every five years for everyone in the county.

But why should I have to move? That just makes the problem worse. Why don’t you just move? See how that works?

[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:

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.

I have lots of concerns as a potential Lewis parent that I don’t care to lay out for you and others to dissect. I dont know anything about HVES or claim to have the “right” solution, but throw us a bone at this point! To offer zero changes (as evidenced with the first round of maps) is completely unacceptable and frankly unfair to students in this part of Springfield.

But it sounds like this would be acceptable by many on this thread. Poorly performing school “for thee, not me”, right?

DP. No, I don’t wish a poorer performing school for your kids. I strongly encourage you to move, as you said you were considering.

What serves absolutely no one is continuing uncertainty every five years for everyone in the county.

But why should I have to move? That just makes the problem worse. Why don’t you just move? See how that works?

Because you knew what pyramid you signed up for. This isn’t that hard of a concept to get. But again, don’t take my word for it, just drive around the timberlane McLean area and see how much support you have for your equity agenda.

[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:

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.

I have lots of concerns as a potential Lewis parent that I don’t care to lay out for you and others to dissect. I dont know anything about HVES or claim to have the “right” solution, but throw us a bone at this point! To offer zero changes (as evidenced with the first round of maps) is completely unacceptable and frankly unfair to students in this part of Springfield.

But it sounds like this would be acceptable by many on this thread. Poorly performing school “for thee, not me”, right?

DP. No, I don’t wish a poorer performing school for your kids. I strongly encourage you to move, as you said you were considering.

What serves absolutely no one is continuing uncertainty every five years for everyone in the county.

But why should I have to move? That just makes the problem worse. Why don’t you just move? See how that works?

Because you knew what pyramid you signed up for. This isn’t that hard of a concept to get. But again, don’t take my word for it, just drive around the timberlane McLean area and see how much support you have for your equity agenda.

Ok, and you knew your pyramid could change. How are we different?

I couldn’t care less about what folks in McLean support, they are not my community.