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:

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.

That you don’t care about others is painfully clear, but you miss the point - people don’t want their kids moved just to satisfy your narrative that you are somehow noble keeping your kids in a poor performing school. You gotta drop the act, especially since you are just selfishly angling for a handout in the form of other people’s kids.

[Anonymous]

Well, this is not the first boundary rodeo in my neighborhood.

i mentioned early on that this would pit neighborhood against neighborhood. I don't think people had any idea just how much harm this would do to Fairfax County Public Schools and Fairfax County, in general.

Boundary adjustments are needed from time to time. They should be done on as small a level as possible.
This was an idiotic idea.

[Anonymous]

Both Lewis and Edison are IB schools. If Lewis becomes an AP school, then that can potentially become another reason for students to transfer out of Lewis and into Edison. I suspect both Lewis and Edison would need to switch to AP, and honestly, that would probably be expensive to switch two entire schools.

The Lewis Leadership Program allowed transfers from other schools for the first time this school year. I don't know the exact number, but I do know that a number of kids chose to transfer into Lewis for the program this year.

[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:

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.

That you don’t care about others is painfully clear, but you miss the point - people don’t want their kids moved just to satisfy your narrative that you are somehow noble keeping your kids in a poor performing school. You gotta drop the act, especially since you are just selfishly angling for a handout in the form of other people’s kids.

Your anger is misplaced. I didn’t create this problem and I’ve already acknowledged that some people are will walk away unhappy, regardless of the decisions made.

I’m sorry your kids might get moved. Feel better?

[Anonymous]

Cut out pupil placing except with real needs. And, check that it is followed through.
Eliminate IB in all schools.
With few exceptions, academic programs should be standard.

[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:

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.

PP wasn't talking about people in McLean, but people in Falls Church at the only Title I feeder to McLean HS wanting to stay there.

They've been pretty vocal about saying McLean HS is better than Falls Church HS, just as West Springfield HS folks would be if there was an actual proposal - which there hasn't been to date - to move some of them to Lewis HS. For that they are likely to be punished by the FCPS gods. Ricardy Anderson in particular wants to body slam them to teach them a lesson.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Both Lewis and Edison are IB schools. If Lewis becomes an AP school, then that can potentially become another reason for students to transfer out of Lewis and into Edison. I suspect both Lewis and Edison would need to switch to AP, and honestly, that would probably be expensive to switch two entire schools.

The Lewis Leadership Program allowed transfers from other schools for the first time this school year. I don't know the exact number, but I do know that a number of kids chose to transfer into Lewis for the program this year.

Kids transfer into Edison for the academies including the STEM program. Not for IB.

[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?

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.

So your suggestion is to put the responsibility on the students and parents…of a struggling, underperforming school…to try and make it more attractive to others?

Mmmmkay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Both Lewis and Edison are IB schools. If Lewis becomes an AP school, then that can potentially become another reason for students to transfer out of Lewis and into Edison. I suspect both Lewis and Edison would need to switch to AP, and honestly, that would probably be expensive to switch two entire schools.

The Lewis Leadership Program allowed transfers from other schools for the first time this school year. I don't know the exact number, but I do know that a number of kids chose to transfer into Lewis for the program this year.

AP is cheaper than IB.

Switching both to AP would save money.

[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!

Yeah, you should have moved. Because it’s been clear for a while the SB wasn’t going to do what needed to be done to help Lewis, like dumping IB. But you chose to stay and that’s fine. Maybe your kid can pupil place out too. But what isn’t fair is redistricting hundreds of more families to Lewis in an attempt to fill it up. When 300 kids pupil place out a year the problem is the school.

[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?

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.

So your suggestion is to put the responsibility on the students and parents…of a struggling, underperforming school…to try and make it more attractive to others?

Mmmmkay.

No it’s the responsibility of parents to work to make it better for the kids who go there. Or those who are districted for that school. It’s your community. Your school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Cut out pupil placing except with real needs. And, check that it is followed through.
Eliminate IB in all schools.
With few exceptions, academic programs should be standard.

Yes!

[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.

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!

Yeah, you should have moved. Because it’s been clear for a while the SB wasn’t going to do what needed to be done to help Lewis, like dumping IB. But you chose to stay and that’s fine. Maybe your kid can pupil place out too. But what isn’t fair is redistricting hundreds of more families to Lewis in an attempt to fill it up. When 300 kids pupil place out a year the problem is the school.

Please, let’s not discuss fairness…

And my point is, we shouldn’t HAVE to move. We’ve stayed around because they’ve been talking about a boundary review for years, and we love our community. I’m just glad that the plans may be finalized before we have to make a go/no decision on HS.

But tightening up the pupil placement loopholes is something I could get behind. Whatever it takes to create better outcomes for the school.

[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?

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.

So your suggestion is to put the responsibility on the students and parents…of a struggling, underperforming school…to try and make it more attractive to others?

Mmmmkay.

No it’s the responsibility of parents to work to make it better for the kids who go there. Or those who are districted for that school. It’s your community. Your school.

To suggest that the parents and students of a mostly poor school could change the attractiveness of their school to others by simply showing up and “doing the work” is really….something else. 😵‍💫

[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:

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!

Yeah, you should have moved. Because it’s been clear for a while the SB wasn’t going to do what needed to be done to help Lewis, like dumping IB. But you chose to stay and that’s fine. Maybe your kid can pupil place out too. But what isn’t fair is redistricting hundreds of more families to Lewis in an attempt to fill it up. When 300 kids pupil place out a year the problem is the school.

Please, let’s not discuss fairness…

And my point is, we shouldn’t HAVE to move. We’ve stayed around because they’ve been talking about a boundary review for years, and we love our community. I’m just glad that the plans may be finalized before we have to make a go/no decision on HS.

But tightening up the pupil placement loopholes is something I could get behind. Whatever it takes to create better outcomes for the school.

So get behind it: remove IB and keep AP, check family residency at start of ES MS and HS or check every year, online language options instead of transfer for languages