SB Member Anderson on County-wide Boundary Study

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The same Langley posters who complain that FCPS should never offer Russian to all students online as opposed to in-person at their school would also be the first to complain if FCPS ever proposed to move them to another school that didn’t offer Russian.

That’s why more standardized academic options across schools really are a pre-condition to discussing any county-wide changes. FCPS would need to be in a position to say in good faith that students generally will have access to the same courses at every school (the academies complicate matters, but not as much as currently having both AP and IB schools and different in-person foreign language options).

If that’s not feasible, Anderson and her colleagues should stop talking about any type of county-wide boundary review, as it will be a total waste of time and effort.

I agree with much of what you wrote, but no one from Langley is "complaining" about anything. They are simply pointing out that Russian would never be moved online because it is a very popular (and valuable) language to study and has plenty of interest from students at that school. There would be no issues with moving it online *as well* as continuing to offer it in person. But really, this is a moot point and another one of those straw man / speculations that has no basis in reality. Not even sure why it was brought up in the first place as languages aren't even an issue the SB has expressed interest in.

Please stop trying to dictate what FCPS-related topics people can discuss. The new SB has definitely expressed interest in a county-wide boundary review and some of us are previewing some of the specific issues that will make that challenging, including current disparities among schools when it comes to programs and course offerings.

I find that hard to believe. When it was posted last fall it was dismissed as pre-election “fear mongering”

Go watch the January 25 SB meeting. Throughout that meeting, multiple SB members referenced the staff’s work on revised priorities to inform a county-wide redirecting. My recollection is that there was one comment about the disparity in course offerings at different schools, although most of the SB comments pertained to overcrowded schools, underutilized capacity, wasteful spending on inefficient busing, etc.

Yes, four different SB members referenced the "holistic boundary review" that the SB is currently undertaking, so it is definitely happening. They first will want to modify Policy 8130 so that they can do more of what they want during the boundary review. That fell apart when they last tried to amend 8130 back in 2018-2019, but I have no doubt that they will try again. This was raised by Rachna Sizemore Heizer, Mateo Dunne, Sandy Anderson and Kyle McDaniel at the February 13 Work Session.

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=BDZRXQ6E59AB

[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:I'll start with a helpful standardization - put AP back in all FCPS schools. This is a no brainer.

A second, but harder standardization would be the language programs. Not sure there is agreement on which three or so languages should be standard for in school classes. Beyond those languages the county should offer online opportunities for other, less popular languages.

What is described above is how the county operated high schools through the 90's.

French, Spanish, German, and Latin used to be the standard HS offerings. Add Chinese to reflect the greater interest in recent decades. Make Arabic, Russian, Japanese, Vietnamese, Korean, and ASL purely online courses.

Saying that you want to take Russian is the method for families transfer into Langley. FCPS will face substantial blowback if they try to remove it.

So what. Make it an online course.

DP. The PP is correct. And not only that, the Russian program at Langley is very highly respected and has the longest-running Russian exchange program in FCPS. There is not a chance in hell this would ever be made an online program. Try again.

German is getting phased out now at Langley. Russian absolutely could be an online course, which would expand its availability to students interested in the language all over the county.

Highly regarded language programs at TJ, including Japanese, are being phased out based on enrollment. No reason Langley is unique. Maybe it can move to Herndon HS, if it’s so special?

Well, sure - if a language is showing declining enrollment (like German) then no reason it shouldn't be phased out. Russian is not in that category. Quite the opposite, in fact.
DP

It certainly would have declining enrollment if there weren’t exception to residency for wanting to “learn” Russian. A bunch of Russian and Eastern European kids attend Langley who live nowhere close. And many kids who attend the Russian language classes (up to 1/3 of the class in some years) already speak fluent Russian.

Serious question: what are you talking about? And do your kids even attend Langley?

DP. There are many Russian-speaking families in this area, and, without question, Langley is an extremely popular and highly desirable school for those families. I can’t speak to how many live outside the district, but bringing in and attracting Russian kids from across Northern Virginia has no doubt contributed to the success of the program. And no question, it is successful.

However, with declining budgets, it is entirely fair to discuss whether Fairfax County should continue to spend money on these sorts of programs (not just Russian, but Japanese and Korean) that target a specific minority population.

We are at Fox Mill with a child in the Japanese Immersion class, the class is mainly non-Japanese speakers and it is wonderful. It provides a different type of challenge for the kids who are in the program. It is popular at the school and outside of the school. The first grade class is always full. The retention in the program is strong, the current 6th grade class has 45 or so kids in int he JI program and started with 64 kids. Most of the kids who have left are kids who moved, a few left for LIV and a few dropped out. We know families with kids fluent in Japanese who cannot get into the lower grades because the classes are full.

And yes, I think that the languages should continue on into MS and HS. the kids participating in these programs have a good start on learning a second language and many will continue on in MS and HS. The classes and cost of the Teachers are not a lost cost. Plenty of other kids take the language in MS and HS so it is not hard to fill those classes.

I believe that any LI programs that are started would probably be full very, very fast. There are a good number of parents who are interested in their kids learning a language at a younger age and the challenge that comes from learning a second language. There are plenty of kids who are up for that challenge in ES and any program that improves a child's academic experience. The programs that engage kids are ones we should be keeping because it motivates them to do well in school. The other benefit is that kids in the regular classrooms have smaller classes and Teachers are more able to work with those kids at their levels. This should be beneficial for kids with learning issues or who need more attention to help them engage. The programs are win-win for folks.

What percentage of seats in the Fox Mill JI program are reserved for students who live in boundary and what percentage are available for students who enter a lottery?

I assume if they just start redrawing boundaries some people who theoretically get moved out of Fox Mill (say to Dogwood or Crossfield) and might have lesser access to JI would be unhappy.

Do you think the SB members talking big about county-wide redistricting have thought much about these scenarios? I don't.

Fox Mill is County-Wide placement. I think there is a small wait list for the program, it is less enticing then Spanish, French, or German, and I am pretty certain that the wait list clears every year. The only people I know who are struggling to enter the program are people moving into the area who have kids that speak Japanese and that is because the grades 1-3 are full. I know families who their kid in JI and then decided after the Open House that it wouldn't be a good fit and moved tot he regular classroom, it happens every year. The wait list ends up clearing because of that. We already have Dogwood kids in JI so that is not a big surprise.

Most of the kids are walkers, there are only 4 busses that bring kids to Fox Mill and one of those is for Special Needs kids at the school. I would be surprised if the boundary lines were re-dawn so that Fox Mill kids would end up at Dogwood or Crossfield because the kids that would theoretically be in that area that would be moved are all walkers. Crossfield is potentially more likely, looking the families over by John Milton, but those kids still walk to Fox Mill. The kids who are bussed would more likely end up at Floris because that is where our busses are coming from.

More importantly, the county boundaries should be redrawn. We have schools under capacity and we have schools over capacity. The boundaries should be adjusted to alleviate the over crowding and make the best use of the space that we happen to have. My kid is more likely to be affected at the MS and HS level, Carson to Luther Jackson, South Lakes to somewhere else but I could see them staying at South Lakes. And if they were to add more language immersion programs then there would be less moving because of LI interest. Given the length of the waitlists for the Spanish, French, and German programs we know that there is demand for the program. Japanese and Korean have far shorter waitlists. I would guess that Russian LI would be popular, probably Arabic and Chinese as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The same Langley posters who complain that FCPS should never offer Russian to all students online as opposed to in-person at their school would also be the first to complain if FCPS ever proposed to move them to another school that didn’t offer Russian.

That’s why more standardized academic options across schools really are a pre-condition to discussing any county-wide changes. FCPS would need to be in a position to say in good faith that students generally will have access to the same courses at every school (the academies complicate matters, but not as much as currently having both AP and IB schools and different in-person foreign language options).

If that’s not feasible, Anderson and her colleagues should stop talking about any type of county-wide boundary review, as it will be a total waste of time and effort.

I agree with much of what you wrote, but no one from Langley is "complaining" about anything. They are simply pointing out that Russian would never be moved online because it is a very popular (and valuable) language to study and has plenty of interest from students at that school. There would be no issues with moving it online *as well* as continuing to offer it in person. But really, this is a moot point and another one of those straw man / speculations that has no basis in reality. Not even sure why it was brought up in the first place as languages aren't even an issue the SB has expressed interest in.

Please stop trying to dictate what FCPS-related topics people can discuss. The new SB has definitely expressed interest in a county-wide boundary review and some of us are previewing some of the specific issues that will make that challenging, including current disparities among schools when it comes to programs and course offerings.

I find that hard to believe. When it was posted last fall it was dismissed as pre-election “fear mongering”

Go watch the January 25 SB meeting. Throughout that meeting, multiple SB members referenced the staff’s work on revised priorities to inform a county-wide redirecting. My recollection is that there was one comment about the disparity in course offerings at different schools, although most of the SB comments pertained to overcrowded schools, underutilized capacity, wasteful spending on inefficient busing, etc.

Yes, four different SB members referenced the "holistic boundary review" that the SB is currently undertaking, so it is definitely happening. They first will want to modify Policy 8130 so that they can do more of what they want during the boundary review. That fell apart when they last tried to amend 8130 back in 2018-2019, but I have no doubt that they will try again. This was raised by Rachna Sizemore Heizer, Mateo Dunne, Sandy Anderson and Kyle McDaniel at the February 13 Work Session.

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=BDZRXQ6E59AB

The effort didn’t “fall apart.”

They tabled it because the democrat majority didn’t want to lose any seats in the imminent election.

[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:I'll start with a helpful standardization - put AP back in all FCPS schools. This is a no brainer.

A second, but harder standardization would be the language programs. Not sure there is agreement on which three or so languages should be standard for in school classes. Beyond those languages the county should offer online opportunities for other, less popular languages.

What is described above is how the county operated high schools through the 90's.

French, Spanish, German, and Latin used to be the standard HS offerings. Add Chinese to reflect the greater interest in recent decades. Make Arabic, Russian, Japanese, Vietnamese, Korean, and ASL purely online courses.

Saying that you want to take Russian is the method for families transfer into Langley. FCPS will face substantial blowback if they try to remove it.

So what. Make it an online course.

DP. The PP is correct. And not only that, the Russian program at Langley is very highly respected and has the longest-running Russian exchange program in FCPS. There is not a chance in hell this would ever be made an online program. Try again.

German is getting phased out now at Langley. Russian absolutely could be an online course, which would expand its availability to students interested in the language all over the county.

Highly regarded language programs at TJ, including Japanese, are being phased out based on enrollment. No reason Langley is unique. Maybe it can move to Herndon HS, if it’s so special?

Well, sure - if a language is showing declining enrollment (like German) then no reason it shouldn't be phased out. Russian is not in that category. Quite the opposite, in fact.
DP

It certainly would have declining enrollment if there weren’t exception to residency for wanting to “learn” Russian. A bunch of Russian and Eastern European kids attend Langley who live nowhere close. And many kids who attend the Russian language classes (up to 1/3 of the class in some years) already speak fluent Russian.

Serious question: what are you talking about? And do your kids even attend Langley?

DP. There are many Russian-speaking families in this area, and, without question, Langley is an extremely popular and highly desirable school for those families. I can’t speak to how many live outside the district, but bringing in and attracting Russian kids from across Northern Virginia has no doubt contributed to the success of the program. And no question, it is successful.

However, with declining budgets, it is entirely fair to discuss whether Fairfax County should continue to spend money on these sorts of programs (not just Russian, but Japanese and Korean) that target a specific minority population.

We are at Fox Mill with a child in the Japanese Immersion class, the class is mainly non-Japanese speakers and it is wonderful. It provides a different type of challenge for the kids who are in the program. It is popular at the school and outside of the school. The first grade class is always full. The retention in the program is strong, the current 6th grade class has 45 or so kids in int he JI program and started with 64 kids. Most of the kids who have left are kids who moved, a few left for LIV and a few dropped out. We know families with kids fluent in Japanese who cannot get into the lower grades because the classes are full.

And yes, I think that the languages should continue on into MS and HS. the kids participating in these programs have a good start on learning a second language and many will continue on in MS and HS. The classes and cost of the Teachers are not a lost cost. Plenty of other kids take the language in MS and HS so it is not hard to fill those classes.

I believe that any LI programs that are started would probably be full very, very fast. There are a good number of parents who are interested in their kids learning a language at a younger age and the challenge that comes from learning a second language. There are plenty of kids who are up for that challenge in ES and any program that improves a child's academic experience. The programs that engage kids are ones we should be keeping because it motivates them to do well in school. The other benefit is that kids in the regular classrooms have smaller classes and Teachers are more able to work with those kids at their levels. This should be beneficial for kids with learning issues or who need more attention to help them engage. The programs are win-win for folks.

What percentage of seats in the Fox Mill JI program are reserved for students who live in boundary and what percentage are available for students who enter a lottery?

I assume if they just start redrawing boundaries some people who theoretically get moved out of Fox Mill (say to Dogwood or Crossfield) and might have lesser access to JI would be unhappy.

Do you think the SB members talking big about county-wide redistricting have thought much about these scenarios? I don't.

Fox Mill is County-Wide placement. I think there is a small wait list for the program, it is less enticing then Spanish, French, or German, and I am pretty certain that the wait list clears every year. The only people I know who are struggling to enter the program are people moving into the area who have kids that speak Japanese and that is because the grades 1-3 are full. I know families who their kid in JI and then decided after the Open House that it wouldn't be a good fit and moved tot he regular classroom, it happens every year. The wait list ends up clearing because of that. We already have Dogwood kids in JI so that is not a big surprise.

Most of the kids are walkers, there are only 4 busses that bring kids to Fox Mill and one of those is for Special Needs kids at the school. I would be surprised if the boundary lines were re-dawn so that Fox Mill kids would end up at Dogwood or Crossfield because the kids that would theoretically be in that area that would be moved are all walkers. Crossfield is potentially more likely, looking the families over by John Milton, but those kids still walk to Fox Mill. The kids who are bussed would more likely end up at Floris because that is where our busses are coming from.

More importantly, the county boundaries should be redrawn. We have schools under capacity and we have schools over capacity. The boundaries should be adjusted to alleviate the over crowding and make the best use of the space that we happen to have. My kid is more likely to be affected at the MS and HS level, Carson to Luther Jackson, South Lakes to somewhere else but I could see them staying at South Lakes. And if they were to add more language immersion programs then there would be less moving because of LI interest. Given the length of the waitlists for the Spanish, French, and German programs we know that there is demand for the program. Japanese and Korean have far shorter waitlists. I would guess that Russian LI would be popular, probably Arabic and Chinese as well.

Luther Jackson isn't close to Carson at all, so can't see anyone getting moved from Carson to LJ.

In general, expanding LI programs is going to make people more resistant to getting moved, not less, even if there's less demand for some programs.

Given that they've already expanded most of the high schools to over 2350 permanent seats (2350 to 3000, in fact), they should go ahead and expand the remaining high schools to 2500 rather than move kids. Maybe prioritize that over expanding to 1000 seats elementary schools like Dranesville ES that currently have 600 kids and aren't projected to grow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The same Langley posters who complain that FCPS should never offer Russian to all students online as opposed to in-person at their school would also be the first to complain if FCPS ever proposed to move them to another school that didn’t offer Russian.

That’s why more standardized academic options across schools really are a pre-condition to discussing any county-wide changes. FCPS would need to be in a position to say in good faith that students generally will have access to the same courses at every school (the academies complicate matters, but not as much as currently having both AP and IB schools and different in-person foreign language options).

If that’s not feasible, Anderson and her colleagues should stop talking about any type of county-wide boundary review, as it will be a total waste of time and effort.

I agree with much of what you wrote, but no one from Langley is "complaining" about anything. They are simply pointing out that Russian would never be moved online because it is a very popular (and valuable) language to study and has plenty of interest from students at that school. There would be no issues with moving it online *as well* as continuing to offer it in person. But really, this is a moot point and another one of those straw man / speculations that has no basis in reality. Not even sure why it was brought up in the first place as languages aren't even an issue the SB has expressed interest in.

Please stop trying to dictate what FCPS-related topics people can discuss. The new SB has definitely expressed interest in a county-wide boundary review and some of us are previewing some of the specific issues that will make that challenging, including current disparities among schools when it comes to programs and course offerings.

I find that hard to believe. When it was posted last fall it was dismissed as pre-election “fear mongering”

Go watch the January 25 SB meeting. Throughout that meeting, multiple SB members referenced the staff’s work on revised priorities to inform a county-wide redirecting. My recollection is that there was one comment about the disparity in course offerings at different schools, although most of the SB comments pertained to overcrowded schools, underutilized capacity, wasteful spending on inefficient busing, etc.

Yes, four different SB members referenced the "holistic boundary review" that the SB is currently undertaking, so it is definitely happening. They first will want to modify Policy 8130 so that they can do more of what they want during the boundary review. That fell apart when they last tried to amend 8130 back in 2018-2019, but I have no doubt that they will try again. This was raised by Rachna Sizemore Heizer, Mateo Dunne, Sandy Anderson and Kyle McDaniel at the February 13 Work Session.

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=BDZRXQ6E59AB

The effort didn’t “fall apart.”

They tabled it because the democrat majority didn’t want to lose any seats in the imminent election.

That was five years ago. It fell apart. But with a 100% Democrat school board they want to take their shot now.

[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:I'll start with a helpful standardization - put AP back in all FCPS schools. This is a no brainer.

A second, but harder standardization would be the language programs. Not sure there is agreement on which three or so languages should be standard for in school classes. Beyond those languages the county should offer online opportunities for other, less popular languages.

What is described above is how the county operated high schools through the 90's.

French, Spanish, German, and Latin used to be the standard HS offerings. Add Chinese to reflect the greater interest in recent decades. Make Arabic, Russian, Japanese, Vietnamese, Korean, and ASL purely online courses.

Saying that you want to take Russian is the method for families transfer into Langley. FCPS will face substantial blowback if they try to remove it.

So what. Make it an online course.

DP. The PP is correct. And not only that, the Russian program at Langley is very highly respected and has the longest-running Russian exchange program in FCPS. There is not a chance in hell this would ever be made an online program. Try again.

German is getting phased out now at Langley. Russian absolutely could be an online course, which would expand its availability to students interested in the language all over the county.

Highly regarded language programs at TJ, including Japanese, are being phased out based on enrollment. No reason Langley is unique. Maybe it can move to Herndon HS, if it’s so special?

Well, sure - if a language is showing declining enrollment (like German) then no reason it shouldn't be phased out. Russian is not in that category. Quite the opposite, in fact.
DP

It certainly would have declining enrollment if there weren’t exception to residency for wanting to “learn” Russian. A bunch of Russian and Eastern European kids attend Langley who live nowhere close. And many kids who attend the Russian language classes (up to 1/3 of the class in some years) already speak fluent Russian.

Serious question: what are you talking about? And do your kids even attend Langley?

DP. There are many Russian-speaking families in this area, and, without question, Langley is an extremely popular and highly desirable school for those families. I can’t speak to how many live outside the district, but bringing in and attracting Russian kids from across Northern Virginia has no doubt contributed to the success of the program. And no question, it is successful.

However, with declining budgets, it is entirely fair to discuss whether Fairfax County should continue to spend money on these sorts of programs (not just Russian, but Japanese and Korean) that target a specific minority population.

We are at Fox Mill with a child in the Japanese Immersion class, the class is mainly non-Japanese speakers and it is wonderful. It provides a different type of challenge for the kids who are in the program. It is popular at the school and outside of the school. The first grade class is always full. The retention in the program is strong, the current 6th grade class has 45 or so kids in int he JI program and started with 64 kids. Most of the kids who have left are kids who moved, a few left for LIV and a few dropped out. We know families with kids fluent in Japanese who cannot get into the lower grades because the classes are full.

And yes, I think that the languages should continue on into MS and HS. the kids participating in these programs have a good start on learning a second language and many will continue on in MS and HS. The classes and cost of the Teachers are not a lost cost. Plenty of other kids take the language in MS and HS so it is not hard to fill those classes.

I believe that any LI programs that are started would probably be full very, very fast. There are a good number of parents who are interested in their kids learning a language at a younger age and the challenge that comes from learning a second language. There are plenty of kids who are up for that challenge in ES and any program that improves a child's academic experience. The programs that engage kids are ones we should be keeping because it motivates them to do well in school. The other benefit is that kids in the regular classrooms have smaller classes and Teachers are more able to work with those kids at their levels. This should be beneficial for kids with learning issues or who need more attention to help them engage. The programs are win-win for folks.

What percentage of seats in the Fox Mill JI program are reserved for students who live in boundary and what percentage are available for students who enter a lottery?

I assume if they just start redrawing boundaries some people who theoretically get moved out of Fox Mill (say to Dogwood or Crossfield) and might have lesser access to JI would be unhappy.

Do you think the SB members talking big about county-wide redistricting have thought much about these scenarios? I don't.

Fox Mill is County-Wide placement. I think there is a small wait list for the program, it is less enticing then Spanish, French, or German, and I am pretty certain that the wait list clears every year. The only people I know who are struggling to enter the program are people moving into the area who have kids that speak Japanese and that is because the grades 1-3 are full. I know families who their kid in JI and then decided after the Open House that it wouldn't be a good fit and moved tot he regular classroom, it happens every year. The wait list ends up clearing because of that. We already have Dogwood kids in JI so that is not a big surprise.

Most of the kids are walkers, there are only 4 busses that bring kids to Fox Mill and one of those is for Special Needs kids at the school. I would be surprised if the boundary lines were re-dawn so that Fox Mill kids would end up at Dogwood or Crossfield because the kids that would theoretically be in that area that would be moved are all walkers. Crossfield is potentially more likely, looking the families over by John Milton, but those kids still walk to Fox Mill. The kids who are bussed would more likely end up at Floris because that is where our busses are coming from.

More importantly, the county boundaries should be redrawn. We have schools under capacity and we have schools over capacity. The boundaries should be adjusted to alleviate the over crowding and make the best use of the space that we happen to have. My kid is more likely to be affected at the MS and HS level, Carson to Luther Jackson, South Lakes to somewhere else but I could see them staying at South Lakes. And if they were to add more language immersion programs then there would be less moving because of LI interest. Given the length of the waitlists for the Spanish, French, and German programs we know that there is demand for the program. Japanese and Korean have far shorter waitlists. I would guess that Russian LI would be popular, probably Arabic and Chinese as well.

Luther Jackson isn't close to Carson at all, so can't see anyone getting moved from Carson to LJ.

In general, expanding LI programs is going to make people more resistant to getting moved, not less, even if there's less demand for some programs.

Given that they've already expanded most of the high schools to over 2350 permanent seats (2350 to 3000, in fact), they should go ahead and expand the remaining high schools to 2500 rather than move kids. Maybe prioritize that over expanding to 1000 seats elementary schools like Dranesville ES that currently have 600 kids and aren't projected to grow.

Yeah, I screwed up the MS by SLHS. I think it is Langston Hughes. I have no clue why the Fox Mill kids are not there because there are hardly any kids that move from Carson to SLHS, Hughes would make more sense for Fox Mill.

[Anonymous]

The SB's Comprehensive Planning Development Committee is meeting Thursday night. Agenda:

Closed Session
Review of CPDC Work to Date
FPAC Chair Report
School Boundaries
School Safety and Security
Renovation Queue
School Infrastructure
Procurement

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The same Langley posters who complain that FCPS should never offer Russian to all students online as opposed to in-person at their school would also be the first to complain if FCPS ever proposed to move them to another school that didn’t offer Russian.

That’s why more standardized academic options across schools really are a pre-condition to discussing any county-wide changes. FCPS would need to be in a position to say in good faith that students generally will have access to the same courses at every school (the academies complicate matters, but not as much as currently having both AP and IB schools and different in-person foreign language options).

If that’s not feasible, Anderson and her colleagues should stop talking about any type of county-wide boundary review, as it will be a total waste of time and effort.

I agree with much of what you wrote, but no one from Langley is "complaining" about anything. They are simply pointing out that Russian would never be moved online because it is a very popular (and valuable) language to study and has plenty of interest from students at that school. There would be no issues with moving it online *as well* as continuing to offer it in person. But really, this is a moot point and another one of those straw man / speculations that has no basis in reality. Not even sure why it was brought up in the first place as languages aren't even an issue the SB has expressed interest in.

Please stop trying to dictate what FCPS-related topics people can discuss. The new SB has definitely expressed interest in a county-wide boundary review and some of us are previewing some of the specific issues that will make that challenging, including current disparities among schools when it comes to programs and course offerings.

I find that hard to believe. When it was posted last fall it was dismissed as pre-election “fear mongering”

Go watch the January 25 SB meeting. Throughout that meeting, multiple SB members referenced the staff’s work on revised priorities to inform a county-wide redirecting. My recollection is that there was one comment about the disparity in course offerings at different schools, although most of the SB comments pertained to overcrowded schools, underutilized capacity, wasteful spending on inefficient busing, etc.

Yes, four different SB members referenced the "holistic boundary review" that the SB is currently undertaking, so it is definitely happening. They first will want to modify Policy 8130 so that they can do more of what they want during the boundary review. That fell apart when they last tried to amend 8130 back in 2018-2019, but I have no doubt that they will try again. This was raised by Rachna Sizemore Heizer, Mateo Dunne, Sandy Anderson and Kyle McDaniel at the February 13 Work Session.

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=BDZRXQ6E59AB

The effort didn’t “fall apart.”

They tabled it because the democrat majority didn’t want to lose any seats in the imminent election.

That was five years ago. It fell apart. But with a 100% Democrat school board they want to take their shot now.

Of course. They were just elected, so if they are going to do it, now is the time.

Hopefully they get cracking and implement new boundaries by fall of 2025

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The same Langley posters who complain that FCPS should never offer Russian to all students online as opposed to in-person at their school would also be the first to complain if FCPS ever proposed to move them to another school that didn’t offer Russian.

That’s why more standardized academic options across schools really are a pre-condition to discussing any county-wide changes. FCPS would need to be in a position to say in good faith that students generally will have access to the same courses at every school (the academies complicate matters, but not as much as currently having both AP and IB schools and different in-person foreign language options).

If that’s not feasible, Anderson and her colleagues should stop talking about any type of county-wide boundary review, as it will be a total waste of time and effort.

I agree with much of what you wrote, but no one from Langley is "complaining" about anything. They are simply pointing out that Russian would never be moved online because it is a very popular (and valuable) language to study and has plenty of interest from students at that school. There would be no issues with moving it online *as well* as continuing to offer it in person. But really, this is a moot point and another one of those straw man / speculations that has no basis in reality. Not even sure why it was brought up in the first place as languages aren't even an issue the SB has expressed interest in.

Please stop trying to dictate what FCPS-related topics people can discuss. The new SB has definitely expressed interest in a county-wide boundary review and some of us are previewing some of the specific issues that will make that challenging, including current disparities among schools when it comes to programs and course offerings.

I find that hard to believe. When it was posted last fall it was dismissed as pre-election “fear mongering”

Go watch the January 25 SB meeting. Throughout that meeting, multiple SB members referenced the staff’s work on revised priorities to inform a county-wide redirecting. My recollection is that there was one comment about the disparity in course offerings at different schools, although most of the SB comments pertained to overcrowded schools, underutilized capacity, wasteful spending on inefficient busing, etc.

Yes, four different SB members referenced the "holistic boundary review" that the SB is currently undertaking, so it is definitely happening. They first will want to modify Policy 8130 so that they can do more of what they want during the boundary review. That fell apart when they last tried to amend 8130 back in 2018-2019, but I have no doubt that they will try again. This was raised by Rachna Sizemore Heizer, Mateo Dunne, Sandy Anderson and Kyle McDaniel at the February 13 Work Session.

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=BDZRXQ6E59AB

The effort didn’t “fall apart.”

They tabled it because the democrat majority didn’t want to lose any seats in the imminent election.

That was five years ago. It fell apart. But with a 100% Democrat school board they want to take their shot now.

Of course. They were just elected, so if they are going to do it, now is the time.

Hopefully they get cracking and implement new boundaries by fall of 2025

I think some of us have made a strong case that they can't just "get cracking and implement new boundaries" without at a minimum first considering whether they ought to be making sure there is more consistency among programs and courses, especially at the HS level.

I'd be very surprised they can pull this off, especially by the fall of 2025. They would be providing a supply of something (boundary changes) for which there is relatively little demand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The same Langley posters who complain that FCPS should never offer Russian to all students online as opposed to in-person at their school would also be the first to complain if FCPS ever proposed to move them to another school that didn’t offer Russian.

That’s why more standardized academic options across schools really are a pre-condition to discussing any county-wide changes. FCPS would need to be in a position to say in good faith that students generally will have access to the same courses at every school (the academies complicate matters, but not as much as currently having both AP and IB schools and different in-person foreign language options).

If that’s not feasible, Anderson and her colleagues should stop talking about any type of county-wide boundary review, as it will be a total waste of time and effort.

I agree with much of what you wrote, but no one from Langley is "complaining" about anything. They are simply pointing out that Russian would never be moved online because it is a very popular (and valuable) language to study and has plenty of interest from students at that school. There would be no issues with moving it online *as well* as continuing to offer it in person. But really, this is a moot point and another one of those straw man / speculations that has no basis in reality. Not even sure why it was brought up in the first place as languages aren't even an issue the SB has expressed interest in.

Please stop trying to dictate what FCPS-related topics people can discuss. The new SB has definitely expressed interest in a county-wide boundary review and some of us are previewing some of the specific issues that will make that challenging, including current disparities among schools when it comes to programs and course offerings.

I find that hard to believe. When it was posted last fall it was dismissed as pre-election “fear mongering”

Go watch the January 25 SB meeting. Throughout that meeting, multiple SB members referenced the staff’s work on revised priorities to inform a county-wide redirecting. My recollection is that there was one comment about the disparity in course offerings at different schools, although most of the SB comments pertained to overcrowded schools, underutilized capacity, wasteful spending on inefficient busing, etc.

Yes, four different SB members referenced the "holistic boundary review" that the SB is currently undertaking, so it is definitely happening. They first will want to modify Policy 8130 so that they can do more of what they want during the boundary review. That fell apart when they last tried to amend 8130 back in 2018-2019, but I have no doubt that they will try again. This was raised by Rachna Sizemore Heizer, Mateo Dunne, Sandy Anderson and Kyle McDaniel at the February 13 Work Session.

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=BDZRXQ6E59AB

The effort didn’t “fall apart.”

They tabled it because the democrat majority didn’t want to lose any seats in the imminent election.

That was five years ago. It fell apart. But with a 100% Democrat school board they want to take their shot now.

Of course. They were just elected, so if they are going to do it, now is the time.

Hopefully they get cracking and implement new boundaries by fall of 2025

I think some of us have made a strong case that they can't just "get cracking and implement new boundaries" without at a minimum first considering whether they ought to be making sure there is more consistency among programs and courses, especially at the HS level.

I'd be very surprised they can pull this off, especially by the fall of 2025. They would be providing a supply of something (boundary changes) for which there is relatively little demand.

FCPS could do what more and more districts are doing these days, which is to create option zones, zoned to two different middle/high school combos. Students decide where they want to go. Imagine if a student could decide between McLean and Langley for example.

This is because there are so many different programs and options, as well as more income diversity and uneven growth in suburban systems vs twenty years ago. Back in the day, all large suburban high schools were pretty much the same. Only the large city districts had magnet high school programs like Bronx Science, High School of Performing Arts (Manhattan), Baltimore City College, Lowell (San Francisco), etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The same Langley posters who complain that FCPS should never offer Russian to all students online as opposed to in-person at their school would also be the first to complain if FCPS ever proposed to move them to another school that didn’t offer Russian.

That’s why more standardized academic options across schools really are a pre-condition to discussing any county-wide changes. FCPS would need to be in a position to say in good faith that students generally will have access to the same courses at every school (the academies complicate matters, but not as much as currently having both AP and IB schools and different in-person foreign language options).

If that’s not feasible, Anderson and her colleagues should stop talking about any type of county-wide boundary review, as it will be a total waste of time and effort.

I agree with much of what you wrote, but no one from Langley is "complaining" about anything. They are simply pointing out that Russian would never be moved online because it is a very popular (and valuable) language to study and has plenty of interest from students at that school. There would be no issues with moving it online *as well* as continuing to offer it in person. But really, this is a moot point and another one of those straw man / speculations that has no basis in reality. Not even sure why it was brought up in the first place as languages aren't even an issue the SB has expressed interest in.

Please stop trying to dictate what FCPS-related topics people can discuss. The new SB has definitely expressed interest in a county-wide boundary review and some of us are previewing some of the specific issues that will make that challenging, including current disparities among schools when it comes to programs and course offerings.

I find that hard to believe. When it was posted last fall it was dismissed as pre-election “fear mongering”

Go watch the January 25 SB meeting. Throughout that meeting, multiple SB members referenced the staff’s work on revised priorities to inform a county-wide redirecting. My recollection is that there was one comment about the disparity in course offerings at different schools, although most of the SB comments pertained to overcrowded schools, underutilized capacity, wasteful spending on inefficient busing, etc.

Yes, four different SB members referenced the "holistic boundary review" that the SB is currently undertaking, so it is definitely happening. They first will want to modify Policy 8130 so that they can do more of what they want during the boundary review. That fell apart when they last tried to amend 8130 back in 2018-2019, but I have no doubt that they will try again. This was raised by Rachna Sizemore Heizer, Mateo Dunne, Sandy Anderson and Kyle McDaniel at the February 13 Work Session.

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=BDZRXQ6E59AB

The effort didn’t “fall apart.”

They tabled it because the democrat majority didn’t want to lose any seats in the imminent election.

That was five years ago. It fell apart. But with a 100% Democrat school board they want to take their shot now.

Of course. They were just elected, so if they are going to do it, now is the time.

Hopefully they get cracking and implement new boundaries by fall of 2025

I think some of us have made a strong case that they can't just "get cracking and implement new boundaries" without at a minimum first considering whether they ought to be making sure there is more consistency among programs and courses, especially at the HS level.

I'd be very surprised they can pull this off, especially by the fall of 2025. They would be providing a supply of something (boundary changes) for which there is relatively little demand.

So?

It’s not like parents were clamoring for “gender-inclusive bathrooms”, or a new elementary school where one isn’t needed, either.

As a matter of fact having approved that elementary school and the domino effect it will have to justify it’s existence —

It’s prime time for a county wide redo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The same Langley posters who complain that FCPS should never offer Russian to all students online as opposed to in-person at their school would also be the first to complain if FCPS ever proposed to move them to another school that didn’t offer Russian.

That’s why more standardized academic options across schools really are a pre-condition to discussing any county-wide changes. FCPS would need to be in a position to say in good faith that students generally will have access to the same courses at every school (the academies complicate matters, but not as much as currently having both AP and IB schools and different in-person foreign language options).

If that’s not feasible, Anderson and her colleagues should stop talking about any type of county-wide boundary review, as it will be a total waste of time and effort.

I agree with much of what you wrote, but no one from Langley is "complaining" about anything. They are simply pointing out that Russian would never be moved online because it is a very popular (and valuable) language to study and has plenty of interest from students at that school. There would be no issues with moving it online *as well* as continuing to offer it in person. But really, this is a moot point and another one of those straw man / speculations that has no basis in reality. Not even sure why it was brought up in the first place as languages aren't even an issue the SB has expressed interest in.

Please stop trying to dictate what FCPS-related topics people can discuss. The new SB has definitely expressed interest in a county-wide boundary review and some of us are previewing some of the specific issues that will make that challenging, including current disparities among schools when it comes to programs and course offerings.

I find that hard to believe. When it was posted last fall it was dismissed as pre-election “fear mongering”

Go watch the January 25 SB meeting. Throughout that meeting, multiple SB members referenced the staff’s work on revised priorities to inform a county-wide redirecting. My recollection is that there was one comment about the disparity in course offerings at different schools, although most of the SB comments pertained to overcrowded schools, underutilized capacity, wasteful spending on inefficient busing, etc.

Yes, four different SB members referenced the "holistic boundary review" that the SB is currently undertaking, so it is definitely happening. They first will want to modify Policy 8130 so that they can do more of what they want during the boundary review. That fell apart when they last tried to amend 8130 back in 2018-2019, but I have no doubt that they will try again. This was raised by Rachna Sizemore Heizer, Mateo Dunne, Sandy Anderson and Kyle McDaniel at the February 13 Work Session.

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=BDZRXQ6E59AB

The effort didn’t “fall apart.”

They tabled it because the democrat majority didn’t want to lose any seats in the imminent election.

That was five years ago. It fell apart. But with a 100% Democrat school board they want to take their shot now.

Of course. They were just elected, so if they are going to do it, now is the time.

Hopefully they get cracking and implement new boundaries by fall of 2025

I think some of us have made a strong case that they can't just "get cracking and implement new boundaries" without at a minimum first considering whether they ought to be making sure there is more consistency among programs and courses, especially at the HS level.

I'd be very surprised they can pull this off, especially by the fall of 2025. They would be providing a supply of something (boundary changes) for which there is relatively little demand.

So?

It’s not like parents were clamoring for “gender-inclusive bathrooms”, or a new elementary school where one isn’t needed, either.

As a matter of fact having approved that elementary school and the domino effect it will have to justify it’s existence —

It’s prime time for a county wide redo.

So, you're saying that two bad ideas deserve another?

Otherwise, these things are largely unconnected. Just because they'll have to rearrange the boundaries for many of the ES in the Marshall pyramid (and maybe one more school in another pyramid) when Dunn Loring opens doesn't mean they have to change everyone else's boundaries to make Karl Frisch look better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The same Langley posters who complain that FCPS should never offer Russian to all students online as opposed to in-person at their school would also be the first to complain if FCPS ever proposed to move them to another school that didn’t offer Russian.

That’s why more standardized academic options across schools really are a pre-condition to discussing any county-wide changes. FCPS would need to be in a position to say in good faith that students generally will have access to the same courses at every school (the academies complicate matters, but not as much as currently having both AP and IB schools and different in-person foreign language options).

If that’s not feasible, Anderson and her colleagues should stop talking about any type of county-wide boundary review, as it will be a total waste of time and effort.

I agree with much of what you wrote, but no one from Langley is "complaining" about anything. They are simply pointing out that Russian would never be moved online because it is a very popular (and valuable) language to study and has plenty of interest from students at that school. There would be no issues with moving it online *as well* as continuing to offer it in person. But really, this is a moot point and another one of those straw man / speculations that has no basis in reality. Not even sure why it was brought up in the first place as languages aren't even an issue the SB has expressed interest in.

Please stop trying to dictate what FCPS-related topics people can discuss. The new SB has definitely expressed interest in a county-wide boundary review and some of us are previewing some of the specific issues that will make that challenging, including current disparities among schools when it comes to programs and course offerings.

I find that hard to believe. When it was posted last fall it was dismissed as pre-election “fear mongering”

Go watch the January 25 SB meeting. Throughout that meeting, multiple SB members referenced the staff’s work on revised priorities to inform a county-wide redirecting. My recollection is that there was one comment about the disparity in course offerings at different schools, although most of the SB comments pertained to overcrowded schools, underutilized capacity, wasteful spending on inefficient busing, etc.

Yes, four different SB members referenced the "holistic boundary review" that the SB is currently undertaking, so it is definitely happening. They first will want to modify Policy 8130 so that they can do more of what they want during the boundary review. That fell apart when they last tried to amend 8130 back in 2018-2019, but I have no doubt that they will try again. This was raised by Rachna Sizemore Heizer, Mateo Dunne, Sandy Anderson and Kyle McDaniel at the February 13 Work Session.

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=BDZRXQ6E59AB

The effort didn’t “fall apart.”

They tabled it because the democrat majority didn’t want to lose any seats in the imminent election.

That was five years ago. It fell apart. But with a 100% Democrat school board they want to take their shot now.

Of course. They were just elected, so if they are going to do it, now is the time.

Hopefully they get cracking and implement new boundaries by fall of 2025

I think some of us have made a strong case that they can't just "get cracking and implement new boundaries" without at a minimum first considering whether they ought to be making sure there is more consistency among programs and courses, especially at the HS level.

I'd be very surprised they can pull this off, especially by the fall of 2025. They would be providing a supply of something (boundary changes) for which there is relatively little demand.

Boundaries shouldn't stay the way they are because the majority of the population doesn't want them to change. No one wants to be affected by a boundary shift, there will never be an appetite for a boundary change. That doesn't mean they don't need to happen. Some schools are over crowded while other schools are under enrolled. Some of these schools are neighbors.

There is no consistency of programs at any level in FCPS. LIV looks different at pretty much every Center and Local program. There are magnet schools and language immersion programs. There are IB ES, MS and HS. People will be grandfathered into existing programs so they can complete them when the changes first happen and that is all that will be done.

That said, I doubt that any changes would be implemented by 2025, that would be amazingly fast.

Most of the people who are vocally afraid of boundary changes are people in high SES schools that are terrified of moving to a different school. The fear is for falling housing values and kids having to move to schools with lower test scores. My kid might end up in a different high school. He is at a middle of the pack school. More likely then not any change will be to another middle of the pack school. He'll be fine. the vast majority of the kids will be fine.

If it happens, which I doubt it will. But that doesn't mean that I don't think that FCPS is long over due for a county wide look at the boundaries and a major reshuffling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The same Langley posters who complain that FCPS should never offer Russian to all students online as opposed to in-person at their school would also be the first to complain if FCPS ever proposed to move them to another school that didn’t offer Russian.

That’s why more standardized academic options across schools really are a pre-condition to discussing any county-wide changes. FCPS would need to be in a position to say in good faith that students generally will have access to the same courses at every school (the academies complicate matters, but not as much as currently having both AP and IB schools and different in-person foreign language options).

If that’s not feasible, Anderson and her colleagues should stop talking about any type of county-wide boundary review, as it will be a total waste of time and effort.

I agree with much of what you wrote, but no one from Langley is "complaining" about anything. They are simply pointing out that Russian would never be moved online because it is a very popular (and valuable) language to study and has plenty of interest from students at that school. There would be no issues with moving it online *as well* as continuing to offer it in person. But really, this is a moot point and another one of those straw man / speculations that has no basis in reality. Not even sure why it was brought up in the first place as languages aren't even an issue the SB has expressed interest in.

Please stop trying to dictate what FCPS-related topics people can discuss. The new SB has definitely expressed interest in a county-wide boundary review and some of us are previewing some of the specific issues that will make that challenging, including current disparities among schools when it comes to programs and course offerings.

I find that hard to believe. When it was posted last fall it was dismissed as pre-election “fear mongering”

Go watch the January 25 SB meeting. Throughout that meeting, multiple SB members referenced the staff’s work on revised priorities to inform a county-wide redirecting. My recollection is that there was one comment about the disparity in course offerings at different schools, although most of the SB comments pertained to overcrowded schools, underutilized capacity, wasteful spending on inefficient busing, etc.

Yes, four different SB members referenced the "holistic boundary review" that the SB is currently undertaking, so it is definitely happening. They first will want to modify Policy 8130 so that they can do more of what they want during the boundary review. That fell apart when they last tried to amend 8130 back in 2018-2019, but I have no doubt that they will try again. This was raised by Rachna Sizemore Heizer, Mateo Dunne, Sandy Anderson and Kyle McDaniel at the February 13 Work Session.

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=BDZRXQ6E59AB

The effort didn’t “fall apart.”

They tabled it because the democrat majority didn’t want to lose any seats in the imminent election.

That was five years ago. It fell apart. But with a 100% Democrat school board they want to take their shot now.

Of course. They were just elected, so if they are going to do it, now is the time.

Hopefully they get cracking and implement new boundaries by fall of 2025

If they do it now, the cost democrats in November. That statement is true no matter what year they do it and it's the reason they will never actually do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The same Langley posters who complain that FCPS should never offer Russian to all students online as opposed to in-person at their school would also be the first to complain if FCPS ever proposed to move them to another school that didn’t offer Russian.

That’s why more standardized academic options across schools really are a pre-condition to discussing any county-wide changes. FCPS would need to be in a position to say in good faith that students generally will have access to the same courses at every school (the academies complicate matters, but not as much as currently having both AP and IB schools and different in-person foreign language options).

If that’s not feasible, Anderson and her colleagues should stop talking about any type of county-wide boundary review, as it will be a total waste of time and effort.

I agree with much of what you wrote, but no one from Langley is "complaining" about anything. They are simply pointing out that Russian would never be moved online because it is a very popular (and valuable) language to study and has plenty of interest from students at that school. There would be no issues with moving it online *as well* as continuing to offer it in person. But really, this is a moot point and another one of those straw man / speculations that has no basis in reality. Not even sure why it was brought up in the first place as languages aren't even an issue the SB has expressed interest in.

Please stop trying to dictate what FCPS-related topics people can discuss. The new SB has definitely expressed interest in a county-wide boundary review and some of us are previewing some of the specific issues that will make that challenging, including current disparities among schools when it comes to programs and course offerings.

I find that hard to believe. When it was posted last fall it was dismissed as pre-election “fear mongering”

Go watch the January 25 SB meeting. Throughout that meeting, multiple SB members referenced the staff’s work on revised priorities to inform a county-wide redirecting. My recollection is that there was one comment about the disparity in course offerings at different schools, although most of the SB comments pertained to overcrowded schools, underutilized capacity, wasteful spending on inefficient busing, etc.

Yes, four different SB members referenced the "holistic boundary review" that the SB is currently undertaking, so it is definitely happening. They first will want to modify Policy 8130 so that they can do more of what they want during the boundary review. That fell apart when they last tried to amend 8130 back in 2018-2019, but I have no doubt that they will try again. This was raised by Rachna Sizemore Heizer, Mateo Dunne, Sandy Anderson and Kyle McDaniel at the February 13 Work Session.

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=BDZRXQ6E59AB

The effort didn’t “fall apart.”

They tabled it because the democrat majority didn’t want to lose any seats in the imminent election.

That was five years ago. It fell apart. But with a 100% Democrat school board they want to take their shot now.

Of course. They were just elected, so if they are going to do it, now is the time.

Hopefully they get cracking and implement new boundaries by fall of 2025

I think some of us have made a strong case that they can't just "get cracking and implement new boundaries" without at a minimum first considering whether they ought to be making sure there is more consistency among programs and courses, especially at the HS level.

I'd be very surprised they can pull this off, especially by the fall of 2025. They would be providing a supply of something (boundary changes) for which there is relatively little demand.

Boundaries shouldn't stay the way they are because the majority of the population doesn't want them to change. No one wants to be affected by a boundary shift, there will never be an appetite for a boundary change. That doesn't mean they don't need to happen. Some schools are over crowded while other schools are under enrolled. Some of these schools are neighbors.

There is no consistency of programs at any level in FCPS. LIV looks different at pretty much every Center and Local program. There are magnet schools and language immersion programs. There are IB ES, MS and HS. People will be grandfathered into existing programs so they can complete them when the changes first happen and that is all that will be done.

That said, I doubt that any changes would be implemented by 2025, that would be amazingly fast.

Most of the people who are vocally afraid of boundary changes are people in high SES schools that are terrified of moving to a different school. The fear is for falling housing values and kids having to move to schools with lower test scores. My kid might end up in a different high school. He is at a middle of the pack school. More likely then not any change will be to another middle of the pack school. He'll be fine. the vast majority of the kids will be fine.

If it happens, which I doubt it will. But that doesn't mean that I don't think that FCPS is long over due for a county wide look at the boundaries and a major reshuffling.

If you look at the high schools, a large majority have received decent renovations and/or expansions. It's ridiculous for either School Board members or community residents to then tell those at the handful of schools that still need a capacity upgrade that they should just suck it up and expect to be redistricted if they are overcrowded, even if they want to stay at their schools and the overcrowding isn't at a level that poses safety concerns.

Also, you assume that kids will be grandfathered into existing schools and programs if there are county-wide changes. That's a big assumption. The grandfathering in recent changes is possible because they've been limited changes at any one time. Make enough changes and there won't be a big enough bus fleet to run all the routes to multiple schools.