Luther Jackson MS Enrollment Plunges as Expected

[Anonymous]

Having all of Oakton leave its boundaries though will not help Jackson much. As you said, even back in the day, it didn't have a great reputation with Oakton included. Being that Oakton has had children attending Jackson for decades, the school board could have taken more time with this.

But they were too busy with identity politics on federal gun control.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Having all of Oakton leave its boundaries though will not help Jackson much. As you said, even back in the day, it didn't have a great reputation with Oakton included. Being that Oakton has had children attending Jackson for decades, the school board could have taken more time with this.

But they were too busy with identity politics on federal gun control.

Someone is certainly “too busy” about something and it ain’t the school board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having all of Oakton leave its boundaries though will not help Jackson much. As you said, even back in the day, it didn't have a great reputation with Oakton included. Being that Oakton has had children attending Jackson for decades, the school board could have taken more time with this.

But they were too busy with identity politics on federal gun control.

Someone is certainly “too busy” about something and it ain’t the school board.

Can you not see how ironic it was that the entire board of republicans and democrats had absolutely zero discussion on a school boundary that fed into an underperforming high school while each of them spoke at length on federal gun control for the item right before? Whether you like the decision or not, how is it that our entire school board didn't think a boundary revision was even worth discussing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having all of Oakton leave its boundaries though will not help Jackson much. As you said, even back in the day, it didn't have a great reputation with Oakton included. Being that Oakton has had children attending Jackson for decades, the school board could have taken more time with this.

But they were too busy with identity politics on federal gun control.

Someone is certainly “too busy” about something and it ain’t the school board. [/quote]

Can you not see how ironic it was that the entire board of republicans and democrats had absolutely zero discussion on a school boundary that fed into an underperforming high school while each of them spoke at length on federal gun control for the item right before? Whether you like the decision or not, how is it that our entire school board didn't think a boundary revision was even worth discussing?

Can you not see how ironic it is that you responded to my bolded post with another argument to try to support you beating the deat horse?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having all of Oakton leave its boundaries though will not help Jackson much. As you said, even back in the day, it didn't have a great reputation with Oakton included. Being that Oakton has had children attending Jackson for decades, the school board could have taken more time with this.

But they were too busy with identity politics on federal gun control.

Someone is certainly “too busy” about something and it ain’t the school board.

Can you not see how ironic it was that the entire board of republicans and democrats had absolutely zero discussion on a school boundary that fed into an underperforming high school while each of them spoke at length on federal gun control for the item right before? Whether you like the decision or not, how is it that our entire school board didn't think a boundary revision was even worth discussing?

It's another reason why Hynes and Palchik need to go. As School Board members they are completely worthless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having all of Oakton leave its boundaries though will not help Jackson much. As you said, even back in the day, it didn't have a great reputation with Oakton included. Being that Oakton has had children attending Jackson for decades, the school board could have taken more time with this.

But they were too busy with identity politics on federal gun control.

Someone is certainly “too busy” about something and it ain’t the school board.

Can you not see how ironic it was that the entire board of republicans and democrats had absolutely zero discussion on a school boundary that fed into an underperforming high school while each of them spoke at length on federal gun control for the item right before? Whether you like the decision or not, how is it that our entire school board didn't think a boundary revision was even worth discussing?

Right- so the decision was made on the fly. Gotcha. Or it had already been researched beforehand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having all of Oakton leave its boundaries though will not help Jackson much. As you said, even back in the day, it didn't have a great reputation with Oakton included. Being that Oakton has had children attending Jackson for decades, the school board could have taken more time with this.

But they were too busy with identity politics on federal gun control.

Someone is certainly “too busy” about something and it ain’t the school board.

Can you not see how ironic it was that the entire board of republicans and democrats had absolutely zero discussion on a school boundary that fed into an underperforming high school while each of them spoke at length on federal gun control for the item right before? Whether you like the decision or not, how is it that our entire school board didn't think a boundary revision was even worth discussing?

Right- so the decision was made on the fly. Gotcha. Or it had already been researched beforehand.

no doubt. (agreeing with last PP). Do you really think the school board needed to argue over this when it had been two years since the expansion at Thoreau was COMPLETED and even more years than that where Jackson had been over crowded. They already had this in the CIP for years and they had multiple community engagements. Truth is, it was essentially decided before the community engagements, but still -- the board members didn't need to hear from each other or blather on (per usual!). No one was going to change their minds b/c the expansion at Thoreau was meant to reduce overcrowding at Jackson. I know that Palchik and Hines understood the demographic impact, but they had to balance that with the realities on the ground -- location, proximity, pyramid groupings. A person can be aware of and concerned about demographic changes but still conclude that those issues are outweighed by other factors in some decisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having all of Oakton leave its boundaries though will not help Jackson much. As you said, even back in the day, it didn't have a great reputation with Oakton included. Being that Oakton has had children attending Jackson for decades, the school board could have taken more time with this.

But they were too busy with identity politics on federal gun control.

Someone is certainly “too busy” about something and it ain’t the school board.

Can you not see how ironic it was that the entire board of republicans and democrats had absolutely zero discussion on a school boundary that fed into an underperforming high school while each of them spoke at length on federal gun control for the item right before? Whether you like the decision or not, how is it that our entire school board didn't think a boundary revision was even worth discussing?

Right- so the decision was made on the fly. Gotcha. Or it had already been researched beforehand.

no doubt. (agreeing with last PP). Do you really think the school board needed to argue over this when it had been two years since the expansion at Thoreau was COMPLETED and even more years than that where Jackson had been over crowded. They already had this in the CIP for years and they had multiple community engagements. Truth is, it was essentially decided before the community engagements, but still -- the board members didn't need to hear from each other or blather on (per usual!). No one was going to change their minds b/c the expansion at Thoreau was meant to reduce overcrowding at Jackson. I know that Palchik and Hines understood the demographic impact, but they had to balance that with the realities on the ground -- location, proximity, pyramid groupings. A person can be aware of and concerned about demographic changes but still conclude that those issues are outweighed by other factors in some decisions.

You left out that all the community meetings were at the schools being moved. No input was sought from those remaining at Jackson, and no projections were shared as to the impact on the LJ demographics. Shameful, and yes, Palchik and Hynes need to go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having all of Oakton leave its boundaries though will not help Jackson much. As you said, even back in the day, it didn't have a great reputation with Oakton included. Being that Oakton has had children attending Jackson for decades, the school board could have taken more time with this.

But they were too busy with identity politics on federal gun control.

Someone is certainly “too busy” about something and it ain’t the school board.

Can you not see how ironic it was that the entire board of republicans and democrats had absolutely zero discussion on a school boundary that fed into an underperforming high school while each of them spoke at length on federal gun control for the item right before? Whether you like the decision or not, how is it that our entire school board didn't think a boundary revision was even worth discussing?

Right- so the decision was made on the fly. Gotcha. Or it had already been researched beforehand.

no doubt. (agreeing with last PP). Do you really think the school board needed to argue over this when it had been two years since the expansion at Thoreau was COMPLETED and even more years than that where Jackson had been over crowded. They already had this in the CIP for years and they had multiple community engagements. Truth is, it was essentially decided before the community engagements, but still -- the board members didn't need to hear from each other or blather on (per usual!). No one was going to change their minds b/c the expansion at Thoreau was meant to reduce overcrowding at Jackson. I know that Palchik and Hines understood the demographic impact, but they had to balance that with the realities on the ground -- location, proximity, pyramid groupings. A person can be aware of and concerned about demographic changes but still conclude that those issues are outweighed by other factors in some decisions.

You left out that all the community meetings were at the schools being moved. No input was sought from those remaining at Jackson, and no projections were shared as to the impact on the LJ demographics. Shameful, and yes, Palchik and Hynes need to go.

Clap, clap, clap. (Not). Move on. Find a hobby. Get a job. Seek therapy. Let it go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having all of Oakton leave its boundaries though will not help Jackson much. As you said, even back in the day, it didn't have a great reputation with Oakton included. Being that Oakton has had children attending Jackson for decades, the school board could have taken more time with this.

But they were too busy with identity politics on federal gun control.

Someone is certainly “too busy” about something and it ain’t the school board.

Can you not see how ironic it was that the entire board of republicans and democrats had absolutely zero discussion on a school boundary that fed into an underperforming high school while each of them spoke at length on federal gun control for the item right before? Whether you like the decision or not, how is it that our entire school board didn't think a boundary revision was even worth discussing?

Right- so the decision was made on the fly. Gotcha. Or it had already been researched beforehand.

no doubt. (agreeing with last PP). Do you really think the school board needed to argue over this when it had been two years since the expansion at Thoreau was COMPLETED and even more years than that where Jackson had been over crowded. They already had this in the CIP for years and they had multiple community engagements. Truth is, it was essentially decided before the community engagements, but still -- the board members didn't need to hear from each other or blather on (per usual!). No one was going to change their minds b/c the expansion at Thoreau was meant to reduce overcrowding at Jackson. I know that Palchik and Hines understood the demographic impact, but they had to balance that with the realities on the ground -- location, proximity, pyramid groupings. A person can be aware of and concerned about demographic changes but still conclude that those issues are outweighed by other factors in some decisions.

You left out that all the community meetings were at the schools being moved. No input was sought from those remaining at Jackson, and no projections were shared as to the impact on the LJ demographics. Shameful, and yes, Palchik and Hynes need to go.

Clap, clap, clap. (Not). Move on. Find a hobby. Get a job. Seek therapy. Let it go.

Are you always this banal, or do you just resort to meaningless platitudes when your misleading posts are called out?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having all of Oakton leave its boundaries though will not help Jackson much. As you said, even back in the day, it didn't have a great reputation with Oakton included. Being that Oakton has had children attending Jackson for decades, the school board could have taken more time with this.

But they were too busy with identity politics on federal gun control.

Someone is certainly “too busy” about something and it ain’t the school board.

Can you not see how ironic it was that the entire board of republicans and democrats had absolutely zero discussion on a school boundary that fed into an underperforming high school while each of them spoke at length on federal gun control for the item right before? Whether you like the decision or not, how is it that our entire school board didn't think a boundary revision was even worth discussing?

Right- so the decision was made on the fly. Gotcha. Or it had already been researched beforehand.

no doubt. (agreeing with last PP). Do you really think the school board needed to argue over this when it had been two years since the expansion at Thoreau was COMPLETED and even more years than that where Jackson had been over crowded. They already had this in the CIP for years and they had multiple community engagements. Truth is, it was essentially decided before the community engagements, but still -- the board members didn't need to hear from each other or blather on (per usual!). No one was going to change their minds b/c the expansion at Thoreau was meant to reduce overcrowding at Jackson. I know that Palchik and Hines understood the demographic impact, but they had to balance that with the realities on the ground -- location, proximity, pyramid groupings. A person can be aware of and concerned about demographic changes but still conclude that those issues are outweighed by other factors in some decisions.

You left out that all the community meetings were at the schools being moved. No input was sought from those remaining at Jackson, and no projections were shared as to the impact on the LJ demographics. Shameful, and yes, Palchik and Hynes need to go.

Clap, clap, clap. (Not). Move on. Find a hobby. Get a job. Seek therapy. Let it go.

Are you always this banal, or do you just resort to meaningless platitudes when your misleading posts are called out?

You are worried about your real estate. We are concerned with our kids’ educations. When decisions we are unhappy with are made about our kids’ educations (lets say whether to get rid of shortened mondays or to have school start before Labor Day), about which we may be very unhappy, we all find a way to move on somehow. MY meaningless posts? I have a current 7th grader at one of those schools. you really have zero interest in the education offered at either school except perhaps to the extent it could effect the price of the sale of your home one day. If your home moved locations like Dorothy’s, you’d not even be posting here. Yes, one of us certainly does have meaningless posts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sometimes it's not about social engineering b/c the logistics (housing, dividing roadways, existing school zones, proximity, and future HS pyramid assignments) dictate a reasonable rezoning plan.

You are right that LJMS will be proportionally more ESOL and FARMS. These kids were there from the beginning, and LJ just lost some of its middle income kids who weren't ESOL/FARMS. So, it's not as though FCPS added ESOL/FARMS kids to LJ.

That said, sometimes there are logical reasons to pull one set of kids to another school that has nothing to do with trying to drive one school down or bring one school up. It is a secondary consequence -- that LJ is going to be more ESOL/FARMS.... but that is also a product of the types of housing that is built closest to the school facility.

I understand that in almost every decision, there are some people who feel like they got a better deal and some people who feel like they got a worse deal. I feel for you if you are a middle income household that is still zoned for LJMS.... but, it's not like LJ was that great before (in the gen ed side). You are mostly getting what you bought into. The people who got a windfall are those who used to be zoned for LJ and now are zoned for TMS.

Objectively speaking -- if you believe every kid is capable of success given the right conditions -- it has to be a net gain for the ESOL/FARMS kids at LJ to have more space and have more attention from the administration.

Thank-you, this is the sanest and most logical post on this thread.

Not really. Kids want to get settled in with their high school cohort, so they will jump ship. Nothing to do with the current school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sometimes it's not about social engineering b/c the logistics (housing, dividing roadways, existing school zones, proximity, and future HS pyramid assignments) dictate a reasonable rezoning plan.

You are right that LJMS will be proportionally more ESOL and FARMS. These kids were there from the beginning, and LJ just lost some of its middle income kids who weren't ESOL/FARMS. So, it's not as though FCPS added ESOL/FARMS kids to LJ.

That said, sometimes there are logical reasons to pull one set of kids to another school that has nothing to do with trying to drive one school down or bring one school up. It is a secondary consequence -- that LJ is going to be more ESOL/FARMS.... but that is also a product of the types of housing that is built closest to the school facility.

I understand that in almost every decision, there are some people who feel like they got a better deal and some people who feel like they got a worse deal. I feel for you if you are a middle income household that is still zoned for LJMS.... but, it's not like LJ was that great before (in the gen ed side). You are mostly getting what you bought into. The people who got a windfall are those who used to be zoned for LJ and now are zoned for TMS.

Objectively speaking -- if you believe every kid is capable of success given the right conditions -- it has to be a net gain for the ESOL/FARMS kids at LJ to have more space and have more attention from the administration.

Thank-you, this is the sanest and most logical post on this thread.

Not really. Kids want to get settled in with their high school cohort, so they will jump ship. Nothing to do with the current school.

That is exactly the reason why the school board couldn't take a different group OUT of LJ -- it would have separated a group of FCHS kids out from their "high school cohort."

That said, those who choose TMS for AAP are often doing it to stay with or get connected to their HS cohort IF they are ultimately going on to Madison. For those in the Oakton HS pyramid, most will continue to choose Jackson b/c they are coming from Mosby Woods and they don't see the gen ed MW kids as their HS cohort. They see the other AAP kids from Mosby as their people. For OES, it's a different equation b/c it is smaller and the AAP kids are more integrated (given that it is just one class of AAP and even before this, 1/2 of them were going to TMS). Those kids will likely stick with their OES peers and go to TMS. But, most of the MWES AAP kids (not all, but most) will still go to LJ. Many think they have a shot at TJ and want the center benefits (or perceived benefits). But, mainly, they don't think of themselves as having much in common with the "high school cohort" that is now rezoned to TMS. And if they get into TJ (as many hope), then connecting to OHS people has no purpose.

In short, for OES AAP kids, the cohort connection (from elem school) trumps the AAP connection.
For the MWES kids (in general), the AAP connection trumps the high school cohort connection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sometimes it's not about social engineering b/c the logistics (housing, dividing roadways, existing school zones, proximity, and future HS pyramid assignments) dictate a reasonable rezoning plan.

You are right that LJMS will be proportionally more ESOL and FARMS. These kids were there from the beginning, and LJ just lost some of its middle income kids who weren't ESOL/FARMS. So, it's not as though FCPS added ESOL/FARMS kids to LJ.

That said, sometimes there are logical reasons to pull one set of kids to another school that has nothing to do with trying to drive one school down or bring one school up. It is a secondary consequence -- that LJ is going to be more ESOL/FARMS.... but that is also a product of the types of housing that is built closest to the school facility.

I understand that in almost every decision, there are some people who feel like they got a better deal and some people who feel like they got a worse deal. I feel for you if you are a middle income household that is still zoned for LJMS.... but, it's not like LJ was that great before (in the gen ed side). You are mostly getting what you bought into. The people who got a windfall are those who used to be zoned for LJ and now are zoned for TMS.

Objectively speaking -- if you believe every kid is capable of success given the right conditions -- it has to be a net gain for the ESOL/FARMS kids at LJ to have more space and have more attention from the administration.

Thank-you, this is the sanest and most logical post on this thread.

Not really. Kids want to get settled in with their high school cohort, so they will jump ship. Nothing to do with the current school.

That is exactly the reason why the school board couldn't take a different group OUT of LJ -- it would have separated a group of FCHS kids out from their "high school cohort."

That's just false. They could have moved part of LJ to Poe, which is already a feeder to Falls Church and Annandale and more under-enrolled than Thoreau.

[Anonymous]

The premise was that some kids would need to move into TMS. And thise would come frim LJMS.

It was never the plan to expand TMS and then leave it empty. But, I'm not going to go any further with your woulda, coulda, shoulda logic. The move is done. Find another windmill to charge.