FCPS Boundary Review - New Maps

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps we are not as vocal or have as much time to post as you seem to do, but we do exist and are ready to see some change.

And no I’m not going to explain exactly what that change is.

You’re very vocal, don’t lie.

We know you want equity by bringing the system down to the lowest level. You don’t need to explain it to us!

Haven’t posted in months. Me being a lurker is the only thing you’ve got right about me.

I think it’s ridiculous that all the title 1
ES schools in the area feed into the same high school.
I also think it unfair that children attending schools just a few miles from each other have such vastly differences experiences. If that makes me an equity warrior, so be it.

All shifting the boundaries will do is increase test scores by shifting who is taking the test. The average will increase but that will hide the fact that the poor kids are still scoring low.

Fixing the issue of low scores for low SES families and URM requires the families care about education and that tends not to be the case. You have kids being raised by drop outs or parents who didn’t attend school who were raised by drop outs and parents who didn’t attend school. Eight hours of school, five days a week rarely overcomes the home environment.

I agree, the issue of low scores for low SES families will not be fixed by boundary changes. But it would help students all students have a more equitable experience than their peers just up the road. It might discourage other MC/UMC families like mine from trying to avoiding the school by pupil placing, private, etc., and making the problem worse. The boundary review is a step in the right direction, not a solution intended to fix all problems.

I'm confused by your post. You're trying to say that fixing the issue of low scores for kids from low SES families will make more MC/UMC kids want to go to school with them. But doing that requires a boundary review that transfers MC/UMC kids to schools with low income families. And that's the solution. But that doesn't make any sense. You aren't actually helping lower income kids via more eductional support, etc. You're just trying to move MC/UMC kids in to mask the problem.

She wants other people's kids to move to those schools

DP. I believe all school districts should strive to keep all boundaries as compact as possible.

+1
But, I don't believe in moving kids so scores will go up at those schools.
Improve the school first by attacking the problem.

_

Of course all schools should work on improving education for all students. However, schools can only do so much when students are constantly moving, are absent, and have challenging home lives.

So, by your logic, is it ok to only move kids to another school with similar academic levels? Geography should never be factored in if there is a disparity in scores between neighboring schools?

Does this mean students from wealthier schools should never be redistricted to a lower performing school, despite population changes?

I am trying to figure out your reasoning. Is redistricting good for some, but not for all?

I think we all want good education for all. But, as one of the SB supporters did, we also want to keep our kids where they are.
Of course, when a move is needed because of other reasons, it makes sense. But, not to improve test scores at a school. Putting in wealthier kids does not help poor kids.
The school can teach the kids where they are. And, it starts with being sure all kids in the school can get the courses they need. If they only have a small corhort, it is more challenging, but they should do it anyway.

And, believe me, the School Board is not concerned about improving education. Their concern is improving scores so the school looks better. Meanwhile, the struggling kids continue to struggle.

I'm strongly in favor of compact community schools. But, I also understand people who have attachment to their current schools. Schools fluctuate. A nearby school was more desirable than our in boundary school a few years ago. Now, our school is more desirable according to DCUM.

p.s. I do think that administration plays a HUGE role in a high school. When you read the profile page and the principal talks about DEI rather than academic achievement, it is a little troubling.

Maybe the principal is highlighting DEI to make some underperforming / underrepresented groups want to go to school and be successful.

I’m guessing it’s also hard to talk about academic achievement when there is none.

Academic achievement reflects family income. I am sure you are aware of this. Higher income families at those schools, tend to do well in college admissions, and there is decent support for those kids as well.

I actually prefer my high achievers learn how to be more independent, and learn how to navigate high school with less hand holding. They may not get all the classes they want, but I assume that will also be the case when signing up for college courses. They can practice overcoming adversity at a younger age.

DP - sounds like you appreciated getting to choose where your children go to school. That’s exactly what everyone in the county is looking for.

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

So what? Schools have worsened over time and your response is basically “too bad, so sad” Give me a break!

Nobody is asking or expecting Lewis to become the most sought after HS in FCPS, but please stop gaslighting parents of kids who are in-bound that they should be fine with their place at the bottom. Of course I feel bad about kids who might be moved. But something has to change. We should all want to see improvements at Lewis, even if we don’t agree on what those changes should be.

Well, let's hear your thoughts then. What are the problems at Lewis and what do you think should be done to solve them? Explain specifically why moving HVES kids to Lewis will help solve the issues you think Lewis has.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mmmmkay.

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

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

To suggest that other families should be moved because you don’t believe in the kids at poorer performing schools is doubly disgusting. 🤮

You have to decide at some point, are these kids capable or are they irredeemable? Seems like you shift your view frequently and inconsistently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps we are not as vocal or have as much time to post as you seem to do, but we do exist and are ready to see some change.

And no I’m not going to explain exactly what that change is.

You’re very vocal, don’t lie.

We know you want equity by bringing the system down to the lowest level. You don’t need to explain it to us!

Haven’t posted in months. Me being a lurker is the only thing you’ve got right about me.

I think it’s ridiculous that all the title 1
ES schools in the area feed into the same high school.
I also think it unfair that children attending schools just a few miles from each other have such vastly differences experiences. If that makes me an equity warrior, so be it.

All shifting the boundaries will do is increase test scores by shifting who is taking the test. The average will increase but that will hide the fact that the poor kids are still scoring low.

Fixing the issue of low scores for low SES families and URM requires the families care about education and that tends not to be the case. You have kids being raised by drop outs or parents who didn’t attend school who were raised by drop outs and parents who didn’t attend school. Eight hours of school, five days a week rarely overcomes the home environment.

I agree, the issue of low scores for low SES families will not be fixed by boundary changes. But it would help students all students have a more equitable experience than their peers just up the road. It might discourage other MC/UMC families like mine from trying to avoiding the school by pupil placing, private, etc., and making the problem worse. The boundary review is a step in the right direction, not a solution intended to fix all problems.

I'm confused by your post. You're trying to say that fixing the issue of low scores for kids from low SES families will make more MC/UMC kids want to go to school with them. But doing that requires a boundary review that transfers MC/UMC kids to schools with low income families. And that's the solution. But that doesn't make any sense. You aren't actually helping lower income kids via more eductional support, etc. You're just trying to move MC/UMC kids in to mask the problem.

She wants other people's kids to move to those schools

DP. I believe all school districts should strive to keep all boundaries as compact as possible.

+1
But, I don't believe in moving kids so scores will go up at those schools.
Improve the school first by attacking the problem.

_

Of course all schools should work on improving education for all students. However, schools can only do so much when students are constantly moving, are absent, and have challenging home lives.

So, by your logic, is it ok to only move kids to another school with similar academic levels? Geography should never be factored in if there is a disparity in scores between neighboring schools?

Does this mean students from wealthier schools should never be redistricted to a lower performing school, despite population changes?

I am trying to figure out your reasoning. Is redistricting good for some, but not for all?

I think we all want good education for all. But, as one of the SB supporters did, we also want to keep our kids where they are.
Of course, when a move is needed because of other reasons, it makes sense. But, not to improve test scores at a school. Putting in wealthier kids does not help poor kids.
The school can teach the kids where they are. And, it starts with being sure all kids in the school can get the courses they need. If they only have a small corhort, it is more challenging, but they should do it anyway.

And, believe me, the School Board is not concerned about improving education. Their concern is improving scores so the school looks better. Meanwhile, the struggling kids continue to struggle.

I'm strongly in favor of compact community schools. But, I also understand people who have attachment to their current schools. Schools fluctuate. A nearby school was more desirable than our in boundary school a few years ago. Now, our school is more desirable according to DCUM.

p.s. I do think that administration plays a HUGE role in a high school. When you read the profile page and the principal talks about DEI rather than academic achievement, it is a little troubling.

Maybe the principal is highlighting DEI to make some underperforming / underrepresented groups want to go to school and be successful.

I’m guessing it’s also hard to talk about academic achievement when there is none.

Academic achievement reflects family income. I am sure you are aware of this. Higher income families at those schools, tend to do well in college admissions, and there is decent support for those kids as well.

I actually prefer my high achievers learn how to be more independent, and learn how to navigate high school with less hand holding. They may not get all the classes they want, but I assume that will also be the case when signing up for college courses. They can practice overcoming adversity at a younger age.

DP - sounds like you appreciated getting to choose where your children go to school. That’s exactly what everyone in the county is looking for.

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

So what? Schools have worsened over time and your response is basically “too bad, so sad” Give me a break!

Nobody is asking or expecting Lewis to become the most sought after HS in FCPS, but please stop gaslighting parents of kids who are in-bound that they should be fine with their place at the bottom. Of course I feel bad about kids who might be moved. But something has to change. We should all want to see improvements at Lewis, even if we don’t agree on what those changes should be.

Well, let's hear your thoughts then. What are the problems at Lewis and what do you think should be done to solve them? Explain specifically why moving HVES kids to Lewis will help solve the issues you think Lewis has.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mmmmkay.

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

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

That’s not what was suggested. Do you expect your neighbor to cut your grass? Or clean your house? It’s your school. Who else would advocate best to make it better than the parents of the kids who go there?

[Anonymous]

It seems like there's been a large number of posts in the last few days claiming the boundary proposals aren't sufficiently equity-driven.

It doesn't feel like a coincidence, but more like a concerted effort by some folks to lay the foundation for the next round of maps to be very different from those circulated earlier this year.

It's kind of a lose-lose for FCPS, though. If the maps are very different, it may please a few people, but it will antagonize a lot of others and also underscore how incompetent Reid's hired consultants have been. This process has been anything but smooth, and they'd be better served by only dealing with real crises like Coates and figuring out how they might do it better five years from now.

Not to mention that, if KAA is going to be a local school, that's a boundary study that by itself ought to receive careful attention. They've shown no capacity whatsoever to juggle multiple balls at the same time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps we are not as vocal or have as much time to post as you seem to do, but we do exist and are ready to see some change.

And no I’m not going to explain exactly what that change is.

You’re very vocal, don’t lie.

We know you want equity by bringing the system down to the lowest level. You don’t need to explain it to us!

Haven’t posted in months. Me being a lurker is the only thing you’ve got right about me.

I think it’s ridiculous that all the title 1
ES schools in the area feed into the same high school.
I also think it unfair that children attending schools just a few miles from each other have such vastly differences experiences. If that makes me an equity warrior, so be it.

All shifting the boundaries will do is increase test scores by shifting who is taking the test. The average will increase but that will hide the fact that the poor kids are still scoring low.

Fixing the issue of low scores for low SES families and URM requires the families care about education and that tends not to be the case. You have kids being raised by drop outs or parents who didn’t attend school who were raised by drop outs and parents who didn’t attend school. Eight hours of school, five days a week rarely overcomes the home environment.

I agree, the issue of low scores for low SES families will not be fixed by boundary changes. But it would help students all students have a more equitable experience than their peers just up the road. It might discourage other MC/UMC families like mine from trying to avoiding the school by pupil placing, private, etc., and making the problem worse. The boundary review is a step in the right direction, not a solution intended to fix all problems.

I'm confused by your post. You're trying to say that fixing the issue of low scores for kids from low SES families will make more MC/UMC kids want to go to school with them. But doing that requires a boundary review that transfers MC/UMC kids to schools with low income families. And that's the solution. But that doesn't make any sense. You aren't actually helping lower income kids via more eductional support, etc. You're just trying to move MC/UMC kids in to mask the problem.

She wants other people's kids to move to those schools

DP. I believe all school districts should strive to keep all boundaries as compact as possible.

+1
But, I don't believe in moving kids so scores will go up at those schools.
Improve the school first by attacking the problem.

_

Of course all schools should work on improving education for all students. However, schools can only do so much when students are constantly moving, are absent, and have challenging home lives.

So, by your logic, is it ok to only move kids to another school with similar academic levels? Geography should never be factored in if there is a disparity in scores between neighboring schools?

Does this mean students from wealthier schools should never be redistricted to a lower performing school, despite population changes?

I am trying to figure out your reasoning. Is redistricting good for some, but not for all?

I think we all want good education for all. But, as one of the SB supporters did, we also want to keep our kids where they are.
Of course, when a move is needed because of other reasons, it makes sense. But, not to improve test scores at a school. Putting in wealthier kids does not help poor kids.
The school can teach the kids where they are. And, it starts with being sure all kids in the school can get the courses they need. If they only have a small corhort, it is more challenging, but they should do it anyway.

And, believe me, the School Board is not concerned about improving education. Their concern is improving scores so the school looks better. Meanwhile, the struggling kids continue to struggle.

I'm strongly in favor of compact community schools. But, I also understand people who have attachment to their current schools. Schools fluctuate. A nearby school was more desirable than our in boundary school a few years ago. Now, our school is more desirable according to DCUM.

p.s. I do think that administration plays a HUGE role in a high school. When you read the profile page and the principal talks about DEI rather than academic achievement, it is a little troubling.

Maybe the principal is highlighting DEI to make some underperforming / underrepresented groups want to go to school and be successful.

I’m guessing it’s also hard to talk about academic achievement when there is none.

Academic achievement reflects family income. I am sure you are aware of this. Higher income families at those schools, tend to do well in college admissions, and there is decent support for those kids as well.

I actually prefer my high achievers learn how to be more independent, and learn how to navigate high school with less hand holding. They may not get all the classes they want, but I assume that will also be the case when signing up for college courses. They can practice overcoming adversity at a younger age.

DP - sounds like you appreciated getting to choose where your children go to school. That’s exactly what everyone in the county is looking for.

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

So what? Schools have worsened over time and your response is basically “too bad, so sad” Give me a break!

Nobody is asking or expecting Lewis to become the most sought after HS in FCPS, but please stop gaslighting parents of kids who are in-bound that they should be fine with their place at the bottom. Of course I feel bad about kids who might be moved. But something has to change. We should all want to see improvements at Lewis, even if we don’t agree on what those changes should be.

Well, let's hear your thoughts then. What are the problems at Lewis and what do you think should be done to solve them? Explain specifically why moving HVES kids to Lewis will help solve the issues you think Lewis has.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mmmmkay.

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

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

That’s not what was suggested. Do you expect your neighbor to cut your grass? Or clean your house? It’s your school. Who else would advocate best to make it better than the parents of the kids who go there?

Perhaps, but if the only parents in a position to affect change are already underrepresented, it makes a difficult task damn near impossible.

Again, this is a PUBLIC SCHOOL. That means, this is our just OUR problem to solve alone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps we are not as vocal or have as much time to post as you seem to do, but we do exist and are ready to see some change.

And no I’m not going to explain exactly what that change is.

You’re very vocal, don’t lie.

We know you want equity by bringing the system down to the lowest level. You don’t need to explain it to us!

Haven’t posted in months. Me being a lurker is the only thing you’ve got right about me.

I think it’s ridiculous that all the title 1
ES schools in the area feed into the same high school.
I also think it unfair that children attending schools just a few miles from each other have such vastly differences experiences. If that makes me an equity warrior, so be it.

All shifting the boundaries will do is increase test scores by shifting who is taking the test. The average will increase but that will hide the fact that the poor kids are still scoring low.

Fixing the issue of low scores for low SES families and URM requires the families care about education and that tends not to be the case. You have kids being raised by drop outs or parents who didn’t attend school who were raised by drop outs and parents who didn’t attend school. Eight hours of school, five days a week rarely overcomes the home environment.

I agree, the issue of low scores for low SES families will not be fixed by boundary changes. But it would help students all students have a more equitable experience than their peers just up the road. It might discourage other MC/UMC families like mine from trying to avoiding the school by pupil placing, private, etc., and making the problem worse. The boundary review is a step in the right direction, not a solution intended to fix all problems.

I'm confused by your post. You're trying to say that fixing the issue of low scores for kids from low SES families will make more MC/UMC kids want to go to school with them. But doing that requires a boundary review that transfers MC/UMC kids to schools with low income families. And that's the solution. But that doesn't make any sense. You aren't actually helping lower income kids via more eductional support, etc. You're just trying to move MC/UMC kids in to mask the problem.

She wants other people's kids to move to those schools

DP. I believe all school districts should strive to keep all boundaries as compact as possible.

+1
But, I don't believe in moving kids so scores will go up at those schools.
Improve the school first by attacking the problem.

_

Of course all schools should work on improving education for all students. However, schools can only do so much when students are constantly moving, are absent, and have challenging home lives.

So, by your logic, is it ok to only move kids to another school with similar academic levels? Geography should never be factored in if there is a disparity in scores between neighboring schools?

Does this mean students from wealthier schools should never be redistricted to a lower performing school, despite population changes?

I am trying to figure out your reasoning. Is redistricting good for some, but not for all?

I think we all want good education for all. But, as one of the SB supporters did, we also want to keep our kids where they are.
Of course, when a move is needed because of other reasons, it makes sense. But, not to improve test scores at a school. Putting in wealthier kids does not help poor kids.
The school can teach the kids where they are. And, it starts with being sure all kids in the school can get the courses they need. If they only have a small corhort, it is more challenging, but they should do it anyway.

And, believe me, the School Board is not concerned about improving education. Their concern is improving scores so the school looks better. Meanwhile, the struggling kids continue to struggle.

I'm strongly in favor of compact community schools. But, I also understand people who have attachment to their current schools. Schools fluctuate. A nearby school was more desirable than our in boundary school a few years ago. Now, our school is more desirable according to DCUM.

p.s. I do think that administration plays a HUGE role in a high school. When you read the profile page and the principal talks about DEI rather than academic achievement, it is a little troubling.

Maybe the principal is highlighting DEI to make some underperforming / underrepresented groups want to go to school and be successful.

I’m guessing it’s also hard to talk about academic achievement when there is none.

Academic achievement reflects family income. I am sure you are aware of this. Higher income families at those schools, tend to do well in college admissions, and there is decent support for those kids as well.

I actually prefer my high achievers learn how to be more independent, and learn how to navigate high school with less hand holding. They may not get all the classes they want, but I assume that will also be the case when signing up for college courses. They can practice overcoming adversity at a younger age.

DP - sounds like you appreciated getting to choose where your children go to school. That’s exactly what everyone in the county is looking for.

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

So what? Schools have worsened over time and your response is basically “too bad, so sad” Give me a break!

Nobody is asking or expecting Lewis to become the most sought after HS in FCPS, but please stop gaslighting parents of kids who are in-bound that they should be fine with their place at the bottom. Of course I feel bad about kids who might be moved. But something has to change. We should all want to see improvements at Lewis, even if we don’t agree on what those changes should be.

Well, let's hear your thoughts then. What are the problems at Lewis and what do you think should be done to solve them? Explain specifically why moving HVES kids to Lewis will help solve the issues you think Lewis has.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mmmmkay.

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

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

That’s not what was suggested. Do you expect your neighbor to cut your grass? Or clean your house? It’s your school. Who else would advocate best to make it better than the parents of the kids who go there?

Perhaps, but if the only parents in a position to affect change are already underrepresented, it makes a difficult task damn near impossible.

Again, this is a PUBLIC SCHOOL. That means, this is our just OUR problem to solve alone.

Sigh, you think just like the school board. Going to destroy FCPS in the process. What’s clear is that you aren’t really thinking any of this through - also consistent with said school board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps we are not as vocal or have as much time to post as you seem to do, but we do exist and are ready to see some change.

And no I’m not going to explain exactly what that change is.

You’re very vocal, don’t lie.

We know you want equity by bringing the system down to the lowest level. You don’t need to explain it to us!

Haven’t posted in months. Me being a lurker is the only thing you’ve got right about me.

I think it’s ridiculous that all the title 1
ES schools in the area feed into the same high school.
I also think it unfair that children attending schools just a few miles from each other have such vastly differences experiences. If that makes me an equity warrior, so be it.

All shifting the boundaries will do is increase test scores by shifting who is taking the test. The average will increase but that will hide the fact that the poor kids are still scoring low.

Fixing the issue of low scores for low SES families and URM requires the families care about education and that tends not to be the case. You have kids being raised by drop outs or parents who didn’t attend school who were raised by drop outs and parents who didn’t attend school. Eight hours of school, five days a week rarely overcomes the home environment.

I agree, the issue of low scores for low SES families will not be fixed by boundary changes. But it would help students all students have a more equitable experience than their peers just up the road. It might discourage other MC/UMC families like mine from trying to avoiding the school by pupil placing, private, etc., and making the problem worse. The boundary review is a step in the right direction, not a solution intended to fix all problems.

I'm confused by your post. You're trying to say that fixing the issue of low scores for kids from low SES families will make more MC/UMC kids want to go to school with them. But doing that requires a boundary review that transfers MC/UMC kids to schools with low income families. And that's the solution. But that doesn't make any sense. You aren't actually helping lower income kids via more eductional support, etc. You're just trying to move MC/UMC kids in to mask the problem.

She wants other people's kids to move to those schools

DP. I believe all school districts should strive to keep all boundaries as compact as possible.

+1
But, I don't believe in moving kids so scores will go up at those schools.
Improve the school first by attacking the problem.

_

Of course all schools should work on improving education for all students. However, schools can only do so much when students are constantly moving, are absent, and have challenging home lives.

So, by your logic, is it ok to only move kids to another school with similar academic levels? Geography should never be factored in if there is a disparity in scores between neighboring schools?

Does this mean students from wealthier schools should never be redistricted to a lower performing school, despite population changes?

I am trying to figure out your reasoning. Is redistricting good for some, but not for all?

I think we all want good education for all. But, as one of the SB supporters did, we also want to keep our kids where they are.
Of course, when a move is needed because of other reasons, it makes sense. But, not to improve test scores at a school. Putting in wealthier kids does not help poor kids.
The school can teach the kids where they are. And, it starts with being sure all kids in the school can get the courses they need. If they only have a small corhort, it is more challenging, but they should do it anyway.

And, believe me, the School Board is not concerned about improving education. Their concern is improving scores so the school looks better. Meanwhile, the struggling kids continue to struggle.

I'm strongly in favor of compact community schools. But, I also understand people who have attachment to their current schools. Schools fluctuate. A nearby school was more desirable than our in boundary school a few years ago. Now, our school is more desirable according to DCUM.

p.s. I do think that administration plays a HUGE role in a high school. When you read the profile page and the principal talks about DEI rather than academic achievement, it is a little troubling.

Maybe the principal is highlighting DEI to make some underperforming / underrepresented groups want to go to school and be successful.

I’m guessing it’s also hard to talk about academic achievement when there is none.

Academic achievement reflects family income. I am sure you are aware of this. Higher income families at those schools, tend to do well in college admissions, and there is decent support for those kids as well.

I actually prefer my high achievers learn how to be more independent, and learn how to navigate high school with less hand holding. They may not get all the classes they want, but I assume that will also be the case when signing up for college courses. They can practice overcoming adversity at a younger age.

DP - sounds like you appreciated getting to choose where your children go to school. That’s exactly what everyone in the county is looking for.

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

So what? Schools have worsened over time and your response is basically “too bad, so sad” Give me a break!

Nobody is asking or expecting Lewis to become the most sought after HS in FCPS, but please stop gaslighting parents of kids who are in-bound that they should be fine with their place at the bottom. Of course I feel bad about kids who might be moved. But something has to change. We should all want to see improvements at Lewis, even if we don’t agree on what those changes should be.

Well, let's hear your thoughts then. What are the problems at Lewis and what do you think should be done to solve them? Explain specifically why moving HVES kids to Lewis will help solve the issues you think Lewis has.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mmmmkay.

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

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

That’s not what was suggested. Do you expect your neighbor to cut your grass? Or clean your house? It’s your school. Who else would advocate best to make it better than the parents of the kids who go there?

Perhaps, but if the only parents in a position to affect change are already underrepresented, it makes a difficult task damn near impossible.

Again, this is a PUBLIC SCHOOL. That means, this is our just OUR problem to solve alone.

Sigh, you think just like the school board. Going to destroy FCPS in the process. What’s clear is that you aren’t really thinking any of this through - also consistent with said school board.

Great, I hope this translates in some meaningful way to version 2.0 of the maps.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps we are not as vocal or have as much time to post as you seem to do, but we do exist and are ready to see some change.

And no I’m not going to explain exactly what that change is.

You’re very vocal, don’t lie.

We know you want equity by bringing the system down to the lowest level. You don’t need to explain it to us!

Haven’t posted in months. Me being a lurker is the only thing you’ve got right about me.

I think it’s ridiculous that all the title 1
ES schools in the area feed into the same high school.
I also think it unfair that children attending schools just a few miles from each other have such vastly differences experiences. If that makes me an equity warrior, so be it.

All shifting the boundaries will do is increase test scores by shifting who is taking the test. The average will increase but that will hide the fact that the poor kids are still scoring low.

Fixing the issue of low scores for low SES families and URM requires the families care about education and that tends not to be the case. You have kids being raised by drop outs or parents who didn’t attend school who were raised by drop outs and parents who didn’t attend school. Eight hours of school, five days a week rarely overcomes the home environment.

I agree, the issue of low scores for low SES families will not be fixed by boundary changes. But it would help students all students have a more equitable experience than their peers just up the road. It might discourage other MC/UMC families like mine from trying to avoiding the school by pupil placing, private, etc., and making the problem worse. The boundary review is a step in the right direction, not a solution intended to fix all problems.

I'm confused by your post. You're trying to say that fixing the issue of low scores for kids from low SES families will make more MC/UMC kids want to go to school with them. But doing that requires a boundary review that transfers MC/UMC kids to schools with low income families. And that's the solution. But that doesn't make any sense. You aren't actually helping lower income kids via more eductional support, etc. You're just trying to move MC/UMC kids in to mask the problem.

She wants other people's kids to move to those schools

DP. I believe all school districts should strive to keep all boundaries as compact as possible.

+1
But, I don't believe in moving kids so scores will go up at those schools.
Improve the school first by attacking the problem.

_

Of course all schools should work on improving education for all students. However, schools can only do so much when students are constantly moving, are absent, and have challenging home lives.

So, by your logic, is it ok to only move kids to another school with similar academic levels? Geography should never be factored in if there is a disparity in scores between neighboring schools?

Does this mean students from wealthier schools should never be redistricted to a lower performing school, despite population changes?

I am trying to figure out your reasoning. Is redistricting good for some, but not for all?

I think we all want good education for all. But, as one of the SB supporters did, we also want to keep our kids where they are.
Of course, when a move is needed because of other reasons, it makes sense. But, not to improve test scores at a school. Putting in wealthier kids does not help poor kids.
The school can teach the kids where they are. And, it starts with being sure all kids in the school can get the courses they need. If they only have a small corhort, it is more challenging, but they should do it anyway.

And, believe me, the School Board is not concerned about improving education. Their concern is improving scores so the school looks better. Meanwhile, the struggling kids continue to struggle.

I'm strongly in favor of compact community schools. But, I also understand people who have attachment to their current schools. Schools fluctuate. A nearby school was more desirable than our in boundary school a few years ago. Now, our school is more desirable according to DCUM.

p.s. I do think that administration plays a HUGE role in a high school. When you read the profile page and the principal talks about DEI rather than academic achievement, it is a little troubling.

Maybe the principal is highlighting DEI to make some underperforming / underrepresented groups want to go to school and be successful.

I’m guessing it’s also hard to talk about academic achievement when there is none.

Academic achievement reflects family income. I am sure you are aware of this. Higher income families at those schools, tend to do well in college admissions, and there is decent support for those kids as well.

I actually prefer my high achievers learn how to be more independent, and learn how to navigate high school with less hand holding. They may not get all the classes they want, but I assume that will also be the case when signing up for college courses. They can practice overcoming adversity at a younger age.

DP - sounds like you appreciated getting to choose where your children go to school. That’s exactly what everyone in the county is looking for.

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

So what? Schools have worsened over time and your response is basically “too bad, so sad” Give me a break!

Nobody is asking or expecting Lewis to become the most sought after HS in FCPS, but please stop gaslighting parents of kids who are in-bound that they should be fine with their place at the bottom. Of course I feel bad about kids who might be moved. But something has to change. We should all want to see improvements at Lewis, even if we don’t agree on what those changes should be.

Well, let's hear your thoughts then. What are the problems at Lewis and what do you think should be done to solve them? Explain specifically why moving HVES kids to Lewis will help solve the issues you think Lewis has.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mmmmkay.

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

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

That’s not what was suggested. Do you expect your neighbor to cut your grass? Or clean your house? It’s your school. Who else would advocate best to make it better than the parents of the kids who go there?

Perhaps, but if the only parents in a position to affect change are already underrepresented, it makes a difficult task damn near impossible.

Again, this is a PUBLIC SCHOOL. That means, this is our just OUR problem to solve alone.

Change begins with a small number of people getting seriously involved.

Looking to other people to solve the problems at your school because you want to believe their kids have magic pixie dust is a cop out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps we are not as vocal or have as much time to post as you seem to do, but we do exist and are ready to see some change.

And no I’m not going to explain exactly what that change is.

You’re very vocal, don’t lie.

We know you want equity by bringing the system down to the lowest level. You don’t need to explain it to us!

Haven’t posted in months. Me being a lurker is the only thing you’ve got right about me.

I think it’s ridiculous that all the title 1
ES schools in the area feed into the same high school.
I also think it unfair that children attending schools just a few miles from each other have such vastly differences experiences. If that makes me an equity warrior, so be it.

All shifting the boundaries will do is increase test scores by shifting who is taking the test. The average will increase but that will hide the fact that the poor kids are still scoring low.

Fixing the issue of low scores for low SES families and URM requires the families care about education and that tends not to be the case. You have kids being raised by drop outs or parents who didn’t attend school who were raised by drop outs and parents who didn’t attend school. Eight hours of school, five days a week rarely overcomes the home environment.

I agree, the issue of low scores for low SES families will not be fixed by boundary changes. But it would help students all students have a more equitable experience than their peers just up the road. It might discourage other MC/UMC families like mine from trying to avoiding the school by pupil placing, private, etc., and making the problem worse. The boundary review is a step in the right direction, not a solution intended to fix all problems.

I'm confused by your post. You're trying to say that fixing the issue of low scores for kids from low SES families will make more MC/UMC kids want to go to school with them. But doing that requires a boundary review that transfers MC/UMC kids to schools with low income families. And that's the solution. But that doesn't make any sense. You aren't actually helping lower income kids via more eductional support, etc. You're just trying to move MC/UMC kids in to mask the problem.

She wants other people's kids to move to those schools

DP. I believe all school districts should strive to keep all boundaries as compact as possible.

+1
But, I don't believe in moving kids so scores will go up at those schools.
Improve the school first by attacking the problem.

_

Of course all schools should work on improving education for all students. However, schools can only do so much when students are constantly moving, are absent, and have challenging home lives.

So, by your logic, is it ok to only move kids to another school with similar academic levels? Geography should never be factored in if there is a disparity in scores between neighboring schools?

Does this mean students from wealthier schools should never be redistricted to a lower performing school, despite population changes?

I am trying to figure out your reasoning. Is redistricting good for some, but not for all?

I think we all want good education for all. But, as one of the SB supporters did, we also want to keep our kids where they are.
Of course, when a move is needed because of other reasons, it makes sense. But, not to improve test scores at a school. Putting in wealthier kids does not help poor kids.
The school can teach the kids where they are. And, it starts with being sure all kids in the school can get the courses they need. If they only have a small corhort, it is more challenging, but they should do it anyway.

And, believe me, the School Board is not concerned about improving education. Their concern is improving scores so the school looks better. Meanwhile, the struggling kids continue to struggle.

I'm strongly in favor of compact community schools. But, I also understand people who have attachment to their current schools. Schools fluctuate. A nearby school was more desirable than our in boundary school a few years ago. Now, our school is more desirable according to DCUM.

p.s. I do think that administration plays a HUGE role in a high school. When you read the profile page and the principal talks about DEI rather than academic achievement, it is a little troubling.

Maybe the principal is highlighting DEI to make some underperforming / underrepresented groups want to go to school and be successful.

I’m guessing it’s also hard to talk about academic achievement when there is none.

Academic achievement reflects family income. I am sure you are aware of this. Higher income families at those schools, tend to do well in college admissions, and there is decent support for those kids as well.

I actually prefer my high achievers learn how to be more independent, and learn how to navigate high school with less hand holding. They may not get all the classes they want, but I assume that will also be the case when signing up for college courses. They can practice overcoming adversity at a younger age.

DP - sounds like you appreciated getting to choose where your children go to school. That’s exactly what everyone in the county is looking for.

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

So what? Schools have worsened over time and your response is basically “too bad, so sad” Give me a break!

Nobody is asking or expecting Lewis to become the most sought after HS in FCPS, but please stop gaslighting parents of kids who are in-bound that they should be fine with their place at the bottom. Of course I feel bad about kids who might be moved. But something has to change. We should all want to see improvements at Lewis, even if we don’t agree on what those changes should be.

Well, let's hear your thoughts then. What are the problems at Lewis and what do you think should be done to solve them? Explain specifically why moving HVES kids to Lewis will help solve the issues you think Lewis has.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mmmmkay.

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

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

To suggest that other families should be moved because you don’t believe in the kids at poorer performing schools is doubly disgusting. 🤮

You have to decide at some point, are these kids capable or are they irredeemable? Seems like you shift your view frequently and inconsistently.

Lol projecting much?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps we are not as vocal or have as much time to post as you seem to do, but we do exist and are ready to see some change.

And no I’m not going to explain exactly what that change is.

You’re very vocal, don’t lie.

We know you want equity by bringing the system down to the lowest level. You don’t need to explain it to us!

Haven’t posted in months. Me being a lurker is the only thing you’ve got right about me.

I think it’s ridiculous that all the title 1
ES schools in the area feed into the same high school.
I also think it unfair that children attending schools just a few miles from each other have such vastly differences experiences. If that makes me an equity warrior, so be it.

All shifting the boundaries will do is increase test scores by shifting who is taking the test. The average will increase but that will hide the fact that the poor kids are still scoring low.

Fixing the issue of low scores for low SES families and URM requires the families care about education and that tends not to be the case. You have kids being raised by drop outs or parents who didn’t attend school who were raised by drop outs and parents who didn’t attend school. Eight hours of school, five days a week rarely overcomes the home environment.

I agree, the issue of low scores for low SES families will not be fixed by boundary changes. But it would help students all students have a more equitable experience than their peers just up the road. It might discourage other MC/UMC families like mine from trying to avoiding the school by pupil placing, private, etc., and making the problem worse. The boundary review is a step in the right direction, not a solution intended to fix all problems.

I'm confused by your post. You're trying to say that fixing the issue of low scores for kids from low SES families will make more MC/UMC kids want to go to school with them. But doing that requires a boundary review that transfers MC/UMC kids to schools with low income families. And that's the solution. But that doesn't make any sense. You aren't actually helping lower income kids via more eductional support, etc. You're just trying to move MC/UMC kids in to mask the problem.

She wants other people's kids to move to those schools

DP. I believe all school districts should strive to keep all boundaries as compact as possible.

+1
But, I don't believe in moving kids so scores will go up at those schools.
Improve the school first by attacking the problem.

_

Of course all schools should work on improving education for all students. However, schools can only do so much when students are constantly moving, are absent, and have challenging home lives.

So, by your logic, is it ok to only move kids to another school with similar academic levels? Geography should never be factored in if there is a disparity in scores between neighboring schools?

Does this mean students from wealthier schools should never be redistricted to a lower performing school, despite population changes?

I am trying to figure out your reasoning. Is redistricting good for some, but not for all?

I think we all want good education for all. But, as one of the SB supporters did, we also want to keep our kids where they are.
Of course, when a move is needed because of other reasons, it makes sense. But, not to improve test scores at a school. Putting in wealthier kids does not help poor kids.
The school can teach the kids where they are. And, it starts with being sure all kids in the school can get the courses they need. If they only have a small corhort, it is more challenging, but they should do it anyway.

And, believe me, the School Board is not concerned about improving education. Their concern is improving scores so the school looks better. Meanwhile, the struggling kids continue to struggle.

I'm strongly in favor of compact community schools. But, I also understand people who have attachment to their current schools. Schools fluctuate. A nearby school was more desirable than our in boundary school a few years ago. Now, our school is more desirable according to DCUM.

p.s. I do think that administration plays a HUGE role in a high school. When you read the profile page and the principal talks about DEI rather than academic achievement, it is a little troubling.

Maybe the principal is highlighting DEI to make some underperforming / underrepresented groups want to go to school and be successful.

I’m guessing it’s also hard to talk about academic achievement when there is none.

Academic achievement reflects family income. I am sure you are aware of this. Higher income families at those schools, tend to do well in college admissions, and there is decent support for those kids as well.

I actually prefer my high achievers learn how to be more independent, and learn how to navigate high school with less hand holding. They may not get all the classes they want, but I assume that will also be the case when signing up for college courses. They can practice overcoming adversity at a younger age.

DP - sounds like you appreciated getting to choose where your children go to school. That’s exactly what everyone in the county is looking for.

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

So what? Schools have worsened over time and your response is basically “too bad, so sad” Give me a break!

Nobody is asking or expecting Lewis to become the most sought after HS in FCPS, but please stop gaslighting parents of kids who are in-bound that they should be fine with their place at the bottom. Of course I feel bad about kids who might be moved. But something has to change. We should all want to see improvements at Lewis, even if we don’t agree on what those changes should be.

Well, let's hear your thoughts then. What are the problems at Lewis and what do you think should be done to solve them? Explain specifically why moving HVES kids to Lewis will help solve the issues you think Lewis has.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mmmmkay.

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

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

That’s not what was suggested. Do you expect your neighbor to cut your grass? Or clean your house? It’s your school. Who else would advocate best to make it better than the parents of the kids who go there?

Perhaps, but if the only parents in a position to affect change are already underrepresented, it makes a difficult task damn near impossible.

Again, this is a PUBLIC SCHOOL. That means, this is our just OUR problem to solve alone.

So you’re saying that “underrepresented” or minority parents don’t have the ability to advocate for their kids, so you need white saviors from other parts of the county to do it for them? For real? That’s quite an argument you’re making there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps we are not as vocal or have as much time to post as you seem to do, but we do exist and are ready to see some change.

And no I’m not going to explain exactly what that change is.

You’re very vocal, don’t lie.

We know you want equity by bringing the system down to the lowest level. You don’t need to explain it to us!

Haven’t posted in months. Me being a lurker is the only thing you’ve got right about me.

I think it’s ridiculous that all the title 1
ES schools in the area feed into the same high school.
I also think it unfair that children attending schools just a few miles from each other have such vastly differences experiences. If that makes me an equity warrior, so be it.

All shifting the boundaries will do is increase test scores by shifting who is taking the test. The average will increase but that will hide the fact that the poor kids are still scoring low.

Fixing the issue of low scores for low SES families and URM requires the families care about education and that tends not to be the case. You have kids being raised by drop outs or parents who didn’t attend school who were raised by drop outs and parents who didn’t attend school. Eight hours of school, five days a week rarely overcomes the home environment.

I agree, the issue of low scores for low SES families will not be fixed by boundary changes. But it would help students all students have a more equitable experience than their peers just up the road. It might discourage other MC/UMC families like mine from trying to avoiding the school by pupil placing, private, etc., and making the problem worse. The boundary review is a step in the right direction, not a solution intended to fix all problems.

I'm confused by your post. You're trying to say that fixing the issue of low scores for kids from low SES families will make more MC/UMC kids want to go to school with them. But doing that requires a boundary review that transfers MC/UMC kids to schools with low income families. And that's the solution. But that doesn't make any sense. You aren't actually helping lower income kids via more eductional support, etc. You're just trying to move MC/UMC kids in to mask the problem.

She wants other people's kids to move to those schools

DP. I believe all school districts should strive to keep all boundaries as compact as possible.

+1
But, I don't believe in moving kids so scores will go up at those schools.
Improve the school first by attacking the problem.

_

Of course all schools should work on improving education for all students. However, schools can only do so much when students are constantly moving, are absent, and have challenging home lives.

So, by your logic, is it ok to only move kids to another school with similar academic levels? Geography should never be factored in if there is a disparity in scores between neighboring schools?

Does this mean students from wealthier schools should never be redistricted to a lower performing school, despite population changes?

I am trying to figure out your reasoning. Is redistricting good for some, but not for all?

I think we all want good education for all. But, as one of the SB supporters did, we also want to keep our kids where they are.
Of course, when a move is needed because of other reasons, it makes sense. But, not to improve test scores at a school. Putting in wealthier kids does not help poor kids.
The school can teach the kids where they are. And, it starts with being sure all kids in the school can get the courses they need. If they only have a small corhort, it is more challenging, but they should do it anyway.

And, believe me, the School Board is not concerned about improving education. Their concern is improving scores so the school looks better. Meanwhile, the struggling kids continue to struggle.

I'm strongly in favor of compact community schools. But, I also understand people who have attachment to their current schools. Schools fluctuate. A nearby school was more desirable than our in boundary school a few years ago. Now, our school is more desirable according to DCUM.

p.s. I do think that administration plays a HUGE role in a high school. When you read the profile page and the principal talks about DEI rather than academic achievement, it is a little troubling.

Maybe the principal is highlighting DEI to make some underperforming / underrepresented groups want to go to school and be successful.

I’m guessing it’s also hard to talk about academic achievement when there is none.

Academic achievement reflects family income. I am sure you are aware of this. Higher income families at those schools, tend to do well in college admissions, and there is decent support for those kids as well.

I actually prefer my high achievers learn how to be more independent, and learn how to navigate high school with less hand holding. They may not get all the classes they want, but I assume that will also be the case when signing up for college courses. They can practice overcoming adversity at a younger age.

DP - sounds like you appreciated getting to choose where your children go to school. That’s exactly what everyone in the county is looking for.

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

So what? Schools have worsened over time and your response is basically “too bad, so sad” Give me a break!

Nobody is asking or expecting Lewis to become the most sought after HS in FCPS, but please stop gaslighting parents of kids who are in-bound that they should be fine with their place at the bottom. Of course I feel bad about kids who might be moved. But something has to change. We should all want to see improvements at Lewis, even if we don’t agree on what those changes should be.

Well, let's hear your thoughts then. What are the problems at Lewis and what do you think should be done to solve them? Explain specifically why moving HVES kids to Lewis will help solve the issues you think Lewis has.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mmmmkay.

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

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

That’s not what was suggested. Do you expect your neighbor to cut your grass? Or clean your house? It’s your school. Who else would advocate best to make it better than the parents of the kids who go there?

Perhaps, but if the only parents in a position to affect change are already underrepresented, it makes a difficult task damn near impossible.

Again, this is a PUBLIC SCHOOL. That means, this is our just OUR problem to solve alone.

So you’re saying that “underrepresented” or minority parents don’t have the ability to advocate for their kids, so you need white saviors from other parts of the county to do it for them? For real? That’s quite an argument you’re making there.

Yikes! Actually I was referring to MC/UMC families, of which there are a lot in the area…and surprise! They are not all white.


Careful, your hood showing..

[Anonymous]

I asked the question about potential problems the Lewis poster refused to answer and I'm still left scratching my head as to what it is that needs correction by boundary adjustment. It's impossible to have an honest conversation about it when you don't even know what the perceived issues are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I asked the question about potential problems the Lewis poster refused to answer and I'm still left scratching my head as to what it is that needs correction by boundary adjustment. It's impossible to have an honest conversation about it when you don't even know what the perceived issues are.

I’m the (potential) Lewis parent and I think you missed the part where I said I wasn’t interested in explaining my concerns to this group. This is clearly not an issue that folks not currently zoned for Lewis will agree, and I accept that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps we are not as vocal or have as much time to post as you seem to do, but we do exist and are ready to see some change.

And no I’m not going to explain exactly what that change is.

You’re very vocal, don’t lie.

We know you want equity by bringing the system down to the lowest level. You don’t need to explain it to us!

Haven’t posted in months. Me being a lurker is the only thing you’ve got right about me.

I think it’s ridiculous that all the title 1
ES schools in the area feed into the same high school.
I also think it unfair that children attending schools just a few miles from each other have such vastly differences experiences. If that makes me an equity warrior, so be it.

All shifting the boundaries will do is increase test scores by shifting who is taking the test. The average will increase but that will hide the fact that the poor kids are still scoring low.

Fixing the issue of low scores for low SES families and URM requires the families care about education and that tends not to be the case. You have kids being raised by drop outs or parents who didn’t attend school who were raised by drop outs and parents who didn’t attend school. Eight hours of school, five days a week rarely overcomes the home environment.

I agree, the issue of low scores for low SES families will not be fixed by boundary changes. But it would help students all students have a more equitable experience than their peers just up the road. It might discourage other MC/UMC families like mine from trying to avoiding the school by pupil placing, private, etc., and making the problem worse. The boundary review is a step in the right direction, not a solution intended to fix all problems.

I'm confused by your post. You're trying to say that fixing the issue of low scores for kids from low SES families will make more MC/UMC kids want to go to school with them. But doing that requires a boundary review that transfers MC/UMC kids to schools with low income families. And that's the solution. But that doesn't make any sense. You aren't actually helping lower income kids via more eductional support, etc. You're just trying to move MC/UMC kids in to mask the problem.

She wants other people's kids to move to those schools

DP. I believe all school districts should strive to keep all boundaries as compact as possible.

+1
But, I don't believe in moving kids so scores will go up at those schools.
Improve the school first by attacking the problem.

_

Of course all schools should work on improving education for all students. However, schools can only do so much when students are constantly moving, are absent, and have challenging home lives.

So, by your logic, is it ok to only move kids to another school with similar academic levels? Geography should never be factored in if there is a disparity in scores between neighboring schools?

Does this mean students from wealthier schools should never be redistricted to a lower performing school, despite population changes?

I am trying to figure out your reasoning. Is redistricting good for some, but not for all?

I think we all want good education for all. But, as one of the SB supporters did, we also want to keep our kids where they are.
Of course, when a move is needed because of other reasons, it makes sense. But, not to improve test scores at a school. Putting in wealthier kids does not help poor kids.
The school can teach the kids where they are. And, it starts with being sure all kids in the school can get the courses they need. If they only have a small corhort, it is more challenging, but they should do it anyway.

And, believe me, the School Board is not concerned about improving education. Their concern is improving scores so the school looks better. Meanwhile, the struggling kids continue to struggle.

I'm strongly in favor of compact community schools. But, I also understand people who have attachment to their current schools. Schools fluctuate. A nearby school was more desirable than our in boundary school a few years ago. Now, our school is more desirable according to DCUM.

p.s. I do think that administration plays a HUGE role in a high school. When you read the profile page and the principal talks about DEI rather than academic achievement, it is a little troubling.

Maybe the principal is highlighting DEI to make some underperforming / underrepresented groups want to go to school and be successful.

I’m guessing it’s also hard to talk about academic achievement when there is none.

Academic achievement reflects family income. I am sure you are aware of this. Higher income families at those schools, tend to do well in college admissions, and there is decent support for those kids as well.

I actually prefer my high achievers learn how to be more independent, and learn how to navigate high school with less hand holding. They may not get all the classes they want, but I assume that will also be the case when signing up for college courses. They can practice overcoming adversity at a younger age.

DP - sounds like you appreciated getting to choose where your children go to school. That’s exactly what everyone in the county is looking for.

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

So what? Schools have worsened over time and your response is basically “too bad, so sad” Give me a break!

Nobody is asking or expecting Lewis to become the most sought after HS in FCPS, but please stop gaslighting parents of kids who are in-bound that they should be fine with their place at the bottom. Of course I feel bad about kids who might be moved. But something has to change. We should all want to see improvements at Lewis, even if we don’t agree on what those changes should be.

Well, let's hear your thoughts then. What are the problems at Lewis and what do you think should be done to solve them? Explain specifically why moving HVES kids to Lewis will help solve the issues you think Lewis has.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mmmmkay.

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

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

That's exactly what should happen. The fact that you push back suggests that the school just has a loser mentality, and who wants to be added to that community?

Small groups of dedicated parents, students, and alumni with a clear focus can get FCPS's attention and effect change. It won't happen overnight, and it won't suddently turn a Lewis into a Langley. But it sends others the message that there's a core of people already at the school committed to its improvement, and that they could be part of making further improvements possible. Just being looked at to bail out a bunch of folks with a "woe is me" mentality isn't going to strengthen a school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps we are not as vocal or have as much time to post as you seem to do, but we do exist and are ready to see some change.

And no I’m not going to explain exactly what that change is.

You’re very vocal, don’t lie.

We know you want equity by bringing the system down to the lowest level. You don’t need to explain it to us!

Haven’t posted in months. Me being a lurker is the only thing you’ve got right about me.

I think it’s ridiculous that all the title 1
ES schools in the area feed into the same high school.
I also think it unfair that children attending schools just a few miles from each other have such vastly differences experiences. If that makes me an equity warrior, so be it.

All shifting the boundaries will do is increase test scores by shifting who is taking the test. The average will increase but that will hide the fact that the poor kids are still scoring low.

Fixing the issue of low scores for low SES families and URM requires the families care about education and that tends not to be the case. You have kids being raised by drop outs or parents who didn’t attend school who were raised by drop outs and parents who didn’t attend school. Eight hours of school, five days a week rarely overcomes the home environment.

I agree, the issue of low scores for low SES families will not be fixed by boundary changes. But it would help students all students have a more equitable experience than their peers just up the road. It might discourage other MC/UMC families like mine from trying to avoiding the school by pupil placing, private, etc., and making the problem worse. The boundary review is a step in the right direction, not a solution intended to fix all problems.

I'm confused by your post. You're trying to say that fixing the issue of low scores for kids from low SES families will make more MC/UMC kids want to go to school with them. But doing that requires a boundary review that transfers MC/UMC kids to schools with low income families. And that's the solution. But that doesn't make any sense. You aren't actually helping lower income kids via more eductional support, etc. You're just trying to move MC/UMC kids in to mask the problem.

She wants other people's kids to move to those schools

DP. I believe all school districts should strive to keep all boundaries as compact as possible.

+1
But, I don't believe in moving kids so scores will go up at those schools.
Improve the school first by attacking the problem.

_

Of course all schools should work on improving education for all students. However, schools can only do so much when students are constantly moving, are absent, and have challenging home lives.

So, by your logic, is it ok to only move kids to another school with similar academic levels? Geography should never be factored in if there is a disparity in scores between neighboring schools?

Does this mean students from wealthier schools should never be redistricted to a lower performing school, despite population changes?

I am trying to figure out your reasoning. Is redistricting good for some, but not for all?

I think we all want good education for all. But, as one of the SB supporters did, we also want to keep our kids where they are.
Of course, when a move is needed because of other reasons, it makes sense. But, not to improve test scores at a school. Putting in wealthier kids does not help poor kids.
The school can teach the kids where they are. And, it starts with being sure all kids in the school can get the courses they need. If they only have a small corhort, it is more challenging, but they should do it anyway.

And, believe me, the School Board is not concerned about improving education. Their concern is improving scores so the school looks better. Meanwhile, the struggling kids continue to struggle.

I'm strongly in favor of compact community schools. But, I also understand people who have attachment to their current schools. Schools fluctuate. A nearby school was more desirable than our in boundary school a few years ago. Now, our school is more desirable according to DCUM.

p.s. I do think that administration plays a HUGE role in a high school. When you read the profile page and the principal talks about DEI rather than academic achievement, it is a little troubling.

Maybe the principal is highlighting DEI to make some underperforming / underrepresented groups want to go to school and be successful.

I’m guessing it’s also hard to talk about academic achievement when there is none.

Academic achievement reflects family income. I am sure you are aware of this. Higher income families at those schools, tend to do well in college admissions, and there is decent support for those kids as well.

I actually prefer my high achievers learn how to be more independent, and learn how to navigate high school with less hand holding. They may not get all the classes they want, but I assume that will also be the case when signing up for college courses. They can practice overcoming adversity at a younger age.

DP - sounds like you appreciated getting to choose where your children go to school. That’s exactly what everyone in the county is looking for.

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

So what? Schools have worsened over time and your response is basically “too bad, so sad” Give me a break!

Nobody is asking or expecting Lewis to become the most sought after HS in FCPS, but please stop gaslighting parents of kids who are in-bound that they should be fine with their place at the bottom. Of course I feel bad about kids who might be moved. But something has to change. We should all want to see improvements at Lewis, even if we don’t agree on what those changes should be.

Well, let's hear your thoughts then. What are the problems at Lewis and what do you think should be done to solve them? Explain specifically why moving HVES kids to Lewis will help solve the issues you think Lewis has.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mmmmkay.

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

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

That's exactly what should happen. The fact that you push back suggests that the school just has a loser mentality, and who wants to be added to that community?

Small groups of dedicated parents, students, and alumni with a clear focus can get FCPS's attention and effect change. It won't happen overnight, and it won't suddently turn a Lewis into a Langley. But it sends others the message that there's a core of people already at the school committed to its improvement, and that they could be part of making further improvements possible. Just being looked at to bail out a bunch of folks with a "woe is me" mentality isn't going to strengthen a school.

Ahh the old “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” phrase. Got it. Sound to me like, “pain for thee, not for me..” again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps we are not as vocal or have as much time to post as you seem to do, but we do exist and are ready to see some change.

And no I’m not going to explain exactly what that change is.

You’re very vocal, don’t lie.

We know you want equity by bringing the system down to the lowest level. You don’t need to explain it to us!

Haven’t posted in months. Me being a lurker is the only thing you’ve got right about me.

I think it’s ridiculous that all the title 1
ES schools in the area feed into the same high school.
I also think it unfair that children attending schools just a few miles from each other have such vastly differences experiences. If that makes me an equity warrior, so be it.

All shifting the boundaries will do is increase test scores by shifting who is taking the test. The average will increase but that will hide the fact that the poor kids are still scoring low.

Fixing the issue of low scores for low SES families and URM requires the families care about education and that tends not to be the case. You have kids being raised by drop outs or parents who didn’t attend school who were raised by drop outs and parents who didn’t attend school. Eight hours of school, five days a week rarely overcomes the home environment.

I agree, the issue of low scores for low SES families will not be fixed by boundary changes. But it would help students all students have a more equitable experience than their peers just up the road. It might discourage other MC/UMC families like mine from trying to avoiding the school by pupil placing, private, etc., and making the problem worse. The boundary review is a step in the right direction, not a solution intended to fix all problems.

I'm confused by your post. You're trying to say that fixing the issue of low scores for kids from low SES families will make more MC/UMC kids want to go to school with them. But doing that requires a boundary review that transfers MC/UMC kids to schools with low income families. And that's the solution. But that doesn't make any sense. You aren't actually helping lower income kids via more eductional support, etc. You're just trying to move MC/UMC kids in to mask the problem.

She wants other people's kids to move to those schools

DP. I believe all school districts should strive to keep all boundaries as compact as possible.

+1
But, I don't believe in moving kids so scores will go up at those schools.
Improve the school first by attacking the problem.

_

Of course all schools should work on improving education for all students. However, schools can only do so much when students are constantly moving, are absent, and have challenging home lives.

So, by your logic, is it ok to only move kids to another school with similar academic levels? Geography should never be factored in if there is a disparity in scores between neighboring schools?

Does this mean students from wealthier schools should never be redistricted to a lower performing school, despite population changes?

I am trying to figure out your reasoning. Is redistricting good for some, but not for all?

I think we all want good education for all. But, as one of the SB supporters did, we also want to keep our kids where they are.
Of course, when a move is needed because of other reasons, it makes sense. But, not to improve test scores at a school. Putting in wealthier kids does not help poor kids.
The school can teach the kids where they are. And, it starts with being sure all kids in the school can get the courses they need. If they only have a small corhort, it is more challenging, but they should do it anyway.

And, believe me, the School Board is not concerned about improving education. Their concern is improving scores so the school looks better. Meanwhile, the struggling kids continue to struggle.

I'm strongly in favor of compact community schools. But, I also understand people who have attachment to their current schools. Schools fluctuate. A nearby school was more desirable than our in boundary school a few years ago. Now, our school is more desirable according to DCUM.

p.s. I do think that administration plays a HUGE role in a high school. When you read the profile page and the principal talks about DEI rather than academic achievement, it is a little troubling.

Maybe the principal is highlighting DEI to make some underperforming / underrepresented groups want to go to school and be successful.

I’m guessing it’s also hard to talk about academic achievement when there is none.

Academic achievement reflects family income. I am sure you are aware of this. Higher income families at those schools, tend to do well in college admissions, and there is decent support for those kids as well.

I actually prefer my high achievers learn how to be more independent, and learn how to navigate high school with less hand holding. They may not get all the classes they want, but I assume that will also be the case when signing up for college courses. They can practice overcoming adversity at a younger age.

DP - sounds like you appreciated getting to choose where your children go to school. That’s exactly what everyone in the county is looking for.

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

So what? Schools have worsened over time and your response is basically “too bad, so sad” Give me a break!

Nobody is asking or expecting Lewis to become the most sought after HS in FCPS, but please stop gaslighting parents of kids who are in-bound that they should be fine with their place at the bottom. Of course I feel bad about kids who might be moved. But something has to change. We should all want to see improvements at Lewis, even if we don’t agree on what those changes should be.

Well, let's hear your thoughts then. What are the problems at Lewis and what do you think should be done to solve them? Explain specifically why moving HVES kids to Lewis will help solve the issues you think Lewis has.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mmmmkay.

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

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

That's exactly what should happen. The fact that you push back suggests that the school just has a loser mentality, and who wants to be added to that community?

Small groups of dedicated parents, students, and alumni with a clear focus can get FCPS's attention and effect change. It won't happen overnight, and it won't suddently turn a Lewis into a Langley. But it sends others the message that there's a core of people already at the school committed to its improvement, and that they could be part of making further improvements possible. Just being looked at to bail out a bunch of folks with a "woe is me" mentality isn't going to strengthen a school.

Ahh the old “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” phrase. Got it. Sound to me like, “pain for thee, not for me..” again.

Rezoning a bunch of families past 5 elementary schools zoned for their neighborhood high school, plus a major traffic interchange and a couple of elementary schools zoned for your high school is not going to create the positive school improvement that you think it will.