FCPS Boundary Review - New Maps

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I think there's something there. I think that's partly what happened on the West Springfield Facebook group yesterday, too. Groundwork is being set by SB allies now for new maps that are going to look a lot different from what they've released so far.

[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.

Interesting that you come back to the concept of "pain" when others are focusing on "improvement."

It's as if you think your dissatisfaction can only be diminished if others are equally unhappy. One starts to think there are some deeper problems at play here that transcend whatever challenges Lewis HS may be facing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I think there's something there. I think that's partly what happened on the West Springfield Facebook group yesterday, too. Groundwork is being set by SB allies now for new maps that are going to look a lot different from what they've released so far.

I have my tinfoil hat on about this too. I think they were spooked away from equity changes right after the 2024 elections, but now enough time has passed that they feel energized to get back to it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Interesting that you come back to the concept of "pain" when others are focusing on "improvement."

It's as if you think your dissatisfaction can only be diminished if others are equally unhappy. One starts to think there are some deeper problems at play here that transcend whatever challenges Lewis HS may be facing.

+1. Misery loves company.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I think there's something there. I think that's partly what happened on the West Springfield Facebook group yesterday, too. Groundwork is being set by SB allies now for new maps that are going to look a lot different from what they've released so far.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I think there's something there. I think that's partly what happened on the West Springfield Facebook group yesterday, too. Groundwork is being set by SB allies now for new maps that are going to look a lot different from what they've released so far.

I have my tinfoil hat on about this too. I think they were spooked away from equity changes right after the 2024 elections, but now enough time has passed that they feel energized to get back to it.

Except the policy, which doesn’t even say “equity” or contain any criteria that mention “equity”, was approved prior to the 2024 elections. Nice try though, MAGA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

You’re very vocal, don’t lie.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But you knew what the area and the school’s reputation was like when you bought there … and you paid less than some of the surrounding areas as well.

Yes, we bought and paid for what we could afford at the time. So now, years later, despite the fact that the school struggles have gotten significantly worse over the years, we should just accept that? You love to advocate for the mental health of your kids and ”keeping our communities together” but our kids should just suck it up and deal or better yet, move or pupil place or private…no fcks given about OUR kids or communities.

But I’m the selfish one?

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

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

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

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

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

Agreed - at one point, Marshall was considered "dangerous", and now it's considered a really good school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I think there's something there. I think that's partly what happened on the West Springfield Facebook group yesterday, too. Groundwork is being set by SB allies now for new maps that are going to look a lot different from what they've released so far.

"School Board Allies?" Are you even listening to yourself? You sound like a conspiracy theorist!!! Take off the tin foil hat, LOL!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I think there's something there. I think that's partly what happened on the West Springfield Facebook group yesterday, too. Groundwork is being set by SB allies now for new maps that are going to look a lot different from what they've released so far.

I have my tinfoil hat on about this too. I think they were spooked away from equity changes right after the 2024 elections, but now enough time has passed that they feel energized to get back to it.

Except the policy, which doesn’t even say “equity” or contain any criteria that mention “equity”, was approved prior to the 2024 elections. Nice try though, MAGA.

It has “equitable access” as one of the top priorities. No one has any idea what this means. They could use “equitable access” to mean anything at all. It’s concerning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I think there's something there. I think that's partly what happened on the West Springfield Facebook group yesterday, too. Groundwork is being set by SB allies now for new maps that are going to look a lot different from what they've released so far.

"School Board Allies?" Are you even listening to yourself? You sound like a conspiracy theorist!!! Take off the tin foil hat, LOL!

It's not too far out there to think that SB members who want something different than what Thru Consulting served up in May/June have been talking to their friends and political allies about socializing the idea of very different (and more aggressive from an equity perspective) boundary changes this fall. Someone mentioned Laura Jane Cohen, who's not on the SB now but used to be, piping up irecently n support of moving kids out of WSHS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I think there's something there. I think that's partly what happened on the West Springfield Facebook group yesterday, too. Groundwork is being set by SB allies now for new maps that are going to look a lot different from what they've released so far.

"School Board Allies?" Are you even listening to yourself? You sound like a conspiracy theorist!!! Take off the tin foil hat, LOL!

DP. It's not a tinfoil hat:
Look at the BRAC committee. We know that something happened with #35. Did we ever get a real explanation?
Look at the 3rd person at Woodson.
Look at the organizations that have representatives--lots of them are strong School Board supporters.

The idea of pyramid "reps" sounds good, but let's all face it--do you think they are going to kick their neighborhoods out of their districts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm in the WSHS pyramid and it basically boils down to A. those (who are safe from being moved) who want others to be moved and B. those (at risk of being moved) who don't want to go.

You don't see anyone in favor of boundary review volunteering to pupil place their kids out of WSHS for the common good.

I'm in the HVES neighborhood (with kids at WSHS currently) and personally am not philosophically opposed to a boundary review but feel this is a bandaid and doesn't truly address underlying enrollment issues.

It will be interesting what the real maps look like.

If FCPS wants to rezone part of WSHS to Lewis, the neighborhoods that make the most sense are either Daventry (from West Springfield Elementary) or on the other side of Keene Mill Road, the neighborhoods from the Greeley stoplight to Tiverton near St. Bernadette Church (from Keene Mill Elementary) Both of those neighborhoods are the closest West Springfield High School neighborhoods to Lewis. Either one would make perfect sense to get rezoned to Lewis, if FCPS is trying to fill Lewis.

In the other direction, Gambrill Rd outside the Parkway (from Hunt Valley) is the closest to South County and the farthest from Lewis. If FCPS is trying to add to South County, the current Thru maps make sense to send some of the Gambril neighborhoods to SoCo. Sending that neighborhood to Lewis would be foolish.

The third option is the least disruptive and makes the most sense for WSHS. That option is sending all of Sangster to Lake Braddock, which is one of Thru's suggestions

Right now, there are supposedly several hundred houses, that split from the rest of Sangster and go to Irving, which is farther than Lake Braddock Middle School, and WSHS, which is about the same distance as Lake Braddock.

Keeping all of Sangster together and sending the entire school to Lake Braddock makes far more sense than rezoning any of the other WSHS neighborhoods.

Since your first point is the one I’m most familiar with, no it doesn’t make sense to move Keene Mill or Daventry kids out of WSHS because it will create more split feeders either at the elementary or middle school level. Also many of those kids walk to middle or high school.

And since that was so off, I’m guessing the rest of your post is nonsense tool.

Thru is creating lots of splot feeders, including within the WSHS pyramid.

Daventry is the most recent neighborhood to get rezoned from Lewis (then Lee) to WSHS. According to the Springfield school board rep, Daventry is the reason why WSHS is overcrowded. Daventry should be the first school rezoned back out, since Thru is alrrady creating multiple split feeders on their maps.

Daventry, and the homes zoned for Keene Mill Elementary, from Greeley to Tiverton ard closer to Lewis than WSHS.

If any WSHS neighborhoods are to get rezoned to Lewis, it should be those neighborhoods due to proximity to Lewis and especially Daventry having the most recent connection to Lewis.

They only created Hunt valley split feeders from Thru. IF they took Keene Mill (almost all walk to Irving) then they would get rid of walkers or do a split feeder at middle school. Many Keene mill kids walk to WSHS. IF they took Daventry, that would be a split feeders from West Springfield as many of those kids walk to Irving.

It seems like you aren’t familiar with the neighborhoods. The kids who are already on a bus, and will always be on a bus to go to middle and high are kids from Hunt Valley, Orange Hunt and some parts of Rolling Valley.

Why make more bus routes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I think there's something there. I think that's partly what happened on the West Springfield Facebook group yesterday, too. Groundwork is being set by SB allies now for new maps that are going to look a lot different from what they've released so far.

"School Board Allies?" Are you even listening to yourself? You sound like a conspiracy theorist!!! Take off the tin foil hat, LOL!

DP. It's not a tinfoil hat:
Look at the BRAC committee. We know that something happened with #35. Did we ever get a real explanation?
Look at the 3rd person at Woodson.
Look at the organizations that have representatives--lots of them are strong School Board supporters.

The idea of pyramid "reps" sounds good, but let's all face it--do you think they are going to kick their neighborhoods out of their districts?

I agree- and both WSHS reps come from Hunt Valley- I’m sure they dont’ really care that other neighborhoods get kicked out of WSHS.
Hunt Valley PTA sends out their names in news letters. I have kids at other schools in the district and never do we get told to email our BRAC members like Hunt Valley did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I think there's something there. I think that's partly what happened on the West Springfield Facebook group yesterday, too. Groundwork is being set by SB allies now for new maps that are going to look a lot different from what they've released so far.

"School Board Allies?" Are you even listening to yourself? You sound like a conspiracy theorist!!! Take off the tin foil hat, LOL!

DP. It's not a tinfoil hat:
Look at the BRAC committee. We know that something happened with #35. Did we ever get a real explanation?
Look at the 3rd person at Woodson.
Look at the organizations that have representatives--lots of them are strong School Board supporters.

The idea of pyramid "reps" sounds good, but let's all face it--do you think they are going to kick their neighborhoods out of their districts?

I agree- and both WSHS reps come from Hunt Valley- I’m sure they dont’ really care that other neighborhoods get kicked out of WSHS.
Hunt Valley PTA sends out their names in news letters. I have kids at other schools in the district and never do we get told to email our BRAC members like Hunt Valley did.

Hunt Valley PTA shared the emails of the WS reps as an FYI. I never got any emails from the PTA telling people to do anything. I’m deep in this stupid process and I’ve never heard from (or ever contacted) either rep. If the reps were so pro-Hunt Valley why were we the only ones to get kicked out of WSHS in the Thru maps?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I think there's something there. I think that's partly what happened on the West Springfield Facebook group yesterday, too. Groundwork is being set by SB allies now for new maps that are going to look a lot different from what they've released so far.

I have my tinfoil hat on about this too. I think they were spooked away from equity changes right after the 2024 elections, but now enough time has passed that they feel energized to get back to it.

Except the policy, which doesn’t even say “equity” or contain any criteria that mention “equity”, was approved prior to the 2024 elections. Nice try though, MAGA.

It has “equitable access” as one of the top priorities. No one has any idea what this means. They could use “equitable access” to mean anything at all. It’s concerning.

Your evidence of the vast left wing conspiracy is “equitable access”? Wow. Truly iron clad, rock solid evidence.