FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand all the difficulty around languages. I went to a rural Virginia school and took Latin back in the 90's. It was broadcast via satellite TV and the librarian recorded it for me to watch. I had to call the teacher in her office if my name was called on in class that day.

With the internet and things like zoom I don't understand why any language can't be offered electronically today. We certainly shouldn't be pupil placing kids to different schools for it.

We can limit instruction in some languages to online classes, but we certainly shouldn’t be offering language instruction in person at some schools if students at other schools can’t pupil place into those classes. That is the definition of inequitable access to programming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the big advantage of 6-8? I can understand that this may have happened in some schools because of numbers, but why do it throughout the county.

I prefer 1-6. Just because much of the country does it, does not make it best.

Accelerated math, science and the arts. Kids who start advanced math in 7th are already behind, even if they start with algebra.

Already behind if kids take Algebra in 7th grade? Honestly, I completely disagree. Pushing math doesn’t really help kids. I am gainfully employed with a Masters degree and I took Algebra in 8th. Kids have to go to college and if you max out math in high school
1. Colleges won’t even take the math credit if you major in math, so you end up retaking
2. Even having had calculus in high school, I never took math again in college. So why push harder if you never use it.

THis reeks of a social justice platform. Something like: Make sure ALL kids take Algebra in middle school.

I dont’ even want my white middle of the road student to take it until he is READY. Why push this?

Not sure who is making your kid take Algebra in MS - your kid can take Algebra in HS. If you don't like the fact that college admission might be impacted then roll the dice like everyone else. Making it available for a tiger mom shouldn't and doesn't force anything on you. A good school provides opportunity - the choice is up to you to use it or not. There's band not everyone uses that - it's there if you want it.

Pretty sure Dr. Reid says her goal is to have ALL kids take Algebra in 8th. so, the superintendent is “making OUR kids” take Algebra in middle school. It is part of the “strategic plan” SHe has also used this as a reason to make middle school 6-8.

“ Helping students to complete Algebra 1 by eighth grade is part of our Strategic Plan (Goal 3: Academic Growth and Excellence). The Algebra Access Network Improvement Community (AANIC) is working to increase the diverse representation of students who take advanced math classes and succeed in them. Learn more about the AANIC cohorts at Kilmer and Key middle schools and hear students explain why algebra matters to them.”

Don't almost all FCPS students take Algebra 1 by 8th grade?

That is not some mind blowing idea that Reid suddenly invented

DP. All three of my FCPS students took Algebra as 9th graders and all three had excellent college admissions results. Who is it who keeps insisting students have to take Algebra in 6th grade for college application purposes? So, so stupid.

The superintendent?

it's already established that Reid is a puppet for the SB and everything she says should be taken with a grain of salt. FCPS would establish an inmate rehabilitation program and place convicts among our children if meant they could shuffle things around for their desired equity outcomes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We can limit instruction in some languages to online classes, but we certainly shouldn’t be offering language instruction in person at some schools if students at other schools can’t pupil place into those classes. That is the definition of inequitable access to programming.

Now you're just being difficult on purpose because you want pupil placement to stick around. Next you'll be saying no school can offer a particular sport because some other high school didn't have enough interest. Or sorry, Larla can't play that instrument because random school on the other side of the county doesn't have anyone playing it.
Online language meets the equitable access requirement just fine if a particular school doesn't have enough kids interested in a particular language to justify staffing a teacher for it. In my case above, the Latin teacher I had via satellite was a much better teacher than the French teacher I had at the same school. I also took AP Statistics that same way and had a much better experience with that versus taking AP Calculus the year before "in person" as the only student (independent study) and only having access to a teacher for questions during what was supposed to be her planning period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the big advantage of 6-8? I can understand that this may have happened in some schools because of numbers, but why do it throughout the county.

I prefer 1-6. Just because much of the country does it, does not make it best.

Accelerated math, science and the arts. Kids who start advanced math in 7th are already behind, even if they start with algebra.

Already behind if kids take Algebra in 7th grade? Honestly, I completely disagree. Pushing math doesn’t really help kids. I am gainfully employed with a Masters degree and I took Algebra in 8th. Kids have to go to college and if you max out math in high school
1. Colleges won’t even take the math credit if you major in math, so you end up retaking
2. Even having had calculus in high school, I never took math again in college. So why push harder if you never use it.

THis reeks of a social justice platform. Something like: Make sure ALL kids take Algebra in middle school.

I dont’ even want my white middle of the road student to take it until he is READY. Why push this?

Not sure who is making your kid take Algebra in MS - your kid can take Algebra in HS. If you don't like the fact that college admission might be impacted then roll the dice like everyone else. Making it available for a tiger mom shouldn't and doesn't force anything on you. A good school provides opportunity - the choice is up to you to use it or not. There's band not everyone uses that - it's there if you want it.

Pretty sure Dr. Reid says her goal is to have ALL kids take Algebra in 8th. so, the superintendent is “making OUR kids” take Algebra in middle school. It is part of the “strategic plan” SHe has also used this as a reason to make middle school 6-8.

“ Helping students to complete Algebra 1 by eighth grade is part of our Strategic Plan (Goal 3: Academic Growth and Excellence). The Algebra Access Network Improvement Community (AANIC) is working to increase the diverse representation of students who take advanced math classes and succeed in them. Learn more about the AANIC cohorts at Kilmer and Key middle schools and hear students explain why algebra matters to them.”

To finish the quote "A recent study from the Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) found that completing Algebra 1 by eighth grade led to 30% more ninth graders and 16% more 11th graders taking advanced courses. ".

This sounds like a good goal to make available; if you don't want your kid to do it then don't do it. The minimum requirement to graduate HS is Algebra II.

Most parents want their kids to do advanced math, so the complaint is the edge case where the kid isn't ready? Then the kid isn't ready. Algebra 1 in 9th isn't mandatory. Just looks like something to complain about. Why are you on this forum if you don't want your kid to get ahead?

I”m not complaining, I’m fixing your erroneous idea that “it is entirely up to you” When you clearly don’t know what the Superintendent is aiming for and why this is yet another equity issue driving new boundaries.

IF you take Algebra 1 in 9th that puts you in AP pre-calc senior year. What does “advanced math” consist of to you?

Saying all kids need to take calculus in high school is unnecessary.

I'm saying Reid has a goal - FCPS has a requirement. Algebra by 8th is a goal and Algebra by 11 is. a requirement. No one is forcing advanced math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We can limit instruction in some languages to online classes, but we certainly shouldn’t be offering language instruction in person at some schools if students at other schools can’t pupil place into those classes. That is the definition of inequitable access to programming.

Now you're just being difficult on purpose because you want pupil placement to stick around. Next you'll be saying no school can offer a particular sport because some other high school didn't have enough interest. Or sorry, Larla can't play that instrument because random school on the other side of the county doesn't have anyone playing it.
Online language meets the equitable access requirement just fine if a particular school doesn't have enough kids interested in a particular language to justify staffing a teacher for it. In my case above, the Latin teacher I had via satellite was a much better teacher than the French teacher I had at the same school. I also took AP Statistics that same way and had a much better experience with that versus taking AP Calculus the year before "in person" as the only student (independent study) and only having access to a teacher for questions during what was supposed to be her planning period.

Agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are now just 2 options under consideration, but that might change again.

Option #1

Return everyone to their base school

What does this mean?

Eliminate AAP centers and close AP/IB/language transfers.

+1
This makes so much sense, we can be sure they won't do it.

No one should be stuck at an IB school without transfer options, nor should some schools be allowed to offer languages that kids at other schools have no ability to access.

I agree on IB but disagree on the languages. There are areas of the county that have a higher concentration of people with the same ethnic heritage and teaching their heritage language makes sense. I am not sure that offering Hindi at every school is necessary but I am sure that there are schools were Hindi would be greatly appreciated. I am guessing that Japanese Immersion and Korean Immersion emerged where they did due to a concentration of Japanese and Korean speakers.

The only school I have heard singled out as a target school for a language is Langley with Russian. I know some kids from SLHS transfer to Oakton for AP and Japanese but that is a pretty small number. I don't get the impression that language is used as a reason to justify transfers that often.

Every school should offer Spanish and French. Chinese is not likely to be offered at too many schools because it is such a hard language too learn. I know Carson had it on the books last year at the MS but it was cancelled due to low enrollment. I think it would be good to offer ASL at every school. It is a great language class for kids who struggle with languages, and it would be meet a need in society as a whole.

My kids have Scots-Irish heritage on both sides of their family. I would have LOVED Gaelic as an option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We can limit instruction in some languages to online classes, but we certainly shouldn’t be offering language instruction in person at some schools if students at other schools can’t pupil place into those classes. That is the definition of inequitable access to programming.

Now you're just being difficult on purpose because you want pupil placement to stick around. Next you'll be saying no school can offer a particular sport because some other high school didn't have enough interest. Or sorry, Larla can't play that instrument because random school on the other side of the county doesn't have anyone playing it.
Online language meets the equitable access requirement just fine if a particular school doesn't have enough kids interested in a particular language to justify staffing a teacher for it. In my case above, the Latin teacher I had via satellite was a much better teacher than the French teacher I had at the same school. I also took AP Statistics that same way and had a much better experience with that versus taking AP Calculus the year before "in person" as the only student (independent study) and only having access to a teacher for questions during what was supposed to be her planning period.

In general, in-person instruction is understood to be superior to online instruction for learning a foreign language.

FCPS has a choice: it can offer certain languages only online, or it can offer certain languages in person and allow students at schools not offering those languages to pupil place into those schools. However, it's wholly inconsistent with the principle of equitable access to programming to offer certain language courses in person at some schools while not providing students at other schools a pupil placement option.

Those at certain schools that offer a robust set of languages want to preserve that privilege while eliminating any risk of being redistricted themselves, so they argue in favor of requiring every student to attend their base school without a pupil placement option. That's freezing existing privileges, rather than addressing current inequitities, and it is not an option the School Board should consider.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are now just 2 options under consideration, but that might change again.

Option #1

Return everyone to their base school

What does this mean?

Eliminate AAP centers and close AP/IB/language transfers.

+1
This makes so much sense, we can be sure they won't do it.

No one should be stuck at an IB school without transfer options, nor should some schools be allowed to offer languages that kids at other schools have no ability to access.

I agree on IB but disagree on the languages. There are areas of the county that have a higher concentration of people with the same ethnic heritage and teaching their heritage language makes sense. I am not sure that offering Hindi at every school is necessary but I am sure that there are schools were Hindi would be greatly appreciated. I am guessing that Japanese Immersion and Korean Immersion emerged where they did due to a concentration of Japanese and Korean speakers.

The only school I have heard singled out as a target school for a language is Langley with Russian. I know some kids from SLHS transfer to Oakton for AP and Japanese but that is a pretty small number. I don't get the impression that language is used as a reason to justify transfers that often.

Every school should offer Spanish and French. Chinese is not likely to be offered at too many schools because it is such a hard language too learn. I know Carson had it on the books last year at the MS but it was cancelled due to low enrollment. I think it would be good to offer ASL at every school. It is a great language class for kids who struggle with languages, and it would be meet a need in society as a whole.

My kids have Scots-Irish heritage on both sides of their family. I would have LOVED Gaelic as an option.

And if there was a part of Fairfax County that had a population of Gaelic speakers that could reasonably fill a class i would be fully in support of holding said class. But I don't think that exists. Carson, one of the MS with a high concentration of Chinese students, couldn't get Chinese off the ground. I don't see the Gaelic contingent being able to pull it off.

Korean Immersion used to be at more schools but has scaled back to one, due to where students are concentrated. There are always rumors that Japanese might be scaled back to one ES, I know it was dropped at TJ recently. The County drops languages when there is not enough interest to fill a class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In general, in-person instruction is understood to be superior to online instruction for learning a foreign language.

FCPS has a choice: it can offer certain languages only online, or it can offer certain languages in person and allow students at schools not offering those languages to pupil place into those schools. However, it's wholly inconsistent with the principle of equitable access to programming to offer certain language courses in person at some schools while not providing students at other schools a pupil placement option.

Repeating your opinion over and over doesn't make it true.

[Anonymous]

Has anyone looked at the gibberish in the agenda for the work session next week? It may possibly have an impact on boundaries, though I'm still trying to translate it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In general, in-person instruction is understood to be superior to online instruction for learning a foreign language.

FCPS has a choice: it can offer certain languages only online, or it can offer certain languages in person and allow students at schools not offering those languages to pupil place into those schools. However, it's wholly inconsistent with the principle of equitable access to programming to offer certain language courses in person at some schools while not providing students at other schools a pupil placement option.

Repeating your opinion over and over doesn't make it true.

The first assertion is backed by research and the remainder aligns with FCPS’s stated goals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In general, in-person instruction is understood to be superior to online instruction for learning a foreign language.

FCPS has a choice: it can offer certain languages only online, or it can offer certain languages in person and allow students at schools not offering those languages to pupil place into those schools. However, it's wholly inconsistent with the principle of equitable access to programming to offer certain language courses in person at some schools while not providing students at other schools a pupil placement option.

Repeating your opinion over and over doesn't make it true.

The first assertion is backed by research and the remainder aligns with FCPS’s stated goals.

DP. But, it is also used as an excuse to transfer.

Sure, the first assertion is likely true. If they really want to take the language and it is not offered at base school, then they could have the option of taking a language in person or do it online.

Otherwise, we are limited to only a couple of languages if every school has to be the same. And, there you go for the second assertion--that everything has to be the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In general, in-person instruction is understood to be superior to online instruction for learning a foreign language.

FCPS has a choice: it can offer certain languages only online, or it can offer certain languages in person and allow students at schools not offering those languages to pupil place into those schools. However, it's wholly inconsistent with the principle of equitable access to programming to offer certain language courses in person at some schools while not providing students at other schools a pupil placement option.

Repeating your opinion over and over doesn't make it true.

The first assertion is backed by research and the remainder aligns with FCPS’s stated goals.

DP. But, it is also used as an excuse to transfer.

Sure, the first assertion is likely true. If they really want to take the language and it is not offered at base school, then they could have the option of taking a language in person or do it online.

Otherwise, we are limited to only a couple of languages if every school has to be the same. And, there you go for the second assertion--that everything has to be the same.

Every school need not be the same but all students should at least have an option to study the same languages somewhere in person as other students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In general, in-person instruction is understood to be superior to online instruction for learning a foreign language.

FCPS has a choice: it can offer certain languages only online, or it can offer certain languages in person and allow students at schools not offering those languages to pupil place into those schools. However, it's wholly inconsistent with the principle of equitable access to programming to offer certain language courses in person at some schools while not providing students at other schools a pupil placement option.

Repeating your opinion over and over doesn't make it true.

The first assertion is backed by research and the remainder aligns with FCPS’s stated goals.

DP. But, it is also used as an excuse to transfer.

Sure, the first assertion is likely true. If they really want to take the language and it is not offered at base school, then they could have the option of taking a language in person or do it online.

Otherwise, we are limited to only a couple of languages if every school has to be the same. And, there you go for the second assertion--that everything has to be the same.

Every school need not be the same but all students should at least have an option to study the same languages somewhere in person as other students.

Sounds like someone wants to get out of the in boundary school........

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I expect Reid is going to be in for a world of pain if they try to move kids from West Potomac to Mount Vernon, Woodson to Annandale, McLean to Marshall, or Lake Braddock to Robinson, and people object to being moved to IB schools. We absolutely will not send our kids to an IB school.

Curious - are you currently zoned for an IB zone but attending another for AP?

I wonder if this is what they are assessing when they state “assessing everyone back at their home schools?”

NP. We are zoned for Mount Vernon, but cannot get a transfer for AP to West Potomac or Hayfield. The only option the transfer portal offered was South County. There is no way I am driving my kid to South County everyday.