FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I had the same thought. It is supposed to be focused on equitable access but there are really no concrete action items here that make sense. The gist seems to be that black, hispanic, and english learners take fewer advanced classes and we should figure out how to get them to take more. Maybe we need to offer more advanced classes that would be interesting to them. Absolutely nothing actionable about how to get students better prepared to take advanced clasess in the first place. Typical FCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I had the same thought. It is supposed to be focused on equitable access but there are really no concrete action items here that make sense. The gist seems to be that black, hispanic, and english learners take fewer advanced classes and we should figure out how to get them to take more. Maybe we need to offer more advanced classes that would be interesting to them. Absolutely nothing actionable about how to get students better prepared to take advanced clasess in the first place. Typical FCPS.

or, alternatively, we could put everyone in basic English and general math. EQUITY

[Anonymous]

I believe FCPS needs to pause the boundary review for at least one year as a result of the significant changes occurring specifically in our region since January 2025.

If you agree, please reach out to your school board member and any/all other local politicians with this local news from WJLA:


https://wjla.com/news/local/federal-workforce...economy-major-bowser

“ The Trump administration’s cuts to the federal workforce are expected to result in a $1 billion deficit over the next three years, the report estimates."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I had the same thought. It is supposed to be focused on equitable access but there are really no concrete action items here that make sense. The gist seems to be that black, hispanic, and english learners take fewer advanced classes and we should figure out how to get them to take more. Maybe we need to offer more advanced classes that would be interesting to them. Absolutely nothing actionable about how to get students better prepared to take advanced clasess in the first place. Typical FCPS.

or, alternatively, we could put everyone in basic English and general math. EQUITY

This is pretty dumb. Either AP or IB is offered in every high school. If english learners aren't taking advanced classes, it isn't because the classes aren't available.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I believe FCPS needs to pause the boundary review for at least one year as a result of the significant changes occurring specifically in our region since January 2025.

If you agree, please reach out to your school board member and any/all other local politicians with this local news from WJLA:


https://wjla.com/news/local/federal-workforce...economy-major-bowser

“ The Trump administration’s cuts to the federal workforce are expected to result in a $1 billion deficit over the next three years, the report estimates."

The school age population is going to decline as a result of this administration, just general declines of number of children being born, and more people moving to the outer suburbs in Loudoun and PWC. I think FCPS is in denial about this. There will be small, concentrated areas of population increase, but overall a decline.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I had the same thought. It is supposed to be focused on equitable access but there are really no concrete action items here that make sense. The gist seems to be that black, hispanic, and english learners take fewer advanced classes and we should figure out how to get them to take more. Maybe we need to offer more advanced classes that would be interesting to them. Absolutely nothing actionable about how to get students better prepared to take advanced clasess in the first place. Typical FCPS.

Where is this posted?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I had the same thought. It is supposed to be focused on equitable access but there are really no concrete action items here that make sense. The gist seems to be that black, hispanic, and english learners take fewer advanced classes and we should figure out how to get them to take more. Maybe we need to offer more advanced classes that would be interesting to them. Absolutely nothing actionable about how to get students better prepared to take advanced clasess in the first place. Typical FCPS.

Where is this posted?

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/vpublic?open

see attachments

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I had the same thought. It is supposed to be focused on equitable access but there are really no concrete action items here that make sense. The gist seems to be that black, hispanic, and english learners take fewer advanced classes and we should figure out how to get them to take more. Maybe we need to offer more advanced classes that would be interesting to them. Absolutely nothing actionable about how to get students better prepared to take advanced clasess in the first place. Typical FCPS.

Where is this posted?

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/vpublic?open

see attachments

reports are under the meeting Tuesday, March 11

[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.”

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.

You may be just saying that NOW, but before, you (or other posters) were rudely inserting tiger moms, saying if you don’t want your kid in advanced math, you shouldn’t be on this forum and mistakenly saying that college acceptance hinges on Algebra in 8th.

And yes, if it is a goal to have kids take Algebra in 8th there will be LOTs of pressure on teachers and by administration to get your kid, my kids and all kids in Algebra. Then, when the kids aren’t ready, the teachers will have to provide lots of remediation and slow the classes down or deal with more behavior issues so the kids who are struggling can get help. It isn’t ideal.

[Anonymous]

And yes, if it is a goal to have kids take Algebra in 8th there will be LOTs of pressure on teachers and by administration to get your kid, my kids and all kids in Algebra. Then, when the kids aren’t ready, the teachers will have to provide lots of remediation and slow the classes down or deal with more behavior issues so the kids who are struggling can get help. It isn’t ideal.

I would much rather have a child understand basic math skills before taking Algebra. I'm not sure that is Reid's goal.
I am not sure she really understands pedagogy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I had the same thought. It is supposed to be focused on equitable access but there are really no concrete action items here that make sense. The gist seems to be that black, hispanic, and english learners take fewer advanced classes and we should figure out how to get them to take more. Maybe we need to offer more advanced classes that would be interesting to them. Absolutely nothing actionable about how to get students better prepared to take advanced clasess in the first place. Typical FCPS.

Where is this posted?

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/vpublic?open

see attachments

reports are under the meeting Tuesday, March 11

Gosh these websites are so bad

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Your kid can take Japanese online.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I had the same thought. It is supposed to be focused on equitable access but there are really no concrete action items here that make sense. The gist seems to be that black, hispanic, and english learners take fewer advanced classes and we should figure out how to get them to take more. Maybe we need to offer more advanced classes that would be interesting to them. Absolutely nothing actionable about how to get students better prepared to take advanced clasess in the first place. Typical FCPS.

Where is this posted?

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/vpublic?open

see attachments

reports are under the meeting Tuesday, March 11

Interesting. Strategy #4 mentions expansions of AP/DE and FCPS online. Maybe they will be brining more AP and dual enrollment courses to the schools that don’t have them currently.

Some of the language and math discussion on this thread could be brought to FCPS Online for equitable access.

I do think they are going to attempt severing all transfer excuses to make students return to home base schools. After that, assess true capacity and make boundary changes as needed.

[Anonymous]

Online AP classes for kids forced to attend IB is not equitable. Online is an inferior option and should not be the option offered kids who have no say in what their school offers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Your kid can take Japanese online.

If that’s the only option made available to some kids that should be the only option for all kids.