FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[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.

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.

Agree, but I think the PP was being sarcastic.

[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.

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.

Agree, but I think the PP was being sarcastic.

I am "the PP." You are correct. Amazed that so many people do not understand sarcasm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I agree with AP online. I’m saying if they made all AP available at ALL schools, that would decrease the transfer loophole.

The language could be online for those with smaller interest groups vs again, using that as an excuse to transfer out of an undesirable school.

Bring valued base education to all schools, offer online options for niche languages.

[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. . . .

Are referring specifically to the AP African American Studies course ?

[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. . . .

Are referring specifically to the AP African American Studies course ?

You could offer me multivariable calculus. Guess what would happen? Truancy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Talk about trying to drag the county down to the lowest common denominator.
For sure you are just someone who has used the language loophole to transfer out.
We’re at Robinson which does not have any “fancy” languages just the normal ones. It’s fine and an online option for the few kids that may want Japanese or Russian seems entirely fair. But then again I am not trying to wriggle out of my zoned school….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Agree, but I think the PP was being sarcastic.

I am "the PP." You are correct. Amazed that so many people do not understand sarcasm.

I wasn’t trying to respond to you directly. I was commenting on the stupidity of the school board study. They seem to think people aren’t taking AP classes because there aren’t any interesting ones offered.

[Anonymous]

As someone who took 3 online classes in high school, I can tell you they are not a lesser option. You cover everything you are supposed to cover every week and there are no distractions from the unruly kids. My school had an admin / library helper who monitored the kids in the online class. It's just a smaller, quieter room with the teacher on the monitor.
If it was online as in "on your honor" or watch from home then I could see kids skipping class or getting behind. That's not what this is though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As someone who took 3 online classes in high school, I can tell you they are not a lesser option. You cover everything you are supposed to cover every week and there are no distractions from the unruly kids. My school had an admin / library helper who monitored the kids in the online class. It's just a smaller, quieter room with the teacher on the monitor.
If it was online as in "on your honor" or watch from home then I could see kids skipping class or getting behind. That's not what this is though.

I actually think this well prepares students to stay on top of online courses they may take in college. And let’s be honest, maybe will take remote roles when they start careers. This is good practice of time management.

And before someone yells at me, of course in-person is fantastic and needed. However, for some of these more niche interests, put together virtual courses for everyone all over the county vs allow a transfer in for ONE topic.

[Anonymous]

It’s such a big misstep for the school board to be fighting with lots of Fairfax families over boundary changes when they could be consolidating support from those exact same families by providing consistency and stability at a time of major upheaval for the region.

This is why none of them will ever have successful political careers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Talk about trying to drag the county down to the lowest common denominator.
For sure you are just someone who has used the language loophole to transfer out.
We’re at Robinson which does not have any “fancy” languages just the normal ones. It’s fine and an online option for the few kids that may want Japanese or Russian seems entirely fair. But then again I am not trying to wriggle out of my zoned school….

Agreed. These transfers out have to be accounted for when assessing true capacity and neighborhood borders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who took 3 online classes in high school, I can tell you they are not a lesser option. You cover everything you are supposed to cover every week and there are no distractions from the unruly kids. My school had an admin / library helper who monitored the kids in the online class. It's just a smaller, quieter room with the teacher on the monitor.
If it was online as in "on your honor" or watch from home then I could see kids skipping class or getting behind. That's not what this is though.

I actually think this well prepares students to stay on top of online courses they may take in college. And let’s be honest, maybe will take remote roles when they start careers. This is good practice of time management.

And before someone yells at me, of course in-person is fantastic and needed. However, for some of these more niche interests, put together virtual courses for everyone all over the county vs allow a transfer in for ONE topic.

+2 I was in HS in the early 2000s and they did have an online course catalog. You went to the class in the computer lab at the assigned time, watched the recorded class, and talked about it in a chat room with the teacher and the other kids taking the class. There was a good bit of reading and work. You had to apply for them and not everyone was accepted if the school thought you wouldn’t do the work.

My school had Spanish, French, German, and ASL as language options. There were a small number of kids who got a bus toward the end of the day to take Latin at a nearby HS, but that was the only class they took there. I think allowing full time transfers out so kids can take Chinese or Russian at whatever other schools creates more problems than it solves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who took 3 online classes in high school, I can tell you they are not a lesser option. You cover everything you are supposed to cover every week and there are no distractions from the unruly kids. My school had an admin / library helper who monitored the kids in the online class. It's just a smaller, quieter room with the teacher on the monitor.
If it was online as in "on your honor" or watch from home then I could see kids skipping class or getting behind. That's not what this is though.

I actually think this well prepares students to stay on top of online courses they may take in college. And let’s be honest, maybe will take remote roles when they start careers. This is good practice of time management.

And before someone yells at me, of course in-person is fantastic and needed. However, for some of these more niche interests, put together virtual courses for everyone all over the county vs allow a transfer in for ONE topic.

Online doesn't work for all children. A child whose parents can arrange transportation for them to learn in person should not be blocked by the school board. Online doesn't work for all teachers. A teacher who thrives in the classroom with live and in person students shouldn't be forced to try to adapt their style, personality and talents to a screen.

[Anonymous]

Can anyone answer why Woodson has three community representatives on the BRAC, when the school has about the same number of students as McLean and South Lakes? If any school should have three representatives, it seems like it should be Chantilly, not Woodson.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who took 3 online classes in high school, I can tell you they are not a lesser option. You cover everything you are supposed to cover every week and there are no distractions from the unruly kids. My school had an admin / library helper who monitored the kids in the online class. It's just a smaller, quieter room with the teacher on the monitor.
If it was online as in "on your honor" or watch from home then I could see kids skipping class or getting behind. That's not what this is though.

I actually think this well prepares students to stay on top of online courses they may take in college. And let’s be honest, maybe will take remote roles when they start careers. This is good practice of time management.

And before someone yells at me, of course in-person is fantastic and needed. However, for some of these more niche interests, put together virtual courses for everyone all over the county vs allow a transfer in for ONE topic.

Online doesn't work for all children. A child whose parents can arrange transportation for them to learn in person should not be blocked by the school board. Online doesn't work for all teachers. A teacher who thrives in the classroom with live and in person students shouldn't be forced to try to adapt their style, personality and talents to a screen.

Someone who definitely does not want her kid at the base school!