SB Member Anderson on County-wide Boundary Study

[Anonymous]

Yeah the latest draft only has them grandfathering the top grade of each school AND proposed no busing for that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah the latest draft only has them grandfathering the top grade of each school AND proposed no busing for that.

By "latest draft" I assume you're referring to the latest draft of the revised boundary policy (never adopted) that was floating around in early 2019 before they got cold feet.

But, yes, I assume staff put that language in there because they didn't think liberal grandfathering and major boundary changes were compatible.

The most sensible approach going forward would be a combination of:

* Identify truly critical overcrowding or under-enrollment situations and change the minimal number of boundaries needed to address those truly extraordinary situations; and

* Accelerate the issuance of a new renovation queue to avoid unnecessary additions at schools that merely require renovations and facilitate needed additions at others.

As a sign of good faith, they should also have an emergency session to revisit whether Dunn Loring ES is necessary and, if not, promptly reallocate that money. They can always make up something about how conditions have changed since the prior decision was made, but if they build that school when it's not needed they will have zero credibility if and when they come back and tell parents that boundary changes are needed because times are tough and there just isn't enough money for other additions, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The same Langley posters who complain that FCPS should never offer Russian to all students online as opposed to in-person at their school would also be the first to complain if FCPS ever proposed to move them to another school that didn’t offer Russian.

That’s why more standardized academic options across schools really are a pre-condition to discussing any county-wide changes. FCPS would need to be in a position to say in good faith that students generally will have access to the same courses at every school (the academies complicate matters, but not as much as currently having both AP and IB schools and different in-person foreign language options).

If that’s not feasible, Anderson and her colleagues should stop talking about any type of county-wide boundary review, as it will be a total waste of time and effort.

I agree with much of what you wrote, but no one from Langley is "complaining" about anything. They are simply pointing out that Russian would never be moved online because it is a very popular (and valuable) language to study and has plenty of interest from students at that school. There would be no issues with moving it online *as well* as continuing to offer it in person. But really, this is a moot point and another one of those straw man / speculations that has no basis in reality. Not even sure why it was brought up in the first place as languages aren't even an issue the SB has expressed interest in.

Please stop trying to dictate what FCPS-related topics people can discuss. The new SB has definitely expressed interest in a county-wide boundary review and some of us are previewing some of the specific issues that will make that challenging, including current disparities among schools when it comes to programs and course offerings.

I find that hard to believe. When it was posted last fall it was dismissed as pre-election “fear mongering”

Go watch the January 25 SB meeting. Throughout that meeting, multiple SB members referenced the staff’s work on revised priorities to inform a county-wide redirecting. My recollection is that there was one comment about the disparity in course offerings at different schools, although most of the SB comments pertained to overcrowded schools, underutilized capacity, wasteful spending on inefficient busing, etc.

Yes, four different SB members referenced the "holistic boundary review" that the SB is currently undertaking, so it is definitely happening. They first will want to modify Policy 8130 so that they can do more of what they want during the boundary review. That fell apart when they last tried to amend 8130 back in 2018-2019, but I have no doubt that they will try again. This was raised by Rachna Sizemore Heizer, Mateo Dunne, Sandy Anderson and Kyle McDaniel at the February 13 Work Session.

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=BDZRXQ6E59AB

The effort didn’t “fall apart.”

They tabled it because the democrat majority didn’t want to lose any seats in the imminent election.

That was five years ago. It fell apart. But with a 100% Democrat school board they want to take their shot now.

Of course. They were just elected, so if they are going to do it, now is the time.

Hopefully they get cracking and implement new boundaries by fall of 2025

If they do it now, the cost democrats in November. That statement is true no matter what year they do it and it's the reason they will never actually do it.

There is virtually zero chance that Democrats get voted off the school board this year, no matter what they do. The anti-Trump contingent will be out en mass in November and the overwhelming majority of those voters pay no attention to what the school board does. At most, potential voting block of pissed off parents in any district might account for 20% of the vote (and probably less), far short of the number needed to unseat any Democrat on the SB and replace them with an Independent or Republican.

If the SB is going to make significant boundary changes, this is the year to do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah the latest draft only has them grandfathering the top grade of each school AND proposed no busing for that.

Don’t all current students usually get grandfathered so they can continue with sports (for high schools) and the academic path they started. I wonder why the shift in the draft policy to only the top grade w/o busing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah the latest draft only has them grandfathering the top grade of each school AND proposed no busing for that.

Don’t all current students usually get grandfathered so they can continue with sports (for high schools) and the academic path they started. I wonder why the shift in the draft policy to only the top grade w/o busing.

There is no requirement to grandfather anyone. They have generously grandfathered with recent boundary changes because those were one-off changes only affecting a few schools at a time. If they change enough boundaries, grandfathering becomes less likely because you’d have to run multiple bus routes through more neighborhoods for longer periods.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The same Langley posters who complain that FCPS should never offer Russian to all students online as opposed to in-person at their school would also be the first to complain if FCPS ever proposed to move them to another school that didn’t offer Russian.

That’s why more standardized academic options across schools really are a pre-condition to discussing any county-wide changes. FCPS would need to be in a position to say in good faith that students generally will have access to the same courses at every school (the academies complicate matters, but not as much as currently having both AP and IB schools and different in-person foreign language options).

If that’s not feasible, Anderson and her colleagues should stop talking about any type of county-wide boundary review, as it will be a total waste of time and effort.

I agree with much of what you wrote, but no one from Langley is "complaining" about anything. They are simply pointing out that Russian would never be moved online because it is a very popular (and valuable) language to study and has plenty of interest from students at that school. There would be no issues with moving it online *as well* as continuing to offer it in person. But really, this is a moot point and another one of those straw man / speculations that has no basis in reality. Not even sure why it was brought up in the first place as languages aren't even an issue the SB has expressed interest in.

Please stop trying to dictate what FCPS-related topics people can discuss. The new SB has definitely expressed interest in a county-wide boundary review and some of us are previewing some of the specific issues that will make that challenging, including current disparities among schools when it comes to programs and course offerings.

I find that hard to believe. When it was posted last fall it was dismissed as pre-election “fear mongering”

Go watch the January 25 SB meeting. Throughout that meeting, multiple SB members referenced the staff’s work on revised priorities to inform a county-wide redirecting. My recollection is that there was one comment about the disparity in course offerings at different schools, although most of the SB comments pertained to overcrowded schools, underutilized capacity, wasteful spending on inefficient busing, etc.

Yes, four different SB members referenced the "holistic boundary review" that the SB is currently undertaking, so it is definitely happening. They first will want to modify Policy 8130 so that they can do more of what they want during the boundary review. That fell apart when they last tried to amend 8130 back in 2018-2019, but I have no doubt that they will try again. This was raised by Rachna Sizemore Heizer, Mateo Dunne, Sandy Anderson and Kyle McDaniel at the February 13 Work Session.

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=BDZRXQ6E59AB

The effort didn’t “fall apart.”

They tabled it because the democrat majority didn’t want to lose any seats in the imminent election.

That was five years ago. It fell apart. But with a 100% Democrat school board they want to take their shot now.

Of course. They were just elected, so if they are going to do it, now is the time.

Hopefully they get cracking and implement new boundaries by fall of 2025

If they do it now, the cost democrats in November. That statement is true no matter what year they do it and it's the reason they will never actually do it.

There is virtually zero chance that Democrats get voted off the school board this year, no matter what they do. The anti-Trump contingent will be out en mass in November and the overwhelming majority of those voters pay no attention to what the school board does. At most, potential voting block of pissed off parents in any district might account for 20% of the vote (and probably less), far short of the number needed to unseat any Democrat on the SB and replace them with an Independent or Republican.

If the SB is going to make significant boundary changes, this is the year to do it.

It’s never going to be the “year to do it” without having far more consistency in academic programs and courses in effect first.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The same Langley posters who complain that FCPS should never offer Russian to all students online as opposed to in-person at their school would also be the first to complain if FCPS ever proposed to move them to another school that didn’t offer Russian.

That’s why more standardized academic options across schools really are a pre-condition to discussing any county-wide changes. FCPS would need to be in a position to say in good faith that students generally will have access to the same courses at every school (the academies complicate matters, but not as much as currently having both AP and IB schools and different in-person foreign language options).

If that’s not feasible, Anderson and her colleagues should stop talking about any type of county-wide boundary review, as it will be a total waste of time and effort.

I agree with much of what you wrote, but no one from Langley is "complaining" about anything. They are simply pointing out that Russian would never be moved online because it is a very popular (and valuable) language to study and has plenty of interest from students at that school. There would be no issues with moving it online *as well* as continuing to offer it in person. But really, this is a moot point and another one of those straw man / speculations that has no basis in reality. Not even sure why it was brought up in the first place as languages aren't even an issue the SB has expressed interest in.

Please stop trying to dictate what FCPS-related topics people can discuss. The new SB has definitely expressed interest in a county-wide boundary review and some of us are previewing some of the specific issues that will make that challenging, including current disparities among schools when it comes to programs and course offerings.

No one is "dictating" what you can speculate about. Go right ahead! But it's foolish to pretend the SB has any interest in the language program offerings at each school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll start with a helpful standardization - put AP back in all FCPS schools. This is a no brainer.

A second, but harder standardization would be the language programs. Not sure there is agreement on which three or so languages should be standard for in school classes. Beyond those languages the county should offer online opportunities for other, less popular languages.

What is described above is how the county operated high schools through the 90's.

French, Spanish, German, and Latin used to be the standard HS offerings. Add Chinese to reflect the greater interest in recent decades. Make Arabic, Russian, Japanese, Vietnamese, Korean, and ASL purely online courses.

Saying that you want to take Russian is the method for families transfer into Langley. FCPS will face substantial blowback if they try to remove it.

So what. Make it an online course.

DP. The PP is correct. And not only that, the Russian program at Langley is very highly respected and has the longest-running Russian exchange program in FCPS. There is not a chance in hell this would ever be made an online program. Try again.

German is getting phased out now at Langley. Russian absolutely could be an online course, which would expand its availability to students interested in the language all over the county.

Highly regarded language programs at TJ, including Japanese, are being phased out based on enrollment. No reason Langley is unique. Maybe it can move to Herndon HS, if it’s so special?

Well, sure - if a language is showing declining enrollment (like German) then no reason it shouldn't be phased out. Russian is not in that category. Quite the opposite, in fact.
DP

It certainly would have declining enrollment if there weren’t exception to residency for wanting to “learn” Russian. A bunch of Russian and Eastern European kids attend Langley who live nowhere close. And many kids who attend the Russian language classes (up to 1/3 of the class in some years) already speak fluent Russian.

Serious question: what are you talking about? And do your kids even attend Langley?

DP. There are many Russian-speaking families in this area, and, without question, Langley is an extremely popular and highly desirable school for those families. I can’t speak to how many live outside the district, but bringing in and attracting Russian kids from across Northern Virginia has no doubt contributed to the success of the program. And no question, it is successful.

However, with declining budgets, it is entirely fair to discuss whether Fairfax County should continue to spend money on these sorts of programs (not just Russian, but Japanese and Korean) that target a specific minority population.

"These sorts of programs" are exactly what the federal government calls "critical languages." German and Latin? Not so much.
DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The same Langley posters who complain that FCPS should never offer Russian to all students online as opposed to in-person at their school would also be the first to complain if FCPS ever proposed to move them to another school that didn’t offer Russian.

That’s why more standardized academic options across schools really are a pre-condition to discussing any county-wide changes. FCPS would need to be in a position to say in good faith that students generally will have access to the same courses at every school (the academies complicate matters, but not as much as currently having both AP and IB schools and different in-person foreign language options).

If that’s not feasible, Anderson and her colleagues should stop talking about any type of county-wide boundary review, as it will be a total waste of time and effort.

I agree with much of what you wrote, but no one from Langley is "complaining" about anything. They are simply pointing out that Russian would never be moved online because it is a very popular (and valuable) language to study and has plenty of interest from students at that school. There would be no issues with moving it online *as well* as continuing to offer it in person. But really, this is a moot point and another one of those straw man / speculations that has no basis in reality. Not even sure why it was brought up in the first place as languages aren't even an issue the SB has expressed interest in.

Please stop trying to dictate what FCPS-related topics people can discuss. The new SB has definitely expressed interest in a county-wide boundary review and some of us are previewing some of the specific issues that will make that challenging, including current disparities among schools when it comes to programs and course offerings.

I find that hard to believe. When it was posted last fall it was dismissed as pre-election “fear mongering”

Go watch the January 25 SB meeting. Throughout that meeting, multiple SB members referenced the staff’s work on revised priorities to inform a county-wide redirecting. My recollection is that there was one comment about the disparity in course offerings at different schools, although most of the SB comments pertained to overcrowded schools, underutilized capacity, wasteful spending on inefficient busing, etc.

Yes, four different SB members referenced the "holistic boundary review" that the SB is currently undertaking, so it is definitely happening. They first will want to modify Policy 8130 so that they can do more of what they want during the boundary review. That fell apart when they last tried to amend 8130 back in 2018-2019, but I have no doubt that they will try again. This was raised by Rachna Sizemore Heizer, Mateo Dunne, Sandy Anderson and Kyle McDaniel at the February 13 Work Session.

https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=BDZRXQ6E59AB

The effort didn’t “fall apart.”

They tabled it because the democrat majority didn’t want to lose any seats in the imminent election.

That was five years ago. It fell apart. But with a 100% Democrat school board they want to take their shot now.

Of course. They were just elected, so if they are going to do it, now is the time.

Hopefully they get cracking and implement new boundaries by fall of 2025

If they do it now, the cost democrats in November. That statement is true no matter what year they do it and it's the reason they will never actually do it.

There is virtually zero chance that Democrats get voted off the school board this year, no matter what they do. The anti-Trump contingent will be out en mass in November and the overwhelming majority of those voters pay no attention to what the school board does. At most, potential voting block of pissed off parents in any district might account for 20% of the vote (and probably less), far short of the number needed to unseat any Democrat on the SB and replace them with an Independent or Republican.

If the SB is going to make significant boundary changes, this is the year to do it.

There is no school board election this year.

[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:I'll start with a helpful standardization - put AP back in all FCPS schools. This is a no brainer.

A second, but harder standardization would be the language programs. Not sure there is agreement on which three or so languages should be standard for in school classes. Beyond those languages the county should offer online opportunities for other, less popular languages.

What is described above is how the county operated high schools through the 90's.

French, Spanish, German, and Latin used to be the standard HS offerings. Add Chinese to reflect the greater interest in recent decades. Make Arabic, Russian, Japanese, Vietnamese, Korean, and ASL purely online courses.

Saying that you want to take Russian is the method for families transfer into Langley. FCPS will face substantial blowback if they try to remove it.

So what. Make it an online course.

DP. The PP is correct. And not only that, the Russian program at Langley is very highly respected and has the longest-running Russian exchange program in FCPS. There is not a chance in hell this would ever be made an online program. Try again.

German is getting phased out now at Langley. Russian absolutely could be an online course, which would expand its availability to students interested in the language all over the county.

Highly regarded language programs at TJ, including Japanese, are being phased out based on enrollment. No reason Langley is unique. Maybe it can move to Herndon HS, if it’s so special?

Well, sure - if a language is showing declining enrollment (like German) then no reason it shouldn't be phased out. Russian is not in that category. Quite the opposite, in fact.
DP

It certainly would have declining enrollment if there weren’t exception to residency for wanting to “learn” Russian. A bunch of Russian and Eastern European kids attend Langley who live nowhere close. And many kids who attend the Russian language classes (up to 1/3 of the class in some years) already speak fluent Russian.

Serious question: what are you talking about? And do your kids even attend Langley?

DP. There are many Russian-speaking families in this area, and, without question, Langley is an extremely popular and highly desirable school for those families. I can’t speak to how many live outside the district, but bringing in and attracting Russian kids from across Northern Virginia has no doubt contributed to the success of the program. And no question, it is successful.

However, with declining budgets, it is entirely fair to discuss whether Fairfax County should continue to spend money on these sorts of programs (not just Russian, but Japanese and Korean) that target a specific minority population.

We are at Fox Mill with a child in the Japanese Immersion class, the class is mainly non-Japanese speakers and it is wonderful. It provides a different type of challenge for the kids who are in the program. It is popular at the school and outside of the school. The first grade class is always full. The retention in the program is strong, the current 6th grade class has 45 or so kids in int he JI program and started with 64 kids. Most of the kids who have left are kids who moved, a few left for LIV and a few dropped out. We know families with kids fluent in Japanese who cannot get into the lower grades because the classes are full.

And yes, I think that the languages should continue on into MS and HS. the kids participating in these programs have a good start on learning a second language and many will continue on in MS and HS. The classes and cost of the Teachers are not a lost cost. Plenty of other kids take the language in MS and HS so it is not hard to fill those classes.

I believe that any LI programs that are started would probably be full very, very fast. There are a good number of parents who are interested in their kids learning a language at a younger age and the challenge that comes from learning a second language. There are plenty of kids who are up for that challenge in ES and any program that improves a child's academic experience. The programs that engage kids are ones we should be keeping because it motivates them to do well in school. The other benefit is that kids in the regular classrooms have smaller classes and Teachers are more able to work with those kids at their levels. This should be beneficial for kids with learning issues or who need more attention to help them engage. The programs are win-win for folks.

+100
The Japanese immersion program at Great Falls Elem. is also very popular.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The same Langley posters who complain that FCPS should never offer Russian to all students online as opposed to in-person at their school would also be the first to complain if FCPS ever proposed to move them to another school that didn’t offer Russian.

That’s why more standardized academic options across schools really are a pre-condition to discussing any county-wide changes. FCPS would need to be in a position to say in good faith that students generally will have access to the same courses at every school (the academies complicate matters, but not as much as currently having both AP and IB schools and different in-person foreign language options).

If that’s not feasible, Anderson and her colleagues should stop talking about any type of county-wide boundary review, as it will be a total waste of time and effort.

I agree with much of what you wrote, but no one from Langley is "complaining" about anything. They are simply pointing out that Russian would never be moved online because it is a very popular (and valuable) language to study and has plenty of interest from students at that school. There would be no issues with moving it online *as well* as continuing to offer it in person. But really, this is a moot point and another one of those straw man / speculations that has no basis in reality. Not even sure why it was brought up in the first place as languages aren't even an issue the SB has expressed interest in.

Please stop trying to dictate what FCPS-related topics people can discuss. The new SB has definitely expressed interest in a county-wide boundary review and some of us are previewing some of the specific issues that will make that challenging, including current disparities among schools when it comes to programs and course offerings.

No one is "dictating" what you can speculate about. Go right ahead! But it's foolish to pretend the SB has any interest in the language program offerings at each school.

LOL. If they get enamored of the idea of county-wide redistricting, one proposal may be to move a chunk of Langley to Herndon, which is projected to be 28% below capacity in a few years. So if they haven’t paid attention previously to the differences in languages offered at different schools before, they’ll get an earful about it then - probably from you and your neighbors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The same Langley posters who complain that FCPS should never offer Russian to all students online as opposed to in-person at their school would also be the first to complain if FCPS ever proposed to move them to another school that didn’t offer Russian.

That’s why more standardized academic options across schools really are a pre-condition to discussing any county-wide changes. FCPS would need to be in a position to say in good faith that students generally will have access to the same courses at every school (the academies complicate matters, but not as much as currently having both AP and IB schools and different in-person foreign language options).

If that’s not feasible, Anderson and her colleagues should stop talking about any type of county-wide boundary review, as it will be a total waste of time and effort.

I agree with much of what you wrote, but no one from Langley is "complaining" about anything. They are simply pointing out that Russian would never be moved online because it is a very popular (and valuable) language to study and has plenty of interest from students at that school. There would be no issues with moving it online *as well* as continuing to offer it in person. But really, this is a moot point and another one of those straw man / speculations that has no basis in reality. Not even sure why it was brought up in the first place as languages aren't even an issue the SB has expressed interest in.

Please stop trying to dictate what FCPS-related topics people can discuss. The new SB has definitely expressed interest in a county-wide boundary review and some of us are previewing some of the specific issues that will make that challenging, including current disparities among schools when it comes to programs and course offerings.

No one is "dictating" what you can speculate about. Go right ahead! But it's foolish to pretend the SB has any interest in the language program offerings at each school.

LOL. If they get enamored of the idea of county-wide redistricting, one proposal may be to move a chunk of Langley to Herndon, which is projected to be 28% below capacity in a few years. So if they haven’t paid attention previously to the differences in languages offered at different schools before, they’ll get an earful about it then - probably from you and your neighbors.

If the comprehensive boundary changes don’t pan out, FCPS can simply turn off the lights and hvac in the unused parts of the school buildings to save on costs and energy consumption. Or FCPS could create more academies and locate them in underutilized schools.

[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:I'll start with a helpful standardization - put AP back in all FCPS schools. This is a no brainer.

A second, but harder standardization would be the language programs. Not sure there is agreement on which three or so languages should be standard for in school classes. Beyond those languages the county should offer online opportunities for other, less popular languages.

What is described above is how the county operated high schools through the 90's.

French, Spanish, German, and Latin used to be the standard HS offerings. Add Chinese to reflect the greater interest in recent decades. Make Arabic, Russian, Japanese, Vietnamese, Korean, and ASL purely online courses.

Saying that you want to take Russian is the method for families transfer into Langley. FCPS will face substantial blowback if they try to remove it.

So what. Make it an online course.

DP. The PP is correct. And not only that, the Russian program at Langley is very highly respected and has the longest-running Russian exchange program in FCPS. There is not a chance in hell this would ever be made an online program. Try again.

German is getting phased out now at Langley. Russian absolutely could be an online course, which would expand its availability to students interested in the language all over the county.

Highly regarded language programs at TJ, including Japanese, are being phased out based on enrollment. No reason Langley is unique. Maybe it can move to Herndon HS, if it’s so special?

Well, sure - if a language is showing declining enrollment (like German) then no reason it shouldn't be phased out. Russian is not in that category. Quite the opposite, in fact.
DP

It certainly would have declining enrollment if there weren’t exception to residency for wanting to “learn” Russian. A bunch of Russian and Eastern European kids attend Langley who live nowhere close. And many kids who attend the Russian language classes (up to 1/3 of the class in some years) already speak fluent Russian.

Serious question: what are you talking about? And do your kids even attend Langley?

DP. There are many Russian-speaking families in this area, and, without question, Langley is an extremely popular and highly desirable school for those families. I can’t speak to how many live outside the district, but bringing in and attracting Russian kids from across Northern Virginia has no doubt contributed to the success of the program. And no question, it is successful.

However, with declining budgets, it is entirely fair to discuss whether Fairfax County should continue to spend money on these sorts of programs (not just Russian, but Japanese and Korean) that target a specific minority population.

"These sorts of programs" are exactly what the federal government calls "critical languages." German and Latin? Not so much.
DP

If teaching Russian in person at FCPS high schools were critical, they’d be offering it at more than 1-2 schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The same Langley posters who complain that FCPS should never offer Russian to all students online as opposed to in-person at their school would also be the first to complain if FCPS ever proposed to move them to another school that didn’t offer Russian.

That’s why more standardized academic options across schools really are a pre-condition to discussing any county-wide changes. FCPS would need to be in a position to say in good faith that students generally will have access to the same courses at every school (the academies complicate matters, but not as much as currently having both AP and IB schools and different in-person foreign language options).

If that’s not feasible, Anderson and her colleagues should stop talking about any type of county-wide boundary review, as it will be a total waste of time and effort.

I agree with much of what you wrote, but no one from Langley is "complaining" about anything. They are simply pointing out that Russian would never be moved online because it is a very popular (and valuable) language to study and has plenty of interest from students at that school. There would be no issues with moving it online *as well* as continuing to offer it in person. But really, this is a moot point and another one of those straw man / speculations that has no basis in reality. Not even sure why it was brought up in the first place as languages aren't even an issue the SB has expressed interest in.

Please stop trying to dictate what FCPS-related topics people can discuss. The new SB has definitely expressed interest in a county-wide boundary review and some of us are previewing some of the specific issues that will make that challenging, including current disparities among schools when it comes to programs and course offerings.

No one is "dictating" what you can speculate about. Go right ahead! But it's foolish to pretend the SB has any interest in the language program offerings at each school.

LOL. If they get enamored of the idea of county-wide redistricting, one proposal may be to move a chunk of Langley to Herndon, which is projected to be 28% below capacity in a few years. So if they haven’t paid attention previously to the differences in languages offered at different schools before, they’ll get an earful about it then - probably from you and your neighbors.

Oh - it's just you again. Moving on...

[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:I'll start with a helpful standardization - put AP back in all FCPS schools. This is a no brainer.

A second, but harder standardization would be the language programs. Not sure there is agreement on which three or so languages should be standard for in school classes. Beyond those languages the county should offer online opportunities for other, less popular languages.

What is described above is how the county operated high schools through the 90's.

French, Spanish, German, and Latin used to be the standard HS offerings. Add Chinese to reflect the greater interest in recent decades. Make Arabic, Russian, Japanese, Vietnamese, Korean, and ASL purely online courses.

Saying that you want to take Russian is the method for families transfer into Langley. FCPS will face substantial blowback if they try to remove it.

So what. Make it an online course.

DP. The PP is correct. And not only that, the Russian program at Langley is very highly respected and has the longest-running Russian exchange program in FCPS. There is not a chance in hell this would ever be made an online program. Try again.

German is getting phased out now at Langley. Russian absolutely could be an online course, which would expand its availability to students interested in the language all over the county.

Highly regarded language programs at TJ, including Japanese, are being phased out based on enrollment. No reason Langley is unique. Maybe it can move to Herndon HS, if it’s so special?

Well, sure - if a language is showing declining enrollment (like German) then no reason it shouldn't be phased out. Russian is not in that category. Quite the opposite, in fact.
DP

It certainly would have declining enrollment if there weren’t exception to residency for wanting to “learn” Russian. A bunch of Russian and Eastern European kids attend Langley who live nowhere close. And many kids who attend the Russian language classes (up to 1/3 of the class in some years) already speak fluent Russian.

Serious question: what are you talking about? And do your kids even attend Langley?

DP. There are many Russian-speaking families in this area, and, without question, Langley is an extremely popular and highly desirable school for those families. I can’t speak to how many live outside the district, but bringing in and attracting Russian kids from across Northern Virginia has no doubt contributed to the success of the program. And no question, it is successful.

However, with declining budgets, it is entirely fair to discuss whether Fairfax County should continue to spend money on these sorts of programs (not just Russian, but Japanese and Korean) that target a specific minority population.

"These sorts of programs" are exactly what the federal government calls "critical languages." German and Latin? Not so much.
DP

If teaching Russian in person at FCPS high schools were critical, they’d be offering it at more than 1-2 schools.

Maybe they'll wise up and start offering it at all FCPS high schools.