School Boundary changes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I doubt less-advantaged populations are wringing their hands because they only have a few classmates with wealthier parents. Teachers, principals and staff still help the kids get a great education.

+1

Here kids, we're going to take you from your neighborhood with your crowded apartments and send you on a bus for where you have to get up earlier and ride thirty minutes minimum to a school where many kids have their own cars. Your job is to teach them what it is like to be poor.

Here are some real world examples:

You play football at your current school? Good you can play at your new, wealthy school. Oh, you don't have a car to get home from practice? That's okay. You won't miss playing football--you might get hurt anyway.

To another kid: you have to get home to watch your little brother after school--or get him ready for school in the morning? I'm sure your mom can work that out. Maybe, she can find a different job.

You may think this is a joke--but it is not. This could quickly solve the overcrowding problem. It's difficult enough already to keep these kids in school.

much better to keep kids with kids like them. Sure some schools are failing, sure are barely accredited and produce demostrably worse outcomes with absolutely no expectation of culture of success, but the don't have to ride buses. Separate but equal - maybe that can be the new FCPS motto

[Anonymous]

We are now 7 pages into this thread (and about 468 pages into the other thread) and I still haven't seen one person actually claim (a) that they want Langley kids at their school or (b) that they want their kids redistricted to Langley.

Langley is in the most wealthy part of the county. No matter how you slice and dice the boundaries, it's still going to have a wealthy student population. Who cares?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The racism and classism in this thread is just disgusting. Unless you are advocating for a boundary that will benefit someone other than your kids and your property values, just stop talking. When schools increase in diversity, it benefits every single child in that school.

I'm sorry but most people would never advocate for this. In the end, their interests are most important and they're not sacrificing what is likely their biggest financial asset (house value). That is reasonable. For people not wealthy, but comfortably UMC, it is not reasonable to ask that they sacrifice that. It's not.

But, I disagree that "diversity" automatically results in lower housing value. This area is tremendously diverse. And while some schools may be more white than others, mixing it up has to be an expectation now. That's for lots of reasons, including diversity goals.

Diversity in FCPS has a lot more to do with SES than with race. People are content to send their kids to a school that is slightly less white, but if those students are low income, they’re out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I doubt less-advantaged populations are wringing their hands because they only have a few classmates with wealthier parents. Teachers, principals and staff still help the kids get a great education.

+1

Here kids, we're going to take you from your neighborhood with your crowded apartments and send you on a bus for where you have to get up earlier and ride thirty minutes minimum to a school where many kids have their own cars. Your job is to teach them what it is like to be poor.

Here are some real world examples:

You play football at your current school? Good you can play at your new, wealthy school. Oh, you don't have a car to get home from practice? That's okay. You won't miss playing football--you might get hurt anyway.

To another kid: you have to get home to watch your little brother after school--or get him ready for school in the morning? I'm sure your mom can work that out. Maybe, she can find a different job.

You may think this is a joke--but it is not. This could quickly solve the overcrowding problem. It's difficult enough already to keep these kids in school.

much better to keep kids with kids like them. Sure some schools are failing, sure are barely accredited and produce demostrably worse outcomes with absolutely no expectation of culture of success, but the don't have to ride buses. Separate but equal - maybe that can be the new FCPS motto

So fire the teachers staff and admin that are providing a bad education because they don't care about poor kids.

[Anonymous]

much better to keep kids with kids like them. Sure some schools are failing, sure are barely accredited and produce demostrably worse outcomes with absolutely no expectation of culture of success, but the don't have to ride buses. Separate but equal - maybe that can be the new FCPS motto

Then FCPS needs to fix the schools---but that requires effort and attention. Instead, they want to shift them to hide the problems.

But, I'm interested in how you would fix this. Specifically. Which neighborhoods would you move if you were on the School Board to fix this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We are now 7 pages into this thread (and about 468 pages into the other thread) and I still haven't seen one person actually claim (a) that they want Langley kids at their school or (b) that they want their kids redistricted to Langley.

Langley is in the most wealthy part of the county. No matter how you slice and dice the boundaries, it's still going to have a wealthy student population. Who cares?

You do, apparently.

If the "Marxists" on the School Board (lol) ever did what some of you claim they want to do, your heads would totally explode.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How could Langley not be mentioned in the CIP? The CIP covers every school in the county.

From the CIP:

“The anticipation of the completion of the Silver Line Metro has already spurred higher density residential growth along that corridor which may result in an increase in students within FCPS.

The FY 2022-26 CIP continues to include the construction of a new high school in the western area of the county to provide capacity relief for high schools in the Centreville, Chantilly, Herndon, Oakton, South Lakes, and Westfield areas.”

So you’re only referring to Langley not being mentioned in the CIP in connection with the construction of a new high school in the western area of the county?

Got it.

But the sentence you quote only refers to the overcrowding that may prompt them to build a new school. It doesn’t limit the schools that may end up in a boundary study before they open it. You’re putting too much weight on one sentence.

Langley doesn't need capacity relief, so it would not be in that sentence.
If a new western HS is built- their could be and probably should be ripple effects that push past those schools listed.

That list must include all the riffle effects. Building one new high school cannot directly impact six high schools. Also, Westfield doesn’t need the relief but was listed.

I understand the board may change their mind and include Langley once the school is built, but as of now Langley does not appear to be in the mix.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

much better to keep kids with kids like them. Sure some schools are failing, sure are barely accredited and produce demostrably worse outcomes with absolutely no expectation of culture of success, but the don't have to ride buses. Separate but equal - maybe that can be the new FCPS motto

Then FCPS needs to fix the schools---but that requires effort and attention. Instead, they want to shift them to hide the problems.

But, I'm interested in how you would fix this. Specifically. Which neighborhoods would you move if you were on the School Board to fix this?

research shows that there are tipping points with school performance and poverty. Those tipping points are at 20% and 40% according to the study produced for the school board. Concentrating a lack of poverty has knock-on effects on the rest of the county. A board concerned with equity should look at distributing the poverty more evenly across schools. Of course everyone knows that will never happen

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I doubt less-advantaged populations are wringing their hands because they only have a few classmates with wealthier parents. Teachers, principals and staff still help the kids get a great education.

+1

Here kids, we're going to take you from your neighborhood with your crowded apartments and send you on a bus for where you have to get up earlier and ride thirty minutes minimum to a school where many kids have their own cars. Your job is to teach them what it is like to be poor.

Here are some real world examples:

You play football at your current school? Good you can play at your new, wealthy school. Oh, you don't have a car to get home from practice? That's okay. You won't miss playing football--you might get hurt anyway.

To another kid: you have to get home to watch your little brother after school--or get him ready for school in the morning? I'm sure your mom can work that out. Maybe, she can find a different job.

You may think this is a joke--but it is not. This could quickly solve the overcrowding problem. It's difficult enough already to keep these kids in school.

much better to keep kids with kids like them. Sure some schools are failing, sure are barely accredited and produce demostrably worse outcomes with absolutely no expectation of culture of success, but the don't have to ride buses. Separate but equal - maybe that can be the new FCPS motto

So we need the middle class upper middle class kids to ride in on their horses carrying banners, colonize the poor kids and teach them the right culture?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

much better to keep kids with kids like them. Sure some schools are failing, sure are barely accredited and produce demostrably worse outcomes with absolutely no expectation of culture of success, but the don't have to ride buses. Separate but equal - maybe that can be the new FCPS motto

Then FCPS needs to fix the schools---but that requires effort and attention. Instead, they want to shift them to hide the problems.

But, I'm interested in how you would fix this. Specifically. Which neighborhoods would you move if you were on the School Board to fix this?

research shows that there are tipping points with school performance and poverty. Those tipping points are at 20% and 40% according to the study produced for the school board. Concentrating a lack of poverty has knock-on effects on the rest of the county. A board concerned with equity should look at distributing the poverty more evenly across schools. Of course everyone knows that will never happen

People may object from being moved to a different school because the government decides their demographic is needed elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How could Langley not be mentioned in the CIP? The CIP covers every school in the county.

From the CIP:

“The anticipation of the completion of the Silver Line Metro has already spurred higher density residential growth along that corridor which may result in an increase in students within FCPS.

The FY 2022-26 CIP continues to include the construction of a new high school in the western area of the county to provide capacity relief for high schools in the Centreville, Chantilly, Herndon, Oakton, South Lakes, and Westfield areas.”

So you’re only referring to Langley not being mentioned in the CIP in connection with the construction of a new high school in the western area of the county?

Got it.

But the sentence you quote only refers to the overcrowding that may prompt them to build a new school. It doesn’t limit the schools that may end up in a boundary study before they open it. You’re putting too much weight on one sentence.

Langley doesn't need capacity relief, so it would not be in that sentence.
If a new western HS is built- their could be and probably should be ripple effects that push past those schools listed.

That list must include all the riffle effects. Building one new high school cannot directly impact six high schools. Also, Westfield doesn’t need the relief but was listed.

I understand the board may change their mind and include Langley once the school is built, but as of now Langley does not appear to be in the mix.

When they changed the South Lakes boundaries over a decade ago, it "directly impacted" South Lakes, Westfield, Oakton, Chantilly, and Madison. In other words, the boundaries of each of those five schools changed: Westfield, Oakton, and Madison all had areas moved to South Lakes, and part of Chantilly moved to Oakton as a result of part of Oakton moving to South Lakes.

If a simple boundary change can affect five high schools, then a brand-new high school could affect six or more, and it wouldn't necessarily be limited to those mentioned in some planning document a decade before the school opened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: research shows that there are tipping points with school performance and poverty. Those tipping points are at 20% and 40% according to the study produced for the school board. Concentrating a lack of poverty has knock-on effects on the rest of the county. A board concerned with equity should look at distributing the poverty more evenly across schools

That "research" was produced by a communist-funded "think tank" (I use the term loosely) and is of no value whatsoever. Nobody can provide a good explanation as to why poor kids would do better by having middle-class/wealthy kids sit near them - and this is because it simply isn't true. The only thing that your proposed redistribution will do is artificially rase average test scores at some schools and drop them at others. Middle-class kids have to worry about their own education and cannot be expected to tutor poor kids, make them breakfast, make sure they do their homework, or bust up gangs and bad influences.

[Anonymous]

People may object from being moved to a different school because the government decides their demographic is needed elsewhere.

Bingo. And, don't think it is just the wealthier kids being sent to poor schools. Do you really think the very poor want to go to a wealthy school that is far away.

I agree that diversity in a school is a good thing--but busing does not work. I'm pleased that my kids' high school was diverse, but everyone lives close to the school. That is natural. When it is shifted for the purpose of diversity it does not work. And, it can change over time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How could Langley not be mentioned in the CIP? The CIP covers every school in the county.

From the CIP:

“The anticipation of the completion of the Silver Line Metro has already spurred higher density residential growth along that corridor which may result in an increase in students within FCPS.

The FY 2022-26 CIP continues to include the construction of a new high school in the western area of the county to provide capacity relief for high schools in the Centreville, Chantilly, Herndon, Oakton, South Lakes, and Westfield areas.”

So you’re only referring to Langley not being mentioned in the CIP in connection with the construction of a new high school in the western area of the county?

Got it.

But the sentence you quote only refers to the overcrowding that may prompt them to build a new school. It doesn’t limit the schools that may end up in a boundary study before they open it. You’re putting too much weight on one sentence.

Langley doesn't need capacity relief, so it would not be in that sentence.
If a new western HS is built- their could be and probably should be ripple effects that push past those schools listed.

That list must include all the riffle effects. Building one new high school cannot directly impact six high schools. Also, Westfield doesn’t need the relief but was listed.

I understand the board may change their mind and include Langley once the school is built, but as of now Langley does not appear to be in the mix.

When they changed the South Lakes boundaries over a decade ago, it "directly impacted" South Lakes, Westfield, Oakton, Chantilly, and Madison. In other words, the boundaries of each of those five schools changed: Westfield, Oakton, and Madison all had areas moved to South Lakes, and part of Chantilly moved to Oakton as a result of part of Oakton moving to South Lakes.

If a simple boundary change can affect five high schools, then a brand-new high school could affect six or more, and it wouldn't necessarily be limited to those mentioned in some planning document a decade before the school opened.

No. The plan is to build the new school on Hutchison site. Which elementary schools in Centreville and Chantilly boundaries will be assigned to this new high school? I don’t see any, do you? The board must have planned moving Westfield kids to the new school (direct impact) and then move Chantilly and Centreville kids to Westfield (ripple imact).

Again I am not denying the possibility of the board changing the mind, but at this planning stage it doesn’t look like Langley would be impacted.

By the way, a simple boundary change can affect ALL of the high schools. That’s a separate matter.

[Anonymous]

Langley just wasn’t built in a central location period. But it is there, and so we use it, but not sure it is possible to change the demographics much.