Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of us with students impacted immediately by these changes - I say please vote this school board out and make sure they never serve in public office again!

You underestimate the intelligence of voters in our area who simply vote down ballot either red or blue.

When the Republican party runs a moderate, they will win. I won’t vote for a MAGA crazy or a Tea Party crazy for school board. I can count on the Democrats getting in each others way, because that seems to be the way of the Democrats. Putting people on the board who are willing to exclude students for a number of reasons instead of working to find common sense solutions is not acceptable.

I don’t like the current board but replacing them with a different type of awful, one that is intolerant and dismissive and homophobic is not a good replacement. Changing out left wing Progressives for right wing nut jobs is not a good trade.

Maybe the local Republican party will listen and run some moderates. Actual moderates who are focused on education and can present a solid plan for things like redistricting when schools are over crowded and how to adjust the CIP and how to better support SPED programs. Heck, toss in how to downsize the admin positions at Gatehouse and return that money to the schools. They would have a good deal of support.

Sandy Anderson's opponent was conservative, but cdntrist on school issues and much more qualified than Anderson.

Her opponent's area of expertise was special ed...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of us with students impacted immediately by these changes - I say please vote this school board out and make sure they never serve in public office again!

You underestimate the intelligence of voters in our area who simply vote down ballot either red or blue.

When the Republican party runs a moderate, they will win. I won’t vote for a MAGA crazy or a Tea Party crazy for school board. I can count on the Democrats getting in each others way, because that seems to be the way of the Democrats. Putting people on the board who are willing to exclude students for a number of reasons instead of working to find common sense solutions is not acceptable.

I don’t like the current board but replacing them with a different type of awful, one that is intolerant and dismissive and homophobic is not a good replacement. Changing out left wing Progressives for right wing nut jobs is not a good trade.

Maybe the local Republican party will listen and run some moderates. Actual moderates who are focused on education and can present a solid plan for things like redistricting when schools are over crowded and how to adjust the CIP and how to better support SPED programs. Heck, toss in how to downsize the admin positions at Gatehouse and return that money to the schools. They would have a good deal of support.

Anonymous wrote:https://www.youtube.com/live/TbgtB5bf6aE?si=oITAVuVqUzzLSWd6

Sandy starts at 3:50. It’s not as bad as mentioned on this board.

BUT. WSHS is hardly overcrowded. There are two trailers. Two. Absolutely no one who actually attends the school feels it’s too full. People on here will claim they do blabla but they have different motives and just are not telling the truth. Leave it alone. Get better numbers. Look at it in three years and see the natural reduction once the massive 2025 and 2026 classes are gone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did any board members inquire on the academic impact of proposed boundary changes at the high school level? For example, how would average GPA's, test scores, etc. look different based on students moving in or out? We are an impacted family and trying to understand the extent of the academic impact, if any.

It would be speculation to try and answer those specific questions. They could be more transparent about the anticipated impact on ESOL and FARMS rates, but they don’t want to highlight that they are driving up those percentages at some schools like Justice and Marshall.

They could simply run the numbers using student information from last year. No speculation involved. How would these previous year statistics be different if the changes had been in place earlier.

Maybe, but it’s more number crunching than they’ve ever undertaken with any prior boundary changes. In the past they’ve provided some information on the anticipated demographic impact but not at that level of granularity. They certainly won’t do it this time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m halfway through the YouTube video of last night’s meeting.

I’m often critical of the school board on these forums, but, I’ll give praise where it is due - several board members now seem focused on increasing enrollment for under enrolled schools through programming decisions and transfers. That’s welcome news.

I personally would rather see them just address it with programming, but a look at transfers should come before further boundary changes, if programming decisions don’t fix the issue. Further boundary changes should be a last resort after these two approaches have been exhausted.

Anyway, hopefully this is a sea change in how they approach capacity issues in the future.

I have not listened yet. However, they need to be realistic in their programming.

For example, when they renamed Lee to Lewis and chose to put in a social justice program that was thinly veiled as a "leadership program" , did anyone consider that this was sending a "message" about the school?

Transfers were specifically mentioned as a potential solution to Lewis. I would rather they just look at programming, but at least they are going to look at something other than disastrous and unwanted boundary moves.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did any board members inquire on the academic impact of proposed boundary changes at the high school level? For example, how would average GPA's, test scores, etc. look different based on students moving in or out? We are an impacted family and trying to understand the extent of the academic impact, if any.

It would be speculation to try and answer those specific questions. They could be more transparent about the anticipated impact on ESOL and FARMS rates, but they don’t want to highlight that they are driving up those percentages at some schools like Justice and Marshall.

They could simply run the numbers using student information from last year. No speculation involved. How would these previous year statistics be different if the changes had been in place earlier.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m halfway through the YouTube video of last night’s meeting.

I’m often critical of the school board on these forums, but, I’ll give praise where it is due - several board members now seem focused on increasing enrollment for under enrolled schools through programming decisions and transfers. That’s welcome news.

I personally would rather see them just address it with programming, but a look at transfers should come before further boundary changes, if programming decisions don’t fix the issue. Further boundary changes should be a last resort after these two approaches have been exhausted.

Anyway, hopefully this is a sea change in how they approach capacity issues in the future.

I have not listened yet. However, they need to be realistic in their programming.

For example, when they renamed Lee to Lewis and chose to put in a social justice program that was thinly veiled as a "leadership program" , did anyone consider that this was sending a "message" about the school?

Anonymous wrote:I’m halfway through the YouTube video of last night’s meeting.

I’m often critical of the school board on these forums, but, I’ll give praise where it is due - several board members now seem focused on increasing enrollment for under enrolled schools through programming decisions and transfers. That’s welcome news.

I personally would rather see them just address it with programming, but a look at transfers should come before further boundary changes, if programming decisions don’t fix the issue. Further boundary changes should be a last resort after these two approaches have been exhausted.

Anyway, hopefully this is a sea change in how they approach capacity issues in the future.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The school board meeting was pretty concerning. The areas highlighted for further review will be addressed in between cycles. AAP centers at all middle schools will likely be implemented between cycles, but not all at once. The comprehensive review is looking to be a yearly battle.

They should be looking at borders for schools that are at 95% and over capacity, that is a part of their job. They need to get better projections for future growth and they need to make decisions that might not be popular but help students by lessing the effects of over crowding. Changing schools will never be popular, people don’t want it. The School Board needs to make the unpopular call from time to time. But they need to have a plan that makes sense that is defensible and it needs to be more then we want to balance population groups.

And they need to deal with one of the big causes of the problem, IB vs AP. Choose one and have it at every school. The complete program. Have 2 IB schools that kids can pupil place into. Set those at schools that are centered for half of the County to make it easier for all families to get there. Kids can opt-in to IB, just like the Academies. But the kids leaving IB schools for other schools is a part of the problem with under and over enrollment at some schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did any board members inquire on the academic impact of proposed boundary changes at the high school level? For example, how would average GPA's, test scores, etc. look different based on students moving in or out? We are an impacted family and trying to understand the extent of the academic impact, if any.

It would be speculation to try and answer those specific questions. They could be more transparent about the anticipated impact on ESOL and FARMS rates, but they don’t want to highlight that they are driving up those percentages at some schools like Justice and Marshall.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did any board members inquire on the academic impact of proposed boundary changes at the high school level? For example, how would average GPA's, test scores, etc. look different based on students moving in or out? We are an impacted family and trying to understand the extent of the academic impact, if any.

Nope. I hate to say it, but it doesn't seem like they think any of those things through.

Anonymous wrote:Did any board members inquire on the academic impact of proposed boundary changes at the high school level? For example, how would average GPA's, test scores, etc. look different based on students moving in or out? We are an impacted family and trying to understand the extent of the academic impact, if any.

Anonymous wrote:Did any board members inquire on the academic impact of proposed boundary changes at the high school level? For example, how would average GPA's, test scores, etc. look different based on students moving in or out? We are an impacted family and trying to understand the extent of the academic impact, if any.