Amendments to Policy 8130 re Grandfathering of Current Students

[Anonymous]

Sniveling Sandy was the one who was against the original grandfathering amendment, right? She thought it would tie their hands too much as they commenced the boundary review last year?

I wonder if this means her influence is finally waning. Maybe she got wrapped up in the whole Kyle McDaniel embezzlement scandal since he’s always been her lapdog.

Here’s to hoping.

[Anonymous]

Agree grandfathering is good but this doesn’t fix the fundamental issues with the boundary changes and the fact they want to do this every 5 years. Currently my kids are proposed to go to a school further away than their current aligned hs. This is the real problem that we need to focus on - fix the few issues of capacity and let’s move on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agree grandfathering is good but this doesn’t fix the fundamental issues with the boundary changes and the fact they want to do this every 5 years. Currently my kids are proposed to go to a school further away than their current aligned hs. This is the real problem that we need to focus on - fix the few issues of capacity and let’s move on.

They don't want to do "this" every 5 years. The policy is to review boundary and capacity issues every 5 years rather than let them build and pile up like they have done for the past 40 or so years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree grandfathering is good but this doesn’t fix the fundamental issues with the boundary changes and the fact they want to do this every 5 years. Currently my kids are proposed to go to a school further away than their current aligned hs. This is the real problem that we need to focus on - fix the few issues of capacity and let’s move on.

They don't want to do "this" every 5 years. The policy is to review boundary and capacity issues every 5 years rather than let them build and pile up like they have done for the past 40 or so years.

Oh, just stop with the BS. There aren’t acute boundary and capacity issues, with one exception (Coates). And that issue developed over the last 5 years, not 50.

Most of this was precipitated by the desire to engage in some overt social engineering. Then they got cold feet and decided to pretend some other things that weren’t bothering many people were “problems” that just had to be fixed. Now they’re getting antsy again, so they are tinkering with the grandfathering policy to try and get a few more people to defend what they’re doing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The irony is that if they grandfather but don’t provide transportation they are going to have even less of a handle on future enrollment numbers. They could end up with situations where students are rezoned from School A to School B, and from School B to School C, and the enrollment at School B spikes because the kids moved from School A can’t arrange for transportation so move to School B but the kids moved to School C can and therefore remain at School B.

Their ability to forecast enrollments already is poor and they could be introducing even more uncertainty. Conversely, if they limited boundary changes to those situations that are truly necessary, phased in the changes, but provided transportation to grandfathered students, they’d be able to forecast more accurately.

The ability of this School Board to make a total hash of things seems endless.

The kids grandfathered are kids who currently attend the high school. This affects 3 grades worth of high school students for any given rezoning.

What you are describing is not hoing to happen. It is not going to spike enrollment. It will just maintain status quo for one year, then a gradual decrease in enrollment over the next 2 years as each grade graduates.

+1 I am fine with this plan, even if it means my kids will attend different high schools their freshman/senior years (the only year they would be together in high school). I am willing to compromise that to help others and to balance out schools. It just isn’t as impactful this way because the kids won’t be the ones paying the price by transferring in the middle of high school.

You’re simply wrong. That’s not what it means. You could get a sibling pupil placement regardless of whether there is grandfathering, but grandfathering without transportation means some kids will be able to stay at their current schools and others will not be able to make arrangements to do so. I don’t know if you’re misinformed or selfish, but you’re misrepresenting the advantages and disadvantages of what they may have in mind. You’re enabling them to push through changes that may well be unnecessary because you personally can find a work-around.

Right, I could get a sibling pupil placement for my younger kid, but just for one year. I’m trying to avoid switching my kids in the middle of high school and would rather have the younger one start at the new school for consistency. On a personal level, this is the opposite of selfish because I will have to keep track of and attend events at 2 schools, but for the benefit of my children. I also do think all FCPS high schools will be ok for my kids. I am okay with the changes and have written and fought every step of the way for the rights of the KIDS in FCPS to have consistency. This gives the consistency I was looking and I’m bowing out of the fight, but doing it on terms that are a compromise, but a compromise where my children aren’t paying the price of a disrupted education. Nor will other high schoolers have to experience that. I am okay with it. There is a huge difference between “enabling” and compromising. To say I or others who have fought for Grandfathering are enabling is to deny the work that we have done this far. In which case, one would wonder, if that doesn’t count, why would anyone continue to fight as it is just viewed as enabling?

I completely agree.

Another person who has been very involved with spreading information and working against these changes since spring 2024.

Keep calling us selfish, and I am out too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I totally agree that allowing grandfathering is needed and is a very good thing.

However, I think this is just a bone the SB is trying to throw us to seem responsive when really they need to scrap this poorly-designed boundary review, deal with the urgent concerns on a school-by-school basis, and reconceive the county-wide policy and review.

We need to keep up the pressure to stop this boundary review and use all the community feedback and learning in a thoughtful way rather than forging ahead.

+100. A policy of grandfathering with no assurance of transportation seems like an exercise in damage control combined with further pitting families against one another. It may give some people “relief” but it doesn’t change the fact that this entire boundary review has been ill-conceived and poorly executed.

High schoolers drive. Get a carpool going and pay a high school kid to take the neighborhood to school.

I completely agree.

The grandfathered kids are sophomores to seniors.

Providing busses is a waste of taxpayer money because the number of kids riding the bus vs carpooling with friends is hoing to be insignificantly tiny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I totally agree that allowing grandfathering is needed and is a very good thing.

However, I think this is just a bone the SB is trying to throw us to seem responsive when really they need to scrap this poorly-designed boundary review, deal with the urgent concerns on a school-by-school basis, and reconceive the county-wide policy and review.

We need to keep up the pressure to stop this boundary review and use all the community feedback and learning in a thoughtful way rather than forging ahead.

+100. A policy of grandfathering with no assurance of transportation seems like an exercise in damage control combined with further pitting families against one another. It may give some people “relief” but it doesn’t change the fact that this entire boundary review has been ill-conceived and poorly executed.

High schoolers drive. Get a carpool going and pay a high school kid to take the neighborhood to school.

So the policy is to encourage more teen drivers at times when there are already lots of other cars on the roads? Nothing could possibly go wrong there.

The teen drivers are already on the road. It might actually be fewer teen drivers because of carpooling

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The sensible thing is to do as they did in the past, which is to cap the changes at a level where they can grandfather with transportation. Beyond that they are overreaching and favoring families who can arrange for transportation over those who cannot. It’s the opposite of equitable.

High school kids drive.

The areas where high schools are getting rezoned are not the poor neighborhoods. They are areas where most of the kids have cars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The irony is that if they grandfather but don’t provide transportation they are going to have even less of a handle on future enrollment numbers. They could end up with situations where students are rezoned from School A to School B, and from School B to School C, and the enrollment at School B spikes because the kids moved from School A can’t arrange for transportation so move to School B but the kids moved to School C can and therefore remain at School B.

Their ability to forecast enrollments already is poor and they could be introducing even more uncertainty. Conversely, if they limited boundary changes to those situations that are truly necessary, phased in the changes, but provided transportation to grandfathered students, they’d be able to forecast more accurately.

The ability of this School Board to make a total hash of things seems endless.

The kids grandfathered are kids who currently attend the high school. This affects 3 grades worth of high school students for any given rezoning.

What you are describing is not hoing to happen. It is not going to spike enrollment. It will just maintain status quo for one year, then a gradual decrease in enrollment over the next 2 years as each grade graduates.

+1 I am fine with this plan, even if it means my kids will attend different high schools their freshman/senior years (the only year they would be together in high school). I am willing to compromise that to help others and to balance out schools. It just isn’t as impactful this way because the kids won’t be the ones paying the price by transferring in the middle of high school.

You’re simply wrong. That’s not what it means. You could get a sibling pupil placement regardless of whether there is grandfathering, but grandfathering without transportation means some kids will be able to stay at their current schools and others will not be able to make arrangements to do so. I don’t know if you’re misinformed or selfish, but you’re misrepresenting the advantages and disadvantages of what they may have in mind. You’re enabling them to push through changes that may well be unnecessary because you personally can find a work-around.

Right, I could get a sibling pupil placement for my younger kid, but just for one year. I’m trying to avoid switching my kids in the middle of high school and would rather have the younger one start at the new school for consistency. On a personal level, this is the opposite of selfish because I will have to keep track of and attend events at 2 schools, but for the benefit of my children. I also do think all FCPS high schools will be ok for my kids. I am okay with the changes and have written and fought every step of the way for the rights of the KIDS in FCPS to have consistency. This gives the consistency I was looking and I’m bowing out of the fight, but doing it on terms that are a compromise, but a compromise where my children aren’t paying the price of a disrupted education. Nor will other high schoolers have to experience that. I am okay with it. There is a huge difference between “enabling” and compromising. To say I or others who have fought for Grandfathering are enabling is to deny the work that we have done this far. In which case, one would wonder, if that doesn’t count, why would anyone continue to fight as it is just viewed as enabling?

I completely agree.

Another person who has been very involved with spreading misinformation and working for these changes since spring 2019.

Keep calling us selfish, and I am out too.

FTFY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, just stop with the BS. There aren’t acute boundary and capacity issues, with one exception (Coates). And that issue developed over the last 5 years, not 50.

There absolutely are boundary and capacity issues on the western side of the county where I'm at. This new high school falling into their lap is going to fix so much more than the whole boundary study did - but the issues were and are there. The middle school split feeder situation at Carson and Franklin is ridiculous, and they are bussing kids all over to Westfield, Oakton, even 45 mins to Hunters Woods for elementary AAP. Chantilly has modulars and trailers surrounding the school and is still overcrowded. Coates you already mentioned.
Maybe the changes suggested where you live are unnecessary, but don't come here and try to speak for everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I totally agree that allowing grandfathering is needed and is a very good thing.

However, I think this is just a bone the SB is trying to throw us to seem responsive when really they need to scrap this poorly-designed boundary review, deal with the urgent concerns on a school-by-school basis, and reconceive the county-wide policy and review.

We need to keep up the pressure to stop this boundary review and use all the community feedback and learning in a thoughtful way rather than forging ahead.

+100. A policy of grandfathering with no assurance of transportation seems like an exercise in damage control combined with further pitting families against one another. It may give some people “relief” but it doesn’t change the fact that this entire boundary review has been ill-conceived and poorly executed.

High schoolers drive. Get a carpool going and pay a high school kid to take the neighborhood to school.

I completely agree.

The grandfathered kids are sophomores to seniors.

Providing busses is a waste of taxpayer money because the number of kids riding the bus vs carpooling with friends is hoing to be insignificantly tiny.

The boundary study and potential boundary changes are the waste of taxpayer money. You aren’t fooling anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Grandfathering for high school students — with or without transportation — is critically important. My neighbors and I would be very happy to know that it will be approved.

They are going to vite to add it tl rezoning policy.

Call your school board reps this week to advocated that they adopt this policy. Based on this thread and my local fb groups, there is a tiny handful of really loud voices who are pushing against grandfathering high school kids because they thing it should be all kids in every grade, and if that can't happen then sophomores, juniors and seniors should be required to change schools.

Instead of them seeing this as a starting point or step in the right direction, they want to fight against grandfathering high school kids.

Crazy stuff.

If you support grandfathering, email or call your school board reps this week

[Anonymous]

The grandfathering policy isn’t going to apply to the new HS at all. There is a specific carve-out for new or closed schools.

They can send all 9th to 11th graders to a new school with no grandfathering whatsoever, and they probably will.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Grandfathering for high school students — with or without transportation — is critically important. My neighbors and I would be very happy to know that it will be approved.

They are going to vite to add it tl rezoning policy.

Call your school board reps this week to advocated that they adopt this policy. Based on this thread and my local fb groups, there is a tiny handful of really loud voices who are pushing against grandfathering high school kids because they thing it should be all kids in every grade, and if that can't happen then sophomores, juniors and seniors should be required to change schools.

Instead of them seeing this as a starting point or step in the right direction, they want to fight against grandfathering high school kids.

Crazy stuff.

If you support grandfathering, email or call your school board reps this week

More misinformation.

A lot of people want grandfathering, but with assurances of transportation provided so there is a level playing field. You seem to be suggesting they are against any grandfathering at all, which is very much a fringe view.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I totally agree that allowing grandfathering is needed and is a very good thing.

However, I think this is just a bone the SB is trying to throw us to seem responsive when really they need to scrap this poorly-designed boundary review, deal with the urgent concerns on a school-by-school basis, and reconceive the county-wide policy and review.

We need to keep up the pressure to stop this boundary review and use all the community feedback and learning in a thoughtful way rather than forging ahead.

+100. A policy of grandfathering with no assurance of transportation seems like an exercise in damage control combined with further pitting families against one another. It may give some people “relief” but it doesn’t change the fact that this entire boundary review has been ill-conceived and poorly executed.

High schoolers drive. Get a carpool going and pay a high school kid to take the neighborhood to school.

I completely agree.

The grandfathered kids are sophomores to seniors.

Providing busses is a waste of taxpayer money because the number of kids riding the bus vs carpooling with friends is hoing to be insignificantly tiny.

The boundary study and potential boundary changes are the waste of taxpayer money. You aren’t fooling anyone.

How? What?

You think people who want grandfathering of high school kids haven't been fighting against the boundary changes?

These posters are just nuts. They must be trolls.