February 26 School Board Vote on Providing Transportation for Rezoned Students

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One school board member made the point last night , they should not have voted on the boundary changes without all the parts on the table evaluated at the same time. That should have included transportation, AAP centers , middle school start times everything should have been comprehensive.

That’s called boiling the ocean. This community hates change, and the only way to accomplish any change is incremental. What you propose would be seismic and would cause even more of the disruption people here are complaining about.

Disagree. It’s more about stepping up and making the important decisions first before you just start rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

This School Board couldn’t stop patting themselves on the back for undertaking the first county-wide boundary review since the mid-80s, but most took no time to familiarize themselves with the prior studies. Had they done so, they would have realized it was much easier to change boundaries decades ago when the schools were more uniform in their programs and demographics. They also would have learned that FCPS committed to providing transportation to grandfathered students before making any boundary changes, and that was a significant constraint on how many boundaries were changed.

But they didn’t do any of that. They just blundered into a boundary study, over-promised and under-delivered, left important decisions to be made after boundary changes were already voted upon, and set themselves up for years of additional boundary decisions (including Skyview and the decisions relating to the open issues that are supposed to be addressed by next January).

It was a sh*t show in both design and execution, and the fault lies squarely with Reid and School Board members like Karl Frisch who literally had no idea what they were doing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One school board member made the point last night , they should not have voted on the boundary changes without all the parts on the table evaluated at the same time. That should have included transportation, AAP centers , middle school start times everything should have been comprehensive.

That’s called boiling the ocean. This community hates change, and the only way to accomplish any change is incremental. What you propose would be seismic and would cause even more of the disruption people here are complaining about.

I think PP misunderstood. What Dunne wanted in the “total package” was what impacts Reid’s boundary recommendations would have on things like transportation. Before voting on the changes they should have been presented with a phasing plan and the costs associated with it.

Recall that phasing was part of the package, until Dunne and his cabal swooped in last minute and forced a vote to change phasing from “the greatest extent possible” to specific grade levels.

It’s ironic that Meren and Ricardy are complaining about 5th and 6th graders not being bussed, when their own phasing stunt denied all K-4th graders from even having a chance to stay with their friends at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One school board member made the point last night , they should not have voted on the boundary changes without all the parts on the table evaluated at the same time. That should have included transportation, AAP centers , middle school start times everything should have been comprehensive.

That’s called boiling the ocean. This community hates change, and the only way to accomplish any change is incremental. What you propose would be seismic and would cause even more of the disruption people here are complaining about.

I think PP misunderstood. What Dunne wanted in the “total package” was what impacts Reid’s boundary recommendations would have on things like transportation. Before voting on the changes they should have been presented with a phasing plan and the costs associated with it.

Recall that phasing was part of the package, until Dunne and his cabal swooped in last minute and forced a vote to change phasing from “the greatest extent possible” to specific grade levels.

It’s ironic that Meren and Ricardy are complaining about 5th and 6th graders not being bussed, when their own phasing stunt denied all K-4th graders from even having a chance to stay with their friends at all.

Giving Reid and board members like S. Anderson, Frisch and Lady more wiggle room would have been a terrible idea. These folks want zero accountability and maximum discretion, which is why they punted on phasing and transportation when Frisch, McDaniel and Sizemore-Heizer were rewriting Policy 8130.

Nice try to rewrite history for your friends but it’s a fool’s errand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are providing transportation to every student - to their in bounds school. If kids want to stay at their grandfathered school they need to provide their own transportation. I think that's reasonable and though we weren't moved this time, we are on a boundary that was highly talked about for switching high schools, and I still think this.

They’ve provided transportation to grandfathered kids affected by boundary changes for decades, including as far back as the prior county-wide studies in the 80s.

They can change their policy now, but it will further erode trust in FCPS. It’s absurd that they’d spend over $200 million on a new high school and $85 million on a new elementary school for which the need is certainly debatable, and then refuse to spend a much smaller amount to make sure kids have the option to complete high school at their current schools.

Rich SAHM mommies from Vienna who fought off a boundary change to Marshall probably could provide transportation if their kids were redistricted, but families now actually getting moved to Falls Church and Mount Vernon may not be in the same position.

Give it a rest, we know that you are upset because your child was moved from a highly rated HS to a lower rated HS. Deal with it.

Wrong. I'm upset because it's inequitable and the School Board had their collective heads up their asses when they approved boundary changes without simultaneously addressing transportation needs.

Boundaries could be going away completely.

I would rather sell my house and move than have my kid schlepp across this county and start commuting long distances at a young age. They can learn about that in adulthood.

Good riddance

My choice would be child centered rather than the illogical car first strategy you are proposing.

[Anonymous]

Meren just posted on FB that she thinks this is BS. I have not looked at who voted for what but tossing that out there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are providing transportation to every student - to their in bounds school. If kids want to stay at their grandfathered school they need to provide their own transportation. I think that's reasonable and though we weren't moved this time, we are on a boundary that was highly talked about for switching high schools, and I still think this.

They’ve provided transportation to grandfathered kids affected by boundary changes for decades, including as far back as the prior county-wide studies in the 80s.

They can change their policy now, but it will further erode trust in FCPS. It’s absurd that they’d spend over $200 million on a new high school and $85 million on a new elementary school for which the need is certainly debatable, and then refuse to spend a much smaller amount to make sure kids have the option to complete high school at their current schools.

Rich SAHM mommies from Vienna who fought off a boundary change to Marshall probably could provide transportation if their kids were redistricted, but families now actually getting moved to Falls Church and Mount Vernon may not be in the same position.

Give it a rest, we know that you are upset because your child was moved from a highly rated HS to a lower rated HS. Deal with it.

Wrong. I'm upset because it's inequitable and the School Board had their collective heads up their asses when they approved boundary changes without simultaneously addressing transportation needs.

Boundaries could be going away completely.

I would rather sell my house and move than have my kid schlepp across this county and start commuting long distances at a young age. They can learn about that in adulthood.

Good riddance

My choice would be child centered rather than the illogical car first strategy you are proposing.

School choice is the ultimate child-centered policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are providing transportation to every student - to their in bounds school. If kids want to stay at their grandfathered school they need to provide their own transportation. I think that's reasonable and though we weren't moved this time, we are on a boundary that was highly talked about for switching high schools, and I still think this.

They’ve provided transportation to grandfathered kids affected by boundary changes for decades, including as far back as the prior county-wide studies in the 80s.

They can change their policy now, but it will further erode trust in FCPS. It’s absurd that they’d spend over $200 million on a new high school and $85 million on a new elementary school for which the need is certainly debatable, and then refuse to spend a much smaller amount to make sure kids have the option to complete high school at their current schools.

Rich SAHM mommies from Vienna who fought off a boundary change to Marshall probably could provide transportation if their kids were redistricted, but families now actually getting moved to Falls Church and Mount Vernon may not be in the same position.

Give it a rest, we know that you are upset because your child was moved from a highly rated HS to a lower rated HS. Deal with it.

Wrong. I'm upset because it's inequitable and the School Board had their collective heads up their asses when they approved boundary changes without simultaneously addressing transportation needs.

Boundaries could be going away completely.

I would rather sell my house and move than have my kid schlepp across this county and start commuting long distances at a young age. They can learn about that in adulthood.

Good riddance

My choice would be child centered rather than the illogical car first strategy you are proposing.

School choice is the ultimate child-centered policy.

There’s no consensus on that point, especially when the purported choices cannot be exercised by some.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Meren just posted on FB that she thinks this is BS. I have not looked at who voted for what but tossing that out there.

Meren helped create that ridiculous new Westbriar-Kilmer-Marshall attendance island in Hunter Mill and now she’s complaining about inequities?

Hard to take her seriously.

[Anonymous]

Below is what the idiot McDaniel sent out via email. Families received a survey less than a week ago and many were missed. In most cases the logic of the depot has the same stupid logic as only busing seniors - you are not maximizing the number of students on a bus or you having everyone get in their cars from a neighborhood or two and drive a few miles away instead of the bus stopping at a few neighborhood intersections. Maybe there are some random cases that makes sense but looking at high school boundary adjustments in most cases that is not logical. Security detail for the superintendent and more than one full-time staff member for board members are nice to haves.

MCDANIEL EMAIL COMMENTS:
Also last night, the School Board approved transportation services for high school students (grades 10-12) who are authorized to remain at their old base school as a result of recently adopted boundary changes. You may recall that this decision came before the School Board earlier this year; however, a 5-0-5 vote resulted in it being brought back last night.
Following an extensive outreach effort to families impacted by boundary changes, the Superintendent recommended transportation services only for 12th graders. I was unwilling to support that for several reasons, mostly because a bus carrying a 12th grader can also carry 10th and 11th graders.
After weeks of this decision being on the agenda, an 11th-hour amendment was brought forward to vastly expand bussing services from 12th graders to 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 10th, 11th, and 12th graders. This ballooned the annual budget impact from $800,000 to over $3,000,000. The timing of this proposal was a bit ironic because the next day the School Board and Board of Supervisors held its annual joint budget meeting, and the message was clear: this is not the time to unnecessarily increase spending on nice-to-have items.
There is another key piece of information that helped inform my decision last night: survey results indicated that 44% of students would need transportation to remain at their old base school; this represented 154 students, which extrapolates to 300 students based on the response rate. The other respondents were moving to the new school or were legally required to be provided transportation anyway (ie students with IEPs and 504s). This is to say that the decision last night was around whether to spend $3,000,000 per year to bus 300 kids above and beyond what is already done. That is not even close to reasonable. 
Throughout this process, the biggest concern I heard from constituents was regarding changes for high school students, and the unique period in their lives (academically and socially) that these years represent, and the academic and extracurricular records that feed into college applications. I wanted to find a way to target transportation supports to those students, but only if it could be done within existing budget constraints. I worked with the Superintendent to explore options, and it was concluded that a hub transportation model could be established for high school students within existing funding for the most part. The hub system is very similar to how students are transported to Thomas Jefferson. Out of an abundance of caution, I also placed language in my substitute motion that in the event of cost increases, end-of-year funding could be used to cover those.
I am happy that my proposal was adopted by the School Board last night, and that high school students will be given transportation should they choose. I recognize that some families at the middle and elementary levels will be disappointed, and I share that disappointment. I am disappointed that there is a $43 million budget gap that is threatening other critical initiatives too (Middle School After School programming, advanced academic resource teachers, reducing class sizes, maintaining special education staffing support, and more).
When I made the motion to adopt this plan, I stated that this strikes the best balance between addressing the equity concerns that have been raised and recognizing the fiscal reality of the day. While we could not get there for all 7 grade levels, I am happy that we were able to get there for 3 of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meren just posted on FB that she thinks this is BS. I have not looked at who voted for what but tossing that out there.

Meren helped create that ridiculous new Westbriar-Kilmer-Marshall attendance island in Hunter Mill and now she’s complaining about inequities?

Hard to take her seriously.

And she is looking to further create a further mess by advocating for Tysons Green to move from Marshall to Madison. Moving the Wolftrap area previously zoned to Marshall to Madison never made sense. They should have moved the Wolftrap area zoned to Kilmer Madison to Thoreau Madison and that would have solved the debatable overcrowding at Kilmer and not made a future mess at Thoreau. That ship has sailed though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are providing transportation to every student - to their in bounds school. If kids want to stay at their grandfathered school they need to provide their own transportation. I think that's reasonable and though we weren't moved this time, we are on a boundary that was highly talked about for switching high schools, and I still think this.

They’ve provided transportation to grandfathered kids affected by boundary changes for decades, including as far back as the prior county-wide studies in the 80s.

They can change their policy now, but it will further erode trust in FCPS. It’s absurd that they’d spend over $200 million on a new high school and $85 million on a new elementary school for which the need is certainly debatable, and then refuse to spend a much smaller amount to make sure kids have the option to complete high school at their current schools.

Rich SAHM mommies from Vienna who fought off a boundary change to Marshall probably could provide transportation if their kids were redistricted, but families now actually getting moved to Falls Church and Mount Vernon may not be in the same position.

Give it a rest, we know that you are upset because your child was moved from a highly rated HS to a lower rated HS. Deal with it.

Wrong. I'm upset because it's inequitable and the School Board had their collective heads up their asses when they approved boundary changes without simultaneously addressing transportation needs.

Boundaries could be going away completely.

I would rather sell my house and move than have my kid schlepp across this county and start commuting long distances at a young age. They can learn about that in adulthood.

Good riddance

My choice would be child centered rather than the illogical car first strategy you are proposing.

School choice is the ultimate child-centered policy.

There’s no consensus on that point, especially when the purported choices cannot be exercised by some.

Cite?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meren just posted on FB that she thinks this is BS. I have not looked at who voted for what but tossing that out there.

Meren helped create that ridiculous new Westbriar-Kilmer-Marshall attendance island in Hunter Mill and now she’s complaining about inequities?

Hard to take her seriously.

And she is looking to further create a further mess by advocating for Tysons Green to move from Marshall to Madison. Moving the Wolftrap area previously zoned to Marshall to Madison never made sense. They should have moved the Wolftrap area zoned to Kilmer Madison to Thoreau Madison and that would have solved the debatable overcrowding at Kilmer and not made a future mess at Thoreau. That ship has sailed though.

I hope she realizes that unnecessarily moving all those Marshall students to Madison makes up a larger portion of the transportation budget. She might to promote herself as a champion for equality, but Reid clearly stated multiple times that she didn’t think transportation would be provided for grandfathered students and Meren went along and voted for her plan anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meren just posted on FB that she thinks this is BS. I have not looked at who voted for what but tossing that out there.

Meren helped create that ridiculous new Westbriar-Kilmer-Marshall attendance island in Hunter Mill and now she’s complaining about inequities?

Hard to take her seriously.

And she is looking to further create a further mess by advocating for Tysons Green to move from Marshall to Madison. Moving the Wolftrap area previously zoned to Marshall to Madison never made sense. They should have moved the Wolftrap area zoned to Kilmer Madison to Thoreau Madison and that would have solved the debatable overcrowding at Kilmer and not made a future mess at Thoreau. That ship has sailed though.

I hope she realizes that unnecessarily moving all those Marshall students to Madison makes up a larger portion of the transportation budget. She might to promote herself as a champion for equality, but Reid clearly stated multiple times that she didn’t think transportation would be provided for grandfathered students and Meren went along and voted for her plan anyway.

Trying to balance the SES of Madison and Marshall is a noble effort.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s too expensive. Parents should be required to drive their children in this circumstance.

My kids are among those impacted by the boundary changes. We most certainly did not choose to attend another school and my kids should be able to stay at their current schools AND receive transportation.

I don't understand this - you bought the house you did knowing it was zoned to Fairfax County Public Schools. There is never a guarantee that your house will stay zoned to the house it is currently zoned to. You bought your house with that understanding. Now the schools have changed, that means your children have to change schools. If you *choose* to keep them in their old school, then it is your responsibility to transport them. Similar to if you *choose* to send them to a language immersion or arts school in the county. Personally, I think TJ and AAP centers should also be treated as a choice school, but Fairfax County has this completely inequitable "advanced academics" program that they insist on providing transportation for.

excuse me?? my child is currently in 10th grade and being zoned for a new school high school next year. You don’t think it’s acceptable that he gets to stay at his current high school and receive transportation?? it would be a complete disruption for a child in the middle of high school to have to switch schools. I hardly think that there is any parent out there that would be OK with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s too expensive. Parents should be required to drive their children in this circumstance.

My kids are among those impacted by the boundary changes. We most certainly did not choose to attend another school and my kids should be able to stay at their current schools AND receive transportation.

I don't understand this - you bought the house you did knowing it was zoned to Fairfax County Public Schools. There is never a guarantee that your house will stay zoned to the house it is currently zoned to. You bought your house with that understanding. Now the schools have changed, that means your children have to change schools. If you *choose* to keep them in their old school, then it is your responsibility to transport them. Similar to if you *choose* to send them to a language immersion or arts school in the county. Personally, I think TJ and AAP centers should also be treated as a choice school, but Fairfax County has this completely inequitable "advanced academics" program that they insist on providing transportation for.

excuse me?? my child is currently in 10th grade and being zoned for a new school high school next year. You don’t think it’s acceptable that he gets to stay at his current high school and receive transportation?? it would be a complete disruption for a child in the middle of high school to have to switch schools. I hardly think that there is any parent out there that would be OK with that.

+1. Please let your school board reps know how much they botched all this.