Amendments to Policy 8130 re Grandfathering of Current Students

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, okay.

Enjoy your junior's new high school then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They are counting on you to fold like a deck of cards as long as your own kids can finish HS at their existing schools if you can toss them a pair of car keys. You don’t care at all about the kids who’ll have to attend schools they didn’t want to attend or who can’t arrange for their own transportation. Gross.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, okay.

Enjoy your junior's new high school then.

You’re the definition of a quisling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They are counting on you to fold like a deck of cards as long as your own kids can finish HS at their existing schools if you can toss them a pair of car keys. You don’t care at all about the kids who’ll have to attend schools they didn’t want to attend or who can’t arrange for their own transportation. Gross.

Exactly - as I mentioned earlier, the grandfathering amendment is a nice bone the SB is throwing to distract us from the bigger problem of a county-wide boundary change instead of fixing problems where they are. Please don't be fooled: demand change if you're at a school with a problem and demand No Change if you're at a school without a problem!

[Anonymous]

Agree that they are hoping this buys some parents off. And for many of us that HS grandfathering will address the biggest worry. I posted earlier that my kid will be a rising sophomore when it implements (or junior if this gets delayed which would be even worse) and by far my biggest worry in the process had been them moving during those key HS years. But a move for us would be to a comparable school so it’s not that groaning is awful in my neighborhood’s case. It’s just that a change at a particularly fragile time would be awful. I would still support others who oppose changes but it would dial the temperature on this way down for me.

There are still many ES and MS families though in the county to be engaged in any inherently bad changes.

[Anonymous]

The clown show continues. Step 1 in reaching the logical conclusion to abandon a comprehensive boundary review altogether.

[Anonymous]

I am also glad to see them change the grandfathering rules.

But, honestly, it just makes the rest of the policy seem that much more ridiculous. Isn't it part of the policy that a review of boundaries should happen every 5 years? If it takes 2-3 years to actually make any changes - as we're seeing - and then they grandfather 3 years of kids, there could be new changes before the changes from the previous review are even fully implemented.

So ridiculous and all of their decisions are short-sighted and nonsense.

[Anonymous]

What’s crazy is that this amendment wouldn’t even apply to this round of boundary changes because of KAA.

From the proposed amendment: These allowances shall not be applicable in the opening of a new school, or in the closing of an existing school.

If that new school gets opened fall of 2026, then the grandfathering wouldn’t apply.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am also glad to see them change the grandfathering rules.

But, honestly, it just makes the rest of the policy seem that much more ridiculous. Isn't it part of the policy that a review of boundaries should happen every 5 years? If it takes 2-3 years to actually make any changes - as we're seeing - and then they grandfather 3 years of kids, there could be new changes before the changes from the previous review are even fully implemented.

So ridiculous and all of their decisions are short-sighted and nonsense.

All they want to do is salvage their political careers. They’d look bad if they admitted the boundary review was a largely unnecessary waste of time so they are just going to complicate things further to save face.

It’s probably not a coincidence this half-baked grandfathering policy is getting floated right around the time that Moon and Sizemore-Heizer are considering runs for the BoS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What’s crazy is that this amendment wouldn’t even apply to this round of boundary changes because of KAA.

From the proposed amendment: These allowances shall not be applicable in the opening of a new school, or in the closing of an existing school.

If that new school gets opened fall of 2026, then the grandfathering wouldn’t apply.

To students zoned to KAA. There are many recommended adjustments to high school boundaries that are not related to KAA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s crazy is that this amendment wouldn’t even apply to this round of boundary changes because of KAA.

From the proposed amendment: These allowances shall not be applicable in the opening of a new school, or in the closing of an existing school.

If that new school gets opened fall of 2026, then the grandfathering wouldn’t apply.

To students zoned to KAA. There are many recommended adjustments to high school boundaries that are not related to KAA.

That’s open to interpretation - the amendment is not drafted well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s crazy is that this amendment wouldn’t even apply to this round of boundary changes because of KAA.

From the proposed amendment: These allowances shall not be applicable in the opening of a new school, or in the closing of an existing school.

If that new school gets opened fall of 2026, then the grandfathering wouldn’t apply.

To students zoned to KAA. There are many recommended adjustments to high school boundaries that are not related to KAA.

That’s open to interpretation - the amendment is not drafted well.

Okay, yeah. If the school board is full of mustache twirling villains (which many on this board believe) then yes, absolutely, they’ll pass the amendment to lull people into a false sense of compromise and then snatch away grandfathering on a technicality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s crazy is that this amendment wouldn’t even apply to this round of boundary changes because of KAA.

From the proposed amendment: These allowances shall not be applicable in the opening of a new school, or in the closing of an existing school.

If that new school gets opened fall of 2026, then the grandfathering wouldn’t apply.

To students zoned to KAA. There are many recommended adjustments to high school boundaries that are not related to KAA.

That’s open to interpretation - the amendment is not drafted well.

Okay, yeah. If the school board is full of mustache twirling villains (which many on this board believe) then yes, absolutely, they’ll pass the amendment to lull people into a false sense of compromise and then snatch away grandfathering on a technicality.

I don’t think that’s the issue. The proposed amendment is explicit that grandfathering wouldn’t necessarily apply to boundary changes associated with the opening or closing of a school.

Assuming they reopen KAA as a neighborhood HS, the most likely scenario is that it opens as 9-11 school the first year, with no grandfathering. They’ll want to get it up and running. The next year it will then be a 9-12 school.

For other boundary changes, they’d grandfather students in grades 10-12 but you’d apparently have to provide your own transportation. That favors wealthier kids and would mean a lot more cars on the streets near the high schools. That’s could be pretty crazy at some schools where there is already limited parking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s crazy is that this amendment wouldn’t even apply to this round of boundary changes because of KAA.

From the proposed amendment: These allowances shall not be applicable in the opening of a new school, or in the closing of an existing school.

If that new school gets opened fall of 2026, then the grandfathering wouldn’t apply.

To students zoned to KAA. There are many recommended adjustments to high school boundaries that are not related to KAA.

That’s open to interpretation - the amendment is not drafted well.

Okay, yeah. If the school board is full of mustache twirling villains (which many on this board believe) then yes, absolutely, they’ll pass the amendment to lull people into a false sense of compromise and then snatch away grandfathering on a technicality.

I don’t think that’s the issue. The proposed amendment is explicit that grandfathering wouldn’t necessarily apply to boundary changes associated with the opening or closing of a school.

Assuming they reopen KAA as a neighborhood HS, the most likely scenario is that it opens as 9-11 school the first year, with no grandfathering. They’ll want to get it up and running. The next year it will then be a 9-12 school.

For other boundary changes, they’d grandfather students in grades 10-12 but you’d apparently have to provide your own transportation. That favors wealthier kids and would mean a lot more cars on the streets near the high schools. That’s could be pretty crazy at some schools where there is already limited parking.

Aren’t they mostly moving the wealthier kids around anyway?
And, the Fairfax connector is free to FCPS kids.

[Anonymous]

The Fairfax connector? Not relevant to most of the neighborhoods. Hardly anyone lives walking distance to a connector station or has a connector station walking distance to their high school.