Amendments to Policy 8130 re Grandfathering of Current Students

[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.

It does not mean more high school drivers because those high school students are already driving to their neighborhood high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

On the high scchool level?

Yes and yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

On the high scchool level?

Yes and yes.

A free bus that is nowhere near where you live and goes nowhere near your school is not very helpful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It does not mean more high school drivers because those high school students are already driving to their neighborhood high school.

Some are and some aren't. The one thing that is absolutely clear is that there would be more teen drivers on the roads if they revise boundaries every five years and then phase in each set of changes through grandfathering without transportation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It does not mean more high school drivers because those high school students are already driving to their neighborhood high school.

Some are and some aren't. The one thing that is absolutely clear is that there would be more teen drivers on the roads if they revise boundaries every five years and then phase in each set of changes through grandfathering without transportation.

I’m not following your logic. Most of the kids stop taking the school bus and start driving asap. These kids are driving anyway, they don’t use the cheese wagon as we so lovingly called it in high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Just looked at the maps/routes.
I guess if your high school is next to a Metro station or a Park n Ride, it's possible.
Unfortunately, that would not work for us.

Sounds like someone who never rides a bus or has a kid in school wrote the comment about the buses being free.

https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/connector/student-pass

Click on high school bus routes and find out!

Great idea! Everyone who is being moved, look up directions in Google maps and select the public transit tab. Post your estimated travel time and number of transfers required! I bet they’ll all be super reasonable.

Oops! I thought you were worried about the low income kids who couldn’t carpool to school. Most Fairfax low income neighborhoods are located near public transit. Laughably, you are concerned about you own kids and trying to stop grandfathering for all kids until you get what you want.

Got it.

This is sadly what I see in my neighborhood group. Folks opposing grandfathering seem worried that if it goes through, others will stop fighting the boundary change in general. I find the all or nothing attitude very sad. This needs to be treated as a separate issue --- a policy change that impacts all boundary changes current and future, some of which may end up being truly necessary. It doesn't have to mean that we stop pushing back against current unnecessary boundary changes. It is just another layer of protection against moving kids at particularly harmful time --- the middle of high school.

That's a very odd way to articulate it. I think the people who are against the boundary changes are still against the boundary changes. Then you have a group that's quickly decided to start taking up the School Board's cause, either because (1) their own kids would benefit from grandfathering, with or without transportation; or (2) they stand to benefit from the KAA acquisition, so a School Board that just dropped $150 million on a school for them can do little wrong in their eyes.

I mean, kudos to the School Board for rolling out this type of "divide and conquer" strategy, but the potential boundary changes themselves are still imbecilic in many if not most instances, and they deserve to remain the primary focus of attention, not the bone tossed to soften the blow.

What I am seeing is that some folks in my neighborhood group are against the grandfathering amendment, and they have cited "divide and conquer" as the reason.

I am both for changing the policy to allow grandfathering (as it should have been the case from the beginning) and pushing back against this round of of boundary changes.

Are you against the grandfathering amendment? If so, why? Are you worried that it will dilute the backlash against the current round of boundary changes if there is a safety net for high school students?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It does not mean more high school drivers because those high school students are already driving to their neighborhood high school.

Some are and some aren't. The one thing that is absolutely clear is that there would be more teen drivers on the roads if they revise boundaries every five years and then phase in each set of changes through grandfathering without transportation.

I’m not following your logic. Most of the kids stop taking the school bus and start driving asap. These kids are driving anyway, they don’t use the cheese wagon as we so lovingly called it in high school.

It's funny how you generalize from your own experience to the entire county. But, hey, the School Board depends on enablers like you, so post away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Just looked at the maps/routes.
I guess if your high school is next to a Metro station or a Park n Ride, it's possible.
Unfortunately, that would not work for us.

Sounds like someone who never rides a bus or has a kid in school wrote the comment about the buses being free.

https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/connector/student-pass

Click on high school bus routes and find out!

Great idea! Everyone who is being moved, look up directions in Google maps and select the public transit tab. Post your estimated travel time and number of transfers required! I bet they’ll all be super reasonable.

Oops! I thought you were worried about the low income kids who couldn’t carpool to school. Most Fairfax low income neighborhoods are located near public transit. Laughably, you are concerned about you own kids and trying to stop grandfathering for all kids until you get what you want.

Got it.

This is sadly what I see in my neighborhood group. Folks opposing grandfathering seem worried that if it goes through, others will stop fighting the boundary change in general. I find the all or nothing attitude very sad. This needs to be treated as a separate issue --- a policy change that impacts all boundary changes current and future, some of which may end up being truly necessary. It doesn't have to mean that we stop pushing back against current unnecessary boundary changes. It is just another layer of protection against moving kids at particularly harmful time --- the middle of high school.

That's a very odd way to articulate it. I think the people who are against the boundary changes are still against the boundary changes. Then you have a group that's quickly decided to start taking up the School Board's cause, either because (1) their own kids would benefit from grandfathering, with or without transportation; or (2) they stand to benefit from the KAA acquisition, so a School Board that just dropped $150 million on a school for them can do little wrong in their eyes.

I mean, kudos to the School Board for rolling out this type of "divide and conquer" strategy, but the potential boundary changes themselves are still imbecilic in many if not most instances, and they deserve to remain the primary focus of attention, not the bone tossed to soften the blow.

What I am seeing is that some folks in my neighborhood group are against the grandfathering amendment, and they have cited "divide and conquer" as the reason.

I am both for changing the policy to allow grandfathering (as it should have been the case from the beginning) and pushing back against this round of of boundary changes.

Are you against the grandfathering amendment? If so, why? Are you worried that it will dilute the backlash against the current round of boundary changes if there is a safety net for high school students?

I am in favor of a grandfathering amendment, but only with a commitment to providing transportation for grandfathered students.

Without such a commitment, we're favoring wealthier students with access to cars or drivers over other students, which is inequitable, and the opposition to objectively unnecessary boundary changes will be more muted. It indeed appears to be a "divide and conquer" strategy by the School Board.

[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.

The amendment is very clear on that part.

GTFO, it is anything but clear on that point. But if you’d care to enlighten us how that sentence is somehow very clear whether the amendment applies across the board or just to KAA, please enlighten us. We’ll wait.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

100% this.

I was more motvated to continue working against rezoning when this grandfathering update came out, like I have been for the past year.

But reading that poster calling those of us who have been doing the work this whole time "selfish" and gullible make me want to say F it, let those posters go it alone instead of continuing to help them.

It doesn’t really sound like you were going to stay in the fight anyway, and instead are using a random post on an anonymous forum as pretext to bail.

[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.

The amendment is very clear on that part.

GTFO, it is anything but clear on that point. But if you’d care to enlighten us how that sentence is somehow very clear whether the amendment applies across the board or just to KAA, please enlighten us. We’ll wait.

DP. Here's the language relating to HS boundary adjustments:

High Schools: When a boundary adjustment occurs at the high school level, attendance in the new school boundary shall be mandatory for incoming 9th grade students. Students in grades 10-12 shall be given the option to remain at their current school or attend the school in the new boundary. These allowances shall not be applicable in the opening of a new school, or in the closing of an existing school.

I think this is clear that, for the type of boundary adjustments that Thru Consulting has been proposing, the intent would be that all rising 9th graders would attend the new school, and students in grades 10-12 would have a choice to either attend the new school or stay at their current schools. It's fairly obvious that a student in grades 10-12 could remain at their current school through graduation, although there's some ambiguity as to whether they'd need to make a one-time election the first year or could make a different choice in subsequent years. The policy is completely silient with respect to transportation, so folks would be left guessing, until there is further clarification, as to whether FCPS would provide transportation to students' current schools.

The last sentence seems to speak to situations like KAA, since KAA would be a "new school" for FCPS. FCPS would make a separate decision specific to the reopening of KAA as an FCPS school at a later date. Going by the practice in other jurisdictions, it's unlikely KAA would have any seniors its first year. FCPS might decide that all 9th through 11th graders rezoned to KAA should attend the school, or they might decide that all 9th and 10th graders rezoned to KAA should attend the school, and 11th graders might be able to elect to stay at their current schools or attend KAA. But the only thing that's clear is that, for a new school like KAA, FCPS wouldn't commit in advance to grandfather students in grades 10-12 by giving them an option to attend either their current schools or KAA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It does not mean more high school drivers because those high school students are already driving to their neighborhood high school.

Some are and some aren't. The one thing that is absolutely clear is that there would be more teen drivers on the roads if they revise boundaries every five years and then phase in each set of changes through grandfathering without transportation.

I’m not following your logic. Most of the kids stop taking the school bus and start driving asap. These kids are driving anyway, they don’t use the cheese wagon as we so lovingly called it in high school.

It's funny how you generalize from your own experience to the entire county. But, hey, the School Board depends on enablers like you, so post away.

What’s with the name calling? Argue the point, not the person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It does not mean more high school drivers because those high school students are already driving to their neighborhood high school.

Some are and some aren't. The one thing that is absolutely clear is that there would be more teen drivers on the roads if they revise boundaries every five years and then phase in each set of changes through grandfathering without transportation.

I’m not following your logic. Most of the kids stop taking the school bus and start driving asap. These kids are driving anyway, they don’t use the cheese wagon as we so lovingly called it in high school.

It's funny how you generalize from your own experience to the entire county. But, hey, the School Board depends on enablers like you, so post away.

What’s with the name calling? Argue the point, not the person.

That is the point: PP is making a broad, yet inaccurate, generalization based on her own observation. It's been pointed out by others that it's not universally the case that "everyone" in grades 10-12 drives, yet she ignores this and repeats the lie.

It's back to the same type of School Board shilling we saw months ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Just looked at the maps/routes.
I guess if your high school is next to a Metro station or a Park n Ride, it's possible.
Unfortunately, that would not work for us.

Sounds like someone who never rides a bus or has a kid in school wrote the comment about the buses being free.

https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/connector/student-pass

Click on high school bus routes and find out!

Great idea! Everyone who is being moved, look up directions in Google maps and select the public transit tab. Post your estimated travel time and number of transfers required! I bet they’ll all be super reasonable.

Oops! I thought you were worried about the low income kids who couldn’t carpool to school. Most Fairfax low income neighborhoods are located near public transit. Laughably, you are concerned about you own kids and trying to stop grandfathering for all kids until you get what you want.

Got it.

This is sadly what I see in my neighborhood group. Folks opposing grandfathering seem worried that if it goes through, others will stop fighting the boundary change in general. I find the all or nothing attitude very sad. This needs to be treated as a separate issue --- a policy change that impacts all boundary changes current and future, some of which may end up being truly necessary. It doesn't have to mean that we stop pushing back against current unnecessary boundary changes. It is just another layer of protection against moving kids at particularly harmful time --- the middle of high school.

That's a very odd way to articulate it. I think the people who are against the boundary changes are still against the boundary changes. Then you have a group that's quickly decided to start taking up the School Board's cause, either because (1) their own kids would benefit from grandfathering, with or without transportation; or (2) they stand to benefit from the KAA acquisition, so a School Board that just dropped $150 million on a school for them can do little wrong in their eyes.

I mean, kudos to the School Board for rolling out this type of "divide and conquer" strategy, but the potential boundary changes themselves are still imbecilic in many if not most instances, and they deserve to remain the primary focus of attention, not the bone tossed to soften the blow.

Wanting to see grandfathering for HS kids does not mean I have “taken up the cause” of boundary changes. Being less vehemently opposed to something does not = supporting it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It does not mean more high school drivers because those high school students are already driving to their neighborhood high school.

Some are and some aren't. The one thing that is absolutely clear is that there would be more teen drivers on the roads if they revise boundaries every five years and then phase in each set of changes through grandfathering without transportation.

I’m not following your logic. Most of the kids stop taking the school bus and start driving asap. These kids are driving anyway, they don’t use the cheese wagon as we so lovingly called it in high school.

It's funny how you generalize from your own experience to the entire county. But, hey, the School Board depends on enablers like you, so post away.

What’s with the name calling? Argue the point, not the person.

That is the point: PP is making a broad, yet inaccurate, generalization based on her own observation. It's been pointed out by others that it's not universally the case that "everyone" in grades 10-12 drives, yet she ignores this and repeats the lie.

It's back to the same type of School Board shilling we saw months ago.

Yes. If you are generalizing then you haven’t had any high school drivers yet. My 4th is a rising junior and no license yet. And when she does, no car and no spot in the lot. I’ve had a senior need to take the bus before. It is simply not true that every licensed teen has a car and access to a safe parking spot or rides with friends.