Amendments to Policy 8130 re Grandfathering of Current Students

[Anonymous]

No sophomores drive! You sound completely unfamiliar with how kids get or don't get licenses in fcps in 2025z

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But clearly many, many do or else there would be empty parking lots during the high school day.

To me, it is a question of greater good, not will this work for everyone in every situation?

The number of kids being helped by adopting a policy of Grandfathering without transportation is high and in favor of greater good especially when compared to the idea of no Grandfathering except for seniors. That is the calculation I am evaluating, not will both my kids be in the perfect situation. They won’t be, but it is a better situation than the alternative (making kids switch in the middle of high school).

[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?

This is exactly what I am seeing.

[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.

Um, ask the transportation department.

Most of the bus riders are freshmen, followed by a much smaller group of sophomores.

Very few juniors and seniors ride the bus to school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No sophomores drive! You sound completely unfamiliar with how kids get or don't get licenses in fcps in 2025z

Lots of sophomores drive, particularly 2nd semester.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No sophomores drive! You sound completely unfamiliar with how kids get or don't get licenses in fcps in 2025z

But, plenty of them ride with siblings or neighbors. You sound unfamiliar with high school students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But clearly many, many do or else there would be empty parking lots during the high school day.

To me, it is a question of greater good, not will this work for everyone in every situation?

The number of kids being helped by adopting a policy of Grandfathering without transportation is high and in favor of greater good especially when compared to the idea of no Grandfathering except for seniors. That is the calculation I am evaluating, not will both my kids be in the perfect situation. They won’t be, but it is a better situation than the alternative (making kids switch in the middle of high school).

I think it's reasonable to evaluate whether a policy will advance the greater good. I just disagree that the greater good here is to adopt a policy that disadvantages those with fewer resources as a way of trying to get some wealthier parents to go along with boundary changes that are frequently unwarranted in the first instance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No sophomores drive! You sound completely unfamiliar with how kids get or don't get licenses in fcps in 2025z

Lots of sophomores drive, particularly 2nd semester.

No, they don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No sophomores drive! You sound completely unfamiliar with how kids get or don't get licenses in fcps in 2025z

But, plenty of them ride with siblings or neighbors. You sound unfamiliar with high school students.

Agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No sophomores drive! You sound completely unfamiliar with how kids get or don't get licenses in fcps in 2025z

Lots of sophomores drive, particularly 2nd semester.

No, they don't.

Yes, they do.

How young are your kids? They are clearly not in high school or you would know this.

[Anonymous]

There can't seriously be people who are going to fight against grandfathering high school students.

What is wrong with people?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No sophomores drive! You sound completely unfamiliar with how kids get or don't get licenses in fcps in 2025z

Lots of sophomores drive, particularly 2nd semester.

No, they don't.

Yes, they do.

How young are your kids? They are clearly not in high school or you would know this.

HAHA, i have a 19 year old and a rising junior. Very few 10th graders are driving by the end of 10th grade. A lot of kids do behind the wheel the summer between 10th and 11th.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But clearly many, many do or else there would be empty parking lots during the high school day.

To me, it is a question of greater good, not will this work for everyone in every situation?

The number of kids being helped by adopting a policy of Grandfathering without transportation is high and in favor of greater good especially when compared to the idea of no Grandfathering except for seniors. That is the calculation I am evaluating, not will both my kids be in the perfect situation. They won’t be, but it is a better situation than the alternative (making kids switch in the middle of high school).

I think it's reasonable to evaluate whether a policy will advance the greater good. I just disagree that the greater good here is to adopt a policy that disadvantages those with fewer resources as a way of trying to get some wealthier parents to go along with boundary changes that are frequently unwarranted in the first instance.

I completely understand that point but even taking that into account, I still think this weighs toward greater good being served by the proposed grandfather clause.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There can't seriously be people who are going to fight against grandfathering high school students.

What is wrong with people?

There aren’t people fighting grandfathering, and the fact that you’re trying to pit neighborhoods against each other reveals you as a school board shill, or possibly FCPS staff.

You’re the arsonist who critiques how the firefighters are putting out the fire.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There can't seriously be people who are going to fight against grandfathering high school students.

What is wrong with people?

There aren’t people fighting grandfathering, and the fact that you’re trying to pit neighborhoods against each other reveals you as a school board shill, or possibly FCPS staff.

You’re the arsonist who critiques how the firefighters are putting out the fire.

I'm not sure if there are people actively fighting against grandfathering (writing school board reps, etc), but there are people in my neighborhood group who have stated that they are against the grandfathering amendment because it will "divide and conquer" and dilute support for fighting boundary changes as a whole. Whether people are acting on those sentiments is a different story, but people have expressed these views.