Amendments to Policy 8130 re Grandfathering of Current Students

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is the transportation piece in there? With this my rising 9th grader can stay but my rising 7th grader would need to move so then I’d have two high schools and can’t so transportation.

I think it will not include transportation, because it requires the option to stay or go

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the transportation piece in there? With this my rising 9th grader can stay but my rising 7th grader would need to move so then I’d have two high schools and can’t so transportation.

There's currently a sibling transfer option.

https://www.fcps.edu/about-fcps/registration/transfer-information/sibling-requested-school

So maybe if your 9th grader is in one school, you can request your 7th grader can transfer to be at the same school?

Interesting. I might have been confusing but I’d have two in high school.

IF boundary maps come to be in 2 years I’d have -

8th grader grandfathered to current middle but then would have to move to 9th?

10th grade grandfathered to current HS

12th grader grandfathered to current school.

Just trying to figure out what that looks like for transportation or if we make 10th grader go to new school with younger sibling. When 10th grader is in 11th grade there is no guarantee car and driving.

Yes

[Anonymous]

That's great, sounds like they are being responsive to parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Many years ago, I was in the second graduating class of a new high school. It did not open as a full high school. It opened with a ninth grade as I recall. (I started there in tenth grade. There were no Seniors.)

This is what I think they'll do with the Western High School. Will also help with staffing and renovations.

[Anonymous]

I’m happy about the grandfathering. Especially for the 10-12th grade kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That's great, sounds like they are being responsive to parents.

A small percentage of parents, that is. Congratulations for being in that small percentage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's great, sounds like they are being responsive to parents.

A small percentage of parents, that is. Congratulations for being in that small percentage.

A small percentage wants grandfathering for high school students? I get that you don’t want changes, ever, but whether there are boundary adjustments with this review or not, leaving the policy for grandfathering vague was a mistake. This amendment will codify grandfathering high school students, which has nearly always been granted in previous boundary adjustments anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's great, sounds like they are being responsive to parents.

A small percentage of parents, that is. Congratulations for being in that small percentage.

A small percentage wants grandfathering for high school students? I get that you don’t want changes, ever, but whether there are boundary adjustments with this review or not, leaving the policy for grandfathering vague was a mistake. This amendment will codify grandfathering high school students, which has nearly always been granted in previous boundary adjustments anyway.

Save a class or two, screw the rest.

Again, I’m for liberal grandfathering, but just pointing out that the real win comes when the school board realizes that it shouldn’t make unnecessary boundary changes in the first place. Otherwise, you were the fortunate family to get on a Titanic lifeboat while your neighbors did not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's great, sounds like they are being responsive to parents.

A small percentage of parents, that is. Congratulations for being in that small percentage.

A small percentage wants grandfathering for high school students? I get that you don’t want changes, ever, but whether there are boundary adjustments with this review or not, leaving the policy for grandfathering vague was a mistake. This amendment will codify grandfathering high school students, which has nearly always been granted in previous boundary adjustments anyway.

I think the issue is less whether they agree to grandfather, and more whether they decide not to provide transportation. If they don't provide transportation, then it's up to families to arrange transportation for their kids, and that is a regressive policy that favors families where there's a stay-at-home parent who can provide transportation or a kid has their own wheels.

They were so damn keen to do a county-wide redistricting "that hadn't been done in 40 years." But they didn't do their research. Had they done so, they would have learned that, in those prior county-wide redistrictings, the School Board agreed in advance that students in grades 10-12 would be grandfathered, with transportation provided. That, in turn, served as a constraint on the volume of boundary changes.

These folks didn't educate themselves, so they didn't commit to grandfathering in advance, either with or without transportation. Now they seem poised, in anticipation of the pushback that otherwise would have occurred, to commit to grandfathering, but they are still unwilling to commit to providing transportation. This is what happens when you elect unqualified people who don't understand what they are taking on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That's great, sounds like they are being responsive to parents.

I don't think it is so much the school board being responsive to parents, as it is Dunn finally getting through to all the reps with higher political aspirations that they are committing political suicide by pushing through an unnecessary, unpopular and unwanted social engineering rezoning, without allowing existing high school students to be grandfathered.

Dunn is the only school board rep communicating with and advocating for constituents and FCPS families, and the only school board rep with an ounce of sense or moderation. This change to grandfather and protect high school students from disruptive rezoning has Dunn's leadership all over it.

None of the others seem to care about FCPS students when it comes to this rezoning process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's great, sounds like they are being responsive to parents.

A small percentage of parents, that is. Congratulations for being in that small percentage.

You must have a kindergartner and not know any high school families

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's great, sounds like they are being responsive to parents.

A small percentage of parents, that is. Congratulations for being in that small percentage.

A small percentage wants grandfathering for high school students? I get that you don’t want changes, ever, but whether there are boundary adjustments with this review or not, leaving the policy for grandfathering vague was a mistake. This amendment will codify grandfathering high school students, which has nearly always been granted in previous boundary adjustments anyway.

I think the issue is less whether they agree to grandfather, and more whether they decide not to provide transportation. If they don't provide transportation, then it's up to families to arrange transportation for their kids, and that is a regressive policy that favors families where there's a stay-at-home parent who can provide transportation or a kid has their own wheels.

They were so damn keen to do a county-wide redistricting "that hadn't been done in 40 years." But they didn't do their research. Had they done so, they would have learned that, in those prior county-wide redistrictings, the School Board agreed in advance that students in grades 10-12 would be grandfathered, with transportation provided. That, in turn, served as a constraint on the volume of boundary changes.

These folks didn't educate themselves, so they didn't commit to grandfathering in advance, either with or without transportation. Now they seem poised, in anticipation of the pushback that otherwise would have occurred, to commit to grandfathering, but they are still unwilling to commit to providing transportation. This is what happens when you elect unqualified people who don't understand what they are taking on.

Most high schoolers drive, have friends who drive, or are old enough to safely bike or walk the 2 miles to their neighborhood school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's great, sounds like they are being responsive to parents.

I don't think it is so much the school board being responsive to parents, as it is Dunn finally getting through to all the reps with higher political aspirations that they are committing political suicide by pushing through an unnecessary, unpopular and unwanted social engineering rezoning, without allowing existing high school students to be grandfathered.

Dunn is the only school board rep communicating with and advocating for constituents and FCPS families, and the only school board rep with an ounce of sense or moderation. This change to grandfather and protect high school students from disruptive rezoning has Dunn's leadership all over it.

None of the others seem to care about FCPS students when it comes to this rezoning process.

Ricardy Anderson would like a few words. Her and Meren were fighting for defining grandfathering for high school students to be included in 8130 language when the revision was being passed. She wanted it guaranteed starting at middle school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's great, sounds like they are being responsive to parents.

A small percentage of parents, that is. Congratulations for being in that small percentage.

A small percentage wants grandfathering for high school students? I get that you don’t want changes, ever, but whether there are boundary adjustments with this review or not, leaving the policy for grandfathering vague was a mistake. This amendment will codify grandfathering high school students, which has nearly always been granted in previous boundary adjustments anyway.

I think the issue is less whether they agree to grandfather, and more whether they decide not to provide transportation. If they don't provide transportation, then it's up to families to arrange transportation for their kids, and that is a regressive policy that favors families where there's a stay-at-home parent who can provide transportation or a kid has their own wheels.

They were so damn keen to do a county-wide redistricting "that hadn't been done in 40 years." But they didn't do their research. Had they done so, they would have learned that, in those prior county-wide redistrictings, the School Board agreed in advance that students in grades 10-12 would be grandfathered, with transportation provided. That, in turn, served as a constraint on the volume of boundary changes.

These folks didn't educate themselves, so they didn't commit to grandfathering in advance, either with or without transportation. Now they seem poised, in anticipation of the pushback that otherwise would have occurred, to commit to grandfathering, but they are still unwilling to commit to providing transportation. This is what happens when you elect unqualified people who don't understand what they are taking on.

Most high schoolers drive, have friends who drive, or are old enough to safely bike or walk the 2 miles to their neighborhood school.

Well, not really, but good job pulling something out of your ass to justify the continued floundering of this School Board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's great, sounds like they are being responsive to parents.

A small percentage of parents, that is. Congratulations for being in that small percentage.

A small percentage wants grandfathering for high school students? I get that you don’t want changes, ever, but whether there are boundary adjustments with this review or not, leaving the policy for grandfathering vague was a mistake. This amendment will codify grandfathering high school students, which has nearly always been granted in previous boundary adjustments anyway.

I think the issue is less whether they agree to grandfather, and more whether they decide not to provide transportation. If they don't provide transportation, then it's up to families to arrange transportation for their kids, and that is a regressive policy that favors families where there's a stay-at-home parent who can provide transportation or a kid has their own wheels.

They were so damn keen to do a county-wide redistricting "that hadn't been done in 40 years." But they didn't do their research. Had they done so, they would have learned that, in those prior county-wide redistrictings, the School Board agreed in advance that students in grades 10-12 would be grandfathered, with transportation provided. That, in turn, served as a constraint on the volume of boundary changes.

These folks didn't educate themselves, so they didn't commit to grandfathering in advance, either with or without transportation. Now they seem poised, in anticipation of the pushback that otherwise would have occurred, to commit to grandfathering, but they are still unwilling to commit to providing transportation. This is what happens when you elect unqualified people who don't understand what they are taking on.

Most high schoolers drive, have friends who drive, or are old enough to safely bike or walk the 2 miles to their neighborhood school.

Majority of the areas being moved are more than 2 miles from their currently assigned high school.