ACPS Redistricting Letters

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get it, people are complaining because they wanted to buy a house in the cheaper area knowing full well the assigned zone school sucked, and want to keep sending their kids to an out of zone better school? We were zoned for JH and made the move to Rosemont for Maury. There are too many under enrolled schools and too many over enrolled busting at the seams schools. Something has to be done. No plan is perfect but what are they supposed to do?

But, but, but, according to other posters we aren't to rely on boundaries because they are not promised and in a constant state of change...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What if all the kids in a family are at a school because of administrative transfers? They all move?

Yes, unless they will be rising 4th or 5th graders this summer.

I have a rising 4th grader so his 1st grade sister can stay as long as he's there, which is one year.

My neighbors, however, have just one kid and since she's a 2nd grader, she's getting the boot.

This is how idiotic and sloppy the school board was with the grandfathering process. They created situations where literal next door neighbors are treated disparately.

If you're neighbor has only one kid and she received an administrative transfer, then she gets to stay in her school regardless of what grade she's in. There's a distinction between an "administrative transfer" and "sibling of an administrative transfer". The siblings only get to stay until the child with the transfer graduates from the school. But any child who received a transfer directly (not from being a sibling), gets to stay regardless of grade.

Wrong. This is what they said, not what they're doing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

All Admin transfers w/o an older sibling must leave their current school at the end of this year. Programmatic transfers are, inexplicably, permitted to stay.

This is simply not true, you have misunderstood the letter or misunderstand what an administrative transfer is/means. See this link: https://www.acps.k12.va.us/cms/lib/VA01918616/Centricity/Shared/documents/school-board-policies/jce-r.pdf. If the child has a previously-approved admin transfer, they will not be required to move. This conforms with the information that we got in the mail from my child's school (Maury).

Wrong. Absolutely incorrect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Speaking of naivety, only an idiot would believe ACPS would shit upon the families most active in their kid's education (eg parents of admin transfers)

What are you talking about? At the better-regarded ACPS schools, the parents of kids with admin transfers are no more active in their kids' education than the affluent parents who actually live in the attendance zone.

My point is that the population of kids described in the OP- kids under transfers, but now rezoned- account, for something infinitesimally small. I know that at my kid's school there are seven in the entire school. Seven

Is that an amount that should make entire families uproot lives and start over somewhere else? Not in most people's opinion.

Even at the smallest schools in the system that number is smaller than the fluctuation in student population one would experience just through home sales in the attendance zone.

That's yet another way the SB was short sighted. They made decisions that really don't alter the system at all but have huge impacts on families. They should have originally fully grandfathered everyone currently enrolled. Worst case scenario would be 20-30 kids attending the 'wrong' school for 5 years. Here we are year three into the redistricting process and they don't even have the new school yet. But GD it, we gotta get rid of those seven kids!!!

Imbecilic.

I'd bet they delay implementation yet another year if I had to guess.

This has nothing to do with actual school assignments. This is the school board trying to scare the population (overcrowding! safety! elimination of transfers!) into supporting their ridiculous expansion plan. And it's working.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Speaking of naivety, only an idiot would believe ACPS would shit upon the families most active in their kid's education (eg parents of admin transfers)

What are you talking about? At the better-regarded ACPS schools, the parents of kids with admin transfers are no more active in their kids' education than the affluent parents who actually live in the attendance zone.

My point is that the population of kids described in the OP- kids under transfers, but now rezoned- account, for something infinitesimally small. I know that at my kid's school there are seven in the entire school. Seven

Is that an amount that should make entire families uproot lives and start over somewhere else? Not in most people's opinion.

Even at the smallest schools in the system that number is smaller than the fluctuation in student population one would experience just through home sales in the attendance zone.

That's yet another way the SB was short sighted. They made decisions that really don't alter the system at all but have huge impacts on families. They should have originally fully grandfathered everyone currently enrolled. Worst case scenario would be 20-30 kids attending the 'wrong' school for 5 years. Here we are year three into the redistricting process and they don't even have the new school yet. But GD it, we gotta get rid of those seven kids!!!

Imbecilic.

I'd bet they delay implementation yet another year if I had to guess.

This has nothing to do with actual school assignments. This is the school board trying to scare the population (overcrowding! safety! elimination of transfers!) into supporting their ridiculous expansion plan. And it's working.

Wait until they realize how many of the 'wealthy, white kids' theyre trying to force into JH (to finally get accreditation, off their backs) have an MD in the family who is more than happy to diagnose the kid with a disorder that JH isn't capable of dealing with. Viola! Instant transfer.

The SB would do better remembering who they are (public servants with shitty diplomas from VT) and stop fighting the taxpayers with JD/MD degrees from Stanford. They'll never 'beat' them. And theyre wasting all of our dollars in an ego tug of war.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Speaking of naivety, only an idiot would believe ACPS would shit upon the families most active in their kid's education (eg parents of admin transfers)

What are you talking about? At the better-regarded ACPS schools, the parents of kids with admin transfers are no more active in their kids' education than the affluent parents who actually live in the attendance zone.

My point is that the population of kids described in the OP- kids under transfers, but now rezoned- account, for something infinitesimally small. I know that at my kid's school there are seven in the entire school. Seven

Is that an amount that should make entire families uproot lives and start over somewhere else? Not in most people's opinion.

Even at the smallest schools in the system that number is smaller than the fluctuation in student population one would experience just through home sales in the attendance zone.

That's yet another way the SB was short sighted. They made decisions that really don't alter the system at all but have huge impacts on families. They should have originally fully grandfathered everyone currently enrolled. Worst case scenario would be 20-30 kids attending the 'wrong' school for 5 years. Here we are year three into the redistricting process and they don't even have the new school yet. But GD it, we gotta get rid of those seven kids!!!

Imbecilic.

I'd bet they delay implementation yet another year if I had to guess.

This has nothing to do with actual school assignments. This is the school board trying to scare the population (overcrowding! safety! elimination of transfers!) into supporting their ridiculous expansion plan. And it's working.

Wait until they realize how many of the 'wealthy, white kids' theyre trying to force into JH (to finally get accreditation, off their backs) have an MD in the family who is more than happy to diagnose the kid with a disorder that JH isn't capable of dealing with. Viola! Instant transfer.

The SB would do better remembering who they are (public servants with shitty diplomas from VT) and stop fighting the taxpayers with JD/MD degrees from Stanford. They'll never 'beat' them. And theyre wasting all of our dollars in an ego tug of war.

This. The town embarrassment.

[Anonymous]

Boot lickin' liberal chiming in!

[Anonymous]

And, you dolt, Alexandria is a city, not a town. Go back to Ass Fuck, Ohio, you obnoxious transplant.

[Anonymous]

All Admin transfers w/o an older sibling must leave their current school at the end of this year. Programmatic transfers are, inexplicably, permitted to stay.


This is simply not true, you have misunderstood the letter or misunderstand what an administrative transfer is/means. See this link: https://www.acps.k12.va.us/cms/lib/VA01918616/Cent...hool-board-policies/jce-r.pdf. If the child has a previously-approved admin transfer, they will not be required to move. This conforms with the information that we got in the mail from my child's school (Maury).


Wrong. Absolutely incorrect.

Let's see. One person quoted an actual source. I've gotten a letter from school to that effect. But I am sure that you posting "wrong. Absolutely incorrect" is more convincing. Maybe "fake news" would have been even better, but nice try.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

All Admin transfers w/o an older sibling must leave their current school at the end of this year. Programmatic transfers are, inexplicably, permitted to stay.


This is simply not true, you have misunderstood the letter or misunderstand what an administrative transfer is/means. See this link: https://www.acps.k12.va.us/cms/lib/VA01918616/Cent...hool-board-policies/jce-r.pdf. If the child has a previously-approved admin transfer, they will not be required to move. This conforms with the information that we got in the mail from my child's school (Maury).


Wrong. Absolutely incorrect.

Let's see. One person quoted an actual source. I've gotten a letter from school to that effect. But I am sure that you posting "wrong. Absolutely incorrect" is more convincing. Maybe "fake news" would have been even better, but nice try.

The policy you noted is correct. You have the right one. And that’s what is supposed to happen. But it hasn’t. Numerous families with administrative transfers are being moved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Speaking of naivety, only an idiot would believe ACPS would shit upon the families most active in their kid's education (eg parents of admin transfers)

What are you talking about? At the better-regarded ACPS schools, the parents of kids with admin transfers are no more active in their kids' education than the affluent parents who actually live in the attendance zone.

My point is that the population of kids described in the OP- kids under transfers, but now rezoned- account, for something infinitesimally small. I know that at my kid's school there are seven in the entire school. Seven

Is that an amount that should make entire families uproot lives and start over somewhere else? Not in most people's opinion.

Even at the smallest schools in the system that number is smaller than the fluctuation in student population one would experience just through home sales in the attendance zone.

That's yet another way the SB was short sighted. They made decisions that really don't alter the system at all but have huge impacts on families. They should have originally fully grandfathered everyone currently enrolled. Worst case scenario would be 20-30 kids attending the 'wrong' school for 5 years. Here we are year three into the redistricting process and they don't even have the new school yet. But GD it, we gotta get rid of those seven kids!!!

Imbecilic.

I'd bet they delay implementation yet another year if I had to guess.

This has nothing to do with actual school assignments. This is the school board trying to scare the population (overcrowding! safety! elimination of transfers!) into supporting their ridiculous expansion plan. And it's working.

Wait until they realize how many of the 'wealthy, white kids' theyre trying to force into JH (to finally get accreditation, off their backs) have an MD in the family who is more than happy to diagnose the kid with a disorder that JH isn't capable of dealing with. Viola! Instant transfer.

The SB would do better remembering who they are (public servants with shitty diplomas from VT) and stop fighting the taxpayers with JD/MD degrees from Stanford. They'll never 'beat' them. And theyre wasting all of our dollars in an ego tug of war.

Wow. You really went there, huh? Feel better now? If not, please check your privilege.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Speaking of naivety, only an idiot would believe ACPS would shit upon the families most active in their kid's education (eg parents of admin transfers)

What are you talking about? At the better-regarded ACPS schools, the parents of kids with admin transfers are no more active in their kids' education than the affluent parents who actually live in the attendance zone.

My point is that the population of kids described in the OP- kids under transfers, but now rezoned- account, for something infinitesimally small. I know that at my kid's school there are seven in the entire school. Seven

Is that an amount that should make entire families uproot lives and start over somewhere else? Not in most people's opinion.

Even at the smallest schools in the system that number is smaller than the fluctuation in student population one would experience just through home sales in the attendance zone.

That's yet another way the SB was short sighted. They made decisions that really don't alter the system at all but have huge impacts on families. They should have originally fully grandfathered everyone currently enrolled. Worst case scenario would be 20-30 kids attending the 'wrong' school for 5 years. Here we are year three into the redistricting process and they don't even have the new school yet. But GD it, we gotta get rid of those seven kids!!!

Imbecilic.

I'd bet they delay implementation yet another year if I had to guess.

This has nothing to do with actual school assignments. This is the school board trying to scare the population (overcrowding! safety! elimination of transfers!) into supporting their ridiculous expansion plan. And it's working.

Wait until they realize how many of the 'wealthy, white kids' theyre trying to force into JH (to finally get accreditation, off their backs) have an MD in the family who is more than happy to diagnose the kid with a disorder that JH isn't capable of dealing with. Viola! Instant transfer.

The SB would do better remembering who they are (public servants with shitty diplomas from VT) and stop fighting the taxpayers with JD/MD degrees from Stanford. They'll never 'beat' them. And theyre wasting all of our dollars in an ego tug of war.

Wow. You really went there, huh? Feel better now? If not, please check your privilege.

lol. is your Land Rover a '15 or a '16?

[Anonymous]

All Admin transfers w/o an older sibling must leave their current school at the end of this year. Programmatic transfers are, inexplicably, permitted to stay.


This is simply not true, you have misunderstood the letter or misunderstand what an administrative transfer is/means. See this link: https://www.acps.k12.va.us/cms/lib/VA01918616/Cent...hool-board-policies/jce-r.pdf. If the child has a previously-approved admin transfer, they will not be required to move. This conforms with the information that we got in the mail from my child's school (Maury).


Wrong. Absolutely incorrect.


Let's see. One person quoted an actual source. I've gotten a letter from school to that effect. But I am sure that you posting "wrong. Absolutely incorrect" is more convincing. Maybe "fake news" would have been even better, but nice try.


The policy you noted is correct. You have the right one. And that’s what is supposed to happen. But it hasn’t. Numerous families with administrative transfers are being moved.

Well, I can't speak to what is happening at other schools, but at my child's that is not the case. I'm very involved in the school and our PTA, and I only know of one child with an admin transfer who is being moved, and that is due to behavioral issues, which the policy always allowed for. If people at other schools are being moved contrary to the redistricting plan, they should appeal and contact the media.

[Anonymous]

Admin transfers used to have a legacy to them, loosely. I'm hearing that legacy is waning. But, that conflicts with reports I've personally heard from several people that admin transfers will be issued freely to these families when the time comes. Can you blame them? Who's going to want to switch schools after 5 or 6 years? At that point you're so heavily involved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Admin transfers used to have a legacy to them, loosely. I'm hearing that legacy is waning. But, that conflicts with reports I've personally heard from several people that admin transfers will be issued freely to these families when the time comes. Can you blame them? Who's going to want to switch schools after 5 or 6 years? At that point you're so heavily involved.

Yup. That's all done. Only school board members get admin transfers now, for their own kids. The school board used to have a policy that said:

If approved, administrative transfers remain in place for the number of years spanned by that school, provided:
• The child demonstrates good attendance and punctuality in accordance with Policy JED.
• The child demonstrates appropriate behavior in school.

That policy is still on the books but it no longer means anything. Schools are looking for excuses to transfer out anyone with an AT.