Boundary Review Meetings

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think five-year reviews is a bad idea but the manner in which the current review has been carried out isn’t promising and the factors prioritized in Policy 8130 don’t align with what matters to most families.

If they prioritized what matters to most families, then they would prioritize stability. That would be the one factor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think five-year reviews is a bad idea but the manner in which the current review has been carried out isn’t promising and the factors prioritized in Policy 8130 don’t align with what matters to most families.

If they prioritized what matters to most families, then they would prioritize stability. That would be the one factor.

If they prioritized stability they would need to revisit how they are allocating capital dollars to avoid boundary changes. Instead we get boundary changes to cover up their bad planning and poor oversight of the allocation of capital resources.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think five-year reviews is a bad idea but the manner in which the current review has been carried out isn’t promising and the factors prioritized in Policy 8130 don’t align with what matters to most families.

If they prioritized what matters to most families, then they would prioritize stability. That would be the one factor.

If they prioritized stability they would need to revisit how they are allocating capital dollars to avoid boundary changes. Instead we get boundary changes to cover up their bad planning and poor oversight of the allocation of capital resources.

I am absolutely against the comprehensive boundary study. But, sometimes boundary changes are necessary. You really do not understand that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think five-year reviews is a bad idea but the manner in which the current review has been carried out isn’t promising and the factors prioritized in Policy 8130 don’t align with what matters to most families.

If they prioritized what matters to most families, then they would prioritize stability. That would be the one factor.

If they prioritized stability they would need to revisit how they are allocating capital dollars to avoid boundary changes. Instead we get boundary changes to cover up their bad planning and poor oversight of the allocation of capital resources.

I am absolutely against the comprehensive boundary study. But, sometimes boundary changes are necessary. You really do not understand that?

I didn’t say otherwise (Coates is a good example), but it’s clear to anyone who is paying attention that some boundary changes could be avoided if they were allocating capital resources to where they are most needed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think five-year reviews is a bad idea but the manner in which the current review has been carried out isn’t promising and the factors prioritized in Policy 8130 don’t align with what matters to most families.

If they prioritized what matters to most families, then they would prioritize stability. That would be the one factor.

If they prioritized stability they would need to revisit how they are allocating capital dollars to avoid boundary changes. Instead we get boundary changes to cover up their bad planning and poor oversight of the allocation of capital resources.

I am absolutely against the comprehensive boundary study. But, sometimes boundary changes are necessary. You really do not understand that?

I didn’t say otherwise (Coates is a good example), but it’s clear to anyone who is paying attention that some boundary changes could be avoided if they were allocating capital resources to where they are most needed.

Absolutely this. The neglect of certain schools is intentional.

[Anonymous]

They posted slides for some of the topics at the 12/4 board meeting. One of them is on the transportation of kids "grandfathered" in as part of phasing, and it appears to recommend that transportation NOT be provided. They estimated it'd cost $10.4m to do so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They posted slides for some of the topics at the 12/4 board meeting. One of them is on the transportation of kids "grandfathered" in as part of phasing, and it appears to recommend that transportation NOT be provided. They estimated it'd cost $10.4m to do so.

To be specific Reid's recommendation at the end of the deck is "Provide transportation based only on new boundary adjustments."

The phrasing is odd, but the intent is clear - save $10.4 million by only providing transportation to schools based on the revised boundaries.

And it doesn't matter what grade your kid is in. If they are a rising senior at a high school, you're on your own to arrange their transportation. Same if they are a rising 8th grader or a rising 6th grader.

To be clear, this is a departure from both (1) the county-wide boundary adjustments decades ago; and (2) the more recent one-off boundary changes. When FCPS used to adjust boundaries county-wide, they started with the proposition that the need to grandfather with transportation would serve as a constraint on how many boundaries were changed. With the more recent one-off boundary changes, there was generous phasing and transportation provided.

The recommendation is not surprising, because they never treated transportation costs as a potential constraint on what boundaries they might change. But, by the same token, their boundary proposals are random and anything but comprehensive or courageous. So it's just the subset of families that happen to get caught up in their desire to show they "did something" that will bear the brunt of this recommendation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They posted slides for some of the topics at the 12/4 board meeting. One of them is on the transportation of kids "grandfathered" in as part of phasing, and it appears to recommend that transportation NOT be provided. They estimated it'd cost $10.4m to do so.

To be specific Reid's recommendation at the end of the deck is "Provide transportation based only on new boundary adjustments."

The phrasing is odd, but the intent is clear - save $10.4 million by only providing transportation to schools based on the revised boundaries.

And it doesn't matter what grade your kid is in. If they are a rising senior at a high school, you're on your own to arrange their transportation. Same if they are a rising 8th grader or a rising 6th grader.

To be clear, this is a departure from both (1) the county-wide boundary adjustments decades ago; and (2) the more recent one-off boundary changes. When FCPS used to adjust boundaries county-wide, they started with the proposition that the need to grandfather with transportation would serve as a constraint on how many boundaries were changed. With the more recent one-off boundary changes, there was generous phasing and transportation provided.

The recommendation is not surprising, because they never treated transportation costs as a potential constraint on what boundaries they might change. But, by the same token, their boundary proposals are random and anything but comprehensive or courageous. So it's just the subset of families that happen to get caught up in their desire to show they "did something" that will bear the brunt of this recommendation.

But they said 7th graders in secondary school could be phased in and stay at their current schools. So that would presumably also continue thru senior year? So presumably those kids would need to get driven to school for the next 5 years?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They posted slides for some of the topics at the 12/4 board meeting. One of them is on the transportation of kids "grandfathered" in as part of phasing, and it appears to recommend that transportation NOT be provided. They estimated it'd cost $10.4m to do so.

To be specific Reid's recommendation at the end of the deck is "Provide transportation based only on new boundary adjustments."

The phrasing is odd, but the intent is clear - save $10.4 million by only providing transportation to schools based on the revised boundaries.

And it doesn't matter what grade your kid is in. If they are a rising senior at a high school, you're on your own to arrange their transportation. Same if they are a rising 8th grader or a rising 6th grader.

To be clear, this is a departure from both (1) the county-wide boundary adjustments decades ago; and (2) the more recent one-off boundary changes. When FCPS used to adjust boundaries county-wide, they started with the proposition that the need to grandfather with transportation would serve as a constraint on how many boundaries were changed. With the more recent one-off boundary changes, there was generous phasing and transportation provided.

The recommendation is not surprising, because they never treated transportation costs as a potential constraint on what boundaries they might change. But, by the same token, their boundary proposals are random and anything but comprehensive or courageous. So it's just the subset of families that happen to get caught up in their desire to show they "did something" that will bear the brunt of this recommendation.

But they said 7th graders in secondary school could be phased in and stay at their current schools. So that would presumably also continue thru senior year? So presumably those kids would need to get driven to school for the next 5 years?

Our regular high school sent out scheduling for next school year a couple of weeks ago.

Rezoning won't be finalized until after schedules are made.

All 8th-12th graders need to be grandfathered through high school graduation.

7th graders should attend their new high schools... even 7th graders at secondary schools

If 7th and 8th graders at secondary schools are grandfathered, then ALL 7th and 8th graders should be grandfathered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They posted slides for some of the topics at the 12/4 board meeting. One of them is on the transportation of kids "grandfathered" in as part of phasing, and it appears to recommend that transportation NOT be provided. They estimated it'd cost $10.4m to do so.

To be specific Reid's recommendation at the end of the deck is "Provide transportation based only on new boundary adjustments."



The phrasing is odd, but the intent is clear - save $10.4 million by only providing transportation to schools based on the revised boundaries.

And it doesn't matter what grade your kid is in. If they are a rising senior at a high school, you're on your own to arrange their transportation. Same if they are a rising 8th grader or a rising 6th grader.

To be clear, this is a departure from both (1) the county-wide boundary adjustments decades ago; and (2) the more recent one-off boundary changes. When FCPS used to adjust boundaries county-wide, they started with the proposition that the need to grandfather with transportation would serve as a constraint on how many boundaries were changed. With the more recent one-off boundary changes, there was generous phasing and transportation provided.

The recommendation is not surprising, because they never treated transportation costs as a potential constraint on what boundaries they might change. But, by the same token, their boundary proposals are random and anything but comprehensive or courageous. So it's just the subset of families that happen to get caught up in their desire to show they "did something" that will bear the brunt of this recommendation.

But they said 7th graders in secondary school could be phased in and stay at their current schools. So that would presumably also continue thru senior year? So presumably those kids would need to get driven to school for the next 5 years?

They are trying to get students into the newly assigned schools. Opting to stay at a school is your choice. Move to the new school or find a way to get to your old school.

[Anonymous]

Am I the only one who thinks she hears Reid say a lot of things at different times?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They posted slides for some of the topics at the 12/4 board meeting. One of them is on the transportation of kids "grandfathered" in as part of phasing, and it appears to recommend that transportation NOT be provided. They estimated it'd cost $10.4m to do so.

Link please?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They posted slides for some of the topics at the 12/4 board meeting. One of them is on the transportation of kids "grandfathered" in as part of phasing, and it appears to recommend that transportation NOT be provided. They estimated it'd cost $10.4m to do so.

To be specific Reid's recommendation at the end of the deck is "Provide transportation based only on new boundary adjustments."



The phrasing is odd, but the intent is clear - save $10.4 million by only providing transportation to schools based on the revised boundaries.

And it doesn't matter what grade your kid is in. If they are a rising senior at a high school, you're on your own to arrange their transportation. Same if they are a rising 8th grader or a rising 6th grader.

To be clear, this is a departure from both (1) the county-wide boundary adjustments decades ago; and (2) the more recent one-off boundary changes. When FCPS used to adjust boundaries county-wide, they started with the proposition that the need to grandfather with transportation would serve as a constraint on how many boundaries were changed. With the more recent one-off boundary changes, there was generous phasing and transportation provided.

The recommendation is not surprising, because they never treated transportation costs as a potential constraint on what boundaries they might change. But, by the same token, their boundary proposals are random and anything but comprehensive or courageous. So it's just the subset of families that happen to get caught up in their desire to show they "did something" that will bear the brunt of this recommendation.

But they said 7th graders in secondary school could be phased in and stay at their current schools. So that would presumably also continue thru senior year? So presumably those kids would need to get driven to school for the next 5 years?

They are trying to get students into the newly assigned schools. Opting to stay at a school is your choice. Move to the new school or find a way to get to your old school.

Yes, of course, but it’s a regressive policy in that those with the fewest resources are least likely to be able to arrange for their kids’ transportation to their current schools. For all their talk about equity this School Board consistently favors the loudest and most privileged.

And the $10.4 million they estimate transportation would cost if provided likely represents about 5% of the one-time costs of the new western high school - which is a nice addition but not an absolute necessity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They posted slides for some of the topics at the 12/4 board meeting. One of them is on the transportation of kids "grandfathered" in as part of phasing, and it appears to recommend that transportation NOT be provided. They estimated it'd cost $10.4m to do so.

Link please?

Look at the “presentations to the school board” section of the agenda for the SB meeting this week on Board Docs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one who thinks she hears Reid say a lot of things at different times?

Yes.

She will say whatever the group at that particular meeting wants to hear.