Boundary Review Meetings

[Anonymous]

I would not be surprised if the SB challenges or adjusts her recommendation on transportation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would not be surprised if the SB challenges or adjusts her recommendation on transportation.

There are too many kids to bus them all

Plus, at the Lake Braddock meeting, parents were arguing to get their preschoolers/future kindergartners grandfathered along with their rising 6th grade siblings and elementary school kids grandfathered through middle and high school with older siblings. That would be 7 years of bussing if they push it through.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would not be surprised if the SB challenges or adjusts her recommendation on transportation.

There are too many kids to bus them all

Plus, at the Lake Braddock meeting, parents were arguing to get their preschoolers/future kindergartners grandfathered along with their rising 6th grade siblings and elementary school kids grandfathered through middle and high school with older siblings. That would be 7 years of bussing if they push it through.

Won’t matter for the Orange Hunt split feeder because that most likely got reversed. They’ll move HV kids instead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1. Parents with resources will be able to figure a way to transport their kids, those without resources will not. I agree that is a departure from previous boundary changes. If you look back at the work session, Sandy has been putting her foot down on transporting kids who are being moved from their current schools since day one (without even looking at the costs).

[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.

"their boundary proposals are random and anything but comprehensive or courageous". Very well said

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would not be surprised if the SB challenges or adjusts her recommendation on transportation.

They would love to challenge but where is money?

[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.

The one factor is the SB and Reid’s obsession with imposing equity.

They just need to find a way to cover up the fact they are going to ignore all the other factors.

[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.

The one factor is the SB and Reid’s obsession with imposing equity.

They just need to find a way to cover up the fact they are going to ignore all the other factors.

What “obsession”? Reid just spent months reassuring the loud, wealthy parents they’ll get their way again.

[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.

Considering they were unwilling to spend $1 Million for reasonable middle school start times, I'm not surprised. Perhaps they could offer drop off points like they do for TJ? Like one or two busses from each elementary school?

[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.

Considering they were unwilling to spend $1 Million for reasonable middle school start times, I'm not surprised. Perhaps they could offer drop off points like they do for TJ? Like one or two busses from each elementary school?

I'd love to see the costs of routine busing by schools. Outside of special needs, I bet lots of money could be saved.
I'd particularly be interested in cost per high school and AAP centers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would not be surprised if the SB challenges or adjusts her recommendation on transportation.

There are too many kids to bus them all

Plus, at the Lake Braddock meeting, parents were arguing to get their preschoolers/future kindergartners grandfathered along with their rising 6th grade siblings and elementary school kids grandfathered through middle and high school with older siblings. That would be 7 years of bussing if they push it through.

Won’t matter for the Orange Hunt split feeder because that most likely got reversed. They’ll move HV kids instead.

There is no split feeder at Orange Hunt.

Sangster has a,split feeder, which Map 4 fixed.

Hopefully, Reid and the school board stick with Map 4. It is the most sensible long term solution for WSHS, Sangster and the Keene Mill island.

That being said, the Sangster people were only asking for grandfathering of the Irving students, particularly those whose siblings are already at WSHS.

The people wanting grandfathering down to furure kindergartners were not WSHS families.

[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.

Considering they were unwilling to spend $1 Million for reasonable middle school start times, I'm not surprised. Perhaps they could offer drop off points like they do for TJ? Like one or two busses from each elementary school?

They certainly spent 1 million on an inept consulting firm. How about investing that money in underpopulated schools?

[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.

Considering they were unwilling to spend $1 Million for reasonable middle school start times, I'm not surprised. Perhaps they could offer drop off points like they do for TJ? Like one or two busses from each elementary school?

They certainly spent 1 million on an inept consulting firm. How about investing that money in underpopulated schools?

Unfortunately 1 million won't do much to fix a crappy high school.

[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.

Considering they were unwilling to spend $1 Million for reasonable middle school start times, I'm not surprised. Perhaps they could offer drop off points like they do for TJ? Like one or two busses from each elementary school?

They certainly spent 1 million on an inept consulting firm. How about investing that money in underpopulated schools?

Unfortunately 1 million won't do much to fix a crappy high school.

One million could pay 10 additional teachers for a years--or 20 instructional aides.

[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.

Considering they were unwilling to spend $1 Million for reasonable middle school start times, I'm not surprised. Perhaps they could offer drop off points like they do for TJ? Like one or two busses from each elementary school?

Have they ever looked into combining middle and HS routes where feasible? I’m thinking in places where there aren’t too many if any split feeder kids from MS-HS and the middle and HS are close to one another. So like Irving and WS, South County, Twain and Edison, Cooper and Langley etc. I wonder if they could realize some transportation savings or maybe get at least those middle schools to start at the same time as the high schools. I rode on a combined middle-HS bus in the afternoons growing up and it was fine. HS got on first at the high school and sat in the back. Then they drove to the middle school and picked up the middle schoolers and they sat in the front. The schools were only about a mile apart so it worked well.