FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anybody have proof that they said absolutely no grandfathering?
I missed the meetings and don't see it on the site anywhere.

The boundary policy (8130) which you can look up and read, only guarantees grandfathering for seniors at the high school level. I don't remember elementary and middle. They actually discussed this and several pushed for juniors to be grandfathered and it didn't get included. That says a lot to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is exactly why parent preferences should carry little or no weight. Everyone wants different things. Everyone has a different story (we bought in a certain neighborhood for the schools). Everyone is motivated by those personal circumstances. But those are you problems.

FCPS should make the goals and decisions transparent and then just do it.

They have made the goals transparent. "Equity." In their view, that means shifting wealthier kids to poor schools. Not sure how they plan to do the opposite.
This is not about better education. It is to cover up problems they refuse to address.

Such fearmongering has no basis in fact. I’m on the boundary committee and you know how often the facilitators have mentioned type of equity you are talking about? NEVER. They’ve only mentioned equity in the context of equity in program/course offerings. We are still many months away from FCPS proposing boundaries for Committee review. Until then, there’s very little to criticize.

Were you randomly selected or one of the hand-picked members? That matters a lot when evaluating your post.

Also, since we’ve got at least one BRAC member reading this, can you please emphasize for the other committee members that the study they gave you on December 6 does not support the assertion that commute times shorter than an hour matter for academics or sleep time?

I’ve heard Robyn Lady cite to “studies” as a reason to prioritize transportation and if that is the only thing they have then it’s the flimsiest justification I’ve ever seen. If you haven’t, please read the study and its conclusions.

Get over it. There is no reasonable argument for keeping the parts of Great Falls that are damn near in Loudoun in the Langley pyramid.

Why do you think they put Great Falls there in the first place? Hint: it was because Langley is on the Arlington border and McLean High is just a very short distance away. The only logical place to fill the school was Great Falls.

DP. To be fair, they didn’t assign all of Great Falls to Langley “in the first place.” Some parts of Great Falls didn’t go to Langley for the first 30 years or so of Langley’s existence. They moved there when Herndon got overcrowded in the mid-90s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anybody have proof that they said absolutely no grandfathering?
I missed the meetings and don't see it on the site anywhere.

The boundary policy (8130) which you can look up and read, only guarantees grandfathering for seniors at the high school level. I don't remember elementary and middle. They actually discussed this and several pushed for juniors to be grandfathered and it didn't get included. That says a lot to me.

The same people who wouldn't grandfather juniors in the policy 8130 will be deciding who gets to be grandfathered once they actually publish boundary changes. So, to me, that was already discussed and the vast majority didn't think it was important to grandfather anyone but seniors. Ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anybody have proof that they said absolutely no grandfathering?
I missed the meetings and don't see it on the site anywhere.

The boundary policy (8130) which you can look up and read, only guarantees grandfathering for seniors at the high school level. I don't remember elementary and middle. They actually discussed this and several pushed for juniors to be grandfathered and it didn't get included. That says a lot to me.

The same people who wouldn't grandfather juniors in the policy 8130 will be deciding who gets to be grandfathered once they actually publish boundary changes. So, to me, that was already discussed and the vast majority didn't think it was important to grandfather anyone but seniors. Ridiculous.

Question: is it possible to get IB diploma if you move to IB school as a junior?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anybody have proof that they said absolutely no grandfathering?
I missed the meetings and don't see it on the site anywhere.

The boundary policy (8130) which you can look up and read, only guarantees grandfathering for seniors at the high school level. I don't remember elementary and middle. They actually discussed this and several pushed for juniors to be grandfathered and it didn't get included. That says a lot to me.

The same people who wouldn't grandfather juniors in the policy 8130 will be deciding who gets to be grandfathered once they actually publish boundary changes. So, to me, that was already discussed and the vast majority didn't think it was important to grandfather anyone but seniors. Ridiculous.

But, does that mean it's just not guaranteed at this point and they may consider it as they do the review?
I still am not seeing it specifically excluded....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anybody have proof that they said absolutely no grandfathering?
I missed the meetings and don't see it on the site anywhere.

The boundary policy (8130) which you can look up and read, only guarantees grandfathering for seniors at the high school level. I don't remember elementary and middle. They actually discussed this and several pushed for juniors to be grandfathered and it didn't get included. That says a lot to me.

The same people who wouldn't grandfather juniors in the policy 8130 will be deciding who gets to be grandfathered once they actually publish boundary changes. So, to me, that was already discussed and the vast majority didn't think it was important to grandfather anyone but seniors. Ridiculous.

But, does that mean it's just not guaranteed at this point and they may consider it as they do the review?
I still am not seeing it specifically excluded....

The fact that they wanted to keep the option open to move rising junior open speaks volumes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anybody have proof that they said absolutely no grandfathering?
I missed the meetings and don't see it on the site anywhere.

The boundary policy (8130) which you can look up and read, only guarantees grandfathering for seniors at the high school level. I don't remember elementary and middle. They actually discussed this and several pushed for juniors to be grandfathered and it didn't get included. That says a lot to me.

The same people who wouldn't grandfather juniors in the policy 8130 will be deciding who gets to be grandfathered once they actually publish boundary changes. So, to me, that was already discussed and the vast majority didn't think it was important to grandfather anyone but seniors. Ridiculous.

I disagree. Sizemore-Heizer was heading the charge on the Governance Committee when Policy 8130 was revised and she’s a lawyer. So I think she pushed for a very lawyerly approach, which was to leave the SB with maximum flexibility to grandfather or not. I don’t think it was politically astute, however, given that people will react incredibly negatively if they don’t at least grandfather students already in HS.

If they really tell people their HS kids have to switch HS, Democrats on both the SB and the BOS can kiss goodbye to their political careers. And since there are some folks on these bodies with clear political aspirations (Frisch, McElveen, Bierman, McKay), at some point they’ll have the “come-to-Jesus” discussion, even if they are kicking the can down the road now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anybody have proof that they said absolutely no grandfathering?
I missed the meetings and don't see it on the site anywhere.

The boundary policy (8130) which you can look up and read, only guarantees grandfathering for seniors at the high school level. I don't remember elementary and middle. They actually discussed this and several pushed for juniors to be grandfathered and it didn't get included. That says a lot to me.

The same people who wouldn't grandfather juniors in the policy 8130 will be deciding who gets to be grandfathered once they actually publish boundary changes. So, to me, that was already discussed and the vast majority didn't think it was important to grandfather anyone but seniors. Ridiculous.

But, does that mean it's just not guaranteed at this point and they may consider it as they do the review?
I still am not seeing it specifically excluded....

The fact that they wanted to keep the option open to move rising junior open speaks volumes.

I dont think it "speaks volumes" necessarily. Not guaranteeing something at the outset is not the same as discussing and considering it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anybody have proof that they said absolutely no grandfathering?
I missed the meetings and don't see it on the site anywhere.

The boundary policy (8130) which you can look up and read, only guarantees grandfathering for seniors at the high school level. I don't remember elementary and middle. They actually discussed this and several pushed for juniors to be grandfathered and it didn't get included. That says a lot to me.

The same people who wouldn't grandfather juniors in the policy 8130 will be deciding who gets to be grandfathered once they actually publish boundary changes. So, to me, that was already discussed and the vast majority didn't think it was important to grandfather anyone but seniors. Ridiculous.

I disagree. Sizemore-Heizer was heading the charge on the Governance Committee when Policy 8130 was revised and she’s a lawyer. So I think she pushed for a very lawyerly approach, which was to leave the SB with maximum flexibility to grandfather or not. I don’t think it was politically astute, however, given that people will react incredibly negatively if they don’t at least grandfather students already in HS.

If they really tell people their HS kids have to switch HS, Democrats on both the SB and the BOS can kiss goodbye to their political careers. And since there are some folks on these bodies with clear political aspirations (Frisch, McElveen, Bierman, McKay), at some point they’ll have the “come-to-Jesus” discussion, even if they are kicking the can down the road now.

+1, don't think grandfathering is excluded at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anybody have proof that they said absolutely no grandfathering?
I missed the meetings and don't see it on the site anywhere.

The boundary policy (8130) which you can look up and read, only guarantees grandfathering for seniors at the high school level. I don't remember elementary and middle. They actually discussed this and several pushed for juniors to be grandfathered and it didn't get included. That says a lot to me.

The same people who wouldn't grandfather juniors in the policy 8130 will be deciding who gets to be grandfathered once they actually publish boundary changes. So, to me, that was already discussed and the vast majority didn't think it was important to grandfather anyone but seniors. Ridiculous.

But, does that mean it's just not guaranteed at this point and they may consider it as they do the review?
I still am not seeing it specifically excluded....

The fact that they wanted to keep the option open to move rising junior open speaks volumes.

It means that they are clearly willing to move kids at a critical and damaging time in their high school career. That to me says a lot about priorities and intentions.

I dont think it "speaks volumes" necessarily. Not guaranteeing something at the outset is not the same as discussing and considering it.

[Anonymous]

Re: grandfathering, the school board did seem sometime split on the issue, but they ultimately voted down a grandfathering amendment/ requirement so that they could have flexibility in how they implement the boundary changes. Grandfathering goes directly against the transportation cost savings that they are using as a pretext for some changes. And before you say, “well I can just drive my kids,” ask yourself how “equitable” that is and whether Sandy Anderson would ever allow it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anybody have proof that they said absolutely no grandfathering?
I missed the meetings and don't see it on the site anywhere.

The boundary policy (8130) which you can look up and read, only guarantees grandfathering for seniors at the high school level. I don't remember elementary and middle. They actually discussed this and several pushed for juniors to be grandfathered and it didn't get included. That says a lot to me.

Final year of high school, middle, and elementary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anybody have proof that they said absolutely no grandfathering?
I missed the meetings and don't see it on the site anywhere.

The boundary policy (8130) which you can look up and read, only guarantees grandfathering for seniors at the high school level. I don't remember elementary and middle. They actually discussed this and several pushed for juniors to be grandfathered and it didn't get included. That says a lot to me.

The same people who wouldn't grandfather juniors in the policy 8130 will be deciding who gets to be grandfathered once they actually publish boundary changes. So, to me, that was already discussed and the vast majority didn't think it was important to grandfather anyone but seniors. Ridiculous.

Question: is it possible to get IB diploma if you move to IB school as a junior?

Yes, but not a senior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Re: grandfathering, the school board did seem sometime split on the issue, but they ultimately voted down a grandfathering amendment/ requirement so that they could have flexibility in how they implement the boundary changes. Grandfathering goes directly against the transportation cost savings that they are using as a pretext for some changes. And before you say, “well I can just drive my kids,” ask yourself how “equitable” that is and whether Sandy Anderson would ever allow it.

I suspect they will pivot towards saying the cost savings have less to do with transportation costs and more to do with capital expenditures they can avoid if they forego additions at crowded schools like Chantilly and McLean.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anybody have proof that they said absolutely no grandfathering?
I missed the meetings and don't see it on the site anywhere.

The boundary policy (8130) which you can look up and read, only guarantees grandfathering for seniors at the high school level. I don't remember elementary and middle. They actually discussed this and several pushed for juniors to be grandfathered and it didn't get included. That says a lot to me.

Final year of high school, middle, and elementary.

This was carried over verbatim from the prior Policy 8130 and there was still more generous grandfathering in the past.