FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[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.

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.

For anyone interested, go back and watch the July 2024 sb meeting. You’ll see the discussions of the proposed amendments and see why they got shot down. In the past they may have grandfathered more, but they seem to be more discerning this go round.

Imo they seem unlikely to be as generous going forward. They don’t care about your kids.

[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?

No.

[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.

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.

.

I imagine we'd get something similar this go around.

[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.

Sizemore would have been very pro grandfathering a few years back when it would have affected her own high schoolers.

Sizemore is a "Good enough for thee but not for me" politician.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don’t think so. Transportation costs are the County’s largest discretionary expense at $200-210 million. It is the only opportunity for significant savings in the FCPS budget that doesn’t rely on eliminating teachers and teachers assistants (which FCPS will also have to do with the looming fiscal cliff). There is easily the potential to save $20 to $40 million per year in transportation. In contrast, gutting Gatehouse would save $2 to $4 million. Which FCPS will likely also do before cutting a lot of teachers.

Capital expenditures are still necessary to keep schools safe / structurally sound but higher interest rates/ borrowing rates and out-of-control renovation costs have brought an end to new massive renovations + expansions for the foreseeable future.

[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.

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.

Sizemore would have been very pro grandfathering a few years back when it would have affected her own high schoolers.

Sizemore is a "Good enough for thee but not for me" politician.

She was not a good at-large rep at all because it was very clear she only cared about Lake Braddock and to a much lesser extent Woodson, along with SE issues.

Maybe she’s better as a Braddock rep.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don’t think so. Transportation costs are the County’s largest discretionary expense at $200-210 million. It is the only opportunity for significant savings in the FCPS budget that doesn’t rely on eliminating teachers and teachers assistants (which FCPS will also have to do with the looming fiscal cliff). There is easily the potential to save $20 to $40 million per year in transportation. In contrast, gutting Gatehouse would save $2 to $4 million. Which FCPS will likely also do before cutting a lot of teachers.

Capital expenditures are still necessary to keep schools safe / structurally sound but higher interest rates/ borrowing rates and out-of-control renovation costs have brought an end to new massive renovations + expansions for the foreseeable future.

How? It’s not an “easy” savings opportunity if it entails boundary changes with no HS grandfathering, which will piss people off towards FCPS and the county government in a way that no current elected officials likely have ever experienced before. You can’t overstate how strongly people would feel about this.

I almost want to see them propose it just so they can see what it looks like to have their heads handed to them on a platter.

But maybe they dial it back and just deal with ES boundaries, which would not raise the same hackles, but also would change fewer boundaries and transportation routes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don’t think so. Transportation costs are the County’s largest discretionary expense at $200-210 million. It is the only opportunity for significant savings in the FCPS budget that doesn’t rely on eliminating teachers and teachers assistants (which FCPS will also have to do with the looming fiscal cliff). There is easily the potential to save $20 to $40 million per year in transportation. In contrast, gutting Gatehouse would save $2 to $4 million. Which FCPS will likely also do before cutting a lot of teachers.

Capital expenditures are still necessary to keep schools safe / structurally sound but higher interest rates/ borrowing rates and out-of-control renovation costs have brought an end to new massive renovations + expansions for the foreseeable future.

How? It’s not an “easy” savings opportunity if it entails boundary changes with no HS grandfathering, which will piss people off towards FCPS and the county government in a way that no current elected officials likely have ever experienced before. You can’t overstate how strongly people would feel about this.

I almost want to see them propose it just so they can see what it looks like to have their heads handed to them on a platter.

But maybe they dial it back and just deal with ES boundaries, which would not raise the same hackles, but also would change fewer boundaries and transportation routes.

No one is talking about no high school grandfathering. The % of the population that will be affected is a fraction of the total population and some will be positively affected. It will not be enough to flip the school board red, even if people remember it in 3 1/2 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don’t think so. Transportation costs are the County’s largest discretionary expense at $200-210 million. It is the only opportunity for significant savings in the FCPS budget that doesn’t rely on eliminating teachers and teachers assistants (which FCPS will also have to do with the looming fiscal cliff). There is easily the potential to save $20 to $40 million per year in transportation. In contrast, gutting Gatehouse would save $2 to $4 million. Which FCPS will likely also do before cutting a lot of teachers.

Capital expenditures are still necessary to keep schools safe / structurally sound but higher interest rates/ borrowing rates and out-of-control renovation costs have brought an end to new massive renovations + expansions for the foreseeable future.

I call BS. Tell us where $20-40 million in savings exist? I think maybe they could get to $150,000 in savings by totally upending things, but you’re not being a serious person right now with this claim

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don’t think so. Transportation costs are the County’s largest discretionary expense at $200-210 million. It is the only opportunity for significant savings in the FCPS budget that doesn’t rely on eliminating teachers and teachers assistants (which FCPS will also have to do with the looming fiscal cliff). There is easily the potential to save $20 to $40 million per year in transportation. In contrast, gutting Gatehouse would save $2 to $4 million. Which FCPS will likely also do before cutting a lot of teachers.

Capital expenditures are still necessary to keep schools safe / structurally sound but higher interest rates/ borrowing rates and out-of-control renovation costs have brought an end to new massive renovations + expansions for the foreseeable future.

I call BS. Tell us where $20-40 million in savings exist? I think maybe they could get to $150,000 in savings by totally upending things, but you’re not being a serious person right now with this claim

DP. Here’s a start:

- Consolidate (fewer) bus pickup spots; increase acceptable walking distance between pickup spots

- No bussing more than 5 miles from a residential bus stop to a school

- No bussing outside one’s school district

- Flexible grandfathering but only for those who drive themselves or secure their own transportation to and from school

- Limited pupil placement only for those who drive themselves or secure their own transportation to and from school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don’t think so. Transportation costs are the County’s largest discretionary expense at $200-210 million. It is the only opportunity for significant savings in the FCPS budget that doesn’t rely on eliminating teachers and teachers assistants (which FCPS will also have to do with the looming fiscal cliff). There is easily the potential to save $20 to $40 million per year in transportation. In contrast, gutting Gatehouse would save $2 to $4 million. Which FCPS will likely also do before cutting a lot of teachers.

Capital expenditures are still necessary to keep schools safe / structurally sound but higher interest rates/ borrowing rates and out-of-control renovation costs have brought an end to new massive renovations + expansions for the foreseeable future.

I call BS. Tell us where $20-40 million in savings exist? I think maybe they could get to $150,000 in savings by totally upending things, but you’re not being a serious person right now with this claim

Our elementary school has no walkers. Everyone is bussed. I think that needs to be reassessed, quite a few sidewalks have been added in the past 10 years and there are several neighborhoods, like my own, that could be deemed walkable by the current standards. In fact, our neighborhood walked until the late 1990s. That would save several bus routes at just one ES. I’m sure there are more out there.

A few more sidewalks, well mainly just one, and our neighborhood would be walkable to the high school too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don’t think so. Transportation costs are the County’s largest discretionary expense at $200-210 million. It is the only opportunity for significant savings in the FCPS budget that doesn’t rely on eliminating teachers and teachers assistants (which FCPS will also have to do with the looming fiscal cliff). There is easily the potential to save $20 to $40 million per year in transportation. In contrast, gutting Gatehouse would save $2 to $4 million. Which FCPS will likely also do before cutting a lot of teachers.

Capital expenditures are still necessary to keep schools safe / structurally sound but higher interest rates/ borrowing rates and out-of-control renovation costs have brought an end to new massive renovations + expansions for the foreseeable future.

I call BS. Tell us where $20-40 million in savings exist? I think maybe they could get to $150,000 in savings by totally upending things, but you’re not being a serious person right now with this claim

Our elementary school has no walkers. Everyone is bussed. I think that needs to be reassessed, quite a few sidewalks have been added in the past 10 years and there are several neighborhoods, like my own, that could be deemed walkable by the current standards. In fact, our neighborhood walked until the late 1990s. That would save several bus routes at just one ES. I’m sure there are more out there.

A few more sidewalks, well mainly just one, and our neighborhood would be walkable to the high school too.

Ha, wow looks like you guys solved it. All we need to do is make every kid walk to school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don’t think so. Transportation costs are the County’s largest discretionary expense at $200-210 million. It is the only opportunity for significant savings in the FCPS budget that doesn’t rely on eliminating teachers and teachers assistants (which FCPS will also have to do with the looming fiscal cliff). There is easily the potential to save $20 to $40 million per year in transportation. In contrast, gutting Gatehouse would save $2 to $4 million. Which FCPS will likely also do before cutting a lot of teachers.

Capital expenditures are still necessary to keep schools safe / structurally sound but higher interest rates/ borrowing rates and out-of-control renovation costs have brought an end to new massive renovations + expansions for the foreseeable future.

I call BS. Tell us where $20-40 million in savings exist? I think maybe they could get to $150,000 in savings by totally upending things, but you’re not being a serious person right now with this claim

DP. Here’s a start:

- Consolidate (fewer) bus pickup spots; increase acceptable walking distance between pickup spots

- No bussing more than 5 miles from a residential bus stop to a school

- No bussing outside one’s school district

- Flexible grandfathering but only for those who drive themselves or secure their own transportation to and from school

- Limited pupil placement only for those who drive themselves or secure their own transportation to and from school

Ha. Again, man, you totally solved it 😂😂😂.

Btw, the last two would fail the school board’s litmus test. What you are advocating for is to effectively get rid of pupil placements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don’t think so. Transportation costs are the County’s largest discretionary expense at $200-210 million. It is the only opportunity for significant savings in the FCPS budget that doesn’t rely on eliminating teachers and teachers assistants (which FCPS will also have to do with the looming fiscal cliff). There is easily the potential to save $20 to $40 million per year in transportation. In contrast, gutting Gatehouse would save $2 to $4 million. Which FCPS will likely also do before cutting a lot of teachers.

Capital expenditures are still necessary to keep schools safe / structurally sound but higher interest rates/ borrowing rates and out-of-control renovation costs have brought an end to new massive renovations + expansions for the foreseeable future.

I call BS. Tell us where $20-40 million in savings exist? I think maybe they could get to $150,000 in savings by totally upending things, but you’re not being a serious person right now with this claim

DP. Here’s a start:

- Consolidate (fewer) bus pickup spots; increase acceptable walking distance between pickup spots

- No bussing more than 5 miles from a residential bus stop to a school

- No bussing outside one’s school district

- Flexible grandfathering but only for those who drive themselves or secure their own transportation to and from school

- Limited pupil placement only for those who drive themselves or secure their own transportation to and from school

Let’s eliminate the AAP Center School model. Stop bussing kids across town away from their neighborhood school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don’t think so. Transportation costs are the County’s largest discretionary expense at $200-210 million. It is the only opportunity for significant savings in the FCPS budget that doesn’t rely on eliminating teachers and teachers assistants (which FCPS will also have to do with the looming fiscal cliff). There is easily the potential to save $20 to $40 million per year in transportation. In contrast, gutting Gatehouse would save $2 to $4 million. Which FCPS will likely also do before cutting a lot of teachers.

Capital expenditures are still necessary to keep schools safe / structurally sound but higher interest rates/ borrowing rates and out-of-control renovation costs have brought an end to new massive renovations + expansions for the foreseeable future.

I call BS. Tell us where $20-40 million in savings exist? I think maybe they could get to $150,000 in savings by totally upending things, but you’re not being a serious person right now with this claim

Our elementary school has no walkers. Everyone is bussed. I think that needs to be reassessed, quite a few sidewalks have been added in the past 10 years and there are several neighborhoods, like my own, that could be deemed walkable by the current standards. In fact, our neighborhood walked until the late 1990s. That would save several bus routes at just one ES. I’m sure there are more out there.

A few more sidewalks, well mainly just one, and our neighborhood would be walkable to the high school too.

Ha, wow looks like you guys solved it. All we need to do is make every kid walk to school.

Every bus eliminated helps.