FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[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

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.

Students who are pupil placed already have to provide their own transportation.

[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.

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.

Well, they adopted a policy that gives them discretion not to grandfather any students, and they maximize these purportedly large potential transportation savings by not grandfathering any students, including high school kids.

As to the political fall-out, they won’t start implementing this until the fall of 2026 - a mere one year before the 2027 School Board elections. It will still be very fresh in people’s minds and will shape those elections, as even those not affected this coming round will wonder about subsequent boundary changes. And those affected negatively will be far more vocal about it, and likely to vote in what is otherwise an off-year election.

[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

Drop in the bucket.

Limiting some of those distances means preserving split feeders.

“Flexible grandfathering” w/out transportation is regressive and not aligned with any equity goals. The wealthy SAHM can schlep the kids to Langley; working mom in Springfield who has to get to the Pentagon early can’t do this to get the kids to West Springfield.

Transportation isn’t provided for pupil placed students now, so no savings there.

These aren’t great starters and they certainly won’t cut transportation costs $20-40M.

[Anonymous]

Is there a single school board number who has a child that might be redistricted? I'm pretty sure I know the answer ,but enlighten me if I'm wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sure, but the claim was $20-$40 million in savings, which is why I called BS.

Btw, in our neck of the woods, households within half a mile have to walk. So the suggestion that we can just expand the radius is a bit preposterous. Would we have kindergarteners walking a mile to and from school each day? Winter too? Parents need to go with them for at least the first few years, causing significant logistical issues.

Frankly, even if you could save some money that way, you’re talking about removing a needed service in the name of saving a buck. I understand the sb is pretending to care about efficiency (in just a handful of spots when it suits their equity purposes), but citizens overwhelmingly want buses for most Fcps kids.

[Anonymous]

Of course, K kids can walk to school. They do in my neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sure, but the claim was $20-$40 million in savings, which is why I called BS.

Btw, in our neck of the woods, households within half a mile have to walk. So the suggestion that we can just expand the radius is a bit preposterous. Would we have kindergarteners walking a mile to and from school each day? Winter too? Parents need to go with them for at least the first few years, causing significant logistical issues.

Frankly, even if you could save some money that way, you’re talking about removing a needed service in the name of saving a buck. I understand the sb is pretending to care about efficiency (in just a handful of spots when it suits their equity purposes), but citizens overwhelmingly want buses for most Fcps kids.

Now that people are seeing through the SB’s references to “efficiency” as a pretext for equity-driven boundary changes, expect to start hearing more about the “looming fiscal cliff” and illusory transportation savings.

Meanwhile the same people who are supposedly so laser-focused on costs won’t lift a finger to cancel Karl Frisch’s $80M waste of money in Dunn Loring. The hypocrisy is simply amazing.

[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.

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

No.

Yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Of course, K kids can walk to school. They do in my neighborhood.

Okay, let’s approach it a different way. What’s the distance from a school that you would make walkers?

Alternatively, you could just admit that you don’t really have any ideas to save transportation costs.

[Anonymous]

one mile is FCPS rule

[Anonymous]

one and a half mile for high 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.

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.

Well, they adopted a policy that gives them discretion not to grandfather any students, and they maximize these purportedly large potential transportation savings by not grandfathering any students, including high school kids.

As to the political fall-out, they won’t start implementing this until the fall of 2026 - a mere one year before the 2027 School Board elections. It will still be very fresh in people’s minds and will shape those elections, as even those not affected this coming round will wonder about subsequent boundary changes. And those affected negatively will be far more vocal about it, and likely to vote in what is otherwise an off-year election.

The majority of Fairfax County voters don’t care. This area will be blue forever. Just accept and move on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course, K kids can walk to school. They do in my neighborhood.

Okay, let’s approach it a different way. What’s the distance from a school that you would make walkers?

Alternatively, you could just admit that you don’t really have any ideas to save transportation costs.

1.5 miles.

Also, we could do what other districts do a make families who aren’t FARMs pay for transportation, if they choose to use it.

[Anonymous]

Get rid of AAP centers (it’s coming soon anyway). And get rid of AAP in middle schools. The latter is the easiest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course, K kids can walk to school. They do in my neighborhood.

Okay, let’s approach it a different way. What’s the distance from a school that you would make walkers?

Alternatively, you could just admit that you don’t really have any ideas to save transportation costs.

DP. Eliminate AAP centers and consider returning TJ to use as a community high school.