FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[Anonymous]

Eliminate IB. It will need to be phased out, but do it soon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:one and a half mile for high school

Is that to the grounds or a door?

[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.

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.

Not sure if that comment comes from a place of confidence or despair, but significant boundary changes in FCPS with limited or no grandfathering has no precedent in recent history and would rock the political landscape in Fairfax. It would be the local political elites - all Democrats - extending a giant middle finger to Fairfax families. Just wait and see (although ultimately I don’t think they will pull that trigger).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Got it, so we’re not really saving anything we’re just passing the costs on to families with students in fcps.

I’m not necessarily opposed to something like that, but just want to point out that you’re just arguing for a use tax, not for anything that’ll save transportation costs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:one and a half mile for high school

Why not double it? Then these kids could do a 5k before and after school each day.

Your suggestions aren’t anywhere close to serious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So that the only way for smart kids to access more rigorous coursework is through private school. Nice plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:one and a half mile for high school

Why not double it? Then these kids could do a 5k before and after school each day.

Your suggestions aren’t anywhere close to serious.

I don't know to whom you are responding, but I am PP who posted the one and a half mile for high school. It is not a suggestion, it is current FCPS policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Eliminate IB. It will need to be phased out, but do it soon.

+1. If there’s really a fiscal crisis looming IB should absolutely be one of the first cuts.

[Anonymous]

Our FCPS elementary school walker radius is a mile. And that's to school grounds, not the door. It is far for the youngest ones, but a lot of kids ride bikes. It's all neighborhood streets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So that the only way for smart kids to access more rigorous coursework is through private school. Nice plan.

I was a teacher where we did not track. I taught in poor schools and in schools with a wide span of abilities. Smart kids can be taught well and get rigorous coursework in a gen ed classroom. If a child is "off the charts" smart, then perhaps a GT program could be reinstated.

With the way the current AAP program works, you have many classes that are not as advanced as the parents would have you think. Maybe, reinstate the GT program for the highly gifted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So that the only way for smart kids to access more rigorous coursework is through private school. Nice plan.

They can still get LLIV at their base schools. TJ is nice but kids can be challenged at their base schools and pursue other courses at NVCC or GMU if they truly have
supplements. With the TJ admissions changes, many of the brightest kids are denied to admission to TJ anyway.

We’re being told we have to cut costs wherever possible and defer or stop investing in other schools. Hard times call for hard measures. You shouldn’t get your Lamborghini if they won’t even do maintenance on many of the Camry in service.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Eliminate IB. It will need to be phased out, but do it soon.

and eliminate all but three languages that are offered at every high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eliminate IB. It will need to be phased out, but do it soon.

and eliminate all but three languages that are offered at every high school.

Kind of agree, but that will get more pushback than IB elimination.

Which three languages?

Traditionally, it has been French, Spanish, and German. But, FCPS has been offering Japanese immersion for many, many years. So, it might be difficult to eliminate that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eliminate IB. It will need to be phased out, but do it soon.

and eliminate all but three languages that are offered at every high school.

Kind of agree, but that will get more pushback than IB elimination.

Which three languages?

Traditionally, it has been French, Spanish, and German. But, FCPS has been offering Japanese immersion for many, many years. So, it might be difficult to eliminate that.

Chinese or Japanese for the third. No need for German. If we can not agree on the third language, then just offer 2.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eliminate IB. It will need to be phased out, but do it soon.

and eliminate all but three languages that are offered at every high school.

Kind of agree, but that will get more pushback than IB elimination.

Which three languages?

Traditionally, it has been French, Spanish, and German. But, FCPS has been offering Japanese immersion for many, many years. So, it might be difficult to eliminate that.

Chinese or Japanese for the third. No need for German. If we can not agree on the third language, then just offer 2.

Chinese over German and Japanese. Other than French, Spanish, and Chinese (and perhaps Latin) other languages can be offered online.

Of course, this is just an exercise where people point to costs that can be cut in lieu of some marginal savings associated with redistricting their kids.

FCPS has no real commitment to cost savings. They just recently took up the new courses that would be added next year. They have also recently expanded MS and HS sports. And they continue to plow ahead with totally unnecessary Dunn Loring ES as discussed. The whole “fiscal cliff” talk is just cover for boundary changes they already want to make. And maybe it will help with teachers when they can’t give them the 7% raise to say they looked for other savings. The one constant is that they’ll prioritize the interests of families and kids last.