FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:one and a half mile for high school

Is that to the grounds or a door?

Grounds

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Offering the same languages across the board helps with equity. I would also offer the same core AP classes across the board too- even if they don’t meet the minimum enrollment for a class. If they really want to keep IB, then, just have one school with the surrounding schools be AP- that is what worked for a Marshall and South Lakes. It was idiotic to have so many IB schools next to each other in the east part of the county. It isn’t that popular. Again, I would eliminate altogether to help with streamlining.

As for bussing, Fairfax is becoming more and more urban. City schools use city buses - we should coordinate with Metro and Fairfax Connector to try to do the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Offering the same languages across the board helps with equity. I would also offer the same core AP classes across the board too- even if they don’t meet the minimum enrollment for a class. If they really want to keep IB, then, just have one school with the surrounding schools be AP- that is what worked for a Marshall and South Lakes. It was idiotic to have so many IB schools next to each other in the east part of the county. It isn’t that popular. Again, I would eliminate altogether to help with streamlining.

As for bussing, Fairfax is becoming more and more urban. City schools use city buses - we should coordinate with Metro and Fairfax Connector to try to do the same.

I’d rather coordinate transportation with unicorns - much more reliable than metro.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Offering the same languages across the board helps with equity. I would also offer the same core AP classes across the board too- even if they don’t meet the minimum enrollment for a class. If they really want to keep IB, then, just have one school with the surrounding schools be AP- that is what worked for a Marshall and South Lakes. It was idiotic to have so many IB schools next to each other in the east part of the county. It isn’t that popular. Again, I would eliminate altogether to help with streamlining.

As for bussing, Fairfax is becoming more and more urban. City schools use city buses - we should coordinate with Metro and Fairfax Connector to try to do the same.

FCPS students can ride Fairfax Connector and City of Fairfax buses (but not Metro buses) for free, which is great:

https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/connector/student-pass

But I just can't see sending dedicated FCPS buses to some areas while telling other kids they have to take one or more Fairfax Connector buses to school.

[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.

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).

Our family normally votes blue, but voted red for the school board based on talks of redistributing. If the red school board candidates can keep away from talking about bathrooms, pronouns, and banning books they would have a lot better of a chance of winning local elections.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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).

Our family normally votes blue, but voted red for the school board based on talks of redistributing. If the red school board candidates can keep away from talking about bathrooms, pronouns, and banning books they would have a lot better of a chance of winning local elections.

+1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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).

Our family normally votes blue, but voted red for the school board based on talks of redistributing. If the red school board candidates can keep away from talking about bathrooms, pronouns, and banning books they would have a lot better of a chance of winning local elections.

Serious question - is redistricting more of a "blue" thing than a "red" thing? I understand people throw around the equity word, that gets associated with blue more.....but in reality is there a divide among party lines here?
I dont think there is. I think people from both parties come on here against it, and of those that support it, they are in both political camps and swayed more by what district they live in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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).

Our family normally votes blue, but voted red for the school board based on talks of redistributing. If the red school board candidates can keep away from talking about bathrooms, pronouns, and banning books they would have a lot better of a chance of winning local elections.

Serious question - is redistricting more of a "blue" thing than a "red" thing? I understand people throw around the equity word, that gets associated with blue more.....but in reality is there a divide among party lines here?
I dont think there is. I think people from both parties come on here against it, and of those that support it, they are in both political camps and swayed more by what district they live in.

I don’t think it is divided along political lines. I feel like it is divided along neighborhood lines. The neighborhoods that seem to be most vulnerable to being redistricted are the ones that are most against it (which is entirely predictable). I see people who are on opposite sides of the political spectrum working together. There is one, maybe it’s two or three, very active anti democratic poster who posts here quite a bit on numerous threads and I think that distorts the discussion here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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).

Our family normally votes blue, but voted red for the school board based on talks of redistributing. If the red school board candidates can keep away from talking about bathrooms, pronouns, and banning books they would have a lot better of a chance of winning local elections.

Serious question - is redistricting more of a "blue" thing than a "red" thing? I understand people throw around the equity word, that gets associated with blue more.....but in reality is there a divide among party lines here?
I dont think there is. I think people from both parties come on here against it, and of those that support it, they are in both political camps and swayed more by what district they live in.

I don’t think it is divided along political lines. I feel like it is divided along neighborhood lines. The neighborhoods that seem to be most vulnerable to being redistricted are the ones that are most against it (which is entirely predictable). I see people who are on opposite sides of the political spectrum working together. There is one, maybe it’s two or three, very active anti democratic poster who posts here quite a bit on numerous threads and I think that distorts the discussion here.

Yeah, I agree. I get the sense it's more about what pyramid you are in and if you're happy with your school or not. As you said, predictably- those that bought in neighborhoods for their current schools and are happy with them would be more opposed to any changes.
I do think some folks are trying to fan political flames here for whatever reasons people do that nowadays.

[Anonymous]

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

+1
And eliminate AAP centers. They confuse all the boundaries and are completely unnecessary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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).

Our family normally votes blue, but voted red for the school board based on talks of redistributing. If the red school board candidates can keep away from talking about bathrooms, pronouns, and banning books they would have a lot better of a chance of winning local elections.

Serious question - is redistricting more of a "blue" thing than a "red" thing? I understand people throw around the equity word, that gets associated with blue more.....but in reality is there a divide among party lines here?
I dont think there is. I think people from both parties come on here against it, and of those that support it, they are in both political camps and swayed more by what district they live in.

It’s more of a D thing than an R thing because it’s being championed by a 12-0 D School Board and a superintendent picked by a prior 12-0 D School Board.

When it comes to the general population, however, there are many Ds who oppose sweeping boundary changes and some Rs who support them. Those of both parties who oppose boundary changes generally like their current school assignments and value stability and continuity for their kids. The Ds who support boundary changes frequently want to alter school demographics to reduce the current performance gap among schools and in some cases deeply resent those at the “top schools.” The Rs who support boundary changes often seem to be either penny-pinchers or virulently anti-immigrant types who think moving higher income families into poorer schools will lead them to adopt their own anti-immigrant views.

In any event that is my perception based on the discourse in this and similar threads.

[Anonymous]

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.

DP. Where do your kids go to school and how does this affect you?

[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

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

+100
Talk about wasteful and redundant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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).

Our family normally votes blue, but voted red for the school board based on talks of redistributing. If the red school board candidates can keep away from talking about bathrooms, pronouns, and banning books they would have a lot better of a chance of winning local elections.

Serious question - is redistricting more of a "blue" thing than a "red" thing? I understand people throw around the equity word, that gets associated with blue more.....but in reality is there a divide among party lines here?
I dont think there is. I think people from both parties come on here against it, and of those that support it, they are in both political camps and swayed more by what district they live in.

I don’t think it is divided along political lines. I feel like it is divided along neighborhood lines. The neighborhoods that seem to be most vulnerable to being redistricted are the ones that are most against it (which is entirely predictable). I see people who are on opposite sides of the political spectrum working together. There is one, maybe it’s two or three, very active anti democratic poster who posts here quite a bit on numerous threads and I think that distorts the discussion here.

Redistricting is a fringe idea. It’s the equity left that is enacting it now, but I could see libertarians redistrict in the name of fiscal austerity.

But the far left school board owns this one. It’s 12-0 Dems, so it’s pretty hard to pin this on the republicans.

The majority in the middle want stable school pyramids and a focus on academics, not equity.

No one on the school board ran with this as their platform, and Fairfax families by and large don’t want it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Absolutely this ^^. The GT program that FCPS stupidly replaced with AAP was an *actual* gifted program that took ONLY the very highest achieving students - not the masses we see today. That's the model they need to return to.