FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Until this year, I voted reliably blue. Because of this redistricting push I’m now reliably red. I hate how far left the school board has gone on this, and my only recourse is to always vote against the party that allows it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, I was in the "GT" program as a student in FCPS and am now learning allllll about how things have changed. Doesn't seem like for the better and wonder what the reasoning was to create AAP centers?
Mayne they lost the ability to fill the GY classes in al schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, I was in the "GT" program as a student in FCPS and am now learning allllll about how things have changed. Doesn't seem like for the better and wonder what the reasoning was to create AAP centers?
Mayne they lost the ability to fill the GY classes in al schools.

*lost the ability to fill the GT classes in all schools*

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It boggles the mind that they didn’t wrestle with this issue and related issues such as the future of IB programs BEFORE they launched this county-wide boundary review. They are going about this in such a disorganized and inefficient manner.

[Anonymous]

I think switching to AAP was to get more diversity. I don't think it worked the way they planned.

[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

I’m just catching up. But I live in great falls. In the crosshairs to be rezoned to Herndon. But with this logic we can’t even go there. We are over 5 miles from Herndon high school and 6.5 miles from Herndon middle school. I don’t think people get how rural and spread out great falls is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think switching to AAP was to get more diversity. I don't think it worked the way they planned.

It was.

Fcps had community meetings around 13 - 15 years ago explaining the changes.

They explicitly said in the presentation that the changes were designed to make AAP less asian and white as a percentage of the population of the program to reflect the demographics of fcps.

I am sure the presentation is somewhere in bard docs from around 2010-11.

[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

I’m just catching up. But I live in great falls. In the crosshairs to be rezoned to Herndon. But with this logic we can’t even go there. We are over 5 miles from Herndon high school and 6.5 miles from Herndon middle school. I don’t think people get how rural and spread out great falls is.

+1
They keep making generalizations about distance by looking at where Forestville ES is - many/most of the houses that feed to this school are much further away.

[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

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

I’m just catching up. But I live in great falls. In the crosshairs to be rezoned to Herndon. But with this logic we can’t even go there. We are over 5 miles from Herndon high school and 6.5 miles from Herndon middle school. I don’t think people get how rural and spread out great falls is.

+1
They keep making generalizations about distance by looking at where Forestville ES is - many/most of the houses that feed to this school are much further away.

This usually comes up in the context of the relative proximity of FES students to Herndon and Langley. People are trying to pick a reasonable benchmark. They could also pick a house zoned to FES closer to Herndon than the school itself, or one that isn’t super close to either Herndon or Langley. There are a lot of houses zoned to FES.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It boggles the mind that they didn’t wrestle with this issue and related issues such as the future of IB programs BEFORE they launched this county-wide boundary review. They are going about this in such a disorganized and inefficient manner.

That's why it's so hard to trust that the boundary review is being done well.

There are MANY things they could address first that would likely fix crowding and underenrollment at many schools:
looking at schools that offer IB/AP and switching if IB is being under utilized
moving popular academies to campuses with more space (like the STEM program at Edison to Lewis)
checking residency
looking at AAP centers vs. Local level IV
normalizing in-person language offerings (having specialties available on line)
adding a high school out west if it's needed
analyzing the renovations queue

I also think they should not touch high schools in this first round if it's going to be a boundary study every 5 years. Focus on the elementary schools and the AAP centers. If they want to move to more Local Level 4, which it seems like they do, they will need to shift some elementary boundaries. Our AAP center wouldn't have enough kids to fill it if they take the AAP kids out, and the other elementaries don't have the space to take all those level 4 kids back from the centers. Fix some of those issues and look at elementary school split feeders and attendance islands in this first round of changes. That makes the most sense and is most manageable. Also least likely to "rock the boat" and build some trust if they do it in a smart way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think switching to AAP was to get more diversity. I don't think it worked the way they planned.

It was.

Fcps had community meetings around 13 - 15 years ago explaining the changes.

They explicitly said in the presentation that the changes were designed to make AAP less asian and white as a percentage of the population of the program to reflect the demographics of fcps.

I am sure the presentation is somewhere in bard docs from around 2010-11.

It was more than 20 years ago and about when the SOLs showed up. They started calling it AAP around when my oldest was in 2nd grade or maybe a year earlier. He graduated from HS in 2015. The SOLs came with the wave of conservative feeling that we needed more state testing. It just predated Bush’s reauthorization of the Education act originating in the 1960’s his version was called No Child Left Behind and was used to comply with that legislation. ( It has gone through a few more iterations and name changes since. )

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Until this year, I voted reliably blue. Because of this redistricting push I’m now reliably red. I hate how far left the school board has gone on this, and my only recourse is to always vote against the party that allows it.

I don’t think it is a fair to assume every (or any) Republican candidate would oppose redistricting. They would certainly oppose it on any equity grounds but they would be just as likely, if not more so, to support it in the name of efficiency or cost cutting. Past Republican candidates have claimed that FCPS is bloated and inefficient and has too many educational programs. Past Republican candidates have opposed many of the renovations and expansions that so many here love. Republican candidates are unlikely to support tax increases to maintain the status quo is light of budget challenges.

[Anonymous]

The people most desperate to keep IB In high schools are the ones who are zoned for a crappy IB HS and use that to pupil place their kids at a better AP high 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).

The boundaries are already pretty compact. Very few people will be affected by this, certainly not enough to flip any 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).

The boundaries are already pretty compact. Very few people will be affected by this, certainly not enough to flip any elections.

That's the problem. Speaking as a resident of the fringe of a VERY compact boundary, my neighborhood might be up for grabs. There is no high school as close to us as the current one--which is very close.