FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[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.

The Chantilly and West Springfield boundaries are very compact but that doesn’t mean they may not see boundary changes.

It’s a bit of a rope-a-dope to alternate between saying that this is a big deal and every pyramid will be affected and then saying very few will be affected. It almost sounds like you’re inviting others to throw their neighbors who do end up redistricted under a bus.

In any event, if I were a current Democratic member of the SB or BOS I would not be so sanguine about how this may affect their political careers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Exactly this.

[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:

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.

Which recent Republican candidates have opposed which renovations or expansions? They aren’t all the same since the Democrats expanded one high school to 3000 but then kept two other schools with far fewer seats overcrowded with no additions.

[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:

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.

There are no compelling reasons to change boundaries comprehensively at this point. Based on the actions of democrats on the school board over the last decade, it’s clear this is their social experiment to try to level the playing field at all schools, using kids as pawns - mental health be damned. For anyone paying attention it’s clearly an equity venture.

I also have never heard that republicans have said they want to break up Great Falls just because. I can’t say the same for some of the democrats on the current school board. I’ve never heard of such disdain for constituents. The Dems on the school board hate certain residents in the county - really eye opening.

In sum, republicans are far from perfect, but the Dems act like certain citizens are the enemy. That’s why I will never vote for one again.

[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:

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.

There are no compelling reasons to change boundaries comprehensively at this point. Based on the actions of democrats on the school board over the last decade, it’s clear this is their social experiment to try to level the playing field at all schools, using kids as pawns - mental health be damned. For anyone paying attention it’s clearly an equity venture.

I also have never heard that republicans have said they want to break up Great Falls just because. I can’t say the same for some of the democrats on the current school board. I’ve never heard of such disdain for constituents. The Dems on the school board hate certain residents in the county - really eye opening.

In sum, republicans are far from perfect, but the Dems act like certain citizens are the enemy. That’s why I will never vote for one again.

FFS the results of the study will answer that question. There will have to be justification and rationale for why some boundaries change. Can you all simmer down and wait until the results are before you start claiming it's comprehensive changes. You know comprehensive review doesn't= comprehensive changes. Perhaps you will not like what ends up happening because your afraid of change. Can everyone agree that certain boundaries exist the way they do today because of past bad decisions. Should we never correct anything because change is bad?

[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:

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.

There are no compelling reasons to change boundaries comprehensively at this point. Based on the actions of democrats on the school board over the last decade, it’s clear this is their social experiment to try to level the playing field at all schools, using kids as pawns - mental health be damned. For anyone paying attention it’s clearly an equity venture.

I also have never heard that republicans have said they want to break up Great Falls just because. I can’t say the same for some of the democrats on the current school board. I’ve never heard of such disdain for constituents. The Dems on the school board hate certain residents in the county - really eye opening.

In sum, republicans are far from perfect, but the Dems act like certain citizens are the enemy. That’s why I will never vote for one again.

FFS the results of the study will answer that question. There will have to be justification and rationale for why some boundaries change. Can you all simmer down and wait until the results are before you start claiming it's comprehensive changes. You know comprehensive review doesn't= comprehensive changes. Perhaps you will not like what ends up happening because your afraid of change. Can everyone agree that certain boundaries exist the way they do today because of past bad decisions. Should we never correct anything because change is bad?

A minimizing screed from a SB shill.

I don’t agree with your premise that boundaries exist today because of past bad decisions. That’s a particularly rich claim in light of the fact that the democrats have controlled the sb for quite a while now. 🙄

[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:

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.

There are no compelling reasons to change boundaries comprehensively at this point. Based on the actions of democrats on the school board over the last decade, it’s clear this is their social experiment to try to level the playing field at all schools, using kids as pawns - mental health be damned. For anyone paying attention it’s clearly an equity venture.

I also have never heard that republicans have said they want to break up Great Falls just because. I can’t say the same for some of the democrats on the current school board. I’ve never heard of such disdain for constituents. The Dems on the school board hate certain residents in the county - really eye opening.

In sum, republicans are far from perfect, but the Dems act like certain citizens are the enemy. That’s why I will never vote for one again.

FFS the results of the study will answer that question. There will have to be justification and rationale for why some boundaries change. Can you all simmer down and wait until the results are before you start claiming it's comprehensive changes. You know comprehensive review doesn't= comprehensive changes. Perhaps you will not like what ends up happening because your afraid of change. Can everyone agree that certain boundaries exist the way they do today because of past bad decisions. Should we never correct anything because change is bad?

DP. What are the past bad decisions? Often boundaries that some people call “bad” came about for a very good reason at the time. It doesn’t mean they can’t be revisited but recognize that there is a benefit to stability and you shouldn’t approach the exercise presuming “past bad decisions.”

[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:

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.

There are no compelling reasons to change boundaries comprehensively at this point. Based on the actions of democrats on the school board over the last decade, it’s clear this is their social experiment to try to level the playing field at all schools, using kids as pawns - mental health be damned. For anyone paying attention it’s clearly an equity venture.

I also have never heard that republicans have said they want to break up Great Falls just because. I can’t say the same for some of the democrats on the current school board. I’ve never heard of such disdain for constituents. The Dems on the school board hate certain residents in the county - really eye opening.

In sum, republicans are far from perfect, but the Dems act like certain citizens are the enemy. That’s why I will never vote for one again.

FFS the results of the study will answer that question. There will have to be justification and rationale for why some boundaries change. Can you all simmer down and wait until the results are before you start claiming it's comprehensive changes. You know comprehensive review doesn't= comprehensive changes. Perhaps you will not like what ends up happening because your afraid of change. Can everyone agree that certain boundaries exist the way they do today because of past bad decisions. Should we never correct anything because change is bad?

A minimizing screed from a SB shill.

I don’t agree with your premise that boundaries exist today because of past bad decisions. That’s a particularly rich claim in light of the fact that the democrats have controlled the sb for quite a while now. 🙄

Have you ever tried to go back and fix a decision you made in the past? Maybe you made that decision by taking into account the data that was available at that time. Shouldn’t school boundary lines be flexible according to the current, and possible future, needs of its population?

I get that change is hard, but isn’t being able to adapt to a new situation a good skill to have? Wouldn’t having kids that go through this process make them more resilient? Aren’t some of those Republican “tech bros” criticizing our youth for being too coddled already?

My kids went from a private k-8 religious school to a “mediocre” FCPS high school. They had to make new friends, learn the system, deal with locked bathrooms because kids are vaping in them, etc…. Guess what? They are just fine. Change doesn’t have to be a terrible thing. They are more outgoing and accepting of kids with different backgrounds.

And, no, we are not salivating at the thought of our house value going up if a few kids from the “successful” pyramid end up in our high school. That will just mean higher tax prices. We do not plan on moving for a long time. Interest rates are too high now!

[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:

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.

There are no compelling reasons to change boundaries comprehensively at this point. Based on the actions of democrats on the school board over the last decade, it’s clear this is their social experiment to try to level the playing field at all schools, using kids as pawns - mental health be damned. For anyone paying attention it’s clearly an equity venture.

I also have never heard that republicans have said they want to break up Great Falls just because. I can’t say the same for some of the democrats on the current school board. I’ve never heard of such disdain for constituents. The Dems on the school board hate certain residents in the county - really eye opening.

In sum, republicans are far from perfect, but the Dems act like certain citizens are the enemy. That’s why I will never vote for one again.

FFS the results of the study will answer that question. There will have to be justification and rationale for why some boundaries change. Can you all simmer down and wait until the results are before you start claiming it's comprehensive changes. You know comprehensive review doesn't= comprehensive changes. Perhaps you will not like what ends up happening because your afraid of change. Can everyone agree that certain boundaries exist the way they do today because of past bad decisions. Should we never correct anything because change is bad?

A minimizing screed from a SB shill.

I don’t agree with your premise that boundaries exist today because of past bad decisions. That’s a particularly rich claim in light of the fact that the democrats have controlled the sb for quite a while now. 🙄

Have you ever tried to go back and fix a decision you made in the past? Maybe you made that decision by taking into account the data that was available at that time. Shouldn’t school boundary lines be flexible according to the current, and possible future, needs of its population?

I get that change is hard, but isn’t being able to adapt to a new situation a good skill to have? Wouldn’t having kids that go through this process make them more resilient? Aren’t some of those Republican “tech bros” criticizing our youth for being too coddled already?

My kids went from a private k-8 religious school to a “mediocre” FCPS high school. They had to make new friends, learn the system, deal with locked bathrooms because kids are vaping in them, etc…. Guess what? They are just fine. Change doesn’t have to be a terrible thing. They are more outgoing and accepting of kids with different backgrounds.

And, no, we are not salivating at the thought of our house value going up if a few kids from the “successful” pyramid end up in our high school. That will just mean higher tax prices. We do not plan on moving for a long time. Interest rates are too high now!

You gotta love when the equity crowd argues the following:

1) change is difficult. This minimizes the actual emotional welfare of students. Sure things change, but to upend the apple cart to try to add a couple more pta moms to a poor performing schools couldn’t be a worse approach. The school board will rip communities apart (already started to happen in my area based on the mere threat of redistricting), and will change friendships and kids’ trajectories at their schools. It’s actually really vile if you stop to think about the collateral damage here. Horrible that the school board doesn’t talk about it.

2) people who argue that “My kids did it so that means all kids will be fine”. Arguing by example that others will have the same outcome as your kids is just dumb. That’s why parents, who chose where to live based on current pyramids can be trusted to know their kids better than the equity warriors in our county.

3) I always chuckle when people pretend like an increase in property value is a bad thing for them because their taxes will go up. It’d take 60 to 80 years for your taxes to overtake the increase in equity value. We’ll all probably be dead by then.

These boundary changes are not rooted in any logic, just social Justice warrior screed.

[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:

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.

There are no compelling reasons to change boundaries comprehensively at this point. Based on the actions of democrats on the school board over the last decade, it’s clear this is their social experiment to try to level the playing field at all schools, using kids as pawns - mental health be damned. For anyone paying attention it’s clearly an equity venture.

I also have never heard that republicans have said they want to break up Great Falls just because. I can’t say the same for some of the democrats on the current school board. I’ve never heard of such disdain for constituents. The Dems on the school board hate certain residents in the county - really eye opening.

In sum, republicans are far from perfect, but the Dems act like certain citizens are the enemy. That’s why I will never vote for one again.

FFS the results of the study will answer that question. There will have to be justification and rationale for why some boundaries change. Can you all simmer down and wait until the results are before you start claiming it's comprehensive changes. You know comprehensive review doesn't= comprehensive changes. Perhaps you will not like what ends up happening because your afraid of change. Can everyone agree that certain boundaries exist the way they do today because of past bad decisions. Should we never correct anything because change is bad?

A minimizing screed from a SB shill.

I don’t agree with your premise that boundaries exist today because of past bad decisions. That’s a particularly rich claim in light of the fact that the democrats have controlled the sb for quite a while now. 🙄

Have you ever tried to go back and fix a decision you made in the past? Maybe you made that decision by taking into account the data that was available at that time. Shouldn’t school boundary lines be flexible according to the current, and possible future, needs of its population?

I get that change is hard, but isn’t being able to adapt to a new situation a good skill to have? Wouldn’t having kids that go through this process make them more resilient? Aren’t some of those Republican “tech bros” criticizing our youth for being too coddled already?

My kids went from a private k-8 religious school to a “mediocre” FCPS high school. They had to make new friends, learn the system, deal with locked bathrooms because kids are vaping in them, etc…. Guess what? They are just fine. Change doesn’t have to be a terrible thing. They are more outgoing and accepting of kids with different backgrounds.

And, no, we are not salivating at the thought of our house value going up if a few kids from the “successful” pyramid end up in our high school. That will just mean higher tax prices. We do not plan on moving for a long time. Interest rates are too high now!

DP. If boundaries can be improved and the benefits exceed the costs (including to kids’ mental health), that’s one thing. Assuming that boundaries need to be “fixed” because you don’t like them or assume they resulted from “bad” decisions in the past is another. If you start with the latter, false assumption, you’re going to make poor decisions.

Few want their kids to be uprooted from their current high school to another, and it’s just tone-deaf to say it’s a good opportunity to teach resilience. Moving from a K-8 school to a public high school is very different from forcing kids already in high school to switch schools.

It’s also super hypocritical for some of the same folks whose own schools got very nice additions and renovations to the. turn turn around, proclaim we now have to pinch pennies, and start moving other people’s kids around. I’m not saying you’re in that category, but several of the current School Board members definitely are. Why can’t they come up with a plan to address the needs of those schools before they resort to boundary changes that none of them brought up when running for office?

[Anonymous]

Curious if people would be in favor of closing Lewis and sending half of Lewis to WSHS, 1/4 to Hayfield and 1/4 to Edison? And closing MVHS and sending all kids to West Po and sending some amount of West Po to Edison. Just close the underenrolled “bad” schools and shoehorn kids into “good” schools. Because it’s clear that Lewis and MVHS cannot recover their reputations enough in this climate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re: grandfathering, the school board did seem sometime split on the issue, but they ultimately voted down a grandfathering amendment/ requirement so that they could have flexibility in how they implement the boundary changes. Grandfathering goes directly against the transportation cost savings that they are using as a pretext for some changes. And before you say, “well I can just drive my kids,” ask yourself how “equitable” that is and whether Sandy Anderson would ever allow it.

I suspect they will pivot towards saying the cost savings have less to do with transportation costs and more to do with capital expenditures they can avoid if they forego additions at crowded schools like Chantilly and McLean.

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

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

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

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.

Some possible SPA-school planning areas border other jurisdictions and have low density. There are 3 school sites for students and residences living north of Route 7, outside the Beltway, and driving access on or off Seneca Road as furthest western route. 3 sites Forestville, Great Falls, Spring hill. For this section of Fairfax County, it's the Colvin Run boundary process #2 plus Aldrin #2 with unlimited scope unless specific BRAC members steer the process.

https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/demographics/interactive-map-elementary-school see size of areas, current yield, hosuing units

[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:

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.

There are no compelling reasons to change boundaries comprehensively at this point. Based on the actions of democrats on the school board over the last decade, it’s clear this is their social experiment to try to level the playing field at all schools, using kids as pawns - mental health be damned. For anyone paying attention it’s clearly an equity venture.

I also have never heard that republicans have said they want to break up Great Falls just because. I can’t say the same for some of the democrats on the current school board. I’ve never heard of such disdain for constituents. The Dems on the school board hate certain residents in the county - really eye opening.

In sum, republicans are far from perfect, but the Dems act like certain citizens are the enemy. That’s why I will never vote for one again.

FFS the results of the study will answer that question. There will have to be justification and rationale for why some boundaries change. Can you all simmer down and wait until the results are before you start claiming it's comprehensive changes. You know comprehensive review doesn't= comprehensive changes. Perhaps you will not like what ends up happening because your afraid of change. Can everyone agree that certain boundaries exist the way they do today because of past bad decisions. Should we never correct anything because change is bad?

No. We disagree with you.

Moving Daventry to WSHS ten years ago and closing a ridiculous split feeder was a wise decision correcting a stupid decision.

Returning the Gambrill neighborhoods back to their original neighborhood high school 20 years ago, WSHS where they had been zoned since the schools opened in the 1960s, and closing the split feeder was also a wise decision correcting a stupid decision.

Both of those rezoning actions corrected "past bad decisions" by FCPS, closing split feeders, making boundaries more compact and maintaining neighborhood connections and continuity.

What you see as a "bad decisions" are actually wise planning that respects constituents, puts students first and efficient and responsible stewardship of taxpayer money.

If that compact WSHS boundary is adjusted, then the only changes should be moving the Sangster split feeder and Keene Mill attendance islands to Lake Braddock, so FCPS can close the Rolling Valley split feeder, sending the small remaining cluster of RV streets back to WSHS.

Equity rezoning is a bad decision.

Rezoning every 5 years and destroying stability for students and homeowners is a bad decision.

Gerrymandering boundaries for equity and destroying neighborhood schools is a bad decision.

Making boundaries more compact and seemless, like what happened in the Daventry and Gambrill examples above, were smart zoning decisions that should be the model county wide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Curious if people would be in favor of closing Lewis and sending half of Lewis to WSHS, 1/4 to Hayfield and 1/4 to Edison? And closing MVHS and sending all kids to West Po and sending some amount of West Po to Edison. Just close the underenrolled “bad” schools and shoehorn kids into “good” schools. Because it’s clear that Lewis and MVHS cannot recover their reputations enough in this climate.

That’s not clear at all. Maybe they should, you know, do the hard work to improve those schools, and not just pretend boundaries changes are the solution.

They aren’t going to close these schools. You haven’t even begun to address the ripple effects.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Curious if people would be in favor of closing Lewis and sending half of Lewis to WSHS, 1/4 to Hayfield and 1/4 to Edison? And closing MVHS and sending all kids to West Po and sending some amount of West Po to Edison. Just close the underenrolled “bad” schools and shoehorn kids into “good” schools. Because it’s clear that Lewis and MVHS cannot recover their reputations enough in this climate.

No.

Your suggestion makes no sense given capacity of surrounding schools.

You would need to add Annandale, Hayfield, South County and Lake Braddock to the mix, and remove WSHS based on capacity.