FCPS HS Boundary

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids move in HS and they go onto college, many go on to excellent colleges. They can write their essay about the hardship of moving as a Junior and having to develop new relationships and how that helped them to grow as a person and a leader. It is great essay material for their applications.

Thanks Robyn. Let's make our kids' lives miserable so they have something good to use for their essays. Will be so unique if hundreds of kids write the same essay.

Oh the drama.

Boundaries shift, it sucks for the kids who have to move. In this case, they are going to move with other kids . They will have club and sport and class opportunities at their new schools. But yes, it sucks. If we wait for it to not suck it will never happen. And as much as there are people who are on this board are just fine with that, there are people on this board who think that the boundaries need to be adjusted.

Some families will leave for private. Some families will pupil place, if it is still allowed. Some families will move. Most families will stay where they are. Some will complain and others will adapt.

There are fifteen people in the entire county who want this to happen. Three SJWs on this board, and twelve extreme Democrats on the school board. I know you want your holistic Redistricting to be popular, but it just never will be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Actually, just checked the agenda and it looks like Anderson and Meren are proposing amendments, including grandfathering in 10th-12th grade. That is a big change and this could get interesting.

Oooooo this is great news for my family! That would mean my oldest would not have to switch high schools as a junior and my 2 oldest would not be expected to attend 2 different high schools at the same time.

This is sad that we have parents conceding to this point they are happy for the SB's table scraps like including 10th grade for grandfathering. This should not be happening. Also, how will this work? Schools like Langley will have a 100% opt in for grandfathering and remaining, while schools rezoned into Langley will have a 100% opt in for moving over to Langley for 10-12. This would make capacity issues severely unbalanced for 3 years.

Well, no.

The most likely kids rezoned into Langley would come from McLean. A few years ago, rising freshmen who had attended Langley feeders for ES (Colvin Run and Spring Hill), but a McLean feeder for MS (Longfellow) during Covid (so largely remote) were given the option to attend either school. The majority opted to attend McLean with their MS peers rather than attend Langley and reconnect with their ES peers, although a significant minority opted for Langley. Even if the kids being rezoned to Langley came from another high school, if they had already started HS they would probably want to stay where they started, although things could get more complicated if FCPS does not provide transportation. A family's decisions might also depend upon whether a current student has younger siblings who wouldn't have the same option.

If you asked my McLean kid whether he wanted to transfer to Langley he’d look at you as if you’d just sprouted two heads. That’s not a put-down of Langley, but kids are loyal to their school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there any parts of they are possibly throwing out and not including in the policy vote tonight? Or is this a done deal vote?

Might be a few who abstain or oppose but hard to see it not getting a majority of votes.

Got a quality beverage chilling for this moment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there any parts of they are possibly throwing out and not including in the policy vote tonight? Or is this a done deal vote?

Might be a few who abstain or oppose but hard to see it not getting a majority of votes.

Got a quality beverage chilling for this moment.

IPA from the False Expectations Brewery?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Actually, just checked the agenda and it looks like Anderson and Meren are proposing amendments, including grandfathering in 10th-12th grade. That is a big change and this could get interesting.

Oooooo this is great news for my family! That would mean my oldest would not have to switch high schools as a junior and my 2 oldest would not be expected to attend 2 different high schools at the same time.

This is sad that we have parents conceding to this point they are happy for the SB's table scraps like including 10th grade for grandfathering. This should not be happening. Also, how will this work? Schools like Langley will have a 100% opt in for grandfathering and remaining, while schools rezoned into Langley will have a 100% opt in for moving over to Langley for 10-12. This would make capacity issues severely unbalanced for 3 years.

Bright side: it will toughen up the Langley kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there any parts of they are possibly throwing out and not including in the policy vote tonight? Or is this a done deal vote?

Might be a few who abstain or oppose but hard to see it not getting a majority of votes.

Got a quality beverage chilling for this moment.

IPA from the False Expectations Brewery?

Nah it’s a Rich Liberal Tears wine from the “Live Your Blue Values” Vineyard. Premium fruits from vines more than a decade old.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there any parts of they are possibly throwing out and not including in the policy vote tonight? Or is this a done deal vote?

Might be a few who abstain or oppose but hard to see it not getting a majority of votes.

Got a quality beverage chilling for this moment.

IPA from the False Expectations Brewery?

She’s probably the one slinging insults last night on this board. Pretty certain she’s got a cold beverage in hand every evening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there any parts of they are possibly throwing out and not including in the policy vote tonight? Or is this a done deal vote?

Might be a few who abstain or oppose but hard to see it not getting a majority of votes.

Got a quality beverage chilling for this moment.

IPA from the False Expectations Brewery?

Nah it’s a Rich Liberal Tears wine from the “Live Your Blue Values” Vineyard. Premium fruits from vines more than a decade old.

So conservative families from Great Falls and West Springfield stand to be among the first redistricted and you want to uncork the Rich Liberal Tears wine? You may want to let that one age in the cellar a few more years while you’re hitting the Jackass Daniels from the “Class Resentment Distillery” every night.

[Anonymous]

It's looking like there will be a lengthy discussion tonight of the grandfathering arrangements, as McDaniel and Sizemore Heizer have offered an alternative to the amendment(s) offered by Anderson and Meren that, quite honestly, is vague, open-ended, and confusing.

The McDaniel/Sizemore Heizer uses vaguer language about phasing in boundary changes with beginning middle or high schools students, but caveats that with "when feasible," and then goes on to pair that with grandfathering language for rising 5th or 6th grade ES students, rising 8th grade MS students, and rising 12th grade HS students that, on its face, appears to be inconsistent with the "phasing in" approach. Why would a rising HS senior need to have an option to remain at his or her current school if a boundary change was being phased in starting with entering 9th graders?

They really do need to table this tonight because they are clearly floundering, and obviously divided, when it comes to deciding what the approach should be to phasing in boundary changes and/or grandfathering existing students. It's a policy decision with major implications, and they don't have their act together yet. It isn't fair to families for them to be making up this stuff on the fly at the last minute. They should step back, have another work session to discuss different approach, and then propose clear and unambiguous language that lets people know how they intend the policy to be implemented.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's looking like there will be a lengthy discussion tonight of the grandfathering arrangements, as McDaniel and Sizemore Heizer have offered an alternative to the amendment(s) offered by Anderson and Meren that, quite honestly, is vague, open-ended, and confusing.

The McDaniel/Sizemore Heizer uses vaguer language about phasing in boundary changes with beginning middle or high schools students, but caveats that with "when feasible," and then goes on to pair that with grandfathering language for rising 5th or 6th grade ES students, rising 8th grade MS students, and rising 12th grade HS students that, on its face, appears to be inconsistent with the "phasing in" approach. Why would a rising HS senior need to have an option to remain at his or her current school if a boundary change was being phased in starting with entering 9th graders?

They really do need to table this tonight because they are clearly floundering, and obviously divided, when it comes to deciding what the approach should be to phasing in boundary changes and/or grandfathering existing students. It's a policy decision with major implications, and they don't have their act together yet. It isn't fair to families for them to be making up this stuff on the fly at the last minute. They should step back, have another work session to discuss different approach, and then propose clear and unambiguous language that lets people know how they intend the policy to be implemented.

Agreed. These kinds of discussions should have been conducted in public sessions long before they tried to put this up for a vote. Way too much work done in governance committee meetings with no dialogue. Now they are scrambling and there is no consensus. They should not push this through tonight. It it too important to rush it for no good reason. Any real boundary issues can be addressed under the existing policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there any parts of they are possibly throwing out and not including in the policy vote tonight? Or is this a done deal vote?

Might be a few who abstain or oppose but hard to see it not getting a majority of votes.

Got a quality beverage chilling for this moment.

IPA from the False Expectations Brewery?

She’s probably the one slinging insults last night on this board. Pretty certain she’s got a cold beverage in hand every evening.

I actually wasn’t on this board last night. It’s an entertaining and occasionally informative place but not enough to be here every day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's looking like there will be a lengthy discussion tonight of the grandfathering arrangements, as McDaniel and Sizemore Heizer have offered an alternative to the amendment(s) offered by Anderson and Meren that, quite honestly, is vague, open-ended, and confusing.

The McDaniel/Sizemore Heizer uses vaguer language about phasing in boundary changes with beginning middle or high schools students, but caveats that with "when feasible," and then goes on to pair that with grandfathering language for rising 5th or 6th grade ES students, rising 8th grade MS students, and rising 12th grade HS students that, on its face, appears to be inconsistent with the "phasing in" approach. Why would a rising HS senior need to have an option to remain at his or her current school if a boundary change was being phased in starting with entering 9th graders?

They really do need to table this tonight because they are clearly floundering, and obviously divided, when it comes to deciding what the approach should be to phasing in boundary changes and/or grandfathering existing students. It's a policy decision with major implications, and they don't have their act together yet. It isn't fair to families for them to be making up this stuff on the fly at the last minute. They should step back, have another work session to discuss different approach, and then propose clear and unambiguous language that lets people know how they intend the policy to be implemented.

Agreed. These kinds of discussions should have been conducted in public sessions long before they tried to put this up for a vote. Way too much work done in governance committee meetings with no dialogue. Now they are scrambling and there is no consensus. They should not push this through tonight. It it too important to rush it for no good reason. Any real boundary issues can be addressed under the existing policy.

Agree with this. They should definitely discuss tonight, but then the community should have input before they make a decision on this. They shouldn't just rush some half-assed proposal thru quickly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there any parts of they are possibly throwing out and not including in the policy vote tonight? Or is this a done deal vote?

Might be a few who abstain or oppose but hard to see it not getting a majority of votes.

Got a quality beverage chilling for this moment.

IPA from the False Expectations Brewery?

Nah it’s a Rich Liberal Tears wine from the “Live Your Blue Values” Vineyard. Premium fruits from vines more than a decade old.

So conservative families from Great Falls and West Springfield stand to be among the first redistricted and you want to uncork the Rich Liberal Tears wine? You may want to let that one age in the cellar a few more years while you’re hitting the Jackass Daniels from the “Class Resentment Distillery” every night.

The first Great Falls area to be redistricted is the bluest.
I do feel for the fellow conservative families. Democrats came in to a nice conservative area because they liked it and then did democrat things, as they always do.
Unfortunate for us but we aren’t the ones who chose this path for FCPS.

The liberal tears tonight will be tears of joy, after all they are enjoying the fruits of getting complete political control. They didn’t vote for democrats and expect them not to democrat.

I have a different beverage for the future. If the area that is the target of so much envy pulls it out of the bag again when the new boundaries are drawn, that will deserve a toast.🥂

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's looking like there will be a lengthy discussion tonight of the grandfathering arrangements, as McDaniel and Sizemore Heizer have offered an alternative to the amendment(s) offered by Anderson and Meren that, quite honestly, is vague, open-ended, and confusing.

The McDaniel/Sizemore Heizer uses vaguer language about phasing in boundary changes with beginning middle or high schools students, but caveats that with "when feasible," and then goes on to pair that with grandfathering language for rising 5th or 6th grade ES students, rising 8th grade MS students, and rising 12th grade HS students that, on its face, appears to be inconsistent with the "phasing in" approach. Why would a rising HS senior need to have an option to remain at his or her current school if a boundary change was being phased in starting with entering 9th graders?

They really do need to table this tonight because they are clearly floundering, and obviously divided, when it comes to deciding what the approach should be to phasing in boundary changes and/or grandfathering existing students. It's a policy decision with major implications, and they don't have their act together yet. It isn't fair to families for them to be making up this stuff on the fly at the last minute. They should step back, have another work session to discuss different approach, and then propose clear and unambiguous language that lets people know how they intend the policy to be implemented.

They never know what tf they are doing. Never stopped them before.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there any parts of they are possibly throwing out and not including in the policy vote tonight? Or is this a done deal vote?

Might be a few who abstain or oppose but hard to see it not getting a majority of votes.

Anderson traded away her concerns for the Glasgow deal and there were no other comments or proposed changes. It's over.

Actually, just checked the agenda and it looks like Anderson and Meren are proposing amendments, including grandfathering in 10th-12th grade. That is a big change and this could get interesting.

You can’t grandfather that much and achieve the purpose of a 5 year cyclical review. And what about transportation? Makes no sense.