FCPS HS Boundary

[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.

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.

Right- so it was an opening bid. The will give lip service to grandfathering (what Mc Daniel and Sizemore just did) and then pass it.

[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.

Yep. They had a chance to discuss this in the governance work sessions a couple months ago when Robyn Lady interjected that they need limited grandfathering to toughen up the Fairfax county kids and the committee declined to actually do the work at the time. Then they could’ve talked about it at the work session, but declined. It’s infuriating that this little thought is going into something with such profound implications for students in the county.

[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.

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.

It's silent on transportation.

If Langley kids have a grandfathering option, but no transportation, they will efficiently arrange for car pools coordinated by SAHMs or, if necessary, private shuttle buses.

If kids at other schools have a grandfathering option, but no transportation, and parents working two jobs, the kids may be out of luck.

[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.

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.

Right- so it was an opening bid. The will give lip service to grandfathering (what Mc Daniel and Sizemore just did) and then pass it.

It would be the ultimate bait-and-switch to pass an amendment that speaks to phasing in boundary changes "where feasible," and then declare later it's not feasible because the bus fleet can't handle it. They really need to be honest about how they see this being implemented in practice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can we assume that the teacher-school assignments will be reviewed as well?

Based on the changes to enrollment associated with moving students, there should be a comprehensive teacher-school assignment review conducted every five years.

No school should have a greater proportion of highly qualified/performing teachers (however that might be assessed) than any another school.

You’re obviously trolling. Teachers’ jobs aren’t tethered to where they work and they are not offered bus service. I could never afford a house in either of the pyramids I worked in. As a renter, my commute changed often. The country had the right to destaff me. They did not have the right to dictate a commute that they were not going to facilitate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Right- so it was an opening bid. The will give lip service to grandfathering (what Mc Daniel and Sizemore just did) and then pass it.

It would be the ultimate bait-and-switch to pass an amendment that speaks to phasing in boundary changes "where feasible," and then declare later it's not feasible because the bus fleet can't handle it. They really need to be honest about how they see this being implemented in practice.

I think they already did the ultimate bait and switch: getting elected whilst staying quiet about boundaries and then going nuclear on the boundaries, so sadly, I see this is a possibility for this board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Right- so it was an opening bid. The will give lip service to grandfathering (what Mc Daniel and Sizemore just did) and then pass it.

It would be the ultimate bait-and-switch to pass an amendment that speaks to phasing in boundary changes "where feasible," and then declare later it's not feasible because the bus fleet can't handle it. They really need to be honest about how they see this being implemented in practice.

I think they already did the ultimate bait and switch: getting elected whilst staying quiet about boundaries and then going nuclear on the boundaries, so sadly, I see this is a possibility for this board.

Fair point. Maybe the correct description is "adding insult to injury."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Right- so it was an opening bid. The will give lip service to grandfathering (what Mc Daniel and Sizemore just did) and then pass it.

It would be the ultimate bait-and-switch to pass an amendment that speaks to phasing in boundary changes "where feasible," and then declare later it's not feasible because the bus fleet can't handle it. They really need to be honest about how they see this being implemented in practice.

Pretty wild that the two reasons for the nuclear option boundary review are theoretical transportation savings and a couple extra minutes of nap time for junior, and that neither will even be realized. Really makes you wonder why Robyn Lady supports this. Seems like pretty clear pretext for an equity push by the SB.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we assume that the teacher-school assignments will be reviewed as well?

Based on the changes to enrollment associated with moving students, there should be a comprehensive teacher-school assignment review conducted every five years.

No school should have a greater proportion of highly qualified/performing teachers (however that might be assessed) than any another school.

You’re obviously trolling. Teachers’ jobs aren’t tethered to where they work and they are not offered bus service. I could never afford a house in either of the pyramids I worked in. As a renter, my commute changed often. The country had the right to destaff me. They did not have the right to dictate a commute that they were not going to facilitate.

Why should students and their families bear all the weight of fixing the challenges FCPS faces? If capacity changes happen, teachers will have to move anyway. This seems like a more equitable approach. You can't advocate for moving students and not teachers. Moving students already means there's no community entitlement to a given school.

Teachers could decide for themselves of the commute is worth it, but if moves to teachers are done similar to students than we're not talking about opposite ends of the county.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we assume that the teacher-school assignments will be reviewed as well?

Based on the changes to enrollment associated with moving students, there should be a comprehensive teacher-school assignment review conducted every five years.

No school should have a greater proportion of highly qualified/performing teachers (however that might be assessed) than any another school.

You’re obviously trolling. Teachers’ jobs aren’t tethered to where they work and they are not offered bus service. I could never afford a house in either of the pyramids I worked in. As a renter, my commute changed often. The country had the right to destaff me. They did not have the right to dictate a commute that they were not going to facilitate.

Why should students and their families bear all the weight of fixing the challenges FCPS faces? If capacity changes happen, teachers will have to move anyway. This seems like a more equitable approach. You can't advocate for moving students and not teachers. Moving students already means there's no community entitlement to a given school.

Teachers could decide for themselves of the commute is worth it, but if moves to teachers are done similar to students than we're not talking about opposite ends of the county.

As a teacher in another district, you don’t want to pick this battle. Teachers will move, Fairfax is already looked at as one of the low payers in the area. FCPS doesn’t offer the step increases every year and neighboring districts do it more often. The vacancy list is long enough already.
Most people teach for public service not the money so free market strategies for employment/wages aren’t very direct. You want teachers to stay and love what they do/their population. You don’t want to drive them into other, more stable districts.

That said, I am sure you have your mind made up and wouldn’t heed any advice anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Right- so it was an opening bid. The will give lip service to grandfathering (what Mc Daniel and Sizemore just did) and then pass it.

It would be the ultimate bait-and-switch to pass an amendment that speaks to phasing in boundary changes "where feasible," and then declare later it's not feasible because the bus fleet can't handle it. They really need to be honest about how they see this being implemented in practice.

Pretty wild that the two reasons for the nuclear option boundary review are theoretical transportation savings and a couple extra minutes of nap time for junior, and that neither will even be realized. Really makes you wonder why Robyn Lady supports this. Seems like pretty clear pretext for an equity push by the SB.

Or, they're trying to move everyone around so they'll have space in the ESs for universal pre-K, which would be something all of them would love to have and would help them show they're all good Democrats. Still unclear how they'd pay for it, but there you are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we assume that the teacher-school assignments will be reviewed as well?

Based on the changes to enrollment associated with moving students, there should be a comprehensive teacher-school assignment review conducted every five years.

No school should have a greater proportion of highly qualified/performing teachers (however that might be assessed) than any another school.

You’re obviously trolling. Teachers’ jobs aren’t tethered to where they work and they are not offered bus service. I could never afford a house in either of the pyramids I worked in. As a renter, my commute changed often. The country had the right to destaff me. They did not have the right to dictate a commute that they were not going to facilitate.

Why should students and their families bear all the weight of fixing the challenges FCPS faces? If capacity changes happen, teachers will have to move anyway. This seems like a more equitable approach. You can't advocate for moving students and not teachers. Moving students already means there's no community entitlement to a given school.

Teachers could decide for themselves of the commute is worth it, but if moves to teachers are done similar to students than we're not talking about opposite ends of the county.

It will be disruptive enough to teachers as currently envisioned, as school enrollments will go up and down (requiring more hiring and destaffing) and they’ll be dealing with sullen kids unhappy at being reassigned to schools they hadn’t expected to attend. No need to orchestrate even more turmoil.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we assume that the teacher-school assignments will be reviewed as well?

Based on the changes to enrollment associated with moving students, there should be a comprehensive teacher-school assignment review conducted every five years.

No school should have a greater proportion of highly qualified/performing teachers (however that might be assessed) than any another school.

You’re obviously trolling. Teachers’ jobs aren’t tethered to where they work and they are not offered bus service. I could never afford a house in either of the pyramids I worked in. As a renter, my commute changed often. The country had the right to destaff me. They did not have the right to dictate a commute that they were not going to facilitate.

Why should students and their families bear all the weight of fixing the challenges FCPS faces? If capacity changes happen, teachers will have to move anyway. This seems like a more equitable approach. You can't advocate for moving students and not teachers. Moving students already means there's no community entitlement to a given school.

Teachers could decide for themselves of the commute is worth it, but if moves to teachers are done similar to students than we're not talking about opposite ends of the county.

It will be disruptive enough to teachers as currently envisioned, as school enrollments will go up and down (requiring more hiring and destaffing) and they’ll be dealing with sullen kids unhappy at being reassigned to schools they hadn’t expected to attend. No need to orchestrate even more turmoil.

I appreciate all the responses. I think the school board should be thinking about all the options that relate to boundary changes. I also feel that those teachers could help families navigate the differences having taught at the prior schools. A lot of families, especially with multiple kids, get to know the teachers at their school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we assume that the teacher-school assignments will be reviewed as well?

Based on the changes to enrollment associated with moving students, there should be a comprehensive teacher-school assignment review conducted every five years.

No school should have a greater proportion of highly qualified/performing teachers (however that might be assessed) than any another school.

You’re obviously trolling. Teachers’ jobs aren’t tethered to where they work and they are not offered bus service. I could never afford a house in either of the pyramids I worked in. As a renter, my commute changed often. The country had the right to destaff me. They did not have the right to dictate a commute that they were not going to facilitate.

Why should students and their families bear all the weight of fixing the challenges FCPS faces? If capacity changes happen, teachers will have to move anyway. This seems like a more equitable approach. You can't advocate for moving students and not teachers. Moving students already means there's no community entitlement to a given school.

Teachers could decide for themselves of the commute is worth it, but if moves to teachers are done similar to students than we're not talking about opposite ends of the county.

As a teacher in another district, you don’t want to pick this battle. Teachers will move, Fairfax is already looked at as one of the low payers in the area. FCPS doesn’t offer the step increases every year and neighboring districts do it more often. The vacancy list is long enough already.
Most people teach for public service not the money so free market strategies for employment/wages aren’t very direct. You want teachers to stay and love what they do/their population. You don’t want to drive them into other, more stable districts.

That said, I am sure you have your mind made up and wouldn’t heed any advice anyway.

Well, good news for teachers, if the doomsayers are to be believed property values will tank after boundary changes meaning teachers will actually be able to afford to live in Fairfax County close to their schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we assume that the teacher-school assignments will be reviewed as well?

Based on the changes to enrollment associated with moving students, there should be a comprehensive teacher-school assignment review conducted every five years.

No school should have a greater proportion of highly qualified/performing teachers (however that might be assessed) than any another school.

You’re obviously trolling. Teachers’ jobs aren’t tethered to where they work and they are not offered bus service. I could never afford a house in either of the pyramids I worked in. As a renter, my commute changed often. The country had the right to destaff me. They did not have the right to dictate a commute that they were not going to facilitate.

Why should students and their families bear all the weight of fixing the challenges FCPS faces? If capacity changes happen, teachers will have to move anyway. This seems like a more equitable approach. You can't advocate for moving students and not teachers. Moving students already means there's no community entitlement to a given school.

Teachers could decide for themselves of the commute is worth it, but if moves to teachers are done similar to students than we're not talking about opposite ends of the county.

As a teacher in another district, you don’t want to pick this battle. Teachers will move, Fairfax is already looked at as one of the low payers in the area. FCPS doesn’t offer the step increases every year and neighboring districts do it more often. The vacancy list is long enough already.
Most people teach for public service not the money so free market strategies for employment/wages aren’t very direct. You want teachers to stay and love what they do/their population. You don’t want to drive them into other, more stable districts.

That said, I am sure you have your mind made up and wouldn’t heed any advice anyway.

Well, good news for teachers, if the doomsayers are to be believed property values will tank after boundary changes meaning teachers will actually be able to afford to live in Fairfax County close to their schools.

But tax rolls would dry up too, so, when that happens, bye bye future raises.

That’s the one dimensional type of thinking that got us here.