FCPS HS Boundary

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Thank you Dr. Anderson!!!!!! Preach.


You know, this comment would be a lot more meaningful if anyone knew what you were referring to.


Dr. Anderson gave a very passionate speech in favor of grandfathering, pushing back on the other members.


Did the amendment ultimately pass?


Dr. Anderson’s amendment did not pass. Kyle came in at the 11th hour with a less flexible version, which had a lot more support.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
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.


They are just continuing the work of the last board and the board before that. Boundary policy is only one if the things they work on.

It’s your dumb asz fault for voting in Democrats when they have been on this since 2018.

The good news is, at least there are no more mean Republicans on the board.



Maybe if all you genius Republicans had brought up the fact the Dems were planning to do this, you might have won a few seats.



You might have a future in comedy.


+1
Democrats create a $hitshow, once again, but the PP blames Republicans for not being mind readers. Too funny.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
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.


They are just continuing the work of the last board and the board before that. Boundary policy is only one if the things they work on.

It’s your dumb asz fault for voting in Democrats when they have been on this since 2018.

The good news is, at least there are no more mean Republicans on the board.



Maybe if all you genius Republicans had brought up the fact the Dems were planning to do this, you might have won a few seats.


Why would a democrat listen to anything a republican has to say about any democrat?
The county is mostly highly educated, highly intelligent dem voters. We like democrat policies and that’s why we vote for democrats.
Duh.



And this is what you got. Yay, you?
DP
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Thank you Dr. Anderson!!!!!! Preach.


You know, this comment would be a lot more meaningful if anyone knew what you were referring to.


It looks like Great Falls is dominating this thread and using it as a live thread for the school board meeting. (Yawn)


Sputter away - but it's bizarre that after supposedly working on revisions to the boundary policy for years (since 2018) they are now collectively thrashing out in public what the phasing arrangements may be, when they should have vetted more fully in work sessions before bringing this to a vote tonight. It's not addressed in the policy that was originally teed up for a vote, so they are now presenting competing amendments, the interpretations of which is far from obvious.

You don't have to be from Great Falls to recognize incompetence when you see it on display.


+100
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
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.


They are just continuing the work of the last board and the board before that. Boundary policy is only one if the things they work on.

It’s your dumb asz fault for voting in Democrats when they have been on this since 2018.

The good news is, at least there are no more mean Republicans on the board.



Maybe if all you genius Republicans had brought up the fact the Dems were planning to do this, you might have won a few seats.


Why would a democrat listen to anything a republican has to say about any democrat?
The county is mostly highly educated, highly intelligent dem voters. We like democrat policies and that’s why we vote for democrats.
Duh.


As is the case in CA and NY more and more intelligent people are leaving Fairfax County. Soon all that will be left are “dem voters” that think they are smarter than everyone else.

Let the chaos begin. The “highly intelligent dem voters” got what they deserved. Only losers are the children.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:What is an attendance island?

School that don’t have continuous boundaries. McLean high school is the easiest one to spot on a map, but there are several elementary schools that have them too.


I guess I’m just confused by the comment that high schools will change very little and that this will mostly impact elementary schools.



Perhaps she misspoke? I think what will happen is elementary school boundaries change significantly and split feeders eliminated. Elementaries may change pyramids, but maybe not many of them.

For example they redo the Forestville boundary and a slice of the western most part of Great Falls and houses on the south side of rte 7 are sent to one of the nearby elementary schools in Herndon, and those schools stay aligned to Herndon Middle and high.
In all their reimagining, maybe the new Forestville goes to Herndon too, maybe not.

With a blank slate the possibilities are endless.
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: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.


They are just continuing the work of the last board and the board before that. Boundary policy is only one if the things they work on.

It’s your dumb asz fault for voting in Democrats when they have been on this since 2018.

The good news is, at least there are no more mean Republicans on the board.



Maybe if all you genius Republicans had brought up the fact the Dems were planning to do this, you might have won a few seats.


Why would a democrat listen to anything a republican has to say about any democrat?
The county is mostly highly educated, highly intelligent dem voters. We like democrat policies and that’s why we vote for democrats.
Duh.



And this is what you got. Yay, you?
DP[/quote
We all get diversity, equity, and inclusion. That is what this policy guarantees .
We keep schools safe for lbtqia with books about them in the libraries and them using the right bathrooms.
Blue.

Anonymous
So what happened with grandfathering? I am really worried that this will happen my kid’s junior year. I will send my younger kid - who would start 9th at a new school - without drama, but I do not want my rising freshman to have to switch schools junior year.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:What is an attendance island?

School that don’t have continuous boundaries. McLean high school is the easiest one to spot on a map, but there are several elementary schools that have them too.


I guess I’m just confused by the comment that high schools will change very little and that this will mostly impact elementary schools.



Perhaps she misspoke? I think what will happen is elementary school boundaries change significantly and split feeders eliminated. Elementaries may change pyramids, but maybe not many of them.

For example they redo the Forestville boundary and a slice of the western most part of Great Falls and houses on the south side of rte 7 are sent to one of the nearby elementary schools in Herndon, and those schools stay aligned to Herndon Middle and high.
In all their reimagining, maybe the new Forestville goes to Herndon too, maybe not.

With a blank slate the possibilities are endless.


That was the second time she said it, so I don’t think it was that she misspoke.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:What is an attendance island?

School that don’t have continuous boundaries. McLean high school is the easiest one to spot on a map, but there are several elementary schools that have them too.


I guess I’m just confused by the comment that high schools will change very little and that this will mostly impact elementary schools.


The elementary school attendance islands often still exist within the same high school pyramid, and can be corrected by adjusting the elementary school boundaries within the high school attendance footprint. Look at Ravensworth in Lake Braddock. The attendance block drives past Kings Glen to get to Ravensworth, but all of those students will eventually go off to Lake Braddock, so if the elementary schools boundaries are changed, the kids in secondary school won’t be impacted. Keene Mill is another example where the island can be absorbed by neighboring ES in the WSHS pyramid.

The prime examples they were discussing were places like Fort Hunt, Groveton, and Halley where a very small number of students are being bused across the county.

With the high school islands, I think only Timber Lane and Spring Hill are impacted for McLean, and both of those schools are split feeders already. Spring Hill could potentially stay a split feeder, as the portion assigned to McLean is closer to McLean than Langley. They can even connect the boundaries by having McLean pick up more of Westgate.

There’s another island for Fairfax High School which will be harder to address, because those schools are all closer to Chantilly and Centerville, and there’s no room for them there.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Thank you Dr. Anderson!!!!!! Preach.


You know, this comment would be a lot more meaningful if anyone knew what you were referring to.


It looks like Great Falls is dominating this thread and using it as a live thread for the school board meeting. (Yawn)


Sputter away - but it's bizarre that after supposedly working on revisions to the boundary policy for years (since 2018) they are now collectively thrashing out in public what the phasing arrangements may be, when they should have vetted more fully in work sessions before bringing this to a vote tonight. It's not addressed in the policy that was originally teed up for a vote, so they are now presenting competing amendments, the interpretations of which is far from obvious.

You don't have to be from Great Falls to recognize incompetence when you see it on display.


+100


+me They basically said “trust us we will grandfather” but I don’t. If they had thought of kids this would have been in there a long time ago. It was written in the old policy so they had to have read it and then didn’t do anything about it until the day of the meeting/day before.

Anonymous
The impression I got was they are going to focus first on the bussing islands and less on entire schools. They also didn’t emphasize that much the high school situation and act like they was an attempt to fill up Lewis high school. I don’t even think they will look at moving elementary to other regions/pyramids if they aren’t bussing them now (ie West Springfield schools).
Anonymous
As for the phasing, I understand they can’t open it to all of these grades because they won’t solve the problems they are trying to fix. I do think phasing for 11/12 grade should be considered.

I want to believe the heavy community engagement they are offering but we have seen before how that goes.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:So what happened with grandfathering? I am really worried that this will happen my kid’s junior year. I will send my younger kid - who would start 9th at a new school - without drama, but I do not want my rising freshman to have to switch schools junior year.


I think it will be only the oldest grade at each level will be grandfathered in with certainty and then perhaps some discretion for other students as needed. Dr. Anderson and Meren were really taken aback by how McDaniel snuck in his counter amendment at the last moment.

I too have a rising freshman whom I imagine will have to move his junior year. I get that change and disruption will happen with any boundary adjustment, but let's just be honest about the juniors stuck in this situation- they are a sacrificial cohort for the greater good.

I can't believe the Board won't allow students in their all-important junior year to remain at the same school in which they began. I hope they show the discretion they said would not be allowed in the Dr. Anderson amendment they rejected and give rising juniors the choice to stay or go.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:As for the phasing, I understand they can’t open it to all of these grades because they won’t solve the problems they are trying to fix. I do think phasing for 11/12 grade should be considered.

I want to believe the heavy community engagement they are offering but we have seen before how that goes.


They aren’t listening to the community. They cherry pick one off conversations that they have within the echo chamber and pretend like that’s what the constituents want.

The disdain for constituents was so apparent from Sandy Anderson’s intro speech yesterday, I urge you all to go watch it and see for yourself how much she hates the majority of her constituents.
Forum Index » Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS)
Go to: