Amendments to Policy 8130 re Grandfathering of Current Students

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should they include busing?

1. If I choose to keep my kid at their current school that is on me. Just like if I choose to pupil place my kid elsewhere for language, AP/IB, whatever, I am responsible for getting them there and back.

2. One of the biggest complaints I see on this board is how much time and money is wasted bussing AAP kids to center school. Why would FCPS spend even more time and money shuttling around kids that want to stay at their school. There isn't enough drivers or busses to make this happen or time in the day to accomodate this. Many of the bus drivers are already doing 3-4 runs each morning and doing it again the in afternoon. Now, you want to add another route to this.

Agree.

Grandfathering without bussing is the fairest option.

Grandfathering without busing is the textbook definition of inequitable access to programming. It’s one of the reasons Sniveling Sandy and her crew has pushed back on it.

It should be an interesting debate at that meeting, but they probably will spend more time with their photo ops than discussing anything substantive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should they include busing?

1. If I choose to keep my kid at their current school that is on me. Just like if I choose to pupil place my kid elsewhere for language, AP/IB, whatever, I am responsible for getting them there and back.

2. One of the biggest complaints I see on this board is how much time and money is wasted bussing AAP kids to center school. Why would FCPS spend even more time and money shuttling around kids that want to stay at their school. There isn't enough drivers or busses to make this happen or time in the day to accomodate this. Many of the bus drivers are already doing 3-4 runs each morning and doing it again the in afternoon. Now, you want to add another route to this.

Agree.

Grandfathering without bussing is the fairest option.

Grandfathering without busing is the textbook definition of inequitable access to programming. It’s one of the reasons Sniveling Sandy and her crew has pushed back on it.

It should be an interesting debate at that meeting, but they probably will spend more time with their photo ops than discussing anything substantive.

Then pupil placement in general is inequitable since only families who can provide their own transportation can take advantage of it. I don't think you can argue against parent-provided transportation for grandfathering on the grounds of equity and still allow parent-provided transportation for pupil placements for other reasons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should they include busing?

1. If I choose to keep my kid at their current school that is on me. Just like if I choose to pupil place my kid elsewhere for language, AP/IB, whatever, I am responsible for getting them there and back.

2. One of the biggest complaints I see on this board is how much time and money is wasted bussing AAP kids to center school. Why would FCPS spend even more time and money shuttling around kids that want to stay at their school. There isn't enough drivers or busses to make this happen or time in the day to accomodate this. Many of the bus drivers are already doing 3-4 runs each morning and doing it again the in afternoon. Now, you want to add another route to this.

Agree.

Grandfathering without bussing is the fairest option.

Grandfathering without busing is the textbook definition of inequitable access to programming. It’s one of the reasons Sniveling Sandy and her crew has pushed back on it.

It should be an interesting debate at that meeting, but they probably will spend more time with their photo ops than discussing anything substantive.

Then pupil placement in general is inequitable since only families who can provide their own transportation can take advantage of it. I don't think you can argue against parent-provided transportation for grandfathering on the grounds of equity and still allow parent-provided transportation for pupil placements for other reasons.

Pupil placements aren't a result of boundary changes, but rather decisions by families to send their kids to a different school than the school for which they were already zoned. With boundary changes, the School Board is unilaterally uprooting kids and sending them to a different school, so grandfathering with transportation has been available to mitigate the disruption that the SB is otherwise imposing on families and kids.

Your willingness to defend what would be a departure from FCPS practice for at least the past 50 years suggests you are not interested in equity, but only shilling for a School Board that has dug itself into a deep hole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should they include busing?

1. If I choose to keep my kid at their current school that is on me. Just like if I choose to pupil place my kid elsewhere for language, AP/IB, whatever, I am responsible for getting them there and back.

2. One of the biggest complaints I see on this board is how much time and money is wasted bussing AAP kids to center school. Why would FCPS spend even more time and money shuttling around kids that want to stay at their school. There isn't enough drivers or busses to make this happen or time in the day to accomodate this. Many of the bus drivers are already doing 3-4 runs each morning and doing it again the in afternoon. Now, you want to add another route to this.

Agree.

Grandfathering without bussing is the fairest option.

Grandfathering without busing is the textbook definition of inequitable access to programming. It’s one of the reasons Sniveling Sandy and her crew has pushed back on it.

It should be an interesting debate at that meeting, but they probably will spend more time with their photo ops than discussing anything substantive.

Then pupil placement in general is inequitable since only families who can provide their own transportation can take advantage of it. I don't think you can argue against parent-provided transportation for grandfathering on the grounds of equity and still allow parent-provided transportation for pupil placements for other reasons.

Correct. The school board is very inconsistent, as we all know. This will just serve to further highlight how much of a farce the policy 8130 factors really are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should they include busing?

1. If I choose to keep my kid at their current school that is on me. Just like if I choose to pupil place my kid elsewhere for language, AP/IB, whatever, I am responsible for getting them there and back.

2. One of the biggest complaints I see on this board is how much time and money is wasted bussing AAP kids to center school. Why would FCPS spend even more time and money shuttling around kids that want to stay at their school. There isn't enough drivers or busses to make this happen or time in the day to accomodate this. Many of the bus drivers are already doing 3-4 runs each morning and doing it again the in afternoon. Now, you want to add another route to this.

Agree.

Grandfathering without bussing is the fairest option.

Grandfathering without busing is the textbook definition of inequitable access to programming. It’s one of the reasons Sniveling Sandy and her crew has pushed back on it.

It should be an interesting debate at that meeting, but they probably will spend more time with their photo ops than discussing anything substantive.

Then pupil placement in general is inequitable since only families who can provide their own transportation can take advantage of it. I don't think you can argue against parent-provided transportation for grandfathering on the grounds of equity and still allow parent-provided transportation for pupil placements for other reasons.

Correct. The school board is very inconsistent, as we all know. This will just serve to further highlight how much of a farce the policy 8130 factors really are.

Mateo Dunne has already said he'll go to bat to object to a proposed boundary change in his district clearly designed to follow Policy 8130.

The problem was that Moon, Sizemore-Heizer, and the others on the Governance Committee fast-tracked revisions to Policy 8130 that aren't aligned with community priorities. They should have engaged more with the public before revising Policy 8130, not afterwards, and their failure to do so reflects fundamental errors in judgment that demonstrate their unfitness to hold public office.

Now they are trying to toss people a bone and this, too, will not go over well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should they include busing?

1. If I choose to keep my kid at their current school that is on me. Just like if I choose to pupil place my kid elsewhere for language, AP/IB, whatever, I am responsible for getting them there and back.

2. One of the biggest complaints I see on this board is how much time and money is wasted bussing AAP kids to center school. Why would FCPS spend even more time and money shuttling around kids that want to stay at their school. There isn't enough drivers or busses to make this happen or time in the day to accomodate this. Many of the bus drivers are already doing 3-4 runs each morning and doing it again the in afternoon. Now, you want to add another route to this.

Agree.

Grandfathering without bussing is the fairest option.

Grandfathering without busing is the textbook definition of inequitable access to programming. It’s one of the reasons Sniveling Sandy and her crew has pushed back on it.

It should be an interesting debate at that meeting, but they probably will spend more time with their photo ops than discussing anything substantive.

Then pupil placement in general is inequitable since only families who can provide their own transportation can take advantage of it. I don't think you can argue against parent-provided transportation for grandfathering on the grounds of equity and still allow parent-provided transportation for pupil placements for other reasons.

Pupil placements aren't a result of boundary changes, but rather decisions by families to send their kids to a different school than the school for which they were already zoned. With boundary changes, the School Board is unilaterally uprooting kids and sending them to a different school, so grandfathering with transportation has been available to mitigate the disruption that the SB is otherwise imposing on families and kids.

Your willingness to defend what would be a departure from FCPS practice for at least the past 50 years suggests you are not interested in equity, but only shilling for a School Board that has dug itself into a deep hole.

While I agree that county transportation would be preferable, arguing AGAINST grandfathering due to a lack of transportation is inconsistent, and would likely be a way for the school board to uproot kids as quickly as possibly. Trust me, I am anything but a School Board shill. I'd rather see grandfathering with transportation provided.

[Anonymous]

I will have an incoming 6th and incoming 9th…still very much opposed to boundary change for no clear reason. This does not change opposition and those that will be grandfathered should not let up the pressure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I will have an incoming 6th and incoming 9th…still very much opposed to boundary change for no clear reason. This does not change opposition and those that will be grandfathered should not let up the pressure.

There are reasons, you just don't like them (or don't like the results of their solutions). There are schools that need relief. There are kids commuting 30+ minutes each way (45 on the bus) when other schools are much closer. There are split feeders that make no sense.
Grandfathering is only fair, especially for high school juniors and seniors. Holding up necessary boundary changes because you don't want or benefit from them isn't.

[Anonymous]

This would quell my concerns about the boundary review. My youngest would be going into 10th. While driving him isn’t easy it’s doable if needed. If we do get rezoned it would be to a comparable school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This would quell my concerns about the boundary review. My youngest would be going into 10th. While driving him isn’t easy it’s doable if needed. If we do get rezoned it would be to a comparable school.

While I’m glad that your kid would not get moved under their proposed amendment, there are a lot of kids who are about to get royally screwed with these boundary changes. You might want to think a bit broader than your own specific situation, or at least be a bit more sympathetic to those students (including your neighbors in perpetuity) who would continue to be in the school board’s crosshairs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will have an incoming 6th and incoming 9th…still very much opposed to boundary change for no clear reason. This does not change opposition and those that will be grandfathered should not let up the pressure.

There are reasons, you just don't like them (or don't like the results of their solutions). There are schools that need relief. There are kids commuting 30+ minutes each way (45 on the bus) when other schools are much closer. There are split feeders that make no sense.
Grandfathering is only fair, especially for high school juniors and seniors. Holding up necessary boundary changes because you don't want or benefit from them isn't.

You sound like a certain BRAC member who is on record having pushed for equity-based boundary changes while at the same time advocating for her kids to stay in their current school pyramid.

Real trash take to advocate for boundary changes for many when there are really very few areas that need changes.

[Anonymous]

Common sense finally prevails!

Glad to see that the feedback from all the community review sessions regarding grandfathering MS and HS is now being taken seriously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This would quell my concerns about the boundary review. My youngest would be going into 10th. While driving him isn’t easy it’s doable if needed. If we do get rezoned it would be to a comparable school.

While I’m glad that your kid would not get moved under their proposed amendment, there are a lot of kids who are about to get royally screwed with these boundary changes. You might want to think a bit broader than your own specific situation, or at least be a bit more sympathetic to those students (including your neighbors in perpetuity) who would continue to be in the school board’s crosshairs.

You are going to lose allies if you start fighting against grandfathering high school students.

I am very active in my elementary school zone's work against rezoning. I got involved in the beginning at the first whispers of rezoning well over a year ago, and started to organize when it looked like everyone in our area might get rezoned. I stayed involved when the maps came out and our half of the elementary was untouched. I am still involved even though it appears my children will now be safe from any rezoning, both through our street appearing to be safe and the new possibility of grandfathering high schoolers.

I have done more than my part to spread the word about these changes, rally people and help, not just to protect my kids but to protect your kids.

Adding an update to Policy 8130 that protects high school kids, not just for this rezoning but from future rezoning, is a huge victory for the families in this county and one that we have been fighting and organizing for over a year to get enshrined in the policy.

If you selfishly start pushing against this victory (and it is s victory for all of us) of grandfathering high school students, because it is not 100% what you want, then I am out. Many others will be out. You will be the one that divided and conquered, not FCPS.

You need to see this grandfathering move as the victory that it is, and try to build on it to include liberal pupil placement for younger siblings.

Fighting against grandfathering is going to lose a lot of allies from otherwise safe areas, who would continue to fight with you until you turn on them and try to take things away from their kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This would quell my concerns about the boundary review. My youngest would be going into 10th. While driving him isn’t easy it’s doable if needed. If we do get rezoned it would be to a comparable school.

While I’m glad that your kid would not get moved under their proposed amendment, there are a lot of kids who are about to get royally screwed with these boundary changes. You might want to think a bit broader than your own specific situation, or at least be a bit more sympathetic to those students (including your neighbors in perpetuity) who would continue to be in the school board’s crosshairs.

You are going to lose allies if you start fighting against grandfathering high school students.

I am very active in my elementary school zone's work against rezoning. I got involved in the beginning at the first whispers of rezoning well over a year ago, and started to organize when it looked like everyone in our area might get rezoned. I stayed involved when the maps came out and our half of the elementary was untouched. I am still involved even though it appears my children will now be safe from any rezoning, both through our street appearing to be safe and the new possibility of grandfathering high schoolers.

I have done more than my part to spread the word about these changes, rally people and help, not just to protect my kids but to protect your kids.

Adding an update to Policy 8130 that protects high school kids, not just for this rezoning but from future rezoning, is a huge victory for the families in this county and one that we have been fighting and organizing for over a year to get enshrined in the policy.

If you selfishly start pushing against this victory (and it is s victory for all of us) of grandfathering high school students, because it is not 100% what you want, then I am out. Many others will be out. You will be the one that divided and conquered, not FCPS.

You need to see this grandfathering move as the victory that it is, and try to build on it to include liberal pupil placement for younger siblings.

Fighting against grandfathering is going to lose a lot of allies from otherwise safe areas, who would continue to fight with you until you turn on them and try to take things away from their kids.

Oh you probably missed my very first sentence where I said I’m happy that their kid wouldn’t be moved. 🙃

[Anonymous]

The irony is that if they grandfather but don’t provide transportation they are going to have even less of a handle on future enrollment numbers. They could end up with situations where students are rezoned from School A to School B, and from School B to School C, and the enrollment at School B spikes because the kids moved from School A can’t arrange for transportation so move to School B but the kids moved to School C can and therefore remain at School B.

Their ability to forecast enrollments already is poor and they could be introducing even more uncertainty. Conversely, if they limited boundary changes to those situations that are truly necessary, phased in the changes, but provided transportation to grandfathered students, they’d be able to forecast more accurately.

The ability of this School Board to make a total hash of things seems endless.