FCPS comprehensive boundary review

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I feel like you missed the "mostly" in PP's question... saying every HS pyramid will be affected is not the same as saying every HS pyramid will be affected in equal measure... some will have major changes, some minor ones. I'd say if you live in OR NEAR a split feeder or attendance island, or an area with a particularly long commute to your school (especially if you pass other schools along the way), or a school where you have to shift pyramids (and thus social groups) to attend an AAP center, etc. then you're at higher risk. Note the "or near" part is really important, as to fix a problem in one area likely has an impact on the neighboring areas and some shuffling occurs, even if YOUR school wasn't the attendance island, split feeder, etc.

You literally just described every school in Fairfax County.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A huge issue will be whether there will be grandfathering and, if so, the extent. Every HS boundary change for decades has had generous grandfathering of students already in high school.

If they change course and limit grandfathering to just rising seniors, or eliminate it, all hell will break loose. And those with the most responsibility in that scenario will be Rachna Sizemore-Heizer, Ilryong Moon, and Kyle McDaniel, who in their Governance Committee roles refused to commit to grandfathering when overseeing the revisions to Policy 8130. Their names would live in infamy in the county for many years to come.

How can they offer grandfathering for any significant portion of kids while also reevaluating boundaries every 5 years? It would be a constant state of turmoil.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A huge issue will be whether there will be grandfathering and, if so, the extent. Every HS boundary change for decades has had generous grandfathering of students already in high school.

If they change course and limit grandfathering to just rising seniors, or eliminate it, all hell will break loose. And those with the most responsibility in that scenario will be Rachna Sizemore-Heizer, Ilryong Moon, and Kyle McDaniel, who in their Governance Committee roles refused to commit to grandfathering when overseeing the revisions to Policy 8130. Their names would live in infamy in the county for many years to come.

How can they offer grandfathering for any significant portion of kids while also reevaluating boundaries every 5 years? It would be a constant state of turmoil.

Not to mention the exorbitant cost of double buses for even one year. Im not against liberal grandfathering, just pointing out that their supposed transportation savings end up largely negative in that scenario.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A huge issue will be whether there will be grandfathering and, if so, the extent. Every HS boundary change for decades has had generous grandfathering of students already in high school.

If they change course and limit grandfathering to just rising seniors, or eliminate it, all hell will break loose. And those with the most responsibility in that scenario will be Rachna Sizemore-Heizer, Ilryong Moon, and Kyle McDaniel, who in their Governance Committee roles refused to commit to grandfathering when overseeing the revisions to Policy 8130. Their names would live in infamy in the county for many years to come.

How can they offer grandfathering for any significant portion of kids while also reevaluating boundaries every 5 years? It would be a constant state of turmoil.

Not to mention the exorbitant cost of double buses for even one year. Im not against liberal grandfathering, just pointing out that their supposed transportation savings end up largely negative in that scenario.

Across the country, grandfathering occurs for only senior classes because 1) of college admissions logistics, support and admission and 2) they have access to a driver’s license and car transportation to not relay on a bus budget. Sometimes juniors are included, but not as guaranteed and the entire county needs to adapt to account for capacity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A huge issue will be whether there will be grandfathering and, if so, the extent. Every HS boundary change for decades has had generous grandfathering of students already in high school.

If they change course and limit grandfathering to just rising seniors, or eliminate it, all hell will break loose. And those with the most responsibility in that scenario will be Rachna Sizemore-Heizer, Ilryong Moon, and Kyle McDaniel, who in their Governance Committee roles refused to commit to grandfathering when overseeing the revisions to Policy 8130. Their names would live in infamy in the county for many years to come.

How can they offer grandfathering for any significant portion of kids while also reevaluating boundaries every 5 years? It would be a constant state of turmoil.

Not to mention the exorbitant cost of double buses for even one year. Im not against liberal grandfathering, just pointing out that their supposed transportation savings end up largely negative in that scenario.

Across the country, grandfathering occurs for only senior classes because 1) of college admissions logistics, support and admission and 2) they have access to a driver’s license and car transportation to not relay on a bus budget. Sometimes juniors are included, but not as guaranteed and the entire county needs to adapt to account for capacity.

Junior year is just as important, if not more so, as senior year for students on the path to college. I've said on this thread before, and I'll likely say it again, I will send my child who will be in 8th in 2026 to a new high school. We won't be thrilled, but we will work to make it a good experience. But I will not send my child who will be in 11th in 2026 to a new high school without kicking and screaming and finding every way to keep him at the school he has started at.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BTW, your arrogance is appalling. “A lawsuit is like a scud missile randomly launched against a country with advanced anti-missile technology.”

Who pays for the lawyers that you refer to as “advanced anti-missile technology”? The people who dare to oppose your agenda? Using our tax dollars to pay for lawyers to keep us in line?

I am not intimidated by your boasting. You may feel very powerful, but you are not all powerful.

There is no need to punch down on the people. Work with us. We are getting battered by Musk and Trump. Do not push us. We will push back. Hard.

I’m not boasting. I’m resigned to the political realities in the county.

And, frankly, underwhelmed by the arguments that there’s a counter-strategy with any meat to it.

You won’t be underwhelmed when you see it. And no, you won’t bait me into giving you a roadmap.

I am suggesting that you all pump the brakes and read the room. I am also suggesting that the community that you serve would benefit from a more inclusive and measured approach. We are thrown into chaos by this DOGE garbage and you come across as just as bullying and indifferent as them.

Work with your community, not against it. Stop punching down on the people who you serve. I am reaching out and giving you a path forward where you are the political hero in a time of turmoil, and your response is basically snark and arrogance.

Oh well. I tried. FAFO.

These Langley people really are high on their own supply.

DP. You should count the amount of times you’ve gone after “Langley people” on this thread.

Then you should do some deep soul-searching, and get a life.

This isn’t Langley posting. The boundary review is said to affect lots of pyramids. Dismiss our input at your own risk.

[Anonymous]

Is ranting and raving on this 477 page thread going to solve anything?

Has anyone considered starting an email campaign to let our elected board members know how we feel about this change?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A huge issue will be whether there will be grandfathering and, if so, the extent. Every HS boundary change for decades has had generous grandfathering of students already in high school.

If they change course and limit grandfathering to just rising seniors, or eliminate it, all hell will break loose. And those with the most responsibility in that scenario will be Rachna Sizemore-Heizer, Ilryong Moon, and Kyle McDaniel, who in their Governance Committee roles refused to commit to grandfathering when overseeing the revisions to Policy 8130. Their names would live in infamy in the county for many years to come.

How can they offer grandfathering for any significant portion of kids while also reevaluating boundaries every 5 years? It would be a constant state of turmoil.

Not to mention the exorbitant cost of double buses for even one year. Im not against liberal grandfathering, just pointing out that their supposed transportation savings end up largely negative in that scenario.

Across the country, grandfathering occurs for only senior classes because 1) of college admissions logistics, support and admission and 2) they have access to a driver’s license and car transportation to not relay on a bus budget. Sometimes juniors are included, but not as guaranteed and the entire county needs to adapt to account for capacity.

So what you are saying is that you don't have any understanding of college admissions or applications.

Junior year is the most critical grade for college applications.

For that reason alone, all juniors should be frozen at their zoned schools until graduation.

Rezoning should start with rising freshmen.

Current high school students should be locked into place and not affected by rzoning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is ranting and raving on this 477 page thread going to solve anything?

Has anyone considered starting an email campaign to let our elected board members know how we feel about this change?

You need to organize with your neighbors and neighborhood elementary zone.

Our elementary school is one of the non Langley elementary schools often discussed as getting rezoned to a high school in a different neighborhood.

We started our neighborhood FB page over the summer when 8130 was updated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A huge issue will be whether there will be grandfathering and, if so, the extent. Every HS boundary change for decades has had generous grandfathering of students already in high school.

If they change course and limit grandfathering to just rising seniors, or eliminate it, all hell will break loose. And those with the most responsibility in that scenario will be Rachna Sizemore-Heizer, Ilryong Moon, and Kyle McDaniel, who in their Governance Committee roles refused to commit to grandfathering when overseeing the revisions to Policy 8130. Their names would live in infamy in the county for many years to come.

How can they offer grandfathering for any significant portion of kids while also reevaluating boundaries every 5 years? It would be a constant state of turmoil.

They would start by only changing boundaries when there is truly acute overcrowding or under-enrollment. Not by making up sham reasons to redistrict across the entire county because they want to engage in social engineering.

If they restrain themselves accordingly, they can grandfather.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A huge issue will be whether there will be grandfathering and, if so, the extent. Every HS boundary change for decades has had generous grandfathering of students already in high school.

If they change course and limit grandfathering to just rising seniors, or eliminate it, all hell will break loose. And those with the most responsibility in that scenario will be Rachna Sizemore-Heizer, Ilryong Moon, and Kyle McDaniel, who in their Governance Committee roles refused to commit to grandfathering when overseeing the revisions to Policy 8130. Their names would live in infamy in the county for many years to come.

How can they offer grandfathering for any significant portion of kids while also reevaluating boundaries every 5 years? It would be a constant state of turmoil.

Not to mention the exorbitant cost of double buses for even one year. Im not against liberal grandfathering, just pointing out that their supposed transportation savings end up largely negative in that scenario.

Across the country, grandfathering occurs for only senior classes because 1) of college admissions logistics, support and admission and 2) they have access to a driver’s license and car transportation to not relay on a bus budget. Sometimes juniors are included, but not as guaranteed and the entire county needs to adapt to account for capacity.

So what you are saying is that you don't have any understanding of college admissions or applications.

Junior year is the most critical grade for college applications.

For that reason alone, all juniors should be frozen at their zoned schools until graduation.

Rezoning should start with rising freshmen.

Current high school students should be locked into place and not affected by rzoning.

You think FCPS is going to go through all of this and then allow ALL current grades to stay? No chance. Would be a logistics nightmare on top of everything else that is trying to be moved.

I agree that Junior year is pivotal but we’d be lucky to get them grandfathered in. Same with sibling attendance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is ranting and raving on this 477 page thread going to solve anything?

Has anyone considered starting an email campaign to let our elected board members know how we feel about this change?

The school board and Dr. Reid know how unpopular this rezoning is.

They don't care. Watch the meetings.

For them, it is all about One Fairfax. Plus test scores, attendance stats and behavior issues don't tell the whole story because that 3 school is just as good if not better than your 7, 8 or 9 school. And kids are resiliant. This will be a hood life lesdon for the high schoolers to deal with adversity. (I think it was the Springfield Rep who said this when she argued against grandfathering high school stidents.)

They are firmly committed to the One Fairfax Equity for all train. As recently as last week Reid stated that they are staying the course on Equity, even if they lose federal funding. If Reid and the school board don't care about losing millions of dollars over equity, then they certainly don't care about the concerns of their constituents.

[Anonymous]

It’s a shame we didn’t bounce Rachna Sizemore-Heizer’s autistic kids from one school to another when we had the chance. They got stability before they graduated but that woman is now more than happy to move our kids around to new schools without grandfathering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is ranting and raving on this 477 page thread going to solve anything?

Has anyone considered starting an email campaign to let our elected board members know how we feel about this change?

You’d be better off starting new recall petitions and reaching out to the state AG’s office to make sure they actually get dealt with properly this time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A huge issue will be whether there will be grandfathering and, if so, the extent. Every HS boundary change for decades has had generous grandfathering of students already in high school.

If they change course and limit grandfathering to just rising seniors, or eliminate it, all hell will break loose. And those with the most responsibility in that scenario will be Rachna Sizemore-Heizer, Ilryong Moon, and Kyle McDaniel, who in their Governance Committee roles refused to commit to grandfathering when overseeing the revisions to Policy 8130. Their names would live in infamy in the county for many years to come.

How can they offer grandfathering for any significant portion of kids while also reevaluating boundaries every 5 years? It would be a constant state of turmoil.

Not to mention the exorbitant cost of double buses for even one year. Im not against liberal grandfathering, just pointing out that their supposed transportation savings end up largely negative in that scenario.

Across the country, grandfathering occurs for only senior classes because 1) of college admissions logistics, support and admission and 2) they have access to a driver’s license and car transportation to not relay on a bus budget. Sometimes juniors are included, but not as guaranteed and the entire county needs to adapt to account for capacity.

So what you are saying is that you don't have any understanding of college admissions or applications.

Junior year is the most critical grade for college applications.

For that reason alone, all juniors should be frozen at their zoned schools until graduation.

Rezoning should start with rising freshmen.

Current high school students should be locked into place and not affected by rzoning.

You think FCPS is going to go through all of this and then allow ALL current grades to stay? No chance. Would be a logistics nightmare on top of everything else that is trying to be moved.

I agree that Junior year is pivotal but we’d be lucky to get them grandfathered in. Same with sibling attendance.

Actually, it would bethe simplest and cheapest way to do it.

Start rezoning with only the transitional grades, kindergarten/7th/9th. Then the rezoning will be gradual over several years, and not disruptive to the communities.

Allow sibling units to stay in one elementary school to help with childcare issues.

This would be the sensible solution to rezoning.

All midfle schools would convert in 2 years. All high schools in 4 years.