Amendments to Policy 8130 re Grandfathering of Current Students

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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. 🙃

I think you need to reread your post.

It absolutely did not come off that you were happy for the high schoolers might be grandfathered. It came off that you are pi $$ ed at those who are relieved high schoolers might be grandfathered.

I 100% guarantee that if you complain too much about this victory for all FCPS families, then you will lose so many allies in your fight against rezoning, particularly if your neighborhood is one of the ones that are being sent to an equivalent high school as the one you currently attend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

The kids grandfathered are kids who currently attend the high school. This affects 3 grades worth of high school students for any given rezoning.

What you are describing is not hoing to happen. It is not going to spike enrollment. It will just maintain status quo for one year, then a gradual decrease in enrollment over the next 2 years as each grade graduates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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. 🙃

I think you need to reread your post.

It absolutely did not come off that you were happy for the high schoolers might be grandfathered. It came off that you are pi $$ ed at those who are relieved high schoolers might be grandfathered.

I 100% guarantee that if you complain too much about this victory for all FCPS families, then you will lose so many allies in your fight against rezoning, particularly if your neighborhood is one of the ones that are being sent to an equivalent high school as the one you currently attend.

You just sound like you are agitating. What part of “I’m glad that your kid will not get moved” was confusing to you?

Don’t carry the school board’s water for them. I said that I am happy for my neighbors, much as you want to pretend otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

The kids grandfathered are kids who currently attend the high school. This affects 3 grades worth of high school students for any given rezoning.

What you are describing is not hoing to happen. It is not going to spike enrollment. It will just maintain status quo for one year, then a gradual decrease in enrollment over the next 2 years as each grade graduates.

You simply don’t know how it will work because they haven’t done this before (grandfathering with no transportation) with boundary changes affecting multiple schools at the same time.

[Anonymous]

I'm all for grandfathering. However, this boundary mess needs to be discarded. Go back to school by school.

This THRU map makes no sense in my area. It is not following the guidance: it is sending kids further away and splitting neighborhoods.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are they re considering this becuase the new maps really are going to impact a lot more people than we think?

Let’s hope so!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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. 🙃

I think you need to reread your post.

It absolutely did not come off that you were happy for the high schoolers might be grandfathered. It came off that you are pi $$ ed at those who are relieved high schoolers might be grandfathered.

I 100% guarantee that if you complain too much about this victory for all FCPS families, then you will lose so many allies in your fight against rezoning, particularly if your neighborhood is one of the ones that are being sent to an equivalent high school as the one you currently attend.

You just sound like you are agitating. What part of “I’m glad that your kid will not get moved” was confusing to you?

Don’t carry the school board’s water for them. I said that I am happy for my neighbors, much as you want to pretend otherwise.

You didn't sound even a little bit happy it. You came off as vengeful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

The kids grandfathered are kids who currently attend the high school. This affects 3 grades worth of high school students for any given rezoning.

What you are describing is not hoing to happen. It is not going to spike enrollment. It will just maintain status quo for one year, then a gradual decrease in enrollment over the next 2 years as each grade graduates.

You simply don’t know how it will work because they haven’t done this before (grandfathering with no transportation) with boundary changes affecting multiple schools at the same time.

Are you certain that FCPS has always provided transportation for grandfathered kids?

I don't think that is correct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

The kids grandfathered are kids who currently attend the high school. This affects 3 grades worth of high school students for any given rezoning.

What you are describing is not hoing to happen. It is not going to spike enrollment. It will just maintain status quo for one year, then a gradual decrease in enrollment over the next 2 years as each grade graduates.

You simply don’t know how it will work because they haven’t done this before (grandfathering with no transportation) with boundary changes affecting multiple schools at the same time.

Are you certain that FCPS has always provided transportation for grandfathered kids?

I don't think that is correct.

What you think is irrelevant unless you have proof. They were phasing in boundary changes and grandfathering kids with transportation as far back as the 1970s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

The kids grandfathered are kids who currently attend the high school. This affects 3 grades worth of high school students for any given rezoning.

What you are describing is not hoing to happen. It is not going to spike enrollment. It will just maintain status quo for one year, then a gradual decrease in enrollment over the next 2 years as each grade graduates.

You simply don’t know how it will work because they haven’t done this before (grandfathering with no transportation) with boundary changes affecting multiple schools at the same time.

Are you certain that FCPS has always provided transportation for grandfathered kids?

I don't think that is correct.

What you think is irrelevant unless you have proof. They were phasing in boundary changes and grandfathering kids with transportation as far back as the 1970s.

Please provide an example from the last 10 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm all for grandfathering. However, this boundary mess needs to be discarded. Go back to school by school.

This THRU map makes no sense in my area. It is not following the guidance: it is sending kids further away and splitting neighborhoods.

School by school created our mess. A change that helped in one area hurt another. We need a comprehensive review. But we need more competent people to do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

The kids grandfathered are kids who currently attend the high school. This affects 3 grades worth of high school students for any given rezoning.

What you are describing is not hoing to happen. It is not going to spike enrollment. It will just maintain status quo for one year, then a gradual decrease in enrollment over the next 2 years as each grade graduates.

You simply don’t know how it will work because they haven’t done this before (grandfathering with no transportation) with boundary changes affecting multiple schools at the same time.

Are you certain that FCPS has always provided transportation for grandfathered kids?

I don't think that is correct.

What you think is irrelevant unless you have proof. They were phasing in boundary changes and grandfathering kids with transportation as far back as the 1970s.

Please provide an example from the last 10 years.

https://www.fcps.edu/about-fcps/maps/boundary-adjustments-information/adopted-mclean-elementary-schools-boundary (adopted in 2023; took effect in fall of 2024)

Look at the FAQ on "Transportation."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

The kids grandfathered are kids who currently attend the high school. This affects 3 grades worth of high school students for any given rezoning.

What you are describing is not hoing to happen. It is not going to spike enrollment. It will just maintain status quo for one year, then a gradual decrease in enrollment over the next 2 years as each grade graduates.

+1 I am fine with this plan, even if it means my kids will attend different high schools their freshman/senior years (the only year they would be together in high school). I am willing to compromise that to help others and to balance out schools. It just isn’t as impactful this way because the kids won’t be the ones paying the price by transferring in the middle of high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

The kids grandfathered are kids who currently attend the high school. This affects 3 grades worth of high school students for any given rezoning.

What you are describing is not hoing to happen. It is not going to spike enrollment. It will just maintain status quo for one year, then a gradual decrease in enrollment over the next 2 years as each grade graduates.

+1 I am fine with this plan, even if it means my kids will attend different high schools their freshman/senior years (the only year they would be together in high school). I am willing to compromise that to help others and to balance out schools. It just isn’t as impactful this way because the kids won’t be the ones paying the price by transferring in the middle of high school.

You’re simply wrong. That’s not what it means. You could get a sibling pupil placement regardless of whether there is grandfathering, but grandfathering without transportation means some kids will be able to stay at their current schools and others will not be able to make arrangements to do so. I don’t know if you’re misinformed or selfish, but you’re misrepresenting the advantages and disadvantages of what they may have in mind. You’re enabling them to push through changes that may well be unnecessary because you personally can find a work-around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

The kids grandfathered are kids who currently attend the high school. This affects 3 grades worth of high school students for any given rezoning.

What you are describing is not hoing to happen. It is not going to spike enrollment. It will just maintain status quo for one year, then a gradual decrease in enrollment over the next 2 years as each grade graduates.

You simply don’t know how it will work because they haven’t done this before (grandfathering with no transportation) with boundary changes affecting multiple schools at the same time.

Are you certain that FCPS has always provided transportation for grandfathered kids?

I don't think that is correct.

What you think is irrelevant unless you have proof. They were phasing in boundary changes and grandfathering kids with transportation as far back as the 1970s.

Please provide an example from the last 10 years.

https://www.fcps.edu/about-fcps/maps/boundary-adjustments-information/adopted-mclean-elementary-schools-boundary (adopted in 2023; took effect in fall of 2024)

Look at the FAQ on "Transportation."

This is just one school pyramid. The size and scope of this project is so much bigger.... Can they really deliver on such a big scale?