FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The amendment grandfathering all hide school and secondary students passed unanimously last night. I don’t think there was any talk on transportation and whether it would be provided or not. The concern was more over capacity for schools where grandfathered students choose to stay while newly inbound students choose the new school.

And yet still no announcement or policy for elementary school grandfathering. How hard would it be to just publish that? This SB is so incompetent.

It’s included. 5-6 are grandfathered for K-6 schools and 4-5 are grandfathered for K-5.

Watch out, those new maps are going got be doozy now. The SB thinks this will quiet everyone down and they can just move kids around to get those FARMS numbers equalized.

When are these going to be released?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There were some adjustments to the amendment that was initially proposed. They removed language like “where feasible”. This is what passed:

Adjustments under this policy shall be implemented through attrition and phasing. These allowances shall not be applicable in the opening of a new school, or in the closing of an existing school.

Elementary Schools: When a boundary adjustment occurs at the elementary school level, attendance in the new school boundary shall be mandatory for rising K-3 students in schools with a K-5 grade configuration; and for rising K-4 students in schools with a K-6 grade level configuration. Currently enrolled students in grades 4-5 in schools with a K-5 configuration, and in grades 5-6 in schools with a K-6 configuration shall be given the option to remain at the school or attend the school in the new boundary. .

Middle Schools: When a boundary adjustment occurs at the middle school level, attendance in the new school boundary shall be mandatory for incoming 6th grade students in schools with a 6-8 grade configuration and for incoming 7th grade students in schools with a 7-8 grade level configuration. Currently enrolled students shall be given the option to remain at the school or attend the school in the new boundary.

High Schools: When a boundary adjustment occurs at the high school level, attendance in the new school boundary shall be mandatory for incoming 9th grade students. Rising 10-12 graders shall be given the option to remain at their current school or attend the school in the new boundary.

Secondary Schools: When a boundary adjustment occurs at the secondary school level, attendance in the new school boundary shall be mandatory for incoming 7th grade students. Rising 8-12 graders shall be given the option to remain at their current school or attend the school in the new boundary.

So a high schooler who’s been at a school 1 year, gets to finish their last 3 years there? But an elementary schooler who’s been at a school for 4 years doesn’t get to finish their last 3 years at their school? Doesn’t seem equitable to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There were some adjustments to the amendment that was initially proposed. They removed language like “where feasible”. This is what passed:

Adjustments under this policy shall be implemented through attrition and phasing. These allowances shall not be applicable in the opening of a new school, or in the closing of an existing school.

Elementary Schools: When a boundary adjustment occurs at the elementary school level, attendance in the new school boundary shall be mandatory for rising K-3 students in schools with a K-5 grade configuration; and for rising K-4 students in schools with a K-6 grade level configuration. Currently enrolled students in grades 4-5 in schools with a K-5 configuration, and in grades 5-6 in schools with a K-6 configuration shall be given the option to remain at the school or attend the school in the new boundary. .

Middle Schools: When a boundary adjustment occurs at the middle school level, attendance in the new school boundary shall be mandatory for incoming 6th grade students in schools with a 6-8 grade configuration and for incoming 7th grade students in schools with a 7-8 grade level configuration. Currently enrolled students shall be given the option to remain at the school or attend the school in the new boundary.

High Schools: When a boundary adjustment occurs at the high school level, attendance in the new school boundary shall be mandatory for incoming 9th grade students. Rising 10-12 graders shall be given the option to remain at their current school or attend the school in the new boundary.

Secondary Schools: When a boundary adjustment occurs at the secondary school level, attendance in the new school boundary shall be mandatory for incoming 7th grade students. Rising 8-12 graders shall be given the option to remain at their current school or attend the school in the new boundary.

So a high schooler who’s been at a school 1 year, gets to finish their last 3 years there? But an elementary schooler who’s been at a school for 4 years doesn’t get to finish their last 3 years at their school? Doesn’t seem equitable to me.

Yes, you are absolutely right. Imagine how difficult it is for the child to apply to middle school without having the same staff to support him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The amendment grandfathering all hide school and secondary students passed unanimously last night. I don’t think there was any talk on transportation and whether it would be provided or not. The concern was more over capacity for schools where grandfathered students choose to stay while newly inbound students choose the new school.

There should not be a single student moved into a school that is getting rezoned due to capacity issues.

If this is their concern, then it is directly related to the Springfield school board rep's stated plans to rezone Hunt Valley out of West Springfield High School under the "too overcrowded" excuse, and replace the Hunt Valley/West Springfield students with Lewis families from Rolling Valley.

This tracks with her repeated public statements against grandfathering for almosts 6 months now. She has been making this exact argument against grandfathering at public zoom meetings (nothing in person, of course) and to any constituent that manages to get her on the phone or to answer an email.

WSHS and Hunt Valley families need to pivot to the at large reps for help, because the Springfield rep clearly does not have her constituent's best interests as a priority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There were some adjustments to the amendment that was initially proposed. They removed language like “where feasible”. This is what passed:

Adjustments under this policy shall be implemented through attrition and phasing. These allowances shall not be applicable in the opening of a new school, or in the closing of an existing school.

Elementary Schools: When a boundary adjustment occurs at the elementary school level, attendance in the new school boundary shall be mandatory for rising K-3 students in schools with a K-5 grade configuration; and for rising K-4 students in schools with a K-6 grade level configuration. Currently enrolled students in grades 4-5 in schools with a K-5 configuration, and in grades 5-6 in schools with a K-6 configuration shall be given the option to remain at the school or attend the school in the new boundary. .

Middle Schools: When a boundary adjustment occurs at the middle school level, attendance in the new school boundary shall be mandatory for incoming 6th grade students in schools with a 6-8 grade configuration and for incoming 7th grade students in schools with a 7-8 grade level configuration. Currently enrolled students shall be given the option to remain at the school or attend the school in the new boundary.

High Schools: When a boundary adjustment occurs at the high school level, attendance in the new school boundary shall be mandatory for incoming 9th grade students. Rising 10-12 graders shall be given the option to remain at their current school or attend the school in the new boundary.

Secondary Schools: When a boundary adjustment occurs at the secondary school level, attendance in the new school boundary shall be mandatory for incoming 7th grade students. Rising 8-12 graders shall be given the option to remain at their current school or attend the school in the new boundary.

So a high schooler who’s been at a school 1 year, gets to finish their last 3 years there? But an elementary schooler who’s been at a school for 4 years doesn’t get to finish their last 3 years at their school? Doesn’t seem equitable to me.

Yes, you are absolutely right. Imagine how difficult it is for the child to apply to middle school without having the same staff to support him.

Apply to middle school? No one has to apply to an FCPS MS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There were some adjustments to the amendment that was initially proposed. They removed language like “where feasible”. This is what passed:

Adjustments under this policy shall be implemented through attrition and phasing. These allowances shall not be applicable in the opening of a new school, or in the closing of an existing school.

Elementary Schools: When a boundary adjustment occurs at the elementary school level, attendance in the new school boundary shall be mandatory for rising K-3 students in schools with a K-5 grade configuration; and for rising K-4 students in schools with a K-6 grade level configuration. Currently enrolled students in grades 4-5 in schools with a K-5 configuration, and in grades 5-6 in schools with a K-6 configuration shall be given the option to remain at the school or attend the school in the new boundary. .

Middle Schools: When a boundary adjustment occurs at the middle school level, attendance in the new school boundary shall be mandatory for incoming 6th grade students in schools with a 6-8 grade configuration and for incoming 7th grade students in schools with a 7-8 grade level configuration. Currently enrolled students shall be given the option to remain at the school or attend the school in the new boundary.

High Schools: When a boundary adjustment occurs at the high school level, attendance in the new school boundary shall be mandatory for incoming 9th grade students. Rising 10-12 graders shall be given the option to remain at their current school or attend the school in the new boundary.

Secondary Schools: When a boundary adjustment occurs at the secondary school level, attendance in the new school boundary shall be mandatory for incoming 7th grade students. Rising 8-12 graders shall be given the option to remain at their current school or attend the school in the new boundary.

So a high schooler who’s been at a school 1 year, gets to finish their last 3 years there? But an elementary schooler who’s been at a school for 4 years doesn’t get to finish their last 3 years at their school? Doesn’t seem equitable to me.

Yes, you are absolutely right. Imagine how difficult it is for the child to apply to middle school without having the same staff to support him.

Apply to middle school? No one has to apply to an FCPS MS.

They were being facetious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There were some adjustments to the amendment that was initially proposed. They removed language like “where feasible”. This is what passed:

Adjustments under this policy shall be implemented through attrition and phasing. These allowances shall not be applicable in the opening of a new school, or in the closing of an existing school.

Elementary Schools: When a boundary adjustment occurs at the elementary school level, attendance in the new school boundary shall be mandatory for rising K-3 students in schools with a K-5 grade configuration; and for rising K-4 students in schools with a K-6 grade level configuration. Currently enrolled students in grades 4-5 in schools with a K-5 configuration, and in grades 5-6 in schools with a K-6 configuration shall be given the option to remain at the school or attend the school in the new boundary. .

Middle Schools: When a boundary adjustment occurs at the middle school level, attendance in the new school boundary shall be mandatory for incoming 6th grade students in schools with a 6-8 grade configuration and for incoming 7th grade students in schools with a 7-8 grade level configuration. Currently enrolled students shall be given the option to remain at the school or attend the school in the new boundary.

High Schools: When a boundary adjustment occurs at the high school level, attendance in the new school boundary shall be mandatory for incoming 9th grade students. Rising 10-12 graders shall be given the option to remain at their current school or attend the school in the new boundary.

Secondary Schools: When a boundary adjustment occurs at the secondary school level, attendance in the new school boundary shall be mandatory for incoming 7th grade students. Rising 8-12 graders shall be given the option to remain at their current school or attend the school in the new boundary.

So a high schooler who’s been at a school 1 year, gets to finish their last 3 years there? But an elementary schooler who’s been at a school for 4 years doesn’t get to finish their last 3 years at their school? Doesn’t seem equitable to me.

Yes, you are absolutely right. Imagine how difficult it is for the child to apply to middle school without having the same staff to support him.

Apply to middle school? No one has to apply to an FCPS MS.

DP. You missed the point entirely. Try again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There were some adjustments to the amendment that was initially proposed. They removed language like “where feasible”. This is what passed:

Adjustments under this policy shall be implemented through attrition and phasing. These allowances shall not be applicable in the opening of a new school, or in the closing of an existing school.

Elementary Schools: When a boundary adjustment occurs at the elementary school level, attendance in the new school boundary shall be mandatory for rising K-3 students in schools with a K-5 grade configuration; and for rising K-4 students in schools with a K-6 grade level configuration. Currently enrolled students in grades 4-5 in schools with a K-5 configuration, and in grades 5-6 in schools with a K-6 configuration shall be given the option to remain at the school or attend the school in the new boundary. .

Middle Schools: When a boundary adjustment occurs at the middle school level, attendance in the new school boundary shall be mandatory for incoming 6th grade students in schools with a 6-8 grade configuration and for incoming 7th grade students in schools with a 7-8 grade level configuration. Currently enrolled students shall be given the option to remain at the school or attend the school in the new boundary.

High Schools: When a boundary adjustment occurs at the high school level, attendance in the new school boundary shall be mandatory for incoming 9th grade students. Rising 10-12 graders shall be given the option to remain at their current school or attend the school in the new boundary.

Secondary Schools: When a boundary adjustment occurs at the secondary school level, attendance in the new school boundary shall be mandatory for incoming 7th grade students. Rising 8-12 graders shall be given the option to remain at their current school or attend the school in the new boundary.

So a high schooler who’s been at a school 1 year, gets to finish their last 3 years there? But an elementary schooler who’s been at a school for 4 years doesn’t get to finish their last 3 years at their school? Doesn’t seem equitable to me.

It is much easier socially and academically to move an elementary school kid to a new school than a teenager, especially in this county with so many transient families.

It is very fifficult and often harmful to move a teenager, especially a high school student. Ask the many military families who have done both many times iver.

This is actually a very reasonable grandfathering policy. The only improvement it needs is a sibling clause, so families don't have 2 high schoolers at different schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There were some adjustments to the amendment that was initially proposed. They removed language like “where feasible”. This is what passed:

Adjustments under this policy shall be implemented through attrition and phasing. These allowances shall not be applicable in the opening of a new school, or in the closing of an existing school.

Elementary Schools: When a boundary adjustment occurs at the elementary school level, attendance in the new school boundary shall be mandatory for rising K-3 students in schools with a K-5 grade configuration; and for rising K-4 students in schools with a K-6 grade level configuration. Currently enrolled students in grades 4-5 in schools with a K-5 configuration, and in grades 5-6 in schools with a K-6 configuration shall be given the option to remain at the school or attend the school in the new boundary. .

Middle Schools: When a boundary adjustment occurs at the middle school level, attendance in the new school boundary shall be mandatory for incoming 6th grade students in schools with a 6-8 grade configuration and for incoming 7th grade students in schools with a 7-8 grade level configuration. Currently enrolled students shall be given the option to remain at the school or attend the school in the new boundary.

High Schools: When a boundary adjustment occurs at the high school level, attendance in the new school boundary shall be mandatory for incoming 9th grade students. Rising 10-12 graders shall be given the option to remain at their current school or attend the school in the new boundary.

Secondary Schools: When a boundary adjustment occurs at the secondary school level, attendance in the new school boundary shall be mandatory for incoming 7th grade students. Rising 8-12 graders shall be given the option to remain at their current school or attend the school in the new boundary.

So a high schooler who’s been at a school 1 year, gets to finish their last 3 years there? But an elementary schooler who’s been at a school for 4 years doesn’t get to finish their last 3 years at their school? Doesn’t seem equitable to me.

Yes, you are absolutely right. Imagine how difficult it is for the child to apply to middle school without having the same staff to support him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The amendment grandfathering all hide school and secondary students passed unanimously last night. I don’t think there was any talk on transportation and whether it would be provided or not. The concern was more over capacity for schools where grandfathered students choose to stay while newly inbound students choose the new school.

There should not be a single student moved into a school that is getting rezoned due to capacity issues.

If this is their concern, then it is directly related to the Springfield school board rep's stated plans to rezone Hunt Valley out of West Springfield High School under the "too overcrowded" excuse, and replace the Hunt Valley/West Springfield students with Lewis families from Rolling Valley.

This tracks with her repeated public statements against grandfathering for almosts 6 months now. She has been making this exact argument against grandfathering at public zoom meetings (nothing in person, of course) and to any constituent that manages to get her on the phone or to answer an email.

WSHS and Hunt Valley families need to pivot to the at large reps for help, because the Springfield rep clearly does not have her constituent's best interests as a priority.

If they move huge SPAs out of schools to relieve overcrowding they may need to move smaller SPAs into those same schools to avoid gutting the enrollments at those schools.

Maybe the solution is to come up with new SPAs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There were some adjustments to the amendment that was initially proposed. They removed language like “where feasible”. This is what passed:

Adjustments under this policy shall be implemented through attrition and phasing. These allowances shall not be applicable in the opening of a new school, or in the closing of an existing school.

Elementary Schools: When a boundary adjustment occurs at the elementary school level, attendance in the new school boundary shall be mandatory for rising K-3 students in schools with a K-5 grade configuration; and for rising K-4 students in schools with a K-6 grade level configuration. Currently enrolled students in grades 4-5 in schools with a K-5 configuration, and in grades 5-6 in schools with a K-6 configuration shall be given the option to remain at the school or attend the school in the new boundary. .

Middle Schools: When a boundary adjustment occurs at the middle school level, attendance in the new school boundary shall be mandatory for incoming 6th grade students in schools with a 6-8 grade configuration and for incoming 7th grade students in schools with a 7-8 grade level configuration. Currently enrolled students shall be given the option to remain at the school or attend the school in the new boundary.

High Schools: When a boundary adjustment occurs at the high school level, attendance in the new school boundary shall be mandatory for incoming 9th grade students. Rising 10-12 graders shall be given the option to remain at their current school or attend the school in the new boundary.

Secondary Schools: When a boundary adjustment occurs at the secondary school level, attendance in the new school boundary shall be mandatory for incoming 7th grade students. Rising 8-12 graders shall be given the option to remain at their current school or attend the school in the new boundary.

So a high schooler who’s been at a school 1 year, gets to finish their last 3 years there? But an elementary schooler who’s been at a school for 4 years doesn’t get to finish their last 3 years at their school? Doesn’t seem equitable to me.

It is much easier socially and academically to move an elementary school kid to a new school than a teenager, especially in this county with so many transient families.

It is very fifficult and often harmful to move a teenager, especially a high school student. Ask the many military families who have done both many times iver.

This is actually a very reasonable grandfathering policy. The only improvement it needs is a sibling clause, so families don't have 2 high schoolers at different schools.

No, they don’t need a sibling clause. Students can already pupil place to attend a school attended by an older sibling, and the ability to do so should depend on whether the school is open to transfers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The amendment grandfathering all hide school and secondary students passed unanimously last night. I don’t think there was any talk on transportation and whether it would be provided or not. The concern was more over capacity for schools where grandfathered students choose to stay while newly inbound students choose the new school.

There should not be a single student moved into a school that is getting rezoned due to capacity issues.

If this is their concern, then it is directly related to the Springfield school board rep's stated plans to rezone Hunt Valley out of West Springfield High School under the "too overcrowded" excuse, and replace the Hunt Valley/West Springfield students with Lewis families from Rolling Valley.

This tracks with her repeated public statements against grandfathering for almosts 6 months now. She has been making this exact argument against grandfathering at public zoom meetings (nothing in person, of course) and to any constituent that manages to get her on the phone or to answer an email.

WSHS and Hunt Valley families need to pivot to the at large reps for help, because the Springfield rep clearly does not have her constituent's best interests as a priority.

Sandy Anderson was the one who raised the issue in the school board meeting, so I will grant you that.

The issue doesn’t currently apply to WSHS in the presented scenarios. It might impact Woodson, which is taking some students and losing some students in their exchange with Fairfax HS. It may apply to Westfield, which may pick up students from Centreville while shifting students to South Lakes (an IB school, so a fairly big transition.)

The most likely impact will be to McLean which is shedding two attendance islands while picking up a few Marshall neighborhoods. Marshall is an IB school, so those already committed to the program may stay, but a disproportionate number of families might jump at the opportunity to attend an AP school.

I don’t think there are any other capacity issues for more students moving in than moving out. Maybe at the elementary level like the Timber Lane/Pine Spring/Graham Road shuffle. Or the Sleepy Hollow/Bailey’s debacle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There were some adjustments to the amendment that was initially proposed. They removed language like “where feasible”. This is what passed:

Adjustments under this policy shall be implemented through attrition and phasing. These allowances shall not be applicable in the opening of a new school, or in the closing of an existing school.

Elementary Schools: When a boundary adjustment occurs at the elementary school level, attendance in the new school boundary shall be mandatory for rising K-3 students in schools with a K-5 grade configuration; and for rising K-4 students in schools with a K-6 grade level configuration. Currently enrolled students in grades 4-5 in schools with a K-5 configuration, and in grades 5-6 in schools with a K-6 configuration shall be given the option to remain at the school or attend the school in the new boundary. .

Middle Schools: When a boundary adjustment occurs at the middle school level, attendance in the new school boundary shall be mandatory for incoming 6th grade students in schools with a 6-8 grade configuration and for incoming 7th grade students in schools with a 7-8 grade level configuration. Currently enrolled students shall be given the option to remain at the school or attend the school in the new boundary.

High Schools: When a boundary adjustment occurs at the high school level, attendance in the new school boundary shall be mandatory for incoming 9th grade students. Rising 10-12 graders shall be given the option to remain at their current school or attend the school in the new boundary.

Secondary Schools: When a boundary adjustment occurs at the secondary school level, attendance in the new school boundary shall be mandatory for incoming 7th grade students. Rising 8-12 graders shall be given the option to remain at their current school or attend the school in the new boundary.

So a high schooler who’s been at a school 1 year, gets to finish their last 3 years there? But an elementary schooler who’s been at a school for 4 years doesn’t get to finish their last 3 years at their school? Doesn’t seem equitable to me.

It is much easier socially and academically to move an elementary school kid to a new school than a teenager, especially in this county with so many transient families.

It is very fifficult and often harmful to move a teenager, especially a high school student. Ask the many military families who have done both many times iver.

This is actually a very reasonable grandfathering policy. The only improvement it needs is a sibling clause, so families don't have 2 high schoolers at different schools.

DP. Selfish take from someone who likely benefits from the high school policy and doesn’t care about other people’s elementary school kids.

I’m getting really sick of people thinking they know what’s best for other people’s kids.

[Anonymous]

This grandfathering amendment defeats the whole process. Changes were needed to even out enrollments and help with transportation. Now crowded schools could be even more crowded as new and old students stay. Transportation wasn’t mentioned so the loud families will start complaining about that. And in five years when a check was supposed to happen, the impact of the previous changes will barely be known. What a mess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because the voice of the loud few doesn’t outweigh what is best for the whole district. Your elected official not doing what you want is not the same as not listening to you.

DP.

“what is best for the whole district.”

What an odd thing to say in the context of repeatedly reporting and taking down any dissenting voices.

Please, do enlighten us:

What is best for the whole district?

Who decides “what is best for to whole district”?

Doesn’t anyone find it remotely troubling that local government officials (FCPS) are on this social media site repressing free speech to manipulate the public discourse about actions those government officials are taking that impact the public?

I have lots of receipts.