FCPS Boundary Review Updates

[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.

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.

Historically grades 2-5/6 have been grandfathered. Rarely has FCPS grandfathered all elementary students. I think rising 4-5/6 would be more appropriate since 3rd grade is a big transition year, regardless, with AAP kids moving around.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

I disagree.

They should only move out the minimum neighborhoods needed to relieve severe overcrowding, and should not be allowed to move any new students into a school that is rezoned due to "overcrowding."

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

It specifically applies to WSHS because the Springfield rep Anderson has explicitly and publicly stated she does not support grandfathering because she intends to replace Hunt Valley/WSHS students with Lewis/Rolling Valley students.

She has been telling constituents this since last fall.

[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.

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.

It is not selfishness speaking.

It is experience speaking.

I have moved my elementary kids multiple times. One of mine went to 4 schools in 3 states by 5th grade. It is very easy to move elementary kids.

It is very difficult and destructive to move teenagers, particularly high school students, where high school has real life implications for their future adult success and moving high school kids can have negative implications to their college application process.

One could even argue that trying to burn it all down over elementary kids not being grandfathered is being "selfish"

Fcps is rezoning come hell or high water. We need to fight for victories against rezoning one step at a time.

This grandfathering change is a good first step.

The real maps being released soon are going to be the real fight. Buckle up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which middle school had 7th grade english class reading Taming of the Shrew?

My kids AAP 8th grade class read one book
all year-The Outsiders.

Carson, my kid read it with his class after the SOL. It was fun quizzing him on the slang and the history of the Globe Theatre.

Was this a regular English class or Honors/AAP?

AAP. I think a friend whose kid was in Honors read it as well. His class read The Outsiders earlier in the year as well.

[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.

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.

I disagree.

They should only move out the minimum neighborhoods needed to relieve severe overcrowding, and should not be allowed to move any new students into a school that is rezoned due to "overcrowding."

Well, in that case, they need to come up with new, smaller SPAs to relocate. Otherwise they are going to overcorrect in some cases when they purport to address overcrowding.

It’s bad enough that they don’t invest where the capacity is actually needed and then point to overcrowding as their excuse to backfill empty seats at schools that didn’t need to be expanded. They shouldn’t make it worse by gutting school enrollments in the process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

It is not selfishness speaking.

It is experience speaking.

I have moved my elementary kids multiple times. One of mine went to 4 schools in 3 states by 5th grade. It is very easy to move elementary kids.

It is very difficult and destructive to move teenagers, particularly high school students, where high school has real life implications for their future adult success and moving high school kids can have negative implications to their college application process.

One could even argue that trying to burn it all down over elementary kids not being grandfathered is being "selfish"

Fcps is rezoning come hell or high water. We need to fight for victories against rezoning one step at a time.

This grandfathering change is a good first step.

The real maps being released soon are going to be the real fight. Buckle up.

I’m for grandfathering of high schoolers.

The lack of elementary school grandfathering won’t impact my kid.

But I am against unnecessary changes even when my kid is not impacted, because I’m not selfish.

[Anonymous]

One issue that our neighbors bring up regarding eliminating grandfather in elementary school isn’t just for the middle school transition. But rather military families who are only here for 3 years. Having to switch schools their 3rd year before being relocated - an unnecessary disruption in their students learning that is already disrupted regularly.

In addition, Some of the proposed changes eliminating attendance islands for certain schools but then creating new attendance islands for the same schools won’t change the numbers at all (ie - the barrington neighborhood) I’d love to hear more about that reasoning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One issue that our neighbors bring up regarding eliminating grandfather in elementary school isn’t just for the middle school transition. But rather military families who are only here for 3 years. Having to switch schools their 3rd year before being relocated - an unnecessary disruption in their students learning that is already disrupted regularly.

In addition, Some of the proposed changes eliminating attendance islands for certain schools but then creating new attendance islands for the same schools won’t change the numbers at all (ie - the barrington neighborhood) I’d love to hear more about that reasoning.

Where is the Barrington Neighborhood? The consultants aren’t familiar with this area so a lot of their recommendations are purely about continuity of boundaries without paying attention to outlets to the rest of the community. The community outreach for identifying these discrepancies has been poor, though. The best path for addressing them has been submitting feedback in the interactive map.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

It is not selfishness speaking.

It is experience speaking.

I have moved my elementary kids multiple times. One of mine went to 4 schools in 3 states by 5th grade. It is very easy to move elementary kids.

It is very difficult and destructive to move teenagers, particularly high school students, where high school has real life implications for their future adult success and moving high school kids can have negative implications to their college application process.

One could even argue that trying to burn it all down over elementary kids not being grandfathered is being "selfish"

Fcps is rezoning come hell or high water. We need to fight for victories against rezoning one step at a time.

This grandfathering change is a good first step.

The real maps being released soon are going to be the real fight. Buckle up.

I’m for grandfathering of high schoolers.

The lack of elementary school grandfathering won’t impact my kid.

But I am against unnecessary changes even when my kid is not impacted, because I’m not selfish.

You won't get very far with your advocacy if your first response is to label everyone who agrees with you on 95% of your cause and disagrees with 5%, or someone who agrees with you on 100% of your cause but is willing to discuss merits of other arguments as "selfish"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One issue that our neighbors bring up regarding eliminating grandfather in elementary school isn’t just for the middle school transition. But rather military families who are only here for 3 years. Having to switch schools their 3rd year before being relocated - an unnecessary disruption in their students learning that is already disrupted regularly.

In addition, Some of the proposed changes eliminating attendance islands for certain schools but then creating new attendance islands for the same schools won’t change the numbers at all (ie - the barrington neighborhood) I’d love to hear more about that reasoning.

I think the military families are protected by federal law on this issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The censorship by FCPS is appallingly dystopian.

The School Board consists entirely of members from a single political party. They don’t always agree with each other but they don’t air their grievances in public. That’s why members quietly abstain on certain votes, whereas if they were from a different party they’d vocally challenge other members and then vote no.

That carries over to a discussion on boundaries. They are so used to operating in an echo chamber than when a member of the public criticizes the positions of someone like Sandy Anderson the response of Anderson or one of her political allies is to try and get the discussion shut down or deleted. Shameful, really.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Historically grades 2-5/6 have been grandfathered. Rarely has FCPS grandfathered all elementary students. I think rising 4-5/6 would be more appropriate since 3rd grade is a big transition year, regardless, with AAP kids moving around.

Check your history book. Grade 3 is a transition year but that AAP junk [I had kids in it] should not drive the boundary review. And at ES and MS level AAP should not be used as mobile fillers because FCPS doesn't change base school boundaries. Colvin Run opened 2003-04. 6th grade only had the grandfathering option and 31 6th graders hopped on the CRES bus. Note might have been the AAP ers previously at Forest Edge. You can see per grade counts on the VDOE website so check out the grades for each new school that has opened since 2003.

Spring Hill Mclean HS Tysons island has not been reviewed in 25 years. And the Churchill Rd modular might be reaching or near the endpoint of it's useful life.

[Anonymous]

<<<The consultants aren’t familiar with this area so a lot of their recommendations are purely about continuity of boundaries without paying attention to outlets to the rest of the community. The community outreach for identifying these discrepancies has been poor, though. The best path for addressing them has been submitting feedback in the interactive map.>>>

I’m concerned that feedback on the interactive map aren’t actually being seen or addressed, even behind closed doors. When the recap email and slides came out with the more commented areas in red and examples of comments our entire neighborhood and our concerns were nowhere to be found and at least 100 comments had been submitted. It is another reason we don’t have confidence in the transparency of the entire process.

Barrington is currently zoned for south county and the map has it being moved to LBSS. Whereas the attendance islands are being moved from LBSS to south county even though they are closer to LB 🙈🤯

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Historically grades 2-5/6 have been grandfathered. Rarely has FCPS grandfathered all elementary students. I think rising 4-5/6 would be more appropriate since 3rd grade is a big transition year, regardless, with AAP kids moving around.

Check your history book. Grade 3 is a transition year but that AAP junk [I had kids in it] should not drive the boundary review. And at ES and MS level AAP should not be used as mobile fillers because FCPS doesn't change base school boundaries. Colvin Run opened 2003-04. 6th grade only had the grandfathering option and 31 6th graders hopped on the CRES bus. Note might have been the AAP ers previously at Forest Edge. You can see per grade counts on the VDOE website so check out the grades for each new school that has opened since 2003.

Spring Hill Mclean HS Tysons island has not been reviewed in 25 years. And the Churchill Rd modular might be reaching or near the endpoint of it's useful life.

Fine, replace “historically” with “recently.” The Justice elementary adjustments and Kent Garden adjustments grandfathered rising grades 2-5/6. Rising kindergartners and 1st graders went to their newly assigned schools.

The transition for rising 4-5/6 is simply my preference that anyone can disagree with. In fact, recently rising 2nd graders were grandfathered, so it hasn’t been based on a 3rd grade transition year.