Amendments to Policy 8130 re Grandfathering of Current Students

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

They used to scale boundary changes so they could grandfather with transportation. It served as a constraint on the volume of boundary changes adopted at any one time.

But they didn’t really know what they were doing here, so they started with big ambitions and have gradually been scaling back. But it’s far from clear that the end result will be net positive or instead just accelerate FCPS’s decline. They muddle, create a mess, and then run for other positions before the shit has completely hit the fan.

[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.

+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.

You keep attacking people who see this as a step in the right direction and a positive thing for all of Fairfax families, not just for this specific rezoning but for every rezoning in the future.

Every time you attack your neighbors over this positive first step, questioning their intellect, ability to discern, their motivations, calling them misinformed and selfish, you lose people from your side.

You are dividing and conquering far more effectively than any school board action.

[Anonymous]

I totally agree that allowing grandfathering is needed and is a very good thing.

However, I think this is just a bone the SB is trying to throw us to seem responsive when really they need to scrap this poorly-designed boundary review, deal with the urgent concerns on a school-by-school basis, and reconceive the county-wide policy and review.

We need to keep up the pressure to stop this boundary review and use all the community feedback and learning in a thoughtful way rather than forging ahead.

[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.

+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.

You keep attacking people who see this as a step in the right direction and a positive thing for all of Fairfax families, not just for this specific rezoning but for every rezoning in the future.

Every time you attack your neighbors over this positive first step, questioning their intellect, ability to discern, their motivations, calling them misinformed and selfish, you lose people from your side.

You are dividing and conquering far more effectively than any school board action.

And yet you’re the one who keeps misrepresenting the implications of a policy to grandfather without providing transportation. That tells me that either you’re more interested in selling this policy on behalf of the School Board than getting the facts right or you’re grabbing onto this like a life raft without regard to whether others will be left behind.

That’s not exactly a great look for you, so you can spare us your pretentious pronouncements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I totally agree that allowing grandfathering is needed and is a very good thing.

However, I think this is just a bone the SB is trying to throw us to seem responsive when really they need to scrap this poorly-designed boundary review, deal with the urgent concerns on a school-by-school basis, and reconceive the county-wide policy and review.

We need to keep up the pressure to stop this boundary review and use all the community feedback and learning in a thoughtful way rather than forging ahead.

+100. A policy of grandfathering with no assurance of transportation seems like an exercise in damage control combined with further pitting families against one another. It may give some people “relief” but it doesn’t change the fact that this entire boundary review has been ill-conceived and poorly executed.

[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.

+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.

Right, I could get a sibling pupil placement for my younger kid, but just for one year. I’m trying to avoid switching my kids in the middle of high school and would rather have the younger one start at the new school for consistency. On a personal level, this is the opposite of selfish because I will have to keep track of and attend events at 2 schools, but for the benefit of my children. I also do think all FCPS high schools will be ok for my kids. I am okay with the changes and have written and fought every step of the way for the rights of the KIDS in FCPS to have consistency. This gives the consistency I was looking and I’m bowing out of the fight, but doing it on terms that are a compromise, but a compromise where my children aren’t paying the price of a disrupted education. Nor will other high schoolers have to experience that. I am okay with it. There is a huge difference between “enabling” and compromising. To say I or others who have fought for Grandfathering are enabling is to deny the work that we have done this far. In which case, one would wonder, if that doesn’t count, why would anyone continue to fight as it is just viewed as enabling?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I totally agree that allowing grandfathering is needed and is a very good thing.

However, I think this is just a bone the SB is trying to throw us to seem responsive when really they need to scrap this poorly-designed boundary review, deal with the urgent concerns on a school-by-school basis, and reconceive the county-wide policy and review.

We need to keep up the pressure to stop this boundary review and use all the community feedback and learning in a thoughtful way rather than forging ahead.

+100. A policy of grandfathering with no assurance of transportation seems like an exercise in damage control combined with further pitting families against one another. It may give some people “relief” but it doesn’t change the fact that this entire boundary review has been ill-conceived and poorly executed.

High schoolers drive. Get a carpool going and pay a high school kid to take the neighborhood to school.

[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.

+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.

You keep attacking people who see this as a step in the right direction and a positive thing for all of Fairfax families, not just for this specific rezoning but for every rezoning in the future.

Every time you attack your neighbors over this positive first step, questioning their intellect, ability to discern, their motivations, calling them misinformed and selfish, you lose people from your side.

You are dividing and conquering far more effectively than any school board action.

It seems like you’ve squished a whole bunch of posters into one theoretical boogeyman poster.

Don’t defend the school board for the unnecessary boundary changes. And try to keep us all straight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I totally agree that allowing grandfathering is needed and is a very good thing.

However, I think this is just a bone the SB is trying to throw us to seem responsive when really they need to scrap this poorly-designed boundary review, deal with the urgent concerns on a school-by-school basis, and reconceive the county-wide policy and review.

We need to keep up the pressure to stop this boundary review and use all the community feedback and learning in a thoughtful way rather than forging ahead.

+100. A policy of grandfathering with no assurance of transportation seems like an exercise in damage control combined with further pitting families against one another. It may give some people “relief” but it doesn’t change the fact that this entire boundary review has been ill-conceived and poorly executed.

High schoolers drive. Get a carpool going and pay a high school kid to take the neighborhood to school.

So the policy is to encourage more teen drivers at times when there are already lots of other cars on the roads? Nothing could possibly go wrong there.

[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.

+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.

Right, I could get a sibling pupil placement for my younger kid, but just for one year. I’m trying to avoid switching my kids in the middle of high school and would rather have the younger one start at the new school for consistency. On a personal level, this is the opposite of selfish because I will have to keep track of and attend events at 2 schools, but for the benefit of my children. I also do think all FCPS high schools will be ok for my kids. I am okay with the changes and have written and fought every step of the way for the rights of the KIDS in FCPS to have consistency. This gives the consistency I was looking and I’m bowing out of the fight, but doing it on terms that are a compromise, but a compromise where my children aren’t paying the price of a disrupted education. Nor will other high schoolers have to experience that. I am okay with it. There is a huge difference between “enabling” and compromising. To say I or others who have fought for Grandfathering are enabling is to deny the work that we have done this far. In which case, one would wonder, if that doesn’t count, why would anyone continue to fight as it is just viewed as enabling?

PP isn't wrong. Sounds like you can make this work for your family, so you're fine with a "compromise" that won't be available to others. How about opposing unnecessary boundary changes rather than capitulating when you know others are still going to get thrown under a bus?

[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.

+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.

Right, I could get a sibling pupil placement for my younger kid, but just for one year. I’m trying to avoid switching my kids in the middle of high school and would rather have the younger one start at the new school for consistency. On a personal level, this is the opposite of selfish because I will have to keep track of and attend events at 2 schools, but for the benefit of my children. I also do think all FCPS high schools will be ok for my kids. I am okay with the changes and have written and fought every step of the way for the rights of the KIDS in FCPS to have consistency. This gives the consistency I was looking and I’m bowing out of the fight, but doing it on terms that are a compromise, but a compromise where my children aren’t paying the price of a disrupted education. Nor will other high schoolers have to experience that. I am okay with it. There is a huge difference between “enabling” and compromising. To say I or others who have fought for Grandfathering are enabling is to deny the work that we have done this far. In which case, one would wonder, if that doesn’t count, why would anyone continue to fight as it is just viewed as enabling?

PP isn't wrong. Sounds like you can make this work for your family, so you're fine with a "compromise" that won't be available to others. How about opposing unnecessary boundary changes rather than capitulating when you know others are still going to get thrown under a bus?

Honestly? I’m not going to advocate for that because I think that is a hill that will get grandfathering killed for everyone. That was the original reason Sizemore gave as not adding it in and transportation is a huge issue for the county. They can’t find bus drivers, though maybe in the current economy that problem will be alleviated. Fairfax connector is free for all students in FCPS. Maybe you are the selfish ones for advocating so hard for this, it may get the grandfathering initiative killed for everyone.

[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.

+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.

Right, I could get a sibling pupil placement for my younger kid, but just for one year. I’m trying to avoid switching my kids in the middle of high school and would rather have the younger one start at the new school for consistency. On a personal level, this is the opposite of selfish because I will have to keep track of and attend events at 2 schools, but for the benefit of my children. I also do think all FCPS high schools will be ok for my kids. I am okay with the changes and have written and fought every step of the way for the rights of the KIDS in FCPS to have consistency. This gives the consistency I was looking and I’m bowing out of the fight, but doing it on terms that are a compromise, but a compromise where my children aren’t paying the price of a disrupted education. Nor will other high schoolers have to experience that. I am okay with it. There is a huge difference between “enabling” and compromising. To say I or others who have fought for Grandfathering are enabling is to deny the work that we have done this far. In which case, one would wonder, if that doesn’t count, why would anyone continue to fight as it is just viewed as enabling?

PP isn't wrong. Sounds like you can make this work for your family, so you're fine with a "compromise" that won't be available to others. How about opposing unnecessary boundary changes rather than capitulating when you know others are still going to get thrown under a bus?

Why can't both be true? Updating this policy AND pushing back on boundary changes that are truly unnecessary?

I don't think this is a compromise. This is a separate but related issue. It's updating a flawed policy that will used not only for this round of boundary changes but for future ones as well.

[Anonymous]

The sensible thing is to do as they did in the past, which is to cap the changes at a level where they can grandfather with transportation. Beyond that they are overreaching and favoring families who can arrange for transportation over those who cannot. It’s the opposite of equitable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The sensible thing is to do as they did in the past, which is to cap the changes at a level where they can grandfather with transportation. Beyond that they are overreaching and favoring families who can arrange for transportation over those who cannot. It’s the opposite of equitable.

I disagree that it is “sensible” as copious research says that switching kids in high school is detrimental across the board to teens.
If a kid is willing to ride the Fairfax connector or ask a friend for a ride to get to a school where they are with their friends, why are you holding them back?

[Anonymous]

Grandfathering for high school students — with or without transportation — is critically important. My neighbors and I would be very happy to know that it will be approved.