Reply to Boundary Review Meetings

Forum Index » Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS)

Reply to "Boundary Review Meetings"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]The amendment to the policy to allow such substantial grandfathering was so stupid. Especially considering there will be another review in five years. The boundary changes will barely be done when more changes might happen. They definitely can’t provide transportation to all who choose to stay. Would be highly irresponsible to waste money that way.[/quote]

Grandfathering makes sense.

The stupid part is countywide rezoning every 5 years.

No one wants that for our kids and communities. [/quote]

Tweaks have been made every time. A review of the data every 5 years is prudent. Doesn’t mean sweeping changes user necessary every 5 years. Not reviewing them every 5 years seems irresponsible.  [/quote]

No one wants rezoning every five years.

The rezoning is a 2 year process, followed by a year of fighting the rezoning and disrupting the kids.  Then it starts up again as everyone gears up for the next rezoning fight in 1-2 years.

Best case scenario, the five year rezoning fight gives kids and families only 1 year of stability per 5 year cycle.

A set county wide 5 year cycle is one of the stupidest ideas this school board and superintendent ever created, and there are a lot of stupid ideas from this school board.

A sensible change would have been to put in policy an automatic boundary review once a school hits 105% capacity, starting with a residency check, then sending all kids not living in the boundaries back to their neighborhood schools or whatever schools are open to pupil placement.  Rezoning should be minimal,  on the fringes only, and the last case scenario only after exhausting all other options including sending back all studdnts who do not live in bounds, excluding teachers' kids, and bringing the incoming transfer number to zero.

BTW, that is how the pupil placement is supposed to work.  It is only supposed to be one year at a time, with no ability to stay if the school is overcapacity and closed to transfers. Start enforcing transfer policies. [/quote]

This largely seems sensible to me, although I think they need a trigger for under-enrolled schools to determine if they can operate efficiently and, if not, whether the school should be closed or the boundaries adjusted.  With enrollments likely to continue to decline, they need to pay as much attention to potential consolidation (and, yes, the boundary changes associated with that) as potential overcrowding. [/quote]

Sure.

Put a set trigger for underenrolled schools too.

I think the underenrolled threshold should only be for high school though.

No one complains about a middle or elementary school being small.

It is only an issue at the high school level, because too small affects programs and course offerings, while smaller middle and elementary schools are a huge benefit to kids, socially and academically.[/quote]A county-wide annual review has effectively been in the CIP process for decades.  Schools outside capacity bounds have been flagged there and addressed with community or administrative redistrictings depending on scale.  Put the standard criteria in that process and be done with it.

Of course, the real reason they wanted the county-wide redistricting was One Fairfax.  Once they realized they'd never get away with OneF, they stripped the criteria down to a facilities-only 5 year process at a scale they can't handle and will never accomplish anything that they don't already do on an annual basis.[/quote]

Pretty much this.  They love the talk, but they hate the walk, so they start out with a One Fairfax agenda and end up asking if there's anything else they can do to make the parents at Langley and Madison happy.  I'm not saying those parents don't deserve to be heard, but it's amusing how they start out with a "transformative" agenda and end up making tweaks that increase the disparities among schools.  [/quote]

Let me play the world’s smallest violin for the people who sought to screw over other people’s kids with unnecessary boundary changes.[/quote]

In case you can't read, the point is they shouldn't have bothered at all.  They will be making boundary changes, and some of them will still "screw over [some] people's kids," even if they aren't yours.   [/quote]

Yep, we're in the screwed over category.  Feels like freaking game of thrones. [/quote]

I’m really sorry.  I hate the school board for making these unnecessary boundary changes.  They don’t care about FCPS kids.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics