Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does this week's vote affect the McLean pyramid rezoning that happened last year?

Yes

Anonymous wrote:Does this week's vote affect the McLean pyramid rezoning that happened last year?

Anonymous wrote:Reminding you all that middle school after school programs are on the chopping block again but oh no, let's bus 2nd graders back to their old schools. The compromise that was made was the RIGHT CHOICE given the massive shortfall in budget (I think it's $40M+) that good old Melanie is completely ignoring.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are providing transportation to every student - to their in bounds school. If kids want to stay at their grandfathered school they need to provide their own transportation. I think that's reasonable and though we weren't moved this time, we are on a boundary that was highly talked about for switching high schools, and I still think this.

They’ve provided transportation to grandfathered kids affected by boundary changes for decades, including as far back as the prior county-wide studies in the 80s.

They can change their policy now, but it will further erode trust in FCPS. It’s absurd that they’d spend over $200 million on a new high school and $85 million on a new elementary school for which the need is certainly debatable, and then refuse to spend a much smaller amount to make sure kids have the option to complete high school at their current schools.

Rich SAHM mommies from Vienna who fought off a boundary change to Marshall probably could provide transportation if their kids were redistricted, but families now actually getting moved to Falls Church and Mount Vernon may not be in the same position.

Give it a rest, we know that you are upset because your child was moved from a highly rated HS to a lower rated HS. Deal with it.

Wrong. I'm upset because it's inequitable and the School Board had their collective heads up their asses when they approved boundary changes without simultaneously addressing transportation needs.

Boundaries could be going away completely.

I would rather sell my house and move than have my kid schlepp across this county and start commuting long distances at a young age. They can learn about that in adulthood.

Good riddance

My choice would be child centered rather than the illogical car first strategy you are proposing.

School choice is the ultimate child-centered policy.

Nope not when it involves 45 minute plus commutes. Then it becomes car and traffic centered policy. To think otherwise is to live in a dream world and not understand roads, cars, buses and traffic.

What are you to think you have the right to tell a kid they have to go to a bad school? Let the parents decide if they want to have their kid commute or not. You can choose to stay close to home because it’s called CHOICE.

What am I? I am a human. That defines me as different from you, a MAGA /Grok chat bot who cannot formulate a question. I’m guessing you asked GROK how to fix FCPS boundaries and they came up with “make boundaries completely go away.”
No way a human came up these!

Anonymous wrote:Below is what the idiot McDaniel sent out via email. Families received a survey less than a week ago and many were missed. In most cases the logic of the depot has the same stupid logic as only busing seniors - you are not maximizing the number of students on a bus or you having everyone get in their cars from a neighborhood or two and drive a few miles away instead of the bus stopping at a few neighborhood intersections. Maybe there are some random cases that makes sense but looking at high school boundary adjustments in most cases that is not logical. Security detail for the superintendent and more than one full-time staff member for board members are nice to haves.

MCDANIEL EMAIL COMMENTS:
Also last night, the School Board approved transportation services for high school students (grades 10-12) who are authorized to remain at their old base school as a result of recently adopted boundary changes. You may recall that this decision came before the School Board earlier this year; however, a 5-0-5 vote resulted in it being brought back last night.
Following an extensive outreach effort to families impacted by boundary changes, the Superintendent recommended transportation services only for 12th graders. I was unwilling to support that for several reasons, mostly because a bus carrying a 12th grader can also carry 10th and 11th graders.
After weeks of this decision being on the agenda, an 11th-hour amendment was brought forward to vastly expand bussing services from 12th graders to 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 10th, 11th, and 12th graders. This ballooned the annual budget impact from $800,000 to over $3,000,000. The timing of this proposal was a bit ironic because the next day the School Board and Board of Supervisors held its annual joint budget meeting, and the message was clear: this is not the time to unnecessarily increase spending on nice-to-have items.
There is another key piece of information that helped inform my decision last night: survey results indicated that 44% of students would need transportation to remain at their old base school; this represented 154 students, which extrapolates to 300 students based on the response rate. The other respondents were moving to the new school or were legally required to be provided transportation anyway (ie students with IEPs and 504s). This is to say that the decision last night was around whether to spend $3,000,000 per year to bus 300 kids above and beyond what is already done. That is not even close to reasonable. 
Throughout this process, the biggest concern I heard from constituents was regarding changes for high school students, and the unique period in their lives (academically and socially) that these years represent, and the academic and extracurricular records that feed into college applications. I wanted to find a way to target transportation supports to those students, but only if it could be done within existing budget constraints. I worked with the Superintendent to explore options, and it was concluded that a hub transportation model could be established for high school students within existing funding for the most part. The hub system is very similar to how students are transported to Thomas Jefferson. Out of an abundance of caution, I also placed language in my substitute motion that in the event of cost increases, end-of-year funding could be used to cover those.
I am happy that my proposal was adopted by the School Board last night, and that high school students will be given transportation should they choose. I recognize that some families at the middle and elementary levels will be disappointed, and I share that disappointment. I am disappointed that there is a $43 million budget gap that is threatening other critical initiatives too (Middle School After School programming, advanced academic resource teachers, reducing class sizes, maintaining special education staffing support, and more).
When I made the motion to adopt this plan, I stated that this strikes the best balance between addressing the equity concerns that have been raised and recognizing the fiscal reality of the day. While we could not get there for all 7 grade levels, I am happy that we were able to get there for 3 of them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are providing transportation to every student - to their in bounds school. If kids want to stay at their grandfathered school they need to provide their own transportation. I think that's reasonable and though we weren't moved this time, we are on a boundary that was highly talked about for switching high schools, and I still think this.

They’ve provided transportation to grandfathered kids affected by boundary changes for decades, including as far back as the prior county-wide studies in the 80s.

They can change their policy now, but it will further erode trust in FCPS. It’s absurd that they’d spend over $200 million on a new high school and $85 million on a new elementary school for which the need is certainly debatable, and then refuse to spend a much smaller amount to make sure kids have the option to complete high school at their current schools.

Rich SAHM mommies from Vienna who fought off a boundary change to Marshall probably could provide transportation if their kids were redistricted, but families now actually getting moved to Falls Church and Mount Vernon may not be in the same position.

Give it a rest, we know that you are upset because your child was moved from a highly rated HS to a lower rated HS. Deal with it.

Wrong. I'm upset because it's inequitable and the School Board had their collective heads up their asses when they approved boundary changes without simultaneously addressing transportation needs.

Boundaries could be going away completely.

I would rather sell my house and move than have my kid schlepp across this county and start commuting long distances at a young age. They can learn about that in adulthood.

Good riddance

My choice would be child centered rather than the illogical car first strategy you are proposing.

School choice is the ultimate child-centered policy.

Nope not when it involves 45 minute plus commutes. Then it becomes car and traffic centered policy. To think otherwise is to live in a dream world and not understand roads, cars, buses and traffic.

What are you to think you have the right to tell a kid they have to go to a bad school? Let the parents decide if they want to have their kid commute or not. You can choose to stay close to home because it’s called CHOICE.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are providing transportation to every student - to their in bounds school. If kids want to stay at their grandfathered school they need to provide their own transportation. I think that's reasonable and though we weren't moved this time, we are on a boundary that was highly talked about for switching high schools, and I still think this.

They’ve provided transportation to grandfathered kids affected by boundary changes for decades, including as far back as the prior county-wide studies in the 80s.

They can change their policy now, but it will further erode trust in FCPS. It’s absurd that they’d spend over $200 million on a new high school and $85 million on a new elementary school for which the need is certainly debatable, and then refuse to spend a much smaller amount to make sure kids have the option to complete high school at their current schools.

Rich SAHM mommies from Vienna who fought off a boundary change to Marshall probably could provide transportation if their kids were redistricted, but families now actually getting moved to Falls Church and Mount Vernon may not be in the same position.

Give it a rest, we know that you are upset because your child was moved from a highly rated HS to a lower rated HS. Deal with it.

Wrong. I'm upset because it's inequitable and the School Board had their collective heads up their asses when they approved boundary changes without simultaneously addressing transportation needs.

Boundaries could be going away completely.

I would rather sell my house and move than have my kid schlepp across this county and start commuting long distances at a young age. They can learn about that in adulthood.

Good riddance

My choice would be child centered rather than the illogical car first strategy you are proposing.

School choice is the ultimate child-centered policy.

There’s no consensus on that point, especially when the purported choices cannot be exercised by some.

Cite?

Plenty of support. See, e.g., https://housingmatters.urban.org/articles/how-students-transportation-options-or-lack-thereof-affect-educational-and-health-outcomes#:~:text=But%20for%20many%20students%2C%20the,are%20more%20than%20an%20hour.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are providing transportation to every student - to their in bounds school. If kids want to stay at their grandfathered school they need to provide their own transportation. I think that's reasonable and though we weren't moved this time, we are on a boundary that was highly talked about for switching high schools, and I still think this.

They’ve provided transportation to grandfathered kids affected by boundary changes for decades, including as far back as the prior county-wide studies in the 80s.

They can change their policy now, but it will further erode trust in FCPS. It’s absurd that they’d spend over $200 million on a new high school and $85 million on a new elementary school for which the need is certainly debatable, and then refuse to spend a much smaller amount to make sure kids have the option to complete high school at their current schools.

Rich SAHM mommies from Vienna who fought off a boundary change to Marshall probably could provide transportation if their kids were redistricted, but families now actually getting moved to Falls Church and Mount Vernon may not be in the same position.

Give it a rest, we know that you are upset because your child was moved from a highly rated HS to a lower rated HS. Deal with it.

Wrong. I'm upset because it's inequitable and the School Board had their collective heads up their asses when they approved boundary changes without simultaneously addressing transportation needs.

Boundaries could be going away completely.

I would rather sell my house and move than have my kid schlepp across this county and start commuting long distances at a young age. They can learn about that in adulthood.

Good riddance

My choice would be child centered rather than the illogical car first strategy you are proposing.

School choice is the ultimate child-centered policy.

Nope not when it involves 45 minute plus commutes. Then it becomes car and traffic centered policy. To think otherwise is to live in a dream world and not understand roads, cars, buses and traffic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s too expensive. Parents should be required to drive their children in this circumstance.

My kids are among those impacted by the boundary changes. We most certainly did not choose to attend another school and my kids should be able to stay at their current schools AND receive transportation.

I don't understand this - you bought the house you did knowing it was zoned to Fairfax County Public Schools. There is never a guarantee that your house will stay zoned to the house it is currently zoned to. You bought your house with that understanding. Now the schools have changed, that means your children have to change schools. If you *choose* to keep them in their old school, then it is your responsibility to transport them. Similar to if you *choose* to send them to a language immersion or arts school in the county. Personally, I think TJ and AAP centers should also be treated as a choice school, but Fairfax County has this completely inequitable "advanced academics" program that they insist on providing transportation for.

excuse me?? my child is currently in 10th grade and being zoned for a new school high school next year. You don’t think it’s acceptable that he gets to stay at his current high school and receive transportation?? it would be a complete disruption for a child in the middle of high school to have to switch schools. I hardly think that there is any parent out there that would be OK with that.

Your opinions are get over it, go private, or move. Sorry.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are providing transportation to every student - to their in bounds school. If kids want to stay at their grandfathered school they need to provide their own transportation. I think that's reasonable and though we weren't moved this time, we are on a boundary that was highly talked about for switching high schools, and I still think this.

They’ve provided transportation to grandfathered kids affected by boundary changes for decades, including as far back as the prior county-wide studies in the 80s.

They can change their policy now, but it will further erode trust in FCPS. It’s absurd that they’d spend over $200 million on a new high school and $85 million on a new elementary school for which the need is certainly debatable, and then refuse to spend a much smaller amount to make sure kids have the option to complete high school at their current schools.

Rich SAHM mommies from Vienna who fought off a boundary change to Marshall probably could provide transportation if their kids were redistricted, but families now actually getting moved to Falls Church and Mount Vernon may not be in the same position.

Give it a rest, we know that you are upset because your child was moved from a highly rated HS to a lower rated HS. Deal with it.

Wrong. I'm upset because it's inequitable and the School Board had their collective heads up their asses when they approved boundary changes without simultaneously addressing transportation needs.

Boundaries could be going away completely.

I would rather sell my house and move than have my kid schlepp across this county and start commuting long distances at a young age. They can learn about that in adulthood.

Good riddance

My choice would be child centered rather than the illogical car first strategy you are proposing.

School choice is the ultimate child-centered policy.