Anonymous wrote:Who two?

Moon and Sizemore, board of Supervisors.

At least 2 others, Frisch and McElevan tried unsuccessfully to use their 1st terms as a jumping off for higher office.

Cohen and Pesarsky successfully turned 1 term into higher office.

Previously, school board members, such as Megan Mclaughlin ran for school board and served several terms because they wanted to help kids and improve schools. They made smart decisions because they were serving to make our schools the best in the country.

Now, since the school board becsme dominated by the far left, the school board is viewed as a one term jumping off point to kickstart a political career to higher office. This has resulted in multiple members like Frisch, Cohen, Omeish, etc in pushing things not because they improve schools or benefit students, but because they impress the far left local activists, and get the attention of out of state donors from places like California.

I wish that we had a regulation in place preventing school board members from accepting donations from political parties and donors who are not registered Fairfax County residents. I also wish that we had a regulation preventing sitting school board members from announcing or running for higher office while they are a sitting school board member.

Anonymous wrote:Is this being considered or has it been adopted?

It’s being considered.

Is this being considered or has it been adopted?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the transportation piece in there? With this my rising 9th grader can stay but my rising 7th grader would need to move so then I’d have two high schools and can’t so transportation.

There's currently a sibling transfer option.

https://www.fcps.edu/about-fcps/registration/transfer-information/sibling-requested-school

So maybe if your 9th grader is in one school, you can request your 7th grader can transfer to be at the same school?

Interesting. I might have been confusing but I’d have two in high school.

IF boundary maps come to be in 2 years I’d have -

8th grader grandfathered to current middle but then would have to move to 9th?

10th grade grandfathered to current HS

12th grader grandfathered to current school.

Just trying to figure out what that looks like for transportation or if we make 10th grader go to new school with younger sibling. When 10th grader is in 11th grade there is no guarantee car and driving.

Anonymous wrote:Is the transportation piece in there? With this my rising 9th grader can stay but my rising 7th grader would need to move so then I’d have two high schools and can’t so transportation.

There's currently a sibling transfer option.

https://www.fcps.edu/about-fcps/registration/transfer-information/sibling-requested-school

So maybe if your 9th grader is in one school, you can request your 7th grader can transfer to be at the same school?

What a mess. Yet again.

Anonymous wrote:Is the transportation piece in there? With this my rising 9th grader can stay but my rising 7th grader would need to move so then I’d have two high schools and can’t so transportation.

The amendment is silent on transportation.

I have no clue what they’ll do with transportation. On one hand, providing transportation for grandfathering every boundary change (at least every five year requirement) is incredibly expensive and destroys the fiction that this is in any way tied to transportation costs (much as Robyn Lady used to parrot this as a talking point justifying the boundary review).

On the other hand, it’s certainly not equitable access to allow access to certain schools only for those who can afford to get themselves to the school.

The school board is Frankensteining themselves a real crap monster of a policy here.

Is the transportation piece in there? With this my rising 9th grader can stay but my rising 7th grader would need to move so then I’d have two high schools and can’t so transportation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank goodness they came to their senses about grandfathering. I know I gave pretty constant feedback through emails and surveys that grandfathering only seniors was ridiculous.

+1 YAY!!! I”m so happy to see this and I have been also been giving constant feedback about this. IT is the only way this makes sense for kids.

Would be better for them to call the whole thing off. Except for Coates, they should accelerate that because they need relief now, not a year from now.

PP and I agree, but at least it isn’t as impactful for kids. THis also should have been considered WAY before now. Overall, the board was really showing how new they are to politics. It is almost amazing these were adults making these bad choices. I’m at least happy they aren’t ramming this through without zero changes. I do think the new maps are going to be different. They have to be with the new high school, but Sandy’s comments make me think she wants more changes too.

Sandy wields her power the same way that an unpopular student council president does when she tries to get back at her rival for stealing her boyfriend. Except this time she’s going to destroy a once great county in the process.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank goodness they came to their senses about grandfathering. I know I gave pretty constant feedback through emails and surveys that grandfathering only seniors was ridiculous.

+1 YAY!!! I”m so happy to see this and I have been also been giving constant feedback about this. IT is the only way this makes sense for kids.

Would be better for them to call the whole thing off. Except for Coates, they should accelerate that because they need relief now, not a year from now.

PP and I agree, but at least it isn’t as impactful for kids. THis also should have been considered WAY before now. Overall, the board was really showing how new they are to politics. It is almost amazing these were adults making these bad choices. I’m at least happy they aren’t ramming this through without zero changes. I do think the new maps are going to be different. They have to be with the new high school, but Sandy’s comments make me think she wants more changes too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank goodness they came to their senses about grandfathering. I know I gave pretty constant feedback through emails and surveys that grandfathering only seniors was ridiculous.

+1 YAY!!! I”m so happy to see this and I have been also been giving constant feedback about this. IT is the only way this makes sense for kids.

Would be better for them to call the whole thing off. Except for Coates, they should accelerate that because they need relief now, not a year from now.

Anonymous wrote:Thank goodness they came to their senses about grandfathering. I know I gave pretty constant feedback through emails and surveys that grandfathering only seniors was ridiculous.

+1 YAY!!! I”m so happy to see this and I have been also been giving constant feedback about this. IT is the only way this makes sense for kids.

Anonymous wrote:Many years ago, I was in the second graduating class of a new high school. It did not open as a full high school. It opened with a ninth grade as I recall. (I started there in tenth grade. There were no Seniors.)

We sort of did that where I grew up too in a high growth area. I was the 9th grade class, and the 10th grade class had to attend the new school if zoned there. Then it filled out as the years went by.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are they re considering this becuase the new maps really are going to impact a lot more people than we think?

The school board realizes at this point how politically toxic the boundary changes are. They are attempting to throw constituents a bone here. I’m not against liberal grandfathering, but they instead should just call the whole thing off. Very few families want their own kids moved, as has been shown time and time again in EVERY SINGLE feedback forum.

+1,000

Anonymous wrote:Are they re considering this becuase the new maps really are going to impact a lot more people than we think?

No, probably because of the new western hs.