Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This would quell my concerns about the boundary review. My youngest would be going into 10th. While driving him isn’t easy it’s doable if needed. If we do get rezoned it would be to a comparable school.

While I’m glad that your kid would not get moved under their proposed amendment, there are a lot of kids who are about to get royally screwed with these boundary changes. You might want to think a bit broader than your own specific situation, or at least be a bit more sympathetic to those students (including your neighbors in perpetuity) who would continue to be in the school board’s crosshairs.

You are going to lose allies if you start fighting against grandfathering high school students.

I am very active in my elementary school zone's work against rezoning. I got involved in the beginning at the first whispers of rezoning well over a year ago, and started to organize when it looked like everyone in our area might get rezoned. I stayed involved when the maps came out and our half of the elementary was untouched. I am still involved even though it appears my children will now be safe from any rezoning, both through our street appearing to be safe and the new possibility of grandfathering high schoolers.

I have done more than my part to spread the word about these changes, rally people and help, not just to protect my kids but to protect your kids.

Adding an update to Policy 8130 that protects high school kids, not just for this rezoning but from future rezoning, is a huge victory for the families in this county and one that we have been fighting and organizing for over a year to get enshrined in the policy.

If you selfishly start pushing against this victory (and it is s victory for all of us) of grandfathering high school students, because it is not 100% what you want, then I am out. Many others will be out. You will be the one that divided and conquered, not FCPS.

You need to see this grandfathering move as the victory that it is, and try to build on it to include liberal pupil placement for younger siblings.

Fighting against grandfathering is going to lose a lot of allies from otherwise safe areas, who would continue to fight with you until you turn on them and try to take things away from their kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This would quell my concerns about the boundary review. My youngest would be going into 10th. While driving him isn’t easy it’s doable if needed. If we do get rezoned it would be to a comparable school.

While I’m glad that your kid would not get moved under their proposed amendment, there are a lot of kids who are about to get royally screwed with these boundary changes. You might want to think a bit broader than your own specific situation, or at least be a bit more sympathetic to those students (including your neighbors in perpetuity) who would continue to be in the school board’s crosshairs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will have an incoming 6th and incoming 9th…still very much opposed to boundary change for no clear reason. This does not change opposition and those that will be grandfathered should not let up the pressure.

There are reasons, you just don't like them (or don't like the results of their solutions). There are schools that need relief. There are kids commuting 30+ minutes each way (45 on the bus) when other schools are much closer. There are split feeders that make no sense.
Grandfathering is only fair, especially for high school juniors and seniors. Holding up necessary boundary changes because you don't want or benefit from them isn't.

Anonymous wrote:This would quell my concerns about the boundary review. My youngest would be going into 10th. While driving him isn’t easy it’s doable if needed. If we do get rezoned it would be to a comparable school.

Anonymous wrote:I will have an incoming 6th and incoming 9th…still very much opposed to boundary change for no clear reason. This does not change opposition and those that will be grandfathered should not let up the pressure.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should they include busing?

1. If I choose to keep my kid at their current school that is on me. Just like if I choose to pupil place my kid elsewhere for language, AP/IB, whatever, I am responsible for getting them there and back.

2. One of the biggest complaints I see on this board is how much time and money is wasted bussing AAP kids to center school. Why would FCPS spend even more time and money shuttling around kids that want to stay at their school. There isn't enough drivers or busses to make this happen or time in the day to accomodate this. Many of the bus drivers are already doing 3-4 runs each morning and doing it again the in afternoon. Now, you want to add another route to this.

Agree.

Grandfathering without bussing is the fairest option.

Grandfathering without busing is the textbook definition of inequitable access to programming. It’s one of the reasons Sniveling Sandy and her crew has pushed back on it.

It should be an interesting debate at that meeting, but they probably will spend more time with their photo ops than discussing anything substantive.

Then pupil placement in general is inequitable since only families who can provide their own transportation can take advantage of it. I don't think you can argue against parent-provided transportation for grandfathering on the grounds of equity and still allow parent-provided transportation for pupil placements for other reasons.

Pupil placements aren't a result of boundary changes, but rather decisions by families to send their kids to a different school than the school for which they were already zoned. With boundary changes, the School Board is unilaterally uprooting kids and sending them to a different school, so grandfathering with transportation has been available to mitigate the disruption that the SB is otherwise imposing on families and kids.

Your willingness to defend what would be a departure from FCPS practice for at least the past 50 years suggests you are not interested in equity, but only shilling for a School Board that has dug itself into a deep hole.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should they include busing?

1. If I choose to keep my kid at their current school that is on me. Just like if I choose to pupil place my kid elsewhere for language, AP/IB, whatever, I am responsible for getting them there and back.

2. One of the biggest complaints I see on this board is how much time and money is wasted bussing AAP kids to center school. Why would FCPS spend even more time and money shuttling around kids that want to stay at their school. There isn't enough drivers or busses to make this happen or time in the day to accomodate this. Many of the bus drivers are already doing 3-4 runs each morning and doing it again the in afternoon. Now, you want to add another route to this.

Agree.

Grandfathering without bussing is the fairest option.

Grandfathering without busing is the textbook definition of inequitable access to programming. It’s one of the reasons Sniveling Sandy and her crew has pushed back on it.

It should be an interesting debate at that meeting, but they probably will spend more time with their photo ops than discussing anything substantive.

Then pupil placement in general is inequitable since only families who can provide their own transportation can take advantage of it. I don't think you can argue against parent-provided transportation for grandfathering on the grounds of equity and still allow parent-provided transportation for pupil placements for other reasons.

Correct. The school board is very inconsistent, as we all know. This will just serve to further highlight how much of a farce the policy 8130 factors really are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should they include busing?

1. If I choose to keep my kid at their current school that is on me. Just like if I choose to pupil place my kid elsewhere for language, AP/IB, whatever, I am responsible for getting them there and back.

2. One of the biggest complaints I see on this board is how much time and money is wasted bussing AAP kids to center school. Why would FCPS spend even more time and money shuttling around kids that want to stay at their school. There isn't enough drivers or busses to make this happen or time in the day to accomodate this. Many of the bus drivers are already doing 3-4 runs each morning and doing it again the in afternoon. Now, you want to add another route to this.

Agree.

Grandfathering without bussing is the fairest option.

Grandfathering without busing is the textbook definition of inequitable access to programming. It’s one of the reasons Sniveling Sandy and her crew has pushed back on it.

It should be an interesting debate at that meeting, but they probably will spend more time with their photo ops than discussing anything substantive.

Then pupil placement in general is inequitable since only families who can provide their own transportation can take advantage of it. I don't think you can argue against parent-provided transportation for grandfathering on the grounds of equity and still allow parent-provided transportation for pupil placements for other reasons.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should they include busing?

1. If I choose to keep my kid at their current school that is on me. Just like if I choose to pupil place my kid elsewhere for language, AP/IB, whatever, I am responsible for getting them there and back.

2. One of the biggest complaints I see on this board is how much time and money is wasted bussing AAP kids to center school. Why would FCPS spend even more time and money shuttling around kids that want to stay at their school. There isn't enough drivers or busses to make this happen or time in the day to accomodate this. Many of the bus drivers are already doing 3-4 runs each morning and doing it again the in afternoon. Now, you want to add another route to this.

Agree.

Grandfathering without bussing is the fairest option.

Grandfathering without busing is the textbook definition of inequitable access to programming. It’s one of the reasons Sniveling Sandy and her crew has pushed back on it.

It should be an interesting debate at that meeting, but they probably will spend more time with their photo ops than discussing anything substantive.

Then pupil placement in general is inequitable since only families who can provide their own transportation can take advantage of it. I don't think you can argue against parent-provided transportation for grandfathering on the grounds of equity and still allow parent-provided transportation for pupil placements for other reasons.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should they include busing?

1. If I choose to keep my kid at their current school that is on me. Just like if I choose to pupil place my kid elsewhere for language, AP/IB, whatever, I am responsible for getting them there and back.

2. One of the biggest complaints I see on this board is how much time and money is wasted bussing AAP kids to center school. Why would FCPS spend even more time and money shuttling around kids that want to stay at their school. There isn't enough drivers or busses to make this happen or time in the day to accomodate this. Many of the bus drivers are already doing 3-4 runs each morning and doing it again the in afternoon. Now, you want to add another route to this.

Agree.

Grandfathering without bussing is the fairest option.

Grandfathering without busing is the textbook definition of inequitable access to programming. It’s one of the reasons Sniveling Sandy and her crew has pushed back on it.

It should be an interesting debate at that meeting, but they probably will spend more time with their photo ops than discussing anything substantive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should they include busing?

1. If I choose to keep my kid at their current school that is on me. Just like if I choose to pupil place my kid elsewhere for language, AP/IB, whatever, I am responsible for getting them there and back.

2. One of the biggest complaints I see on this board is how much time and money is wasted bussing AAP kids to center school. Why would FCPS spend even more time and money shuttling around kids that want to stay at their school. There isn't enough drivers or busses to make this happen or time in the day to accomodate this. Many of the bus drivers are already doing 3-4 runs each morning and doing it again the in afternoon. Now, you want to add another route to this.

Agree.

Grandfathering without bussing is the fairest option.