FCPS Boundary Review - New Maps

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This work session on the status of the boundary review was a doozy.

Loys of frustration on the lack of data informing recommendations, failures to have made decisions on key issues that should have been made already, and some blatant lies as always from School Board members.

The biggest liars were Frisch and St. John-Cunning. Frisch falsely stated the flawed Thru recommendations came from the BRAC. They did not; they came from Thru and FCPS staff. St. John-Cunning falsely stated that families have always been required to provide transportation to their old base schools when boundary changes were being phased in. Both should be ashamed for lying and trying to mislead their colleagues and the public.

Ricardy Anderson and Melanie Meren made valid points about how sloppy this process has been.

Excellent recap - and thank you. This is what’s needed, folks willing to observe their sessions and help spread the word on what they’re doing and hold them to facts/truth.

They want to operate under radar and hope nobody singles them out by name. Please keep up the good work(!)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This work session on the status of the boundary review was a doozy.

Loys of frustration on the lack of data informing recommendations, failures to have made decisions on key issues that should have been made already, and some blatant lies as always from School Board members.

The biggest liars were Frisch and St. John-Cunning. Frisch falsely stated the flawed Thru recommendations came from the BRAC. They did not; they came from Thru and FCPS staff. St. John-Cunning falsely stated that families have always been required to provide transportation to their old base schools when boundary changes were being phased in. Both should be ashamed for lying and trying to mislead their colleagues and the public.

Ricardy Anderson and Melanie Meren made valid points about how sloppy this process has been.

Excellent recap - and thank you. This is what’s needed, folks willing to observe their sessions and help spread the word on what they’re doing and hold them to facts/truth.

They want to operate under radar and hope nobody singles them out by name. Please keep up the good work(!)

Also, thanks to the person who posted the YouTube link. I'm at work and can't watch the boundary discussion but will be watching it tonight at home.

[Anonymous]

They have only themselves to blame. They wanted county-wide boundary changes but they wanted to minimize their own accountability for the changes so they turned it over to a superintendent who is relatively new and unequipped for a project of this magnitude. She, in turn, retained an outside consultant who also does not know the area and is more interested in collecting a fee than quality work.

As they used to say at the movies, “hilarity ensues,” except in this case the hilarity is at best wry humor at just how bad things have gotten in FCPS. Most of these folks should never hold public office or a position with comparable responsibility again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They have only themselves to blame. They wanted county-wide boundary changes but they wanted to minimize their own accountability for the changes so they turned it over to a superintendent who is relatively new and unequipped for a project of this magnitude. She, in turn, retained an outside consultant who also does not know the area and is more interested in collecting a fee than quality work.

As they used to say at the movies, “hilarity ensues,” except in this case the hilarity is at best wry humor at just how bad things have gotten in FCPS. Most of these folks should never hold public office or a position with comparable responsibility again.

+1

[Anonymous]

S. John-Cunningham also said something else so blatantly stupid that it’s clear she has no business holding public office.

She falsely claimed they had no way to know whether FCPS had actually conducted a county-wide boundary review 40 years ago. The context was her suggesting they are doing something really challenging so no one should be surprised if there are a few hiccups along the way.

We can debate whether they need a county-wide review now, whether things are a lot more complicated now than 40 years ago, and whether is good reason why no such county-wide reviews have been undertaken form 40 years. But any sitting School Board member surely ought to know there are such things as board minutes, which clearly record the county-wide review undertaken in 1984.

All she is capable of doing is constantly claiming decisions should be made to serve the purported interests of people who never bother to express their opinions when given an opportunity. She basically wants a blank check to ignore parents and impose her own preferences on everyone else, but why should anyone give her that license when she’s clearly dumb as a rock?

[Anonymous]

^ St. John-Cunning

[Anonymous]

It really seems like Superintendent Reid is fed up with using all her resources for the boundary review. It’s clear that the review has drained significant resources and political capital from FCPS, and she wants to pivot to her actual priorities.

[Anonymous]

I watched the whole thing.

Some of the SB questions were good, some went on and on.

They need to learn a critical path.

Step 1: determine what the boundaries will be for the new school.
Step 2: possibly delay the boundary issue

My suggestion:
Step 3: only do what is absolutely necessary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It really seems like Superintendent Reid is fed up with using all her resources for the boundary review. It’s clear that the review has drained significant resources and political capital from FCPS, and she wants to pivot to her actual priorities.

Reid’s priorities are far more troubling than the boundary review.

[Anonymous]

I thought it was interesting that the renovation/expansion for Centreville is on hold due to permitting issues. Nobody seemed to want to say the logical next step that maybe the expansion should be taken off the table (with realizing some cost savings).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It really seems like Superintendent Reid is fed up with using all her resources for the boundary review. It’s clear that the review has drained significant resources and political capital from FCPS, and she wants to pivot to her actual priorities.

Reid’s priorities are far more troubling than the boundary review.

While I'm all for preparing for the future, Reid reminds me of a bunch of sixth graders brainstorming ideas for a party.

[Anonymous]

when are they going to release the new maps

will they delay maps after new school boundary

when does the time change get released

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:when are they going to release the new maps

will they delay maps after new school boundary

when does the time change get released

They keep talking about new maps getting released in October.

They are vague on when boundary maps for the new school might come out because they were first discussing whether the new school would be a neighborhood school, a magnet, or some hybrid.

It sounded like they wouldn't land on time changes until later in the year. The main discussion around that was that some time change options would strain bus resources, but this would be mitigated if students who are grandfathered to their existing schools are not provided transporation. As discussed earlier, St. John-Cunning lied and said transportation was never provided to students' existing schools when boundary changes are being phased in, which is just blatantly false. It's scary how misinformed some board members are about how FCPS has operated in the past. In any event, while no formal decision was made, people should assume based on this work session that they will not provide transportation to the current schools of grandfathered students affected by boundary changes, unlike in years past with prior boundary changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:when are they going to release the new maps

will they delay maps after new school boundary

when does the time change get released

They keep talking about new maps getting released in October.

They are vague on when boundary maps for the new school might come out because they were first discussing whether the new school would be a neighborhood school, a magnet, or some hybrid.

It sounded like they wouldn't land on time changes until later in the year. The main discussion around that was that some time change options would strain bus resources, but this would be mitigated if students who are grandfathered to their existing schools are not provided transporation. As discussed earlier, St. John-Cunning lied and said transportation was never provided to students' existing schools when boundary changes are being phased in, which is just blatantly false. It's scary how misinformed some board members are about how FCPS has operated in the past. In any event, while no formal decision was made, people should assume based on this work session that they will not provide transportation to the current schools of grandfathered students affected by boundary changes, unlike in years past with prior boundary changes.

There was discussion at some point about whether this time line needs to be adjusted. I interpreted that (though who knows whether I understood correctly) that just maybe they should delay it a year.
That would make sense:
1. define boundaries for new school
2. see what the population is across the county (it may be dropping)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:when are they going to release the new maps

will they delay maps after new school boundary

when does the time change get released

They keep talking about new maps getting released in October.

They are vague on when boundary maps for the new school might come out because they were first discussing whether the new school would be a neighborhood school, a magnet, or some hybrid.

It sounded like they wouldn't land on time changes until later in the year. The main discussion around that was that some time change options would strain bus resources, but this would be mitigated if students who are grandfathered to their existing schools are not provided transporation. As discussed earlier, St. John-Cunning lied and said transportation was never provided to students' existing schools when boundary changes are being phased in, which is just blatantly false. It's scary how misinformed some board members are about how FCPS has operated in the past. In any event, while no formal decision was made, people should assume based on this work session that they will not provide transportation to the current schools of grandfathered students affected by boundary changes, unlike in years past with prior boundary changes.

There was discussion at some point about whether this time line needs to be adjusted. I interpreted that (though who knows whether I understood correctly) that just maybe they should delay it a year.
That would make sense:
1. define boundaries for new school
2. see what the population is across the county (it may be dropping)

You're right, that was discussed, but it didn't seem there was any consensus. Some members said it was more important to get things right than just a meet a timeline, but a few members like Sandy Anderson and Marcia St. John-Cunning seemed very focused on sticking to the schedule. I don't know if it's Anderson just really wanting to deliver the Lewis part of Rolling Valley to West Springfield, and making other changes to the WSHS boundaries, but she's all about changing boundaries sooner whether people like it or not (lots of cliches about how "change is hard" and "we can never make everyone happy").