FCPS Boundary Review - New Maps

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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").

The school board is asking many questions about the superintendent, but not really taking responsibility for changing the policy in such a way that makes all of these moving pieces that they put into the policy.

They are finally realizing they bit off waaaaay more than they can chew.
And that it is political suicide to continue to drive this so fast.

Will they fix it? Seems like most want to delay, so we will see.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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").

The school board is asking many questions about the superintendent, but not really taking responsibility for changing the policy in such a way that makes all of these moving pieces that they put into the policy.

They are finally realizing they bit off waaaaay more than they can chew.
And that it is political suicide to continue to drive this so fast.

Will they fix it? Seems like most want to delay, so we will see.

I wonder how much time staff spent on that silly presentation. I think way too much. It could have been one slide--which boils down to: traditional or magnet. But, her restricted magnet to relieve overcrowding may be one of the most unrealistic things I have seen from FCPS--and that is saying a lot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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").

The school board is asking many questions about the superintendent, but not really taking responsibility for changing the policy in such a way that makes all of these moving pieces that they put into the policy.

They are finally realizing they bit off waaaaay more than they can chew.
And that it is political suicide to continue to drive this so fast.

Will they fix it? Seems like most want to delay, so we will see.

I hope you're right!

There was a telling moment today where SB members were grilling Reid about when the obvious errors and inconsistencies in the various Thru proposals were going to be fixed and Reid said she "hoped" the next maps in October would take care of them. Meren, quite properly, told her that wasn't good enough. And then Frisch tried to muddy the waters by saying they were a victim of their good intentions because their desire for transparency had led them to release maps earlier with some errors - instead of confronting the real issue, which is that Reid and her hired consultants are incredibly sloppy and generating multiple ridiculous proposals that don't even begin to pass the smell test.

This has been a mess and it certainly seems like they need more time to straighten it out, especially with KAA coming on board.

[Anonymous]

Sandy Anderson doesn’t care about the errors or anything else. She’s gonna ram this thru no matter what anyone else says.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sandy Anderson doesn’t care about the errors or anything else. She’s gonna ram this thru no matter what anyone else says.

She is singularly unimpressive. Her questions aren't intelligent (like today she wanted to know if they could restrict access of kids living in the western part of the county to TJHSST if KAA opened with a completely different magnet program) and there's an enormous amount of posturing about how they need to make tough decisions with no indication as to what she thinks it would actually accomplish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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").

The school board is asking many questions about the superintendent, but not really taking responsibility for changing the policy in such a way that makes all of these moving pieces that they put into the policy.

They are finally realizing they bit off waaaaay more than they can chew.
And that it is political suicide to continue to drive this so fast.

Will they fix it? Seems like most want to delay, so we will see.

I wonder how much time staff spent on that silly presentation. I think way too much. It could have been one slide--which boils down to: traditional or magnet. But, her restricted magnet to relieve overcrowding may be one of the most unrealistic things I have seen from FCPS--and that is saying a lot.

+1. "Let's find the most indirect and convoluted way possible to address a problem that everyone knows can be addressed directly and efficiently - all so I can take credit for thinking big thoughts!"

[Anonymous]

I did see a few obvious errors on the maps, but what are some of the things that the board or Reid are calling errors? I’m concerned that people are thinking things are errors and will be fixed, but Thru isn’t considering them to be errors at all and will leave them unchanged. Like that little piece of Silverbrook/South County by South Run Park that they decided to rogue move to Sangster/LB, in their view that’s possibly not an error. since they took Sangster’s island and sent it to Newington Forest/South County, now an equal piece must be moved back into its place.

[Anonymous]

There aren’t errors. It’s all fake. Reid has her maps and hired Thru for “transparency” and is pretending the first round were errors so she can release her own maps and pretend the errors were fixed by Thru.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There aren’t errors. It’s all fake. Reid has her maps and hired Thru for “transparency” and is pretending the first round were errors so she can release her own maps and pretend the errors were fixed by Thru.

I agree with this take. It’s all been a sham.

[Anonymous]

It's pretty clear from that meeting that Sandy Anderson is the driving force behind this process. Meren was expressing a lot of doubts about how fast this was moving given the number of outstanding questions.

It's also clear that they have no intention of providing transportation to any kid who is grandfathered in and chooses to stay at their base school after a boundary change. Anderson and Lady both endorsed that approach.

[Anonymous]

But it does seem like Reid (and in a performative way, Thru) is the person coming up with maps and boundary changes, NOT the school board. Is that what everyone else thinks? There may be some deals behind the scenes, but ultimately, the Superintendent is presenting the maps to the community and the school board at the same time "in the fall".

Really, if they aren't done by October I don't see any way to make changes for the 26-27 school year.

I also still think it's hilarious that their boundary policy calls for a review every 5 years. It's going to take that long for this first attempt to go into effect. Actually, longer than that considering the grandfathering. There would be zero time to assess how any changes have worked before they are required to start looking at boundaries again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There aren’t errors. It’s all fake. Reid has her maps and hired Thru for “transparency” and is pretending the first round were errors so she can release her own maps and pretend the errors were fixed by Thru.

IT'S ALL A BIG CONSPIRACY THEORY!!!!!

[Anonymous]

People on this board are unhinged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But it does seem like Reid (and in a performative way, Thru) is the person coming up with maps and boundary changes, NOT the school board. Is that what everyone else thinks? There may be some deals behind the scenes, but ultimately, the Superintendent is presenting the maps to the community and the school board at the same time "in the fall".

Really, if they aren't done by October I don't see any way to make changes for the 26-27 school year.

I also still think it's hilarious that their boundary policy calls for a review every 5 years. It's going to take that long for this first attempt to go into effect. Actually, longer than that considering the grandfathering. There would be zero time to assess how any changes have worked before they are required to start looking at boundaries again.

Well, it's Reid's staff. She has obviously has input but it's pretty clear for listening to this meeting that staff has maps and they might tweak them a bit based on feedback but they have clear views on where this is heading. The school board might be able to tweak along the edges but this is going forward with whatever internal staff has come up with and will get pushed thru by Sandy Anderson et al.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People on this board are unhinged.

Good morning, Gatehouse staff.