FCPS Boundary Review - New Maps

[Anonymous]

I expect the maps to change dramatically with the excuse being "The old maps had too many mistakes so here are the new ones" and for them to be approved regardless of public comment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I expect the maps to change dramatically with the excuse being "The old maps had too many mistakes so here are the new ones" and for them to be approved regardless of public comment.

The maps will reflect what the SB members want to do. Period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I expect the maps to change dramatically with the excuse being "The old maps had too many mistakes so here are the new ones" and for them to be approved regardless of public comment.

The proposals impacting the Marshall and McLean pyramids do need to change dramatically. They were sloppy and created as many problems as they purported to solve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I expect the maps to change dramatically with the excuse being "The old maps had too many mistakes so here are the new ones" and for them to be approved regardless of public comment.

The maps will reflect what the SB members want to do. Period.

That’ll be more politically costly if things get delayed to implement the fall of 2027. Here’s to hoping the board delays the changes for a year so that the members have to run with voters focused on their boundary change record.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I expect the maps to change dramatically with the excuse being "The old maps had too many mistakes so here are the new ones" and for them to be approved regardless of public comment.

The maps will reflect what the SB members want to do. Period.

That’ll be more politically costly if things get delayed to implement the fall of 2027. Here’s to hoping the board delays the changes for a year so that the members have to run with voters focused on their boundary change record.

They will pay attention to the politics. That is what they do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I expect the maps to change dramatically with the excuse being "The old maps had too many mistakes so here are the new ones" and for them to be approved regardless of public comment.

The maps will reflect what the SB members want to do. Period.

That’ll be more politically costly if things get delayed to implement the fall of 2027. Here’s to hoping the board delays the changes for a year so that the members have to run with voters focused on their boundary change record.

Racha ana and Moon are trying for BOS this year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I expect the maps to change dramatically with the excuse being "The old maps had too many mistakes so here are the new ones" and for them to be approved regardless of public comment.

The maps will reflect what the SB members want to do. Period.

That’ll be more politically costly if things get delayed to implement the fall of 2027. Here’s to hoping the board delays the changes for a year so that the members have to run with voters focused on their boundary change record.

Racha ana and Moon are trying for BOS this year.

Yep, and how they do depends on the next set of maps ina couple of weeks. Couldn’t be worse timing for them.

[Anonymous]

If the new maps don't have the KAA school boundary on them, then they are pointless, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the new maps don't have the KAA school boundary on them, then they are pointless, right?

Maybe. Will be interesting to see what maps show about that area.

[Anonymous]

Mateo Dunne has been flip flopping since the maps came out earlier this year. He has been hesitant to take a stance and will never answer a question directly. He hosted a session at Whitman Middle School this summer and everyone left with more questions than answers.

It has been rumored by many that he had a hand in creating the initial boundary maps which are creating issues, especially addressing the Whitman attendance island which makes no sense and creates more issues than it solves.

Also, his point about voting for grandfathering only creates more issues as it will be a drain on transportation resources that now have to send multiple buses to the same neighborhoods since children will be going to many schools and not just one specific school. My understanding is that there was no proper analysis done on that topic and they voted off of the emotions of families potentially impacted by the boundary review.

He quotes numbers on what he has done but most of his meetings were not supposed to address boundary review (and thus no one joined to discuss boundary review) and he just worked it in so it is disingenuous to state those claims.

I would not trust anything that Mateo puts in his newsletters or voices to families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the new maps don't have the KAA school boundary on them, then they are pointless, right?

I think so, but Reid apparently thought they didn't need to adjust the maps to reflect new boundaries for KAA because it's going to be a magnet.

Yet the new boundaries are supposed to go in effect the same year KAA re-opens. You can't make up this level of incompetence.

And it all happens while Sizemore-Heizer and Moon are supposed to be overseeing Reid, so they shouldn't get a pass either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Mateo Dunne has been flip flopping since the maps came out earlier this year. He has been hesitant to take a stance and will never answer a question directly. He hosted a session at Whitman Middle School this summer and everyone left with more questions than answers.

It has been rumored by many that he had a hand in creating the initial boundary maps which are creating issues, especially addressing the Whitman attendance island which makes no sense and creates more issues than it solves.

Also, his point about voting for grandfathering only creates more issues as it will be a drain on transportation resources that now have to send multiple buses to the same neighborhoods since children will be going to many schools and not just one specific school. My understanding is that there was no proper analysis done on that topic and they voted off of the emotions of families potentially impacted by the boundary review.

He quotes numbers on what he has done but most of his meetings were not supposed to address boundary review (and thus no one joined to discuss boundary review) and he just worked it in so it is disingenuous to state those claims.

I would not trust anything that Mateo puts in his newsletters or voices to families.

While no formal decision was reached, the discussion at the last work session suggested they will break from past practice by offering grandfathering without transportation.

You have to pick your poison with these School Board members and decide whether you're better off if they blow with the wind like Dunne and Meren (and are prepared to toss Reid under a bus) or are just brain-dead and support whatever Reid wants to do (like Frisch and St. John-Cunning).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mateo Dunne has been flip flopping since the maps came out earlier this year. He has been hesitant to take a stance and will never answer a question directly. He hosted a session at Whitman Middle School this summer and everyone left with more questions than answers.

It has been rumored by many that he had a hand in creating the initial boundary maps which are creating issues, especially addressing the Whitman attendance island which makes no sense and creates more issues than it solves.

Also, his point about voting for grandfathering only creates more issues as it will be a drain on transportation resources that now have to send multiple buses to the same neighborhoods since children will be going to many schools and not just one specific school. My understanding is that there was no proper analysis done on that topic and they voted off of the emotions of families potentially impacted by the boundary review.

He quotes numbers on what he has done but most of his meetings were not supposed to address boundary review (and thus no one joined to discuss boundary review) and he just worked it in so it is disingenuous to state those claims.

I would not trust anything that Mateo puts in his newsletters or voices to families.

While no formal decision was reached, the discussion at the last work session suggested they will break from past practice by offering grandfathering without transportation.

You have to pick your poison with these School Board members and decide whether you're better off if they blow with the wind like Dunne and Meren (and are prepared to toss Reid under a bus) or are just brain-dead and support whatever Reid wants to do (like Frisch and St. John-Cunning).

Honestly I’m not even sure if Frisch and St. John-Cunning are going what Reid wants - it always seemed like they were doing whatever they, themselves, wanted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mateo Dunne has been flip flopping since the maps came out earlier this year. He has been hesitant to take a stance and will never answer a question directly. He hosted a session at Whitman Middle School this summer and everyone left with more questions than answers.

It has been rumored by many that he had a hand in creating the initial boundary maps which are creating issues, especially addressing the Whitman attendance island which makes no sense and creates more issues than it solves.

Also, his point about voting for grandfathering only creates more issues as it will be a drain on transportation resources that now have to send multiple buses to the same neighborhoods since children will be going to many schools and not just one specific school. My understanding is that there was no proper analysis done on that topic and they voted off of the emotions of families potentially impacted by the boundary review.

He quotes numbers on what he has done but most of his meetings were not supposed to address boundary review (and thus no one joined to discuss boundary review) and he just worked it in so it is disingenuous to state those claims.

I would not trust anything that Mateo puts in his newsletters or voices to families.

While no formal decision was reached, the discussion at the last work session suggested they will break from past practice by offering grandfathering without transportation.

You have to pick your poison with these School Board members and decide whether you're better off if they blow with the wind like Dunne and Meren (and are prepared to toss Reid under a bus) or are just brain-dead and support whatever Reid wants to do (like Frisch and St. John-Cunning).

Honestly I’m not even sure if Frisch and St. John-Cunning are going what Reid wants - it always seemed like they were doing whatever they, themselves, wanted.

On KAA, it sounds like Frisch was going against Reid. Can't remember if St. John-Cunning weighed in. Dunne flipflopped from the initial purchase statement--and I don't recall Meren's statement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mateo Dunne has been flip flopping since the maps came out earlier this year. He has been hesitant to take a stance and will never answer a question directly. He hosted a session at Whitman Middle School this summer and everyone left with more questions than answers.

It has been rumored by many that he had a hand in creating the initial boundary maps which are creating issues, especially addressing the Whitman attendance island which makes no sense and creates more issues than it solves.

Also, his point about voting for grandfathering only creates more issues as it will be a drain on transportation resources that now have to send multiple buses to the same neighborhoods since children will be going to many schools and not just one specific school. My understanding is that there was no proper analysis done on that topic and they voted off of the emotions of families potentially impacted by the boundary review.

He quotes numbers on what he has done but most of his meetings were not supposed to address boundary review (and thus no one joined to discuss boundary review) and he just worked it in so it is disingenuous to state those claims.

I would not trust anything that Mateo puts in his newsletters or voices to families.

While no formal decision was reached, the discussion at the last work session suggested they will break from past practice by offering grandfathering without transportation.

You have to pick your poison with these School Board members and decide whether you're better off if they blow with the wind like Dunne and Meren (and are prepared to toss Reid under a bus) or are just brain-dead and support whatever Reid wants to do (like Frisch and St. John-Cunning).

Honestly I’m not even sure if Frisch and St. John-Cunning are going what Reid wants - it always seemed like they were doing whatever they, themselves, wanted.

On KAA, it sounds like Frisch was going against Reid. Can't remember if St. John-Cunning weighed in. Dunne flipflopped from the initial purchase statement--and I don't recall Meren's statement.

I was thinking about Frisch defending the illogical Thru Consulting boundary proposals by saying FCPS was a victim of its commitment to transparency. The more sensible response would have been that it’s a shame Reid hired incompetent consultants and many of the Thru proposals should never have been made public, which is more in line with Dunne’s last email.