FCPS Boundary Review - New Maps

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is the takeaway? People don’t want people to change, don’t care about islands, etc. shocker.

Right, but please explain why eliminating an attendance island four miles from a school should be a priority when they aren’t doing anything about kids traveling 2-3x that distance to a school when another school is much closer?

The entire process has been a giant waste of time. They should deal with Coates and KAA and leave the rest of us alone.

[Anonymous]

Is my understanding correct that they’ll decide what to do with KAA after the final boundary scenarios are out? Make it make sense.

[Anonymous]

Agree if they had just focused on problems instead of looking for them this would have been a quick efficient process versus the mess they created.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the takeaway? People don’t want people to change, don’t care about islands, etc. shocker.

Right, but please explain why eliminating an attendance island four miles from a school should be a priority when they aren’t doing anything about kids traveling 2-3x that distance to a school when another school is much closer?

The entire process has been a giant waste of time. They should deal with Coates and KAA and leave the rest of us alone.

I hope you’re right that it’s been a giant waste of time and they end up scrapping it and just fixing Coates and doing kaa. The presentation says that over 8,000 kids’ lives would be upended by the current scenario 3. That’s 8,000 kids who would suffer major upheaval and negative psychological outcomes, and for what? Absolutely zilch. In fact, things will be way worse. FCPS sucks.

[Anonymous]

I think that instead of making it easier (which it would), they are throwing in the magnet and now, western people are going to be really, really bad if they put kids on buses going further away.

KAA could relieve a lot of problems in this area. Eliminate a lot of long bus rides and reduce overcrowding at the same time. And, they could easily reduce 3 and 4 way split feeders. Color me wrong, but I thought those were the goals of the BRAC.

It sounds like the West Springfield issue is where Chantilly has been for years.

Honestly, I think the SB really, really wanted to move Forestville. Now, that seems to be a "no-go" and they are casting their equity desires elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

What I don't understand is the thousands of students whose commute they are INCREASING, some by 5 miles which in this traffic with a lot of bus stops could mean 20-30 minutes. WTF?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am so confused. This work up is using maps
We have already seen right!? But didn’t hey say the maps would be changing? So does this even matter!? I’m getting lost in The weeds here

I was also confused. The transportation part of the slides is based on scenario of three of the old maps which the school board already said were flawed. But they use those for this study?

And it was based on "as the crow flies" distance which is useless in many areas around here. Some places are 0.5 miles apart but the way roads are structured means its a 15 minute drive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the takeaway? People don’t want people to change, don’t care about islands, etc. shocker.

Right, but please explain why eliminating an attendance island four miles from a school should be a priority when they aren’t doing anything about kids traveling 2-3x that distance to a school when another school is much closer?

The entire process has been a giant waste of time. They should deal with Coates and KAA and leave the rest of us alone.

I hope you’re right that it’s been a giant waste of time and they end up scrapping it and just fixing Coates and doing kaa. The presentation says that over 8,000 kids’ lives would be upended by the current scenario 3. That’s 8,000 kids who would suffer major upheaval and negative psychological outcomes, and for what? Absolutely zilch. In fact, things will be way worse. FCPS sucks.

The thing is, current scenario 3 is DOA after residents rightly pointed out all of the flaws in it. So why are they still using it for analysis?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the takeaway? People don’t want people to change, don’t care about islands, etc. shocker.

Right, but please explain why eliminating an attendance island four miles from a school should be a priority when they aren’t doing anything about kids traveling 2-3x that distance to a school when another school is much closer?

The entire process has been a giant waste of time. They should deal with Coates and KAA and leave the rest of us alone.

I hope you’re right that it’s been a giant waste of time and they end up scrapping it and just fixing Coates and doing kaa. The presentation says that over 8,000 kids’ lives would be upended by the current scenario 3. That’s 8,000 kids who would suffer major upheaval and negative psychological outcomes, and for what? Absolutely zilch. In fact, things will be way worse. FCPS sucks.

The thing is, current scenario 3 is DOA after residents rightly pointed out all of the flaws in it. So why are they still using it for analysis?

Because they are not nimble and thru is in way over its head. Who could’ve guessed that a non-competitive bid would’ve resulted in this caliber of work?

Everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the takeaway? People don’t want people to change, don’t care about islands, etc. shocker.

Right, but please explain why eliminating an attendance island four miles from a school should be a priority when they aren’t doing anything about kids traveling 2-3x that distance to a school when another school is much closer?

The entire process has been a giant waste of time. They should deal with Coates and KAA and leave the rest of us alone.

I hope you’re right that it’s been a giant waste of time and they end up scrapping it and just fixing Coates and doing kaa. The presentation says that over 8,000 kids’ lives would be upended by the current scenario 3. That’s 8,000 kids who would suffer major upheaval and negative psychological outcomes, and for what? Absolutely zilch. In fact, things will be way worse. FCPS sucks.

The thing is, current scenario 3 is DOA after residents rightly pointed out all of the flaws in it. So why are they still using it for analysis?

Because they are not nimble and thru is in way over its head. Who could’ve guessed that a non-competitive bid would’ve resulted in this caliber of work?

Everyone.

Wonder how much over $$$ THRU has received?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the takeaway? People don’t want people to change, don’t care about islands, etc. shocker.

Right, but please explain why eliminating an attendance island four miles from a school should be a priority when they aren’t doing anything about kids traveling 2-3x that distance to a school when another school is much closer?

The entire process has been a giant waste of time. They should deal with Coates and KAA and leave the rest of us alone.

I hope you’re right that it’s been a giant waste of time and they end up scrapping it and just fixing Coates and doing kaa. The presentation says that over 8,000 kids’ lives would be upended by the current scenario 3. That’s 8,000 kids who would suffer major upheaval and negative psychological outcomes, and for what? Absolutely zilch. In fact, things will be way worse. FCPS sucks.

The thing is, current scenario 3 is DOA after residents rightly pointed out all of the flaws in it. So why are they still using it for analysis?

Because they are not nimble and thru is in way over its head. Who could’ve guessed that a non-competitive bid would’ve resulted in this caliber of work?

Everyone.

Wonder how much over $$$ THRU has received?

I imagine quite a lot. This process has been long and tedious and since their staff isn't local, they've had to fly someone in for all of those public meetings. I'm sure the county is getting billed for that time.

[Anonymous]

Here is what I think: they will hardly change the maps we have already seen other than fixing whatever obvious mistakes were pointed out. This is why they don't care that there is a round of meetings in September. They were just telling us the original maps were very rough drafts because they were tired of hearing from people freaking out about them. They do. not. care. about our input despite what they are saying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is what I think: they will hardly change the maps we have already seen other than fixing whatever obvious mistakes were pointed out. This is why they don't care that there is a round of meetings in September. They were just telling us the original maps were very rough drafts because they were tired of hearing from people freaking out about them. They do. not. care. about our input despite what they are saying.

So you’re saying they are not just incompetent, but also dishonest?

Hard to argue with you there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is what I think: they will hardly change the maps we have already seen other than fixing whatever obvious mistakes were pointed out. This is why they don't care that there is a round of meetings in September. They were just telling us the original maps were very rough drafts because they were tired of hearing from people freaking out about them. They do. not. care. about our input despite what they are saying.

I figured they’d front load the meetings with the pyramids that have minimal recommended changes. So it’s surprising to see West Springfield HS with one of the early slots when Thru has already announced they’re going to explore different options for addressing capacity, since the HVES split feeder was challenged. What is the point of addressing that community without options to discuss beforehand?

It’s obvious that they recognized the tight timeline for meeting with every pyramid, coupled with scheduling challenges with reserving meeting space. They’ve been chewing on data crunching all summer. It took months to filter and publish feedback. Does anyone think there will be any meaningful changes from the first set of meetings before the new drafts are released less than two weeks later. It’s a check mark next to the 8130 Policy to alleviate some school board members “concern” with the process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is what I think: they will hardly change the maps we have already seen other than fixing whatever obvious mistakes were pointed out. This is why they don't care that there is a round of meetings in September. They were just telling us the original maps were very rough drafts because they were tired of hearing from people freaking out about them. They do. not. care. about our input despite what they are saying.

I figured they’d front load the meetings with the pyramids that have minimal recommended changes. So it’s surprising to see West Springfield HS with one of the early slots when Thru has already announced they’re going to explore different options for addressing capacity, since the HVES split feeder was challenged. What is the point of addressing that community without options to discuss beforehand?

It’s obvious that they recognized the tight timeline for meeting with every pyramid, coupled with scheduling challenges with reserving meeting space. They’ve been chewing on data crunching all summer. It took months to filter and publish feedback. Does anyone think there will be any meaningful changes from the first set of meetings before the new drafts are released less than two weeks later. It’s a check mark next to the 8130 Policy to alleviate some school board members “concern” with the process.

Exactly. They're having new meetings to talk about old data and maps. With nothing new for the community to comment on. This is a farce.