Boundary Review Meetings

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any word on how map reveal went yesterday?

I don't think it happened. Zero mention in any of the groups.

Per FairFACTs Matters, “Hi, yes, some transportation data was shared. Thru also showed descriptions of how the maps would change based on the BRAC's recommendations. Each region subgroup continues to review that information so I strongly urge you to also speak to your region BRAC reps!”

BRAC is now not allowed to disclose many details until FCPS publicly posts. It should be up by 5pm today based on previous trends.

The post was from someone at FairFACTS Matters who isn’t on the BRAC, so it appears the BRAC members from FairFACTS matters are sharing information with him. It’s just others who are kept in the dark.

Imagine being this much of a school board shill. You’re a huge tool.

To the contrary I think this process is a mess and the current SB should be unseated.

But when a FairFACTS Matters guy who isn’t on the BRAC posts, albeit vaguely, about things that happened at BRAC meetings it’s clear there is selective disclosure about what’s transpired at those meetings.

[Anonymous]

At least they released the BRAC feedback from last round so we will be able to see where it was taken and where it wasn’t?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fair facts posted about the strict NDA and no one was to share in advance of FCPS sharing.

So FCPS wants to control the flow of information and doesn’t want false rumors circulating, but that wouldn’t be an issue if there were more transparency in the first place. Instead, we get NDAs and secret meetings.

This process has been an entire sham from day one.

Can’t have it both ways. People up thread were complaining about how so much keeps changing with each iteration (which is to be expected) and causing different communities to be on edge each time. Now it isn’t enough sausage making that is being revealed. These type of things can get messy and this one is more complicated and therefore messier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any word on how map reveal went yesterday?

I don't think it happened. Zero mention in any of the groups.

Per FairFACTs Matters, “Hi, yes, some transportation data was shared. Thru also showed descriptions of how the maps would change based on the BRAC's recommendations. Each region subgroup continues to review that information so I strongly urge you to also speak to your region BRAC reps!”

BRAC is now not allowed to disclose many details until FCPS publicly posts. It should be up by 5pm today based on previous trends.

The post was from someone at FairFACTS Matters who isn’t on the BRAC, so it appears the BRAC members from FairFACTS matters are sharing information with him. It’s just others who are kept in the dark.

Imagine being this much of a school board shill. You’re a huge tool.

To the contrary I think this process is a mess and the current SB should be unseated.

But when a FairFACTS Matters guy who isn’t on the BRAC posts, albeit vaguely, about things that happened at BRAC meetings it’s clear there is selective disclosure about what’s transpired at those meetings.

Presumably he reached out directly to his BRAC representative the same way he recommended others do with theirs. Each member has an email listed on the BRAC member page.

[Anonymous]

According to the speaker at tonight's boundary meeting at South County, the maps will be released Oct. 10.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fair facts posted about the strict NDA and no one was to share in advance of FCPS sharing.

So FCPS wants to control the flow of information and doesn’t want false rumors circulating, but that wouldn’t be an issue if there were more transparency in the first place. Instead, we get NDAs and secret meetings.

This process has been an entire sham from day one.

Can’t have it both ways. People up thread were complaining about how so much keeps changing with each iteration (which is to be expected) and causing different communities to be on edge each time. Now it isn’t enough sausage making that is being revealed. These type of things can get messy and this one is more complicated and therefore messier.

Stop making excuses.

There needs to be more transparency and there needs to be more clarity as to why they are proposing changes to what was initially proposed.

Yes, it’s a sausage-making exercise, but people like to know the ingredients of what they’re being asked to consume.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:According to the speaker at tonight's boundary meeting at South County, the maps will be released Oct. 10.

That’s a Friday. That smells like a 5 PM dump and run on the part of FCPS, like when they initially announced the 3 hour early releases on the first day of summer break a few years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to the speaker at tonight's boundary meeting at South County, the maps will be released Oct. 10.

That’s a Friday. That smells like a 5 PM dump and run on the part of FCPS, like when they initially announced the 3 hour early releases on the first day of summer break a few years ago.

The first October meeting is Monday, October 13th, so it’s pretty obvious they want to wait until the last work day before those meetings start to release the maps to give people as little time to react as possible while still claiming they are complying with their policy.

[Anonymous]

Lots of discussion tonight at the boundary meeting from Rose Hill ES parents who apparently heard there's going to be a change to move the whole school to Hayfield. There's a lot of concern being raised about what happens to the Spanish immerson kids. No answers tonight from staff.

[Anonymous]

Without giving away the actual maps under NDAs, would anyone on Brac be brave enough to share if the real maps are very different or more extensive than the earlier maps?

[Anonymous]

(

Anonymous wrote:Lots of discussion tonight at the boundary meeting from Rose Hill ES parents who apparently heard there's going to be a change to move the whole school to Hayfield. There's a lot of concern being raised about what happens to the Spanish immerson kids. No answers tonight from staff.

So the “tinkering around the edges” the superintendent said was going to happen has become a massive flip where multiple elementary schools think they are going to have to switch pyramids?

So far, this site has said Crestwood and Rose Hill. Is this really going on?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:(

Anonymous wrote:Lots of discussion tonight at the boundary meeting from Rose Hill ES parents who apparently heard there's going to be a change to move the whole school to Hayfield. There's a lot of concern being raised about what happens to the Spanish immerson kids. No answers tonight from staff.

So the “tinkering around the edges” the superintendent said was going to happen has become a massive flip where multiple elementary schools think they are going to have to switch pyramids?

So far, this site has said Crestwood and Rose Hill. Is this really going on?

I’m the PP who listened to the meeting tonight. Parents brought up the issue of Rose Hill. They said it was mentioned during a recent PTA meeting. They had concerns about Spanish immersion and also where the AAP kids and the kids in the autism program would be going.

[Anonymous]

There’s no way they’re keeping the maps under wraps for two weeks if the changes are that drastic. Were Crestwood or Rose Hill mentioned once in the BRAC priority notes? The edits from BRAC were very specific and mostly tinkering/revert it to the way it was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There’s no way they’re keeping the maps under wraps for two weeks if the changes are that drastic. Were Crestwood or Rose Hill mentioned once in the BRAC priority notes? The edits from BRAC were very specific and mostly tinkering/revert it to the way it was.

That’s where I’m confused too. All the BRAC notes basically came down to, don’t do this. If entire elementary schools are being moved at this point, that’s a huge difference. But I guess when the meetings are closed and we only get some notes after the fact, the rumors really get out of hand. FCPS should be ashamed of themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s no way they’re keeping the maps under wraps for two weeks if the changes are that drastic. Were Crestwood or Rose Hill mentioned once in the BRAC priority notes? The edits from BRAC were very specific and mostly tinkering/revert it to the way it was.

That’s where I’m confused too. All the BRAC notes basically came down to, don’t do this. If entire elementary schools are being moved at this point, that’s a huge difference. But I guess when the meetings are closed and we only get some notes after the fact, the rumors really get out of hand. FCPS should be ashamed of themselves.

They are putting BRAC members in a really awkward position too.