Boundary Review Meetings

[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.

[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.

That’s not really true. Region 5 proposed to move the Westbriar island to Colvin Run rather than Wolftrap, and then to move them out of Kilmer/Marshall to Cooper/Langley. They wanted Thru to run those numbers, which could have ripple effects on other boundaries.

No doubt there were other examples where BRAC was proposing more than “don’t do this.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don’t understand the concern about immersion. What were the concerns? If a student is in an immersion program, then even if the boundaries of the school change, the student can continue attending that school because they are in the immersion program. The biggest issue would be immersion students who would no longer get transportation if it’s no longer their base school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don’t understand the concern about immersion. What were the concerns? If a student is in an immersion program, then even if the boundaries of the school change, the student can continue attending that school because they are in the immersion program. The biggest issue would be immersion students who would no longer get transportation if it’s no longer their base school.

The immersion program is through middle school, but Hayfield already has the Spanish immersion set up, so there isn’t an issue. They’d continue the program there instead of at Twain.

[Anonymous]

Got it. I feel like a larger issue would be the huge question mark of how many immersion students for whom the immersion elementary school is their base would decide to remain in that program/school if a huge chunk of the school boundary were to be re-zoned for a different school.

[Anonymous]

They didn't post the slides from the Sept. 24 BRAC meeting. It's usually posted the next day. Do we think they just won't post anything else on this until Oct 10, when they release the maps?