FCPS HS Boundary

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People keep asserting FCPS already has prepared new boundary maps that they'll unveil at some point, but that would be easy enough to FOIA if it were true. Seems like a conspiracy theory.

Oh yeah, they always produce documents under FOIA. They never ever try to bury the requester with costs.

Absurd post.

It would be a specific request so any claims by FCPS of exorbitant production costs could be readily challenged. But thanks for confirming you prefer to wallow in conspiracy theories.

I can’t tell if you are joking.

No. I just find it weird when people claim they’ve already decided what they are going to do and have already drawn up the new maps. If that were the case we’d have seen them already.

To your FOIA point claiming that is a simple low cost request, the county lawyers who will bill you several hundreds of dollars an hour to review any responsive documents would like a word. The staff time spent searching how many custodians’ in boxes would like a word too. These things are expensive by design.

To your broader point, you may want to participate in some conversations with the school board members and FPAC members.

In both instances you are just absolutely wrong, and just trying to carry the water for the school board. You call us conspiracy theorists as we fight against the school boards plans, but I’m guessing you are well aware of their plans too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People keep asserting FCPS already has prepared new boundary maps that they'll unveil at some point, but that would be easy enough to FOIA if it were true. Seems like a conspiracy theory.

Oh yeah, they always produce documents under FOIA. They never ever try to bury the requester with costs.

Absurd post.

It would be a specific request so any claims by FCPS of exorbitant production costs could be readily challenged. But thanks for confirming you prefer to wallow in conspiracy theories.

I can’t tell if you are joking.

No. I just find it weird when people claim they’ve already decided what they are going to do and have already drawn up the new maps. If that were the case we’d have seen them already.

To your FOIA point claiming that is a simple low cost request, the county lawyers who will bill you several hundreds of dollars an hour to review any responsive documents would like a word. The staff time spent searching how many custodians’ in boxes would like a word too. These things are expensive by design.

To your broader point, you may want to participate in some conversations with the school board members and FPAC members.

In both instances you are just absolutely wrong, and just trying to carry the water for the school board. You call us conspiracy theorists as we fight against the school boards plans, but I’m guessing you are well aware of their plans too.

If these maps already exist, and you haven’t found a way to obtain and publicize and them yet, these advocacy groups like FairFACTS Matters must be all bluster and far less competent than they’d like people to believe.

But I don’t think they exist yet. Some School Board members may already have specific changes in mind, but I really doubt anything has been memorialized or agreed upon yet.

Prove me wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People keep asserting FCPS already has prepared new boundary maps that they'll unveil at some point, but that would be easy enough to FOIA if it were true. Seems like a conspiracy theory.

Oh yeah, they always produce documents under FOIA. They never ever try to bury the requester with costs.

Absurd post.

It would be a specific request so any claims by FCPS of exorbitant production costs could be readily challenged. But thanks for confirming you prefer to wallow in conspiracy theories.

I can’t tell if you are joking.

No. I just find it weird when people claim they’ve already decided what they are going to do and have already drawn up the new maps. If that were the case we’d have seen them already.

I don’t think they’ve drawn up maps yet, weren’t they going to have a consultant do that? That’s how they’re going to pass the buck to someone else to avoid accountability. Right now they’re just making the policy that will allow them to redraw the boundaries from scratch.

What will be interesting is that (I think?) 20% of a school can be moved without public input. Some of the moves people are discussing are more than 20%. According to their school profiles, HV has 759 students, WSHS has 2731, Lewis has 1670. 20% of 2731 is 546, 20% of 1670 is 334. Hunt Valley’s population is larger than either of those two numbers. To move the entire school a public hearing would be required and that could have some really bad optics for FCPS. I think they’ll try to stay under the 20% as much as humanly possible to avoid attention, accountability, and for the greatest amount of buck passing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People keep asserting FCPS already has prepared new boundary maps that they'll unveil at some point, but that would be easy enough to FOIA if it were true. Seems like a conspiracy theory.

Oh yeah, they always produce documents under FOIA. They never ever try to bury the requester with costs.

Absurd post.

It would be a specific request so any claims by FCPS of exorbitant production costs could be readily challenged. But thanks for confirming you prefer to wallow in conspiracy theories.

I can’t tell if you are joking.

No. I just find it weird when people claim they’ve already decided what they are going to do and have already drawn up the new maps. If that were the case we’d have seen them already.

I don’t think they’ve drawn up maps yet, weren’t they going to have a consultant do that? That’s how they’re going to pass the buck to someone else to avoid accountability. Right now they’re just making the policy that will allow them to redraw the boundaries from scratch.

What will be interesting is that (I think?) 20% of a school can be moved without public input. Some of the moves people are discussing are more than 20%. According to their school profiles, HV has 759 students, WSHS has 2731, Lewis has 1670. 20% of 2731 is 546, 20% of 1670 is 334. Hunt Valley’s population is larger than either of those two numbers. To move the entire school a public hearing would be required and that could have some really bad optics for FCPS. I think they’ll try to stay under the 20% as much as humanly possible to avoid attention, accountability, and for the greatest amount of buck passing.

I think the SB is really misjudging the views of its constituents and the Dems will pay a large political price, but I don’t think you are focused on the right provision. They are changing the policy to require a holistic review of boundaries now and at least every five years and changing the criteria to focus on factors other than the well being of kids. The 15% or 20% thresholds are a bit of a red herring in my mind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RVES and WSES switcheroo isn't going to happen. They need to move a HUGE school to Lewis....like Hunt Valley.

They will then move that small section of townhomes going to Lewis at RVES to WSHS, removing the split feeder.

HVES: 733, WSES: 568

HV could make sense in a scenario where all ES boundaries are overhauled and HVES located at the northern end of its boundary. In the absence of a complete overhaul the WSES/RVES shuffle makes far more sense and solves the RVES split feeder. And as many others have pointed out WSES is already the only WSHS feeder that is zoned for the Franconia district. I wouldn't be surprised if the SB already has this in mind.

You can see how they carved up WSES in the magistrate map. All of the walkers to Irving stayed in the Springfield district. The rest of WSES and the split feed for RVES are now in the Franconia district. It’s politically the safest path for the SB. And it’s the closest nieghborhood to Lewis. But we’re all guessing I suppose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RVES and WSES switcheroo isn't going to happen. They need to move a HUGE school to Lewis....like Hunt Valley.

They will then move that small section of townhomes going to Lewis at RVES to WSHS, removing the split feeder.

HVES: 733, WSES: 568

HV could make sense in a scenario where all ES boundaries are overhauled and HVES located at the northern end of its boundary. In the absence of a complete overhaul the WSES/RVES shuffle makes far more sense and solves the RVES split feeder. And as many others have pointed out WSES is already the only WSHS feeder that is zoned for the Franconia district. I wouldn't be surprised if the SB already has this in mind.

And Hunt Valley is the farthest elementary to Lewis, which makes her repeated insistence that HV will be rezoned to Lewis completely and insanely absurd.

[Anonymous]

One other item re why WSES is most likely …

WSES has in-school AAP4, which most of the pyramid does not (AAP4 kids magnet to KM or Sangster). I’m pretty sure the Lewis pyramid does not have an AAP4 magnet and all has in-school AAP4, just like WSES. If you moved one of the schools without in-school AAP4, I’m not sure where they’d go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People keep asserting FCPS already has prepared new boundary maps that they'll unveil at some point, but that would be easy enough to FOIA if it were true. Seems like a conspiracy theory.

Oh yeah, they always produce documents under FOIA. They never ever try to bury the requester with costs.

Absurd post.

It would be a specific request so any claims by FCPS of exorbitant production costs could be readily challenged. But thanks for confirming you prefer to wallow in conspiracy theories.

I can’t tell if you are joking.

No. I just find it weird when people claim they’ve already decided what they are going to do and have already drawn up the new maps. If that were the case we’d have seen them already.

I don’t think they’ve drawn up maps yet, weren’t they going to have a consultant do that? That’s how they’re going to pass the buck to someone else to avoid accountability. Right now they’re just making the policy that will allow them to redraw the boundaries from scratch.

What will be interesting is that (I think?) 20% of a school can be moved without public input. Some of the moves people are discussing are more than 20%. According to their school profiles, HV has 759 students, WSHS has 2731, Lewis has 1670. 20% of 2731 is 546, 20% of 1670 is 334. Hunt Valley’s population is larger than either of those two numbers. To move the entire school a public hearing would be required and that could have some really bad optics for FCPS. I think they’ll try to stay under the 20% as much as humanly possible to avoid attention, accountability, and for the greatest amount of buck passing.

15% - and that is not a change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One other item re why WSES is most likely …

WSES has in-school AAP4, which most of the pyramid does not (AAP4 kids magnet to KM or Sangster). I’m pretty sure the Lewis pyramid does not have an AAP4 magnet and all has in-school AAP4, just like WSES. If you moved one of the schools without in-school AAP4, I’m not sure where they’d go.

Lewis does. It’s Springhill Estates, although Saratoga goes to Lorton Station.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People keep asserting FCPS already has prepared new boundary maps that they'll unveil at some point, but that would be easy enough to FOIA if it were true. Seems like a conspiracy theory.

Oh yeah, they always produce documents under FOIA. They never ever try to bury the requester with costs.

Absurd post.

It would be a specific request so any claims by FCPS of exorbitant production costs could be readily challenged. But thanks for confirming you prefer to wallow in conspiracy theories.

I can’t tell if you are joking.

No. I just find it weird when people claim they’ve already decided what they are going to do and have already drawn up the new maps. If that were the case we’d have seen them already.

To your FOIA point claiming that is a simple low cost request, the county lawyers who will bill you several hundreds of dollars an hour to review any responsive documents would like a word. The staff time spent searching how many custodians’ in boxes would like a word too. These things are expensive by design.

To your broader point, you may want to participate in some conversations with the school board members and FPAC members.

In both instances you are just absolutely wrong, and just trying to carry the water for the school board. You call us conspiracy theorists as we fight against the school boards plans, but I’m guessing you are well aware of their plans too.

If these maps already exist, and you haven’t found a way to obtain and publicize and them yet, these advocacy groups like FairFACTS Matters must be all bluster and far less competent than they’d like people to believe.

But I don’t think they exist yet. Some School Board members may already have specific changes in mind, but I really doubt anything has been memorialized or agreed upon yet.

Prove me wrong.

I would hope that they are working on the maps now and not waiting until the board passes the policy. The board has indicated that they want to move forward quickly once the policy is passed. It would be prudent to have worked through various scenarios already. (dp)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People keep asserting FCPS already has prepared new boundary maps that they'll unveil at some point, but that would be easy enough to FOIA if it were true. Seems like a conspiracy theory.

Oh yeah, they always produce documents under FOIA. They never ever try to bury the requester with costs.

Absurd post.

It would be a specific request so any claims by FCPS of exorbitant production costs could be readily challenged. But thanks for confirming you prefer to wallow in conspiracy theories.

I can’t tell if you are joking.

No. I just find it weird when people claim they’ve already decided what they are going to do and have already drawn up the new maps. If that were the case we’d have seen them already.

To your FOIA point claiming that is a simple low cost request, the county lawyers who will bill you several hundreds of dollars an hour to review any responsive documents would like a word. The staff time spent searching how many custodians’ in boxes would like a word too. These things are expensive by design.

To your broader point, you may want to participate in some conversations with the school board members and FPAC members.

In both instances you are just absolutely wrong, and just trying to carry the water for the school board. You call us conspiracy theorists as we fight against the school boards plans, but I’m guessing you are well aware of their plans too.

If these maps already exist, and you haven’t found a way to obtain and publicize and them yet, these advocacy groups like FairFACTS Matters must be all bluster and far less competent than they’d like people to believe.

But I don’t think they exist yet. Some School Board members may already have specific changes in mind, but I really doubt anything has been memorialized or agreed upon yet.

Prove me wrong.

I’m pretty sure in the governance meeting dr Reid said she had models already that included middle schools going 6-8.
Yiu can rewatch is you are so inclined and let us know if I’m right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People keep asserting FCPS already has prepared new boundary maps that they'll unveil at some point, but that would be easy enough to FOIA if it were true. Seems like a conspiracy theory.

Oh yeah, they always produce documents under FOIA. They never ever try to bury the requester with costs.

Absurd post.

It would be a specific request so any claims by FCPS of exorbitant production costs could be readily challenged. But thanks for confirming you prefer to wallow in conspiracy theories.

I can’t tell if you are joking.

No. I just find it weird when people claim they’ve already decided what they are going to do and have already drawn up the new maps. If that were the case we’d have seen them already.

To your FOIA point claiming that is a simple low cost request, the county lawyers who will bill you several hundreds of dollars an hour to review any responsive documents would like a word. The staff time spent searching how many custodians’ in boxes would like a word too. These things are expensive by design.

To your broader point, you may want to participate in some conversations with the school board members and FPAC members.

In both instances you are just absolutely wrong, and just trying to carry the water for the school board. You call us conspiracy theorists as we fight against the school boards plans, but I’m guessing you are well aware of their plans too.

If these maps already exist, and you haven’t found a way to obtain and publicize and them yet, these advocacy groups like FairFACTS Matters must be all bluster and far less competent than they’d like people to believe.

But I don’t think they exist yet. Some School Board members may already have specific changes in mind, but I really doubt anything has been memorialized or agreed upon yet.

Prove me wrong.

I’m pretty sure in the governance meeting dr Reid said she had models already that included middle schools going 6-8.
Yiu can rewatch is you are so inclined and let us know if I’m right.

She indicated that she had a few schools in mind for 6-8 middle schools. It didn’t seem related to a holistic boundary adjustment. Even without an update to 8130, it’s Dr Reid’s job to look into these things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One other item re why WSES is most likely …

WSES has in-school AAP4, which most of the pyramid does not (AAP4 kids magnet to KM or Sangster). I’m pretty sure the Lewis pyramid does not have an AAP4 magnet and all has in-school AAP4, just like WSES. If you moved one of the schools without in-school AAP4, I’m not sure where they’d go.

Lewis does. It’s Springhill Estates, although Saratoga goes to Lorton Station.

That’s useful info. Makes WSES even more likely. I don’t think the SB would support busing 3rd graders 6-7 miles away from their homes everyday for AAP when you could simply move a school with AAP4 in-school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People keep asserting FCPS already has prepared new boundary maps that they'll unveil at some point, but that would be easy enough to FOIA if it were true. Seems like a conspiracy theory.

Oh yeah, they always produce documents under FOIA. They never ever try to bury the requester with costs.

Absurd post.

It would be a specific request so any claims by FCPS of exorbitant production costs could be readily challenged. But thanks for confirming you prefer to wallow in conspiracy theories.

I can’t tell if you are joking.

No. I just find it weird when people claim they’ve already decided what they are going to do and have already drawn up the new maps. If that were the case we’d have seen them already.

I don’t think they’ve drawn up maps yet, weren’t they going to have a consultant do that? That’s how they’re going to pass the buck to someone else to avoid accountability. Right now they’re just making the policy that will allow them to redraw the boundaries from scratch.

What will be interesting is that (I think?) 20% of a school can be moved without public input. Some of the moves people are discussing are more than 20%. According to their school profiles, HV has 759 students, WSHS has 2731, Lewis has 1670. 20% of 2731 is 546, 20% of 1670 is 334. Hunt Valley’s population is larger than either of those two numbers. To move the entire school a public hearing would be required and that could have some really bad optics for FCPS. I think they’ll try to stay under the 20% as much as humanly possible to avoid attention, accountability, and for the greatest amount of buck passing.

15% - and that is not a change.

Even lower then. So they’ll probably redraw the ES boundaries such that they pick up a few neighborhoods here and there to send to a Lewis feeder elementary, to stay under the 15% margin and avoid public scrutiny. Then comes the circular firing squad of “the consultants did it” “No the school board did it” “no the BoS did it when they carved up the magisterial districts” “no it was the superintendent” so no one takes any accountability and so the public won’t be able to come to a consensus on who to blame.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People keep asserting FCPS already has prepared new boundary maps that they'll unveil at some point, but that would be easy enough to FOIA if it were true. Seems like a conspiracy theory.

Oh yeah, they always produce documents under FOIA. They never ever try to bury the requester with costs.

Absurd post.

It would be a specific request so any claims by FCPS of exorbitant production costs could be readily challenged. But thanks for confirming you prefer to wallow in conspiracy theories.

I can’t tell if you are joking.

No. I just find it weird when people claim they’ve already decided what they are going to do and have already drawn up the new maps. If that were the case we’d have seen them already.

I don’t think they’ve drawn up maps yet, weren’t they going to have a consultant do that? That’s how they’re going to pass the buck to someone else to avoid accountability. Right now they’re just making the policy that will allow them to redraw the boundaries from scratch.

What will be interesting is that (I think?) 20% of a school can be moved without public input. Some of the moves people are discussing are more than 20%. According to their school profiles, HV has 759 students, WSHS has 2731, Lewis has 1670. 20% of 2731 is 546, 20% of 1670 is 334. Hunt Valley’s population is larger than either of those two numbers. To move the entire school a public hearing would be required and that could have some really bad optics for FCPS. I think they’ll try to stay under the 20% as much as humanly possible to avoid attention, accountability, and for the greatest amount of buck passing.

15% - and that is not a change.

Even lower then. So they’ll probably redraw the ES boundaries such that they pick up a few neighborhoods here and there to send to a Lewis feeder elementary, to stay under the 15% margin and avoid public scrutiny. Then comes the circular firing squad of “the consultants did it” “No the school board did it” “no the BoS did it when they carved up the magisterial districts” “no it was the superintendent” so no one takes any accountability and so the public won’t be able to come to a consensus on who to blame.

At the end of the day the School
Board votes on and is accountable for any boundary changes. They can say the recommendations came from staff, but everyone knows staff tries to please the SB members and works with them behind the scenes.