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.

+1

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think they will post the maps - until October and the phase two meetings are done on Tuesday

And next round start October 13 so boundary tool will be updated shortly.

Anonymous wrote:Given the lack of transparency from FCPS I figure someone from the BRAC could just post anonymously on here? Doubt FCPS has the will, tools, etc. to track back the source from BRAC.

I’m sure they are spooked by their new censorship pushed with the NDA reinforcement. Slides should be posted soon.

Given the lack of transparency from FCPS I figure someone from the BRAC could just post anonymously on here? Doubt FCPS has the will, tools, etc. to track back the source from BRAC.

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.

I don’t think they will post the maps - until October and the phase two meetings are done on Tuesday

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.

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.

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

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

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

Any word on how map reveal went yesterday?

They are collecting feedback at community meetings this month and then updating the exploration tool based on these and BRAC responses.

Another set of community meetings will occur after the tool is updated. The first one starts October 13 so tool should be updated before that.

Register for your school at links here:
https://www.fcps.edu/about-fcps/maps/2024-2026-boundary-review/phase-2-part-2-community-boundary-review-meetings

Please write to SB members and ask for public to see maps ASAP, we deserve to know what's happening.

Anonymous wrote:They should release them with transparency on the feedback given so community could rebuild trust in process

They don't care about transparency. They care about the appearance of transparency but when push comes to shove they always come down in favor of hiding the ball.

They won't even share information with the members of the advisory committee on the current "Student Planning Areas" that Thru Consulting uses as the basis to propose boundary adjustments.

It's a sinking school system that is pushing change for the sake of change, but the changes they want to make will accomplish nothing and hurt many.

They should release them with transparency on the feedback given so community could rebuild trust in process