Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP who posted to see more information.

I am not V and am very interested in finding out more --but I still want to know what the other recommendations were and who sat in the Region 5 group. And, I would also like to see what the Region 1 recommendations were. Why? I find it very odd that Region 1 rep came back to FairFacts Matter and only reported on 1 priority from 1 group.

Fairfacts matters has representatives on BRAC. So there was no game of telephone, FFM heard it directly.

That's not PP's point. She is curious why, of all the priorities that the BRAC members from the different regions shared in the last meeting, the FairFACTS Matters representative on BRAC only flagged the Forestville recommendation from Region 5 that could impact the Langley boundary.

I was pointing out that PP’s central premise was wrong.

I fully support thru releasing all the priorities for all the regions. While I don’t know specifically what region 1’s priorities were, I know for a fact that they didn’t involve moving schools that are not in their region.

I understand what you're saying, but the thrust of PP's comment wasn't about how the Region 5 priority was communicated to/by FairFACTS Matters, but instead why that was the only priority from any region that FairFACTS Matters highlighted.

Oh, that’s easy. They highlighted it because it was so ridiculous and out of line.

Trust me, plenty of others feel that way about other recommendations so far.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP who posted to see more information.

I am not V and am very interested in finding out more --but I still want to know what the other recommendations were and who sat in the Region 5 group. And, I would also like to see what the Region 1 recommendations were. Why? I find it very odd that Region 1 rep came back to FairFacts Matter and only reported on 1 priority from 1 group.

Fairfacts matters has representatives on BRAC. So there was no game of telephone, FFM heard it directly.

That's not PP's point. She is curious why, of all the priorities that the BRAC members from the different regions shared in the last meeting, the FairFACTS Matters representative on BRAC only flagged the Forestville recommendation from Region 5 that could impact the Langley boundary.

I was pointing out that PP’s central premise was wrong.

I fully support thru releasing all the priorities for all the regions. While I don’t know specifically what region 1’s priorities were, I know for a fact that they didn’t involve moving schools that are not in their region.

I understand what you're saying, but the thrust of PP's comment wasn't about how the Region 5 priority was communicated to/by FairFACTS Matters, but instead why that was the only priority from any region that FairFACTS Matters highlighted.

Oh, that’s easy. They highlighted it because it was so ridiculous and out of line.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FCPS claimed they're doing a District-wide rezoning, so why shouldn't "Region 5" be able to suggest changes anywhere in the County?
But, as they've always done, they wire the results based on SB/staff-defined criteria and processes - Langley can't be considered in the South Lakes redistricting because it's not on the list. Emerald Chase has to move from Floris because Lees Corner's not on the list. Per the process, you're only allowed to answer our questions. Per the process, we get to mess around with the maps between every session and no maps are final until the SB approves them...

the exercise given to the brac was priorities for their region. not the entire process. they didn’t follow instructions. if everyone could make county wide priorities everyone’s may have looked different. the brac were supposed to review the comments from their region and create priorities from that. in region 5 not one single comment mentioned forestville so how could it be a priority. like someone else said if westbriar island wants moved that should have been their priority. not to move an entire school out of the pyramid for 40ish students in an island to join

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP who posted to see more information.

I am not V and am very interested in finding out more --but I still want to know what the other recommendations were and who sat in the Region 5 group. And, I would also like to see what the Region 1 recommendations were. Why? I find it very odd that Region 1 rep came back to FairFacts Matter and only reported on 1 priority from 1 group.

Fairfacts matters has representatives on BRAC. So there was no game of telephone, FFM heard it directly.

That's not PP's point. She is curious why, of all the priorities that the BRAC members from the different regions shared in the last meeting, the FairFACTS Matters representative on BRAC only flagged the Forestville recommendation from Region 5 that could impact the Langley boundary.

I was pointing out that PP’s central premise was wrong.

I fully support thru releasing all the priorities for all the regions. While I don’t know specifically what region 1’s priorities were, I know for a fact that they didn’t involve moving schools that are not in their region.

I understand what you're saying, but the thrust of PP's comment wasn't about how the Region 5 priority was communicated to/by FairFACTS Matters, but instead why that was the only priority from any region that FairFACTS Matters highlighted.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP who posted to see more information.

I am not V and am very interested in finding out more --but I still want to know what the other recommendations were and who sat in the Region 5 group. And, I would also like to see what the Region 1 recommendations were. Why? I find it very odd that Region 1 rep came back to FairFacts Matter and only reported on 1 priority from 1 group.

Fairfacts matters has representatives on BRAC. So there was no game of telephone, FFM heard it directly.

That's not PP's point. She is curious why, of all the priorities that the BRAC members from the different regions shared in the last meeting, the FairFACTS Matters representative on BRAC only flagged the Forestville recommendation from Region 5 that could impact the Langley boundary.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP who posted to see more information.

I am not V and am very interested in finding out more --but I still want to know what the other recommendations were and who sat in the Region 5 group. And, I would also like to see what the Region 1 recommendations were. Why? I find it very odd that Region 1 rep came back to FairFacts Matter and only reported on 1 priority from 1 group.

Fairfacts matters has representatives on BRAC. So there was no game of telephone, FFM heard it directly.

That's not PP's point. She is curious why, of all the priorities that the BRAC members from the different regions shared in the last meeting, the FairFACTS Matters representative on BRAC only flagged the Forestville recommendation from Region 5 that could impact the Langley boundary.

I was pointing out that PP’s central premise was wrong.

I fully support thru releasing all the priorities for all the regions. While I don’t know specifically what region 1’s priorities were, I know for a fact that they didn’t involve moving schools that are not in their region.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP who posted to see more information.

I am not V and am very interested in finding out more --but I still want to know what the other recommendations were and who sat in the Region 5 group. And, I would also like to see what the Region 1 recommendations were. Why? I find it very odd that Region 1 rep came back to FairFacts Matter and only reported on 1 priority from 1 group.

Fairfacts matters has representatives on BRAC. So there was no game of telephone, FFM heard it directly.

That's not PP's point. She is curious why, of all the priorities that the BRAC members from the different regions shared in the last meeting, the FairFACTS Matters representative on BRAC only flagged the Forestville recommendation from Region 5 that could impact the Langley boundary.

Anonymous wrote:FCPS claimed they're doing a District-wide rezoning, so why shouldn't "Region 5" be able to suggest changes anywhere in the County?
But, as they've always done, they wire the results based on SB/staff-defined criteria and processes - Langley can't be considered in the South Lakes redistricting because it's not on the list. Emerald Chase has to move from Floris because Lees Corner's not on the list. Per the process, you're only allowed to answer our questions. Per the process, we get to mess around with the maps between every session and no maps are final until the SB approves them...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP who posted to see more information.

I am not V and am very interested in finding out more --but I still want to know what the other recommendations were and who sat in the Region 5 group. And, I would also like to see what the Region 1 recommendations were. Why? I find it very odd that Region 1 rep came back to FairFacts Matter and only reported on 1 priority from 1 group.

Fairfacts matters has representatives on BRAC. So there was no game of telephone, FFM heard it directly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP who posted to see more information.

I am not V and am very interested in finding out more --but I still want to know what the other recommendations were and who sat in the Region 5 group. And, I would also like to see what the Region 1 recommendations were. Why? I find it very odd that Region 1 rep came back to FairFacts Matter and only reported on 1 priority from 1 group.

Fairfacts matters has representatives on BRAC. So there was no game of telephone, FFM heard it directly.

Anonymous wrote:DP who posted to see more information.

I am not V and am very interested in finding out more --but I still want to know what the other recommendations were and who sat in the Region 5 group. And, I would also like to see what the Region 1 recommendations were. Why? I find it very odd that Region 1 rep came back to FairFacts Matter and only reported on 1 priority from 1 group.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FCPS claimed they're doing a District-wide rezoning, so why shouldn't "Region 5" be able to suggest changes anywhere in the County?
But, as they've always done, they wire the results based on SB/staff-defined criteria and processes - Langley can't be considered in the South Lakes redistricting because it's not on the list. Emerald Chase has to move from Floris because Lees Corner's not on the list. Per the process, you're only allowed to answer our questions. Per the process, we get to mess around with the maps between every session and no maps are final until the SB approves them...

Because the pyramid reps were explicitly told to advocate for and give a voice to their own pyramids.

But Fairfacts Matters just publicized the one recommendation, not all of the Region 5 recommendations.

If one recommendation was to move Forestville to Herndon and a second was to move the Westbriar island to Colvin Run and then Cooper-Langley, they could be related proposals advocating for Region 5 families now at Westbriar-Kilmer-Marshall.

They really ought to publish all 10 of the recommendations that the BRAC reps from each region submitted.

lol it was such a stupid recommendation that the school board rep had to send an email out to her whole district.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FCPS claimed they're doing a District-wide rezoning, so why shouldn't "Region 5" be able to suggest changes anywhere in the County?
But, as they've always done, they wire the results based on SB/staff-defined criteria and processes - Langley can't be considered in the South Lakes redistricting because it's not on the list. Emerald Chase has to move from Floris because Lees Corner's not on the list. Per the process, you're only allowed to answer our questions. Per the process, we get to mess around with the maps between every session and no maps are final until the SB approves them...

Because the pyramid reps were explicitly told to advocate for and give a voice to their own pyramids.

But Fairfacts Matters just publicized the one recommendation, not all of the Region 5 recommendations.

If one recommendation was to move Forestville to Herndon and a second was to move the Westbriar island to Colvin Run and then Cooper-Langley, they could be related proposals advocating for Region 5 families now at Westbriar-Kilmer-Marshall.

They really ought to publish all 10 of the recommendations that the BRAC reps from each region submitted.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FCPS claimed they're doing a District-wide rezoning, so why shouldn't "Region 5" be able to suggest changes anywhere in the County?
But, as they've always done, they wire the results based on SB/staff-defined criteria and processes - Langley can't be considered in the South Lakes redistricting because it's not on the list. Emerald Chase has to move from Floris because Lees Corner's not on the list. Per the process, you're only allowed to answer our questions. Per the process, we get to mess around with the maps between every session and no maps are final until the SB approves them...

Because the pyramid reps were explicitly told to advocate for and give a voice to their own pyramids.

But Fairfacts Matters just publicized the one recommendation, not all of the Region 5 recommendations.

If one recommendation was to move Forestville to Herndon and a second was to move the Westbriar island to Colvin Run and then Cooper-Langley, they could be related proposals advocating for Region 5 families now at Westbriar-Kilmer-Marshall.

They really ought to publish all 10 of the recommendations that the BRAC reps from each region submitted.

Really reaching to justify a trash priority here. Just give it up, it was a dumb, indefensible priority.

Nope, won't give it up. They should publish all 10 of the priorities that the BRAC representatives from each region provided. Then we could see whether it was a stand-alone, gratuitious "trash" priority or one of several related proposals intended to advance the interests of someone in Region 5.

There should be more transparency into the BRAC recommendations, just as there should have been more transparency into the earlier Thru Consulting proposals (some of which changed a lot in May and June with no clear explanation).

It was presented as one of the regions top 3 priorities. They were allowed to list up to 10 priorities/requests and asked to present their top 3. For the five pyramids being represented, moving a school from a pyramid they didn’t represent to another pyramid they didn’t represent was one of their communities top 3 priorities? Really?