Anonymous wrote:DH and I both put in comments about moving Crossfield to Western, but they were removed.

Those might have been removed because the KAA business is not included in the overall boundary review.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DH and I both put in comments about moving Crossfield to Western, but they were removed.

There are a few issues at play. Commenting was supposed to close today, yet they reviewed them with BRAC on Wednesday, and who knows when they actually exported the comments. Probably a week ago, so they could filter them by region. Second, their filtering is terrible, so it’s likely your comments ended up in another tab (ie Region 5 rather than Region 1.) Third, an entire region appears to be missing, so I wouldn’t assume your comments were intentionally removed. Large amounts of data is missing.

The format of the PDF is awful too. The same comments are repeated and some are cut off. It took me forever to find my own comment.

And why do they have comments listed as no region identified when they clearly mention school name(s)? I could go online and figure out the region those comments belong to, so why can't they when they need to take said comments into account? It's actually embarrassing.

Thru Consulting is absolute garbage. Mateo Dunne called them out at a work session this week and he was right.

But the responsibility rests with Michelle Reid for hiring an unqualified consultant. She needs to be fired.

It was a no bid contract.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DH and I both put in comments about moving Crossfield to Western, but they were removed.

There are a few issues at play. Commenting was supposed to close today, yet they reviewed them with BRAC on Wednesday, and who knows when they actually exported the comments. Probably a week ago, so they could filter them by region. Second, their filtering is terrible, so it’s likely your comments ended up in another tab (ie Region 5 rather than Region 1.) Third, an entire region appears to be missing, so I wouldn’t assume your comments were intentionally removed. Large amounts of data is missing.

The format of the PDF is awful too. The same comments are repeated and some are cut off. It took me forever to find my own comment.

And why do they have comments listed as no region identified when they clearly mention school name(s)? I could go online and figure out the region those comments belong to, so why can't they when they need to take said comments into account? It's actually embarrassing.

Thru Consulting is absolute garbage. Mateo Dunne called them out at a work session this week and he was right.

But the responsibility rests with Michelle Reid for hiring an unqualified consultant. She needs to be fired.

Anonymous wrote:I can’t believe Thru is dumping this unsorted mess on BRAC and expecting them to come up with recommendations in a week. The timeline has the final scenario due to Reid on November 24. What are we paying Thru for? The fate of the county lies on a couple dozen unpaid volunteers, scrambling to make sense if thousands of comments the week before Thanksgiving.

The BRAC committee was formed to give the school board someone to shift the blame to when people are unhappy with the changes so the school board can avoid accountability to constituents.

Looking at Region 6 and region 4 comments, I noticed 2 things.

The Lewis families are (justifiably) unhappy with Rolling Valley getting rezoned from Lewis to WSHS. But other than asking for status quo at the minimum, keeping all current Lewis neighborhoods at Lewis, they are not being unreasonable or targeting neighborhoods from other pyramids.

The areas getting rezoned from the Keene Mill Island/Irving/WSHS to White Oaks/LB and the neighborhoods getting rezoned ffom White Oaks to Cherry Run are repeatedly mentioning other specific neighborhoods (Hunt Valley, Daventry, Sangster, Cardinal Square and even Orange Hunt) as neighborhoods that should be rezoned instead of them.

But if you look at a map and know the area, that Keene Mill Island is the most obvious rezoning change in the entire area.

I can’t believe Thru is dumping this unsorted mess on BRAC and expecting them to come up with recommendations in a week. The timeline has the final scenario due to Reid on November 24. What are we paying Thru for? The fate of the county lies on a couple dozen unpaid volunteers, scrambling to make sense if thousands of comments the week before Thanksgiving.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok from Reid’s boundary email, BRAC looked at feedback….now what?

All of the comments are up online as well.

Where can we find the comments?

https://www.fcps.edu/november-12-2025-superintendents-boundary-review-advisory-committee-meeting

They didn’t post the region 2 comments correctly.

A lot of the comments are posted incorrectly or in the wrong region. My kids go to Gunston which is heavily impacted by proposed changes and comments are in multiple regions. There are hundreds of comments about this school.

Is Gunston in region 4?

There were pages of Gunston comments in the region 4 notes.

There are pages of Gunston comments in the region 6 notes as well. Gunston is a split feeder to hayfield and south county so comments appeared in both depending on the gps coordinates that the commenter used. Since one of the proposals also involved turning Gunston into a triple split feeders, there are also pages of comments involving Gunston in region 2 as well. I hope that they make sure to take all of the comments into consideration.

That split feeder between regions is likely complicating the maps.

The BRAC committees are seated by region and working on issues that are affecting their own specific region.

It is entirely possible that they are coming up with very different solutions for schools that overlap regions, and that Thru is not reconciling those different plans.

That is terrifying and very likely given the incompetence around the whole process.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DH and I both put in comments about moving Crossfield to Western, but they were removed.

There are a few issues at play. Commenting was supposed to close today, yet they reviewed them with BRAC on Wednesday, and who knows when they actually exported the comments. Probably a week ago, so they could filter them by region. Second, their filtering is terrible, so it’s likely your comments ended up in another tab (ie Region 5 rather than Region 1.) Third, an entire region appears to be missing, so I wouldn’t assume your comments were intentionally removed. Large amounts of data is missing.

The format of the PDF is awful too. The same comments are repeated and some are cut off. It took me forever to find my own comment.

And why do they have comments listed as no region identified when they clearly mention school name(s)? I could go online and figure out the region those comments belong to, so why can't they when they need to take said comments into account? It's actually embarrassing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok from Reid’s boundary email, BRAC looked at feedback….now what?

All of the comments are up online as well.

Where can we find the comments?

https://www.fcps.edu/november-12-2025-superintendents-boundary-review-advisory-committee-meeting

They didn’t post the region 2 comments correctly.

A lot of the comments are posted incorrectly or in the wrong region. My kids go to Gunston which is heavily impacted by proposed changes and comments are in multiple regions. There are hundreds of comments about this school.

Is Gunston in region 4?

There were pages of Gunston comments in the region 4 notes.

There are pages of Gunston comments in the region 6 notes as well. Gunston is a split feeder to hayfield and south county so comments appeared in both depending on the gps coordinates that the commenter used. Since one of the proposals also involved turning Gunston into a triple split feeders, there are also pages of comments involving Gunston in region 2 as well. I hope that they make sure to take all of the comments into consideration.

That split feeder between regions is likely complicating the maps.

The BRAC committees are seated by region and working on issues that are affecting their own specific region.

It is entirely possible that they are coming up with very different solutions for schools that overlap regions, and that Thru is not reconciling those different plans.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok from Reid’s boundary email, BRAC looked at feedback….now what?

All of the comments are up online as well.

Where can we find the comments?

https://www.fcps.edu/november-12-2025-superintendents-boundary-review-advisory-committee-meeting

They didn’t post the region 2 comments correctly.

A lot of the comments are posted incorrectly or in the wrong region. My kids go to Gunston which is heavily impacted by proposed changes and comments are in multiple regions. There are hundreds of comments about this school.

Is Gunston in region 4?

There were pages of Gunston comments in the region 4 notes.

The comments were filtered by wherever you clicked on the map (I think). Gunston boundaries straddle regions 3, 4, and 6 so they appear all over those tabs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DH and I both put in comments about moving Crossfield to Western, but they were removed.

There are a few issues at play. Commenting was supposed to close today, yet they reviewed them with BRAC on Wednesday, and who knows when they actually exported the comments. Probably a week ago, so they could filter them by region. Second, their filtering is terrible, so it’s likely your comments ended up in another tab (ie Region 5 rather than Region 1.) Third, an entire region appears to be missing, so I wouldn’t assume your comments were intentionally removed. Large amounts of data is missing.

So are they just going to ignore any comments that have some in since they downloaded them? Why keep the tool open through today if they aren't going to look at the most recent comments? They mentioned filtering out duplicates, but I don't see that having been done with what was posted online. I saw the same AI-generated talking points from the rooted in Oakton sample letters over and over. If the BRAC was smart they would be looking at categories of comments but disregard total number of each type. There is no way to track whether comments are from different people or just the same few people sitting around posting comments repeatedly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok from Reid’s boundary email, BRAC looked at feedback….now what?

All of the comments are up online as well.

Where can we find the comments?

https://www.fcps.edu/november-12-2025-superintendents-boundary-review-advisory-committee-meeting

They didn’t post the region 2 comments correctly.

A lot of the comments are posted incorrectly or in the wrong region. My kids go to Gunston which is heavily impacted by proposed changes and comments are in multiple regions. There are hundreds of comments about this school.

Is Gunston in region 4?

There were pages of Gunston comments in the region 4 notes.

There are pages of Gunston comments in the region 6 notes as well. Gunston is a split feeder to hayfield and south county so comments appeared in both depending on the gps coordinates that the commenter used. Since one of the proposals also involved turning Gunston into a triple split feeders, there are also pages of comments involving Gunston in region 2 as well. I hope that they make sure to take all of the comments into consideration.

Anonymous wrote:DH and I both put in comments about moving Crossfield to Western, but they were removed.

They could be posted in a different region.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok from Reid’s boundary email, BRAC looked at feedback….now what?

All of the comments are up online as well.

Where can we find the comments?

https://www.fcps.edu/november-12-2025-superintendents-boundary-review-advisory-committee-meeting

They didn’t post the region 2 comments correctly.

A lot of the comments are posted incorrectly or in the wrong region. My kids go to Gunston which is heavily impacted by proposed changes and comments are in multiple regions. There are hundreds of comments about this school.

Is Gunston in region 4?

There were pages of Gunston comments in the region 4 notes.

Anonymous wrote:DH and I both put in comments about moving Crossfield to Western, but they were removed.

There are a few issues at play. Commenting was supposed to close today, yet they reviewed them with BRAC on Wednesday, and who knows when they actually exported the comments. Probably a week ago, so they could filter them by region. Second, their filtering is terrible, so it’s likely your comments ended up in another tab (ie Region 5 rather than Region 1.) Third, an entire region appears to be missing, so I wouldn’t assume your comments were intentionally removed. Large amounts of data is missing.