Anne Arundel community presses school district to avoid "ping-pong" moves during Phase 2 redistricting

An Anne Arundel County Public Schools (AACPS) community meeting on Phase 2 redistricting drew dozens of speakers who urged the district to avoid repeated reassignments that they say would disrupt student social ties, increase travel times and shift children between feeder patterns.

Dr. Heiser, a district staff member who led the meeting in Superintendent Dr. Bedell’s absence, told the audience that the superintendent "has made no recommendations to the board yet. None at all," and that all public comments and survey responses will be read and considered as the district develops options.

The meeting focused on preliminary scenarios developed by the consultant WXY Studio. District presenters reiterated the timetable released with Phase 2: staff will work through summer toward superintendent recommendations expected in July, the board will brief the public in September and hold a public hearing in October, with a goal of board adoption in November and implementation in August 2026. The online web tool for community feedback remains open through May.

Why it matters: school boundaries determine where students attend school, affect bus routes and travel time, and are tied to state funding and long‑range facility planning. The district told attendees it is balancing long‑range enrollment trends, state‑rated capacity (SRC) at each building and feeder patterns when drawing scenarios.

Public commenters repeatedly raised three central concerns: student stability and social-emotional impact, safety and transportation, and the accuracy of capacity calculations.

Parents and community members described specific local impacts in multiple neighborhoods. "Please stop the ping pong. Keep Edgewater kids in Edgewater schools," said Susanna Fox, an Edgewater parent and PTO volunteer, summarizing a frequent plea from the Route 2 Corridor. Neighbors presented a community report they said will show small, targeted changes that would avoid repeated reassignment while meeting utilization goals.

Several speakers from the Crofton cluster argued that Crofton High School is not overcrowded in practice and that SRC formulas understate usable capacity at the newer Crofton building. "I love seeing my friends. I love going to my school. I ask you to please fix the math before removing students from their communities," said Levi Weaver, a freshman at Crofton High School. Crofton supporters urged the board to consider a district submission to the Interagency Commission on School Construction (IAC) to revise room‑use calculations where spaces are currently excluded.

Students also spoke. Sixth‑grader Zach Caminiti described how community events and shared extracurricular activities create a sense of belonging that would be harmed if neighborhoods were split. "Please let me continue to feel that I belong in Crofton," he said.

Several families raised transportation and safety worries tied to Route 3 and other major roads. Ryan Caminiti, a Crofton High School freshman who participates in late‑night rehearsals and activities, said proposed moves would force some students to travel on Route 3 far more often and increase exposure to higher‑accident roads.

Other speakers highlighted school‑level conditions and equity concerns. A parent from Odenton noted that Odenton Elementary faces attendance and behavior challenges and cautioned against adding students to a school that is working to improve. Brian Ulrich, a REBA resident, urged the district to prioritize milestone stability for students entering grades 5, 8 and 12 and to avoid repeatedly burdening the same neighborhoods.

Several commenters proposed alternatives to simple boundary shifts: merging co‑located middle schools to strengthen programming and achieve budgetary savings, rethinking how underutilized buildings are used (community programs, preschool, enrichment), or convening an advisory panel of local parents and community leaders to work with the district rather than relying solely on consultant scenarios.

District staff reiterated some of the data driving the process: AACPS reported roughly 14,581 available seats now, projected to fall to about 9,000 as enrollment grows; the county district population has increased from about 79,000 students in 2014 to just above 85,000 now and is projected near 91,000 by 2033. Districtwide utilization averages were presented as roughly 84% now, rising to the high 80s in projections; specific schools were shown as above 100% in certain scenarios. Staff emphasized that SRC numbers are overseen by the IAC and that the district has submitted updates to the IAC for some schools.

What the district will and will not do at this stage: staff said the consultant scenarios are a starting point, not final options, and that the superintendent may present recommendations to the board that differ from the draft scenarios. The district encouraged written reports and detailed community proposals to be submitted via the web tool and extended the comment period by two weeks to collect additional input.

Next steps: the district will compile comments, refine options and expects superintendent recommendations to the board in July, followed by public briefings and a hearing before a possible November adoption for August 2026 implementation. No formal boundary decisions or board votes were taken at the meeting.

Several attendees asked for more interaction with the process: speakers asked the district to convene a parent advisory committee, provide clearer Q&A formats rather than one‑way comment nights, and publish the consultant's data assumptions and SRC worksheets used for site capacity calculations.

As one long‑time parent put it, "This is about relationships — our children deserve schools where they belong, where they can grow without disruption," reflecting the meeting’s overall tenor of caution about disrupting established school communities while the district balances capacity and future growth.