Seneca Valley Boundary Study

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So there are a few conclusions:
* new construction gets screwed (remember 2 years ago some new townhouses by Shady Grove Metro that were expected to feed to Magruder, but instead went to GHS). Buy new at your own risk.
* superintendant did not pick any new schools that were not on the BOE list in options 1-12.
* If your school appears in several BOE reassignment maps, your assignment will change.
* Options that do not balance FARMS are for entertainment purposes only. They are not under serious consideration

Anything I am missing?

That's it. Bottom line, around here, DEMOGRAPHICS is the most important. He practically stated that in his report.

I'm not sure what you think the word "practically" means, but this is what he stated in his report:

My goals in developing my recommendation were to minimize the FARMS disparities at both the
high school and middle school levels, while at the same time maximize walkers at their current
schools and reduce the utilization rates at schools to the maximum extent possible. After review
of all the information and updated student enrollment projections, I recommend a variation of
Option 11a, as I believe it does the best job to advance the three policy factors for most of the
schools involved in the boundary study by meeting these goals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So there are a few conclusions:
* new construction gets screwed (remember 2 years ago some new townhouses by Shady Grove Metro that were expected to feed to Magruder, but instead went to GHS). Buy new at your own risk.
* superintendant did not pick any new schools that were not on the BOE list in options 1-12.
* If your school appears in several BOE reassignment maps, your assignment will change.
* Options that do not balance FARMS are for entertainment purposes only. They are not under serious consideration

Anything I am missing?

That's it. Bottom line, around here, DEMOGRAPHICS is the most important. He practically stated that in his report.

I'm not sure what you think the word "practically" means, but this is what he stated in his report:

My goals in developing my recommendation were to minimize the FARMS disparities at both the
high school and middle school levels, while at the same time maximize walkers at their current
schools and reduce the utilization rates at schools to the maximum extent possible. After review
of all the information and updated student enrollment projections, I recommend a variation of
Option 11a, as I believe it does the best job to advance the three policy factors for most of the
schools involved in the boundary study by meeting these goals.

And here is the paragraph about demographics. Note how it clearly demonstrates how demographics is not the most important factor:

With regard to the demographic profiles of the schools, my goal was to reduce the disparity of the
FARMS percentage at the high schools, as the three high schools are racially and ethnically
diverse. The disparity in the FARMS population range among the three schools is 16.5 percent. It
is important to note that although Option 4 brought the disparity among the three schools closest
together (5.9 percent), however, this option is not effective at advancing the geography factor.
Option 4 would require busing walkers from Little Bennett Elementary School and busing the
Northwest High School students who live furthest away in the Darnestown Elementary School
service area to Seneca Valley High School. Both of these points contradict my goal to maximize
walkers and would have a negative impact on students and families, as well as requiring additional
transportation resources and negatively impacting the environment. Therefore, I examined options
that could reduce the impact on the FARMS disparity while also advancing the geography factor.

[Anonymous]

He has no idea what he's talking about. He wants to maximize walkers, but wants to reduce FARMS, but it's actually all about demographics. Basically, he's incompetent, and has no idea what is actually best for any of the students in this county. Geography was never a real option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So there are a few conclusions:
* new construction gets screwed (remember 2 years ago some new townhouses by Shady Grove Metro that were expected to feed to Magruder, but instead went to GHS). Buy new at your own risk.
* superintendant did not pick any new schools that were not on the BOE list in options 1-12.
* If your school appears in several BOE reassignment maps, your assignment will change.
* Options that do not balance FARMS are for entertainment purposes only. They are not under serious consideration

Anything I am missing?

That's it. Bottom line, around here, DEMOGRAPHICS is the most important. He practically stated that in his report.

I'm not sure what you think the word "practically" means, but this is what he stated in his report:

My goals in developing my recommendation were to minimize the FARMS disparities at both the
high school and middle school levels, while at the same time maximize walkers at their current
schools and reduce the utilization rates at schools to the maximum extent possible. After review
of all the information and updated student enrollment projections, I recommend a variation of
Option 11a, as I believe it does the best job to advance the three policy factors for most of the
schools involved in the boundary study by meeting these goals.

And here is the paragraph about demographics. Note how it clearly demonstrates how demographics is not the most important factor:

With regard to the demographic profiles of the schools, my goal was to reduce the disparity of the
FARMS percentage at the high schools, as the three high schools are racially and ethnically
diverse. The disparity in the FARMS population range among the three schools is 16.5 percent. It
is important to note that although Option 4 brought the disparity among the three schools closest
together (5.9 percent), however, this option is not effective at advancing the geography factor.
Option 4 would require busing walkers from Little Bennett Elementary School and busing the
Northwest High School students who live furthest away in the Darnestown Elementary School
service area to Seneca Valley High School. Both of these points contradict my goal to maximize
walkers and would have a negative impact on students and families, as well as requiring additional
transportation resources and negatively impacting the environment. Therefore, I examined options
that could reduce the impact on the FARMS disparity while also advancing the geography factor.

He also said this, "I am not able to support these options because they
do not advance the demographic characteristics of schools factor when evaluated from the FARMS population perspective."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He has no idea what he's talking about. He wants to maximize walkers, but wants to reduce FARMS, but it's actually all about demographics. Basically, he's incompetent, and has no idea what is actually best for any of the students in this county. Geography was never a real option.

The map actually looks pretty reasonable, geography-wise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So there are a few conclusions:
* new construction gets screwed (remember 2 years ago some new townhouses by Shady Grove Metro that were expected to feed to Magruder, but instead went to GHS). Buy new at your own risk.
* superintendant did not pick any new schools that were not on the BOE list in options 1-12.
* If your school appears in several BOE reassignment maps, your assignment will change.
* Options that do not balance FARMS are for entertainment purposes only. They are not under serious consideration

Anything I am missing?

That's it. Bottom line, around here, DEMOGRAPHICS is the most important. He practically stated that in his report.

I'm not sure what you think the word "practically" means, but this is what he stated in his report:

My goals in developing my recommendation were to minimize the FARMS disparities at both the
high school and middle school levels, while at the same time maximize walkers at their current
schools and reduce the utilization rates at schools to the maximum extent possible. After review
of all the information and updated student enrollment projections, I recommend a variation of
Option 11a, as I believe it does the best job to advance the three policy factors for most of the
schools involved in the boundary study by meeting these goals.

And here is the paragraph about demographics. Note how it clearly demonstrates how demographics is not the most important factor:

With regard to the demographic profiles of the schools, my goal was to reduce the disparity of the
FARMS percentage at the high schools, as the three high schools are racially and ethnically
diverse. The disparity in the FARMS population range among the three schools is 16.5 percent. It
is important to note that although Option 4 brought the disparity among the three schools closest
together (5.9 percent), however, this option is not effective at advancing the geography factor.
Option 4 would require busing walkers from Little Bennett Elementary School and busing the
Northwest High School students who live furthest away in the Darnestown Elementary School
service area to Seneca Valley High School. Both of these points contradict my goal to maximize
walkers and would have a negative impact on students and families, as well as requiring additional
transportation resources and negatively impacting the environment. Therefore, I examined options
that could reduce the impact on the FARMS disparity while also advancing the geography factor.

He also said this, "I am not able to support these options because they
do not advance the demographic characteristics of schools factor when evaluated from the FARMS population perspective."

Yeah--because that is one of the three factors he needed to consider. So why choose that option?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And you live in Clarksburg and are not opposed to sending your child to SVHS?

I live in the Clarksburg cluster. I do not live in Clarksburg. I am not opposed to sending my child to Seneca Valley High School.

Your child should attend SVHS. You're not concerned or against your child attending school there, so it actually works out perfectly for you. And please stop referring to yourself as a Clarksburg parent. You don't live in Clarksburg.

A2re people in Clarksburg in real life as exclusive, us vs them, and unaware of the basic functioning of local government as the "Clarksburg" posters on DCUM?

No. Not really. I hang with Urbana/ New Market folks as I live closer to them and my sons play football/ girl does poms in Urbana. I am off of Green Valley and just on the tippy border of Clarksburg. Across the street is FCPS. Green Valley MS is 89% white and they like it like that and want no part of Moco. I would like more diversity so we are zoned to Moco.

[Anonymous]

Am I reading the report right? Many schools now with split articulation? I thought they tried to avoid that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Am I reading the report right? Many schools now with split articulation? I thought they tried to avoid that?

I am confused that on the map it shows part of Phase 2 in Clarksburg Village (the area around Snowden Farm ES) zoned for CHS. I thought all of Phase 2 in Clarksburg Village was zoned for Damascus. Has this always been the case or is this a result of the boundary study and recommendation? It seems strange to me that an elementary school would have split articulation to different high schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He has no idea what he's talking about. He wants to maximize walkers, but wants to reduce FARMS, but it's actually all about demographics. Basically, he's incompetent, and has no idea what is actually best for any of the students in this county. Geography was never a real option.

No, it's about geography, demographics, and facility utilization. Which (not a coincidence) are the three relevant factors in this particular boundary study.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I reading the report right? Many schools now with split articulation? I thought they tried to avoid that?

I am confused that on the map it shows part of Phase 2 in Clarksburg Village (the area around Snowden Farm ES) zoned for CHS. I thought all of Phase 2 in Clarksburg Village was zoned for Damascus. Has this always been the case or is this a result of the boundary study and recommendation? It seems strange to me that an elementary school would have split articulation to different high schools.

Nope.

http://gis.mcpsmd.org/cipmasterpdfs/Supplement_A_Amended_FY2019-2024.pdf

Also, Cedar Grove ES had split articulation (and still does).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He has no idea what he's talking about. He wants to maximize walkers, but wants to reduce FARMS, but it's actually all about demographics. Basically, he's incompetent, and has no idea what is actually best for any of the students in this county. Geography was never a real option.

No, it's about geography, demographics, and facility utilization. Which (not a coincidence) are the three relevant factors in this particular boundary study.

He considered geography when evaluating option 4. That's the only time he thought of geography. His recommendation is all about demographics first and foremost.

[Anonymous]

A good day for Little Bennett parents, we used to live in Clarksburg and my kids attended LB, such an awesome school and a great community. I am glad it stays that way. Also, before anyone pounces in me LB is very diverse both racially and income of families.

[Anonymous]

on me ^

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A good day for Little Bennett parents, we used to live in Clarksburg and my kids attended LB, such an awesome school and a great community. I am glad it stays that way. Also, before anyone pounces in me LB is very diverse both racially and income of families.

Not really. Little Bennett kids will now be in Rocky Hill with some of the Clarksburg ES kids, part of Gibbs, along with Daly and Fox Chapel. Neelsville will be part of Gibbs, Cabin Branch kids, Stedwick and South Lake. They basically split up the Germantown kids and the Clarksburg kids. Rocky hill is now going to look like another Neelsville. 22% to 40% FARMS. Good job Dr. Smith, you just created another high FARMS school for the sake of "equity." Such a moron.