Second round options for Woodward boundary study

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Option B is the best. Solves all of the problems noted on the 75 pages above. Go with option B. Thread can be closed now

Option B is terrible for us, I hate it. Prefer option C but would take anything other than B.

Yep. B would make my kids go past one school to attend another. Nope.

There isn't a way for every single student to be assigned to the school closest to their home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Option B is the best. Solves all of the problems noted on the 75 pages above. Go with option B. Thread can be closed now

Option B is terrible for us, I hate it. Prefer option C but would take anything other than B.

Yep. B would make my kids go past one school to attend another. Nope.

This is true for me too, but I still want Option B. It's like an extra 0.7 miles for a better (aka lower FARMS) school. Option B or bust

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Option B is the best. Solves all of the problems noted on the 75 pages above. Go with option B. Thread can be closed now

Option B is terrible for us, I hate it. Prefer option C but would take anything other than B.

What do you hate about it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Option B is the best. Solves all of the problems noted on the 75 pages above. Go with option B. Thread can be closed now

Option B is terrible for us, I hate it. Prefer option C but would take anything other than B.

What do you hate about it?

Not only does it have split middle school articulation, but split middle school articulation in a way that makes it almost certain that in the ES boundary study, they'll take us out of our current ES we love. (And eyeballing the numbers and geography, my guess is that they will split our tight-knit little neighborhood to 2 or maybe even 3 different elementary schools.) So it likely means my youngest will be split up from all his friends in the middle of elementary school (or if not, definitely will be when staring middle school)... and on top of that, then will also be sent to a holding school for construction during middle school, for a total of 4 different physical schools in 5 years.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, PP raises a question: do they have to scrap this and start over given the proposal to close SSIMS?

Or can these options still apply I guess for the years 2027-2031?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, PP raises a question: do they have to scrap this and start over given the proposal to close SSIMS?

Or can these options still apply I guess for the years 2027-2031?

No, they will waste more money with another boundary study for ms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, PP raises a question: do they have to scrap this and start over given the proposal to close SSIMS?

Or can these options still apply I guess for the years 2027-2031?

No, they will waste more money with another boundary study for ms.

Taylor said last week they could remove all of the reassignments to SSIMS in these options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, PP raises a question: do they have to scrap this and start over given the proposal to close SSIMS?

Or can these options still apply I guess for the years 2027-2031?

No, they will waste more money with another boundary study for ms.

Taylor said last week they could remove all of the reassignments to SSIMS in these options.

Do you think that means they'd also pause all of the transfers OUT of SSIMS in any option? There's a lot of movement in both directions between Sligo MS and SSIMS. It looks like Sligo has a good bit of available capacity, but not enough for all of the students that have it as their current school AND new students from one of options A-D.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, PP raises a question: do they have to scrap this and start over given the proposal to close SSIMS?

Or can these options still apply I guess for the years 2027-2031?

No, they will waste more money with another boundary study for ms.

Taylor said last week they could remove all of the reassignments to SSIMS in these options.

Well don’t you think they should whip up those revisions and provide them to everyone for feedback before closing the feedback window?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Option B is the best. Solves all of the problems noted on the 75 pages above. Go with option B. Thread can be closed now

Option B is terrible for us, I hate it. Prefer option C but would take anything other than B.

What do you hate about it?

Not only does it have split middle school articulation, but split middle school articulation in a way that makes it almost certain that in the ES boundary study, they'll take us out of our current ES we love. (And eyeballing the numbers and geography, my guess is that they will split our tight-knit little neighborhood to 2 or maybe even 3 different elementary schools.) So it likely means my youngest will be split up from all his friends in the middle of elementary school (or if not, definitely will be when staring middle school)... and on top of that, then will also be sent to a holding school for construction during middle school, for a total of 4 different physical schools in 5 years.

Split articulation isn't that big of a deal. Your kid needs to get used to new people. That's college. That's new jobs. That's life. Not live in a clique

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Option B is the best. Solves all of the problems noted on the 75 pages above. Go with option B. Thread can be closed now

Option B is terrible for us, I hate it. Prefer option C but would take anything other than B.

What do you hate about it?

Not only does it have split middle school articulation, but split middle school articulation in a way that makes it almost certain that in the ES boundary study, they'll take us out of our current ES we love. (And eyeballing the numbers and geography, my guess is that they will split our tight-knit little neighborhood to 2 or maybe even 3 different elementary schools.) So it likely means my youngest will be split up from all his friends in the middle of elementary school (or if not, definitely will be when staring middle school)... and on top of that, then will also be sent to a holding school for construction during middle school, for a total of 4 different physical schools in 5 years.

You should move to a better neighborhood with all those issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Option B is the best. Solves all of the problems noted on the 75 pages above. Go with option B. Thread can be closed now

Option B is terrible for us, I hate it. Prefer option C but would take anything other than B.

What do you hate about it?

Not only does it have split middle school articulation, but split middle school articulation in a way that makes it almost certain that in the ES boundary study, they'll take us out of our current ES we love. (And eyeballing the numbers and geography, my guess is that they will split our tight-knit little neighborhood to 2 or maybe even 3 different elementary schools.) So it likely means my youngest will be split up from all his friends in the middle of elementary school (or if not, definitely will be when staring middle school)... and on top of that, then will also be sent to a holding school for construction during middle school, for a total of 4 different physical schools in 5 years.

You should move to a better neighborhood with all those issues.

Agree. Sounds like a sh*t show up in there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, PP raises a question: do they have to scrap this and start over given the proposal to close SSIMS?

Or can these options still apply I guess for the years 2027-2031?

No, they will waste more money with another boundary study for ms.

Taylor said last week they could remove all of the reassignments to SSIMS in these options.

Do you think that means they'd also pause all of the transfers OUT of SSIMS in any option? There's a lot of movement in both directions between Sligo MS and SSIMS. It looks like Sligo has a good bit of available capacity, but not enough for all of the students that have it as their current school AND new students from one of options A-D.

Yes, that was what I took from their brief conversation during the board meeting, that the boundaries for SSIMS, Sligo, and Eastern would stay as is for the time being, and then there'd be a new boundary study just for those three schools once the capacity has been added to Sligo and Eastern. This all assumes that the conversion of SSIMS to a holding school and those two construction projects get approved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Option B is the best. Solves all of the problems noted on the 75 pages above. Go with option B. Thread can be closed now

Option B is terrible for us, I hate it. Prefer option C but would take anything other than B.

What do you hate about it?

Not only does it have split middle school articulation, but split middle school articulation in a way that makes it almost certain that in the ES boundary study, they'll take us out of our current ES we love. (And eyeballing the numbers and geography, my guess is that they will split our tight-knit little neighborhood to 2 or maybe even 3 different elementary schools.) So it likely means my youngest will be split up from all his friends in the middle of elementary school (or if not, definitely will be when staring middle school)... and on top of that, then will also be sent to a holding school for construction during middle school, for a total of 4 different physical schools in 5 years.

You should move to a better neighborhood with all those issues.

The eighborhood isn't an issue, MCPS is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also some of you seem to believe that because you have money, your kids deserve unearned advantages in their public education. Do you not think your parenting is good enough to get them ahead without hoarding extra space and programs and keeping them away from Black and Latino kids?

This is aimed at DCC parents who say they can move but choose not to bc they like the area better, right?

No, our kids attend programs with Black and Latino kids. You seem to think that they are in segregated programs in the same school? They aren't.

This is logically inconsistent, then. Your school is not segregated within the school and therefore your demand for specific classes is not taking resources from Black and Brown kids, but if it happens at the level of the school then that IS taking resources?

I mean I can't help you understand if you think only White kids in DCC schools can be academically advanced, or that wealthy schools should be given more resources than they currently have.

I can’t help it if you think there are only white kids outside of the DCC, or that specialized classes within the DCC favored by white kids should be given resources that could be used to help other kids get on grade level.

I mean there should absolutely be more resources to help kids get on grade level. If only MCPS provided effective incentives for experienced teachers to support those students. Instead they have the highest paid teachers at the wealthiest schools.

On top of that MCPS gets extra funding from the state for kids that receive FARMS and ESOL. They don't actually spend that funding on services for these students, they just add it to the general budget. In other words wealthy schools use funding allocated to MCPS based on the number of low income students.

I get it, it is contrary to your interests for parents in other schools to advocate for our children. You're using our schools' diversity to try to divide us, based on your own stereotypes and internal narratives about our schools and the kids that attend them. I see what you are doing and why. It's pretty gross though.

“advocating for our own children” is a good way of avoiding the accusation that you are hoarding resources.

Lol now you are just playing the "I know you are but what am I game" how fun

Kind of the point here.

Oooh that's right, no MCPS classes today so the elementary students are home today

You aren’t recognizing that you are doing the same thing, with the same language, that you are accusing others of. *shrug*. Unsurprised you don’t see your own hypocrisy.

Because I said "I get it, it is contrary to your interests for parents in other schools to advocate for our children. You're using our schools' diversity to try to divide us, based on your own stereotypes and internal narratives about our schools and the kids that attend them. I see what you are doing and why. It's pretty gross though."?

I can see how that might have struck a nerve with you.

DP, but why the f should I advocate for your interests? You’re not advocating for mine and just assume we’re entitled and privileged and thumb your noses at us. It’s pretty gross actually that you’d brow beat us for not being diverse, parade around the fact that you chose not to move to our neighborhoods, and then have the nerve to expect us to support you and potentially at the expense of our kids? That’s the very definition of chutzpah.

The thing is, our cluster is organized and engaged and used its considerable social capital to protect the interests of our community. I won’t make any apologies over that. That’s called self-interest. What you’re doing is the same but you’re acting like it’s not.

DP - you really are preoccupied with this idea that we’re as callous as you, but are trying to hide it. It’s bizarre.

Spoiler alert: very few people are as callous as you.

Hey look, it’s the “I’m the main character” person again. Spoiler alert: nobody cares that your DD isn’t getting into some engineering, healthcare or leadership elective program, which let’s be honest, is mostly b.s. at the middle or high school level. And let me get this straight - it’s callous when I advocate for my kid but not when you advocate for yours? It’s also callous that I don’t advocate for your kid and potentially at the expense of mine. Do I have that right?

No, you don’t have it right.

!4:07 and 14:11 spelled it out for you (thanks, PPs!).

Actually, they didn't. Just a flippant misdirection. The disparity is due to the quality of the parental support independent of the school and the student body - what's so hard to understand? This article from 2023 does a good job of teasing out the disparities including, gasp, a startling link between the % FARMs and % that did not pass a single IB or AP exam:

https://theblackandwhite.net/77000/news/new-mcps-data-highlights-continuing-disparities-among-high-schools/

Guess what? No amount of funding is going to close that gap.

And that's why you are totally cool with allocating state funding for FARMS students to all high schools regardless of FARMS rates? It's kind of cool, like a reverse Robin Hood. So rad.

NP but no I’m not ok with that. But I also think I can advocate for my kid to have short bus rides and a safe commute and that’s ok.

Oh. Do you live in Kensington lol?

lol No