Second round options for Woodward boundary study

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Does that mean Sligo and Eastern work will not occur simultaneously? How could SSIMS hold its currently enrolled students plus students from another school, much less two other schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Does that mean Sligo and Eastern work will not occur simultaneously? How could SSIMS hold its currently enrolled students plus students from another school, much less two other schools?

The proposal is that Eastern's students would stay in their current building during construction, which is supposed to finish in 2030. Sligo's students would also stay in their current building during the first part of construction, then move to SSIMS as a holding school during the 2030-31 year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Does that mean Sligo and Eastern work will not occur simultaneously? How could SSIMS hold its currently enrolled students plus students from another school, much less two other schools?

The proposal is that Eastern's students would stay in their current building during construction, which is supposed to finish in 2030. Sligo's students would also stay in their current building during the first part of construction, then move to SSIMS as a holding school during the 2030-31 year.

Which would be possible because that year would be when a large number of SSIMS students would start at the new Eastern.

[Anonymous]

Option B is still the best

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Option B is still the best

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Option B is still the best

+2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Option B is still the best

+3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Option B is still the best

Nope, it's awful for us. Why do people like it so much? It seems like for most people, most of the options are pretty similar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Option B is still the best

+4 I like this one too. It's best for new WJ and Woodward, which is what I value, since they serve my neighborhood/community. I go to either one of them under all 4 options. The point of Woodward was to alleviate the overflow at WJ. It serves the community goal the best.

[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.

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

As a BCC parent I am rolling my eyes at all the whining about split articulation. Yes, it sucks to have kids sent to different schools in the middle of elementary AND then again at middle school. And kids in our communities have been dealing with it for 50 years. So spare me your self-pity for your "tight-knit little neighborhood" - the mommy cliques will survive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

As a BCC parent I am rolling my eyes at all the whining about split articulation. Yes, it sucks to have kids sent to different schools in the middle of elementary AND then again at middle school. And kids in our communities have been dealing with it for 50 years. So spare me your self-pity for your "tight-knit little neighborhood" - the mommy cliques will survive.

The pp has every right to be concerned about this. She is also dealing with a MS closing in the middle of it. 4 schools in 5 years sounds awful. People should advocate against anything ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Agree. Vote for ALL the schools to be under 100% occupied, not just your own.

Option B is *not* what most people want. It is simply repeated here often by loud, outspoken and entitled families. Option B leaves two area high schools over 100% full while WJ and Woodward are only 75-79% full. Not okay. And not popular.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agree. Vote for ALL the schools to be under 100% occupied, not just your own.

Option B is *not* what most people want. It is simply repeated here often by loud, outspoken and entitled families. Option B leaves two area high schools over 100% full while WJ and Woodward are only 75-79% full. Not okay. And not popular.

It’s not actually a vote

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

As a BCC parent I am rolling my eyes at all the whining about split articulation. Yes, it sucks to have kids sent to different schools in the middle of elementary AND then again at middle school. And kids in our communities have been dealing with it for 50 years. So spare me your self-pity for your "tight-knit little neighborhood" - the mommy cliques will survive.

+1 from a current/possibly future WJ/Woodward person

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agree. Vote for ALL the schools to be under 100% occupied, not just your own.

Option B is *not* what most people want. It is simply repeated here often by loud, outspoken and entitled families. Option B leaves two area high schools over 100% full while WJ and Woodward are only 75-79% full. Not okay. And not popular.

What are you talking about? All options have schools at above 100%

Option A has Blair, JFK and Wheaton above 100%.

Option B has JFK and Wheaton just a smidge above 100%.

Option C has Blair, JFK, and Wheaton above 100%

option D has Blair and Kennedy above 100%


JFK and Wheaton will be in same region as WJ and Woodward so maybe the magnets balance it under. Option B might be the best (my kids are not in that region)