Initial boundary options for Woodward study area are up

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why they would make 7th and 10th graders move to a new school if their inbounds school change. They should have just 6th and 9th graders implement it in the first school, so that 7th and 10th graders do not have to move to a new school, which is really disruptive.

Then they'd be opening Woodward and Crown with no one but ninth graders there. That's not efficient, and leaves a lot of unnecessary overcrowding.

It’s not just about efficiency. It’s about emotional toll on so many kids. We could be talking about thousands of kids here. They’re not just numbers.

Kids have been dealing with changing schools for decades. They are more resilient than we give them credit for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems like this thread has lost the plot.

There isn't really that much to discuss. There are 4 initial options that aren't really going to be considered because they made zero effort to balance the 4 factors mandated by BOE policy. This is a nothingburger.

No surprise people started bickering instead.

I think it's an indication that Flo Analytics and the MCPS board are terrible at their jobs, by releasing maps that will just make people bicker and not try to reach and sort of workable solutions.

***My spouse is a management consultant (yes, I know, haha, but they advise in the industrial sector not human resources ie they don’t get people fired)… When I shared the boundary study info and options with them, they were astounded by the ineptitude. They said it’s wasting all stakeholders’ time and money to have concocted any options - preliminary or otherwise - that each optimize for only one of the four key factors. Period, full stop.

And now the thread has devolved into bickering about home values. Look what those a$$hat consultants and MCPS have made us do: We are turning on each other when instead we need to coalesce to lobby on behalf of MoCo children — our own kids and our neighbors’. Don’t let the bastards grind you down! <—“Handmaid’s Tale”

Of course. Because your husband and his colleagues are looking at the true efficiency without all this "demographic" and "bussing" nonsense.
True equity is providing solutions at the community level, not having kids sit in traffic.

[Anonymous]

JFC, none of the 4 are real options - they are showing you an option that focus on each one of the 4 priorities in FAA. The options the Superintendent will chose from, to recommend to try BOE, haven't been shared yet.

What MCPS staff allowed the consultants to release these 4 options, when none of them are actual options anyone will be choosing from, and why MCPS staff and consultants are holding all these meetings, which is a huge waste of time and resources, is beyond me

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am voting for Option 3 along with a bunch of other people I know. Makes the most send to address racial inequities and demographic changes. Kids are very resilient. It’s not as big of a deal to have split articulation and bussing.It may actually be good for your kid.

What changes does option 3 bring for you and the people you know?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Kids have been dealing with changing schools for decades. They are more resilient than we give them credit for.

How do the options change your kids’ articulations?

[Anonymous]

I don’t like split articulation but we’re in the SCES-SSIMS split articulation mess already. I’m more considered about the possible elimination of the DCC. I understand the appeal of neighborhood schools, but we are already dealing with split zones and none of these options are going to alleviate that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why they would make 7th and 10th graders move to a new school if their inbounds school change. They should have just 6th and 9th graders implement it in the first school, so that 7th and 10th graders do not have to move to a new school, which is really disruptive.

Then they'd be opening Woodward and Crown with no one but ninth graders there. That's not efficient, and leaves a lot of unnecessary overcrowding.

It’s not just about efficiency. It’s about emotional toll on so many kids. We could be talking about thousands of kids here. They’re not just numbers.

Kids have been dealing with changing schools for decades. They are more resilient than we give them credit for.

How about it being practical? Kids being bussed impacts many things including activities. Kids who are sick and parents who don’t have cars or cannot drive cannot get them easily. Parents with health issues may not easily be able to get cross town to go to those schools, etc. I can barely get to my kids schools 10-15 minutes away on a bad day let alone twice that far.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why they would make 7th and 10th graders move to a new school if their inbounds school change. They should have just 6th and 9th graders implement it in the first school, so that 7th and 10th graders do not have to move to a new school, which is really disruptive.

Then they'd be opening Woodward and Crown with no one but ninth graders there. That's not efficient, and leaves a lot of unnecessary overcrowding.

It’s not just about efficiency. It’s about emotional toll on so many kids. We could be talking about thousands of kids here. They’re not just numbers.

Kids have been dealing with changing schools for decades. They are more resilient than we give them credit for.

How about it being practical? Kids being bussed impacts many things including activities. Kids who are sick and parents who don’t have cars or cannot drive cannot get them easily. Parents with health issues may not easily be able to get cross town to go to those schools, etc. I can barely get to my kids schools 10-15 minutes away on a bad day let alone twice that far.

The question was not about busing, it was about whether the new school assignments should apply to both 9th and 10th graders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
What changes does option 3 bring for you and the people you know?

I have yet to see a single person actually affected meaningfully by option 3 in favor of option 3. It’s all people who think they know what’s best for other people’s kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t like split articulation but we’re in the SCES-SSIMS split articulation mess already. I’m more considered about the possible elimination of the DCC. I understand the appeal of neighborhood schools, but we are already dealing with split zones and none of these options are going to alleviate that.

Wait, doesn't all of SCES currently articulate to SSIMS?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:IQ trutherism aside, I think we can all agree that stability of home life is a big predictor of academic success. Introducing unnecessary bussing is the opposite of that.

Bussing lower-income kids into high-income schools is going to be very uncomfortable for them as they have nothing in common with wealthier families and it creates issues. BCC has always had problems because of it. Our school has the divide too but most of the more comfortable families aren't showy and live in modest houses, drive more modest cars so you would think they have far less. Very few kids are in fancy or designer clothing or shoes or top of the line cell phones. Most of the cars the kids drive are older, handy down or parents. Or, cheaper new cars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t like split articulation but we’re in the SCES-SSIMS split articulation mess already. I’m more considered about the possible elimination of the DCC. I understand the appeal of neighborhood schools, but we are already dealing with split zones and none of these options are going to alleviate that.

Wait, doesn't all of SCES currently articulate to SSIMS?

Yes, that was unclear. I meant that a pocket of SCES articulates to Blair and the rest to Northwood; SSIMS as a whole is also mixed. Plus the immersion programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t like split articulation but we’re in the SCES-SSIMS split articulation mess already. I’m more considered about the possible elimination of the DCC. I understand the appeal of neighborhood schools, but we are already dealing with split zones and none of these options are going to alleviate that.

Wait, doesn't all of SCES currently articulate to SSIMS?

Yes, that was unclear. I meant that a pocket of SCES articulates to Blair and the rest to Northwood; SSIMS as a whole is also mixed. Plus the immersion programs.

Ah, I had two go through SSIMS and just found everyone scattered all around the DCC afterwards anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t like split articulation but we’re in the SCES-SSIMS split articulation mess already. I’m more considered about the possible elimination of the DCC. I understand the appeal of neighborhood schools, but we are already dealing with split zones and none of these options are going to alleviate that.

Wait, doesn't all of SCES currently articulate to SSIMS?

Yes, that was unclear. I meant that a pocket of SCES articulates to Blair and the rest to Northwood; SSIMS as a whole is also mixed. Plus the immersion programs.

Ah, I had two go through SSIMS and just found everyone scattered all around the DCC afterwards anyway.

Yeah, I’m sure. From my perspective I meant that since the articulation is split and going to remain so anyway, I hope the DCC survives so there is some choice element. I could see the neighborhood school argument more if it were a more contained pyramid.

[Anonymous]

As a Rosemary Hills family, it bothers me that they say optional 1 eliminates split articulation from ES to MS. It has split articulation for NCCES/CCES (as do the 3 other options). It is a real benefit to friendship forged at RHES to have NCCES and CCES come back together for middle school at Silver Creek. And SCES is diverse, so it’s not necessary to change that to increase diversity. (If BCC is not considered diverse enough, it’s from the Westland side, not the Silver Creek side.)