Why can't they delay the boundary & program changes until 2028 to line up with countywide ES boundary changes?

[Anonymous]

So it looks like they are planning on doing a countywide elementary school boundary study in 2026 to take effect fall 2028-- which would mean diving into it as soon as the current boundary studies conclude. But it makes no sense to be changing around ES boundaries in the context of fixed MS/HS attendance zones that were changed a year earlier.

Given that-- and the fact that they say they "have to" do the regional program changes at the same time as the boundary changes but the regional program plan clearly needs another year of planning, engagement, feedback, and revisions-- why not push the current MS/HS boundary changes back a year, so that they get approved in spring 2026 and go into effect fall 2028, just like the ES boundary changes?

[Anonymous]

Why wait another year to address the overcrowding?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why wait another year to address the overcrowding?

Because of how ridiculous it is for them to implement the MS/HS boundary changes without knowing how tons of ES boundaries will change the year after, and what a wasteful mess it will be if they put these regional program changes into place too quickly when they're clearly not well enough thought out yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why wait another year to address the overcrowding?

Because of how ridiculous it is for them to implement the MS/HS boundary changes without knowing how tons of ES boundaries will change the year after, and what a wasteful mess it will be if they put these regional program changes into place too quickly when they're clearly not well enough thought out yet.

The point of the ES study is to address the inevitable split articulations to MS which will result from the boundary study.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why wait another year to address the overcrowding?

Why don’t they just address overcrowding and leave everyone else alone? Too many schools are unnecessarily impacted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why wait another year to address the overcrowding?

Because of how ridiculous it is for them to implement the MS/HS boundary changes without knowing how tons of ES boundaries will change the year after, and what a wasteful mess it will be if they put these regional program changes into place too quickly when they're clearly not well enough thought out yet.

The point of the ES study is to address the inevitable split articulations to MS which will result from the boundary study.

The point of the ES study is to balance utilization and so they're not going to know which kids will end up being moved from one elementary school to another until they actually do the analysis. Which will likely lead to much more split articulation to MS and HS, unfortunately, unless they slow down and do them both at the same time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why wait another year to address the overcrowding?

Because of how ridiculous it is for them to implement the MS/HS boundary changes without knowing how tons of ES boundaries will change the year after, and what a wasteful mess it will be if they put these regional program changes into place too quickly when they're clearly not well enough thought out yet.

The point of the ES study is to address the inevitable split articulations to MS which will result from the boundary study.

The point of the ES study is to balance utilization and so they're not going to know which kids will end up being moved from one elementary school to another until they actually do the analysis. Which will likely lead to much more split articulation to MS and HS, unfortunately, unless they slow down and do them both at the same time.

They need to know the final new MS/HS boundaries first. Then they can readjust the ES boundaries to avoid split articulations and address overutilization.

[Anonymous]

Does anybody know why MCPS/BOE decided not to do an ES boundary study alongside the MS and HS studies?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anybody know why MCPS/BOE decided not to do an ES boundary study alongside the MS and HS studies?

Because they (McKnight, Hull, Adams) thought it would be too complicated to do all schools all at once.

[Anonymous]

Mcps is imploding.

[Anonymous]

Shouldn’t the elementary study happen before the middle and high school changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anybody know why MCPS/BOE decided not to do an ES boundary study alongside the MS and HS studies?

Because they (McKnight, Hull, Adams) thought it would be too complicated to do all schools all at once.

That is dumb. They have had plenty of time. You start with the base - the elementary schools - and build up from there.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, I can't see how they'd fix the split articulations in Options A-D by changing ES boundaries, without creating a bunch of new issues with over/under-utilization and different split articulations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, I can't see how they'd fix the split articulations in Options A-D by changing ES boundaries, without creating a bunch of new issues with over/under-utilization and different split articulations.

Exactly. This is such a ridiculous, poorly managed process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, I can't see how they'd fix the split articulations in Options A-D by changing ES boundaries, without creating a bunch of new issues with over/under-utilization and different split articulations.

Exactly. This is such a ridiculous, poorly managed process.

That's what I've been saying, but foolish people here insist otherwise. They will just cancel the boundary study and use Crown as a holding school for 3-5 years while they get new enrollment projections to start something larger.