Initial boundary options for Crown/Damascus study

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Option 2 is a non starter. The MS boundaries are crazy. Too many islands.

Option 4 has the best contiguous boundaries for both MS and HS. Yes, there is split articulation, but that was going to happen no matter what.

Option 1 is by far the best, minimal split articulation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Option 1 has no chances for RM?

? what do you mean?

meant changes

It does for MS. CGES would go to Gaithersburg MS but then back to RM for HS. This would be a split articulation, which already exists in some clusters.

Cold Spring ES currently goes to Cabin John MS, which is part of Churchill HS cluster, but then for HS they go back to Wootton.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To no one’s surprise, very little change to Churchill under any of the options.

I’m in the small part that is changing. It’s pretty nuts because I live in the area right by the Potomac Community Center. That part of Wayside has been Churchill since its opening. We are literally 1.7-2 miles from Churchill yet the four options have us moving to Wootton which is 15-20 minutes a day longer commute. Not to mention this brings the Wootton boundary so far south. Very disappointed mostly because of Wootton being incredibly old/asbestos, the aforementioned increased time, and the fact that our neighborhood is very much part of the community with Beverly Farms, Bells Mill, Potomac and Seven Locks ES.

A big chunk of Wayside was developed in the mid 90s and originally was meant to go to Frost and Wootton but due to overcrowding at both, they moved them to the then under crowded Churchill.

Additionally a huge section of Potomac ES would stay at Churchill and drive past much of Wayside on the way. Whereas those areas might be equidistant from each, they are far closer to North Potomac community wise and should look different.

They really needed to redo ES boundaries as some are quite wacky and massively large. Also whoever was bright enough to build both Cabin John and Hoover MS within a mile from each other made a big mistake. A MS up closer to QO/Wootton/Crown would have been so much better.

The MS to HS splits are going to be pretty messy from both under these options.

That's not going to matter. Right now Fallsgrove is walking distance to Lakewood and Wootton but get bussed 15 minutes to Richie Park and Richard Montgomery. Its just the way ut is and always will work out that way for some neighborhoods close to certain schools but bussed to others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Option 2 is a non starter. The MS boundaries are crazy. Too many islands.

Option 4 has the best contiguous boundaries for both MS and HS. Yes, there is split articulation, but that was going to happen no matter what.

Option 1 is by far the best, minimal split articulation

Option 1 has too many MS islands.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Option 1 has no chances for RM?

? what do you mean?

meant changes

It does for MS. CGES would go to Gaithersburg MS but then back to RM for HS. This would be a split articulation, which already exists in some clusters.

Cold Spring ES currently goes to Cabin John MS, which is part of Churchill HS cluster, but then for HS they go back to Wootton.

Can we not use “exist” to justify “proliferation”?

[Anonymous]

Not reading 10 pages of this (the Woodward turned into over 70 and probably more now) for options that are not real. They are samples of 4 options that each focus on one of the four areas of policy FAA. There will be other options in the Fall, that are better blended, and not focused on only one of the 4 (and since the policy is to give equal weight to each of the four, none of those released are real options)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Option 1 has no chances for RM?

? what do you mean?

meant changes

It does for MS. CGES would go to Gaithersburg MS but then back to RM for HS. This would be a split articulation, which already exists in some clusters.

Cold Spring ES currently goes to Cabin John MS, which is part of Churchill HS cluster, but then for HS they go back to Wootton.

Can we not use “exist” to justify “proliferation”?

It's not a justification. But, in order for the boundaries to make any sense, and for capacity issues, more split articulation is going to have to happen.

For example, for option 1 RM cluster, JWMS is already over capacity. Moving a neighborhood out the boundary brings it about at capacity.

[Anonymous]

In the Articulation page, what do the *, **, and *** mean?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In the Articulation page, what do the *, **, and *** mean?

nvm.. i figured it out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looking at the articulation data, options 2 and 4 will create a mess with split articulations. I really hope they decide against options with so much disruption.

Yeah I don’t know why on earth MCPS thinks so many split articulated ESs are ok?

I think some split articulations get introduced and some get resolved with these options. This is going to be a mess no matter what happens.

Right but some options (like option 1) are far better than others (like 2 & 4) in terms of messiness and split articulations.

Option 1 introduces massive split articulations between Hoover MS and three different high schools, among other issues. There are no clean options.

Option 1 is the cleanest one compared to the other ones. minimal disruption, clean feeders, contiguous boundaries.

Hoover is not split

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looking at the articulation data, options 2 and 4 will create a mess with split articulations. I really hope they decide against options with so much disruption.

Yeah I don’t know why on earth MCPS thinks so many split articulated ESs are ok?

I think some split articulations get introduced and some get resolved with these options. This is going to be a mess no matter what happens.

Right but some options (like option 1) are far better than others (like 2 & 4) in terms of messiness and split articulations.

Option 1 introduces massive split articulations between Hoover MS and three different high schools, among other issues. There are no clean options.

Oh, I agree, and I wish they had cleaner options. I just find the split articulations in 2 and 4 pretty overwhelming. Looking at the articulation charts, with option 1, I see only two elementary schools that get divided up. But with option 2, it looks like there are about 20.

Yes, option 1 is the cleanest. The goal in Option 1 was contiguous boundaries and minimizing split

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let the fireworks begin!

+1 Getting my popcorn. .

[Anonymous]

Why move Dufief though? It’s attended Frost and Wootton for decades (neither school is over crowded) and has such a small student population it barely makes a difference in total numbers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looking at the articulation data, options 2 and 4 will create a mess with split articulations. I really hope they decide against options with so much disruption.

Yeah I don’t know why on earth MCPS thinks so many split articulated ESs are ok?

I think some split articulations get introduced and some get resolved with these options. This is going to be a mess no matter what happens.

Right but some options (like option 1) are far better than others (like 2 & 4) in terms of messiness and split articulations.

Option 1 introduces massive split articulations between Hoover MS and three different high schools, among other issues. There are no clean options.

Option 1 is the cleanest one compared to the other ones. minimal disruption, clean feeders, contiguous boundaries.

Hoover is not split

Hoover splits between Churchill and Wootton in option 1:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yen2WmdtZU4IJHGgcjhA3FdFoH12-nIZ/view

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is it the same as the Woodward boundary study, where option #1 is all about stability, #2 about utilization, #3 about demographics, and #4 about proximity?

Pretty much

Option 1,Simplifies feeder patterns.
Option 2, Maximizes efficient use of capacity.
Option 3 , Focuses on improving demographic balance.
Option 4 ,Minimizes disruption to current assignments. But also leaves crown highly under capacity

I really think of these, option 1 is the best