Initial boundary options for Woodward study area are up

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As an OTES parent I’d selfishly vote for 1 as it keeps our MS/HS right next to eachother, Otherwise I guess it looks like Sligo MS/Einstein HS for us.

Am I naive enough to assume they’re taking into consideration immersion programs (which OTES has) and how that may flow to a new MS? I believe Newport Mills just got set up for biliteracy.

Fellow OTES parent here. It does not look like these options take the immersion program into consideration. I am (perhaps naively) hopeful this will get flagged soon in the process.

Agree - as an OTES parent I am in favor of 1 so we don’t lose the hard work parents did to get continued immersion into middle school. What is the most effective way to get this message to the right people?

Continued immersion is one social studies class taught in Spanish. This could be implemented at a different MS. There is nothing special about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Option 3 had prioritized balancing demographics over everything else it would look a lot crazier than it currently does.

….thats what Flo Analytics says it does, so feel free to take it up with them.

I mean it's obvious. Why didn't they send Potomac to Kennedy? Use your brain.

Ok. What’s your point?

Option 3 is a pretty reasonable effort to prioritize the demographics factor. It also does ok on utilization, which only Option 2 achieves as well with massive split articulations . I do not think Option 3 is unserious. I could see it being the starting point for refined options.

A pretty reasonable effort to prioritize the demographics factor would not reassign current walkers to become long bus riders. That is not reasonable by MCPS's own statements. If students are already riding a bus for +/- 30 minutes, then I have no problem with them being reassigned to a different bus route/school. But walkers should stay walkers, and board members have been saying this all along.

Unfortunately, school buildings are not located perfectly in terms of geography and many kids that could currently walk are currently bussed to other schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You don't get to vote for anything in the survey. You put pros and cons of each option in as feedback.

I wrote on each of them that none of them are good options and that they need to focus on minimizing disruption, period.

I agree with this. Plus maximizing community - in other words, avoid split articulations wherever possible. To me those are the two most important lessons we (should have) got(ten) out of the Covid years.

This. Option 1 seems like the only thing that meets this. (Btw, I’m an east county parent and I think this)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Option 3 had prioritized balancing demographics over everything else it would look a lot crazier than it currently does.

….thats what Flo Analytics says it does, so feel free to take it up with them.

I mean it's obvious. Why didn't they send Potomac to Kennedy? Use your brain.

Ok. What’s your point?

Option 3 is a pretty reasonable effort to prioritize the demographics factor. It also does ok on utilization, which only Option 2 achieves as well with massive split articulations . I do not think Option 3 is unserious. I could see it being the starting point for refined options.

A pretty reasonable effort to prioritize the demographics factor would not reassign current walkers to become long bus riders. That is not reasonable by MCPS's own statements. If students are already riding a bus for +/- 30 minutes, then I have no problem with them being reassigned to a different bus route/school. But walkers should stay walkers, and board members have been saying this all along.

Unfortunately, school buildings are not located perfectly in terms of geography and many kids that could currently walk are currently bussed to other schools.

Yes but which options make the issue worse?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As an OTES parent I’d selfishly vote for 1 as it keeps our MS/HS right next to eachother, Otherwise I guess it looks like Sligo MS/Einstein HS for us.

Am I naive enough to assume they’re taking into consideration immersion programs (which OTES has) and how that may flow to a new MS? I believe Newport Mills just got set up for biliteracy.

Fellow OTES parent here. It does not look like these options take the immersion program into consideration. I am (perhaps naively) hopeful this will get flagged soon in the process.

Agree - as an OTES parent I am in favor of 1 so we don’t lose the hard work parents did to get continued immersion into middle school. What is the most effective way to get this message to the right people?

Continued immersion is one social studies class taught in Spanish. This could be implemented at a different MS. There is nothing special about it.

But would it be implemented across two middle schools if they go with the options that splits OTES? Probably not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As an OTES parent I’d selfishly vote for 1 as it keeps our MS/HS right next to eachother, Otherwise I guess it looks like Sligo MS/Einstein HS for us.

Am I naive enough to assume they’re taking into consideration immersion programs (which OTES has) and how that may flow to a new MS? I believe Newport Mills just got set up for biliteracy.

Fellow OTES parent here. It does not look like these options take the immersion program into consideration. I am (perhaps naively) hopeful this will get flagged soon in the process.

Agree - as an OTES parent I am in favor of 1 so we don’t lose the hard work parents did to get continued immersion into middle school. What is the most effective way to get this message to the right people?

Continued immersion is one social studies class taught in Spanish. This could be implemented at a different MS. There is nothing special about it.

But would it be implemented across two middle schools if they go with the options that splits OTES? Probably not.

This is not a formal thing implemented by MCPS. It is something the principal has cobbled together. It could be cobbled together at two schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Option 3 had prioritized balancing demographics over everything else it would look a lot crazier than it currently does.

….thats what Flo Analytics says it does, so feel free to take it up with them.

I mean it's obvious. Why didn't they send Potomac to Kennedy? Use your brain.

Ok. What’s your point?

Option 3 is a pretty reasonable effort to prioritize the demographics factor. It also does ok on utilization, which only Option 2 achieves as well with massive split articulations . I do not think Option 3 is unserious. I could see it being the starting point for refined options.

A pretty reasonable effort to prioritize the demographics factor would not reassign current walkers to become long bus riders. That is not reasonable by MCPS's own statements. If students are already riding a bus for +/- 30 minutes, then I have no problem with them being reassigned to a different bus route/school. But walkers should stay walkers, and board members have been saying this all along.

Unfortunately, school buildings are not located perfectly in terms of geography and many kids that could currently walk are currently bussed to other schools.

Yes but which options make the issue worse?

Proximity is one of four factors to be considered as you know. Option 1 maximizes proximity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Option 3 had prioritized balancing demographics over everything else it would look a lot crazier than it currently does.

….thats what Flo Analytics says it does, so feel free to take it up with them.

I mean it's obvious. Why didn't they send Potomac to Kennedy? Use your brain.

Ok. What’s your point?

Option 3 is a pretty reasonable effort to prioritize the demographics factor. It also does ok on utilization, which only Option 2 achieves as well with massive split articulations . I do not think Option 3 is unserious. I could see it being the starting point for refined options.

A pretty reasonable effort to prioritize the demographics factor would not reassign current walkers to become long bus riders. That is not reasonable by MCPS's own statements. If students are already riding a bus for +/- 30 minutes, then I have no problem with them being reassigned to a different bus route/school. But walkers should stay walkers, and board members have been saying this all along.

Unfortunately, school buildings are not located perfectly in terms of geography and many kids that could currently walk are currently bussed to other schools.

Sure, but these options don't fix that. They should.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Option 3 had prioritized balancing demographics over everything else it would look a lot crazier than it currently does.

….thats what Flo Analytics says it does, so feel free to take it up with them.

I mean it's obvious. Why didn't they send Potomac to Kennedy? Use your brain.

Ok. What’s your point?

Option 3 is a pretty reasonable effort to prioritize the demographics factor. It also does ok on utilization, which only Option 2 achieves as well with massive split articulations . I do not think Option 3 is unserious. I could see it being the starting point for refined options.

A pretty reasonable effort to prioritize the demographics factor would not reassign current walkers to become long bus riders. That is not reasonable by MCPS's own statements. If students are already riding a bus for +/- 30 minutes, then I have no problem with them being reassigned to a different bus route/school. But walkers should stay walkers, and board members have been saying this all along.

Unfortunately, school buildings are not located perfectly in terms of geography and many kids that could currently walk are currently bussed to other schools.

Yes but which options make the issue worse?

Proximity is one of four factors to be considered as you know. Option 1 maximizes proximity.

No, Option 4 theoretically maximizes proximity, except it doesn't do it very well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Option 3 had prioritized balancing demographics over everything else it would look a lot crazier than it currently does.

….thats what Flo Analytics says it does, so feel free to take it up with them.

I mean it's obvious. Why didn't they send Potomac to Kennedy? Use your brain.

Ok. What’s your point?

Option 3 is a pretty reasonable effort to prioritize the demographics factor. It also does ok on utilization, which only Option 2 achieves as well with massive split articulations . I do not think Option 3 is unserious. I could see it being the starting point for refined options.

A pretty reasonable effort to prioritize the demographics factor would not reassign current walkers to become long bus riders. That is not reasonable by MCPS's own statements. If students are already riding a bus for +/- 30 minutes, then I have no problem with them being reassigned to a different bus route/school. But walkers should stay walkers, and board members have been saying this all along.

Unfortunately, school buildings are not located perfectly in terms of geography and many kids that could currently walk are currently bussed to other schools.

Yes but which options make the issue worse?

Proximity is one of four factors to be considered as you know. Option 1 maximizes proximity.

I agree that Option 1 seems like the best. Except for the island in rosemary hills that would get shipped out to WJ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Option 3 had prioritized balancing demographics over everything else it would look a lot crazier than it currently does.

….thats what Flo Analytics says it does, so feel free to take it up with them.

I mean it's obvious. Why didn't they send Potomac to Kennedy? Use your brain.

Ok. What’s your point?

Option 3 is a pretty reasonable effort to prioritize the demographics factor. It also does ok on utilization, which only Option 2 achieves as well with massive split articulations . I do not think Option 3 is unserious. I could see it being the starting point for refined options.

A pretty reasonable effort to prioritize the demographics factor would not reassign current walkers to become long bus riders. That is not reasonable by MCPS's own statements. If students are already riding a bus for +/- 30 minutes, then I have no problem with them being reassigned to a different bus route/school. But walkers should stay walkers, and board members have been saying this all along.

Unfortunately, school buildings are not located perfectly in terms of geography and many kids that could currently walk are currently bussed to other schools.

Sure, but these options don't fix that. They should.

Or at least not make it worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Option 3 had prioritized balancing demographics over everything else it would look a lot crazier than it currently does.

….thats what Flo Analytics says it does, so feel free to take it up with them.

I mean it's obvious. Why didn't they send Potomac to Kennedy? Use your brain.

Ok. What’s your point?

Option 3 is a pretty reasonable effort to prioritize the demographics factor. It also does ok on utilization, which only Option 2 achieves as well with massive split articulations . I do not think Option 3 is unserious. I could see it being the starting point for refined options.

A pretty reasonable effort to prioritize the demographics factor would not reassign current walkers to become long bus riders. That is not reasonable by MCPS's own statements. If students are already riding a bus for +/- 30 minutes, then I have no problem with them being reassigned to a different bus route/school. But walkers should stay walkers, and board members have been saying this all along.

Unfortunately, school buildings are not located perfectly in terms of geography and many kids that could currently walk are currently bussed to other schools.

Sure, but these options don't fix that. They should.

Or at least not make it worse.

Then advocate for Option 1.

There are a bunch of overcrowded high schools and two new high schools. Some kids are going to have to change schools and some of those kids will have to travel longer to get to school. That is life. Sometimes, it isn't what you want, but it is what has to happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Option 3 had prioritized balancing demographics over everything else it would look a lot crazier than it currently does.

….thats what Flo Analytics says it does, so feel free to take it up with them.

I mean it's obvious. Why didn't they send Potomac to Kennedy? Use your brain.

Ok. What’s your point?

Option 3 is a pretty reasonable effort to prioritize the demographics factor. It also does ok on utilization, which only Option 2 achieves as well with massive split articulations . I do not think Option 3 is unserious. I could see it being the starting point for refined options.

A pretty reasonable effort to prioritize the demographics factor would not reassign current walkers to become long bus riders. That is not reasonable by MCPS's own statements. If students are already riding a bus for +/- 30 minutes, then I have no problem with them being reassigned to a different bus route/school. But walkers should stay walkers, and board members have been saying this all along.

Unfortunately, school buildings are not located perfectly in terms of geography and many kids that could currently walk are currently bussed to other schools.

Sure, but these options don't fix that. They should.

Or at least not make it worse.

Then advocate for Option 1.

There are a bunch of overcrowded high schools and two new high schools. Some kids are going to have to change schools and some of those kids will have to travel longer to get to school. That is life. Sometimes, it isn't what you want, but it is what has to happen.

I’m fine with options 1, 2, and 4, each with some tweaking. Option 3 is too much disruption for goals that can be better accomplished by spending money on improving underperforming schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Option 3 had prioritized balancing demographics over everything else it would look a lot crazier than it currently does.

….thats what Flo Analytics says it does, so feel free to take it up with them.

I mean it's obvious. Why didn't they send Potomac to Kennedy? Use your brain.

Ok. What’s your point?

Option 3 is a pretty reasonable effort to prioritize the demographics factor. It also does ok on utilization, which only Option 2 achieves as well with massive split articulations . I do not think Option 3 is unserious. I could see it being the starting point for refined options.

A pretty reasonable effort to prioritize the demographics factor would not reassign current walkers to become long bus riders. That is not reasonable by MCPS's own statements. If students are already riding a bus for +/- 30 minutes, then I have no problem with them being reassigned to a different bus route/school. But walkers should stay walkers, and board members have been saying this all along.

Unfortunately, school buildings are not located perfectly in terms of geography and many kids that could currently walk are currently bussed to other schools.

Sure, but these options don't fix that. They should.

Or at least not make it worse.

Then advocate for Option 1.

There are a bunch of overcrowded high schools and two new high schools. Some kids are going to have to change schools and some of those kids will have to travel longer to get to school. That is life. Sometimes, it isn't what you want, but it is what has to happen.

I’m fine with options 1, 2, and 4, each with some tweaking. Option 3 is too much disruption for goals that can be better accomplished by spending money on improving underperforming schools.

Thanks for sharing which options you prefer!

[Anonymous]

The 2 options that do not leave Wheaton 20% overcrowded include massive levels of split articulation. That's a testament to the need for an elementary school boundary study. But that's not happening, so this process will inevitably result in an either inefficient or undesirable result.