Countywide ES boundary study starting next year

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am really worried about this ES boundary study. I get the sense they plan to move a lot of kids around and close some neighborhood schools. I know kids are resilient and yada yada yada. But moving to a new elementary school in fourth or fifth grade with only a small portion of your friends and none of the teachers/ staff/ traditions that you’ve grown to love sounds really crappy. There is a total disregard for minimizing disruption.

+1 and I don't understand the need for ES boundary changes in the way that HS boundary changes are obviously needed with new buildings and several over-crowded. What problem is the ES boundary study trying to solve, other than split articulations?

How are they going to solve split articulations with this? It seems like if they wanted to do that they would change the ES boundaries first and then address the middle and high school boundaries.

Couldn't they use the new middle school boundaries (whatever they are) as starting points, and say, this MS boundary contains the following ES's, let's figure out how best to divide up the expected ES students feeding to this MS among these however many ES's.

In theory, but I think often the capacity numbers often wouldn't work out... if say, the MS capacity equals the capacity of 2.5 nearby ESs... then you have to leave a MS either over or under-stuffed. But I could be thinking about this wrong, it's confusing to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am really worried about this ES boundary study. I get the sense they plan to move a lot of kids around and close some neighborhood schools. I know kids are resilient and yada yada yada. But moving to a new elementary school in fourth or fifth grade with only a small portion of your friends and none of the teachers/ staff/ traditions that you’ve grown to love sounds really crappy. There is a total disregard for minimizing disruption.

+1 and I don't understand the need for ES boundary changes in the way that HS boundary changes are obviously needed with new buildings and several over-crowded. What problem is the ES boundary study trying to solve, other than split articulations?

How are they going to solve split articulations with this? It seems like if they wanted to do that they would change the ES boundaries first and then address the middle and high school boundaries.

Couldn't they use the new middle school boundaries (whatever they are) as starting points, and say, this MS boundary contains the following ES's, let's figure out how best to divide up the expected ES students feeding to this MS among these however many ES's.

Yes, that's the idea. But waiting until after MS boundaries are locked in and then treating them as hard limits drastically limits the options in many cases. They need to do both studies at the same time, or be willing to reopen some MS/HS boundaries later as needed.

Nothing preventing them from doing another study in the future!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am really worried about this ES boundary study. I get the sense they plan to move a lot of kids around and close some neighborhood schools. I know kids are resilient and yada yada yada. But moving to a new elementary school in fourth or fifth grade with only a small portion of your friends and none of the teachers/ staff/ traditions that you’ve grown to love sounds really crappy. There is a total disregard for minimizing disruption.

+1 and I don't understand the need for ES boundary changes in the way that HS boundary changes are obviously needed with new buildings and several over-crowded. What problem is the ES boundary study trying to solve, other than split articulations?

How are they going to solve split articulations with this? It seems like if they wanted to do that they would change the ES boundaries first and then address the middle and high school boundaries.

Couldn't they use the new middle school boundaries (whatever they are) as starting points, and say, this MS boundary contains the following ES's, let's figure out how best to divide up the expected ES students feeding to this MS among these however many ES's.

Yes, that's the idea. But waiting until after MS boundaries are locked in and then treating them as hard limits drastically limits the options in many cases. They need to do both studies at the same time, or be willing to reopen some MS/HS boundaries later as needed.

Nothing preventing them from doing another study in the future!

Especially if Taylor's predictions come true about steadily decreasing enrollment and more schools needing to be closed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am really worried about this ES boundary study. I get the sense they plan to move a lot of kids around and close some neighborhood schools. I know kids are resilient and yada yada yada. But moving to a new elementary school in fourth or fifth grade with only a small portion of your friends and none of the teachers/ staff/ traditions that you’ve grown to love sounds really crappy. There is a total disregard for minimizing disruption.

+1 and I don't understand the need for ES boundary changes in the way that HS boundary changes are obviously needed with new buildings and several over-crowded. What problem is the ES boundary study trying to solve, other than split articulations?

How are they going to solve split articulations with this? It seems like if they wanted to do that they would change the ES boundaries first and then address the middle and high school boundaries.

Couldn't they use the new middle school boundaries (whatever they are) as starting points, and say, this MS boundary contains the following ES's, let's figure out how best to divide up the expected ES students feeding to this MS among these however many ES's.

Yes, that's the idea. But waiting until after MS boundaries are locked in and then treating them as hard limits drastically limits the options in many cases. They need to do both studies at the same time, or be willing to reopen some MS/HS boundaries later as needed.

+1 very true downcounty with the Sligo Creek fiasco

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am really worried about this ES boundary study. I get the sense they plan to move a lot of kids around and close some neighborhood schools. I know kids are resilient and yada yada yada. But moving to a new elementary school in fourth or fifth grade with only a small portion of your friends and none of the teachers/ staff/ traditions that you’ve grown to love sounds really crappy. There is a total disregard for minimizing disruption.

+1 and I don't understand the need for ES boundary changes in the way that HS boundary changes are obviously needed with new buildings and several over-crowded. What problem is the ES boundary study trying to solve, other than split articulations?

How are they going to solve split articulations with this? It seems like if they wanted to do that they would change the ES boundaries first and then address the middle and high school boundaries.

Couldn't they use the new middle school boundaries (whatever they are) as starting points, and say, this MS boundary contains the following ES's, let's figure out how best to divide up the expected ES students feeding to this MS among these however many ES's.

Yes, that's the idea. But waiting until after MS boundaries are locked in and then treating them as hard limits drastically limits the options in many cases. They need to do both studies at the same time, or be willing to reopen some MS/HS boundaries later as needed.

+1 very true downcounty with the Sligo Creek fiasco

Aren't the new options coming later in November meant to take that into account?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am really worried about this ES boundary study. I get the sense they plan to move a lot of kids around and close some neighborhood schools. I know kids are resilient and yada yada yada. But moving to a new elementary school in fourth or fifth grade with only a small portion of your friends and none of the teachers/ staff/ traditions that you’ve grown to love sounds really crappy. There is a total disregard for minimizing disruption.

+1 and I don't understand the need for ES boundary changes in the way that HS boundary changes are obviously needed with new buildings and several over-crowded. What problem is the ES boundary study trying to solve, other than split articulations?

How are they going to solve split articulations with this? It seems like if they wanted to do that they would change the ES boundaries first and then address the middle and high school boundaries.

Couldn't they use the new middle school boundaries (whatever they are) as starting points, and say, this MS boundary contains the following ES's, let's figure out how best to divide up the expected ES students feeding to this MS among these however many ES's.

Yes, that's the idea. But waiting until after MS boundaries are locked in and then treating them as hard limits drastically limits the options in many cases. They need to do both studies at the same time, or be willing to reopen some MS/HS boundaries later as needed.

+1 very true downcounty with the Sligo Creek fiasco

Aren't the new options coming later in November meant to take that into account?

Yes but I think that’s more to address the closure of SSIMS than the total relocation of SCES

[Anonymous]

Isn’t this a problem AI can solve?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t this a problem AI can solve?

Only if it is fed the data necessary for evaluation...which MCPS keeps under lock & key.

[Anonymous]

This is why folks said last year do a countywide boundary study not just a MS/HS study. We already had the boundary analysis as a starting point and were going to be paying Flo Analytics for help. Might as well bite the bullet.

[Anonymous]

As a parent of kids zoned for a too-large ES that’s not a neighborhood school, I am supportive of this boundary study. Hoping we get rezoned to a better, smaller, closer option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a parent of kids zoned for a too-large ES that’s not a neighborhood school, I am supportive of this boundary study. Hoping we get rezoned to a better, smaller, closer option.

I get this and agree. I think separating it from the MS/HS study is creating unnecessary confusion for people, especially in areas where neighboring elementary schools feed in to completely different middle and high schools.