BOE: school reassignment process

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They may tweak options, combine elements of a couple of the options, or come up with additional options. They will NOT change the scope of the boundary study itself. So they will not add an ES that is not currently part of the boundary study to the study. But they could create an options in which an ES in the boundary study is moved when none of the current options have it being moved.

Don't these two things mean the same thing? Sorry if I'm having trouble comprehending--this sinus infection is a doozy.

No. For example, the part of Cedar Grove ES that goes to Damascus HS is not part of the boundary study and won't become part of the boundary study. But there could be an additional option that reassigns Clarksburg ES, which is part of the boundary study (but none of the current options reassign it).

I still don't get it. How can you tell what is part of the boundary study and what isn't? From what I see of the map, all of Hallie Wells MS is out of the boundary study. So since Cedar Grove ES goes to Hallie Wells, wouldn't all of Hallie Wells (Wilson Wims/new Clarksburg ES #2 and also Cedar Grove) be outside of the boundary study, and therefore outside of consideration to be reassigned? I'm trying to understand in the context of OP's question.

http://gis.mcpsmd.org/boundarystudypdfs/SVHS_BOEAdoptedBoundaryStudy.pdf

Hallie Wells MS overall is part of the boundary study, because it's a middle school in the Clarksburg cluster. But the areas that go to Hallie Wells MS and then Damascus HS are not part of the boundary study, because they're in the Damascus cluster.

But could the areas that are zoned for Damascus HS be pulled into the boundary study if the BOE wants to look at more options?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They may tweak options, combine elements of a couple of the options, or come up with additional options. They will NOT change the scope of the boundary study itself. So they will not add an ES that is not currently part of the boundary study to the study. But they could create an options in which an ES in the boundary study is moved when none of the current options have it being moved.

Don't these two things mean the same thing? Sorry if I'm having trouble comprehending--this sinus infection is a doozy.

No. For example, the part of Cedar Grove ES that goes to Damascus HS is not part of the boundary study and won't become part of the boundary study. But there could be an additional option that reassigns Clarksburg ES, which is part of the boundary study (but none of the current options reassign it).

I still don't get it. How can you tell what is part of the boundary study and what isn't? From what I see of the map, all of Hallie Wells MS is out of the boundary study. So since Cedar Grove ES goes to Hallie Wells, wouldn't all of Hallie Wells (Wilson Wims/new Clarksburg ES #2 and also Cedar Grove) be outside of the boundary study, and therefore outside of consideration to be reassigned? I'm trying to understand in the context of OP's question.

http://gis.mcpsmd.org/boundarystudypdfs/SVHS_BOEAdoptedBoundaryStudy.pdf

Hallie Wells MS overall is part of the boundary study, because it's a middle school in the Clarksburg cluster. But the areas that go to Hallie Wells MS and then Damascus HS are not part of the boundary study, because they're in the Damascus cluster.

But could the areas that are zoned for Damascus HS be pulled into the boundary study if the BOE wants to look at more options?

Not without changing the scope of the boundary study. Which the BoE could do, but I doubt that they would.

And it seemed pretty clear to me, at the first meeting, that the last thing MCPS wants to do is add more high school clusters to the boundary study. Three high school clusters is already plenty big.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They may tweak options, combine elements of a couple of the options, or come up with additional options. They will NOT change the scope of the boundary study itself. So they will not add an ES that is not currently part of the boundary study to the study. But they could create an options in which an ES in the boundary study is moved when none of the current options have it being moved.

Don't these two things mean the same thing? Sorry if I'm having trouble comprehending--this sinus infection is a doozy.

No. For example, the part of Cedar Grove ES that goes to Damascus HS is not part of the boundary study and won't become part of the boundary study. But there could be an additional option that reassigns Clarksburg ES, which is part of the boundary study (but none of the current options reassign it).

I still don't get it. How can you tell what is part of the boundary study and what isn't? From what I see of the map, all of Hallie Wells MS is out of the boundary study. So since Cedar Grove ES goes to Hallie Wells, wouldn't all of Hallie Wells (Wilson Wims/new Clarksburg ES #2 and also Cedar Grove) be outside of the boundary study, and therefore outside of consideration to be reassigned? I'm trying to understand in the context of OP's question.

http://gis.mcpsmd.org/boundarystudypdfs/SVHS_BOEAdoptedBoundaryStudy.pdf

Hallie Wells MS overall is part of the boundary study, because it's a middle school in the Clarksburg cluster. But the areas that go to Hallie Wells MS and then Damascus HS are not part of the boundary study, because they're in the Damascus cluster.

But could the areas that are zoned for Damascus HS be pulled into the boundary study if the BOE wants to look at more options?

No. It would be pretty unprecedented to pull in areas zoned to a HS that is not part of the boundary study. There have been meetings for months targeted at the Clarksburg, SV and NW communities. They will not add Damascus HS elementaries at this point. It would be a major PITA and they might have to go back and hold another whole set of meetings and “community input” gathering. I’d be shocked if they did it. But I’m not going to say it would be illegal or anything.

[Anonymous]

And I think it's also safe to assume that Clarksburg ES will not be in a future option because they stated in the last meeting that Clarksburg HS is in the Clarksburg ES service area. I know nothing's impossible but I got the impression that this rule that they have around service areas is something that they try to stick to in every study. Can someone who has been through a different study provide insight on this?