MCPS High School Boundary Map? Current.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Watch the videos explaining the process and objectives (link is in another thread). I found them convincing.

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/publicinfo/boundary-analysis/study-videos.aspx

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Watch the videos explaining the process and objectives (link is in another thread). I found them convincing.

[Anonymous]

Can't help but scratch head looking at Gaithersburg High boundaries:

That is pretty convoluted concept:

[Anonymous]

Quincy Orchard High certainly must have some logical explanation for its shape. Just hard to see it:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can't help but scratch head looking at Gaithersburg High boundaries:

That is pretty convoluted concept:

Almost all of the odd shapes have to do with the order schools and neighborhoods were built in, and also the unequal distribution of school locations. Gaithersburg is my home school and I live in that farther northeast portion.. Watkins Mill is slightly closer and west, Magruder is east and Damascus farther to the north. They could've patched that area onto any of those clusters, and the shape would still look odd. This is definitely an area that would benefit from a broader look, now that neighborhoods are built out and more stable. I'm sure assignments could be rearranged to make many commutes shorter while maintaining or improving demographic balance.

[Anonymous]

Yes, that portion of GHS to the southwest is largely recent developments that were assigned to the cluster as they were built.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, that portion of GHS to the southwest is largely recent developments that were assigned to the cluster as they were built.

Which is why it's way past time to redraw boundaries. This scenario is played all across the county. Those boundary maps are a cluster f*ck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, that portion of GHS to the southwest is largely recent developments that were assigned to the cluster as they were built.

Which is why it's way past time to redraw boundaries. This scenario is played all across the county. Those boundary maps are a cluster f*ck.

They sure do have eye popping effect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, that portion of GHS to the southwest is largely recent developments that were assigned to the cluster as they were built.

Which is why it's way past time to redraw boundaries. This scenario is played all across the county. Those boundary maps are a cluster f*ck.

Except that anytime that you change boundaries, it is highly disruptive to student education. So change them when necessary if particular schools are overcrowded.

[Anonymous]

Can someone help me understand the expected timing of any changes? I have an 8th grader. Can I assume he will be out of high school by the time any change happens, given this discussion is about a boundary analysis nylon at this point?
Also, any opinions on Whether and how Rockville high school might be affected? My sense is it it isn’t overcrowded, has diversity, and might survive largely unaffected? Am I wrong?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone help me understand the expected timing of any changes? I have an 8th grader. Can I assume he will be out of high school by the time any change happens, given this discussion is about a boundary analysis nylon at this point?
Also, any opinions on Whether and how Rockville high school might be affected? My sense is it it isn’t overcrowded, has diversity, and might survive largely unaffected? Am I wrong?

This is exactly the type of explanation that the BOE can and should make.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, that portion of GHS to the southwest is largely recent developments that were assigned to the cluster as they were built.

Which is why it's way past time to redraw boundaries. This scenario is played all across the county. Those boundary maps are a cluster f*ck.

Except that anytime that you change boundaries, it is highly disruptive to student education. So change them when necessary if particular schools are overcrowded.

This piecemeal approach is how we got the boundaries shown above, and why there are weird feeder patterns.

Only something more comprehensive will fix those issues. Then, down the road, they can make smaller tweaks. But to deal with comprehensive issues like the maps in this thread? You need a comprehensive revision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, that portion of GHS to the southwest is largely recent developments that were assigned to the cluster as they were built.

Which is why it's way past time to redraw boundaries. This scenario is played all across the county. Those boundary maps are a cluster f*ck.

Except that anytime that you change boundaries, it is highly disruptive to student education. So change them when necessary if particular schools are overcrowded.

This piecemeal approach is how we got the boundaries shown above, and why there are weird feeder patterns.

Only something more comprehensive will fix those issues. Then, down the road, they can make smaller tweaks. But to deal with comprehensive issues like the maps in this thread? You need a comprehensive revision.

I agree that boundaries need to be examined. I, like many others I assume, have no faith that MCPS will do it in an intelligent manner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, that portion of GHS to the southwest is largely recent developments that were assigned to the cluster as they were built.

Which is why it's way past time to redraw boundaries. This scenario is played all across the county. Those boundary maps are a cluster f*ck.

Except that anytime that you change boundaries, it is highly disruptive to student education. So change them when necessary if particular schools are overcrowded.

This piecemeal approach is how we got the boundaries shown above, and why there are weird feeder patterns.

Only something more comprehensive will fix those issues. Then, down the road, they can make smaller tweaks. But to deal with comprehensive issues like the maps in this thread? You need a comprehensive revision.

Absolute nonsense. You can certainly fix those issues piecemeal, as issues with school crowding come up. And remember that the goal of MCPS is not to make aesthetically pleasing boundary maps, it to educate students. And everytime you move students to a different school you are disrupting their education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, that portion of GHS to the southwest is largely recent developments that were assigned to the cluster as they were built.

Which is why it's way past time to redraw boundaries. This scenario is played all across the county. Those boundary maps are a cluster f*ck.

Except that anytime that you change boundaries, it is highly disruptive to student education. So change them when necessary if particular schools are overcrowded.

This piecemeal approach is how we got the boundaries shown above, and why there are weird feeder patterns.

Only something more comprehensive will fix those issues. Then, down the road, they can make smaller tweaks. But to deal with comprehensive issues like the maps in this thread? You need a comprehensive revision.

Absolute nonsense. You can certainly fix those issues piecemeal, as issues with school crowding come up. And remember that the goal of MCPS is not to make aesthetically pleasing boundary maps, it to educate students. And everytime you move students to a different school you are disrupting their education.

+1000

Also some of those oddities in the boundary lines INCREASE diversity.