BOE/MCPS is a mess

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2021/12/12/schools-half-days-teachers-pandemic/

More shaming of mcps…

I'm not one of the sky is falling, hate all things MCPS, society is in a state of decay, posters but in this rare instance the kooks may be right at least about the board cutting instructional days.

Is there a means for voters to introduce propositions to simply bypass the board?

No. If you want new people on the board in 2022, you need to recruit candidates to file for the primary election by Feb. 22nd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
A plan is a series of events. So thank you for finally seeing the light. The question is, what are we going to do about it? Thankfully, my kids will graduate before MCPS is able to move them. But the rest of you aren't going to like having your kids shuffled around. Or at least 90% of you aren't.

"We" who? I'm not going to do anything about your personal hallucinations.

I don't think the other person is hallucinating at all, and name calling just shows how weak your counter-arguments are. If you take a look at the current Gaithersburg ES #8, I think you'll see the seeds of what is in store for the County long term unless changes are made at MCPS.

Why are the boundaries between ES carved up that way? I remember when that thread was initially posted on DCUMS. At the time, I shrugged and thought "meh", but it did seem strange that MCPS referred to "R10" or "R8" without including a map to show where it was. Only after the boundary was redrawn was the map included. Only after I saw the map was I shocked by what MCPS did.

Everyone in those affected school district should have been provided those maps before the decision was made, had the opportunity to comment and weigh in, and had a response why their comments were disregarded (if they were). In my book, not doing that that is deceitful and dishonest. This is what needs to stop at MCPS.

The maps with R8 and R10 etc have been part of the public documents for many months. They were presented repeatedly at community meetings, posted on the web site, links were emailed out, etc. I agree with you that more residents should have been involved and submitted comments, but it's not like MCPS was hiding the information. What are some ways to improve the level of involvement?

Really? Okay, I'll call that bluff. Publish the link that shows all zones, and which ES they report to within Montgomery County that's accessible to the public? There are boundary maps by ES, but not that explain which zones are included? The first I've ever heard of a Zone was when Gaithersburg ES #8 was discussed. I've searched for it for months now. It's not published on MCPS' website and ArcGIS doesn't seem to have a link for it either. I'd love to see how the neighborhoods are carved up and match that to the ES boundaries. I'd love to see this.

The maps with the zones for the Gaithersburg ES #8 study was first shown at the October 2020 community meeting:

https://gis.mcpsmd.org/boundarystudypdfs/GaithersburgES8_1stRoundOptions.pdf

A map showing additional options was shown in November 2020. The boundary was set a year later, in November 2021. All the meeting documents are available here:

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/planning/gaithersburgcluster8boundarystudy.aspx


If you are asking for a comparable map covering the whole county, no, that doesn't exist, because the smaller zones are only created when a boundary study happens.

Now I get it. You have to know to search this website:
https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/planning/boundary.aspx

If you do, you'll find the information for that one study, but MCPS won't release zone info otherwise?

So you're saying this will happen over and over again as boundaries are redrawn?

This will be fun when Crown HS opens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Now I get it. You have to know to search this website:
https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/planning/boundary.aspx

If you do, you'll find the information for that one study, but MCPS won't release zone info otherwise?

So you're saying this will happen over and over again as boundaries are redrawn?

This will be fun when Crown HS opens.

MCPS doesn't "release the zone info otherwise" because the zone info otherwise DOES NOT EXIST.

MCPS creates the info WHEN IT DOES A BOUNDARY STUDY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Now I get it. You have to know to search this website:
https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/planning/boundary.aspx

If you do, you'll find the information for that one study, but MCPS won't release zone info otherwise?

So you're saying this will happen over and over again as boundaries are redrawn?

This will be fun when Crown HS opens.

MCPS doesn't "release the zone info otherwise" because the zone info otherwise DOES NOT EXIST.

MCPS creates the info WHEN IT DOES A BOUNDARY STUDY.

Not only that, MCPS creates the zones specifically for that boundary study. Once the boundaries change, there are no more zones, just boundaries.

But those looking for reasons to suspect MCPS of malfeasance never let facts stop them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Now I get it. You have to know to search this website:
https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/planning/boundary.aspx

If you do, you'll find the information for that one study, but MCPS won't release zone info otherwise?

So you're saying this will happen over and over again as boundaries are redrawn?

This will be fun when Crown HS opens.

MCPS doesn't "release the zone info otherwise" because the zone info otherwise DOES NOT EXIST.

MCPS creates the info WHEN IT DOES A BOUNDARY STUDY.

Right. With Crown HS, they will likely just use the elementary schools in the five clusters as the "zones" for the boundary options. That's what they did in the Seneca Valley study.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Now I get it. You have to know to search this website:
https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/planning/boundary.aspx

If you do, you'll find the information for that one study, but MCPS won't release zone info otherwise?

So you're saying this will happen over and over again as boundaries are redrawn?

This will be fun when Crown HS opens.

MCPS doesn't "release the zone info otherwise" because the zone info otherwise DOES NOT EXIST.

MCPS creates the info WHEN IT DOES A BOUNDARY STUDY.

Right. With Crown HS, they will likely just use the elementary schools in the five clusters as the "zones" for the boundary options. That's what they did in the Seneca Valley study.

Now that makes sense why Gaithersburg ES #8 is so messed up. That means that R10 will either not be "walkers" or all of Rosemont ES (76.8% BL/HI) will be bussed to Crown HS - all or nothing. And yes, that is very sneaky, imho

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Now I get it. You have to know to search this website:
https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/planning/boundary.aspx

If you do, you'll find the information for that one study, but MCPS won't release zone info otherwise?

So you're saying this will happen over and over again as boundaries are redrawn?

This will be fun when Crown HS opens.

MCPS doesn't "release the zone info otherwise" because the zone info otherwise DOES NOT EXIST.

MCPS creates the info WHEN IT DOES A BOUNDARY STUDY.

Right. With Crown HS, they will likely just use the elementary schools in the five clusters as the "zones" for the boundary options. That's what they did in the Seneca Valley study.

No. Because, first of all, it wasn't the "Seneca Valley" study, it was the upcounty study (Northwest/Seneca Valley/Clarksburg). And, more importantly, because it's not what they did. They removed a split articulation (all of Great Seneca Creek ES now goes to Kingsview MS) and created 3 new split articulations (Germantown ES split between Northwest HS and Seneca Valley HS, Gibbs ES split between a small group of walkers to Rocky Hill MS/Clarksburg HS and the rest (in the bus zone) to Neelsville MS/Seneca Valley HS, and Clarksburg ES split between Rocky Hill/Clarksburg and Neelsville/Seneca Valley).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Now I get it. You have to know to search this website:
https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/planning/boundary.aspx

If you do, you'll find the information for that one study, but MCPS won't release zone info otherwise?

So you're saying this will happen over and over again as boundaries are redrawn?

This will be fun when Crown HS opens.

MCPS doesn't "release the zone info otherwise" because the zone info otherwise DOES NOT EXIST.

MCPS creates the info WHEN IT DOES A BOUNDARY STUDY.

Right. With Crown HS, they will likely just use the elementary schools in the five clusters as the "zones" for the boundary options. That's what they did in the Seneca Valley study.

No. Because, first of all, it wasn't the "Seneca Valley" study, it was the upcounty study (Northwest/Seneca Valley/Clarksburg). And, more importantly, because it's not what they did. They removed a split articulation (all of Great Seneca Creek ES now goes to Kingsview MS) and created 3 new split articulations (Germantown ES split between Northwest HS and Seneca Valley HS, Gibbs ES split between a small group of walkers to Rocky Hill MS/Clarksburg HS and the rest (in the bus zone) to Neelsville MS/Seneca Valley HS, and Clarksburg ES split between Rocky Hill/Clarksburg and Neelsville/Seneca Valley).

Yes, but my point was that they didn't create the little zones like they do in an ES study. That doesn't preclude them from ending up with split articulations, which can be sensible especially when there are existing islands (like R10).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Now I get it. You have to know to search this website:
https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/planning/boundary.aspx

If you do, you'll find the information for that one study, but MCPS won't release zone info otherwise?

So you're saying this will happen over and over again as boundaries are redrawn?

This will be fun when Crown HS opens.

MCPS doesn't "release the zone info otherwise" because the zone info otherwise DOES NOT EXIST.

MCPS creates the info WHEN IT DOES A BOUNDARY STUDY.

Right. With Crown HS, they will likely just use the elementary schools in the five clusters as the "zones" for the boundary options. That's what they did in the Seneca Valley study.

Now that makes sense why Gaithersburg ES #8 is so messed up. That means that R10 will either not be "walkers" or all of Rosemont ES (76.8% BL/HI) will be bussed to Crown HS - all or nothing. And yes, that is very sneaky, imho

No, that is not what it means. They could still zone the island to Crown and keep the rest of Rosemont at GHS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Now I get it. You have to know to search this website:
https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/planning/boundary.aspx

If you do, you'll find the information for that one study, but MCPS won't release zone info otherwise?

So you're saying this will happen over and over again as boundaries are redrawn?

This will be fun when Crown HS opens.

MCPS doesn't "release the zone info otherwise" because the zone info otherwise DOES NOT EXIST.

MCPS creates the info WHEN IT DOES A BOUNDARY STUDY.

Right. With Crown HS, they will likely just use the elementary schools in the five clusters as the "zones" for the boundary options. That's what they did in the Seneca Valley study.

Now that makes sense why Gaithersburg ES #8 is so messed up. That means that R10 will either not be "walkers" or all of Rosemont ES (76.8% BL/HI) will be bussed to Crown HS - all or nothing. And yes, that is very sneaky, imho

No, that is not what it means. They could still zone the island to Crown and keep the rest of Rosemont at GHS.

Maybe the PP who is mysteriously hung up on R10 doesn't know that there is such a thing as split articulation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Now I get it. You have to know to search this website:
https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/planning/boundary.aspx

If you do, you'll find the information for that one study, but MCPS won't release zone info otherwise?

So you're saying this will happen over and over again as boundaries are redrawn?

This will be fun when Crown HS opens.

MCPS doesn't "release the zone info otherwise" because the zone info otherwise DOES NOT EXIST.

MCPS creates the info WHEN IT DOES A BOUNDARY STUDY.

Right. With Crown HS, they will likely just use the elementary schools in the five clusters as the "zones" for the boundary options. That's what they did in the Seneca Valley study.

Now that makes sense why Gaithersburg ES #8 is so messed up. That means that R10 will either not be "walkers" or all of Rosemont ES (76.8% BL/HI) will be bussed to Crown HS - all or nothing. And yes, that is very sneaky, imho

No, that is not what it means. They could still zone the island to Crown and keep the rest of Rosemont at GHS.

Maybe the PP who is mysteriously hung up on R10 doesn't know that there is such a thing as split articulation.

Since the public won't see the boundary study until '24, I guess I'll just have to be filled with hope and confidence until then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Now I get it. You have to know to search this website:
https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/planning/boundary.aspx

If you do, you'll find the information for that one study, but MCPS won't release zone info otherwise?

So you're saying this will happen over and over again as boundaries are redrawn?

This will be fun when Crown HS opens.

MCPS doesn't "release the zone info otherwise" because the zone info otherwise DOES NOT EXIST.

MCPS creates the info WHEN IT DOES A BOUNDARY STUDY.

Right. With Crown HS, they will likely just use the elementary schools in the five clusters as the "zones" for the boundary options. That's what they did in the Seneca Valley study.

Now that makes sense why Gaithersburg ES #8 is so messed up. That means that R10 will either not be "walkers" or all of Rosemont ES (76.8% BL/HI) will be bussed to Crown HS - all or nothing. And yes, that is very sneaky, imho

No, that is not what it means. They could still zone the island to Crown and keep the rest of Rosemont at GHS.

Maybe the PP who is mysteriously hung up on R10 doesn't know that there is such a thing as split articulation.

Since the public won't see the boundary study until '24, I guess I'll just have to be filled with hope and confidence until then.

What is it that you want to "see" now? They can't show you maps or options that don't exist yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
A plan is a series of events. So thank you for finally seeing the light. The question is, what are we going to do about it? Thankfully, my kids will graduate before MCPS is able to move them. But the rest of you aren't going to like having your kids shuffled around. Or at least 90% of you aren't.

"We" who? I'm not going to do anything about your personal hallucinations.

Again, which of these do you believe to be untrue?

BUSING PLAN

1. Alter the boundary policy so that any future boundary study will result in kids being moved to schools based primarily on their skin color and family income instead of proximity.

1.b. Do this without sending the policy out for public comment so no one knows until it's too late

2. Hire a diversity consultant with experience writing busing plans in major metro areas to conduct a boundary analysis.

3. Test new boundary policy in a middle class area (Clarksburg) to see how much fallout there is. They have far fewer resources than Bethesda and Potmac.

4. If the boundary analysis and test go well, order a systemwide boundary study to move all boundaries with diversity and the main driver. If the analysis and test don't go well, simply wait for natural boundary studies and the diversity-first policy will result in busing, just at a much slower pace.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
A plan is a series of events. So thank you for finally seeing the light. The question is, what are we going to do about it? Thankfully, my kids will graduate before MCPS is able to move them. But the rest of you aren't going to like having your kids shuffled around. Or at least 90% of you aren't.

"We" who? I'm not going to do anything about your personal hallucinations.

Again, which of these do you believe to be untrue?

BUSING PLAN

1. Alter the boundary policy so that any future boundary study will result in kids being moved to schools based primarily on their skin color and family income instead of proximity.

1.b. Do this without sending the policy out for public comment so no one knows until it's too late

2. Hire a diversity consultant with experience writing busing plans in major metro areas to conduct a boundary analysis.

3. Test new boundary policy in a middle class area (Clarksburg) to see how much fallout there is. They have far fewer resources than Bethesda and Potmac.

4. If the boundary analysis and test go well, order a systemwide boundary study to move all boundaries with diversity and the main driver. If the analysis and test don't go well, simply wait for natural boundary studies and the diversity-first policy will result in busing, just at a much slower pace.

1, 1b, 2, 3, and 4. As you know, because people have already explained this to you about 3 billion times, and yet you keep coming back to repeat the same lies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
A plan is a series of events. So thank you for finally seeing the light. The question is, what are we going to do about it? Thankfully, my kids will graduate before MCPS is able to move them. But the rest of you aren't going to like having your kids shuffled around. Or at least 90% of you aren't.

"We" who? I'm not going to do anything about your personal hallucinations.

Again, which of these do you believe to be untrue?

BUSING PLAN

1. Alter the boundary policy so that any future boundary study will result in kids being moved to schools based primarily on their skin color and family income instead of proximity.

1.b. Do this without sending the policy out for public comment so no one knows until it's too late

2. Hire a diversity consultant with experience writing busing plans in major metro areas to conduct a boundary analysis.

3. Test new boundary policy in a middle class area (Clarksburg) to see how much fallout there is. They have far fewer resources than Bethesda and Potmac.

4. If the boundary analysis and test go well, order a systemwide boundary study to move all boundaries with diversity and the main driver. If the analysis and test don't go well, simply wait for natural boundary studies and the diversity-first policy will result in busing, just at a much slower pace.

1, 1b, 2, 3, and 4. As you know, because people have already explained this to you about 3 billion times, and yet you keep coming back to repeat the same lies.

The free-masons are behind this conspiracy!