What ever happened to Crown HS?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So that means crown will not result in elementary school boundary change?

We don't know what the scope of the Crown boundary study is yet, because the Board of Education has not voted on it yet. The Board of Education decides on the scope of the boundary study - i.e., which clusters/schools it will include.

Now, do I, personally, think that the scope of the Crown boundary study will include elementary schools? No, I don't. Even without elementary schools, the Crown boundary study will be huge. But I am not on the board of Education!

I guess that’s good as I’m hoping to get at least some stability over the next decade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Can RM lose both King Farm and Fallsgrove? What does that do to both race and FARMS? And does that mean you are chopping up College Gardens?

They could move Woodley Gardens back to CG to make up for losing KG. It was moved to Beall when Rustin opened.

That is not going to happen. This is a HS rezoning effort only.

I hope it only rezones HS, but since the triangle of fallsmead and falls grove from Ritchie park may move to crown, it seems mcps may have to redraw ES boundaries to make sense

There could be split articulation but at the HS level only. FG continues to go to RP, then FG could end up at Crown for HS. There is split articulation now within MCPS. Wootton cluster currently has split articulation -- Cold Spring neighborhoods go to CJMS then to Wootton for HS. So, split articulation is not a new thing.

Cold spring is a whole ES going to Cabin John. Do they have split articulation at ES level?

Sometimes, yes. Diamond ES goes to Lakelands Park and Ridgeview. Pine Crest ES goes to Eastern and SSIMS, after a recent boundary change.

How terrible. They should never split elementary schools.

But you keep saying you want proximity to be the #1 priority. If everyone goes to their closest schools, that would mean more split articulations.

It's not just me. It's 90+ % of the county according to the boundary analysis. And we realize that proximity can't be the only factor. Things like split articulations and I overcrowding are good reasons to send kids to slightly father schools. Diversity is not a good reason. Again, 90+ % of the county said so.

OK, so by "never," you didn't mean never.

And no, that wasn't "90% of the county." It was 87% of the ~2000 people who opted, in the middle of the pandemic, to take a survey after trying out the interactive boundary explorer tool after attending a zoom meeting about the boundary analysis. The boundary analysis report specifically said the survey respondents were not representative of the county's population.

You're right. I meant almost never. And never just to balance the skin tones of the schools. Better?

And imagine thinking that 90% to 87% is statistically significant. But I'll use your numbers from now on.

Almost 90% of the county values proximity more than any other factor according to the boundary analysis. And we realize that proximity can't be the only factor. Things like split articulations and I overcrowding are good reasons to send kids to slightly father schools. Diversity is not a good reason. Again, almost 90% of the county said so.

Thank you for being slightly less inaccurate! But you're still wrong saying any "% of the county said so."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So that means crown will not result in elementary school boundary change?

We don't know what the scope of the Crown boundary study is yet, because the Board of Education has not voted on it yet. The Board of Education decides on the scope of the boundary study - i.e., which clusters/schools it will include.

Now, do I, personally, think that the scope of the Crown boundary study will include elementary schools? No, I don't. Even without elementary schools, the Crown boundary study will be huge. But I am not on the board of Education!

It will be huge, especially after they include Woodward in the study. It'll end up covering 1/3 of the county and the pro-busers will have their busing after all.

Wrong again. Two separate studies, with separate scopes and timelines.

Nothing has been voted on yet. They could absolutely do this. It just depends how much busing they want to get done all at once.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So that means crown will not result in elementary school boundary change?

We don't know what the scope of the Crown boundary study is yet, because the Board of Education has not voted on it yet. The Board of Education decides on the scope of the boundary study - i.e., which clusters/schools it will include.

Now, do I, personally, think that the scope of the Crown boundary study will include elementary schools? No, I don't. Even without elementary schools, the Crown boundary study will be huge. But I am not on the board of Education!

I guess that’s good as I’m hoping to get at least some stability over the next decade.

Then you should vote for BOE members who value stability and proximity first, not BOE members who think diversity is the most important.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Can RM lose both King Farm and Fallsgrove? What does that do to both race and FARMS? And does that mean you are chopping up College Gardens?

They could move Woodley Gardens back to CG to make up for losing KG. It was moved to Beall when Rustin opened.

That is not going to happen. This is a HS rezoning effort only.

I hope it only rezones HS, but since the triangle of fallsmead and falls grove from Ritchie park may move to crown, it seems mcps may have to redraw ES boundaries to make sense

There could be split articulation but at the HS level only. FG continues to go to RP, then FG could end up at Crown for HS. There is split articulation now within MCPS. Wootton cluster currently has split articulation -- Cold Spring neighborhoods go to CJMS then to Wootton for HS. So, split articulation is not a new thing.

Cold spring is a whole ES going to Cabin John. Do they have split articulation at ES level?

Sometimes, yes. Diamond ES goes to Lakelands Park and Ridgeview. Pine Crest ES goes to Eastern and SSIMS, after a recent boundary change.

How terrible. They should never split elementary schools.

But you keep saying you want proximity to be the #1 priority. If everyone goes to their closest schools, that would mean more split articulations.

It's not just me. It's 90+ % of the county according to the boundary analysis. And we realize that proximity can't be the only factor. Things like split articulations and I overcrowding are good reasons to send kids to slightly father schools. Diversity is not a good reason. Again, 90+ % of the county said so.

OK, so by "never," you didn't mean never.

And no, that wasn't "90% of the county." It was 87% of the ~2000 people who opted, in the middle of the pandemic, to take a survey after trying out the interactive boundary explorer tool after attending a zoom meeting about the boundary analysis. The boundary analysis report specifically said the survey respondents were not representative of the county's population.

You're right. I meant almost never. And never just to balance the skin tones of the schools. Better?

And imagine thinking that 90% to 87% is statistically significant. But I'll use your numbers from now on.

Almost 90% of the county values proximity more than any other factor according to the boundary analysis. And we realize that proximity can't be the only factor. Things like split articulations and I overcrowding are good reasons to send kids to slightly father schools. Diversity is not a good reason. Again, almost 90% of the county said so.

Thank you for being slightly less inaccurate! But you're still wrong saying any "% of the county said so."

I know the numbers were a disappointment to you and all pro-busers but they are what they are. Maybe you should have advertised the survey to your Facebook friends like Jill Ortman-Bus did when she slipped changes through the boundary policy back in 2018. Or maybe you did and even they said they didn't want busing. Even in Takoma Park/ Silver Spring (where most pro-busers live), something like 80% of people said they value their closest school more than anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So that means crown will not result in elementary school boundary change?

We don't know what the scope of the Crown boundary study is yet, because the Board of Education has not voted on it yet. The Board of Education decides on the scope of the boundary study - i.e., which clusters/schools it will include.

Now, do I, personally, think that the scope of the Crown boundary study will include elementary schools? No, I don't. Even without elementary schools, the Crown boundary study will be huge. But I am not on the board of Education!

It will be huge, especially after they include Woodward in the study. It'll end up covering 1/3 of the county and the pro-busers will have their busing after all.

Wrong again. Two separate studies, with separate scopes and timelines.

Nothing has been voted on yet. They could absolutely do this. It just depends how much busing they want to get done all at once.

True, nothing has been voted on yet, but there is nothing to indicate that they would combine the two studies, each of which alone will be unwieldy. The schools are scheduled to open a year apart, so there'd also be no advantage to combining the studies, as they always use the most recent enrollment numbers to make projections and options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So that means crown will not result in elementary school boundary change?

We don't know what the scope of the Crown boundary study is yet, because the Board of Education has not voted on it yet. The Board of Education decides on the scope of the boundary study - i.e., which clusters/schools it will include.

Now, do I, personally, think that the scope of the Crown boundary study will include elementary schools? No, I don't. Even without elementary schools, the Crown boundary study will be huge. But I am not on the board of Education!

It will be huge, especially after they include Woodward in the study. It'll end up covering 1/3 of the county and the pro-busers will have their busing after all.

Wrong again. Two separate studies, with separate scopes and timelines.

Nothing has been voted on yet. They could absolutely do this. It just depends how much busing they want to get done all at once.

True, nothing has been voted on yet, but there is nothing to indicate that they would combine the two studies, each of which alone will be unwieldy. The schools are scheduled to open a year apart, so there'd also be no advantage to combining the studies, as they always use the most recent enrollment numbers to make projections and options.

It depends. Delays are inevitable. The boundary analysis showed that the county did not want a district-wide boundary reshuffle just to make schools more white or black. If there's a strong enough pro-busing element on the BOE like there was in 2018, they could use a combined study to accomplish a lot of what they wanted a few years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Nothing has been voted on yet. They could absolutely do this. It just depends how much busing they want to get done all at once.

Indeed. And I "could absolutely" quit my job tomorrow and spend the next 5 years walking from Patagonia to Hudson Bay. But it's not very likely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
It depends. Delays are inevitable. The boundary analysis showed that the county did not want a district-wide boundary reshuffle just to make schools more white or black. If there's a strong enough pro-busing element on the BOE like there was in 2018, they could use a combined study to accomplish a lot of what they wanted a few years ago.

This poster really, really, really wants people to believe that the sky is falling. A person might wonder why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So that means crown will not result in elementary school boundary change?

We don't know what the scope of the Crown boundary study is yet, because the Board of Education has not voted on it yet. The Board of Education decides on the scope of the boundary study - i.e., which clusters/schools it will include.

Now, do I, personally, think that the scope of the Crown boundary study will include elementary schools? No, I don't. Even without elementary schools, the Crown boundary study will be huge. But I am not on the board of Education!

It will be huge, especially after they include Woodward in the study. It'll end up covering 1/3 of the county and the pro-busers will have their busing after all.

Wrong again. Two separate studies, with separate scopes and timelines.

Nothing has been voted on yet. They could absolutely do this. It just depends how much busing they want to get done all at once.

True, nothing has been voted on yet, but there is nothing to indicate that they would combine the two studies, each of which alone will be unwieldy. The schools are scheduled to open a year apart, so there'd also be no advantage to combining the studies, as they always use the most recent enrollment numbers to make projections and options.

It depends. Delays are inevitable. The boundary analysis showed that the county did not want a district-wide boundary reshuffle just to make schools more white or black. If there's a strong enough pro-busing element on the BOE like there was in 2018, they could use a combined study to accomplish a lot of what they wanted a few years ago.

Sorry, not gonna happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It depends. Delays are inevitable. The boundary analysis showed that the county did not want a district-wide boundary reshuffle just to make schools more white or black. If there's a strong enough pro-busing element on the BOE like there was in 2018, they could use a combined study to accomplish a lot of what they wanted a few years ago.

This poster really, really, really wants people to believe that the sky is falling. A person might wonder why.

What?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It depends. Delays are inevitable. The boundary analysis showed that the county did not want a district-wide boundary reshuffle just to make schools more white or black. If there's a strong enough pro-busing element on the BOE like there was in 2018, they could use a combined study to accomplish a lot of what they wanted a few years ago.

This poster really, really, really wants people to believe that the sky is falling. A person might wonder why.

It sounds like PP just doesn't want her kids bused and I agree with her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Nothing has been voted on yet. They could absolutely do this. It just depends how much busing they want to get done all at once.

Indeed. And I "could absolutely" quit my job tomorrow and spend the next 5 years walking from Patagonia to Hudson Bay. But it's not very likely.

Enjoy your walk. I'll be busy trying to educate the public about the threat of busing in MCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It depends. Delays are inevitable. The boundary analysis showed that the county did not want a district-wide boundary reshuffle just to make schools more white or black. If there's a strong enough pro-busing element on the BOE like there was in 2018, they could use a combined study to accomplish a lot of what they wanted a few years ago.

This poster really, really, really wants people to believe that the sky is falling. A person might wonder why.

It sounds like PP just doesn't want her kids bused and I agree with her.

THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So that means crown will not result in elementary school boundary change?

We don't know what the scope of the Crown boundary study is yet, because the Board of Education has not voted on it yet. The Board of Education decides on the scope of the boundary study - i.e., which clusters/schools it will include.

Now, do I, personally, think that the scope of the Crown boundary study will include elementary schools? No, I don't. Even without elementary schools, the Crown boundary study will be huge. But I am not on the board of Education!

I guess that’s good as I’m hoping to get at least some stability over the next decade.

Then you should vote for BOE members who value stability and proximity first, not BOE members who think diversity is the most important.

Sure, that’s how I voted. But that doesn’t change the fact that majority of this county voted Lynn Harris so their property values can be increased