What ever happened to Crown HS?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If MCPS was totally honest, they would clearly publish maps to all parents, explain where their children would be, then ask each parent to provide an opinion.

The instruction would be clear, such as, "if you live in this part of the map, your ES would be A, your MS would be B, and your HS would be C under Option A"

There would also be clear reasons stated for boundaries such as "the reason why this zone was attached here was that 500 families are in zone A, but zone B only has 50 projected families, so could be transported for less cost to the other ES."

This type of openness and honesty is something that the current MCPS leadership would never do.

MCPS publishes the maps. Also, the BoE does not make school boundary decisions based on current parent referendum, nor should they.

When MCPS did the boundary change for the new RM elementary, I think they did most of this. There were naps with different options. They put out data on the effects each one would have on the schools in terms of size , FARMS, ELL etc. They added more options after public review. It was still contentious and messy but I did not feel like they hid anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If MCPS was totally honest, they would clearly publish maps to all parents, explain where their children would be, then ask each parent to provide an opinion.

The instruction would be clear, such as, "if you live in this part of the map, your ES would be A, your MS would be B, and your HS would be C under Option A"

There would also be clear reasons stated for boundaries such as "the reason why this zone was attached here was that 500 families are in zone A, but zone B only has 50 projected families, so could be transported for less cost to the other ES."

This type of openness and honesty is something that the current MCPS leadership would never do.

MCPS publishes the maps. Also, the BoE does not make school boundary decisions based on current parent referendum, nor should they.

When MCPS did the boundary change for the new RM elementary, I think they did most of this. There were naps with different options. They put out data on the effects each one would have on the schools in terms of size , FARMS, ELL etc. They added more options after public review. It was still contentious and messy but I did not feel like they hid anything.

naps should be maps!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If MCPS was totally honest, they would clearly publish maps to all parents, explain where their children would be, then ask each parent to provide an opinion.

The instruction would be clear, such as, "if you live in this part of the map, your ES would be A, your MS would be B, and your HS would be C under Option A"

There would also be clear reasons stated for boundaries such as "the reason why this zone was attached here was that 500 families are in zone A, but zone B only has 50 projected families, so could be transported for less cost to the other ES."

This type of openness and honesty is something that the current MCPS leadership would never do.

MCPS publishes the maps. Also, the BoE does not make school boundary decisions based on current parent referendum, nor should they.

When MCPS did the boundary change for the new RM elementary, I think they did most of this. There were naps with different options. They put out data on the effects each one would have on the schools in terms of size , FARMS, ELL etc. They added more options after public review. It was still contentious and messy but I did not feel like they hid anything.

naps should be maps!

I guess you fell asleep at the switch!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If MCPS was totally honest, they would clearly publish maps to all parents, explain where their children would be, then ask each parent to provide an opinion.

The instruction would be clear, such as, "if you live in this part of the map, your ES would be A, your MS would be B, and your HS would be C under Option A"

There would also be clear reasons stated for boundaries such as "the reason why this zone was attached here was that 500 families are in zone A, but zone B only has 50 projected families, so could be transported for less cost to the other ES."

This type of openness and honesty is something that the current MCPS leadership would never do.

MCPS publishes the maps. Also, the BoE does not make school boundary decisions based on current parent referendum, nor should they.

When MCPS did the boundary change for the new RM elementary, I think they did most of this. There were naps with different options. They put out data on the effects each one would have on the schools in terms of size , FARMS, ELL etc. They added more options after public review. It was still contentious and messy but I did not feel like they hid anything.

naps should be maps!

I bet if everyone took more naps things would be a lot less contentious!

But I agree with this about there being a lot of data available. In the recent studies, they even had interactive maps where you could zoom in to your own block and see how you'd be zoned in each of the options.

One thing that I think could help them get the word out about boundary studies is more involvement from the principals of the included schools. If the principals would take a larger role in not only letting their communities know about the meetings/maps, but also talking through the options as they apply to that school in particular, that could increase awareness. The PTAs could also do this, but many people are not PTA members.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If MCPS was totally honest, they would clearly publish maps to all parents, explain where their children would be, then ask each parent to provide an opinion.

The instruction would be clear, such as, "if you live in this part of the map, your ES would be A, your MS would be B, and your HS would be C under Option A"

There would also be clear reasons stated for boundaries such as "the reason why this zone was attached here was that 500 families are in zone A, but zone B only has 50 projected families, so could be transported for less cost to the other ES."

This type of openness and honesty is something that the current MCPS leadership would never do.

Instead of MCPS asking each parent to provide an opinion every time there's a boundary change, how about we elect a smaller group of people to represent us on some sort of board of education, and then this board could vote yes or no on the proposed boundaries?

We tried that already and it isn't working. As an example, I present the diversity-first boundary policy that 90% of the county said they do not like. That's quite the chasm between what the BOE want and what the people want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
We tried that already and it isn't working. As an example, I present the diversity-first boundary policy that 90% of the county said they do not like. That's quite the chasm between what the BOE want and what the people want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If MCPS was totally honest, they would clearly publish maps to all parents, explain where their children would be, then ask each parent to provide an opinion.

The instruction would be clear, such as, "if you live in this part of the map, your ES would be A, your MS would be B, and your HS would be C under Option A"

There would also be clear reasons stated for boundaries such as "the reason why this zone was attached here was that 500 families are in zone A, but zone B only has 50 projected families, so could be transported for less cost to the other ES."

This type of openness and honesty is something that the current MCPS leadership would never do.

MCPS publishes the maps. Also, the BoE does not make school boundary decisions based on current parent referendum, nor should they.

When MCPS did the boundary change for the new RM elementary, I think they did most of this. There were naps with different options. They put out data on the effects each one would have on the schools in terms of size , FARMS, ELL etc. They added more options after public review. It was still contentious and messy but I did not feel like they hid anything.

I believe this is true. However, A) this was BEFORE the boundary policy prioritized diversity so the boundaries would probably look very different if they were decided today and B) afterward, a few BOE members lamented not choosing the boundary option that would have bused Twinbrook kids to Richie Park Elementary and Horizon Hill kids to Twinbrook Elementary despite the loudest opposition coming from Twinbrook families for whom busing was pretending to help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

When MCPS did the boundary change for the new RM elementary, I think they did most of this. There were naps with different options. They put out data on the effects each one would have on the schools in terms of size , FARMS, ELL etc. They added more options after public review. It was still contentious and messy but I did not feel like they hid anything.

I believe this is true. However, A) this was BEFORE the boundary policy prioritized diversity so the boundaries would probably look very different if they were decided today and B) afterward, a few BOE members lamented not choosing the boundary option that would have bused Twinbrook kids to Richie Park Elementary and Horizon Hill kids to Twinbrook Elementary despite the loudest opposition coming from Twinbrook families for whom busing was pretending to help.

Except that they did the same thing AFTER the boundary study policy change (which did not actually do what you incorrectly claim it did), too.

[Anonymous]

We were part of a boundary reorganization a few years ago (we were not moved to a different school, but other folks from our ES were). The information provided was exhaustive, with analysis of the consequences of multiple different scenarios from multiple possible angles. There were maps, charts, graphs, numbers, and plenty of chances for people to weigh in at meetings (this was pre-covid) and in other ways. The end result was that there wasn't a great deal of community discomfort: people planned ahead for how they would be affected and pretty much just went on.

Like some who are concerned on here, we knew about the boundary move in principle long before we saw the actual data and study results. That gave people a little too much time to speculate and even worry, but when the information was published, there was a lot of it. More will doubtless appear closer to time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

When MCPS did the boundary change for the new RM elementary, I think they did most of this. There were naps with different options. They put out data on the effects each one would have on the schools in terms of size , FARMS, ELL etc. They added more options after public review. It was still contentious and messy but I did not feel like they hid anything.

I believe this is true. However, A) this was BEFORE the boundary policy prioritized diversity so the boundaries would probably look very different if they were decided today and B) afterward, a few BOE members lamented not choosing the boundary option that would have bused Twinbrook kids to Richie Park Elementary and Horizon Hill kids to Twinbrook Elementary despite the loudest opposition coming from Twinbrook families for whom busing was pretending to help.

Except that they did the same thing AFTER the boundary study policy change (which did not actually do what you incorrectly claim it did), too.

Define "same thing."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We were part of a boundary reorganization a few years ago (we were not moved to a different school, but other folks from our ES were). The information provided was exhaustive, with analysis of the consequences of multiple different scenarios from multiple possible angles. There were maps, charts, graphs, numbers, and plenty of chances for people to weigh in at meetings (this was pre-covid) and in other ways. The end result was that there wasn't a great deal of community discomfort: people planned ahead for how they would be affected and pretty much just went on.

Like some who are concerned on here, we knew about the boundary move in principle long before we saw the actual data and study results. That gave people a little too much time to speculate and even worry, but when the information was published, there was a lot of it. More will doubtless appear closer to time.

And if they moved you to Twinbrook to balance the diversity among the elementary schools there, what would have thought then?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We were part of a boundary reorganization a few years ago (we were not moved to a different school, but other folks from our ES were). The information provided was exhaustive, with analysis of the consequences of multiple different scenarios from multiple possible angles. There were maps, charts, graphs, numbers, and plenty of chances for people to weigh in at meetings (this was pre-covid) and in other ways. The end result was that there wasn't a great deal of community discomfort: people planned ahead for how they would be affected and pretty much just went on.

Like some who are concerned on here, we knew about the boundary move in principle long before we saw the actual data and study results. That gave people a little too much time to speculate and even worry, but when the information was published, there was a lot of it. More will doubtless appear closer to time.

And if they moved you to Twinbrook to balance the diversity among the elementary schools there, what would have thought then?

I would have thought it was sad that the TB kids lost their Title 1 supports in exchange or a longer bus ride. The kids are all mixed at JW and RM so if you are afraid of diversity, it is not the right cluster for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If MCPS was totally honest, they would clearly publish maps to all parents, explain where their children would be, then ask each parent to provide an opinion.

The instruction would be clear, such as, "if you live in this part of the map, your ES would be A, your MS would be B, and your HS would be C under Option A"

There would also be clear reasons stated for boundaries such as "the reason why this zone was attached here was that 500 families are in zone A, but zone B only has 50 projected families, so could be transported for less cost to the other ES."

This type of openness and honesty is something that the current MCPS leadership would never do.

Instead of MCPS asking each parent to provide an opinion every time there's a boundary change, how about we elect a smaller group of people to represent us on some sort of board of education, and then this board could vote yes or no on the proposed boundaries?

We tried that already and it isn't working. As an example, I present the diversity-first boundary policy that 90% of the county said they do not like. That's quite the chasm between what the BOE want and what the people want.

Actually it's working perfectly. People seem to be happy with them despite the complaints on DCUM. They are without fail re-elected every single time so stop with the pearl clutching.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If MCPS was totally honest, they would clearly publish maps to all parents, explain where their children would be, then ask each parent to provide an opinion.

The instruction would be clear, such as, "if you live in this part of the map, your ES would be A, your MS would be B, and your HS would be C under Option A"

There would also be clear reasons stated for boundaries such as "the reason why this zone was attached here was that 500 families are in zone A, but zone B only has 50 projected families, so could be transported for less cost to the other ES."

This type of openness and honesty is something that the current MCPS leadership would never do.

Instead of MCPS asking each parent to provide an opinion every time there's a boundary change, how about we elect a smaller group of people to represent us on some sort of board of education, and then this board could vote yes or no on the proposed boundaries?

We tried that already and it isn't working. As an example, I present the diversity-first boundary policy that 90% of the county said they do not like. That's quite the chasm between what the BOE want and what the people want.

Actually it's working perfectly. People seem to be happy with them despite the complaints on DCUM. They are without fail re-elected every single time so stop with the pearl clutching.

PP is not clutching pearls. PP is trying to gin up outrage and foment fear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

When MCPS did the boundary change for the new RM elementary, I think they did most of this. There were naps with different options. They put out data on the effects each one would have on the schools in terms of size , FARMS, ELL etc. They added more options after public review. It was still contentious and messy but I did not feel like they hid anything.

I believe this is true. However, A) this was BEFORE the boundary policy prioritized diversity so the boundaries would probably look very different if they were decided today and B) afterward, a few BOE members lamented not choosing the boundary option that would have bused Twinbrook kids to Richie Park Elementary and Horizon Hill kids to Twinbrook Elementary despite the loudest opposition coming from Twinbrook families for whom busing was pretending to help.

Except that they did the same thing AFTER the boundary study policy change (which did not actually do what you incorrectly claim it did), too.

Define "same thing."

This same thing.

There were maps with different options. They put out data on the effects each one would have on the schools in terms of size , FARMS, ELL etc. They added more options after public review. It was still contentious and messy but I did not feel like they hid anything.