New boundary study for Churchill, Clarksburg, Damascus, Gaithersburg, RM, Northwest, Poolesville, QO, SV, WM, Wootton

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Giving this one its own thread.

This morning, MCPS staff proposed combining the boundary studies for Crown and Damascus high schools into one large study with the following high schools and their feeder middle schools in scope: Churchill, Clarksburg, Damascus, Gaithersburg, Richard Montgomery, Northwest, Poolesville, Quince Orchard, Seneca Valley, Watkins Mill, and Wootton.

The boundary study process would happen during 2025, and the final boundary vote would be in March 2026.

Detailed timeline:

Spring 2024--Request for Proposal released
Summer 2024--Board approves consultant
Fall 2024--Prepare for community engagement
Early 2025-Fall/Winter 2025--Boundary study process
January 2026--Boundary Study Report released
Early February 2026--Recommendation released
Late February-March 2026--Board work sessions, public hearings and action

This study has been proposed, but not approved by the board yet. That would happen at their March 19th meeting.

Lynne Harris seemed keenly interested in closing an elementary school or two in the Wooton cluster (she keyed in on Cold Spring in particular). I suspect she'd vote in favor of this study to ID how to better utilize the free seats in the elementary schools in that cluster.

Yes but the elementary schools aren't included in the scope of this study.

I can't understand how elementary schools aren't included. Let's take Fields Road as an example. It's boundaries are very close to where Crown HS will be. But it feeds to Ridgeview MS because of current whacky boundaries. Let's say they put Lakeview MS, which is closer to Crown, in the Crown boundary but leave Ridgeview MS in the QO boundary. Kids from Fields Road would go to QO? That seems crazy to me.

It means all houses zoned for Fields Rd will stay zoned for Fields Rd. But middle and high school assignments may change

Fields Rd is just 1 example. Let's take Rosemont (https://gis.mcpsmd.org/ServiceAreaMaps/RosemontES.pdf). How do you leave that boundary the same?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Giving this one its own thread.

This morning, MCPS staff proposed combining the boundary studies for Crown and Damascus high schools into one large study with the following high schools and their feeder middle schools in scope: Churchill, Clarksburg, Damascus, Gaithersburg, Richard Montgomery, Northwest, Poolesville, Quince Orchard, Seneca Valley, Watkins Mill, and Wootton.

The boundary study process would happen during 2025, and the final boundary vote would be in March 2026.

Detailed timeline:

Spring 2024--Request for Proposal released
Summer 2024--Board approves consultant
Fall 2024--Prepare for community engagement
Early 2025-Fall/Winter 2025--Boundary study process
January 2026--Boundary Study Report released
Early February 2026--Recommendation released
Late February-March 2026--Board work sessions, public hearings and action

This study has been proposed, but not approved by the board yet. That would happen at their March 19th meeting.

Lynne Harris seemed keenly interested in closing an elementary school or two in the Wooton cluster (she keyed in on Cold Spring in particular). I suspect she'd vote in favor of this study to ID how to better utilize the free seats in the elementary schools in that cluster.

Yes but the elementary schools aren't included in the scope of this study.

I can't understand how elementary schools aren't included. Let's take Fields Road as an example. It's boundaries are very close to where Crown HS will be. But it feeds to Ridgeview MS because of current whacky boundaries. Let's say they put Lakeview MS, which is closer to Crown, in the Crown boundary but leave Ridgeview MS in the QO boundary. Kids from Fields Road would go to QO? That seems crazy to me.

It means all houses zoned for Fields Rd will stay zoned for Fields Rd. But middle and high school assignments may change

Fields Rd is just 1 example. Let's take Rosemont (https://gis.mcpsmd.org/ServiceAreaMaps/RosemontES.pdf). How do you leave that boundary the same?

Rosemont will end up with split articulation. Maybe in the future the crown neighborhood will get moved to a different ES. It doesn’t have to happen simultaneously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Giving this one its own thread.

This morning, MCPS staff proposed combining the boundary studies for Crown and Damascus high schools into one large study with the following high schools and their feeder middle schools in scope: Churchill, Clarksburg, Damascus, Gaithersburg, Richard Montgomery, Northwest, Poolesville, Quince Orchard, Seneca Valley, Watkins Mill, and Wootton.

The boundary study process would happen during 2025, and the final boundary vote would be in March 2026.

Detailed timeline:

Spring 2024--Request for Proposal released
Summer 2024--Board approves consultant
Fall 2024--Prepare for community engagement
Early 2025-Fall/Winter 2025--Boundary study process
January 2026--Boundary Study Report released
Early February 2026--Recommendation released
Late February-March 2026--Board work sessions, public hearings and action

This study has been proposed, but not approved by the board yet. That would happen at their March 19th meeting.

Lynne Harris seemed keenly interested in closing an elementary school or two in the Wooton cluster (she keyed in on Cold Spring in particular). I suspect she'd vote in favor of this study to ID how to better utilize the free seats in the elementary schools in that cluster.

Yes but the elementary schools aren't included in the scope of this study.

I can't understand how elementary schools aren't included. Let's take Fields Road as an example. It's boundaries are very close to where Crown HS will be. But it feeds to Ridgeview MS because of current whacky boundaries. Let's say they put Lakeview MS, which is closer to Crown, in the Crown boundary but leave Ridgeview MS in the QO boundary. Kids from Fields Road would go to QO? That seems crazy to me.

It means all houses zoned for Fields Rd will stay zoned for Fields Rd. But middle and high school assignments may change

Fields Rd is just 1 example. Let's take Rosemont (https://gis.mcpsmd.org/ServiceAreaMaps/RosemontES.pdf). How do you leave that boundary the same?

The ES boundary will stay the same, but the feeder patterns to the MS and/or HS could change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Giving this one its own thread.

This morning, MCPS staff proposed combining the boundary studies for Crown and Damascus high schools into one large study with the following high schools and their feeder middle schools in scope: Churchill, Clarksburg, Damascus, Gaithersburg, Richard Montgomery, Northwest, Poolesville, Quince Orchard, Seneca Valley, Watkins Mill, and Wootton.

The boundary study process would happen during 2025, and the final boundary vote would be in March 2026.

Detailed timeline:

Spring 2024--Request for Proposal released
Summer 2024--Board approves consultant
Fall 2024--Prepare for community engagement
Early 2025-Fall/Winter 2025--Boundary study process
January 2026--Boundary Study Report released
Early February 2026--Recommendation released
Late February-March 2026--Board work sessions, public hearings and action

This study has been proposed, but not approved by the board yet. That would happen at their March 19th meeting.

Lynne Harris seemed keenly interested in closing an elementary school or two in the Wooton cluster (she keyed in on Cold Spring in particular). I suspect she'd vote in favor of this study to ID how to better utilize the free seats in the elementary schools in that cluster.

Yes but the elementary schools aren't included in the scope of this study.

I can't understand how elementary schools aren't included. Let's take Fields Road as an example. It's boundaries are very close to where Crown HS will be. But it feeds to Ridgeview MS because of current whacky boundaries. Let's say they put Lakeview MS, which is closer to Crown, in the Crown boundary but leave Ridgeview MS in the QO boundary. Kids from Fields Road would go to QO? That seems crazy to me.

It means all houses zoned for Fields Rd will stay zoned for Fields Rd. But middle and high school assignments may change

Fields Rd is just 1 example. Let's take Rosemont (https://gis.mcpsmd.org/ServiceAreaMaps/RosemontES.pdf). How do you leave that boundary the same?

Rosemont will end up with split articulation. Maybe in the future the crown neighborhood will get moved to a different ES. It doesn’t have to happen simultaneously.

+1. Also, there is the stability factor to take into account. Rosemont just had its boundaries changed during the Harriet Tubman ES study, so they are unlikely to want to change them again so soon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Giving this one its own thread.

This morning, MCPS staff proposed combining the boundary studies for Crown and Damascus high schools into one large study with the following high schools and their feeder middle schools in scope: Churchill, Clarksburg, Damascus, Gaithersburg, Richard Montgomery, Northwest, Poolesville, Quince Orchard, Seneca Valley, Watkins Mill, and Wootton.

The boundary study process would happen during 2025, and the final boundary vote would be in March 2026.

Detailed timeline:

Spring 2024--Request for Proposal released
Summer 2024--Board approves consultant
Fall 2024--Prepare for community engagement
Early 2025-Fall/Winter 2025--Boundary study process
January 2026--Boundary Study Report released
Early February 2026--Recommendation released
Late February-March 2026--Board work sessions, public hearings and action

This study has been proposed, but not approved by the board yet. That would happen at their March 19th meeting.

Lynne Harris seemed keenly interested in closing an elementary school or two in the Wooton cluster (she keyed in on Cold Spring in particular). I suspect she'd vote in favor of this study to ID how to better utilize the free seats in the elementary schools in that cluster.

Because the classrooms have no interior walls. It's a 1970s open concept design, which is no longer desirable.

They don’t have interior walls?! I’m trying to imagine how that works and what it looks like.

It doesn't work well at all. Now that walls have gone back up in schools, students have to go through one classroom to get to another classroom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just a reminder that it's MoCo (County Council) that has underfunded the school budget/CIP for over 2 decades, leaving a huge structural deficit.

that's because MCPS is terrible with money and keeps asking for more.

Then we should get proper oversight (e.g., full-time-senior-professional salary/expectation for the BOE, with a staff for legwork across the 200+ schools). We'd have to pay for that, too, but one can hope that it would be much less than the waste.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Giving this one its own thread.

This morning, MCPS staff proposed combining the boundary studies for Crown and Damascus high schools into one large study with the following high schools and their feeder middle schools in scope: Churchill, Clarksburg, Damascus, Gaithersburg, Richard Montgomery, Northwest, Poolesville, Quince Orchard, Seneca Valley, Watkins Mill, and Wootton.

The boundary study process would happen during 2025, and the final boundary vote would be in March 2026.

Detailed timeline:

Spring 2024--Request for Proposal released
Summer 2024--Board approves consultant
Fall 2024--Prepare for community engagement
Early 2025-Fall/Winter 2025--Boundary study process
January 2026--Boundary Study Report released
Early February 2026--Recommendation released
Late February-March 2026--Board work sessions, public hearings and action

This study has been proposed, but not approved by the board yet. That would happen at their March 19th meeting.

Lynne Harris seemed keenly interested in closing an elementary school or two in the Wooton cluster (she keyed in on Cold Spring in particular). I suspect she'd vote in favor of this study to ID how to better utilize the free seats in the elementary schools in that cluster.

Because the classrooms have no interior walls. It's a 1970s open concept design, which is no longer desirable.

They don’t have interior walls?! I’m trying to imagine how that works and what it looks like.

It doesn't work well at all. Now that walls have gone back up in schools, students have to go through one classroom to get to another classroom.

Can you explain what that means?

[Anonymous]

Does anyone know the latest status of the study? I know the "community engagement" phase is starting this fall. Is there anything families can do to prepare for it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know the latest status of the study? I know the "community engagement" phase is starting this fall. Is there anything families can do to prepare for it?

There haven't been any recent updates. They are supposed to be hiring a consultant to help run both large studies, but to my knowledge that is still TBD.

[Anonymous]

There is a Facilities and Boundaries Preliminary Presentation and Work Session on the board's meeting calendar for October 24th. Perhaps we will receive some new information then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What was the rationale for combining them? Seems odd to add 6 additional HS to the study given that several of the others are not close to the former.

If anything they should just do a district wide boundary study and stop the games. Everyone knows it needs to be done. And the actually have a whole year or two to complete it and the boundary analysis to use as a starting basis.

The "Woodward HS" study ballooned large as well, to include multiple HSs and their feeder MSs. Part of it must be to get a comprehensive review of utilization.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The scope will change. Damascus renovation just got delayed again (no surprise) so it will be done years after the Crown HS opens. Therefore, Clarksburg HS and Damascus HS are off the chart.

Anonymous wrote:Giving this one its own thread.

This morning, MCPS staff proposed combining the boundary studies for Crown and Damascus high schools into one large study with the following high schools and their feeder middle schools in scope: Churchill, Clarksburg, Damascus, Gaithersburg, Richard Montgomery, Northwest, Poolesville, Quince Orchard, Seneca Valley, Watkins Mill, and Wootton.

The boundary study process would happen during 2025, and the final boundary vote would be in March 2026.

Detailed timeline:

Spring 2024--Request for Proposal released
Summer 2024--Board approves consultant
Fall 2024--Prepare for community engagement
Early 2025-Fall/Winter 2025--Boundary study process
January 2026--Boundary Study Report released
Early February 2026--Recommendation released
Late February-March 2026--Board work sessions, public hearings and action

This study has been proposed, but not approved by the board yet. That would happen at their March 19th meeting.

The scope of the study and the projects themselves are likely to get whittled down as we move forward. The money isn't there. They did this to themselves by wasting money on nonsense over the last decade instead of prioritizing critical capital projects when funding was actually available. Now the music has stopped.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If MCPS has good schools with top-notch education programs, FARMS won't matter one way or the other. Parents that care about education will relocate to the county for their children's educational opportunities.

It seems MCPS has given up trying to provide top-notch programs. Now their only strategy is to shift around poor people in the hopes of watering down issues at their home schools.

However, the assumption that poor=problem is one MCPS CO is making up themselves. Instead the CO should step up and go sit daily at the schools with problems and instead of at Hungerford. And they should sit there, at that school, until it's problems have been fixed.

This is nonsense. Even in MCPS, there's a direct correlation between test scores and poverty. Schools with the least poverty have the highest averages. Even schools where many kids do as well as anywhere have a lower average because they shoulder more poverty. You can try to pretend it doesn't matter but it really does.

This is nonsense. Even in MCPS, you can pretend that FARMS can be solved by the school, but not really.

The "direct correlation between test scores and poverty" is pretty straight-forward. Parents who are educated tend to educate at home and seek out schools with high academic standards. Parents who are not educated, on average, earn less income. A child without academic support at home is less likely to academically succeed. The compensating factor would be to offer free tutoring (which MCPS did). The question is how many FARMS students even took advantage of the program? You can lead a horse to water..

Pretend all you want, but the school can't change a child's parents.

Some of it is also genetics. Those with higher incomes often have higher IQ's they pass onto their kids/

Poor kids and rich kids are not each homogenous groups. Most poor kids care about school and are bright, some are even gifted, but they are put in learning environments with the most troubled children and that are least conducive to learning

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If MCPS has good schools with top-notch education programs, FARMS won't matter one way or the other. Parents that care about education will relocate to the county for their children's educational opportunities.

It seems MCPS has given up trying to provide top-notch programs. Now their only strategy is to shift around poor people in the hopes of watering down issues at their home schools.

However, the assumption that poor=problem is one MCPS CO is making up themselves. Instead the CO should step up and go sit daily at the schools with problems and instead of at Hungerford. And they should sit there, at that school, until it's problems have been fixed.

This is nonsense. Even in MCPS, there's a direct correlation between test scores and poverty. Schools with the least poverty have the highest averages. Even schools where many kids do as well as anywhere have a lower average because they shoulder more poverty. You can try to pretend it doesn't matter but it really does.

This is nonsense. Even in MCPS, you can pretend that FARMS can be solved by the school, but not really.

The "direct correlation between test scores and poverty" is pretty straight-forward. Parents who are educated tend to educate at home and seek out schools with high academic standards. Parents who are not educated, on average, earn less income. A child without academic support at home is less likely to academically succeed. The compensating factor would be to offer free tutoring (which MCPS did). The question is how many FARMS students even took advantage of the program? You can lead a horse to water..

Pretend all you want, but the school can't change a child's parents.

Some of it is also genetics. Those with higher incomes often have higher IQ's they pass onto their kids/

Poor kids and rich kids are not each homogenous groups. Most poor kids care about school and are bright, some are even gifted, but they are put in learning environments with the most troubled children and that are least conducive to learning

Wrong. With restorative justice, classrooms are equitable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If MCPS has good schools with top-notch education programs, FARMS won't matter one way or the other. Parents that care about education will relocate to the county for their children's educational opportunities.

It seems MCPS has given up trying to provide top-notch programs. Now their only strategy is to shift around poor people in the hopes of watering down issues at their home schools.

However, the assumption that poor=problem is one MCPS CO is making up themselves. Instead the CO should step up and go sit daily at the schools with problems and instead of at Hungerford. And they should sit there, at that school, until it's problems have been fixed.

This is nonsense. Even in MCPS, there's a direct correlation between test scores and poverty. Schools with the least poverty have the highest averages. Even schools where many kids do as well as anywhere have a lower average because they shoulder more poverty. You can try to pretend it doesn't matter but it really does.

This is nonsense. Even in MCPS, you can pretend that FARMS can be solved by the school, but not really.

The "direct correlation between test scores and poverty" is pretty straight-forward. Parents who are educated tend to educate at home and seek out schools with high academic standards. Parents who are not educated, on average, earn less income. A child without academic support at home is less likely to academically succeed. The compensating factor would be to offer free tutoring (which MCPS did). The question is how many FARMS students even took advantage of the program? You can lead a horse to water..

Pretend all you want, but the school can't change a child's parents.

Some of it is also genetics. Those with higher incomes often have higher IQ's they pass onto their kids/

Poor kids and rich kids are not each homogenous groups. Most poor kids care about school and are bright, some are even gifted, but they are put in learning environments with the most troubled children and that are least conducive to learning

Wrong. With restorative justice, classrooms are equitable.

Great. So there should be no problem adjusting boundaries to relieve crowding. The RJ and other initiatives would simply follow, proportionately, the populations in need to preserve that equitability.