What ever happened to Crown HS?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I only saw a memo with a bunch of letter-numbers calling them zones. Never even heard of a zone before this memo. It wasn't until after the decision was made that I actually saw maps?

Does anyone know where every MCPS zone is published? Or have a link to them? I can only find the boundary maps online.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I only saw a memo with a bunch of letter-numbers calling them zones. Never even heard of a zone before this memo. It wasn't until after the decision was made that I actually saw maps?

Does anyone know where every MCPS zone is published? Or have a link to them? I can only find the boundary maps online.

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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't understand what point you're trying to make.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ok so we are on the same page that busing is bad and that proximity should be the top factor in the boundary policy instead of diversity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about we add to the Women's League of Voter's list for the next election of the MCBOE.

Do you support non-contiguous Elementary School boundaries that remove walkers from their closest school?

Would you ensure that the boundary studies of new school openings are comprehensive and examine ES, MS, HS boundaries and feeders?

Would you recommend the removal of any MCPS employee enacting policies inconsistent with the Montgomery County Board of Education?

That should make it very clear where everyone stands and that way the voters vote how they would like to see the county schools act upon their behalf.

Which non-contiguous Elementary School boundaries remove walkers from their closest school?

Short memory? I would take a look at the Gaithersburg #8 thread. Also, R10 won't be walkers to Crown HS (the original point of this thread) unless some or all of Forest Oak MS is rezoned into Crown.

The point is that a few very misguided people at the top in MCPS are making decisions that parents do not approve of.

If you want parents to say you're doing a good job, then do a good job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't understand what point you're trying to make.

I was replying to this person:

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.

[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.

According to the boundary analysis, 90% of the county disagrees with them on a very important issue, whether street address or skin color should determine school assignments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
According to the boundary analysis, 90% of the county disagrees with them on a very important issue, whether street address or skin color should determine school assignments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about we add to the Women's League of Voter's list for the next election of the MCBOE.

Do you support non-contiguous Elementary School boundaries that remove walkers from their closest school?

Would you ensure that the boundary studies of new school openings are comprehensive and examine ES, MS, HS boundaries and feeders?

Would you recommend the removal of any MCPS employee enacting policies inconsistent with the Montgomery County Board of Education?

That should make it very clear where everyone stands and that way the voters vote how they would like to see the county schools act upon their behalf.

Which non-contiguous Elementary School boundaries remove walkers from their closest school?

Short memory? I would take a look at the Gaithersburg #8 thread. Also, R10 won't be walkers to Crown HS (the original point of this thread) unless some or all of Forest Oak MS is rezoned into Crown.

The point is that a few very misguided people at the top in MCPS are making decisions that parents do not approve of.

If you want parents to say you're doing a good job, then do a good job.

I asked earlier and you still have not answered. All of the ES boundaries in the Gaithersburg ES #8 study are contiguous with the exception of Rosemont, which has been non-contiguous for many years. Walkers to Rosemont are still walkers to Rosemont. Bus riders to Rosemont are not within the walk zone for any ES...so what is your point?

And yes, R10 students will almost certainly be walkers to Crown HS. They can split articulate FOMS between Crown and Gaithersburg, as I assume they will with several other middle schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about we add to the Women's League of Voter's list for the next election of the MCBOE.

Do you support non-contiguous Elementary School boundaries that remove walkers from their closest school?

Would you ensure that the boundary studies of new school openings are comprehensive and examine ES, MS, HS boundaries and feeders?

Would you recommend the removal of any MCPS employee enacting policies inconsistent with the Montgomery County Board of Education?

That should make it very clear where everyone stands and that way the voters vote how they would like to see the county schools act upon their behalf.

Which non-contiguous Elementary School boundaries remove walkers from their closest school?

Short memory? I would take a look at the Gaithersburg #8 thread. Also, R10 won't be walkers to Crown HS (the original point of this thread) unless some or all of Forest Oak MS is rezoned into Crown.

The point is that a few very misguided people at the top in MCPS are making decisions that parents do not approve of.

If you want parents to say you're doing a good job, then do a good job.

I asked earlier and you still have not answered. All of the ES boundaries in the Gaithersburg ES #8 study are contiguous with the exception of Rosemont, which has been non-contiguous for many years. Walkers to Rosemont are still walkers to Rosemont. Bus riders to Rosemont are not within the walk zone for any ES...so what is your point?

And yes, R10 students will almost certainly be walkers to Crown HS. They can split articulate FOMS between Crown and Gaithersburg, as I assume they will with several other middle schools.

Yeah crown will be mix of several split articulated ES/MS zones with no middle school itself. It’s a setting destined for failure. I’m not sure who would like to be rezoned there except Gaithersburg.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Yeah crown will be mix of several split articulated ES/MS zones with no middle school itself. It’s a setting destined for failure. I’m not sure who would like to be rezoned there except Gaithersburg.

Every silver lining has a cloud, for some people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yeah crown will be mix of several split articulated ES/MS zones with no middle school itself. It’s a setting destined for failure. I’m not sure who would like to be rezoned there except Gaithersburg.

Every silver lining has a cloud, for some people.

Sounds like you’re not a parent who has kids that may be rezoned

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I only saw a memo with a bunch of letter-numbers calling them zones. Never even heard of a zone before this memo. It wasn't until after the decision was made that I actually saw maps?

Does anyone know where every MCPS zone is published? Or have a link to them? I can only find the boundary maps online.

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

This doesn't show a map of zones (ex. "zone X3"). I'm looking for a map that shows all zones and names them.

[Anonymous]

There is a diagram on https://interactiveboundaryexplorer.com. If you scroll down to "Key Insights", "Utilization" you'll see a diagram that changes on it's own. One of the diagrams it scrolls through ("High School Utilization Rate by Attendance Areas") looks like it reveals the intent for Crown HS. According to the diagram it is intended to primarily cover the areas north of 370 and east of 270. The diagram doesn't show anyone west of 270.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yeah crown will be mix of several split articulated ES/MS zones with no middle school itself. It’s a setting destined for failure. I’m not sure who would like to be rezoned there except Gaithersburg.

Every silver lining has a cloud, for some people.

Sounds like you’re not a parent who has kids that may be rezoned

I'm the PP you're responding to, and you're right! I'm a parent who has kids who have already been rezoned.