Gaithersburg ES #8 boundary recommendation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
but how does it make any sense for the neighborhood that is literally across the street from the MS to be zoned for the other MS. This is nuts.

Because

1. both middle schools are in the walk zone
2. there are 3 other factors to consider in boundary studies

What you wrote doesn't answer the question of "how does it make any sense for the neighborhood that is literally across the street from the MS to be zoned for the other MS?"

I'm not referring to the entire boundary. I'm referring to those specific neighborhoods literally right across the street from the MS being zoned for the other MS. Those kids could walk across the street to the MS that they are NOT assigned for. That part is really really stupid. Makes zero sense.

If you look at the satellite view of Forest Oak MS, it's easy to see how the new boundaries are an improvement: the school is surrounded on three sides by forested areas. There are no kids "across the street," but there are houses along Saybrooke Oaks Blvd which are currently zoned for Gaithersburg MS, but in the new boundaries are rezoned to Forest Oak, just a short walk away. These are zones Ga3 and Ga5 on the map.

It's also misleading that they have drawn the shape of the SK2 zone to include Forest Oak itself. They should have extended the Ga5 shape to include the Forest Oak site, because that neighborhood is right next to the school. Nobody lives in the eastern two-thirds of SK2.

The neighborhood that is directly south of FOMS now has about a 30min walk to GMS whereas it would take them 5min to walk to FOMS.

Same for neighborhoods surrounding GMS.

That makes zero sense to make those neighborhoods walk 30min away to a different MS, when they could literally walk across the street to their closest MS.

You are making yourself sound dumb by trying to make this part of the boundary appear to be "better".

Please be specific--which neighborhood are you talking about? Directly south of FOMS is zone Ga3, which has now been rezoned to FOMS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
but how does it make any sense for the neighborhood that is literally across the street from the MS to be zoned for the other MS. This is nuts.

Because

1. both middle schools are in the walk zone
2. there are 3 other factors to consider in boundary studies

What you wrote doesn't answer the question of "how does it make any sense for the neighborhood that is literally across the street from the MS to be zoned for the other MS?"

I'm not referring to the entire boundary. I'm referring to those specific neighborhoods literally right across the street from the MS being zoned for the other MS. Those kids could walk across the street to the MS that they are NOT assigned for. That part is really really stupid. Makes zero sense.

If you look at the satellite view of Forest Oak MS, it's easy to see how the new boundaries are an improvement: the school is surrounded on three sides by forested areas. There are no kids "across the street," but there are houses along Saybrooke Oaks Blvd which are currently zoned for Gaithersburg MS, but in the new boundaries are rezoned to Forest Oak, just a short walk away. These are zones Ga3 and Ga5 on the map.

It's also misleading that they have drawn the shape of the SK2 zone to include Forest Oak itself. They should have extended the Ga5 shape to include the Forest Oak site, because that neighborhood is right next to the school. Nobody lives in the eastern two-thirds of SK2.

The neighborhood that is directly south of FOMS now has about a 30min walk to GMS whereas it would take them 5min to walk to FOMS.

Same for neighborhoods surrounding GMS.

That makes zero sense to make those neighborhoods walk 30min away to a different MS, when they could literally walk across the street to their closest MS.

You are making yourself sound dumb by trying to make this part of the boundary appear to be "better".

There are unfortunately boundaries that do not many any sense, and usually, those are the ones that impact a high number of FARMS students. Look at the boundaries for Neelsville MS. There is not a single walker to that school. NOT ONE.

PP here.. I just looked at the current maps for both schools. You are correct.. some of the boundaries today do not make any sense, either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
but how does it make any sense for the neighborhood that is literally across the street from the MS to be zoned for the other MS. This is nuts.

Because

1. both middle schools are in the walk zone
2. there are 3 other factors to consider in boundary studies

And diversity is the top factor, not proximity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
but how does it make any sense for the neighborhood that is literally across the street from the MS to be zoned for the other MS. This is nuts.

Because

1. both middle schools are in the walk zone
2. there are 3 other factors to consider in boundary studies

What you wrote doesn't answer the question of "how does it make any sense for the neighborhood that is literally across the street from the MS to be zoned for the other MS?"

I'm not referring to the entire boundary. I'm referring to those specific neighborhoods literally right across the street from the MS being zoned for the other MS. Those kids could walk across the street to the MS that they are NOT assigned for. That part is really really stupid. Makes zero sense.

If you look at the satellite view of Forest Oak MS, it's easy to see how the new boundaries are an improvement: the school is surrounded on three sides by forested areas. There are no kids "across the street," but there are houses along Saybrooke Oaks Blvd which are currently zoned for Gaithersburg MS, but in the new boundaries are rezoned to Forest Oak, just a short walk away. These are zones Ga3 and Ga5 on the map.

It's also misleading that they have drawn the shape of the SK2 zone to include Forest Oak itself. They should have extended the Ga5 shape to include the Forest Oak site, because that neighborhood is right next to the school. Nobody lives in the eastern two-thirds of SK2.

The neighborhood that is directly south of FOMS now has about a 30min walk to GMS whereas it would take them 5min to walk to FOMS.

Same for neighborhoods surrounding GMS.

That makes zero sense to make those neighborhoods walk 30min away to a different MS, when they could literally walk across the street to their closest MS.

You are making yourself sound dumb by trying to make this part of the boundary appear to be "better".

There are unfortunately boundaries that do not many any sense, and usually, those are the ones that impact a high number of FARMS students. Look at the boundaries for Neelsville MS. There is not a single walker to that school. NOT ONE.

PP here.. you know, I had defended the upcounty boundary, but now I agree with those of you who fought against it. MCPS boundary decisions are becoming more and more bizarre.

Yes. Yes they are. And they will continue to become more and more bizarre until the diversity-first boundary policy is changed to proximity first. The county sent a loud and clear message via the boundary analysis when around 90% of people said they valued the nearest school the most and diversity the least.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

There are unfortunately boundaries that do not many any sense, and usually, those are the ones that impact a high number of FARMS students. Look at the boundaries for Neelsville MS. There is not a single walker to that school. NOT ONE.

You know how many walkers there were to Neelsville MS before the boundary change? Zero. NOT ONE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Yes. Yes they are. And they will continue to become more and more bizarre until the diversity-first boundary policy is changed to proximity first. The county sent a loud and clear message via the boundary analysis when around 90% of people said they valued the nearest school the most and diversity the least.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
but how does it make any sense for the neighborhood that is literally across the street from the MS to be zoned for the other MS. This is nuts.

Because

1. both middle schools are in the walk zone
2. there are 3 other factors to consider in boundary studies

What you wrote doesn't answer the question of "how does it make any sense for the neighborhood that is literally across the street from the MS to be zoned for the other MS?"

I'm not referring to the entire boundary. I'm referring to those specific neighborhoods literally right across the street from the MS being zoned for the other MS. Those kids could walk across the street to the MS that they are NOT assigned for. That part is really really stupid. Makes zero sense.

If you look at the satellite view of Forest Oak MS, it's easy to see how the new boundaries are an improvement: the school is surrounded on three sides by forested areas. There are no kids "across the street," but there are houses along Saybrooke Oaks Blvd which are currently zoned for Gaithersburg MS, but in the new boundaries are rezoned to Forest Oak, just a short walk away. These are zones Ga3 and Ga5 on the map.

It's also misleading that they have drawn the shape of the SK2 zone to include Forest Oak itself. They should have extended the Ga5 shape to include the Forest Oak site, because that neighborhood is right next to the school. Nobody lives in the eastern two-thirds of SK2.

And if you look at where people actually do live within SK2, like the Hidden Creek apartments, the walk from there to Gaithersburg MS is 1.1 miles, vs. the walk to Forest Oak MS which is 1.2 miles, even though it's also within SK2. So the maps can be deceiving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There are unfortunately boundaries that do not many any sense, and usually, those are the ones that impact a high number of FARMS students. Look at the boundaries for Neelsville MS. There is not a single walker to that school. NOT ONE.

You know how many walkers there were to Neelsville MS before the boundary change? Zero. NOT ONE.

Yes. That's the point. It didn't make sense before the boundary change and still doesn't make sense after the boundary change when they could've changed it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
but how does it make any sense for the neighborhood that is literally across the street from the MS to be zoned for the other MS. This is nuts.

Because

1. both middle schools are in the walk zone
2. there are 3 other factors to consider in boundary studies

What you wrote doesn't answer the question of "how does it make any sense for the neighborhood that is literally across the street from the MS to be zoned for the other MS?"

I'm not referring to the entire boundary. I'm referring to those specific neighborhoods literally right across the street from the MS being zoned for the other MS. Those kids could walk across the street to the MS that they are NOT assigned for. That part is really really stupid. Makes zero sense.

If you look at the satellite view of Forest Oak MS, it's easy to see how the new boundaries are an improvement: the school is surrounded on three sides by forested areas. There are no kids "across the street," but there are houses along Saybrooke Oaks Blvd which are currently zoned for Gaithersburg MS, but in the new boundaries are rezoned to Forest Oak, just a short walk away. These are zones Ga3 and Ga5 on the map.

It's also misleading that they have drawn the shape of the SK2 zone to include Forest Oak itself. They should have extended the Ga5 shape to include the Forest Oak site, because that neighborhood is right next to the school. Nobody lives in the eastern two-thirds of SK2.

The neighborhood that is directly south of FOMS now has about a 30min walk to GMS whereas it would take them 5min to walk to FOMS.

Same for neighborhoods surrounding GMS.

That makes zero sense to make those neighborhoods walk 30min away to a different MS, when they could literally walk across the street to their closest MS.

You are making yourself sound dumb by trying to make this part of the boundary appear to be "better".

Please be specific--which neighborhood are you talking about? Directly south of FOMS is zone Ga3, which has now been rezoned to FOMS.

Ok, so that map is hard to read. If the entire neigborhood that is directly below FOMS is now zoned for FOMS then I am wrong, and that part of the boundary make sense. Apologies. I stand corrected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There are unfortunately boundaries that do not many any sense, and usually, those are the ones that impact a high number of FARMS students. Look at the boundaries for Neelsville MS. There is not a single walker to that school. NOT ONE.

You know how many walkers there were to Neelsville MS before the boundary change? Zero. NOT ONE.

Yes. That's the point. It didn't make sense before the boundary change and still doesn't make sense after the boundary change when they could've changed it.

Please suggest your recommendations for changing it. Perhaps you think the area north of Neelsville MS should have been reassigned from MLK MS to Neelsville MS, which would create a split articulation for Sally Ride ES? Or maybe you think all of Sally Ride ES should have been reassigned from MLK MS to Neelsville MS, and then Gibbs ES should have been reassigned to MLK MS (which is further) instead of Neelsville MS (which is closer)? Or maybe you think South Lake ES should have been reassigned from Neelsville MS to Montgomery Village MS, which would have required including a FOURTH high school cluster in the boundary study and which would not only put Montgomery Village MS way over capacity but would also surely make it by far the highest-poverty middle school in MCPS? Or maybe reassign South Lake ES to Gaithersburg MS, which would have required including a FIFTH high school cluster in the boundary study?

I understand that people want easy answers, but there aren't any easy answers. It's easy to complain, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There are unfortunately boundaries that do not many any sense, and usually, those are the ones that impact a high number of FARMS students. Look at the boundaries for Neelsville MS. There is not a single walker to that school. NOT ONE.

You know how many walkers there were to Neelsville MS before the boundary change? Zero. NOT ONE.

Yes. That's the point. It didn't make sense before the boundary change and still doesn't make sense after the boundary change when they could've changed it.

Please suggest your recommendations for changing it. Perhaps you think the area north of Neelsville MS should have been reassigned from MLK MS to Neelsville MS, which would create a split articulation for Sally Ride ES? Or maybe you think all of Sally Ride ES should have been reassigned from MLK MS to Neelsville MS, and then Gibbs ES should have been reassigned to MLK MS (which is further) instead of Neelsville MS (which is closer)? Or maybe you think South Lake ES should have been reassigned from Neelsville MS to Montgomery Village MS, which would have required including a FOURTH high school cluster in the boundary study and which would not only put Montgomery Village MS way over capacity but would also surely make it by far the highest-poverty middle school in MCPS? Or maybe reassign South Lake ES to Gaithersburg MS, which would have required including a FIFTH high school cluster in the boundary study?

I understand that people want easy answers, but there aren't any easy answers. It's easy to complain, though.

Well, it is DCUM, after all.

[Anonymous]

Defending MCPS by claiming, "did you attend any of the 13 community meetings about this study?" or "did you testify?" No one who testified actually said "yes, this is a great boundary! I love it!" If MCPS really wanted everyone to understand it, they would have released the maps that explain the zones directly to the PTA's with enough time to poll parents as to what they thought. Did that happen? If it didn't, then MCPS and the board can never claim they received parental input or approval of their ideas and plans.

MCPS knows full well that giving the Public and parents The Palm is an inside joke at MCPS. The average parent doesn't even know that these testimonies exist. MCPS arranges meetings, or takes a call, or records a comment, all the while knowing that it won't change a thing. The rationale is oh, only that person complained, and they're a nut-case who doesn't represent the Public since no one else complained.

Arguing that "the boundaries were like this long before that policy was passed" ignores the fact that MCPS didn't lift a finger to correct it. Who is guilty then? Only MCPS.

Saying it's "easy to complain" or does the "roll the eyes emoji" - you know full well that when you hand is caught in the cookie jar what the parental reactions will be. But MCPS is confident that their unlimited legal defense funding from the County will continue.

The argument that "diversity is the top priority" was never something parents said. That was made up by the 2018 board of education to cover their tracks. The parents need to wake up and understand that the board members from 2018 were the most self-serving, corrupt and unprincipled in the history of Montgomery County. I believe that all this gerrymandering that's ongoing is self-serving for friends and family - not in the best interests and bulk of working parents and the Public.

Until parents organize and cuts off the MCPS legal defense fund, the board is voted out, and the top people at MCPS are completely replaced - expect this to get worse and worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Defending MCPS by claiming, "did you attend any of the 13 community meetings about this study?" or "did you testify?" No one who testified actually said "yes, this is a great boundary! I love it!" If MCPS really wanted everyone to understand it, they would have released the maps that explain the zones directly to the PTA's with enough time to poll parents as to what they thought. Did that happen? If it didn't, then MCPS and the board can never claim they received parental input or approval of their ideas and plans.

MCPS knows full well that giving the Public and parents The Palm is an inside joke at MCPS. The average parent doesn't even know that these testimonies exist. MCPS arranges meetings, or takes a call, or records a comment, all the while knowing that it won't change a thing. The rationale is oh, only that person complained, and they're a nut-case who doesn't represent the Public since no one else complained.

Arguing that "the boundaries were like this long before that policy was passed" ignores the fact that MCPS didn't lift a finger to correct it. Who is guilty then? Only MCPS.

Saying it's "easy to complain" or does the "roll the eyes emoji" - you know full well that when you hand is caught in the cookie jar what the parental reactions will be. But MCPS is confident that their unlimited legal defense funding from the County will continue.

The argument that "diversity is the top priority" was never something parents said. That was made up by the 2018 board of education to cover their tracks. The parents need to wake up and understand that the board members from 2018 were the most self-serving, corrupt and unprincipled in the history of Montgomery County. I believe that all this gerrymandering that's ongoing is self-serving for friends and family - not in the best interests and bulk of working parents and the Public.

Until parents organize and cuts off the MCPS legal defense fund, the board is voted out, and the top people at MCPS are completely replaced - expect this to get worse and worse.

Maybe not to that degree, but for the Gaithersburg study, most of the testimonies were very positive about the proposed changes, especially compared to the largely negative comments on the Bethesda study.

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/C8KPMN6349CE/$file/Jud%20Ashman%2C%20City%20of%20Gaithersburg%20Mayor.pdf

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/C8KNB65CB96B/$file/Jim%20McNulty%20Written%20Testimony.pdf

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/C8KNDB5CBF3D/$file/Carolyn%20Garvey%20Written%20Testimony.pdf

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/C8KNGD5D5E71/$file/Seth%20Kamen%20Written%20Testimony.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There are unfortunately boundaries that do not many any sense, and usually, those are the ones that impact a high number of FARMS students. Look at the boundaries for Neelsville MS. There is not a single walker to that school. NOT ONE.

You know how many walkers there were to Neelsville MS before the boundary change? Zero. NOT ONE.

Yes. That's the point. It didn't make sense before the boundary change and still doesn't make sense after the boundary change when they could've changed it.

Please suggest your recommendations for changing it. Perhaps you think the area north of Neelsville MS should have been reassigned from MLK MS to Neelsville MS, which would create a split articulation for Sally Ride ES? Or maybe you think all of Sally Ride ES should have been reassigned from MLK MS to Neelsville MS, and then Gibbs ES should have been reassigned to MLK MS (which is further) instead of Neelsville MS (which is closer)? Or maybe you think South Lake ES should have been reassigned from Neelsville MS to Montgomery Village MS, which would have required including a FOURTH high school cluster in the boundary study and which would not only put Montgomery Village MS way over capacity but would also surely make it by far the highest-poverty middle school in MCPS? Or maybe reassign South Lake ES to Gaithersburg MS, which would have required including a FIFTH high school cluster in the boundary study?

I understand that people want easy answers, but there aren't any easy answers. It's easy to complain, though.

Sally Ride ES already has a split articulation between Clemente and MLK. They could've moved those going to MLK to Neelsville to generate walkers. I am confused about the split articulation issue you bring up because clearly they didn't care about that since the option they chose created two split articulations both at Clarksburg ES and Gibbs. Anyway, the real test will come when the new Neelsville building is built. Let's hope they can come up with reasonable boundaries that will create walkers and balance out FARMS. That would of course require them to look at other nearby middle schools with much lower FARMS rates like Hallie Wells.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Sally Ride ES already has a split articulation between Clemente and MLK. They could've moved those going to MLK to Neelsville to generate walkers. I am confused about the split articulation issue you bring up because clearly they didn't care about that since the option they chose created two split articulations both at Clarksburg ES and Gibbs. Anyway, the real test will come when the new Neelsville building is built. Let's hope they can come up with reasonable boundaries that will create walkers and balance out FARMS. That would of course require them to look at other nearby middle schools with much lower FARMS rates like Hallie Wells.

What makes you think there will be a boundary study for the new Neelsville MS building? Was there a boundary study for the new Luxmanor ES building or the new Potomac ES building or the new Whitman HS addition or...?