Taylor's Feb Rec for Crown Boundary Study

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Different poster, but this is how the numbers would look based off of 2024-2025 enrollment numbers:

Dufief 276, Stone Mill 516, Travilah 372, Rosemont 564, Fields Road 453=2181 Capacity: 2219 Utilization 2181/2219=98.3 pct

Fallsmead 512, Lakewood 406, Cold Spring 362, Ritchie Park 342=1622 Capacity: 1936 Utilization 1622/1936= 83.8 pct

Twinbrook 459, Beall 475, College Gardens 506, Bayard Rustin 757=2197 Capacity: 2220 Utilization 2197/2220=98.96 pct

The above keeps Rio island with Fallsmead and keeps all of Rosemont together, mainly because don't know the actual numbers for the subsets that are in the immediate Crown/Rio area.

But there can be some additional balancing of the schools, including other surrounding schools to balance it out more. But the other poster doesn't appear to be that far off in that possibility based on enrollment/capacity.

Are these numbers representing the entire school or the four grades that would attend a high school at a given time?

How long did it take for you to look up these numbers? If MCPS paid you $100 an hour, they could have saved millions paying for all of these boundary studies.

You are right, that was whole school. This is for grades 2 through 5, based on 2024-2025 enrollment, at each of the schools:

Crown Dufief 195, Stone Mill 516, Travilah 329, Rosemont 371, Fields Road 292=1457 Capacity: 2219 Utilization 1459/2219=65.6 pct

Wootton Fallsmead 366, Lakewood 285, Cold Spring 291, Ritchie Park 226=1622 Capacity: 1168 Utilization 1168/1936= 60.3 pct

Richard Montgomery Twinbrook 268, Beall 291, College Gardens 351, Bayard Rustin 499=1409 Capacity: 2220 Utilization 1409/2220=63.5 pct

So based on the above it does look like the schools would be underutilized, if just looking at those schools.

They will never move RPES out of RM because it brings the higher SES to RM. Remember, that's why RPES first moved to RM out of Wootton in the first place. This is a pipe dream, even if it makes logical sense.

That was MAYBE back then.

But as others mentioned in other threads, the areas feeding into RM aren't that bad or different.

You have the southern part of King Farm, Woodley Gardens and College Gardens. We were originally cross shopping homes between the Fallsmead area, New Mark Commons and North Potomac. Not to mention that housing development right behind Julius West, Rose Hill?

So the Richard Montgomery areas wouldn't be terribly skewed one way or the other if Ritchie Park was removed from it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Different poster, but this is how the numbers would look based off of 2024-2025 enrollment numbers:

Dufief 276, Stone Mill 516, Travilah 372, Rosemont 564, Fields Road 453=2181 Capacity: 2219 Utilization 2181/2219=98.3 pct

Fallsmead 512, Lakewood 406, Cold Spring 362, Ritchie Park 342=1622 Capacity: 1936 Utilization 1622/1936= 83.8 pct

Twinbrook 459, Beall 475, College Gardens 506, Bayard Rustin 757=2197 Capacity: 2220 Utilization 2197/2220=98.96 pct

The above keeps Rio island with Fallsmead and keeps all of Rosemont together, mainly because don't know the actual numbers for the subsets that are in the immediate Crown/Rio area.

But there can be some additional balancing of the schools, including other surrounding schools to balance it out more. But the other poster doesn't appear to be that far off in that possibility based on enrollment/capacity.

Are these numbers representing the entire school or the four grades that would attend a high school at a given time?

How long did it take for you to look up these numbers? If MCPS paid you $100 an hour, they could have saved millions paying for all of these boundary studies.

You are right, that was whole school. This is for grades 2 through 5, based on 2024-2025 enrollment, at each of the schools:

Crown Dufief 195, Stone Mill 516, Travilah 329, Rosemont 371, Fields Road 292=1457 Capacity: 2219 Utilization 1459/2219=65.6 pct

Wootton Fallsmead 366, Lakewood 285, Cold Spring 291, Ritchie Park 226=1622 Capacity: 1168 Utilization 1168/1936= 60.3 pct

Richard Montgomery Twinbrook 268, Beall 291, College Gardens 351, Bayard Rustin 499=1409 Capacity: 2220 Utilization 1409/2220=63.5 pct

So based on the above it does look like the schools would be underutilized, if just looking at those schools.

They will never move RPES out of RM because it brings the higher SES to RM. Remember, that's why RPES first moved to RM out of Wootton in the first place. This is a pipe dream, even if it makes logical sense.

But that makes no sense at this current time given the new developments in Beall.and College Gardens boundaries over the past 20 years and home prices in historic Rockville. Maybe it was true 40 years ago, but there are plenty of higher income neighborhoods in the other RM cluster schools now.

"Plenty" is subjective and moving RPES out would raise the FARMS% at RMHS by a significant amount. RPES has a 12% FARMS rate; Beall has more than double the FARMs rate, coming in at 27.%. The remaining ES all have 40%+ FARMS rate. They will never move RPES out of RM.

CGES 43.3%
Rustin 41.6%
TBES 57.1%

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/siteassets/district/departments/planning/fy2027/CIP27_Chapter4_Richard-Montgomery-Cluster.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Different poster, but this is how the numbers would look based off of 2024-2025 enrollment numbers:

Dufief 276, Stone Mill 516, Travilah 372, Rosemont 564, Fields Road 453=2181 Capacity: 2219 Utilization 2181/2219=98.3 pct

Fallsmead 512, Lakewood 406, Cold Spring 362, Ritchie Park 342=1622 Capacity: 1936 Utilization 1622/1936= 83.8 pct

Twinbrook 459, Beall 475, College Gardens 506, Bayard Rustin 757=2197 Capacity: 2220 Utilization 2197/2220=98.96 pct

The above keeps Rio island with Fallsmead and keeps all of Rosemont together, mainly because don't know the actual numbers for the subsets that are in the immediate Crown/Rio area.

But there can be some additional balancing of the schools, including other surrounding schools to balance it out more. But the other poster doesn't appear to be that far off in that possibility based on enrollment/capacity.

Are these numbers representing the entire school or the four grades that would attend a high school at a given time?

How long did it take for you to look up these numbers? If MCPS paid you $100 an hour, they could have saved millions paying for all of these boundary studies.

You are right, that was whole school. This is for grades 2 through 5, based on 2024-2025 enrollment, at each of the schools:

Crown Dufief 195, Stone Mill 516, Travilah 329, Rosemont 371, Fields Road 292=1457 Capacity: 2219 Utilization 1459/2219=65.6 pct

Wootton Fallsmead 366, Lakewood 285, Cold Spring 291, Ritchie Park 226=1622 Capacity: 1168 Utilization 1168/1936= 60.3 pct

Richard Montgomery Twinbrook 268, Beall 291, College Gardens 351, Bayard Rustin 499=1409 Capacity: 2220 Utilization 1409/2220=63.5 pct

So based on the above it does look like the schools would be underutilized, if just looking at those schools.

They will never move RPES out of RM because it brings the higher SES to RM. Remember, that's why RPES first moved to RM out of Wootton in the first place. This is a pipe dream, even if it makes logical sense.

But that makes no sense at this current time given the new developments in Beall.and College Gardens boundaries over the past 20 years and home prices in historic Rockville. Maybe it was true 40 years ago, but there are plenty of higher income neighborhoods in the other RM cluster schools now.

"Plenty" is subjective and moving RPES out would raise the FARMS% at RMHS by a significant amount. RPES has a 12% FARMS rate; Beall has more than double the FARMs rate, coming in at 27.%. The remaining ES all have 40%+ FARMS rate. They will never move RPES out of RM.

CGES 43.3%
Rustin 41.6%
TBES 57.1%

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/siteassets/district/departments/planning/fy2027/CIP27_Chapter4_Richard-Montgomery-Cluster.pdf

Is there a reason why you didn't include Beall in the numbers above? (ie are they proposed to be reassigned somewhere?)

This what the FARMS numbers look like for the RM ES schools:
School Name--FARMS Pct--FARMS Cnt--Total Student Cnt
Twinbrook Elementary--59.5--281--472
Beall Elementary--31.2--153--491
Ritchie Park Elementary--13.7--47--342
College Gardens Elementary--45--225--500
Bayard Rustin Elementary--43.8--338--771

So total FARMS percentage is 1044/2576=40.5 percent

If you take out Ritchie Park, it becomes 997/2234=44.6 percent. So only a four percent increase and personally to me not a drastic increase if Ritchie Park was removed from RM.

[Anonymous]

nevermind my question about Beall not being included, I saw that you probably didn't have it listed along with RP because you had them listed in your details.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Different poster, but this is how the numbers would look based off of 2024-2025 enrollment numbers:

Dufief 276, Stone Mill 516, Travilah 372, Rosemont 564, Fields Road 453=2181 Capacity: 2219 Utilization 2181/2219=98.3 pct

Fallsmead 512, Lakewood 406, Cold Spring 362, Ritchie Park 342=1622 Capacity: 1936 Utilization 1622/1936= 83.8 pct

Twinbrook 459, Beall 475, College Gardens 506, Bayard Rustin 757=2197 Capacity: 2220 Utilization 2197/2220=98.96 pct

The above keeps Rio island with Fallsmead and keeps all of Rosemont together, mainly because don't know the actual numbers for the subsets that are in the immediate Crown/Rio area.

But there can be some additional balancing of the schools, including other surrounding schools to balance it out more. But the other poster doesn't appear to be that far off in that possibility based on enrollment/capacity.

Are these numbers representing the entire school or the four grades that would attend a high school at a given time?

How long did it take for you to look up these numbers? If MCPS paid you $100 an hour, they could have saved millions paying for all of these boundary studies.

You are right, that was whole school. This is for grades 2 through 5, based on 2024-2025 enrollment, at each of the schools:

Crown Dufief 195, Stone Mill 516, Travilah 329, Rosemont 371, Fields Road 292=1457 Capacity: 2219 Utilization 1459/2219=65.6 pct

Wootton Fallsmead 366, Lakewood 285, Cold Spring 291, Ritchie Park 226=1622 Capacity: 1168 Utilization 1168/1936= 60.3 pct

Richard Montgomery Twinbrook 268, Beall 291, College Gardens 351, Bayard Rustin 499=1409 Capacity: 2220 Utilization 1409/2220=63.5 pct

So based on the above it does look like the schools would be underutilized, if just looking at those schools.

They will never move RPES out of RM because it brings the higher SES to RM. Remember, that's why RPES first moved to RM out of Wootton in the first place. This is a pipe dream, even if it makes logical sense.

But that makes no sense at this current time given the new developments in Beall.and College Gardens boundaries over the past 20 years and home prices in historic Rockville. Maybe it was true 40 years ago, but there are plenty of higher income neighborhoods in the other RM cluster schools now.

"Plenty" is subjective and moving RPES out would raise the FARMS% at RMHS by a significant amount. RPES has a 12% FARMS rate; Beall has more than double the FARMs rate, coming in at 27.%. The remaining ES all have 40%+ FARMS rate. They will never move RPES out of RM.

CGES 43.3%
Rustin 41.6%
TBES 57.1%

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/siteassets/district/departments/planning/fy2027/CIP27_Chapter4_Richard-Montgomery-Cluster.pdf

And what is the new FARMS rate at Churchill when Cold Spring moves in? There are plenty of high schools with higher FARMS rates why single out RM and Ritchie Park especially when RM is overcrowded? What is an alternate solution to reduce overcrowding at RM then? There is absolutely no reason for a school that is part of a boundary study to have *no* changes in boundaries when one of the reasons for Crown was to reduce overcrowding at RM. Why should there be portables remaining at any high school after a boundary study is complete.

Diversity us only one of 4 factors in a boundary study, geography/macimizing walkers and favility utilization are 2 other factors that are *not* addressed by the current recommdndation and ARE addressed by the proposal a few posts up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Different poster, but this is how the numbers would look based off of 2024-2025 enrollment numbers:

Dufief 276, Stone Mill 516, Travilah 372, Rosemont 564, Fields Road 453=2181 Capacity: 2219 Utilization 2181/2219=98.3 pct

Fallsmead 512, Lakewood 406, Cold Spring 362, Ritchie Park 342=1622 Capacity: 1936 Utilization 1622/1936= 83.8 pct

Twinbrook 459, Beall 475, College Gardens 506, Bayard Rustin 757=2197 Capacity: 2220 Utilization 2197/2220=98.96 pct

The above keeps Rio island with Fallsmead and keeps all of Rosemont together, mainly because don't know the actual numbers for the subsets that are in the immediate Crown/Rio area.

But there can be some additional balancing of the schools, including other surrounding schools to balance it out more. But the other poster doesn't appear to be that far off in that possibility based on enrollment/capacity.

Are these numbers representing the entire school or the four grades that would attend a high school at a given time?

How long did it take for you to look up these numbers? If MCPS paid you $100 an hour, they could have saved millions paying for all of these boundary studies.

You are right, that was whole school. This is for grades 2 through 5, based on 2024-2025 enrollment, at each of the schools:

Crown Dufief 195, Stone Mill 516, Travilah 329, Rosemont 371, Fields Road 292=1457 Capacity: 2219 Utilization 1459/2219=65.6 pct

Wootton Fallsmead 366, Lakewood 285, Cold Spring 291, Ritchie Park 226=1622 Capacity: 1168 Utilization 1168/1936= 60.3 pct

Richard Montgomery Twinbrook 268, Beall 291, College Gardens 351, Bayard Rustin 499=1409 Capacity: 2220 Utilization 1409/2220=63.5 pct

So based on the above it does look like the schools would be underutilized, if just looking at those schools.

They will never move RPES out of RM because it brings the higher SES to RM. Remember, that's why RPES first moved to RM out of Wootton in the first place. This is a pipe dream, even if it makes logical sense.

But that makes no sense at this current time given the new developments in Beall.and College Gardens boundaries over the past 20 years and home prices in historic Rockville. Maybe it was true 40 years ago, but there are plenty of higher income neighborhoods in the other RM cluster schools now.

"Plenty" is subjective and moving RPES out would raise the FARMS% at RMHS by a significant amount. RPES has a 12% FARMS rate; Beall has more than double the FARMs rate, coming in at 27.%. The remaining ES all have 40%+ FARMS rate. They will never move RPES out of RM.

CGES 43.3%
Rustin 41.6%
TBES 57.1%

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/siteassets/district/departments/planning/fy2027/CIP27_Chapter4_Richard-Montgomery-Cluster.pdf

And what is the new FARMS rate at Churchill when Cold Spring moves in? There are plenty of high schools with higher FARMS rates why single out RM and Ritchie Park especially when RM is overcrowded? What is an alternate solution to reduce overcrowding at RM then? There is absolutely no reason for a school that is part of a boundary study to have *no* changes in boundaries when one of the reasons for Crown was to reduce overcrowding at RM. Why should there be portables remaining at any high school after a boundary study is complete.

Diversity us only one of 4 factors in a boundary study, geography/macimizing walkers and favility utilization are 2 other factors that are *not* addressed by the current recommdndation and ARE addressed by the proposal a few posts up.

PP - sorry for the typos, last paragraph should read:

Diversity is only one of 4 factors in a boundary study, geography/maximizing walkers and facility utilization are 2 other factors that are *not* addressed by the current recommendation and ARE addressed by the proposal a few posts up

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Different poster, but this is how the numbers would look based off of 2024-2025 enrollment numbers:

Dufief 276, Stone Mill 516, Travilah 372, Rosemont 564, Fields Road 453=2181 Capacity: 2219 Utilization 2181/2219=98.3 pct

Fallsmead 512, Lakewood 406, Cold Spring 362, Ritchie Park 342=1622 Capacity: 1936 Utilization 1622/1936= 83.8 pct

Twinbrook 459, Beall 475, College Gardens 506, Bayard Rustin 757=2197 Capacity: 2220 Utilization 2197/2220=98.96 pct

The above keeps Rio island with Fallsmead and keeps all of Rosemont together, mainly because don't know the actual numbers for the subsets that are in the immediate Crown/Rio area.

But there can be some additional balancing of the schools, including other surrounding schools to balance it out more. But the other poster doesn't appear to be that far off in that possibility based on enrollment/capacity.

Are these numbers representing the entire school or the four grades that would attend a high school at a given time?

How long did it take for you to look up these numbers? If MCPS paid you $100 an hour, they could have saved millions paying for all of these boundary studies.

You are right, that was whole school. This is for grades 2 through 5, based on 2024-2025 enrollment, at each of the schools:

Crown Dufief 195, Stone Mill 516, Travilah 329, Rosemont 371, Fields Road 292=1457 Capacity: 2219 Utilization 1459/2219=65.6 pct

Wootton Fallsmead 366, Lakewood 285, Cold Spring 291, Ritchie Park 226=1622 Capacity: 1168 Utilization 1168/1936= 60.3 pct

Richard Montgomery Twinbrook 268, Beall 291, College Gardens 351, Bayard Rustin 499=1409 Capacity: 2220 Utilization 1409/2220=63.5 pct

So based on the above it does look like the schools would be underutilized, if just looking at those schools.

They will never move RPES out of RM because it brings the higher SES to RM. Remember, that's why RPES first moved to RM out of Wootton in the first place. This is a pipe dream, even if it makes logical sense.

But that makes no sense at this current time given the new developments in Beall.and College Gardens boundaries over the past 20 years and home prices in historic Rockville. Maybe it was true 40 years ago, but there are plenty of higher income neighborhoods in the other RM cluster schools now.

"Plenty" is subjective and moving RPES out would raise the FARMS% at RMHS by a significant amount. RPES has a 12% FARMS rate; Beall has more than double the FARMs rate, coming in at 27.%. The remaining ES all have 40%+ FARMS rate. They will never move RPES out of RM.

CGES 43.3%
Rustin 41.6%
TBES 57.1%

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/siteassets/district/departments/planning/fy2027/CIP27_Chapter4_Richard-Montgomery-Cluster.pdf

And what is the new FARMS rate at Churchill when Cold Spring moves in? There are plenty of high schools with higher FARMS rates why single out RM and Ritchie Park especially when RM is overcrowded? What is an alternate solution to reduce overcrowding at RM then? There is absolutely no reason for a school that is part of a boundary study to have *no* changes in boundaries when one of the reasons for Crown was to reduce overcrowding at RM. Why should there be portables remaining at any high school after a boundary study is complete.

Diversity us only one of 4 factors in a boundary study, geography/macimizing walkers and favility utilization are 2 other factors that are *not* addressed by the current recommdndation and ARE addressed by the proposal a few posts up.

It's much easier for MCPS to keep higher SES at RM than at Churchill. They will do everything possible to keep higher SES at a school with 20%+ FARMs rate.

I agree that Option H projected enrollment is ridiculous. I stated as much up thread. MCPS is making a huge assumption about the enrollment changes due to the regional programs, and I'm 99% sure RMHS will still be over capacity with H. BUT, they still won't move RPES out of RM. If they need to move a neighborhood out of RM it won't be a higher SES neighborhood. It makes the most sense to move the northside of CGES neighborhood, to Wootton at Crown, distance and FARMs rate wise.

Also, I live in the RPES neighborhood but we will be done with MCPS this year (thankfully).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Different poster, but this is how the numbers would look based off of 2024-2025 enrollment numbers:

Dufief 276, Stone Mill 516, Travilah 372, Rosemont 564, Fields Road 453=2181 Capacity: 2219 Utilization 2181/2219=98.3 pct

Fallsmead 512, Lakewood 406, Cold Spring 362, Ritchie Park 342=1622 Capacity: 1936 Utilization 1622/1936= 83.8 pct

Twinbrook 459, Beall 475, College Gardens 506, Bayard Rustin 757=2197 Capacity: 2220 Utilization 2197/2220=98.96 pct

The above keeps Rio island with Fallsmead and keeps all of Rosemont together, mainly because don't know the actual numbers for the subsets that are in the immediate Crown/Rio area.

But there can be some additional balancing of the schools, including other surrounding schools to balance it out more. But the other poster doesn't appear to be that far off in that possibility based on enrollment/capacity.

Are these numbers representing the entire school or the four grades that would attend a high school at a given time?

How long did it take for you to look up these numbers? If MCPS paid you $100 an hour, they could have saved millions paying for all of these boundary studies.

You are right, that was whole school. This is for grades 2 through 5, based on 2024-2025 enrollment, at each of the schools:

Crown Dufief 195, Stone Mill 516, Travilah 329, Rosemont 371, Fields Road 292=1457 Capacity: 2219 Utilization 1459/2219=65.6 pct

Wootton Fallsmead 366, Lakewood 285, Cold Spring 291, Ritchie Park 226=1622 Capacity: 1168 Utilization 1168/1936= 60.3 pct

Richard Montgomery Twinbrook 268, Beall 291, College Gardens 351, Bayard Rustin 499=1409 Capacity: 2220 Utilization 1409/2220=63.5 pct

So based on the above it does look like the schools would be underutilized, if just looking at those schools.

They will never move RPES out of RM because it brings the higher SES to RM. Remember, that's why RPES first moved to RM out of Wootton in the first place. This is a pipe dream, even if it makes logical sense.

But that makes no sense at this current time given the new developments in Beall.and College Gardens boundaries over the past 20 years and home prices in historic Rockville. Maybe it was true 40 years ago, but there are plenty of higher income neighborhoods in the other RM cluster schools now.

"Plenty" is subjective and moving RPES out would raise the FARMS% at RMHS by a significant amount. RPES has a 12% FARMS rate; Beall has more than double the FARMs rate, coming in at 27.%. The remaining ES all have 40%+ FARMS rate. They will never move RPES out of RM.

CGES 43.3%
Rustin 41.6%
TBES 57.1%

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/siteassets/district/departments/planning/fy2027/CIP27_Chapter4_Richard-Montgomery-Cluster.pdf

And what is the new FARMS rate at Churchill when Cold Spring moves in? There are plenty of high schools with higher FARMS rates why single out RM and Ritchie Park especially when RM is overcrowded? What is an alternate solution to reduce overcrowding at RM then? There is absolutely no reason for a school that is part of a boundary study to have *no* changes in boundaries when one of the reasons for Crown was to reduce overcrowding at RM. Why should there be portables remaining at any high school after a boundary study is complete.

Diversity us only one of 4 factors in a boundary study, geography/macimizing walkers and favility utilization are 2 other factors that are *not* addressed by the current recommdndation and ARE addressed by the proposal a few posts up.

It's much easier for MCPS to keep higher SES at RM than at Churchill. They will do everything possible to keep higher SES at a school with 20%+ FARMs rate.

I agree that Option H projected enrollment is ridiculous. I stated as much up thread. MCPS is making a huge assumption about the enrollment changes due to the regional programs, and I'm 99% sure RMHS will still be over capacity with H. BUT, they still won't move RPES out of RM. If they need to move a neighborhood out of RM it won't be a higher SES neighborhood. It makes the most sense to move the northside of CGES neighborhood, to Wootton at Crown, distance and FARMs rate wise.

Also, I live in the RPES neighborhood but we will be done with MCPS this year (thankfully).

Sorry, that should read.. "It's much easier for MCPS to keep higher SES at RM than bring lower SES to Churchill.."

[Anonymous]

When RM has 9 portables and Horizon Hill can walk to Wootton, I don't understand how any boundary recommendations can be taken seriously that don't include moving Ritchie Park to Wootton.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When RM has 9 portables and Horizon Hill can walk to Wootton, I don't understand how any boundary recommendations can be taken seriously that don't include moving Ritchie Park to Wootton.

Is this satire? Wootton is closing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Is this satire? Wootton is closing.

That hasn't been decided yet.

[Anonymous]

Interesting. MCPS's Swiatocha said that MCPS can and would use Wootton as a holding school WITHOUT any additional renovations or improvements to the facility.

This makes me question their FCI model....since it paints a much more dire picture than what she just said.

[Anonymous]

Did anyone see the BOE work session today? I missed it. Any developments? Still looking like H?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone see the BOE work session today? I missed it. Any developments? Still looking like H?

It's still going on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone see the BOE work session today? I missed it. Any developments? Still looking like H?

It's still going on.

Is this online? Is there a link to watch?