Boundary study (2025 )

[Anonymous]

It's insane to build a new school and then have the next school over still be 20% over capacity. Gmafb

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Option 3 is sheer madness.

Except for the fact that it both maximizes facility utilization and reduces rather than increasing segregation. None of the other options achieves this.

It means that most of the people that could walk to BCC would no longer do so. That makes no sense! BCC is already very well integrated. Screwing over all the people that livd in Chevy Chase is not going to bode well for MCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Options 3 and 4 - so much change. People would protest.

It almost seems like options 3 and 4 are always the ones that are massive change to make options 1 and 2 look palatable .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Option 3 is sheer madness.

Except for the fact that it both maximizes facility utilization and reduces rather than increasing segregation. None of the other options achieves this.

Yes, and demonstrates how extremely contrived the boundaries would have to be to accomplish that. It almost makes the case for Option 1 because it shows that only an extremely drastic solution would “balance” these factors, so we may as well go with the least disruptive option of the other 3.

- obligatory “I have no dog in this fight” disclaimer

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Option 3 is sheer madness.

Except for the fact that it both maximizes facility utilization and reduces rather than increasing segregation. None of the other options achieves this.

It means that most of the people that could walk to BCC would no longer do so. That makes no sense! BCC is already very well integrated. Screwing over all the people that livd in Chevy Chase is not going to bode well for MCPS.

But think about all the kids that will now be able to walk to Einstein!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Option 3 is sheer madness.

Except for the fact that it both maximizes facility utilization and reduces rather than increasing segregation. None of the other options achieves this.

Yes, and demonstrates how extremely contrived the boundaries would have to be to accomplish that. It almost makes the case for Option 1 because it shows that only an extremely drastic solution would “balance” these factors, so we may as well go with the least disruptive option of the other 3.

- obligatory “I have no dog in this fight” disclaimer

Come on they can't keep Wheaton HS 20% over capacity. That is psychopathic

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Option 3 is sheer madness.

Except for the fact that it both maximizes facility utilization and reduces rather than increasing segregation. None of the other options achieves this.

Yes, and demonstrates how extremely contrived the boundaries would have to be to accomplish that. It almost makes the case for Option 1 because it shows that only an extremely drastic solution would “balance” these factors, so we may as well go with the least disruptive option of the other 3.

- obligatory “I have no dog in this fight” disclaimer

Come on they can't keep Wheaton HS 20% over capacity. That is psychopathic

They said something about the Thomas Edison HS taking some of these overflow Wheaton students — I didn’t really understand how and why. It has to do with some special program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Option 3 is sheer madness.

Except for the fact that it both maximizes facility utilization and reduces rather than increasing segregation. None of the other options achieves this.

Yes, and demonstrates how extremely contrived the boundaries would have to be to accomplish that. It almost makes the case for Option 1 because it shows that only an extremely drastic solution would “balance” these factors, so we may as well go with the least disruptive option of the other 3.

- obligatory “I have no dog in this fight” disclaimer

Come on they can't keep Wheaton HS 20% over capacity. That is psychopathic

They said something about the Thomas Edison HS taking some of these overflow Wheaton students — I didn’t really understand how and why. It has to do with some special program.

I think they said Edison has a shell space that could be built out to alleviate some overcrowding from Wheaton.

[Anonymous]

It's has to be option 2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Option 3 is sheer madness.

Except for the fact that it both maximizes facility utilization and reduces rather than increasing segregation. None of the other options achieves this.

Yes, and demonstrates how extremely contrived the boundaries would have to be to accomplish that. It almost makes the case for Option 1 because it shows that only an extremely drastic solution would “balance” these factors, so we may as well go with the least disruptive option of the other 3.

- obligatory “I have no dog in this fight” disclaimer

Come on they can't keep Wheaton HS 20% over capacity. That is psychopathic

They said something about the Thomas Edison HS taking some of these overflow Wheaton students — I didn’t really understand how and why. It has to do with some special program.

I think they said Edison has a shell space that could be built out to alleviate some overcrowding from Wheaton.

That won't be free

[Anonymous]

Remember these are just the first try at the options, there will be another round in the fall. It likely won't end up being anything presented today.

[Anonymous]

Enrollment is declining but they want to spend more money building extra space to avoid pissing off people in Chevy Chase?

Oh MoCo, never change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Option 3 is sheer madness.

Except for the fact that it both maximizes facility utilization and reduces rather than increasing segregation. None of the other options achieves this.

Yes, and demonstrates how extremely contrived the boundaries would have to be to accomplish that. It almost makes the case for Option 1 because it shows that only an extremely drastic solution would “balance” these factors, so we may as well go with the least disruptive option of the other 3.

- obligatory “I have no dog in this fight” disclaimer

Come on they can't keep Wheaton HS 20% over capacity. That is psychopathic

They said something about the Thomas Edison HS taking some of these overflow Wheaton students — I didn’t really understand how and why. It has to do with some special program.

I think they said Edison has a shell space that could be built out to alleviate some overcrowding from Wheaton.

So the DCC gets to endure an indefinite number of additional years of overcrowding because yuck poor people

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Okay, I really need to know if they're keeping the DCC to know how I feel about these options. Does anyone know when we find that out?

That should be decided via the Academic Programs Analysis project, so we should learn more over the next six months.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Remember these are just the first try at the options, there will be another round in the fall. It likely won't end up being anything presented today.

Yep. They have to take programs into account and decide on the new paradigm for magnets. Then they can look at the new school groupings, where all would, effectively, be in one or other consortium group of eligibility for group-based regional magnets and see how the group population projections would play, not just the projections for individual schools.

If, for instance, there were to be six regional magnet programs, one each for humanities, STEM, IB, performing arts, fine arts and business (examples only), with two placed at each of three schools in a regional group (maybe with some in-group school choice based on an underlying whole-school focus for each), and with groupings being Whitman/WJ/Einstein, Woodward/Wheaton/Kennedy & BCC/Northwood/Blair (again, examples only; who knows how many schools they might consider "right-sized" for a regional magnet grouping), then they might want to make sure that projected capacity utilization for each group was roughly equal.

That these first options were developed without such nuance beyond following more principally one of the four guiding policy aims (proximity, utilization, diversity, continuity) feeds an ongoing conspiracy theory that they simply want to collect enough commentary from which to select to serve whichever outcome they desire.