Initial boundary options for Crown/Damascus study

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Moving Wayside out of Churchill helps with utilization. How else will they get Churchill below 100%?

It’s a BS utilization at Churchill. They’ve reduced capacity by 100 seats from when it first opened. What happened did the school shrink? Churchill has just had a period of a few years with higher enrollment which was consistently in lower figures and never had a portable until a year or two I believe. Kids there have stated it’s not crowded aside from the portable there’s no evidence to that.

Churchill parent here. There's no problem with Churchill being overcapacity. Yes, there are a couple of portables and I'm sure those teachers aren't excited about them. But I've never felt Churchill had too many kids generally. It's not hurting education or the social environment. And there's not much new construction in this area, so I wouldn't expect the problem to become worse in the next decade.

I have always wondered, though, why there are kids sooo far west that come to Churchill. Those are largely Wayside kids, and some Potomac kids. So yes, to drive from Wayside ES to Wootton HS, it may be about the same distance as going to from Wayside ES to Churchill HS. But a huge part of that geography is far closer to Wootton than to Churchill. Same with the Northern part of the Potomac ES boundaries. The culprit is that they're not looking at ES boundaries. I'd be interested in knowing the *average* student's bus time to both high schools-- there is certainly some house that is closer to Churchill and some house that is closer to Wootton. In sum, I think, capacity-wise, it would be fine for Wayside to continue to go to Churchill. But I think the quality of life for the average Wayside kid might improve by going to the closer school.

Wayside families definitely closer to Churchill for the most part. For us, it is 3 miles more to Wootton than to Churchill and an additional 10 minutes (give or take) round trip. Not horrible but doesn't make sense.

The Wayside families that should never been zoned to Wayside in the first place are in the Potomac Glen area. There are three other elementary schools closer to that neighborhood, namely Lakewood, Stone Mill, and Travilah. Why they were ever zoned for Wayside/Churchill is bizarre, but from what I understand the contractor that built that development had some connections with Montgomery County politicians who made it happen. That is the only area that should be rezoned to Wootton and to the appropriate elementary school. The rest of Wayside belongs at Churchill.

But they're not changing ES boundaries. And ES split articulation to different middle schools sounds terrible. And you're citing a 5 minute increase (one way) for part of the school zone to go to Wootton where another part of the school zone would probably save 2 or 3 times that by going to Wootton. And MCPS is trying to put together a big jigsaw puzzle in which not every household will benefit, but the overall system is better. So all in all, adding 5 minuts to a commute for some people isn't going to be a deal-changer in the overall puzzle.

Based on what you said, if we could invent a time machine, people here might push for the school zone to have been created differently 20 years ago. And it sounds like there are a lot of people here who would favor looking at ES boundaries but that doesn't seem like it's going to happen. So this is where we are.

Why is ES split articulation so bad? As someone who went to a MS and then split that wasn’t ideal, but at least I gained about 60-70 peers in MS to join my ES cohort to HS. However we were def lopsided as my MS was like 120 strong out of 450-500 total 9th grade.

I feel like if say an ES consists of on average 70 kids per graduating class, if about 30-40 were split to two different middle schools, that’s not the end of the world. At that age ALL of the kids in a MS are coming together from small cohorts. So a MS class of 300-400 could consist of 4-6 groups of 30-100 kids. So the 30-40 split could be very similar to another 40-50 from ES #2 and another 60-70 from ES #3 and another 100 from ES #4 for example.

If those kids do NOT split again for HS that gives 7 years together grades 6-12 which is a year more than time together in ES and often times kids are closest with those from those later years.

Worse would be a tiny split (less than 25 kids for example) from an ES to MS, even worse would be then splitting both ES to MS and MS to HS. Worst of all would be going together to MS but then a subset of an ES splitting as a tiny portion of a MS to HS. For example 100 ES kids go to MS with a total of 400 kids. If 50 of those ES kids by themselves go to HS while the other 350 go to HS thats awful. Peer groups are super formed by HS though def changed for me and others.

I bristle at the idea of split articulation for ES students because MS is so damned hard, socially. Pretty much everyone looks back on MS and views it negatively because it's just a hard and awkward age. That said, ES kids tend to be pretty resilient with moves and making new friends. So perhaps creating disruption between 5th and 6th grades would be favorable to creating it between 8th and 9th. Neither is great, but maybe earlier is the lesser evil. It would also create a motivation for MCPS to redraw ES boundaries-- they could split-articulate now in a way that would allow them to sew things back up in a few years with an ES boundary study (getting rid of the split articulation at that point.).

There are options that Lakewood has only 5-10 gets split among 70ish students. That neighborhood is also relatively poorer than the rest of Lakewood. Does MCPS think they can just bully the weak?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everyone knows the only reason RPES goes to RM is to help RM’s FARMS numbers. It’s reverse discrimination in the name of “equity”

That was true when they were moved in the 80s...less so now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The irony that a few decades ago Ritchie Park families went BALLISTIC when they were moved from Wootton to Richard Montgomery because they were almost all walkers and then were bussed instead.

But the board is like hmmm, let’s move Wayside to Wootton and not even consider Ritchie Park right up the street and convert them back to walkers, tells you everything you need to know about how f’d up this entire thing is.

+1

I am shocked how many of these plans have walkers less than 1/2 mile (way less than the 2 mile) getting bused to other high schools.

I honestly thought they were going to clean up a lot of congestion and all of these plans make it worse for almost every high school.

The biggest shock is that 2 of the 4 options keep the Rio area bused all the way to Wootton instead of walking across Fields to attend Crown HS. Dumbest thing I’ve seen.

While I'm not a big fan of split articulation, I do see the argument for moving the Fallsmead triangle since they can walk to Crown. What worries me is that if they move the Fallsmead triangle to Crown, that could mean they are choosing one of their pro-split articulation options (options 2 and 4) that also involve things like breaking up Lakewood to send a small group to Crown that most definitely cannot walk there. I'm wondering how much they see these options as grouped together such that making one change will imply others, particularly for schools currently in the same cluster like Fallsmead and Lakewood.

I think the reason they are sending that small Lakewood group to Crown along with the Fallsmead triangle in those pro-split articulation options is because they *do* think the Lakewood group is walking distance to Crown. Despite it being a 45 minute walk along busy/dangerous roads. It's insanity!!!

Nobody will let their kids walk 45 min each way on high way 28 everyday. BOE needs to withdraw these asinine options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Moving Wayside out of Churchill helps with utilization. How else will they get Churchill below 100%?

It’s a BS utilization at Churchill. They’ve reduced capacity by 100 seats from when it first opened. What happened did the school shrink? Churchill has just had a period of a few years with higher enrollment which was consistently in lower figures and never had a portable until a year or two I believe. Kids there have stated it’s not crowded aside from the portable there’s no evidence to that.

Churchill parent here. There's no problem with Churchill being overcapacity. Yes, there are a couple of portables and I'm sure those teachers aren't excited about them. But I've never felt Churchill had too many kids generally. It's not hurting education or the social environment. And there's not much new construction in this area, so I wouldn't expect the problem to become worse in the next decade.

I have always wondered, though, why there are kids sooo far west that come to Churchill. Those are largely Wayside kids, and some Potomac kids. So yes, to drive from Wayside ES to Wootton HS, it may be about the same distance as going to from Wayside ES to Churchill HS. But a huge part of that geography is far closer to Wootton than to Churchill. Same with the Northern part of the Potomac ES boundaries. The culprit is that they're not looking at ES boundaries. I'd be interested in knowing the *average* student's bus time to both high schools-- there is certainly some house that is closer to Churchill and some house that is closer to Wootton. In sum, I think, capacity-wise, it would be fine for Wayside to continue to go to Churchill. But I think the quality of life for the average Wayside kid might improve by going to the closer school.

Wayside families definitely closer to Churchill for the most part. For us, it is 3 miles more to Wootton than to Churchill and an additional 10 minutes (give or take) round trip. Not horrible but doesn't make sense.

The Wayside families that should never been zoned to Wayside in the first place are in the Potomac Glen area. There are three other elementary schools closer to that neighborhood, namely Lakewood, Stone Mill, and Travilah. Why they were ever zoned for Wayside/Churchill is bizarre, but from what I understand the contractor that built that development had some connections with Montgomery County politicians who made it happen. That is the only area that should be rezoned to Wootton and to the appropriate elementary school. The rest of Wayside belongs at Churchill.

But they're not changing ES boundaries. And ES split articulation to different middle schools sounds terrible. And you're citing a 5 minute increase (one way) for part of the school zone to go to Wootton where another part of the school zone would probably save 2 or 3 times that by going to Wootton. And MCPS is trying to put together a big jigsaw puzzle in which not every household will benefit, but the overall system is better. So all in all, adding 5 minuts to a commute for some people isn't going to be a deal-changer in the overall puzzle.

Based on what you said, if we could invent a time machine, people here might push for the school zone to have been created differently 20 years ago. And it sounds like there are a lot of people here who would favor looking at ES boundaries but that doesn't seem like it's going to happen. So this is where we are.

Why is ES split articulation so bad? As someone who went to a MS and then split that wasn’t ideal, but at least I gained about 60-70 peers in MS to join my ES cohort to HS. However we were def lopsided as my MS was like 120 strong out of 450-500 total 9th grade.

I feel like if say an ES consists of on average 70 kids per graduating class, if about 30-40 were split to two different middle schools, that’s not the end of the world. At that age ALL of the kids in a MS are coming together from small cohorts. So a MS class of 300-400 could consist of 4-6 groups of 30-100 kids. So the 30-40 split could be very similar to another 40-50 from ES #2 and another 60-70 from ES #3 and another 100 from ES #4 for example.

If those kids do NOT split again for HS that gives 7 years together grades 6-12 which is a year more than time together in ES and often times kids are closest with those from those later years.

Worse would be a tiny split (less than 25 kids for example) from an ES to MS, even worse would be then splitting both ES to MS and MS to HS. Worst of all would be going together to MS but then a subset of an ES splitting as a tiny portion of a MS to HS. For example 100 ES kids go to MS with a total of 400 kids. If 50 of those ES kids by themselves go to HS while the other 350 go to HS thats awful. Peer groups are super formed by HS though def changed for me and others.

I bristle at the idea of split articulation for ES students because MS is so damned hard, socially. Pretty much everyone looks back on MS and views it negatively because it's just a hard and awkward age. That said, ES kids tend to be pretty resilient with moves and making new friends. So perhaps creating disruption between 5th and 6th grades would be favorable to creating it between 8th and 9th. Neither is great, but maybe earlier is the lesser evil. It would also create a motivation for MCPS to redraw ES boundaries-- they could split-articulate now in a way that would allow them to sew things back up in a few years with an ES boundary study (getting rid of the split articulation at that point.).

There are options that Lakewood has only 5-10 gets split among 70ish students. That neighborhood is also relatively poorer than the rest of Lakewood. Does MCPS think they can just bully the weak?

Options 2 and 4 are absolutely brutal for that small Lakewood neighborhood that has no business being broken apart from the rest of Lakewood and forced to walk 45 minutes to Crown. For those affected, there is a change petition: https://www.change.org/p/don-t-divide-lakewood-keep-all-our-community-together-in-wootton.

[Anonymous]

Not sure I understand the change.org petition going around.

Parents are upset they are moving from the #4 school to the #3 school?

I don't even understand the reasoning in the petition. Something about 504 and IEPs? They have those at Wootton.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Moving Wayside out of Churchill helps with utilization. How else will they get Churchill below 100%?

It’s a BS utilization at Churchill. They’ve reduced capacity by 100 seats from when it first opened. What happened did the school shrink? Churchill has just had a period of a few years with higher enrollment which was consistently in lower figures and never had a portable until a year or two I believe. Kids there have stated it’s not crowded aside from the portable there’s no evidence to that.

Churchill parent here. There's no problem with Churchill being overcapacity. Yes, there are a couple of portables and I'm sure those teachers aren't excited about them. But I've never felt Churchill had too many kids generally. It's not hurting education or the social environment. And there's not much new construction in this area, so I wouldn't expect the problem to become worse in the next decade.

I have always wondered, though, why there are kids sooo far west that come to Churchill. Those are largely Wayside kids, and some Potomac kids. So yes, to drive from Wayside ES to Wootton HS, it may be about the same distance as going to from Wayside ES to Churchill HS. But a huge part of that geography is far closer to Wootton than to Churchill. Same with the Northern part of the Potomac ES boundaries. The culprit is that they're not looking at ES boundaries. I'd be interested in knowing the *average* student's bus time to both high schools-- there is certainly some house that is closer to Churchill and some house that is closer to Wootton. In sum, I think, capacity-wise, it would be fine for Wayside to continue to go to Churchill. But I think the quality of life for the average Wayside kid might improve by going to the closer school.

Wayside families definitely closer to Churchill for the most part. For us, it is 3 miles more to Wootton than to Churchill and an additional 10 minutes (give or take) round trip. Not horrible but doesn't make sense.

The Wayside families that should never been zoned to Wayside in the first place are in the Potomac Glen area. There are three other elementary schools closer to that neighborhood, namely Lakewood, Stone Mill, and Travilah. Why they were ever zoned for Wayside/Churchill is bizarre, but from what I understand the contractor that built that development had some connections with Montgomery County politicians who made it happen. That is the only area that should be rezoned to Wootton and to the appropriate elementary school. The rest of Wayside belongs at Churchill.

But they're not changing ES boundaries. And ES split articulation to different middle schools sounds terrible. And you're citing a 5 minute increase (one way) for part of the school zone to go to Wootton where another part of the school zone would probably save 2 or 3 times that by going to Wootton. And MCPS is trying to put together a big jigsaw puzzle in which not every household will benefit, but the overall system is better. So all in all, adding 5 minuts to a commute for some people isn't going to be a deal-changer in the overall puzzle.

Based on what you said, if we could invent a time machine, people here might push for the school zone to have been created differently 20 years ago. And it sounds like there are a lot of people here who would favor looking at ES boundaries but that doesn't seem like it's going to happen. So this is where we are.

Why is ES split articulation so bad? As someone who went to a MS and then split that wasn’t ideal, but at least I gained about 60-70 peers in MS to join my ES cohort to HS. However we were def lopsided as my MS was like 120 strong out of 450-500 total 9th grade.

I feel like if say an ES consists of on average 70 kids per graduating class, if about 30-40 were split to two different middle schools, that’s not the end of the world. At that age ALL of the kids in a MS are coming together from small cohorts. So a MS class of 300-400 could consist of 4-6 groups of 30-100 kids. So the 30-40 split could be very similar to another 40-50 from ES #2 and another 60-70 from ES #3 and another 100 from ES #4 for example.

If those kids do NOT split again for HS that gives 7 years together grades 6-12 which is a year more than time together in ES and often times kids are closest with those from those later years.

Worse would be a tiny split (less than 25 kids for example) from an ES to MS, even worse would be then splitting both ES to MS and MS to HS. Worst of all would be going together to MS but then a subset of an ES splitting as a tiny portion of a MS to HS. For example 100 ES kids go to MS with a total of 400 kids. If 50 of those ES kids by themselves go to HS while the other 350 go to HS thats awful. Peer groups are super formed by HS though def changed for me and others.

I bristle at the idea of split articulation for ES students because MS is so damned hard, socially. Pretty much everyone looks back on MS and views it negatively because it's just a hard and awkward age. That said, ES kids tend to be pretty resilient with moves and making new friends. So perhaps creating disruption between 5th and 6th grades would be favorable to creating it between 8th and 9th. Neither is great, but maybe earlier is the lesser evil. It would also create a motivation for MCPS to redraw ES boundaries-- they could split-articulate now in a way that would allow them to sew things back up in a few years with an ES boundary study (getting rid of the split articulation at that point.).

There are options that Lakewood has only 5-10 gets split among 70ish students. That neighborhood is also relatively poorer than the rest of Lakewood. Does MCPS think they can just bully the weak?

Options 2 and 4 are absolutely brutal for that small Lakewood neighborhood that has no business being broken apart from the rest of Lakewood and forced to walk 45 minutes to Crown. For those affected, there is a change petition: https://www.change.org/p/don-t-divide-lakewood-keep-all-our-community-together-in-wootton.

Your link is broken

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Moving Wayside out of Churchill helps with utilization. How else will they get Churchill below 100%?

It’s a BS utilization at Churchill. They’ve reduced capacity by 100 seats from when it first opened. What happened did the school shrink? Churchill has just had a period of a few years with higher enrollment which was consistently in lower figures and never had a portable until a year or two I believe. Kids there have stated it’s not crowded aside from the portable there’s no evidence to that.

Churchill parent here. There's no problem with Churchill being overcapacity. Yes, there are a couple of portables and I'm sure those teachers aren't excited about them. But I've never felt Churchill had too many kids generally. It's not hurting education or the social environment. And there's not much new construction in this area, so I wouldn't expect the problem to become worse in the next decade.

I have always wondered, though, why there are kids sooo far west that come to Churchill. Those are largely Wayside kids, and some Potomac kids. So yes, to drive from Wayside ES to Wootton HS, it may be about the same distance as going to from Wayside ES to Churchill HS. But a huge part of that geography is far closer to Wootton than to Churchill. Same with the Northern part of the Potomac ES boundaries. The culprit is that they're not looking at ES boundaries. I'd be interested in knowing the *average* student's bus time to both high schools-- there is certainly some house that is closer to Churchill and some house that is closer to Wootton. In sum, I think, capacity-wise, it would be fine for Wayside to continue to go to Churchill. But I think the quality of life for the average Wayside kid might improve by going to the closer school.

Wayside families definitely closer to Churchill for the most part. For us, it is 3 miles more to Wootton than to Churchill and an additional 10 minutes (give or take) round trip. Not horrible but doesn't make sense.

The Wayside families that should never been zoned to Wayside in the first place are in the Potomac Glen area. There are three other elementary schools closer to that neighborhood, namely Lakewood, Stone Mill, and Travilah. Why they were ever zoned for Wayside/Churchill is bizarre, but from what I understand the contractor that built that development had some connections with Montgomery County politicians who made it happen. That is the only area that should be rezoned to Wootton and to the appropriate elementary school. The rest of Wayside belongs at Churchill.

But they're not changing ES boundaries. And ES split articulation to different middle schools sounds terrible. And you're citing a 5 minute increase (one way) for part of the school zone to go to Wootton where another part of the school zone would probably save 2 or 3 times that by going to Wootton. And MCPS is trying to put together a big jigsaw puzzle in which not every household will benefit, but the overall system is better. So all in all, adding 5 minuts to a commute for some people isn't going to be a deal-changer in the overall puzzle.

Based on what you said, if we could invent a time machine, people here might push for the school zone to have been created differently 20 years ago. And it sounds like there are a lot of people here who would favor looking at ES boundaries but that doesn't seem like it's going to happen. So this is where we are.

Why is ES split articulation so bad? As someone who went to a MS and then split that wasn’t ideal, but at least I gained about 60-70 peers in MS to join my ES cohort to HS. However we were def lopsided as my MS was like 120 strong out of 450-500 total 9th grade.

I feel like if say an ES consists of on average 70 kids per graduating class, if about 30-40 were split to two different middle schools, that’s not the end of the world. At that age ALL of the kids in a MS are coming together from small cohorts. So a MS class of 300-400 could consist of 4-6 groups of 30-100 kids. So the 30-40 split could be very similar to another 40-50 from ES #2 and another 60-70 from ES #3 and another 100 from ES #4 for example.

If those kids do NOT split again for HS that gives 7 years together grades 6-12 which is a year more than time together in ES and often times kids are closest with those from those later years.

Worse would be a tiny split (less than 25 kids for example) from an ES to MS, even worse would be then splitting both ES to MS and MS to HS. Worst of all would be going together to MS but then a subset of an ES splitting as a tiny portion of a MS to HS. For example 100 ES kids go to MS with a total of 400 kids. If 50 of those ES kids by themselves go to HS while the other 350 go to HS thats awful. Peer groups are super formed by HS though def changed for me and others.

I bristle at the idea of split articulation for ES students because MS is so damned hard, socially. Pretty much everyone looks back on MS and views it negatively because it's just a hard and awkward age. That said, ES kids tend to be pretty resilient with moves and making new friends. So perhaps creating disruption between 5th and 6th grades would be favorable to creating it between 8th and 9th. Neither is great, but maybe earlier is the lesser evil. It would also create a motivation for MCPS to redraw ES boundaries-- they could split-articulate now in a way that would allow them to sew things back up in a few years with an ES boundary study (getting rid of the split articulation at that point.).

There are options that Lakewood has only 5-10 gets split among 70ish students. That neighborhood is also relatively poorer than the rest of Lakewood. Does MCPS think they can just bully the weak?

Options 2 and 4 are absolutely brutal for that small Lakewood neighborhood that has no business being broken apart from the rest of Lakewood and forced to walk 45 minutes to Crown. For those affected, there is a change petition: https://www.change.org/p/don-t-divide-lakewood-keep-all-our-community-together-in-wootton.

Your link is broken

Ack! Thanks for telling me! The period at the end did it. Let me try my post again:

Options 2 and 4 are absolutely brutal for that small Lakewood neighborhood that has no business being broken apart from the rest of Lakewood and forced to walk 45 minutes to Crown. For those affected, there is a change petition: https://www.change.org/p/don-t-divide-lakewood-keep-all-our-community-together-in-wootton

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not sure I understand the change.org petition going around.

Parents are upset they are moving from the #4 school to the #3 school?

I don't even understand the reasoning in the petition. Something about 504 and IEPs? They have those at Wootton.

Because they don’t want moldy building with asbestos. MCPS has money to build an unnecessary Crown nobody wants to go but doesn’t have money to renovate Wootton

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The irony that a few decades ago Ritchie Park families went BALLISTIC when they were moved from Wootton to Richard Montgomery because they were almost all walkers and then were bussed instead.

But the board is like hmmm, let’s move Wayside to Wootton and not even consider Ritchie Park right up the street and convert them back to walkers, tells you everything you need to know about how f’d up this entire thing is.

+1

I am shocked how many of these plans have walkers less than 1/2 mile (way less than the 2 mile) getting bused to other high schools.

I honestly thought they were going to clean up a lot of congestion and all of these plans make it worse for almost every high school.

The biggest shock is that 2 of the 4 options keep the Rio area bused all the way to Wootton instead of walking across Fields to attend Crown HS. Dumbest thing I’ve seen.

While I'm not a big fan of split articulation, I do see the argument for moving the Fallsmead triangle since they can walk to Crown. What worries me is that if they move the Fallsmead triangle to Crown, that could mean they are choosing one of their pro-split articulation options (options 2 and 4) that also involve things like breaking up Lakewood to send a small group to Crown that most definitely cannot walk there. I'm wondering how much they see these options as grouped together such that making one change will imply others, particularly for schools currently in the same cluster like Fallsmead and Lakewood.

I think the reason they are sending that small Lakewood group to Crown along with the Fallsmead triangle in those pro-split articulation options is because they *do* think the Lakewood group is walking distance to Crown. Despite it being a 45 minute walk along busy/dangerous roads. It's insanity!!!

Nobody will let their kids walk 45 min each way on high way 28 everyday. BOE needs to withdraw these asinine options.

Right. Designating this Lakewood neighborhood as walking distance to Crown is effectively just taking bus service away from the neighborhood and forcing the parents to figure out driving options. Because walking is not viable. And of course this will just increase any traffic/congestion issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The irony that a few decades ago Ritchie Park families went BALLISTIC when they were moved from Wootton to Richard Montgomery because they were almost all walkers and then were bussed instead.

But the board is like hmmm, let’s move Wayside to Wootton and not even consider Ritchie Park right up the street and convert them back to walkers, tells you everything you need to know about how f’d up this entire thing is.

+1

I am shocked how many of these plans have walkers less than 1/2 mile (way less than the 2 mile) getting bused to other high schools.

I honestly thought they were going to clean up a lot of congestion and all of these plans make it worse for almost every high school.

The biggest shock is that 2 of the 4 options keep the Rio area bused all the way to Wootton instead of walking across Fields to attend Crown HS. Dumbest thing I’ve seen.

While I'm not a big fan of split articulation, I do see the argument for moving the Fallsmead triangle since they can walk to Crown. What worries me is that if they move the Fallsmead triangle to Crown, that could mean they are choosing one of their pro-split articulation options (options 2 and 4) that also involve things like breaking up Lakewood to send a small group to Crown that most definitely cannot walk there. I'm wondering how much they see these options as grouped together such that making one change will imply others, particularly for schools currently in the same cluster like Fallsmead and Lakewood.

I think the reason they are sending that small Lakewood group to Crown along with the Fallsmead triangle in those pro-split articulation options is because they *do* think the Lakewood group is walking distance to Crown. Despite it being a 45 minute walk along busy/dangerous roads. It's insanity!!!

Nobody will let their kids walk 45 min each way on high way 28 everyday. BOE needs to withdraw these asinine options.

Right. Designating this Lakewood neighborhood as walking distance to Crown is effectively just taking bus service away from the neighborhood and forcing the parents to figure out driving options. Because walking is not viable. And of course this will just increase any traffic/congestion issues.

The boundary study won't actually determine which neighborhoods get bus service to Crown. That'll come later when transportation does an analysis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:RM is a good school but RPES students shouldn’t be used as pawns to fill a racial quota

100%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The irony that a few decades ago Ritchie Park families went BALLISTIC when they were moved from Wootton to Richard Montgomery because they were almost all walkers and then were bussed instead.

But the board is like hmmm, let’s move Wayside to Wootton and not even consider Ritchie Park right up the street and convert them back to walkers, tells you everything you need to know about how f’d up this entire thing is.

+1

I am shocked how many of these plans have walkers less than 1/2 mile (way less than the 2 mile) getting bused to other high schools.

I honestly thought they were going to clean up a lot of congestion and all of these plans make it worse for almost every high school.

The biggest shock is that 2 of the 4 options keep the Rio area bused all the way to Wootton instead of walking across Fields to attend Crown HS. Dumbest thing I’ve seen.

While I'm not a big fan of split articulation, I do see the argument for moving the Fallsmead triangle since they can walk to Crown. What worries me is that if they move the Fallsmead triangle to Crown, that could mean they are choosing one of their pro-split articulation options (options 2 and 4) that also involve things like breaking up Lakewood to send a small group to Crown that most definitely cannot walk there. I'm wondering how much they see these options as grouped together such that making one change will imply others, particularly for schools currently in the same cluster like Fallsmead and Lakewood.

I think the reason they are sending that small Lakewood group to Crown along with the Fallsmead triangle in those pro-split articulation options is because they *do* think the Lakewood group is walking distance to Crown. Despite it being a 45 minute walk along busy/dangerous roads. It's insanity!!!

Nobody will let their kids walk 45 min each way on high way 28 everyday. BOE needs to withdraw these asinine options.

Right. Designating this Lakewood neighborhood as walking distance to Crown is effectively just taking bus service away from the neighborhood and forcing the parents to figure out driving options. Because walking is not viable. And of course this will just increase any traffic/congestion issues.

The boundary study won't actually determine which neighborhoods get bus service to Crown. That'll come later when transportation does an analysis.

Then they should not designate that small neighborhood as walk zone of crown and split it out from rest of Lakewood

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The irony that a few decades ago Ritchie Park families went BALLISTIC when they were moved from Wootton to Richard Montgomery because they were almost all walkers and then were bussed instead.

But the board is like hmmm, let’s move Wayside to Wootton and not even consider Ritchie Park right up the street and convert them back to walkers, tells you everything you need to know about how f’d up this entire thing is.

+1

I am shocked how many of these plans have walkers less than 1/2 mile (way less than the 2 mile) getting bused to other high schools.

I honestly thought they were going to clean up a lot of congestion and all of these plans make it worse for almost every high school.

The biggest shock is that 2 of the 4 options keep the Rio area bused all the way to Wootton instead of walking across Fields to attend Crown HS. Dumbest thing I’ve seen.

While I'm not a big fan of split articulation, I do see the argument for moving the Fallsmead triangle since they can walk to Crown. What worries me is that if they move the Fallsmead triangle to Crown, that could mean they are choosing one of their pro-split articulation options (options 2 and 4) that also involve things like breaking up Lakewood to send a small group to Crown that most definitely cannot walk there. I'm wondering how much they see these options as grouped together such that making one change will imply others, particularly for schools currently in the same cluster like Fallsmead and Lakewood.

I think the reason they are sending that small Lakewood group to Crown along with the Fallsmead triangle in those pro-split articulation options is because they *do* think the Lakewood group is walking distance to Crown. Despite it being a 45 minute walk along busy/dangerous roads. It's insanity!!!

Nobody will let their kids walk 45 min each way on high way 28 everyday. BOE needs to withdraw these asinine options.

Right. Designating this Lakewood neighborhood as walking distance to Crown is effectively just taking bus service away from the neighborhood and forcing the parents to figure out driving options. Because walking is not viable. And of course this will just increase any traffic/congestion issues.

The boundary study won't actually determine which neighborhoods get bus service to Crown. That'll come later when transportation does an analysis.

If they aren’t expecting to save on buses due to false perceptions of what’s walkable, it’s extra confusing why they are messing with that Lakewood neighborhood. Do those few kids have a big impact on demographics?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The irony that a few decades ago Ritchie Park families went BALLISTIC when they were moved from Wootton to Richard Montgomery because they were almost all walkers and then were bussed instead.

But the board is like hmmm, let’s move Wayside to Wootton and not even consider Ritchie Park right up the street and convert them back to walkers, tells you everything you need to know about how f’d up this entire thing is.

+1

I am shocked how many of these plans have walkers less than 1/2 mile (way less than the 2 mile) getting bused to other high schools.

I honestly thought they were going to clean up a lot of congestion and all of these plans make it worse for almost every high school.

The biggest shock is that 2 of the 4 options keep the Rio area bused all the way to Wootton instead of walking across Fields to attend Crown HS. Dumbest thing I’ve seen.

While I'm not a big fan of split articulation, I do see the argument for moving the Fallsmead triangle since they can walk to Crown. What worries me is that if they move the Fallsmead triangle to Crown, that could mean they are choosing one of their pro-split articulation options (options 2 and 4) that also involve things like breaking up Lakewood to send a small group to Crown that most definitely cannot walk there. I'm wondering how much they see these options as grouped together such that making one change will imply others, particularly for schools currently in the same cluster like Fallsmead and Lakewood.

I think the reason they are sending that small Lakewood group to Crown along with the Fallsmead triangle in those pro-split articulation options is because they *do* think the Lakewood group is walking distance to Crown. Despite it being a 45 minute walk along busy/dangerous roads. It's insanity!!!

Nobody will let their kids walk 45 min each way on high way 28 everyday. BOE needs to withdraw these asinine options.

Right. Designating this Lakewood neighborhood as walking distance to Crown is effectively just taking bus service away from the neighborhood and forcing the parents to figure out driving options. Because walking is not viable. And of course this will just increase any traffic/congestion issues.

The boundary study won't actually determine which neighborhoods get bus service to Crown. That'll come later when transportation does an analysis.

If they aren’t expecting to save on buses due to false perceptions of what’s walkable, it’s extra confusing why they are messing with that Lakewood neighborhood. Do those few kids have a big impact on demographics?

It feels like MCPS and BOE are unfairly targeting the Wootton district—almost as if there’s a deliberate effort to disrupt our community. None of the options offers any benefit in any school demographics, but they just want some Wootton neighborhoods to be split out for the sake of change and pay the price for their agenda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The irony that a few decades ago Ritchie Park families went BALLISTIC when they were moved from Wootton to Richard Montgomery because they were almost all walkers and then were bussed instead.

But the board is like hmmm, let’s move Wayside to Wootton and not even consider Ritchie Park right up the street and convert them back to walkers, tells you everything you need to know about how f’d up this entire thing is.

+1

I am shocked how many of these plans have walkers less than 1/2 mile (way less than the 2 mile) getting bused to other high schools.

I honestly thought they were going to clean up a lot of congestion and all of these plans make it worse for almost every high school.

The biggest shock is that 2 of the 4 options keep the Rio area bused all the way to Wootton instead of walking across Fields to attend Crown HS. Dumbest thing I’ve seen.

While I'm not a big fan of split articulation, I do see the argument for moving the Fallsmead triangle since they can walk to Crown. What worries me is that if they move the Fallsmead triangle to Crown, that could mean they are choosing one of their pro-split articulation options (options 2 and 4) that also involve things like breaking up Lakewood to send a small group to Crown that most definitely cannot walk there. I'm wondering how much they see these options as grouped together such that making one change will imply others, particularly for schools currently in the same cluster like Fallsmead and Lakewood.

I think the reason they are sending that small Lakewood group to Crown along with the Fallsmead triangle in those pro-split articulation options is because they *do* think the Lakewood group is walking distance to Crown. Despite it being a 45 minute walk along busy/dangerous roads. It's insanity!!!

Nobody will let their kids walk 45 min each way on high way 28 everyday. BOE needs to withdraw these asinine options.

Right. Designating this Lakewood neighborhood as walking distance to Crown is effectively just taking bus service away from the neighborhood and forcing the parents to figure out driving options. Because walking is not viable. And of course this will just increase any traffic/congestion issues.

The boundary study won't actually determine which neighborhoods get bus service to Crown. That'll come later when transportation does an analysis.

If they aren’t expecting to save on buses due to false perceptions of what’s walkable, it’s extra confusing why they are messing with that Lakewood neighborhood. Do those few kids have a big impact on demographics?

It feels like MCPS and BOE are unfairly targeting the Wootton district—almost as if there’s a deliberate effort to disrupt our community. None of the options offers any benefit in any school demographics, but they just want some Wootton neighborhoods to be split out for the sake of change and pay the price for their agenda.

This is what is happening with *every* cluster. No cluster is being left alone - they are all being shifted and moved around. Wootton is not different. And again, there is a new school being built and Wootton is one of the closest clusters to it - where do you expect the children to come from to populate a new school?