Just IN!!!! Youtube video of Boundary Analysis Discussion / Board of Education Jan. 9, 2020

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My issue is not the “especially” language, it’s how they applied it two schools that had no other reason for a change - no modernization, not overcapacity.

Are you referring to Clarksburg? Was that boundary study initiated solely to balance demographics?

Perfectly legitimate reasons for a boundary shift for the opening of Seneca Valley, a huge, new, modern facility with great new programs. But I don’t see the rationale for including the two middle schools and shifting demographics there as part of that study. The MS piece doesn’t seem like it should have been included. But this has been appealed to the state BOE for an answer on that so stay tuned.

Now in a couple of years, one of the MS is getting an upgrade, so I would think boundary changes should be done at that time (using the especially for diversity language).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My issue is not the “especially” language, it’s how they applied it two schools that had no other reason for a change - no modernization, not overcapacity.

Are you're referring to the boundary changes for two of the middle schools included in the upcounty boundary study? The appeal claims that it's illegal for MCPS to do a boundary reassignment for a school unless it's over capacity or has a new building. I have no idea where they got that from.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My issue is not the “especially” language, it’s how they applied it two schools that had no other reason for a change - no modernization, not overcapacity.

Are you're referring to the boundary changes for two of the middle schools included in the upcounty boundary study? The appeal claims that it's illegal for MCPS to do a boundary reassignment for a school unless it's over capacity or has a new building. I have no idea where they got that from.

If the public had an opportunity to have a robust and healthy debate about the recent changes in policy with explanations from the BOE on what the language meant, we would have better understood what they intended. We’re only able to do that now that we see how the policy plays out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My issue is not the “especially” language, it’s how they applied it two schools that had no other reason for a change - no modernization, not overcapacity.

Are you're referring to the boundary changes for two of the middle schools included in the upcounty boundary study? The appeal claims that it's illegal for MCPS to do a boundary reassignment for a school unless it's over capacity or has a new building. I have no idea where they got that from.

If the public had an opportunity to have a robust and healthy debate about the recent changes in policy with explanations from the BOE on what the language meant, we would have better understood what they intended. We’re only able to do that now that we see how the policy plays out.

It’s a shame that we keep losing local newspapers too. Back in the day, the Gazette and the Montgomery Sentinel would have reported on and explained these issues to the public. journalism is part of a healthy democracy too - so sad to see the Sentinel close up shop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sorry when people say FAA what are they referring to? Assuming it’s not the federal aviation administration

It's MCPS's policy on Educational Facilities Planning. The "FAA" isn't an abbreviation; it's just an identification code.

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/policy/detail.aspx?recID=128&policyID=FAA§ionID=6

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My issue is not the “especially” language, it’s how they applied it two schools that had no other reason for a change - no modernization, not overcapacity.

Are you referring to Clarksburg? Was that boundary study initiated solely to balance demographics?

Perfectly legitimate reasons for a boundary shift for the opening of Seneca Valley, a huge, new, modern facility with great new programs. But I don’t see the rationale for including the two middle schools and shifting demographics there as part of that study. The MS piece doesn’t seem like it should have been included. But this has been appealed to the state BOE for an answer on that so stay tuned.

Now in a couple of years, one of the MS is getting an upgrade, so I would think boundary changes should be done at that time (using the especially for diversity language).

Clarksburg was the most overcrowded school in the county, projected soon to have 900 too many students. Seneca Valley will be a totally rebuilt school. Demographics changed little. Looks like a win-win. People don’t like change. Clarksburg parents favored a plan that would have made that school significantly more affluent than Seneca Valley.

Elementary schools were reassigned to reduce the free and reduced lunch rates at Neelsville middle school. But proximity played a role too. Some kids will be bused a mile or so farther but some kids will be bused a mile or so closer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:More magnet schools are needed, esp with all the focus in title 1 kids,

Indeed!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My issue is not the “especially” language, it’s how they applied it two schools that had no other reason for a change - no modernization, not overcapacity.

Are you referring to Clarksburg? Was that boundary study initiated solely to balance demographics?

Perfectly legitimate reasons for a boundary shift for the opening of Seneca Valley, a huge, new, modern facility with great new programs. But I don’t see the rationale for including the two middle schools and shifting demographics there as part of that study. The MS piece doesn’t seem like it should have been included. But this has been appealed to the state BOE for an answer on that so stay tuned.

Now in a couple of years, one of the MS is getting an upgrade, so I would think boundary changes should be done at that time (using the especially for diversity language).

Clarksburg was the most overcrowded school in the county, projected soon to have 900 too many students. Seneca Valley will be a totally rebuilt school. Demographics changed little. Looks like a win-win. People don’t like change. Clarksburg parents favored a plan that would have made that school significantly more affluent than Seneca Valley.

Elementary schools were reassigned to reduce the free and reduced lunch rates at Neelsville middle school. But proximity played a role too. Some kids will be bused a mile or so farther but some kids will be bused a mile or so closer.

And don't think it's a coincidence that the BOE conveniently reduced the Neelesville farms rate to 54%, when 55% is the required min. farms rate in order for a school to recieve Kirwan funding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My issue is not the “especially” language, it’s how they applied it two schools that had no other reason for a change - no modernization, not overcapacity.

Are you referring to Clarksburg? Was that boundary study initiated solely to balance demographics?

Perfectly legitimate reasons for a boundary shift for the opening of Seneca Valley, a huge, new, modern facility with great new programs. But I don’t see the rationale for including the two middle schools and shifting demographics there as part of that study. The MS piece doesn’t seem like it should have been included. But this has been appealed to the state BOE for an answer on that so stay tuned.

Now in a couple of years, one of the MS is getting an upgrade, so I would think boundary changes should be done at that time (using the especially for diversity language).

Clarksburg was the most overcrowded school in the county, projected soon to have 900 too many students. Seneca Valley will be a totally rebuilt school. Demographics changed little. Looks like a win-win. People don’t like change. Clarksburg parents favored a plan that would have made that school significantly more affluent than Seneca Valley.

Elementary schools were reassigned to reduce the free and reduced lunch rates at Neelsville middle school. But proximity played a role too. Some kids will be bused a mile or so farther but some kids will be bused a mile or so closer.

And don't think it's a coincidence that the BOE conveniently reduced the Neelesville farms rate to 54%, when 55% is the required min. farms rate in order for a school to recieve Kirwan funding.

That actually has been debunked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My issue is not the “especially” language, it’s how they applied it two schools that had no other reason for a change - no modernization, not overcapacity.

Are you referring to Clarksburg? Was that boundary study initiated solely to balance demographics?

Perfectly legitimate reasons for a boundary shift for the opening of Seneca Valley, a huge, new, modern facility with great new programs. But I don’t see the rationale for including the two middle schools and shifting demographics there as part of that study. The MS piece doesn’t seem like it should have been included. But this has been appealed to the state BOE for an answer on that so stay tuned.

Now in a couple of years, one of the MS is getting an upgrade, so I would think boundary changes should be done at that time (using the especially for diversity language).

Clarksburg was the most overcrowded school in the county, projected soon to have 900 too many students. Seneca Valley will be a totally rebuilt school. Demographics changed little. Looks like a win-win. People don’t like change. Clarksburg parents favored a plan that would have made that school significantly more affluent than Seneca Valley.

Elementary schools were reassigned to reduce the free and reduced lunch rates at Neelsville middle school. But proximity played a role too. Some kids will be bused a mile or so farther but some kids will be bused a mile or so closer.

And don't think it's a coincidence that the BOE conveniently reduced the Neelesville farms rate to 54%, when 55% is the required min. farms rate in order for a school to recieve Kirwan funding.

I keep reading on DCUM that MCPS numbers are garbage. Now you're giving them credit for jiggering numbers so accurately that they arrived at 54% vs 55% in their enrollment projections for one middle school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My issue is not the “especially” language, it’s how they applied it two schools that had no other reason for a change - no modernization, not overcapacity.

Are you referring to Clarksburg? Was that boundary study initiated solely to balance demographics?

Perfectly legitimate reasons for a boundary shift for the opening of Seneca Valley, a huge, new, modern facility with great new programs. But I don’t see the rationale for including the two middle schools and shifting demographics there as part of that study. The MS piece doesn’t seem like it should have been included. But this has been appealed to the state BOE for an answer on that so stay tuned.

Now in a couple of years, one of the MS is getting an upgrade, so I would think boundary changes should be done at that time (using the especially for diversity language).

Clarksburg was the most overcrowded school in the county, projected soon to have 900 too many students. Seneca Valley will be a totally rebuilt school. Demographics changed little. Looks like a win-win. People don’t like change. Clarksburg parents favored a plan that would have made that school significantly more affluent than Seneca Valley.

Elementary schools were reassigned to reduce the free and reduced lunch rates at Neelsville middle school. But proximity played a role too. Some kids will be bused a mile or so farther but some kids will be bused a mile or so closer.

And don't think it's a coincidence that the BOE conveniently reduced the Neelesville farms rate to 54%, when 55% is the required min. farms rate in order for a school to recieve Kirwan funding.

That actually has been debunked.

and how has this been debunked?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

and how has this been debunked?

The Neelsville MS FARMS rate will be what it actually is, when (if) Kirwan gets funded. Not what MCPS calculated it would be, based on [assumptions], in a 2019 boundary study.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No current Board is bound by a past Board's action. They can make any changes they want.

They are not proposing ANY changes with this assesent. They are getting someone from outside MCPS (which I think is a good thong - don't trust MCPS at all - they gave us these over crowded schools with these boundaries) to take a look.

They have said multiple times they are not busing kids across the county. They are not going to make traffic worse, spend money they don't have on busses and bus drivers - they made it clear they are looking at adjacent clusters only.

So much misinformation and unnecessary outrage. I am as frustrated with MCPS as others with their lack of transparency, but they cleared that up at the meeting. There will be no boundary changes from this assessment.

Thank you for being a voice of reason.

and when people go on and on about neighborhood schools in a lot of cases people's assigned school is not actually the one that is physically closest to their house.
https://mobile.twitter.com/CaitlynnPeetz14/status/1216003644925075457/photo/1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No current Board is bound by a past Board's action. They can make any changes they want.

They are not proposing ANY changes with this assesent. They are getting someone from outside MCPS (which I think is a good thong - don't trust MCPS at all - they gave us these over crowded schools with these boundaries) to take a look.

They have said multiple times they are not busing kids across the county. They are not going to make traffic worse, spend money they don't have on busses and bus drivers - they made it clear they are looking at adjacent clusters only.

So much misinformation and unnecessary outrage. I am as frustrated with MCPS as others with their lack of transparency, but they cleared that up at the meeting. There will be no boundary changes from this assessment.

Thank you for being a voice of reason.

and when people go on and on about neighborhood schools in a lot of cases people's assigned school is not actually the one that is physically closest to their house.
https://mobile.twitter.com/CaitlynnPeetz14/status/1216003644925075457/photo/1

This argument keeps coming up and it’s really not persuasive. There will always be cases of students going to a school that is not closest to their homes because the population is so dense down county and the schools themselves are equidistant.

[Anonymous]

* NOT equidistant