Reply to Woodward boundary study public hearing

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

Reply to "Woodward boundary study public hearing"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I did not watch the hearing, but recently heard from a neighbor that there is growing advocacy to push for option B.  Is there truth to this and did it come up in the public meeting?  That option would be terrible for our neighborhood- we are walking sitance to Sligo but kids would be sent to SSIMS- I don't know why that was thrown out there as a potential option to begin with.  So overall I was ok with Taylor's recommendation as it relates to our neighborhood.  It's just hard to keep up with the changes and to anticipate what MCPS will throw out there next.  The options for our neighborhood changed pretty drastically from the first to second round and caught a lot of people off guard.[/quote]

There is some push for original Option B with regard to the now Current WJ cluster (sounds mainly like the Farmland/Luxmanor crew at the BOE mtg), not necessarily rest of map (but clearly would send WW back to Wheaton High).[/quote]

Wasn't there someone from Silver Spring who mentioned it too?  Either way, there were definitely SSiMS folks who wanted to increase the number of kids assigned to SSIMS and wanted to go back to one of the original maps, and I can't imagine the Board would choose the option B map for WJ/Wheaton and a totally different map for Silver Spring...[/quote]

The Northwood Cluster Coordinator from MCCPTA testified about SSIMS going down to 55% utilization being an attempt to start the closure without appropriate process and being problematic for the kids who go there at that low utilization.

The options really treat the 2 regions as separate entities and the Board could adopt a different option for region 3 and for region 1 without causing domino effect problems but so far no one seems to be talking about it that way. I think the Board would have to vote to consider a different option and then also vote to adopt it but I’m not sure. I am not a Robert’s Rules of Order aficionado.[/quote]

After being called out by the BOE, Elrich, Kate Stewart and others for lack of community engagement, Taylor is trying to use the boundary study to justify a future closure of SSIMS. It’s laughably transparent and also very manipulative. If this goes through he is inviting a law suit. [/quote]

I don't think it has anything to do with justifying the closure-- he will either get support for closing it or not, no one's going to say "you assigned fewer kids there and now there are fewer kids there, it's my deciding reason to close it!"

I think it is about trying to make it simpler and less disruptive to families if/when it does get closed.  No one at other schools wants to get sent there for a couple years just to live through the dying years of a closing school and then get reassigned away again.  So they minimized the new students they added-- just a portion of Woodlin-- so fewer families have to go through that (and fewer families get upset and protest being assigned to SSIMS.)  They could have kept the current Forest Knolls and Montgomery Knolls kids there, which probably would have made the most sense, but I think I heard that SSIMS families all supported them leaving?   So that all adds up to only 650-700 kids left at SSIMS.  [/quote]

Hi there, I remember you from previous threads. I’m glad you got your way in terms of your child being zoned to Sligo. No SSIMS parent “supported” any schools leaving. You have just repeatedly made that argument to twist the advocacy efforts of parents. But thanks for obsessively tracking/commenting on these threads to spread misinformation and pit schools against one another! [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics