Reply to 2nd round options for Crown/Damascus HS?

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

Reply to "2nd round options for Crown/Damascus HS?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]To be honest, I think this round is much better. I’m not saying there’s no articulation, but it’s definitely much less.[/quote]

I agree. The options in this round are way more reasonable. I hope they only fine tune these options and no surprises for next round. [/quote]

Agree very much overall this is much better than the first time. I remember the first set of options had quite a few one school to three or four split articulations. There were also some double splits with 3+ in one of the two splits. Very few islands that I could see in these whereas previously there were a ton around crown.

Things I’ve noticed in this set of options that could use fixing include;
- Ritchie Park elementary school would go to Frost and then RM and be the only school from frost going there
- I think one option has a ridiculously large and oddly shaped boundary for Churchill, which goes all the way up to near Darnestown meanwhile removing some pockets down nearby the school
- seems like a lot of split articulations in the Churchill Wootten and Richard Montgomery clusters at the middle school level when it seems like a lot of times the entire school could just stay together through the whole time. 
- there’s a little pocket that looks like it belongs at Wooton, but is at RM. I think I thought to myself if that’s the area that’s going to frost and then back to RM why not just send those people to Wootten[/quote]

The solution is to also change the ES boundaries [/quote]

That's coming up next.[/quote]

Ineffective. If you have separate processes, they will not be able to change them because it is no stability of boundaries  [/quote]

After the new HS and MS boundaries are in place, they'll move on to the elementary schools to try eliminating split articulations and relieving overcrowding.[/quote]

Violates the boundary stability clauses. I’d seek resignation of the board [/quote]

No it doesn’t as the ES boundaries are not part of the current study.[/quote]

Except that it does. Stability of boundaries are a factor. If you make a change now and then a different change later, that’s two changes, which is instability. It also would cascade back to the HS. Students would get reassigned ES and that would impact MS and HS boundaries [/quote]

It wouldn't need to cascade back to the HS or MS, whose boundaries are set geographically, even though they envision a feeder pattern.  Remember, the current boundary study options are allowed to contain split articulations in the first place.  It is likely that just the ES assignments would change at that later time.

Of course, they always could construct a study to cover more, as they should have with the Crown & Woodward ones.  A systemwide/holistic approach -- all of the county, at all levels and with no segmentation -- was the way to go after decades of radical development/population change with steadfast resistance to most boundary adjustments left the current untenable situation.[/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