Reply to SSIMS activists spreading misinformation about boundary options

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

Reply to "SSIMS activists spreading misinformation about boundary options "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]My question is: has MCPS said what you are saying here -- that if SSIMS stays open and they choose E, F, or G, they will stick with those 27-30 boundaries long-term? What if they vote in 2027 to not close SSIMS but they have already adopted E, F, or G. Would they then go back to A-D?

This is why this whole thing is so infuriating. I think people all have good intentions here and I don't think anyone is being "childish" as you accuse. I think there is genuine confusion that MCPS needs to clear up on how this will all play out considering the decision of whether to close SSIMS has been proposed.  [/quote]

Yes, I absolutely agree that MCPS is handling this wrong and it's mainly their fault.  But in the absence of clear information, there is much less reason to conclude "picking options E-G will result in SSIMS closing" than "picking options E-G will not force SSIMS to close since that depends on a Board vote which won't happen until at least 2027," and I would think that is fairly self-evident, but I guess not?

(And if they don't close SSIMS, why would they need to go back to A-D?  They would presumably just keep kids at the same middle schools they were at from 2027-2030 under options E-G, which is basically the same schools they're at now.  Or if they really feel like they need to change things, they can come up with new Silver Spring middle school assignments alongside the countywide elementary school boundary study they're doing in 2026-2027.  But it's not like options A-D are the only options that could work with SSIMS being open.) [/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