Reply to Initial boundary options for Crown/Damascus study

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

Reply to "Initial boundary options for Crown/Damascus study "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Is it the same as the Woodward boundary study, where option #1 is all about stability, #2 about utilization, #3 about demographics, and #4 about proximity? [/quote]

Pretty much

Option 1,Simplifies feeder patterns.
Option 2, Maximizes efficient use of capacity.
Option 3 , Focuses on improving demographic balance.
Option 4 ,Minimizes disruption to current assignments. But also leaves crown highly under capacity

I really think of these, option 1 is the best[/quote]

Agree with you about option 1 being the best, but I'm struggling to see how option 4 minimizes disruption to current assignments. If that were the aim with option 4, why would Fallsmead split into three different middle schools rather than simply stay at Frost? Why would Lakewood kids split into two middle schools and then have an unfortunate group of Lakewood/Frost kids move from Wootton to Crown? And why move Travilah away from Wootton but add Wayside? Maybe it's different for the other clusters, but the Wootton cluster seems pretty disrupted under option 4.[/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