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][quote=Anonymous]After a few clicks, I see that we are zoned for RM now, and under no option is that changing.  Being in walk zone that makes sense.  So, my only responsibility is to pop some popcorn and season it right and watch the school board members try to out-woke each other for the next 6 months changing up the school zones.  I cant wait to hear the feedback on Woodward-3. To be honest even some of the RM options are islanding and nonsensical.  But I dont have a dog in this hunt.[/quote]

Same here. I have a student in RM now and the school is totally overcrowded, none of the options really address that. IMHO splitting Ritchie Park makes the most sense for RM cluster (Options 2 and 4).
On a separate note, it is impossible to actually believe MCPS tables, when you look at utilization and and other percentages in HS impact tables, RM has exactly the same numbers of students and utilization percentages as Gaithersburg HS, despite being different sizes. Something is off there. As a veteran of Bayard Rustin study, in my experience MCPS numbers/tables are only correct or look at right data about only half of the time.[/quote]

A fellow RMHS #5 / BRES study veteran.  We are right on the border, older kid went to another one and younger ones to BRES.  That study process proved to me one thing:  they do whatever they frickin' want.  Same with the naming process.  They do what they frickin' want.  Geography is a lot with me, not race or FARMS.  Just being able to walk to a place is huge.

Honestly reworking schools makes sense, but they kind of need to go all the way to the ES level and build it up from the bottom.[/quote]

*this* ALL boundary studies should be re-drawing elementary schools to have better geographic and demographic factors and then the middle and high school articulation is much more straighforward.  For example, instead of splitting up Ritchie Park by its crazy boundaries, re-do boundaries to change Ritchie Park (INCLUDING looking at neighborhing cluster elementary schools like Cold Spring, Lakewood, Stonemill and Fallsmead) so that kids in Fallsgrove go to Lakewood or Stone Mill and then bring in other neighboring kids to Ritchie Park to make up for it, and send the kids to the middle and high schools that correspond.  Trying to reverse engineer middle and high school articulation without looking at elementary schools leads to these weird and complex split articulations in middle and high schools.  This is what they *said* would happen after the RM #5 boundary study, but it doesn't work when just looking at neighboring middle and high schools, you have to start from the bottom (elementary) up and re-do everything.

Another example - a section of Rio goes to Fallsmead because those are the boundaries for that school from 30+ years ago (when *I* was in elementary school at Fallsmead) but there's an entire new development there that didn't exist when the boundary was drawn - those kids should get moved to a different elementary school and obviously should go to Crown HS since it's walking distance. But it makes more sense to reconfigure things at the elementary level first.[/quote]
While your analysis makes sense, MCPS is not going to include ES in the boundary changes. It's too late.

Let's look at the options that we have, as bad as they are.[/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