Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)
Reply to "Quince Orchard community meeting for Boundary Analysis"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Boundary change needs to happen and while doing it if we can avoid situations like two ES in the same cluster ending with 7% and 70% FARMs then we should surely do that. BOE in their infinite wisdom decided to create boundary with 7% and 70% in RM cluster when new ES came online. [/quote] This just goes to show that some folks think the BOE don't do enough to spread diversity and others think they are doing too much like busing. I was part of that boundary study. If you are referring to Twinbrook with 70%FARMs rate, the TB community didn't want to split up, and part of the reason was due to losing their Title 1 funding. The option that would've split up TB left the school at 40% FARMS rate (still waaay too high for the cluster) but not high enough to get Title 1 funding. That was a lose-lose proposition for them.[/quote] Entire process was joke. Faulty data, MCPS staff created options and told parents can't come up with any suggestions and then BOE took parents suggestions to create boundary. It was a huge mess. All the talk about distributing FARMs and then BOE reduced RP FARMs rate from 20+ to 7%. You could easily create different options to balance it better, but MCPS was not open to take any parents input initially. I live in CG and I wasn't happy with the entire process.[/quote] PP here... ITA, it was handled terribly. I emailed the BOE as much. The problem was that 1. the actual numbers came out too late to redraw the boundaries 2. they tried to not have too many knock on effects and splitting zones. That IMO was too confining. I hope they learned their lesson. 3. they weren't looking at neighboring clusters, which after this discussion, they said they will in future, and now 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