Reply to Just IN!!!! Youtube video of Boundary Analysis Discussion / Board of Education Jan. 9, 2020

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

Reply to "Just IN!!!! Youtube video of Boundary Analysis Discussion / Board of Education Jan. 9, 2020"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]My issue is not the “especially” language, it’s how they applied it two schools that had no other reason for a change - no modernization, not overcapacity.[/quote]

Are you referring to Clarksburg?  Was that boundary study initiated solely to balance demographics?[/quote]

Perfectly legitimate reasons for a boundary shift for the opening of Seneca Valley, a huge, new, modern facility with great new programs.  But I don’t see the rationale for including the two middle schools and shifting demographics there as part of that study. The MS piece doesn’t seem like it should have been included. But this has been appealed to the state BOE for an answer on that so stay tuned.

Now in a couple of years, one of the MS is getting an upgrade, so I would think boundary changes should be done at that time (using the especially for diversity language).[/quote]

Clarksburg was the most overcrowded school in the county, projected soon to have 900 too many students. Seneca Valley will be a totally rebuilt school. Demographics changed little. Looks like a win-win. People don’t like change. Clarksburg parents favored a plan that would have made that school significantly more affluent than Seneca Valley.

Elementary schools were reassigned to reduce the free and reduced lunch rates at Neelsville middle school. But proximity played a role too. Some kids will be bused a mile or so farther but some kids will be bused a mile or so closer.

[/quote]

And don't think it's a coincidence that the BOE conveniently reduced the Neelesville farms rate to 54%, when 55% is the required min. farms rate in order for a school to recieve Kirwan funding.[/quote]

I keep reading on DCUM that MCPS numbers are garbage. Now you're giving them credit for jiggering numbers so accurately that they arrived at 54% vs 55% in their enrollment projections for one middle school.[/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