Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP is correct that what SSIMS supporters have posted is not "misinformation."

But also, it's certainly not a "given" that SSIMS boundaries will change if it stays open.

SSIMS boundaries change dramatically if A-D are chosen-- about half the kids leave and are replaced with new kids from other schools.

If E-G are chosen, SSIMS kids stay together, only splitting if SSIMS actually closes. You can't see it on the maps, but the effects tables make it clear that the pre-SSIMS closure/non-SSIMS closure options keep current SSIMS kids at SSIMS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Apparently some of the leadership of the group trying to save SSIMS is spreading misinformation about the boundary study and telling people they need to vote for options A-D in order to keep SSIMS open, and that voting for options E-G is a vote to support closure of SSiMS. All this despite the fact that options A-D split up current SSIMS kids, and an amended version of E-G is the only way to keep current SSIMS kids together.

Please spread the word that this is untrue and that the survey on the boundary options is separate from the decision on whether or not to close SSIMS.

Ultimately this is MCPS's fault for not putting out clear information, but the SSIMS folks also need to take responsibility for fact-checking before they spread inaccurate information.

Really sick of the people (or is it just one person who posts repeatedly??) criticizing "SSIMS activists" who are simply parents and community members who don't want the school closed down. We get it; your kids are zoned for Sligo or whatever and you don't want them going to SSIMS under some new boundary plan if the school isn't closed. The fact of the matter is that options A-D assume that SSIMS will still exist, and the other options don't. You are certainly free to advocate for and vote for the other boundary options. Just as folks can vote for options A-D if they wish.

Also, remember that the new boundary options assuming a SSIMS closure were added by MCPS before the decision by the County Council to put the process on hold until at least 2027. So don't be surprised to see yet more boundary options before this process is complete.

Anonymous wrote:PP is correct that what SSIMS supporters have posted is not "misinformation."

But also, it's certainly not a "given" that SSIMS boundaries will change if it stays open.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes it is. Rolling Terrace is being rezoned to TPMS in all four options that keep SSIMS open, right?

yes, you are exactly right. Options A through D all have Rolling Terrace articulating to TPMS.

Anonymous wrote:Yes it is. Rolling Terrace is being rezoned to TPMS in all four options that keep SSIMS open, right?

Anonymous wrote:This is what was posted on the Save our Schools IG account. How is this misinformation? It is factually correct to say that Options A-D assume that SSIMS stays open and Options E-G assume the closure of SSIMS.

"MCPS is soliciting feedback by this Friday, January 9 on the Woodward/Northwood High School Boundary Study. 3 of the 7 options in the boundary study would remove SSIMS.

If you want to keep SSIMS open, let MCPS know!

Submit your feedback at the link in our bio before 1/9/26 – Share your preference for Option A, B, C or D, and add your feedback in the form so MCPS hears from the community."

I think this thread was started by the same poster in this thread (https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1305334.page) who posted multiple times saying that the Save our Schools group should be advocating to keep SSIMS boundaries the same. This person is adamant that if SSIMS stays open, its boundaries should stay the same as they are now.

This statement by the OP continues to misunderstand the purpose of the Save our Schools group -- " options A-D split up current SSIMS kids, and an amended version of E-G is the only way to keep current SSIMS kids together." It has been pointed out multiple times to this person that the Save our Schools group is not advocating to keep current SSIMS kids at SSIMS (that is impossible given the scale of the Woodward boundary study) but they keep harping on this one point.

The Save our Schools group is not spreading misinformation. They are saying four of the options keep SSIMS open, three of them close SSIMS. The boundaries of the school will change if SSIMS stays open -- that is a given.

Anonymous wrote:Apparently some of the leadership of the group trying to save SSIMS is spreading misinformation about the boundary study and telling people they need to vote for options A-D in order to keep SSIMS open, and that voting for options E-G is a vote to support closure of SSiMS. All this despite the fact that options A-D split up current SSIMS kids, and an amended version of E-G is the only way to keep current SSIMS kids together.

Please spread the word that this is untrue and that the survey on the boundary options is separate from the decision on whether or not to close SSIMS.

Ultimately this is MCPS's fault for not putting out clear information, but the SSIMS folks also need to take responsibility for fact-checking before they spread inaccurate information.

Anonymous wrote:Apparently some of the leadership of the group trying to save SSIMS is spreading misinformation about the boundary study and telling people they need to vote for options A-D in order to keep SSIMS open, and that voting for options E-G is a vote to support closure of SSiMS. All this despite the fact that options A-D split up current SSIMS kids, and an amended version of E-G is the only way to keep current SSIMS kids together.

Please spread the word that this is untrue and that the survey on the boundary options is separate from the decision on whether or not to close SSIMS.

Ultimately this is MCPS's fault for not putting out clear information, but the SSIMS folks also need to take responsibility for fact-checking before they spread inaccurate information.