OP here - context is better understanding of the BOE school reassignment process. This will inform our neighborhood's strategy in the coming weeks. The RM poster above was particularly helpful. Thank you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They may tweak options, combine elements of a couple of the options, or come up with additional options. They will NOT change the scope of the boundary study itself. So they will not add an ES that is not currently part of the boundary study to the study. But they could create an options in which an ES in the boundary study is moved when none of the current options have it being moved.

Don't these two things mean the same thing? Sorry if I'm having trouble comprehending--this sinus infection is a doozy.

No. For example, the part of Cedar Grove ES that goes to Damascus HS is not part of the boundary study and won't become part of the boundary study. But there could be an additional option that reassigns Clarksburg ES, which is part of the boundary study (but none of the current options reassign it).

I still don't get it. How can you tell what is part of the boundary study and what isn't? From what I see of the map, all of Hallie Wells MS is out of the boundary study. So since Cedar Grove ES goes to Hallie Wells, wouldn't all of Hallie Wells (Wilson Wims/new Clarksburg ES #2 and also Cedar Grove) be outside of the boundary study, and therefore outside of consideration to be reassigned? I'm trying to understand in the context of OP's question.

http://gis.mcpsmd.org/boundarystudypdfs/SVHS_BOEAdoptedBoundaryStudy.pdf

Hallie Wells MS overall is part of the boundary study, because it's a middle school in the Clarksburg cluster. But the areas that go to Hallie Wells MS and then Damascus HS are not part of the boundary study, because they're in the Damascus cluster.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They may tweak options, combine elements of a couple of the options, or come up with additional options. They will NOT change the scope of the boundary study itself. So they will not add an ES that is not currently part of the boundary study to the study. But they could create an options in which an ES in the boundary study is moved when none of the current options have it being moved.

Don't these two things mean the same thing? Sorry if I'm having trouble comprehending--this sinus infection is a doozy.

No. For example, the part of Cedar Grove ES that goes to Damascus HS is not part of the boundary study and won't become part of the boundary study. But there could be an additional option that reassigns Clarksburg ES, which is part of the boundary study (but none of the current options reassign it).

I still don't get it. How can you tell what is part of the boundary study and what isn't? From what I see of the map, all of Hallie Wells MS is out of the boundary study. So since Cedar Grove ES goes to Hallie Wells, wouldn't all of Hallie Wells (Wilson Wims/new Clarksburg ES #2 and also Cedar Grove) be outside of the boundary study, and therefore outside of consideration to be reassigned? I'm trying to understand in the context of OP's question.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They may tweak options, combine elements of a couple of the options, or come up with additional options. They will NOT change the scope of the boundary study itself. So they will not add an ES that is not currently part of the boundary study to the study. But they could create an options in which an ES in the boundary study is moved when none of the current options have it being moved.

Don't these two things mean the same thing? Sorry if I'm having trouble comprehending--this sinus infection is a doozy.

No. For example, the part of Cedar Grove ES that goes to Damascus HS is not part of the boundary study and won't become part of the boundary study. But there could be an additional option that reassigns Clarksburg ES, which is part of the boundary study (but none of the current options reassign it).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They may tweak options, combine elements of a couple of the options, or come up with additional options. They will NOT change the scope of the boundary study itself. So they will not add an ES that is not currently part of the boundary study to the study. But they could create an options in which an ES in the boundary study is moved when none of the current options have it being moved.

Don't these two things mean the same thing? Sorry if I'm having trouble comprehending--this sinus infection is a doozy.

What that means is that parents from schools currently not affected by the 7 maps better show up to the April meetings.

My neighborhood moved in the RM rezoning. The neighborhood fought against it but the arguments were pretty much...we don't want to move. I think most people knew that it was going to happen in the end. Not to say it is not worth trying to get what you want but if you take a step back you can probably see which option makes sense overall.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live upcounty and from what I can see from Facebook posts and groups, it's the Little Bennett and Gibbs families who are trying to include parts of other nearby neighborhoods that weren't included in the options so that there is a lower probability that the options that involve their neighborhoods will be chosen. It's all under the guise of "the current options don't fully address all concerns".

And they don't. Because they don't address the concerns of the Little Bennett and Gibbs parents who don't want to get reassigned!

OP, to answer your question: the scope of the boundary study (i.e., the schools involved) is highly unlikely to change. But MCPS might add more options (either totally new, or modifications of the already-proposed options) in response to parent comments. Or BoE might ask MCPS to add more options.

Ok thanks. That helps.

Anonymous wrote:They may tweak options, combine elements of a couple of the options, or come up with additional options. They will NOT change the scope of the boundary study itself. So they will not add an ES that is not currently part of the boundary study to the study. But they could create an options in which an ES in the boundary study is moved when none of the current options have it being moved.

Don't these two things mean the same thing? Sorry if I'm having trouble comprehending--this sinus infection is a doozy.

Anonymous wrote:They may tweak options, combine elements of a couple of the options, or come up with additional options. They will NOT change the scope of the boundary study itself. So they will not add an ES that is not currently part of the boundary study to the study. But they could create an options in which an ES in the boundary study is moved when none of the current options have it being moved.

Have you seen an school within the boundary study, but outside the current maps, reassigned after all? Did this happen in recent years?

Anonymous wrote:I live upcounty and from what I can see from Facebook posts and groups, it's the Little Bennett and Gibbs families who are trying to include parts of other nearby neighborhoods that weren't included in the options so that there is a lower probability that the options that involve their neighborhoods will be chosen. It's all under the guise of "the current options don't fully address all concerns".

And they don't. Because they don't address the concerns of the Little Bennett and Gibbs parents who don't want to get reassigned!

OP, to answer your question: the scope of the boundary study (i.e., the schools involved) is highly unlikely to change. But MCPS might add more options (either totally new, or modifications of the already-proposed options) in response to parent comments. Or BoE might ask MCPS to add more options.

I live upcounty and from what I can see from Facebook posts and groups, it's the Little Bennett and Gibbs families who are trying to include parts of other nearby neighborhoods that weren't included in the options so that there is a lower probability that the options that involve their neighborhoods will be chosen. It's all under the guise of "the current options don't fully address all concerns".

They may tweak options, combine elements of a couple of the options, or come up with additional options. They will NOT change the scope of the boundary study itself. So they will not add an ES that is not currently part of the boundary study to the study. But they could create an options in which an ES in the boundary study is moved when none of the current options have it being moved.

When a new ES was added to the RM cluster last year they added new options (maybe in 2 times) during the process. No other areas were added. There were just additional options with the original area.

Low. Parents are always going to look out for their own interests first but the BOE needs to look at the welfare of the entire community.

Seven maps is plenty, and there's no (current or future) map that will placate every constituency.

A general question, in the context of CHS / SV / NW reassignment.

At the last meeting, the BOE presented 7 possible maps for reassignment. Many families affected are clamoring for more options, and feel that existing options do not address all concerns. Please note that I am not opening this topic to discuss relative merits of the maps; a separate discussion alrrady exists on DCUM.

How would you rate the chances that the BOE and/or the superintendant will listen to the objections ans draw entirely new maps, involving other elementary schools in the area? Has this happened during the recent reassignments?