Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, it's a possibility. My personal opinion of the likeliest outcome is for Clarksburg ES to go to Rocky Hill/Clarksburg and Cabin Branch ES to go to Neelsville/Seneca Valley. But I have been wrong before!

I agree with this prediction. The question is mainly which areas will be zoned to which.

It's actually called Clarksburg #9, not Cabin Branch ES at this point. I wouldn't be surprised if not all of Cabin Branch residents are assigned to the new school.

Yes, it's called Clarksburg ES #9 because that's how MCPS refers to not-yet-named schools, but it is the elementary school that MCPS is building in Cabin Branch.

All of Cabin Branch is assigned to Neelsville MS and Seneca Valley HS:

https://gis.mcpsmd.org/ServiceAreaMaps/NeelsvilleMS.pdf
https://gis.mcpsmd.org/ServiceAreaMaps/SenecaValleyHS.pdf

If some Cabin Branch students were sent to Clarksburg ES instead of the ES in Cabin Branch, that would create a gratuitous split articulation at Clarksburg ES, and I can't think of anybody who would benefit from that.

But maybe you're thinking of Pulte's proposed development on Ten Mile Creek, on the other side of Clarksburg Road from Cabin Branch? That is assigned to Rocky Hill MS/Clarksburg HS. However, students in that development wouldn't be in the walk zone for the ES in Cabin Branch anyway, at least not without a crossing guard.

Anonymous wrote:
They never changed before just to make schools more racially balanced and that's was the objective of the 2018 BOE. Thankfully they failed. They did alyer the boundary policy however to prioritize diversity above all else and this will come into play during every boundary study. We're going to see a lot of kids with wacky school assignments because the BOE was boxed in by this terrible policy pushed through by terrible people. I'm going to have a laugh though as my last kid is in high school and it's too late to move him to a school in the ghetto.

-"ghetto" parent

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is OP. Thanks. I was just starting to think what would happen with Clarksburg ES #9 which sits squarely on the Seneca Valley HS boundary (based on the upcounty boundary study redistricting), although the elementary school that it intends to alleviate (Clarksburg ES) feeds into both Seneca Valley and the Clarksburg clusters. So would the schools in the upcoming boundary study include both the SVHS and Clarksburg clusters or just SVHS only?

Clarksburg ES has a split articulation, so I would expect the boundary study to involve elementary schools in the SV cluster and the Clarksburg cluster.

Now, if I were one of the families in Boyds who was horrified at being reassigned to Neelsville MS/SVHS, I would start lobbying to include the Poolesville cluster, too - with the goal of being reassigned to Monocacy ES, followed by John Poole MS and Poolesville HS. Or I would just petition the board directly for that boundary change, but they don't seem to have done that. Monocacy ES is closer than the Cabin Branch ES will be, but Poolesville is not closer than Germantown.

OP here trying to get back on track with the original topic. If the Clarksburg #9 ES boundary study involves elementary schools in the SV cluster and Clarksburg cluster, and the new school sits on the SV cluster, then it sounds like it would be possible that kids currently attending a Clarksburg cluster elementary school, middle school, and high school would be reassigned to the SV cluster entirely, unless MCPS decides to split articulate Clarksburg ES #9 so some kids will go to Neelsville MS/SVHS and others will go to Rocky Hill MS/Clarksburg HS path. Just trying to understand if that would be a possibility. We're okay either way although I would prefer that they don't split up the kids at the new school like they do at Clarksburg ES.

Yes, it's a possibility. My personal opinion of the likeliest outcome is for Clarksburg ES to go to Rocky Hill/Clarksburg and Cabin Branch ES to go to Neelsville/Seneca Valley. But I have been wrong before!

I agree with this prediction. The question is mainly which areas will be zoned to which.

It's actually called Clarksburg #9, not Cabin Branch ES at this point. I wouldn't be surprised if not all of Cabin Branch residents are assigned to the new school.

It'll depend on how they draw the walk zone for the new school. That should be indicated on the first maps that come out when the boundary study starts in the spring.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is OP. Thanks. I was just starting to think what would happen with Clarksburg ES #9 which sits squarely on the Seneca Valley HS boundary (based on the upcounty boundary study redistricting), although the elementary school that it intends to alleviate (Clarksburg ES) feeds into both Seneca Valley and the Clarksburg clusters. So would the schools in the upcoming boundary study include both the SVHS and Clarksburg clusters or just SVHS only?

Clarksburg ES has a split articulation, so I would expect the boundary study to involve elementary schools in the SV cluster and the Clarksburg cluster.

Now, if I were one of the families in Boyds who was horrified at being reassigned to Neelsville MS/SVHS, I would start lobbying to include the Poolesville cluster, too - with the goal of being reassigned to Monocacy ES, followed by John Poole MS and Poolesville HS. Or I would just petition the board directly for that boundary change, but they don't seem to have done that. Monocacy ES is closer than the Cabin Branch ES will be, but Poolesville is not closer than Germantown.

OP here trying to get back on track with the original topic. If the Clarksburg #9 ES boundary study involves elementary schools in the SV cluster and Clarksburg cluster, and the new school sits on the SV cluster, then it sounds like it would be possible that kids currently attending a Clarksburg cluster elementary school, middle school, and high school would be reassigned to the SV cluster entirely, unless MCPS decides to split articulate Clarksburg ES #9 so some kids will go to Neelsville MS/SVHS and others will go to Rocky Hill MS/Clarksburg HS path. Just trying to understand if that would be a possibility. We're okay either way although I would prefer that they don't split up the kids at the new school like they do at Clarksburg ES.

Yes, it's a possibility. My personal opinion of the likeliest outcome is for Clarksburg ES to go to Rocky Hill/Clarksburg and Cabin Branch ES to go to Neelsville/Seneca Valley. But I have been wrong before!

I agree with this prediction. The question is mainly which areas will be zoned to which.

It's actually called Clarksburg #9, not Cabin Branch ES at this point. I wouldn't be surprised if not all of Cabin Branch residents are assigned to the new school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is OP. Thanks. I was just starting to think what would happen with Clarksburg ES #9 which sits squarely on the Seneca Valley HS boundary (based on the upcounty boundary study redistricting), although the elementary school that it intends to alleviate (Clarksburg ES) feeds into both Seneca Valley and the Clarksburg clusters. So would the schools in the upcoming boundary study include both the SVHS and Clarksburg clusters or just SVHS only?

Clarksburg ES has a split articulation, so I would expect the boundary study to involve elementary schools in the SV cluster and the Clarksburg cluster.

Now, if I were one of the families in Boyds who was horrified at being reassigned to Neelsville MS/SVHS, I would start lobbying to include the Poolesville cluster, too - with the goal of being reassigned to Monocacy ES, followed by John Poole MS and Poolesville HS. Or I would just petition the board directly for that boundary change, but they don't seem to have done that. Monocacy ES is closer than the Cabin Branch ES will be, but Poolesville is not closer than Germantown.

OP here trying to get back on track with the original topic. If the Clarksburg #9 ES boundary study involves elementary schools in the SV cluster and Clarksburg cluster, and the new school sits on the SV cluster, then it sounds like it would be possible that kids currently attending a Clarksburg cluster elementary school, middle school, and high school would be reassigned to the SV cluster entirely, unless MCPS decides to split articulate Clarksburg ES #9 so some kids will go to Neelsville MS/SVHS and others will go to Rocky Hill MS/Clarksburg HS path. Just trying to understand if that would be a possibility. We're okay either way although I would prefer that they don't split up the kids at the new school like they do at Clarksburg ES.

Yes, it's a possibility. My personal opinion of the likeliest outcome is for Clarksburg ES to go to Rocky Hill/Clarksburg and Cabin Branch ES to go to Neelsville/Seneca Valley. But I have been wrong before!

I agree with this prediction. The question is mainly which areas will be zoned to which.

Imagine having this person as your neighbor, or meeting them at a party.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I get what you are saying. But that MoCo neighbors for local schools group on facebook has over 8,000 members. And they are not all white male republicans.

Also, the line about these groups getting funding from right wing orgs is laughable. that was what you accused the TogetherAgain group of as well, and it just made you look like complete morons.

They're also not all your supporters.

Let's go over the 2020 election results again: a total of 28,238 people voted for your guy.

....and that was with some of the highest fundraising in the race, including from a PAC. So, the question becomes "where did the PAC money come from?" and I hope that's the question that folks are asking when Austin 2.0 shows up on the scene.

I'm also wondering where the PAC money went.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I get what you are saying. But that MoCo neighbors for local schools group on facebook has over 8,000 members. And they are not all white male republicans.

Also, the line about these groups getting funding from right wing orgs is laughable. that was what you accused the TogetherAgain group of as well, and it just made you look like complete morons.

They're also not all your supporters.

Let's go over the 2020 election results again: a total of 28,238 people voted for your guy.

....and that was with some of the highest fundraising in the race, including from a PAC. So, the question becomes "where did the PAC money come from?" and I hope that's the question that folks are asking when Austin 2.0 shows up on the scene.

Anonymous wrote:

I get what you are saying. But that MoCo neighbors for local schools group on facebook has over 8,000 members. And they are not all white male republicans.

Also, the line about these groups getting funding from right wing orgs is laughable. that was what you accused the TogetherAgain group of as well, and it just made you look like complete morons.

They're also not all your supporters.

Let's go over the 2020 election results again: a total of 28,238 people voted for your guy.

Anonymous wrote:
We were pretty unorganized last time. I mean, we ended up with a white male republican representing our side. He did remarkably well all things considered. We'll be smarter the next time. We'll choose a black woman who supports neighborhood schools. Without the race and gender cards to play, your side won't stand a chnace, especially because 90+ % of the county agrees with us.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is OP. Thanks. I was just starting to think what would happen with Clarksburg ES #9 which sits squarely on the Seneca Valley HS boundary (based on the upcounty boundary study redistricting), although the elementary school that it intends to alleviate (Clarksburg ES) feeds into both Seneca Valley and the Clarksburg clusters. So would the schools in the upcoming boundary study include both the SVHS and Clarksburg clusters or just SVHS only?

Clarksburg ES has a split articulation, so I would expect the boundary study to involve elementary schools in the SV cluster and the Clarksburg cluster.

Now, if I were one of the families in Boyds who was horrified at being reassigned to Neelsville MS/SVHS, I would start lobbying to include the Poolesville cluster, too - with the goal of being reassigned to Monocacy ES, followed by John Poole MS and Poolesville HS. Or I would just petition the board directly for that boundary change, but they don't seem to have done that. Monocacy ES is closer than the Cabin Branch ES will be, but Poolesville is not closer than Germantown.

OP here trying to get back on track with the original topic. If the Clarksburg #9 ES boundary study involves elementary schools in the SV cluster and Clarksburg cluster, and the new school sits on the SV cluster, then it sounds like it would be possible that kids currently attending a Clarksburg cluster elementary school, middle school, and high school would be reassigned to the SV cluster entirely, unless MCPS decides to split articulate Clarksburg ES #9 so some kids will go to Neelsville MS/SVHS and others will go to Rocky Hill MS/Clarksburg HS path. Just trying to understand if that would be a possibility. We're okay either way although I would prefer that they don't split up the kids at the new school like they do at Clarksburg ES.

Yes, it's a possibility. My personal opinion of the likeliest outcome is for Clarksburg ES to go to Rocky Hill/Clarksburg and Cabin Branch ES to go to Neelsville/Seneca Valley. But I have been wrong before!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is OP. Thanks. I was just starting to think what would happen with Clarksburg ES #9 which sits squarely on the Seneca Valley HS boundary (based on the upcounty boundary study redistricting), although the elementary school that it intends to alleviate (Clarksburg ES) feeds into both Seneca Valley and the Clarksburg clusters. So would the schools in the upcoming boundary study include both the SVHS and Clarksburg clusters or just SVHS only?

Clarksburg ES has a split articulation, so I would expect the boundary study to involve elementary schools in the SV cluster and the Clarksburg cluster.

Now, if I were one of the families in Boyds who was horrified at being reassigned to Neelsville MS/SVHS, I would start lobbying to include the Poolesville cluster, too - with the goal of being reassigned to Monocacy ES, followed by John Poole MS and Poolesville HS. Or I would just petition the board directly for that boundary change, but they don't seem to have done that. Monocacy ES is closer than the Cabin Branch ES will be, but Poolesville is not closer than Germantown.

OP here trying to get back on track with the original topic. If the Clarksburg #9 ES boundary study involves elementary schools in the SV cluster and Clarksburg cluster, and the new school sits on the SV cluster, then it sounds like it would be possible that kids currently attending a Clarksburg cluster elementary school, middle school, and high school would be reassigned to the SV cluster entirely, unless MCPS decides to split articulate Clarksburg ES #9 so some kids will go to Neelsville MS/SVHS and others will go to Rocky Hill MS/Clarksburg HS path. Just trying to understand if that would be a possibility. We're okay either way although I would prefer that they don't split up the kids at the new school like they do at Clarksburg ES.

Split articulation is certainly a possibility. MCPS says they prefer to avoid it, but it still happens in several clusters.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is OP. Thanks. I was just starting to think what would happen with Clarksburg ES #9 which sits squarely on the Seneca Valley HS boundary (based on the upcounty boundary study redistricting), although the elementary school that it intends to alleviate (Clarksburg ES) feeds into both Seneca Valley and the Clarksburg clusters. So would the schools in the upcoming boundary study include both the SVHS and Clarksburg clusters or just SVHS only?

Clarksburg ES has a split articulation, so I would expect the boundary study to involve elementary schools in the SV cluster and the Clarksburg cluster.

Now, if I were one of the families in Boyds who was horrified at being reassigned to Neelsville MS/SVHS, I would start lobbying to include the Poolesville cluster, too - with the goal of being reassigned to Monocacy ES, followed by John Poole MS and Poolesville HS. Or I would just petition the board directly for that boundary change, but they don't seem to have done that. Monocacy ES is closer than the Cabin Branch ES will be, but Poolesville is not closer than Germantown.

OP here trying to get back on track with the original topic. If the Clarksburg #9 ES boundary study involves elementary schools in the SV cluster and Clarksburg cluster, and the new school sits on the SV cluster, then it sounds like it would be possible that kids currently attending a Clarksburg cluster elementary school, middle school, and high school would be reassigned to the SV cluster entirely, unless MCPS decides to split articulate Clarksburg ES #9 so some kids will go to Neelsville MS/SVHS and others will go to Rocky Hill MS/Clarksburg HS path. Just trying to understand if that would be a possibility. We're okay either way although I would prefer that they don't split up the kids at the new school like they do at Clarksburg ES.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
We never got the chance to weigh in on the boundary policy revision process when diversity was elevated to the top factor. Forums like this are the best way to make sure that doesn't happen again.

The unfortunate reality is that the boundary policy will be used in every boundary study until it is changed. So of course it has to be mentioned. I'll tell you what, if you mention it in the next thread about boundaries then I won't have to.

You are really overestimating your powers of persuasion.

You don't think every person who reads a boundary post and sees the info I put about how diversity was elevated to the top favtor in the boundary policy without alerting the public has to at least wonder if there's credibility to my story and investigate further? I mean, before someone spends a million bucks on a house they're going to do a little nosing around to see if and how boundaries might change, don't you think?

Oh, I hope everyone does "nose around," but I would recommend that people find other sources of information. (See below.) There is obviously a range of opinions about this topic, and you are intent on sharing yours every chance you get, which you can do, but I don't think you're succeeding at anything other than causing a lot of people to roll their eyes when your posts appear again and again.

To nose around, read the actual reports on the previous boundary studies that are posted on this page: https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/planning/boundary.aspx

Read the Bethesda Beat articles by Caitlynn Peetz and Washington Post articles by Donna St. George.

And definitely watch the upcoming BOE facilities and boundaries sessions taking place this month and next:
https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/boe/meetings/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
We never got the chance to weigh in on the boundary policy revision process when diversity was elevated to the top factor. Forums like this are the best way to make sure that doesn't happen again.

The unfortunate reality is that the boundary policy will be used in every boundary study until it is changed. So of course it has to be mentioned. I'll tell you what, if you mention it in the next thread about boundaries then I won't have to.

You are really overestimating your powers of persuasion.

You don't think every person who reads a boundary post and sees the info I put about how diversity was elevated to the top favtor in the boundary policy without alerting the public has to at least wonder if there's credibility to my story and investigate further? I mean, before someone spends a million bucks on a house they're going to do a little nosing around to see if and how boundaries might change, don't you think?