Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don’t like split articulation but we’re in the SCES-SSIMS split articulation mess already. I’m more considered about the possible elimination of the DCC. I understand the appeal of neighborhood schools, but we are already dealing with split zones and none of these options are going to alleviate that.
Wait, doesn't all of SCES currently articulate to SSIMS?
Yes, that was unclear. I meant that a pocket of SCES articulates to Blair and the rest to Northwood; SSIMS as a whole is also mixed. Plus the immersion programs.
Ah, I had two go through SSIMS and just found everyone scattered all around the DCC afterwards anyway.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don’t like split articulation but we’re in the SCES-SSIMS split articulation mess already. I’m more considered about the possible elimination of the DCC. I understand the appeal of neighborhood schools, but we are already dealing with split zones and none of these options are going to alleviate that.
Wait, doesn't all of SCES currently articulate to SSIMS?
Yes, that was unclear. I meant that a pocket of SCES articulates to Blair and the rest to Northwood; SSIMS as a whole is also mixed. Plus the immersion programs.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don’t like split articulation but we’re in the SCES-SSIMS split articulation mess already. I’m more considered about the possible elimination of the DCC. I understand the appeal of neighborhood schools, but we are already dealing with split zones and none of these options are going to alleviate that.
Wait, doesn't all of SCES currently articulate to SSIMS?
Anonymous wrote:IQ trutherism aside, I think we can all agree that stability of home life is a big predictor of academic success. Introducing unnecessary bussing is the opposite of that.
Anonymous wrote:I don’t like split articulation but we’re in the SCES-SSIMS split articulation mess already. I’m more considered about the possible elimination of the DCC. I understand the appeal of neighborhood schools, but we are already dealing with split zones and none of these options are going to alleviate that.
Anonymous wrote:
What changes does option 3 bring for you and the people you know?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why they would make 7th and 10th graders move to a new school if their inbounds school change. They should have just 6th and 9th graders implement it in the first school, so that 7th and 10th graders do not have to move to a new school, which is really disruptive.
Then they'd be opening Woodward and Crown with no one but ninth graders there. That's not efficient, and leaves a lot of unnecessary overcrowding.
It’s not just about efficiency. It’s about emotional toll on so many kids. We could be talking about thousands of kids here. They’re not just numbers.
Kids have been dealing with changing schools for decades. They are more resilient than we give them credit for.
How about it being practical? Kids being bussed impacts many things including activities. Kids who are sick and parents who don’t have cars or cannot drive cannot get them easily. Parents with health issues may not easily be able to get cross town to go to those schools, etc. I can barely get to my kids schools 10-15 minutes away on a bad day let alone twice that far.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why they would make 7th and 10th graders move to a new school if their inbounds school change. They should have just 6th and 9th graders implement it in the first school, so that 7th and 10th graders do not have to move to a new school, which is really disruptive.
Then they'd be opening Woodward and Crown with no one but ninth graders there. That's not efficient, and leaves a lot of unnecessary overcrowding.
It’s not just about efficiency. It’s about emotional toll on so many kids. We could be talking about thousands of kids here. They’re not just numbers.
Kids have been dealing with changing schools for decades. They are more resilient than we give them credit for.
Anonymous wrote:
Kids have been dealing with changing schools for decades. They are more resilient than we give them credit for.
Anonymous wrote:I am voting for Option 3 along with a bunch of other people I know. Makes the most send to address racial inequities and demographic changes. Kids are very resilient. It’s not as big of a deal to have split articulation and bussing.It may actually be good for your kid.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It seems like this thread has lost the plot.
There isn't really that much to discuss. There are 4 initial options that aren't really going to be considered because they made zero effort to balance the 4 factors mandated by BOE policy. This is a nothingburger.
No surprise people started bickering instead.
I think it's an indication that Flo Analytics and the MCPS board are terrible at their jobs, by releasing maps that will just make people bicker and not try to reach and sort of workable solutions.
***My spouse is a management consultant (yes, I know, haha, but they advise in the industrial sector not human resources ie they don’t get people fired)… When I shared the boundary study info and options with them, they were astounded by the ineptitude. They said it’s wasting all stakeholders’ time and money to have concocted any options - preliminary or otherwise - that each optimize for only one of the four key factors. Period, full stop.
And now the thread has devolved into bickering about home values. Look what those a$$hat consultants and MCPS have made us do: We are turning on each other when instead we need to coalesce to lobby on behalf of MoCo children — our own kids and our neighbors’. Don’t let the bastards grind you down! <—“Handmaid’s Tale”
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why they would make 7th and 10th graders move to a new school if their inbounds school change. They should have just 6th and 9th graders implement it in the first school, so that 7th and 10th graders do not have to move to a new school, which is really disruptive.
Then they'd be opening Woodward and Crown with no one but ninth graders there. That's not efficient, and leaves a lot of unnecessary overcrowding.
It’s not just about efficiency. It’s about emotional toll on so many kids. We could be talking about thousands of kids here. They’re not just numbers.