Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was there this much split articulation in the first set of options? So many elementary schools getting split up under all 4 scenarios.

My sneaking suspicion is that this will leave them optionality on adjusting clusters at a later date based on how demographics shift over time.

What do you mean?

They will have more flexibility regarding adjusting the boundaries of these clusters in the future as they see how enrollment changes. Once they’ve gone to split articulation, do you really think they won’t consider moving one group to the alternate school in the future? It seems perfectly set up for this in places where there is a large group of split articulated schools.

They said something in the presentation about ES splits possibly being addressed in future boundary studies.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was there this much split articulation in the first set of options? So many elementary schools getting split up under all 4 scenarios.

My sneaking suspicion is that this will leave them optionality on adjusting clusters at a later date based on how demographics shift over time.

What do you mean?

They will have more flexibility regarding adjusting the boundaries of these clusters in the future as they see how enrollment changes. Once they’ve gone to split articulation, do you really think they won’t consider moving one group to the alternate school in the future? It seems perfectly set up for this in places where there is a large group of split articulated schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's very unfair to Whitman families.

More diversity should be added in Whitman. Leaving it untouched is a missed oppurtunity.

But do non-white, lower income folks even want to go to Whitman?

I am high income and non-white - I don't want my kids to attend Whitman.

I am high-income and white, and purposefully didn't buy in the Whitman or Churchill districts.

Me too

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was there this much split articulation in the first set of options? So many elementary schools getting split up under all 4 scenarios.

My sneaking suspicion is that this will leave them optionality on adjusting clusters at a later date based on how demographics shift over time.

What do you mean?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's very unfair to Whitman families.

More diversity should be added in Whitman. Leaving it untouched is a missed oppurtunity.

But do non-white, lower income folks even want to go to Whitman?

I am high income and non-white - I don't want my kids to attend Whitman.

I am high-income and white, and purposefully didn't buy in the Whitman or Churchill districts.

Anonymous wrote:Was there this much split articulation in the first set of options? So many elementary schools getting split up under all 4 scenarios.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not clear whether the data sets include new programs or not. They did not address that on the webinar.

+1 or how and with what money they are adding 500 seats to Wheaton

They should not call this community engagement if they aren't actually hearing from the community. They should just send out the powerpoint with the script they are READING instead of wasting people's time.

I don't think they are adding 500 seats to Wheaton. They are just combining the existing Wheaton + Edison capacity and the projected Wheaton + Edison enrollment.

No

Where does it say anything about adding seats to Wheaton? The data table footnotes just say "Wheaton HS includes the capacity at Edison HS" and "Assumes 500 students attend Wheaton HS for CTE."

You are putting a lot of trust in the consultants while ignoring one obvious fact - Wheaton HS is currently overcrowded. Why is that if there is all this space at Edison? Because there isn't. They haven't built it out yet and won't tell us how much that would cost or how long it would take. Or are they reducing capacity for the Edison programs to fit the Wheaton HS? They aren't saying and there is a reason for it - they know the capacity isn't currently there but it makes their job easier to pretend that it is.

For 2024-25, Wheaton HS had a capacity of 2251 and enrollment of 2794 https://gis.mcpsmd.org/cipmasterpdfs/MP26_Chapter4DCC.pdf

500 seats don't magically appear.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was there this much split articulation in the first set of options? So many elementary schools getting split up under all 4 scenarios.

My sneaking suspicion is that this will leave them optionality on adjusting clusters at a later date based on how demographics shift over time.

Anonymous wrote:Totally agree that the first round of options were intended to shock people and then make them feel relieved when round 2 and then final decisions are made with fewer changes and way less shocking boundary shifts.

Lots of consider of course but shouldn't the largest goal be for zero schools predicting over 100% capacity? Woodward being built is to alleviate overcapacity. That's its goal. Figuring out who to send there should relieve overcrowding, not project any other high school at over 100%. I don't think any of the options should be presented if the capacity is over 95%.

Anonymous wrote:Totally agree that the first round of options were intended to shock people and then make them feel relieved when round 2 and then final decisions are made with fewer changes and way less shocking boundary shifts.

Lots of consider of course but shouldn't the largest goal be for zero schools predicting over 100% capacity? Woodward being built is to alleviate overcapacity. That's its goal. Figuring out who to send there should relieve overcrowding, not project any other high school at over 100%. I don't think any of the options should be presented if the capacity is over 95%.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They will never make everyone happy but these options make the most sense. Also there is supposed to be a demographic cliff at some point, with fewer children being born resulting of course in fewer students in our schools.

Except on facility utilization and demographics, two of the four factors and these options are terrible on these

Might as well give up on trying to equalize demographics unless you want super long bus rides for poor kids.

Or change housing policy.

And most poor kids and their families want to attend the local school. Just like the rich kids. Funny how that works.

There is a difference between what individual families want and what is feasible/efficient. Everyone wants their kids to go to the closest school (except for ToK, they are special that way). But everyone CAN'T go to the closest school. It is physically impossible.

Right. So then they’re probably looking at the next closest option. Where in this proposal do you see a massive disconnection between the closest option and the proposed one? Maybe that should be the focus of any constructive feedback.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not clear whether the data sets include new programs or not. They did not address that on the webinar.

+1 or how and with what money they are adding 500 seats to Wheaton

They should not call this community engagement if they aren't actually hearing from the community. They should just send out the powerpoint with the script they are READING instead of wasting people's time.

I don't think they are adding 500 seats to Wheaton. They are just combining the existing Wheaton + Edison capacity and the projected Wheaton + Edison enrollment.

No

Where does it say anything about adding seats to Wheaton? The data table footnotes just say "Wheaton HS includes the capacity at Edison HS" and "Assumes 500 students attend Wheaton HS for CTE."