Anonymous wrote:Frankly, time to walk between building can conceivably be helped at the school level rather than shipping everyone around the county.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 2 options that do not leave Wheaton 20% overcrowded include massive levels of split articulation. That's a testament to the need for an elementary school boundary study. But that's not happening, so this process will inevitably result in an either inefficient or undesirable result.

Yep. I think it’s better to do option 1, to reduce so many split articulations. Eventually, then need to do an elementary school boundary study to do a better job of solving this issue.

Is there space to build out Wheaton to solve the overcrowding, if option 1 is adopted?

This has already been discussed and debated extensively on this thread. There is a "shell" space in a building next door. Some people have concerns that it would make it very hard for students to get to classes on time depending on which parts of the buildings they are going to/from. In addition, that work would cost an unknown amount of money and historically it takes a very long time for capital projects to be approved and even then, they are frequently delayed for several years. Not to mention, it is inefficient use of taxpayer dollars to build additional space when the existing buildings have plenty of space if you distribute the students effectively.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 2 options that do not leave Wheaton 20% overcrowded include massive levels of split articulation. That's a testament to the need for an elementary school boundary study. But that's not happening, so this process will inevitably result in an either inefficient or undesirable result.

Yep. I think it’s better to do option 1, to reduce so many split articulations. Eventually, then need to do an elementary school boundary study to do a better job of solving this issue.

Is there space to build out Wheaton to solve the overcrowding, if option 1 is adopted?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 2 options that do not leave Wheaton 20% overcrowded include massive levels of split articulation. That's a testament to the need for an elementary school boundary study. But that's not happening, so this process will inevitably result in an either inefficient or undesirable result.

Yep. I think it’s better to do option 1, to reduce so many split articulations. Eventually, then need to do an elementary school boundary study to do a better job of solving this issue.

Is there space to build out Wheaton to solve the overcrowding, if option 1 is adopted?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 2 options that do not leave Wheaton 20% overcrowded include massive levels of split articulation. That's a testament to the need for an elementary school boundary study. But that's not happening, so this process will inevitably result in an either inefficient or undesirable result.

Yep. I think it’s better to do option 1, to reduce so many split articulations. Eventually, then need to do an elementary school boundary study to do a better job of solving this issue.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 2 options that do not leave Wheaton 20% overcrowded include massive levels of split articulation. That's a testament to the need for an elementary school boundary study. But that's not happening, so this process will inevitably result in an either inefficient or undesirable result.

Yep. I think it’s better to do option 1, to reduce so many split articulations. Eventually, then need to do an elementary school boundary study to do a better job of solving this issue.

Anonymous wrote:The 2 options that do not leave Wheaton 20% overcrowded include massive levels of split articulation. That's a testament to the need for an elementary school boundary study. But that's not happening, so this process will inevitably result in an either inefficient or undesirable result.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Option 3 had prioritized balancing demographics over everything else it would look a lot crazier than it currently does.

….thats what Flo Analytics says it does, so feel free to take it up with them.

I mean it's obvious. Why didn't they send Potomac to Kennedy? Use your brain.

Ok. What’s your point?

Option 3 is a pretty reasonable effort to prioritize the demographics factor. It also does ok on utilization, which only Option 2 achieves as well with massive split articulations . I do not think Option 3 is unserious. I could see it being the starting point for refined options.

A pretty reasonable effort to prioritize the demographics factor would not reassign current walkers to become long bus riders. That is not reasonable by MCPS's own statements. If students are already riding a bus for +/- 30 minutes, then I have no problem with them being reassigned to a different bus route/school. But walkers should stay walkers, and board members have been saying this all along.

Unfortunately, school buildings are not located perfectly in terms of geography and many kids that could currently walk are currently bussed to other schools.

Yes but which options make the issue worse?

Proximity is one of four factors to be considered as you know. Option 1 maximizes proximity.

I’m failing to see why we can’t all coalesce around Option 1. It seems like the best of the four.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Option 3 had prioritized balancing demographics over everything else it would look a lot crazier than it currently does.

….thats what Flo Analytics says it does, so feel free to take it up with them.

I mean it's obvious. Why didn't they send Potomac to Kennedy? Use your brain.

Ok. What’s your point?

Option 3 is a pretty reasonable effort to prioritize the demographics factor. It also does ok on utilization, which only Option 2 achieves as well with massive split articulations . I do not think Option 3 is unserious. I could see it being the starting point for refined options.

A pretty reasonable effort to prioritize the demographics factor would not reassign current walkers to become long bus riders. That is not reasonable by MCPS's own statements. If students are already riding a bus for +/- 30 minutes, then I have no problem with them being reassigned to a different bus route/school. But walkers should stay walkers, and board members have been saying this all along.

Unfortunately, school buildings are not located perfectly in terms of geography and many kids that could currently walk are currently bussed to other schools.

Yes but which options make the issue worse?

Proximity is one of four factors to be considered as you know. Option 1 maximizes proximity.

I’m failing to see why we can’t all coalesce around Option 1. It seems like the best of the four.

What’s the difference between options 1 and 2? I think someone noted above that 2 does more to alleviate overcrowding at Wheaton. Anything else?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Option 3 had prioritized balancing demographics over everything else it would look a lot crazier than it currently does.

….thats what Flo Analytics says it does, so feel free to take it up with them.

I mean it's obvious. Why didn't they send Potomac to Kennedy? Use your brain.

Ok. What’s your point?

Option 3 is a pretty reasonable effort to prioritize the demographics factor. It also does ok on utilization, which only Option 2 achieves as well with massive split articulations . I do not think Option 3 is unserious. I could see it being the starting point for refined options.

A pretty reasonable effort to prioritize the demographics factor would not reassign current walkers to become long bus riders. That is not reasonable by MCPS's own statements. If students are already riding a bus for +/- 30 minutes, then I have no problem with them being reassigned to a different bus route/school. But walkers should stay walkers, and board members have been saying this all along.

Unfortunately, school buildings are not located perfectly in terms of geography and many kids that could currently walk are currently bussed to other schools.

Yes but which options make the issue worse?

Proximity is one of four factors to be considered as you know. Option 1 maximizes proximity.

I’m failing to see why we can’t all coalesce around Option 1. It seems like the best of the four.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Option 3 had prioritized balancing demographics over everything else it would look a lot crazier than it currently does.

….thats what Flo Analytics says it does, so feel free to take it up with them.

I mean it's obvious. Why didn't they send Potomac to Kennedy? Use your brain.

Ok. What’s your point?

Option 3 is a pretty reasonable effort to prioritize the demographics factor. It also does ok on utilization, which only Option 2 achieves as well with massive split articulations . I do not think Option 3 is unserious. I could see it being the starting point for refined options.

A pretty reasonable effort to prioritize the demographics factor would not reassign current walkers to become long bus riders. That is not reasonable by MCPS's own statements. If students are already riding a bus for +/- 30 minutes, then I have no problem with them being reassigned to a different bus route/school. But walkers should stay walkers, and board members have been saying this all along.

Unfortunately, school buildings are not located perfectly in terms of geography and many kids that could currently walk are currently bussed to other schools.

Yes but which options make the issue worse?

Proximity is one of four factors to be considered as you know. Option 1 maximizes proximity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Option 3 had prioritized balancing demographics over everything else it would look a lot crazier than it currently does.

….thats what Flo Analytics says it does, so feel free to take it up with them.

I mean it's obvious. Why didn't they send Potomac to Kennedy? Use your brain.

Ok. What’s your point?

Option 3 is a pretty reasonable effort to prioritize the demographics factor. It also does ok on utilization, which only Option 2 achieves as well with massive split articulations . I do not think Option 3 is unserious. I could see it being the starting point for refined options.

A pretty reasonable effort to prioritize the demographics factor would not reassign current walkers to become long bus riders. That is not reasonable by MCPS's own statements. If students are already riding a bus for +/- 30 minutes, then I have no problem with them being reassigned to a different bus route/school. But walkers should stay walkers, and board members have been saying this all along.

Unfortunately, school buildings are not located perfectly in terms of geography and many kids that could currently walk are currently bussed to other schools.

Yes but which options make the issue worse?

Proximity is one of four factors to be considered as you know. Option 1 maximizes proximity.

Should be all 4 of 4.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Option 3 had prioritized balancing demographics over everything else it would look a lot crazier than it currently does.

….thats what Flo Analytics says it does, so feel free to take it up with them.

I mean it's obvious. Why didn't they send Potomac to Kennedy? Use your brain.

Ok. What’s your point?

Option 3 is a pretty reasonable effort to prioritize the demographics factor. It also does ok on utilization, which only Option 2 achieves as well with massive split articulations . I do not think Option 3 is unserious. I could see it being the starting point for refined options.

A pretty reasonable effort to prioritize the demographics factor would not reassign current walkers to become long bus riders. That is not reasonable by MCPS's own statements. If students are already riding a bus for +/- 30 minutes, then I have no problem with them being reassigned to a different bus route/school. But walkers should stay walkers, and board members have been saying this all along.

Unfortunately, school buildings are not located perfectly in terms of geography and many kids that could currently walk are currently bussed to other schools.

Yes but which options make the issue worse?

Proximity is one of four factors to be considered as you know. Option 1 maximizes proximity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As an OTES parent I’d selfishly vote for 1 as it keeps our MS/HS right next to eachother, Otherwise I guess it looks like Sligo MS/Einstein HS for us.

Am I naive enough to assume they’re taking into consideration immersion programs (which OTES has) and how that may flow to a new MS? I believe Newport Mills just got set up for biliteracy.

Fellow OTES parent here. It does not look like these options take the immersion program into consideration. I am (perhaps naively) hopeful this will get flagged soon in the process.

Agree - as an OTES parent I am in favor of 1 so we don’t lose the hard work parents did to get continued immersion into middle school. What is the most effective way to get this message to the right people?

Continued immersion is one social studies class taught in Spanish. This could be implemented at a different MS. There is nothing special about it.

But would it be implemented across two middle schools if they go with the options that splits OTES? Probably not.