Anonymous wrote:They should have just done all of it now (and not split the county into two studies). We are zoned for an extremely overcrowded ES, but closer in distance to a very underutilized ES with tons of open seats. The underutilized ES feeds into a different HS cluster so there is no hope of us ever being rezoned there now

Does that HS boundary line not change in the new options?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why wait another year to address the overcrowding?

Because of how ridiculous it is for them to implement the MS/HS boundary changes without knowing how tons of ES boundaries will change the year after, and what a wasteful mess it will be if they put these regional program changes into place too quickly when they're clearly not well enough thought out yet.

The point of the ES study is to address the inevitable split articulations to MS which will result from the boundary study.

The point of the ES study is to balance utilization and so they're not going to know which kids will end up being moved from one elementary school to another until they actually do the analysis. Which will likely lead to much more split articulation to MS and HS, unfortunately, unless they slow down and do them both at the same time.

They need to know the final new MS/HS boundaries first. Then they can readjust the ES boundaries to avoid split articulations and address overutilization.

Huh? Finishing MS/HS first either boxes them if they're trying to avoid/resolve split articulation (because it creates a lot of artificial constraints on reassigning kids to elementary schools across middle school boundary lines), or on the other hand if they decide not to worry too much about respecting the MS boundary lines in favor of making the best decisions on ES boundaries, then there will almost inevitably be a lot of split articulation.

+1 whoever decided they should do a ton of split articulation in the MS/HS boundary study because they can resolve it with an ES boundary study should be fired immediately.

They paid her $1m to leave

Um no I'm referring to the second round of boundary study options released a couple of weeks ago under Thomas Taylor and the statements that have been made by MCPS staff indicating the proposed split articulation will be resolved by the ES boundary study which is a bald-faced lie.

That's because you didn't fully do the root-cause analysis. Split articulation is REQUIRED because this study didn't scope ES boundaries in. That was all McKnight. Therefore, the ONLY sane response that keeps this study going is to say you will follow up to correct that missing scope with a future study.

I do think it is the fault of McKnight for messing up the scope of this. Rebecca Smondrowski did ask at a BOE meeting at the time if elementary schools could be included and was shot down. It was very obvious that by excluding elementary schools you’d end up with split articulation problems.

They are spending a LOT of money on consultants to get far into the Crown boundary study just to change their minds. It's infuriating

They could and should delay the program changes. The fact that they can skewer the entire Crown boundary study and potentially use it as a holding school instead of carrying out all the boundary changes they’ve paid tons to come up with means that they can definitely switch plans. They do not want to admit that there could be a slowed-down program process because they obviously wish to ram it in without feedback or buy in from basically anyone but their small echo chamber.

They should have just done all of it now (and not split the county into two studies). We are zoned for an extremely overcrowded ES, but closer in distance to a very underutilized ES with tons of open seats. The underutilized ES feeds into a different HS cluster so there is no hope of us ever being rezoned there now

I agree that Woodward and Northwood both need to reopen with newly reassigned students asap, and we should not delay yet another year.

Northwood, sorry.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why wait another year to address the overcrowding?

Because of how ridiculous it is for them to implement the MS/HS boundary changes without knowing how tons of ES boundaries will change the year after, and what a wasteful mess it will be if they put these regional program changes into place too quickly when they're clearly not well enough thought out yet.

Tell that to all the students squished into WJ. No more waiting. Ridiculous that Norwood was placed in Woodward for 3 years! (I am guessing they want their own school + and auditorium back sooner)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anybody know why MCPS/BOE decided not to do an ES boundary study alongside the MS and HS studies?

Because they (McKnight, Hull, Adams) thought it would be too complicated to do all schools all at once.

That is dumb. They have had plenty of time. You start with the base - the elementary schools - and build up from there.

The initial reason for the boundary studies was the opening of two new high schools. At first, they were only looking at changing HS boundaries, then they included MS when they authorized the study.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why wait another year to address the overcrowding?

Because of how ridiculous it is for them to implement the MS/HS boundary changes without knowing how tons of ES boundaries will change the year after, and what a wasteful mess it will be if they put these regional program changes into place too quickly when they're clearly not well enough thought out yet.

The point of the ES study is to address the inevitable split articulations to MS which will result from the boundary study.

The point of the ES study is to balance utilization and so they're not going to know which kids will end up being moved from one elementary school to another until they actually do the analysis. Which will likely lead to much more split articulation to MS and HS, unfortunately, unless they slow down and do them both at the same time.

They need to know the final new MS/HS boundaries first. Then they can readjust the ES boundaries to avoid split articulations and address overutilization.

Huh? Finishing MS/HS first either boxes them if they're trying to avoid/resolve split articulation (because it creates a lot of artificial constraints on reassigning kids to elementary schools across middle school boundary lines), or on the other hand if they decide not to worry too much about respecting the MS boundary lines in favor of making the best decisions on ES boundaries, then there will almost inevitably be a lot of split articulation.

+1 whoever decided they should do a ton of split articulation in the MS/HS boundary study because they can resolve it with an ES boundary study should be fired immediately.

They paid her $1m to leave

Um no I'm referring to the second round of boundary study options released a couple of weeks ago under Thomas Taylor and the statements that have been made by MCPS staff indicating the proposed split articulation will be resolved by the ES boundary study which is a bald-faced lie.

That's because you didn't fully do the root-cause analysis. Split articulation is REQUIRED because this study didn't scope ES boundaries in. That was all McKnight. Therefore, the ONLY sane response that keeps this study going is to say you will follow up to correct that missing scope with a future study.

You can't resolve the split articulations with a future study. That will not occur, so don't lie about it. If anything the split articulations will get worse.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why wait another year to address the overcrowding?

Because of how ridiculous it is for them to implement the MS/HS boundary changes without knowing how tons of ES boundaries will change the year after, and what a wasteful mess it will be if they put these regional program changes into place too quickly when they're clearly not well enough thought out yet.

The point of the ES study is to address the inevitable split articulations to MS which will result from the boundary study.

The point of the ES study is to balance utilization and so they're not going to know which kids will end up being moved from one elementary school to another until they actually do the analysis. Which will likely lead to much more split articulation to MS and HS, unfortunately, unless they slow down and do them both at the same time.

They need to know the final new MS/HS boundaries first. Then they can readjust the ES boundaries to avoid split articulations and address overutilization.

Huh? Finishing MS/HS first either boxes them if they're trying to avoid/resolve split articulation (because it creates a lot of artificial constraints on reassigning kids to elementary schools across middle school boundary lines), or on the other hand if they decide not to worry too much about respecting the MS boundary lines in favor of making the best decisions on ES boundaries, then there will almost inevitably be a lot of split articulation.

+1 whoever decided they should do a ton of split articulation in the MS/HS boundary study because they can resolve it with an ES boundary study should be fired immediately.

They paid her $1m to leave

Um no I'm referring to the second round of boundary study options released a couple of weeks ago under Thomas Taylor and the statements that have been made by MCPS staff indicating the proposed split articulation will be resolved by the ES boundary study which is a bald-faced lie.

That's because you didn't fully do the root-cause analysis. Split articulation is REQUIRED because this study didn't scope ES boundaries in. That was all McKnight. Therefore, the ONLY sane response that keeps this study going is to say you will follow up to correct that missing scope with a future study.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why wait another year to address the overcrowding?

Because of how ridiculous it is for them to implement the MS/HS boundary changes without knowing how tons of ES boundaries will change the year after, and what a wasteful mess it will be if they put these regional program changes into place too quickly when they're clearly not well enough thought out yet.

The point of the ES study is to address the inevitable split articulations to MS which will result from the boundary study.

The point of the ES study is to balance utilization and so they're not going to know which kids will end up being moved from one elementary school to another until they actually do the analysis. Which will likely lead to much more split articulation to MS and HS, unfortunately, unless they slow down and do them both at the same time.

They need to know the final new MS/HS boundaries first. Then they can readjust the ES boundaries to avoid split articulations and address overutilization.

Huh? Finishing MS/HS first either boxes them if they're trying to avoid/resolve split articulation (because it creates a lot of artificial constraints on reassigning kids to elementary schools across middle school boundary lines), or on the other hand if they decide not to worry too much about respecting the MS boundary lines in favor of making the best decisions on ES boundaries, then there will almost inevitably be a lot of split articulation.

+1 whoever decided they should do a ton of split articulation in the MS/HS boundary study because they can resolve it with an ES boundary study should be fired immediately.

They paid her $1m to leave

Um no I'm referring to the second round of boundary study options released a couple of weeks ago under Thomas Taylor and the statements that have been made by MCPS staff indicating the proposed split articulation will be resolved by the ES boundary study which is a bald-faced lie.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why wait another year to address the overcrowding?

Because of how ridiculous it is for them to implement the MS/HS boundary changes without knowing how tons of ES boundaries will change the year after, and what a wasteful mess it will be if they put these regional program changes into place too quickly when they're clearly not well enough thought out yet.

The point of the ES study is to address the inevitable split articulations to MS which will result from the boundary study.

The point of the ES study is to balance utilization and so they're not going to know which kids will end up being moved from one elementary school to another until they actually do the analysis. Which will likely lead to much more split articulation to MS and HS, unfortunately, unless they slow down and do them both at the same time.

They need to know the final new MS/HS boundaries first. Then they can readjust the ES boundaries to avoid split articulations and address overutilization.

Huh? Finishing MS/HS first either boxes them if they're trying to avoid/resolve split articulation (because it creates a lot of artificial constraints on reassigning kids to elementary schools across middle school boundary lines), or on the other hand if they decide not to worry too much about respecting the MS boundary lines in favor of making the best decisions on ES boundaries, then there will almost inevitably be a lot of split articulation.

+1 whoever decided they should do a ton of split articulation in the MS/HS boundary study because they can resolve it with an ES boundary study should be fired immediately.

They paid her $1m to leave

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why wait another year to address the overcrowding?

Because of how ridiculous it is for them to implement the MS/HS boundary changes without knowing how tons of ES boundaries will change the year after, and what a wasteful mess it will be if they put these regional program changes into place too quickly when they're clearly not well enough thought out yet.

The point of the ES study is to address the inevitable split articulations to MS which will result from the boundary study.

The point of the ES study is to balance utilization and so they're not going to know which kids will end up being moved from one elementary school to another until they actually do the analysis. Which will likely lead to much more split articulation to MS and HS, unfortunately, unless they slow down and do them both at the same time.

They need to know the final new MS/HS boundaries first. Then they can readjust the ES boundaries to avoid split articulations and address overutilization.

Huh? Finishing MS/HS first either boxes them if they're trying to avoid/resolve split articulation (because it creates a lot of artificial constraints on reassigning kids to elementary schools across middle school boundary lines), or on the other hand if they decide not to worry too much about respecting the MS boundary lines in favor of making the best decisions on ES boundaries, then there will almost inevitably be a lot of split articulation.

+1 whoever decided they should do a ton of split articulation in the MS/HS boundary study because they can resolve it with an ES boundary study should be fired immediately.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why wait another year to address the overcrowding?

Because of how ridiculous it is for them to implement the MS/HS boundary changes without knowing how tons of ES boundaries will change the year after, and what a wasteful mess it will be if they put these regional program changes into place too quickly when they're clearly not well enough thought out yet.

The point of the ES study is to address the inevitable split articulations to MS which will result from the boundary study.

The point of the ES study is to balance utilization and so they're not going to know which kids will end up being moved from one elementary school to another until they actually do the analysis. Which will likely lead to much more split articulation to MS and HS, unfortunately, unless they slow down and do them both at the same time.

They need to know the final new MS/HS boundaries first. Then they can readjust the ES boundaries to avoid split articulations and address overutilization.

Huh? Finishing MS/HS first either boxes them if they're trying to avoid/resolve split articulation (because it creates a lot of artificial constraints on reassigning kids to elementary schools across middle school boundary lines), or on the other hand if they decide not to worry too much about respecting the MS boundary lines in favor of making the best decisions on ES boundaries, then there will almost inevitably be a lot of split articulation.