I don't understand why they can't just choose the 27-30 Options E-G middle school boundaries regardless, and then choose among A-G for high school boundaries.

Then in 2027 or 2028, depending on SSIMS decision, choose middle school boundaries.

Anonymous wrote:My question is: has MCPS said what you are saying here -- that if SSIMS stays open and they choose E, F, or G, they will stick with those 27-30 boundaries long-term? What if they vote in 2027 to not close SSIMS but they have already adopted E, F, or G. Would they then go back to A-D?

This is why this whole thing is so infuriating. I think people all have good intentions here and I don't think anyone is being "childish" as you accuse. I think there is genuine confusion that MCPS needs to clear up on how this will all play out considering the decision of whether to close SSIMS has been proposed.

Yes, I absolutely agree that MCPS is handling this wrong and it's mainly their fault. But in the absence of clear information, there is much less reason to conclude "picking options E-G will result in SSIMS closing" than "picking options E-G will not force SSIMS to close since that depends on a Board vote which won't happen until at least 2027," and I would think that is fairly self-evident, but I guess not?

(And if they don't close SSIMS, why would they need to go back to A-D? They would presumably just keep kids at the same middle schools they were at from 2027-2030 under options E-G, which is basically the same schools they're at now. Or if they really feel like they need to change things, they can come up with new Silver Spring middle school assignments alongside the countywide elementary school boundary study they're doing in 2026-2027. But it's not like options A-D are the only options that could work with SSIMS being open.)

Sorry not proposed, postponed.

My question is: has MCPS said what you are saying here -- that if SSIMS stays open and they choose E, F, or G, they will stick with those 27-30 boundaries long-term? What if they vote in 2027 to not close SSIMS but they have already adopted E, F, or G. Would they then go back to A-D?

This is why this whole thing is so infuriating. I think people all have good intentions here and I don't think anyone is being "childish" as you accuse. I think there is genuine confusion that MCPS needs to clear up on how this will all play out considering the decision of whether to close SSIMS has been proposed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP is correct that what SSIMS supporters have posted is not "misinformation."

But also, it's certainly not a "given" that SSIMS boundaries will change if it stays open.

SSIMS boundaries change dramatically if A-D are chosen-- about half the kids leave and are replaced with new kids from other schools.

If E-G are chosen, SSIMS kids stay together, only splitting if SSIMS actually closes. You can't see it on the maps, but the effects tables make it clear that the pre-SSIMS closure/non-SSIMS closure options keep current SSIMS kids at SSIMS.

Right, what I'm saying is that I don't think it's a "given" that if 1 of Option A-D is chosen for the high school boundaries, they'll go ahead and make the MS boundary changes associated with that option as well. Maybe I'm giving MCPS too much credit, but as I posted earlier, L Stewart and Taylor agreed that transferring kids to a school whose status is in limbo is not cool.

Laura Stewart and Superintendent Taylor agreed that it was undesirable for kids to be transferred to a school whose status is in limbo, which all of options A-D do. And options A-D are also hard to adjust to avoid that, because there is SO much change in Silver Spring middle school assignments in those. So they created options E-G to fix the problem-- three options that are designed to work well before/without SSIMS closing (the 2027-2030 version on the website, but which could continue onwards if SSIMS doesn't close), as well as if/after SSIMS closes (the post-2030 version on the website.)

Now people are lobbying against options E-G out of a childish "well, I don't see SSIMS on the maps in options E-G, so if one of those is chosen it must mean that SSIMS will close!" mentality, even though it has been very clearly stated that a decision on closing SSIMS will not happen until 2027 and would require a full Board vote, and even though anyone who stops to think about it for 10 seconds realizes that *of course* options E-G have a plan for what happens if SSIMS isn't closed, because SSIMS was never supposed to be closed in 2027-2028 when the new boundaries take effect so there always had to be a plan.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Apparently some of the leadership of the group trying to save SSIMS is spreading misinformation about the boundary study and telling people they need to vote for options A-D in order to keep SSIMS open, and that voting for options E-G is a vote to support closure of SSiMS. All this despite the fact that options A-D split up current SSIMS kids, and an amended version of E-G is the only way to keep current SSIMS kids together.

Please spread the word that this is untrue and that the survey on the boundary options is separate from the decision on whether or not to close SSIMS.

Ultimately this is MCPS's fault for not putting out clear information, but the SSIMS folks also need to take responsibility for fact-checking before they spread inaccurate information.

Not sure you have your facts correct - With a proposed SSIMS closing (Options, E,F, and G), SSIMS students will be split between Sligo MS and Eastern MS.

Actually they'd be split between TPMS and Eastern MS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Options E-G were introduced specifically to show where students would go if SSIMS closes. They were only created because of October announcement of the CIP -- see this article:
https://bethesdamagazine.com/2025/10/31/mcps-boundary-options-silver-spring-international-crown/#:~:text=The%20Montgomery%20County%20Public%20Schools%20(MCPS)%20board,*%20Alleviating%20space%20needs%20across%20the%20district

I do not understand how these options would be feasible if SSIMS stays open. Their entire purpose was to show how assignments would work if the CIP as proposed (including the closure of SSIMS) passes.

If that is not the case, it is MCPS who is misleading people, not a group of parents.

SSIMS was never supposed to close until 2030, but the new boundaries take effect in 2027. MCPS had a plan for 2027-2030 which was to keep the Silver Spring middle school assignments basically as-is. There is no reason I can think of why it isn't feasible to do that indefinitely if options E-G are selected and the decision is eventually made to keep SSIMS open.

That could be true but MCPS has not said that specifically, right? All they have said is that those three options were created to account for the closure of SSIMS.

Anonymous wrote:Options E-G were introduced specifically to show where students would go if SSIMS closes. They were only created because of October announcement of the CIP -- see this article:
https://bethesdamagazine.com/2025/10/31/mcps-boundary-options-silver-spring-international-crown/#:~:text=The%20Montgomery%20County%20Public%20Schools%20(MCPS)%20board,*%20Alleviating%20space%20needs%20across%20the%20district

I do not understand how these options would be feasible if SSIMS stays open. Their entire purpose was to show how assignments would work if the CIP as proposed (including the closure of SSIMS) passes.

If that is not the case, it is MCPS who is misleading people, not a group of parents.

SSIMS was never supposed to close until 2030, but the new boundaries take effect in 2027. MCPS had a plan for 2027-2030 which was to keep the Silver Spring middle school assignments basically as-is. There is no reason I can think of why it isn't feasible to do that indefinitely if options E-G are selected and the decision is eventually made to keep SSIMS open.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well in that case MCPS is responsible for the misinformation, not so-called “SSIMS activists.” The only version of E-G offered for feedback is the version showing ES students articulating to the non-SSIMS middle schools only.

The website by Flo Analytics only shows the maps for the versions of E-G with no SSIMS, but the effects tables show both the with-SSIMS and without-SSIMS assignments (basically keeping the middle school assignments in Silver Spring the same unless SSIMS closes at which point they get split to different schools.)

And even if the "Save our Silver Spring Schools" people didn't dig deep enough to notice that (which I doubt), they know perfectly well that the decision on closing SSIMS won't be made until 2027 at the earliest, so it is definitely misinformation to suggest that the decisions are being made now and people need to vote a certain way on boundary maps to make sure SSIMS stays open.

I don't interpret the with-SSIMS and without-SSIMS assignments to mean the same thing you do. Because the SSIMS closure would not happen until 2030 at the earliest, I interpret the with-SSIMS option to mean from 2027-2030 and then without-SSIMS option to mean once the school is closed. In other words, I don't think E-G show an option for keeping SSIMS open long-term. I think they show what would happen between when boundaries change and when SSIMS closes. Therefore, they still all show the eventual closure of SSIMS.

Options E-G were introduced specifically to show where students would go if SSIMS closes. They were only created because of October announcement of the CIP -- see this article:
https://bethesdamagazine.com/2025/10/31/mcps-boundary-options-silver-spring-international-crown/#:~:text=The%20Montgomery%20County%20Public%20Schools%20(MCPS)%20board,*%20Alleviating%20space%20needs%20across%20the%20district

I do not understand how these options would be feasible if SSIMS stays open. Their entire purpose was to show how assignments would work if the CIP as proposed (including the closure of SSIMS) passes.

If that is not the case, it is MCPS who is misleading people, not a group of parents.

Anonymous wrote:Well in that case MCPS is responsible for the misinformation, not so-called “SSIMS activists.” The only version of E-G offered for feedback is the version showing ES students articulating to the non-SSIMS middle schools only.

The website by Flo Analytics only shows the maps for the versions of E-G with no SSIMS, but the effects tables show both the with-SSIMS and without-SSIMS assignments (basically keeping the middle school assignments in Silver Spring the same unless SSIMS closes at which point they get split to different schools.)

And even if the "Save our Silver Spring Schools" people didn't dig deep enough to notice that (which I doubt), they know perfectly well that the decision on closing SSIMS won't be made until 2027 at the earliest, so it is definitely misinformation to suggest that the decisions are being made now and people need to vote a certain way on boundary maps to make sure SSIMS stays open.

Well in that case MCPS is responsible for the misinformation, not so-called “SSIMS activists.” The only version of E-G offered for feedback is the version showing ES students articulating to the non-SSIMS middle schools only.

It is definitely misinformation. The group is suggesting that if maps E-G are selected, that means closing SSIMS. That is not at all true-- the SSIMS closure decision will be made in 2027 regardless of which maps are chosen now. It is based on someone's very simple-minded assumption that "the maps on the website don't show SSIMS in options E-G so it means if those are chosen SSIMS will close!!!" which everyone who has been following the issue knows is not true.

I really wish MCPS had posted both versions of the E-G maps (the ones for 2027-2030 and the ones for after 2030 if SSIMS closes) so it was more obvious to people that there are two sets of middle school assignments in options E-G. They probably thought they didn't have to because it's pretty obvious that the MS boundaries in E-G stay basically the same as now if SSIMS is open, but clearly people are getting really confused.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP is correct that what SSIMS supporters have posted is not "misinformation."

But also, it's certainly not a "given" that SSIMS boundaries will change if it stays open.

SSIMS boundaries change dramatically if A-D are chosen-- about half the kids leave and are replaced with new kids from other schools.

If E-G are chosen, SSIMS kids stay together, only splitting if SSIMS actually closes. You can't see it on the maps, but the effects tables make it clear that the pre-SSIMS closure/non-SSIMS closure options keep current SSIMS kids at SSIMS.

Right, what I'm saying is that I don't think it's a "given" that if 1 of Option A-D is chosen for the high school boundaries, they'll go ahead and make the MS boundary changes associated with that option as well. Maybe I'm giving MCPS too much credit, but as I posted earlier, L Stewart and Taylor agreed that transferring kids to a school whose status is in limbo is not cool.

The maps are for both MS & HS, not for HS only.

And it would be very hard to amend maps A-D to keep current MS boundaries in Silver Spring the same-- you have to make lots of changes at lots of middle schools to make it work. Whereas options E-G need few or in some cases no tweaks to allow current MS boundaries to stay.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP is correct that what SSIMS supporters have posted is not "misinformation."

But also, it's certainly not a "given" that SSIMS boundaries will change if it stays open.

SSIMS boundaries change dramatically if A-D are chosen-- about half the kids leave and are replaced with new kids from other schools.

If E-G are chosen, SSIMS kids stay together, only splitting if SSIMS actually closes. You can't see it on the maps, but the effects tables make it clear that the pre-SSIMS closure/non-SSIMS closure options keep current SSIMS kids at SSIMS.

Right, what I'm saying is that I don't think it's a "given" that if 1 of Option A-D is chosen for the high school boundaries, they'll go ahead and make the MS boundary changes associated with that option as well. Maybe I'm giving MCPS too much credit, but as I posted earlier, L Stewart and Taylor agreed that transferring kids to a school whose status is in limbo is not cool.