Anonymous wrote:Mcps is imploding.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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?