Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Optional 4 has Wheaton at 120% capacity. It would be very irresponsible to upend so many kids to not solve the problems the plan was designed to fix.

Apparently a poster on this thread offered a modification to it that addresses that. However, split articulation in that option remains an issue.

Solution may be to take the modication and then see how many split articulations can be eliminated. Avoid doing more than once split articuations for same set of kids.

Anonymous wrote:Optional 4 has Wheaton at 120% capacity. It would be very irresponsible to upend so many kids to not solve the problems the plan was designed to fix.

Apparently a poster on this thread offered a modification to it that addresses that. However, split articulation in that option remains an issue.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They just paid millions and you don’t think they thought of modified option 4 as RM parent suggested?? There nust be some reason they did not proposedm that as an option.

If BOE is fine with option 4 in original form then I don't a reason for them to be not fine with modifed option 4. It does not create any issues for ayone, it solves the Wheaton over crowding and we avoid having two unbalanced shcools so close to each other.

We have no indication of that. The BOE will ultimately want an option that attempts to advance all four factors, not options that only emphasize one.

Modified option 4 by RM parent is better than option 4.

What BOE will do , no one knows.

Optional 4 has Wheaton at 120% capacity. It would be very irresponsible to upend so many kids to not solve the problems the plan was designed to fix.

I agree there is too much split articulation in Option 4. Aren’t there some tweaks that could be made to Option 1 to make it work? Like shift Wheaton Woods elementary to WJ, and Kensington Parkwood to Einstein to solve overcrowding at Wheaton and mitigate FARMS differences across the high schools?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They just paid millions and you don’t think they thought of modified option 4 as RM parent suggested?? There nust be some reason they did not proposedm that as an option.

If BOE is fine with option 4 in original form then I don't a reason for them to be not fine with modifed option 4. It does not create any issues for ayone, it solves the Wheaton over crowding and we avoid having two unbalanced shcools so close to each other.

We have no indication of that. The BOE will ultimately want an option that attempts to advance all four factors, not options that only emphasize one.

+1 too much split articulation in Option 4

These options were developed by the consultant, not the BOE. The BOE hasn't endorsed any of them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They just paid millions and you don’t think they thought of modified option 4 as RM parent suggested?? There nust be some reason they did not proposedm that as an option.

If BOE is fine with option 4 in original form then I don't a reason for them to be not fine with modifed option 4. It does not create any issues for ayone, it solves the Wheaton over crowding and we avoid having two unbalanced shcools so close to each other.

We have no indication of that. The BOE will ultimately want an option that attempts to advance all four factors, not options that only emphasize one.

Anonymous wrote:It would Garner consensus very quickly. Let's save the two years of bellyache and get RM parent modified Option 4 going now

Why? What is the benefit of Option 4 over Option 1?

It would Garner consensus very quickly. Let's save the two years of bellyache and get RM parent modified Option 4 going now

I don't like Option 4 because it has tons of split articulation, including splitting Oakland Terrace ES to two middle schools so shortly after they have started the continuation of Spanish immersion at Newport Mill. This will be a death knell for the middle school immersion class. While it is a modest program at the middle school level, it's definitely something I think they should build on, not undermine.

Anonymous wrote:They just paid millions and you don’t think they thought of modified option 4 as RM parent suggested?? There nust be some reason they did not proposedm that as an option.

You think government contractors aren't wasteful idiots? There's your reason.

Anonymous wrote:They just paid millions and you don’t think they thought of modified option 4 as RM parent suggested?? There nust be some reason they did not proposedm that as an option.

If BOE is fine with option 4 in original form then I don't a reason for them to be not fine with modifed option 4. It does not create any issues for ayone, it solves the Wheaton over crowding and we avoid having two unbalanced shcools so close to each other.

Anonymous wrote:They just paid millions and you don’t think they thought of modified option 4 as RM parent suggested?? There nust be some reason they did not proposedm that as an option.

Lol I have no faith these people thought of anything.

They just paid millions and you don’t think they thought of modified option 4 as RM parent suggested?? There nust be some reason they did not proposedm that as an option.

Modified Option 4 from RM parent. That's the winning solution. Let's get your going asap.