Anonymous
01/12/2026 04:35
Subject: SSIMS activists spreading misinformation about boundary options
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
You are yet again missing the point. Keeping SSIMS kids together is not the goal. Keeping SSIMS open is the goal. I'm not sure how to put it more plainly.
This. Thank you.
Weird. It's really important to you to keep it open but you don't care if your kids go there or not?
People in the neighborhood obviously want their kids to go there. But for people who could geographically go elsewhere and have it make sense, why is this weird? Many people do not want to lose a middle school for the region and have their kids go to a larger school.
+1. If SSIMS were to close our MS would get much bigger, which I don't think is good. And I think it's bad for urban planning in general to lose schools in walkable, urban areas.
But there's a lot going on and obviously not everyone has the same priority. There are other parents in our ES where avoiding split ariculation from ES to MS is the #1 goal, even if that means those options are the ones that assume SSIMS closes.
Anonymous
01/10/2026 21:49
Subject: Re:SSIMS activists spreading misinformation about boundary options
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The SSIMS building has numerous problems that are not fixable; students at SSIMS deserve better. An upgraded or newer building is a much better solution. Redistricting SSIMS kids to a newer or upgraded school is the best solution IMO.
The B-CC HS building is about the same age and was completely gutted on the inside, and rebuilt with the historic exterior preserved. MCPS could do the same for SSIMS.
If only the wealthier community of BCC would move to SS. Then, this would be done.
Anonymous
01/10/2026 21:45
Subject: SSIMS activists spreading misinformation about boundary options
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Yes it is. Rolling Terrace is being rezoned to TPMS in all four options that keep SSIMS open, right?
yes, you are exactly right. Options A through D all have Rolling Terrace articulating to TPMS.
Yes, and South Four Corners is rezoned from SSIMS to Eastern in all options, A-G.
I think that's intended to resolve Pine Crest's current split articulation, and have everyone articulate to Eastern.
What other middle school does Pine Crest articulate to in addition to Eastern MS?
Pinecrest splits between SSIMS and Eastern. This little corner of South Four Corners got split off from Forest Knolls in the 2020 elementary change up. Now we get bussed all the way down University Blvd to Montgomery Knolls for K-2 and to Pinecrest for 3-4. Instead of walking to Sligo Middle (under a mile) we’re bussed to SSIMS and now it will be even further to Eastern.
I think it stinks from a community standpoint to be carved off from the rest of our neighborhood and bussed out.
I hate the set-up around here. They really put the screws to our neighborhood in several ways and I cannot figure out why.
My 5th grader was really hoping SFC would get rezoned to Eastern for the 2027 school year. There are barely any SFC kids starting 6th grade at SSIMS in 2026. MY DC will hardly know anyone there, with the majority of PCES kids going to Eastern and then other friends in the neighborhood trying for one of the MSMC schools.
Anonymous
01/10/2026 16:50
Subject: Re:SSIMS activists spreading misinformation about boundary options
Anonymous wrote:The SSIMS building has numerous problems that are not fixable; students at SSIMS deserve better. An upgraded or newer building is a much better solution. Redistricting SSIMS kids to a newer or upgraded school is the best solution IMO.
They are definitely fixable. Yes it would be expensive, but so is the plan to expand eastern and Sligo. They could fix the buildings if they chose to, but right now they are not.
And keeping it as a holding school means students will still be learning there, and they will do the bare minimum to keep it functional. A secondary school could use SSIMS for 2 years. Middle school is only 3 years long. I don’t think that’s fair to other students either.
Anonymous
01/10/2026 14:44
Subject: Re:SSIMS activists spreading misinformation about boundary options
Anonymous wrote:The SSIMS building has numerous problems that are not fixable; students at SSIMS deserve better. An upgraded or newer building is a much better solution. Redistricting SSIMS kids to a newer or upgraded school is the best solution IMO.
The B-CC HS building is about the same age and was completely gutted on the inside, and rebuilt with the historic exterior preserved. MCPS could do the same for SSIMS.
Anonymous
01/10/2026 12:46
Subject: Re:SSIMS activists spreading misinformation about boundary options
Anonymous wrote:The SSIMS building has numerous problems that are not fixable; students at SSIMS deserve better. An upgraded or newer building is a much better solution. Redistricting SSIMS kids to a newer or upgraded school is the best solution IMO.
From a long term perspective though, making SSIMS a holding school seems unwise. Students will still have to endure the conditions but they'll be bussed to a congested urban area from other parts of the county. The location is not suitable for a holding school.
Anonymous
01/10/2026 12:06
Subject: Re:SSIMS activists spreading misinformation about boundary options
The SSIMS building has numerous problems that are not fixable; students at SSIMS deserve better. An upgraded or newer building is a much better solution. Redistricting SSIMS kids to a newer or upgraded school is the best solution IMO.
Anonymous
01/09/2026 11:25
Subject: SSIMS activists spreading misinformation about boundary options
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
You are yet again missing the point. Keeping SSIMS kids together is not the goal. Keeping SSIMS open is the goal. I'm not sure how to put it more plainly.
This. Thank you.
Weird. It's really important to you to keep it open but you don't care if your kids go there or not?
It's not weird. It's an acknowledgement of the reality that there is a huge boundary study going on right now and school assignments are changing throughout the broader area. The argument that a school should only exist if its boundaries remain static is a logical fallacy. Every school in this boundary study—Sligo, Silver Spring International, Takoma Park—will likely see its catchment area shift. If those schools are only worth keeping open under their current articulation pattern, there would be reason to close all of them too. Your argument simply does not make sense.
Keeping SSIMS open isn’t about protecting a specific group of students or maintaining a static boundary; it’s about maintaining the integrity of the entire downcounty MS cluster. Closing it would turn Eastern into the largest middle school in MCPS. I don't want that -- for my kids or for other kids.
Furthermore, I don’t want a vital building in the heart of DTSS to sit vacant and rot, nor do I want to trade a walkable community for increased bus traffic in a dense urban area. MCPS should be exhausting all other holding school options before we even consider dismantling a successful, walkable community institution -- and they have not shown yet that they have done that.
But this has all been explained already so I'm not sure why I am trying to explain it again in response to this very simple-minded argument.
+100
And I don’t think the argument is just simple minded. It’s purposefully gaslighting and misconstruing what the Save our Schools group is advocating for.
Anonymous
01/09/2026 10:16
Subject: SSIMS activists spreading misinformation about boundary options
I hate the idea of making any middle or high school larger. They’re already too big. The larger schools are more chaotic, overwhelming and hard to navigate for kids. It’s just less expensive for the county to have larger schools, fewer admin and fewer buildings. It’s definitely not what’s best for kids or families.
Anonymous
01/09/2026 10:04
Subject: SSIMS activists spreading misinformation about boundary options
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
You are yet again missing the point. Keeping SSIMS kids together is not the goal. Keeping SSIMS open is the goal. I'm not sure how to put it more plainly.
This. Thank you.
Weird. It's really important to you to keep it open but you don't care if your kids go there or not?
It's not weird. It's an acknowledgement of the reality that there is a huge boundary study going on right now and school assignments are changing throughout the broader area. The argument that a school should only exist if its boundaries remain static is a logical fallacy. Every school in this boundary study—Sligo, Silver Spring International, Takoma Park—will likely see its catchment area shift. If those schools are only worth keeping open under their current articulation pattern, there would be reason to close all of them too. Your argument simply does not make sense.
Keeping SSIMS open isn’t about protecting a specific group of students or maintaining a static boundary; it’s about maintaining the integrity of the entire downcounty MS cluster. Closing it would turn Eastern into the largest middle school in MCPS. I don't want that -- for my kids or for other kids.
Furthermore, I don’t want a vital building in the heart of DTSS to sit vacant and rot, nor do I want to trade a walkable community for increased bus traffic in a dense urban area. MCPS should be exhausting all other holding school options before we even consider dismantling a successful, walkable community institution -- and they have not shown yet that they have done that.
But this has all been explained already so I'm not sure why I am trying to explain it again in response to this very simple-minded argument.
Anonymous
01/08/2026 23:12
Subject: SSIMS activists spreading misinformation about boundary options
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
You are yet again missing the point. Keeping SSIMS kids together is not the goal. Keeping SSIMS open is the goal. I'm not sure how to put it more plainly.
This. Thank you.
Weird. It's really important to you to keep it open but you don't care if your kids go there or not?
People in the neighborhood obviously want their kids to go there. But for people who could geographically go elsewhere and have it make sense, why is this weird? Many people do not want to lose a middle school for the region and have their kids go to a larger school.
Anonymous
01/08/2026 20:50
Subject: SSIMS activists spreading misinformation about boundary options
Anonymous wrote: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.
You are yet again missing the point. Keeping SSIMS kids together is not the goal. Keeping SSIMS open is the goal. I'm not sure how to put it more plainly.
This. Thank you.
Weird. It's really important to you to keep it open but you don't care if your kids go there or not?
Anonymous
01/08/2026 20:32
Subject: SSIMS activists spreading misinformation about boundary options
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.
You are yet again missing the point. Keeping SSIMS kids together is not the goal. Keeping SSIMS open is the goal. I'm not sure how to put it more plainly.
This. Thank you.