Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can say they’re separate decisions, but right now the only options that don’t close SSIMS also involve huge shuffling of students to and away from that school. Everyone from the 4 MSs affected should advocate for that to be changed.

+1000.

Especially the SSiMS families who were the ones who insisted on postponing the closure decision. If the majority of the current SSIMS community was desperate to keep SSIMS (I assume they were or else it would have been really selfish of a minority of them to fight this hard to keep it), they should also all band together to make sure they all stay at SSIMS, and none of the rest of us get reassigned there.

Rest-of-us poster: apply for a COSA or go private if you are so concerned about your student going to SSIMS. I think what the SSIMS community is hoping for is to keep their community together as well as keeping a school in the neighborhood. Who the hell wants to live next to two permanent holding schools that have health safety issues because the district never properly renovated them.

This community's treatment by MCPS would never fly in west county.

+1

I’m not sure who PP is angry at but maybe they’re not actually that familiar with the save our schools folks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can say they’re separate decisions, but right now the only options that don’t close SSIMS also involve huge shuffling of students to and away from that school. Everyone from the 4 MSs affected should advocate for that to be changed.

+1000.

Especially the SSiMS families who were the ones who insisted on postponing the closure decision. If the majority of the current SSIMS community was desperate to keep SSIMS (I assume they were or else it would have been really selfish of a minority of them to fight this hard to keep it), they should also all band together to make sure they all stay at SSIMS, and none of the rest of us get reassigned there.

Rest-of-us poster: apply for a COSA or go private if you are so concerned about your student going to SSIMS. I think what the SSIMS community is hoping for is to keep their community together as well as keeping a school in the neighborhood. Who the hell wants to live next to two permanent holding schools that have health safety issues because the district never properly renovated them.

This community's treatment by MCPS would never fly in west county.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it has now been over a week and all 7 options are still up in the survey. Does that mean they are all still on the table? Has anyone heard anything about this?

I wouldn't expect them to remove the options. It's still valid to submit feedback on any option, as they have other elements that aren't related to SSIMS.

But shouldn't there be some language somewhere, on the website or at least in an email, saying *something* about the implications of the vote on the boundary options?

It's not a vote, so there are no implications.

The Board of Ed absolutely did vote to push back the decision to close SSIMS a couple years. And that absolutely does have implications for what boundary options are or are not on the table.

Maybe, but maybe not. It’s very unclear. The HS boundaries could be any if A-G or some variation thereof. As for middle school, I and many other posters think that given the uncertainty it makes sense to keep kids where they are until the decision is made.

I agree that middle-schoolers should be kept where they are for now, but it is not clear whether that will be possible and which option(s) to select on the survey if that is what we would most want. That is why they need to post some clarification.

Also everyone who feels that middle schoolers (or at least Silver Spring/TP middle schoolers) should be kept where they are for now should be contacting the Board of Ed ASAP to say that. Otherwise I don't think it is going to happen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it has now been over a week and all 7 options are still up in the survey. Does that mean they are all still on the table? Has anyone heard anything about this?

I wouldn't expect them to remove the options. It's still valid to submit feedback on any option, as they have other elements that aren't related to SSIMS.

But shouldn't there be some language somewhere, on the website or at least in an email, saying *something* about the implications of the vote on the boundary options?

It's not a vote, so there are no implications.

The Board of Ed absolutely did vote to push back the decision to close SSIMS a couple years. And that absolutely does have implications for what boundary options are or are not on the table.

Maybe, but maybe not. It’s very unclear. The HS boundaries could be any if A-G or some variation thereof. As for middle school, I and many other posters think that given the uncertainty it makes sense to keep kids where they are until the decision is made.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it has now been over a week and all 7 options are still up in the survey. Does that mean they are all still on the table? Has anyone heard anything about this?

I wouldn't expect them to remove the options. It's still valid to submit feedback on any option, as they have other elements that aren't related to SSIMS.

But shouldn't there be some language somewhere, on the website or at least in an email, saying *something* about the implications of the vote on the boundary options?

It's not a vote, so there are no implications.

The Board of Ed absolutely did vote to push back the decision to close SSIMS a couple years. And that absolutely does have implications for what boundary options are or are not on the table.

Folks keep forgetting or haven't been watching closely enough. All of the options still are on the table because none of the options is a final plan (well, none is final yet, anyway).

All of these options, from 1-4 to A-D to E, F & G (and H for the Crown study), are putative options put together by the consulting group that, to their understanding, balance the BOE-approved goals to varying extents. These were created to allow the BOE & MCPS staff to consider what might be possible (personally, I don't think they got that well enough) and for them to see the public's reaction to each to allow them to hone their thoughts (personally, I don't think they went far enough, there, "taking notes" of feelings but not really giving proper consideration to suggestions from the public).

The last couple added the creation of holding schools (SSIMS and either Crown or Wootton) to that mix of goals to facilitate planned renovations across the system that were placed in the CIP request between the initial consultant contract and the contract modification. More recent enrollment trend analysis had suggested that there was not the need for as many schools due to declining enrollment. Meanwhile, the CIP workup showed that those renovations would end up taking less time and costing hundreds of millions of dollars less if there were such holding facilities available.

The superintendent's recommendation could be one of the lettered (or earlier numbered) options as they currently exist, but it is far more likely for them to take one as a starting point and adjust it better to match their goals given their further consideration/deliberation and/or address some of the community feedback. The BOE could vote for an adjustment to that recommendation, but, without being able to work directly with the underlying data (they don't get that), how would any of them be able to propose an alternative with enough confidence to garner the votes of three other Board members to adopt such? (Or even to delay enough to have the suggestion analyzed -- that would put the entire timeline for school openings in jeopardy.)

We could end up with something closer to option A with SSIMS closed or to option G with it staying open, though it certainly is more likely that a SSIMS closure would fit with a final recommendation that derives from E, F or G. This is the reason that, to the extent it matters, providing feedback along the lines of "I don't like option X because of Y" (e.g., no to option E because it closes SSIMS or yes to option F because closing SSIMS saves $) is more important than simply supporting a single option or group of options without nuance.

I have doubts that the SSIMS-closure-decision delay will do more than give them less pushback in the short term while they get the boundaries/regions set. Given their engagement penchants, that time extension likely would be used for more one-way communication of what they already plan to do. But let's not paint this as MCPS, alone. After all, it's the Montgomery Way!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it has now been over a week and all 7 options are still up in the survey. Does that mean they are all still on the table? Has anyone heard anything about this?

I wouldn't expect them to remove the options. It's still valid to submit feedback on any option, as they have other elements that aren't related to SSIMS.

But shouldn't there be some language somewhere, on the website or at least in an email, saying *something* about the implications of the vote on the boundary options?

It's not a vote, so there are no implications.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it has now been over a week and all 7 options are still up in the survey. Does that mean they are all still on the table? Has anyone heard anything about this?

I wouldn't expect them to remove the options. It's still valid to submit feedback on any option, as they have other elements that aren't related to SSIMS.

But shouldn't there be some language somewhere, on the website or at least in an email, saying *something* about the implications of the vote on the boundary options?

Anonymous wrote:So it has now been over a week and all 7 options are still up in the survey. Does that mean they are all still on the table? Has anyone heard anything about this?

I wouldn't expect them to remove the options. It's still valid to submit feedback on any option, as they have other elements that aren't related to SSIMS.

So it has now been over a week and all 7 options are still up in the survey. Does that mean they are all still on the table? Has anyone heard anything about this?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can say they’re separate decisions, but right now the only options that don’t close SSIMS also involve huge shuffling of students to and away from that school. Everyone from the 4 MSs affected should advocate for that to be changed.

+1000.

Especially the SSiMS families who were the ones who insisted on postponing the closure decision. If the majority of the current SSIMS community was desperate to keep SSIMS (I assume they were or else it would have been really selfish of a minority of them to fight this hard to keep it), they should also all band together to make sure they all stay at SSIMS, and none of the rest of us get reassigned there.

I’m not aware of anyone rallying for SSIMS who doesn’t expect to stay zoned for the school. I get your point that boundaries might change, but I think the people advocating the loudest for SSIMS are the families who live downtown and can walk there. They aren’t getting moved away.

Anonymous wrote:I can't tell if this is the same person who is apparently resentful about people fighting to keep SSIMS open because they don't want their kids going there, but you've made the same point numerous times. If that's your opinion, great, so then advocate for that outcome in the boundary study. Why do you expect others to do it for you?

This!!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m fine with that, but I just think that’s a different discussion than whether to close SSIMS. And I blame Taylor for not being more clear with the new boundary options (E-G) in terms of explaining what happens in years 27-30. It’s not SSIMS parents fault that this is unclear. And it’s also unfair to blame them for advocating to keep their school open bc MCPS is rushing and not explaining how this will work.

They are separate decisions, but it is 100000% the obligation of families who advocated to keep SSIMS open, to also advocate for current SSIMS neighborhoods to stay at SSIMS. It is absolutely unacceptable for them to say "no, we want to keep this old falling-apart school because it's important to our community" and then step back and allow new families who do not want that school to be the ones to be sent there and deal with all the problems that SSIMS families claimed they were willing to deal with in order to "save our school."

This is incorrect. The families advocating for saving the school are advocating for investments into the school and repairs. The school that just had a brand new gymnasium built.

I can't tell if this is the same person who is apparently resentful about people fighting to keep SSIMS open because they don't want their kids going there, but you've made the same point numerous times. If that's your opinion, great, so then advocate for that outcome in the boundary study. Why do you expect others to do it for you?

Anonymous wrote:You can say they’re separate decisions, but right now the only options that don’t close SSIMS also involve huge shuffling of students to and away from that school. Everyone from the 4 MSs affected should advocate for that to be changed.

+1000.

Especially the SSiMS families who were the ones who insisted on postponing the closure decision. If the majority of the current SSIMS community was desperate to keep SSIMS (I assume they were or else it would have been really selfish of a minority of them to fight this hard to keep it), they should also all band together to make sure they all stay at SSIMS, and none of the rest of us get reassigned there.