Initial boundary options for Woodward study area are up

[Anonymous]

So do they ever present the relative costs of each of the options? Or is cost weirdly not something considered? At a county level, I'd think you'd have the following costs to consider:

1. busing costs
2. changes in property values = changes in tax base = potential change in funding for schools
3. costs of building whatever extra things needed for buildings

Anything else?

Presumably there will need to be some redistribution of where teachers work, but shouldn't there also be consideration for changes in types of supports at various schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So do they ever present the relative costs of each of the options? Or is cost weirdly not something considered? At a county level, I'd think you'd have the following costs to consider:

1. busing costs
2. changes in property values = changes in tax base = potential change in funding for schools
3. costs of building whatever extra things needed for buildings

Anything else?

Presumably there will need to be some redistribution of where teachers work, but shouldn't there also be consideration for changes in types of supports at various schools?

In past studies, they have definitely ruled options in or out based on potential costs for busing or buildings. But I don't recall them ever labeling options with projected cost amounts. Maybe that's something Taylor will more inclined to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So do they ever present the relative costs of each of the options? Or is cost weirdly not something considered? At a county level, I'd think you'd have the following costs to consider:

1. busing costs
2. changes in property values = changes in tax base = potential change in funding for schools
3. costs of building whatever extra things needed for buildings

Anything else?

Presumably there will need to be some redistribution of where teachers work, but shouldn't there also be consideration for changes in types of supports at various schools?

In past studies, they have definitely ruled options in or out based on potential costs for busing or buildings. But I don't recall them ever labeling options with projected cost amounts. Maybe that's something Taylor will more inclined to do.

I would think that in the current economic environment (job market tanking because of fed + contractor layoffs, for example) that costs would play a large role in decision-making. I also cannot imagine county execs not caring at all about the impact on property values of any changes. I mean, maybe the county just is stupid wrt finances? Possible.

[Anonymous]

https://wjla.com/news/local/montgomery-county-council-final-vote-fiscal-year-2026-operating-budget-raise-income-tax-proposal-hike-approve-billion-taxpayers-oppose-anxiety-residents-cost-families-financial-uncertainty-economic-federal-workers-layoffs-fund-school-fire-department

the economic context:
"...members unanimously voted against the plan to increase the income tax, which Elrich estimated would raise $70 to $80 million and help fund the school system.

7News spoke to council members and the president of the Montgomery County Taxpayers League before the vote to find out why they opposed the tax increase.

“This is not the time, with all the anxiety residents are facing, to increase the cost burdens on them. With all the financial uncertainty, with all of the economic anxiety,” Councilmember Andrew Friedson said.

“Does it bother me? Absolutely. Especially knowing the number of federal employees and or federal workers who work in and out of our county. A retroactive income tax going back to the start of this tax year would affect those who may be getting paid through September but are no longer employed," said Councilmember Dawn Luedtke.
...
To help meet the school system's $3.6 billion budget request, the council decided to take $50 million from a retiree health benefit trust fund."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So do they ever present the relative costs of each of the options? Or is cost weirdly not something considered? At a county level, I'd think you'd have the following costs to consider:

1. busing costs
2. changes in property values = changes in tax base = potential change in funding for schools
3. costs of building whatever extra things needed for buildings

Anything else?

Presumably there will need to be some redistribution of where teachers work, but shouldn't there also be consideration for changes in types of supports at various schools?

In past studies, they have definitely ruled options in or out based on potential costs for busing or buildings. But I don't recall them ever labeling options with projected cost amounts. Maybe that's something Taylor will more inclined to do.

I would think that in the current economic environment (job market tanking because of fed + contractor layoffs, for example) that costs would play a large role in decision-making. I also cannot imagine county execs not caring at all about the impact on property values of any changes. I mean, maybe the county just is stupid wrt finances? Possible.

Elrich and council members may be concerned about property values, but they don't have a direct role to play with respect to boundaries. They can of course attempt to pressure Taylor and the board to avoid options they don't like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So do they ever present the relative costs of each of the options? Or is cost weirdly not something considered? At a county level, I'd think you'd have the following costs to consider:

1. busing costs
2. changes in property values = changes in tax base = potential change in funding for schools
3. costs of building whatever extra things needed for buildings

Anything else?

Presumably there will need to be some redistribution of where teachers work, but shouldn't there also be consideration for changes in types of supports at various schools?

In past studies, they have definitely ruled options in or out based on potential costs for busing or buildings. But I don't recall them ever labeling options with projected cost amounts. Maybe that's something Taylor will more inclined to do.

I would think that in the current economic environment (job market tanking because of fed + contractor layoffs, for example) that costs would play a large role in decision-making. I also cannot imagine county execs not caring at all about the impact on property values of any changes. I mean, maybe the county just is stupid wrt finances? Possible.

Elrich and council members may be concerned about property values, but they don't have a direct role to play with respect to boundaries. They can of course attempt to pressure Taylor and the board to avoid options they don't like.

but the schools are directly funded by the county, correct? At least that article suggested that the county taxes are used to directly fund (or not) schools. I guess Taylor would have to consider which option would require the biggest budget ask. Could MCPS adopt a costly option that was unfunded?

[Anonymous]

how much does current busing cost? Are there general numbers for that hidden in some county budget somwhere?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So do they ever present the relative costs of each of the options? Or is cost weirdly not something considered? At a county level, I'd think you'd have the following costs to consider:

1. busing costs
2. changes in property values = changes in tax base = potential change in funding for schools
3. costs of building whatever extra things needed for buildings

Anything else?

Presumably there will need to be some redistribution of where teachers work, but shouldn't there also be consideration for changes in types of supports at various schools?

In past studies, they have definitely ruled options in or out based on potential costs for busing or buildings. But I don't recall them ever labeling options with projected cost amounts. Maybe that's something Taylor will more inclined to do.

I would think that in the current economic environment (job market tanking because of fed + contractor layoffs, for example) that costs would play a large role in decision-making. I also cannot imagine county execs not caring at all about the impact on property values of any changes. I mean, maybe the county just is stupid wrt finances? Possible.

Elrich and council members may be concerned about property values, but they don't have a direct role to play with respect to boundaries. They can of course attempt to pressure Taylor and the board to avoid options they don't like.

but the schools are directly funded by the county, correct? At least that article suggested that the county taxes are used to directly fund (or not) schools. I guess Taylor would have to consider which option would require the biggest budget ask. Could MCPS adopt a costly option that was unfunded?

They could, technically. The decision will be made in March 2026, to take effect in fall 2027, well before that FY's budget will be approved. But one of Taylor's jobs is to weigh all the competing factors in his recommendation, and put forward something that will be justifiable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So do they ever present the relative costs of each of the options? Or is cost weirdly not something considered? At a county level, I'd think you'd have the following costs to consider:

1. busing costs
2. changes in property values = changes in tax base = potential change in funding for schools
3. costs of building whatever extra things needed for buildings

Anything else?

Presumably there will need to be some redistribution of where teachers work, but shouldn't there also be consideration for changes in types of supports at various schools?

In past studies, they have definitely ruled options in or out based on potential costs for busing or buildings. But I don't recall them ever labeling options with projected cost amounts. Maybe that's something Taylor will more inclined to do.

I would think that in the current economic environment (job market tanking because of fed + contractor layoffs, for example) that costs would play a large role in decision-making. I also cannot imagine county execs not caring at all about the impact on property values of any changes. I mean, maybe the county just is stupid wrt finances? Possible.

Elrich and council members may be concerned about property values, but they don't have a direct role to play with respect to boundaries. They can of course attempt to pressure Taylor and the board to avoid options they don't like.

but the schools are directly funded by the county, correct? At least that article suggested that the county taxes are used to directly fund (or not) schools. I guess Taylor would have to consider which option would require the biggest budget ask. Could MCPS adopt a costly option that was unfunded?

They could, technically. The decision will be made in March 2026, to take effect in fall 2027, well before that FY's budget will be approved. But one of Taylor's jobs is to weigh all the competing factors in his recommendation, and put forward something that will be justifiable.

Do we think Taylor would recommend something costly but unfunded? Or is he not dumb?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Curious what the Wheaton community thinks the best solution is? Different matriculation pattern or sounds like adding on isn’t possible with the distance between buildings? FLO analytics kept mentioning the Edison building and sounds like that is not helpful? Seems like FLO has a disconnect on this point.

The Wheaton cluster coordinator's testimony in 2023 :

"there is a quick and practical solution to our overcrowding
problem that has yet to be utilized - an unfinished shell located within the
Thomas Edison building. Our Community strongly urges MCPS to build
out and finish that shell so that both Wheaton and Thomas Edison can
use that space to accommodate our growing population."

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/CXCN955EC89E/$file/Narissa%20Johnson%20-%202023%20CIP%20Testimony%20.pdf

It takes years to find something like that and it wouldn’t work as the distance is too far in less they arranged specific students and basically segregated them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So do they ever present the relative costs of each of the options? Or is cost weirdly not something considered? At a county level, I'd think you'd have the following costs to consider:

1. busing costs
2. changes in property values = changes in tax base = potential change in funding for schools
3. costs of building whatever extra things needed for buildings

Anything else?

Presumably there will need to be some redistribution of where teachers work, but shouldn't there also be consideration for changes in types of supports at various schools?

In past studies, they have definitely ruled options in or out based on potential costs for busing or buildings. But I don't recall them ever labeling options with projected cost amounts. Maybe that's something Taylor will more inclined to do.

I would think that in the current economic environment (job market tanking because of fed + contractor layoffs, for example) that costs would play a large role in decision-making. I also cannot imagine county execs not caring at all about the impact on property values of any changes. I mean, maybe the county just is stupid wrt finances? Possible.

Elrich and council members may be concerned about property values, but they don't have a direct role to play with respect to boundaries. They can of course attempt to pressure Taylor and the board to avoid options they don't like.

but the schools are directly funded by the county, correct? At least that article suggested that the county taxes are used to directly fund (or not) schools. I guess Taylor would have to consider which option would require the biggest budget ask. Could MCPS adopt a costly option that was unfunded?

They could, technically. The decision will be made in March 2026, to take effect in fall 2027, well before that FY's budget will be approved. But one of Taylor's jobs is to weigh all the competing factors in his recommendation, and put forward something that will be justifiable.

Do we think Taylor would recommend something costly but unfunded? Or is he not dumb?

Taylor will do what the BOE says. He’s a puppet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So do they ever present the relative costs of each of the options? Or is cost weirdly not something considered? At a county level, I'd think you'd have the following costs to consider:

1. busing costs
2. changes in property values = changes in tax base = potential change in funding for schools
3. costs of building whatever extra things needed for buildings

Anything else?

Presumably there will need to be some redistribution of where teachers work, but shouldn't there also be consideration for changes in types of supports at various schools?

In past studies, they have definitely ruled options in or out based on potential costs for busing or buildings. But I don't recall them ever labeling options with projected cost amounts. Maybe that's something Taylor will more inclined to do.

I would think that in the current economic environment (job market tanking because of fed + contractor layoffs, for example) that costs would play a large role in decision-making. I also cannot imagine county execs not caring at all about the impact on property values of any changes. I mean, maybe the county just is stupid wrt finances? Possible.

Elrich and council members may be concerned about property values, but they don't have a direct role to play with respect to boundaries. They can of course attempt to pressure Taylor and the board to avoid options they don't like.

but the schools are directly funded by the county, correct? At least that article suggested that the county taxes are used to directly fund (or not) schools. I guess Taylor would have to consider which option would require the biggest budget ask. Could MCPS adopt a costly option that was unfunded?

They could, technically. The decision will be made in March 2026, to take effect in fall 2027, well before that FY's budget will be approved. But one of Taylor's jobs is to weigh all the competing factors in his recommendation, and put forward something that will be justifiable.

Do we think Taylor would recommend something costly but unfunded? Or is he not dumb?

Taylor will do what the BOE says. He’s a puppet.

so is the BOE financially-minded?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think what people are mostly upset over is the option 3 long bus rides when they are in walk zones. Plus frustration at the deep pockets of poverty that exist and the failure of housing and zoning policy to address that.

People are also frustrated that better opportunities aren’t available at all schools (like all APs - it’s not that hard just make it available online or bus to another high school for first period!). Plus the reality is that some (maybe all) schools have some pretty serious security issues (again that should be fixable).

Of course we need to fill the new schools and everyone understands they could have to move schools. But why should kids have to take long bus rides cross county (East and West) to make up for failed policies? You’re putting it all on them to shoulder, and they’re just kids. Plus their parents who may or may not have reliable transportation. You could be taking away the ability for a kid and their parents to fully participate in all that a school has to offer, just because of transportation. I know I love going to concerts and home games and I just couldn’t do that if the school was a half hour away (and I have a car).

But yes, you are right, some are upset about property values. Just try to have some empathy on that. You’re probably talking $100,000 to $200,000 cut in property value for some areas and that’s going to hurt some families. Maybe affect retirements and sending kids to college etc. so it is a real issue for most families. Be kind on that issue.

We can pretend that we are above that, or it shouldn’t matter, but it does. That doesn’t make it predatory capitalism. You will understand one day when you have a mortgage. (Don’t worry, I fully understand that MCPS is not responsible for my property values and I understand the history.)

Finally, you have to recognize that the playing field is not the same, the Supreme Court has changed, and things sadly just are not the same as they were even 5 or 7 years ago. Recognizing that reality is being a reasonable adult and is not the same as acquiescing.

These issues are hard ones and so glad I don’t have to make these decisions myself. I do think we can all be kind though, not extremist, and empathetic.

Some of us don't have mortgages as we were financially responsible, bought what we could afford at a lower income and never moved. So, we put that extra money into paying off our houses so come college time no mortgage (or better high school when activitiy expenses are high). I'd be thrilled if my property went down $100-200K or more. Less taxes. Think logically.

Look, we get you don't want our kids. We are ok with it. We may have just as much money as you or more but you look down on us because of where or how we live nor do you want your housekeeper or gardener's kids with your kids. Many of us choose not to live in your school district to avoid our kids growing up in that world of entitlement and want them to be down to earth.

The big issue of busing the not so wealthy kids is if they are sick/parents don't have cars, they cannot pick them up easily. Or, get back and forth easily for activities and sports.

The easy solution is to make the less wealthy schools more appealing by providing them with the classes and activities/sports/clubs so people will stay. But, wait, that takes away from the wealthy schools.

You'd be thrilled to have your home lose $100,000-200,000 in value, so that you could save $1000 a year in property taxes? And you are the logical one?

You realize what you want is for the county to keep all the low income kids concentrated in certain schools so your property value stays up? How can you look yourself in the mirror?

Yes surely the people (overly)worked up about property values realize they have invested in inequality….

I mean clearly they know because they are explicitly advocating to keep the schools segregated.

I would just like my kid to go to the school that is a 10 minute walk away, as this has immense consequences for family time, after school activities, community, and where and how much I can work.

Everybody understands this, but it’s like complaining about traffic when you yourself are on the road. Literally hundreds of thousands of kids have the same needs for activities and community. In order for you to have your nice walk, the boundaries have to be shifted even further so somebody else’s kid is inconvenienced. Or else the school is going to be hugely overenrolled. It’s the job of the district to think about everyone. Someone’s house is going to be assigned to a school that’s not the physically closest school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Curious what the Wheaton community thinks the best solution is? Different matriculation pattern or sounds like adding on isn’t possible with the distance between buildings? FLO analytics kept mentioning the Edison building and sounds like that is not helpful? Seems like FLO has a disconnect on this point.

The Wheaton cluster coordinator's testimony in 2023 :

"there is a quick and practical solution to our overcrowding
problem that has yet to be utilized - an unfinished shell located within the
Thomas Edison building. Our Community strongly urges MCPS to build
out and finish that shell so that both Wheaton and Thomas Edison can
use that space to accommodate our growing population."

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/CXCN955EC89E/$file/Narissa%20Johnson%20-%202023%20CIP%20Testimony%20.pdf

It takes years to find something like that and it wouldn’t work as the distance is too far in less they arranged specific students and basically segregated them.

Huh? It's literally there in the Edison building.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So do they ever present the relative costs of each of the options? Or is cost weirdly not something considered? At a county level, I'd think you'd have the following costs to consider:

1. busing costs
2. changes in property values = changes in tax base = potential change in funding for schools
3. costs of building whatever extra things needed for buildings

Anything else?

Presumably there will need to be some redistribution of where teachers work, but shouldn't there also be consideration for changes in types of supports at various schools?

In past studies, they have definitely ruled options in or out based on potential costs for busing or buildings. But I don't recall them ever labeling options with projected cost amounts. Maybe that's something Taylor will more inclined to do.

I would think that in the current economic environment (job market tanking because of fed + contractor layoffs, for example) that costs would play a large role in decision-making. I also cannot imagine county execs not caring at all about the impact on property values of any changes. I mean, maybe the county just is stupid wrt finances? Possible.

Elrich and council members may be concerned about property values, but they don't have a direct role to play with respect to boundaries. They can of course attempt to pressure Taylor and the board to avoid options they don't like.

but the schools are directly funded by the county, correct? At least that article suggested that the county taxes are used to directly fund (or not) schools. I guess Taylor would have to consider which option would require the biggest budget ask. Could MCPS adopt a costly option that was unfunded?

They could, technically. The decision will be made in March 2026, to take effect in fall 2027, well before that FY's budget will be approved. But one of Taylor's jobs is to weigh all the competing factors in his recommendation, and put forward something that will be justifiable.

Do we think Taylor would recommend something costly but unfunded? Or is he not dumb?

Taylor will do what the BOE says. He’s a puppet.

It's the other way around. The BOE will approve whatever Taylor recommends.