RFP for county-wide boundary analysis

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No one is panicking. I think many people want to know why the board hasn't done it's job for years to keep the schools equal (at least with under/over capacity) and now think the only way to do that is to go on some long winding (and expensive) road of getting a survey done - that they may or may not use. And if they use it, it sounds like it will be substantial.

The study is supposed to be complete by next summer. Is that long-winding, in your opinion?

Yes, it is. They mentioned this last year. So not even having anyone decided yet. Yes - it is taking too long. Why haven't they hired anyone yet? They are just now bidding this all out so even if they get done next summer (which is doubtful) they won't do anything with it for minimum 2 more school years. Probably 3 years. So yes, I would stay that is 5-7 years too late to the problem.

They can't win here. Whatever they do will be simultaneously too slow and too fast.

For reference: BoE passed the resolution authorizing the analysis in January 2019. There were community meetings in April and May. The RFP was issued in June. The analysis will be due next June.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how everyone is whining about what they think will happen from a study that a) hasn't yet been awarded, or even started and b) no one has suggested ANY actual changes. Just hypotheticals of what they either want, or don't want, to happen, which sends everyone into a tizzy. So typical....

Can we be honest about the fact that the report will influence recommended changes, even if it won't directly create them? The constant barrage of posters saying "this won't change any boundaries, calm down" are a bit ridiculous. Of course THIS study won't directly change boundaries, but if you are BOE and you want justification to change them in the future, setting up this study is an important/essential first step.

Can we be honest about the fact that nobody knows what BoE will or won't do, given that (as the PP said) no one has suggested anything, the study hasn't even been started, the contract hasn't been awarded, and the RFP says not to make recommendations?

If you want to panic, then panic. But don't say that it's a fact-based panic, because it's not.

I'm not panicking, despite being one of the people about to lose my housing value. I think adjusting boundaries is the right thing to do. But do you really not think the report will be used to justify future changes? Why pay for it if not?

Of course the report will influence future changes (whatever they are). That's the whole point of the report.

But PPs' position seems to be that studying the issue is bad, because BoE will then make changes based on the study.

The board said point blank, they might not do anything with the study. And yes, they have done studies before and paid them - and then have done nothing with them. So saying that is the whole point is laughable. It isn't the point. It is to have someone else do the job they haven't been able to and have a crutch when things get worse. "We are awaiting the study!"

How dare the board pay a consultant to do an analysis of the problem before deciding on actions!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how everyone is whining about what they think will happen from a study that a) hasn't yet been awarded, or even started and b) no one has suggested ANY actual changes. Just hypotheticals of what they either want, or don't want, to happen, which sends everyone into a tizzy. So typical....

Can we be honest about the fact that the report will influence recommended changes, even if it won't directly create them? The constant barrage of posters saying "this won't change any boundaries, calm down" are a bit ridiculous. Of course THIS study won't directly change boundaries, but if you are BOE and you want justification to change them in the future, setting up this study is an important/essential first step.

Can we be honest about the fact that nobody knows what BoE will or won't do, given that (as the PP said) no one has suggested anything, the study hasn't even been started, the contract hasn't been awarded, and the RFP says not to make recommendations?

If you want to panic, then panic. But don't say that it's a fact-based panic, because it's not.

75% utilization at Cold Spring? That is generous. Actually, Cold Spring ES has a capacity of 458 and enrollment of 327, which is 71%. Then also remember that about 100 of those students are nonlocal students being bussed in for the CES. Actual local enrollment is more like 227, for a utilization of under 50%

Cold Spring is a huge issue of what the council and board are blind to. There were two easy options.

1. Close the school and move the kids into Beverly Farms and Wayside. Both under capacity. Move the CES into another school that is under capacity or needs a different SES/FARMS level.

2. Move Horizon Hill out of Rtichie Park and into Cold Spring. It would have alleviated buses since Horizon Hill is in walking distance to Cold Spring, but currently gets bused to Ritchie Park. And it would have alleviated how overcrowded Ritchie Park is with 6 portables while Cold Spring has 1-2 empty classrooms open PER GRADE!

This is a very common sense move. It doesn't require much thought at all into it. It could have been done years ago.

And don't get started on Rachel Carson. That is a train wreck. Almost 1200 kids in one elementary school. You move all the other neighborhoods BUT Kentlands and Lakelands out to Dufief which is also at about 70% capacity and a ghost town.

Why these schools, both with sister schools right up the street weren't easily adjusted years ago is embarrassing. But let's pay someone millions to look into it. How about we demand more of our sh*tty board who does NOTHING

There's nothing easy about boundary changes. Have you ever been through a boundary study? It was the recent change in policy FAA which now allows looking at adjacent clusters. This will help in the situations you mention, and is exactly the kind of thing the boundary analysis will figure out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how everyone is whining about what they think will happen from a study that a) hasn't yet been awarded, or even started and b) no one has suggested ANY actual changes. Just hypotheticals of what they either want, or don't want, to happen, which sends everyone into a tizzy. So typical....

Can we be honest about the fact that the report will influence recommended changes, even if it won't directly create them? The constant barrage of posters saying "this won't change any boundaries, calm down" are a bit ridiculous. Of course THIS study won't directly change boundaries, but if you are BOE and you want justification to change them in the future, setting up this study is an important/essential first step.

Can we be honest about the fact that nobody knows what BoE will or won't do, given that (as the PP said) no one has suggested anything, the study hasn't even been started, the contract hasn't been awarded, and the RFP says not to make recommendations?

If you want to panic, then panic. But don't say that it's a fact-based panic, because it's not.

75% utilization at Cold Spring? That is generous. Actually, Cold Spring ES has a capacity of 458 and enrollment of 327, which is 71%. Then also remember that about 100 of those students are nonlocal students being bussed in for the CES. Actual local enrollment is more like 227, for a utilization of under 50%

Cold Spring is a huge issue of what the council and board are blind to. There were two easy options.

1. Close the school and move the kids into Beverly Farms and Wayside. Both under capacity. Move the CES into another school that is under capacity or needs a different SES/FARMS level.

2. Move Horizon Hill out of Rtichie Park and into Cold Spring. It would have alleviated buses since Horizon Hill is in walking distance to Cold Spring, but currently gets bused to Ritchie Park. And it would have alleviated how overcrowded Ritchie Park is with 6 portables while Cold Spring has 1-2 empty classrooms open PER GRADE!

This is a very common sense move. It doesn't require much thought at all into it. It could have been done years ago.

And don't get started on Rachel Carson. That is a train wreck. Almost 1200 kids in one elementary school. You move all the other neighborhoods BUT Kentlands and Lakelands out to Dufief which is also at about 70% capacity and a ghost town.

Why these schools, both with sister schools right up the street weren't easily adjusted years ago is embarrassing. But let's pay someone millions to look into it. How about we demand more of our sh*tty board who does NOTHING

There's nothing easy about boundary changes. Have you ever been through a boundary study? It was the recent change in policy FAA which now allows looking at adjacent clusters. This will help in the situations you mention, and is exactly the kind of thing the boundary analysis will figure out.

Yes, in other districts this is not an issue. Boundary changes are done every 2-3 years. They keep up with it. Keep the schools even. MCPS has not. They have ignored it. Just passing the one policy to look at adjacent clusters isn't good enough. It hasn't changed anything yet. And they won't make any boundary changes for at least 3 more years due to this survey.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, in other districts this is not an issue. Boundary changes are done every 2-3 years. They keep up with it. Keep the schools even. MCPS has not. They have ignored it. Just passing the one policy to look at adjacent clusters isn't good enough. It hasn't changed anything yet. And they won't make any boundary changes for at least 3 more years due to this survey.

MCPS doing it wrong, whatever they do. Not adjusting boundaries: wrong! Adjusting boundaries: wrong!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how everyone is whining about what they think will happen from a study that a) hasn't yet been awarded, or even started and b) no one has suggested ANY actual changes. Just hypotheticals of what they either want, or don't want, to happen, which sends everyone into a tizzy. So typical....

Can we be honest about the fact that the report will influence recommended changes, even if it won't directly create them? The constant barrage of posters saying "this won't change any boundaries, calm down" are a bit ridiculous. Of course THIS study won't directly change boundaries, but if you are BOE and you want justification to change them in the future, setting up this study is an important/essential first step.

Can we be honest about the fact that nobody knows what BoE will or won't do, given that (as the PP said) no one has suggested anything, the study hasn't even been started, the contract hasn't been awarded, and the RFP says not to make recommendations?

If you want to panic, then panic. But don't say that it's a fact-based panic, because it's not.

75% utilization at Cold Spring? That is generous. Actually, Cold Spring ES has a capacity of 458 and enrollment of 327, which is 71%. Then also remember that about 100 of those students are nonlocal students being bussed in for the CES. Actual local enrollment is more like 227, for a utilization of under 50%

Cold Spring is a huge issue of what the council and board are blind to. There were two easy options.

1. Close the school and move the kids into Beverly Farms and Wayside. Both under capacity. Move the CES into another school that is under capacity or needs a different SES/FARMS level.

2. Move Horizon Hill out of Rtichie Park and into Cold Spring. It would have alleviated buses since Horizon Hill is in walking distance to Cold Spring, but currently gets bused to Ritchie Park. And it would have alleviated how overcrowded Ritchie Park is with 6 portables while Cold Spring has 1-2 empty classrooms open PER GRADE!

This is a very common sense move. It doesn't require much thought at all into it. It could have been done years ago.

And don't get started on Rachel Carson. That is a train wreck. Almost 1200 kids in one elementary school. You move all the other neighborhoods BUT Kentlands and Lakelands out to Dufief which is also at about 70% capacity and a ghost town.

Why these schools, both with sister schools right up the street weren't easily adjusted years ago is embarrassing. But let's pay someone millions to look into it. How about we demand more of our sh*tty board who does NOTHING

There's nothing easy about boundary changes. Have you ever been through a boundary study? It was the recent change in policy FAA which now allows looking at adjacent clusters. This will help in the situations you mention, and is exactly the kind of thing the boundary analysis will figure out.

#2 would not have been that difficult. But I disagree that all of HH is walking distance to CSES. For some areas of HH, it's over a mile, which means MCPS would still provide a bus.

DP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of you screaming "busing," have you read the RFP? MCPS is looking for an analysis on the following:

-an assessment of the degree to which the current boundaries facilitate or impede equitable use of facilities across the system;
-an assessment of the degree to which the current boundaries facilitate or impede facility utilization in terms of program capacity and enrollment in schools;
-an assessment of the degree to which the current boundaries facilitate or impede striving to create a diverse student body population in each school; and
-an assessment of the degree to which the current boundaries otherwise advance or inhibit the four factors in Policy FAA for consideration in boundaries: student demographics, geography, stability of assignments over time, and facility utilization.

Diversity, student demographics is just 1 area they are looking to see where it can be improved.

The NEC and DCC were created to balance out demographics. Now that the three schools are majority minority, the goal has been met. There is no need for choice in this case.

So . . . do we assume that the NEC and DCC schools (and other clusters that are majority minority) are now OK?

What about the schools in Bethesda and Potomac, which are majority white and Asian? Do they remain the same, or do we now focus on FARMs distribution through another choice process - but one that affects the entire county?

Embedded in this this goal " . . . to create a diverse student body population in each school" is SES. So do you keep poor kids together, or do you make it a goal to "disperse them" throughout the system into "better" schools?

I wish MCPS would define better . . .

Read the RFP.

I read it. Stop being a moron.

Here are the major points:

an assessment of the degree to which the current boundaries facilitate or impede equitable
use of facilities across the system;
? an assessment of the degree to which the current boundaries facilitate or impede facility
utilization in terms of program capacity and enrollment in schools;
? an assessment of the degree to which the current boundaries facilitate or impede striving to
create a diverse student body population in each school; and
? an assessment of the degree to which the current boundaries otherwise advance or inhibit
the four factors in Policy FAA for consideration in boundaries: student demographics,
geography, stability of assignments over time, and facility utilization.

definition of better? in bold

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone provide links/evidence that a boundary analysis equals busing? Did I miss something? MCPS can barely afford the current busing levels.

You didn't miss anything. When the BOE discussed and approved the boundary analysis, they repeatedly made note that this was not about busing. You can watch the recorded meetings.

However, they voted last year to prioritize diversity above all other criteria when making boundaries going forward.

Sigh. No, that is not what they voted on. They voted to reword the demographic characteristics factor, adding that options should especially strive for a diverse student body.

So, prioritizing diversity in other words?

Prioritizing diversity within that one factor, which is one of four factors.

Ok, that's a good point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No one is panicking. I think many people want to know why the board hasn't done it's job for years to keep the schools equal (at least with under/over capacity) and now think the only way to do that is to go on some long winding (and expensive) road of getting a survey done - that they may or may not use. And if they use it, it sounds like it will be substantial.

The study is supposed to be complete by next summer. Is that long-winding, in your opinion?

Yes, it is. They mentioned this last year. So not even having anyone decided yet. Yes - it is taking too long. Why haven't they hired anyone yet? They are just now bidding this all out so even if they get done next summer (which is doubtful) they won't do anything with it for minimum 2 more school years. Probably 3 years. So yes, I would stay that is 5-7 years too late to the problem.

They can't win here. Whatever they do will be simultaneously too slow and too fast.

For reference: BoE passed the resolution authorizing the analysis in January 2019. There were community meetings in April and May. The RFP was issued in June. The analysis will be due next June.

Please tell me anything they BOE has ever done fast? Most of them can not even walk or think fast. Their average age is like 65.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, in other districts this is not an issue. Boundary changes are done every 2-3 years. They keep up with it. Keep the schools even. MCPS has not. They have ignored it. Just passing the one policy to look at adjacent clusters isn't good enough. It hasn't changed anything yet. And they won't make any boundary changes for at least 3 more years due to this survey.

MCPS doing it wrong, whatever they do. Not adjusting boundaries: wrong! Adjusting boundaries: wrong!

That is what you take away from that post? The board isn't proactive and then delegates their own job which costs us money. That is how I see it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, in other districts this is not an issue. Boundary changes are done every 2-3 years. They keep up with it. Keep the schools even. MCPS has not. They have ignored it. Just passing the one policy to look at adjacent clusters isn't good enough. It hasn't changed anything yet. And they won't make any boundary changes for at least 3 more years due to this survey.

MCPS doing it wrong, whatever they do. Not adjusting boundaries: wrong! Adjusting boundaries: wrong!

That is what you take away from that post? The board isn't proactive and then delegates their own job which costs us money. That is how I see it.

The board's job has never been to do boundary studies. The board's job is to receive feedback from their constituents and then cast votes on the superintendent's recommendations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, in other districts this is not an issue. Boundary changes are done every 2-3 years. They keep up with it. Keep the schools even. MCPS has not. They have ignored it. Just passing the one policy to look at adjacent clusters isn't good enough. It hasn't changed anything yet. And they won't make any boundary changes for at least 3 more years due to this survey.

MCPS doing it wrong, whatever they do. Not adjusting boundaries: wrong! Adjusting boundaries: wrong!

That is what you take away from that post? The board isn't proactive and then delegates their own job which costs us money. That is how I see it.

The board is doing its job by paying a consultant to do a boundary analysis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, in other districts this is not an issue. Boundary changes are done every 2-3 years. They keep up with it. Keep the schools even. MCPS has not. They have ignored it. Just passing the one policy to look at adjacent clusters isn't good enough. It hasn't changed anything yet. And they won't make any boundary changes for at least 3 more years due to this survey.

MCPS doing it wrong, whatever they do. Not adjusting boundaries: wrong! Adjusting boundaries: wrong!

That is what you take away from that post? The board isn't proactive and then delegates their own job which costs us money. That is how I see it.

The board is doing its job by paying a consultant to do a boundary analysis.

+100. MCPS is following the correct protocol.

[Anonymous]

Cold Spring under-enrollment is a stain on the county. Yet another instance of MCPS protecting the Wootton cluster (almost all of which is undercapacity - see DuFief; ) to the detriment of other clusters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This needs to stop until MoCo gets back on its economic feet. Doing anything that spooks away potential buyers and makes Montgomery County even less attractive is just suicide right now. Doing a study and then being cagey that they may or may not do anything is even worse for the real estate market and property tax revenue stream.

Houses in MoCo are not selling the last 9 months. RE agents are freaking out at how slow it is, things are going back up as rentals. Including homes less than 10 yrs old and tear down new builds.

NoVA and NW DC are hading MoCo and MCPS their regurgitated lunch.