What does tabling the SSIMS closure mean for the boundary options?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My takeis that this person is likely zoned to Woodlin or Flora Singer and doesn't want to go to SSIMS. They were relieved when the closure was proposed bc it meant they didn't have to go there (as many of the A-D options have them doing). And now that the Save our Schools people have successfully gotten a delay, they are mad at them.

That's the only explanation that makes sense. Nothing that the Save our Schools people have put out (on their yard signs, on their web site, social media, etc) has been about keeping current students zoned to SSIMS at SSIMS. It has all been about keeping the schools open and renovating them in place.

If that's the case, it would be a miscomprehension of the import of the delay. MCPS would have to include in the upcoming elementary study under which they would fit that delay authorization to change the middle school zoning, anyway, and have it effective at the same time (starting in the fall of 27).

If the closure is a foregone conclusion and the delay for engagement more of a formality than an opportunity to keep the school open, those communities almost certainly would be staying at Sligo MS, though Sligo, itself, and some portion of the current SSIMS catchment then apportioned to Sligo, would occupy the SSIMS structure as a holding school for a couple of years.

Sorry, can you rephrase? I don't follow. Isn't the idea that if MCPS picks something from option A-D, then a bunch of Sligo kids get sent to SSIMS in 2027? And then if they decide in 2027 or 2028 to close SSIMS, those families get send back to Sligo in 2030 or 2031?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1

This poster is laser focused only on how this proposal—which would affect thousands of kids and many SS communities—would affect just their individual child. This is not about your kid! It’s about east county losing an entire middle school and the creation of the largest middle school in the whole county.

Stop blaming families for advocating to keep their school, and for asking to be treated with some modicum of respect by Taylor rather than completely gaslit and bulldozed over.

Nobody's blaming anyone for trying to keep their school. I think it's great that SSiMS families love their school and want to stay there.

However, if what some people are implying is true-- that this is primarily about SCES families wanting to keep SSIMS for their own kids, but they don't care about their kids' classmates staying at SSiMS and so they don't see the boundaries as part of their "save our schools" fight because *they* will be zoned there no matter what-- that's pretty messed up.

(Or if they're saying it's fine for those other families to be zoned away because they don't want to stay at SSIMS in the first place and the "save our schools" campaign just pretended that the whole SSIMS community desperately wanted to keep SSIMS when it was really only a couple hundred families in the close-in neighborhood, that is also messed up, but in a different way.)

Sorry, what? It’s not enough that we’re fighting to keep our neighborhood schools, fighting against mega middle schools, fighting to stay at SSIMS, needing to somehow advocate for Northwood and regional programming…. We also need to rally to make sure other neighborhoods are zoned correctly?

Oof. Is this seriously the way SCES families think? That SSIMS is "our neighborhood school" and everyone else who goes there is from "other neighborhoods" whose interests it feels vaguely ridiculous to be asked to care about?

This person is a troll deliberately stirring the pot and using what parents are saying against them.

Not a troll, just someone annoyed I supported what I thought was a unified community who loved their middle school and were committed to fighting to all be able to stay there together... only to discover that apparently it was just a small neighborhood near the school that is satisfied as soon as they know they're not moving and don't care what anyone else at the school thinks or wants, but were happy to give everyone else in the county the impression they were speaking on behalf of the majority of the SSIMS community because it gave them a better chance to advance their own narrow interests.

You’re not making any sense at all. Can you please explain what neighborhood or school you think is being mistreated by the parents who are trying to keep two schools open?

I think this person is just annoyed some of the boundary options have their kid rezoned to SSIMS and they were hoping the closure went through.

I think you're exactly right. Also, I've been to the SSIMS and SCES meetings and it's not just the "small neighborhood" near the school that wants SSIMS to stay - there are a ton of SSIMS families not in the immediate neighborhood who were at the meetings and were very vocal about opposing the school closure.

Again, if you don't like some of the boundary options, then tell MCPS that. Whining on an online forum isn't going to get you anywhere.

Not sure what the disconnect is here.

My impression, and the impression I believe the folks trying to save SSIMS were trying to give, was "almost all of us families currently zoned to SSIMS love SSIMS and want to make sure we can keep going to SSIMS, so we are all working together to keep our school." It's pretty self-evident that such a fight needs two steps: 1) keep SSIMS from closing, because then obviously no one can go to SSIMS; 2) keep SSIMS boundaries the same because if they change then many of the families currently at SSiMS will get sent away. (While families living right near SSIMS only had to do step 1 to accomplish their goal, the rest of the SSIMS community needs both step 1 and step 2 to accomplish the goal of keeping SSIMS kids at SSIMS.)

Many of us elsewhere in the county signed the SSIMS petitions, engaged in advocacy to keep SSIMS open, etc, in solidarity and wanting to support the SSIMS community when we saw how badly they wanted to stay at their school, even though otherwise we might have agreed that the closure would make more sense for MCPS as a whole. We assumed we were supporting the SSiMS community in their efforts towards both step 1 (stop the SSIMS closure) and step 2 (stop SSIMS kids from being zoned out of SSIMS), although of course step 1 was naturally much higher profile and step 2 would only need to be discussed after winning step 1 because otherwise it would be irrelevant.

I am genuinely and deeply confused about how suddenly there are SSIMS people acting like step 1 and step 2 are unrelated. You all said that SSIMS families love SSIMS and want to stay there, which obviously involves not just keeping the school open but keeping the boundaries the same. If the SSIMS community is now not all working together to keep the current SSIMS boundaries, there are only two other options, right? Either 1) the further-away families never cared about staying at SSIMS in the first place, in which case close-in families misrepresented the opinions of the larger school community in their advocacy; or 2) the further-away families do care about staying at SSIMS but the closer-in families think that since accomplishing step 1 solved their personal problems, it's fine to stop there and leave the rest of the neighborhoods to advocate for step 2 on their own (meaning that even though many of us from elsewhere supported SSIMS as a whole just because it was the right thing to do, some SSIMS families don't even see helping their own kids' classmates stay at SSIMS as something they should care about and organize around.) Is there some option or explanation besides those two?

Is there something I am missing? I honestly don't understand how we're talking past each other. I am absolutely not trying to stir the pot here, just frustrated at what feels like a bait-and-switch, and I would love for there to be a more positive explanation of this, even if it's just "close-in families didn't really think about step 2 before because it didn't affect them personally, but are now realizing that it is important to support the rest of their school community by advocating for boundaries that keep SSIMS together."

Don’t underestimate how much of the opposition to closing SSIMS was about retaining an area middle school and keeping those school sizes down. Also, a significant portion of the opposition came from French Immersion families who will go there regardless of the zoning.

Otherwise, you’re talking very generally. Which neighborhoods are looking at potentially being zoned away from SSIMS? I don’t personally know. If you have a problem with the proposed zoning, get specific.

SSIMS has both Spanish Immersion and French Immersion. I think Spanish is larger. They also would go there regardless of zoning.

Actually no, Spanish Immersion is now just the neighborhood kids (Rolling Terrace, or other immersion kids already zoned for SSIMS). Rolling Terrace is zoned away from SSIMS in many of the boundary options. I do think that’s a loss. Not sure how that community feels.

Are there really that few from RTES (whole school dual immersion, no?) plus those in-bounds at the Rock Creek Forest full-immersion program that continue? There are only 30-40 per grade in French.

I’m not sure. They dramatically scaled back who can go to SSIMS for Spanish a couple of years ago because of overcrowding.

The potential RTES boundary change looks like one of several in the county that may compromise a middle school pathway for dual immersion kids. I think that would probably be a shame, but I have not heard or seen much from the RTES community about this. I also don’t know if doing Spanish at TPMS is possibly on the agenda.

This is the problem with trying to rush through so many things at once. Ideally, they'd seek input from families and staff involved in these programs instead of waiting for them to notice the issue and say something. We are also at a TWI school and our PTA put out info about the impact of proposed changes (in the first round of options) to middle school boundaries on the middle school immersion pathway. I know I mentioned this issue in my survey response (after spending a good 30-45 minutes flipping through the options on my computer, very hard to do on a phone) and others did as well, and in the second round none of the options change the middle school for our ES.

This seems like a really chaotic way to implement very far reaching changes. That being said, the implementation of TWI by MCPS hasn't been awesome so there is a chance the families aren't concerned about not having access to the middle school immersion pathway. The only way to know though would be to ask them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My takeis that this person is likely zoned to Woodlin or Flora Singer and doesn't want to go to SSIMS. They were relieved when the closure was proposed bc it meant they didn't have to go there (as many of the A-D options have them doing). And now that the Save our Schools people have successfully gotten a delay, they are mad at them.

That's the only explanation that makes sense. Nothing that the Save our Schools people have put out (on their yard signs, on their web site, social media, etc) has been about keeping current students zoned to SSIMS at SSIMS. It has all been about keeping the schools open and renovating them in place.

If that's the case, it would be a miscomprehension of the import of the delay. MCPS would have to include in the upcoming elementary study under which they would fit that delay authorization to change the middle school zoning, anyway, and have it effective at the same time (starting in the fall of 27).

If the closure is a foregone conclusion and the delay for engagement more of a formality than an opportunity to keep the school open, those communities almost certainly would be staying at Sligo MS, though Sligo, itself, and some portion of the current SSIMS catchment then apportioned to Sligo, would occupy the SSIMS structure as a holding school for a couple of years.

Sorry, can you rephrase? I don't follow. Isn't the idea that if MCPS picks something from option A-D, then a bunch of Sligo kids get sent to SSIMS in 2027? And then if they decide in 2027 or 2028 to close SSIMS, those families get send back to Sligo in 2030 or 2031?

DP. More likely they would do a modified option and keep those middle school assignments unchanged until they decide about SSIMS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My takeis that this person is likely zoned to Woodlin or Flora Singer and doesn't want to go to SSIMS. They were relieved when the closure was proposed bc it meant they didn't have to go there (as many of the A-D options have them doing). And now that the Save our Schools people have successfully gotten a delay, they are mad at them.

That's the only explanation that makes sense. Nothing that the Save our Schools people have put out (on their yard signs, on their web site, social media, etc) has been about keeping current students zoned to SSIMS at SSIMS. It has all been about keeping the schools open and renovating them in place.

If that's the case, it would be a miscomprehension of the import of the delay. MCPS would have to include in the upcoming elementary study under which they would fit that delay authorization to change the middle school zoning, anyway, and have it effective at the same time (starting in the fall of 27).

If the closure is a foregone conclusion and the delay for engagement more of a formality than an opportunity to keep the school open, those communities almost certainly would be staying at Sligo MS, though Sligo, itself, and some portion of the current SSIMS catchment then apportioned to Sligo, would occupy the SSIMS structure as a holding school for a couple of years.

Sorry, can you rephrase? I don't follow. Isn't the idea that if MCPS picks something from option A-D, then a bunch of Sligo kids get sent to SSIMS in 2027? And then if they decide in 2027 or 2028 to close SSIMS, those families get send back to Sligo in 2030 or 2031?

DP. More likely they would do a modified option and keep those middle school assignments unchanged until they decide about SSIMS.

I don't think this (keeping the current MS boundaries in Silver Spring as-is for now) is likely at all unless a ton of families are actively advocating for it. (It would cause a number of headaches for MCPS to do so.)

And as of now I don't see that advocacy happening. Families are confused, and of the minority of those who do know what's going on, it sounds like people who are not at risk of being moved don't care about whether it's the right thing to do. So you're probably down to dozens or fewer families who are tracking the changes closely enough to know that it makes sense to advocate in comments and emails for keeping current MS boundaries as-is for now, and are also personally negatively impacted if they aren't. If no one else is going to stand with us on that because they think it's the right/fair thing to do-- and it sounds like they aren't-- it's pretty likely we're just screwed.

[Anonymous]

^ What are the headaches associated with keeping MS boundaries the same until the future of SSIMS is decided?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My takeis that this person is likely zoned to Woodlin or Flora Singer and doesn't want to go to SSIMS. They were relieved when the closure was proposed bc it meant they didn't have to go there (as many of the A-D options have them doing). And now that the Save our Schools people have successfully gotten a delay, they are mad at them.

That's the only explanation that makes sense. Nothing that the Save our Schools people have put out (on their yard signs, on their web site, social media, etc) has been about keeping current students zoned to SSIMS at SSIMS. It has all been about keeping the schools open and renovating them in place.

If that's the case, it would be a miscomprehension of the import of the delay. MCPS would have to include in the upcoming elementary study under which they would fit that delay authorization to change the middle school zoning, anyway, and have it effective at the same time (starting in the fall of 27).

If the closure is a foregone conclusion and the delay for engagement more of a formality than an opportunity to keep the school open, those communities almost certainly would be staying at Sligo MS, though Sligo, itself, and some portion of the current SSIMS catchment then apportioned to Sligo, would occupy the SSIMS structure as a holding school for a couple of years.

Sorry, can you rephrase? I don't follow. Isn't the idea that if MCPS picks something from option A-D, then a bunch of Sligo kids get sent to SSIMS in 2027? And then if they decide in 2027 or 2028 to close SSIMS, those families get send back to Sligo in 2030 or 2031?

DP. More likely they would do a modified option and keep those middle school assignments unchanged until they decide about SSIMS.

I don't think this (keeping the current MS boundaries in Silver Spring as-is for now) is likely at all unless a ton of families are actively advocating for it. (It would cause a number of headaches for MCPS to do so.)

And as of now I don't see that advocacy happening. Families are confused, and of the minority of those who do know what's going on, it sounds like people who are not at risk of being moved don't care about whether it's the right thing to do. So you're probably down to dozens or fewer families who are tracking the changes closely enough to know that it makes sense to advocate in comments and emails for keeping current MS boundaries as-is for now, and are also personally negatively impacted if they aren't. If no one else is going to stand with us on that because they think it's the right/fair thing to do-- and it sounds like they aren't-- it's pretty likely we're just screwed.

Laura Stewart asked about this at a board meeting, and Taylor agreed with her that rezoning kids to a school that might soon be closed was a bad idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^ What are the headaches associated with keeping MS boundaries the same until the future of SSIMS is decided?

Probably the biggest one is that they are really set on wanting 6 regions with hard boundary lines (not just for the HS regional programs but I believe they want to regionalize a variety of internal stuff too), and they have already drawn the lines for that (you can see them in the interactive boundary maps.). Arcola is on one side of the line and Odessa Shannon is on the other, so unless they are willing to be flexible on their plan (which they don't want to be and told Flo Analytics to make sure not to be), Arcola students cannot go to Odessa Shannon for MS. But if they add them to Sligo and Newport Mill, *and* also keep all the current kids at Sligo and Newport Mill, it's a pretty tight squeeze-- if they split them at Georgia Ave (as in option G) it would bring Sligo up to about 1000 kids (over their capacity of 926), and Newport Mill to about 750 with a capacity of 812. (They could potentially pick a weirder dividing line to land both middle schools right around their capacity, but with fluctuations year to year would probably run the risk of being over in any given year, especially if enrollment doesn't decline precisely as projected.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My takeis that this person is likely zoned to Woodlin or Flora Singer and doesn't want to go to SSIMS. They were relieved when the closure was proposed bc it meant they didn't have to go there (as many of the A-D options have them doing). And now that the Save our Schools people have successfully gotten a delay, they are mad at them.

That's the only explanation that makes sense. Nothing that the Save our Schools people have put out (on their yard signs, on their web site, social media, etc) has been about keeping current students zoned to SSIMS at SSIMS. It has all been about keeping the schools open and renovating them in place.

If that's the case, it would be a miscomprehension of the import of the delay. MCPS would have to include in the upcoming elementary study under which they would fit that delay authorization to change the middle school zoning, anyway, and have it effective at the same time (starting in the fall of 27).

If the closure is a foregone conclusion and the delay for engagement more of a formality than an opportunity to keep the school open, those communities almost certainly would be staying at Sligo MS, though Sligo, itself, and some portion of the current SSIMS catchment then apportioned to Sligo, would occupy the SSIMS structure as a holding school for a couple of years.

Sorry, can you rephrase? I don't follow. Isn't the idea that if MCPS picks something from option A-D, then a bunch of Sligo kids get sent to SSIMS in 2027? And then if they decide in 2027 or 2028 to close SSIMS, those families get send back to Sligo in 2030 or 2031?

DP. More likely they would do a modified option and keep those middle school assignments unchanged until they decide about SSIMS.

I don't think this (keeping the current MS boundaries in Silver Spring as-is for now) is likely at all unless a ton of families are actively advocating for it. (It would cause a number of headaches for MCPS to do so.)

And as of now I don't see that advocacy happening. Families are confused, and of the minority of those who do know what's going on, it sounds like people who are not at risk of being moved don't care about whether it's the right thing to do. So you're probably down to dozens or fewer families who are tracking the changes closely enough to know that it makes sense to advocate in comments and emails for keeping current MS boundaries as-is for now, and are also personally negatively impacted if they aren't. If no one else is going to stand with us on that because they think it's the right/fair thing to do-- and it sounds like they aren't-- it's pretty likely we're just screwed.

Laura Stewart asked about this at a board meeting, and Taylor agreed with her that rezoning kids to a school that might soon be closed was a bad idea.

He agreed that kids shouldn't be rezoned to a school that *would" be closing soon, and that's how we got options E-G, to be used if the decision were made to close SSIMS. He never said that kids shouldn't be rezoned to a school just because it *might* be closed later, and since it would be easier on MCPS to just go back to A-D, I think that's what they're most likely to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My takeis that this person is likely zoned to Woodlin or Flora Singer and doesn't want to go to SSIMS. They were relieved when the closure was proposed bc it meant they didn't have to go there (as many of the A-D options have them doing). And now that the Save our Schools people have successfully gotten a delay, they are mad at them.

That's the only explanation that makes sense. Nothing that the Save our Schools people have put out (on their yard signs, on their web site, social media, etc) has been about keeping current students zoned to SSIMS at SSIMS. It has all been about keeping the schools open and renovating them in place.

If that's the case, it would be a miscomprehension of the import of the delay. MCPS would have to include in the upcoming elementary study under which they would fit that delay authorization to change the middle school zoning, anyway, and have it effective at the same time (starting in the fall of 27).

If the closure is a foregone conclusion and the delay for engagement more of a formality than an opportunity to keep the school open, those communities almost certainly would be staying at Sligo MS, though Sligo, itself, and some portion of the current SSIMS catchment then apportioned to Sligo, would occupy the SSIMS structure as a holding school for a couple of years.

Sorry, can you rephrase? I don't follow. Isn't the idea that if MCPS picks something from option A-D, then a bunch of Sligo kids get sent to SSIMS in 2027? And then if they decide in 2027 or 2028 to close SSIMS, those families get send back to Sligo in 2030 or 2031?

DP. More likely they would do a modified option and keep those middle school assignments unchanged until they decide about SSIMS.

I don't think this (keeping the current MS boundaries in Silver Spring as-is for now) is likely at all unless a ton of families are actively advocating for it. (It would cause a number of headaches for MCPS to do so.)

And as of now I don't see that advocacy happening. Families are confused, and of the minority of those who do know what's going on, it sounds like people who are not at risk of being moved don't care about whether it's the right thing to do. So you're probably down to dozens or fewer families who are tracking the changes closely enough to know that it makes sense to advocate in comments and emails for keeping current MS boundaries as-is for now, and are also personally negatively impacted if they aren't. If no one else is going to stand with us on that because they think it's the right/fair thing to do-- and it sounds like they aren't-- it's pretty likely we're just screwed.

Laura Stewart asked about this at a board meeting, and Taylor agreed with her that rezoning kids to a school that might soon be closed was a bad idea.

He agreed that kids shouldn't be rezoned to a school that *would" be closing soon, and that's how we got options E-G, to be used if the decision were made to close SSIMS. He never said that kids shouldn't be rezoned to a school just because it *might* be closed later, and since it would be easier on MCPS to just go back to A-D, I think that's what they're most likely to do.

I don't think they're going to end up recommending any of the existing options. They'll put together a new map comprised of different elements.

[Anonymous]

Elrich released his CIP today and he did not fund the expansions to Sligo and Eastern, saying he believes in smaller middle schools. He also said he does not agree with the proposal to close SSIMS.

So I guess this means E, F, and G are off the table and we are back to A, B, C, or D.

[Anonymous]

Newbie question.... How closely related are the county budget and MCPS budget? I know county has to approve MCPS budget - was that what happened today? And is that final or subject to back and forth with Taylor/BOE?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Newbie question.... How closely related are the county budget and MCPS budget? I know county has to approve MCPS budget - was that what happened today? And is that final or subject to back and forth with Taylor/BOE?

+1
Where do I find this story?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Newbie question.... How closely related are the county budget and MCPS budget? I know county has to approve MCPS budget - was that what happened today? And is that final or subject to back and forth with Taylor/BOE?

Today the county executive released his CIP. But that's not final. It still has to be approved by the county council later this spring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Newbie question.... How closely related are the county budget and MCPS budget? I know county has to approve MCPS budget - was that what happened today? And is that final or subject to back and forth with Taylor/BOE?

+1
Where do I find this story?

https://bethesdamagazine.com/2026/01/15/elrich-proposes-6b-capital-improvements-program-for-next-six-years/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Newbie question.... How closely related are the county budget and MCPS budget? I know county has to approve MCPS budget - was that what happened today? And is that final or subject to back and forth with Taylor/BOE?

+1
Where do I find this story?

https://bethesdamagazine.com/2026/01/15/elrich-proposes-6b-capital-improvements-program-for-next-six-years/

It's kind of disheartening that Elrich kept in the funding for building 2 new elementary schools when there'll soon be an elementary boundary study that might tell us we don't need those schools.