So how does it work if the Board wants to change Taylor's boundary recommendations?

[Anonymous]

What would the process look like if the Board wants to change (or consider changing) the Superintendent's recommendations? Does that get brought up at the work session next week? Would they then have another set of public hearings to get feedback on their revised options? (Or might the CIP hearings on 3/9 and 3/10 be used for that?) I see that the public hearing on the calendar for 3/12 has been cancelled-- does that mean anything?

Or can they just change things at the last moment, and anyone who likes the current proposal but doesn't like whatever revisions they propose is just out of luck as far as having time to make their opinions heard?

Is anyone familiar with past boundary studies where alterations to the recommended boundaries were considered, or have other insight on how this might work?

(Personally I'm nervous about whether they will make revisions to increase SSIMS utilization that we would be much less happy with than Taylor's proposed maps-- but I imagine that lots of people in the county would like to know this for their own varied reasons!)

[Anonymous]

Yes, they would typically identify alternatives at the end of the work session. Policy FAA has this description of the process:

F. BOARD OF EDUCATION DELIBERATIONS AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Based on further analysis of the factors considered through the stakeholder input
process, the Board may, by majority vote, identify one or more alternatives to the
superintendent of schools’ recommendations. Alternatives put forward by the
Board will advance one or more of the factors set forth in section G below. Staff
will develop options consistent with the alternatives identified.
2. The Board will allow time to hold public hearings and solicit written testimony on
the recommendations of the superintendent of schools and Board identified
alternatives for site selection, school boundaries, geographic student choice
assignment plans, or school closings or consolidations.
3. The Board has the discretion to adopt minor modifications to the superintendent of
schools’ recommendation(s) or Board-identified alternatives if, by a majority vote,
the Board has determined that such action will not have a significant impact on an
option for site selection, school boundaries, geographic student choice assignment
plans, or school closings or consolidations that has received public review.
4. The Board may approve a different and/or condensed process and time schedule,
developed by the superintendent of schools and in accordance with applicable state
or county requirements, for making recommendations to the Board regarding the
capital improvements program and the facility planning activities listed above,
including but not limited to selecting sites for new schools, changing school
boundaries, establishing geographic student choice assignment plans, and closing
or consolidating in the event that the Board determines that unusual circumstances
exist.

[Anonymous]

So it looks like if they consider the change "minor" enough, they don't have to hold further hearings on it? Does anyone know if this provision has been used in the past (and for what)? How common is it for the Board to alter the Superintendent's recommended boundaries?

"3. The Board has the discretion to adopt minor modifications to the superintendent of schools’ recommendation(s) or Board-identified alternatives if, by a majority vote, the Board has determined that such action will not have a significant impact on an option for site selection, school boundaries, geographic student choice assignment plans, or school closings or consolidations that has received public review."

[Anonymous]

They have definitely done it in smaller boundary studies. I’m pretty sure when Rustin opened (then known as RM ES #5) the Board asked MCPS to make modifications to one of the options and then adopted that. These are just much bigger boundary studies than the ones for opening a new ES or even MS have been, so changes are maybe more controversial than in smaller studies.

I think if you like the current proposal you should email the Board and cc the Superintendent and provide that feedback. Otherwise they only hear from the people who are unhappy and if they stick with the rec people will say they “went against public opinion.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They have definitely done it in smaller boundary studies. I’m pretty sure when Rustin opened (then known as RM ES #5) the Board asked MCPS to make modifications to one of the options and then adopted that. These are just much bigger boundary studies than the ones for opening a new ES or even MS have been, so changes are maybe more controversial than in smaller studies.

I think if you like the current proposal you should email the Board and cc the Superintendent and provide that feedback. Otherwise they only hear from the people who are unhappy and if they stick with the rec people will say they “went against public opinion.”

Thanks. Do you know if they had further public hearings after the modifications, or whether they classified it under that "minor"/"not significant" exception and did not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They have definitely done it in smaller boundary studies. I’m pretty sure when Rustin opened (then known as RM ES #5) the Board asked MCPS to make modifications to one of the options and then adopted that. These are just much bigger boundary studies than the ones for opening a new ES or even MS have been, so changes are maybe more controversial than in smaller studies.

I think if you like the current proposal you should email the Board and cc the Superintendent and provide that feedback. Otherwise they only hear from the people who are unhappy and if they stick with the rec people will say they “went against public opinion.”

Thanks. Do you know if they had further public hearings after the modifications, or whether they classified it under that "minor"/"not significant" exception and did not?

DP. Here's the memo covering what happened with Rustin in 2017.

https://gis.mcpsmd.org/boundarystudypdfs/RMES5_AdoptedBoundaries.pdf

Worth noting that that was two superintendents ago, and none of the current board members were on the board at that time.