As enrollment declines, MCPS projects drop of nearly 7,000 students (6%) by 2032

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well at least this solves some of the issues that people were complaining about in the Woodward study. Now no high school appears overcrowded in any of the options.

Except for Wheaton once you subtract out the magical extra 500 capacity that they are supposed to somehow get from Edison. But Kennedy is no longer overcrowded in these options and Wheaton is less so

The lower utilization also allows tons of extra space for regional program enrollment, meaning there is no real reason anymore that the programs have to be figured out this year at the same time as the boundaries.

Good point!

Great point. With it being possible to have almost all the high schools at 85-90% capacity, there's plenty of buffer for however that shakes out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well at least this solves some of the issues that people were complaining about in the Woodward study. Now no high school appears overcrowded in any of the options.

Except for Wheaton once you subtract out the magical extra 500 capacity that they are supposed to somehow get from Edison. But Kennedy is no longer overcrowded in these options and Wheaton is less so

The lower utilization also allows tons of extra space for regional program enrollment, meaning there is no real reason anymore that the programs have to be figured out this year at the same time as the boundaries.

Good point!

Great point. With it being possible to have almost all the high schools at 85-90% capacity, there's plenty of buffer for however that shakes out.

Can someone put together a simple countywide petition to delay the program changes for greater community feedback and subsequent revisions, that flags this issue (that there is no need anymore to approve the program changes at the same time as the boundary changes because there will be enough excess capacity at high schools to handle whatever programs end up there)?

[Anonymous]

But do the new numbers presume the end of the consortia? I would think they do. I don’t know if you can end the consortia without offering regional programs instead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well at least this solves some of the issues that people were complaining about in the Woodward study. Now no high school appears overcrowded in any of the options.

Except for Wheaton once you subtract out the magical extra 500 capacity that they are supposed to somehow get from Edison. But Kennedy is no longer overcrowded in these options and Wheaton is less so

The lower utilization also allows tons of extra space for regional program enrollment, meaning there is no real reason anymore that the programs have to be figured out this year at the same time as the boundaries.

Good point!

Great point. With it being possible to have almost all the high schools at 85-90% capacity, there's plenty of buffer for however that shakes out.

Can someone put together a simple countywide petition to delay the program changes for greater community feedback and subsequent revisions, that flags this issue (that there is no need anymore to approve the program changes at the same time as the boundary changes because there will be enough excess capacity at high schools to handle whatever programs end up there)?

Be the change you want to see in the world

[Anonymous]

Blair appears to be over capacity based only on kids lotterying in. Why does the consortia model allow kids to create schools overcapacity? Same appears true for Einstein.

Do the Blair numbers exclude the magnet? It’s like 500 kids so seems about right to be the magnet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Blair appears to be over capacity based only on kids lotterying in. Why does the consortia model allow kids to create schools overcapacity? Same appears true for Einstein.

Do the Blair numbers exclude the magnet? It’s like 500 kids so seems about right to be the magnet.

You mean the numbers for current enrollment with transfers? Transfers are magnet students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blair appears to be over capacity based only on kids lotterying in. Why does the consortia model allow kids to create schools overcapacity? Same appears true for Einstein.

Do the Blair numbers exclude the magnet? It’s like 500 kids so seems about right to be the magnet.

You mean the numbers for current enrollment with transfers? Transfers are magnet students.

Yeah that’s what I mean. So the numbers without the transfers appear to the the numbers without the magnet. And the magnet number are not included in the “option” numbers either. Which is strange if we assume something like the magnet continues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blair appears to be over capacity based only on kids lotterying in. Why does the consortia model allow kids to create schools overcapacity? Same appears true for Einstein.

Do the Blair numbers exclude the magnet? It’s like 500 kids so seems about right to be the magnet.

You mean the numbers for current enrollment with transfers? Transfers are magnet students.

Yeah that’s what I mean. So the numbers without the transfers appear to the the numbers without the magnet. And the magnet number are not included in the “option” numbers either. Which is strange if we assume something like the magnet continues.

The option numbers are the number of resident students, they're not designed to reflect transfers for programs. But I believe the general idea is that roughly the same number of students will leave for programs as will come for programs, so it will be more or less a wash. In which case it is totally fine to wait another year to finalize the programs, especially since there's plenty of extra wiggle rooms at the schools now as far as capacity.

[Anonymous]

But you are still going to run the magnet next year, meaning Blair remains (slightly) overcrowded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But you are still going to run the magnet next year, meaning Blair remains (slightly) overcrowded.

Next year, Blair and Einstein and Wheaton will remain overcrowded.

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/siteassets/district/departments/planning/fy2027/cip27_chapter4_downcountycluster.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But you are still going to run the magnet next year, meaning Blair remains (slightly) overcrowded.

Next year, Blair and Einstein and Wheaton will remain overcrowded.

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/siteassets/district/departments/planning/fy2027/cip27_chapter4_downcountycluster.pdf

Maybe bc I’m reading on a phone I don’t see it, but I don’t think that document accounts for the end of the consortia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well at least this solves some of the issues that people were complaining about in the Woodward study. Now no high school appears overcrowded in any of the options.

Except for Wheaton once you subtract out the magical extra 500 capacity that they are supposed to somehow get from Edison. But Kennedy is no longer overcrowded in these options and Wheaton is less so

The lower utilization also allows tons of extra space for regional program enrollment, meaning there is no real reason anymore that the programs have to be figured out this year at the same time as the boundaries.

Good point!

Great point. With it being possible to have almost all the high schools at 85-90% capacity, there's plenty of buffer for however that shakes out.

Can someone put together a simple countywide petition to delay the program changes for greater community feedback and subsequent revisions, that flags this issue (that there is no need anymore to approve the program changes at the same time as the boundary changes because there will be enough excess capacity at high schools to handle whatever programs end up there)?

Go ahead

[Anonymous]

Adoption of the regional program model will seem to be different from the end of the consortia. Ending the consortia (and I guess the magnets) appears to be assumed for the option utilization rates.

So the only way you get these comfy extra spaces at the high schools is if you also have no consortia (and I guess no magnets next year).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Adoption of the regional program model will seem to be different from the end of the consortia. Ending the consortia (and I guess the magnets) appears to be assumed for the option utilization rates.

So the only way you get these comfy extra spaces at the high schools is if you also have no consortia (and I guess no magnets next year).

No, the consortia are actually really convenient for MCPS utilization-wise because they can decide exactly how many students go where. Much easier than with a single school per boundary.

[Anonymous]

How 'bout this?
If enrollment is declining, why does MCPS need more than half of the MoCo budget anymore?