MCPS Boundary Reassessment

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The first volley heralds the inevitable diversity bussing!

Stop trying to make "fetch" happen, Gretchen.

[Anonymous]

I guarantee that the council is already getting panicked emails from parents due to this thread.

Grow up and realize that if a real estate agent or internet board convinced you to buy a home solely based on its assigned school, you are to blame. The district is Montgomery County schools. We all know that white kids are worth more in real estate than black and Hispanic kids, but that doesn’t make it right and that doesn’t give you a guarantee that nothing in your neighborhood will ever change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing in this County can be done that quickly. This SMOB will be gone by the time any report would actually be produced. But there is growing support in the County for a “County-side boundary study.” How that would actually logistically be accomplished is anyone’s guess. I find it really hard to believe any elected official wants to see such a thing go down, but the County Councilmembers seem to think the madness that would ensue would only fall on the BOE and not on themselves...

It makes sense to better utilize the resources that exist presently and even reduce transportation costs in some cases all the while improving diversity when possible.

There are very few under-enrolled schools. Some of the people advocating this are looking at 20-50 seats in elementary schools and saying boundaries should be changed to "use" those seats. There is a reason that MCPS considers 80-100% utilization to be ideal. It's very hard to do a boundary change that would add only 20-50 students. Then you get the question of how stable are these numbers and how often are you going to be doing the boundary changes? The more frequently you do boundary changes, the more problems you have with siblings being assigned to different schools.

There are a few boundary changes that would make sense to do - Westbrook/Somerset is one. I don't know enough about further upcounty but maybe there are a few up in the Wootton area that make sense too. But the idea that we can get to 100% utilization in every school with boundary changes is not reasonable or feasible. Also, the last time the Board proposed re-drawing boundaries between Gaithersburg Elementary and under-enrolled Wootton elementary schools the Gaithersburg parents were very opposed and came to the BOE and County Council meetings in a chartered bus to say so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing in this County can be done that quickly. This SMOB will be gone by the time any report would actually be produced. But there is growing support in the County for a “County-side boundary study.” How that would actually logistically be accomplished is anyone’s guess. I find it really hard to believe any elected official wants to see such a thing go down, but the County Councilmembers seem to think the madness that would ensue would only fall on the BOE and not on themselves...

It makes sense to better utilize the resources that exist presently and even reduce transportation costs in some cases all the while improving diversity when possible.

There are very few under-enrolled schools. Some of the people advocating this are looking at 20-50 seats in elementary schools and saying boundaries should be changed to "use" those seats. There is a reason that MCPS considers 80-100% utilization to be ideal. It's very hard to do a boundary change that would add only 20-50 students. Then you get the question of how stable are these numbers and how often are you going to be doing the boundary changes? The more frequently you do boundary changes, the more problems you have with siblings being assigned to different schools.

There are a few boundary changes that would make sense to do - Westbrook/Somerset is one. I don't know enough about further upcounty but maybe there are a few up in the Wootton area that make sense too. But the idea that we can get to 100% utilization in every school with boundary changes is not reasonable or feasible. Also, the last time the Board proposed re-drawing boundaries between Gaithersburg Elementary and under-enrolled Wootton elementary schools the Gaithersburg parents were very opposed and came to the BOE and County Council meetings in a chartered bus to say so.

There are more under-enrolled schools than you might think. If you look at the School Utilization Analysis chart from the Nov. 15th BOE meeting, there are 34 schools which are projected to have over 100 available seats each by 2024-25. See pp. 16-24:
https://www.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/B6NK2S4FB611/$file/181108%20Boundaries%20Facilities%20Hearing%20Follow-up%20Qs.pdf

[Anonymous]

"There are very few under-enrolled schools. Some of the people advocating this are looking at 20-50 seats in elementary schools and saying boundaries should be changed to "use" those seats. There is a reason that MCPS considers 80-100% utilization to be ideal. It's very hard to do a boundary change that would add only 20-50 students. Then you get the question of how stable are these numbers and how often are you going to be doing the boundary changes? The more frequently you do boundary changes, the more problems you have with siblings being assigned to different schools."

+1000. Finally, a voice of reason! These people who think boundary studies are the answer, have never lived through one, and don't realize what is actually involved. The bad feelings and anger last for decades. On top of which, as the previous person mentioned, you're talking about 20 seats here 50 seats there, and spread throughout many grades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"There are very few under-enrolled schools. Some of the people advocating this are looking at 20-50 seats in elementary schools and saying boundaries should be changed to "use" those seats. There is a reason that MCPS considers 80-100% utilization to be ideal. It's very hard to do a boundary change that would add only 20-50 students. Then you get the question of how stable are these numbers and how often are you going to be doing the boundary changes? The more frequently you do boundary changes, the more problems you have with siblings being assigned to different schools."

+1000. Finally, a voice of reason! These people who think boundary studies are the answer, have never lived through one, and don't realize what is actually involved. The bad feelings and anger last for decades. On top of which, as the previous person mentioned, you're talking about 20 seats here 50 seats there, and spread throughout many grades.

Perhaps, a voice of reason but one that is sadly misinformed. As the PP stated, there are many underutilized schools. The county has an obligation to better use the resources that are available.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing in this County can be done that quickly. This SMOB will be gone by the time any report would actually be produced. But there is growing support in the County for a “County-side boundary study.” How that would actually logistically be accomplished is anyone’s guess. I find it really hard to believe any elected official wants to see such a thing go down, but the County Councilmembers seem to think the madness that would ensue would only fall on the BOE and not on themselves...

It makes sense to better utilize the resources that exist presently and even reduce transportation costs in some cases all the while improving diversity when possible.

There are very few under-enrolled schools. Some of the people advocating this are looking at 20-50 seats in elementary schools and saying boundaries should be changed to "use" those seats. There is a reason that MCPS considers 80-100% utilization to be ideal. It's very hard to do a boundary change that would add only 20-50 students. Then you get the question of how stable are these numbers and how often are you going to be doing the boundary changes? The more frequently you do boundary changes, the more problems you have with siblings being assigned to different schools.

There are a few boundary changes that would make sense to do - Westbrook/Somerset is one. I don't know enough about further upcounty but maybe there are a few up in the Wootton area that make sense too. But the idea that we can get to 100% utilization in every school with boundary changes is not reasonable or feasible. Also, the last time the Board proposed re-drawing boundaries between Gaithersburg Elementary and under-enrolled Wootton elementary schools the Gaithersburg parents were very opposed and came to the BOE and County Council meetings in a chartered bus to say so.

There are more under-enrolled schools than you might think. If you look at the School Utilization Analysis chart from the Nov. 15th BOE meeting, there are 34 schools which are projected to have over 100 available seats each by 2024-25. See pp. 16-24:
https://www.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/B6NK2S4FB611/$file/181108%20Boundaries%20Facilities%20Hearing%20Follow-up%20Qs.pdf

And I'll highlight this exchange from earlier in the same document:

Question 18
Ms. Dixon and Ms. Ortman-Fouse requested a report regarding the schools that are under-enrolled and are situated close to over-enrolled schools, to see what can be done to assist with reducing the numbers at schools that are over capacity (particularly Olney, Cold Spring, and Rachel Carson elementary schools).

Response
Attachment C provides a list of schools by cluster that indicates the space deficit/availability for the current 2018–2019 school year and the 2024–2025 school year, the last year of the planning period. As noted in the Superintendent’s Recommended FY 2020 Capital Budget and Amendments to the FY 2019–2024 Capital Improvements Program, a new enrollment forecast methodology was implemented this year and for some schools, the enrollment forecasts differ from previous years. Given that a new methodology has been implemented, it is recommended to monitor the enrollment throughout the County for at least another year or two to study the enrollment trends before recommending any new boundary studies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

There are more under-enrolled schools than you might think. If you look at the School Utilization Analysis chart from the Nov. 15th BOE meeting, there are 34 schools which are projected to have over 100 available seats each by 2024-25. See pp. 16-24:
https://www.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/B6NK2S4FB611/$file/181108%20Boundaries%20Facilities%20Hearing%20Follow-up%20Qs.pdf

More accurately - in 2024-25. It's already almost 2019. And here's the boundary study process: http://gis.mcpsmd.org/boundarystudypdfs/BoundaryProcess_BriefDescriptionFeb2016.pdf

If MCPS is going to do boundary changes on a large scale to fix capacity problems, then

1. MCPS is going to have to do boundary changes much more frequently, and
2. MCPS is going to have to change the boundary study process so that it takes a lot less time and a lot fewer resources.

Both of these things are theoretically possible, but -- in my opinion - politically impossible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"There are very few under-enrolled schools. Some of the people advocating this are looking at 20-50 seats in elementary schools and saying boundaries should be changed to "use" those seats. There is a reason that MCPS considers 80-100% utilization to be ideal. It's very hard to do a boundary change that would add only 20-50 students. Then you get the question of how stable are these numbers and how often are you going to be doing the boundary changes? The more frequently you do boundary changes, the more problems you have with siblings being assigned to different schools."

+1000. Finally, a voice of reason! These people who think boundary studies are the answer, have never lived through one, and don't realize what is actually involved. The bad feelings and anger last for decades. On top of which, as the previous person mentioned, you're talking about 20 seats here 50 seats there, and spread throughout many grades.

Perhaps, a voice of reason but one that is sadly misinformed. As the PP stated, there are many underutilized schools. The county has an obligation to better use the resources that are available.

DP. Nobody is denying this. The question is whether and how boundary studies and school reassignments are a solution to the problem in the real world we live in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The first volley heralds the inevitable diversity bussing!

Stop trying to make "fetch" happen, Gretchen.

But it's an idea whose time has finally come! Cry havoc and let the bussing commence!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing in this County can be done that quickly. This SMOB will be gone by the time any report would actually be produced. But there is growing support in the County for a “County-side boundary study.” How that would actually logistically be accomplished is anyone’s guess. I find it really hard to believe any elected official wants to see such a thing go down, but the County Councilmembers seem to think the madness that would ensue would only fall on the BOE and not on themselves...

It makes sense to better utilize the resources that exist presently and even reduce transportation costs in some cases all the while improving diversity when possible.

There are very few under-enrolled schools. Some of the people advocating this are looking at 20-50 seats in elementary schools and saying boundaries should be changed to "use" those seats. There is a reason that MCPS considers 80-100% utilization to be ideal. It's very hard to do a boundary change that would add only 20-50 students. Then you get the question of how stable are these numbers and how often are you going to be doing the boundary changes? The more frequently you do boundary changes, the more problems you have with siblings being assigned to different schools.

There are a few boundary changes that would make sense to do - Westbrook/Somerset is one. I don't know enough about further upcounty but maybe there are a few up in the Wootton area that make sense too. But the idea that we can get to 100% utilization in every school with boundary changes is not reasonable or feasible. Also, the last time the Board proposed re-drawing boundaries between Gaithersburg Elementary and under-enrolled Wootton elementary schools the Gaithersburg parents were very opposed and came to the BOE and County Council meetings in a chartered bus to say so.

There are more under-enrolled schools than you might think. If you look at the School Utilization Analysis chart from the Nov. 15th BOE meeting, there are 34 schools which are projected to have over 100 available seats each by 2024-25. See pp. 16-24:
https://www.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/B6NK2S4FB611/$file/181108%20Boundaries%20Facilities%20Hearing%20Follow-up%20Qs.pdf

1) MCPS has been incredibly inaccurate with their 6 year numbers for the last decade at least. In my area of the County they under-projected enrollment increases from 2000-2015 by multiple hundreds of students, and it is still not clear what, if any, of the already approved development for Bethesda/North Bethesda is included in their current 6 year predictions. MCPS staff is unable to answer those questions, and it remains to be seen whether the consultant they hired will answer those questions. (Note, this is not simply that they will not answer those questions to parent advocates; they also have not and do not intend to explain which developments are included and which are not TO THE PLANNING BOARD which is required to use MCPS's numbers for development planning/approval/moratorium, etc.) So I take their 2024-2025 numbers with at least multiple mL of salt.

2) Only half of the 34 schools you mention are elementary schools. The number of seats at a school that can be reasonably filled by boundary changes is different for each different level of school.

3) There are at least a few on the list that absolutely WILL be filled by micro boundary changes. For example, Luxmanor is projected to have 104 seats available. Next door Farmland is projected to have a deficit of 183 seats. When the Luxmanor addition opens in 2020 there is going to be a boundary study to even out the Farmland/Luxmanor numbers. The community knows and expects this. However, that Luxmanor addition was originally intended to absorb the increased student population of the White Flint 1 and White Flint 2 development projects. White Flint 2 hasn't happened yet, and White Flint 1 is not fully built either. When the Luxmanor addition opens and is filled with students currently overcrowded at Farmland, what is the County's plan to deal with additional students from approved planned development at White Flint? Second example, the B-CC cluster is pushing for boundary changes between Westbrook and Somerset that would even out those numbers. It doesn't take a county-wide boundary study or any new procedure that MCPS doesn't already engage in to do this kind of boundary change when a school that consistently has seats is next door to a school that is consistently overcrowded.

4) The only cluster that is pretty consistently under-enrolled at the ES level is Wootton, and when the BOE proposed to do some re-districting between the Gaithersburg cluster and Wootton a couple years ago, the Gaithersburg community came out strongly, in force, at meetings, against it.

5) Boundary changes are not nimble and not a good way to deal with MCPS projection numbers being consistently sh**. Families want siblings in the same school/s. If you are constantly changing boundaries to deal with a little shift here or a faulty projection there, then there will be a lot more younger siblings expected to go to different schools than their older siblings. It does a number on school and community spirit and makes parents less connected to their kids' school and school community. I have ES kids at two different schools by choice, and we have less of a connection to both of the schools than we did when they were at the same school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nothing in this County can be done that quickly. This SMOB will be gone by the time any report would actually be produced. But there is growing support in the County for a “County-side boundary study.” How that would actually logistically be accomplished is anyone’s guess. I find it really hard to believe any elected official wants to see such a thing go down, but the County Councilmembers seem to think the madness that would ensue would only fall on the BOE and not on themselves...

It makes sense to better utilize the resources that exist presently and even reduce transportation costs in some cases all the while improving diversity when possible.

There are very few under-enrolled schools. Some of the people advocating this are looking at 20-50 seats in elementary schools and saying boundaries should be changed to "use" those seats. There is a reason that MCPS considers 80-100% utilization to be ideal. It's very hard to do a boundary change that would add only 20-50 students. Then you get the question of how stable are these numbers and how often are you going to be doing the boundary changes? The more frequently you do boundary changes, the more problems you have with siblings being assigned to different schools.

There are a few boundary changes that would make sense to do - Westbrook/Somerset is one. I don't know enough about further upcounty but maybe there are a few up in the Wootton area that make sense too. But the idea that we can get to 100% utilization in every school with boundary changes is not reasonable or feasible. Also, the last time the Board proposed re-drawing boundaries between Gaithersburg Elementary and under-enrolled Wootton elementary schools the Gaithersburg parents were very opposed and came to the BOE and County Council meetings in a chartered bus to say so.

This is exactly right. To add to it, I suspect the free space at Westbrook is being held for the inevitable enrollment increase when the Westbard project is finished (after the Save Westbard ninnys finally run out of gas, that is). I know it's not in the catchment area currently, but none of the other nearby elementary schools have significant capacity available.

[Anonymous]

People -MCPS is going to just use capacity as an excuse to pursue demographic modeling. A consultant's report will say exactly what the party hiring the consultant wants it to say. Corporate consulting is always used this way by organizations.

The only parent group clamoring for a county wide boundary study is the garbage dominating MCCPTA. Maybe 1 or 2 of them are honestly social justice warrior types, the rest are crazy, self serving fools who think they will benefit somehow by getting their area into a better DCC school or bringing down BCC and Whitman by moving poor kids out of their schools. They are an obnoxious bunch using poor minority kids as way to benefit themselves. After the scandal with one of the board officers stealing 40K, the group has only attracted the worst type of person.

MCPS's long range planning department is completely incompetent. They have no idea which schools will be over and under capacity. This is the department that predicted Blair would be under enrolled by several hundred seats. You can't trust any of their predictions. MCPS wants to spend money on pet projects so it will do whatever it can for these staff members to get their way even though none of these pet projects will do anything for capacity.

If they wanted to improve the situation, they would just allow COSAs by lottery to any school that has an opening.

[Anonymous]

RPES in RM cluster is overcrowded and right next to Wootton ES with empty seats.

Leaving empty seats in schools when nearby school is over crowded, what a waste!

Then MCPS complains about lack of funding. First start using the current resources optimally and then think of adding something.

[Anonymous]

RPES in RM cluster is overcrowded and right next to Wootton ES with empty seats.

Leaving empty seats in schools when nearby school is over crowded, what a waste!

Then MCPS complains about lack of funding. First start using the current resources optimally and then think of adding something.

Didn't Richie Park used to be part of Wootton 15 years ago? I thought it was moved into RM because RM was so under capacity it was about to close and MCPs wanted more UM white kids there so they pulled the neighborhood out of W and into RM.

Just create a dual enrollment zone for Richie Park with Coldspring and Lakewood. Enough parents will switch over to balance it out.