Initial boundary options for Woodward study area are up

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is literally the same debate that occurred a few years ago.

I suspect they put these out there to distract from all the other nonsense going on. It was insane the amount they spent on this when they scream underfunding.

$1.3 million is not a lot of money for something like this, either absolutely or relatively. It’s a mere three one hundredths of 1% of the annual MCPS budget.

Honestly, they should have spent more to get better results. People like to demonize FLO, but things like this take time (which means people who cost money) and resources (more money!).

(And no I don’t work for FLO, my company would have charged more!)

It actually is when they cut an autism program,
MVA, and auto trade program, each of which was a few million and they claimed they could not find the funds. Meanwhile a few hundred kids left due to the MVA closing and other kids are not getting their needs met in the fake new program.

I’m not familiar with those programs, but am sorry to lose them. But if they’re doing these boundary studies once every 5 years, that’s ~$250k per year, which is almost nothing in the context of the budget and certainly not enough to justify cutting important programs.

Broader mismanagement is the culprit if they’re cutting small programs like that.

Not saying there isn't mismanagement, decisions with financial impact that we might question or items the community has decided to pursue that are over and above the basics (e.g., architecture for some projects that was more than utilitarian/meant to provide space for more than the MSDE minimum standard -- not that these were necessarily bad choices), but I think many look at superficial stats like changes to cost per pupil over 10 years or compare cost per pupil to other school districts when cost drivers are significantly different.

Capital improvements had not kept up with facility needs. That has meant a lower budget in the past, but ever-increasing need associated with the backlog, and bills are coming due. Meanwhile, there are additional year-to-year operational costs associated with the facility deficit. Not as big a hit in any year as would be the case with a capital project, but it's kind of like the national debt, where borrowing costs baloon, and just like those borrowing costs meeting with higher interest rates now than while the majority of the debt was initially building, the balooning is fed by inflation in both services (repairs/short-term fixes in operations) and construction cost (delayed capital projects coming in with price tags much more expensive).

As MCPS has experienced significant increases in its EML and FARMS populations, the associated differential educational needs have increased the overall average cost per pupil. Increased diagnoses associated with more prevalent IEPs and 504 plans likewise have contributed to the increase in MCPS operational budget. There is little of that cost that can be managed away (besides negligence).

I recently looked at the budget of Locust Valley, a town-based school district on Long Island. One HS with feeders. Median household income similar to MoCo (the school district encompasses more than the small town of Lovust Valley). Good educational outcomes, with proficiency scores well above NY state averages. Around 22% economically disadvantaged, 20% with some identified disability/5% with a 504 plan, under 5% EML. 2024-25 budget of $96M with property tax accounting for over 91% of that.

1827 students. Total. Well over $50k per student.

I'm sure Locust Valley had its own idiosyncrasies. It can't represent an average US school district, and this is only one data point. I only stumbled upon it when looking at something else about that area a couple of weeks back. But MCPS/DCUM want to be well above average, and it struck me that the notion that high-performing smaller school districts do more with less just may not be true.

Mcps is one of the highest funded school systems in the stop blaming low income kids v

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Woodward sucks for my property value. Damn.

Even WJ sucks in option 3. Prices can drop 10-15%.

If they drop it will not be schools and only so many can afford the inflated prices.

50% increase in FARMS rate in WJ will surely have some impact on house prices. Agree about many not able to afford and in general prices can come down even without this school issues.

[Anonymous]

I have lost track - Flo analytics is in the same building as what company?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This whole thing is stupid. HS equity in a school system this large is not realistic. There’s a lot of socioeconomic disparity in spread apart parts of the county and artificially attempting to undo what has happened organically leads to long bus rides and kids not going to school with people who live right by them.

Brown v. Board of Ed was over 70 years ago. While a righteous goal, you can’t gerrymander your way out of racial, religious, and economic realities of neighborhoods people choose to live based on their economic means and free will choices of people they want to live by. This is a reality of capitalism and a diverse country.

I’m all for recognizing systemic disparities in our country and disagree with SCOTUS ending affirmative action. Invest in resources, give opportunities, etc. But there’s limits to what you can do to public schools based on geography. It results in absurdities and when stuff like this gets taken too far, helps get people like Trump elected.

Get to the goal with funding instead of with gerrymandering. We'll know we've made it when real estate agents stop dropping mention of which school a home is zoned to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is literally the same debate that occurred a few years ago.

I suspect they put these out there to distract from all the other nonsense going on. It was insane the amount they spent on this when they scream underfunding.

$1.3 million is not a lot of money for something like this, either absolutely or relatively. It’s a mere three one hundredths of 1% of the annual MCPS budget.

Honestly, they should have spent more to get better results. People like to demonize FLO, but things like this take time (which means people who cost money) and resources (more money!).

(And no I don’t work for FLO, my company would have charged more!)

It actually is when they cut an autism program,
MVA, and auto trade program, each of which was a few million and they claimed they could not find the funds. Meanwhile a few hundred kids left due to the MVA closing and other kids are not getting their needs met in the fake new program.

I’m not familiar with those programs, but am sorry to lose them. But if they’re doing these boundary studies once every 5 years, that’s ~$250k per year, which is almost nothing in the context of the budget and certainly not enough to justify cutting important programs.

Broader mismanagement is the culprit if they’re cutting small programs like that.

Not saying there isn't mismanagement, decisions with financial impact that we might question or items the community has decided to pursue that are over and above the basics (e.g., architecture for some projects that was more than utilitarian/meant to provide space for more than the MSDE minimum standard -- not that these were necessarily bad choices), but I think many look at superficial stats like changes to cost per pupil over 10 years or compare cost per pupil to other school districts when cost drivers are significantly different.

Capital improvements had not kept up with facility needs. That has meant a lower budget in the past, but ever-increasing need associated with the backlog, and bills are coming due. Meanwhile, there are additional year-to-year operational costs associated with the facility deficit. Not as big a hit in any year as would be the case with a capital project, but it's kind of like the national debt, where borrowing costs baloon, and just like those borrowing costs meeting with higher interest rates now than while the majority of the debt was initially building, the balooning is fed by inflation in both services (repairs/short-term fixes in operations) and construction cost (delayed capital projects coming in with price tags much more expensive).

As MCPS has experienced significant increases in its EML and FARMS populations, the associated differential educational needs have increased the overall average cost per pupil. Increased diagnoses associated with more prevalent IEPs and 504 plans likewise have contributed to the increase in MCPS operational budget. There is little of that cost that can be managed away (besides negligence).

I recently looked at the budget of Locust Valley, a town-based school district on Long Island. One HS with feeders. Median household income similar to MoCo (the school district encompasses more than the small town of Lovust Valley). Good educational outcomes, with proficiency scores well above NY state averages. Around 22% economically disadvantaged, 20% with some identified disability/5% with a 504 plan, under 5% EML. 2024-25 budget of $96M with property tax accounting for over 91% of that.

1827 students. Total. Well over $50k per student.

I'm sure Locust Valley had its own idiosyncrasies. It can't represent an average US school district, and this is only one data point. I only stumbled upon it when looking at something else about that area a couple of weeks back. But MCPS/DCUM want to be well above average, and it struck me that the notion that high-performing smaller school districts do more with less just may not be true.

Mcps is one of the highest funded school systems in the stop blaming low income kids v

There could not be a more incorrect take on the import of the prior post.

[Anonymous]

good link -- thanks

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is literally the same debate that occurred a few years ago.

I suspect they put these out there to distract from all the other nonsense going on. It was insane the amount they spent on this when they scream underfunding.

$1.3 million is not a lot of money for something like this, either absolutely or relatively. It’s a mere three one hundredths of 1% of the annual MCPS budget.

Honestly, they should have spent more to get better results. People like to demonize FLO, but things like this take time (which means people who cost money) and resources (more money!).

(And no I don’t work for FLO, my company would have charged more!)

It actually is when they cut an autism program,
MVA, and auto trade program, each of which was a few million and they claimed they could not find the funds. Meanwhile a few hundred kids left due to the MVA closing and other kids are not getting their needs met in the fake new program.

I’m not familiar with those programs, but am sorry to lose them. But if they’re doing these boundary studies once every 5 years, that’s ~$250k per year, which is almost nothing in the context of the budget and certainly not enough to justify cutting important programs.

Broader mismanagement is the culprit if they’re cutting small programs like that.

Not saying there isn't mismanagement, decisions with financial impact that we might question or items the community has decided to pursue that are over and above the basics (e.g., architecture for some projects that was more than utilitarian/meant to provide space for more than the MSDE minimum standard -- not that these were necessarily bad choices), but I think many look at superficial stats like changes to cost per pupil over 10 years or compare cost per pupil to other school districts when cost drivers are significantly different.

Capital improvements had not kept up with facility needs. That has meant a lower budget in the past, but ever-increasing need associated with the backlog, and bills are coming due. Meanwhile, there are additional year-to-year operational costs associated with the facility deficit. Not as big a hit in any year as would be the case with a capital project, but it's kind of like the national debt, where borrowing costs baloon, and just like those borrowing costs meeting with higher interest rates now than while the majority of the debt was initially building, the balooning is fed by inflation in both services (repairs/short-term fixes in operations) and construction cost (delayed capital projects coming in with price tags much more expensive).

As MCPS has experienced significant increases in its EML and FARMS populations, the associated differential educational needs have increased the overall average cost per pupil. Increased diagnoses associated with more prevalent IEPs and 504 plans likewise have contributed to the increase in MCPS operational budget. There is little of that cost that can be managed away (besides negligence).

I recently looked at the budget of Locust Valley, a town-based school district on Long Island. One HS with feeders. Median household income similar to MoCo (the school district encompasses more than the small town of Lovust Valley). Good educational outcomes, with proficiency scores well above NY state averages. Around 22% economically disadvantaged, 20% with some identified disability/5% with a 504 plan, under 5% EML. 2024-25 budget of $96M with property tax accounting for over 91% of that.

1827 students. Total. Well over $50k per student.

I'm sure Locust Valley had its own idiosyncrasies. It can't represent an average US school district, and this is only one data point. I only stumbled upon it when looking at something else about that area a couple of weeks back. But MCPS/DCUM want to be well above average, and it struck me that the notion that high-performing smaller school districts do more with less just may not be true.

Most school districts in New York are, as you said, town or village based and don’t offer all the special Ed that MCPS does. As a result, they have to pay for private accommodation of those students under federal and likely New York State law. That combined with a small population is why you are seeing the $50k per student.

It’s not really efficient, but they’ll never change. Our Whitman is their Scarsdale. No one is ever going to bus rich kids out of Scarsdale or poor kids into Scarsdale. I’ll take MCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is literally the same debate that occurred a few years ago.

I suspect they put these out there to distract from all the other nonsense going on. It was insane the amount they spent on this when they scream underfunding.

$1.3 million is not a lot of money for something like this, either absolutely or relatively. It’s a mere three one hundredths of 1% of the annual MCPS budget.

Honestly, they should have spent more to get better results. People like to demonize FLO, but things like this take time (which means people who cost money) and resources (more money!).

(And no I don’t work for FLO, my company would have charged more!)

It actually is when they cut an autism program,
MVA, and auto trade program, each of which was a few million and they claimed they could not find the funds. Meanwhile a few hundred kids left due to the MVA closing and other kids are not getting their needs met in the fake new program.

I’m not familiar with those programs, but am sorry to lose them. But if they’re doing these boundary studies once every 5 years, that’s ~$250k per year, which is almost nothing in the context of the budget and certainly not enough to justify cutting important programs.

Broader mismanagement is the culprit if they’re cutting small programs like that.

Not saying there isn't mismanagement, decisions with financial impact that we might question or items the community has decided to pursue that are over and above the basics (e.g., architecture for some projects that was more than utilitarian/meant to provide space for more than the MSDE minimum standard -- not that these were necessarily bad choices), but I think many look at superficial stats like changes to cost per pupil over 10 years or compare cost per pupil to other school districts when cost drivers are significantly different.

Capital improvements had not kept up with facility needs. That has meant a lower budget in the past, but ever-increasing need associated with the backlog, and bills are coming due. Meanwhile, there are additional year-to-year operational costs associated with the facility deficit. Not as big a hit in any year as would be the case with a capital project, but it's kind of like the national debt, where borrowing costs baloon, and just like those borrowing costs meeting with higher interest rates now than while the majority of the debt was initially building, the balooning is fed by inflation in both services (repairs/short-term fixes in operations) and construction cost (delayed capital projects coming in with price tags much more expensive).

As MCPS has experienced significant increases in its EML and FARMS populations, the associated differential educational needs have increased the overall average cost per pupil. Increased diagnoses associated with more prevalent IEPs and 504 plans likewise have contributed to the increase in MCPS operational budget. There is little of that cost that can be managed away (besides negligence).

I recently looked at the budget of Locust Valley, a town-based school district on Long Island. One HS with feeders. Median household income similar to MoCo (the school district encompasses more than the small town of Lovust Valley). Good educational outcomes, with proficiency scores well above NY state averages. Around 22% economically disadvantaged, 20% with some identified disability/5% with a 504 plan, under 5% EML. 2024-25 budget of $96M with property tax accounting for over 91% of that.

1827 students. Total. Well over $50k per student.

I'm sure Locust Valley had its own idiosyncrasies. It can't represent an average US school district, and this is only one data point. I only stumbled upon it when looking at something else about that area a couple of weeks back. But MCPS/DCUM want to be well above average, and it struck me that the notion that high-performing smaller school districts do more with less just may not be true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is literally the same debate that occurred a few years ago.

I suspect they put these out there to distract from all the other nonsense going on. It was insane the amount they spent on this when they scream underfunding.

$1.3 million is not a lot of money for something like this, either absolutely or relatively. It’s a mere three one hundredths of 1% of the annual MCPS budget.

Honestly, they should have spent more to get better results. People like to demonize FLO, but things like this take time (which means people who cost money) and resources (more money!).

(And no I don’t work for FLO, my company would have charged more!)

It actually is when they cut an autism program,
MVA, and auto trade program, each of which was a few million and they claimed they could not find the funds. Meanwhile a few hundred kids left due to the MVA closing and other kids are not getting their needs met in the fake new program.

I’m not familiar with those programs, but am sorry to lose them. But if they’re doing these boundary studies once every 5 years, that’s ~$250k per year, which is almost nothing in the context of the budget and certainly not enough to justify cutting important programs.

Broader mismanagement is the culprit if they’re cutting small programs like that.

Not saying there isn't mismanagement, decisions with financial impact that we might question or items the community has decided to pursue that are over and above the basics (e.g., architecture for some projects that was more than utilitarian/meant to provide space for more than the MSDE minimum standard -- not that these were necessarily bad choices), but I think many look at superficial stats like changes to cost per pupil over 10 years or compare cost per pupil to other school districts when cost drivers are significantly different.

Capital improvements had not kept up with facility needs. That has meant a lower budget in the past, but ever-increasing need associated with the backlog, and bills are coming due. Meanwhile, there are additional year-to-year operational costs associated with the facility deficit. Not as big a hit in any year as would be the case with a capital project, but it's kind of like the national debt, where borrowing costs baloon, and just like those borrowing costs meeting with higher interest rates now than while the majority of the debt was initially building, the balooning is fed by inflation in both services (repairs/short-term fixes in operations) and construction cost (delayed capital projects coming in with price tags much more expensive).

As MCPS has experienced significant increases in its EML and FARMS populations, the associated differential educational needs have increased the overall average cost per pupil. Increased diagnoses associated with more prevalent IEPs and 504 plans likewise have contributed to the increase in MCPS operational budget. There is little of that cost that can be managed away (besides negligence).

I recently looked at the budget of Locust Valley, a town-based school district on Long Island. One HS with feeders. Median household income similar to MoCo (the school district encompasses more than the small town of Lovust Valley). Good educational outcomes, with proficiency scores well above NY state averages. Around 22% economically disadvantaged, 20% with some identified disability/5% with a 504 plan, under 5% EML. 2024-25 budget of $96M with property tax accounting for over 91% of that.

1827 students. Total. Well over $50k per student.

I'm sure Locust Valley had its own idiosyncrasies. It can't represent an average US school district, and this is only one data point. I only stumbled upon it when looking at something else about that area a couple of weeks back. But MCPS/DCUM want to be well above average, and it struck me that the notion that high-performing smaller school districts do more with less just may not be true.

Mcps is one of the highest funded school systems in the stop blaming low income kids v

Did you even attempt to read what you’re responding to?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This whole thing is stupid. HS equity in a school system this large is not realistic. There’s a lot of socioeconomic disparity in spread apart parts of the county and artificially attempting to undo what has happened organically leads to long bus rides and kids not going to school with people who live right by them.

Brown v. Board of Ed was over 70 years ago. While a righteous goal, you can’t gerrymander your way out of racial, religious, and economic realities of neighborhoods people choose to live based on their economic means and free will choices of people they want to live by. This is a reality of capitalism and a diverse country.

I’m all for recognizing systemic disparities in our country and disagree with SCOTUS ending affirmative action. Invest in resources, give opportunities, etc. But there’s limits to what you can do to public schools based on geography. It results in absurdities and when stuff like this gets taken too far, helps get people like Trump elected.

I agree with this 100%. Make this person head of the school board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is literally the same debate that occurred a few years ago.

I suspect they put these out there to distract from all the other nonsense going on. It was insane the amount they spent on this when they scream underfunding.

$1.3 million is not a lot of money for something like this, either absolutely or relatively. It’s a mere three one hundredths of 1% of the annual MCPS budget.

Honestly, they should have spent more to get better results. People like to demonize FLO, but things like this take time (which means people who cost money) and resources (more money!).

(And no I don’t work for FLO, my company would have charged more!)

It actually is when they cut an autism program,
MVA, and auto trade program, each of which was a few million and they claimed they could not find the funds. Meanwhile a few hundred kids left due to the MVA closing and other kids are not getting their needs met in the fake new program.

I’m not familiar with those programs, but am sorry to lose them. But if they’re doing these boundary studies once every 5 years, that’s ~$250k per year, which is almost nothing in the context of the budget and certainly not enough to justify cutting important programs.

Broader mismanagement is the culprit if they’re cutting small programs like that.

Not saying there isn't mismanagement, decisions with financial impact that we might question or items the community has decided to pursue that are over and above the basics (e.g., architecture for some projects that was more than utilitarian/meant to provide space for more than the MSDE minimum standard -- not that these were necessarily bad choices), but I think many look at superficial stats like changes to cost per pupil over 10 years or compare cost per pupil to other school districts when cost drivers are significantly different.

Capital improvements had not kept up with facility needs. That has meant a lower budget in the past, but ever-increasing need associated with the backlog, and bills are coming due. Meanwhile, there are additional year-to-year operational costs associated with the facility deficit. Not as big a hit in any year as would be the case with a capital project, but it's kind of like the national debt, where borrowing costs baloon, and just like those borrowing costs meeting with higher interest rates now than while the majority of the debt was initially building, the balooning is fed by inflation in both services (repairs/short-term fixes in operations) and construction cost (delayed capital projects coming in with price tags much more expensive).

As MCPS has experienced significant increases in its EML and FARMS populations, the associated differential educational needs have increased the overall average cost per pupil. Increased diagnoses associated with more prevalent IEPs and 504 plans likewise have contributed to the increase in MCPS operational budget. There is little of that cost that can be managed away (besides negligence).

I recently looked at the budget of Locust Valley, a town-based school district on Long Island. One HS with feeders. Median household income similar to MoCo (the school district encompasses more than the small town of Lovust Valley). Good educational outcomes, with proficiency scores well above NY state averages. Around 22% economically disadvantaged, 20% with some identified disability/5% with a 504 plan, under 5% EML. 2024-25 budget of $96M with property tax accounting for over 91% of that.

1827 students. Total. Well over $50k per student.

I'm sure Locust Valley had its own idiosyncrasies. It can't represent an average US school district, and this is only one data point. I only stumbled upon it when looking at something else about that area a couple of weeks back. But MCPS/DCUM want to be well above average, and it struck me that the notion that high-performing smaller school districts do more with less just may not be true.

Most school districts in New York are, as you said, town or village based and don’t offer all the special Ed that MCPS does. As a result, they have to pay for private accommodation of those students under federal and likely New York State law. That combined with a small population is why you are seeing the $50k per student.

It’s not really efficient, but they’ll never change. Our Whitman is their Scarsdale. No one is ever going to bus rich kids out of Scarsdale or poor kids into Scarsdale. I’ll take MCPS.

These town/village school districts occur because of the egregious history of racism and segregation in Long Island.

[Anonymous]

The district did a disservice by publishing these one-criteria options. No reason to get riled up over these. I think they already have survey data about which criteria is most valued - and that is proximity.

[Anonymous]

100% agree

Anonymous wrote:This whole thing is stupid. HS equity in a school system this large is not realistic. There’s a lot of socioeconomic disparity in spread apart parts of the county and artificially attempting to undo what has happened organically leads to long bus rides and kids not going to school with people who live right by them.

Brown v. Board of Ed was over 70 years ago. While a righteous goal, you can’t gerrymander your way out of racial, religious, and economic realities of neighborhoods people choose to live based on their economic means and free will choices of people they want to live by. This is a reality of capitalism and a diverse country.

I’m all for recognizing systemic disparities in our country and disagree with SCOTUS ending affirmative action. Invest in resources, give opportunities, etc. But there’s limits to what you can do to public schools based on geography. It results in absurdities and when stuff like this gets taken too far, helps get people like Trump elected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is literally the same debate that occurred a few years ago.

I suspect they put these out there to distract from all the other nonsense going on. It was insane the amount they spent on this when they scream underfunding.

$1.3 million is not a lot of money for something like this, either absolutely or relatively. It’s a mere three one hundredths of 1% of the annual MCPS budget.

Honestly, they should have spent more to get better results. People like to demonize FLO, but things like this take time (which means people who cost money) and resources (more money!).

(And no I don’t work for FLO, my company would have charged more!)

It actually is when they cut an autism program,
MVA, and auto trade program, each of which was a few million and they claimed they could not find the funds. Meanwhile a few hundred kids left due to the MVA closing and other kids are not getting their needs met in the fake new program.

I’m not familiar with those programs, but am sorry to lose them. But if they’re doing these boundary studies once every 5 years, that’s ~$250k per year, which is almost nothing in the context of the budget and certainly not enough to justify cutting important programs.

Broader mismanagement is the culprit if they’re cutting small programs like that.

Not saying there isn't mismanagement, decisions with financial impact that we might question or items the community has decided to pursue that are over and above the basics (e.g., architecture for some projects that was more than utilitarian/meant to provide space for more than the MSDE minimum standard -- not that these were necessarily bad choices), but I think many look at superficial stats like changes to cost per pupil over 10 years or compare cost per pupil to other school districts when cost drivers are significantly different.

Capital improvements had not kept up with facility needs. That has meant a lower budget in the past, but ever-increasing need associated with the backlog, and bills are coming due. Meanwhile, there are additional year-to-year operational costs associated with the facility deficit. Not as big a hit in any year as would be the case with a capital project, but it's kind of like the national debt, where borrowing costs baloon, and just like those borrowing costs meeting with higher interest rates now than while the majority of the debt was initially building, the balooning is fed by inflation in both services (repairs/short-term fixes in operations) and construction cost (delayed capital projects coming in with price tags much more expensive).

As MCPS has experienced significant increases in its EML and FARMS populations, the associated differential educational needs have increased the overall average cost per pupil. Increased diagnoses associated with more prevalent IEPs and 504 plans likewise have contributed to the increase in MCPS operational budget. There is little of that cost that can be managed away (besides negligence).

I recently looked at the budget of Locust Valley, a town-based school district on Long Island. One HS with feeders. Median household income similar to MoCo (the school district encompasses more than the small town of Lovust Valley). Good educational outcomes, with proficiency scores well above NY state averages. Around 22% economically disadvantaged, 20% with some identified disability/5% with a 504 plan, under 5% EML. 2024-25 budget of $96M with property tax accounting for over 91% of that.

1827 students. Total. Well over $50k per student.

I'm sure Locust Valley had its own idiosyncrasies. It can't represent an average US school district, and this is only one data point. I only stumbled upon it when looking at something else about that area a couple of weeks back. But MCPS/DCUM want to be well above average, and it struck me that the notion that high-performing smaller school districts do more with less just may not be true.

Most school districts in New York are, as you said, town or village based and don’t offer all the special Ed that MCPS does. As a result, they have to pay for private accommodation of those students under federal and likely New York State law. That combined with a small population is why you are seeing the $50k per student.

It’s not really efficient, but they’ll never change. Our Whitman is their Scarsdale. No one is ever going to bus rich kids out of Scarsdale or poor kids into Scarsdale. I’ll take MCPS.

Mcps pays for a lot of private placements too

[Anonymous]

If unaccompanied minors have dropped then maybe enrollment projects at some high schools are now incorrect?

This is all that is available:

https://www.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/9U98JD6CEC64/$file/Unaccompanied%20Youth.pdf