Where will new Sligo Creek ES be?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think SCES’s FARMS rate is higher than 18% but still lower than ESS. But that is due, in part, the French immersion program (which serves students outside the catchment area) dragging down the average. The non-French classes at SCES have significantly more students that qualify for FARMS.

But another unanswered question is what happens to the French immersion program, especially at the middle school level with the dissolution of SSIMS. Nobody has answered this, or many other questions, yet.

They should just keep SCES where it is and keep SSIMS open. Their current plan makes no sense.

Agree, but the FARMS difference is pretty significant even without French immersion and I think this boundary is one of the ones most due for evaluation in a new study.

I suspect if SCES were moved further north, perhaps near the golf course, the population south of Wayne Ave could be absorbed into ESS. That school is high FARMS and also under enrolled.

All that said, I think DTSS should loudly protest repurposing the current SCES and SSIMS buildings.

[Anonymous]

It is very complex. And based on the way things have been going, I’m not sure they are going to adequately engage the communities that will be affected by changes. But hopefully I am wrong.

If they do add part of SCES to the ESS catchment area and try to keep kids together for MS/HS, it seems like adding everybody to Eastern (which is slated for rebuild) and Northwood (which is brand new) would make more sense from a utilization perspective than adding more kids to TPMS and Blair, which are already at or near capacity. I don’t necessarily agree that it’s right, but I could see MCPS trying to make that point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is very complex. And based on the way things have been going, I’m not sure they are going to adequately engage the communities that will be affected by changes. But hopefully I am wrong.

If they do add part of SCES to the ESS catchment area and try to keep kids together for MS/HS, it seems like adding everybody to Eastern (which is slated for rebuild) and Northwood (which is brand new) would make more sense from a utilization perspective than adding more kids to TPMS and Blair, which are already at or near capacity. I don’t necessarily agree that it’s right, but I could see MCPS trying to make that point.

But ESS is so walkable to TPMS! That would be a major loss to this community.

Related, ESS is one of the schools untouched by the first 4 options that is now in play for the second set.

[Anonymous]

There is a profound equity issue here, and I hope the folks in DTSS yell loud and clear.

Closing SSIMS disproportionately hurts poor/working class families by forcing them into enormous schools that are much further from home.

Building at Nolte removes one of the only walkable green spaces for kids living in nearby apartment complexes.

Using SCES/SSIMS as a holding school benefits rich west county families by giving them a lovely location while their own schools are renovated.

Taken together, this is an attack on poor/working class families, families of color, and families who choose or are forced to choose to live in an urban environment.

[Anonymous]

I don't like the idea of turning SSIMS into a holding school and then closing it, but they said they were doing it to renovate Eastern and Sligo Middle, which are not west county or rich.

But I agree that shutting down schools in a central dense area is a bad idea, and I think MCPS needs to provide a lot more information on what led them to come to the conclusion that this option was better than renovating or tearing down and rebuilding those schools in the same location.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't like the idea of turning SSIMS into a holding school and then closing it, but they said they were doing it to renovate Eastern and Sligo Middle, which are not west county or rich.

But I agree that shutting down schools in a central dense area is a bad idea, and I think MCPS needs to provide a lot more information on what led them to come to the conclusion that this option was better than renovating or tearing down and rebuilding those schools in the same location.

+1

It is an insult to this community to ignore renovations at this site for years and years and then do this and say it’s an investment in Silver Spring.

[Anonymous]

I agree that it’s an insult and can confirm that the DTSS community is trying to fight it. But it’s hard when we don’t have a mayor or board members or council members who support us, the way that the City of TP does.

For example, at last nights hearing, the TP mayor lauded the plan to shut down SCES/SSIMS to creat holding schools for Piney Branch (and others). That was pretty depressing. I’m sympathetic to wanting down county holding schools to avoid bussing kids 40 mins away, but dismantling diverse, urban, walkable schools that kids currently attend is the wrong way to go about this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't like the idea of turning SSIMS into a holding school and then closing it, but they said they were doing it to renovate Eastern and Sligo Middle, which are not west county or rich.

But I agree that shutting down schools in a central dense area is a bad idea, and I think MCPS needs to provide a lot more information on what led them to come to the conclusion that this option was better than renovating or tearing down and rebuilding those schools in the same location.

+1

It is an insult to this community to ignore renovations at this site for years and years and then do this and say it’s an investment in Silver Spring.

By "investment in Silver Spring," I think they meant the four CIP projects proposed for Sligo Creek, Highland View, Eastern, and Sligo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't like the idea of turning SSIMS into a holding school and then closing it, but they said they were doing it to renovate Eastern and Sligo Middle, which are not west county or rich.

But I agree that shutting down schools in a central dense area is a bad idea, and I think MCPS needs to provide a lot more information on what led them to come to the conclusion that this option was better than renovating or tearing down and rebuilding those schools in the same location.

+1

It is an insult to this community to ignore renovations at this site for years and years and then do this and say it’s an investment in Silver Spring.

By "investment in Silver Spring," I think they meant the four CIP projects proposed for Sligo Creek, Highland View, Eastern, and Sligo.

I understand that and I think it’s deceitful. It’s a net loss of one middle school for the region. Sligo and Eastern do not benefit from absorbing the SSIMS kids. Moreover, Sligo Creek families have sought renovation, not a new location.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree that it’s an insult and can confirm that the DTSS community is trying to fight it. But it’s hard when we don’t have a mayor or board members or council members who support us, the way that the City of TP does.

For example, at last nights hearing, the TP mayor lauded the plan to shut down SCES/SSIMS to creat holding schools for Piney Branch (and others). That was pretty depressing. I’m sympathetic to wanting down county holding schools to avoid bussing kids 40 mins away, but dismantling diverse, urban, walkable schools that kids currently attend is the wrong way to go about this.

Ugghh yes

Plus there’s so much going on right now, people don’t know what to focus on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree that it’s an insult and can confirm that the DTSS community is trying to fight it. But it’s hard when we don’t have a mayor or board members or council members who support us, the way that the City of TP does.

For example, at last nights hearing, the TP mayor lauded the plan to shut down SCES/SSIMS to creat holding schools for Piney Branch (and others). That was pretty depressing. I’m sympathetic to wanting down county holding schools to avoid bussing kids 40 mins away, but dismantling diverse, urban, walkable schools that kids currently attend is the wrong way to go about this.

What is the "right way" to go about this then? In order to create holding schools, somebody's school has to shut down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't like the idea of turning SSIMS into a holding school and then closing it, but they said they were doing it to renovate Eastern and Sligo Middle, which are not west county or rich.

But I agree that shutting down schools in a central dense area is a bad idea, and I think MCPS needs to provide a lot more information on what led them to come to the conclusion that this option was better than renovating or tearing down and rebuilding those schools in the same location.

+1

It is an insult to this community to ignore renovations at this site for years and years and then do this and say it’s an investment in Silver Spring.

By "investment in Silver Spring," I think they meant the four CIP projects proposed for Sligo Creek, Highland View, Eastern, and Sligo.

I understand that and I think it’s deceitful. It’s a net loss of one middle school for the region. Sligo and Eastern do not benefit from absorbing the SSIMS kids. Moreover, Sligo Creek families have sought renovation, not a new location.

No, but they do benefit from getting new or "renewed" buildings. Lots of other schools around the county are asking for that and aren't getting anything in this CIP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't like the idea of turning SSIMS into a holding school and then closing it, but they said they were doing it to renovate Eastern and Sligo Middle, which are not west county or rich.

But I agree that shutting down schools in a central dense area is a bad idea, and I think MCPS needs to provide a lot more information on what led them to come to the conclusion that this option was better than renovating or tearing down and rebuilding those schools in the same location.

+1

It is an insult to this community to ignore renovations at this site for years and years and then do this and say it’s an investment in Silver Spring.

By "investment in Silver Spring," I think they meant the four CIP projects proposed for Sligo Creek, Highland View, Eastern, and Sligo.

I understand that and I think it’s deceitful. It’s a net loss of one middle school for the region. Sligo and Eastern do not benefit from absorbing the SSIMS kids. Moreover, Sligo Creek families have sought renovation, not a new location.

No, but they do benefit from getting new or "renewed" buildings. Lots of other schools around the county are asking for that and aren't getting anything in this CIP.

Pros and cons, but on balance, I do not at all consider this a net investment in SS. Maybe you do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

What is the "right way" to go about this then? In order to create holding schools, somebody's school has to shut down.

Do the bare minimum to convert an existing unused MCPS property to a holding school? Buy commercial property to use as a holding school (although that might be prohibitively expensive)? If they did the minimum renovations for SCES and SSIMS rather than rebuilding SCES (which is not ideal but a sacrifice that many would likely be willing to make over losing SSIMS), plus took the 12 million currently allocated for Piney Branch’s pool/ fancy gym to invest in the holding school project, maybe the math would work out?

But none of us will ever know if these are viable alternatives, because this process has been completely opaque and MCPS won’t share any info about other options that were explored!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What is the "right way" to go about this then? In order to create holding schools, somebody's school has to shut down.

Do the bare minimum to convert an existing unused MCPS property to a holding school? Buy commercial property to use as a holding school (although that might be prohibitively expensive)? If they did the minimum renovations for SCES and SSIMS rather than rebuilding SCES (which is not ideal but a sacrifice that many would likely be willing to make over losing SSIMS), plus took the 12 million currently allocated for Piney Branch’s pool/ fancy gym to invest in the holding school project, maybe the math would work out?

But none of us will ever know if these are viable alternatives, because this process has been completely opaque and MCPS won’t share any info about other options that were explored!

I agree with you that MCPS needs to show the math and logic on how it came to its decision, but at the end of the day, the way to create holding schools is to close down schools. So that scenario has to be on the table.

There aren't any suitable existing MCPS buildings that would work as a secondary holding school btw.