What middle schools are Taylor likely to close?

[Anonymous]

What happens when neighborhoods inevitably turn over and MCPS needs more capacity again? Portables?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What happens when neighborhoods inevitably turn over and MCPS needs more capacity again? Portables?

Then they can reopen old schools, like they did with Woodward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What happens when neighborhoods inevitably turn over and MCPS needs more capacity again? Portables?

Our ES still has portables where my child does specials but the CIP claims it is 100 students under capacity

[Anonymous]

MCPS is a joke. OSMS was underenrolled when they were rebuilding, so MCPS just decided to stop construction/completion of a bunch of rooms on the third floor that now just sit there, not finished so teachers are floating instead of having their own rooms bc the numbers did go back up. Starting projects you don't finish is just so wasteful. The obviously need to finish the rooms but I'm sure with the budget cuts, it'll be last on the list because the rest of the building is brand new. Finish projects when you have the funds, don't wait until MCPS is broke and you can't fix it.

[Anonymous]

“ Ridgeview and SSIMS are great examples of Taylor creating the conditions himself to justify future closures”

+100

Both of these “imbalance” situations of having schools projected at <60% only created in the very last “modified option H”
And “modified option B” with 2 weeks notice to anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“ Ridgeview and SSIMS are great examples of Taylor creating the conditions himself to justify future closures”

+100

Both of these “imbalance” situations of having schools projected at <60% only created in the very last “modified option H”
And “modified option B” with 2 weeks notice to anyone.

Eh, I think it's less about using the under-enrollment to justify closing schools (there's absolutely zero reason a school needa to be under-enrolled to be selected for closure, and I bet there will be some on the closure list that are not under-enrolled), and more about them already knowing which schools they want to close and planning ahead to make the transition smoother by having fewer students and staff who will have to transition.

[Anonymous]

“ Eh, I think it's less about using the under-enrollment to justify closing schools (there's absolutely zero reason a school needa to be under-enrolled to be selected for closure, and I bet there will be some on the closure list that are not under-enrolled), and more about them already knowing which schools they want to close and planning ahead to make the transition smoother by having fewer students and staff who will have to transition.”

Taylor created the situation still. It’s not “fewer students” - he’d just be doing it in one “boundary study” in 2026, and another in 2027. So actually it’s still just as many that has to transition.
Perhaps you’re right that other factors are in play - there’s no way to know until this fall it seems.
“Knowing which schools they are going to close” - if that’s the case for 2026 Boundary story, then it would seem even MCPS policy requires notice to those communities, that MCPS was actually not doing boundary studies, but picking Middle Schools for consolidation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What happens when neighborhoods inevitably turn over and MCPS needs more capacity again? Portables?

Then they can reopen old schools, like they did with Woodward.

The problem with MCPS is that it's always reactionary. They wait until the schools are way overcrowded (sometimes dangerously so) before even starting the process to build or reopen a school. And it depends on them actually holding on to the property. I'm not saying that no MSs should be closed but they have a poor track record of adapting to cyclic trends in enrollment and I wouldn't expect anything different this time around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ Ridgeview and SSIMS are great examples of Taylor creating the conditions himself to justify future closures”

+100

Both of these “imbalance” situations of having schools projected at <60% only created in the very last “modified option H”
And “modified option B” with 2 weeks notice to anyone.

Eh, I think it's less about using the under-enrollment to justify closing schools (there's absolutely zero reason a school needa to be under-enrolled to be selected for closure, and I bet there will be some on the closure list that are not under-enrolled), and more about them already knowing which schools they want to close and planning ahead to make the transition smoother by having fewer students and staff who will have to transition.

Umm if that’s the case, there’s about to be a lot more closure lawsuits, in addition to Wootton’s. What you just said is essentially Taylor knew already in 2026 which schools he would close and starting implementation of planning ahead for said closures without following any closure regulations. I hope he’s not that dumb but I guess discovery will show…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ Ridgeview and SSIMS are great examples of Taylor creating the conditions himself to justify future closures”

+100

Both of these “imbalance” situations of having schools projected at <60% only created in the very last “modified option H”
And “modified option B” with 2 weeks notice to anyone.

Eh, I think it's less about using the under-enrollment to justify closing schools (there's absolutely zero reason a school needa to be under-enrolled to be selected for closure, and I bet there will be some on the closure list that are not under-enrolled), and more about them already knowing which schools they want to close and planning ahead to make the transition smoother by having fewer students and staff who will have to transition.

Umm if that’s the case, there’s about to be a lot more closure lawsuits, in addition to Wootton’s. What you just said is essentially Taylor knew already in 2026 which schools he would close and starting implementation of planning ahead for said closures without following any closure regulations. I hope he’s not that dumb but I guess discovery will show…

How is it inviting a lawsuit to know which schools they want to close? It's not illegal for Central Office to want things. There's a process for them to go through and I'm sure they will, and the final decisions are up to the Board, but there's no rule that says they must be totally neutral on which schools they're leaning towards until they get further into the process...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What happens when neighborhoods inevitably turn over and MCPS needs more capacity again? Portables?

Then they can reopen old schools, like they did with Woodward.

The problem with MCPS is that it's always reactionary. They wait until the schools are way overcrowded (sometimes dangerously so) before even starting the process to build or reopen a school. And it depends on them actually holding on to the property. I'm not saying that no MSs should be closed but they have a poor track record of adapting to cyclic trends in enrollment and I wouldn't expect anything different this time around.

I wanna read the leases all these private schools have on buildings owned by MCPS. Seems like we could increase rent to offset our own budget shortfalls and work toward getting the buildings back for MCPS to use.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What happens when neighborhoods inevitably turn over and MCPS needs more capacity again? Portables?

Then they can reopen old schools, like they did with Woodward.

The problem with MCPS is that it's always reactionary. They wait until the schools are way overcrowded (sometimes dangerously so) before even starting the process to build or reopen a school. And it depends on them actually holding on to the property. I'm not saying that no MSs should be closed but they have a poor track record of adapting to cyclic trends in enrollment and I wouldn't expect anything different this time around.

I wanna read the leases all these private schools have on buildings owned by MCPS. Seems like we could increase rent to offset our own budget shortfalls and work toward getting the buildings back for MCPS to use.

Yes, what are the terms of the Waldorf School, housed on the Parkside Elementary School site. According to Taylor, Scigo Creek Elementary School is supposed to coexist of the same property when Sligo Creek ES leaves the old Blair building. It is bad enough that they hacked the old Blair in half to make two schools - why are they going to do the same thing to Sligo Creek ES again?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ Ridgeview and SSIMS are great examples of Taylor creating the conditions himself to justify future closures”

+100

Both of these “imbalance” situations of having schools projected at <60% only created in the very last “modified option H”
And “modified option B” with 2 weeks notice to anyone.

Eh, I think it's less about using the under-enrollment to justify closing schools (there's absolutely zero reason a school needa to be under-enrolled to be selected for closure, and I bet there will be some on the closure list that are not under-enrolled), and more about them already knowing which schools they want to close and planning ahead to make the transition smoother by having fewer students and staff who will have to transition.

Umm if that’s the case, there’s about to be a lot more closure lawsuits, in addition to Wootton’s. What you just said is essentially Taylor knew already in 2026 which schools he would close and starting implementation of planning ahead for said closures without following any closure regulations. I hope he’s not that dumb but I guess discovery will show…

How is it inviting a lawsuit to know which schools they want to close? It's not illegal for Central Office to want things. There's a process for them to go through and I'm sure they will, and the final decisions are up to the Board, but there's no rule that says they must be totally neutral on which schools they're leaning towards until they get further into the process...

Because if this were the case, then that means the decision on which schools to close was predetermined, public engagement & impact analysis etc. be damned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ Ridgeview and SSIMS are great examples of Taylor creating the conditions himself to justify future closures”

+100

Both of these “imbalance” situations of having schools projected at <60% only created in the very last “modified option H”
And “modified option B” with 2 weeks notice to anyone.

Eh, I think it's less about using the under-enrollment to justify closing schools (there's absolutely zero reason a school needa to be under-enrolled to be selected for closure, and I bet there will be some on the closure list that are not under-enrolled), and more about them already knowing which schools they want to close and planning ahead to make the transition smoother by having fewer students and staff who will have to transition.

Umm if that’s the case, there’s about to be a lot more closure lawsuits, in addition to Wootton’s. What you just said is essentially Taylor knew already in 2026 which schools he would close and starting implementation of planning ahead for said closures without following any closure regulations. I hope he’s not that dumb but I guess discovery will show…

How is it inviting a lawsuit to know which schools they want to close? It's not illegal for Central Office to want things. There's a process for them to go through and I'm sure they will, and the final decisions are up to the Board, but there's no rule that says they must be totally neutral on which schools they're leaning towards until they get further into the process...

Because if this were the case, then that means the decision on which schools to close was predetermined, public engagement & impact analysis etc. be damned.

Huh? What does that even mean? They're not required to come into the process without any opinions or preferences. They just need to go through all the proper steps of the process before making closures official. You have a very odd perspective on this...

[Anonymous]

Bad news for you — MCPS decision making is not a democracy. Thomas Taylor and the BofE can take as much or little as they want from the testimony of the public. Seems like every once in a while something in public comment that resonates with them but most of the time they do what they want. I think people have unrealistic expectations of what should be the involvement of the public. These people are hired, or voted on, by US, to do a job so let them do it.