What elementary schools will Taylor be closing?

[Anonymous]

It definitely seems like the future ES study will result in some ES closures and consolidations. I think MCPS said as much recently about the trend to maximize efficiencies by consolidation. Makes $ sense especially for small schools with underutilization. If there are a number of schools that are empty, I wonder what options exist for alternative uses that benefit the public.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dufief. It’s 1/2 empty and 1/2 of that 1/2 is bussed in for special education.

it’s not half empty - it’s utilization is 70+% or so. An only maybe a 1/3 is special education - I even believe it’s utilization is higher than Travilah

So without the special education population, its utilization would be is around 46%. Stellar. Send those kids to Travillah and make Dufief a halfway house for those with alcohol and drug addiction.

Dufief would be an easy closure—they’re 250 kids could just be divided to Stone Mill and Travilah without any disruption to MS or HS assignment.

Fields Road is slightly over capacity. My take is part of Fields Road (probably Washingtonian Woods) will be rezoned to DuFief, freeing up space for the Downtown Crown neighborhood to be rezoned from Rosemont to Fields Road.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's all speculation at this point. I would look for areas where there are several elementary schools near each other with low-ish enrollment, and at least one of them is in poor shape physically and would otherwise need renovations.

That screams Cold Spring. At least one in the Silver Spring area. I'd expect maybe another in Potomac. But I suspect just like in the 1980s closures will be accompanied by additions, reopenings, and new construction in areas of high density growth. I just hope this time they keep better control of the unused buildings.

100%

[Anonymous]

Won’t there be MS closures first? Look how many are i the low 50 and 60% utilization rates with the new boundaries!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Won’t there be MS closures first? Look how many are i the low 50 and 60% utilization rates with the new boundaries!

This isn’t about utilization. It’s about handing land over to developers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It definitely seems like the future ES study will result in some ES closures and consolidations. I think MCPS said as much recently about the trend to maximize efficiencies by consolidation. Makes $ sense especially for small schools with underutilization. If there are a number of schools that are empty, I wonder what options exist for alternative uses that benefit the public.

Yes. Like actually self contained social education programs so those students have a better environment and dedicated teams.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Won’t there be MS closures first? Look how many are i the low 50 and 60% utilization rates with the new boundaries!

This isn’t about utilization. It’s about handing land over to developers.

Nope.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It definitely seems like the future ES study will result in some ES closures and consolidations. I think MCPS said as much recently about the trend to maximize efficiencies by consolidation. Makes $ sense especially for small schools with underutilization. If there are a number of schools that are empty, I wonder what options exist for alternative uses that benefit the public.

Yes. Like actually self contained social education programs so those students have a better environment and dedicated teams.

More likely additional early childhood centers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Won’t there be MS closures first? Look how many are i the low 50 and 60% utilization rates with the new boundaries!

This isn’t about utilization. It’s about handing land over to developers.

Nope.

Sorry that is the goal. And elementary schools nestled in neighborhoods offer more valuable land. Taylor already has a list of elementary schools he is closing. It’s a done deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Won’t there be MS closures first? Look how many are i the low 50 and 60% utilization rates with the new boundaries!

This isn’t about utilization. It’s about handing land over to developers.

Nope.

Sorry that is the goal. And elementary schools nestled in neighborhoods offer more valuable land. Taylor already has a list of elementary schools he is closing. It’s a done deal.

Maybe so, but MCPS can't sell school property to developers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's all speculation at this point. I would look for areas where there are several elementary schools near each other with low-ish enrollment, and at least one of them is in poor shape physically and would otherwise need renovations.

That screams Cold Spring. At least one in the Silver Spring area. I'd expect maybe another in Potomac. But I suspect just like in the 1980s closures will be accompanied by additions, reopenings, and new construction in areas of high density growth. I just hope this time they keep better control of the unused buildings.

Where in Silver Spring? There are several upper and lower elementary schools that are paired in Silver Spring and Takoma Park but I don't know that the acreage exists to combine paired schools, unless you rebuild anew on park land. This would be highly unpopular.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Won’t there be MS closures first? Look how many are i the low 50 and 60% utilization rates with the new boundaries!

This isn’t about utilization. It’s about handing land over to developers.

Nope.

Sorry that is the goal. And elementary schools nestled in neighborhoods offer more valuable land. Taylor already has a list of elementary schools he is closing. It’s a done deal.

Maybe so, but MCPS can't sell school property to developers.

They hand it over to the Council and let them sell the land. It’s been done that way forever. Which means, someone on the Council has a developer buddy that wants school land for development. Taylor is following orders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Won’t there be MS closures first? Look how many are i the low 50 and 60% utilization rates with the new boundaries!

This isn’t about utilization. It’s about handing land over to developers.

Nope.

Sorry that is the goal. And elementary schools nestled in neighborhoods offer more valuable land. Taylor already has a list of elementary schools he is closing. It’s a done deal.

Maybe so, but MCPS can't sell school property to developers.

They hand it over to the Council and let them sell the land. It’s been done that way forever. Which means, someone on the Council has a developer buddy that wants school land for development. Taylor is following orders.

Taylor doesn't follow orders. He gives orders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dufief. It’s 1/2 empty and 1/2 of that 1/2 is bussed in for special education.

it’s not half empty - it’s utilization is 70+% or so. An only maybe a 1/3 is special education - I even believe it’s utilization is higher than Travilah

So without the special education population, its utilization would be is around 46%. Stellar. Send those kids to Travillah and make Dufief a halfway house for those with alcohol and drug addiction.

Dufief would be an easy closure—they’re 250 kids could just be divided to Stone Mill and Travilah without any disruption to MS or HS assignment.

The Dufief sanctimommies will not have that!! They will make signs and shirts and super duper “cute” videos and baseball caps and socks and tattoo their foreheads and their kids’ foreheads and their unborn childrens’ placentas! They WILL be heard.

[Anonymous]

They said they would be looking at paired elementary schools, so I'm curious if they will be considering eliminating that model and just having K-5 schools.