What middle schools are Taylor likely to close?

[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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

That job includes having community input as a feedback mechanism.

Best practice also suggests a robust approach to that as a means of

-- touching ground regarding the interests of the constituencies served,

-- of soliciting ideas that might not have been considered due to group-think, and

-- of better ensuring buy-in, which results in benefits when plans are put into action.

[Anonymous]

“ 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… 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.”

The issue is MCPS analysis and persuasive explanation of their plans are lacking. Just stating they made a decision is not good enough. Then to compound the issue, they don’t take any public comment or logic into consideration. Citizens being silent and letting MCPS “do their job” and sink our entire county is not acceptable as their decision-making is suspect and involves complicated issues where mistakes are costly. I would like to think taxpaying citizens in the county have a duty to scrutinize and criticize proposals as it involves our children’s education and substantial public funds. I would like to think we are against MCPS “doing their job” in a way that hides/obscures data, lacks detailed analysis for their recommendations or to alternatives and/or financial impacts, and discounts all public opinions and arguments, and then just moves forward anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“ 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… 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.”

The issue is MCPS analysis and persuasive explanation of their plans are lacking. Just stating they made a decision is not good enough. Then to compound the issue, they don’t take any public comment or logic into consideration. Citizens being silent and letting MCPS “do their job” and sink our entire county is not acceptable as their decision-making is suspect and involves complicated issues where mistakes are costly. I would like to think taxpaying citizens in the county have a duty to scrutinize and criticize proposals as it involves our children’s education and substantial public funds. I would like to think we are against MCPS “doing their job” in a way that hides/obscures data, lacks detailed analysis for their recommendations or to alternatives and/or financial impacts, and discounts all public opinions and arguments, and then just moves forward anyway.

What does it mean that they don't take public comment into consideration? It seems clear that they have--take, as recent examples, the open lunch issue or resolution to do tech audits-two topics that many of us have been testifying and talking about this year.
As for hiding/obscuring data, that is a significant accusation. I suggest seeking the evidence you seek via FOIA if you believe there are nefarious things happening behind closed doors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

They do what they want? No, Taylor does what HE wants. The board is basically powerless. We need the state to empower local BOEs so that when you have a Trump-like superintendent such as we have with Taylor, the BOE can exercise real authority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ 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… 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.”

The issue is MCPS analysis and persuasive explanation of their plans are lacking. Just stating they made a decision is not good enough. Then to compound the issue, they don’t take any public comment or logic into consideration. Citizens being silent and letting MCPS “do their job” and sink our entire county is not acceptable as their decision-making is suspect and involves complicated issues where mistakes are costly. I would like to think taxpaying citizens in the county have a duty to scrutinize and criticize proposals as it involves our children’s education and substantial public funds. I would like to think we are against MCPS “doing their job” in a way that hides/obscures data, lacks detailed analysis for their recommendations or to alternatives and/or financial impacts, and discounts all public opinions and arguments, and then just moves forward anyway.

What does it mean that they don't take public comment into consideration? It seems clear that they have--take, as recent examples, the open lunch issue or resolution to do tech audits-two topics that many of us have been testifying and talking about this year.
As for hiding/obscuring data, that is a significant accusation. I suggest seeking the evidence you seek via FOIA if you believe there are nefarious things happening behind closed doors.

MPIA* not FOIA since mcps is not a federal office last I checked