Boundary study (2025 )

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reshape the entire boundary of Wheaton completely. It is so messed up compared to the other DCC high schools (if you think about Einstein too).

You can't reshape any school's boundary in isolation in the DCC. Part of the problem is that Blair is the only school serving the entire SE portion of the county, and it's nowhere near the area it serves.

You can't reshape any school's boundary in isolation anywhere. That's how boundaries work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ at least it saves some $$.

The article did not say that.

If they aren't going to hire a sub to do it, and instead will use internal staff (presumably existing staff), then it should save money.

The articles from December said they paid the contractors over a million dollars

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ at least it saves some $$.

The article did not say that.

If they aren't going to hire a sub to do it, and instead will use internal staff (presumably existing staff), then it should save money.

The articles from December said they paid the contractors over a million dollars

That would've been for worked already performed, no? Otherwise, how stupid. I know, I know.. it's mcps.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reshape the entire boundary of Wheaton completely. It is so messed up compared to the other DCC high schools (if you think about Einstein too).

Einstein is all over the place.

They're all a bit all over the place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ at least it saves some $$.

The article did not say that.

If they aren't going to hire a sub to do it, and instead will use internal staff (presumably existing staff), then it should save money.

The articles from December said they paid the contractors over a million dollars

That would've been for worked already performed, no? Otherwise, how stupid. I know, I know.. it's mcps.

Did you READ the article? Cram would not say any money was being saved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reshape the entire boundary of Wheaton completely. It is so messed up compared to the other DCC high schools (if you think about Einstein too).

Einstein is all over the place.

They're all a bit all over the place.

Ripe for the carving.

[Anonymous]

If a child in the DCC gets redistricted to Woodward, are they no longer eligible to participate in the DCC for high school? They are only able to go to Woodward?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If a child in the DCC gets redistricted to Woodward, are they no longer eligible to participate in the DCC for high school? They are only able to go to Woodward?

One of many unknowns.

[Anonymous]

I think many people, including myself at first, are confused about this contract change. There were 2 companies invoked for the $1.3 million. Flo Analytics to do the boundary study and they sub-contracted with Bloom to execute the community engagement piece. MCPS is only taking over the community engagement piece. So theoretically, the cost of the contract with Flo should decrease because they no longer need to rely on a sub-contractor.

All of this feels shady to me. Why the sudden change? Can we not trust MCPS to follow contracts they sign with other companies? Is there something questionable about Bloom? This just breeds more distrust of MCPS. If they said from get go that they would pay Flo for the boundary study but conduct community engagement themselves I would feel differently. No matter who is conducting community engagement, I want to know how they are communicating with Flo Analytics and if what the community says even matters. I feel like MCPS wants to just update the community on the progress of the boundary study at these sessions without using community feedback to inform the boundaries. This is completely in their purview to do, but they should communicate this from the start

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think many people, including myself at first, are confused about this contract change. There were 2 companies invoked for the $1.3 million. Flo Analytics to do the boundary study and they sub-contracted with Bloom to execute the community engagement piece. MCPS is only taking over the community engagement piece. So theoretically, the cost of the contract with Flo should decrease because they no longer need to rely on a sub-contractor.

All of this feels shady to me. Why the sudden change? Can we not trust MCPS to follow contracts they sign with other companies? Is there something questionable about Bloom? This just breeds more distrust of MCPS. If they said from get go that they would pay Flo for the boundary study but conduct community engagement themselves I would feel differently. No matter who is conducting community engagement, I want to know how they are communicating with Flo Analytics and if what the community says even matters. I feel like MCPS wants to just update the community on the progress of the boundary study at these sessions without using community feedback to inform the boundaries. This is completely in their purview to do, but they should communicate this from the start

You have too many expectations for honesty, transparency and competence from MCPS. They will never deliver in those ways for you. But you're asking the right questions.

[Anonymous]

The slides from the recent meetings have been posted:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RKt1hTXBRSWNaRu79Arrd6Qwl8rNTo2v/view?usp=sharing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

SOURCE: https://bethesdamagazine.com/2025/04/15/mcps-takes-over-leadership-boundary-study/

Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) is shifting the leadership of its community engagement efforts for its upcoming boundary study from a subcontractor to district staff, according to a Thursday presentation to the county school board.

The discussion of a shift in leadership came during the presentation, which detailed the school district’s community engagement plans as it embarks on producing a study that will impact almost all public high schools across the county.

“This decision is aimed at ensuring a more comprehensive and meaningful engagement experience for everyone involved in this process,” MCPS Chief Operations Officer Adnan Mamoon told the board. “To do this, our staff will follow a series of goals voiced by our community and importantly, by the Board of Education.”

Those goals include ensuring that engagement is culturally responsive regardless of the language that community members speak and that all communication occurs frequently and is clear, timely and translated into the required languages.

Following Thursday’s presentation, board Vice President Grace Rivera-Oven noted the issue is “not a sexy topic for a lot of people. We just want to make sure we don’t miss any opportunities” to communicate.

The Montgomery County school board approved a $1.3 million contract in December to hire FLO Analytics, an “employee-owned consulting” company with offices in Oregon, Washington and Massachusetts to conduct a school boundary study. The school board must adopt new boundaries by March 2026 since new schools that will be impacted by the revised boundaries are scheduled to open in August 2027. Bloom Planning was hired as a subcontractor to focus on community engagement as part of the study.

MCPS spokesperson Chris Cram said Wednesday that the first few community engagement sessions were managed by FLO Analytics, and that was a “small hand off” from Bloom because the first community survey was managed by the subcontractor. Cram didn’t answer whether the change will impact the cost of the contract.

Not that I'm defending the poor job Bloom/FLO might have done, by why on earth does Taylor think CO will do a better job at community engagement when their track record is just as bad, if not worse as the contractor's?

+1000 especially given the large scope of the boundary study. One meeting/outing should mean that Bloom
and MCPs came together to make a better plan based on data and impressions received.

I’m going to need a more comprehensive explanation for why they are changing. MCPS is supposed to be focusing on the Program Study community engagement which frankly they haven’t been doing a great job communicating about to the community. Folks don’t even realize it’s not the same thing as the boundary study.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The slides from the recent meetings have been posted:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RKt1hTXBRSWNaRu79Arrd6Qwl8rNTo2v/view?usp=sharing

I'm glad it says the boundary option maps will include indications of the schools' walk zones. That has often been challenging to determine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reshape the entire boundary of Wheaton completely. It is so messed up compared to the other DCC high schools (if you think about Einstein too).

You can't reshape any school's boundary in isolation in the DCC. Part of the problem is that Blair is the only school serving the entire SE portion of the county, and it's nowhere near the area it serves.

It used to be on Wayne but none of the holding schools could support it when they needed renovations. That said there are lots of examples of the edge of a boundary not being horribly close to the school. Blair is no different, Which Park would TP like to give up to build a new school closer?

There are Adventist properties, etc., some of which had been considered and dismissed before they went with reopening Woodward. MCPS & MoCo don't want to pay for that which would be needed --at least not when considering facilities for certain communities.

For a long time, the problem has been Montgomery Planning's willingness to stick it to the southeast of the county -- at the behest of the County Council. MoCo should, at the very least, be reinstating moratoria on housing in areas with overcrowded schools. Instead, Andrew Friedson, Natalie Fani-Gonzalez & Co. are pushing AHS/More Housing N.O.W./etc. without such guardrails, and, absent those, any boundary changes MCPS makes are likely to be far less effective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reshape the entire boundary of Wheaton completely. It is so messed up compared to the other DCC high schools (if you think about Einstein too).

You can't reshape any school's boundary in isolation in the DCC. Part of the problem is that Blair is the only school serving the entire SE portion of the county, and it's nowhere near the area it serves.

It used to be on Wayne but none of the holding schools could support it when they needed renovations. That said there are lots of examples of the edge of a boundary not being horribly close to the school. Blair is no different, Which Park would TP like to give up to build a new school closer?

There are Adventist properties, etc., some of which had been considered and dismissed before they went with reopening Woodward. MCPS & MoCo don't want to pay for that which would be needed --at least not when considering facilities for certain communities.

For a long time, the problem has been Montgomery Planning's willingness to stick it to the southeast of the county -- at the behest of the County Council. MoCo should, at the very least, be reinstating moratoria on housing in areas with overcrowded schools. Instead, Andrew Friedson, Natalie Fani-Gonzalez & Co. are pushing AHS/More Housing N.O.W./etc. without such guardrails, and, absent those, any boundary changes MCPS makes are likely to be far less effective.

The county doesn’t own the Adventist property like they do parks and libraries.