What does tabling the SSIMS closure mean for the boundary options?

[Anonymous]

I don’t really think you understand what the advocacy is about. It’s that two larger middle schools are much worse for academic outcomes than three smaller ones (regardless of who attends). It’s that it would be terrible for downtown SS to have two holding schools in the heart of a transit-rich, pedestrian area potentially for decades. It’s that the neighborhood can’t handle all the bus traffic of bussing neighborhood kids out and kids from other areas in to use the holding schools. It’s that Taylor is lying about the lack of safety of the purple line (it will be very safe). It’s that there has been no discussion of what will happen to immersion programs.

Where in any of these arguments are parents saying they only want current SSIMS students to go to SSIMS? That’s a boundary study debate, not a whether to close SSIMS debate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t really think you understand what the advocacy is about. It’s that two larger middle schools are much worse for academic outcomes than three smaller ones (regardless of who attends). It’s that it would be terrible for downtown SS to have two holding schools in the heart of a transit-rich, pedestrian area potentially for decades. It’s that the neighborhood can’t handle all the bus traffic of bussing neighborhood kids out and kids from other areas in to use the holding schools. It’s that Taylor is lying about the lack of safety of the purple line (it will be very safe). It’s that there has been no discussion of what will happen to immersion programs.

Where in any of these arguments are parents saying they only want current SSIMS students to go to SSIMS? That’s a boundary study debate, not a whether to close SSIMS debate.

But what’s wrong with keeping the boundaries the same until the decision is made, one way or the other? Table the boundary decision along with the closure decision. That can’t be done for HS, so decouple them.

Can you not imagine how much it would suck for a current 3-5 grader to be told their middle school will be different, only to be told months or a year later that actually that school is closing?

[Anonymous]

I’m fine with that, but I just think that’s a different discussion than whether to close SSIMS. And I blame Taylor for not being more clear with the new boundary options (E-G) in terms of explaining what happens in years 27-30. It’s not SSIMS parents fault that this is unclear. And it’s also unfair to blame them for advocating to keep their school open bc MCPS is rushing and not explaining how this will work.

[Anonymous]

You can say they’re separate decisions, but right now the only options that don’t close SSIMS also involve huge shuffling of students to and away from that school. Everyone from the 4 MSs affected should advocate for that to be changed.

[Anonymous]

It’s actually the options that keep SSIMS open (A-D) that dont shuffle kids back and forth. It’s the new options that close SSIMS (E-G) that involve the shuffling because the changes take effect in 2027 and the school is not proposed to close until 2030. So all this shuffling is directly related to Taylor’s rushed proposal and lack of communication. This whole proposal has created a mess and it’s very confusing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m fine with that, but I just think that’s a different discussion than whether to close SSIMS. And I blame Taylor for not being more clear with the new boundary options (E-G) in terms of explaining what happens in years 27-30. It’s not SSIMS parents fault that this is unclear. And it’s also unfair to blame them for advocating to keep their school open bc MCPS is rushing and not explaining how this will work.

They are separate decisions, but it is 100000% the obligation of families who advocated to keep SSIMS open, to also advocate for current SSIMS neighborhoods to stay at SSIMS. It is absolutely unacceptable for them to say "no, we want to keep this old falling-apart school because it's important to our community" and then step back and allow new families who do not want that school to be the ones to be sent there and deal with all the problems that SSIMS families claimed they were willing to deal with in order to "save our school."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s actually the options that keep SSIMS open (A-D) that dont shuffle kids back and forth. It’s the new options that close SSIMS (E-G) that involve the shuffling because the changes take effect in 2027 and the school is not proposed to close until 2030. So all this shuffling is directly related to Taylor’s rushed proposal and lack of communication. This whole proposal has created a mess and it’s very confusing.

Totally and completely false. Options A-D radically change the SSIMS and Sligo boundaries (and probably other schools too.). Options E-G kept them close to as-is for 2027-2030 and kept Sligo very similar far beyond that.

[Anonymous]

What if SSIMS was made into a 500-600 student school just for the ESs closest to it? Rolling Terrace could be moved to Takoma and Forest Knolls to Sligo? Then it would be a lot easier to do renovations if the building isn’t 100% occupied?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know: when WILL the decision be made? The resolution tabled it until… when?

Regardless, unless the decision is made NOT to close SSIMS —soon— I think changing the boundaries is super unfair to families. Imagine they decide in 2026 or early 2027 to close SSIMS but they already committed to Option B.

It tabled the decision until the future elementary school boundary study is conducted. And that study is still TBD because the board hasn't officially approved its timeline yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s actually the options that keep SSIMS open (A-D) that dont shuffle kids back and forth. It’s the new options that close SSIMS (E-G) that involve the shuffling because the changes take effect in 2027 and the school is not proposed to close until 2030. So all this shuffling is directly related to Taylor’s rushed proposal and lack of communication. This whole proposal has created a mess and it’s very confusing.

Totally and completely false. Options A-D radically change the SSIMS and Sligo boundaries (and probably other schools too.). Options E-G kept them close to as-is for 2027-2030 and kept Sligo very similar far beyond that.

What I meant is options A-D don’t involve shuffling because SSIMS stays open in those scenarios. I didn’t think options A-D are even considered if SSIMS closes. But maybe they are?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s actually the options that keep SSIMS open (A-D) that dont shuffle kids back and forth. It’s the new options that close SSIMS (E-G) that involve the shuffling because the changes take effect in 2027 and the school is not proposed to close until 2030. So all this shuffling is directly related to Taylor’s rushed proposal and lack of communication. This whole proposal has created a mess and it’s very confusing.

Totally and completely false. Options A-D radically change the SSIMS and Sligo boundaries (and probably other schools too.). Options E-G kept them close to as-is for 2027-2030 and kept Sligo very similar far beyond that.

What I meant is options A-D don’t involve shuffling because SSIMS stays open in those scenarios. I didn’t think options A-D are even considered if SSIMS closes. But maybe they are?

The boundary decisions will be made this spring and the SSIMS closure decision won't be made until 2027-- so they won't know if SSIMS closes when they make the boundary decisions.

Options E-G mostly keep kids at their current middle schools for 2027-2030, then move SSIMS kids mostly to Eastern. With a few tweaks they could be adapted to work more permanently if SSIMS actually does stay open.

A-D send a lot of current SSiMS kids away and a lot of new kids to SSIMS. Disruption number one that they get sent to a far-away, falling-apart school that their schools and neighborhoods are unfamiliar with. That would be bad enough on its own but then it is likely that by their first year there, the announcement will be made that SSIMS is closing, teachers bail, offerings wind down, and they end up being sent back to Sligo by the end of middle school anyway (or, actually, for some of them, "Sligo at SSIMS," so assigned t a whole new school but still stuck in the old SSIMS building as a holding school.)

[Anonymous]

Options E-G don’t have SSIMS at all. They show what would happen once SSIMS is closed in June 2030 but still go into effect in 2027. That is what is so confusing. They don’t explain what happens for those three years.

And these options were released before the board voted to delay the decision. Even if the expedited closure went through, SSIMS wasn’t going to close until June 2030 (at the earliest, that assumes the two massive renovations of eastern and Sligo could happen fast enough to absorb all the SSIMS kids).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Options E-G don’t have SSIMS at all. They show what would happen once SSIMS is closed in June 2030 but still go into effect in 2027. That is what is so confusing. They don’t explain what happens for those three years.

And these options were released before the board voted to delay the decision. Even if the expedited closure went through, SSIMS wasn’t going to close until June 2030 (at the earliest, that assumes the two massive renovations of eastern and Sligo could happen fast enough to absorb all the SSIMS kids).

All the effects tables for options E-G show exactly how many students each school has for each year including 2027-2030. They should have shown the 2027-2030 maps as well as the 2030+ maps, but from looking at the numbers it was fairly clearly implied that the current SSIMS kids would stay at SSIMS 2027-2030 in options E-G

[Anonymous]

DP but I was confused by this too, bc I was looking at the articulation charts which don’t have SSIMS. It’s like Mcps is trying to make all of this as confusing as humanly possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m fine with that, but I just think that’s a different discussion than whether to close SSIMS. And I blame Taylor for not being more clear with the new boundary options (E-G) in terms of explaining what happens in years 27-30. It’s not SSIMS parents fault that this is unclear. And it’s also unfair to blame them for advocating to keep their school open bc MCPS is rushing and not explaining how this will work.

They are separate decisions, but it is 100000% the obligation of families who advocated to keep SSIMS open, to also advocate for current SSIMS neighborhoods to stay at SSIMS. It is absolutely unacceptable for them to say "no, we want to keep this old falling-apart school because it's important to our community" and then step back and allow new families who do not want that school to be the ones to be sent there and deal with all the problems that SSIMS families claimed they were willing to deal with in order to "save our school."

That’s interesting. We’re a Sligo Creek family so we are the close-in people for whom these are neighborhood schools, and we’re not getting zoned elsewhere as long as it is open. I know Save Our SS Schools has had a lot of traction in the neighborhood. I have no idea though about families at Rolling Terrace, Forest Knolls…. to what extent they have weighed in on this one way or another.