Reply to MCPS Redisricting - offshoot from open enrollment/busing thread

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

Reply to "MCPS Redisricting - offshoot from open enrollment/busing thread"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]But this is precisely the problem. Granted, if there is flooding issues or mold or things are collapsing, then OK. But to not consider capacity is ridiculous. And it's not like the overcrowded schools are in shiny new buildings. Some merely had additions put on them that did little to ease the overcrowding. But because it was done "recently" that means they go to the back of the line? Ultimately, the decision should be based on how is the environment affecting the quality of learning. IMHO, overcrowding affects learning more negatively than a building that's a little long in the tooth, so to speak. [/quote]
The line is not based on original age or recency of the last expansion/modernization.  That's why Seneca Valley can be 20 years newer than Poolesville and get a higher priority FACT score.  Again, I highly recommend reading the links, as they explain exactly how the decisions are made.[/quote]

I did read and it sounds nice in theory. But practically speaking it's flawed. This is just my opinion based on what I've seen and read about around the county. Based on this, I would think the mold issue at Rolling Terrace would move them to the top of the list. Or the flooding issue at Wheaton Woods would make them a priority. But it hasn't. And meanwhile, we're just supposed to tell kids at the overcrowded Richard Montgomery elementary schools, sorry, we can't build that 5th elementary school because it's not cost efficient but we can build at other places that are under capacity. So do you see my problem with the decision making process?[/quote]
Not really.  The 5th elementary school is not being delayed because it's not cost efficient - it's being delayed because of the overall problem getting the CIP budget approved in Annapolis.  The ES projects that you're noting were all approved at an earlier point, and the facilities are all much more outdated than any ES facility in the RM cluster.  Note for the record that I live in the RM cluster, so I feel your pain on the overcrowding issue generally, but there's no conspiracy in the capital plan against our cluster.

This all being said, I do agree that there are many frustrating aspects to the capital planning process, such as College Gardens being almost brand new yet already filled over capacity.[/quote]

I guess this is really the issue. Funding IS tight and getting tighter. The question is where do you prioritize? That's a very tough issue. But I still think overcrowding should factor into the decision process more than it does now whether you're talking new construction or shifting things around a bit. And there should be flexibility to address problems that come up late like serious mold or infrastructure issues. [/quote]

+1[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics