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

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

Reply to "What does tabling the SSIMS closure mean for the boundary options?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous]Folks keep forgetting or haven't been watching closely enough.  All of the options still are on the table because [i]none of the options is a final plan[/i] (well, none is final yet, anyway).

All of these options, from 1-4 to A-D to E, F & G (and H for the Crown study), are putative options put together by the consulting group that, to their understanding, balance the BOE-approved goals to varying extents.  These were created to allow the BOE & MCPS staff to consider what might be possible (personally, I don't think they got that well enough) and for them to see the public's reaction to each to allow them to hone their thoughts (personally, I don't think they went far enough, there, "taking notes" of feelings but not really giving proper consideration to suggestions from the public).
 
The last couple added the creation of holding schools (SSIMS and either Crown or Wootton) to that mix of goals to facilitate planned renovations across the system that were placed in the CIP request between the initial consultant contract and the contract modification.  More recent enrollment trend analysis had suggested that there was not the need for as many schools due to declining enrollment.  Meanwhile, the CIP workup showed that those renovations would end up taking less time and costing hundreds of millions of dollars less if there were such holding facilities available.

The superintendent's recommendation [i]could[/i] be one of the lettered (or earlier numbered) options as they currently exist, but it is far more likely for them to take one as a starting point and adjust it better to match their goals given their further consideration/deliberation and/or address [i]some[/i] of the community feedback.  The BOE [i]could[/i] vote for an adjustment to that recommendation, but, without being able to work directly with the underlying data (they don't get that), how would any of them be able to propose an alternative with enough confidence to garner the votes of three other Board members to adopt such?  (Or even to delay enough to have the suggestion analyzed -- that would put the entire timeline for school openings in jeopardy.)

We could end up with something closer to option A with SSIMS closed or to option G with it staying open, though it certainly is more likely that a SSIMS closure would fit with a final recommendation that derives from E, F or G.  This is the reason that, to the extent it matters, providing feedback along the lines of "I don't like option X because of Y" (e.g., no to option E because it closes SSIMS or yes to option F because closing SSIMS saves $) is more important than simply supporting a single option or group of options without nuance.

I have doubts that the SSIMS-closure-decision delay will do more than give them less pushback in the short term while they get the boundaries/regions set.  Given their engagement penchants, that time extension likely would be used for more one-way communication of what they already plan to do.  But let's not paint this as MCPS, alone.  After all, it's the Montgomery Way![/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