Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are proposing buidling a new Eastern on the current campus and keeping the current Eastern in use while it's being built. Why not use that as a holding school for SSIMS students after the new Eastern is built and renovate SSIMS?

Or convert just SCES to a holding elementary school and let SSIMS students use it, plus parts of their current building while renovating SSIMS? Then it could be used for Piney Branch and other elementary communities after SSIMS is renovated.

The point is, there are creative solutions here that do not involve putting the entire burden of needing a holding school on one neighborhood/community. This plan is a complete slap in the face to the SSIMS community.

They can't have two whole middle schools operating on one middle school site simultaneously.

Why not? We have an ES and a MS that have been operating on the same site for 25+ years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are proposing buidling a new Eastern on the current campus and keeping the current Eastern in use while it's being built. Why not use that as a holding school for SSIMS students after the new Eastern is built and renovate SSIMS?

Or convert just SCES to a holding elementary school and let SSIMS students use it, plus parts of their current building while renovating SSIMS? Then it could be used for Piney Branch and other elementary communities after SSIMS is renovated.

The point is, there are creative solutions here that do not involve putting the entire burden of needing a holding school on one neighborhood/community. This plan is a complete slap in the face to the SSIMS community.

They can't have two whole middle schools operating on one middle school site simultaneously.

Anonymous wrote:They are proposing buidling a new Eastern on the current campus and keeping the current Eastern in use while it's being built. Why not use that as a holding school for SSIMS students after the new Eastern is built and renovate SSIMS?

Or convert just SCES to a holding elementary school and let SSIMS students use it, plus parts of their current building while renovating SSIMS? Then it could be used for Piney Branch and other elementary communities after SSIMS is renovated.

The point is, there are creative solutions here that do not involve putting the entire burden of needing a holding school on one neighborhood/community. This plan is a complete slap in the face to the SSIMS community.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What is the "right way" to go about this then? In order to create holding schools, somebody's school has to shut down.

Do the bare minimum to convert an existing unused MCPS property to a holding school? Buy commercial property to use as a holding school (although that might be prohibitively expensive)? If they did the minimum renovations for SCES and SSIMS rather than rebuilding SCES (which is not ideal but a sacrifice that many would likely be willing to make over losing SSIMS), plus took the 12 million currently allocated for Piney Branch’s pool/ fancy gym to invest in the holding school project, maybe the math would work out?

But none of us will ever know if these are viable alternatives, because this process has been completely opaque and MCPS won’t share any info about other options that were explored!

I agree with you that MCPS needs to show the math and logic on how it came to its decision, but at the end of the day, the way to create holding schools is to close down schools. So that scenario has to be on the table.

There aren't any suitable existing MCPS buildings that would work as a secondary holding school btw.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What is the "right way" to go about this then? In order to create holding schools, somebody's school has to shut down.

Do the bare minimum to convert an existing unused MCPS property to a holding school? Buy commercial property to use as a holding school (although that might be prohibitively expensive)? If they did the minimum renovations for SCES and SSIMS rather than rebuilding SCES (which is not ideal but a sacrifice that many would likely be willing to make over losing SSIMS), plus took the 12 million currently allocated for Piney Branch’s pool/ fancy gym to invest in the holding school project, maybe the math would work out?

But none of us will ever know if these are viable alternatives, because this process has been completely opaque and MCPS won’t share any info about other options that were explored!

Anonymous wrote:

What is the "right way" to go about this then? In order to create holding schools, somebody's school has to shut down.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't like the idea of turning SSIMS into a holding school and then closing it, but they said they were doing it to renovate Eastern and Sligo Middle, which are not west county or rich.

But I agree that shutting down schools in a central dense area is a bad idea, and I think MCPS needs to provide a lot more information on what led them to come to the conclusion that this option was better than renovating or tearing down and rebuilding those schools in the same location.

+1

It is an insult to this community to ignore renovations at this site for years and years and then do this and say it’s an investment in Silver Spring.

By "investment in Silver Spring," I think they meant the four CIP projects proposed for Sligo Creek, Highland View, Eastern, and Sligo.

I understand that and I think it’s deceitful. It’s a net loss of one middle school for the region. Sligo and Eastern do not benefit from absorbing the SSIMS kids. Moreover, Sligo Creek families have sought renovation, not a new location.

No, but they do benefit from getting new or "renewed" buildings. Lots of other schools around the county are asking for that and aren't getting anything in this CIP.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't like the idea of turning SSIMS into a holding school and then closing it, but they said they were doing it to renovate Eastern and Sligo Middle, which are not west county or rich.

But I agree that shutting down schools in a central dense area is a bad idea, and I think MCPS needs to provide a lot more information on what led them to come to the conclusion that this option was better than renovating or tearing down and rebuilding those schools in the same location.

+1

It is an insult to this community to ignore renovations at this site for years and years and then do this and say it’s an investment in Silver Spring.

By "investment in Silver Spring," I think they meant the four CIP projects proposed for Sligo Creek, Highland View, Eastern, and Sligo.

I understand that and I think it’s deceitful. It’s a net loss of one middle school for the region. Sligo and Eastern do not benefit from absorbing the SSIMS kids. Moreover, Sligo Creek families have sought renovation, not a new location.

Anonymous wrote:I agree that it’s an insult and can confirm that the DTSS community is trying to fight it. But it’s hard when we don’t have a mayor or board members or council members who support us, the way that the City of TP does.

For example, at last nights hearing, the TP mayor lauded the plan to shut down SCES/SSIMS to creat holding schools for Piney Branch (and others). That was pretty depressing. I’m sympathetic to wanting down county holding schools to avoid bussing kids 40 mins away, but dismantling diverse, urban, walkable schools that kids currently attend is the wrong way to go about this.

Anonymous wrote:I agree that it’s an insult and can confirm that the DTSS community is trying to fight it. But it’s hard when we don’t have a mayor or board members or council members who support us, the way that the City of TP does.

For example, at last nights hearing, the TP mayor lauded the plan to shut down SCES/SSIMS to creat holding schools for Piney Branch (and others). That was pretty depressing. I’m sympathetic to wanting down county holding schools to avoid bussing kids 40 mins away, but dismantling diverse, urban, walkable schools that kids currently attend is the wrong way to go about this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't like the idea of turning SSIMS into a holding school and then closing it, but they said they were doing it to renovate Eastern and Sligo Middle, which are not west county or rich.

But I agree that shutting down schools in a central dense area is a bad idea, and I think MCPS needs to provide a lot more information on what led them to come to the conclusion that this option was better than renovating or tearing down and rebuilding those schools in the same location.

+1

It is an insult to this community to ignore renovations at this site for years and years and then do this and say it’s an investment in Silver Spring.

By "investment in Silver Spring," I think they meant the four CIP projects proposed for Sligo Creek, Highland View, Eastern, and Sligo.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't like the idea of turning SSIMS into a holding school and then closing it, but they said they were doing it to renovate Eastern and Sligo Middle, which are not west county or rich.

But I agree that shutting down schools in a central dense area is a bad idea, and I think MCPS needs to provide a lot more information on what led them to come to the conclusion that this option was better than renovating or tearing down and rebuilding those schools in the same location.

+1

It is an insult to this community to ignore renovations at this site for years and years and then do this and say it’s an investment in Silver Spring.

Anonymous wrote:I don't like the idea of turning SSIMS into a holding school and then closing it, but they said they were doing it to renovate Eastern and Sligo Middle, which are not west county or rich.

But I agree that shutting down schools in a central dense area is a bad idea, and I think MCPS needs to provide a lot more information on what led them to come to the conclusion that this option was better than renovating or tearing down and rebuilding those schools in the same location.