Anonymous
11/05/2025 19:26
Subject: As enrollment declines, MCPS projects drop of nearly 7,000 students (6%) by 2032
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Adoption of the regional program model will seem to be different from the end of the consortia. Ending the consortia (and I guess the magnets) appears to be assumed for the option utilization rates.
So the only way you get these comfy extra spaces at the high schools is if you also have no consortia (and I guess no magnets next year).
No, the consortia are actually really convenient for MCPS utilization-wise because they can decide exactly how many students go where. Much easier than with a single school per boundary.
But apparently they lead to underutilization at some schools and over utilization at others. At least that’s how I’m seeing Kennedy. From a purely utilization perspective, it doesn’t make sense to have buildings sit partially empty.
I mean that isn't so much about the existence of the consortium and more about how they run it. They could certainly restrict spots at Blair/Wheaton/Einstein more if they wanted to prioritize utilization. You don't have to take away the consortium to fix utilization.
True. It just seems dumb to allow overutilization when people in the DCC are complaining about overutilization.
There hasn't been enough overall capacity across the five schools for years. Now with the recent Kennedy addition, the Northwood replacement, and some seats at Woodward there will be.
Anonymous
11/05/2025 18:24
Subject: As enrollment declines, MCPS projects drop of nearly 7,000 students (6%) by 2032
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don’t get why they allowed Blair to be overcapacity with the magnet. This whole thing is about correcting overcapacity, but they created programs to exactly generate the overcapacity.
Do some homework. The magnet wasn't created to generate overcrowding.
Of course it wasn’t. Maybe I should clarify: by “this whole thing” I mean the boundary study, which has utilization issues related to kids transferring in and out. If MCPS already has a tool to change utilization rates, why haven’t they used it? Baffling.
Anonymous
11/05/2025 18:22
Subject: As enrollment declines, MCPS projects drop of nearly 7,000 students (6%) by 2032
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Adoption of the regional program model will seem to be different from the end of the consortia. Ending the consortia (and I guess the magnets) appears to be assumed for the option utilization rates.
So the only way you get these comfy extra spaces at the high schools is if you also have no consortia (and I guess no magnets next year).
No, the consortia are actually really convenient for MCPS utilization-wise because they can decide exactly how many students go where. Much easier than with a single school per boundary.
But apparently they lead to underutilization at some schools and over utilization at others. At least that’s how I’m seeing Kennedy. From a purely utilization perspective, it doesn’t make sense to have buildings sit partially empty.
I mean that isn't so much about the existence of the consortium and more about how they run it. They could certainly restrict spots at Blair/Wheaton/Einstein more if they wanted to prioritize utilization. You don't have to take away the consortium to fix utilization.
True. It just seems dumb to allow overutilization when people in the DCC are complaining about overutilization.
Anonymous
11/05/2025 18:21
Subject: As enrollment declines, MCPS projects drop of nearly 7,000 students (6%) by 2032
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don’t get why they allowed Blair to be overcapacity with the magnet. This whole thing is about correcting overcapacity, but they created programs to exactly generate the overcapacity.
The goal is for WJ not to be overcrowded, not the DCC schools. The magnet isn't a lot of kids. Its just a few hundred.
I thought it was 100 per year, so 400 total. Blair has 500 kids transferring in, so the magnet would appear to be a large portion of the transfers.
Anonymous
11/05/2025 18:18
Subject: As enrollment declines, MCPS projects drop of nearly 7,000 students (6%) by 2032
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Adoption of the regional program model will seem to be different from the end of the consortia. Ending the consortia (and I guess the magnets) appears to be assumed for the option utilization rates.
So the only way you get these comfy extra spaces at the high schools is if you also have no consortia (and I guess no magnets next year).
No, the consortia are actually really convenient for MCPS utilization-wise because they can decide exactly how many students go where. Much easier than with a single school per boundary.
But apparently they lead to underutilization at some schools and over utilization at others. At least that’s how I’m seeing Kennedy. From a purely utilization perspective, it doesn’t make sense to have buildings sit partially empty.
I mean that isn't so much about the existence of the consortium and more about how they run it. They could certainly restrict spots at Blair/Wheaton/Einstein more if they wanted to prioritize utilization. You don't have to take away the consortium to fix utilization.
Anonymous
11/05/2025 18:18
Subject: As enrollment declines, MCPS projects drop of nearly 7,000 students (6%) by 2032
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Well at least this solves some of the issues that people were complaining about in the Woodward study. Now no high school appears overcrowded in any of the options.
Except for Wheaton once you subtract out the magical extra 500 capacity that they are supposed to somehow get from Edison. But Kennedy is no longer overcrowded in these options and Wheaton is less so
The lower utilization also allows tons of extra space for regional program enrollment, meaning there is no real reason anymore that the programs have to be figured out this year at the same time as the boundaries.
Good point!
Great point. With it being possible to have almost all the high schools at 85-90% capacity, there's plenty of buffer for however that shakes out.
Can someone put together a simple countywide petition to delay the program changes for greater community feedback and subsequent revisions, that flags this issue (that there is no need anymore to approve the program changes at the same time as the boundary changes because there will be enough excess capacity at high schools to handle whatever programs end up there)?
Yes of course someone can - that someone is you.
Anonymous
11/05/2025 17:53
Subject: As enrollment declines, MCPS projects drop of nearly 7,000 students (6%) by 2032
Anonymous wrote:I don’t get why they allowed Blair to be overcapacity with the magnet. This whole thing is about correcting overcapacity, but they created programs to exactly generate the overcapacity.
Do some homework. The magnet wasn't created to generate overcrowding.
Anonymous
11/05/2025 17:52
Subject: As enrollment declines, MCPS projects drop of nearly 7,000 students (6%) by 2032
Anonymous wrote:https://bethesdamagazine.com/2025/11/04/mcps-enrollment-declines/
Enrollment in Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) decreased by 2,641 students from 2024–2025 to 2025-2026, and the decline is expected to continue with the district projecting a drop of 7,000 additional students (6%) over the next six years, according to MCPS officials.
This is after ~4% job since 2018
Demographers utilized by MCPS are creative. They tend to project what works for the superintendent.
Anonymous
11/05/2025 17:51
Subject: As enrollment declines, MCPS projects drop of nearly 7,000 students (6%) by 2032
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:But you are still going to run the magnet next year, meaning Blair remains (slightly) overcrowded.
Next year, Blair and Einstein and Wheaton will remain overcrowded.
https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/siteassets/district/departments/planning/fy2027/cip27_chapter4_downcountycluster.pdf
Maybe bc I’m reading on a phone I don’t see it, but I don’t think that document accounts for the end of the consortia.
The consortia aren't ending next year in any scenario. Next year 2026-27 everything is as it is now.
Thank, did not know that. I thought they would end when the new boundaries go into effect, which is 26-27, yes?
New boundaries go into effect in the fall of 2027, so school year 2027-28.
Anonymous
11/05/2025 17:39
Subject: As enrollment declines, MCPS projects drop of nearly 7,000 students (6%) by 2032
Anonymous wrote:I don’t get why they allowed Blair to be overcapacity with the magnet. This whole thing is about correcting overcapacity, but they created programs to exactly generate the overcapacity.
The goal is for WJ not to be overcrowded, not the DCC schools. The magnet isn't a lot of kids. Its just a few hundred.
Anonymous
11/05/2025 17:38
Subject: As enrollment declines, MCPS projects drop of nearly 7,000 students (6%) by 2032
I don’t get why they allowed Blair to be overcapacity with the magnet. This whole thing is about correcting overcapacity, but they created programs to exactly generate the overcapacity.
Anonymous
11/05/2025 17:34
Subject: As enrollment declines, MCPS projects drop of nearly 7,000 students (6%) by 2032
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Adoption of the regional program model will seem to be different from the end of the consortia. Ending the consortia (and I guess the magnets) appears to be assumed for the option utilization rates.
So the only way you get these comfy extra spaces at the high schools is if you also have no consortia (and I guess no magnets next year).
No, the consortia are actually really convenient for MCPS utilization-wise because they can decide exactly how many students go where. Much easier than with a single school per boundary.
But apparently they lead to underutilization at some schools and over utilization at others. At least that’s how I’m seeing Kennedy. From a purely utilization perspective, it doesn’t make sense to have buildings sit partially empty.
Anonymous
11/05/2025 17:31
Subject: As enrollment declines, MCPS projects drop of nearly 7,000 students (6%) by 2032
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:But you are still going to run the magnet next year, meaning Blair remains (slightly) overcrowded.
Next year, Blair and Einstein and Wheaton will remain overcrowded.
https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/siteassets/district/departments/planning/fy2027/cip27_chapter4_downcountycluster.pdf
Maybe bc I’m reading on a phone I don’t see it, but I don’t think that document accounts for the end of the consortia.
The consortia aren't ending next year in any scenario. Next year 2026-27 everything is as it is now.
Thank, did not know that. I thought they would end when the new boundaries go into effect, which is 26-27, yes?
Anonymous
11/05/2025 17:22
Subject: As enrollment declines, MCPS projects drop of nearly 7,000 students (6%) by 2032
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:But you are still going to run the magnet next year, meaning Blair remains (slightly) overcrowded.
Next year, Blair and Einstein and Wheaton will remain overcrowded.
https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/siteassets/district/departments/planning/fy2027/cip27_chapter4_downcountycluster.pdf
Maybe bc I’m reading on a phone I don’t see it, but I don’t think that document accounts for the end of the consortia.
The consortia aren't ending next year in any scenario. Next year 2026-27 everything is as it is now.
Anonymous
11/05/2025 17:20
Subject: As enrollment declines, MCPS projects drop of nearly 7,000 students (6%) by 2032
6% of 160,000 students is a lot but it's still a LOT of students.