Sign our petition!

Hello MoCo! Montgomery County Public Schools has added 11,000 students in the past 10 years, but has never taken a comprehensive look at enrollment growth and school capacity. That’s why, for the first time in decades, MCPS is conducting a countywide school boundary analysis. 

The Board of Education has hired a consulting firm, WXY, to look at the way MCPS draws school boundaries, collect community feedback, and provide insights on how the school system could improve its boundary-drawing process. This analysis will provide an independent, data-driven look at some of the big issues affecting MCPS, such as:

• How efficiently we’re using our school buildings. This year, 10,000 students attend classes in portables, while there are nearly 10,000 empty seats across the system. MCPS spends millions of dollars on new schools or additions when nearby schools have space.
• How to reduce de facto segregation. Today, Black and Latino students, and students from low-income backgrounds are clustered in a handful of schools, which contributes to both opportunity and achievement gaps. MCPS has invested considerable resources to help students from all backgrounds succeed wherever they are, but studies show that students of all backgrounds perform best in diverse schools. 
• How far students are traveling to school. As Montgomery County has grown, school boundaries haven’t caught up. As a result, more than a third of students aren’t attending the school closest to their home (not counting those in magnet or choice programs), which means more time and money spent traveling to and from school.

A group opposing the analysis has spread rumors that it will redraw school boundaries or bus students long distances. Neither is true. This analysis will not change school boundaries or even recommend any specific boundary changes.

If you agree that data-informed policy, equitable public education, and fiscal responsibility matter,  here are five things you can do:

Join hundreds of people who have signed our letter to Board of Education President Shebra Evans and Superintendent Jack Smith in support of the boundary analysis. (Click here for the sign-on letter)

Come to a meeting on the boundary analysis this winter, where you can learn about the process and give your feedback:

• January 7, Walter Johnson High School, 7-9 p.m.

• January 11, Montgomery Blair High School, 10 a.m.-12 p.m.

• January 14, Northwest High School, 7 p.m. -9 p.m.

Come hear the Board of Education discuss the analysis at their next meeting, January 9 from 11 a.m. to 1 pm. at the MCPS central office, 850 Hungerford Drive in Rockville.

Share this with your friends, neighbors, PTSA, or anyone else who may be interested. Remember, strong schools benefit everyone, even those who don’t have kids in public schools!

Sign on!

Why should Montgomery County consider changes to school boundaries?

Paint Branch High School in Burtonsville.

1. What’s wrong with the current setup of Montgomery County Public Schools? The current school boundaries are outdated and often illogical. They have led to wasteful spending to expand schools, often in the wealthiest areas of the county, while forcing older schools to wait many years for renovation or replacement.The last countywide boundary change happened in the 1980s, when MCPS closed more than 60 schools as enrollment dropped to about 90,000 and the county population was about 600,000. Today, the population is 1.2 million and growing. School enrollment has surged to more than 165,000, while boundaries remain largely unchanged. 
2. Why shouldn’t we just spend money to fix aging schools? Our resources are not infinite. A school system with a growing population and serious crowding issues should not simultaneously have schools operating at well below capacity. But in recent years, boundaries have only been changed when new schools opened.  As a result, some schools are at more than 150 percent of capacity with up to 14 portable classrooms at a single school, even when there is space at nearby schools. Check out this interactive map to see for yourself.
3. Why would we want to put more kids on buses? The status quo does not do a good job of providing walkable schools for our children. It results in many families being farther away from their children’s schools than they should be: Among non-magnet students, 37% of elementary students, 45% of middle school students and 38% of high school students do not attend the closest school, according to MCPS data. 
4. Isn’t it expensive to make big changes to the system? A systematic boundary assessment is fiscally responsible. We simply do not have the wherewithal to avoid this study,  as the impact of avoiding a system-wide boundary assessment for more than 30 years has been a poor use of taxpayer dollars. MCPS houses 10,000 students in more than 400 portables, at a cost of $5 million per year. At the same time, MCPS has a $790 million backlog of systemwide repair and maintenance needs. Other school districts, such as neighboring Howard County, Fairfax County, and Baltimore County have performed boundary analyses as a matter of fiscal responsibility.  School officials have proposed $1.82 billion in capital improvements without a clear plan to raise the money. While the state has promised a big funding increase, any increase will need to be matched by Montgomery County. That means we need to use our money wisely.
5. How big is this problem?  Our schools are overcrowded by nearly 11,000 students in about half the schools and face under-enrollment of more than 9,300 in the other half. The mismatch at the school level has been persistent for years. In some parts of the county, overcrowded schools have caused county planners to put a temporary hold on approving much-needed new housing, which puts further pressure on an already expensive and tight housing market.
6. Why should we consider racial and socioeconomic diversity? Our schools are becoming more racially and socioeconomically segregated. Even when a school is integrated, programming, courses, and activities tend to be racially and socioeconomically segregated. 
7.  

• 

• 

 

Montgomery County Public School Statistics

School Name	Utilization (%)	Excess Capacity (#Students)	FARMS
Clarksburg ES	201%	-313	13.6%
Luxmanor ES	166%	-269	16.6%
William T. Page	157%	-223	50.6%
Summit Hall ES	154%	-245	81.7%
Mill Creek Towne ES	151%	-171	49.9%
Highland View ES	151%	-146	47.8%
Burnt Mills ES	148%	-187	66.5%
Forest Knolls ES	143%	-226	37.5%
Strawberry Knoll ES	142%	-192	47.0%
Ronald McNair ES	132%	-202	25.6%
Stonegate ES	130%	-116	24.8%
South Lake ES	129%	-203	85.5%
Rachel Carson ES	129%	-201	20.5%
Bannockburn ES	127%	-97	1.7%
Oak View ES	126%	-88	79.9%
Burning Tree ES	124%	-92	6.0%
Takoma Park MS	124%	-223	24.7%
Burtonsville ES	123%	-112	47.5%
JoAnn Leleck ES	122%	-159	94.6%
Judith A. Resnik ES	122%	-109	56.7%
Greencastle ES	122%	-130	64.7%
Spark M. Matsunaga ES	122%	-126	18.0%
Clarksburg HS	122%	-438	29.5%
Lake Seneca ES	121%	-89	54.8%
Quince Orchard HS	121%	-369	22.4%
Parkland MS	120%	-194	48.2%
Flower Valley ES	120%	-83	28.6%
Northwood HS	120%	-300	50.1%
Farmland ES	120%	-142	7.2%
Thomas W. Pyle MS	119%	-249	1.7%
Bethesda ES	119%	-106	7.5%
Westover ES	119%	-50	25.3%
Walter Johnson HS	118%	-427	7.1%
Capt. James E. Daly ES	118%	-95	71.3%
Gaithersburg ES	118%	-129	83.7%
Ashburton ES	117%	-134	11.6%
Diamond ES	117%	-113	10.3%
Arcola ES	115%	-98	74.0%
Northwest HS	115%	-338	26.0%
A. Mario Loiederman MS	115%	-128	62.3%
Winston Churchill HS	115%	-289	4.0%
Argyle MS	114%	-127	58.3%
Watkins Mill ES	114%	-90	75.2%
Rock Creek Forest ES	114%	-93	26.3%
Rosemont ES	114%	-79	59.6%
Woodlin ES	113%	-65	23.4%
Lucy V. Barnsley ES	113%	-85	27.5%
Somerset ES	113%	-67	8.4%
Sargent Shriver ES	113%	-84	81.2%
Olney ES	113%	-77	19.3%
Thurgood Marshall ES	113%	-70	30.7%
John T. Baker MS	112%	-89	19.1%
Fields Road ES	112%	-52	41.4%
Richard Montgomery HS	112%	-266	18.4%
Albert Einstein HS	112%	-191	43.7%
Montgomery Blair HS	112%	-338	36.0%
Cresthaven ES	111%	-51	76.3%
Cloverly ES	111%	-50	22.8%
Strathmore ES	110%	-44	61.1%
Walt Whitman HS	110%	-183	2.2%
Benjamin Banneker MS	110%	-81	50.9%
Meadow Hall ES	109%	-34	53.4%
Oakland Terrace ES	109%	-44	30.8%
Clopper Mill ES	109%	-43	67.5%
Dr. Sally K. Ride ES	107%	-35	49.4%
Germantown ES	107%	-21	35.2%
Great Seneca Creek ES	107%	-38	38.0%
Piney Branch ES	106%	-39	33.5%
Rolling Terrace ES	106%	-46	71.9%
Lakelands Park MS	106%	-70	22.0%
Kemp Mill ES	106%	-28	76.6%
Col. E. Brooke Lee MS	106%	-44	65.6%
Earle B. Wood MS	105%	-50	35.7%
Harmony Hills ES	105%	-36	87.5%
Jackson Road ES	105%	-33	77.5%
Roberto Clemente MS	105%	-58	33.8%
Francis Scott Key MS	105%	-44	70.3%
Silver Spring International MS	104%	-46	42.2%
Cedar Grove ES	104%	-16	9.2%
Wilson Wims ES	104%	-29	11.3%
Garrett Park ES	103%	-26	16.3%
Ritchie Park ES	103%	-13	21.9%
Poolesville HS	103%	-37	7.0%
Rock View ES	103%	-19	49.5%
James H. Blake HS	103%	-52	33.9%
Highland ES	103%	-15	79.4%
Bells Mill ES	103%	-16	11.0%
Galway ES	103%	-19	60.1%
Fallsmead ES	103%	-14	8.3%
Sligo Creek ES	102%	-16	13.4%
Pine Crest ES	102%	-9	46.0%
Little Bennett ES	102%	-13	15.6%
John F. Kennedy HS	102%	-36	48.6%
Damascus ES	102%	-7	26.6%
Twinbrook ES	102%	-10	66.1%
Briggs Chaney MS	101%	-11	48.8%
Cashell ES	101%	-4	23.4%
Flora M. Singer ES	100%	-3	41.4%
Dr. Charles R. Drew ES	100%	-2	49.9%
Seven Locks ES	100%	-1	5.3%
Glenallan ES	100%	–	66.0%
North Bethesda MS	100%	–	5.9%
Maryvale ES	100%	1	42.0%
Eastern MS	100%	2	46.3%
Forest Oak MS	99%	5	58.5%
Brookhaven ES	99%	3	67.5%
Sherwood ES	99%	5	19.4%
Whetstone ES	99%	8	60.2%
Tilden MS	99%	11	11.6%
Paint Branch HS	99%	23	36.3%
Neelsville MS	99%	11	67.0%
Thomas S. Wootton HS	99%	26	5.5%
Gaithersburg HS	99%	31	42.5%
Chevy Chase ES	99%	7	17.7%
Cabin John MS	98%	17	7.7%
Wheaton HS	98%	41	47.5%
New Hampshire Estates ES	98%	11	92.5%
Takoma Park ES	97%	16	35.9%
Weller Road ES	97%	25	75.6%
Bayard Rustin ES	97%	25	#N/A
Julius West MS	97%	50	26.4%
Goshen ES	96%	23	43.4%
Roscoe Nix ES	96%	20	74.4%
Bel Pre ES	96%	27	71.2%
Wyngate ES	96%	34	2.1%
Robert Frost MS	95%	55	5.8%
Silver Creek MS	95%	48	#N/A
Rock Creek Valley ES	95%	24	31.4%
Kingsview MS	94%	58	18.1%
Rockville HS	94%	93	33.1%
College Gardens ES	94%	44	14.1%
Georgian Forest ES	93%	44	77.8%
Woodfield ES	93%	26	20.9%
Flower Hill ES	93%	35	64.1%
Seneca Valley HS	93%	98	38.4%
Fairland ES	92%	52	57.1%
Bethesda-Chevy Chase HS	92%	198	11.9%
Herbert Hoover MS	92%	94	4.1%
Clearspring ES	92%	53	29.7%
Glen Haven ES	92%	46	61.9%
Montgomery Village MS	91%	74	66.0%
Rosemary Hills ES	91%	58	27.8%
Poolesville ES	91%	50	10.5%
Sherwood HS	91%	206	17.1%
Rosa M. Parks MS	90%	93	9.7%
Carderock Springs ES	90%	40	2.2%
Fox Chapel ES	90%	70	53.5%
Brooke Grove ES	90%	54	22.5%
Wood Acres ES	90%	76	3.5%
Greenwood ES	89%	63	8.8%
Hallie Wells MS	89%	109	#N/A
William H. Farquhar MS	89%	90	12.4%
Potomac ES	88%	49	1.9%
Damascus HS	88%	189	15.1%
Laytonsville ES	88%	55	18.5%
Col. Zadok Magruder HS	88%	241	33.6%
Montgomery Knolls ES	88%	67	63.9%
Gaithersburg MS	87%	132	48.1%
Rocky Hill MS	87%	137	19.9%
William B. Gibbs, Jr. ES	86%	98	34.8%
East Silver Spring ES	86%	79	55.9%
Lois P. Rockwell ES	86%	76	19.8%
Jones Lane ES	86%	74	27.7%
Bradley Hills ES	85%	97	0.8%
White Oak MS	85%	147	61.4%
Kensington-Parkwood ES	85%	114	5.3%
Waters Landing ES	85%	117	52.6%
Beverly Farms ES	85%	104	6.2%
Stone Mill ES	85%	106	9.2%
Brown Station ES	84%	124	68.5%
Martin Luther King Jr. MS	84%	150	47.9%
John Poole MS	83%	78	11.1%
Snowden Farm ES	83%	130	#N/A
Beall ES	83%	108	27.2%
Redland MS	83%	130	37.2%
Lakewood ES	83%	95	7.0%
Newport Mill MS	83%	148	49.3%
Ridgeview MS	82%	171	30.0%
Watkins Mill HS	82%	350	50.8%
Belmont ES	82%	77	6.4%
Springbrook HS	82%	387	44.1%
Cannon Road ES	80%	106	67.4%
Viers Mill ES	78%	161	66.6%
Stedwick ES	78%	150	60.7%
Wayside ES	77%	148	6.3%
Sligo MS	77%	219	43.9%
Washington Grove ES	75%	151	73.0%
Candlewood ES	75%	128	22.8%
Darnestown ES	75%	109	7.3%
Sequoyah ES	74%	132	54.3%
DuFief ES	74%	111	14.4%
Westland MS	73%	297	10.5%
Cold Spring ES	72%	126	1.2%
North Chevy Chase ES	72%	99	12.5%
S. Christa McAuliffe ES	72%	217	49.1%
Monocacy ES	69%	68	18.8%
Shady Grove MS	67%	279	40.3%
Wheaton Woods ES	66%	262	82.7%
Travilah ES	65%	185	6.2%
Westbrook ES	62%	206	1.8%

Source : MCPS Actuals 2019-2020 (FY21 CIP)

It’s time to make MCPS choice programs more equitable, too

As Montgomery County’s schools resegregate by race and class, special “choice programs” (including magnets, language immersion programs, and the Northeast and Downcounty consortia) designed to create advanced learning opportunities and integrate schools aren’t working. That’s the message from a report MCPS released earlier this year, and it’s time for school officials to start making our choice programs more equitable. Here’s our full response:

One Montgomery encourages MCPS’ ongoing evaluation of its gifted and talented, consortia, and language immersion programs and their conformity with the school system’s Core Values. These programs are afflicted with access and equity problems, as noted in the MCPS Choice study report.

Montgomery County citizens have tolerated a system that exacerbates the achievement gap by offering to only some of our County students extraordinary programs and an excellent K-12 education. The remaining students, segregated by MCPS’ residence-based school assignment policy, are left with a separate and unequal education. Not only are those segregated students, families and neighborhoods injured, but the whole County suffers.

The County’s future is impaired when the public school system fails to prepare all County students to be productive members of our community. Instead of launching these students, college- and career-ready, to higher education or skilled careers to eventually participate as County taxpayers with stable, thriving families, too many of our students are consigned by failed MCPS education to struggle to find gainful employment or to pay for remedial classes to learn what they should have mastered in the public education system.

The data and analyses contained in the MCPS Choice Study make clear that MCPS is not serving all students equitably. The programs are too limited, information is available preferentially to parents who know how to go find it, and application processes are cumbersome, set up—whether intentional or not—to leave certain students out. As a result, students have very different educational opportunities and experiences within the same school system, and sometimes within the same school.

MCPS gives white and high SES students priority access to these special academic programs and minority and underserved students are left out. We ask: what child would not benefit from

1. engaging, inquiry-based curricula
2. mastery of a second language beginning in kindergarten
3. highly-trained teaching staff
4. exploration via high-impact field trips, and
5. participating in regional and national competitions?

Why are these outstanding opportunities only available to a small segment of the student population?

One of the reasons for this disparity is that politics drive decision-making about education, which rewards the “squeaky wheels” of politically-savvy, well-connected and often affluent parents- those families whose children already have distinct education advantages. We intend to add another voice to the conversation, perhaps one that has not been heard from . One Montgomery supports MCPS’ professed Vision, “We inspire learning by providing the greatest public education to each and every student.” We are committed to holding the Board of Education and MCPS leadership accountable to deliver on this promise.

It is incumbent upon the community and public services, including MCPS, to make up for various disadvantages faced by students, and that this is the only way to truly address the achievement gap.  In accord with the Metis Report findings, One Montgomery Leadership Team member Will Jawando, recently filed a civil action with the Office for Civil Rights charging that “MCPS has violated and continues to violate Title VI with respect to the manner in which it administers recruitment and selection of students for admission to its highly-popular, language immersion programs at the elementary school level.” He specifically argues that his child and other children of color are excluded from MCPS special programs. This civil rights charge makes clear that it is time for MCPS to take action on the MCPS Choice Study findings.

MCPS needs to expand the capacity of choice programs, both to meet growth in enrollment and demand, and to improve outreach to underserved communities. Our school system is the cornerstone of our county’s success, and it only works when all students have access to a high-quality education regardless of race or background.

 

Sebastian Johnson for Board of Education at-large

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 30, 2016

Contact: Dan Reed
ph: 202/256-7238
onemontschools@gmail.com

One Montgomery endorses Sebastian Johnson for the Montgomery County, Maryland Board of Education at-large seat in the April 26 primary election.

Organized in 2013, One Montgomery is a grassroots organization of parents, teachers, and community members in Montgomery County that is dedicated to public school improvement as a means for creating a stronger community. The group seeks a school system committed to school equity, transparency, collaboration, and accountability.

As a recent MCPS student, a former student member of the Board, and a former teacher in a high-needs school, Sebastian brings new, much-needed perspective and dedication to the Board of Education. His story illustrates how strong schools can help close the achievement gap for disadvantaged students and help them excel. He has a keen understanding of the challenges our school system faces. He is willing to work with all parties, from parents to Board colleagues and MCPS leaders to the County Council and state leaders, to make sure that MCPS is equipped and accountable to help every student, regardless of background or zip code.

Candidates endorsed by One Montgomery have records of community and political activism that prove their commitment to closing the achievement gap. This endorsement was made based on candidate questionnaires, interviews, and public statements.

A recent report on school performance by Montgomery County’s Office of Legislative Oversight shows that the achievement gap in county schools has grown in recent years, particularly between schools in the Northeast and Downcounty consortia and the Upcounty and schools in the more affluent western side of the county. Because geographical boundaries almost always determine school assignments, school quality is closely tied to neighborhood stability and the health of our local economy.

As a result, Montgomery County Public Schools needs to dedicate adequate staffing and implement programs for high-needs schools to ensure high-performance by schools in all parts of the county. We endorse Sebastian Johnson because he understands these needs and can be expected to hold MCPS accountable to address them. One Montgomery has produced a set of recommendations for ways MCPS can do that, using feedback from community workshops and education forums it has organized or participated in over the past two years.

For further information on One Montgomery, visit its website or Facebook page. Follow One Montgomery on Twitter @onemontschools, or join One Montgomery’s listserv. One Montgomery can be contacted at onemontschools@gmail.com.

Here are 13 questions for candidates to be the next MCPS superintendent

MCPS is launching a national search for a new superintendent after Dr. Josh Starr stepped down last week. What kind of superintendent can lead MCPS in solving the challenges our school system faces? We sent the following letter to the Board of Education with questions we’d like them ask of candidates for superintendent, based on our six principles for school equity:

One Montgomery is a community organization focused on promoting equity in education for all students based on our belief that strong schools create strong communities resulting in a stronger local economy.

As you explore your options in hiring the next MCPS superintendent, we encourage you to carefully consider the following questions that align with One Montgomery’s six principles:

Equity: What is the candidate’s experience in leading a large, diverse school system that has many low-income and high need students that are geographically segregated, resulting (as the Office of Legislative Oversight says) in an “us vs. them debate”? How was success measured?

How would the candidate lead existing MCPS staff to make changes in systems, processes and approaches to close opportunity gaps, going beyond words to measurable actions?

What is the best formula for allocating resources to ensure equity? Can the candidate provide specific examples of resource reallocation that achieved positive impact?

Leadership: What is the candidate’s plan for ensuring that all schools, but especially high-needs schools have skilled, effective leadership?

How does the candidate envision being able to provide necessary resources to address needs of under-performing students without negatively impacting high-performing students?

What is the candidate’s experience in managing a large organization with disparate, conflicting perspectives (i.e, principal, executive administration, unions, etc.)?

Access: What does the candidate believe are the value of mentoring and student support programs such as Achievement Via Individual Determination (AVID) in improving student achievement? Is he or she willing to make the investments necessary in this area?

Diversity: How will the candidate work to modify professional staffing to more closely reflect changing diversity of the county’s population, ensure greater language capabilities in schools to address community needs and prepare all students to be successful global citizens?

Community: How does candidate believe power and decision-making should be balanced between the local school communities and central MCPS administration? Can he or she speak from personal experience to different models and their results? How much autonomy should be given to individual school principals and the local community?

What is the candidate’s experience with community engagement and how would he or she involve parents and community members to understand local needs and support locally developed programs, policies and structures to improve student achievement and expand opportunity?

What is candidate’s commitment to accountability, transparency and results? Would candidate support the hiring of an inspector general for the school district?

Partnership: What is the candidate’s view on the correct balance between respecting teachers’ autonomy and professionalism vs. directed lesson plans, curriculum delivery and assessment timelines?

How would the candidate leverage untapped potential of partnerships with local business, government and community resources for the benefit of all students?

For each candidate, we urge that you look beyond his or her stated philosophy to find concrete examples from past work experience that show the candidate’s commitment to addressing issues of equity in education and proven leadership in achieving significant results.

Signed,

One Montgomery core members:
Sharon Brown
Therese Gibson
Kathleen Indart
Will Jawando
Dan Reed
Michael Robinson
Frederick Stichnoth
Cori Vanchieri
Edward Wetzlar

Montgomery County schools are segregating, but Starr won’t admit it

A new report says that Montgomery County schools are becoming segregated by income, race, and ethnicity and that “white flight” is occurring in the system’s lowest-performing schools. But officials deny that it’s even happening.

Paint Branch High School in Burtonsville. A new study says that Montgomery County schools are becoming segregated by class and race.

This week, the county’s Office of Legislative Oversight released their findings on the achievement gap in Montgomery County Pubic Schools. Researchers note that low-income, black, and Latino students are still trailing their more affluent, white, and Asian peers, but even more so now that both groups are increasingly concentrated in different parts of the school system.

While MCPS as a whole is a majority-minority school system and has been for over a decade, most low-income, black, and Latino students attend one of 11 high schools, mostly in Silver Spring, Wheaton, and Gaithersburg. Meanwhile, higher-income students, as well as 80% of the school system’s white students and 67% of its Asian students, now cluster at schools on the western side of the county.

Introducing One Montgomery

We are a group of concerned parents and local citizens coming together to better understand, support and improve our schools, especially those that are failing to meet the high academic standards for which Montgomery County has traditionally been well known.

Schools are the centerpiece of a thriving community and are directly linked to the development of our children into contributing members of our community. The success and perception of our schools also affects our property values, safety and local economic development.

We are committed to understanding why our schools are struggling and informing our neighbors; we will volunteer to help our schools, their students and families; we will seek additional support for our struggling schools from the school system, County government, and legislative leaders; and we will work in coalition with all who share our concern and commitment.

If you share our concerns and would like to help us work toward achieving high academic performance and quality schools for all students of Montgomery County, contact:Ed Wetzlar, edwardwetzlar@verizon.net, or Fred Stichnoth, fred.stichnoth@yahoo.com.