A countywide analysis of school boundaries has elicited strong feelings both ways among candidates for the Montgomery County Board of Education.
Some feel strongly that the analysis should be done and should lead to updates in school assignments. One candidate likened it to the U.S. Census — something to be done on a regular schedule as populations change.
Other candidates say they aren’t opposed to a boundary analysis, but object to the one that’s underway. They’ve criticized what they see as shifting goals and poor transparency and communication.
The school board authorized the boundary analysis in January 2019.
A mid-analysis report was released in March. A final report has been delayed because of the coronavirus pandemic.
Two questions about the boundary analysis were among 10 that Bethesda Beat asked candidates for Montgomery County school board in a questionnaire.
The first boundary question asked candidates to give their opinion of the analysis. In the second, they were asked if they support redrawing school boundaries.
Bethesda Beat has been presenting the candidates’ responses to specific questions over a period of several days leading up to the June 2 primary, concluding with today’s compendium of their answers to the boundary questions.
To see their answers to all of the questions and for background information on the candidates, go to the Voters Guide.
Thirteen candidates are running for one at-large seat on the board. Two of the 13 candidates in the primary will advance to the general election on Nov. 3.
The District 2 and District 4 seats are up for election this year, too.
There are two candidates on the ballot for District 2. There is no primary in that race; both will move ahead to the general election.
In District 4, three candidates filed for the seat, creating a primary election. However, Ehren Park Reynolds has withdrawn from the race, but his name remains on the primary ballot.
Twelve of the 13 candidates for the at-large seat on the school board answered Bethesda Beat’s questionnaire. Collins Odongo did not respond to multiple invitations to answer the questionnaire.
All four of the candidates in the races for the District 2 and District 4 seats answered the questionnaire.
Candidates for U.S. Congress and Montgomery County Circuit Court judge also are part of the Voters Guide.
Below are the candidates for all three school board seats and their written answer to these questions:
A) What is your opinion of the current countywide boundary analysis? (75 words max)
B) Do you believe school boundaries should be redrawn? Why or why not? (100 words max)
At-large
• Mitra Ahadpour
A – We need multifaceted policies developed in collaboration with students, parents, educators and community members to foster inclusion, diversity, equity and civility. Dividing communities, as the current boundary study rollout has done, has resulted in many unintended consequences, including creating divisions among friends, mistrust, and much anxiety. Simply collecting and using raw numbers to examine boundary lines does not begin to give us a complete picture of the realities of our community and neighborhood schools.
B – Many unfortunate outcomes can result when introducing comprehensive social change of this nature — the sadness of children being moved away from their friends, their lack of ability to participate in after-school events because of further travel requirements, and sleep deprivation. Traveling further from their homes to attend other schools can negatively affect them, which harms their education. I recently attended the WJHS WXY forum and heard from parents whose children were living across from an elementary school with empty seats, but because of new boundary lines, their children were bused to an elementary school 30 minutes away. Not good.
***
• Stephen Austin
A – I think the entire process is confusing, non-transparent and not truly representative of all voices of the community. The scope changes that took months to announce, the flip-flopping on recommendations vs. no recommendations, the removal of travel times from the analysis are all very troubling. I believe the entire process should be paused and audited by a third party to reassess the true goals, which seem to have changed considerably at this point.
B – In certain cases, absolutely. When a new school is constructed or a school reaches over-capacity and another option in the same cluster has capacity, they should be adjusted. What I struggle with is applying a diversity requirement above capacity/proximity/stability as the “cure-all” to solve every challenge at every school. It’s like a doctor that prescribes penicillin for EVERYTHING. Each school is different, and we should not be boxed into one factor when assessing the best approaches to improve them. We should also look to successes in MCPS’ own past for ideas that work (like Broad Acres in mid-2000s)
***
• Anil Chaudhry
A – This current countywide boundary analysis should be abandoned. The Board of Education needs to conduct an independent inquiry into why this process failed and how MCPS should conduct future boundary studies in a more transparent manner that positively engages all geographically and demographically diverse communities across the entire county.
B – Boundary changes should be conducted on a recurring and periodic basis in a transparent manner that positively engages the community. Boundary changes should be a collaborative process between parents, community stakeholders, and educators. They should prioritize factors in the following order:
• proximity: zone students for the schools closest to their homes
• quality of life: optimize use of logistical assets and reduce transit times
• quality of community: limit split articulation and provide compact feeder patterns
• diversity: build flexibility to reduce community opportunity gaps
• sustainability: optimize the usage of existing facilities
• stability: ensure school assignment stability
***
• Sunil Dasgupta
A – The current boundary analysis should be allowed to proceed as planned and we should look at the data produced from the analysis to inform changes in the future. The contracting firm should offer recommendations for change and MCPS should release the software tool the firm is developing, as well as the underlying data collected as part of the analysis. Lastly, BOE and MCPS should take the lead in the public discussion, not contractors.
B – I have studied and written articles investigating this complex issue. After decades of massive demographic and population change — and 100 overcrowded and 99 underenrolled schools — boundary changes are inevitable. We can either plan for it or be forced into it. We can balance utilization, stability, proximity, and diversity by developing a regular, transparent, fair process of systemwide review and adjustments. Four basic principles: create an office to develop the planning and public engagement expertise, do it regularly, do it systemwide to allow cascading adjustments, and do it in a predictable way to ensure student-cohort stability. More here: https://bit.ly/2SMdVv7
***
• Paul Geller
A – MCPS needs to do a significantly better job of communicating with all stakeholders when it comes to the boundary analysis. This project began because of a fundamental truth: We have some schools well above capacity and others below capacity. Without an infusion of capital to relieve the burdens of overcrowded schools by constructing additions to existing buildings, or adding portable classrooms, we need to get creative. MCPS needs to better convey this message.
B – As a stalwart in seeking funding for Capital Improvement Projects (CIP), I always notice how many people attend BOE CIP meetings seeking funding for school projects, yet fewer attend CIP meetings with the County Council or in Annapolis. The BOE cannot raise revenue. The other two bodies can. And that is what this is all about. If we cannot build our way out of this overcrowding situation, what can we do? The answer is either keep the status quo, boundary changes, or school choice, my signature concept, in which students in overcrowded schools can attend a less crowded school nearby.
***
• Jay Guan
A – The current boundary analysis left much to be desired. The Planning Board and MCDOT should have been part of this analysis. The metrics such as the Dissimilarity Index disregards immigrant communities’ tendency to cluster and form support systems. Also, the metrics presented in public meetings are in relative (percentage) and normalized units (index). It will be difficult for the Board of Education to conduct trades effectively in future boundary studies (i.e., between commute time and facility utilization).
B – School boundaries should be redrawn to address facility utilization (new or expanded schools), as they are now. Overutilization has an overwhelmingly negative impact on a school’s operation, safety, security, and most importantly, on students. Some issues, such as facility utilization and proximity, are more “responsive” to changes in school boundaries. Other issues, such as neighborhood and school demographics, are more “responsive” to housing and transportation policies. Boundary studies is essentially a trade study between the four factors. Hence, priority should be given to addressing facility utilization and how to safely house our kids.
***
• Lynne Harris
A – I support the boundary analysis and the scope of work that includes benchmarking MCPS against other large school systems, especially those that routinely assess boundaries to proactively address issues such as capacity. It is essential to base future decisions on objective, comprehensive, countywide, expert-derived data. Using, regularly updating and sharing this data, along with a routine process of respectful and substantive student, staff and community engagement, should be the foundation of all future decision-making.
B – Yes, boundaries should be adjusted. Countywide, at each level (ES, MS, HS), enrollment is close to capacity, but individual school enrollment ranges from 62% to 201% of capacity. Some underenrolled schools are adjacent to overcapacity schools. The result is a poor use of resources and many schools with less than optimal learning environments for students and staff. This situation exists because for decades, MCPS has failed to look, comprehensively, at school capacity and boundaries and make common-sense, periodic adjustments. We also have extremely-high-poverty schools, unacceptable in the nation’s 18th wealthiest county.
***
• Collins Odongo
Did not respond
***
• Dalbin Osorio
A – I believe we should make every decision with the most accurate data available to us, and the boundary analysis would give us that. I support it, wholeheartedly.
B – If the boundary analysis shows that our schools are currently inequitable and we need to reallocate resources to achieve equity in our schools, then I believe redrawing school boundaries is a necessary step towards that end goal.
***
• Cameron Rhode
A – The boundary analysis is long overdue. I appreciate that the consultant’s analysis — per Board of Education policy — is considering linguistic, ethnic, and socioeconomic diversity, in addition to proximity and capacity. The benefits of diverse schools are not superficial; they are tangible and long-lasting. MCPS should strive to minimize commuting needs and ease overcrowding while maintaining multiple forms of diversity. This may be difficult, but I believe it can be done.
B – While racial segregation of public facilities by law or regulation is no longer in place, school systems may be effectively segregated by race or household income. As a scientist, I’ve been trained to rely on raw data in drawing conclusions. Consistent with my lifelong detail-oriented way of thinking, I make decisions carefully and deliberately. If elected, I will give serious weight to the consultant’s interim and final reports, in addition to the sentiments of students, teachers, parents, and other county residents. I am absolutely open to authorizing another boundary study to allow boundary adjustments.
***
• Darwin Romero
A – I think it was long overdue. We need to continuously evaluate how we are using our facilities to better serve our students and how we are being intentional in providing a world-class education to all our students.
B – Just like the census is done every 10 years, we should be performing a school boundary analysis every 5 to 7 years. Why? Because populations change, needs change, and priorities change. We need to be proactive to these changes as opposed to reactive. And if the data shows that school boundaries need to be redrawn to improve academic achievement, close the opportunity gap and provide access to all the resources our great county has to offer, then so be it.
***
• Pavel Sukhobok
A – I support any objective analysis that gives more information. However, I am deeply skeptical of this one. The BOE’s lack of transparency and accountability has only fueled to exacerbate people’s distrust in the process. As a result, the firm hired to conduct the analysis has lost the faith of many parents. I would support a new study being conducted by an impartial firm that treats factors such as diversity, geographic proximity, and capacity equally.
B – Redistricting is not the answer. First, forcing students to leave their friends and teachers behind will take a heavy emotional toll on the students. Second, many families, including many immigrant and minority families, used their life savings to buy homes so their children can attend a different school. Forcing them back into schools they moved away from, which will invariably happen in some cases, is not only unfair, but will also put those families financially underwater as redistricting will certainly affect housing prices. Lastly, the whole idea of changing the students instead of the way schools are run is absurd.
***
• Lumpoange Thomas
A – I fully support a boundary analysis for the purpose of addressing overcapacity in our school clusters. However, I believe the analysis that is currently being conducted by WXY Architecture + Urban Design is not an objective boundary analysis to find true and meaningful solutions to address our overcrowded school clusters. I also question the lack of transparency to date with which the analysis has been conducted.
B – I believe that a boundary analysis is necessary to address overcapacity, as this is a real concern in a few of our school clusters. In my son’s school cluster, the high school is overcrowded. Therefore, parents in our community know that at some point, our cluster will be redrawn to incorporate the reopening of a second high school. If students are unable to attend the school in closest proximity due to capacity issues, then the reassigned school should be the second closest/adjacent school.
***
District 2 (in and around Gaithersburg)
• Michael Fryar
A – Community engagement is a key factor in creating successful schools. Ensuring that local resources and facilities are being efficiently utilized across the county is also very important.
B – Changing school boundaries is something that should only be done after a thoughtful, exhaustive review and, then, only done with the utmost restraint.
***
• Rebecca Smondrowski
A – It is appropriate and responsible to review how our facilities are utilized and the temperature of the school climate within each building. We should use the data analysis while considering utilization of our schools during boundary studies to identify potential locations for elective programs and to determine where past redistricting actions may no longer be applicable or may actually now be causing overcrowding.
B – It is essential to have the study completed before there can be any discussion about whether or how the boundaries should be drawn. Neighborhood schools are an integral part of the local community. Geographic proximity and travel time are key factors in families accessing education and programming. My job is to make sure that each school is one that all children can be proud to attend, that staff are eager to teach in, and where every student receives an excellent education.
***
District 4 (from Silver Spring north through Glenmont)
• Shebra Evans
A – It is a fiscally responsible approach to have the board review the entire district.
B – Every factor is being considered as we consider school and cluster boundaries (geographic proximity, demographics, facility utilization and stability of student assignment). Since the early ’70s, we have done over 130 boundary changes. Our student enrollment has grown by more than 23,000 students since 2010. We expect 11,000 more over the next six years. This boundary analysis will give us a better overview and inform our decisions in future boundary studies.
***
• Steve Solomon
A – I believe the most important factors in terms of boundary changes are: geographical location and fixing overcrowding in the schools that need it. I do not believe in putting a child in a school far away from their home. That means more travel time to and from school, being pulled from a school where your friends are, and not knowing what school you’ll go to in the future.
B – Boundaries are redrawn all the time to address growing population in certain areas and avoiding overcrowding. The process should continue with those as the factors.
***
From Saturday: Candidates assess Superintendent Jack Smith
From Monday: Candidates pick the top issue in the race
From Tuesday: Candidates pick one issue the school board has handled poorly
From Wednesday: Most in school board race favor raise for position
