Guest column by Becca Silverman in response to “Which Schools Will Close? Part Two: Rockville.”
While Which Schools Will Close? Part Two: Rockville raises important questions about the future of facility utilization in Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS), the analysis falls short by oversimplifying a complex problem. To be fair, the overarching argument laid out in Part One—that MCPS should aggressively reconsider boundaries rather than default to outright school closures—is well-meaning and aims to protect valuable community assets.
However, given the methodology of the analysis and the significant reach of this platform—both within school communities and among policymakers—it is critical that such projections carefully account for the full spectrum of criteria the district must consider when making these consequential determinations. Many of these considerations are established in state and district regulations, while others are just as important to student experience, educational continuity, and responsible financial stewardship as facility condition and utilization.
Perhaps most importantly, this process is already likely to generate anxiety and uncertainty among school communities. Publicly identifying individual schools as potential closure candidates based on an incomplete analytical framework risks creating an unnecessary “us versus them” dynamic at precisely the moment when collaboration and community trust will matter most.
Looking at the Rockville example from Part Two, several important considerations illustrate why a more comprehensive approach is necessary:
- Disregard for the Regional Centers Model: The article groups schools together that MCPS has explicitly treated differently in its long-term planning. For instance, Candlewood and College Gardens elementary schools are not only in clusters that have historically fed into different high schools, but they have also recently been assigned to different regions under MCPS’s carefully constructed regional centers model at the high school level. These regions were developed through extensive analysis, community engagement, and significant investments of public resources. Any proposed boundary adjustments or consolidations should be evaluated in the context of that work rather than potentially unraveling planning decisions that MCPS has only recently completed.
- Overlooking Immediate Cluster Geography: Looking at broad geographic regions can obscure the more immediate, interconnected reality of local school clusters. Schools within the same middle and high school feeder patterns share established educational pathways, transportation considerations, and community relationships. Examining these connections alongside regional utilization patterns provides a more complete picture of the practical implications of consolidation.
- Ignoring Capital Improvement and Replacement Reserve Demands: School closure and consolidation decisions must consider future capital liabilities, a factor the article largely leaves out. Appendix F of the Facility Condition Index (FCI) reports reveals that maintaining existing school facilities can require substantially different financial investments. Leading up to the 2031–32 figures cited in the original article, College Gardens could require as much as $3.9 million from replacement reserves, while another nearby elementary school could require nearly $6.5 million. These figures are not, by themselves, arguments for or against any particular school’s closure. Rather, they demonstrate why utilization percentages must be considered alongside the actual financial obligations associated with maintaining school facilities. Responsible financial stewardship requires examining where limited capital dollars will have the greatest long-term impact.
- The Unstable Reality of Utilization Data: As recently as the FY 2027 Approved Capital Budget and FY 2027-32 CIP, College Gardens was not the only school facing significant projected underutilization. By the 2031–32 school year, College Gardens was projected to have a 61% utilization rate. The same planning document projected a utilization rate of approximately 67% for another elementary school within the same cluster. That same figure has jumped, in the FY ’28 documents, from 67% projected utilization to 87%, without any major developments in progress within the attendance zone. While housing development is only one factor that can alter utilization estimates, that’s still a big change, especially in the enrollment projection in just one year. When utilization is a central factor in an analysis of potential school closures, the public must be able to trust the integrity of the data around enrollment projections.
- Disregard for Specialized Educational Programs: The analysis treats school facilities as largely interchangeable, overlooking the unique programmatic footprints that contribute to their educational and community value. Most notably, College Gardens Elementary hosts an International Baccalaureate Primary Years Programme (IB PYP). Disrupting or relocating an established, internationally recognized educational program introduces administrative, curricular, logistical, and community considerations that extend well beyond a building’s available seats. Specialized programming represents an investment in educational opportunity that should be meaningfully evaluated alongside facility utilization and condition.
Beyond these methodological limitations lies an equally important concern: the potential consequences for the school communities themselves.
School closures and consolidations are inherently emotional issues. Families have invested years in their schools, built relationships with educators, and developed strong connections to their communities. When public analyses identify individual schools as potential closure candidates without accounting for the full range of relevant considerations, they risk encouraging families to view neighboring schools as competitors rather than partners.
This is especially concerning because the ultimate success of any consolidation will depend on those very communities coming together. Parents who spend months defending their respective schools against one another may eventually be asked to join the same PTA, support the same teachers, and build a shared school identity. Creating divisions now could make an already difficult transition considerably harder.
Boundary adjustments are a vital tool, and thoughtful consolidation may ultimately be necessary. But neither can be evaluated in a vacuum. Specialized educational programming, regional boundary models, immediate cluster geography, future capital obligations, and community continuity must all be part of the discussion.
Independent analysis has an important role to play in holding MCPS accountable and encouraging transparent, data-informed decisions. But there is a meaningful difference between identifying broad enrollment challenges and publicly singling out individual schools as likely closure candidates based on a limited set of variables.
The question should not be which neighboring school community can make the strongest case for its own survival. It should be how MCPS can make thoughtful, equitable, and financially responsible decisions that preserve educational opportunities and strengthen communities across the district.
If we hope to bring school communities together through this process, we should be careful not to divide them before the decisions have even been made.
Becca Silverman attended MCPS schools K-12, is the parent of two MCPS students, and currently works as a certified postpartum doula. A self-described recovering policy wonk, she holds a Master of Public Policy (MPP) with a focus on state and local education policy, which she has recently pulled off a dusty shelf to become more engaged in her community.