Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Redistricting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board discusses countywide redistricting, consultant estimated at $250K–$300K and multi-phase timeline
Summary
Officials presented a proposal to begin a countywide facility utilization and redistricting study, citing static enrollment, four elementary schools under 300 students, and the need for community engagement; staff said the process would follow updated Policy JCAA and likely require a $250,000–$300,000 consultant engagement.
St. Mary’s County Public Schools officials presented a plan on April 23 to begin a countywide facility utilization study and possible redistricting under updated Policy JCAA.
Assistant Superintendent Miss Howe and facilities staff described flat enrollment forecasts through FY30, four elementary schools with enrollment below 300, and multiple “islands” where elementary feeders split across middle and high schools. “Our enrollment is static. Forecast is that it will remain static at least through FY30,” Miss Howe said, adding that “we have 4 schools, elementary, that are below 300 in capacity.”
Facilities staff and Mr. Watson outlined the goals: analyze functional space in every facility, review state standards for classroom space, examine operating and capital costs, and develop community engagement and implementation steps. The presenters cautioned that a comprehensive process would be complex and lengthy and would examine impacts on class sizes, administrative staffing, transportation, and program offerings such as academies.
Cost and timeline: staff estimated the consultant work to run “probably in the $250,000 to $300,000 range” to cover GIS mapping, detailed facility analysis and extensive community engagement. The board was told the policy update (Policy JCAA) will come for first reading at the board’s first May meeting; staff would then engage a consultant, complete analyses over the summer and fall, socialize draft boundary proposals in community meetings around October, and seek public hearing and board action winter–spring with notification to parents in April so changes could be implemented for FY27 if approved.
Grandfathering and waivers: staff said rising seniors would be “grandfathered” (left at their current schools) while other grades could be redirected under any new boundaries; the presenters said the district would also need to review waiver and staff-request policies that currently allow students to remain at non-home schools for childcare or employment reasons.
Programs and equity: the staff report noted existing specialized programs—STEM, arts, language offerings and academy courses—are offered at some but not all high schools and that decisions will need to address whether to expand programs systemwide or maintain centralized offerings. The report also addressed start-time disparities (elementary start times currently vary widely) and transportation implications of any boundary change.
Public and board reaction: Board members and the student member urged strong community engagement and recommended including teachers, students and PTA representatives in focus groups. “This is the kind of thing that brings [PTAs] back into the fold,” one board member said, and the student member suggested a focus group with teacher and administrator representation to identify school-specific needs.
What was not decided: the board did not vote to close or consolidate any schools on April 23. Staff said any eventual closures would follow state rules for facilities with prior state capital funding and could require prorated repayment to the state if a building were sold.
