My gut feeling on 3/26 BOE vote

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, I've now asked the same thing twice and the lawsuit poster is ignoring it which I take to mean the following: They HAVE actually asked the State whether they believe this is "more than a boundary issue" or whether they can/wish to get involved with the use of Crown, which they helped pay for, if it is going to be for a purpose other than an additional high school, and the answer was NO-they don't care. This means they are now hanging all hope on some judge to tell the State that they effectively, aren't doing their job. I'm not a lawyer but that seems like not something any judge would do.

Bruh no one is answering you cuz they aren’t going to explain to you their legal case. You want to read it? Wait for the vote and the read what they file.

My brother in Christ: have some patience instead of expecting people to lay out a lawsuit on an anonymous forum. Jesus.

Again: it is not in any way unusual on this forum or in life for somebody to simply state the basis of a lawsuit. In fact, it is unusual for somebody to say they will sue but not on what grounds.

Nobody is asking to divulge any confidential complete legal strategy to winning the case. Simply, what violation do you think occurred?

Laws and policies were not followed.

Cool, thank you for stating generically the basis on which every lawsuit ever is filed.

Do yall expect their attorney to log onto DCUM?

Nope. Let me give you some examples of what would be a normal thing to claim:

1. We are suing because MCPS was supposed to send a letter to the state BOE asking for their input before a vote on shutting down operations in a school building and they didn't.
2. We are suing because they were supposed to hold a meeting at each school impacted before making a proposal.
3. We are suing because only the state law requires mailing notice to each affected property owner before a change in land use.

It isn't hard.

This is mostly a delay tactic, and they know the majority of the claims they are making are frivolous. Their plan is:

1) file a whole bunch of claims about various process violations, most of which will get dismissed, but will take time to litigate;
2) hope that at least one of these process claims sticks, even though the remedy won’t be that Wootton doesn’t have to go to Crown - it will be that MCPS will have to go through the missed part of the process;
3) in the meantime, vote in a new BOE who will support them when it comes time to re-vote on this after the process issue has been addressed.

They’re not eager to talk about it for
two main reasons (in addition to being scared of being stripped down in the comments by your legal brilliance): this won’t be satisfying to the families funding this, some of whom want them to be suing to uncover the vast conspiracy that’s been brewing since 2024, probably involving Taylor’s wife, weather control, and some sort of satanic ritual that took place on an electric bus; and they don’t want the rest of us paying close attention to the BOE primary - because they suspect we might care more about voting against anti-vax candidates then them getting to keep Wootton on the parkway.

PP here and thanks for this. I genuinely want to know if there is a violation here. I've researched COMAR and MCPS policies and procedures and don't see one. And if there were, I would be fine with the lawsuit. That is what the legal process is for, and due process in government administration is important.

What I am not fine with is nuisance/delay litigation, conning people to donate, and wasting taxpayer money.

You just described Thomas Taylor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Without question, it will all pass and all the BOE members will vote for it.

It will pass, but you might get a few BOE members who are nominated to perform and cast a no vote to make the public believe their petitions and protests made a difference.

If they cast unanimous votes it’ll validate the rubber stamping criticism they insist is not reality.

You seem to think there is a wide-ranging conspiracy that involves the superintendent and the entire BOE to do...what exactly? What is their motivation to conspire together and make this choice if it is not the one they think is best for the whole county?

It’s not a conspiracy theory if it turns out to be true. Then again, MCPS will say “oh well, too late now.”

The chronology of events and other evidence appear to show that the decision was made before community engagement.

You are convinced they’re right, so you have a clear bias. I guess the ends justify the means in your mind - laws and regulations don’t matter, and apparently the views of those most affected don’t either.

Sounds rather authoritarian.

None of this tracks, or answers the question.

Why would all of these people collude to do something “wrong.” What is the motivation?

MCPS had a $300M+ parcel with a 20-year deadline and no comparable land available—but not the data to justify a new high school. Now, instead of rethinking that decision, they’re proposing to close a 55-year-old school to make Crown work. That’s not planning—that’s backfilling a decision that was already made.

PP here. So they are trying to make the best decision today, given poor decisions in the past?

I'm OK with that. That is not a conspiracy or wrongdoing.

I'm not making the argument that H is the objectively best option (though I do think it likely is). I'm trying to get at the view that there is conspiracy/collusion, rather than a difference of opinion...

So you’re okay with what MCPS did in the past, and you’re okay with all of MCPS’ failures in pushing Option H.

I guess you’re okay with what the guy in the White House is doing - he thinks it’s the right thing to do as well.

Fortunately, courts don’t look at things that way.

100% agreement. MCPS doubled down on this school needing to be built due to overcrowding, right up until a 180 turnaround, citing data that has ALWAYS been available.

On Thursday, Taylor told Bethesda Today that the decision about revising high school programming was a “critical inflection point for our community, for us to decide whether or not we want to espouse values and not live by them or espouse values and live by them.”

Make no mistake, the decisions to close Crown and close the merit-based magnet system are ideologically driven. If MCPS decide to override the community in a misguided pursuit of equity, it will justify the guy in the White House, radicalize some fraction of the community, drive private school admissions, lower our overall performance, and end the legacy of the county. If you support these kinds of decisions, you don't get to complain about who's running the government. You are creating the resentment that makes this happen.

/s/close Crown/close Wootton/

No slash before the s

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I got some insight that this third item is actually only to agree to establish secondary program regions. It is NOT necessarily committing to the six regions previously laid out. It is simply to agree to move from things like the current DCC to a similar regional model for the entire county with the details to be determined. The wording indicates this read is correct.

8.3 Approval of Superintendent’s Recommendation to Establish Secondary Regional Programs

Crazy that they are dissolving the NEC and DCC without a specific vote for each of these

We can't have so many separate votes that the BOE ends up passing a collection of proposals that are logically or logistically contradictory.
We have to have a vote on a coherent package. The content of that package is what should be debated and amended

But what's crazy is how little debate has one into the aspect of NEC and DCC being shut down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OK, I've now asked the same thing twice and the lawsuit poster is ignoring it which I take to mean the following: They HAVE actually asked the State whether they believe this is "more than a boundary issue" or whether they can/wish to get involved with the use of Crown, which they helped pay for, if it is going to be for a purpose other than an additional high school, and the answer was NO-they don't care. This means they are now hanging all hope on some judge to tell the State that they effectively, aren't doing their job. I'm not a lawyer but that seems like not something any judge would do.

Much or most of DCUM is just hysterical ranting. Engaging with it doesn't help.
Remember that on an anonymous board it's impossible to debate an individual. All you can do is share your facts and opinions with the reading public.

[Anonymous]

The fundamental issue here is that Wooton begins with W and Crown begins with C. Everyone knows property values in MoCo are higher with a W high school.

They should rename Crown to something that starts with the letter W. Problem solved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But wasn’t Crown built using state funds not the county?

If this is true, that’s a Mossi g piece of the puzzle. Taylor proposed using Crown as a holding school, then suddenly pivoted 2 days later to proposed closing Wootton and moving its kids to Crown. Perhaps someone in Annapolis told him a holding school was a non-starter?

State is on record saying Crown as a holding school is ok. Ironically, the only option not okayed by state is using Crown as a “relocation” of Wootton

The state is also on record saying they don't get involved in boundary decisions, which is what H is. They would have needed to approve the holding school option because of funding but they do not need to approve H.

Interesting point. This actually isn’t just a boundary study. In fact, the boundary study is the only way MCPS can get away with closing Wootton. Without moving the Wootton boundary to encompass Crown, this would be an absolute school closure and MCPS couldn’t send Wootton’s kids to Crown.

I wonder what would happen if it comes out that this entire move Wootton to Crown idea was cooked up before the State of Maryland cut a $100M check to build Crown (so MCPS wouldn’t lose the land).

This timeline doesn't make sense.

Crown project is much older than Taylor's tenure, and Taylor loves publicly blaming past leadership for MCPS problems.

From an administrative view, the Wootton/Crown shell came makes perfect budget sense and bureaucratic sense. It's bad for students and families, but that's not the unelected bureaucracy's concern.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of the MCPS staff members who made early decisions about Woodward and Crown and the boundary studies are gone.

Enrollment numbers were on a completely different trajectory pre-COVID and MCPS reasonably thought the Covid dip was a blip and would recover. They didn’t plan on Trump II illegally decimating federal employment in our county, and I don’t blame them for not anticipating that.

So now a new Superintendent and new MCPS employees are living with construction approved 6+ years ago and enrollment projections that have changed substantially since the original boundary study plans and scope were approved. They are also dealing with a previous Superintendent’s decision not to include ES boundaries in the current scope.

There is no conspiracy. There are less than ideal conditions and a lack of continuity in decision making as well as questionable data practices. But there’s no conspiracy and anyone who could be said to be responsible has already left. They knew this was going to be a shit-show and they got out before this stage for a reason.

+1

I get they are in a rock and hard place, but why make it worse? Why not delay and take the time to speak w Wheaton Woods?

They knew in July 2024 that Crown wasn’t needed. As such, they didn’t have to break ground and could have released the land back to Gaithersburg or sought an extension. They suggested moving an existing school (Wootton) into Crown in November 2024 after construction was underway - so that it was too late to stop it. To do that, they had to commission a boundary study that would justify moving the Wootton boundary to encompass Crown.

The facts are that there is a nearly finished school that should be used. Conceded that how we got to this point is all messed up. But we ARE at this point, and the BOW should make the best decision possible given those facts.

Fine, use it as a holding school. Repair Wootton. Repair Magruder. There are funds for repairs (not full renovations). MCPS will have to do without its $168M on EV buses and spending millions to litigate stupid cases all the way to the Supreme Court.

Ironically, MCPS is too *small* for its level of population volatility.

+/- 1 school is a huge budget shock.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Without question, it will all pass and all the BOE members will vote for it.

It will pass, but you might get a few BOE members who are nominated to perform and cast a no vote to make the public believe their petitions and protests made a difference.

If they cast unanimous votes it’ll validate the rubber stamping criticism they insist is not reality.

You seem to think there is a wide-ranging conspiracy that involves the superintendent and the entire BOE to do...what exactly? What is their motivation to conspire together and make this choice if it is not the one they think is best for the whole county?

It’s not a conspiracy theory if it turns out to be true. Then again, MCPS will say “oh well, too late now.”

The chronology of events and other evidence appear to show that the decision was made before community engagement.

You are convinced they’re right, so you have a clear bias. I guess the ends justify the means in your mind - laws and regulations don’t matter, and apparently the views of those most affected don’t either.

Sounds rather authoritarian.

None of this tracks, or answers the question.

Why would all of these people collude to do something “wrong.” What is the motivation?

MCPS had a $300M+ parcel with a 20-year deadline and no comparable land available—but not the data to justify a new high school. Now, instead of rethinking that decision, they’re proposing to close a 55-year-old school to make Crown work. That’s not planning—that’s backfilling a decision that was already made.

PP here. So they are trying to make the best decision today, given poor decisions in the past?

I'm OK with that. That is not a conspiracy or wrongdoing.

I'm not making the argument that H is the objectively best option (though I do think it likely is). I'm trying to get at the view that there is conspiracy/collusion, rather than a difference of opinion...

So you’re okay with what MCPS did in the past, and you’re okay with all of MCPS’ failures in pushing Option H.

I guess you’re okay with what the guy in the White House is doing - he thinks it’s the right thing to do as well.

Fortunately, courts don’t look at things that way.

You aren't making sense.

I don't need to be OK with past decisions to be OK with current decisions that are influenced by prior decisions.

And since you want to make this somehow about the White House- when the Biden administration took actions that were needed to clean up from the prior administration's actions, does that mean Biden was "OK with" those actions?

But you are okay with those past decisions, otherwise you would be calling for many MCPS people to be fired for mismanagement, and not allowing them to make any more decisions. Instead you are supporting the new decisions made by the same people who made those poor decisions.

As for current decisions, you’re okay with those too, even if MCPS has to allegedly break the law to push them through.

Finally, as for the guy in the White House, you missed the point. If the guy in charge thinks it’s the right decision, your position is that he is automatically 100% correct and must not be questioned (or sued).

Talk about living 1984 - “The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."

OK, so this is the definition of moving the goal posts.

1. You agree that people can and do often have to make current day decisions that are influenced by prior bad decisions, right? OK.

2. I don't have to call for people to be fired to think a bad decision was made. Bad decisions get made all the time. Have you publicly called for firing of people every time you disagree with a decision in your professional and personal life? I doubt it.

3. I never said anything at all like what you are saying about the WH. I never said people should not be questions. There is a difference between agreeing with somebody and saying that nobody should ever question them. You know this.

4. And I can be against baseless lawsuits in general. That has nothing to do with claiming anybody is immune from lawsuit. In fact, I oppose many lawsuits filed by the guy in the WH himself on the grounds that they are baseless.

You have no logic here. You are just attacking people who disagree with you.

My logic is sound. Let the courts sort this out.

And for the record, I have fired people for making bad decisions based on flawed data or a failure to get accurate data. I most certainly do not give them another chance to screw up.

Are you going to fire yourself for the terrible decision to "let the courts sort out" a complex political and bureaucratic issue?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They need to pause the vote on Woodward now that Wheaton Woods released a statement that they were unaware they would be moved to a high school that is 30 minute drive away for them. Early options did not include that and there was no meaningful outreach to them (in Spanish etc).

For all the Asian hate, it since to see the Spanish-language cohort copying the Asian's tactics

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, I've now asked the same thing twice and the lawsuit poster is ignoring it which I take to mean the following: They HAVE actually asked the State whether they believe this is "more than a boundary issue" or whether they can/wish to get involved with the use of Crown, which they helped pay for, if it is going to be for a purpose other than an additional high school, and the answer was NO-they don't care. This means they are now hanging all hope on some judge to tell the State that they effectively, aren't doing their job. I'm not a lawyer but that seems like not something any judge would do.

Bruh no one is answering you cuz they aren’t going to explain to you their legal case. You want to read it? Wait for the vote and the read what they file.

My brother in Christ: have some patience instead of expecting people to lay out a lawsuit on an anonymous forum. Jesus.

Again: it is not in any way unusual on this forum or in life for somebody to simply state the basis of a lawsuit. In fact, it is unusual for somebody to say they will sue but not on what grounds.

Nobody is asking to divulge any confidential complete legal strategy to winning the case. Simply, what violation do you think occurred?

Laws and policies were not followed.

Cool, thank you for stating generically the basis on which every lawsuit ever is filed.

Do yall expect their attorney to log onto DCUM?

Nope. Let me give you some examples of what would be a normal thing to claim:

1. We are suing because MCPS was supposed to send a letter to the state BOE asking for their input before a vote on shutting down operations in a school building and they didn't.
2. We are suing because they were supposed to hold a meeting at each school impacted before making a proposal.
3. We are suing because only the state law requires mailing notice to each affected property owner before a change in land use.

It isn't hard.

This is mostly a delay tactic, and they know the majority of the claims they are making are frivolous. Their plan is:

1) file a whole bunch of claims about various process violations, most of which will get dismissed, but will take time to litigate;
2) hope that at least one of these process claims sticks, even though the remedy won’t be that Wootton doesn’t have to go to Crown - it will be that MCPS will have to go through the missed part of the process;
3) in the meantime, vote in a new BOE who will support them when it comes time to re-vote on this after the process issue has been addressed.

They’re not eager to talk about it for
two main reasons (in addition to being scared of being stripped down in the comments by your legal brilliance): this won’t be satisfying to the families funding this, some of whom want them to be suing to uncover the vast conspiracy that’s been brewing since 2024, probably involving Taylor’s wife, weather control, and some sort of satanic ritual that took place on an electric bus; and they don’t want the rest of us paying close attention to the BOE primary - because they suspect we might care more about voting against anti-vax candidates then them getting to keep Wootton on the parkway.

PP here and thanks for this. I genuinely want to know if there is a violation here. I've researched COMAR and MCPS policies and procedures and don't see one. And if there were, I would be fine with the lawsuit. That is what the legal process is for, and due process in government administration is important.

What I am not fine with is nuisance/delay litigation, conning people to donate, and wasting taxpayer money.

You just described Thomas Taylor.

The way that PP just read TT for filth 🤣🤣🤣

Most true comment on this thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, I've now asked the same thing twice and the lawsuit poster is ignoring it which I take to mean the following: They HAVE actually asked the State whether they believe this is "more than a boundary issue" or whether they can/wish to get involved with the use of Crown, which they helped pay for, if it is going to be for a purpose other than an additional high school, and the answer was NO-they don't care. This means they are now hanging all hope on some judge to tell the State that they effectively, aren't doing their job. I'm not a lawyer but that seems like not something any judge would do.

Bruh no one is answering you cuz they aren’t going to explain to you their legal case. You want to read it? Wait for the vote and the read what they file.

My brother in Christ: have some patience instead of expecting people to lay out a lawsuit on an anonymous forum. Jesus.

Again: it is not in any way unusual on this forum or in life for somebody to simply state the basis of a lawsuit. In fact, it is unusual for somebody to say they will sue but not on what grounds.

Nobody is asking to divulge any confidential complete legal strategy to winning the case. Simply, what violation do you think occurred?

Laws and policies were not followed.

Cool, thank you for stating generically the basis on which every lawsuit ever is filed.

Do yall expect their attorney to log onto DCUM?

Nope. Let me give you some examples of what would be a normal thing to claim:

1. We are suing because MCPS was supposed to send a letter to the state BOE asking for their input before a vote on shutting down operations in a school building and they didn't.
2. We are suing because they were supposed to hold a meeting at each school impacted before making a proposal.
3. We are suing because only the state law requires mailing notice to each affected property owner before a change in land use.

It isn't hard.

This is mostly a delay tactic, and they know the majority of the claims they are making are frivolous. Their plan is:

1) file a whole bunch of claims about various process violations, most of which will get dismissed, but will take time to litigate;
2) hope that at least one of these process claims sticks, even though the remedy won’t be that Wootton doesn’t have to go to Crown - it will be that MCPS will have to go through the missed part of the process;
3) in the meantime, vote in a new BOE who will support them when it comes time to re-vote on this after the process issue has been addressed.

They’re not eager to talk about it for
two main reasons (in addition to being scared of being stripped down in the comments by your legal brilliance): this won’t be satisfying to the families funding this, some of whom want them to be suing to uncover the vast conspiracy that’s been brewing since 2024, probably involving Taylor’s wife, weather control, and some sort of satanic ritual that took place on an electric bus; and they don’t want the rest of us paying close attention to the BOE primary - because they suspect we might care more about voting against anti-vax candidates then them getting to keep Wootton on the parkway.

PP here and thanks for this. I genuinely want to know if there is a violation here. I've researched COMAR and MCPS policies and procedures and don't see one. And if there were, I would be fine with the lawsuit. That is what the legal process is for, and due process in government administration is important.

What I am not fine with is nuisance/delay litigation, conning people to donate, and wasting taxpayer money.

Agree. They might be able to garner our and others’ support for the suit if they shared what law they believe was broken and it logically checks out. It makes them look like they know it is a nothingburger not to share ANYTHING. No one needs the whole thing spelled out but show us you have SOMETHING of potential merit.
Also, does this mean they are support that psycho Sharon Creed who can hook them up with a lawyer friend to then sue the system that she is (hopefully never) on the board of? Yea, no conflict there. WTAF was that???? OMG.

Happy to summarize what I’ve seen and heard with the huge caveat that this is a summary, not an evaluation of the merits of any of these approaches:

1) MCPS did not get proper approval from the IAC to use Crown to relocate Wootton
2) the BOE resolution authorizing the boundary study didn’t include school relocation in its scope
3) MCPS didn’t complete all the necessary studies (e.g., transportation analysis, environmental impact) needed for Wootton to be a holding school
4) this is a de facto closure and MCPS didn’t follow policy for a closure
5) they didn’t include necessary data sources in calculating enrollment and are using incomplete data to make decisions.

There are also some other rumors floating around about the group having emails showing that MCPS was discussing moving Wootton to Crown back in 2024 and/or that they knew about the enrollment trends much earlier than they’ve shared. The Clarksburg lawsuit demonstrates why it’s challenging to use a smattering of emails to prove a conspiracy, so I would think that is more appropriate for the IG complaint but cannot say for sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The fundamental issue here is that Wooton begins with W and Crown begins with C. Everyone knows property values in MoCo are higher with a W high school.

They should rename Crown to something that starts with the letter W. Problem solved.

Try to keep up with what's happening. Taylor tried that.
Crown is being renamed to Wootton. That doesn't help Wootton families.

[Anonymous]

The strongest legal challenge is that Taylor is trying to close Wootton without approval, but I think that's easily solvable by doing the paperwork he's currently too lazy or politically "clever" to do. There's no law that says Wootton has to stay open, just a law that says it has to follow procedure when closing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fundamental issue here is that Wooton begins with W and Crown begins with C. Everyone knows property values in MoCo are higher with a W high school.

They should rename Crown to something that starts with the letter W. Problem solved.

Try to keep up with what's happening. Taylor tried that.
Crown is being renamed to Wootton. That doesn't help Wootton families.

Ironically, the families supporting the lawsuit, screaming that this is a school closure, will be the most angry if that lawsuit works but it doesn’t change the ultimate vote. Can you imagine how mad they’ll be if they still have to move to Crown but now it can’t even be called Wootton?!?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think it'll be no, but abstentions - they'll say there wasn't enough time to study or enough community feedback.

Also, going on the record that the Wootton community fighting for one school was a huge distraction - had the entire county come together (looking at you MCCPTA, where were you?) against the six region program model, there could have been changes. Instead, Taylor gets his bomb, blowing up the entire school system, and decimating the handful of excellent schools that remained of a once great school system

MCCPTA criticized the regional model last fall, and the board didn't care.

https://bethesdamagazine.com/2025/10/31/mccpta-slow-programming-changes/

They need to say it again and so does MCEA. The boundary battle has let MCPS hide the fact that the regional model is based on assumptions and not backed by any data.

I am not thrilled with the regional model, nor do I have any confidence the implementation will go well. I feel especially terrible for the current 7th and 6th graders that will be the guinea pigs for all of this.

I am not sure what more data they can reasonably collect. It is very hard to gauge interest for programs that will be used by kids that aren't even in middle school yet. As far as evaluating current programs, that would take years and probably not offer too many actionable insights. That particular proposal really does ring like a delay tactic.

I think at this point opponents need to articulate what specifically we don't like about the regional model and what we would like to see changed. I think the Black and Brown Coalition's recommendation to focus implementation on programs in high poverty schools makes a lot of sense and it has been completely ignored.

They have collected almost no data at all, so I think there is plenty more information they could reasonably provide...

They could survey 6th and 7th grade parents/students to see if there is interest in the current proposal. They promised to do this several times but never followed through.

They could make estimates on how many kids will leave each high school based on previous data instead of assumptions. For example, MCPS is suggesting 100+ students will leave Whitman for regional programs each year. Currently, an average of 10 kids per year leave Whitman and there were another 24 on some wait list or another last year. What data do they have suggesting so many more students will leave? The only answer I have been given is "we believe they will."

MCPS said students turn down programs because of long commutes but are offering buses from high schools only which will make the commute impossible for some students. They could provide data on how much commute times will improve.

MCPS could be honest about the budget. The boundary study says new bus routes cost $125,000 each, but the regional model budget claims it is only $50,000 for a new bus route. Which is it?

+1

The fact that they called this the Program Analysis in the first place is because they were originally supposed to conduct a decently thorough ANALYSIS of the existing programs to inform changes to program offerings. Obviously someone told them to start building the plane as they were flying in order to “inextricably link” this to the boundary timeline, and they skipped the whole data collection and analysis part. This is the main objection and concern everyone has. I think they actually did a decent job on the boundaries at the end of the day but the programs leave me very concerned and skeptical. I’m particularly concerned about transportation meltdowns or giant gaps.

DP - yep, and the website STILL says Academic Programs Analysis. The documents on it are a little dated at this point but even at that point it was clear it wasn't an analysis,.it was a proposal to dismantle the consortia, establish dozens of new programs and reduce existing magnets that cover.large geographical areas to regional.magnets

And the boundary battles have become so overwhelming that many people have no idea what the regional program proposal even means for them. And the board has seen so much data about the boundaries they don't realize there was basically no analysis for the regional plan. Originally the program analysis was supposed to be done by an outside vendor, but MCPS decided to do it "in house" AKA not at all.