BOE just sent out a message that they are satisfied with the regional model

[Anonymous]

Just received this BOE update:

Centering Equity and Community in Academic Program Planning
The Board is committed to ensuring that MCPS academic program planning prioritizes equity, transparency, and meaningful community engagement.

Following the Secondary Academic Programs Analysis presentation, the Board affirmed that all decisions around boundaries and program access must be coordinated to create fair and student-centered outcomes.

We are focused on:

Prioritizing equitable access to programs for all students, regardless of their neighborhood.

Calling for ongoing two-way communication with families and stakeholders.

Requesting a careful review of boundary maps to minimize student displacement.

Strengthening local school offerings like dual enrollment, CTE, and IB to reduce travel burdens.

Expanding communication beyond principals with better outreach, language access, and in-person engagement.

Ensuring educators are actively involved in planning and launching new programs.

Asking MCPS to provide a clear plan for the Middle School program analysis that reflects these priorities.

The Board is pleased that the system has provided the evaluation criteria, timeline, budget, and transportation estimates, all of which are essential in understanding the plan.

MCPS will hold virtual meetings to discuss these plans.
Join informational sessions on Wednesday, Oct. 22 and Monday, Oct. 27 at 12:00–1:00 p.m. and 6:00–7:00 p.m. In-person meetings will also be scheduled, more information to come.

[Anonymous]

That doesn't say they are satisfied with the regional model.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That doesn't say they are satisfied with the regional model.

BOE clearly says they are satisfied with what MCPS has provided, and didn't provide any platform for community feedback. Instead, they cite MCPS "information" session which doesn't have a feedback mechanism either. In last week's BOE meeting, someone testified that the chat function was disabled during these "information" sessions. And BOE clearly feels this is fine.

[Anonymous]

Of course they are, they were probably behind it in the first place. Question is whose paying for all this?

[Anonymous]

They need to stop using the term equity as this is not equity and stop saying dual enrollment helps with transportation as parents have to provide a car, have access to public transportation or drive for dual enrollment which can be a huge burden on families.

[Anonymous]

I'm wondering if the upcoming CIP budget public hearings are suitable platforms to provide community concerns? Since June, all testimonies (> 20) related to the regional model all expressed various concerns. I've not heard a single testimony in support of the model. Yet BOE is still "pleased" with MCPS and doesn't believe a public hearing is needed.

Per BOE handbook, Section 10, they are supposed to "Holds public hearings on the operating and capital budgets and issues of wide public interest, as determined by
the Board."

The schedule for the Board of Education review, public hearings, and action on the CIP is as follows:

Tuesday, October 14, 2025 (at 10:00 a.m.) – the Board will hold a preliminary work session after receiving a presentation on this year’s CIP recommendation
Thursday, October 23, 2025 (at 6:00 p.m.) – the Board will hold a public hearing on the CIP
Tuesday, October 28, 2025 (at 6:00 p.m.) – the Board will hold a public hearing on the CIP
Tuesday, November 4, 2025 – The Board will hold a work session on the CIP
Thursday, November 20, 2025 – the Board will hold a meeting to take tentative action on the CIP recommendations.

[Anonymous]

The board says they are focused on "Calling for ongoing two-way communication with families and stakeholders" yet they have not critiqued the current one-way communication approach from MCPS at all, as far as I can tell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That doesn't say they are satisfied with the regional model.

Correct. That says they are please that have done some of the important work. It doesn’t mean that a lot more is not still needed for sign off.

[Anonymous]

There are public hearings coming up this week. Also Montoya noted in the meeting that MCPS should make clear the meeting is for anyone not just the 6-7th grade families they were targeting because they are the first impacted. Also, someone I believe Wolfe noted the need to have folks present at the Boundary Study hearings to answer questions/address concerns about the Program Analysis that come up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are public hearings coming up this week. Also Montoya noted in the meeting that MCPS should make clear the meeting is for anyone not just the 6-7th grade families they were targeting because they are the first impacted. Also, someone I believe Wolfe noted the need to have folks present at the Boundary Study hearings to answer questions/address concerns about the Program Analysis that come up.

The public hearings are all for CIP comments, so I guess testimony regarding boundary options is considered relevant, but regional model concerns are considered irrelevant?

[Anonymous]

This message is so sickening

[Anonymous]

Not voting for any of the current BOE members, no matter what they are running for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not voting for any of the current BOE members, no matter what they are running for.

I wasn't planning to in the first place, but this really is telling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not voting for any of the current BOE members, no matter what they are running for.

I'll defer decisions like that until I know who else is on the ballot.

[Anonymous]

Good lord, the BOE really does just rubber stamp things. I think there are some potentially good things about the regional model, but so much of the budget, transition plans for current 8th graders who enter the current program in its last year, and questions about qualified teachers seems completely undefined.