BOE Spring Facilities and Boundaries Work Session #2

[Anonymous]

There's a lot to unpack from today's session.

Need to rewatch, but a few observations based on initial watch:

- Taylor seems very angry. He attacked the media, expressed exasperation and frustration with the public feedback he's received thus far, and was weirdly aggressive in his comments at various points during the meeting.

- MCPS did a lot of responding to criticism it's received in both Woodward and Crown Boundary Studies. A lot of the pushback was around the feedback on how they calculated utilization and forecasted student enrollment. I'll leave it to those who are more well-versed on if you think their responses were persuasive.

- More detail on Program Model. They got into some forecasting on how program enrollment scenarios will impact student movement and building utilization. Taylor used this information to reinforce why the Program Analysis and Boundary Studies are inextricably linked.

[Anonymous]

None of the board members really pushed back on what MCPS presented. A lot of them complimented MCPS staff profusely on how amazing and incredible their presentation one. Especially Board President Grace Rivera-Oven.

[Anonymous]

For those who were anticipating that Peter Ostrander would improve the programming logic and thinking, tune in to the portion at 1 hour and 51 minutes in to see how he impresses you.

[Anonymous]

Haven't watched it, but skimmed the PowerPoint and struck by the rude, dismissive tone. Not surprised exactly as that is clearly their attitude towards anyone who asks questions or criticizes them, but this PowerPoint ramped it up a notch

[Anonymous]

Oh and the assumption that equal shares of kids from each school will leave for programs at other schools is laughable and embarrassing

[Anonymous]

Julie Yang has mentioned and heard the criticisms of Woodward essentially being a performing arts school. She brought it up and asked Jeannie to explain their logic.

Apparently machine learning and data sciences was added to Woodward. Is that new???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For those who were anticipating that Peter Ostrander would improve the programming logic and thinking, tune in to the portion at 1 hour and 51 minutes in to see how he impresses you.

Just listened. What is impressive? Mr. O stressed the student population projection used a simple equal-partitioning model, added 20% uncertainty. That's about it. I also heard that they will make small adjustment by placing some expected popular program in another HS if the anticipated enrollment exceeds the capacity. Anything else about curriculum, teacher recruitment and retention, and transportation? I don't hear any. Jennie just reiterated that they would use central stop model.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those who were anticipating that Peter Ostrander would improve the programming logic and thinking, tune in to the portion at 1 hour and 51 minutes in to see how he impresses you.

Just listened. What is impressive? Mr. O stressed the student population projection used a simple equal-partitioning model, added 20% uncertainty. That's about it. I also heard that they will make small adjustment by placing some expected popular program in another HS if the anticipated enrollment exceeds the capacity. Anything else about curriculum, teacher recruitment and retention, and transportation? I don't hear any. Jennie just reiterated that they would use central stop model.

Karla raises this around 2 hours and 40 minutes in and Taylor and an MCPS staffer respond. Taylor thinks this will allow MCPS to improve PD by subject area in the regions and supposed there's a PD plan being developed and finalized.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:None of the board members really pushed back on what MCPS presented. A lot of them complimented MCPS staff profusely on how amazing and incredible their presentation one. Especially Board President Grace Rivera-Oven.

Disappointing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those who were anticipating that Peter Ostrander would improve the programming logic and thinking, tune in to the portion at 1 hour and 51 minutes in to see how he impresses you.

Just listened. What is impressive? Mr. O stressed the student population projection used a simple equal-partitioning model, added 20% uncertainty. That's about it. I also heard that they will make small adjustment by placing some expected popular program in another HS if the anticipated enrollment exceeds the capacity. Anything else about curriculum, teacher recruitment and retention, and transportation? I don't hear any. Jennie just reiterated that they would use central stop model.

Karla raises this around 2 hours and 40 minutes in and Taylor and an MCPS staffer respond. Taylor thinks this will allow MCPS to improve PD by subject area in the regions and supposed there's a PD plan being developed and finalized.

Thanks for saving me a ton of time listening to BSs. Karla did ask one question I have in mind, and 2 hour 42 min in, the answer is surprising to me: they still have a design team? The original design team? I thought that they were dismissed last October-ish -- some posters on this board and other channels who were actively involved the design team were so pissed-off that they were used simply as a puppet for "mcps is collecting community inputs".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those who were anticipating that Peter Ostrander would improve the programming logic and thinking, tune in to the portion at 1 hour and 51 minutes in to see how he impresses you.

Just listened. What is impressive? Mr. O stressed the student population projection used a simple equal-partitioning model, added 20% uncertainty. That's about it. I also heard that they will make small adjustment by placing some expected popular program in another HS if the anticipated enrollment exceeds the capacity. Anything else about curriculum, teacher recruitment and retention, and transportation? I don't hear any. Jennie just reiterated that they would use central stop model.

Karla raises this around 2 hours and 40 minutes in and Taylor and an MCPS staffer respond. Taylor thinks this will allow MCPS to improve PD by subject area in the regions and supposed there's a PD plan being developed and finalized.

Thanks for saving me a ton of time listening to BSs. Karla did ask one question I have in mind, and 2 hour 42 min in, the answer is surprising to me: they still have a design team? The original design team? I thought that they were dismissed last October-ish -- some posters on this board and other channels who were actively involved the design team were so pissed-off that they were used simply as a puppet for "mcps is collecting community inputs".

I noted the mention of the design team as well and was surprised because I thought it was dissolved like you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those who were anticipating that Peter Ostrander would improve the programming logic and thinking, tune in to the portion at 1 hour and 51 minutes in to see how he impresses you.

Just listened. What is impressive? Mr. O stressed the student population projection used a simple equal-partitioning model, added 20% uncertainty. That's about it. I also heard that they will make small adjustment by placing some expected popular program in another HS if the anticipated enrollment exceeds the capacity. Anything else about curriculum, teacher recruitment and retention, and transportation? I don't hear any. Jennie just reiterated that they would use central stop model.

Karla raises this around 2 hours and 40 minutes in and Taylor and an MCPS staffer respond. Taylor thinks this will allow MCPS to improve PD by subject area in the regions and supposed there's a PD plan being developed and finalized.

Thanks for saving me a ton of time listening to BSs. Karla did ask one question I have in mind, and 2 hour 42 min in, the answer is surprising to me: they still have a design team? The original design team? I thought that they were dismissed last October-ish -- some posters on this board and other channels who were actively involved the design team were so pissed-off that they were used simply as a puppet for "mcps is collecting community inputs".

I noted the mention of the design team as well and was surprised because I thought it was dissolved like you.

The design team was reconvened about a month ago and we've met maybe twice. The meetings have been recaps of what MCOS haas done so far. We have not been given any new information, nor have we been asked for feedback on what MCPS has presented in the four months since we previously met.

MCPS is pushing ahead with info meetings to grade 3-6 families, calling them "future fairs" or something. And they are gearing up for middle school kids to apply for programs in fall 2026, with the intention of kids starting the new programs in fall 2027.

Meanwhile, the plan has not been approved. MCPS hasn't presented staffing, curriculum, transportation, or budget plans to the BoE. There is only one work session left before the March 26 vote but they haven't shared the agenda yet. It may end up being all about boundaries.

I'm concerned that Taylor and McGuire don't intend to present cost estimates until they're doing FY28 budget a year from now. By that time, students will have already applied for programs. The BoE and County Council will be stuck approving any astronomical number, because the alternative is telling thousands of 8th graders that they can't go to the programs they were promised.

It's the most manipulative process I've ever seen and it's infuriating that the BoE isn't providing responsible oversight. Everyone should contact the BoE and tell them not to approve the program plan until there's at least a budget.

[Anonymous]

- MCPS did a lot of responding to criticism it's received in both Woodward and Crown Boundary Studies. A lot of the pushback was around the feedback on how they calculated utilization and forecasted student enrollment. I'll leave it to those who are more well-versed on if you think their responses were persuasive

Their numbers have been bad for decades. They are literally off by hundreds of students in individual schools, but claim 95 or 99% correct when they average across the entire system. It's meaningless when your child's school is at 125% capacity and another is at 75% and they say, "look, average is 100%, we got it right."

They way they include and don't include what is in the pipeline is criminal. How they decide one year it's new buildings causing overcrowding and the next year it's single family housing turnover.

And can we talk about how their plans used STATE numbers, not actual numbers of students in a catchment area? When they have the later, the the former includes all students in the catchment area, including special ed students who are bussed to discrete or special programs in other schools and, private schools students, because, you know their parents might pull them out and put them in MCPS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

There's a lot to unpack from today's session.

Need to rewatch, but a few observations based on initial watch:

- Taylor seems very angry. He attacked the media, expressed exasperation and frustration with the public feedback he's received thus far, and was weirdly aggressive in his comments at various points during the meeting.

- MCPS did a lot of responding to criticism it's received in both Woodward and Crown Boundary Studies. A lot of the pushback was around the feedback on how they calculated utilization and forecasted student enrollment. I'll leave it to those who are more well-versed on if you think their responses were persuasive.

- More detail on Program Model. They got into some forecasting on how program enrollment scenarios will impact student movement and building utilization. Taylor used this information to reinforce why the Program Analysis and Boundary Studies are inextricably linked.

I watched it but didn't think Taylor seemed angry, nor did I see an attack on the media. At one point he asked that the slides be kept up for a few seconds more so the media could absorb them. What are you referring to specifically?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those who were anticipating that Peter Ostrander would improve the programming logic and thinking, tune in to the portion at 1 hour and 51 minutes in to see how he impresses you.

Just listened. What is impressive? Mr. O stressed the student population projection used a simple equal-partitioning model, added 20% uncertainty. That's about it. I also heard that they will make small adjustment by placing some expected popular program in another HS if the anticipated enrollment exceeds the capacity. Anything else about curriculum, teacher recruitment and retention, and transportation? I don't hear any. Jennie just reiterated that they would use central stop model.

Karla raises this around 2 hours and 40 minutes in and Taylor and an MCPS staffer respond. Taylor thinks this will allow MCPS to improve PD by subject area in the regions and supposed there's a PD plan being developed and finalized.

Thanks for saving me a ton of time listening to BSs. Karla did ask one question I have in mind, and 2 hour 42 min in, the answer is surprising to me: they still have a design team? The original design team? I thought that they were dismissed last October-ish -- some posters on this board and other channels who were actively involved the design team were so pissed-off that they were used simply as a puppet for "mcps is collecting community inputs".

I noted the mention of the design team as well and was surprised because I thought it was dissolved like you.

The design team was reconvened about a month ago and we've met maybe twice. The meetings have been recaps of what MCOS haas done so far. We have not been given any new information, nor have we been asked for feedback on what MCPS has presented in the four months since we previously met.

MCPS is pushing ahead with info meetings to grade 3-6 families, calling them "future fairs" or something. And they are gearing up for middle school kids to apply for programs in fall 2026, with the intention of kids starting the new programs in fall 2027.

Meanwhile, the plan has not been approved. MCPS hasn't presented staffing, curriculum, transportation, or budget plans to the BoE. There is only one work session left before the March 26 vote but they haven't shared the agenda yet. It may end up being all about boundaries.

I'm concerned that Taylor and McGuire don't intend to present cost estimates until they're doing FY28 budget a year from now. By that time, students will have already applied for programs. The BoE and County Council will be stuck approving any astronomical number, because the alternative is telling thousands of 8th graders that they can't go to the programs they were promised.

It's the most manipulative process I've ever seen and it's infuriating that the BoE isn't providing responsible oversight. Everyone should contact the BoE and tell them not to approve the program plan until there's at least a budget.

Thank you for contributing your time and effort and voice to this hopeless process! Please do keep on emailing BOE members and letting them know the situation and concerns of the design team. I have completely lost hope and interests in fighting with these BS, and having still a design team and Mr. O there in CO ignite my hope again that the regional model might still has a slim chance of hope to start off from a good position... I have no hope at all though that BOE will postpone or disapprove the regional model. They have no spine nor brain nor critical thinking skills.