Thurs Feb 5: Board Work Session

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They should scrap everything and start over with real community engagement this time. This is a costly and hodgepodge mess.

Stop. MCPS has made it clear they do NOT care about community input. It's time to wake up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of you realize he was brought in to fundamentally change the system, right? He wasn’t brought here to continue with the status quo or do anything the community asked for. That’s what he did today.

Ummm not for the new WJ cluster. That is VERY status quote.

*status quo

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why did Dr Taylor play the victim at the outset of his presentation?

Because....of DCUP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this might be a stunt. I predict they're gonna have Taylor be the bad guy and recommend Option H, but then will have the BOE reject his recommendation so that people think the board is actually responsive to public engagement and feedback and not just a doormat for Taylor.

wishful thinking.

spending hundreds of millions to build a new high school and turning it into a "holding" school would not go over well.

Correct. That’s why Dr. Taylor already decided last fall to go with Option H. EF&G would have made Crown a holding school, a thought he couldn’t stomach after spending the money to build Crown.

Actually, it wasn't Taylor's idea. An MCCPTA volunteer suggested the move this winter. Taylor really doesn't have good ideas, generally.

BS
PTA reps have been plants for years. MCPS feeds them the talking points.

Think what you want, but no BS. MCPS gets plenty of pushback from MCCPTA, which you would know if you were actually involved.

Which is how it is known about MCPS using PTA as plants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I still haven't found an explanation of why the added 500 seats from Edison, which is a separate school that offers part-time programs and does not confer high school degrees, to Wheaton HS.

Spacing issues?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still haven't found an explanation of why the added 500 seats from Edison, which is a separate school that offers part-time programs and does not confer high school degrees, to Wheaton HS.

Spacing issues?

The Superintendent's proposed CIP lists a capacity of 2,220 for Wheaton HS. Current enrollment is 2,687. According the MCPS school profiles, in 2023-24 Edison had an enrollment of 968 students.

However, the boundary recommendation gives Wheaton HS a capacity of 2,720. Under the tables are two notes:
1. "Wheaton HS includes the capacity of Edison HS"
And
2. "Assumes 500 students attend Wheaton HS for CTE"

Edison HS and Wheaton HS are separate schools. However, there is something called the Wheaton Edison Partnership through which students from 17 high school clusters can choose to attend for 9-12 grade and take classes at both Wheaton and Edison to complete high school as well as a CTE program at Edison.

So I'm confused.

Why do the boundary study tables say that the capacity number includes Edison HS and Wheaton HS? Edison has 1000 students enrolled and they only added 500. Is this because Edison is part time so it actually only has 500 spots of capacity at any given time? If so, is it assumed that a full 1000 students zoned for Wheaton will attend Edison part time from Wheaton HS? Isn't that a ton of students? And they've said Edison will still be available to other clusters so that makes no sense.

Or is it "only" 500 students zoned for Wheaton attending Edison part time (still a ton)? If Edison is a part time program, and 500 students attend that program from Wheaton HS, won't they still be at Wheaton HS for some courses? If so, why do the boundary options assume that Edison relieves 500 seats of capacity at Wheaton HS?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think this might be a stunt. I predict they're gonna have Taylor be the bad guy and recommend Option H, but then will have the BOE reject his recommendation so that people think the board is actually responsive to public engagement and feedback and not just a doormat for Taylor.

wishful thinking.

spending hundreds of millions to build a new high school and turning it into a "holding" school would not go over well.

Correct. That’s why Dr. Taylor already decided last fall to go with Option H. EF&G would have made Crown a holding school, a thought he couldn’t stomach after spending the money to build Crown.

Actually, it wasn't Taylor's idea. An MCCPTA volunteer suggested the move this winter. Taylor really doesn't have good ideas, generally.

BS
PTA reps have been plants for years. MCPS feeds them the talking points.

Think what you want, but no BS. MCPS gets plenty of pushback from MCCPTA, which you would know if you were actually involved.

Which is how it is known about MCPS using PTA as plants.

LOL. PTA is a garden of cacti to MCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For Woodward, Taylor is moving forward with a modified Option B.

The most eyebrow raising thing to me at first glance is that this option will leave Walter Johnson with one of the lowest utilization rates: 77.7%

So one of the wealthiest parts of the county just got a high school that's now one of the less crowded, which will likely help with class sizes. Way to reward the wealthy and affluent, Taylor!

Woodward, the new high school that has been built to offload WJ's over capacity will have a significantly more stretched projected utilization rate of 91.2%.

Class sizes aren't necessarily smaller in smaller schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay, I have a lot of problems with Taylor. I don't like the boundary or regional programs recommendations for a variety of reasons all of which have been articulated on this thread and/or others.

But on a positive note, I am kind of coming around to the allocation of programs in Region 1. I like that they added engineering to Northwood. I like that Einstein, Northwood and Blair each have STEM programs. I think that is a reasonable way to give these schools something that could attract ambitious and high performing students. I am still worried that the Humanities and IB programs at Whitman and BCC will siphon off some of the better resourced kids in the other three schools, and I still think this is all going to be a sh$t show for the first several years if not longer due to lack of resources including staffing anf transportation. I am a teensy bit hopeful that the STEM programs will be attractive enough to keep high performing and well resourced students at these schools.

Sure, these may be hopeful signs, but only if students can travel across MCPS to get to the high schools of their choice. Bus transportation will collapse under Taylor's new vision. He has no interest in logistics - I can imagine him screaming at staff to FIX IT when it falls apart.

From our house, which is also very close to a lot of apartment buildings, my kid could take a public bus to 4 of the 5 schools in Region 1. Whitman is really the only one that would be very difficult for us. I realize this definitely doesn't apply to most families, but I do think in Region 1 the transportation could be okay for some kids, assuming they get into the program they want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still haven't found an explanation of why the added 500 seats from Edison, which is a separate school that offers part-time programs and does not confer high school degrees, to Wheaton HS.

Spacing issues?

The Superintendent's proposed CIP lists a capacity of 2,220 for Wheaton HS. Current enrollment is 2,687. According the MCPS school profiles, in 2023-24 Edison had an enrollment of 968 students.

However, the boundary recommendation gives Wheaton HS a capacity of 2,720. Under the tables are two notes:
1. "Wheaton HS includes the capacity of Edison HS"
And
2. "Assumes 500 students attend Wheaton HS for CTE"

Edison HS and Wheaton HS are separate schools. However, there is something called the Wheaton Edison Partnership through which students from 17 high school clusters can choose to attend for 9-12 grade and take classes at both Wheaton and Edison to complete high school as well as a CTE program at Edison.

So I'm confused.

Why do the boundary study tables say that the capacity number includes Edison HS and Wheaton HS? Edison has 1000 students enrolled and they only added 500. Is this because Edison is part time so it actually only has 500 spots of capacity at any given time? If so, is it assumed that a full 1000 students zoned for Wheaton will attend Edison part time from Wheaton HS? Isn't that a ton of students? And they've said Edison will still be available to other clusters so that makes no sense.

Or is it "only" 500 students zoned for Wheaton attending Edison part time (still a ton)? If Edison is a part time program, and 500 students attend that program from Wheaton HS, won't they still be at Wheaton HS for some courses? If so, why do the boundary options assume that Edison relieves 500 seats of capacity at Wheaton HS?

They really need to explain this, but I don't think a board member has ever asked about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anything controversial in the Woodward recommendations? I personally like it for our neighborhood, but curious if there's any hot-button changes included.

I think split articulating Garrett Park and Kensington-Parkwood is going to generate a lot of opposition. There is also a ton of split articulation for Wheaton and Kennedy feeder schools. What I find weird is they do all this split articulation, and Woodward's FARMS rate ends up more than double that of Walter Johnson. That's insane to me for high schools that are so close to each other. Viers Mill ES should be zoned to WJ, not Woodward.

+1

Woodward and WJ should be getting one high FARMS ES each. Putting 2 in one and zero ion another makes no sense then both HS are less than mile apart. Ceoncentrating poverty should be avoided whenver it's possible.

Taylor is MAGA so he is against diversity, equity and inclusion. He uses the word equity a lot, but it is performative and it is clear in the way he uses it that he doesn't know what that word means and/or doesn't care.

I don't know him, but this makes no sense to me. it was a low hanging fruit to put one high FARMS ES each in Woodward and WJ. Not very complicated unless WJ PTA lobbied to make WJ Whitman 2.0 and got this result.

I am neither in Woodward nor in WJ but this jumps out. Putting 35% FARMS in new school is poor start specially given special program is also not much to do with academics. Worst possible combination of FARMS and program out of all choices.

But just picture this. Now, a BOE member gets to bravely stand up for equity by proposing moving Veirs Mill to Walter Johnson. The rest of the BOE gets to bravely vote in favor of this. All without impacting property values in the Town of Kensington. Yang and Silvestre will campaign on their bravery in their runs for Council.

It may not work as you are imagining and recommended option is liklely to be approved. There is no Woodward PTA to advocate for Woodward.

Does Viers Mill ES want to go to WJ?

The WJ PTA has not taken a position on any particular option.

I am in VM and love to be assinged to WJ. I don't see why one any one will object. It;s not like WJ and Woodward are far apar. They are next to each opther on same road less than mile.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anything controversial in the Woodward recommendations? I personally like it for our neighborhood, but curious if there's any hot-button changes included.

I think split articulating Garrett Park and Kensington-Parkwood is going to generate a lot of opposition. There is also a ton of split articulation for Wheaton and Kennedy feeder schools. What I find weird is they do all this split articulation, and Woodward's FARMS rate ends up more than double that of Walter Johnson. That's insane to me for high schools that are so close to each other. Viers Mill ES should be zoned to WJ, not Woodward.

+1

Woodward and WJ should be getting one high FARMS ES each. Putting 2 in one and zero ion another makes no sense then both HS are less than mile apart. Ceoncentrating poverty should be avoided whenver it's possible.

Taylor is MAGA so he is against diversity, equity and inclusion. He uses the word equity a lot, but it is performative and it is clear in the way he uses it that he doesn't know what that word means and/or doesn't care.

I don't know him, but this makes no sense to me. it was a low hanging fruit to put one high FARMS ES each in Woodward and WJ. Not very complicated unless WJ PTA lobbied to make WJ Whitman 2.0 and got this result.

I am neither in Woodward nor in WJ but this jumps out. Putting 35% FARMS in new school is poor start specially given special program is also not much to do with academics. Worst possible combination of FARMS and program out of all choices.

But just picture this. Now, a BOE member gets to bravely stand up for equity by proposing moving Veirs Mill to Walter Johnson. The rest of the BOE gets to bravely vote in favor of this. All without impacting property values in the Town of Kensington. Yang and Silvestre will campaign on their bravery in their runs for Council.

It may not work as you are imagining and recommended option is liklely to be approved. There is no Woodward PTA to advocate for Woodward.

Does Viers Mill ES want to go to WJ?

The WJ PTA has not taken a position on any particular option.

I am in VM and love to be assinged to WJ. I don't see why one any one will object. It;s not like WJ and Woodward are far apar. They are next to each opther on same road less than mile.

So maybe all of KP to Woodward and Viers Mill to WJ? I wonder what that would do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still haven't found an explanation of why the added 500 seats from Edison, which is a separate school that offers part-time programs and does not confer high school degrees, to Wheaton HS.

Spacing issues?

The Superintendent's proposed CIP lists a capacity of 2,220 for Wheaton HS. Current enrollment is 2,687. According the MCPS school profiles, in 2023-24 Edison had an enrollment of 968 students.

However, the boundary recommendation gives Wheaton HS a capacity of 2,720. Under the tables are two notes:
1. "Wheaton HS includes the capacity of Edison HS"
And
2. "Assumes 500 students attend Wheaton HS for CTE"

Edison HS and Wheaton HS are separate schools. However, there is something called the Wheaton Edison Partnership through which students from 17 high school clusters can choose to attend for 9-12 grade and take classes at both Wheaton and Edison to complete high school as well as a CTE program at Edison.

So I'm confused.

Why do the boundary study tables say that the capacity number includes Edison HS and Wheaton HS? Edison has 1000 students enrolled and they only added 500. Is this because Edison is part time so it actually only has 500 spots of capacity at any given time? If so, is it assumed that a full 1000 students zoned for Wheaton will attend Edison part time from Wheaton HS? Isn't that a ton of students? And they've said Edison will still be available to other clusters so that makes no sense.

Or is it "only" 500 students zoned for Wheaton attending Edison part time (still a ton)? If Edison is a part time program, and 500 students attend that program from Wheaton HS, won't they still be at Wheaton HS for some courses? If so, why do the boundary options assume that Edison relieves 500 seats of capacity at Wheaton HS?

They really need to explain this, but I don't think a board member has ever asked about it.

Agreed. And as Wheaton hosts the STEM program, there are implications for the whole region if the capacity numbers don't make sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anything controversial in the Woodward recommendations? I personally like it for our neighborhood, but curious if there's any hot-button changes included.

I think split articulating Garrett Park and Kensington-Parkwood is going to generate a lot of opposition. There is also a ton of split articulation for Wheaton and Kennedy feeder schools. What I find weird is they do all this split articulation, and Woodward's FARMS rate ends up more than double that of Walter Johnson. That's insane to me for high schools that are so close to each other. Viers Mill ES should be zoned to WJ, not Woodward.

+1

Woodward and WJ should be getting one high FARMS ES each. Putting 2 in one and zero ion another makes no sense then both HS are less than mile apart. Ceoncentrating poverty should be avoided whenver it's possible.

Taylor is MAGA so he is against diversity, equity and inclusion. He uses the word equity a lot, but it is performative and it is clear in the way he uses it that he doesn't know what that word means and/or doesn't care.

I don't know him, but this makes no sense to me. it was a low hanging fruit to put one high FARMS ES each in Woodward and WJ. Not very complicated unless WJ PTA lobbied to make WJ Whitman 2.0 and got this result.

I am neither in Woodward nor in WJ but this jumps out. Putting 35% FARMS in new school is poor start specially given special program is also not much to do with academics. Worst possible combination of FARMS and program out of all choices.

But just picture this. Now, a BOE member gets to bravely stand up for equity by proposing moving Veirs Mill to Walter Johnson. The rest of the BOE gets to bravely vote in favor of this. All without impacting property values in the Town of Kensington. Yang and Silvestre will campaign on their bravery in their runs for Council.

It may not work as you are imagining and recommended option is liklely to be approved. There is no Woodward PTA to advocate for Woodward.

Does Viers Mill ES want to go to WJ?

The WJ PTA has not taken a position on any particular option.

I am in VM and love to be assinged to WJ. I don't see why one any one will object. It;s not like WJ and Woodward are far apar. They are next to each opther on same road less than mile.

Same! And same! I think it would solve some of the remaining problems with this option

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anything controversial in the Woodward recommendations? I personally like it for our neighborhood, but curious if there's any hot-button changes included.

I think split articulating Garrett Park and Kensington-Parkwood is going to generate a lot of opposition. There is also a ton of split articulation for Wheaton and Kennedy feeder schools. What I find weird is they do all this split articulation, and Woodward's FARMS rate ends up more than double that of Walter Johnson. That's insane to me for high schools that are so close to each other. Viers Mill ES should be zoned to WJ, not Woodward.

+1

Woodward and WJ should be getting one high FARMS ES each. Putting 2 in one and zero ion another makes no sense then both HS are less than mile apart. Ceoncentrating poverty should be avoided whenver it's possible.

Taylor is MAGA so he is against diversity, equity and inclusion. He uses the word equity a lot, but it is performative and it is clear in the way he uses it that he doesn't know what that word means and/or doesn't care.

I don't know him, but this makes no sense to me. it was a low hanging fruit to put one high FARMS ES each in Woodward and WJ. Not very complicated unless WJ PTA lobbied to make WJ Whitman 2.0 and got this result.

I am neither in Woodward nor in WJ but this jumps out. Putting 35% FARMS in new school is poor start specially given special program is also not much to do with academics. Worst possible combination of FARMS and program out of all choices.

But just picture this. Now, a BOE member gets to bravely stand up for equity by proposing moving Veirs Mill to Walter Johnson. The rest of the BOE gets to bravely vote in favor of this. All without impacting property values in the Town of Kensington. Yang and Silvestre will campaign on their bravery in their runs for Council.

It may not work as you are imagining and recommended option is liklely to be approved. There is no Woodward PTA to advocate for Woodward.

Does Viers Mill ES want to go to WJ?

The WJ PTA has not taken a position on any particular option.

I am in VM and love to be assinged to WJ. I don't see why one any one will object. It;s not like WJ and Woodward are far apar. They are next to each opther on same road less than mile.

Same! And same! I think it would solve some of the remaining problems with this option

Viers Mill to WJ and who to Woodward? All of KP?