Board of Education 9/4/2025 Board Work Session thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The portion on the climate survey results was disappointing. The board members that were present took it way too easy on Moran for about a quarter of schools having very concerning results from staff and students.

Have they finally released the climate survey data from 24-25??

Supposedly it releases today, according to Dr. Addison.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 6th testimony unveiled some interesting motivation from Taylor’s past in pushing the the secondary program analysis. Interesting…

Which was...?

Starting from 28:14, watch the video

Just that he made the same change in Stafford, his prior school system that is much smaller than MCPS (5 HSs, not 25).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 6th testimony unveiled some interesting motivation from Taylor’s past in pushing the the secondary program analysis. Interesting…

Which was...?

Starting from 28:14, watch the video

Just that he made the same change in Stafford, his prior school system that is much smaller than MCPS (5 HSs, not 25).

Why is that a problem?

[Anonymous]

I’m always curious how folks believe we can expand access without creating new programs and populating them elsewhere. Blair already has over 3K students. It’s not like we can just add more magnet seats there. And once we create a similar program elsewhere what is the purpose keeping them countywide?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 6th testimony unveiled some interesting motivation from Taylor’s past in pushing the the secondary program analysis. Interesting…

Which was...?

This is her written testimony, don't know if she read it word for word: https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DL6P5562DF20/$file/Catharine%20Civillico%20BOE%20Testimony%20-%20090425.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 6th testimony unveiled some interesting motivation from Taylor’s past in pushing the the secondary program analysis. Interesting…

Which was...?

Starting from 28:14, watch the video

Just that he made the same change in Stafford, his prior school system that is much smaller than MCPS (5 HSs, not 25).

Why is that a problem?

The lady testified made the key concerns very clear. First, he is trying to expand the same thing by 5X at the same time with the same timeframe. That's definitely too quick. Second, the previous county Taylor worked didn't have any magnet programs, let alone established county-wide ones that MCPS has for decades. Thirdly, previous board passed with 4:3, meaning that BOE there was also concerned and reluctant to give a green light. Last but not the least, the implementation rolled in only one year ago there. So basically he ran away from any potential credits or accountability. He will absolutely do the same thing after his term here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 6th testimony unveiled some interesting motivation from Taylor’s past in pushing the the secondary program analysis. Interesting…

Which was...?

Starting from 28:14, watch the video

Just that he made the same change in Stafford, his prior school system that is much smaller than MCPS (5 HSs, not 25).

Why is that a problem?

The lady testified made the key concerns very clear. First, he is trying to expand the same thing by 5X at the same time with the same timeframe. That's definitely too quick. Second, the previous county Taylor worked didn't have any magnet programs, let alone established county-wide ones that MCPS has for decades. Thirdly, previous board passed with 4:3, meaning that BOE there was also concerned and reluctant to give a green light. Last but not the least, the implementation rolled in only one year ago there. So basically he ran away from any potential credits or accountability. He will absolutely do the same thing after his term here.

But the idea of assessing the locations of the many MCPS programs and expanding access to them isn't something Taylor brought to MCPS. It's been suggested at board meetings for years before his arrival.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 6th testimony unveiled some interesting motivation from Taylor’s past in pushing the the secondary program analysis. Interesting…

Which was...?

Starting from 28:14, watch the video

Just that he made the same change in Stafford, his prior school system that is much smaller than MCPS (5 HSs, not 25).

Why is that a problem?

The lady testified made the key concerns very clear. First, he is trying to expand the same thing by 5X at the same time with the same timeframe. That's definitely too quick. Second, the previous county Taylor worked didn't have any magnet programs, let alone established county-wide ones that MCPS has for decades. Thirdly, previous board passed with 4:3, meaning that BOE there was also concerned and reluctant to give a green light. Last but not the least, the implementation rolled in only one year ago there. So basically he ran away from any potential credits or accountability. He will absolutely do the same thing after his term here.

But the idea of assessing the locations of the many MCPS programs and expanding access to them isn't something Taylor brought to MCPS. It's been suggested at board meetings for years before his arrival.

Reference please? I'm only aware of the Metis report, conducted in 2016, which recommended expansion of some programs (hence some regional IB) but nothing like this one in scale nor that hustle.

Maybe this is part of the reason he was offered the superintendent position to implement the long-term plan. However, the implementation plan is so gonna 100% ending up in a huge mess and a rocket increase of your property tax.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The testimony about the horrid state of Carver for central office employees was an embarrassment. MCPS has no shame.

The BOE spent a fortune renovating the MVA space at Gude drive which was already in newly renovated condition. Shame on them.

Actually they did NOT. The former tenant left the furniture. Carver needs help--it is however a historical landmark with limited freedoms for rehab.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 6th testimony unveiled some interesting motivation from Taylor’s past in pushing the the secondary program analysis. Interesting…

Which was...?

Starting from 28:14, watch the video

Just that he made the same change in Stafford, his prior school system that is much smaller than MCPS (5 HSs, not 25).

Why is that a problem?

The lady testified made the key concerns very clear. First, he is trying to expand the same thing by 5X at the same time with the same timeframe. That's definitely too quick. Second, the previous county Taylor worked didn't have any magnet programs, let alone established county-wide ones that MCPS has for decades. Thirdly, previous board passed with 4:3, meaning that BOE there was also concerned and reluctant to give a green light. Last but not the least, the implementation rolled in only one year ago there. So basically he ran away from any potential credits or accountability. He will absolutely do the same thing after his term here.

Agree with the woman (starts around minute 28) to keep current humanities magnets criteria based, and that this plan cannot be half baked.

But I don’t see how equity can get worse than the current 400 seats for almost 52,000 students, over 40% from two high SES high schools.

Also, just because he is replicating the regional model from his former school district, does not mean that the regional model would not meet the needs of MCPS students. That is a strange argument. It’s additionally not relevant that his plan passed 4:3. So what, three people did not vote for his plan. And MCPS has stated it will keep the magnets and replicate them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 6th testimony unveiled some interesting motivation from Taylor’s past in pushing the the secondary program analysis. Interesting…

Which was...?

Starting from 28:14, watch the video

Just that he made the same change in Stafford, his prior school system that is much smaller than MCPS (5 HSs, not 25).

Why is that a problem?

The lady testified made the key concerns very clear. First, he is trying to expand the same thing by 5X at the same time with the same timeframe. That's definitely too quick. Second, the previous county Taylor worked didn't have any magnet programs, let alone established county-wide ones that MCPS has for decades. Thirdly, previous board passed with 4:3, meaning that BOE there was also concerned and reluctant to give a green light. Last but not the least, the implementation rolled in only one year ago there. So basically he ran away from any potential credits or accountability. He will absolutely do the same thing after his term here.

Agree with the woman (starts around minute 28) to keep current humanities magnets criteria based, and that this plan cannot be half baked.

But I don’t see how equity can get worse than the current 400 seats for almost 52,000 students, over 40% from two high SES high schools.

Also, just because he is replicating the regional model from his former school district, does not mean that the regional model would not meet the needs of MCPS students. That is a strange argument. It’s additionally not relevant that his plan passed 4:3. So what, three people did not vote for his plan. And MCPS has stated it will keep the magnets and replicate them.

Where did you get these numbers? They are both wrong. It's ~ 720 SMCS seats (400 from Blair and 320 from Poolsville) for 45,000 HS students. The regional model will roughly double the total of STEM students (75*4*6), at the costs of tearing down the 2 national-renowned programs, chopping off half of the advanced courses, dilute the SMCS student make-up to 1/3 of it's current density, "inestimable" increase of transportation cost (according to Taylor), and lack of qualified specialized teachers which is very likely to happen due to the extremely tiny allocation of "training" budget. And I'm not touching IB or humanity programs at all.

Now let's talk about "equity" that the testimony discussed. Which region will rise to the top? Which region will suffer the most and sink even more? You can choose to be blind and deaf to the fact of exacerbated segregation this regional model will bring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The testimony about the horrid state of Carver for central office employees was an embarrassment. MCPS has no shame.

The BOE spent a fortune renovating the MVA space at Gude drive which was already in newly renovated condition. Shame on them.

Actually they did NOT. The former tenant left the furniture. Carver needs help--it is however a historical landmark with limited freedoms for rehab.

They kicked out the MVA before it closed and did a full remodel. MCPS was the former tenant. Carver needs torn down. There is no fixing that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 6th testimony unveiled some interesting motivation from Taylor’s past in pushing the the secondary program analysis. Interesting…

Which was...?

Starting from 28:14, watch the video

Just that he made the same change in Stafford, his prior school system that is much smaller than MCPS (5 HSs, not 25).

Why is that a problem?

The lady testified made the key concerns very clear. First, he is trying to expand the same thing by 5X at the same time with the same timeframe. That's definitely too quick. Second, the previous county Taylor worked didn't have any magnet programs, let alone established county-wide ones that MCPS has for decades. Thirdly, previous board passed with 4:3, meaning that BOE there was also concerned and reluctant to give a green light. Last but not the least, the implementation rolled in only one year ago there. So basically he ran away from any potential credits or accountability. He will absolutely do the same thing after his term here.

Agree with the woman (starts around minute 28) to keep current humanities magnets criteria based, and that this plan cannot be half baked.

But I don’t see how equity can get worse than the current 400 seats for almost 52,000 students, over 40% from two high SES high schools.

Also, just because he is replicating the regional model from his former school district, does not mean that the regional model would not meet the needs of MCPS students. That is a strange argument. It’s additionally not relevant that his plan passed 4:3. So what, three people did not vote for his plan. And MCPS has stated it will keep the magnets and replicate them.

Where did you get these numbers? They are both wrong. It's ~ 720 SMCS seats (400 from Blair and 320 from Poolsville) for 45,000 HS students. The regional model will roughly double the total of STEM students (75*4*6), at the costs of tearing down the 2 national-renowned programs, chopping off half of the advanced courses, dilute the SMCS student make-up to 1/3 of it's current density, "inestimable" increase of transportation cost (according to Taylor), and lack of qualified specialized teachers which is very likely to happen due to the extremely tiny allocation of "training" budget. And I'm not touching IB or humanity programs at all.

Now let's talk about "equity" that the testimony discussed. Which region will rise to the top? Which region will suffer the most and sink even more? You can choose to be blind and deaf to the fact of exacerbated segregation this regional model will bring.

Oh forgot to mention, the future transportation will only occur between HS and HS. So poor students who live away from a HS will be automatically cut-off from any opportunity for criteria-based programs. You call this "equity"?

[Anonymous]

Just keep Moms4Liberty away from MCPS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The portion on the climate survey results was disappointing. The board members that were present took it way too easy on Moran for about a quarter of schools having very concerning results from staff and students.

Have they finally released the climate survey data from 24-25??

Supposedly it releases today, according to Dr. Addison.

Voila

https://sharedaccountability.mcpsmd.org/SurveyResults/content.php