10/30 Board of Ed meeting

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like they are talking about releasing new boundary options in November to reflect the possible use of Crown as a holding school and possible closure of SSIMS? https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DMXHZX4AFC3F/$file/Rev%20Boundary%20Study%20Scopes%20251030%20PPT.pdf

Was there discussion about this in the meeting? Anything of note?

BOE not allowed discussion. Yang makes sure of that. River-Oven doesn’t even bother to show up.

Yang is running for county council and has no meaningful endorsements. I’m sure she shilling for whatever interest groups in the district she is running to try and get votes. If that means shutting down questions or transparency, she’ll do it to get elected. I’m sure yang has made promises to Taylor if she gets elected which would make him just as complicit. Everyone talks a transparency game but shuts it down when it’s a brown person trying to shed light of some questionable practices

[Anonymous]

Today’s BOE meeting sort of revealing who is the powerhouse. Taylor and CO can shut the door of communication if a BOE member is not cooperating and asking sharp questions. I’m not saying that I agree with Montoya. But seeing her got backstabbed by Yang is telling something true and ugly.

It’s not about which BOE candidate we should vote. It’s ultimately just a show - becoming one of them or being rejected from the play.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Today’s BOE meeting sort of revealing who is the powerhouse. Taylor and CO can shut the door of communication if a BOE member is not cooperating and asking sharp questions. I’m not saying that I agree with Montoya. But seeing her got backstabbed by Yang is telling something true and ugly.

It’s not about which BOE candidate we should vote. It’s ultimately just a show - becoming one of them or being rejected from the play.

Many thought Yang was great. Glad people are seeing this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Today’s BOE meeting sort of revealing who is the powerhouse. Taylor and CO can shut the door of communication if a BOE member is not cooperating and asking sharp questions. I’m not saying that I agree with Montoya. But seeing her got backstabbed by Yang is telling something true and ugly.

It’s not about which BOE candidate we should vote. It’s ultimately just a show - becoming one of them or being rejected from the play.

That was insane. Montoya requested information and the system told her to kick rocks and all of her fellow board members saw nothing wrong with it.

I'm glad Ms. Montoya opposed the plan. More of this please. Shame on the rest of the board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Today’s BOE meeting sort of revealing who is the powerhouse. Taylor and CO can shut the door of communication if a BOE member is not cooperating and asking sharp questions. I’m not saying that I agree with Montoya. But seeing her got backstabbed by Yang is telling something true and ugly.

It’s not about which BOE candidate we should vote. It’s ultimately just a show - becoming one of them or being rejected from the play.

That was insane. Montoya requested information and the system told her to kick rocks and all of her fellow board members saw nothing wrong with it.

I'm glad Ms. Montoya opposed the plan. More of this please. Shame on the rest of the board.

Because the other board members are the problem and why MCPS is a hot mess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like they are talking about releasing new boundary options in November to reflect the possible use of Crown as a holding school and possible closure of SSIMS? https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DMXHZX4AFC3F/$file/Rev%20Boundary%20Study%20Scopes%20251030%20PPT.pdf

Was there discussion about this in the meeting? Anything of note?

BOE not allowed discussion. Yang makes sure of that. River-Oven doesn’t even bother to show up.

Yang is running for county council and has no meaningful endorsements. I’m sure she shilling for whatever interest groups in the district she is running to try and get votes. If that means shutting down questions or transparency, she’ll do it to get elected. I’m sure yang has made promises to Taylor if she gets elected which would make him just as complicit. Everyone talks a transparency game but shuts it down when it’s a brown person trying to shed light of some questionable practices

This sure makes me less likely to vote for her. Who is she pandering to?

Good for Montoya but it's sad that she seems to be the only one pushing....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like they are talking about releasing new boundary options in November to reflect the possible use of Crown as a holding school and possible closure of SSIMS? https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DMXHZX4AFC3F/$file/Rev%20Boundary%20Study%20Scopes%20251030%20PPT.pdf

Was there discussion about this in the meeting? Anything of note?

BOE not allowed discussion. Yang makes sure of that. River-Oven doesn’t even bother to show up.

Yang is running for county council and has no meaningful endorsements. I’m sure she shilling for whatever interest groups in the district she is running to try and get votes. If that means shutting down questions or transparency, she’ll do it to get elected. I’m sure yang has made promises to Taylor if she gets elected which would make him just as complicit. Everyone talks a transparency game but shuts it down when it’s a brown person trying to shed light of some questionable practices

They don’t discriminate they shut down everyone. So, what’s really going on?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's a sad feature of democracy that elected officials care more about keeping their jobs than doing their jobs.

The better word is bureaucracy, specifically MCPS Central Office bureaucrats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like they are talking about releasing new boundary options in November to reflect the possible use of Crown as a holding school and possible closure of SSIMS? https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DMXHZX4AFC3F/$file/Rev%20Boundary%20Study%20Scopes%20251030%20PPT.pdf

Was there discussion about this in the meeting? Anything of note?

BOE not allowed discussion. Yang makes sure of that. River-Oven doesn’t even bother to show up.

Yang is running for county council and has no meaningful endorsements. I’m sure she shilling for whatever interest groups in the district she is running to try and get votes. If that means shutting down questions or transparency, she’ll do it to get elected. I’m sure yang has made promises to Taylor if she gets elected which would make him just as complicit. Everyone talks a transparency game but shuts it down when it’s a brown person trying to shed light of some questionable practices

This sure makes me less likely to vote for her. Who is she pandering to?

Good for Montoya but it's sad that she seems to be the only one pushing....

Just because Montoya is pushing, does not mean she will vote No in the final vote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like they are talking about releasing new boundary options in November to reflect the possible use of Crown as a holding school and possible closure of SSIMS? https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DMXHZX4AFC3F/$file/Rev%20Boundary%20Study%20Scopes%20251030%20PPT.pdf

Was there discussion about this in the meeting? Anything of note?

BOE not allowed discussion. Yang makes sure of that. River-Oven doesn’t even bother to show up.

It’s mostly Montoya expressed her anger and opposition and Yang tried to stop that.

Montoya asked if they'd consider using Woodward as a holding school for Wootton after Northwood moves out. Which I don't think makes any sense, given the overcrowding it's meant to relieve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like they are talking about releasing new boundary options in November to reflect the possible use of Crown as a holding school and possible closure of SSIMS? https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DMXHZX4AFC3F/$file/Rev%20Boundary%20Study%20Scopes%20251030%20PPT.pdf

Was there discussion about this in the meeting? Anything of note?

BOE not allowed discussion. Yang makes sure of that. River-Oven doesn’t even bother to show up.

It’s mostly Montoya expressed her anger and opposition and Yang tried to stop that.

Montoya asked if they'd consider using Woodward as a holding school for Wootton after Northwood moves out. Which I don't think makes any sense, given the overcrowding it's meant to relieve.

Yeah, I don't think she has her head fully around all the issues. But that doesn't make her wrong for calling out MCPS's refusal to provide her information she's asked for, changing things at the last minute, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like they are talking about releasing new boundary options in November to reflect the possible use of Crown as a holding school and possible closure of SSIMS? https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DMXHZX4AFC3F/$file/Rev%20Boundary%20Study%20Scopes%20251030%20PPT.pdf

Was there discussion about this in the meeting? Anything of note?

BOE not allowed discussion. Yang makes sure of that. River-Oven doesn’t even bother to show up.

It’s mostly Montoya expressed her anger and opposition and Yang tried to stop that.

Maybe she’s angry at the lack of transparency from Yang and central office. I’m sure we’d get an interesting story is someone made an MPIA request especially since two board members are running for county council.

Ah the life in politics. Get elected. Get sucked in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Today’s BOE meeting sort of revealing who is the powerhouse. Taylor and CO can shut the door of communication if a BOE member is not cooperating and asking sharp questions. I’m not saying that I agree with Montoya. But seeing her got backstabbed by Yang is telling something true and ugly.

It’s not about which BOE candidate we should vote. It’s ultimately just a show - becoming one of them or being rejected from the play.

Yang trying to move out of BOE, that is telling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Today’s BOE meeting sort of revealing who is the powerhouse. Taylor and CO can shut the door of communication if a BOE member is not cooperating and asking sharp questions. I’m not saying that I agree with Montoya. But seeing her got backstabbed by Yang is telling something true and ugly.

It’s not about which BOE candidate we should vote. It’s ultimately just a show - becoming one of them or being rejected from the play.

That was insane. Montoya requested information and the system told her to kick rocks and all of her fellow board members saw nothing wrong with it.

I'm glad Ms. Montoya opposed the plan. More of this please. Shame on the rest of the board.

Because the other board members are the problem and why MCPS is a hot mess.

That's the line given no matter who is on the BOE. Doesn't that tell you how things are being run 'round town?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like they are talking about releasing new boundary options in November to reflect the possible use of Crown as a holding school and possible closure of SSIMS? https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DMXHZX4AFC3F/$file/Rev%20Boundary%20Study%20Scopes%20251030%20PPT.pdf

Was there discussion about this in the meeting? Anything of note?

BOE not allowed discussion. Yang makes sure of that. River-Oven doesn’t even bother to show up.

Yang is running for county council and has no meaningful endorsements. I’m sure she shilling for whatever interest groups in the district she is running to try and get votes. If that means shutting down questions or transparency, she’ll do it to get elected. I’m sure yang has made promises to Taylor if she gets elected which would make him just as complicit. Everyone talks a transparency game but shuts it down when it’s a brown person trying to shed light of some questionable practices

They don’t discriminate they shut down everyone. So, what’s really going on?

That's what mcps employees had been or have still been saying. "Our hands are tied." Always?