Kate Stewart asks BOE to reject SSIMS closure resolution

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I presume this replacement resolution was planned all along to make the BOE look like heroes.

They want to look like they don’t always agree with him

And in fact they don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wolff put up a new resolution asking the the SSIMS/SCES decision be delayed and considered during the upcoming elementary school boundary study.

Wolff's resolution was approved.

Really? I’m opposed to the whole thing but at a minimum it does seem like doing the boundary study before they decide where/if to build a new school would make a lot of sense.

[Anonymous]

So, in effect, this newly passed resolution means that the three new options E, F, and G are eliminated as possibilities?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, in effect, this newly passed resolution means that the three new options E, F, and G are eliminated as possibilities?

Not really, the superintendent can propose whatever he wants

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, in effect, this newly passed resolution means that the three new options E, F, and G are eliminated as possibilities?

Not really, the superintendent can propose whatever he wants

Well sure, he technically could. But the board just unanimously voted that they won't be deciding whether to close SSIMS before March, which is when they'll be voting on the new boundaries for HS/MS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wolff put up a new resolution asking the the SSIMS/SCES decision be delayed and considered during the upcoming elementary school boundary study.

This is the right move.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, in effect, this newly passed resolution means that the three new options E, F, and G are eliminated as possibilities?

Not really, the superintendent can propose whatever he wants

Well sure, he technically could. But the board just unanimously voted that they won't be deciding whether to close SSIMS before March, which is when they'll be voting on the new boundaries for HS/MS.

Well yes but they can still, for example, switch Wood Acres and BES. Not closing SSIMS doesn't prevent him from doing it even though the only option that proposes this also proposes closing SSIMS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, in effect, this newly passed resolution means that the three new options E, F, and G are eliminated as possibilities?

Not really, the superintendent can propose whatever he wants

Well sure, he technically could. But the board just unanimously voted that they won't be deciding whether to close SSIMS before March, which is when they'll be voting on the new boundaries for HS/MS.

Well yes but they can still, for example, switch Wood Acres and BES. Not closing SSIMS doesn't prevent him from doing it even though the only option that proposes this also proposes closing SSIMS

Ah, true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, in effect, this newly passed resolution means that the three new options E, F, and G are eliminated as possibilities?

Not really, the superintendent can propose whatever he wants

Well sure, he technically could. But the board just unanimously voted that they won't be deciding whether to close SSIMS before March, which is when they'll be voting on the new boundaries for HS/MS.

Well yes but they can still, for example, switch Wood Acres and BES. Not closing SSIMS doesn't prevent him from doing it even though the only option that proposes this also proposes closing SSIMS

Ah, true.

So the recommended option is now more likely to be a combination of elements from the various other options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would expect no less, given that SSIMS is in her district. The question is, does Taylor and the BOE have the guts to piss Kate off?

Stewart is no longer county council president, so she is not quite so powerful.

I also think there is no downside to Kate Stewart writing a letter like that knowing full well that the superintendent is all powerful on this matter, unless the BOE suddenly grows a collective spine. Taylor might do a small delay, but he has constructed a house of cards that all begins to tumble down if the SSIMS closure doesn't go forward. What happens with the Eastern and Sligo MS CIP projects? Gotta figure this out by the spring.

[Anonymous]

I hope they reconsider. Closing a poorer school so that rich west county schools can have a holding school isn’t a good look.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, in effect, this newly passed resolution means that the three new options E, F, and G are eliminated as possibilities?

Not really, the superintendent can propose whatever he wants

This means, at a minimum, that the timeline for closing SSIMS and moving SCES is pushed out into the future.

Good to see that Taylor is finally getting some pushback regarding his manic need to immediately impose his snap judgments on the community.

I hope the BOE is mapping out a long runway on the calendar for hiring Taylor's replacement. Hiring in a hurry is what got us Taylor in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hope they reconsider. Closing a poorer school so that rich west county schools can have a holding school isn’t a good look.

West county has holding schools. Piney Branch ES parents in Takoma Park complained to the superintendent to get a nearby holding school. There isn't a down-county ES holding school when these schools are rebuilt.

As part of his recalculating numerous facilities, Taylor proposed making Sligo Creek ES the holding school for Piney Branch, and other eastside ESs needing rebuilding in the future. He proposed that Sligo Creek get a new facility on a very quick schedule, but not in its current neighborhood. Add to this that he has proposed SSIMS' closing.

This is a mess of Taylor's making. He is causing problems, not solving them.

[Anonymous]

If I don’t want to look at Jawando’s IG account- what does he say? Anyone paraphrase for me?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, in effect, this newly passed resolution means that the three new options E, F, and G are eliminated as possibilities?

Not really, the superintendent can propose whatever he wants

This means, at a minimum, that the timeline for closing SSIMS and moving SCES is pushed out into the future.

Good to see that Taylor is finally getting some pushback regarding his manic need to immediately impose his snap judgments on the community.

I hope the BOE is mapping out a long runway on the calendar for hiring Taylor's replacement. Hiring in a hurry is what got us Taylor in the first place.

Wishful thinking. That would require the BOE to have long-term, strategic thinking, which they have not yet shown any evidence of.