Remember that last Fall, Magruder's scheduled renovations weren't until many years into the next CIP cycle. Renovations were all planned to be on-site. Then T referred to a study they had done that showed the significant savings of using a holding school to make renovations happen faster and save a bunch of money. Using a holding school advanced the timeline for renovations for Magruder, allowing Magruder to be renovated the first year of the next CIP cycle in 2033. At no point did any of the options propose that Magruder be renovated in this cycle, since MCPS said that the money isn't funded for this cycle. It's a horrible situation for Magruder to have to wait that long, a problem long in the making due to lack of funds. I suspect that when evaluating using Crown as a holding school, they decided that it didn't make sense to deny the Crown communities a permanent school for several years waiting for Magruder's turn in the CIP and then Wootton's. I wonder also whether state funding would be jeopardized if they went with Crown as a holding school and then told the state that it had to stay as a holding school indefinitely until Magruder (and then Wootton) was complete. It would be one thing if Magruder was funded this cycle, but to make Crown wait for Magruder to be complete in 2035 and then for Wootton to be funded and complete (by 2037?) would completely undermine the purpose of Crown. Plus I heard Magruder told MCPS that they didn't want to go to Crown for years - they only wanted to go there if their timeline could be moved up in this cycle. So it makes sense to me that they chose to move Wootton to Crown to be joined with Crown kids and use Wootton as a holding school down the road when needs arise. |
That guy is so obnoxious. He also needs to read How to Win Friends and Influence People because damn, his language is offensive AF. Why does the Save Wootton crowd allow him to spew venom at families? |
They don't care about any of that as long as it gets them more support and money for their lawsuit. |
running sponsored posts on fb from his business to save Wootton probably has something to do with it |
Who are we talking about? I missed something... |
Local businesses running sponsored posts to Save Wootton, Save Wootton running bots to drive up Youtube video views, same same. |
+1000 Taylor has shown us time and again in this process that demographics is not a factor for him, but pretty maps are. Pretty maps is not one of the FAA factors but he is the Superintendent and BOE is to afraid to question him |
| Unfortunately I have to watch the videos at least 1x and it adds to the view count but at least I can find the data mistakes |
"Pretty maps" could be considered satisfying three of the four factors. Policy FAA has 4 different criteria for boundary studies. 1. Demographic characteristics of student population 2. Geography 3. Stability of school assignments over time 4. Facility Utilization Geography and Stability of School Assignments (if kids are closer to their schools, it's probably more likely they'll stay in that boundary, instead of in an island) are satisfied by student blocks being close to their schools. Facility Utilization has a segment about "should be fiscally responsible to minimize capital and operating costs whenever possible), so closer bus rides also matches that. Option 3 for the Crown / Damascus boundary study tried to emphasize Demographics and people HATED those maps. The problem is that the county residential areas have done a pretty good job of geographically sorting ourselves by income and wealth, so trying to make a nice, compact map ends up concentrating FARMS and EML to different schools. P.S. As a legal matter (not moral or "ought to be"), all four of those factors are considered aspirational and not mandatory. |
You're really stretching the bounds of logic here in so many ways. He is changing the articulation of Brown Station, which goes against the stability factor. He is increasing the demographic disparity between QO and NW quite substantially, which goes against the demographic factor. He isn't helping geographic proximity much if at all. You're assuming this plan somehow saves money on buses, but it's not at all clear to me how that is supposed to happen. Of course, the policy offers the Superintendent great discretion and in that sense he is following the letter of it but clearly not the intent. In other words he deems a very marginal improvement in proximity and MAYBE bus costs is considered worth a quite substantial increase in the demographic disparity. |
Seven Locks to Whitman. |
The policy doesn't say "if wealthy people who have benefited financially from structural racism want to ensure the persistence of structural racism, the BOE should ignore the demographic factor" |
The thing I learned from reading up on COMAR and the Clarksburg lawsuit, is that essentially the BOE and MCPS can do whatever they want to do as long as they follow the policy and procedures in Policy FAA. So, they won't ignore the demographic factor, but they will pay lip service to it. If we want MCPS and the BOE to prioritize the Demographic factor, then we have to elect board members who prioritize it. |
I agree with you that they have discretion to do what Taylor is proposing. As a taxpayer and parent (zoned for a cluster that isn't part of the Crown study) I do strongly disagree with this approach |
Tbh this is part of why this part of the map is so surprising to me. Because they are prioritizing it with moving Wootton in the face of such vocal opposition. So it feels really inconsistent that they’re overlooking it here. I can’t imagine dealing with diamond families would be worse than dealing with the Wootton crowd. |