My gut feeling on 3/26 BOE vote

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taylor is asking the board to combine the Crown proposal, Woodward proposal, and regional model proposal into one vote because they are "inextricably linked."

For this request alone, if true, every BOE member should tell him to pound sand and have three separate votes any way they see fit. First of all, Crown and Woodward proposal have almost nothing in common. Second, his regional model proposal is a half-baked shell of a proposal that will be massaged for years to come. What exactly are they voting for - that there will be six regions and what school goes to what region. Everything else, the substance, what programs, where, curriculums, entrance criteria, etc. is nowhere near set.

If I'm reading the document correctly, they aren't even voting on having 6 regions. They are voting to dissolve the DCC and NEC and establish some sort of to be determined regional model. And they think they can have this model established enough for applications to start this fall. :-/

The doc:
Resolved, That the Board of Education hereby discontinues the Northeast Consortium school
assignment process, effective with current Grade 7 students entering high school in the 2027–2028
school year; and be it further
Resolved, That the Board of Education hereby discontinues the Downcounty Consortium school
assignment process, effective with current Grade 7 students entering high school in the 2027–2028
school year; and be it further
Resolved, That the Board of Education authorizes the superintendent of schools to establish
a secondary regional program model to expand equitable access to specialized programs and
reduce scarcity and geographic barriers; and be it further
Resolved, regional programs shall be available within each operational region and shall
be populated through student interest and choice within those regions; and be it further
Resolved, That the superintendent of schools is authorized to determine the location, design,
implementation, and enrollment of regional programs based on student interest, program capacity,
and system needs; and be it further
Resolved, That implementation of the regional secondary program model shall begin
in the 2027–2028 school year, with Grade 9 students enrolling in regional programs as the initial
cohort; and be it further
Resolved, That the graduating Class of 2031 shall be the first class to fully participate
in the regional high school program model; and be it further
Resolved, That students who are assigned through the Northeast Consortium or Downcounty
Consortium school assignment processes prior to the 2027–2028 school year, or who enroll
in a centrally-managed regional or countywide program through the existing admissions process,
may continue in their assigned or selected program through graduation;

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Super recommendations on Crown and Woodard: Pass
Six Regional model: Pass

For the record, I am not happy about either. But it is what it is...

It’s rubber stamping at its finest.

Vote accordingly. On the NBOE members running for county council - if you are in District 1, don't vote for Julie Yang for county council. Don't vote for Karla Silvestre, at-large candidate for county council.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taylor is asking the board to combine the Crown proposal, Woodward proposal, and regional model proposal into one vote because they are "inextricably linked."

For this request alone, if true, every BOE member should tell him to pound sand and have three separate votes any way they see fit. First of all, Crown and Woodward proposal have almost nothing in common. Second, his regional model proposal is a half-baked shell of a proposal that will be massaged for years to come. What exactly are they voting for - that there will be six regions and what school goes to what region. Everything else, the substance, what programs, where, curriculums, entrance criteria, etc. is nowhere near set.

If I'm reading the document correctly, they aren't even voting on having 6 regions. They are voting to dissolve the DCC and NEC and establish some sort of to be determined regional model. And they think they can have this model established enough for applications to start this fall. :-/

The doc:
Resolved, That the Board of Education hereby discontinues the Northeast Consortium school
assignment process, effective with current Grade 7 students entering high school in the 2027–2028
school year; and be it further
Resolved, That the Board of Education hereby discontinues the Downcounty Consortium school
assignment process, effective with current Grade 7 students entering high school in the 2027–2028
school year; and be it further
Resolved, That the Board of Education authorizes the superintendent of schools to establish
a secondary regional program model to expand equitable access to specialized programs and
reduce scarcity and geographic barriers; and be it further
Resolved, regional programs shall be available within each operational region and shall
be populated through student interest and choice within those regions; and be it further
Resolved, That the superintendent of schools is authorized to determine the location, design,
implementation, and enrollment of regional programs based on student interest, program capacity,
and system needs; and be it further
Resolved, That implementation of the regional secondary program model shall begin
in the 2027–2028 school year, with Grade 9 students enrolling in regional programs as the initial
cohort; and be it further
Resolved, That the graduating Class of 2031 shall be the first class to fully participate
in the regional high school program model; and be it further
Resolved, That students who are assigned through the Northeast Consortium or Downcounty
Consortium school assignment processes prior to the 2027–2028 school year, or who enroll
in a centrally-managed regional or countywide program through the existing admissions process,
may continue in their assigned or selected program through graduation;

They don't have to vote on a specific number of regions - the superintendent can determine the number on his own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taylor is asking the board to combine the Crown proposal, Woodward proposal, and regional model proposal into one vote because they are "inextricably linked."

For this request alone, if true, every BOE member should tell him to pound sand and have three separate votes any way they see fit. First of all, Crown and Woodward proposal have almost nothing in common. Second, his regional model proposal is a half-baked shell of a proposal that will be massaged for years to come. What exactly are they voting for - that there will be six regions and what school goes to what region. Everything else, the substance, what programs, where, curriculums, entrance criteria, etc. is nowhere near set.

+1 the only thing the vote actually does is dissolves the NEC and DCC

[Anonymous]

So they have spent months creating endless power points about the regional model and when it comes to vote they have....nothing? Just dissolve the DCC and NEC and let Taylor create unspecified "regional programs"? WTAF is Taylor thinking?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So they have spent months creating endless power points about the regional model and when it comes to vote they have....nothing? Just dissolve the DCC and NEC and let Taylor create unspecified "regional programs"? WTAF is Taylor thinking?

More like what is the board thinking approving this? They think they can ask for guardrails, but once they approve, Taylor can do whatever he wants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So they have spent months creating endless power points about the regional model and when it comes to vote they have....nothing? Just dissolve the DCC and NEC and let Taylor create unspecified "regional programs"? WTAF is Taylor thinking?

Power

Taylor will have it all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taylor is asking the board to combine the Crown proposal, Woodward proposal, and regional model proposal into one vote because they are "inextricably linked."

For this request alone, if true, every BOE member should tell him to pound sand and have three separate votes any way they see fit. First of all, Crown and Woodward proposal have almost nothing in common. Second, his regional model proposal is a half-baked shell of a proposal that will be massaged for years to come. What exactly are they voting for - that there will be six regions and what school goes to what region. Everything else, the substance, what programs, where, curriculums, entrance criteria, etc. is nowhere near set.

If I'm reading the document correctly, they aren't even voting on having 6 regions. They are voting to dissolve the DCC and NEC and establish some sort of to be determined regional model. And they think they can have this model established enough for applications to start this fall. :-/

The doc:
Resolved, That the Board of Education hereby discontinues the Northeast Consortium school
assignment process, effective with current Grade 7 students entering high school in the 2027–2028
school year; and be it further
Resolved, That the Board of Education hereby discontinues the Downcounty Consortium school
assignment process, effective with current Grade 7 students entering high school in the 2027–2028
school year; and be it further
Resolved, That the Board of Education authorizes the superintendent of schools to establish
a secondary regional program model to expand equitable access to specialized programs and
reduce scarcity and geographic barriers; and be it further
Resolved, regional programs shall be available within each operational region and shall
be populated through student interest and choice within those regions; and be it further
Resolved, That the superintendent of schools is authorized to determine the location, design,
implementation, and enrollment of regional programs based on student interest, program capacity,
and system needs; and be it further
Resolved, That implementation of the regional secondary program model shall begin
in the 2027–2028 school year, with Grade 9 students enrolling in regional programs as the initial
cohort; and be it further
Resolved, That the graduating Class of 2031 shall be the first class to fully participate
in the regional high school program model; and be it further
Resolved, That students who are assigned through the Northeast Consortium or Downcounty
Consortium school assignment processes prior to the 2027–2028 school year, or who enroll
in a centrally-managed regional or countywide program through the existing admissions process,
may continue in their assigned or selected program through graduation;

I mean, I guess on the one hand the lack of specificity is good because the specifics they have come up with so far (the number of regions and number of programs within each region) are likely doomed to failure and so this gives them the flexibility to pivot quickly either before or after launch once they finally realize that. But on the other hand it's infuriating.

[Anonymous]

Can someone explain if Option G was proposed for using Crown as a holding school, what funded renovation projects was it going to support—and what was the timeline for those projects? If there weren’t funded projects requiring a holding school, what was the actual purpose of including Option G?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain if Option G was proposed for using Crown as a holding school, what funded renovation projects was it going to support—and what was the timeline for those projects? If there weren’t funded projects requiring a holding school, what was the actual purpose of including Option G?

None-Option G was a request from a board member who represents the Gaithersburg community and wanted them to be able to use the school they had been planning on using for two decades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain if Option G was proposed for using Crown as a holding school, what funded renovation projects was it going to support—and what was the timeline for those projects? If there weren’t funded projects requiring a holding school, what was the actual purpose of including Option G?

None-Option G was a request from a board member who represents the Gaithersburg community and wanted them to be able to use the school they had been planning on using for two decades.

If Option G was only in there because a board member wanted it, and not because it was actually workable, that’s kind of a problem. It makes it look like not all the options were real—some were just there for show. And if that’s the case, it raises a bigger question about whether the process was actually a fair evaluation or just something that looked like one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So they have spent months creating endless power points about the regional model and when it comes to vote they have....nothing? Just dissolve the DCC and NEC and let Taylor create unspecified "regional programs"? WTAF is Taylor thinking?

Looks like a big fat blank check to me. Seriously concerning.

[Anonymous]

SIAP but can someone please post the latest proposal for redistricting (impacted ESs/MSs/HSs)? My head is dizzy keeping up with these options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wootton PTSA has publicly committed to planning for the transition to the new building if the BOE votes for this option. I hope the few rogue parents will listen to the wise Wootton leadership and stand down for the benefit of the community.

How is that going to work with an active legal situation? Are they inextricably linked?

There isn't an active legal situation. They don't have a case.

Compare these Taylor scenarios for 2 school sites he wanted decommissioned. Taylor/MCPS decided to call Wootton a relocation, SSIMS a closure. No difference in what would happen to public school students currently in boundary. Politicians care about 1 site and not the other. Jawando quiet on 1 closure and not the other https://www.willjawando.com/news/ None of them care about the no Wootton overload for Churchill.

Process should have been the same for both sites. MCPS Taylor does not want to fund operating a 27th HS. 12/11/26 meeting had SSIMS closure as an action item that failed. Same meeting should have had a vote on closure of Wootton.
https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DP6QG868D2AD/$file/Apprv%20Process%20Closure%20Procedures%20Silver%20Spring%20Intl%20MS.pdf

https://saveoursilverspringschools.com/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wootton PTSA has publicly committed to planning for the transition to the new building if the BOE votes for this option. I hope the few rogue parents will listen to the wise Wootton leadership and stand down for the benefit of the community.

How is that going to work with an active legal situation? Are they inextricably linked?

There isn't an active legal situation. They don't have a case.

Compare these Taylor scenarios for 2 school sites he wanted decommissioned. Taylor/MCPS decided to call Wootton a relocation, SSIMS a closure. No difference in what would happen to public school students currently in boundary. Politicians care about 1 site and not the other. Jawando quiet on 1 closure and not the other https://www.willjawando.com/news/ None of them care about the no Wootton overload for Churchill.

Process should have been the same for both sites. MCPS Taylor does not want to fund operating a 27th HS. 12/11/26 meeting had SSIMS closure as an action item that failed. Same meeting should have had a vote on closure of Wootton.
https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DP6QG868D2AD/$file/Apprv%20Process%20Closure%20Procedures%20Silver%20Spring%20Intl%20MS.pdf

https://saveoursilverspringschools.com/

Sorry, no, this analysis is dumb. SSIMS would have actually been shut down and its students and staff split to other existing schools. Wootton, its staff, and almost all of its students are moving from an old building to a vacant brand new building. Not sure how anyone can think these two things are the same?