When is the plan for new HS programs coming out?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish I had made a copy of the slides when I looked at them on Friday. I am glad I wrote down some of the info, but now I am curious what will change and am not confident I can 100% remember what was on them, especially for the slides where I did not take notes.

This really shows you how close they are holding this info. Their lack of communication with the public about this is purposeful.

There's a public meeting tomorrow...why can't you all just wait until then instead of speculating endlessly about what they might say?

It’s a Board meeting right? Most professional boards have rules about circulating materials ahead of time so the Board can read the materials and prepare thoughtful questions. Why can’t you support good governance rather than complaining about people who want to be prepared?

+1

I do not trust MCPS at all on this. They have not held public sessions on this work, offered office hours, and been forthright about the work they are doing so constituents can weigh in with feedback. They are making decisions now so that the boundary studies can move forward, without input from students and parents. (That survey was not meaningful — no one knew what they were considering doing or what the trade offs would be.)

And when they did post materials and someone posted about it on DCUM, came out on DCUM, they immediately deleted the posted materials — god forbid the public should know what they are doing before the meeting, so they could reach out to Board members with concerns or address points in their prepared testimony. This so-called study is a sham with no meaningful transparency or input.

[Anonymous]

It sounds like a common sentiment t that McPS is not to be trusted. Better to leave the district. It’s all so tiring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pretty sure these are the regions:

BCC
Blair
Einstein
Northwood
Whitman

Churchill
WJ
Wheaton
Woodward

Crown
Gaithersburg
Northwest
Seneca Valley
Watkins Mill

Blake
Paint Branch
Springwood
Sherwood

Kennedy
Magruder
RM
Rockville
Wootton

Clarksburg
Damascus
Poolesville
QO

These were in the documents posted and then taken down over the weekend. Let’s see if they change when they present tomorrow. If so maybe DCUM is providing the public input, because there seemed to be quite a bit of dissatisfaction here, particularly upcounty.

[Anonymous]

So does BOE actually care about public sentiment? Bc it seems from DCUM that they vociferously oppose public and want to do the exact opposit

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So does BOE actually care about public sentiment? Bc it seems from DCUM that they vociferously oppose public and want to do the exact opposit

I think the BOE at least wants to give the appearance that they care about public sentiment. At least, BOe members who want to run for re-election want to appear to care.

Certainty MCPS officials do not care about public input.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So does BOE actually care about public sentiment? Bc it seems from DCUM that they vociferously oppose public and want to do the exact opposit

I’m sure it’s tricky. I remember seeing a slide about responses to the boundary study, and I noted that a much larger share of responses had come from W clusters. The DCC was much less represented. While I am sure the BOE is interested in feedback, I’m sure they note that not all perspectives are equally represented.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish I had made a copy of the slides when I looked at them on Friday. I am glad I wrote down some of the info, but now I am curious what will change and am not confident I can 100% remember what was on them, especially for the slides where I did not take notes.

This really shows you how close they are holding this info. Their lack of communication with the public about this is purposeful.

There's a public meeting tomorrow...why can't you all just wait until then instead of speculating endlessly about what they might say?

It’s a Board meeting right? Most professional boards have rules about circulating materials ahead of time so the Board can read the materials and prepare thoughtful questions. Why can’t you support good governance rather than complaining about people who want to be prepared?

+1

I do not trust MCPS at all on this. They have not held public sessions on this work, offered office hours, and been forthright about the work they are doing so constituents can weigh in with feedback. They are making decisions now so that the boundary studies can move forward, without input from students and parents. (That survey was not meaningful — no one knew what they were considering doing or what the trade offs would be.)

And when they did post materials and someone posted about it on DCUM, came out on DCUM, they immediately deleted the posted materials — god forbid the public should know what they are doing before the meeting, so they could reach out to Board members with concerns or address points in their prepared testimony. This so-called study is a sham with no meaningful transparency or input.

+2 It's a pretty crap process if the Board members are just expected to nod their heads and vote yes to materials they haven't reviewed. Might as well get rid of them all and just buy a big rubber stamp.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish I had made a copy of the slides when I looked at them on Friday. I am glad I wrote down some of the info, but now I am curious what will change and am not confident I can 100% remember what was on them, especially for the slides where I did not take notes.

This really shows you how close they are holding this info. Their lack of communication with the public about this is purposeful.

There's a public meeting tomorrow...why can't you all just wait until then instead of speculating endlessly about what they might say?

It’s a Board meeting right? Most professional boards have rules about circulating materials ahead of time so the Board can read the materials and prepare thoughtful questions. Why can’t you support good governance rather than complaining about people who want to be prepared?

+1

I do not trust MCPS at all on this. They have not held public sessions on this work, offered office hours, and been forthright about the work they are doing so constituents can weigh in with feedback. They are making decisions now so that the boundary studies can move forward, without input from students and parents. (That survey was not meaningful — no one knew what they were considering doing or what the trade offs would be.)

And when they did post materials and someone posted about it on DCUM, came out on DCUM, they immediately deleted the posted materials — god forbid the public should know what they are doing before the meeting, so they could reach out to Board members with concerns or address points in their prepared testimony. This so-called study is a sham with no meaningful transparency or input.

+2 It's a pretty crap process if the Board members are just expected to nod their heads and vote yes to materials they haven't reviewed. Might as well get rid of them all and just buy a big rubber stamp.

I thought it was just an update and they're not voting on anything until the end of the year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish I had made a copy of the slides when I looked at them on Friday. I am glad I wrote down some of the info, but now I am curious what will change and am not confident I can 100% remember what was on them, especially for the slides where I did not take notes.

This really shows you how close they are holding this info. Their lack of communication with the public about this is purposeful.

There's a public meeting tomorrow...why can't you all just wait until then instead of speculating endlessly about what they might say?

It’s a Board meeting right? Most professional boards have rules about circulating materials ahead of time so the Board can read the materials and prepare thoughtful questions. Why can’t you support good governance rather than complaining about people who want to be prepared?

+1

I do not trust MCPS at all on this. They have not held public sessions on this work, offered office hours, and been forthright about the work they are doing so constituents can weigh in with feedback. They are making decisions now so that the boundary studies can move forward, without input from students and parents. (That survey was not meaningful — no one knew what they were considering doing or what the trade offs would be.)

And when they did post materials and someone posted about it on DCUM, came out on DCUM, they immediately deleted the posted materials — god forbid the public should know what they are doing before the meeting, so they could reach out to Board members with concerns or address points in their prepared testimony. This so-called study is a sham with no meaningful transparency or input.

+2 It's a pretty crap process if the Board members are just expected to nod their heads and vote yes to materials they haven't reviewed. Might as well get rid of them all and just buy a big rubber stamp.

There's no vote tomorrow. It's just a slideshow followed by questions/discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish I had made a copy of the slides when I looked at them on Friday. I am glad I wrote down some of the info, but now I am curious what will change and am not confident I can 100% remember what was on them, especially for the slides where I did not take notes.

This really shows you how close they are holding this info. Their lack of communication with the public about this is purposeful.

There's a public meeting tomorrow...why can't you all just wait until then instead of speculating endlessly about what they might say?

It’s a Board meeting right? Most professional boards have rules about circulating materials ahead of time so the Board can read the materials and prepare thoughtful questions. Why can’t you support good governance rather than complaining about people who want to be prepared?

+1

I do not trust MCPS at all on this. They have not held public sessions on this work, offered office hours, and been forthright about the work they are doing so constituents can weigh in with feedback. They are making decisions now so that the boundary studies can move forward, without input from students and parents. (That survey was not meaningful — no one knew what they were considering doing or what the trade offs would be.)

And when they did post materials and someone posted about it on DCUM, came out on DCUM, they immediately deleted the posted materials — god forbid the public should know what they are doing before the meeting, so they could reach out to Board members with concerns or address points in their prepared testimony. This so-called study is a sham with no meaningful transparency or input.

+2 It's a pretty crap process if the Board members are just expected to nod their heads and vote yes to materials they haven't reviewed. Might as well get rid of them all and just buy a big rubber stamp.

I thought it was just an update and they're not voting on anything until the end of the year?

No vote yet, but this is the BOE’s chance to provide oversight and input before further decisions are made. This is going to be a major change, and MCPS is moving it along without any meaningful input from
The public or thr BOE. Like one of the PPs said, it’s a sham process. Say what you will about the boundary process, but they are communicating about it to the public and providing many ways to learn more and get input. This programs process is further along and yet the public knows nothing about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish I had made a copy of the slides when I looked at them on Friday. I am glad I wrote down some of the info, but now I am curious what will change and am not confident I can 100% remember what was on them, especially for the slides where I did not take notes.

This really shows you how close they are holding this info. Their lack of communication with the public about this is purposeful.

There's a public meeting tomorrow...why can't you all just wait until then instead of speculating endlessly about what they might say?

It’s a Board meeting right? Most professional boards have rules about circulating materials ahead of time so the Board can read the materials and prepare thoughtful questions. Why can’t you support good governance rather than complaining about people who want to be prepared?

Are you a board member?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish I had made a copy of the slides when I looked at them on Friday. I am glad I wrote down some of the info, but now I am curious what will change and am not confident I can 100% remember what was on them, especially for the slides where I did not take notes.

This really shows you how close they are holding this info. Their lack of communication with the public about this is purposeful.

There's a public meeting tomorrow...why can't you all just wait until then instead of speculating endlessly about what they might say?

It’s a Board meeting right? Most professional boards have rules about circulating materials ahead of time so the Board can read the materials and prepare thoughtful questions. Why can’t you support good governance rather than complaining about people who want to be prepared?

Are you a board member?

So members of the public aren’t allowed to care that the BOE be able to do its job? -DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish I had made a copy of the slides when I looked at them on Friday. I am glad I wrote down some of the info, but now I am curious what will change and am not confident I can 100% remember what was on them, especially for the slides where I did not take notes.

This really shows you how close they are holding this info. Their lack of communication with the public about this is purposeful.

There's a public meeting tomorrow...why can't you all just wait until then instead of speculating endlessly about what they might say?

It’s a Board meeting right? Most professional boards have rules about circulating materials ahead of time so the Board can read the materials and prepare thoughtful questions. Why can’t you support good governance rather than complaining about people who want to be prepared?

Are you a board member?

So members of the public aren’t allowed to care that the BOE be able to do its job? -DP

The presentation is scheduled for Tuesday. Why are we mad that we can't see the presentation before the presentation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish I had made a copy of the slides when I looked at them on Friday. I am glad I wrote down some of the info, but now I am curious what will change and am not confident I can 100% remember what was on them, especially for the slides where I did not take notes.

This really shows you how close they are holding this info. Their lack of communication with the public about this is purposeful.

There's a public meeting tomorrow...why can't you all just wait until then instead of speculating endlessly about what they might say?

It’s a Board meeting right? Most professional boards have rules about circulating materials ahead of time so the Board can read the materials and prepare thoughtful questions. Why can’t you support good governance rather than complaining about people who want to be prepared?

Are you a board member?

So members of the public aren’t allowed to care that the BOE be able to do its job? -DP

+1. I’m a parent. I want my Board members to be able to engage effectively. Why don’t you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So does BOE actually care about public sentiment? Bc it seems from DCUM that they vociferously oppose public and want to do the exact opposit

I’m sure it’s tricky. I remember seeing a slide about responses to the boundary study, and I noted that a much larger share of responses had come from W clusters. The DCC was much less represented. While I am sure the BOE is interested in feedback, I’m sure they note that not all perspectives are equally represented.

Not all perspectives are equally represented because MCPS continually fails to understand engagement with the community. Just talking to you determined partners with no real plan or time for said partners to share out information and details is unhelpful. The communities are not the same. Several communities are very diverse. Which means understanding they did not all attend MCPS public schools as kids. They might not have attend public school at all and potentially not attend K-12 in the U.S. so their understanding of expectation of how all this develops in a learning process. And we’ve already discussed how MCPS has muddled discussion of the Program Study with the Boundary Study.