Teachers' Union votes to oppose MCPS' current regional program plan

[Anonymous]

CO staff, please, you don’t have to defend the model because Taylor wants it. He has spent all his political capital.

[Anonymous]

^ May of this YEAR. It was only at a 5/8/25 BoE meeting that this was introduced in a public setting. I’m not sure I grasped that before.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I realized reading the Bethesda Beat article from today that this entire concept was only introduced to the BoE/public in May of this article.

Article from May:

https://bethesdamagazine.com/2025/05/16/mcps-exploring-regional-programming/

That’s astonishing speed without any kind of stakeholder/public involvement until it’s presented as a done deal.

To be honest, while I agree with the speed, there actually HAS been a great deal of stakeholder involvement. The problem is, the stakeholder group MCPS convened was gagged by an NDA initially, and MCPS has continuously ignored and disregarded the input and feedback from this group and principals, teachers and parents, since then.

So there isn't an absence of feedback and input, there's an unwillingness to listen and incorporate it or act on it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I realized reading the Bethesda Beat article from today that this entire concept was only introduced to the BoE/public in May of this article.

Article from May:

https://bethesdamagazine.com/2025/05/16/mcps-exploring-regional-programming/

That’s astonishing speed without any kind of stakeholder/public involvement until it’s presented as a done deal.

To be honest, while I agree with the speed, there actually HAS been a great deal of stakeholder involvement. The problem is, the stakeholder group MCPS convened was gagged by an NDA initially, and MCPS has continuously ignored and disregarded the input and feedback from this group and principals, teachers and parents, since then.

So there isn't an absence of feedback and input, there's an unwillingness to listen and incorporate it or act on it.

You’re talking about the “design team” I take it? When did those meetings happen? And agreed, maybe it’s not a total lack of engage, but a refusal to listen to the public’s concerns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I realized reading the Bethesda Beat article from today that this entire concept was only introduced to the BoE/public in May of this article.

Article from May:

https://bethesdamagazine.com/2025/05/16/mcps-exploring-regional-programming/

That’s astonishing speed without any kind of stakeholder/public involvement until it’s presented as a done deal.

I am on the "design team" (or maybe "was," I don't know if we even still exist anymore, we've only met twice since August and there have been no dates mentioned for future meetings) and we only started meeting in April, FWIW. And the first couple months were really squishy brainstorming stuff (before they jumped to the "we're making lots of detailed decisions but you can only give input on these two specific questions we ask you" stage...)

[Anonymous]

A community member of the design team spoke on record that the proposal went forward not with their inputs but DESPITE their inputs (see 32:15 min mark of the recording at Kennedy Highschool). Taylor, STOP using community members, teachers, principals, students as shields of your sham model. Now it is increasingly clear all stakeholders are against it. Pathetic!

[Anonymous]

I don't think pushing out vague, inconsistent information counts as "stakeholder involvement". It's just wasting people's time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From the Bethesda Bear article:

In a statement emailed to Bethesda Today on Thursday, MCPS spokesperson Liliana López said the program analysis is an “iterative process” aimed at expanding programming access for all students.

“We hear the community’s concerns about the pace. However, we believe moving forward is essential to establishing the foundational model needed for future growth,” López said. “While we know that there will be a transition period, we are proceeding with intentional urgency because delaying this work risks maintaining a system of scarcity and inequity. Our commitment is to our students, and we believe it is in their best interest to continue building these opportunities now.”

Interesting that they don't even mention the "we have to do it at the same time as the boundary study" line here. Just "screw you, we hear that you think we're going too fast but we don't care.".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the Bethesda Bear article:

In a statement emailed to Bethesda Today on Thursday, MCPS spokesperson Liliana López said the program analysis is an “iterative process” aimed at expanding programming access for all students.

“We hear the community’s concerns about the pace. However, we believe moving forward is essential to establishing the foundational model needed for future growth,” López said. “While we know that there will be a transition period, we are proceeding with intentional urgency because delaying this work risks maintaining a system of scarcity and inequity. Our commitment is to our students, and we believe it is in their best interest to continue building these opportunities now.”

Interesting that they don't even mention the "we have to do it at the same time as the boundary study" line here. Just "screw you, we hear that you think we're going too fast but we don't care.".

+1000

[Anonymous]

Taylor was a bad hire. If the board of education doesn't shut him down, we are in trouble.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I realized reading the Bethesda Beat article from today that this entire concept was only introduced to the BoE/public in May of this article.

Article from May:

https://bethesdamagazine.com/2025/05/16/mcps-exploring-regional-programming/

That’s astonishing speed without any kind of stakeholder/public involvement until it’s presented as a done deal.

To be honest, while I agree with the speed, there actually HAS been a great deal of stakeholder involvement. The problem is, the stakeholder group MCPS convened was gagged by an NDA initially, and MCPS has continuously ignored and disregarded the input and feedback from this group and principals, teachers and parents, since then.

So there isn't an absence of feedback and input, there's an unwillingness to listen and incorporate it or act on it.

The lack of listening to teachers and principals is really striking. Parents… (I’m just a parent too) I get how parents often care about their own narrow interests, different groups are going to want different things, so you’re never gonna make everyone happy. But you NEED buy-in from teachers and principals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I realized reading the Bethesda Beat article from today that this entire concept was only introduced to the BoE/public in May of this article.

Article from May:

https://bethesdamagazine.com/2025/05/16/mcps-exploring-regional-programming/

That’s astonishing speed without any kind of stakeholder/public involvement until it’s presented as a done deal.

To be honest, while I agree with the speed, there actually HAS been a great deal of stakeholder involvement. The problem is, the stakeholder group MCPS convened was gagged by an NDA initially, and MCPS has continuously ignored and disregarded the input and feedback from this group and principals, teachers and parents, since then.

So there isn't an absence of feedback and input, there's an unwillingness to listen and incorporate it or act on it.

The lack of listening to teachers and principals is really striking. Parents… (I’m just a parent too) I get how parents often care about their own narrow interests, different groups are going to want different things, so you’re never gonna make everyone happy. But you NEED buy-in from teachers and principals.

Without more funding for staff and programs, there is no way some principals can make this work. They are set up to fail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Taylor was a bad hire. If the board of education doesn't shut him down, we are in trouble.

Too late.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taylor was a bad hire. If the board of education doesn't shut him down, we are in trouble.

Too late.

No. That’s not really true. Especially if there is enough pressure. He’s on his way out if he doesn’t listen. What is wrong with this BOE. It doesn’t seem to matter who is elected. They all just see to fall in line for some reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I realized reading the Bethesda Beat article from today that this entire concept was only introduced to the BoE/public in May of this article.

Article from May:

https://bethesdamagazine.com/2025/05/16/mcps-exploring-regional-programming/

That’s astonishing speed without any kind of stakeholder/public involvement until it’s presented as a done deal.

I am on the "design team" (or maybe "was," I don't know if we even still exist anymore, we've only met twice since August and there have been no dates mentioned for future meetings) and we only started meeting in April, FWIW. And the first couple months were really squishy brainstorming stuff (before they jumped to the "we're making lots of detailed decisions but you can only give input on these two specific questions we ask you" stage...)

+1 I am also on this so-called design team - I want to add that they have ignored all the advice and failed to answer questions from the design team. So it is absolutely not an example of genuine engagement.