Kate Stewart asks BOE to reject SSIMS closure resolution

[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?

Anything is *possible* but essentially yes

Well at least there’s that

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Wait, really? Did MCPS staff argue against it? Was there any discussion about what this means for the MS/HS boundary options? Do you know what time stamp on the board meeting video to look for to watch this?

It's at 1:51. Clearly all the Board members had prepped and agreed on it beforehand. I suspect Taylor was only pretending to argue for the faster timeline at the beginning, or he would have argued harder (and twisted arms behind the scenes.)

https://www.youtube.com/live/1bWb9wK1gH0?si=7kztMzaas45u3eHs

You're probably right, but it was beautiful to watch when he read his resolution for an accelerated closure process and no one seconded him.

Taylor isn’t a member of the Board of Education and he can’t make a Resolution. Resolutions have to come from the elected Board members.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Wait, really? Did MCPS staff argue against it? Was there any discussion about what this means for the MS/HS boundary options? Do you know what time stamp on the board meeting video to look for to watch this?

It's at 1:51. Clearly all the Board members had prepped and agreed on it beforehand. I suspect Taylor was only pretending to argue for the faster timeline at the beginning, or he would have argued harder (and twisted arms behind the scenes.)

https://www.youtube.com/live/1bWb9wK1gH0?si=7kztMzaas45u3eHs

You're probably right, but it was beautiful to watch when he read his resolution for an accelerated closure process and no one seconded him.

Taylor isn’t a member of the Board of Education and he can’t make a Resolution. Resolutions have to come from the elected Board members.

Well whatever you call it, he wanted the BOE to vote to approve his recommendation for accelerating the closing of SSIMS and no one even seconded the motion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Wait, really? Did MCPS staff argue against it? Was there any discussion about what this means for the MS/HS boundary options? Do you know what time stamp on the board meeting video to look for to watch this?

It's at 1:51. Clearly all the Board members had prepped and agreed on it beforehand. I suspect Taylor was only pretending to argue for the faster timeline at the beginning, or he would have argued harder (and twisted arms behind the scenes.)

https://www.youtube.com/live/1bWb9wK1gH0?si=7kztMzaas45u3eHs

You're probably right, but it was beautiful to watch when he read his resolution for an accelerated closure process and no one seconded him.

Taylor isn’t a member of the Board of Education and he can’t make a Resolution. Resolutions have to come from the elected Board members.

Well whatever you call it, he wanted the BOE to vote to approve his recommendation for accelerating the closing of SSIMS and no one even seconded the motion.

Of course not. He can’t make a motion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Wait, really? Did MCPS staff argue against it? Was there any discussion about what this means for the MS/HS boundary options? Do you know what time stamp on the board meeting video to look for to watch this?

It's at 1:51. Clearly all the Board members had prepped and agreed on it beforehand. I suspect Taylor was only pretending to argue for the faster timeline at the beginning, or he would have argued harder (and twisted arms behind the scenes.)

https://www.youtube.com/live/1bWb9wK1gH0?si=7kztMzaas45u3eHs

You're probably right, but it was beautiful to watch when he read his resolution for an accelerated closure process and no one seconded him.

Taylor isn’t a member of the Board of Education and he can’t make a Resolution. Resolutions have to come from the elected Board members.

Well whatever you call it, he wanted the BOE to vote to approve his recommendation for accelerating the closing of SSIMS and no one even seconded the motion.

Of course not. He can’t make a motion.

The SMOB made the motion. Nobody seconded it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Wait, really? Did MCPS staff argue against it? Was there any discussion about what this means for the MS/HS boundary options? Do you know what time stamp on the board meeting video to look for to watch this?

It's at 1:51. Clearly all the Board members had prepped and agreed on it beforehand. I suspect Taylor was only pretending to argue for the faster timeline at the beginning, or he would have argued harder (and twisted arms behind the scenes.)

https://www.youtube.com/live/1bWb9wK1gH0?si=7kztMzaas45u3eHs

You're probably right, but it was beautiful to watch when he read his resolution for an accelerated closure process and no one seconded him.

Taylor isn’t a member of the Board of Education and he can’t make a Resolution. Resolutions have to come from the elected Board members.

Well whatever you call it, he wanted the BOE to vote to approve his recommendation for accelerating the closing of SSIMS and no one even seconded the motion.

Of course not. He can’t make a motion.

DP.

If you’re trying to make a point, maybe get to it?

Stewart’s letter references the superintendent’s “resolution.” I saw him make a statement and I saw the whole BOE decline to second it. Maybe some
of us are missing key process terminology — please enlighten us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Wait, really? Did MCPS staff argue against it? Was there any discussion about what this means for the MS/HS boundary options? Do you know what time stamp on the board meeting video to look for to watch this?

It's at 1:51. Clearly all the Board members had prepped and agreed on it beforehand. I suspect Taylor was only pretending to argue for the faster timeline at the beginning, or he would have argued harder (and twisted arms behind the scenes.)

https://www.youtube.com/live/1bWb9wK1gH0?si=7kztMzaas45u3eHs

You're probably right, but it was beautiful to watch when he read his resolution for an accelerated closure process and no one seconded him.

Taylor isn’t a member of the Board of Education and he can’t make a Resolution. Resolutions have to come from the elected Board members.

Well whatever you call it, he wanted the BOE to vote to approve his recommendation for accelerating the closing of SSIMS and no one even seconded the motion.

Of course not. He can’t make a motion.

DP.

If you’re trying to make a point, maybe get to it?

Stewart’s letter references the superintendent’s “resolution.” I saw him make a statement and I saw the whole BOE decline to second it. Maybe some
of us are missing key process terminology — please enlighten us.

They're being pedantic. He/MCPS wrote and read the resolution but he cannot make a motion to adopt it. The SMOB did that, and no one even seconded it, so it didn't even move to discussion and just immediately failed (clearly choreographed.)

MCPS clearly knew about that in advance. They had a letter ready to go to SSIMS families talking about how waiting is such a wise choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well closing a Silver Spring school to be a holding school for a Takoma Park school is not a great look either.

Stewart was likely to be a one-term board member if she didn't take a stand on this- people are pretty pissed, not just SSIMS/SCES parents but Sligo and Eastern parents too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well closing a Silver Spring school to be a holding school for a Takoma Park school is not a great look either.

Stewart was likely to be a one-term board member if she didn't take a stand on this- people are pretty pissed, not just SSIMS/SCES parents but Sligo and Eastern parents too.

Agreed. This is absolutely a loss for Taylor, and a win for families who were blindsided with school closure out of the clear blue sky, literally in between boundary revision options.

It's honestly also a loss for the PBES parent community, who as a group behaved terribly during this process. I'm not a TkPk hater, but their concerted advocacy to screw over a much needier school so that they could have a short commute and retain their swimming pool was gross. I think it points to overall demographic shift in Takoma Park from folks who are community-minded to folks who would otherwise live in Bethesda but got priced out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Wait, really? Did MCPS staff argue against it? Was there any discussion about what this means for the MS/HS boundary options? Do you know what time stamp on the board meeting video to look for to watch this?

It's at 1:51. Clearly all the Board members had prepped and agreed on it beforehand. I suspect Taylor was only pretending to argue for the faster timeline at the beginning, or he would have argued harder (and twisted arms behind the scenes.)

https://www.youtube.com/live/1bWb9wK1gH0?si=7kztMzaas45u3eHs

You're probably right, but it was beautiful to watch when he read his resolution for an accelerated closure process and no one seconded him.

Taylor isn’t a member of the Board of Education and he can’t make a Resolution. Resolutions have to come from the elected Board members.

Well whatever you call it, he wanted the BOE to vote to approve his recommendation for accelerating the closing of SSIMS and no one even seconded the motion.

Of course not. He can’t make a motion.

DP.

If you’re trying to make a point, maybe get to it?

Stewart’s letter references the superintendent’s “resolution.” I saw him make a statement and I saw the whole BOE decline to second it. Maybe some
of us are missing key process terminology — please enlighten us.

They're being pedantic. He/MCPS wrote and read the resolution but he cannot make a motion to adopt it. The SMOB did that, and no one even seconded it, so it didn't even move to discussion and just immediately failed (clearly choreographed.)

MCPS clearly knew about that in advance. They had a letter ready to go to SSIMS families talking about how waiting is such a wise choice.

Agree it all felt choreographed.
So if the BOE can clap back against Taylor’s inextricably linked SSIMS/boundary study timeline, why did we even spend the money and time to expand the scope and out out these options? And if we are getting the guts to tell him his proposed timeline is too fast and doesn’t need to be inextricably linked, why didn’t we de-link the regional program analysis?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Wait, really? Did MCPS staff argue against it? Was there any discussion about what this means for the MS/HS boundary options? Do you know what time stamp on the board meeting video to look for to watch this?

It's at 1:51. Clearly all the Board members had prepped and agreed on it beforehand. I suspect Taylor was only pretending to argue for the faster timeline at the beginning, or he would have argued harder (and twisted arms behind the scenes.)

https://www.youtube.com/live/1bWb9wK1gH0?si=7kztMzaas45u3eHs

You're probably right, but it was beautiful to watch when he read his resolution for an accelerated closure process and no one seconded him.

Taylor isn’t a member of the Board of Education and he can’t make a Resolution. Resolutions have to come from the elected Board members.

Well whatever you call it, he wanted the BOE to vote to approve his recommendation for accelerating the closing of SSIMS and no one even seconded the motion.

Of course not. He can’t make a motion.

DP.

If you’re trying to make a point, maybe get to it?

Stewart’s letter references the superintendent’s “resolution.” I saw him make a statement and I saw the whole BOE decline to second it. Maybe some
of us are missing key process terminology — please enlighten us.

They're being pedantic. He/MCPS wrote and read the resolution but he cannot make a motion to adopt it. The SMOB did that, and no one even seconded it, so it didn't even move to discussion and just immediately failed (clearly choreographed.)

MCPS clearly knew about that in advance. They had a letter ready to go to SSIMS families talking about how waiting is such a wise choice.

Agree it all felt choreographed.
So if the BOE can clap back against Taylor’s inextricably linked SSIMS/boundary study timeline, why did we even spend the money and time to expand the scope and out out these options? And if we are getting the guts to tell him his proposed timeline is too fast and doesn’t need to be inextricably linked, why didn’t we de-link the regional program analysis?

Great questions.

My guess is the reason the BOE folded was because Councilmembers pull their strings behind the scenes not to move forward with a controversial school closure while three councilmembers are running for the County Executive office.

They probably placated MCPS and Taylor by saying they just needed a delay so that the decision to close SSIMS happens well after the election is over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Wait, really? Did MCPS staff argue against it? Was there any discussion about what this means for the MS/HS boundary options? Do you know what time stamp on the board meeting video to look for to watch this?

It's at 1:51. Clearly all the Board members had prepped and agreed on it beforehand. I suspect Taylor was only pretending to argue for the faster timeline at the beginning, or he would have argued harder (and twisted arms behind the scenes.)

https://www.youtube.com/live/1bWb9wK1gH0?si=7kztMzaas45u3eHs

You're probably right, but it was beautiful to watch when he read his resolution for an accelerated closure process and no one seconded him.

Taylor isn’t a member of the Board of Education and he can’t make a Resolution. Resolutions have to come from the elected Board members.

Well whatever you call it, he wanted the BOE to vote to approve his recommendation for accelerating the closing of SSIMS and no one even seconded the motion.

Of course not. He can’t make a motion.

The SMOB made the motion. Nobody seconded it.

Another instance of using the student as the Superintendent's tool.

[Anonymous]

So is SSIMS going to be closed on 2030 or later? I didn't have time to listen yesterday's BOE meeting and would like a quick update if someone can help, plz. Thanks!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So is SSIMS going to be closed on 2030 or later? I didn't have time to listen yesterday's BOE meeting and would like a quick update if someone can help, plz. Thanks!

No decision yet. They just slowed down the timeline for deciding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So is SSIMS going to be closed on 2030 or later? I didn't have time to listen yesterday's BOE meeting and would like a quick update if someone can help, plz. Thanks!

It still could be, but the decision will get pushed back another 2 years or so to align with the timing of the countywide boundary study. (Presumably to decrease the heat by closing SSIMS at the same time as a number of elementary schools so they can say "look, it's not just you.") That could still leave plenty of time for a 2030 closure, though.