Board of Education meeting Aug 21 2025

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just wondering: how could BOE stops this non-stopping bus from crushing into reality? Or how could they hold Taylor or anyone accountable when everything crushes 3-4 years later when he is done with his term?

The estimated costs are absurdly underestimated. For one, the number of additional bus route for each region only accounts between HS to HS within a region, while right now magnet and IB bus stops at every ES, MS, HS and public library. The equivalent added bus route once they consider equivalent scenario can easily blow-up the ceiling. Secondly, the cost for teacher training, oh I'm LMO when I see those numbers. $2160 per year for training two computer science teachers to manage computer simulation, game programing, AI? Are they sure this is not one solid full-year load of CS undergraduate course? Again, their budget has ZERO dollar toward hiring new hyper-specialized teachers. Thirdly, research internship for every student in the program? Do they have any mere understanding of the current job market?

Colleges can’t even place all of their students in necessary internships in STEM fields in this current economy.

Perhaps the situation will be better once our students are ready for the workforce.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jeannie Franklin LIED through her teeth about the Regional IB programs and their outcomes. The teacher training for those teachers is NOT on par with Richard Montgomery's and the outcomes are NOT the same. The number of kids graduating with the IB diploma at Watkins Mill, Springbrook and Kennedy is not the same as RM. That is an on-the-record lie.

To be clear she stated that the original local IB programs graduated more black, brown and poor students. This along with the low number of seats in RMIB was part of the reason for expanding them regionally. Additionally, the perception of program, especially RMIB is a reason why some families apply to RMIB or will accept admission there instead of going to the program closer to them. None of the above is inaccurate.

I can't speak to the teacher training. But I do agree that resourcing, program setup, and support are at least part of the reason for the disparate outcomes of the programs. And some of that starts before HS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm concerned about Taylor. Laura Stewart is asking for a slower transition, and Taylor turned that down flat. Key information about transportation costs are now unknowable, per Taylor's comments. The chief academic officer is sure we have all the expertise we need among current educators to duplicate programs regionally. Educators and the community think that isn't the case. Professional education has not been addressed at all; The Chief Academic Officer admitted she wasn't sure what teachers had which expertise and she didn't know which schools they were located in. I wish Taylor could exhibit more flexibility.

Um I agree with Taylor on this. If we are moving to a new strategy, at some point we have to done with the old and commit fully to the new in order to truly evaluate. There is a clear understanding of where this transition is occurring and even grace being provided to allow kids already in programs/schools to finish.

The do need to flesh out a Training/Teacher recruitment plan. The system may have lots of expertise, but it may not be exactly where they need/want it so they may need to provide incentive to some teachers and there is likely other places where they in fact do need to recruit new teachers/staff. They should start to figure some of that out quickly, so they can begin to target some of the people in the job market who might want the opportunity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just wondering: how could BOE stops this non-stopping bus from crushing into reality? Or how could they hold Taylor or anyone accountable when everything crushes 3-4 years later when he is done with his term?

The estimated costs are absurdly underestimated. For one, the number of additional bus route for each region only accounts between HS to HS within a region, while right now magnet and IB bus stops at every ES, MS, HS and public library. The equivalent added bus route once they consider equivalent scenario can easily blow-up the ceiling. Secondly, the cost for teacher training, oh I'm LMO when I see those numbers. $2160 per year for training two computer science teachers to manage computer simulation, game programing, AI? Are they sure this is not one solid full-year load of CS undergraduate course? Again, their budget has ZERO dollar toward hiring new hyper-specialized teachers. Thirdly, research internship for every student in the program? Do they have any mere understanding of the current job market?

It didn't say research internship, it was research opportunity which in many cases is just going to be a research project. Not all research requires a lab. Many times what the kids really needs is mentors, and/or direction and feedback on how to properly go about research and presenting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just wondering: how could BOE stops this non-stopping bus from crushing into reality? Or how could they hold Taylor or anyone accountable when everything crushes 3-4 years later when he is done with his term?

The estimated costs are absurdly underestimated. For one, the number of additional bus route for each region only accounts between HS to HS within a region, while right now magnet and IB bus stops at every ES, MS, HS and public library. The equivalent added bus route once they consider equivalent scenario can easily blow-up the ceiling. Secondly, the cost for teacher training, oh I'm LMO when I see those numbers. $2160 per year for training two computer science teachers to manage computer simulation, game programing, AI? Are they sure this is not one solid full-year load of CS undergraduate course? Again, their budget has ZERO dollar toward hiring new hyper-specialized teachers. Thirdly, research internship for every student in the program? Do they have any mere understanding of the current job market?

It didn't say research internship, it was research opportunity which in many cases is just going to be a research project. Not all research requires a lab. Many times what the kids really needs is mentors, and/or direction and feedback on how to properly go about research and presenting.

PP here. I work in high education and serve regularly as a mentor to HS research project. No, you can't let everyone work out a research project. In often cases, the HS research courses will come with some classical experiments (e.g., bean growth; turbine power study, etc.) to let student feel what a research project is. For real research like capstone project, it requires tremendous investment of mentor's time and effort that they volunteer to contribute. The only way for me to be willing to mentor and volunteer my time is when the student is very self-motivated, capable and eager for working on a research topic. So no, this can't be happen to every HS student in these programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm concerned about Taylor. Laura Stewart is asking for a slower transition, and Taylor turned that down flat. Key information about transportation costs are now unknowable, per Taylor's comments. The chief academic officer is sure we have all the expertise we need among current educators to duplicate programs regionally. Educators and the community think that isn't the case. Professional education has not been addressed at all; The Chief Academic Officer admitted she wasn't sure what teachers had which expertise and she didn't know which schools they were located in. I wish Taylor could exhibit more flexibility.

Um I agree with Taylor on this. If we are moving to a new strategy, at some point we have to done with the old and commit fully to the new in order to truly evaluate. There is a clear understanding of where this transition is occurring and even grace being provided to allow kids already in programs/schools to finish.

The do need to flesh out a Training/Teacher recruitment plan. The system may have lots of expertise, but it may not be exactly where they need/want it so they may need to provide incentive to some teachers and there is likely other places where they in fact do need to recruit new teachers/staff. They should start to figure some of that out quickly, so they can begin to target some of the people in the job market who might want the opportunity.

Check out their budget estimate from yesterday's slides. They have zero dollar investing in hiring new teacher in the job market. Nicky said explicitly that they will advertise opportunities to existing teachers, and see who are willing to move around. They have no idea how many teachers are needed for each new program (total 16 new programs), what new courses are needed to be built, and they need to figure those things out and get everyone in place in 2 years starting from now on with 0.5 FTE/region investment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeannie Franklin LIED through her teeth about the Regional IB programs and their outcomes. The teacher training for those teachers is NOT on par with Richard Montgomery's and the outcomes are NOT the same. The number of kids graduating with the IB diploma at Watkins Mill, Springbrook and Kennedy is not the same as RM. That is an on-the-record lie.

To be clear she stated that the original local IB programs graduated more black, brown and poor students. This along with the low number of seats in RMIB was part of the reason for expanding them regionally. Additionally, the perception of program, especially RMIB is a reason why some families apply to RMIB or will accept admission there instead of going to the program closer to them. None of the above is inaccurate.

I can't speak to the teacher training. But I do agree that resourcing, program setup, and support are at least part of the reason for the disparate outcomes of the programs. And some of that starts before HS.

Did Jeannie Franklin happen to provide data on the local and current regional IB program diploma rates? CO staff are making lots of claims with no data to back them up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeannie Franklin LIED through her teeth about the Regional IB programs and their outcomes. The teacher training for those teachers is NOT on par with Richard Montgomery's and the outcomes are NOT the same. The number of kids graduating with the IB diploma at Watkins Mill, Springbrook and Kennedy is not the same as RM. That is an on-the-record lie.

To be clear she stated that the original local IB programs graduated more black, brown and poor students. This along with the low number of seats in RMIB was part of the reason for expanding them regionally. Additionally, the perception of program, especially RMIB is a reason why some families apply to RMIB or will accept admission there instead of going to the program closer to them. None of the above is inaccurate.

I can't speak to the teacher training. But I do agree that resourcing, program setup, and support are at least part of the reason for the disparate outcomes of the programs. And some of that starts before HS.

Did Jeannie Franklin happen to provide data on the local and current regional IB program diploma rates? CO staff are making lots of claims with no data to back them up.

No she didn't, but data are all publicly accessible on office of accountability website. I bet they dare not to share the data. I've analyzed them a month ago, and it was really really bad. Only BCC is comparable in statistics to RMIB, and RMIB is declining consistently in the past 10 years or so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm concerned about Taylor. Laura Stewart is asking for a slower transition, and Taylor turned that down flat. Key information about transportation costs are now unknowable, per Taylor's comments. The chief academic officer is sure we have all the expertise we need among current educators to duplicate programs regionally. Educators and the community think that isn't the case. Professional education has not been addressed at all; The Chief Academic Officer admitted she wasn't sure what teachers had which expertise and she didn't know which schools they were located in. I wish Taylor could exhibit more flexibility.

Um I agree with Taylor on this. If we are moving to a new strategy, at some point we have to done with the old and commit fully to the new in order to truly evaluate. There is a clear understanding of where this transition is occurring and even grace being provided to allow kids already in programs/schools to finish.

The do need to flesh out a Training/Teacher recruitment plan. The system may have lots of expertise, but it may not be exactly where they need/want it so they may need to provide incentive to some teachers and there is likely other places where they in fact do need to recruit new teachers/staff. They should start to figure some of that out quickly, so they can begin to target some of the people in the job market who might want the opportunity.

Check out their budget estimate from yesterday's slides. They have zero dollar investing in hiring new teacher in the job market. Nicky said explicitly that they will advertise opportunities to existing teachers, and see who are willing to move around. They have no idea how many teachers are needed for each new program (total 16 new programs), what new courses are needed to be built, and they need to figure those things out and get everyone in place in 2 years starting from now on with 0.5 FTE/region investment.

Addendum: I just went back checking their slides, and I need to correct my error: it's 27 new programs based on capitalized names in Page 40-42. Two years, 27 new programs, 3 FTE in total for planning, procurement, and recruiting (or relocating) teachers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The woman responsible for reading out and explaining the board's legislative priorities is painful to listen to. Is there no one else within the BOE ecosystem who is competent and capable that could've done this job?

She's fine. It's literally her job.

She's not, but if you're happy with this BOE I know your standards are low.

Oh please you voted for Diaz or Mandel that’s just beyond pathetic and uneducated

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm concerned about Taylor. Laura Stewart is asking for a slower transition, and Taylor turned that down flat. Key information about transportation costs are now unknowable, per Taylor's comments. The chief academic officer is sure we have all the expertise we need among current educators to duplicate programs regionally. Educators and the community think that isn't the case. Professional education has not been addressed at all; The Chief Academic Officer admitted she wasn't sure what teachers had which expertise and she didn't know which schools they were located in. I wish Taylor could exhibit more flexibility.

Um I agree with Taylor on this. If we are moving to a new strategy, at some point we have to done with the old and commit fully to the new in order to truly evaluate. There is a clear understanding of where this transition is occurring and even grace being provided to allow kids already in programs/schools to finish.

The do need to flesh out a Training/Teacher recruitment plan. The system may have lots of expertise, but it may not be exactly where they need/want it so they may need to provide incentive to some teachers and there is likely other places where they in fact do need to recruit new teachers/staff. They should start to figure some of that out quickly, so they can begin to target some of the people in the job market who might want the opportunity.

But that’s not what we’re doing. We are claiming we can do old and new at the same time with increased costs. Not a problem if we had the revenue, but we don’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm concerned about Taylor. Laura Stewart is asking for a slower transition, and Taylor turned that down flat. Key information about transportation costs are now unknowable, per Taylor's comments. The chief academic officer is sure we have all the expertise we need among current educators to duplicate programs regionally. Educators and the community think that isn't the case. Professional education has not been addressed at all; The Chief Academic Officer admitted she wasn't sure what teachers had which expertise and she didn't know which schools they were located in. I wish Taylor could exhibit more flexibility.

Um I agree with Taylor on this. If we are moving to a new strategy, at some point we have to done with the old and commit fully to the new in order to truly evaluate. There is a clear understanding of where this transition is occurring and even grace being provided to allow kids already in programs/schools to finish.

The do need to flesh out a Training/Teacher recruitment plan. The system may have lots of expertise, but it may not be exactly where they need/want it so they may need to provide incentive to some teachers and there is likely other places where they in fact do need to recruit new teachers/staff. They should start to figure some of that out quickly, so they can begin to target some of the people in the job market who might want the opportunity.

Check out their budget estimate from yesterday's slides. They have zero dollar investing in hiring new teacher in the job market. Nicky said explicitly that they will advertise opportunities to existing teachers, and see who are willing to move around. They have no idea how many teachers are needed for each new program (total 16 new programs), what new courses are needed to be built, and they need to figure those things out and get everyone in place in 2 years starting from now on with 0.5 FTE/region investment.

Are we currently working with a 0.5 FTE staff development teacher at each MS and HS?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeannie Franklin LIED through her teeth about the Regional IB programs and their outcomes. The teacher training for those teachers is NOT on par with Richard Montgomery's and the outcomes are NOT the same. The number of kids graduating with the IB diploma at Watkins Mill, Springbrook and Kennedy is not the same as RM. That is an on-the-record lie.

To be clear she stated that the original local IB programs graduated more black, brown and poor students. This along with the low number of seats in RMIB was part of the reason for expanding them regionally. Additionally, the perception of program, especially RMIB is a reason why some families apply to RMIB or will accept admission there instead of going to the program closer to them. None of the above is inaccurate.

I can't speak to the teacher training. But I do agree that resourcing, program setup, and support are at least part of the reason for the disparate outcomes of the programs. And some of that starts before HS.

Did Jeannie Franklin happen to provide data on the local and current regional IB program diploma rates? CO staff are making lots of claims with no data to back them up.

No she didn't, but data are all publicly accessible on office of accountability website. I bet they dare not to share the data. I've analyzed them a month ago, and it was really really bad. Only BCC is comparable in statistics to RMIB, and RMIB is declining consistently in the past 10 years or so.

Why didn't the BOE ask her for the info? I just do not understand how they take the dribble from central office without pushing back.

[Anonymous]

If real teachers were fired and pushed out for not manipulating the numbers and violence reports how do you think fired govnt workers will fare. They have no training and the ones that they fired had Masters degrees in education. Sheesh and we did our jobs to protect the students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A favor to ask of those of you who follow this stuff ....
I work with a group of boy scouts that are required to attend (can be virtually) a meeting of the school board, county council, etc., at which different viewpoints on an issue are discussed and then report to me on them. I'm constantly looking for good/interesting opportunities for them.
Did anything interesting happen today that might be good for teens to listen to and discuss, especially if they are not already deeply into the MCPS politics? Most of them are MCPS students so this stuff does affect them. Thank you!!!

So as a Scout parent, the point of them attending the meeting is for them to learn government, community engagement.

BOE meetings are a perfect way for them to learn this since, as you said, the decisions of the BOE directly affect them, if they're MCPS students.

That being said, it's a crap shoot as to which meetings will be "interesting" to them, since it depends on the scout, their level of interest in local politics and the particulars of the meeting agenda that they happen to sit on.

We went to a county council meeting where they were talking about mcps funding with our DS for scouts. He loved it and learned so much! Great thing to do with any high schooler.