6/24/2025 BOE Meeting Thread

[Anonymous]

Every time Julie Yang read from previous expensive reports I clapped at home. And I’m sorry Taylor, your reasoning for why consortiums didn’t improve student outcomes was a bit racist. Does he think more white students in the DCC and NEC schools would change test and graduation data for non-white students?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I didn’t see the whole meeting, but I was surprised when Karla Silvestre asked Niki Hazel (chief academic officer) if the programs changes would require board approval. Niki hazel said she didn’t think so and Taylor had to correct her, and said it was a big change and that both program and boundary changes would be sent for Board approval.

That seems like a pretty basic question for Hazel not to know.

Also a pretty basic question for the former board president not to know. She should have left with Beidelman

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[img]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did they say anything more about timeline?

Recommendation on program study and boundary study targeted for December 2025, board approval by Feb 2026 and implementation for the 2026-2027 school year (ex applications for the new high school programs) if I understood correctly.

Gotcha. So sounds like the actual changes to programs would then start in the 2027-2028 school year at the earliest?

That’s my understanding-changes will apply for rising 7th graders.

These are the students who missed magnet opportunities due to the lottery for elementary and middle school programs. And now going to miss high school magnet again due to brand new regional programs. MCPS is giving them no chance!

please stop repeating the same tired misinformation over and over again. Magnet opportunities are not open lotteries. Yes they have less restrictive eligibility criteria than in the past, but they are still for very smart kids. Stop trying to pretend they McPS’s selection process for these programs (primarily MAP scores) has been so accurate in identifying kids that it was a point of pride for the district It never was.

There is huge difference between 99 percentile vs 80 percentile.

Anyway, I fully suppot getting rid of lottery. Just make it criterion based or interest based with 10 times more seats. That way anyone qualified can take it if they are interested.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Julie Yang was amazing at this board meeting. Grace was awesome, too. Also the public comments that revealed that the boundary study design team had to sign NDAs was quite the revelation. These are taxpayer funded projects and plans. Crazy!

Programs study team also had to sign NDAs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I didn’t see the whole meeting, but I was surprised when Karla Silvestre asked Niki Hazel (chief academic officer) if the programs changes would require board approval. Niki hazel said she didn’t think so and Taylor had to correct her, and said it was a big change and that both program and boundary changes would be sent for Board approval.

That seems like a pretty basic question for Hazel not to know.

Wow, that is revealing. Our Chief Academic Officer doesn’t know this? The person running these two processes? That is very concerning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yang is really turning up. Good point about using data, and good point about why MCPS is letting individual schools decide whether they are going to offer enriched instruction.

Yeah, I appreciated what she said, but she needs to take action. If she's frustrated by data requests that she's made that haven't been fulfilled yet, what is she going to DO about it?

Yang should hold Taylor accountable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did they say anything more about timeline?

Recommendation on program study and boundary study targeted for December 2025, board approval by Feb 2026 and implementation for the 2026-2027 school year (ex applications for the new high school programs) if I understood correctly.

Gotcha. So sounds like the actual changes to programs would then start in the 2027-2028 school year at the earliest?

That’s my understanding-changes will apply for rising 7th graders.

And rising 5th graders for MS programs between their 6th and 7th year. These are the same kids that had kindergarten online.

MCPs really screwed up by not concurrently surveying people for programs and boundaries. They were a bit deceptive in the vagueness of the program survey and the short timeline.

I thought that the program analysis wasn't including middle school programs until later on.

[Anonymous]

[img]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[img]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did they say anything more about timeline?

Recommendation on program study and boundary study targeted for December 2025, board approval by Feb 2026 and implementation for the 2026-2027 school year (ex applications for the new high school programs) if I understood correctly.

Gotcha. So sounds like the actual changes to programs would then start in the 2027-2028 school year at the earliest?

That’s my understanding-changes will apply for rising 7th graders.

These are the students who missed magnet opportunities due to the lottery for elementary and middle school programs. And now going to miss high school magnet again due to brand new regional programs. MCPS is giving them no chance!

please stop repeating the same tired misinformation over and over again. Magnet opportunities are not open lotteries. Yes they have less restrictive eligibility criteria than in the past, but they are still for very smart kids. Stop trying to pretend they McPS’s selection process for these programs (primarily MAP scores) has been so accurate in identifying kids that it was a point of pride for the district It never was.

Then you explain why my 99+% kids never got chance to attend magnet? Even once?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn’t see the whole meeting, but I was surprised when Karla Silvestre asked Niki Hazel (chief academic officer) if the programs changes would require board approval. Niki hazel said she didn’t think so and Taylor had to correct her, and said it was a big change and that both program and boundary changes would be sent for Board approval.

That seems like a pretty basic question for Hazel not to know.

Wow, that is revealing. Our Chief Academic Officer doesn’t know this? The person running these two processes? That is very concerning.

Well yeah, and obviously it affects the timeline for implementation. This was my first McPS board meeting viewing (thanks to the OP for the link) and color me not impressed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn’t see the whole meeting, but I was surprised when Karla Silvestre asked Niki Hazel (chief academic officer) if the programs changes would require board approval. Niki hazel said she didn’t think so and Taylor had to correct her, and said it was a big change and that both program and boundary changes would be sent for Board approval.

That seems like a pretty basic question for Hazel not to know.

Also a pretty basic question for the former board president not to know. She should have left with Beidelman

Silvestre's checked out. I imagine that she will not run again when her term concludes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I didn’t see the whole meeting, but I was surprised when Karla Silvestre asked Niki Hazel (chief academic officer) if the programs changes would require board approval. Niki hazel said she didn’t think so and Taylor had to correct her, and said it was a big change and that both program and boundary changes would be sent for Board approval.

That seems like a pretty basic question for Hazel not to know.

But from Taylor's answer it sounded like this was his choice to seek board approval (due the the large number of changes), not a default.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[img]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[img]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did they say anything more about timeline?

Recommendation on program study and boundary study targeted for December 2025, board approval by Feb 2026 and implementation for the 2026-2027 school year (ex applications for the new high school programs) if I understood correctly.

Gotcha. So sounds like the actual changes to programs would then start in the 2027-2028 school year at the earliest?

That’s my understanding-changes will apply for rising 7th graders.

These are the students who missed magnet opportunities due to the lottery for elementary and middle school programs. And now going to miss high school magnet again due to brand new regional programs. MCPS is giving them no chance!

please stop repeating the same tired misinformation over and over again. Magnet opportunities are not open lotteries. Yes they have less restrictive eligibility criteria than in the past, but they are still for very smart kids. Stop trying to pretend they McPS’s selection process for these programs (primarily MAP scores) has been so accurate in identifying kids that it was a point of pride for the district It never was.

Then you explain why my 99+% kids never got chance to attend magnet? Even once?

Because it’s a limited number of spots for kids who meet the eligibility criteria. That’s not the same as saying it’s an open lottery for all kids in McPS. But you probably know that already and just like to complain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did they say anything more about timeline?

Recommendation on program study and boundary study targeted for December 2025, board approval by Feb 2026 and implementation for the 2026-2027 school year (ex applications for the new high school programs) if I understood correctly.

Gotcha. So sounds like the actual changes to programs would then start in the 2027-2028 school year at the earliest?

That’s my understanding-changes will apply for rising 7th graders.

And rising 5th graders for MS programs between their 6th and 7th year. These are the same kids that had kindergarten online.

MCPs really screwed up by not concurrently surveying people for programs and boundaries. They were a bit deceptive in the vagueness of the program survey and the short timeline.

I thought that the program analysis wasn't including middle school programs until later on.

It’s all being implemented at the same time. They showed that they are now moving on to phase 2 which includes middle school programs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn’t see the whole meeting, but I was surprised when Karla Silvestre asked Niki Hazel (chief academic officer) if the programs changes would require board approval. Niki hazel said she didn’t think so and Taylor had to correct her, and said it was a big change and that both program and boundary changes would be sent for Board approval.

That seems like a pretty basic question for Hazel not to know.

But from Taylor's answer it sounded like this was his choice to seek board approval (due the the large number of changes), not a default.

Sure fine. It’s risky to make big changes without board approval. But he should communicate that to his team who need to develop timelines and implement. No wonder things are always so delayed from McPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Julie Yang was amazing at this board meeting. Grace was awesome, too. Also the public comments that revealed that the boundary study design team had to sign NDAs was quite the revelation. These are taxpayer funded projects and plans. Crazy!

Programs study team also had to sign NDAs.

How are parents supposed to make informed decisions without information? Community members can't share anything, and that slide presentation was underwhelming. Do these staff have advanced degrees? That presentation was a joke.