Will Thomas Taylor Survive the Massive Changes He is Introducing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The regional magnet model is a good one. Y’all are tearing it down before it has even begun.

It is really bad for the kids in the DCC and NEC. They lose choice, programs are being downgraded from consortium-wide to local, at the same time, some of those schools are losing hundreds of students to boundary changes. That will mean staff and budget cuts.

You mean, some of those absurdly overcrowded schools will finally be able to fit all their students inside their buildings.

You mean, hundreds of students will be forced out of some of the most popular schools in the county, and cut off from choice and programs they've enjoyed for decades.

It makes zero sense to allow students to opt in to overcrowded schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The regional magnet model is a good one. Y’all are tearing it down before it has even begun.

It is really bad for the kids in the DCC and NEC. They lose choice, programs are being downgraded from consortium-wide to local, at the same time, some of those schools are losing hundreds of students to boundary changes. That will mean staff and budget cuts.

You mean, some of those absurdly overcrowded schools will finally be able to fit all their students inside their buildings.

You mean, hundreds of students will be forced out of some of the most popular schools in the county, and cut off from choice and programs they've enjoyed for decades.

It makes zero sense to allow students to opt in to overcrowded schools.

Wootton is under-capacity. Crown is new. Let’s move the entire SMCS program there! Problem solved! Oh, wait, isn’t SMCS introduced to Blair because of the motivation for breaking down the social economic wall and reducing inequity?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The regional magnet model is a good one. Y’all are tearing it down before it has even begun.

It is really bad for the kids in the DCC and NEC. They lose choice, programs are being downgraded from consortium-wide to local, at the same time, some of those schools are losing hundreds of students to boundary changes. That will mean staff and budget cuts.

You mean, some of those absurdly overcrowded schools will finally be able to fit all their students inside their buildings.

You mean, hundreds of students will be forced out of some of the most popular schools in the county, and cut off from choice and programs they've enjoyed for decades.

It makes zero sense to allow students to opt in to overcrowded schools.

Wootton is under-capacity. Crown is new. Let’s move the entire SMCS program there! Problem solved! Oh, wait, isn’t SMCS introduced to Blair because of the motivation for breaking down the social economic wall and reducing inequity?

Yes, that is literally in the plan. Region 5’s SMCS will be at Crown. Region 4’s will be at Wootton. Are people even aware what we’re discussing here?

Pages 40-42 here: https://www.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DKRJWU4F383C/$file/10.01%20Program%20Analysis%20Boundary%20Studies%20Comm%20Engage%20Plan%20Update%20250821%20PPT%20REV.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The regional magnet model is a good one. Y’all are tearing it down before it has even begun.

It is really bad for the kids in the DCC and NEC. They lose choice, programs are being downgraded from consortium-wide to local, at the same time, some of those schools are losing hundreds of students to boundary changes. That will mean staff and budget cuts.

You mean, some of those absurdly overcrowded schools will finally be able to fit all their students inside their buildings.

You mean, hundreds of students will be forced out of some of the most popular schools in the county, and cut off from choice and programs they've enjoyed for decades.

It makes zero sense to allow students to opt in to overcrowded schools.

Wootton is under-capacity. Crown is new. Let’s move the entire SMCS program there! Problem solved! Oh, wait, isn’t SMCS introduced to Blair because of the motivation for breaking down the social economic wall and reducing inequity?

Yes, that is literally in the plan. Region 5’s SMCS will be at Crown. Region 4’s will be at Wootton. Are people even aware what we’re discussing here?

Pages 40-42 here: https://www.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DKRJWU4F383C/$file/10.01%20Program%20Analysis%20Boundary%20Studies%20Comm%20Engage%20Plan%20Update%20250821%20PPT%20REV.pdf

Move. Not break a successful national-known program into 4 smaller pieces.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The regional magnet model is a good one. Y’all are tearing it down before it has even begun.

It is really bad for the kids in the DCC and NEC. They lose choice, programs are being downgraded from consortium-wide to local, at the same time, some of those schools are losing hundreds of students to boundary changes. That will mean staff and budget cuts.

You mean, some of those absurdly overcrowded schools will finally be able to fit all their students inside their buildings.

You mean, hundreds of students will be forced out of some of the most popular schools in the county, and cut off from choice and programs they've enjoyed for decades.

It makes zero sense to allow students to opt in to overcrowded schools.

Wootton is under-capacity. Crown is new. Let’s move the entire SMCS program there! Problem solved! Oh, wait, isn’t SMCS introduced to Blair because of the motivation for breaking down the social economic wall and reducing inequity?

You all really are obsessed with SMCS. The topic was about DCC consortium programs (aka academies) possibly becoming local programs, which has nothing to do with SMCS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The regional magnet model is a good one. Y’all are tearing it down before it has even begun.

It is really bad for the kids in the DCC and NEC. They lose choice, programs are being downgraded from consortium-wide to local, at the same time, some of those schools are losing hundreds of students to boundary changes. That will mean staff and budget cuts.

If you are the pp from above, then you are dodging from my comments. If you care impacts on DCC, apparently Einstein community foresee big concerns of losing programs and resource, and BCC is getting a further leg-up. You want to pitch in your opinion? How to address the inequality for DCC and NEC schools that will be negatively impacted?

You mean, some of those absurdly overcrowded schools will finally be able to fit all their students inside their buildings.

You mean, hundreds of students will be forced out of some of the most popular schools in the county, and cut off from choice and programs they've enjoyed for decades.

It makes zero sense to allow students to opt in to overcrowded schools.

Wootton is under-capacity. Crown is new. Let’s move the entire SMCS program there! Problem solved! Oh, wait, isn’t SMCS introduced to Blair because of the motivation for breaking down the social economic wall and reducing inequity?

You all really are obsessed with SMCS. The topic was about DCC consortium programs (aka academies) possibly becoming local programs, which has nothing to do with SMCS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The regional magnet model is a good one. Y’all are tearing it down before it has even begun.

It is really bad for the kids in the DCC and NEC. They lose choice, programs are being downgraded from consortium-wide to local, at the same time, some of those schools are losing hundreds of students to boundary changes. That will mean staff and budget cuts.

You mean, some of those absurdly overcrowded schools will finally be able to fit all their students inside their buildings.

You mean, hundreds of students will be forced out of some of the most popular schools in the county, and cut off from choice and programs they've enjoyed for decades.

It makes zero sense to allow students to opt in to overcrowded schools.

Wootton is under-capacity. Crown is new. Let’s move the entire SMCS program there! Problem solved! Oh, wait, isn’t SMCS introduced to Blair because of the motivation for breaking down the social economic wall and reducing inequity?

No

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The regional magnet model is a good one. Y’all are tearing it down before it has even begun.

It is really bad for the kids in the DCC and NEC. They lose choice, programs are being downgraded from consortium-wide to local, at the same time, some of those schools are losing hundreds of students to boundary changes. That will mean staff and budget cuts.

You mean, some of those absurdly overcrowded schools will finally be able to fit all their students inside their buildings.

Hey, as long as those smaller/less affluent schools offer and hold all of the same classes available at the larger/more affluent schools, no harm done.

Can't do that? Find a different solution that makes one's zip code irrelevant to one's access to equivalent academics throughout the system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The regional magnet model is a good one. Y’all are tearing it down before it has even begun.

It is really bad for the kids in the DCC and NEC. They lose choice, programs are being downgraded from consortium-wide to local, at the same time, some of those schools are losing hundreds of students to boundary changes. That will mean staff and budget cuts.

You mean, some of those absurdly overcrowded schools will finally be able to fit all their students inside their buildings.

Hey, as long as those smaller/less affluent schools offer and hold all of the same classes available at the larger/more affluent schools, no harm done.

Can't do that? Find a different solution that makes one's zip code irrelevant to one's access to equivalent academics throughout the system.

+1. It’s a county-wide school system. Time for it to start working that way. If you don’t like it go private.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The regional magnet model is a good one. Y’all are tearing it down before it has even begun.

It is really bad for the kids in the DCC and NEC. They lose choice, programs are being downgraded from consortium-wide to local, at the same time, some of those schools are losing hundreds of students to boundary changes. That will mean staff and budget cuts.

You mean, some of those absurdly overcrowded schools will finally be able to fit all their students inside their buildings.

You mean, hundreds of students will be forced out of some of the most popular schools in the county, and cut off from choice and programs they've enjoyed for decades.

It makes zero sense to allow students to opt in to overcrowded schools.

It does when there is no equity in MCPS and the course offerings vary by school. Equalize all schools with the same offerings and then there will be no need.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The regional magnet model is a good one. Y’all are tearing it down before it has even begun.

It is really bad for the kids in the DCC and NEC. They lose choice, programs are being downgraded from consortium-wide to local, at the same time, some of those schools are losing hundreds of students to boundary changes. That will mean staff and budget cuts.

You mean, some of those absurdly overcrowded schools will finally be able to fit all their students inside their buildings.

Hey, as long as those smaller/less affluent schools offer and hold all of the same classes available at the larger/more affluent schools, no harm done.

Can't do that? Find a different solution that makes one's zip code irrelevant to one's access to equivalent academics throughout the system.

+1. It’s a county-wide school system. Time for it to start working that way. If you don’t like it go private.

The richer schools have the course offerings so its less of an issue for them. The lower income schools, don't and most of those families cannot afford private.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The regional magnet model is a good one. Y’all are tearing it down before it has even begun.

It is really bad for the kids in the DCC and NEC. They lose choice, programs are being downgraded from consortium-wide to local, at the same time, some of those schools are losing hundreds of students to boundary changes. That will mean staff and budget cuts.

You mean, some of those absurdly overcrowded schools will finally be able to fit all their students inside their buildings.

You mean, hundreds of students will be forced out of some of the most popular schools in the county, and cut off from choice and programs they've enjoyed for decades.

It makes zero sense to allow students to opt in to overcrowded schools.

Wootton is under-capacity. Crown is new. Let’s move the entire SMCS program there! Problem solved! Oh, wait, isn’t SMCS introduced to Blair because of the motivation for breaking down the social economic wall and reducing inequity?

They put the magnets at lower income schools to raise up the test and other scores. Its not about capacity its about scores/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ability for Taylor to survive this depends on we the people, giving him and the BOE enough pressure to make him pay.

But too many people seem convinced by Taylor’s nice guy act.

I can see how the nice-guy act resonated so effectively after McKnight's toxicity. But all these changes he is intent on introducing are just going to cause a lot of problems. Taylor will be gone, one way or another, but we'll be left with a system that he has roiled.

It’s funny reading the continual new threads around this, because some fk you really refuse to realize that while Taylor may be implementing and pushing this, it’s been a request from the community for a long time. Maybe just not you.

The community also wants all HS to be have high expectations and rigor.

Both are lacking in a number of schools for a number of reasons.

The problem is not with the IDEA of the regional program. It's the fact that they are LYING and have FAILED to do thorough prep, research and resource alignment to make good on their promise.

MCPS is lying when they say they can grandfather people with existing programs and stand up all of these new programs, AND have them be programs of equitable quality as their predecessors.

MCPS could not even replicate the success of RM's IB program with the Regional IBs at Watkins Mill, Springbrook and Kennedy. So what makes you think they can do multiples more of that on the current timeline with no additional financial or human resources?

Taylor would argue that the Regional IBs would have been more successful if so many of the county's top students weren't still driving past them to go to RMIB. That seems to be a primary rationale for ending the countywide model in favor of the new regional model.

I would say that’s only one reason being expressed. Another is the need for more cross collaboration and discussion between programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ability for Taylor to survive this depends on we the people, giving him and the BOE enough pressure to make him pay.

But too many people seem convinced by Taylor’s nice guy act.

I can see how the nice-guy act resonated so effectively after McKnight's toxicity. But all these changes he is intent on introducing are just going to cause a lot of problems. Taylor will be gone, one way or another, but we'll be left with a system that he has roiled.

It’s funny reading the continual new threads around this, because some fk you really refuse to realize that while Taylor may be implementing and pushing this, it’s been a request from the community for a long time. Maybe just not you.

The community also wants all HS to be have high expectations and rigor.

Both are lacking in a number of schools for a number of reasons.

The problem is not with the IDEA of the regional program. It's the fact that they are LYING and have FAILED to do thorough prep, research and resource alignment to make good on their promise.

MCPS is lying when they say they can grandfather people with existing programs and stand up all of these new programs, AND have them be programs of equitable quality as their predecessors.

MCPS could not even replicate the success of RM's IB program with the Regional IBs at Watkins Mill, Springbrook and Kennedy. So what makes you think they can do multiples more of that on the current timeline with no additional financial or human resources?

Taylor would argue that the Regional IBs would have been more successful if so many of the county's top students weren't still driving past them to go to RMIB. That seems to be a primary rationale for ending the countywide model in favor of the new regional model.

Then he or CO needs to supply evidences to support their hypothesis. Community had provided so many evidences to prove the other way around. They chose to pretend deaf or play political languages to dodge from making a comment about.

Correct. All of the research and data that I've seen has been done by parent advocates, and it's more persuasive than what MCPS has provided.

The Bethesda Mag opinion piece in Aug contained good links, including an MCPS report for IB and AP data as of Feb 2025. Comparing RMIB vs. 3 regionals, in summary, RMIB has >95% of students with mean scores >5, while the 3 regional IBs have low numbers of students "passing" and has mean scores <4 (ie, NOT passing).

It's not just IB. Similar trends in the AP data, with only notable exception of Spanish Lang (if I remember correctly). Additionally, the 3 regional IB schools offer fewer selection of AP classes/exams. So if a student wants IB (or AP), it's no wonder students choose RMIB over the regionals.

So this "proxy" data indicates that this is likely our future with the regional model.

TT, NHP, JF all claim that the regional IBs haven't had a fair shake yet and blame RMIB for its underenrollment. JF also said that IB teacher training has been the same. It's too bad they are blind to their own data.

They're not blind to their own data. They're just dishonest and liars and don't want to be held accountable to facts or data.

RM IB magnet has been around for how long? What were its scores at the beginning?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ability for Taylor to survive this depends on we the people, giving him and the BOE enough pressure to make him pay.

But too many people seem convinced by Taylor’s nice guy act.

I can see how the nice-guy act resonated so effectively after McKnight's toxicity. But all these changes he is intent on introducing are just going to cause a lot of problems. Taylor will be gone, one way or another, but we'll be left with a system that he has roiled.

It’s funny reading the continual new threads around this, because some fk you really refuse to realize that while Taylor may be implementing and pushing this, it’s been a request from the community for a long time. Maybe just not you.

The community also wants all HS to be have high expectations and rigor.

Both are lacking in a number of schools for a number of reasons.

The problem is not with the IDEA of the regional program. It's the fact that they are LYING and have FAILED to do thorough prep, research and resource alignment to make good on their promise.

MCPS is lying when they say they can grandfather people with existing programs and stand up all of these new programs, AND have them be programs of equitable quality as their predecessors.

MCPS could not even replicate the success of RM's IB program with the Regional IBs at Watkins Mill, Springbrook and Kennedy. So what makes you think they can do multiples more of that on the current timeline with no additional financial or human resources?

Taylor would argue that the Regional IBs would have been more successful if so many of the county's top students weren't still driving past them to go to RMIB. That seems to be a primary rationale for ending the countywide model in favor of the new regional model.

Then he or CO needs to supply evidences to support their hypothesis. Community had provided so many evidences to prove the other way around. They chose to pretend deaf or play political languages to dodge from making a comment about.

Correct. All of the research and data that I've seen has been done by parent advocates, and it's more persuasive than what MCPS has provided.

The Bethesda Mag opinion piece in Aug contained good links, including an MCPS report for IB and AP data as of Feb 2025. Comparing RMIB vs. 3 regionals, in summary, RMIB has >95% of students with mean scores >5, while the 3 regional IBs have low numbers of students "passing" and has mean scores <4 (ie, NOT passing).

It's not just IB. Similar trends in the AP data, with only notable exception of Spanish Lang (if I remember correctly). Additionally, the 3 regional IB schools offer fewer selection of AP classes/exams. So if a student wants IB (or AP), it's no wonder students choose RMIB over the regionals.

So this "proxy" data indicates that this is likely our future with the regional model.

TT, NHP, JF all claim that the regional IBs haven't had a fair shake yet and blame RMIB for its underenrollment. JF also said that IB teacher training has been the same. It's too bad they are blind to their own data.

They're not blind to their own data. They're just dishonest and liars and don't want to be held accountable to facts or data.

Yes. So sick of their bs.

Is any of this a surprise. They refused to release the MVA data and shut it down due to budget but continue their spending sprees. This isn’t about the students needs or wants, it’s their wishes and egos.