MCPS planning very limited regional program transportation (HS pickups only)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK. So for the two boundary studies, at least there are two sides with some valid concerns from each side to argue about the benefits/caveats. For the regional program, has anyone actually expressed positive support from the community? I've been following all BOE meeting testimony sessions, and I don't recall see a single testimony that embraces this idea. From the couple of in-person info sessions that I've attended, many were there to either learn for the first time, or express concerns, or ask questions. No one there to explicitly embrace the plan. The design team members had expressed numerous frustrating experience with the experience.

So what motivates BOE to approve a plan that no one except Taylor and his ass-kissers support?

I think the general concept itself is solid, it's just clearly going to be implemented in an rushed, messy, expensive, and inequitable way.

The Board of Ed is on board with the concept (I don't blame them), and Taylor is a smooth enough talker to convince them that all the implementation concerns are just "no plans will ever make everyone happy, there will be bumps along the way but we'll adjust and fine-tune" level-stuff, and also that this absolutely has to happen stating in fall 2027 and it's impossible to slow down a year to get it right.

Given all that, and the fact that none of them want to push back on him that often, they've decided it's good enough.

That said, while I think the chances of them voting it down are next to nothing, I do think they can have some influence on the details. So I think rather than saying "vote this down because the transportation plan is unfair and inequitable," it's a better plan to reach out to them and say "please insist that MCPS provide an equitable transportation plan for students-- even if it costs more, it's the right thing to do."

I should add that while there is limited public support for the "this plan must be implemented exactly as designed and without delay" position (even the "called in a favor" Black and Brown Coalition statement still said to prioritize lower-income schools which thus plan does not)... I think there is genuine public support in many corners for the "there should be more spots available at strong magnet programs rather than having so many kids turned away and others have to travel across the county for them" position. Not saying that I agree that their plan is the best way to solve this-- I don't-- but I do think Board members hear from real people who think the current/prior model is flawed and want to see changes, so they're already primed to be pro-change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK. So for the two boundary studies, at least there are two sides with some valid concerns from each side to argue about the benefits/caveats. For the regional program, has anyone actually expressed positive support from the community? I've been following all BOE meeting testimony sessions, and I don't recall see a single testimony that embraces this idea. From the couple of in-person info sessions that I've attended, many were there to either learn for the first time, or express concerns, or ask questions. No one there to explicitly embrace the plan. The design team members had expressed numerous frustrating experience with the experience.

So what motivates BOE to approve a plan that no one except Taylor and his ass-kissers support?

Diego Uriburu and Byron Johns from the Black and Brown Coalition have expressed support for the regional program model.

So two people?

Yes, two people. I have not heard of anyone else tbh. I think the goal of what they are trying to achieve is something most people would support. But I think they didn’t give themselves enough runway to “iterate.” They also stupidly linked the timing to the boundary changes. Honestly, they could have saved themselves a lot of trouble if they didn’t overload the system with 12 layers of grandfathered transportation and transition in the same 2 years. But yeah, to the PP’s point, there is no support for this plan that I’ve heard of. I do think Rita and Brenda are supportive, but I truly think they are under informed about what is actually happening/being provided. They were sort of bamboozled by the superintendent with high level overviews that sounded good but are a bit of a house of cards underneath.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Design team member here - another thing that came up is that the language pathway will only be Chinese. Not other less-taught languages. Is there a need/desire for Chinese across all six regions?

But if you thought the global language program pathway might give your child access to Italian or German or ASL or Arabic. Nope.

I doubt it.

Note the Chinese programs all require the kids to have taken Chinese in middle school, which is only available at:

Cabin John MS (FARMS: 12%)
Hallie Wells MS (FARMS: 19%)
Herbert Hoover MS (FARMS: 12%)
Julius West MS (FARMS: 39%)
Robert Frost MS (FARMS: 16%)
Thomas Pyle MS (FARMS: 6%)
Tilden MS (FARMS: 24%)

Every one of these schools has a lower FARMS rate than the total middle school FARMS rate for MCPS which is 43%. I think it is great to offer these pathways at schools with large populations of Chinese Americans but to only be serving them and the relatively wealthy populations at those schools is a questionable approach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK. So for the two boundary studies, at least there are two sides with some valid concerns from each side to argue about the benefits/caveats. For the regional program, has anyone actually expressed positive support from the community? I've been following all BOE meeting testimony sessions, and I don't recall see a single testimony that embraces this idea. From the couple of in-person info sessions that I've attended, many were there to either learn for the first time, or express concerns, or ask questions. No one there to explicitly embrace the plan. The design team members had expressed numerous frustrating experience with the experience.

So what motivates BOE to approve a plan that no one except Taylor and his ass-kissers support?

I think the general concept itself is solid, it's just clearly going to be implemented in an rushed, messy, expensive, and inequitable way.

The Board of Ed is on board with the concept (I don't blame them), and Taylor is a smooth enough talker to convince them that all the implementation concerns are just "no plans will ever make everyone happy, there will be bumps along the way but we'll adjust and fine-tune" level-stuff, and also that this absolutely has to happen stating in fall 2027 and it's impossible to slow down a year to get it right.

Given all that, and the fact that none of them want to push back on him that often, they've decided it's good enough.

That said, while I think the chances of them voting it down are next to nothing, I do think they can have some influence on the details. So I think rather than saying "vote this down because the transportation plan is unfair and inequitable," it's a better plan to reach out to them and say "please insist that MCPS provide an equitable transportation plan for students-- even if it costs more, it's the right thing to do."

I should add that while there is limited public support for the "this plan must be implemented exactly as designed and without delay" position (even the "called in a favor" Black and Brown Coalition statement still said to prioritize lower-income schools which thus plan does not)... I think there is genuine public support in many corners for the "there should be more spots available at strong magnet programs rather than having so many kids turned away and others have to travel across the county for them" position. Not saying that I agree that their plan is the best way to solve this-- I don't-- but I do think Board members hear from real people who think the current/prior model is flawed and want to see changes, so they're already primed to be pro-change.

One design team member here. I was pro-expansion as well at the very beginning. Very soon I realized this was not heading on a right track. And look at our lovely president. How many of you voted him because you were not satisfied with the conditions then and wanted a change? A lot voted him not because they were MAGA, but because they wanted a change. And look what changes he brought to us. This is exactly what is going to happen as this is the fate when high ambition meets poor execution. You can only fail miserably and lose those good little things you originally have.

So yes, I'm a firm anti-regional-program member now.

[Anonymous]

There should absolutely be more magnet spots available closer to home for kids. I'd argue that adding more humanities/arts criteria-based opportunities is good.

Where this has been muddled is the need to have something at every school and the tie-in to the Blueprint CTE goals of half of Maryland students graduating high school with some kind of certification.

In an ideal world, MCPS would focus on the regular high school experience becoming so strong and positive (and safe) that nobody would rely on a potential magnet placement as an escape hatch from their home school not meeting their needs. Then the magnets could actually be for elite acadmic needs (the top 5% say, instead of the place the top 10-15% go because their home schools can't handle smart kids).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK. So for the two boundary studies, at least there are two sides with some valid concerns from each side to argue about the benefits/caveats. For the regional program, has anyone actually expressed positive support from the community? I've been following all BOE meeting testimony sessions, and I don't recall see a single testimony that embraces this idea. From the couple of in-person info sessions that I've attended, many were there to either learn for the first time, or express concerns, or ask questions. No one there to explicitly embrace the plan. The design team members had expressed numerous frustrating experience with the experience.

So what motivates BOE to approve a plan that no one except Taylor and his ass-kissers support?

Diego Uriburu and Byron Johns from the Black and Brown Coalition have expressed support for the regional program model.

So two people?

Yes, two people. I have not heard of anyone else tbh. I think the goal of what they are trying to achieve is something most people would support. But I think they didn’t give themselves enough runway to “iterate.” They also stupidly linked the timing to the boundary changes. Honestly, they could have saved themselves a lot of trouble if they didn’t overload the system with 12 layers of grandfathered transportation and transition in the same 2 years. But yeah, to the PP’s point, there is no support for this plan that I’ve heard of. I do think Rita and Brenda are supportive, but I truly think they are under informed about what is actually happening/being provided. They were sort of bamboozled by the superintendent with high level overviews that sounded good but are a bit of a house of cards underneath.

Rita and Brenda are not underinformed. They know it's a model that's being planned as it's being built, and they don't care that it's messy and think everything will be worked out in the end. They're choosing to trust Taylor's rose-colored glasses version of things versus the community's alarm-sounding over a plan that has good ideas and ideals, but lacks details and specificity that would build broad confidence and buy-in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There should absolutely be more magnet spots available closer to home for kids. I'd argue that adding more humanities/arts criteria-based opportunities is good.

Where this has been muddled is the need to have something at every school and the tie-in to the Blueprint CTE goals of half of Maryland students graduating high school with some kind of certification.

In an ideal world, MCPS would focus on the regular high school experience becoming so strong and positive (and safe) that nobody would rely on a potential magnet placement as an escape hatch from their home school not meeting their needs. Then the magnets could actually be for elite acadmic needs (the top 5% say, instead of the place the top 10-15% go because their home schools can't handle smart kids).

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK. So for the two boundary studies, at least there are two sides with some valid concerns from each side to argue about the benefits/caveats. For the regional program, has anyone actually expressed positive support from the community? I've been following all BOE meeting testimony sessions, and I don't recall see a single testimony that embraces this idea. From the couple of in-person info sessions that I've attended, many were there to either learn for the first time, or express concerns, or ask questions. No one there to explicitly embrace the plan. The design team members had expressed numerous frustrating experience with the experience.

So what motivates BOE to approve a plan that no one except Taylor and his ass-kissers support?

Diego Uriburu and Byron Johns from the Black and Brown Coalition have expressed support for the regional program model.

So two people?

Yes, two people. I have not heard of anyone else tbh. I think the goal of what they are trying to achieve is something most people would support. But I think they didn’t give themselves enough runway to “iterate.” They also stupidly linked the timing to the boundary changes. Honestly, they could have saved themselves a lot of trouble if they didn’t overload the system with 12 layers of grandfathered transportation and transition in the same 2 years. But yeah, to the PP’s point, there is no support for this plan that I’ve heard of. I do think Rita and Brenda are supportive, but I truly think they are under informed about what is actually happening/being provided. They were sort of bamboozled by the superintendent with high level overviews that sounded good but are a bit of a house of cards underneath.

Rita and Brenda are not underinformed. They know it's a model that's being planned as it's being built, and they don't care that it's messy and think everything will be worked out in the end. They're choosing to trust Taylor's rose-colored glasses version of things versus the community's alarm-sounding over a plan that has good ideas and ideals, but lacks details and specificity that would build broad confidence and buy-in.

Board can vote to extend the study period for one-year, can they? This is what MCCPTA and MCEA essentially suggested: CO can then have enough time to develop rationale implementation plan (e.g., multi-year role-out, less programs or less regions, more equitable transportation, etc.) and most importantly, engaging and truly hearing from the community what they want, what the gaps are, and where to set what program. why rushing to doomed failure when you originally have a chance to make positive impact?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK. So for the two boundary studies, at least there are two sides with some valid concerns from each side to argue about the benefits/caveats. For the regional program, has anyone actually expressed positive support from the community? I've been following all BOE meeting testimony sessions, and I don't recall see a single testimony that embraces this idea. From the couple of in-person info sessions that I've attended, many were there to either learn for the first time, or express concerns, or ask questions. No one there to explicitly embrace the plan. The design team members had expressed numerous frustrating experience with the experience.

So what motivates BOE to approve a plan that no one except Taylor and his ass-kissers support?

Diego Uriburu and Byron Johns from the Black and Brown Coalition have expressed support for the regional program model.

So two people?

Yes, two people. I have not heard of anyone else tbh. I think the goal of what they are trying to achieve is something most people would support. But I think they didn’t give themselves enough runway to “iterate.” They also stupidly linked the timing to the boundary changes. Honestly, they could have saved themselves a lot of trouble if they didn’t overload the system with 12 layers of grandfathered transportation and transition in the same 2 years. But yeah, to the PP’s point, there is no support for this plan that I’ve heard of. I do think Rita and Brenda are supportive, but I truly think they are under informed about what is actually happening/being provided. They were sort of bamboozled by the superintendent with high level overviews that sounded good but are a bit of a house of cards underneath.

Rita and Brenda are not underinformed. They know it's a model that's being planned as it's being built, and they don't care that it's messy and think everything will be worked out in the end. They're choosing to trust Taylor's rose-colored glasses version of things versus the community's alarm-sounding over a plan that has good ideas and ideals, but lacks details and specificity that would build broad confidence and buy-in.

Board can vote to extend the study period for one-year, can they? This is what MCCPTA and MCEA essentially suggested: CO can then have enough time to develop rationale implementation plan (e.g., multi-year role-out, less programs or less regions, more equitable transportation, etc.) and most importantly, engaging and truly hearing from the community what they want, what the gaps are, and where to set what program. why rushing to doomed failure when you originally have a chance to make positive impact?

Brenda believes the plan to slow-roll or delay by MCCPTA and MCEA is really just a way to kill the program model from moving forward, so she's against it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK. So for the two boundary studies, at least there are two sides with some valid concerns from each side to argue about the benefits/caveats. For the regional program, has anyone actually expressed positive support from the community? I've been following all BOE meeting testimony sessions, and I don't recall see a single testimony that embraces this idea. From the couple of in-person info sessions that I've attended, many were there to either learn for the first time, or express concerns, or ask questions. No one there to explicitly embrace the plan. The design team members had expressed numerous frustrating experience with the experience.

So what motivates BOE to approve a plan that no one except Taylor and his ass-kissers support?

Diego Uriburu and Byron Johns from the Black and Brown Coalition have expressed support for the regional program model.

So two people?

Yes, two people. I have not heard of anyone else tbh. I think the goal of what they are trying to achieve is something most people would support. But I think they didn’t give themselves enough runway to “iterate.” They also stupidly linked the timing to the boundary changes. Honestly, they could have saved themselves a lot of trouble if they didn’t overload the system with 12 layers of grandfathered transportation and transition in the same 2 years. But yeah, to the PP’s point, there is no support for this plan that I’ve heard of. I do think Rita and Brenda are supportive, but I truly think they are under informed about what is actually happening/being provided. They were sort of bamboozled by the superintendent with high level overviews that sounded good but are a bit of a house of cards underneath.

Rita and Brenda are not underinformed. They know it's a model that's being planned as it's being built, and they don't care that it's messy and think everything will be worked out in the end. They're choosing to trust Taylor's rose-colored glasses version of things versus the community's alarm-sounding over a plan that has good ideas and ideals, but lacks details and specificity that would build broad confidence and buy-in.

Board can vote to extend the study period for one-year, can they? This is what MCCPTA and MCEA essentially suggested: CO can then have enough time to develop rationale implementation plan (e.g., multi-year role-out, less programs or less regions, more equitable transportation, etc.) and most importantly, engaging and truly hearing from the community what they want, what the gaps are, and where to set what program. why rushing to doomed failure when you originally have a chance to make positive impact?

Brenda believes the plan to slow-roll or delay by MCCPTA and MCEA is really just a way to kill the program model from moving forward, so she's against it.

I am against the model as they have conceived it, but I don't think it's wrong that if this is delayed it will be hard to do it at all. This will be very bad for current 6th and 7th graders that would have participated in the existing programs, because this initiative will destabilized all of them. If you delay it by 1 or 2 years it will be the 5th and 6th grade families that will be angry. There is not appetite on CO for engaging thoughtfully with the community. Whenever they implement it, it will be really tough on the schools and students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There should absolutely be more magnet spots available closer to home for kids. I'd argue that adding more humanities/arts criteria-based opportunities is good.

Where this has been muddled is the need to have something at every school and the tie-in to the Blueprint CTE goals of half of Maryland students graduating high school with some kind of certification.

In an ideal world, MCPS would focus on the regular high school experience becoming so strong and positive (and safe) that nobody would rely on a potential magnet placement as an escape hatch from their home school not meeting their needs. Then the magnets could actually be for elite acadmic needs (the top 5% say, instead of the place the top 10-15% go because their home schools can't handle smart kids).

That isn't dei/equity/woke/progressive. They will scream discrimination.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK. So for the two boundary studies, at least there are two sides with some valid concerns from each side to argue about the benefits/caveats. For the regional program, has anyone actually expressed positive support from the community? I've been following all BOE meeting testimony sessions, and I don't recall see a single testimony that embraces this idea. From the couple of in-person info sessions that I've attended, many were there to either learn for the first time, or express concerns, or ask questions. No one there to explicitly embrace the plan. The design team members had expressed numerous frustrating experience with the experience.

So what motivates BOE to approve a plan that no one except Taylor and his ass-kissers support?

Diego Uriburu and Byron Johns from the Black and Brown Coalition have expressed support for the regional program model.

So two people?

Yes, two people. I have not heard of anyone else tbh. I think the goal of what they are trying to achieve is something most people would support. But I think they didn’t give themselves enough runway to “iterate.” They also stupidly linked the timing to the boundary changes. Honestly, they could have saved themselves a lot of trouble if they didn’t overload the system with 12 layers of grandfathered transportation and transition in the same 2 years. But yeah, to the PP’s point, there is no support for this plan that I’ve heard of. I do think Rita and Brenda are supportive, but I truly think they are under informed about what is actually happening/being provided. They were sort of bamboozled by the superintendent with high level overviews that sounded good but are a bit of a house of cards underneath.

Rita and Brenda are not underinformed. They know it's a model that's being planned as it's being built, and they don't care that it's messy and think everything will be worked out in the end. They're choosing to trust Taylor's rose-colored glasses version of things versus the community's alarm-sounding over a plan that has good ideas and ideals, but lacks details and specificity that would build broad confidence and buy-in.

Board can vote to extend the study period for one-year, can they? This is what MCCPTA and MCEA essentially suggested: CO can then have enough time to develop rationale implementation plan (e.g., multi-year role-out, less programs or less regions, more equitable transportation, etc.) and most importantly, engaging and truly hearing from the community what they want, what the gaps are, and where to set what program. why rushing to doomed failure when you originally have a chance to make positive impact?

Brenda believes the plan to slow-roll or delay by MCCPTA and MCEA is really just a way to kill the program model from moving forward, so she's against it.

I am against the model as they have conceived it, but I don't think it's wrong that if this is delayed it will be hard to do it at all. This will be very bad for current 6th and 7th graders that would have participated in the existing programs, because this initiative will destabilized all of them. If you delay it by 1 or 2 years it will be the 5th and 6th grade families that will be angry. There is not appetite on CO for engaging thoughtfully with the community. Whenever they implement it, it will be really tough on the schools and students.

This is very true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There should absolutely be more magnet spots available closer to home for kids. I'd argue that adding more humanities/arts criteria-based opportunities is good.

Where this has been muddled is the need to have something at every school and the tie-in to the Blueprint CTE goals of half of Maryland students graduating high school with some kind of certification.

In an ideal world, MCPS would focus on the regular high school experience becoming so strong and positive (and safe) that nobody would rely on a potential magnet placement as an escape hatch from their home school not meeting their needs. Then the magnets could actually be for elite acadmic needs (the top 5% say, instead of the place the top 10-15% go because their home schools can't handle smart kids).

That isn't dei/equity/woke/progressive. They will scream discrimination.

MCPS isn't interested in equity. When they use that word, they just mean making everything equally bad, and they don't even achieve that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK. So for the two boundary studies, at least there are two sides with some valid concerns from each side to argue about the benefits/caveats. For the regional program, has anyone actually expressed positive support from the community? I've been following all BOE meeting testimony sessions, and I don't recall see a single testimony that embraces this idea. From the couple of in-person info sessions that I've attended, many were there to either learn for the first time, or express concerns, or ask questions. No one there to explicitly embrace the plan. The design team members had expressed numerous frustrating experience with the experience.

So what motivates BOE to approve a plan that no one except Taylor and his ass-kissers support?

Diego Uriburu and Byron Johns from the Black and Brown Coalition have expressed support for the regional program model.

So two people?

Yes, two people. I have not heard of anyone else tbh. I think the goal of what they are trying to achieve is something most people would support. But I think they didn’t give themselves enough runway to “iterate.” They also stupidly linked the timing to the boundary changes. Honestly, they could have saved themselves a lot of trouble if they didn’t overload the system with 12 layers of grandfathered transportation and transition in the same 2 years. But yeah, to the PP’s point, there is no support for this plan that I’ve heard of. I do think Rita and Brenda are supportive, but I truly think they are under informed about what is actually happening/being provided. They were sort of bamboozled by the superintendent with high level overviews that sounded good but are a bit of a house of cards underneath.

Rita and Brenda are not underinformed. They know it's a model that's being planned as it's being built, and they don't care that it's messy and think everything will be worked out in the end. They're choosing to trust Taylor's rose-colored glasses version of things versus the community's alarm-sounding over a plan that has good ideas and ideals, but lacks details and specificity that would build broad confidence and buy-in.

Board can vote to extend the study period for one-year, can they? This is what MCCPTA and MCEA essentially suggested: CO can then have enough time to develop rationale implementation plan (e.g., multi-year role-out, less programs or less regions, more equitable transportation, etc.) and most importantly, engaging and truly hearing from the community what they want, what the gaps are, and where to set what program. why rushing to doomed failure when you originally have a chance to make positive impact?

Yes, in theory this would have been the right move, but Taylor made very clear he was completely unwilling to wait (most obviously by getting the Black and Brown Coalition to make a statement in opposition to the delay, based in part on misinformation.) MCPS keeps pushing the "it has to be on the same schedule as the boundary study" line but it seems to me like that's mostly just a justification for them barreling ahead on the timeline they want.

Taylor is just really dug in on this plan on this timeline. There were enough requests for delay from enough stakeholders (MCEA, MCCPTA, County Council) that a less stubborn MCPS would probably have agreed to wait-- but when Board members have asked "can't we slow this down?" and MCPS has said "no we actually can't," they're in a tough spot. Really I think the way this could have actually been delayed would have been if County Council had brought them in for another hearing and been prepared with the right questions to fully debunk the "it has to happen in fall 2027" argument, and then the Board could have piggybacked off that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK. So for the two boundary studies, at least there are two sides with some valid concerns from each side to argue about the benefits/caveats. For the regional program, has anyone actually expressed positive support from the community? I've been following all BOE meeting testimony sessions, and I don't recall see a single testimony that embraces this idea. From the couple of in-person info sessions that I've attended, many were there to either learn for the first time, or express concerns, or ask questions. No one there to explicitly embrace the plan. The design team members had expressed numerous frustrating experience with the experience.

So what motivates BOE to approve a plan that no one except Taylor and his ass-kissers support?

Diego Uriburu and Byron Johns from the Black and Brown Coalition have expressed support for the regional program model.

So two people?

Yes, two people. I have not heard of anyone else tbh. I think the goal of what they are trying to achieve is something most people would support. But I think they didn’t give themselves enough runway to “iterate.” They also stupidly linked the timing to the boundary changes. Honestly, they could have saved themselves a lot of trouble if they didn’t overload the system with 12 layers of grandfathered transportation and transition in the same 2 years. But yeah, to the PP’s point, there is no support for this plan that I’ve heard of. I do think Rita and Brenda are supportive, but I truly think they are under informed about what is actually happening/being provided. They were sort of bamboozled by the superintendent with high level overviews that sounded good but are a bit of a house of cards underneath.

Rita and Brenda are not underinformed. They know it's a model that's being planned as it's being built, and they don't care that it's messy and think everything will be worked out in the end. They're choosing to trust Taylor's rose-colored glasses version of things versus the community's alarm-sounding over a plan that has good ideas and ideals, but lacks details and specificity that would build broad confidence and buy-in.

Board can vote to extend the study period for one-year, can they? This is what MCCPTA and MCEA essentially suggested: CO can then have enough time to develop rationale implementation plan (e.g., multi-year role-out, less programs or less regions, more equitable transportation, etc.) and most importantly, engaging and truly hearing from the community what they want, what the gaps are, and where to set what program. why rushing to doomed failure when you originally have a chance to make positive impact?

Yes, in theory this would have been the right move, but Taylor made very clear he was completely unwilling to wait (most obviously by getting the Black and Brown Coalition to make a statement in opposition to the delay, based in part on misinformation.) MCPS keeps pushing the "it has to be on the same schedule as the boundary study" line but it seems to me like that's mostly just a justification for them barreling ahead on the timeline they want.

Taylor is just really dug in on this plan on this timeline. There were enough requests for delay from enough stakeholders (MCEA, MCCPTA, County Council) that a less stubborn MCPS would probably have agreed to wait-- but when Board members have asked "can't we slow this down?" and MCPS has said "no we actually can't," they're in a tough spot. Really I think the way this could have actually been delayed would have been if County Council had brought them in for another hearing and been prepared with the right questions to fully debunk the "it has to happen in fall 2027" argument, and then the Board could have piggybacked off that.

I agree with your assessment.