Reply to Any more options for Boundary study or Super just pick one from the last eight?

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

Reply to "Any more options for Boundary study or Super just pick one from the last eight?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Final vote seems to be March. Might be too late for new options with feedback? Which one is the front runner so far? H?[/quote]

All of the options were presented as [i]examples[/i] used to highlight the effects of emphasis on some set of priorities given certain constraints/lesser adherence to other priorities.  This was intended to provide contextual starting points for discussion with the BOE and for eliciting feedback from the community, each intended to inform the superintendent's eventual recommemdation.  (Of course, there are doubts about MCPS's fidelity to a process of appropriately incorporating feedback, certainly from the community, but even from the BOE).

MCPS has maintained that any of those options, from the initial four (1-4; more directly demonstrating the effect of emphasis on a singular BOE-stated priority) to the following four (A-D, incorporating [i]some[/i] feedback, but resulting in much more limited changes, especially in certain well-heeled areas) to the final four for Crown/three for Woodward (E-H/E-G; envisioning options for Crown/Wootton or SSIMS as holding facilities after incorporating new data from the CIP request), [i]may[/i] be chosen as is.  In the same breath, they have maintained that the superintendent's recommendation may be something else, entirely, whether that is built from the ground up, built from the base of one with some adjustments or built from an attempt to blend two.  I suggest that it is highly unlikely that any are chosen as-is, as there were (and continue to be) too many moving parts, including the effects of the program regionalization effort (e.g., potentially undercutting the published assumption about Poolesville HS netting 600 additional students from its magnets).

As a PP has noted, a BOE member may propose their own idea for the BOE, as a whole, to consider.  Among the reasons this rarely happens is that BOE members are not provided the tools/detail which would allow them to generate data tables (showing facility utilization, FARMS rates, etc.) when hypothecizing boundary options of their own.  To get that ([i]just to have the effects available[/i] to be considered vs. the superintendent's rec), they would need to posit a particular boundary, on which the BOE would have to vote at a meeting to request the data from MCPS (which might then request funding to do so, either internally or via a consultant; likely the latter), which would not be available until the next meeting (unless they called a special meeting based on MCPS's timing for producing the data).  Any back and forth, there, to fine tune a BOE member's suggestion, likely would take a similar effort.  That would completely wreck the schedule for associated action, whether with the County Council for any associated funding or internally to MCPS to prepare and execute associated plans in time for the 2027-28 school year, where magnet processes, personnel planning, etc., would need to be hashed out, for the most part, during 2026.

Really, if they were meaning to be at all responsible to the community they serve, the BOE should be resolving to handle this matter in a very different fashion -- one which would allow considerably greater examination of options, whether MCPS-proposed, BOE-proposed or community-proposed.  The decisions, here, are just too consequential, with too long a duration of effect before they might be remediated if proving to have been wrong.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics