Reply to Taylor's Feb Rec for Crown Boundary Study

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

Reply to "Taylor's Feb Rec for Crown Boundary Study"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Truth bomb: When MCPS and Montgomery County itself are so low on funds because of so many compounding factors, it wouldn't matter if God herself opposed these options. Community opinion has absolutely no bearing when the money simply isn't there. And yes, I agree that it is appalling that we are in this spot but alas, here we are so let's please stop with the idea that it is "against the will of the people." Even if this is an indisputable fact (many would say it is not but that is besides the point), it literally does not matter. [/quote]

So financial mismanagement and failure to follow the law don’t matter. Only money does?[/quote]

Of course they do-that's not at all what I am saying here. To the extent that there is a "remedy" needed-it would be procedural and not impact the outcome. Financial mismanagement in the past is actually not relevant here. [/quote]
 
It is highly relevant [b]if that was the pre-determined reason for pushing Option H over all the other options.[/b] This is especially important as the chronology indicates MCPS planned to close Wootton far earlier than it disclosed publicly. [/quote]

Financial mismanagement in the past IS the reason for Option H.  I think all agree on that.

Maybe you just think that because past mistakes were made, another fiscally unsound decision should be made today?  Sort of "Two wrongs make a right" logic?

Many of us think that the most fiscally sound decision should be made today, regardless of how we got here.[/quote]

I don’t think anyone’s saying “two wrongs make a right.” The concern is more that Option H might just be baking in past mistakes instead of actually fixing them.

Saying this is the most fiscally sound option only works if that’s actually been shown. If the decision is being driven by the fact that Crown is already built, rather than a full, transparent look at alternatives, then it starts to feel like we’re just making the current plan work—not choosing the best one.

The real question is did MCPS actually compare all the options and show the data? Is the data MCPS shared flawed? (Some have analyzed the data and found that it is). Or are we just assuming this is the most cost-effective path because of where things already stand?[/quote]

Crown is a sunk cost. We can't get that money back, so we have to make it work.[/quote]

Bingo bango [/quote]

Holding school makes it work too - and Taylor proposed that as an option. Why do that if the data didn’t support it?[/quote]

Because people didn’t pay impact taxes to fund a holding school. [/quote]

Bingo...MCPS and superitendnt has an obligation to find a solution that provides maximum benefit to most students as defined by FAA factors. That is exactly what happened here. [/quote]

Then why did he propose using Crown as a holding school if you are convinced it’s not a viable option?  Certainly Taylor knew the financial status of MCPS with regard to renovating Magruder before he did so. [/quote]

It was other people asking for that option (G) and was a terrible idea from the start. Proposing it doesn’t mean it was recommended either. There is only ONE recommendation[/quote]

That’s why I wrote proposed. People on this and other threads keep claiming that Option G was never viable. So why did Taylor even propose it?  If he knew the budget didn’t support renovation of Magruder, why was using Crown as a holding school for Magruder ever considered, much less proposed?

If Option H was always going to be the recommendation, why the smokescreen of the other options?  To give an illusion of options when there really weren’t any?[/quote]

Remember that last Fall, Magruder's scheduled renovations weren't until many years into the next CIP cycle. Renovations were all planned to be on-site. Then T referred to a study they had done that showed the significant savings of using a holding school to make renovations happen faster and save a bunch of money. Using a holding school advanced the timeline for renovations for Magruder, allowing Magruder to be renovated the first year of the next CIP cycle in 2033. At no point did any of the options propose that Magruder be renovated in this cycle, since MCPS said that the money isn't funded for this cycle. It's a horrible situation for Magruder to have to wait that long, a problem long in the making due to lack of funds. I suspect that when evaluating using Crown as a holding school, they decided that it didn't make sense to deny the Crown communities a permanent school for several years waiting for Magruder's turn in the CIP and then Wootton's. I wonder also whether state funding would be jeopardized if they went with Crown as a holding school and then told the state that it had to stay as a holding school indefinitely until Magruder (and then Wootton) was complete. It would be one thing if Magruder was funded this cycle, but to make Crown wait for Magruder to be complete in 2035 and then for Wootton to be funded and complete (by 2037?) would completely undermine the purpose of Crown. Plus I heard Magruder told MCPS that they didn't want to go to Crown for years - they only wanted to go there if their timeline could be moved up in this cycle. So it makes sense to me that they chose to move Wootton to Crown to be joined with Crown kids and use Wootton as a holding school down the road when needs arise. [/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