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

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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, [b]has anyone actually expressed positive support from the community?[/b] 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? [/quote]

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

So two people?[/quote]

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. [b]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[/b]. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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?  [/quote]

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.  [/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