Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suspect one was picked a long time ago and this is all for show.

I would not assume that. The one thing that characterizes the Taylor administration is chaos.

Let's be real. I've been a parent in the MCPS district for over 10 years, and it seems like dcum thinks every superintendent has been awful, and their administration in chaos.

I'm not saying I like Taylor. I actually think MCPS does a pisspoor job of planning. My cluster was involved in another boundary change about 8/9 years ago, and it was pretty messed up then, too.

Were there 15 other things going on at the time our your cluster having a boundary change? How many other things were changing and how many other surprise purchases were being made?

Taylor wins on the chaos meter by a mile.

Nothing **

Whatever he recommends on Feb 5 will be the final decision. The board is weak and bends to him - they may request small tweaks but noting major will be changed from what he recommends. Watch the board meetings on January to get clues as to which option is favored

It will be one that they have put out or very similar to one they have already put out. They are all essentially trial balloons. He's not going to do something radically different where he won't be able to anticipate and address the public reaction.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suspect one was picked a long time ago and this is all for show.

I would not assume that. The one thing that characterizes the Taylor administration is chaos.

Let's be real. I've been a parent in the MCPS district for over 10 years, and it seems like dcum thinks every superintendent has been awful, and their administration in chaos.

I'm not saying I like Taylor. I actually think MCPS does a pisspoor job of planning. My cluster was involved in another boundary change about 8/9 years ago, and it was pretty messed up then, too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am still overwhelmed with the news of Venezuela yesterday and concerned what could happen for the rest of year 2026. I know life still carries on, but I wonder if that might affect the future funding or budget received from federal and state level if usa calls for state of emergency or war or increase in military/home security spending.

no. Most of MCPS funding comes from local and state. MoCo will just raise taxes so that Wootton parents can get their way.

Move leave MCPS clearly you are part of the problem. Move to any red state and enjoy the fact Republicans can not govern anywhere, history doesn't lie people do.

Anonymous wrote:I suspect one was picked a long time ago and this is all for show.

I would not assume that. The one thing that characterizes the Taylor administration is chaos.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Final vote seems to be March. Might be too late for new options with feedback? Which one is the front runner so far? H?

Taylor will present his recommendation on February 5th, and then there will be public hearings and work sessions before the board votes on March 26th. Board members are also able to create additional options that differ from the superintendent's, but that doesn't happen often.

Now that Taylor, et al, has declared that the program and boundaries initiative are inextricably linked, it's worth noting that the BOE has been asking for data (e.g., transportation) since last summer and Taylor has indicated that the board will not receive the requested data until March 2026, the month that the BOE is scheduled to vote on the measures. Imagine, telling your boss to wait that long until you can provide that information. And then, telling them to hurry up and vote in his package.

I hope the board doesn't lay down on the job with this.

They aren't going to veto it and they should be the ones setting the timelines saying we want documents in hand by XXX date.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Final vote seems to be March. Might be too late for new options with feedback? Which one is the front runner so far? H?

Taylor will present his recommendation on February 5th, and then there will be public hearings and work sessions before the board votes on March 26th. Board members are also able to create additional options that differ from the superintendent's, but that doesn't happen often.

Now that Taylor, et al, has declared that the program and boundaries initiative are inextricably linked, it's worth noting that the BOE has been asking for data (e.g., transportation) since last summer and Taylor has indicated that the board will not receive the requested data until March 2026, the month that the BOE is scheduled to vote on the measures. Imagine, telling your boss to wait that long until you can provide that information. And then, telling them to hurry up and vote in his package.

I hope the board doesn't lay down on the job with this.

I suspect one was picked a long time ago and this is all for show.

Anonymous wrote:Final vote seems to be March. Might be too late for new options with feedback? Which one is the front runner so far? H?

All of the options were presented as examples 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 some 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), may 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 (just to have the effects available 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.

Anonymous wrote:Final vote seems to be March. Might be too late for new options with feedback? Which one is the front runner so far? H?

Taylor will present his recommendation on February 5th, and then there will be public hearings and work sessions before the board votes on March 26th. Board members are also able to create additional options that differ from the superintendent's, but that doesn't happen often.

Anonymous wrote:I am still overwhelmed with the news of Venezuela yesterday and concerned what could happen for the rest of year 2026. I know life still carries on, but I wonder if that might affect the future funding or budget received from federal and state level if usa calls for state of emergency or war or increase in military/home security spending.

no. Most of MCPS funding comes from local and state. MoCo will just raise taxes so that Wootton parents can get their way.

I am still overwhelmed with the news of Venezuela yesterday and concerned what could happen for the rest of year 2026. I know life still carries on, but I wonder if that might affect the future funding or budget received from federal and state level if usa calls for state of emergency or war or increase in military/home security spending.

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