Anonymous
Post 03/12/2026 16:35     Subject: BOE Spring Facilities and Boundaries Work Session #3
They basically did what they wanted to do.
Anonymous
Post 03/12/2026 16:31     Subject: BOE Spring Facilities and Boundaries Work Session #3
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Simple majority of board members present to pass the Superintendent boundary?

So …
5 of 8 to pass this?
4 of 7 (assuming someone is out like SMOB)?

Is that correct? I think it’s a done deal.


Yes. Simple majority. I would agree. Done deal. People may or may not like the recommendation based on their personal preferences but it is hard to argue the data backed reasoning.


Except for all the reasoning that had been put forth with respect to other considerations. And I'm not talking about the two wealthy communities that have laid out their objections in the most overrepresented and self-interested fashion.

Taylor crossed the streams in moving additional students into Wootton @ Crown from the Option H proposal by having ES neighborhoods switch regions. That was something that the consultant was prohibited from doing in A-H, despite the rule being completely unnecessary (they could have drawn region boundaries after the new HS boundary study instead of artificially restricting the latter to the former) except to ensure preservation of the status quo -- mostly for the wealthiest. Did they look at all the other places where it would have made sense to do that to eliminate islands and the like? No. And now the upcoming ES boundary study will suffer from the same impediment, though, again, mostly impairing what would be better solutions for the poorer areas.
Anonymous
Post 03/12/2026 16:25     Subject: BOE Spring Facilities and Boundaries Work Session #3
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Here are the slides, by the way: https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DS4PEU644E2C/$file/Supt%20Rec%20Secondary%20Prog%20Analysis%20Boundary%20Studies%20260312%20PPT%20REV.pdf

page 49 shows RMHS current utilization rate at 94.8%. If that's true, why are there so man portables there? Still don't understand how MCPS is getting enrollment figures.


In this session, they said the portables are due to RM's IB countywide magnet program, which leads to the overutilization.
Anonymous
Post 03/12/2026 16:21     Subject: BOE Spring Facilities and Boundaries Work Session #3
Anonymous wrote:Here are the slides, by the way: https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DS4PEU644E2C/$file/Supt%20Rec%20Secondary%20Prog%20Analysis%20Boundary%20Studies%20260312%20PPT%20REV.pdf

page 49 shows RMHS current utilization rate at 94.8%. If that's true, why are there so man portables there? Still don't understand how MCPS is getting enrollment figures.
Anonymous
Post 03/12/2026 16:20     Subject: BOE Spring Facilities and Boundaries Work Session #3
It seems like they are just done with this and are going to rubber stamp.
Anonymous
Post 03/12/2026 16:19     Subject: Re:BOE Spring Facilities and Boundaries Work Session #3
Anonymous wrote:Oh, more context on Julie's motives. She just admitted that her resolution is also to preserve the Chinese immersion program, which she obviously owes to her Chinese-American community as a Chinese-American herself.


She wanted to preserve the articulation for Potomac so that those in the bespoke Potomac ES Chinese Immersion program, almost exclusively available only to Potomac residents (unlike other magnet Immersion programs, including the one additional Chinese one at Bayard Rustin), would not have to be separated from their classmates in MS. Those wishing to continue Chinese Immersion would have to go to Hoover, while the Superintendent's recommendation, as much as it preserves nearly everyting for the wealthiest areas, has Potomac ES changing articulation from Hoover to (gasp!) Cabin John.

To do this, Yang was suggesting creating more of a discontiguous/island situation for other ES communities. Zimmerman, who abstained on the almost equally self-interested motion that Silvestre put forth, was the only BOE member who voted for it with Yang. Laura Stewart, who had voted with Yang and Silvestre in support of the latter's earlier motion, abstained on this one. Silvestre's, of course, was as much for the benefit of the WJ families now horrified by the prospect of being at Woodward with some DCC residents as it was a politically calculated show in "support" of some Wheaton Woods families' proximity concerns.

There are so many additional possibilities that the public has requested, and many that had merit weren't given so much as a comment, much less an info request that resulted in a motion for an option to consider. Clearly, Yang and Taylor had worked on this together -- one could tell not only from his comments, but from the look on Andrea Swiatocha's face as she helped present it.

Montoya and Rivera-Oven were absolutely correct when they voted against in noting that none of these other thoughts got due diligence. Wolff voted against, as well, but her stance in doing so was that there had been enough engagement already, and that everyone had had their say
Anonymous
Post 03/12/2026 16:12     Subject: BOE Spring Facilities and Boundaries Work Session #3
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:In the 2nd Work Session, MCPS made it seem one should use forecasts from CIP 2027, as that PDF shows both enrolled and transfer students for programming, at both HS and MS levels. But in the 3rd Work Session today, it’s back to using the “resident only” numbers for looking at utilization. What is the explanation? Wouldn’t “resident only” data mean some of the HS/MS especially will be at very different utilizations in 2027?


So at HS, MCPS was saying which programs will be at which school under new Regional Model. Did they ever say which programs are going where at MS level?
Huh? "Resident only" just means "not including transfers/students enrolled in programs/consortium students/etc."
Anonymous
Post 03/12/2026 16:08     Subject: Re:BOE Spring Facilities and Boundaries Work Session #3
Julie is behaving like a rookie, and not as if she's been on the board for years or even been board president before. How is Rita Montoya schooling her on what's been brought up and discussed before? I don't get it.
Anonymous
Post 03/12/2026 16:03     Subject: Re:BOE Spring Facilities and Boundaries Work Session #3
Why did they wait until this work session to address the ridiculous Cronw/holding school hybrid proposal first put forth by Gaithersburg Mayor Jud Ashman?

Taylor could have said operating a high school with less than 1,000 students doesn't work for all of the reasons he said in this work session today MONTHS ago.
Anonymous
Post 03/12/2026 15:56     Subject: BOE Spring Facilities and Boundaries Work Session #3
Anonymous wrote:Simple majority of board members present to pass the Superintendent boundary?

So …
5 of 8 to pass this?
4 of 7 (assuming someone is out like SMOB)?

Is that correct? I think it’s a done deal.


Yes. Simple majority. I would agree. Done deal. People may or may not like the recommendation based on their personal preferences but it is hard to argue the data backed reasoning.
Anonymous
Post 03/12/2026 15:53     Subject: BOE Spring Facilities and Boundaries Work Session #3
Anonymous wrote:In the 2nd Work Session, MCPS made it seem one should use forecasts from CIP 2027, as that PDF shows both enrolled and transfer students for programming, at both HS and MS levels. But in the 3rd Work Session today, it’s back to using the “resident only” numbers for looking at utilization. What is the explanation? Wouldn’t “resident only” data mean some of the HS/MS especially will be at very different utilizations in 2027?


Huh? "Resident only" just means "not including transfers/students enrolled in programs/consortium students/etc."
Anonymous
Post 03/12/2026 15:48     Subject: BOE Spring Facilities and Boundaries Work Session #3
In the 2nd Work Session, MCPS made it seem one should use forecasts from CIP 2027, as that PDF shows both enrolled and transfer students for programming, at both HS and MS levels. But in the 3rd Work Session today, it’s back to using the “resident only” numbers for looking at utilization. What is the explanation? Wouldn’t “resident only” data mean some of the HS/MS especially will be at very different utilizations in 2027?
Anonymous
Post 03/12/2026 15:44     Subject: BOE Spring Facilities and Boundaries Work Session #3
Simple majority of board members present to pass the Superintendent boundary?

So …
5 of 8 to pass this?
4 of 7 (assuming someone is out like SMOB)?

Is that correct? I think it’s a done deal.
Anonymous
Post 03/12/2026 15:44     Subject: BOE Spring Facilities and Boundaries Work Session #3
Anonymous wrote:While Karla and Julie may have been being performative, Rita and Brenda have some nerve saying that enough engagement has been done when they don't even bother attending meetings in person.

I'm glad Brenda is leaving (she should leave now, since she managed to screw up so many things) and will not vote for Rita in the future.

They are useless.


It would be one thing if they were saying no to real engagement that might change things. But they knew that Karla just wanted to look good (she even literally said "this is just about getting more feedback"), and were objecting to putting everyone through more hearings for nothing.
Anonymous
Post 03/12/2026 15:24     Subject: BOE Spring Facilities and Boundaries Work Session #3
Superintendent recommendation will the new boundary. The end.