Parents and teachers packed a Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) work session on Oct. 16 to urge the Board of Education to reject recently released revised Woodward boundary maps and to press the system to keep strong local programs while expanding access countywide.

Several speakers called the revised maps a retreat from earlier proposals that had attempted to redistribute students more equitably across the county and warned the latest options would maintain or deepen socioeconomic and racial segregation in some clusters.

The board’s superintendent and operations staff responded that the boundary and program analyses are connected and that staff intends to present a combined superintendent recommendation in January, with a final board decision planned for March 2026.

Community concerns front-loaded public comment. Mikey Franklin, introduced as the parent of Woodland Elementary students, said the spring boundary options had asked wealthier families to share more and "then predictably, those wealthiest in our county mobilized to hoard their resources." He urged the board to keep earlier proposals that increased socioeconomic mixing. "Be strong and of good courage, and do it anyway," Franklin said.

Several parents from Down‑County Consortium (DCC) and East County said the revised maps protect affluent schools, including Whitman and Bethesda‑Chevy Chase (BCC), while concentrating students receiving free and reduced‑price meals (FARMs) and English learners into fewer schools. Darren Viera, a Woodland parent, described earlier spring proposals as "real progress" and said the latest maps appear to "concentrate lower income households and minority students in a small number of schools."

Speakers also raised process and engagement complaints. Multiple commenters said the district’s naming and timing of outreach discouraged East County families from participating. One parent said the district announced the likely closure of Silver Spring International Middle School shortly after the new boundary proposals were released, heightening distrust. Others objected to virtual or evening outreach that they said missed families without internet access or flexible schedules.

Board and staff responses: Superintendent Taylor acknowledged the intensity of emotion around boundaries and programs and said staff is attempting an "iterative" process that balances equity, operations and timelines. Adnan Mamoon, chief operations officer, told the board staff had incorporated feedback to prioritize proximity, minimize long bus rides, avoid disproportionate split articulations and maintain facility utilization as much as possible. He said staff will publish transportation maps tied to any proposal and will schedule additional in‑person sessions in communities affected by major change.

Program plan outlined: Staff described a proposed six‑region model for secondary programs that would place a regional program or "hub" in each region and substantially increase access to career and college pathways. Jeanne Franklin and other program staff presented program placements for each region, proposing that each region include options such as medical sciences/health care, science/math/computer science, humanities with world language, performing arts sub‑strands (dance, theater, media, music), and a middle college (associate degree tracks) in every region.

Staff said the regional plan aims to reduce reliance on countywide slots that concentrate access in a handful of schools and to provide transportation centrally so more students can apply without prohibitive travel. Nicole Richards Wright, a coordinator who walked through a proposed medical science pathway at Rockville High School, described course sequences, internships, industry credentials and metrics staff would use to track success.

Seats, budget and timeline: Staff gave a sample seating and cost model. For a sample region, they described an initial ninth‑grade seat allocation of roughly 105 out‑of‑area seats across three program strands (for the example Richard Montgomery: 60 seats for IB, 30 for dance, 15 for theater technical) and noted local set‑asides (25–30 seats) for qualified home‑school students. Those figures were presented as conservative minimums subject to scale‑up with demand and operational capacity. Staff estimated startup and first‑years costs could approach about $1 million per region for transportation, staffing, professional learning and student opportunities during the transition period; they said costs should decline as grandfathering phases out.

Board members and community speakers raised detailed operational questions. Some board members asked staff to analyze whether students who were wait‑listed under the current program model later enrolled in other regional programs, to ensure the new plan would not simply change names without expanding real access. Others asked for more clarity on middle‑school feeder pathways and supports for students who lack the prerequisites for criteria‑based programs.

Several comments tied program placement to facility planning. Superintendent Taylor said recent capital planning prompted staff to consider whether the under‑construction Crown High School could temporarily serve as a "holding school" during major renovations at other campuses — a change that would require amending the Crown boundary study and additional state discussions.

What’s next: Staff said the district will continue community outreach in October and November, produce detailed transportation maps, refine seat estimates after hearing feedback, and bring a combined boundary and program recommendation to the board in January for public review and a March 2026 decision. The district also said it will publish translation and outreach materials for families who have not yet engaged.

Ending: Many speakers asked the board to slow the process, provide more data and ensure transparency. Board members repeatedly told residents that staff would continue to revise proposals and emphasized the need for ongoing dialogue as the district refines maps and program implementation details.