Woodward HS boundary study - BCC, Blair, Einstein, WJ, Kennedy, Northwood, Wheaton, Whitman impacts

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They get lots of property taxes from all over.

If you tank the home values of W schools and sum the taxes across the county, they’re going to get a lot less in total. MCPS would effectively slash their budget and divert that money into private.

Marvelous jump scare! A+ for creative writing!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They get lots of property taxes from all over.

If you tank the home values of W schools and sum the taxes across the county, they’re going to get a lot less in total. MCPS would effectively slash their budget and divert that money into private.

There are not enough privates and the privates are $60K so that wouldn't work. MCPS has plenty of money. Its how they spend it that is the issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They get lots of property taxes from all over.

If you tank the home values of W schools and sum the taxes across the county, they’re going to get a lot less in total. MCPS would effectively slash their budget and divert that money into private.

There are not enough privates and the privates are $60K so that wouldn't work. MCPS has plenty of money. Its how they spend it that is the issue.

Most of it goes to things like these optional SEL courses or anti-racist audits that never change anything. Meanwhile, I wish my 2nd grader would get a reading group every month or two but because they aren't struggling they are ignored to help close the achievement gap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like there is three morons posting on this thread for the past 30 pages, sometimes responding to them selves based on writing styles.

East county parents = we love poor kids but would love them more if sent to other peoples schools.

West county parents = no take backs

Ideal progressive = poor black kids simply need to see rich kids in their natural habitat to overcome all of society’s other systemic handicaps and generations of stunted momentum.

Ideal conservative = they need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps even if only a few percentage make it out of the cycle. It’s worth abandoning the 90%+ because their exploitation is what props up the middle class and better them than me right?

Fabulous summary! (Grammar mistake aside, of course.)

Lol nope, these are just PP's hot takes on using boundary changes to promote diversity. Many of us who support including diversity as one of four priorities have said multiple times on this thread that we know it will be on the margins and that it won't fix anything.

Segregation as it exists now wasn't created in a day. It won't be reversed in one either. It will take a long series of small, seemingly inconsequential decisions to be anti-racist in drawing boundaries. The alternative is to continue entrenching segregation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like there is three morons posting on this thread for the past 30 pages, sometimes responding to them selves based on writing styles.

East county parents = we love poor kids but would love them more if sent to other peoples schools.

West county parents = no take backs

Ideal progressive = poor black kids simply need to see rich kids in their natural habitat to overcome all of society’s other systemic handicaps and generations of stunted momentum.

Ideal conservative = they need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps even if only a few percentage make it out of the cycle. It’s worth abandoning the 90%+ because their exploitation is what props up the middle class and better them than me right?

Fabulous summary! (Grammar mistake aside, of course.)

Lol nope, these are just PP's hot takes on using boundary changes to promote diversity. Many of us who support including diversity as one of four priorities have said multiple times on this thread that we know it will be on the margins and that it won't fix anything.

Segregation as it exists now wasn't created in a day. It won't be reversed in one either. It will take a long series of small, seemingly inconsequential decisions to be anti-racist in drawing boundaries. The alternative is to continue entrenching segregation.

Another pro-buser.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like there is three morons posting on this thread for the past 30 pages, sometimes responding to them selves based on writing styles.

East county parents = we love poor kids but would love them more if sent to other peoples schools.

West county parents = no take backs

Ideal progressive = poor black kids simply need to see rich kids in their natural habitat to overcome all of society’s other systemic handicaps and generations of stunted momentum.

Ideal conservative = they need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps even if only a few percentage make it out of the cycle. It’s worth abandoning the 90%+ because their exploitation is what props up the middle class and better them than me right?

Fabulous summary! (Grammar mistake aside, of course.)

Lol nope, these are just PP's hot takes on using boundary changes to promote diversity. Many of us who support including diversity as one of four priorities have said multiple times on this thread that we know it will be on the margins and that it won't fix anything.

Segregation as it exists now wasn't created in a day. It won't be reversed in one either. It will take a long series of small, seemingly inconsequential decisions to be anti-racist in drawing boundaries. The alternative is to continue entrenching segregation.

Anti-racism. Just say you want discrimination against whites and Asians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like there is three morons posting on this thread for the past 30 pages, sometimes responding to them selves based on writing styles.

East county parents = we love poor kids but would love them more if sent to other peoples schools.

West county parents = no take backs

Ideal progressive = poor black kids simply need to see rich kids in their natural habitat to overcome all of society’s other systemic handicaps and generations of stunted momentum.

Ideal conservative = they need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps even if only a few percentage make it out of the cycle. It’s worth abandoning the 90%+ because their exploitation is what props up the middle class and better them than me right?

Fabulous summary! (Grammar mistake aside, of course.)

Lol nope, these are just PP's hot takes on using boundary changes to promote diversity. Many of us who support including diversity as one of four priorities have said multiple times on this thread that we know it will be on the margins and that it won't fix anything.

Segregation as it exists now wasn't created in a day. It won't be reversed in one either. It will take a long series of small, seemingly inconsequential decisions to be anti-racist in drawing boundaries. The alternative is to continue entrenching segregation.

Anti-racism. Just say you want discrimination against whites and Asians.

How specifically do you think I would want discrimination against whites and Asians?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like there is three morons posting on this thread for the past 30 pages, sometimes responding to them selves based on writing styles.

East county parents = we love poor kids but would love them more if sent to other peoples schools.

West county parents = no take backs

Ideal progressive = poor black kids simply need to see rich kids in their natural habitat to overcome all of society’s other systemic handicaps and generations of stunted momentum.

Ideal conservative = they need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps even if only a few percentage make it out of the cycle. It’s worth abandoning the 90%+ because their exploitation is what props up the middle class and better them than me right?

Fabulous summary! (Grammar mistake aside, of course.)

Lol nope, these are just PP's hot takes on using boundary changes to promote diversity. Many of us who support including diversity as one of four priorities have said multiple times on this thread that we know it will be on the margins and that it won't fix anything.

Segregation as it exists now wasn't created in a day. It won't be reversed in one either. It will take a long series of small, seemingly inconsequential decisions to be anti-racist in drawing boundaries. The alternative is to continue entrenching segregation.

Anti-racism. Just say you want discrimination against whites and Asians.

How specifically do you think I would want discrimination against whites and Asians?

Because you are championing anti-racism and anti-racism discriminates against races who do well which, in the US, is whites and Asians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They get lots of property taxes from all over.

If you tank the home values of W schools and sum the taxes across the county, they’re going to get a lot less in total. MCPS would effectively slash their budget and divert that money into private.

Marvelous jump scare! A+ for creative writing!

F for creativity, though. If I had a nickel for every time I've read something like that on DCUM in the past 5 years, I'd have a large jar full of nickels.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like there is three morons posting on this thread for the past 30 pages, sometimes responding to them selves based on writing styles.

East county parents = we love poor kids but would love them more if sent to other peoples schools.

West county parents = no take backs

Ideal progressive = poor black kids simply need to see rich kids in their natural habitat to overcome all of society’s other systemic handicaps and generations of stunted momentum.

Ideal conservative = they need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps even if only a few percentage make it out of the cycle. It’s worth abandoning the 90%+ because their exploitation is what props up the middle class and better them than me right?

Fabulous summary! (Grammar mistake aside, of course.)

Lol nope, these are just PP's hot takes on using boundary changes to promote diversity. Many of us who support including diversity as one of four priorities have said multiple times on this thread that we know it will be on the margins and that it won't fix anything.

Segregation as it exists now wasn't created in a day. It won't be reversed in one either. It will take a long series of small, seemingly inconsequential decisions to be anti-racist in drawing boundaries. The alternative is to continue entrenching segregation.

Anti-racism. Just say you want discrimination against whites and Asians.

How specifically do you think I would want discrimination against whites and Asians?

Because you are championing anti-racism and anti-racism discriminates against races who do well which, in the US, is whites and Asians.

Translation: I am totally fine with discrimination against Black and Latino (and Asian people but that's a story for another thread) people but won't admit it's happening despite mountains of evidence, and pretend that any efforts to combat that discrimination are "anti-White racism."

Can we get back to discussing boundary studies please?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like there is three morons posting on this thread for the past 30 pages, sometimes responding to them selves based on writing styles.

East county parents = we love poor kids but would love them more if sent to other peoples schools.

West county parents = no take backs

Ideal progressive = poor black kids simply need to see rich kids in their natural habitat to overcome all of society’s other systemic handicaps and generations of stunted momentum.

Ideal conservative = they need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps even if only a few percentage make it out of the cycle. It’s worth abandoning the 90%+ because their exploitation is what props up the middle class and better them than me right?

Fabulous summary! (Grammar mistake aside, of course.)

Lol nope, these are just PP's hot takes on using boundary changes to promote diversity. Many of us who support including diversity as one of four priorities have said multiple times on this thread that we know it will be on the margins and that it won't fix anything.

Segregation as it exists now wasn't created in a day. It won't be reversed in one either. It will take a long series of small, seemingly inconsequential decisions to be anti-racist in drawing boundaries. The alternative is to continue entrenching segregation.

Anti-racism. Just say you want discrimination against whites and Asians.

How specifically do you think I would want discrimination against whites and Asians?

Because you are championing anti-racism and anti-racism discriminates against races who do well which, in the US, is whites and Asians.

Translation: I am totally fine with discrimination against Black and Latino (and Asian people but that's a story for another thread) people but won't admit it's happening despite mountains of evidence, and pretend that any efforts to combat that discrimination are "anti-White racism."

Can we get back to discussing boundary studies please?

False. As a good liberal, I oppose all forms of discrimination, even against whites and Asians. As a progressive, you want discrimination as long as it's the correct kind of discrimination which is of course, illiberal. Progressivism has become more like a fundamentalist religion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like there is three morons posting on this thread for the past 30 pages, sometimes responding to them selves based on writing styles.

East county parents = we love poor kids but would love them more if sent to other peoples schools.

West county parents = no take backs

Ideal progressive = poor black kids simply need to see rich kids in their natural habitat to overcome all of society’s other systemic handicaps and generations of stunted momentum.

Ideal conservative = they need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps even if only a few percentage make it out of the cycle. It’s worth abandoning the 90%+ because their exploitation is what props up the middle class and better them than me right?

Fabulous summary! (Grammar mistake aside, of course.)

Lol nope, these are just PP's hot takes on using boundary changes to promote diversity. Many of us who support including diversity as one of four priorities have said multiple times on this thread that we know it will be on the margins and that it won't fix anything.

Segregation as it exists now wasn't created in a day. It won't be reversed in one either. It will take a long series of small, seemingly inconsequential decisions to be anti-racist in drawing boundaries. The alternative is to continue entrenching segregation.

Anti-racism. Just say you want discrimination against whites and Asians.

How specifically do you think I would want discrimination against whites and Asians?

Because you are championing anti-racism and anti-racism discriminates against races who do well which, in the US, is whites and Asians.

Translation: I am totally fine with discrimination against Black and Latino (and Asian people but that's a story for another thread) people but won't admit it's happening despite mountains of evidence, and pretend that any efforts to combat that discrimination are "anti-White racism."

Can we get back to discussing boundary studies please?

False. As a good liberal, I oppose all forms of discrimination, even against whites and Asians. As a progressive, you want discrimination as long as it's the correct kind of discrimination which is of course, illiberal. Progressivism has become more like a fundamentalist religion.

This thread is about boundary studies. If you want to make an argument that it is discriminatory to consider demographics as part of them, go right ahead. Once again, I'm sure you'll be pretending that the alternative is boundaries based purely on proximity rather than what we actually have now which are boundaries designed specifically to segregate White and other wealthy kids from low-income and BIPOC children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like there is three morons posting on this thread for the past 30 pages, sometimes responding to them selves based on writing styles.

East county parents = we love poor kids but would love them more if sent to other peoples schools.

West county parents = no take backs

Ideal progressive = poor black kids simply need to see rich kids in their natural habitat to overcome all of society’s other systemic handicaps and generations of stunted momentum.

Ideal conservative = they need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps even if only a few percentage make it out of the cycle. It’s worth abandoning the 90%+ because their exploitation is what props up the middle class and better them than me right?

Fabulous summary! (Grammar mistake aside, of course.)

Lol nope, these are just PP's hot takes on using boundary changes to promote diversity. Many of us who support including diversity as one of four priorities have said multiple times on this thread that we know it will be on the margins and that it won't fix anything.

Segregation as it exists now wasn't created in a day. It won't be reversed in one either. It will take a long series of small, seemingly inconsequential decisions to be anti-racist in drawing boundaries. The alternative is to continue entrenching segregation.

Anti-racism. Just say you want discrimination against whites and Asians.

How specifically do you think I would want discrimination against whites and Asians?

Because you are championing anti-racism and anti-racism discriminates against races who do well which, in the US, is whites and Asians.

Translation: I am totally fine with discrimination against Black and Latino (and Asian people but that's a story for another thread) people but won't admit it's happening despite mountains of evidence, and pretend that any efforts to combat that discrimination are "anti-White racism."

Can we get back to discussing boundary studies please?

False. As a good liberal, I oppose all forms of discrimination, even against whites and Asians. As a progressive, you want discrimination as long as it's the correct kind of discrimination which is of course, illiberal. Progressivism has become more like a fundamentalist religion.

This thread is about boundary studies. If you want to make an argument that it is discriminatory to consider demographics as part of them, go right ahead. Once again, I'm sure you'll be pretending that the alternative is boundaries based purely on proximity rather than what we actually have now which are boundaries designed specifically to segregate White and other wealthy kids from low-income and BIPOC children.

Come on man. No one believes that, not even east county progressives. You just say that to justify busing. Are there a couple areas where this was done? Sure. Could those have been fixed by prioritizing proximity? Absolutely. Instead, unscrupulous BOE members altered the boundary policy without public notice to prioritize diversity. This could fix a few bad boundaries but it will create many more bad ones which is exactly what eadt county progressives want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like there is three morons posting on this thread for the past 30 pages, sometimes responding to them selves based on writing styles.

East county parents = we love poor kids but would love them more if sent to other peoples schools.

West county parents = no take backs

Ideal progressive = poor black kids simply need to see rich kids in their natural habitat to overcome all of society’s other systemic handicaps and generations of stunted momentum.

Ideal conservative = they need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps even if only a few percentage make it out of the cycle. It’s worth abandoning the 90%+ because their exploitation is what props up the middle class and better them than me right?

Fabulous summary! (Grammar mistake aside, of course.)

Lol nope, these are just PP's hot takes on using boundary changes to promote diversity. Many of us who support including diversity as one of four priorities have said multiple times on this thread that we know it will be on the margins and that it won't fix anything.

Segregation as it exists now wasn't created in a day. It won't be reversed in one either. It will take a long series of small, seemingly inconsequential decisions to be anti-racist in drawing boundaries. The alternative is to continue entrenching segregation.

Anti-racism. Just say you want discrimination against whites and Asians.

How specifically do you think I would want discrimination against whites and Asians?

Because you are championing anti-racism and anti-racism discriminates against races who do well which, in the US, is whites and Asians.

Translation: I am totally fine with discrimination against Black and Latino (and Asian people but that's a story for another thread) people but won't admit it's happening despite mountains of evidence, and pretend that any efforts to combat that discrimination are "anti-White racism."

Can we get back to discussing boundary studies please?

False. As a good liberal, I oppose all forms of discrimination, even against whites and Asians. As a progressive, you want discrimination as long as it's the correct kind of discrimination which is of course, illiberal. Progressivism has become more like a fundamentalist religion.

This thread is about boundary studies. If you want to make an argument that it is discriminatory to consider demographics as part of them, go right ahead. Once again, I'm sure you'll be pretending that the alternative is boundaries based purely on proximity rather than what we actually have now which are boundaries designed specifically to segregate White and other wealthy kids from low-income and BIPOC children.

Come on man. No one believes that, not even east county progressives. You just say that to justify busing. Are there a couple areas where this was done? Sure. Could those have been fixed by prioritizing proximity? Absolutely. Instead, unscrupulous BOE members altered the boundary policy without public notice to prioritize diversity. This could fix a few bad boundaries but it will create many more bad ones which is exactly what eadt county progressives want.

People (just you?) have spent years on DCUM claiming that the "especially diversity" language will mean that kids are being bussed from Kennedy to Whitman any day now, but we've been through several boundary studies since that time and every single time there have been options that prioritized diversity, and the Board has never even once chosen the option that maximized diversity. They've always balanced other factors.

When will you stop lying?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like there is three morons posting on this thread for the past 30 pages, sometimes responding to them selves based on writing styles.

East county parents = we love poor kids but would love them more if sent to other peoples schools.

West county parents = no take backs

Ideal progressive = poor black kids simply need to see rich kids in their natural habitat to overcome all of society’s other systemic handicaps and generations of stunted momentum.

Ideal conservative = they need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps even if only a few percentage make it out of the cycle. It’s worth abandoning the 90%+ because their exploitation is what props up the middle class and better them than me right?

Fabulous summary! (Grammar mistake aside, of course.)

Lol nope, these are just PP's hot takes on using boundary changes to promote diversity. Many of us who support including diversity as one of four priorities have said multiple times on this thread that we know it will be on the margins and that it won't fix anything.

Segregation as it exists now wasn't created in a day. It won't be reversed in one either. It will take a long series of small, seemingly inconsequential decisions to be anti-racist in drawing boundaries. The alternative is to continue entrenching segregation.

Anti-racism. Just say you want discrimination against whites and Asians.

How specifically do you think I would want discrimination against whites and Asians?

Because you are championing anti-racism and anti-racism discriminates against races who do well which, in the US, is whites and Asians.

Translation: I am totally fine with discrimination against Black and Latino (and Asian people but that's a story for another thread) people but won't admit it's happening despite mountains of evidence, and pretend that any efforts to combat that discrimination are "anti-White racism."

Can we get back to discussing boundary studies please?

False. As a good liberal, I oppose all forms of discrimination, even against whites and Asians. As a progressive, you want discrimination as long as it's the correct kind of discrimination which is of course, illiberal. Progressivism has become more like a fundamentalist religion.

This thread is about boundary studies. If you want to make an argument that it is discriminatory to consider demographics as part of them, go right ahead. Once again, I'm sure you'll be pretending that the alternative is boundaries based purely on proximity rather than what we actually have now which are boundaries designed specifically to segregate White and other wealthy kids from low-income and BIPOC children.

Come on man. No one believes that, not even east county progressives. You just say that to justify busing. Are there a couple areas where this was done? Sure. Could those have been fixed by prioritizing proximity? Absolutely. Instead, unscrupulous BOE members altered the boundary policy without public notice to prioritize diversity. This could fix a few bad boundaries but it will create many more bad ones which is exactly what eadt county progressives want.

People (just you?) have spent years on DCUM claiming that the "especially diversity" language will mean that kids are being bussed from Kennedy to Whitman any day now, but we've been through several boundary studies since that time and every single time there have been options that prioritized diversity, and the Board has never even once chosen the option that maximized diversity. They've always balanced other factors.

When will you stop lying?

I guess it's kind of annoying but also a little funny that some people still get worked up over this obvious lie.