Concerned about BOE Candidate Sunil Dasgupta’s binding boundary review commission

[Anonymous]

The OP raises a valid and legitimate concern. There has been a lack of transparency and responsiveness to parents' input during the recent boundary changes, such as those in Clarksburg and Germantown. Shifting that decision making to a so-called "independent commission" does not provide any greater transparency or clarity but rather hides it and removes parents as involved stakeholders. Is that really what Sunil Dasgupta wants?

It looks pretty obvious here. Parents push back and ask questions about the boundary change process and the BOE just delegates such authority to an independent commission (which has not inherent guarantee of being representative) that no one can question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The OP raises a valid and legitimate concern. There has been a lack of transparency and responsiveness to parents' input during the recent boundary changes, such as those in Clarksburg and Germantown. Shifting that decision making to a so-called "independent commission" does not provide any greater transparency or clarity but rather hides it and removes parents as involved stakeholders. Is that really what Sunil Dasgupta wants?

It looks pretty obvious here. Parents push back and ask questions about the boundary change process and the BOE just delegates such authority to an independent commission (which has not inherent guarantee of being representative) that no one can question.

No, it doesn't remove "transparency" or "clarity". No, it doesn't remove parents as involved stakeholders. (For example, there is no reason you couldn't put a parent on the boundary review commission.)

And no, the problem with the Northwest-Seneca Valley-Clarksburg boundary study wasn't "a lack of transparency and responsiveness to parents' input". The problem was that some of the parents didn't like the OUTCOME of the boundary study. I.e., they didn't get their way.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, some things really shouldn't be based on public input. Following public input often means giving the loudest voices what they want and can be contrary to the public interest. Sorry guys but it's not MCPS's job to protect your property values.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This sounds like a great idea. Doing what is best as opposed to what a few selfish people think benefits their narrow personal interests.

+100

[Anonymous]

But who says what a commission does is always in the public interest. For example, University of California made the equitable decision to start removing SAT scores from admissions. However, they overruled their own task force that thought it would be more equitable to keep the scores. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/05/21/us/university-california-sat-act.amp.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But who says what a commission does is always in the public interest. For example, University of California made the equitable decision to start removing SAT scores from admissions. However, they overruled their own task force that thought it would be more equitable to keep the scores. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/05/21/us/university-california-sat-act.amp.html

They certainly work out a lot better than the alternatives, when it comes to commissions for legislative redistricting.

https://www.ncsl.org/research/redistricting/redistricting-commissions-congressional-plans.aspx

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But who says what a commission does is always in the public interest. For example, University of California made the equitable decision to start removing SAT scores from admissions. However, they overruled their own task force that thought it would be more equitable to keep the scores. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/05/21/us/university-california-sat-act.amp.html

From reading the article, it sounds to me like the commission made the right call. Academia can be very set in its ways. It does not surprise me that the faculty task force would want to maintain the status quo.

In any case, I'm not sure what this has to do with the OP's question. The idea that politically-driven decisions are always or even often in the public interest is laughable, so what's your point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But who says what a commission does is always in the public interest. For example, University of California made the equitable decision to start removing SAT scores from admissions. However, they overruled their own task force that thought it would be more equitable to keep the scores. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/05/21/us/university-california-sat-act.amp.html

From reading the article, it sounds to me like the commission made the right call. Academia can be very set in its ways. It does not surprise me that the faculty task force would want to maintain the status quo.

In any case, I'm not sure what this has to do with the OP's question. The idea that politically-driven decisions are always or even often in the public interest is laughable, so what's your point?

Maybe point was even independent comissions might be overruled. The faculty seemed to think the tests allowed the school to see students who didn't meet the gpa minimums. That mattered because they said test scores better predict success than did gpa.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But who says what a commission does is always in the public interest. For example, University of California made the equitable decision to start removing SAT scores from admissions. However, they overruled their own task force that thought it would be more equitable to keep the scores. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/05/21/us/university-california-sat-act.amp.html

From reading the article, it sounds to me like the commission made the right call. Academia can be very set in its ways. It does not surprise me that the faculty task force would want to maintain the status quo.

In any case, I'm not sure what this has to do with the OP's question. The idea that politically-driven decisions are always or even often in the public interest is laughable, so what's your point?

Maybe point was even independent comissions might be overruled. The faculty seemed to think the tests allowed the school to see students who didn't meet the gpa minimums. That mattered because they said test scores better predict success than did gpa.

Maybe they should have had more than just faculty on the task force.

[Anonymous]

I am more amused by your thought that parents have any input or say in anything mcps does. Sure, mcps meets with the community, they might even listen to the community. Then they do whatever it was they were planning to do anyway. When mcps meets with community members, for any reason, it is 100% to "check the box" so their spokesperson can say they met with the community and has zero meaningful results.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am more amused by your thought that parents have any input or say in anything mcps does. Sure, mcps meets with the community, they might even listen to the community. Then they do whatever it was they were planning to do anyway. When mcps meets with community members, for any reason, it is 100% to "check the box" so their spokesperson can say they met with the community and has zero meaningful results.

People often think that "have input into" means "do what I want," but it doesn't. Yes, parents have input. No, MCPS doesn't necessarily do what this parent or that parent or the other parent wants. Or even this or that group of parents.

[Anonymous]

This would be fine if we could trust those on the BOE...but alas, they have already shown their true colors. The cannot be trusted because they have their own political agenda, and it is NOT in the best interests of ALL students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This would be fine if we could trust those on the BOE...but alas, they have already shown their true colors. The cannot be trusted because they have their own political agenda, and it is NOT in the best interests of ALL students.

Same could be said for some of those who are currently running for BOE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This would be fine if we could trust those on the BOE...but alas, they have already shown their true colors. The cannot be trusted because they have their own political agenda, and it is NOT in the best interests of ALL students.

The whole point of a commission is to take it out of the hands of the elected representatives (aka, the people you don't trust).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This would be fine if we could trust those on the BOE...but alas, they have already shown their true colors. The cannot be trusted because they have their own political agenda, and it is NOT in the best interests of ALL students.

The whole point of a commission is to take it out of the hands of the elected representatives (aka, the people you don't trust).

But then the people have no control if they dont' agree with it. If it's in the hand of elected officials, you can vote them out.