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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are pushing the whole thing back a year….

The poster has an imaginary busing fetish.

Is that a fetish about imaginary busing, or an imaginary fetish about busing? I think the former.

I know you just want to distract people from the diversity-first boundary policy that was altered by dishonest BOE members (without notifying the public) to box future BOE members in to busing.

There's nothing "boxing" in the current BoE. They can change the policy or ignore the policy whenever they like. And if the voters tell them to do differently, they'll listen.

Jack Smith (the superintendent at the time) said just the opposite. Boxed in were his words, not mine. But even if they aren't boxed in, do you think this BOE is any less prone to busing than the one who dishonestly altered the boundary policy? Harris can't wait to stick it to W school families by busing their kids and isn't afraid to harm poor kids to accomplish that goal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are pushing the whole thing back a year….

The poster has an imaginary busing fetish.

Is that a fetish about imaginary busing, or an imaginary fetish about busing? I think the former.

I know you just want to distract people from the diversity-first boundary policy that was altered by dishonest BOE members (without notifying the public) to box future BOE members in to busing.

There's nothing "boxing" in the current BoE. They can change the policy or ignore the policy whenever they like. And if the voters tell them to do differently, they'll listen.

Jack Smith (the superintendent at the time) said just the opposite. Boxed in were his words, not mine. But even if they aren't boxed in, do you think this BOE is any less prone to busing than the one who dishonestly altered the boundary policy? Harris can't wait to stick it to W school families by busing their kids and isn't afraid to harm poor kids to accomplish that goal.

And let's not forget Equity McKnight. The maps she draws up will range from busing a good number of kids to busing a ton of kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are pushing the whole thing back a year….

The poster has an imaginary busing fetish.

Is that a fetish about imaginary busing, or an imaginary fetish about busing? I think the former.

I know you just want to distract people from the diversity-first boundary policy that was altered by dishonest BOE members (without notifying the public) to box future BOE members in to busing.

There's nothing "boxing" in the current BoE. They can change the policy or ignore the policy whenever they like. And if the voters tell them to do differently, they'll listen.

A lot of what you're saying is true, but there is no diversity-first boundary policy. That's just a fiction this troll cooked up to stir people up. It's misinformation. This is the new CRT boogeyman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are pushing the whole thing back a year….

The poster has an imaginary busing fetish.

Is that a fetish about imaginary busing, or an imaginary fetish about busing? I think the former.

I know you just want to distract people from the diversity-first boundary policy that was altered by dishonest BOE members (without notifying the public) to box future BOE members in to busing.

There's nothing "boxing" in the current BoE. They can change the policy or ignore the policy whenever they like. And if the voters tell them to do differently, they'll listen.

Jack Smith (the superintendent at the time) said just the opposite. Boxed in were his words, not mine. But even if they aren't boxed in, do you think this BOE is any less prone to busing than the one who dishonestly altered the boundary policy? Harris can't wait to stick it to W school families by busing their kids and isn't afraid to harm poor kids to accomplish that goal.

And let's not forget Equity McKnight. The maps she draws up will range from busing a good number of kids to busing a ton of kids.

Busing a ton of kids is what MCPS is currently doing, right now. In the MCPS FY 2024 adopted operating budget, the Department of Transportation (meaning, the Department of Schoolbuses) has 1,862.341 FTEs, total salaries and wages of $100,926,121 (of which $96,514,519, or 95.6%, is for supporting services), and 1,096.588 bus operator I positions.

Whatever the decision ends up being in the Woodward boundary study, I expect it to result in fewer kids being bused.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are pushing the whole thing back a year….

The poster has an imaginary busing fetish.

Is that a fetish about imaginary busing, or an imaginary fetish about busing? I think the former.

I know you just want to distract people from the diversity-first boundary policy that was altered by dishonest BOE members (without notifying the public) to box future BOE members in to busing.

There's nothing "boxing" in the current BoE. They can change the policy or ignore the policy whenever they like. And if the voters tell them to do differently, they'll listen.

+1. And keep in mind that it won't even be the current BOE, it will be whoever's on the board in 2026. And given all the recent administrative turmoil, we also don't know who's going to be running things at central office then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are pushing the whole thing back a year….

The poster has an imaginary busing fetish.

Is that a fetish about imaginary busing, or an imaginary fetish about busing? I think the former.

I know you just want to distract people from the diversity-first boundary policy that was altered by dishonest BOE members (without notifying the public) to box future BOE members in to busing.

There's nothing "boxing" in the current BoE. They can change the policy or ignore the policy whenever they like. And if the voters tell them to do differently, they'll listen.

Jack Smith (the superintendent at the time) said just the opposite. Boxed in were his words, not mine. But even if they aren't boxed in, do you think this BOE is any less prone to busing than the one who dishonestly altered the boundary policy? Harris can't wait to stick it to W school families by busing their kids and isn't afraid to harm poor kids to accomplish that goal.

And let's not forget Equity McKnight. The maps she draws up will range from busing a good number of kids to busing a ton of kids.

Busing a ton of kids is what MCPS is currently doing, right now. In the MCPS FY 2024 adopted operating budget, the Department of Transportation (meaning, the Department of Schoolbuses) has 1,862.341 FTEs, total salaries and wages of $100,926,121 (of which $96,514,519, or 95.6%, is for supporting services), and 1,096.588 bus operator I positions.

Whatever the decision ends up being in the Woodward boundary study, I expect it to result in fewer kids being bused.

Race-integration busing in the United States (also known simply as busing or integrated busing or by its critics as forced busing) was the practice of assigning and transporting students to schools within or outside their local school districts in an effort to diversify the racial make-up of schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are pushing the whole thing back a year….

The poster has an imaginary busing fetish.

Is that a fetish about imaginary busing, or an imaginary fetish about busing? I think the former.

I know you just want to distract people from the diversity-first boundary policy that was altered by dishonest BOE members (without notifying the public) to box future BOE members in to busing.

There's nothing "boxing" in the current BoE. They can change the policy or ignore the policy whenever they like. And if the voters tell them to do differently, they'll listen.

+1. And keep in mind that it won't even be the current BOE, it will be whoever's on the board in 2026. And given all the recent administrative turmoil, we also don't know who's going to be running things at central office then.

Good point. So I encourage everyone who doesn't want their kids bused to press BOE candidates on this issue. Candidates should be clear about their stance on busing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are pushing the whole thing back a year….

The poster has an imaginary busing fetish.

Is that a fetish about imaginary busing, or an imaginary fetish about busing? I think the former.

I know you just want to distract people from the diversity-first boundary policy that was altered by dishonest BOE members (without notifying the public) to box future BOE members in to busing.

There's nothing "boxing" in the current BoE. They can change the policy or ignore the policy whenever they like. And if the voters tell them to do differently, they'll listen.

+1. And keep in mind that it won't even be the current BOE, it will be whoever's on the board in 2026. And given all the recent administrative turmoil, we also don't know who's going to be running things at central office then.

Good point. So I encourage everyone who doesn't want their kids bused to press BOE candidates on this issue. Candidates should be clear about their stance on busing.

You do realize this is complete fiction?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are pushing the whole thing back a year….

The poster has an imaginary busing fetish.

Is that a fetish about imaginary busing, or an imaginary fetish about busing? I think the former.

I know you just want to distract people from the diversity-first boundary policy that was altered by dishonest BOE members (without notifying the public) to box future BOE members in to busing.

There's nothing "boxing" in the current BoE. They can change the policy or ignore the policy whenever they like. And if the voters tell them to do differently, they'll listen.

Jack Smith (the superintendent at the time) said just the opposite. Boxed in were his words, not mine. But even if they aren't boxed in, do you think this BOE is any less prone to busing than the one who dishonestly altered the boundary policy? Harris can't wait to stick it to W school families by busing their kids and isn't afraid to harm poor kids to accomplish that goal.

And let's not forget Equity McKnight. The maps she draws up will range from busing a good number of kids to busing a ton of kids.

Busing a ton of kids is what MCPS is currently doing, right now. In the MCPS FY 2024 adopted operating budget, the Department of Transportation (meaning, the Department of Schoolbuses) has 1,862.341 FTEs, total salaries and wages of $100,926,121 (of which $96,514,519, or 95.6%, is for supporting services), and 1,096.588 bus operator I positions.

Whatever the decision ends up being in the Woodward boundary study, I expect it to result in fewer kids being bused.

Race-integration busing in the United States (also known simply as busing or integrated busing or by its critics as forced busing) was the practice of assigning and transporting students to schools within or outside their local school districts in an effort to diversify the racial make-up of schools.

So busing Kensington kids near Einstein to WJ is reverse forced busing? What about the boundary of schools like Wootton where most of the residents are closer to other schools? Will they address these cases and start using proximity?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are pushing the whole thing back a year….

The poster has an imaginary busing fetish.

Is that a fetish about imaginary busing, or an imaginary fetish about busing? I think the former.

I know you just want to distract people from the diversity-first boundary policy that was altered by dishonest BOE members (without notifying the public) to box future BOE members in to busing.

There's nothing "boxing" in the current BoE. They can change the policy or ignore the policy whenever they like. And if the voters tell them to do differently, they'll listen.

Jack Smith (the superintendent at the time) said just the opposite. Boxed in were his words, not mine. But even if they aren't boxed in, do you think this BOE is any less prone to busing than the one who dishonestly altered the boundary policy? Harris can't wait to stick it to W school families by busing their kids and isn't afraid to harm poor kids to accomplish that goal.

And let's not forget Equity McKnight. The maps she draws up will range from busing a good number of kids to busing a ton of kids.

Busing a ton of kids is what MCPS is currently doing, right now. In the MCPS FY 2024 adopted operating budget, the Department of Transportation (meaning, the Department of Schoolbuses) has 1,862.341 FTEs, total salaries and wages of $100,926,121 (of which $96,514,519, or 95.6%, is for supporting services), and 1,096.588 bus operator I positions.

Whatever the decision ends up being in the Woodward boundary study, I expect it to result in fewer kids being bused.

Race-integration busing in the United States (also known simply as busing or integrated busing or by its critics as forced busing) was the practice of assigning and transporting students to schools within or outside their local school districts in an effort to diversify the racial make-up of schools.

Yeah, you keep saying that. "Busing good, 'busing' bad!" Absurd.

MCPS will spend $142,705,481 this year on operating expenses for student transportation (aka: busing).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are pushing the whole thing back a year….

The poster has an imaginary busing fetish.

Is that a fetish about imaginary busing, or an imaginary fetish about busing? I think the former.

I know you just want to distract people from the diversity-first boundary policy that was altered by dishonest BOE members (without notifying the public) to box future BOE members in to busing.

There's nothing "boxing" in the current BoE. They can change the policy or ignore the policy whenever they like. And if the voters tell them to do differently, they'll listen.

+1. And keep in mind that it won't even be the current BOE, it will be whoever's on the board in 2026. And given all the recent administrative turmoil, we also don't know who's going to be running things at central office then.

Good point. So I encourage everyone who doesn't want their kids bused to press BOE candidates on this issue. Candidates should be clear about their stance on busing.

You do realize this is complete fiction?

You must be a bot. I'm encouraging parents to get/stay involved in the BOE elections (you know, democracy) and you respond with that? Ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are pushing the whole thing back a year….

The poster has an imaginary busing fetish.

Is that a fetish about imaginary busing, or an imaginary fetish about busing? I think the former.

I know you just want to distract people from the diversity-first boundary policy that was altered by dishonest BOE members (without notifying the public) to box future BOE members in to busing.

There's nothing "boxing" in the current BoE. They can change the policy or ignore the policy whenever they like. And if the voters tell them to do differently, they'll listen.

Jack Smith (the superintendent at the time) said just the opposite. Boxed in were his words, not mine. But even if they aren't boxed in, do you think this BOE is any less prone to busing than the one who dishonestly altered the boundary policy? Harris can't wait to stick it to W school families by busing their kids and isn't afraid to harm poor kids to accomplish that goal.

And let's not forget Equity McKnight. The maps she draws up will range from busing a good number of kids to busing a ton of kids.

Busing a ton of kids is what MCPS is currently doing, right now. In the MCPS FY 2024 adopted operating budget, the Department of Transportation (meaning, the Department of Schoolbuses) has 1,862.341 FTEs, total salaries and wages of $100,926,121 (of which $96,514,519, or 95.6%, is for supporting services), and 1,096.588 bus operator I positions.

Whatever the decision ends up being in the Woodward boundary study, I expect it to result in fewer kids being bused.

Race-integration busing in the United States (also known simply as busing or integrated busing or by its critics as forced busing) was the practice of assigning and transporting students to schools within or outside their local school districts in an effort to diversify the racial make-up of schools.

So busing Kensington kids near Einstein to WJ is reverse forced busing? What about the boundary of schools like Wootton where most of the residents are closer to other schools? Will they address these cases and start using proximity?

The first isn't busing. It's cronyism.
And I have no idea how Wootton boundaries got created. My guy says that they created all the other boundaries first and then Wootton got the leftovers wherever the heck they were. Elevating proximity in the boundary policy would have solved both of these areas and any other with weird boundaries. But that want progressive enough for east county progressives. They had to show everyone how progressive they are and elevate diversity. With diversity as the boundary policy's mandate, the boundaries will get even wonkier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are pushing the whole thing back a year….

The poster has an imaginary busing fetish.

Is that a fetish about imaginary busing, or an imaginary fetish about busing? I think the former.

I know you just want to distract people from the diversity-first boundary policy that was altered by dishonest BOE members (without notifying the public) to box future BOE members in to busing.

There's nothing "boxing" in the current BoE. They can change the policy or ignore the policy whenever they like. And if the voters tell them to do differently, they'll listen.

Jack Smith (the superintendent at the time) said just the opposite. Boxed in were his words, not mine. But even if they aren't boxed in, do you think this BOE is any less prone to busing than the one who dishonestly altered the boundary policy? Harris can't wait to stick it to W school families by busing their kids and isn't afraid to harm poor kids to accomplish that goal.

And let's not forget Equity McKnight. The maps she draws up will range from busing a good number of kids to busing a ton of kids.

Busing a ton of kids is what MCPS is currently doing, right now. In the MCPS FY 2024 adopted operating budget, the Department of Transportation (meaning, the Department of Schoolbuses) has 1,862.341 FTEs, total salaries and wages of $100,926,121 (of which $96,514,519, or 95.6%, is for supporting services), and 1,096.588 bus operator I positions.

Whatever the decision ends up being in the Woodward boundary study, I expect it to result in fewer kids being bused.

Race-integration busing in the United States (also known simply as busing or integrated busing or by its critics as forced busing) was the practice of assigning and transporting students to schools within or outside their local school districts in an effort to diversify the racial make-up of schools.

So busing Kensington kids near Einstein to WJ is reverse forced busing? What about the boundary of schools like Wootton where most of the residents are closer to other schools? Will they address these cases and start using proximity?

The first isn't busing. It's cronyism.
And I have no idea how Wootton boundaries got created. My guy says that they created all the other boundaries first and then Wootton got the leftovers wherever the heck they were. Elevating proximity in the boundary policy would have solved both of these areas and any other with weird boundaries. But that want progressive enough for east county progressives. They had to show everyone how progressive they are and elevate diversity. With diversity as the boundary policy's mandate, the boundaries will get even wonkier.

These boundaries were created 40-50 years ago when redlining was still common. It is a perfect example of reverse diversity busing where many residents are bused further to avoid diversity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are pushing the whole thing back a year….

The poster has an imaginary busing fetish.

Is that a fetish about imaginary busing, or an imaginary fetish about busing? I think the former.

I know you just want to distract people from the diversity-first boundary policy that was altered by dishonest BOE members (without notifying the public) to box future BOE members in to busing.

There's nothing "boxing" in the current BoE. They can change the policy or ignore the policy whenever they like. And if the voters tell them to do differently, they'll listen.

Jack Smith (the superintendent at the time) said just the opposite. Boxed in were his words, not mine. But even if they aren't boxed in, do you think this BOE is any less prone to busing than the one who dishonestly altered the boundary policy? Harris can't wait to stick it to W school families by busing their kids and isn't afraid to harm poor kids to accomplish that goal.

And let's not forget Equity McKnight. The maps she draws up will range from busing a good number of kids to busing a ton of kids.

Busing a ton of kids is what MCPS is currently doing, right now. In the MCPS FY 2024 adopted operating budget, the Department of Transportation (meaning, the Department of Schoolbuses) has 1,862.341 FTEs, total salaries and wages of $100,926,121 (of which $96,514,519, or 95.6%, is for supporting services), and 1,096.588 bus operator I positions.

Whatever the decision ends up being in the Woodward boundary study, I expect it to result in fewer kids being bused.

Race-integration busing in the United States (also known simply as busing or integrated busing or by its critics as forced busing) was the practice of assigning and transporting students to schools within or outside their local school districts in an effort to diversify the racial make-up of schools.

Yeah, you keep saying that. "Busing good, 'busing' bad!" Absurd.

MCPS will spend $142,705,481 this year on operating expenses for student transportation (aka: busing).

And they will probably also spend a few million on another boundary study like the last one and then do nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are pushing the whole thing back a year….

The poster has an imaginary busing fetish.

Is that a fetish about imaginary busing, or an imaginary fetish about busing? I think the former.

I know you just want to distract people from the diversity-first boundary policy that was altered by dishonest BOE members (without notifying the public) to box future BOE members in to busing.

There's nothing "boxing" in the current BoE. They can change the policy or ignore the policy whenever they like. And if the voters tell them to do differently, they'll listen.

Jack Smith (the superintendent at the time) said just the opposite. Boxed in were his words, not mine. But even if they aren't boxed in, do you think this BOE is any less prone to busing than the one who dishonestly altered the boundary policy? Harris can't wait to stick it to W school families by busing their kids and isn't afraid to harm poor kids to accomplish that goal.

And let's not forget Equity McKnight. The maps she draws up will range from busing a good number of kids to busing a ton of kids.

Busing a ton of kids is what MCPS is currently doing, right now. In the MCPS FY 2024 adopted operating budget, the Department of Transportation (meaning, the Department of Schoolbuses) has 1,862.341 FTEs, total salaries and wages of $100,926,121 (of which $96,514,519, or 95.6%, is for supporting services), and 1,096.588 bus operator I positions.

Whatever the decision ends up being in the Woodward boundary study, I expect it to result in fewer kids being bused.

Race-integration busing in the United States (also known simply as busing or integrated busing or by its critics as forced busing) was the practice of assigning and transporting students to schools within or outside their local school districts in an effort to diversify the racial make-up of schools.

Yeah, you keep saying that. "Busing good, 'busing' bad!" Absurd.

MCPS will spend $142,705,481 this year on operating expenses for student transportation (aka: busing).

And they will probably also spend a few million on another boundary study like the last one and then do nothing.

Math is hard, eh?

The last boundary study was for Cabin Branch ES (a new elementary school), and it established the boundaries for Cabin Branch ES.