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

[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.

Yes, they have no intention of doing this; however, it seems to be your fantasy. The maps that were posted after the last study seemed pretty reasonable even.

[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.

+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.

On the contrary, but pushing these fictions about busing that have no basis in fact are definitely suspect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What about that one where they made a bunch of maps countywide using each of the 4 criteria to get feedback. This was a couple years ago like maybe 2020. They seemed like a huge improvement over the current boundaries that date back to the 1920s.

[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.

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.

BINGO!

[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.

If there is not a safe walking/biking route to school, I certainly want an option for my kids to get a bus, so yes I guess I better make sure future candidates don't want to reduce bus service. I was a designated "walker" in HS with no consideration for the fact that half the 1.5 mile route had no sidewalks! And I lived further north where we typically arrived and left school in the dark during part of the winter. My parents ended up driving me most days as it wasn't safe.

[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.

If there is not a safe walking/biking route to school, I certainly want an option for my kids to get a bus, so yes I guess I better make sure future candidates don't want to reduce bus service. I was a designated "walker" in HS with no consideration for the fact that half the 1.5 mile route had no sidewalks! And I lived further north where we typically arrived and left school in the dark during part of the winter. My parents ended up driving me most days as it wasn't safe.

Absolutely not! We need to abolish busing in all its forms to ensure the BOE does not abuse this. Just think of all the money they'll save too which could be used to staff the CO!

[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.

Yes, they have no intention of doing this; however, it seems to be your fantasy. The maps that were posted after the last study seemed pretty reasonable even.

*m just reiterating what the progressive arm of the BOE said repeatedly back in 2018/2019 when they altered the boundary policy to elevate diversity and then tried to ram through a countywide busing scheme. While the busing scheme failed, the boundary policy that will guide this study still remains. The public has 2 options: 1 stay informed and ask future BOE candidates what their opinion is on busing or (as you would prefer) close their eyes and hope that progressives do the rational thing.

[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.

I heard Monfia is pioneering busing from where she lives in PG to the W's to improve cross-county 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.

+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.

On the contrary, but pushing these fictions about busing that have no basis in fact are definitely suspect.

So you want the public to ignore the possibility that their kids might be biased to schools farther from home. Got it.

[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.

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.

Of course, there isn't but it's fun spreading this misinformation.

[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.

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.

BINGO!

Don't you mean cRt Is oNlY TaUgHt iN LaW sChOoL?

[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.

+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.

On the contrary, but pushing these fictions about busing that have no basis in fact are definitely suspect.

True but it's kind of fun to read this insanity. The busing-obsessed poster just needs to go back on their meds.

[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.

If there is not a safe walking/biking route to school, I certainly want an option for my kids to get a bus, so yes I guess I better make sure future candidates don't want to reduce bus service. I was a designated "walker" in HS with no consideration for the fact that half the 1.5 mile route had no sidewalks! And I lived further north where we typically arrived and left school in the dark during part of the winter. My parents ended up driving me most days as it wasn't safe.

I agree with you. But do you want your kids bused an extra 20 minutes just so they can sit next to a few more kids who don't look like them and whose parents make more or less money then you do? Because that's what progressives want.

[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.

+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.

On the contrary, but pushing these fictions about busing that have no basis in fact are definitely suspect.

They are not going to bus kids cross town nor would parents of the bussed kids agree with it. You are so scared of kids who aren't in your socio economic group associating with your kids that you have to create drama that isn't there. They will pull from WJ and the surrounding areas in Rockville and maybe the Town of Kensington to fill the school. They aren't going to buss kids cross town from Silver Spring and Wheaton. Be real.

[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.

+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.

On the contrary, but pushing these fictions about busing that have no basis in fact are definitely suspect.

True but it's kind of fun to read this insanity. The busing-obsessed poster just needs to go back on their meds.

I'll put you down for "Wants busing."