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:

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!

Policy FAA on its face prioritizes diversity over all of the other factors, and the intent of the BOE to do so was clear when they approved the new policy. You can watch on Youtube the biggest proponents of the amended policy on the BOE - folks like Jill Ortman Fouse and Ananya Tadikonda - make the case during BOE meetings for how the segregated schools in MCPS are a huge problem and how boundary changes need to be used to equal things out. The issue is that the BOE and MCPS lost the narrative during the county wide boundary analysis in 2018/2019 and any talk of equity/diversity turned into screeds about busing kids around the county to meet the demands of a progressive fever dream. Now, progressives a running for the hills from any talk of prioritizing diversity because of how unpopular it became during the 2019 fiasco. As a supporter of fixing the problem of segregated schools in MCPS, it's sad that the BOE and MCPS were so amateur hour that they soured the public in such a way that we've seemingly taken steps back from being able to institute meaningful change. A huge lost opportunity.

[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.

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.

Where did you hear this rumor? I hadn't heard this from even the most progressive board members. Do you have any credible sources that support these statements?

[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.

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!

Policy FAA on its face prioritizes diversity over all of the other factors, and the intent of the BOE to do so was clear when they approved the new policy. You can watch on Youtube the biggest proponents of the amended policy on the BOE - folks like Jill Ortman Fouse and Ananya Tadikonda - make the case during BOE meetings for how the segregated schools in MCPS are a huge problem and how boundary changes need to be used to equal things out. The issue is that the BOE and MCPS lost the narrative during the county wide boundary analysis in 2018/2019 and any talk of equity/diversity turned into screeds about busing kids around the county to meet the demands of a progressive fever dream. Now, progressives a running for the hills from any talk of prioritizing diversity because of how unpopular it became during the 2019 fiasco. As a supporter of fixing the problem of segregated schools in MCPS, it's sad that the BOE and MCPS were so amateur hour that they soured the public in such a way that we've seemingly taken steps back from being able to institute meaningful change. A huge lost opportunity.

Last I heard the four factors carry equal weight.

[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.

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!

Policy FAA on its face prioritizes diversity over all of the other factors, and the intent of the BOE to do so was clear when they approved the new policy. You can watch on Youtube the biggest proponents of the amended policy on the BOE - folks like Jill Ortman Fouse and Ananya Tadikonda - make the case during BOE meetings for how the segregated schools in MCPS are a huge problem and how boundary changes need to be used to equal things out. The issue is that the BOE and MCPS lost the narrative during the county wide boundary analysis in 2018/2019 and any talk of equity/diversity turned into screeds about busing kids around the county to meet the demands of a progressive fever dream. Now, progressives a running for the hills from any talk of prioritizing diversity because of how unpopular it became during the 2019 fiasco. As a supporter of fixing the problem of segregated schools in MCPS, it's sad that the BOE and MCPS were so amateur hour that they soured the public in such a way that we've seemingly taken steps back from being able to institute meaningful change. A huge lost opportunity.

Last I heard the four factors carry equal weight.

Yes, because the BOE decided that it's more politically convenient to ignore what the policy requires, which is that equity is prioritized over the other factors.

[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.[/quote

BINGO!

So, busing is the GOP's new pet issue after their sound defeat at the polls this week?

[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.[/quote

BINGO!

So, busing is the GOP's new pet issue after their sound defeat at the polls this week?

Naw, it's not new. Been a buzz word since 2018 when the BOE revised the boundary analysis policy (Policy FAA) to prioritize diversity over all other factors.

[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.

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.[/quote

BINGO!

So, busing is the GOP's new pet issue after their sound defeat at the polls this week?

Naw, it's not new. Been a buzz word since 2018 when the BOE revised the boundary analysis policy (Policy FAA) to prioritize diversity over all other factors.

I heard they valued all 4 criteria equally and that diversity first is just a fearmongering tactic.

[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.[/quote

BINGO!

So, busing is the GOP's new pet issue after their sound defeat at the polls this week?

No, it's this one bonkers poster's personal pet issue on DCUM for the past 5 years.

[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.[/quote

BINGO!

So, busing is the GOP's new pet issue after their sound defeat at the polls this week?

They seem to be workshopping this with the hope it will get traction.

[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.

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.[/quote

BINGO!

So, busing is the GOP's new pet issue after their sound defeat at the polls this week?

Naw, it's not new. Been a buzz word since 2018 when the BOE revised the boundary analysis policy (Policy FAA) to prioritize diversity over all other factors.

I heard they valued all 4 criteria equally and that diversity first is just a fearmongering tactic.

Heard wrong, bro

[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.

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.[/quote

BINGO!

So, busing is the GOP's new pet issue after their sound defeat at the polls this week?

Naw, it's not new. Been a buzz word since 2018 when the BOE revised the boundary analysis policy (Policy FAA) to prioritize diversity over all other factors.

I heard they valued all 4 criteria equally and that diversity first is just a fearmongering tactic.

Heard wrong, bro

Nope, it's true. The four criteria are equally valued. Don't pay attention to the diversity-first troll. They a well known nutjob.

[jsteele]

If there continues to be interest in a boundary discussion, please create a new thread. However, I ask that posters be vigilant in reporting off-topic posts so that a new one will not repeat this thread in becoming unmanageable.