BOE members ask to add elementary schools to Woodward, Crown, Damascus boundary studies

[Anonymous]

Y'all had the opportunity to vote Wolffe and the other legacies out last election - and failed!

Reap what you sew.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Y'all had the opportunity to vote Wolffe and the other legacies out last election - and failed!

Reap what you sow.

Yes exactly! Go back and look at the YouTube clips from 2018 to see what we’re in for. Ignore the past 5 years of actual behavior that the BOE has demonstrated in the boundary issues that have arisen since then. Be afraid. Be very, very afraid!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Y'all had the opportunity to vote Wolffe and the other legacies out last election - and failed!

Reap what you sow.

Yes exactly! Go back and look at the YouTube clips from 2018 to see what we’re in for. Ignore the past 5 years of actual behavior that the BOE has demonstrated in the boundary issues that have arisen since then. Be afraid. Be very, very afraid!

What are we in for??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where will the Churchill shedding come from? What areas are at risk?

"At risk" isn't the term I'd use, but areas which are currently bussed to Churchill could potentially be bussed to a different adjacent school.

If you're bused out of your current school to a school with a higher chance of being shot in a bathroom just so white progressives can feel like white saviors, that's definitely "at risk."

I thought the W schools were the dangerous ones!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How overcrowded is WJ?

It's irrelevant. The boundary policy and BOE priorities are diversity, diversity, proximity, diversity, stability, and then capacity.

Yup. Here’s the policy itself. You won’t see what PP is referring to in there, but trust me, s/he’s right.

https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/policy/pdf/faa.pdf

You'll see Diversity is first. You'll see that the BOE should "especially strive to make schools more diverse" but they sent encouraged to especially strive to do anything else. You'll also see that the policy now allows kids to be based out of their existing cluster. If you look at the BOE meetings that led to the boundary policy change (all avail on the BOE website), you'll also see a lot of testimony from BOE members advocating for busing. And, finally, progressives really want busing because they think it will alleviate some of their guilt. The BOE is almost all progressive. Harris even fantasized about switching kids' schools every few years so they could dupe parents into supporting all schools. That's typical illiberal thinking. So yes, I am correct.

There have been dozens of boundary changes and studies done in the 5 years since the new policy was passed and none of these things occurred. So when will the pro forced busing sleeper cells on the BOE awaken and bring about the changes you’re highlighting here?

Dozens? Ridiculous. There have been a few small ones. But in the largest (Seneca Valley), they did do a fair amount of busing. And these two studies will be massive, providing all sorts of opportunity for busing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where will the Churchill shedding come from? What areas are at risk?

"At risk" isn't the term I'd use, but areas which are currently bussed to Churchill could potentially be bussed to a different adjacent school.

If you're bused out of your current school to a school with a higher chance of being shot in a bathroom just so white progressives can feel like white saviors, that's definitely "at risk."

I thought the W schools were the dangerous ones!

I think you meant Blair? Yes, a very scary school. 0.8% of the student body suspended (26 students). Assaults, drugs, weapons, you name it.
https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/regulatoryaccountability/SafetyGlance/currentyear/schools/04757.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Y'all had the opportunity to vote Wolffe and the other legacies out last election - and failed!

Reap what you sow.

Yes exactly! Go back and look at the YouTube clips from 2018 to see what we’re in for. Ignore the past 5 years of actual behavior that the BOE has demonstrated in the boundary issues that have arisen since then. Be afraid. Be very, very afraid!

What are we in for??

Diversity busing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where will the Churchill shedding come from? What areas are at risk?

"At risk" isn't the term I'd use, but areas which are currently bussed to Churchill could potentially be bussed to a different adjacent school.

If you're bused out of your current school to a school with a higher chance of being shot in a bathroom just so white progressives can feel like white saviors, that's definitely "at risk."

I thought the W schools were the dangerous ones!

In danger of getting a college scholarship perhaps.

[Anonymous]

Keep it in mind.

"Voters in San Francisco recalled three members of the school board"
"Early results showed that voters overwhelmingly supported removing the three members of the board, with people voting yes in each measure by at least 72%"
"Thank you for standing up for our kids when our elected leaders completely failed them"
https://www.npr.org/2022/02/16/1081035770/san-francisco-voters-recall-three-school-board-members

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How overcrowded is WJ?

It's irrelevant. The boundary policy and BOE priorities are diversity, diversity, proximity, diversity, stability, and then capacity.

Yup. Here’s the policy itself. You won’t see what PP is referring to in there, but trust me, s/he’s right.

https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/policy/pdf/faa.pdf

You'll see Diversity is first. You'll see that the BOE should "especially strive to make schools more diverse" but they sent encouraged to especially strive to do anything else. You'll also see that the policy now allows kids to be based out of their existing cluster. If you look at the BOE meetings that led to the boundary policy change (all avail on the BOE website), you'll also see a lot of testimony from BOE members advocating for busing. And, finally, progressives really want busing because they think it will alleviate some of their guilt. The BOE is almost all progressive. Harris even fantasized about switching kids' schools every few years so they could dupe parents into supporting all schools. That's typical illiberal thinking. So yes, I am correct.

There have been dozens of boundary changes and studies done in the 5 years since the new policy was passed and none of these things occurred. So when will the pro forced busing sleeper cells on the BOE awaken and bring about the changes you’re highlighting here?

Dozens? Ridiculous. There have been a few small ones. But in the largest (Seneca Valley), they did do a fair amount of busing. And these two studies will be massive, providing all sorts of opportunity for busing.

You mean the school with 31 fighting suspensions, 3 weapons suspensions with multiple police calls for weapons, bomb threats, sex-related, drugs, extortion, and other crimes? That Seneca Valley? Oh, yes. I can certainly see why Wolffe and McKnight would approve of busing!

Right now parents are sleepwalking. Most I know don't know this is happening behind the scenes. I think this will be a nice surprise for them, if their kids are shipped off to Seneca Valley because of a taxpayer-paid "study" that MCPS is steering towards a 'busing to improve equity' result. I can't wait.