Elementary school boundary studies

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A teacher at Neelseville actually told the students that the kids from Cabin Branch were moved because there can't be too many black and brown students at the school. Something for you to look forward to, OP.

I hope they'll leave Clarksburg ES open for all of the Rocky Hill kids to attend instead of creating a split.

They'll do whatever they have to do to honor the boundary policy which has diversity as its #1 priority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Back in 2018 the BOE made demographics/diversity the top factor in the boundary policy. So who knows what they'll do?

No, they didn't, don't hijack this thread.

They certainly did. And just because you don't want to talk about the boundary policy in a thread about [checks thread title] elementary school boundary studies doesn't make it hijacking. Everyone needs to know what the BOE did so they can make informed decisions. I know you'd prefer that people were kept in the dark but we are done tolerating MCPS opacity.

It's fine to talk about the boundary policy, but let's be clear that you have an agenda here, and you are sharing your apparently very strong opinions.

If people are interested in what the policy actually says, it would be wise to read the documents themselves, not rely on DCUM commenters' interpretations.

Policy FAA
https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/policy/detail.aspx?recID=128&policyID=FAA§ionID=6

Regulation FAA-RA
https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/policy/detail.aspx?recID=129&policyID=FAA-RA§ionID=6

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Back in 2018 the BOE made demographics/diversity the top factor in the boundary policy. So who knows what they'll do?

No, they didn't, don't hijack this thread.

They certainly did. And just because you don't want to talk about the boundary policy in a thread about [checks thread title] elementary school boundary studies doesn't make it hijacking. Everyone needs to know what the BOE did so they can make informed decisions. I know you'd prefer that people were kept in the dark but we are done tolerating MCPS opacity.

It's fine to talk about the boundary policy, but let's be clear that you have an agenda here, and you are sharing your apparently very strong opinions.

If people are interested in what the policy actually says, it would be wise to read the documents themselves, not rely on DCUM commenters' interpretations.

Policy FAA
https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/policy/detail.aspx?recID=128&policyID=FAA§ionID=6

Regulation FAA-RA
https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/policy/detail.aspx?recID=129&policyID=FAA-RA§ionID=6

Yes, I already told you what my agenda was but I suppose I can type it out again in case you didn't catch it the first time. I want everyone to know what the BOE did (elevating do wrsity in the boundary policy) so they can make informed decisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Back in 2018 the BOE made demographics/diversity the top factor in the boundary policy. So who knows what they'll do?

No, they didn't, don't hijack this thread.

They certainly did. And just because you don't want to talk about the boundary policy in a thread about [checks thread title] elementary school boundary studies doesn't make it hijacking. Everyone needs to know what the BOE did so they can make informed decisions. I know you'd prefer that people were kept in the dark but we are done tolerating MCPS opacity.

It's fine to talk about the boundary policy, but let's be clear that you have an agenda here, and you are sharing your apparently very strong opinions.

If people are interested in what the policy actually says, it would be wise to read the documents themselves, not rely on DCUM commenters' interpretations.

Policy FAA
https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/policy/detail.aspx?recID=128&policyID=FAA§ionID=6

Regulation FAA-RA
https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/policy/detail.aspx?recID=129&policyID=FAA-RA§ionID=6

These aren't my interpretations. I'm simply parroting what the BOE members who pushed for busing said in the meetings. They said things like diversity should be the most important factor because they thought schools were segregated. They said it was time for kids in the W schools to move. They said that 1/3 white, 1/3 black, and 1/3 Hispanic was the ideal mix of kids in schools. Then they changed the boundary policy without alerting the public about the last minute changes. It was an unscrupulous process. Talk about an agenda...a busing agenda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Back in 2018 the BOE made demographics/diversity the top factor in the boundary policy. So who knows what they'll do?

No, they didn't, don't hijack this thread.

They certainly did. And just because you don't want to talk about the boundary policy in a thread about [checks thread title] elementary school boundary studies doesn't make it hijacking. Everyone needs to know what the BOE did so they can make informed decisions. I know you'd prefer that people were kept in the dark but we are done tolerating MCPS opacity.

It's fine to talk about the boundary policy, but let's be clear that you have an agenda here, and you are sharing your apparently very strong opinions.

If people are interested in what the policy actually says, it would be wise to read the documents themselves, not rely on DCUM commenters' interpretations.

Policy FAA
https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/policy/detail.aspx?recID=128&policyID=FAA§ionID=6

Regulation FAA-RA
https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/policy/detail.aspx?recID=129&policyID=FAA-RA§ionID=6

These aren't my interpretations. I'm simply parroting what the BOE members who pushed for busing said in the meetings. They said things like diversity should be the most important factor because they thought schools were segregated. They said it was time for kids in the W schools to move. They said that 1/3 white, 1/3 black, and 1/3 Hispanic was the ideal mix of kids in schools. Then they changed the boundary policy without alerting the public about the last minute changes. It was an unscrupulous process. Talk about an agenda...a busing agenda.

Yeah, you've said all this before like a thousand times. You need a new hobby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Back in 2018 the BOE made demographics/diversity the top factor in the boundary policy. So who knows what they'll do?

No, they didn't, don't hijack this thread.

They certainly did. And just because you don't want to talk about the boundary policy in a thread about [checks thread title] elementary school boundary studies doesn't make it hijacking. Everyone needs to know what the BOE did so they can make informed decisions. I know you'd prefer that people were kept in the dark but we are done tolerating MCPS opacity.

It's fine to talk about the boundary policy, but let's be clear that you have an agenda here, and you are sharing your apparently very strong opinions.

If people are interested in what the policy actually says, it would be wise to read the documents themselves, not rely on DCUM commenters' interpretations.

Policy FAA
https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/policy/detail.aspx?recID=128&policyID=FAA§ionID=6

Regulation FAA-RA
https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/policy/detail.aspx?recID=129&policyID=FAA-RA§ionID=6

These aren't my interpretations. I'm simply parroting what the BOE members who pushed for busing said in the meetings. They said things like diversity should be the most important factor because they thought schools were segregated. They said it was time for kids in the W schools to move. They said that 1/3 white, 1/3 black, and 1/3 Hispanic was the ideal mix of kids in schools. Then they changed the boundary policy without alerting the public about the last minute changes. It was an unscrupulous process. Talk about an agenda...a busing agenda.

Yeah, you've said all this before like a thousand times. You need a new hobby.

Getting the truth out there about MCPS is my hobby, just like obfuscating it is yours

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Back in 2018 the BOE made demographics/diversity the top factor in the boundary policy. So who knows what they'll do?

No, they didn't, don't hijack this thread.

They certainly did. And just because you don't want to talk about the boundary policy in a thread about [checks thread title] elementary school boundary studies doesn't make it hijacking. Everyone needs to know what the BOE did so they can make informed decisions. I know you'd prefer that people were kept in the dark but we are done tolerating MCPS opacity.

It's fine to talk about the boundary policy, but let's be clear that you have an agenda here, and you are sharing your apparently very strong opinions.

If people are interested in what the policy actually says, it would be wise to read the documents themselves, not rely on DCUM commenters' interpretations.

Policy FAA
https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/policy/detail.aspx?recID=128&policyID=FAA§ionID=6

Regulation FAA-RA
https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/policy/detail.aspx?recID=129&policyID=FAA-RA§ionID=6

These aren't my interpretations. I'm simply parroting what the BOE members who pushed for busing said in the meetings. They said things like diversity should be the most important factor because they thought schools were segregated. They said it was time for kids in the W schools to move. They said that 1/3 white, 1/3 black, and 1/3 Hispanic was the ideal mix of kids in schools. Then they changed the boundary policy without alerting the public about the last minute changes. It was an unscrupulous process. Talk about an agenda...a busing agenda.

Yeah, you've said all this before like a thousand times. You need a new hobby.

Getting the truth out there about MCPS is my hobby, just like obfuscating it is yours

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Back in 2018 the BOE made demographics/diversity the top factor in the boundary policy. So who knows what they'll do?

No, they didn't, don't hijack this thread.

They certainly did. And just because you don't want to talk about the boundary policy in a thread about [checks thread title] elementary school boundary studies doesn't make it hijacking. Everyone needs to know what the BOE did so they can make informed decisions. I know you'd prefer that people were kept in the dark but we are done tolerating MCPS opacity.

It's fine to talk about the boundary policy, but let's be clear that you have an agenda here, and you are sharing your apparently very strong opinions.

If people are interested in what the policy actually says, it would be wise to read the documents themselves, not rely on DCUM commenters' interpretations.

Policy FAA
https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/policy/detail.aspx?recID=128&policyID=FAA§ionID=6

Regulation FAA-RA
https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/policy/detail.aspx?recID=129&policyID=FAA-RA§ionID=6

These aren't my interpretations. I'm simply parroting what the BOE members who pushed for busing said in the meetings. They said things like diversity should be the most important factor because they thought schools were segregated. They said it was time for kids in the W schools to move. They said that 1/3 white, 1/3 black, and 1/3 Hispanic was the ideal mix of kids in schools. Then they changed the boundary policy without alerting the public about the last minute changes. It was an unscrupulous process. Talk about an agenda...a busing agenda.

Yeah, you've said all this before like a thousand times. You need a new hobby.

Getting the truth out there about MCPS is my hobby, just like obfuscating it is yours

I'm trying to have a conversation about the deceitful process by which the BOE made diversity the top priority in the boundary policy and you're posting memes. If that's your only rebuttal, then great.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Back in 2018 the BOE made demographics/diversity the top factor in the boundary policy. So who knows what they'll do?

No, they didn't, don't hijack this thread.

They certainly did. And just because you don't want to talk about the boundary policy in a thread about [checks thread title] elementary school boundary studies doesn't make it hijacking. Everyone needs to know what the BOE did so they can make informed decisions. I know you'd prefer that people were kept in the dark but we are done tolerating MCPS opacity.

It's fine to talk about the boundary policy, but let's be clear that you have an agenda here, and you are sharing your apparently very strong opinions.

If people are interested in what the policy actually says, it would be wise to read the documents themselves, not rely on DCUM commenters' interpretations.

Policy FAA
https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/policy/detail.aspx?recID=128&policyID=FAA§ionID=6

Regulation FAA-RA
https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/policy/detail.aspx?recID=129&policyID=FAA-RA§ionID=6

These aren't my interpretations. I'm simply parroting what the BOE members who pushed for busing said in the meetings. They said things like diversity should be the most important factor because they thought schools were segregated. They said it was time for kids in the W schools to move. They said that 1/3 white, 1/3 black, and 1/3 Hispanic was the ideal mix of kids in schools. Then they changed the boundary policy without alerting the public about the last minute changes. It was an unscrupulous process. Talk about an agenda...a busing agenda.

Yeah, you've said all this before like a thousand times. You need a new hobby.

Getting the truth out there about MCPS is my hobby, just like obfuscating it is yours

I'm trying to have a conversation about the deceitful process by which the BOE made diversity the top priority in the boundary policy and you're posting memes. If that's your only rebuttal, then great.

But you're really not "trying to have a conversation." You're trying to prevent the original conversation that OP started from continuing. OP had some specific questions about the new school in Clarksburg, which other posters tried to answer. Why don't you ever start your own threads, if you really want to have a rehash of the former board members' comments in 2018?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Back in 2018 the BOE made demographics/diversity the top factor in the boundary policy. So who knows what they'll do?

No, they didn't, don't hijack this thread.

They certainly did. And just because you don't want to talk about the boundary policy in a thread about [checks thread title] elementary school boundary studies doesn't make it hijacking. Everyone needs to know what the BOE did so they can make informed decisions. I know you'd prefer that people were kept in the dark but we are done tolerating MCPS opacity.

It's fine to talk about the boundary policy, but let's be clear that you have an agenda here, and you are sharing your apparently very strong opinions.

If people are interested in what the policy actually says, it would be wise to read the documents themselves, not rely on DCUM commenters' interpretations.

Policy FAA
https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/policy/detail.aspx?recID=128&policyID=FAA§ionID=6

Regulation FAA-RA
https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/policy/detail.aspx?recID=129&policyID=FAA-RA§ionID=6

These aren't my interpretations. I'm simply parroting what the BOE members who pushed for busing said in the meetings. They said things like diversity should be the most important factor because they thought schools were segregated. They said it was time for kids in the W schools to move. They said that 1/3 white, 1/3 black, and 1/3 Hispanic was the ideal mix of kids in schools. Then they changed the boundary policy without alerting the public about the last minute changes. It was an unscrupulous process. Talk about an agenda...a busing agenda.

Yeah, you've said all this before like a thousand times. You need a new hobby.

Getting the truth out there about MCPS is my hobby, just like obfuscating it is yours

I'm trying to have a conversation about the deceitful process by which the BOE made diversity the top priority in the boundary policy and you're posting memes. If that's your only rebuttal, then great.

But you're really not "trying to have a conversation." You're trying to prevent the original conversation that OP started from continuing. OP had some specific questions about the new school in Clarksburg, which other posters tried to answer. Why don't you ever start your own threads, if you really want to have a rehash of the former board members' comments in 2018?

She won't start a new thread because no one would participate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Back in 2018 the BOE made demographics/diversity the top factor in the boundary policy. So who knows what they'll do?

No, they didn't, don't hijack this thread.

They certainly did. And just because you don't want to talk about the boundary policy in a thread about [checks thread title] elementary school boundary studies doesn't make it hijacking. Everyone needs to know what the BOE did so they can make informed decisions. I know you'd prefer that people were kept in the dark but we are done tolerating MCPS opacity.

It's fine to talk about the boundary policy, but let's be clear that you have an agenda here, and you are sharing your apparently very strong opinions.

If people are interested in what the policy actually says, it would be wise to read the documents themselves, not rely on DCUM commenters' interpretations.

Policy FAA
https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/policy/detail.aspx?recID=128&policyID=FAA§ionID=6

Regulation FAA-RA
https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/policy/detail.aspx?recID=129&policyID=FAA-RA§ionID=6

These aren't my interpretations. I'm simply parroting what the BOE members who pushed for busing said in the meetings. They said things like diversity should be the most important factor because they thought schools were segregated. They said it was time for kids in the W schools to move. They said that 1/3 white, 1/3 black, and 1/3 Hispanic was the ideal mix of kids in schools. Then they changed the boundary policy without alerting the public about the last minute changes. It was an unscrupulous process. Talk about an agenda...a busing agenda.

Yeah, you've said all this before like a thousand times. You need a new hobby.

Getting the truth out there about MCPS is my hobby, just like obfuscating it is yours

I'm trying to have a conversation about the deceitful process by which the BOE made diversity the top priority in the boundary policy and you're posting memes. If that's your only rebuttal, then great.

But you're really not "trying to have a conversation." You're trying to prevent the original conversation that OP started from continuing. OP had some specific questions about the new school in Clarksburg, which other posters tried to answer. Why don't you ever start your own threads, if you really want to have a rehash of the former board members' comments in 2018?

She won't start a new thread because no one would participate.

+100, the idea that this poster is trying to have a conversation about anything school boundary related is laughable. She hijacks and torpedos every thread that even remotely touches on the issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Back in 2018 the BOE made demographics/diversity the top factor in the boundary policy. So who knows what they'll do?

No, they didn't, don't hijack this thread.

They certainly did. And just because you don't want to talk about the boundary policy in a thread about [checks thread title] elementary school boundary studies doesn't make it hijacking. Everyone needs to know what the BOE did so they can make informed decisions. I know you'd prefer that people were kept in the dark but we are done tolerating MCPS opacity.

It's fine to talk about the boundary policy, but let's be clear that you have an agenda here, and you are sharing your apparently very strong opinions.

If people are interested in what the policy actually says, it would be wise to read the documents themselves, not rely on DCUM commenters' interpretations.

Policy FAA
https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/policy/detail.aspx?recID=128&policyID=FAA§ionID=6

Regulation FAA-RA
https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/policy/detail.aspx?recID=129&policyID=FAA-RA§ionID=6

These aren't my interpretations. I'm simply parroting what the BOE members who pushed for busing said in the meetings. They said things like diversity should be the most important factor because they thought schools were segregated. They said it was time for kids in the W schools to move. They said that 1/3 white, 1/3 black, and 1/3 Hispanic was the ideal mix of kids in schools. Then they changed the boundary policy without alerting the public about the last minute changes. It was an unscrupulous process. Talk about an agenda...a busing agenda.

Yeah, you've said all this before like a thousand times. You need a new hobby.

Getting the truth out there about MCPS is my hobby, just like obfuscating it is yours

I'm trying to have a conversation about the deceitful process by which the BOE made diversity the top priority in the boundary policy and you're posting memes. If that's your only rebuttal, then great.

But you're really not "trying to have a conversation." You're trying to prevent the original conversation that OP started from continuing. OP had some specific questions about the new school in Clarksburg, which other posters tried to answer. Why don't you ever start your own threads, if you really want to have a rehash of the former board members' comments in 2018?

The shady boundary policy revision is appropriate in any discussion about school boundaries and especially in one about Clarksburg where the BOE tested the new policy by busing quite a few kids quite a long way from home to balance demographics.

[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:Back in 2018 the BOE made demographics/diversity the top factor in the boundary policy. So who knows what they'll do?

No, they didn't, don't hijack this thread.

They certainly did. And just because you don't want to talk about the boundary policy in a thread about [checks thread title] elementary school boundary studies doesn't make it hijacking. Everyone needs to know what the BOE did so they can make informed decisions. I know you'd prefer that people were kept in the dark but we are done tolerating MCPS opacity.

It's fine to talk about the boundary policy, but let's be clear that you have an agenda here, and you are sharing your apparently very strong opinions.

If people are interested in what the policy actually says, it would be wise to read the documents themselves, not rely on DCUM commenters' interpretations.

Policy FAA
https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/policy/detail.aspx?recID=128&policyID=FAA§ionID=6

Regulation FAA-RA
https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/policy/detail.aspx?recID=129&policyID=FAA-RA§ionID=6

These aren't my interpretations. I'm simply parroting what the BOE members who pushed for busing said in the meetings. They said things like diversity should be the most important factor because they thought schools were segregated. They said it was time for kids in the W schools to move. They said that 1/3 white, 1/3 black, and 1/3 Hispanic was the ideal mix of kids in schools. Then they changed the boundary policy without alerting the public about the last minute changes. It was an unscrupulous process. Talk about an agenda...a busing agenda.

Yeah, you've said all this before like a thousand times. You need a new hobby.

Getting the truth out there about MCPS is my hobby, just like obfuscating it is yours

I'm trying to have a conversation about the deceitful process by which the BOE made diversity the top priority in the boundary policy and you're posting memes. If that's your only rebuttal, then great.

But you're really not "trying to have a conversation." You're trying to prevent the original conversation that OP started from continuing. OP had some specific questions about the new school in Clarksburg, which other posters tried to answer. Why don't you ever start your own threads, if you really want to have a rehash of the former board members' comments in 2018?

She won't start a new thread because no one would participate.

+100, the idea that this poster is trying to have a conversation about anything school boundary related is laughable. She hijacks and torpedos every thread that even remotely touches on the issue.

It's almost like people should be made aware of the devious process by which some unscrupulous BOE members changed the boundary policy and the contents of those changes. Too many people still think where they live is the most important factor in determining which schools their kids will attend. Nope. Demographics (skin color and income) is the most important factor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Back in 2018 the BOE made demographics/diversity the top factor in the boundary policy. So who knows what they'll do?

No, they didn't, don't hijack this thread.

They certainly did. And just because you don't want to talk about the boundary policy in a thread about [checks thread title] elementary school boundary studies doesn't make it hijacking. Everyone needs to know what the BOE did so they can make informed decisions. I know you'd prefer that people were kept in the dark but we are done tolerating MCPS opacity.

It's fine to talk about the boundary policy, but let's be clear that you have an agenda here, and you are sharing your apparently very strong opinions.

If people are interested in what the policy actually says, it would be wise to read the documents themselves, not rely on DCUM commenters' interpretations.

Policy FAA
https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/policy/detail.aspx?recID=128&policyID=FAA§ionID=6

Regulation FAA-RA
https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/policy/detail.aspx?recID=129&policyID=FAA-RA§ionID=6

These aren't my interpretations. I'm simply parroting what the BOE members who pushed for busing said in the meetings. They said things like diversity should be the most important factor because they thought schools were segregated. They said it was time for kids in the W schools to move. They said that 1/3 white, 1/3 black, and 1/3 Hispanic was the ideal mix of kids in schools. Then they changed the boundary policy without alerting the public about the last minute changes. It was an unscrupulous process. Talk about an agenda...a busing agenda.

Yeah, you've said all this before like a thousand times. You need a new hobby.

Getting the truth out there about MCPS is my hobby, just like obfuscating it is yours

I'm trying to have a conversation about the deceitful process by which the BOE made diversity the top priority in the boundary policy and you're posting memes. If that's your only rebuttal, then great.

But you're really not "trying to have a conversation." You're trying to prevent the original conversation that OP started from continuing. OP had some specific questions about the new school in Clarksburg, which other posters tried to answer. Why don't you ever start your own threads, if you really want to have a rehash of the former board members' comments in 2018?

She won't start a new thread because no one would participate.

You wokes are participating in this discussion and you live on the other side of the county. There's no way you could resist a new boundary thread.

[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:Back in 2018 the BOE made demographics/diversity the top factor in the boundary policy. So who knows what they'll do?

No, they didn't, don't hijack this thread.

They certainly did. And just because you don't want to talk about the boundary policy in a thread about [checks thread title] elementary school boundary studies doesn't make it hijacking. Everyone needs to know what the BOE did so they can make informed decisions. I know you'd prefer that people were kept in the dark but we are done tolerating MCPS opacity.

It's fine to talk about the boundary policy, but let's be clear that you have an agenda here, and you are sharing your apparently very strong opinions.

If people are interested in what the policy actually says, it would be wise to read the documents themselves, not rely on DCUM commenters' interpretations.

Policy FAA
https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/policy/detail.aspx?recID=128&policyID=FAA§ionID=6

Regulation FAA-RA
https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/policy/detail.aspx?recID=129&policyID=FAA-RA§ionID=6

These aren't my interpretations. I'm simply parroting what the BOE members who pushed for busing said in the meetings. They said things like diversity should be the most important factor because they thought schools were segregated. They said it was time for kids in the W schools to move. They said that 1/3 white, 1/3 black, and 1/3 Hispanic was the ideal mix of kids in schools. Then they changed the boundary policy without alerting the public about the last minute changes. It was an unscrupulous process. Talk about an agenda...a busing agenda.

Yeah, you've said all this before like a thousand times. You need a new hobby.

Getting the truth out there about MCPS is my hobby, just like obfuscating it is yours

I'm trying to have a conversation about the deceitful process by which the BOE made diversity the top priority in the boundary policy and you're posting memes. If that's your only rebuttal, then great.

But you're really not "trying to have a conversation." You're trying to prevent the original conversation that OP started from continuing. OP had some specific questions about the new school in Clarksburg, which other posters tried to answer. Why don't you ever start your own threads, if you really want to have a rehash of the former board members' comments in 2018?

She won't start a new thread because no one would participate.

You wokes are participating in this discussion and you live on the other side of the county. There's no way you could resist a new boundary thread.

Do you live in Clarksburg?