BOE/MCPS is a mess

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I mean, they did it in the 70s and sold it as a great benefit to black kids even though it was a disaster. And it's exactly what they're proposing to do now despite the fact that 90% of the county doesn't want it. So don't be surprised when they do it again you disgusting sack of sh$t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So you think they only want SOME schools to be more diverse?

I think they have limits as to how far they are willing to bus children. Making a bunch of Black and Latino kids sit on a bus for that long would look terrible politically from all sides, as you well know. But keep fear mongering you disgusting sack.of sh$t.

I mean, they did it in the 70s and sold it as a great benefit to black kids even though it was a disaster. And it's exactly what they're proposing to do now despite the fact that 90% of the county doesn't want it. So don't be surprised when they do it again you disgusting sack of sh$t.

False. There has been no such proposal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So you think they only want SOME schools to be more diverse?

I think they have limits as to how far they are willing to bus children. Making a bunch of Black and Latino kids sit on a bus for that long would look terrible politically from all sides, as you well know. But keep fear mongering you disgusting sack.of sh$t.

I mean, they did it in the 70s and sold it as a great benefit to black kids even though it was a disaster. And it's exactly what they're proposing to do now despite the fact that 90% of the county doesn't want it. So don't be surprised when they do it again you disgusting sack of sh$t.

False. There has been no such proposal.

It's worse than a proposal. It's a done deal. Back in 2018 the BOE altered the boundary policy and made diversity the top factor, even higher than proximity. All that's left to do is the boundary studies and MCPS will have busing. The only way to stop this is to elect BOE members who will comit to changing the boundary policy to align with what the overwhelming majority of people (90% in fact) want which is for proximity to be the top favtor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So you think they only want SOME schools to be more diverse?

I think they have limits as to how far they are willing to bus children. Making a bunch of Black and Latino kids sit on a bus for that long would look terrible politically from all sides, as you well know. But keep fear mongering you disgusting sack.of sh$t.

I mean, they did it in the 70s and sold it as a great benefit to black kids even though it was a disaster. And it's exactly what they're proposing to do now despite the fact that 90% of the county doesn't want it. So don't be surprised when they do it again you disgusting sack of sh$t.

False. There has been no such proposal.

It's worse than a proposal. It's a done deal. Back in 2018 the BOE altered the boundary policy and made diversity the top factor, even higher than proximity. All that's left to do is the boundary studies and MCPS will have busing. The only way to stop this is to elect BOE members who will comit to changing the boundary policy to align with what the overwhelming majority of people (90% in fact) want which is for proximity to be the top favtor.

We already had an election on this and your side lost. As it turns out, an unrepresentative online survey is not a great way to gauge public opinion. Shocking, I know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So you think they only want SOME schools to be more diverse?

I think they have limits as to how far they are willing to bus children. Making a bunch of Black and Latino kids sit on a bus for that long would look terrible politically from all sides, as you well know. But keep fear mongering you disgusting sack.of sh$t.

I mean, they did it in the 70s and sold it as a great benefit to black kids even though it was a disaster. And it's exactly what they're proposing to do now despite the fact that 90% of the county doesn't want it. So don't be surprised when they do it again you disgusting sack of sh$t.

False. There has been no such proposal.

It's worse than a proposal. It's a done deal. Back in 2018 the BOE altered the boundary policy and made diversity the top factor, even higher than proximity. All that's left to do is the boundary studies and MCPS will have busing. The only way to stop this is to elect BOE members who will comit to changing the boundary policy to align with what the overwhelming majority of people (90% in fact) want which is for proximity to be the top favtor.

There have already been boundary studies, and your so-called "done deal" didn't happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So you think they only want SOME schools to be more diverse?

I think they have limits as to how far they are willing to bus children. Making a bunch of Black and Latino kids sit on a bus for that long would look terrible politically from all sides, as you well know. But keep fear mongering you disgusting sack.of sh$t.

I mean, they did it in the 70s and sold it as a great benefit to black kids even though it was a disaster. And it's exactly what they're proposing to do now despite the fact that 90% of the county doesn't want it. So don't be surprised when they do it again you disgusting sack of sh$t.

False. There has been no such proposal.

It's worse than a proposal. It's a done deal. Back in 2018 the BOE altered the boundary policy and made diversity the top factor, even higher than proximity. All that's left to do is the boundary studies and MCPS will have busing. The only way to stop this is to elect BOE members who will comit to changing the boundary policy to align with what the overwhelming majority of people (90% in fact) want which is for proximity to be the top favtor.

We already had an election on this and your side lost. As it turns out, an unrepresentative online survey is not a great way to gauge public opinion. Shocking, I know.

Yes, it is. I'm not the same person you've been arguing with. I never voted on this and the fact that someone out there seems to think the board has a mandate is wrong.

I'm in favor of proximity first, then diversity based on proximity. I don't want the board shuffling my kid around because of skin color. You're just as racist as anyone out there (although you think you're not).

Also, every time I hear someone argue that the survey was unrepresentative, my counter to that is even with a "margin of error" you would still be barking up the wrong tree. Read the room.

This is why I will absolutely never vote for an incumbent from 2018, and will encourage anyone to do likewise. Sure, I may not have the votes the Apple Ballot does, and since District candidates can be voted upon by anyone so the MCEA can just cajole their constituency to "vote Apple Ballot" but if anyone thinks the board is doing a good job, they need to take a deeper look.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, it is. I'm not the same person you've been arguing with. I never voted on this and the fact that someone out there seems to think the board has a mandate is wrong.

I'm in favor of proximity first, then diversity based on proximity. I don't want the board shuffling my kid around because of skin color. You're just as racist as anyone out there (although you think you're not).

Also, every time I hear someone argue that the survey was unrepresentative, my counter to that is even with a "margin of error" you would still be barking up the wrong tree. Read the room.

This is why I will absolutely never vote for an incumbent from 2018, and will encourage anyone to do likewise. Sure, I may not have the votes the Apple Ballot does, and since District candidates can be voted upon by anyone so the MCEA can just cajole their constituency to "vote Apple Ballot" but if anyone thinks the board is doing a good job, they need to take a deeper look.

The Board members have a mandate. It's called "winning the election."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So you think they only want SOME schools to be more diverse?

I think they have limits as to how far they are willing to bus children. Making a bunch of Black and Latino kids sit on a bus for that long would look terrible politically from all sides, as you well know. But keep fear mongering you disgusting sack.of sh$t.

I mean, they did it in the 70s and sold it as a great benefit to black kids even though it was a disaster. And it's exactly what they're proposing to do now despite the fact that 90% of the county doesn't want it. So don't be surprised when they do it again you disgusting sack of sh$t.

False. There has been no such proposal.

It's worse than a proposal. It's a done deal. Back in 2018 the BOE altered the boundary policy and made diversity the top factor, even higher than proximity. All that's left to do is the boundary studies and MCPS will have busing. The only way to stop this is to elect BOE members who will comit to changing the boundary policy to align with what the overwhelming majority of people (90% in fact) want which is for proximity to be the top favtor.

We already had an election on this and your side lost. As it turns out, an unrepresentative online survey is not a great way to gauge public opinion. Shocking, I know.

Yes, it is. I'm not the same person you've been arguing with. I never voted on this and the fact that someone out there seems to think the board has a mandate is wrong.

I'm in favor of proximity first, then diversity based on proximity. I don't want the board shuffling my kid around because of skin color. You're just as racist as anyone out there (although you think you're not).

Also, every time I hear someone argue that the survey was unrepresentative, my counter to that is even with a "margin of error" you would still be barking up the wrong tree. Read the room.

This is why I will absolutely never vote for an incumbent from 2018, and will encourage anyone to do likewise. Sure, I may not have the votes the Apple Ballot does, and since District candidates can be voted upon by anyone so the MCEA can just cajole their constituency to "vote Apple Ballot" but if anyone thinks the board is doing a good job, they need to take a deeper look.

Decades of research show that concentrated poverty in schools hurts children, so it makes sense to consider demographucs in boundary studies. But nobody is proposing "shuffling kids around" every year to balance demographics, and people who fear monger like this are rightfully ignored by the majority of voters. I don't love the Apple Ballot but I'll take it over this garbage any day. The Apple Ballot wins when the only alternatives are nutjobs like you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, it is. I'm not the same person you've been arguing with. I never voted on this and the fact that someone out there seems to think the board has a mandate is wrong.

I'm in favor of proximity first, then diversity based on proximity. I don't want the board shuffling my kid around because of skin color. You're just as racist as anyone out there (although you think you're not).

Also, every time I hear someone argue that the survey was unrepresentative, my counter to that is even with a "margin of error" you would still be barking up the wrong tree. Read the room.

This is why I will absolutely never vote for an incumbent from 2018, and will encourage anyone to do likewise. Sure, I may not have the votes the Apple Ballot does, and since District candidates can be voted upon by anyone so the MCEA can just cajole their constituency to "vote Apple Ballot" but if anyone thinks the board is doing a good job, they need to take a deeper look.

The Board members have a mandate. It's called "winning the election."

I support the board. Diversity is big positive and the boundary study is long overdue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So you think they only want SOME schools to be more diverse?

I think they have limits as to how far they are willing to bus children. Making a bunch of Black and Latino kids sit on a bus for that long would look terrible politically from all sides, as you well know. But keep fear mongering you disgusting sack.of sh$t.

I mean, they did it in the 70s and sold it as a great benefit to black kids even though it was a disaster. And it's exactly what they're proposing to do now despite the fact that 90% of the county doesn't want it. So don't be surprised when they do it again you disgusting sack of sh$t.

False. There has been no such proposal.

It's worse than a proposal. It's a done deal. Back in 2018 the BOE altered the boundary policy and made diversity the top factor, even higher than proximity. All that's left to do is the boundary studies and MCPS will have busing. The only way to stop this is to elect BOE members who will comit to changing the boundary policy to align with what the overwhelming majority of people (90% in fact) want which is for proximity to be the top favtor.

There have already been boundary studies, and your so-called "done deal" didn't happen.

Exactly this. Regardless of whether you think the policy revision was a big improvement, no big deal, or the worst thing ever, the reality is that the new guidance has been followed four times now and it has not resulted in any 1970s-type race- or income-based busing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So you think they only want SOME schools to be more diverse?

I think they have limits as to how far they are willing to bus children. Making a bunch of Black and Latino kids sit on a bus for that long would look terrible politically from all sides, as you well know. But keep fear mongering you disgusting sack.of sh$t.

I mean, they did it in the 70s and sold it as a great benefit to black kids even though it was a disaster. And it's exactly what they're proposing to do now despite the fact that 90% of the county doesn't want it. So don't be surprised when they do it again you disgusting sack of sh$t.

False. There has been no such proposal.

It's worse than a proposal. It's a done deal. Back in 2018 the BOE altered the boundary policy and made diversity the top factor, even higher than proximity. All that's left to do is the boundary studies and MCPS will have busing. The only way to stop this is to elect BOE members who will comit to changing the boundary policy to align with what the overwhelming majority of people (90% in fact) want which is for proximity to be the top favtor.

There have already been boundary studies, and your so-called "done deal" didn't happen.

There's only been one large one and a lot of kids upcounty are now being bused to balance demographics. If the BOE orders a countywide boundary study like they were on track to do before Covid, everyone is going to be bused.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So you think they only want SOME schools to be more diverse?

I think they have limits as to how far they are willing to bus children. Making a bunch of Black and Latino kids sit on a bus for that long would look terrible politically from all sides, as you well know. But keep fear mongering you disgusting sack.of sh$t.

I mean, they did it in the 70s and sold it as a great benefit to black kids even though it was a disaster. And it's exactly what they're proposing to do now despite the fact that 90% of the county doesn't want it. So don't be surprised when they do it again you disgusting sack of sh$t.

False. There has been no such proposal.

It's worse than a proposal. It's a done deal. Back in 2018 the BOE altered the boundary policy and made diversity the top factor, even higher than proximity. All that's left to do is the boundary studies and MCPS will have busing. The only way to stop this is to elect BOE members who will comit to changing the boundary policy to align with what the overwhelming majority of people (90% in fact) want which is for proximity to be the top favtor.

We already had an election on this and your side lost. As it turns out, an unrepresentative online survey is not a great way to gauge public opinion. Shocking, I know.

In other words, the diversity consultant MCPS hired to usher in busing failed miserably in delivering the opinions they were paid to deliver.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It's worse than a proposal. It's a done deal. Back in 2018 the BOE altered the boundary policy and made diversity the top factor, even higher than proximity. All that's left to do is the boundary studies and MCPS will have busing. The only way to stop this is to elect BOE members who will comit to changing the boundary policy to align with what the overwhelming majority of people (90% in fact) want which is for proximity to be the top favtor.

There have already been boundary studies, and your so-called "done deal" didn't happen.

There's only been one large one and a lot of kids upcounty are now being bused to balance demographics. If the BOE orders a countywide boundary study like they were on track to do before Covid, everyone is going to be bused.

I guess the other boundary studies don't support your alarm narrative...

Of course, the Northwest-Seneca Valley-Clarksburg boundary study ALSO doesn't support your alarm narrative.

But why let reality interfere with your hobby of posting alarm narratives on DCUM?

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/planning/boundary.aspx

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So you think they only want SOME schools to be more diverse?

I think they have limits as to how far they are willing to bus children. Making a bunch of Black and Latino kids sit on a bus for that long would look terrible politically from all sides, as you well know. But keep fear mongering you disgusting sack.of sh$t.

I mean, they did it in the 70s and sold it as a great benefit to black kids even though it was a disaster. And it's exactly what they're proposing to do now despite the fact that 90% of the county doesn't want it. So don't be surprised when they do it again you disgusting sack of sh$t.

False. There has been no such proposal.

It's worse than a proposal. It's a done deal. Back in 2018 the BOE altered the boundary policy and made diversity the top factor, even higher than proximity. All that's left to do is the boundary studies and MCPS will have busing. The only way to stop this is to elect BOE members who will comit to changing the boundary policy to align with what the overwhelming majority of people (90% in fact) want which is for proximity to be the top favtor.

We already had an election on this and your side lost. As it turns out, an unrepresentative online survey is not a great way to gauge public opinion. Shocking, I know.

Yes, it is. I'm not the same person you've been arguing with. I never voted on this and the fact that someone out there seems to think the board has a mandate is wrong.

I'm in favor of proximity first, then diversity based on proximity. I don't want the board shuffling my kid around because of skin color. You're just as racist as anyone out there (although you think you're not).

Also, every time I hear someone argue that the survey was unrepresentative, my counter to that is even with a "margin of error" you would still be barking up the wrong tree. Read the room.

This is why I will absolutely never vote for an incumbent from 2018, and will encourage anyone to do likewise. Sure, I may not have the votes the Apple Ballot does, and since District candidates can be voted upon by anyone so the MCEA can just cajole their constituency to "vote Apple Ballot" but if anyone thinks the board is doing a good job, they need to take a deeper look.

Decades of research show that concentrated poverty in schools hurts children, so it makes sense to consider demographucs in boundary studies. But nobody is proposing "shuffling kids around" every year to balance demographics, and people who fear monger like this are rightfully ignored by the majority of voters. I don't love the Apple Ballot but I'll take it over this garbage any day. The Apple Ballot wins when the only alternatives are nutjobs like you.

And decades of research plus ACTUALLY DOING IT in the 1970s show that busing doesn't help these kids one bit. All it does is robs kids of prescious sleep. If you really wanted to help kids, you'd lobby for school to start a lot later. A double digit % improvement can be had by simply starting school 1-2 hours later. But you don't get to play white savior that way so I know that's a no-go for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, it is. I'm not the same person you've been arguing with. I never voted on this and the fact that someone out there seems to think the board has a mandate is wrong.

I'm in favor of proximity first, then diversity based on proximity. I don't want the board shuffling my kid around because of skin color. You're just as racist as anyone out there (although you think you're not).

Also, every time I hear someone argue that the survey was unrepresentative, my counter to that is even with a "margin of error" you would still be barking up the wrong tree. Read the room.

This is why I will absolutely never vote for an incumbent from 2018, and will encourage anyone to do likewise. Sure, I may not have the votes the Apple Ballot does, and since District candidates can be voted upon by anyone so the MCEA can just cajole their constituency to "vote Apple Ballot" but if anyone thinks the board is doing a good job, they need to take a deeper look.

The Board members have a mandate. It's called "winning the election."

I support the board. Diversity is big positive and the boundary study is long overdue.

Ok, so you support busing. Thanks for your honesty. I doubt you have kids though because almost no one with kids wants them moved to a different school based on the color of their skin.