BOE - who are people voting for?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

+1 I agree with you, especially about the diversity and group think. There was a graphic on his page, published from another group where all of the minorities have their faces crossed out. I don’t think, I hope, it wasn’t purposeful it was eye-opening to see that the only people that certain powerful groups, agree with are white voices who claim to speak for minorities. All of the brown and Muslim and Hispanic candidates were Xed out and that was disappointing to see.
I am going to watch the forum when he publishes it.

I don't know the random person who posted that graphic, and I think it was wrong-headed and ugly. However, the bolded just isn't true. Montoya wasn't crossed out. Mui wasn't crossed out. Again, I don't agree with the decision to create a graphic with *anyone's* names crossed out, but at least let's have a discussion based on facts and that doesn't include AAPI erasure.

Kim is also not crossed out. They didn't post District 4, where, folliwing the same general line, it probably was Mandel crossed out and not Evans. Especially if that was the case, but even if not, the poster appears to be insinuating some racism that just wasn't there.

[Anonymous]

Not sure if it comes out in the videos of the meet and greets but a lot of the answers put out by the candidates were the answers individual parents wanted ignoring the larger picture for the school system.

There was a section where Darnestown parents were justifiably upset with any change in the Autism program at their school. Almost all of the school board candidates said they would make no changes. 2-3 of the candidates said the program wasn't leaving the school but that the program needed to be more available to other parts of the country.

One answer said that the travel time was too long for much of the county and a parent replied that they were ok with the travel time.

You couldn't tell from the answers whether the other candidates didn't want to give the hard answer or they just didn't understand it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What happened to Laura Stewart? She’s been MIA at the in-person forums and her social media is quiet other than a lonely tweet about her endorsements.

Probably senses that she’s locked in for the general election so doesn’t want to do or say anything to make the primary competitive. Pragmatic but not the change agent I was hoping to see.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:VOTE THE INCUMBENTS OUT! They destroyed MCPS.

Another "good-old-days" comment.

MCPS is a massive school system with a very diverse population. The recent school board forum was all "put more police in the schools" "lock everyone up who disobeys" and "too much pot in the schools".

Are none of the current candidates old enough to remember the 80s?
We did all that and had that smell. none of the "law and order" items fixed anything other than creating a group of youth who became unemployable for life.

They could care less about making things better. Their complaints are just grandstanding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:VOTE THE INCUMBENTS OUT! They destroyed MCPS.

Another "good-old-days" comment.

MCPS is a massive school system with a very diverse population. The recent school board forum was all "put more police in the schools" "lock everyone up who disobeys" and "too much pot in the schools".

Are none of the current candidates old enough to remember the 80s?
We did all that and had that smell. none of the "law and order" items fixed anything other than creating a group of youth who became unemployable for life.

Keep smoking your pot and stand on the sidelines then while the rest of us get to the business of cleaning up MCPS. We are not ok with drug use and distribution flowing freely in our schools. Nor are we ok with guns, knives and fights going unchecked. People are getting hurt and harmed and kids are afraid to go to school. It's not ok and it's not normal. We let you convince us of otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Principals also wanted SROs and they were removed. ALL candidates want them back as do MANY families. Many candidates discussed how SROs build relationships. When pressed, only Harris and Evans (current board members) said they don’t want them back (despite parents and principals request for them). The incumbents will not admit how unsafe the high schools are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:VOTE THE INCUMBENTS OUT! They destroyed MCPS.

Another "good-old-days" comment.

MCPS is a massive school system with a very diverse population. The recent school board forum was all "put more police in the schools" "lock everyone up who disobeys" and "too much pot in the schools".

Are none of the current candidates old enough to remember the 80s?
We did all that and had that smell. none of the "law and order" items fixed anything other than creating a group of youth who became unemployable for life.

Keep smoking your pot and stand on the sidelines then while the rest of us get to the business of cleaning up MCPS. We are not ok with drug use and distribution flowing freely in our schools. Nor are we ok with guns, knives and fights going unchecked. People are getting hurt and harmed and kids are afraid to go to school. It's not ok and it's not normal. We let you convince us of otherwise.

This "we" vs "you" rhetoric is unhelpful - if your goal is improving MCPS for all kids. If your goal is trying to divide people into Us and Them, it might be effective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Principals also wanted SROs and they were removed. ALL candidates want them back as do MANY families. Many candidates discussed how SROs build relationships. When pressed, only Harris and Evans (current board members) said they don’t want them back (despite parents and principals request for them). The incumbents will not admit how unsafe the high schools are.

Can anyone who has listened to the forum give us a quick and unbiased take on the candidate positions on SROs. Basically, who wants them back unarmed, who wants them back armed, and who doesn't seem to want them back?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:VOTE THE INCUMBENTS OUT! They destroyed MCPS.

Another "good-old-days" comment.

MCPS is a massive school system with a very diverse population. The recent school board forum was all "put more police in the schools" "lock everyone up who disobeys" and "too much pot in the schools".

Are none of the current candidates old enough to remember the 80s?
We did all that and had that smell. none of the "law and order" items fixed anything other than creating a group of youth who became unemployable for life.

Keep smoking your pot and stand on the sidelines then while the rest of us get to the business of cleaning up MCPS. We are not ok with drug use and distribution flowing freely in our schools. Nor are we ok with guns, knives and fights going unchecked. People are getting hurt and harmed and kids are afraid to go to school. It's not ok and it's not normal. We let you convince us of otherwise.

This "we" vs "you" rhetoric is unhelpful - if your goal is improving MCPS for all kids. If your goal is trying to divide people into Us and Them, it might be effective.

I did not divide us into "we" vs "you." The PP did when they tried to shame people for speaking out against the current state by claiming that drug use in schools was common and normal in the 80s and that those of us who are shocked and dismayed by the freeflow of marijuana, fentanyl, and vaping are somehow misguided and overly sensitive.

If your goal is improving MCPS for all kids, help come up with solutions instead of trying to scold people for speaking out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Principals also wanted SROs and they were removed. ALL candidates want them back as do MANY families. Many candidates discussed how SROs build relationships. When pressed, only Harris and Evans (current board members) said they don’t want them back (despite parents and principals request for them). The incumbents will not admit how unsafe the high schools are.

Can anyone who has listened to the forum give us a quick and unbiased take on the candidate positions on SROs. Basically, who wants them back unarmed, who wants them back armed, and who doesn't seem to want them back?

That level of specificity was not discussed. It was just do you or do you not want SROs back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Principals also wanted SROs and they were removed. ALL candidates want them back as do MANY families. Many candidates discussed how SROs build relationships. When pressed, only Harris and Evans (current board members) said they don’t want them back (despite parents and principals request for them). The incumbents will not admit how unsafe the high schools are.

Can anyone who has listened to the forum give us a quick and unbiased take on the candidate positions on SROs. Basically, who wants them back unarmed, who wants them back armed, and who doesn't seem to want them back?

That level of specificity was not discussed. It was just do you or do you not want SROs back.

That's a problem with these large candidate forums. You get a lot of quick little answers but no specifics, no follow ups.

[Anonymous]

Brown Muslim here. Moms4Liberty is not a hate group and I’ve met many of them. They are very nice individuals who support our values. They have no issues with our religion or skin color. They have been smeared unjustly by their political opponents and we all see it. The lies won’t work anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Principals also wanted SROs and they were removed. ALL candidates want them back as do MANY families. Many candidates discussed how SROs build relationships. When pressed, only Harris and Evans (current board members) said they don’t want them back (despite parents and principals request for them). The incumbents will not admit how unsafe the high schools are.

Can anyone who has listened to the forum give us a quick and unbiased take on the candidate positions on SROs. Basically, who wants them back unarmed, who wants them back armed, and who doesn't seem to want them back?

That level of specificity was not discussed. It was just do you or do you not want SROs back.

So for the yes/no section that is correct.

However, the first question after introductions in the forum was about: “School safety, SROs in schools, and what specific changes you will implement if elected to improve school safety”

The SRO model (formerly used) and CEO model (currently used) both involve armed police officers. CEOs are more reactive to incidents primarily and cover the entire cluster whereas SROs are stationed inside the schools where it’s easier to build relationships with the community.

[Anonymous]

MCPS has dealt with numerous bomb threats sent to schools, the arrest of a student with a loaded handgun at Walter Johnson High School in Bethesda, hate-based graffiti and the breakout of fights. In another incident this school year, a was student arrested with a loaded ghost gun at Gaithersburg High School. Do not vote for the same BOE members.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Brown Muslim here. Moms4Liberty is not a hate group and I’ve met many of them. They are very nice individuals who support our values. They have no issues with our religion or skin color. They have been smeared unjustly by their political opponents and we all see it. The lies won’t work anymore.

Many "browns" or "blacks" (why do we call people this way?) humans do not trust the liberals and also tend to have "more conservative" values. Can see why people are seeking something different - not found on the current Board or in candidates running.