How Come BOE Candidate Stephen Austin Won’t Say What His Employment Is??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

A huge red flag for me is that it appears that the current Board of Education and sitting politicians do not want anybody on the board who does not go with the flow and does not challenge them. This to me is a very big deal. I have always always said that there should always be checks and balances and political organizations. It should never be ruled by a single party or only by like minds. There should be diversity in thought and different points of view.

I don't see the other 12 at-large candidates as being of like mind. If you read through their responses, you'll find a good deal of diversity of thought.

I think they’re all attacking him because he has the greatest chances of winning.

One political analyst wrote his thoughts on why everyone is going after Austin:
https://aminerdetail.com/StephenAustin

I've never heard of this guy (Miner), but his explanation does sound plausible.

LOL yea, that wasn't biased at all.

If I was one of the other BOE candidates, I would be insulted by this article because it assumes that the rest of the BOE candidates can be controlled by the BOE, and only Austin can stand up to the rest of the BOE.

IMO, it's assumptions like these that make people not want to vote for him.

It’s as biased as a Bethesda beat piece was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is a huge red flag for me as well. Despite having what appears to be a pretty flexible job, Austin had basically not stepped foot in a MCPS school - even his own children's school - until MCPS started talking about adjusting adjacent school boundaries in order to alleviate overcrowding and address underutilization of facilities.

Anyone with a map want to clue me in on what Austin's so worried about? Is his house right on a border or something?

Deep concern that someone will force their children onto buses to White Oak at gunpoint, or at least that's what some of his supporters I've talked to are worried about.

Also, property values.

Can you guarantee that his kids, and thousands of other children zoned for top schools won’t be forced to attend (perhaps adjacent) lower performing schools to help boost their performance? Oh, and also lower their FARMS number so that MCPS looks better politically? A more effective way to reduce school overcrowding is slow down the rate of residential development. But we can’t have that because it could lead to lower tax revenue for the county.

Stop and think about what you're asking. Even if MCPS reverted back to the old pre-"especially" FAA policy (seemingly Mr. Austin's #1 priority), there would be no "guarantee" of any such thing. Nor should or would any MCPS policy consider some schools to be "top schools" and therefore have special rules or regulations apply to them.

+1 looking at adjacent clusters to reduce over crowding has nothing to do with the "especially" word in the FAA policy. And IMO, it would be irresponsible of the BOE to NOT look at adjacent clusters that are under capacity when redrawing boundaries.

Okay. So eliminate economic diversity as a factor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is a huge red flag for me as well. Despite having what appears to be a pretty flexible job, Austin had basically not stepped foot in a MCPS school - even his own children's school - until MCPS started talking about adjusting adjacent school boundaries in order to alleviate overcrowding and address underutilization of facilities.

Anyone with a map want to clue me in on what Austin's so worried about? Is his house right on a border or something?

Deep concern that someone will force their children onto buses to White Oak at gunpoint, or at least that's what some of his supporters I've talked to are worried about.

Also, property values.

Can you guarantee that his kids, and thousands of other children zoned for top schools won’t be forced to attend (perhaps adjacent) lower performing schools to help boost their performance? Oh, and also lower their FARMS number so that MCPS looks better politically? A more effective way to reduce school overcrowding is slow down the rate of residential development. But we can’t have that because it could lead to lower tax revenue for the county.

Stop and think about what you're asking. Even if MCPS reverted back to the old pre-"especially" FAA policy (seemingly Mr. Austin's #1 priority), there would be no "guarantee" of any such thing. Nor should or would any MCPS policy consider some schools to be "top schools" and therefore have special rules or regulations apply to them.

+1 looking at adjacent clusters to reduce over crowding has nothing to do with the "especially" word in the FAA policy. And IMO, it would be irresponsible of the BOE to NOT look at adjacent clusters that are under capacity when redrawing boundaries.

So which is the top priority, overcrowding or economic diversity? Seems to me the latter is the top one for this BOE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is a huge red flag for me as well. Despite having what appears to be a pretty flexible job, Austin had basically not stepped foot in a MCPS school - even his own children's school - until MCPS started talking about adjusting adjacent school boundaries in order to alleviate overcrowding and address underutilization of facilities.

Anyone with a map want to clue me in on what Austin's so worried about? Is his house right on a border or something?

Deep concern that someone will force their children onto buses to White Oak at gunpoint, or at least that's what some of his supporters I've talked to are worried about.

Also, property values.

Can you guarantee that his kids, and thousands of other children zoned for top schools won’t be forced to attend (perhaps adjacent) lower performing schools to help boost their performance? Oh, and also lower their FARMS number so that MCPS looks better politically? A more effective way to reduce school overcrowding is slow down the rate of residential development. But we can’t have that because it could lead to lower tax revenue for the county.

Stop and think about what you're asking. Even if MCPS reverted back to the old pre-"especially" FAA policy (seemingly Mr. Austin's #1 priority), there would be no "guarantee" of any such thing. Nor should or would any MCPS policy consider some schools to be "top schools" and therefore have special rules or regulations apply to them.

+1 looking at adjacent clusters to reduce over crowding has nothing to do with the "especially" word in the FAA policy. And IMO, it would be irresponsible of the BOE to NOT look at adjacent clusters that are under capacity when redrawing boundaries.

So which is the top priority, overcrowding or economic diversity? Seems to me the latter is the top one for this BOE.

And that's exactly why we need new leadership at the BOE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is a huge red flag for me as well. Despite having what appears to be a pretty flexible job, Austin had basically not stepped foot in a MCPS school - even his own children's school - until MCPS started talking about adjusting adjacent school boundaries in order to alleviate overcrowding and address underutilization of facilities.

Anyone with a map want to clue me in on what Austin's so worried about? Is his house right on a border or something?

Deep concern that someone will force their children onto buses to White Oak at gunpoint, or at least that's what some of his supporters I've talked to are worried about.

Also, property values.

Can you guarantee that his kids, and thousands of other children zoned for top schools won’t be forced to attend (perhaps adjacent) lower performing schools to help boost their performance? Oh, and also lower their FARMS number so that MCPS looks better politically? A more effective way to reduce school overcrowding is slow down the rate of residential development. But we can’t have that because it could lead to lower tax revenue for the county.

Stop and think about what you're asking. Even if MCPS reverted back to the old pre-"especially" FAA policy (seemingly Mr. Austin's #1 priority), there would be no "guarantee" of any such thing. Nor should or would any MCPS policy consider some schools to be "top schools" and therefore have special rules or regulations apply to them.

+1 looking at adjacent clusters to reduce over crowding has nothing to do with the "especially" word in the FAA policy. And IMO, it would be irresponsible of the BOE to NOT look at adjacent clusters that are under capacity when redrawing boundaries.

Okay. So eliminate economic diversity as a factor.

Demographic characteristics has been one of the four factors for decades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But Ithought that he supports good schools for ALL children?

He does, but you don’t risk pulling top performing students down to advance an economic diversity agenda. That’s just stupid.

It’s kinda like telling a student who works really hard that she doesn’t need so many As, so the school is going to take some of them and give them to someone who needs them more.

Before anyone attacks me, please guarantee that top performing students won’t be sent to an adjacent lower performing school to boost that school’s performance or lower its FARM score.

Why would you assume that attending a more economically diverse school would "pull to performers down."

We're not talking about moving kids from Whitman to Kennedy. We're talking about adjacent zones, so maybe Whitman to BCC (not really, but as an example). Are the Whitman kids' academic credentials so fragile that a 10% swing in FARMS rate would erode them entirely?

Do you know if this is enough to achieve the 10000 over enrollment -> 10000 under enrollment problem?

DP.. no one said it is enough, but it should definitely be looked at. It's common sense to redraw a boundary that includes the under capacity school right next to the over capacity school. Your fear against the word "especially" in the FAA policy has caused you to disregard some common sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is a huge red flag for me as well. Despite having what appears to be a pretty flexible job, Austin had basically not stepped foot in a MCPS school - even his own children's school - until MCPS started talking about adjusting adjacent school boundaries in order to alleviate overcrowding and address underutilization of facilities.

Anyone with a map want to clue me in on what Austin's so worried about? Is his house right on a border or something?

Deep concern that someone will force their children onto buses to White Oak at gunpoint, or at least that's what some of his supporters I've talked to are worried about.

Also, property values.

Can you guarantee that his kids, and thousands of other children zoned for top schools won’t be forced to attend (perhaps adjacent) lower performing schools to help boost their performance? Oh, and also lower their FARMS number so that MCPS looks better politically? A more effective way to reduce school overcrowding is slow down the rate of residential development. But we can’t have that because it could lead to lower tax revenue for the county.

Stop and think about what you're asking. Even if MCPS reverted back to the old pre-"especially" FAA policy (seemingly Mr. Austin's #1 priority), there would be no "guarantee" of any such thing. Nor should or would any MCPS policy consider some schools to be "top schools" and therefore have special rules or regulations apply to them.

+1 looking at adjacent clusters to reduce over crowding has nothing to do with the "especially" word in the FAA policy. And IMO, it would be irresponsible of the BOE to NOT look at adjacent clusters that are under capacity when redrawing boundaries.

So which is the top priority, overcrowding or economic diversity? Seems to me the latter is the top one for this BOE.

Based on what? The Upcounty study *did not* select the option which most favored economic diversity. Because *there were other factors which outweighed it*.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is a huge red flag for me as well. Despite having what appears to be a pretty flexible job, Austin had basically not stepped foot in a MCPS school - even his own children's school - until MCPS started talking about adjusting adjacent school boundaries in order to alleviate overcrowding and address underutilization of facilities.

Anyone with a map want to clue me in on what Austin's so worried about? Is his house right on a border or something?

Deep concern that someone will force their children onto buses to White Oak at gunpoint, or at least that's what some of his supporters I've talked to are worried about.

Also, property values.

Can you guarantee that his kids, and thousands of other children zoned for top schools won’t be forced to attend (perhaps adjacent) lower performing schools to help boost their performance? Oh, and also lower their FARMS number so that MCPS looks better politically? A more effective way to reduce school overcrowding is slow down the rate of residential development. But we can’t have that because it could lead to lower tax revenue for the county.

Stop and think about what you're asking. Even if MCPS reverted back to the old pre-"especially" FAA policy (seemingly Mr. Austin's #1 priority), there would be no "guarantee" of any such thing. Nor should or would any MCPS policy consider some schools to be "top schools" and therefore have special rules or regulations apply to them.

+1 looking at adjacent clusters to reduce over crowding has nothing to do with the "especially" word in the FAA policy. And IMO, it would be irresponsible of the BOE to NOT look at adjacent clusters that are under capacity when redrawing boundaries.

So which is the top priority, overcrowding or economic diversity? Seems to me the latter is the top one for this BOE.

Nope, if you read the memo by Jack Smith, he stated that all three were important, and the option he chose for upcounty boundary changes reflect that. Seems to me you people are ignoring the fact that the most diverse option was not chosen because it went against the proximity factor.

Once again, it is nearly impossible to give equal weight to all four factors, but that doesn't mean they completely disregard any of the four.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is a huge red flag for me as well. Despite having what appears to be a pretty flexible job, Austin had basically not stepped foot in a MCPS school - even his own children's school - until MCPS started talking about adjusting adjacent school boundaries in order to alleviate overcrowding and address underutilization of facilities.

Anyone with a map want to clue me in on what Austin's so worried about? Is his house right on a border or something?

Deep concern that someone will force their children onto buses to White Oak at gunpoint, or at least that's what some of his supporters I've talked to are worried about.

Also, property values.

Can you guarantee that his kids, and thousands of other children zoned for top schools won’t be forced to attend (perhaps adjacent) lower performing schools to help boost their performance? Oh, and also lower their FARMS number so that MCPS looks better politically? A more effective way to reduce school overcrowding is slow down the rate of residential development. But we can’t have that because it could lead to lower tax revenue for the county.

Stop and think about what you're asking. Even if MCPS reverted back to the old pre-"especially" FAA policy (seemingly Mr. Austin's #1 priority), there would be no "guarantee" of any such thing. Nor should or would any MCPS policy consider some schools to be "top schools" and therefore have special rules or regulations apply to them.

+1 looking at adjacent clusters to reduce over crowding has nothing to do with the "especially" word in the FAA policy. And IMO, it would be irresponsible of the BOE to NOT look at adjacent clusters that are under capacity when redrawing boundaries.

So which is the top priority, overcrowding or economic diversity? Seems to me the latter is the top one for this BOE.

And that's exactly why we need new leadership at the BOE.

Everyone running for the at-large seat is new (i.e. not an incumbent) so by definition, wouldn't electing ANY of the 13 candidates be bringing in new leadership?

I have personally seen Sunil Dasgupta show leadership by:
- advocating to MCPS and the BoE for an increase in mental health counselors in MCPS (currently only 5 - he requested 100+)
- setting up FREE mental health first aid trainings to all members of the MCPS communit
-organizing the MCCPTA Health and Wellness fair 3 years in a row which brought in experts in the mental health field to educate families, students, teachers, and administrators on important mental health issues
- understanding and explaining the challenges and changes in teaching methodology needed for MCPS to succeed in online learning going forward
- advocating for more transparency on all BoE processes and policies

Any candidate who is running for BoE should show that they have past leadership experience, past advocacy experience, and a deep understanding of the issues at hand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is a huge red flag for me as well. Despite having what appears to be a pretty flexible job, Austin had basically not stepped foot in a MCPS school - even his own children's school - until MCPS started talking about adjusting adjacent school boundaries in order to alleviate overcrowding and address underutilization of facilities.

Anyone with a map want to clue me in on what Austin's so worried about? Is his house right on a border or something?

Deep concern that someone will force their children onto buses to White Oak at gunpoint, or at least that's what some of his supporters I've talked to are worried about.

Also, property values.

Can you guarantee that his kids, and thousands of other children zoned for top schools won’t be forced to attend (perhaps adjacent) lower performing schools to help boost their performance? Oh, and also lower their FARMS number so that MCPS looks better politically? A more effective way to reduce school overcrowding is slow down the rate of residential development. But we can’t have that because it could lead to lower tax revenue for the county.

Stop and think about what you're asking. Even if MCPS reverted back to the old pre-"especially" FAA policy (seemingly Mr. Austin's #1 priority), there would be no "guarantee" of any such thing. Nor should or would any MCPS policy consider some schools to be "top schools" and therefore have special rules or regulations apply to them.

+1 looking at adjacent clusters to reduce over crowding has nothing to do with the "especially" word in the FAA policy. And IMO, it would be irresponsible of the BOE to NOT look at adjacent clusters that are under capacity when redrawing boundaries.

So which is the top priority, overcrowding or economic diversity? Seems to me the latter is the top one for this BOE.

Nope, if you read the memo by Jack Smith, he stated that all three were important, and the option he chose for upcounty boundary changes reflect that. Seems to me you people are ignoring the fact that the most diverse option was not chosen because it went against the proximity factor.

Once again, it is nearly impossible to give equal weight to all four factors, but that doesn't mean they completely disregard any of the four.

So why is it that economic diversity seems to be the primary factor ("especially") that the current BOE is pushing? It has also disregarded proximity at countless BOE meetings where hundreds of parents spoke about the importance of attending neighborhood schools.

[Anonymous]

I feel like a pawn in this Board of Education race. I am a Latina woman and my kids are in mcps. The implication that white and Asian children are the desired races with the desired higher test scores stings. One side feels that by mixing and moving white and Asian children into mostly minority schools will fix the problem. Test scores will rise! Money is going to come in from those families and even things out. It’s not that easy. The other side does not want to deal with the real issues that come with lower ses families (The majority being Latino and black).

I don’t know the ins and outs and my ideas don’t take into account the complexity of these issues. I would rather instead of moving based on race and test scores* that more funding is allocated to lower performing schools. I can only speak to the issues within the Latin community and a lot of it is situational because the parents lack education themselves so they are unable to help their own children with school. I wish one of the resources was to even have Night classes to the parents so they could be better equipped to help their children. Have more accessibility to the teachers and administration at their own schools including hiring more staff who speak multiple languages to assist not just the Spanish-speaking community but many other minority communities. If you want children to succeed in schools you need families who are invested in those schools and who care about what is happening in those schools which means a greater community involvement. I think my ideas And how I feel will be flamed by dcum but I feel like I have insight not only to the Latin community but a point of view and experienced that the majority of people here don’t have.

(I think shifting boundaries to help overcrowded schools and under crowded schools is a good idea.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

A huge red flag for me is that it appears that the current Board of Education and sitting politicians do not want anybody on the board who does not go with the flow and does not challenge them. This to me is a very big deal. I have always always said that there should always be checks and balances and political organizations. It should never be ruled by a single party or only by like minds. There should be diversity in thought and different points of view.

I don't see the other 12 at-large candidates as being of like mind. If you read through their responses, you'll find a good deal of diversity of thought.

I think they’re all attacking him because he has the greatest chances of winning.

One political analyst wrote his thoughts on why everyone is going after Austin:
https://aminerdetail.com/StephenAustin

I've never heard of this guy (Miner), but his explanation does sound plausible.

Ryan Miner is Stephen Austin’s Sean Hannity. Don’t believe me? Take a look at his podcasts. Miner throws verbal bouquets at his fair-haired boy, commiserates with Austin about the “unfair” and “mean” things people have said about him, and never asks the basic questions any decent interviewer would ask a candidate. He lets Austin skate by on vague references about being “a finance guy” who worked for “a couple of hedge funds.” He gives Austin a pass on details about how he will work his financial wizardry. Miner might just as well take a salary as Austin’s PR guy. At least that would be more intellectually honest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is a huge red flag for me as well. Despite having what appears to be a pretty flexible job, Austin had basically not stepped foot in a MCPS school - even his own children's school - until MCPS started talking about adjusting adjacent school boundaries in order to alleviate overcrowding and address underutilization of facilities.

Anyone with a map want to clue me in on what Austin's so worried about? Is his house right on a border or something?

Deep concern that someone will force their children onto buses to White Oak at gunpoint, or at least that's what some of his supporters I've talked to are worried about.

Also, property values.

Can you guarantee that his kids, and thousands of other children zoned for top schools won’t be forced to attend (perhaps adjacent) lower performing schools to help boost their performance? Oh, and also lower their FARMS number so that MCPS looks better politically? A more effective way to reduce school overcrowding is slow down the rate of residential development. But we can’t have that because it could lead to lower tax revenue for the county.

Stop and think about what you're asking. Even if MCPS reverted back to the old pre-"especially" FAA policy (seemingly Mr. Austin's #1 priority), there would be no "guarantee" of any such thing. Nor should or would any MCPS policy consider some schools to be "top schools" and therefore have special rules or regulations apply to them.

+1 looking at adjacent clusters to reduce over crowding has nothing to do with the "especially" word in the FAA policy. And IMO, it would be irresponsible of the BOE to NOT look at adjacent clusters that are under capacity when redrawing boundaries.

So which is the top priority, overcrowding or economic diversity? Seems to me the latter is the top one for this BOE.

Nope, if you read the memo by Jack Smith, he stated that all three were important, and the option he chose for upcounty boundary changes reflect that. Seems to me you people are ignoring the fact that the most diverse option was not chosen because it went against the proximity factor.

Once again, it is nearly impossible to give equal weight to all four factors, but that doesn't mean they completely disregard any of the four.

So why is it that economic diversity seems to be the primary factor ("especially") that the current BOE is pushing? It has also disregarded proximity at countless BOE meetings where hundreds of parents spoke about the importance of attending neighborhood schools.

I know multiple families whose children attend an elementary school that is farther away than 5 other elementary schools, as well as a middle school and high school that are both farther away than the geographically closest middle school and high school. Yet these families all support Stephen Austin - so I don't buy the argument about "neigbhorhood" schools - ideally, these families would be PRO boundary analysis to help get them to a geographically closer school if what they really want is neighborhood schools...

[Anonymous]

Isn't the whole point of public schools that kids go to schools in their neighborhood? Why are people fighting that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I feel like a pawn in this Board of Education race. I am a Latina woman and my kids are in mcps. The implication that white and Asian children are the desired races with the desired higher test scores stings. One side feels that by mixing and moving white and Asian children into mostly minority schools will fix the problem. Test scores will rise! Money is going to come in from those families and even things out. It’s not that easy. The other side does not want to deal with the real issues that come with lower ses families (The majority being Latino and black).

I don’t know the ins and outs and my ideas don’t take into account the complexity of these issues. I would rather instead of moving based on race and test scores* that more funding is allocated to lower performing schools. I can only speak to the issues within the Latin community and a lot of it is situational because the parents lack education themselves so they are unable to help their own children with school. I wish one of the resources was to even have Night classes to the parents so they could be better equipped to help their children. Have more accessibility to the teachers and administration at their own schools including hiring more staff who speak multiple languages to assist not just the Spanish-speaking community but many other minority communities. If you want children to succeed in schools you need families who are invested in those schools and who care about what is happening in those schools which means a greater community involvement. I think my ideas And how I feel will be flamed by dcum but I feel like I have insight not only to the Latin community but a point of view and experienced that the majority of people here don’t have.

(I think shifting boundaries to help overcrowded schools and under crowded schools is a good idea.)

This is exactly what many of us support. Enrichment and funding at "lower performing" schools instead of doing a redistricting to hide the problems.