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

[Anonymous]

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

Lots of students don't currently, including kids in my neighborhood. I'd be in favor of looking at school boundaries to adjust for geography and school capacity, but many of the people in my neighborhood are adamantly against the boundary analysis even though the schools we are zoned for are father away than other (more coveted cluster) schools.

[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.

It's not the "primary" factor since, again, they did not choose the option that had the most diversity.

In the countless BOE meetings, from what I have read, BOE stated that proximity is a factor.

I'm all for neighborhood schools where it's possible, and sometimes, the adjacent cluster is closer to a neighborhood than the current cluster they are assigned to. Sometimes, not all.

One of the interesting things to come out of the boundary analysis was that some 30 to almost 40% of students don't go to their closest schools. If the goal of the analysis did not include "proximity", I don't think they would have highlighted this in the analysis. They would try to bury it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1

Why can't we focus on improving lower performing schools, rather than push the economic diversity agenda? Economic diversity hasn't been proven to improve test scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's not the "primary" factor since, again, they did not choose the option that had the most diversity.

In the countless BOE meetings, from what I have read, BOE stated that proximity is a factor.

I'm all for neighborhood schools where it's possible, and sometimes, the adjacent cluster is closer to a neighborhood than the current cluster they are assigned to. Sometimes, not all.

One of the interesting things to come out of the boundary analysis was that some 30 to almost 40% of students don't go to their closest schools. If the goal of the analysis did not include "proximity", I don't think they would have highlighted this in the analysis. They would try to bury it.

Do you happen to know if that 30% includes kids go to private schools, magnets or gifted and talented? I would imagine a good chunk of that 30% is private schools but I don’t know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's not the "primary" factor since, again, they did not choose the option that had the most diversity.

In the countless BOE meetings, from what I have read, BOE stated that proximity is a factor.

I'm all for neighborhood schools where it's possible, and sometimes, the adjacent cluster is closer to a neighborhood than the current cluster they are assigned to. Sometimes, not all.

One of the interesting things to come out of the boundary analysis was that some 30 to almost 40% of students don't go to their closest schools. If the goal of the analysis did not include "proximity", I don't think they would have highlighted this in the analysis. They would try to bury it.

Do you happen to know if that 30% includes kids go to private schools, magnets or gifted and talented? I would imagine a good chunk of that 30% is private schools but I don’t know.

No, it doesn't.

[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.)

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, many, many people favor improving schools so that all offer quality educational opportunity...until the issue of paying for those improvement arises. Then, they say they are willing to pay for those improvements, but only after all the undefined “waste, fraud, and abuse” is weeded out. Sometimes, on the heels of that, comes the lament about the “illegals” and “sanctuary cities” and how they need to be weeded out too, before any new investments in schools are made. The old saw about property taxes being too high comes next, even though MoCo has one of the lowest property tax RATES in the state—somewhere around 18th out of 24 jurisdictions, if I recall correctly. In the end, schools in poorer neighborhoods don’t get the resources needed to meet the educational demands of those schools, while schools in wealthier neighborhoods get new turf fields and other amenities, either through MCPS directly or through their PTAs. That is the reality in MCPS.

[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.

I have. Read some of his other stuff, before you decide that he says plausible things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The old saw about property taxes being too high comes next, even though MoCo has one of the lowest property tax RATES in the state—somewhere around 18th out of 24 jurisdictions, if I recall correctly.

MoCo property tax rates are low, so they make up for it with the highest allowable income taxes in the state:
https://www.marylandtaxes.gov/individual/income/tax-info/tax-rates.php

and a slew of other taxes like on cellphones, energy, etc. I just got my Washington Gas bill and about 9% of the bill was MoCo taxes.

Montgomery County is not a low tax burden jurisdiction by any means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, many, many people favor improving schools so that all offer quality educational opportunity...until the issue of paying for those improvement arises. Then, they say they are willing to pay for those improvements, but only after all the undefined “waste, fraud, and abuse” is weeded out. Sometimes, on the heels of that, comes the lament about the “illegals” and “sanctuary cities” and how they need to be weeded out too, before any new investments in schools are made. The old saw about property taxes being too high comes next, even though MoCo has one of the lowest property tax RATES in the state—somewhere around 18th out of 24 jurisdictions, if I recall correctly. In the end, schools in poorer neighborhoods don’t get the resources needed to meet the educational demands of those schools, while schools in wealthier neighborhoods get new turf fields and other amenities, either through MCPS directly or through their PTAs. That is the reality in MCPS.

Nothing wrong about PTAs funding "enrichment" at their own schools. Distributing that across all schools would take socialism to a wholly different level.

[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.

Here it is right on MCPS's site:

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/evidence-of-learning-framework/equity-accountability-model.aspx

Their 5 focus groups are:

1. Poor blacks
2. Poor latinos
3. Poor whites/asians
4. All blacks
5. All latinos

So in their own model, they assume latinos and blacks, even those who are well-off, need special focus and help solely because of their race. Latinos are the largest ethnic group among MCPS students (outnumbering whites too), but MCPS has decided that they still need special help. That's how racially-focused MCPS is. It's right on their site.

I was incensed when I finally starting digging and found stuff like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Do you happen to know if that 30% includes kids go to private schools, magnets or gifted and talented? I would imagine a good chunk of that 30% is private schools but I don’t know.

None of it is private schools. It's the percentage of kids who are enrolled in MCPS in their assigned, in-boundary, home schools. About 66% of kids enrolled in MCPS in their assigned, in-boundary, home schools attend the school that is closest to them.

Look at some of these school boundary maps and ask yourself what's "neighborhood school" about them.

http://gis.mcpsmd.org/ServiceAreaMaps/SevenLocksES.pdf
http://gis.mcpsmd.org/ServiceAreaMaps/RosemontES.pdf
http://gis.mcpsmd.org/ServiceAreaMaps/SligoCreekES.pdf
http://gis.mcpsmd.org/ServiceAreaMaps/JonesLaneES.pdf
http://gis.mcpsmd.org/ServiceAreaMaps/BurntMillsES.pdf
http://gis.mcpsmd.org/ServiceAreaMaps/CannonRoadES.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Nothing wrong about PTAs funding "enrichment" at their own schools. Distributing that across all schools would take socialism to a wholly different level.

On the one hand, people say that there's nothing about low-poverty schools that will magically improve poor kids' education.

On the other hand, these same people say that it's fine for PTAs at low-poverty schools to fund enrichment for kids at their schools.

Pick one belief, please. They can't both be true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Nothing wrong about PTAs funding "enrichment" at their own schools. Distributing that across all schools would take socialism to a wholly different level.

On the one hand, people say that there's nothing about low-poverty schools that will magically improve poor kids' education.

On the other hand, these same people say that it's fine for PTAs at low-poverty schools to fund enrichment for kids at their schools.

Pick one belief, please. They can't both be true.

They can.... the first is funded from taxes that the county and the state collect from all residents, and the second is a directed contribution/donation.

[Anonymous]

This thread is about whether Steven Austin is qualified for the job.

So far no good explanation as to his qualifications and when asked he seems to go for the jugular. Is that really someone to vote for?