Just IN!!!! Youtube video of Boundary Analysis Discussion / Board of Education Jan. 9, 2020

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Strive" is a stronger word than "try".

"Especially" means of greater priority, value, importance, etc.

Let's not pretend that we don't know the meanings of common words. Let's not pretend that they changed the wording because the wording of a policy doesn't matter.

Lol.

We all know what "especially" means. The disagreement is about whether the "especially", added to a sentence within the demographic factor, means that the demographic factor is more important than the other 3 factors. MCPS says it doesn't. Evidently you disagree.

So what do they mean by “especially” then? Why include it in the first place? They must be really obtuse to think this wouldn’t get attention. Just say you’re eating all factors evenly from the get go. Done.

[Anonymous]

Weighing not eating. That was a funny autocorrect!

[Anonymous]

No current Board is bound by a past Board's action. They can make any changes they want.

They are not proposing ANY changes with this assesent. They are getting someone from outside MCPS (which I think is a good thong - don't trust MCPS at all - they gave us these over crowded schools with these boundaries) to take a look.

They have said multiple times they are not busing kids across the county. They are not going to make traffic worse, spend money they don't have on busses and bus drivers - they made it clear they are looking at adjacent clusters only.

So much misinformation and unnecessary outrage. I am as frustrated with MCPS as others with their lack of transparency, but they cleared that up at the meeting. There will be no boundary changes from this assessment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No current Board is bound by a past Board's action. They can make any changes they want.

They are not proposing ANY changes with this assesent. They are getting someone from outside MCPS (which I think is a good thong - don't trust MCPS at all - they gave us these over crowded schools with these boundaries) to take a look.

They have said multiple times they are not busing kids across the county. They are not going to make traffic worse, spend money they don't have on busses and bus drivers - they made it clear they are looking at adjacent clusters only.

So much misinformation and unnecessary outrage. I am as frustrated with MCPS as others with their lack of transparency, but they cleared that up at the meeting. There will be no boundary changes from this assessment.

Right. But there are several boundary studies coming up. Especially Woodward and Crown.

[Anonymous]

Which won't happen for several years. Boundary study will start 18 months before those schools open which is YEARS from now.

[Anonymous]

More magnet schools are needed, esp with all the focus in title 1 kids,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bethesda Beat article about the discussion at the board meeting, here: https://bethesdamagazine.com/bethesda-beat/schools/montgomery-county-school-board-receives-boundary-analysis-update/

About 58% of attendees have kids currently enrolled in MCPS

So, almost half of the folks going to these meetings aren't even parents of currently enrolled children? I wonder how many are people who don't have school aged kids and are just worried about their home values.

Exactly - 58% are right-wing extremists bent on maintaining the status quo at the expense of the majority of students

None sense, people are not aganist changing of boundary, people are aganist busing kids cross the county

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bethesda Beat article about the discussion at the board meeting, here: https://bethesdamagazine.com/bethesda-beat/schools/montgomery-county-school-board-receives-boundary-analysis-update/

About 58% of attendees have kids currently enrolled in MCPS

So, almost half of the folks going to these meetings aren't even parents of currently enrolled children? I wonder how many are people who don't have school aged kids and are just worried about their home values.

Exactly - 58% are right-wing extremists bent on maintaining the status quo at the expense of the majority of students

None sense, people are not aganist changing of boundary, people are aganist busing kids cross the county

Are you not following the whole thing? If you do, you must have missed the fact that some people are precisely
opposing boundary changes in any form shape or color while others are entirely supporting the changes,
yet others are just strictly against bussing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Which won't happen for several years. Boundary study will start 18 months before those schools open which is YEARS from now.

Well then won't this boundary analysis be out of date by then?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous[b wrote:]No current Board is bound by a past Board's action. They can make any changes they wan[/b]t.

They are not proposing ANY changes with this assesent. They are getting someone from outside MCPS (which I think is a good thong - don't trust MCPS at all - they gave us these over crowded schools with these boundaries) to take a look.

They have said multiple times they are not busing kids across the county. They are not going to make traffic worse, spend money they don't have on busses and bus drivers - they made it clear they are looking at adjacent clusters only.

So much misinformation and unnecessary outrage. I am as frustrated with MCPS as others with their lack of transparency, but they cleared that up at the meeting. There will be no boundary changes from this assessment.

Board members are bound to the FAA policy unless they change it. So far they have not stated that they intend to do that. And yes it's now clear that the county wide study won't make recommendations but for all boundary studies in the future, yno doubt that the Board will make their decisions based on the FAA policy that was voted on with the wording especially strive. History speaks for itself. Dr. Smith and his crew said on record that the upcounty study was going to be a test of the new FAA policy wording. Look at what happened there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous[b wrote:]No current Board is bound by a past Board's action. They can make any changes they wan[/b]t.

They are not proposing ANY changes with this assesent. They are getting someone from outside MCPS (which I think is a good thong - don't trust MCPS at all - they gave us these over crowded schools with these boundaries) to take a look.

They have said multiple times they are not busing kids across the county. They are not going to make traffic worse, spend money they don't have on busses and bus drivers - they made it clear they are looking at adjacent clusters only.

So much misinformation and unnecessary outrage. I am as frustrated with MCPS as others with their lack of transparency, but they cleared that up at the meeting. There will be no boundary changes from this assessment.

Board members are bound to the FAA policy unless they change it. So far they have not stated that they intend to do that. And yes it's now clear that the county wide study won't make recommendations but for all boundary studies in the future, yno doubt that the Board will make their decisions based on the FAA policy that was voted on with the wording especially strive. History speaks for itself. Dr. Smith and his crew said on record that the upcounty study was going to be a test of the new FAA policy wording. Look at what happened there.

Yeah, look what happened: some students were reassigned to schools in adjacent clusters and disparities in FARMS rates were reduced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous[b wrote:]No current Board is bound by a past Board's action. They can make any changes they wan[/b]t.

They are not proposing ANY changes with this assesent. They are getting someone from outside MCPS (which I think is a good thong - don't trust MCPS at all - they gave us these over crowded schools with these boundaries) to take a look.

They have said multiple times they are not busing kids across the county. They are not going to make traffic worse, spend money they don't have on busses and bus drivers - they made it clear they are looking at adjacent clusters only.

So much misinformation and unnecessary outrage. I am as frustrated with MCPS as others with their lack of transparency, but they cleared that up at the meeting. There will be no boundary changes from this assessment.

Board members are bound to the FAA policy unless they change it. So far they have not stated that they intend to do that. And yes it's now clear that the county wide study won't make recommendations but for all boundary studies in the future, yno doubt that the Board will make their decisions based on the FAA policy that was voted on with the wording especially strive. History speaks for itself. Dr. Smith and his crew said on record that the upcounty study was going to be a test of the new FAA policy wording. Look at what happened there.

Yeah, look what happened: some students were reassigned to schools in adjacent clusters and disparities in FARMS rates were reduced.

And made traffic worse while especially reducing FARM disparities at middle schools that didn't have capacity issues in the first place.

[Anonymous]

My issue is not the “especially” language, it’s how they applied it two schools that had no other reason for a change - no modernization, not overcapacity.

[Anonymous]

Sorry when people say FAA what are they referring to? Assuming it’s not the federal aviation administration

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My issue is not the “especially” language, it’s how they applied it two schools that had no other reason for a change - no modernization, not overcapacity.

Are you referring to Clarksburg? Was that boundary study initiated solely to balance demographics?