Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me, seems more like this is less about they did do and more about what they didn’t do, especially relative to prior practice.

Prior BOE members never would have stood for this. You know who I’m talking about, Pat is not the only one, but she really understood how things work and are supposed to work. They were good at this type of pushback and holding MCPS to task.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me, seems more like this is less about they did do and more about what they didn’t do, especially relative to prior practice.

So what didn’t they do? Parent associations doing grassroots efforts doesn’t count.

Compare to Woodward/WJ and Silver Creek. So much feedback and collaboration.

I do not see any specific thing that is different in this scenario.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me, seems more like this is less about they did do and more about what they didn’t do, especially relative to prior practice.

Prior BOE members never would have stood for this. You know who I’m talking about, Pat is not the only one, but she really understood how things work and are supposed to work. They were good at this type of pushback and holding MCPS to task.

So what exactly should the BOE be doing that they are not?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me, seems more like this is less about they did do and more about what they didn’t do, especially relative to prior practice.

So what didn’t they do? Parent associations doing grassroots efforts doesn’t count.

Compare to Woodward/WJ and Silver Creek. So much feedback and collaboration.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me, seems more like this is less about they did do and more about what they didn’t do, especially relative to prior practice.

So what didn’t they do? Parent associations doing grassroots efforts doesn’t count.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me, seems more like this is less about they did do and more about what they didn’t do, especially relative to prior practice.

Prior BOE members never would have stood for this. You know who I’m talking about, Pat is not the only one, but she really understood how things work and are supposed to work. They were good at this type of pushback and holding MCPS to task.

Anonymous wrote:To me, seems more like this is less about they did do and more about what they didn’t do, especially relative to prior practice.

Anonymous wrote:I am sympathetic to all of that but they (the BOE and MCPS) do have a job to do. I’m personally worried things are falling through the cracks, especially in regional programs.

Anonymous wrote:To me, seems more like this is less about they did do and more about what they didn’t do, especially relative to prior practice.

Anonymous wrote:To me, seems more like this is less about they did do and more about what they didn’t do, especially relative to prior practice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And process for closing a school is required by law.

I can agree or empathize with every single point Fallsmead parents have stated on this page except for this. It’s not closing a school. It’s relocating it. Yes it’s been rushed, no it hasn’t been transparent. But it’s not closing and mcps has been very careful to check all the boxes to ensure it can’t be framed as closing. When you insist on it being a closure you lose credibility.

I’m not so sure about that. It’s been so rushed, no transparency - that’s not good process. How do we know they checked all the boxes?

And I’m just another MoCo resident - not affected by this, but it doesn’t look great to me.

I agree that this process could have been MUCH better - so much of the engagement has been surface level - fill out this survey or come yell at us while we check our phones.

But the anti-H response has played a role here too. MCPS has put out a lot of data in direct response to all the concerns that people have been raising, and the response hasn’t been to consider the additional data and the very real trends they’re showing that got us to this difficult place and consider if maybe people need to rethink their stance. It’s been to pick apart minor things, like whether they used the best possible type of data visualization.

It’s upsetting to watch BOE members refuse to continue engaging meaningfully on this process, seemingly because they’re just sick of it. But anti-H has given them a lot of reasons to feel like, unless the BOE is prepared to tell Wootton they can keep things exactly how they are, added engagement or information isn’t going to be productive at this point.

What I think you are sort of pointing at -- the impact of the tone/content of anti-H comments on public opinion -- is salient. It's also true when issues like this come up that the absolute worst people are the loudest earliest. So the first anti-H comments I ran into both here and in real life were pretty abhorrent. Thinly veiled racism if it bothered to wear a veil at all.

Some of the later comments have been more reasoned, but the folks out front were nasty and turned the rest of us off. Yeah, you don't want your kids to go to school with kids like mine. Heard loud and clear, but don't be surprised when parents like me don't come to your defense and oust the school board over it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And process for closing a school is required by law.

I can agree or empathize with every single point Fallsmead parents have stated on this page except for this. It’s not closing a school. It’s relocating it. Yes it’s been rushed, no it hasn’t been transparent. But it’s not closing and mcps has been very careful to check all the boxes to ensure it can’t be framed as closing. When you insist on it being a closure you lose credibility.

I’m not so sure about that. It’s been so rushed, no transparency - that’s not good process. How do we know they checked all the boxes?

And I’m just another MoCo resident - not affected by this, but it doesn’t look great to me.

I agree that this process could have been MUCH better - so much of the engagement has been surface level - fill out this survey or come yell at us while we check our phones.

But the anti-H response has played a role here too. MCPS has put out a lot of data in direct response to all the concerns that people have been raising, and the response hasn’t been to consider the additional data and the very real trends they’re showing that got us to this difficult place and consider if maybe people need to rethink their stance. It’s been to pick apart minor things, like whether they used the best possible type of data visualization.

It’s upsetting to watch BOE members refuse to continue engaging meaningfully on this process, seemingly because they’re just sick of it. But anti-H has given them a lot of reasons to feel like, unless the BOE is prepared to tell Wootton they can keep things exactly how they are, added engagement or information isn’t going to be productive at this point.

The BOE isn’t engaging because Taylor did a vote headcount before even proposing Option H, and reconfirmed he had the votes before recommending it. It’s going to rubber stamp his recommendation, despite the flawed data on which it relies, undisputed chain of suspect events, and lack of meaningful community engagement. That fits the very definition of “arbitrary and unreasonable or illegal”.

It really really does not fit that definition.

And there has been tons of community engagement.

What are those suspect events that impact the outcome here?

A headcount vote prior to formally proposing something is standard practice for any body deciding something. Literally, standard practice.

Anonymous wrote:I am sympathetic to all of that but they (the BOE and MCPS) do have a job to do. I’m personally worried things are falling through the cracks, especially in regional programs.