FOCUS, people. You are taking this thread off the rails.

The facts are that the board put out a proposed policy for public comment, then they made a substantial change to the proposed policy, and then they approved the new policy (without public comment or review). Any of you with any knowledge of public policy, legislation or rulemaking know that this would never stand up. THIS is why there is so much mistrust of the board and MCPS leadership.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:]

If you saw the building you'd see the issue. It's horrible. Besides, more than half of those kids you are talking about are leaving the school to attend Rocky hill. And those kids will be replaced by Clarksburg ES and Gibbs ES kids. It doesn't matter who is there, it will still be crappy school. The test score averages might go up though so to the BOE that's a win.

As you know, I know, and everybody else knows - the people upset about being reassigned to Neelsville MS are not, primarily, upset about the building.

True. And Neelsville's building isn't uniquely "horrible" for an older school. People were also at the hearings listing all sorts of problems with Wootton, Poolesville, and Eastern's buildings, among others, yet parents are still OK sending their kids to those old buildings.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good for them. It seems like a long shot, but I'm glad to hear they're being proactive about it.

It seems like a long shot because it is, because it's absurd. There is no right to attend a school in your zip code.

It’s absurd to advocate for your kids? You may not agree with their point of view, but I appreciate that they’re not going to just let it happen to them.

How much of this is really about their kids rather than their home prices?

Well, the appellants listed in the text of the appeal that they all have kids going to MCPS schools (and they listed the schools). So my guess is that they are very likely to be parents.

Yeah, but that doesn't mean it's really about their kids rather than their home prices.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good for them. It seems like a long shot, but I'm glad to hear they're being proactive about it.

It seems like a long shot because it is, because it's absurd. There is no right to attend a school in your zip code.

It’s absurd to advocate for your kids? You may not agree with their point of view, but I appreciate that they’re not going to just let it happen to them.

How much of this is really about their kids rather than their home prices?

Well, the appellants listed in the text of the appeal that they all have kids going to MCPS schools (and they listed the schools). So my guess is that they are very likely to be parents.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good for them. It seems like a long shot, but I'm glad to hear they're being proactive about it.

It seems like a long shot because it is, because it's absurd. There is no right to attend a school in your zip code.

It’s absurd to advocate for your kids? You may not agree with their point of view, but I appreciate that they’re not going to just let it happen to them.

No. The appeal is absurd.

Who will the boundary decision affect the most? Isn't it the kids? Aren't they the ones being tossed around by the BOE for the sake of boosting numbers? At the end of the day, the appeal is for their kids, and I'm sure most parents would do whatever it takes to get the best education for their children.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good for them. It seems like a long shot, but I'm glad to hear they're being proactive about it.

It seems like a long shot because it is, because it's absurd. There is no right to attend a school in your zip code.

It’s absurd to advocate for your kids? You may not agree with their point of view, but I appreciate that they’re not going to just let it happen to them.

No. The appeal is absurd.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The main problem with this argument is that it is saying "Our kids should be safe. Somebody else's shouldn't." There was going to be rezoning and someone was going to be unhappy. Why should one group of parents think they are especially privileged that it shouldn't be them? (Rhetorical question.... )

On the other hand it seems whacky that instead of actually fixing the school now, the board seems to be ok with swapping the kids currently there with kids who are presumed to be more privelage for the sake of equity. Let's punish those racist privelaged kids.. yup that sounds fair. What's even more screwy is that they ignored the complaints and the conditions of that school for years. Why?

Lol! The kids in those schools aren't safe because of... stay with me here... the KIDS IN THOSE SCHOOLS. The "problem" with the "schools" IS the demographics of the children in them. Please stop trying to ship your problems (your children) to other people's neighborhoods.

If you saw the building you'd see the issue. It's horrible. Besides, more than half of those kids you are talking about are leaving the school to attend Rocky hill. And those kids will be replaced by Clarksburg ES and Gibbs ES kids. It doesn't matter who is there, it will still be crappy school. The test score averages might go up though so to the BOE that's a win.

As you know, I know, and everybody else knows - the people upset about being reassigned to Neelsville MS are not, primarily, upset about the building.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The main problem with this argument is that it is saying "Our kids should be safe. Somebody else's shouldn't." There was going to be rezoning and someone was going to be unhappy. Why should one group of parents think they are especially privileged that it shouldn't be them? (Rhetorical question.... )

On the other hand it seems whacky that instead of actually fixing the school now, the board seems to be ok with swapping the kids currently there with kids who are presumed to be more privelage for the sake of equity. Let's punish those racist privelaged kids.. yup that sounds fair. What's even more screwy is that they ignored the complaints and the conditions of that school for years. Why?

Lol! The kids in those schools aren't safe because of... stay with me here... the KIDS IN THOSE SCHOOLS. The "problem" with the "schools" IS the demographics of the children in them. Please stop trying to ship your problems (your children) to other people's neighborhoods.

If you saw the building you'd see the issue. It's horrible. Besides, more than half of those kids you are talking about are leaving the school to attend Rocky hill. And those kids will be replaced by Clarksburg ES and Gibbs ES kids. It doesn't matter who is there, it will still be crappy school. The test score averages might go up though so to the BOE that's a win.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The main problem with this argument is that it is saying "Our kids should be safe. Somebody else's shouldn't." There was going to be rezoning and someone was going to be unhappy. Why should one group of parents think they are especially privileged that it shouldn't be them? (Rhetorical question.... )

On the other hand it seems whacky that instead of actually fixing the school now, the board seems to be ok with swapping the kids currently there with kids who are presumed to be more privelage for the sake of equity. Let's punish those racist privelaged kids.. yup that sounds fair. What's even more screwy is that they ignored the complaints and the conditions of that school for years. Why?

Lol! The kids in those schools aren't safe because of... stay with me here... the KIDS IN THOSE SCHOOLS. The "problem" with the "schools" IS the demographics of the children in them. Please stop trying to ship your problems (your children) to other people's neighborhoods.

Anonymous wrote:The main problem with this argument is that it is saying "Our kids should be safe. Somebody else's shouldn't." There was going to be rezoning and someone was going to be unhappy. Why should one group of parents think they are especially privileged that it shouldn't be them? (Rhetorical question.... )

On the other hand it seems whacky that instead of actually fixing the school now, the board seems to be ok with swapping the kids currently there with kids who are presumed to be more privelage for the sake of equity. Let's punish those racist privelaged kids.. yup that sounds fair. What's even more screwy is that they ignored the complaints and the conditions of that school for years. Why?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good for them. It seems like a long shot, but I'm glad to hear they're being proactive about it.

It seems like a long shot because it is, because it's absurd. There is no right to attend a school in your zip code.

It blows my mind people are still advocating these tired arguments 50 years after desegregation.

OK, great. You can send your kids to a crappy school across town.

It’s not across town.

The main problem with this argument is that it is saying "Our kids should be safe. Somebody else's shouldn't." There was going to be rezoning and someone was going to be unhappy. Why should one group of parents think they are especially privileged that it shouldn't be them? (Rhetorical question.... )

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good for them. It seems like a long shot, but I'm glad to hear they're being proactive about it.

It seems like a long shot because it is, because it's absurd. There is no right to attend a school in your zip code.

It blows my mind people are still advocating these tired arguments 50 years after desegregation.

OK, great. You can send your kids to a crappy school across town.

Ridiculous reason.

It is pretty easy.to think its about the kids if they are being moved from a school where 87 percent of staff feel safe to one where 24 percent of staff feel safe.