Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why did the SMOB rep side with closed lunches without a conversation with the kids?

Because clearly they're not mature enough to sit on the Board. But also, they don't exactly have great role models either!

Dude. It's a kid. Probably a super smart and motivated kid with good intentions to do good. I don't even care about this issue (I can see arguments for both sides), but I certainly can give a hard-working kid the benefit of the doubt that they were persuaded by some of the safety issues brought up. You have no idea what data and feedback they saw.

The irony of an adult picking on a kid saying that the KID is immature. Just wow.

This wasn't a decision by the SMOB. The SMOB is told what to do by board staff and the adult board members.

Some SMOBs, like Sami Saeed, resist and push back. Anuva, unfortunately, is very compliant.

Yes, I saw several times that TT hinted Anuva to second an action. Her screenplay has been written before every BOE meeting.

It's so obvious how orchestrated the whole thing is. It's sad.

I really hope next year’s SMOB is better. Anuva has been embarrassingly bad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do parents think they should be consulted on EVERYthing? I have a strong preference on this issue. But I also respect the school district's right to make operational decisions regarding the schools.

Many things should absolutely have input from parents. But come one. How many period lunch is scheduled for; whether they let students off campus midday. These are things for which principals or the superindendent's office have a much better perspective on the breadth of issues. Let them do their jobs!

You're right that the principals have a much better perspective. Which is why it's so troubling that Taylor and the Board are IGNORING The principals that say they need open lunch. And it's not just lunch. The curriculum flows from the lunch decision. If the school can't have one unified lunch for the entire school, then it makes it MUCH MUCH more difficult (maybe impossible) for kids to take advanced classes (or for kids that are behind to take classes that are primarily taken by lower-level students). It also makes it basically impossible for kids who need extended time as a 504 accommodation to finish tests or in-class assignments. That includes even kids who have things like broken wrists, pulled tendons, etc., that might need a little extra time to complete a test. It also makes it impossible to have club meetings at lunch, which reduces participation because not every kid can stay after school due to work, sports, family responsibilities, or transportation. If it was just "oh, you can't get Chipotle" that's one issue, but that's not what this is about.
Respectfully, you don't seem at all educated on this issue. (Nor does Taylor or the Board!)

They don’t need open lunch. It’s easier as they don’t have to monitor and supervise.

Yes. Much, much easier on the school admin and staff to keep open campus lunch.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why did the SMOB rep side with closed lunches without a conversation with the kids?

Because clearly they're not mature enough to sit on the Board. But also, they don't exactly have great role models either!

Dude. It's a kid. Probably a super smart and motivated kid with good intentions to do good. I don't even care about this issue (I can see arguments for both sides), but I certainly can give a hard-working kid the benefit of the doubt that they were persuaded by some of the safety issues brought up. You have no idea what data and feedback they saw.

The irony of an adult picking on a kid saying that the KID is immature. Just wow.

This wasn't a decision by the SMOB. The SMOB is told what to do by board staff and the adult board members.

Some SMOBs, like Sami Saeed, resist and push back. Anuva, unfortunately, is very compliant.

Yes, I saw several times that TT hinted Anuva to second an action. Her screenplay has been written before every BOE meeting.

It's so obvious how orchestrated the whole thing is. It's sad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why did the SMOB rep side with closed lunches without a conversation with the kids?

Because clearly they're not mature enough to sit on the Board. But also, they don't exactly have great role models either!

Dude. It's a kid. Probably a super smart and motivated kid with good intentions to do good. I don't even care about this issue (I can see arguments for both sides), but I certainly can give a hard-working kid the benefit of the doubt that they were persuaded by some of the safety issues brought up. You have no idea what data and feedback they saw.

The irony of an adult picking on a kid saying that the KID is immature. Just wow.

This wasn't a decision by the SMOB. The SMOB is told what to do by board staff and the adult board members.

Some SMOBs, like Sami Saeed, resist and push back. Anuva, unfortunately, is very compliant.

Yes, I saw several times that TT hinted Anuva to second an action. Her screenplay has been written before every BOE meeting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do parents think they should be consulted on EVERYthing? I have a strong preference on this issue. But I also respect the school district's right to make operational decisions regarding the schools.

Many things should absolutely have input from parents. But come one. How many period lunch is scheduled for; whether they let students off campus midday. These are things for which principals or the superindendent's office have a much better perspective on the breadth of issues. Let them do their jobs!

You're right that the principals have a much better perspective. Which is why it's so troubling that Taylor and the Board are IGNORING The principals that say they need open lunch. And it's not just lunch. The curriculum flows from the lunch decision. If the school can't have one unified lunch for the entire school, then it makes it MUCH MUCH more difficult (maybe impossible) for kids to take advanced classes (or for kids that are behind to take classes that are primarily taken by lower-level students). It also makes it basically impossible for kids who need extended time as a 504 accommodation to finish tests or in-class assignments. That includes even kids who have things like broken wrists, pulled tendons, etc., that might need a little extra time to complete a test. It also makes it impossible to have club meetings at lunch, which reduces participation because not every kid can stay after school due to work, sports, family responsibilities, or transportation. If it was just "oh, you can't get Chipotle" that's one issue, but that's not what this is about.
Respectfully, you don't seem at all educated on this issue. (Nor does Taylor or the Board!)

They don’t need open lunch. It’s easier as they don’t have to monitor and supervise.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The proposed policy action is posted: https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DUAK9Q50CE33/$file/Tentative%20Action%20Policy%20JEF%20260521.pdf

So they're moving forward with just handing the decision over to Dr. Taylor. Well....that's a choice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do parents think they should be consulted on EVERYthing? I have a strong preference on this issue. But I also respect the school district's right to make operational decisions regarding the schools.

Many things should absolutely have input from parents. But come one. How many period lunch is scheduled for; whether they let students off campus midday. These are things for which principals or the superindendent's office have a much better perspective on the breadth of issues. Let them do their jobs!

You're right that the principals have a much better perspective. Which is why it's so troubling that Taylor and the Board are IGNORING The principals that say they need open lunch. And it's not just lunch. The curriculum flows from the lunch decision. If the school can't have one unified lunch for the entire school, then it makes it MUCH MUCH more difficult (maybe impossible) for kids to take advanced classes (or for kids that are behind to take classes that are primarily taken by lower-level students). It also makes it basically impossible for kids who need extended time as a 504 accommodation to finish tests or in-class assignments. That includes even kids who have things like broken wrists, pulled tendons, etc., that might need a little extra time to complete a test. It also makes it impossible to have club meetings at lunch, which reduces participation because not every kid can stay after school due to work, sports, family responsibilities, or transportation. If it was just "oh, you can't get Chipotle" that's one issue, but that's not what this is about.
Respectfully, you don't seem at all educated on this issue. (Nor does Taylor or the Board!)

Anonymous wrote:Why do parents think they should be consulted on EVERYthing? I have a strong preference on this issue. But I also respect the school district's right to make operational decisions regarding the schools.

Many things should absolutely have input from parents. But come one. How many period lunch is scheduled for; whether they let students off campus midday. These are things for which principals or the superindendent's office have a much better perspective on the breadth of issues. Let them do their jobs!