Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I worry we're going to end up with a situation like the Dem primary for CoExec. Too many hats in the ring. You had a few good moderate candidates, so the moderate vote got spread amongst them.

So the strategy to win is to focus on one target voter group, and even though that group is fringe, combined they have enough votes since everyone else's vote is spread across too many other candidates. Elrich focused on courting the union vote, and won the primary by 77 votes over Blair, with the others trailing not too far behind.

So in the BOE race, won't MCEA (teacher's union) just put their full force behind an establishment candidate, meanwhile the moderate votes will be spread too thinly across all the other candidates?

The establishment candidates are the moderate candidates.

You're kidding right?

No. Are you saying that they're radical firebrands? Have you ever met any of them? Or even looked at their resumes?

Yes actually. I've had one on one meetings with a couple of them. True politicians. They'll say one thing to your face and vote another way.

The question wasn't whether or not they're politicians. Obviously they are, by definition, given that they hold elective office. The question was whether they're radical firebrands.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Candidates that I seem to like this far but would like to see in depth interviews from include:

Stephen Austin

Jay Guan

Pavel Sukhobok

Dalbin Osorio

Agreed.. especially on the first 2. Jay is from upcounty too and my God they need some representation!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree that solar panels vs extra classroom aides would be much more useful. I’m sick of only Focus and Title 1 schools only having extra para aides.

I love solar panels, have them on my own home, but the money needs to go for extra aides.

Do you know how much MCPS pays for utilities?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree that solar panels vs extra classroom aides would be much more useful. I’m sick of only Focus and Title 1 schools only having extra para aides.

I love solar panels, have them on my own home, but the money needs to go for extra aides.

I really hope it's not the No Boundary Analysis Because Buses Are Bad For The Environment people who are opposing solar panels.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree that solar panels vs extra classroom aides would be much more useful. I’m sick of only Focus and Title 1 schools only having extra para aides.

I love solar panels, have them on my own home, but the money needs to go for extra aides.

Anonymous wrote:Candidates that I seem to like this far but would like to see in depth interviews from include:

Stephen Austin

Jay Guan

Pavel Sukhobok

Dalbin Osorio

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am personally voting against:

—social engineering
——the threat of less community schools
—— anything related to “Honors for All”
—-restorative justice practices (ALL kids needs consequences)
—-anything carefully and craft-fully related to decreasing gifted & talented education
—— anyone advocating for spending only on useless & expensive initiatives like solar panels

Solar panels are useless?

Not the PP, but while solar panels aren't useless, I question the allocation of resources vs lower student teacher ratios etc.

I love all the "social engineering" and restorative justice changes. I can't wait for these things to happen. Things will be so much better.

Anonymous wrote:NP - I think you are simply being argumentative with the PP using the term radical firebrand because you think the existing board is progressive and you don't like progressives being described with a pejorative.

I would not classify the existing BOE as true progressives. They are simply opportunists with their own agenda. Several like Docca, O-Neil and Dixon are back in the 70s and do have an agenda with the bussing and rezoning. They also see now as an opportunity with the county so split to push this forward. The main reason though that the entire with the exception of Smondraski is for the diversity bussing is that every other attempt they have made to keep schools with more URM students from dropping in the scores has failed. Their lovely curriculum 2.0 made things worse not better by disproportionately hurting URM students. The BOE policy on restorative justice has made the school climate surveys tank. Bussing and spreading out the FARMS kids which the BOE believes is the problem at the expense of all the other kids is their way to solve or more aptly hide the problem.

They all need to go.

There also needs to emerge some hispanic candidates. It is great to see some asian American candidates as this group is never represented within the BOE or MCPS much to their disadvantage. African American students and asian American students only make up about 15% each of all students now while hispanic students make up 30+%. Hispanic students in the county below the age of 10 widely outnumbers all the other groups so MCPS will be 50-60% hispanic soon. This community needs seats on the board because their needs and desires as a community is very different than what the BOE wants.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree that solar panels vs extra classroom aides would be much more useful. I’m sick of only Focus and Title 1 schools only having extra para aides.

I love solar panels, have them on my own home, but the money needs to go for extra aides.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am personally voting against:

—social engineering
——the threat of less community schools
—— anything related to “Honors for All”
—-restorative justice practices (ALL kids needs consequences)
—-anything carefully and craft-fully related to decreasing gifted & talented education
—— anyone advocating for spending only on useless & expensive initiatives like solar panels

Solar panels are useless?

Not the PP, but while solar panels aren't useless, I question the allocation of resources vs lower student teacher ratios etc.

I love all the "social engineering" and restorative justice changes. I can't wait for these things to happen. Things will be so much better.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am personally voting against:

—social engineering
——the threat of less community schools
—— anything related to “Honors for All”
—-restorative justice practices (ALL kids needs consequences)
—-anything carefully and craft-fully related to decreasing gifted & talented education
—— anyone advocating for spending only on useless & expensive initiatives like solar panels

Solar panels are useless?

Not the PP, but while solar panels aren't useless, I question the allocation of resources vs lower student teacher ratios etc.

Anonymous wrote:Agree that solar panels vs extra classroom aides would be much more useful. I’m sick of only Focus and Title 1 schools only having extra para aides.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am personally voting against:

—social engineering
——the threat of less community schools
—— anything related to “Honors for All”
—-restorative justice practices (ALL kids needs consequences)
—-anything carefully and craft-fully related to decreasing gifted & talented education
—— anyone advocating for spending only on useless & expensive initiatives like solar panels

Solar panels are useless?