Anonymous wrote:These posts here are really out of touch. MoCo reelects these same members of the BoE year after year in landslide victories. It's clear the majority of us support them and their policies and just a few malcontents posting mostly disinformation to push their regressive agendas.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BOE is simply PTA on steroids…no one has any outside perspective, just mothers (of former students) who cut their teeth on PTA nonsense…how about electing a teacher or having some diversity in gender?

Yeah, like maybe someone who spent 38 years as a teacher and administrator with Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS). Or someone who taught Medical Science with Clinical Applications at Thomas Edison High School of Technology from August 2016 through November 30, 2020. Or someone who served 27 years in various capacities in the United States Department of Education. Or someone who serves as the Director of Community Engagement at Montgomery College.

No, wait, I copied that from the BoE member bios.

Alternatively, maybe the PP is peddling fact-free misogyny...

It is a bit bizarre that the BOE and the County Council are like a1950s married couple. The men on the Council decide how much money the women on the BOE can spend. I blame the low BOE salaries.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BOE is simply PTA on steroids…no one has any outside perspective, just mothers (of former students) who cut their teeth on PTA nonsense…how about electing a teacher or having some diversity in gender?

Yeah, like maybe someone who spent 38 years as a teacher and administrator with Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS). Or someone who taught Medical Science with Clinical Applications at Thomas Edison High School of Technology from August 2016 through November 30, 2020. Or someone who served 27 years in various capacities in the United States Department of Education. Or someone who serves as the Director of Community Engagement at Montgomery College.

No, wait, I copied that from the BoE member bios.

Alternatively, maybe the PP is peddling fact-free misogyny...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I mean, the point that PP was trying and failing to make is that there wants a mass Exodus due to busing and there was. Property values also fell 15% and never recovered. That's just getting moved to RM which is still a good school. Imagine if that neighborhood had been bused to Rockville or Wheaton. Those houses would be worth 30% less.

Property values in Horizon Hill are still 15% lower than they were in 1987? Oh wow.

15% lower than the properties across the street that are assigned to Wootton. Try to keep up.

I bet the people who moved in after 1987 (i.e. likely almost everyone in Horizon Hill) have appreciated that.

Right. But what they don't appreciate is not attending the high school located (checks map) 300 yards from their neighborhood. #walkerswillremainwalkers #notheywont #busing

Are you really using a 1987 boundary change in an attempt to claim that the 2018 policy revision will lead to walkers being bussed?

I'm using a 1987 boundary change to show how busing negatively effects neighborhoods. And that was before the BOE altered the boundary policy to make diversity the top factor. Just imagine how much MORE busing there is going to be in future boundary studies.

Or, instead of imagining things, we could take a look at the four actual boundary studies conducted under the revised policy, and see that the changes made were reasonable and that diversity was not in fact "the top factor."

Of course it was. It's just that the 4 studies were so small that not much race-shuffling could take place except for the upcountry study where a lot of kids were buaed.

Thank you for finally admitting that the revised language in the policy is, in reality, a relatively minor change, and that most boundary studies will result, in your words, in "not much race-shuffling." And, again, in reality, we know that the upcounty study was an example of the superintendent rejecting boundaries that could have made diversity the top factor to the detriment of the other factors and supporting boundaries that advanced multiple factors, one of which is, and has been, diversity.

https://gis.mcpsmd.org/boundarystudypdfs/SVHS_SupplementA.pdf

The boundary policy revision was a huge deal. That's why the corrupt BOE members who wanted it changed his these revisions from the public until the policy had been changed.

And if the changes were minor, Smith would not have cautioned the BOE against making them. He said they had to be careful not to box in future boards into options they might not want. The most corrupt of the BOE members said she wanted future boards boxed in to more diverse options because diversity was the most important thing they could do for the students. How woke and insane can one person be?

And again, the handful of boundary studies didn't include any areas with vastly different demographics except for the upcountry study where they did bus a lot of kids. Just imagine what will happen with the Woodward or Crown study. Kids are going to get bused everywhere.

Anonymous wrote:BOE is simply PTA on steroids…no one has any outside perspective, just mothers (of former students) who cut their teeth on PTA nonsense…how about electing a teacher or having some diversity in gender?

Anonymous wrote:BOE is simply PTA on steroids…no one has any outside perspective, just mothers (of former students) who cut their teeth on PTA nonsense…how about electing a teacher or having some diversity in gender?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Isn't that the same as the lived experience you wokis are always trying to base policy decisions on? Or does that only apply to black people?

I would spell it woke-ies, actually. Or maybe wokies, but that looks too much like wookiees.

In any case, with people like you on his side, it's not surprising that Steve Austin lost big in 2018.

Steven Austin lost because he was so new to MoCo he didn't know that a Republican can't win here. The next proximity-first candidate will be a Dem.

Steve Austin lost because the voters didn't want to buy what he was trying to sell. Especially with people trying to sell it like you're doing here!

The boundary analysis says you're wrong. 90% of the county said they eschew diversity in favor of proximity.

Sigh. 90% of a small, self-selected number of respondents.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I mean, the point that PP was trying and failing to make is that there wants a mass Exodus due to busing and there was. Property values also fell 15% and never recovered. That's just getting moved to RM which is still a good school. Imagine if that neighborhood had been bused to Rockville or Wheaton. Those houses would be worth 30% less.

Property values in Horizon Hill are still 15% lower than they were in 1987? Oh wow.

15% lower than the properties across the street that are assigned to Wootton. Try to keep up.

I bet the people who moved in after 1987 (i.e. likely almost everyone in Horizon Hill) have appreciated that.

Right. But what they don't appreciate is not attending the high school located (checks map) 300 yards from their neighborhood. #walkerswillremainwalkers #notheywont #busing

Are you really using a 1987 boundary change in an attempt to claim that the 2018 policy revision will lead to walkers being bussed?

I'm using a 1987 boundary change to show how busing negatively effects neighborhoods. And that was before the BOE altered the boundary policy to make diversity the top factor. Just imagine how much MORE busing there is going to be in future boundary studies.

Or, instead of imagining things, we could take a look at the four actual boundary studies conducted under the revised policy, and see that the changes made were reasonable and that diversity was not in fact "the top factor."

Of course it was. It's just that the 4 studies were so small that not much race-shuffling could take place except for the upcountry study where a lot of kids were buaed.

Thank you for finally admitting that the revised language in the policy is, in reality, a relatively minor change, and that most boundary studies will result, in your words, in "not much race-shuffling." And, again, in reality, we know that the upcounty study was an example of the superintendent rejecting boundaries that could have made diversity the top factor to the detriment of the other factors and supporting boundaries that advanced multiple factors, one of which is, and has been, diversity.

https://gis.mcpsmd.org/boundarystudypdfs/SVHS_SupplementA.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Isn't that the same as the lived experience you wokis are always trying to base policy decisions on? Or does that only apply to black people?

I would spell it woke-ies, actually. Or maybe wokies, but that looks too much like wookiees.

In any case, with people like you on his side, it's not surprising that Steve Austin lost big in 2018.

Steven Austin lost because he was so new to MoCo he didn't know that a Republican can't win here. The next proximity-first candidate will be a Dem.

What?

Steve Austin lost because the voters didn't want to buy what he was trying to sell. Especially with people trying to sell it like you're doing here!

+1 is Steve Austin a Republican? I know he is a racist and a homophobe so not surprised, but BOE elections are nonpartisan, so his party affiliation was not on the ballot and would not have been apparent to voters.

Racist AND a homophobe? Wow. With an accusation like that I assume you can show us a link or screen shot backing that up.

Please. Only a homophobe would associate with John Garza. If you're okay with that then you're a homophobe too.

Anonymous wrote:I feel my kids are getting a much better education from MCPS today than I got 30 years ago.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
My kids graduate is a couple years. So I'm looking forward to watching MCPS collapse. But I will continue to spread the truth about the current BOE and their busing plan.

I can't imagine why you were so unsuccessful in your attempts to persuade voters to vote for your preferred candidate!

Anonymous wrote:
My kids graduate is a couple years. So I'm looking forward to watching MCPS collapse. But I will continue to spread the truth about the current BOE and their busing plan.