Anonymous wrote:My issue is not the “especially” language, it’s how they applied it two schools that had no other reason for a change - no modernization, not overcapacity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous[b wrote:]No current Board is bound by a past Board's action. They can make any changes they wan[/b]t.

They are not proposing ANY changes with this assesent. They are getting someone from outside MCPS (which I think is a good thong - don't trust MCPS at all - they gave us these over crowded schools with these boundaries) to take a look.

They have said multiple times they are not busing kids across the county. They are not going to make traffic worse, spend money they don't have on busses and bus drivers - they made it clear they are looking at adjacent clusters only.

So much misinformation and unnecessary outrage. I am as frustrated with MCPS as others with their lack of transparency, but they cleared that up at the meeting. There will be no boundary changes from this assessment.

Board members are bound to the FAA policy unless they change it. So far they have not stated that they intend to do that. And yes it's now clear that the county wide study won't make recommendations but for all boundary studies in the future, yno doubt that the Board will make their decisions based on the FAA policy that was voted on with the wording especially strive. History speaks for itself. Dr. Smith and his crew said on record that the upcounty study was going to be a test of the new FAA policy wording. Look at what happened there.

Yeah, look what happened: some students were reassigned to schools in adjacent clusters and disparities in FARMS rates were reduced.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous[b wrote:]No current Board is bound by a past Board's action. They can make any changes they wan[/b]t.

They are not proposing ANY changes with this assesent. They are getting someone from outside MCPS (which I think is a good thong - don't trust MCPS at all - they gave us these over crowded schools with these boundaries) to take a look.

They have said multiple times they are not busing kids across the county. They are not going to make traffic worse, spend money they don't have on busses and bus drivers - they made it clear they are looking at adjacent clusters only.

So much misinformation and unnecessary outrage. I am as frustrated with MCPS as others with their lack of transparency, but they cleared that up at the meeting. There will be no boundary changes from this assessment.

Board members are bound to the FAA policy unless they change it. So far they have not stated that they intend to do that. And yes it's now clear that the county wide study won't make recommendations but for all boundary studies in the future, yno doubt that the Board will make their decisions based on the FAA policy that was voted on with the wording especially strive. History speaks for itself. Dr. Smith and his crew said on record that the upcounty study was going to be a test of the new FAA policy wording. Look at what happened there.

Anonymous[b wrote:]No current Board is bound by a past Board's action. They can make any changes they wan[/b]t.

They are not proposing ANY changes with this assesent. They are getting someone from outside MCPS (which I think is a good thong - don't trust MCPS at all - they gave us these over crowded schools with these boundaries) to take a look.

They have said multiple times they are not busing kids across the county. They are not going to make traffic worse, spend money they don't have on busses and bus drivers - they made it clear they are looking at adjacent clusters only.

So much misinformation and unnecessary outrage. I am as frustrated with MCPS as others with their lack of transparency, but they cleared that up at the meeting. There will be no boundary changes from this assessment.

Anonymous wrote:Which won't happen for several years. Boundary study will start 18 months before those schools open which is YEARS from now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bethesda Beat article about the discussion at the board meeting, here: https://bethesdamagazine.com/bethesda-beat/schools/montgomery-county-school-board-receives-boundary-analysis-update/

About 58% of attendees have kids currently enrolled in MCPS

So, almost half of the folks going to these meetings aren't even parents of currently enrolled children? I wonder how many are people who don't have school aged kids and are just worried about their home values.

Exactly - 58% are right-wing extremists bent on maintaining the status quo at the expense of the majority of students

None sense, people are not aganist changing of boundary, people are aganist busing kids cross the county

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bethesda Beat article about the discussion at the board meeting, here: https://bethesdamagazine.com/bethesda-beat/schools/montgomery-county-school-board-receives-boundary-analysis-update/

About 58% of attendees have kids currently enrolled in MCPS

So, almost half of the folks going to these meetings aren't even parents of currently enrolled children? I wonder how many are people who don't have school aged kids and are just worried about their home values.

Exactly - 58% are right-wing extremists bent on maintaining the status quo at the expense of the majority of students

Anonymous wrote:No current Board is bound by a past Board's action. They can make any changes they want.

They are not proposing ANY changes with this assesent. They are getting someone from outside MCPS (which I think is a good thong - don't trust MCPS at all - they gave us these over crowded schools with these boundaries) to take a look.

They have said multiple times they are not busing kids across the county. They are not going to make traffic worse, spend money they don't have on busses and bus drivers - they made it clear they are looking at adjacent clusters only.

So much misinformation and unnecessary outrage. I am as frustrated with MCPS as others with their lack of transparency, but they cleared that up at the meeting. There will be no boundary changes from this assessment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Strive" is a stronger word than "try".

"Especially" means of greater priority, value, importance, etc.

Let's not pretend that we don't know the meanings of common words. Let's not pretend that they changed the wording because the wording of a policy doesn't matter.

Lol.

We all know what "especially" means. The disagreement is about whether the "especially", added to a sentence within the demographic factor, means that the demographic factor is more important than the other 3 factors. MCPS says it doesn't. Evidently you disagree.