Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Hi PP. How has your RM experience been? Asking bc I may move in bounds to that hs.

RM is fine school, but you have to see it as two different part. IB and non-IB. IB part puts it in one of the top schools in MD. Non-IB part puts you simply an average HS in MCPS. Over all a pretty good school, but two totally different experience for kids depending on if they are IB or regular. Recently, RM started taking more kids from home school in IB. Some parents may see it as a good thing, but it is diluting the non-IB group too much.

I may have confused you here, but it's hard to talk about RM without getting into IB and regular program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

On the flip side, being farther from the school makes it harder for those parents to be involved - especially if they rely on public transportation. At Jones Lane ES (in QO cluster), students are bussed in and parents without cars need to spend hours on public transportation to get to the school when the area those students are bussed from has another school within walking distance - think about how that would work for parent/teacher conferences, PTA meetings, community events, picking up your child early when they are sick/hurt, etc.

It looks to me like kids at the Brighton Village apartments would get bused to Fields Road ES too.

Nonetheless, you raise a valid point. All the more reason to have the travel-further kids be the kids from higher-income families, rather than the kids from low-income families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

RM is fine school, but you have to see it as two different part. IB and non-IB. IB part puts it in one of the top schools in MD. Non-IB part puts you simply an average HS in MCPS. Over all a pretty good school, but two totally different experience for kids depending on if they are IB or regular. Recently, RM started taking more kids from home school in IB. Some parents may see it as a good thing, but it is diluting the non-IB group too much.

I may have confused you here, but it's hard to talk about RM without getting into IB and regular program.

Could you please stay on your own 18-page thread? Your comments are off topic for this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I agree with the PP. It would be better to distribute the FARMS kids more evenly.

Even if this required bus rides/longer bus rides for low-income kids who would otherwise walk/have shorter bus rides?

RP had weird boundary earlier and it was precisely to distribute farm students. Recommendation talks about an attempt to address the farm rate, but actual result is opposite. We are going to have 53 and 61% farm rate in two schools and then 10-17% for other 3 schools. Recommendation mentions that Farm rate of RP/Beall is going down as if it's a good thing. It's not a good thing to have another school in RM cluster with 50-60% farm rate. Reducing farm rate in other schools and putting all of them in new school is creating this weird situation.

In fact, none of the options discussed had farm rate of 53% in RM#5. All options had lower farm rate and there were enough concerned parents raising issue to ensure that farm rate doesn't go high.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Hi PP. How has your RM experience been? Asking bc I may move in bounds to that hs.

RM is fine school, but you have to see it as two different part. IB and non-IB. IB part puts it in one of the top schools in MD. Non-IB part puts you simply an average HS in MCPS. Over all a pretty good school, but two totally different experience for kids depending on if they are IB or regular. Recently, RM started taking more kids from home school in IB. Some parents may see it as a good thing, but it is diluting the non-IB group too much.

I may have confused you here, but it's hard to talk about RM without getting into IB and regular program.

You mean the IB group, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I agree with the PP. It would be better to distribute the FARMS kids more evenly.

Even if this required bus rides/longer bus rides for low-income kids who would otherwise walk/have shorter bus rides?

Yes. Absolutely.

We are at a high FARMS rate FOCUs school and it’s very difficult to build community even with a FARMS rate lower than 50%.

Often lower income parents aren’t in a position to walk the kid to school so they like having the option of a bus - grandparent can pick up and it gives them a little extra time at the end of the school day.



Problem is that only focus on entire recommendation was to keep students closer to school. Right now, RP has two divided segments and they do fine. If lower SES segment has problem to participate due to distance then you can surely add more higher SES.

Anyway, I think many of us are missing forest and focusing too much on tree here. No matter how we look at it, you want entire RM to get better. Having two low performing schools is not going to help RM cluster.

On the flip side, being farther from the school makes it harder for those parents to be involved - especially if they rely on public transportation. At Jones Lane ES (in QO cluster), students are bussed in and parents without cars need to spend hours on public transportation to get to the school when the area those students are bussed from has another school within walking distance - think about how that would work for parent/teacher conferences, PTA meetings, community events, picking up your child early when they are sick/hurt, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I agree with the PP. It would be better to distribute the FARMS kids more evenly.

Even if this required bus rides/longer bus rides for low-income kids who would otherwise walk/have shorter bus rides?

Yes. Absolutely.

We are at a high FARMS rate FOCUs school and it’s very difficult to build community even with a FARMS rate lower than 50%.

Often lower income parents aren’t in a position to walk the kid to school so they like having the option of a bus - grandparent can pick up and it gives them a little extra time at the end of the school day.

Why not bus the non-low-income kids?

Because the communities all surrounding the new school are low middle to low income. You would have to bus them out of walking a few houses down to their elementary school, and putting home on a bus to a new school. Then bussing kids from various schools 20min away and bus them into this new school. It is time consuming and not cost effective in any way. Twinbrook has an extensive PTA and involvement. Better than Ritchie Park and close the Beall. This area has very involved families. Having many bilingual families in a hispanic community is a plus. Splitting them up and bussing them away to neighborhoods not near where they live in "white" middle class neighborhoods, will not help hispanic families. They are more involved and active when they are in their comfort zone. I can guarantee the people on here wanting FARMS across the board aren't even from Twinbrook and RP#5 new zoning. Twinbrook wants their FARMS numbers and funding. They don't want upper class families coming in and increasing their numbers an trying to take over their PTA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Why not bus the non-low-income kids?

Or bus the high-income kids. Either way, have some mix. Recommended option is the worst outcome for entire RM cluster in long term. Achievement gap is going to increase even more with having two extremes. One set having 10-17% farm and another having 53-61%.


Currently, those same kids go to RP and Beall. Taking them out and putting them in new school and then also taking farm kids from Twinbrook and putting them in new school will surely make other school's farm rate lower but we are creating a huge farm rate in RM#5.

There is no need to reduce the farm rate of Beall from 25% to 17% and RP from 17% to 10% if final result is having a RM#5 start with farm rate of 53%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I agree with the PP. It would be better to distribute the FARMS kids more evenly.

Even if this required bus rides/longer bus rides for low-income kids who would otherwise walk/have shorter bus rides?

RP had weird boundary earlier and it was precisely to distribute farm students. Recommendation talks about an attempt to address the farm rate, but actual result is opposite. We are going to have 53 and 61% farm rate in two schools and then 10-17% for other 3 schools. Recommendation mentions that Farm rate of RP/Beall is going down as if it's a good thing. It's not a good thing to have another school in RM cluster with 50-60% farm rate. Reducing farm rate in other schools and putting all of them in new school is creating this weird situation.

In fact, none of the options discussed had farm rate of 53% in RM#5. All options had lower farm rate and there were enough concerned parents raising issue to ensure that farm rate doesn't go high.

RP does not have weird boundaries to distribute FARMS better. Beall was overcrowded and when RP was moved from Wootton to RM, they took a portion of Beall to RP who was underenrolled. They weren't going to take the area near Beall, the closer communities were too large, and the town center and around JW were not built yet.

Fallsgrove came in because there was no other school below 95% capacity but RP. They should have built their own school for Fallsgrove and King Farm but the county was WAY too cheap and now they have spent years and millions figuring out these stupid boundaries for RM and Gaithersburg clusters.

Other clusters do not have this mess. Living in walking distance to your elementary school is the cleanest and cheapest option. It is a no brainer. RM#5 was built in the middle of the neighborhood. If they took Potomac Woods out of RP, West End out of Beall, or College Gardens at out of CG, everyone would lose their mind. Why in the world would we not allow the neighborhood kids in RM#5 to go there?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why not bus the non-low-income kids?

Or bus the high-income kids. Either way, have some mix. Recommended option is the worst outcome for entire RM cluster in long term. Achievement gap is going to increase even more with having two extremes. One set having 10-17% farm and another having 53-61%.


Currently, those same kids go to RP and Beall. Taking them out and putting them in new school and then also taking farm kids from Twinbrook and putting them in new school will surely make other school's farm rate lower but we are creating a huge farm rate in RM#5.

There is no need to reduce the farm rate of Beall from 25% to 17% and RP from 17% to 10% if final result is having a RM#5 start with farm rate of 53%.

My guess is you are in the Chinese immersion program because they are the only ones that seem to be fighting this change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Twinbrook has an extensive PTA and involvement. Better than Ritchie Park and close the Beall. This area has very involved families. Having many bilingual families in a hispanic community is a plus. Splitting them up and bussing them away to neighborhoods not near where they live in "white" middle class neighborhoods, will not help hispanic families. They are more involved and active when they are in their comfort zone.

All that is fine, but Twin brook is a low performing school and having another low performing school in cluster by putting all farm kids in new school will not help RM going forward.

Also last thing we want to see is various comfort zones of White, Asian, Hispanic etc in RM cluster. That won't help anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
My guess is you are in the Chinese immersion program because they are the only ones that seem to be fighting this change.

Your guess is way off target. I am zoned for new RM#5 and I don't even like to see any immersion program or magnet program in my home school. It serves no purpose for regular kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I agree with the PP. It would be better to distribute the FARMS kids more evenly.

Even if this required bus rides/longer bus rides for low-income kids who would otherwise walk/have shorter bus rides?

Yes. Absolutely.

We are at a high FARMS rate FOCUs school and it’s very difficult to build community even with a FARMS rate lower than 50%.

Often lower income parents aren’t in a position to walk the kid to school so they like having the option of a bus - grandparent can pick up and it gives them a little extra time at the end of the school day.

Why not bus the non-low-income kids?

Because the communities all surrounding the new school are low middle to low income. You would have to bus them out of walking a few houses down to their elementary school, and putting home on a bus to a new school. Then bussing kids from various schools 20min away and bus them into this new school. It is time consuming and not cost effective in any way. Twinbrook has an extensive PTA and involvement. Better than Ritchie Park and close the Beall. This area has very involved families. Having many bilingual families in a hispanic community is a plus. Splitting them up and bussing them away to neighborhoods not near where they live in "white" middle class neighborhoods, will not help hispanic families. They are more involved and active when they are in their comfort zone. I can guarantee the people on here wanting FARMS across the board aren't even from Twinbrook and RP#5 new zoning. Twinbrook wants their FARMS numbers and funding. They don't want upper class families coming in and increasing their numbers an trying to take over their PTA.

I have attended all the meetings and agree that parents from TES were very concerned with not splitting their community in any way or lowering their FARMS numbers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

On the flip side, being farther from the school makes it harder for those parents to be involved - especially if they rely on public transportation. At Jones Lane ES (in QO cluster), students are bussed in and parents without cars need to spend hours on public transportation to get to the school when the area those students are bussed from has another school within walking distance - think about how that would work for parent/teacher conferences, PTA meetings, community events, picking up your child early when they are sick/hurt, etc.

It looks to me like kids at the Brighton Village apartments would get bused to Fields Road ES too.

Nonetheless, you raise a valid point. All the more reason to have the travel-further kids be the kids from higher-income families, rather than the kids from low-income families.

From where? Woodley Gardens? Rose Hill? King Farm?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why not bus the non-low-income kids?

Or bus the high-income kids. Either way, have some mix. Recommended option is the worst outcome for entire RM cluster in long term. Achievement gap is going to increase even more with having two extremes. One set having 10-17% farm and another having 53-61%.


Currently, those same kids go to RP and Beall. Taking them out and putting them in new school and then also taking farm kids from Twinbrook and putting them in new school will surely make other school's farm rate lower but we are creating a huge farm rate in RM#5.

There is no need to reduce the farm rate of Beall from 25% to 17% and RP from 17% to 10% if final result is having a RM#5 start with farm rate of 53%.

My guess is you are in the Chinese immersion program because they are the only ones that seem to be fighting this change.

Huh? CI just wants to go to new school, not Twinbrook or Beall. And frankly, they have the right to as they are in the worst situation in all of this. CGES parent