Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am surprised that highly educated folks here are missing the point of simple idea or it's conveniently missing the point?

Point 1 - RP can be used for helping many FARMs kids and if don't use RP then MCPS is losing an oppurtunity to use one MCPS school to help FARMs kids.

Point 2 - RMES will have 37% FARMs rate in regular class in option A where you afre advocating RP2 FARMs kids to attend. She already cited data that it helps if it's closer to 20%

Now it should be clear to even you here.

I salute that lady to speak for folks who can't speak. Only 2 parents form RP2 were in tesimony and they were holding let us attend RP. They couldn't speak English, but those two RP2 parents were supporting the speaker. They came together.

- CG parent

I think they are conveniently missing the point. That 7% looks like they almost live in Potomac.

because they almost do, not that they care about FARMs rate given that it's at about 21% now.

Of course they don't care about their FARMS rate. They would be equally happy with 24%, but they insist to get any option that gives them 7%.

again... because it keeps everyone closer to their home schools. We keep going around and around on this. Folks in CG want proximity; as do those in Beall. But god forbid folks in RP do. That just must mean they are elitest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm watching (again) the older woman from CG3 who had timed yielded to her. Her argument included a comment that CG3 should not be "impaired and uprooted" a 2nd time (note: the 1st time was 40 years ago).... and CG3's children should not be suffering consequences for a situation CG3 did not cause. (paraphrased her)

Her argument really is about CG3 can't move to Beall and seems to be driven based on her notion of "I was here first and so I should stay."

CG3 needs a better argument than tradition and friendships.

agreed... these are weak arguments. All neighborhoods that are on the zone to move have been part of their "community" for years. No one zone has more right than another to remain part of the existing school zone.

Stick to the factors that are relevant to the rezoning.

Similar to the Horizon Hill mom who acted like her children could not play at Hadley Park or be in a local church boy scout group if they had to change schools.

? CG3 is close to Beall, a heck of a lot more than HH is to TB. That person was talking about option C, the option that would bus TB to RP and HH to RP.

Stick to the factor of proximity and commute times... option C ain't it. Whereas cg3 has no argument against moving to Beall except for "community". In that case, HH has way more of an argument than CG3 does, in any case.

Nonetheless your playground fun has nothing to do with MCPS. My kids spent tons of time at that park and we live no where near it. Its actually so mobbed that there is no neighborhood feel there at all.

It's a frequent location for RP parents with their children. It is not likely to find our TB friends there

It is the park RP4 and RP1 kids meet and bike
It is the park RP4 kids bike thru to get to school.
The pool across the street is the community pool that RP4 and RP1 kids attend and older kids bike to and teens work there.

Do many kids go to Hadley's? Yes, but it still a neighborhood park and a safe/fun walk thru for RP4 kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get what people at CG3 have against Beall to begin with. It is the same distance and kids at Beall share all the same community facilities with them as well. CG3 is going to wind up at Beall since keeping them at College Gardens does not meet any of the criteria better than the other options. No matter how hard some try to create their own scenario the school board is never going to build the shell and leave it empty. It would be better to try and start trying to heal some of nasty things like those flyers that bashed Beall and create some good will rather that trying to fight the inevitable.

I am not in CG at all but I see their point. They are cutting up neighborhoods in Beall and moving a lot of them to RM5 just to move CG3 to Beall.
If all the development is going south of the cluster, keeping Beall and RM5 st the lowest capacity is the most important. So why not Option A.

No one was opposed to it last night but a few Hungerford people.

Because all the development is not going south of the cluster and development is already in the projections. It is not splitting up any neighborhood. It is moving Woodley Gardens to go to school with a different adjacent neighborhood By your argument no one can move and the new school should remain empty.

Everyone was opposed to it with the exception of a vocal minority that just not not want to go to another school.

[Anonymous]

OK, that describes the FARMS of CI now but with the new initiative to involve more diversity in signature programs, will that be the number that end up in CI 2 and more years from now?

"I can help you with that. If you consider Option A, CG only loses CI, so we can figure out how many kids are in CI (893-749=144). The FARMS rate in CG goes from 12.8% (114 kids) to 14.3% (107 kids). That makes 7 FARMS kids in CI.
The overall FARMS rate at RMES5 is 29.4% out of a total of 529 kids (155 kids). Kids attending regular classes will be 385 (529-144) will be in regular classes. Out of those kids, 148 (155-7) will be FARMS kids. 148 out of 385 is 38.5% FARMS rate.
Let me know if you need help with other alternatives."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am surprised that highly educated folks here are missing the point of simple idea or it's conveniently missing the point?

Point 1 - RP can be used for helping many FARMs kids and if don't use RP then MCPS is losing an oppurtunity to use one MCPS school to help FARMs kids.

Point 2 - RMES will have 37% FARMs rate in regular class in option A where you afre advocating RP2 FARMs kids to attend. She already cited data that it helps if it's closer to 20%

Now it should be clear to even you here.

I salute that lady to speak for folks who can't speak. Only 2 parents form RP2 were in tesimony and they were holding let us attend RP. They couldn't speak English, but those two RP2 parents were supporting the speaker. They came together.

- CG parent

I think they are conveniently missing the point. That 7% looks like they almost live in Potomac.

because they almost do, not that they care about FARMs rate given that it's at about 21% now.

Of course they don't care about their FARMS rate. They would be equally happy with 24%, but they insist to get any option that gives them 7%.

again... because it keeps everyone closer to their home schools. We keep going around and around on this. Folks in CG want proximity; as do those in Beall. But god forbid folks in RP do. That just must mean they are elitest.

There is proximity and there is fairness. Ritchie Park is part of the RMHS cluster and should do its part in educating students in the cluster. That includes helping with the large number of FARMS students. Some are now attending RP and would be better serves if they stayed at Ritchie Park. The other schools in the cluster would also be able to better serve the rest of the FARMS students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get what people at CG3 have against Beall to begin with. It is the same distance and kids at Beall share all the same community facilities with them as well. CG3 is going to wind up at Beall since keeping them at College Gardens does not meet any of the criteria better than the other options. No matter how hard some try to create their own scenario the school board is never going to build the shell and leave it empty. It would be better to try and start trying to heal some of nasty things like those flyers that bashed Beall and create some good will rather that trying to fight the inevitable.

I am not in CG at all but I see their point. They are cutting up neighborhoods in Beall and moving a lot of them to RM5 just to move CG3 to Beall.
If all the development is going south of the cluster, keeping Beall and RM5 st the lowest capacity is the most important. So why not Option A.

No one was opposed to it last night but a few Hungerford people.

They have no point. They are just embarrassingly whiny.

A means the new school is not needed , unless you try to relieve RP from its FARM . Beall remains at capacity ( forget new development) so does CG . Those who call for A seems to miss the whole point of this exercise.
But go on , call for it if it makes you warm and fuzzy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OK, that describes the FARMS of CI now but with the new initiative to involve more diversity in signature programs, will that be the number that end up in CI 2 and more years from now?

If you give me some numbers to work with, I can come up with a projection. Without numbers, my guess is your guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am surprised that highly educated folks here are missing the point of simple idea or it's conveniently missing the point?

Point 1 - RP can be used for helping many FARMs kids and if don't use RP then MCPS is losing an oppurtunity to use one MCPS school to help FARMs kids.

Point 2 - RMES will have 37% FARMs rate in regular class in option A where you afre advocating RP2 FARMs kids to attend. She already cited data that it helps if it's closer to 20%

Now it should be clear to even you here.

I salute that lady to speak for folks who can't speak. Only 2 parents form RP2 were in tesimony and they were holding let us attend RP. They couldn't speak English, but those two RP2 parents were supporting the speaker. They came together.

- CG parent

I think they are conveniently missing the point. That 7% looks like they almost live in Potomac.

because they almost do, not that they care about FARMs rate given that it's at about 21% now.

Of course they don't care about their FARMS rate. They would be equally happy with 24%, but they insist to get any option that gives them 7%.

again... because it keeps everyone closer to their home schools. We keep going around and around on this. Folks in CG want proximity; as do those in Beall. But god forbid folks in RP do. That just must mean they are elitest.

This. Horizon Hill parents (and by extension, many RP parents) cannot be against Horizon Hill being bussed to Twinbrook because it is a 20+ minute commute, but then turn around and say it's okay for Fallsgrove children to have a 20+ minute commute (because they already live far away anyway). So option E is off the table as one to advocate for if people are arguing against C with relation to Horizon Hill unless people are okay being called a hypocrite and only caring about their own family's commute, loss of community, and distance on the bus.

It has nothing to do with RP families wanting 7% or lower FARMS percentages and anyone who says that is simply trolling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am surprised that highly educated folks here are missing the point of simple idea or it's conveniently missing the point?

Point 1 - RP can be used for helping many FARMs kids and if don't use RP then MCPS is losing an oppurtunity to use one MCPS school to help FARMs kids.

Point 2 - RMES will have 37% FARMs rate in regular class in option A where you afre advocating RP2 FARMs kids to attend. She already cited data that it helps if it's closer to 20%

Now it should be clear to even you here.

I salute that lady to speak for folks who can't speak. Only 2 parents form RP2 were in tesimony and they were holding let us attend RP. They couldn't speak English, but those two RP2 parents were supporting the speaker. They came together.

- CG parent

I think they are conveniently missing the point. That 7% looks like they almost live in Potomac.

because they almost do, not that they care about FARMs rate given that it's at about 21% now.

Of course they don't care about their FARMS rate. They would be equally happy with 24%, but they insist to get any option that gives them 7%.

again... because it keeps everyone closer to their home schools. We keep going around and around on this. Folks in CG want proximity; as do those in Beall. But god forbid folks in RP do. That just must mean they are elitest.

Except it does not keep CG3 closer as Beall is the same Distance to them as College Gardens.

[Anonymous]

NP here checking out why MD Schools is blowing up all stats in the “Most Popular” heading.

Looks like a big mess but a typical one when you are a sanctuary city. Hope y’all don’t turn into El Paso or LA with your 1 gen ever schooled Hispanics. Unf money is not the magic answer, nor is bussing them to the burbs hoping that white kids can parent them. Good luck

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get what people at CG3 have against Beall to begin with. It is the same distance and kids at Beall share all the same community facilities with them as well. CG3 is going to wind up at Beall since keeping them at College Gardens does not meet any of the criteria better than the other options. No matter how hard some try to create their own scenario the school board is never going to build the shell and leave it empty. It would be better to try and start trying to heal some of nasty things like those flyers that bashed Beall and create some good will rather that trying to fight the inevitable.

I am not in CG at all but I see their point. They are cutting up neighborhoods in Beall and moving a lot of them to RM5 just to move CG3 to Beall.
If all the development is going south of the cluster, keeping Beall and RM5 st the lowest capacity is the most important. So why not Option A.

No one was opposed to it last night but a few Hungerford people.

Because all the development is not going south of the cluster and development is already in the projections. It is not splitting up any neighborhood. It is moving Woodley Gardens to go to school with a different adjacent neighborhood By your argument no one can move and the new school should remain empty.

Everyone was opposed to it with the exception of a vocal minority that just not not want to go to another school.

+1. I would also add embarrassingly whiny vocal minority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am surprised that highly educated folks here are missing the point of simple idea or it's conveniently missing the point?

Point 1 - RP can be used for helping many FARMs kids and if don't use RP then MCPS is losing an oppurtunity to use one MCPS school to help FARMs kids.

Point 2 - RMES will have 37% FARMs rate in regular class in option A where you afre advocating RP2 FARMs kids to attend. She already cited data that it helps if it's closer to 20%

Now it should be clear to even you here.

I salute that lady to speak for folks who can't speak. Only 2 parents form RP2 were in tesimony and they were holding let us attend RP. They couldn't speak English, but those two RP2 parents were supporting the speaker. They came together.

- CG parent

I think they are conveniently missing the point. That 7% looks like they almost live in Potomac.

because they almost do, not that they care about FARMs rate given that it's at about 21% now.

Of course they don't care about their FARMS rate. They would be equally happy with 24%, but they insist to get any option that gives them 7%.

again... because it keeps everyone closer to their home schools. We keep going around and around on this. Folks in CG want proximity; as do those in Beall. But god forbid folks in RP do. That just must mean they are elitest.

Agree. I don't get this. Obviously RP5 wants A or B, but the rest of the RP locations are fine with A,B, or E. There are some RP2 that really want to walk, and there are some that are afraid to move. But everyone I have spoken with from RP2/6 are okay with A, B, or E too.

But it is obvious many Beall and CG want A and if they do and the only reason why some outlanders are against it is because it gives RP 8% FARMS, that is pretty sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get what people at CG3 have against Beall to begin with. It is the same distance and kids at Beall share all the same community facilities with them as well. CG3 is going to wind up at Beall since keeping them at College Gardens does not meet any of the criteria better than the other options. No matter how hard some try to create their own scenario the school board is never going to build the shell and leave it empty. It would be better to try and start trying to heal some of nasty things like those flyers that bashed Beall and create some good will rather that trying to fight the inevitable.

I am not in CG at all but I see their point. They are cutting up neighborhoods in Beall and moving a lot of them to RM5 just to move CG3 to Beall.
If all the development is going south of the cluster, keeping Beall and RM5 st the lowest capacity is the most important. So why not Option A.

No one was opposed to it last night but a few Hungerford people.

They have no point. They are just embarrassingly whiny.

That fact that as soon as lots of people in other communities started liking Alternative B (after seeing some of the other crazy options out there) Hungerford suddenly switched their endorsement to E and now refuses to even consider their own plan (and finds it inequitable!) is just the height of irony and arrogance. Their plan actually seems to have majority support among many people (with A also being highly popular) and now they're against it. It just boggles my mind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is getting so old... This has been debunked a hundred times before. The numbers you see for RMES5 include CI (negligible FARMS). The FARMS rates in regular classes at RMES5 will be 37% (A) and low 30s (B). Can we get over this, please?

Please show your full calculations so we can all benefit.

I can help you with that. If you consider Option A, CG only loses CI, so we can figure out how many kids are in CI (893-749=144). The FARMS rate in CG goes from 12.8% (114 kids) to 14.3% (107 kids). That makes 7 FARMS kids in CI.
The overall FARMS rate at RMES5 is 29.4% out of a total of 529 kids (155 kids). Kids attending regular classes will be 385 (529-144) will be in regular classes. Out of those kids, 148 (155-7) will be FARMS kids. 148 out of 385 is 38.5% FARMS rate.
Let me know if you need help with other alternatives.

No one ever said CI has not effect. Even if we use the numbers that the BOE won't look at and accept that "classroom FARMs" is 30% under Alt. B, it still does not explain how that is appreciably better for RP2 kids than 24% at RP. The study the woman quoted (in her paraphrase) talked about different percentages and intervals of time that are not that compelling over proximity, IMO, given a 6% difference. ALT B.

It simply shows those from B2, B3 and B7 don't want RP2 bringing more FARMS, even though RP2 is right smack dab in the middle of the zone under option E. Thanks for looking out for us in RP2. Please spend as much energy worrying about Twinbrook as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am surprised that highly educated folks here are missing the point of simple idea or it's conveniently missing the point?

Point 1 - RP can be used for helping many FARMs kids and if don't use RP then MCPS is losing an oppurtunity to use one MCPS school to help FARMs kids.

Point 2 - RMES will have 37% FARMs rate in regular class in option A where you afre advocating RP2 FARMs kids to attend. She already cited data that it helps if it's closer to 20%

Now it should be clear to even you here.

I salute that lady to speak for folks who can't speak. Only 2 parents form RP2 were in tesimony and they were holding let us attend RP. They couldn't speak English, but those two RP2 parents were supporting the speaker. They came together.

- CG parent

I think they are conveniently missing the point. That 7% looks like they almost live in Potomac.

because they almost do, not that they care about FARMs rate given that it's at about 21% now.

Of course they don't care about their FARMS rate. They would be equally happy with 24%, but they insist to get any option that gives them 7%.

again... because it keeps everyone closer to their home schools. We keep going around and around on this. Folks in CG want proximity; as do those in Beall. But god forbid folks in RP do. That just must mean they are elitest.

Except it does not keep CG3 closer as Beall is the same Distance to them as College Gardens.

But it moves them and it moves off two more sections of Beall so they can accept them. Beall families are against the S and N options.