Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries

[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.

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.

I agree, RP5 already has a long commute. They should have been assigned to Beall of CG in the first place. But all hands were tied by the silly "no domino effect" clause. If you remove reasonable options you are left with some unreasonable solutions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why does it boggle your mind? Their plan gives them a brand new school and a FARMS rate in the teens. Do you think they actually cared for others? No. Do they care their neighborhood is getting severed and allowing a awalkable neighborhood to not be part of them or walk? No.

They are looking out for their own interest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Hungerford tweaked the Superintendent's proposal without knowing that a more equitable deal will be on the table.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And that is my point. People in CG and Beall are against certain options because it breaks apart communities and/or it goes against the proximity factor. I am just saying, this is the same point that RP families are making about RP5. That's it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why does it boggle your mind? Their plan gives them a brand new school and a FARMS rate in the teens. Do you think they actually cared for others? No. Do they care their neighborhood is getting severed and allowing a awalkable neighborhood to not be part of them or walk? No.

They are looking out for their own interest.

+1

[Anonymous]

Are you guys talking about Rockville? MoCo has 200 schools and 52 sq miles, 3 weather zones, and too many people. Please split the county into three already. Potomac and Bethesda are likely sick of subsidizing this nonsense by now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I agree, RP5 already has a long commute. They should have been assigned to Beall of CG in the first place. But all hands were tied by the silly "no domino effect" clause. If you remove reasonable options you are left with some unreasonable solutions.

CG has a massive walkable area, and King Farm. One of them would have had to leave the school to take in the 150 kids. The other sections don't have that capacity.

Beall would have basically given up every section but B1 to RM5 and RP to take in CG areas and/or Fallsgrove.

So basically entire schools would habe had to move.

Besides all that RP is only about a minute more too because 28 is terrible traffic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm very impressed with people who can figure all of these calculations out (math is not my forte).

An email sent out last week on behalf of Andrew Zuckerman gave these stats on the 3 Board Alternatives (now known as A, B, and C):

BOE Alternative 1 (Option 6) - A
29.4% w/CI
37.4% w/o CI
BOE Alternative 2 - B
26.1% w/CI
32.0% w/o CI
BOE Alternative 3 - C
23.6% w/CI
28.7% w/o CI

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

You are entitled to your opinion, she is entitled to her opinion. The research findings are here:
• Low-income students attending schools with a FARMs rate of less than 20% showed a math test score advantage over low-income students in other schools after just three years of attendance;
• Move that threshold to 25%, and it takes four years of attendance for low-income students to benefit from lower-poverty schools;
• At 30%, low-income students did not benefit until close to the end of their elementary years, and
• there was no performance difference at all between low-income students attending schools with less than 35% of peers eligible for FARMs and up to 85% eligible.

It is very hard to help Twinbrook. Even with the atomic options on the table their FARMS rates would still be above 35%.

[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.

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.

This is about four factors:

1 Facility utilization
2 Demographic characteristics of student population
3 Geographic proximity of communities to schools
4 Stability of school assignments over time

Option E addresses all except 3 for RP5
Option B addresses all except 2 for RP

Should one factor outweigh another? I had not heard that BOE placed more weight on one vs another. But, if you look at utilization throughout the five periods, option B is better as it leaves a bit more room in both RP and ES#5 for growth.

So you have option B that meets factors 1 much better, 3, 4
VS
option E that meets 1 less better, 2, 4 (and it makes B8 an island)

I guess they have to decide which is more important.

This is all under the assumption, of course, they those numbers have taken into account all the new approved development.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

You are entitled to your opinion, she is entitled to her opinion. The research findings are here:
• Low-income students attending schools with a FARMs rate of less than 20% showed a math test score advantage over low-income students in other schools after just three years of attendance;
• Move that threshold to 25%, and it takes four years of attendance for low-income students to benefit from lower-poverty schools;
• At 30%, low-income students did not benefit until close to the end of their elementary years, and
• there was no performance difference at all between low-income students attending schools with less than 35% of peers eligible for FARMs and up to 85% eligible.

It is very hard to help Twinbrook. Even with the atomic options on the table their FARMS rates would still be above 35%.

I'm sure they appreciate your pity. Those poor, poor children. You all realize that 35% FARMS is AVERAGE in MoCo, right????

Maybe the Hungerford neighborhood should be bussed up to Watkins Mill ES to help balance out diversity up there. The FARMS rate at Watkins Mill is greater than 95% and you think the BoE should be worried about a new school with a 32% FARMS rate?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Hungerford tweaked the Superintendent's proposal without knowing that a more equitable deal will be on the table.

You mean better for them?
Equitable wouldn't have their neighbors not being a part of a walkable school with them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

You are entitled to your opinion, she is entitled to her opinion. The research findings are here:
• Low-income students attending schools with a FARMs rate of less than 20% showed a math test score advantage over low-income students in other schools after just three years of attendance;
• Move that threshold to 25%, and it takes four years of attendance for low-income students to benefit from lower-poverty schools;
• At 30%, low-income students did not benefit until close to the end of their elementary years, and
• there was no performance difference at all between low-income students attending schools with less than 35% of peers eligible for FARMs and up to 85% eligible.

It is very hard to help Twinbrook. Even with the atomic options on the table their FARMS rates would still be above 35%.

I'm sure they appreciate your pity. Those poor, poor children. You all realize that 35% FARMS is AVERAGE in MoCo, right????

Maybe the Hungerford neighborhood should be bussed up to Watkins Mill ES to help balance out diversity up there. The FARMS rate at Watkins Mill is greater than 95% and you think the BoE should be worried about a new school with a 32% FARMS rate?!

Representatives for Twinbrook requested to keep their current boundaries to continue receiving Title 1 benefits (extra funding, smaller classes, before and after care etc). Unfortunately you can't do much to decrease their FARMS rate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Hungerford tweaked the Superintendent's proposal without knowing that a more equitable deal will be on the table.

You mean better for them?
Equitable wouldn't have their neighbors not being a part of a walkable school with them.

For the entire cluster. When elementary schools better serve their students, they go to middle school better prepared.

[Anonymous]

For "Geographic proximity of communities to schools " - option B is better than E.