Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries

[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.

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.

No, option E does not take proximity to many areas:

Obviously RP5 like you said
RP2 can walk/bike to RM5
parts of B5 can walk/bike to Beall instead of being bussed down 355 WITH traffic
RP6 is closer in bus distance to RM5
CG3 is closer to CG
It separates B8 on an island with surrounding neighborhoods going to two different schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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

The math shows RMES5 at 32.9% FARMS with Alternative B. It looks like MCPS staff underestimated the FAMRS rates w/o CI by about one point. Not bad for government work. Option E would have RMES5 at 21.6% FARMS w/o CI

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

No, option E does not take proximity to many areas:

Obviously RP5 like you said
RP2 can walk/bike to RM5
parts of B5 can walk/bike to Beall instead of being bussed down 355 WITH traffic
RP6 is closer in bus distance to RM5
CG3 is closer to CG
It separates B8 on an island with surrounding neighborhoods going to two different schools.

PP here.. I totally agree with you, but some people seem to be fixated on RP and that 7% FARMs, so that's why I only focused on RP's proximity issue, but you are correct about RP2 and proximity for E as well.

But, overall for proximity, you are right that Option B is much better than E.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP here.. I totally agree with you, but some people seem to be fixated on RP and that 7% FARMs, so that's why I only focused on RP's proximity issue, but you are correct about RP2 and proximity for E as well.

But, overall for proximity, you are right that Option B is much better than E.

I have to give you that, if proximity was the only factor Option B would be a clear favorite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
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.

No, option E does not take proximity to many areas:

Obviously RP5 like you said
RP2 can walk/bike to RM5
parts of B5 can walk/bike to Beall instead of being bussed down 355 WITH traffic
RP6 is closer in bus distance to RM5
CG3 is closer to CG
It separates B8 on an island with surrounding neighborhoods going to two different schools.

Are you a CG3 whiner?

[Anonymous]

I bet that person is a CG3 Winter.

CG3 is not inconvenient to Beall. I know kids who live in CG3 and volunteered at Beall this summer. How did they get to Beall? They rode their bikes! If they had been at CGES, they would have ridden their bikes, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agree. If everyone wants proximity which became abundantly clear last night, even with TB, I don't see why Option A can't work.

Someone said 80% of the poll originally approved it? Is that accurate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

No, option E does not take proximity to many areas:

Obviously RP5 like you said
RP2 can walk/bike to RM5
parts of B5 can walk/bike to Beall instead of being bussed down 355 WITH traffic
RP6 is closer in bus distance to RM5
CG3 is closer to CG
It separates B8 on an island with surrounding neighborhoods going to two different schools.

Are you a CG3 whiner?

No, I am from B5
CG3 isn't a big move, yes we get that, but it is closer for many in that area to walk/bike to CG and it doesn't break up our neighborhoods to N and S, that ironically Hungerford took initiative to do. Oh but now they want E because it benefits their home values.

So the CG3 point is still valid as are the rest. It isn't just about RP5.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

The FARMS rate in regular classes at RMES5 would be 21.6% in regular classes. Pretty close to the other schools in the cluster except Twinbrook. That would be more equitable and better for the cluster as a whole. Unless you believe that RPES needs its "neighborhood feel" and a FARMS level similar to the other schools in the neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agree. If everyone wants proximity which became abundantly clear last night, even with TB, I don't see why Option A can't work.

Someone said 80% of the poll originally approved it? Is that accurate.

The poll asked people what were their most important criteria for the boundary study. 80% said that proximity was very important for them. It doesn't mean that this is the only factor that should be considered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

The math shows RMES5 at 32.9% FARMS with Alternative B. It looks like MCPS staff underestimated the FAMRS rates w/o CI by about one point. Not bad for government work. Option E would have RMES5 at 21.6% FARMS w/o CI

I am curious

Do all the other immersion programs, HGC, magnets, and IB programs ask for their FARMS rates outside of the programs? Do they list them somewhere because when I look at the sheets, it does not separate them. They are all one.

I mean aren't they part of the community? Don't they all fundraiser for the same things in these schools? Don't they eat lunch and recess together? I am really confused to why we are sitting here dissecting a few measly FARMS points with or without CI.

Do we really think RP2/6 will be so much better served being bussed further to a 25% FARMS school than walking to a 26% (31% in-class) FARMS. Option E disrupts many more communities for a few FARMS points.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

The FARMS rate in regular classes at RMES5 would be 21.6% in regular classes. Pretty close to the other schools in the cluster except Twinbrook. That would be more equitable and better for the cluster as a whole. Unless you believe that RPES needs its "neighborhood feel" and a FARMS level similar to the other schools in the neighborhood.

That might be true if FARMS equitability was the ONLY factor, but it's not. And as a PP noted, 80% of people polled wanted proximity. That, too, is not the only factor, but should one outweigh the other, or should the option that best fits most of the four criteria be the winner?

And the option that gives RP the 7% FARMs also is the option that gives the most "neighborhood" feel to the majority of the zones, so you correct, it's not just about giving RP a neighborhood feel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree. If everyone wants proximity which became abundantly clear last night, even with TB, I don't see why Option A can't work.

Someone said 80% of the poll originally approved it? Is that accurate.

The poll asked people what were their most important criteria for the boundary study. 80% said that proximity was very important for them. It doesn't mean that this is the only factor that should be considered.

No someone said last night that the majority picked Option A when all 8 options were on the table.

I remember the proximity poll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

No, option E does not take proximity to many areas:

Obviously RP5 like you said
RP2 can walk/bike to RM5
parts of B5 can walk/bike to Beall instead of being bussed down 355 WITH traffic
RP6 is closer in bus distance to RM5
CG3 is closer to CG
It separates B8 on an island with surrounding neighborhoods going to two different schools.

Are you a CG3 whiner?

No, I am from B5
CG3 isn't a big move, yes we get that, but it is closer for many in that area to walk/bike to CG and it doesn't break up our neighborhoods to N and S, that ironically Hungerford took initiative to do. Oh but now they want E because it benefits their home values.

So the CG3 point is still valid as are the rest. It isn't just about RP5.

The 5N and 5S boundaries are some random cut off too. There isn't even a minor road there. If I lived in there I would be spitting nails hearing HCA vote for E after dissecting you all and making the sup throw 8 options in the trash.

[Anonymous]

The B5N/S split is Jefferson, a 4-lane road.