Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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%.

I think a problem with option A from some portion of CG community is that it still leaves is overcapacity/near 100%, with no option for future increase. I believe it was stated at some point that their only option in the future should CG go over capacity is for portables. That is the other side of the coin if CG3 stays - no room for future development long term at CG.

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:

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.

Those were 2 different things - the poll that asked about proximity was distributed to all cluster schools via Survey Monkey (in English and Spanish) in Dec/January 2017. The consensus around Alternative A (Old Option 6) as generally being the most favored option was from the boundary study committee in May.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I honestly don't think she had thought that through. No one disputes her data. It was the application to the facts concerning RP2 that was just flat out wrong. She didn't even say which option she prefers--just that she wants RP2 to go to RP for her poor neighbors. Well, under alt. C they go to RP with at 40% FARMs rate.

She actually thought her testimony through more than you thought through your post here. Did she didn't advocate for Option C?

Looking back at her written testimony, I guess she said her "favorite" was option E. But as has been pointed out numerous times here, the difference between FARMs rates for RP2 under B (new school) or E (stay at RP) is nearly that same. Yet, RP2 benefits from proximity under B.

So how does E benefit RP2 again? They get to stay at the same school across 270? They get to be used as a way to show RP families what it's like to go to school with a few more FARMs kids?

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

Does anyone have copies of her data that everyone thinks is so spectacular. Also, if MCPS wants to take on her data then how come the average FARMS rate is 35% like someone posted. If we want to abide and disrupt walkers and others close by, then let's do it for the whole county.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I honestly don't think she had thought that through. No one disputes her data. It was the application to the facts concerning RP2 that was just flat out wrong. She didn't even say which option she prefers--just that she wants RP2 to go to RP for her poor neighbors. Well, under alt. C they go to RP with at 40% FARMs rate.

She actually thought her testimony through more than you thought through your post here. Did she didn't advocate for Option C?

Looking back at her written testimony, I guess she said her "favorite" was option E. But as has been pointed out numerous times here, the difference between FARMs rates for RP2 under B (new school) or E (stay at RP) is nearly that same. Yet, RP2 benefits from proximity under B.

So how does E benefit RP2 again? They get to stay at the same school across 270? They get to be used as a way to show RP families what it's like to go to school with a few more FARMs kids?

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

Does anyone have copies of her data that everyone thinks is so spectacular. Also, if MCPS wants to take on her data then how come the average FARMS rate is 35% like someone posted. If we want to abide and disrupt walkers and others close by, then let's do it for the whole county.

Her source was this: https://tcf.org/assets/downloads/tcf-Schwartz.pdf

I didn't read the whole thing in detail, but it seems a little more nuanced than the bullets noted above. It seems mainly discusses the success of affordable housing integration in more affluent communities, using MCPS as its model.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I honestly don't think she had thought that through. No one disputes her data. It was the application to the facts concerning RP2 that was just flat out wrong. She didn't even say which option she prefers--just that she wants RP2 to go to RP for her poor neighbors. Well, under alt. C they go to RP with at 40% FARMs rate.

She actually thought her testimony through more than you thought through your post here. Did she didn't advocate for Option C?

Looking back at her written testimony, I guess she said her "favorite" was option E. But as has been pointed out numerous times here, the difference between FARMs rates for RP2 under B (new school) or E (stay at RP) is nearly that same. Yet, RP2 benefits from proximity under B.

So how does E benefit RP2 again? They get to stay at the same school across 270? They get to be used as a way to show RP families what it's like to go to school with a few more FARMs kids?

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

Does anyone have copies of her data that everyone thinks is so spectacular. Also, if MCPS wants to take on her data then how come the average FARMS rate is 35% like someone posted. If we want to abide and disrupt walkers and others close by, then let's do it for the whole county.

Her source was this: https://tcf.org/assets/downloads/tcf-Schwartz.pdf

I didn't read the whole thing in detail, but it seems a little more nuanced than the bullets noted above. It seems mainly discusses the success of affordable housing integration in more affluent communities, using MCPS as its model.

I don't have time to read the entire 57 pages right now, but it is fascinating then that 3 of these options (including the one that this parent and the Hungerford neighborhood support) bus Fallsgrove, which is a prime example of this housing policy from it's neighborhood all the way to RM ES 5 to balance the FARMS numbers among schools.

Also, as stated before RP2 is majority middle income family homes with a small cluster of low income housing run by Rockville Enterprises (a low-income housing program run by the City of Rockville) - again another example of affordable housing integration at work in the City of Rockville, yet people want those children bussed OUT of their integrated neighborhood to fulfill the needs of a less diverse neighborhood around Ritchie Park which was developed before housing integration.

What is the point of creating these diverse neighborhoods (so that bussing isn't needed to create diversity!!!) if they are going to be bussed out of their neighborhoods anyway!!!

[Anonymous]

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

Hungerford did a decent job at trying to chop up other neighborhoods in their proposal to get hungerford's farms numbers down. Now that a better option for themselves is on the table (option E) they are even willing to ban their own neighbors from their school. I watched the video of the board meeting when the superindendents recommendation first came out, the board specifically called these hungerford people out about emailing the board and complaining about home values. Imagine if hungerford had an option for 7% farms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I don't have time to read the entire 57 pages right now, but it is fascinating then that 3 of these options (including the one that this parent and the Hungerford neighborhood support) bus Fallsgrove, which is a prime example of this housing policy from it's neighborhood all the way to RM ES 5 to balance the FARMS numbers among schools.

Also, as stated before RP2 is majority middle income family homes with a small cluster of low income housing run by Rockville Enterprises (a low-income housing program run by the City of Rockville) - again another example of affordable housing integration at work in the City of Rockville, yet people want those children bussed OUT of their integrated neighborhood to fulfill the needs of a less diverse neighborhood around Ritchie Park which was developed before housing integration.

What is the point of creating these diverse neighborhoods (so that bussing isn't needed to create diversity!!!) if they are going to be bussed out of their neighborhoods anyway!!!

Because some people can't stand that RP might be 7% FARMs even if that means that other zones have to go to school further out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I don't have time to read the entire 57 pages right now, but it is fascinating then that 3 of these options (including the one that this parent and the Hungerford neighborhood support) bus Fallsgrove, which is a prime example of this housing policy from it's neighborhood all the way to RM ES 5 to balance the FARMS numbers among schools.

Also, as stated before RP2 is majority middle income family homes with a small cluster of low income housing run by Rockville Enterprises (a low-income housing program run by the City of Rockville) - again another example of affordable housing integration at work in the City of Rockville, yet people want those children bussed OUT of their integrated neighborhood to fulfill the needs of a less diverse neighborhood around Ritchie Park which was developed before housing integration.

What is the point of creating these diverse neighborhoods (so that bussing isn't needed to create diversity!!!) if they are going to be bussed out of their neighborhoods anyway!!!

Because some people can't stand that RP might be 7% FARMs even if that means that other zones have to go to school further out.

I really feel like HCA is the only one with that issue as E now presents them with FARMS in the teens, even if push RP2 out of their neighborhood school. Everyone else wanted A or B

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Hungerford did a decent job at trying to chop up other neighborhoods in their proposal to get hungerford's farms numbers down. Now that a better option for themselves is on the table (option E) they are even willing to ban their own neighbors from their school. I watched the video of the board meeting when the superindendents recommendation first came out, the board specifically called these hungerford people out about emailing the board and complaining about home values. Imagine if hungerford had an option for 7% farms.

I REALLY hope people are contacting the board and asking them how HCA can chop up neighborhoods and show a plan that takes away 8 others and puts us all in this circus. And then has the BALLS to no longer support it's own option B because option E is more appealing to them - while shocker, pushes RP2/6 out of their school and B5 in to create less diversity and FARMS. The one thing they said was the driving force behind their proposal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let's all again be reminded of the four factors BOE is supposed to be looking at:

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

What option best addresses as many of the four factors above? I don't know if one factor has more weight than another. I'm not even going to get into the Committee's criteria because those seem to now be out the window.

Thank you. Not sure why "don't change our schools" camp was talking about some random survey which is not even an indicative of anything due to extremely limited data. Everyone should simply stick to main factors defined in regulations. Anyway, boundary is not decided by popularity. It is decided by looking at all 4 factors and trying to balance it.

- CG Parent not in CG3

[Anonymous]

Isn't the Board just going to decide now? Debate over??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Isn't the Board just going to decide now? Debate over??

The BOE has said that they are still open to feedback via email before 11/27.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Hungerford did a decent job at trying to chop up other neighborhoods in their proposal to get hungerford's farms numbers down. Now that a better option for themselves is on the table (option E) they are even willing to ban their own neighbors from their school. I watched the video of the board meeting when the superindendents recommendation first came out, the board specifically called these hungerford people out about emailing the board and complaining about home values. Imagine if hungerford had an option for 7% farms.

I REALLY hope people are contacting the board and asking them how HCA can chop up neighborhoods and show a plan that takes away 8 others and puts us all in this circus. And then has the BALLS to no longer support it's own option B because option E is more appealing to them - while shocker, pushes RP2/6 out of their school and B5 in to create less diversity and FARMS. The one thing they said was the driving force behind their proposal.

What reasons did they give for no longer supporting B?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

What reasons did they give for no longer supporting B?

I am not from Hungerford, but my understanding is that they simply put something on map after one of the board member asked them to provide some suggestions. They didn't have any data to work with and had no clue what numbers will look like.

Now 5 options are on table. You can ask them why are you not picking your own suggested option? or You can see it that they are simply picking the best available option presented out of all 5.

[Anonymous]

Option A still doesn't work because it leaves CG and TB overcapacity.

It just doesn't make sense to build a new school and have schools remain overcapacity. The entire boundary study was to address overcrowding.

CG also is the only school in the cluster that does not have potential for future additions. The ONLY option for overcrowding in the future is more portables. Many parents in CG oppose continuing to have an overcrowded school.

Twinbrook wants to maintain their community and hopefully can address their overcrowding in capital improvements in the near future. In Option A, they lose their community and their Title 1 status