Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries

[Anonymous]

A is simply the camp who don't want to change schools and they have no logical reasoning. A is simply a stupid idea because you can't build a new school and still keep others up till their neck. For twin brook, I can see hardship argument, but for CG3 it's not a hardship. they are walking distance to Beall.

Woodley garden drama was pathetic and if every moving zone started doing that then you can't have any fact based discussion.

So if MCPS violates all guidelines and only goes with "no change in my school" camps , they can't really put option A.


OPtion B has some opposition due to proposal coming from communities. Let's eliminate it as well then.

C is probably an impractical option.

D actually looks pretty good to me. I am not sure why it's not gathering support. Only 2 zones of TB is moving here and it keeps all 4 schools 20-30% range. TB also goes down to 50%. This is a perfect balance between proximity and FARMs diversity.

If you want to lean too much for proximity and avoid any hardship for TB, then E is another option. E hardly creates any hardship for anyone and still balances FARMs while keeping TB together.

it's between D and E if MCPS cares even a bit about FARMs diversity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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

I agree with everything except the bold part. Unless I am missing something, how TB is overcapacity precisely due to not losing any zone. Why will they lose title 1?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Hungerford civic is a messenger that simply crunched the numbers before anyone else:
C, D are out ( not practical)
A - doesn't allow for capacity ( which is the point of this whole exercise)
E has by far less disruptive than B

So don't hate the messenger , crunch the number and you shall know.

(btw RP should pray that RP2 stays with them) Next time around the board will join another random neighborhood with RP just to fill up the capacity . RP2 is a known beast and makes the neighborhood look ok.( All of the diversity and ALL of FARMS in RP come from RP2 and RP5)

My 5 cents
-Proud parent of the new and beautiful Hungerford ES

[Anonymous]

* correction Most of the capacity and most of the diversity comes from RP2 and RP5

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Hungerford civic is a messenger that simply crunched the numbers before anyone else:
C, D are out ( not practical)
A - doesn't allow for capacity ( which is the point of this whole exercise)
E has by far less disruptive than B

So don't hate the messenger , crunch the number and you shall know.

(btw RP should pray that RP2 stays with them) Next time around the board will join another random neighborhood with RP just to fill up the capacity . RP2 is a known beast and makes the neighborhood look ok.( All of the diversity and ALL of FARMS in RP come from RP2 and RP5)

My 5 cents
-Proud parent of the new and beautiful Hungerford ES

There are farms in RP not in RP5 or RP2– 4.1%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

There are farms in RP not in RP5 or RP2– 4.1%

Nope: According to the board of ED figures ALL of the statistically significant (whatever the margin of error might be) of the FARMS and non-whites comes from just RP2 and RP5

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Hungerford civic is a messenger that simply crunched the numbers before anyone else:
C, D are out ( not practical)
A - doesn't allow for capacity ( which is the point of this whole exercise)
E has by far less disruptive than B

So don't hate the messenger , crunch the number and you shall know.

(btw RP should pray that RP2 stays with them) Next time around the board will join another random neighborhood with RP just to fill up the capacity . RP2 is a known beast and makes the neighborhood look ok.( All of the diversity and ALL of FARMS in RP come from RP2 and RP5)

My 5 cents
-Proud parent of the new and beautiful Hungerford ES

There's no way parents in the rest of the cluster will vote on the name "Hungerford ES" after this debacle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

There are farms in RP not in RP5 or RP2– 4.1%

MCPS doesn't even consider 4% worth listing. All fact sheets doesn't list anything less than 5%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

There's no way parents in the rest of the cluster will vote on the name "Hungerford ES" after this debacle.

Dawson Farm ES also works

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
There's no way parents in the rest of the cluster will vote on the name "Hungerford ES" after this debacle.

I vote for Alternative D and some other name as well. D at least makes some attempt for FARMs diversity without being too disruptive for communities. No other option does that. E does it, but without involving TB.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There are farms in RP not in RP5 or RP2– 4.1%

MCPS doesn't even consider 4% worth listing. All fact sheets doesn't list anything less than 5%.

I know.. but it keeps s 4.1%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There's no way parents in the rest of the cluster will vote on the name "Hungerford ES" after this debacle.

I vote for Alternative D and some other name as well. D at least makes some attempt for FARMs diversity without being too disruptive for communities. No other option does that. E does it, but without involving TB.

Yes, except it royally screws the most vulnerable of the ES - TB losing Title 1 status.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There's no way parents in the rest of the cluster will vote on the name "Hungerford ES" after this debacle.

I vote for Alternative D and some other name as well. D at least makes some attempt for FARMs diversity without being too disruptive for communities. No other option does that. E does it, but without involving TB.

Yes, except it royally screws the most vulnerable of the ES - TB losing Title 1 status.

MCPS is supposed to share what exact resources TB will lose by going to 50% FARMs from 70%. I am not aware of of exact details and if anyone can share it it will help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There's no way parents in the rest of the cluster will vote on the name "Hungerford ES" after this debacle.

I vote for Alternative D and some other name as well. D at least makes some attempt for FARMs diversity without being too disruptive for communities. No other option does that. E does it, but without involving TB.

Yes, except it royally screws the most vulnerable of the ES - TB losing Title 1 status.

Well, then they have to take E, but that's not really too much balancing of FARMs across cluster. It does only across 4 schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There's no way parents in the rest of the cluster will vote on the name "Hungerford ES" after this debacle.

I vote for Alternative D and some other name as well. D at least makes some attempt for FARMs diversity without being too disruptive for communities. No other option does that. E does it, but without involving TB.

Yes, except it royally screws the most vulnerable of the ES - TB losing Title 1 status.

MCPS is supposed to share what exact resources TB will lose by going to 50% FARMs from 70%. I am not aware of of exact details and if anyone can share it it will help.

Title 1 status provides extra funding from the federal government for such schools. I don't know how much money we are talking about though. For mcps, they also provide additional services and smaller class sizes. Big thing for high poverty schools imo.