Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries

[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.

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.

Yes because TB has specifically stated numerous times that they don't want to lose title 1 status, nor does the community want to be split up to reduce their farms rate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Yes because TB has specifically stated numerous times that they don't want to lose title 1 status, nor does the community want to be split up to reduce their farms rate.

Well, then E is the only option which even does a lip service for balancing FARMs. BOE did a serious attempt for FARMs distribution, but if it makes too hard then E will work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They sent an email around to the Boundary Advisory Committee with the information today.

Losing Title One means the loss of extra $ that is provided for use beyond smaller class size. TITLE I $ can (and is) used at Twinbrook for free/subsidized before/after care at the Twinbrook Community Center as well as free/subsidized summer came and enrichment programs. MCPS does not offer this to their "FOCUS" schools.

[Anonymous]

Title one school has extra funding of $3000 per student, which translates to smaller classes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They also get more highly trained teachers, free summer school, and they have been piloting a new curriculum which one of the parents noted last night. Any students bussed to a different school will lose all of those services plus the new curriculum.

As Twinbrook and the cluster reps repeatedly stated last night, what they need is not lower FARMS and a broken up community but a RENOVATES building. Their building is in serious disrepair and MCPS has repeatedly passed over Twinbrook for renovations for years. With the new Rev/Ex system, Twinbrook keeps losing out, AND one of the new data points for priority on renovations is capacity issues, which Twinbrook definitely won't have if a bunch of their students get taken away.

When writing to the BoE, asking for Twinbrook to get its renovations is a concrete way of ACTUALLY helping the students at Twinbrook instead of calling them a failing school and trying to split them all up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They sent an email around to the Boundary Advisory Committee with the information today.

Losing Title One means the loss of extra $ that is provided for use beyond smaller class size. TITLE I $ can (and is) used at Twinbrook for free/subsidized before/after care at the Twinbrook Community Center as well as free/subsidized summer came and enrichment programs. MCPS does not offer this to their "FOCUS" schools.

Anonymous wrote:Title one school has extra funding of $3000 per student, which translates to smaller classes

Thanks. I didn't know the details. It looks like D is bad for Twinbrook students. They need all the help they can get.

E is the only option left which does anything for FARMs diversity, but I think it's simply keeps all FARMs students within their current schools and not really getting them from other schools. Still better than any other alternative.

After a serious attempt to look for FARMs diversity in RM cluster, I hope MCPS keeps it in mind to apply in all clusters as much as possible. Some clusters it's not possible because every school is either too high or too low in FARMs. Hopefully Woodward boundaries will keep this in account.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They sent an email around to the Boundary Advisory Committee with the information today.

Losing Title One means the loss of extra $ that is provided for use beyond smaller class size. TITLE I $ can (and is) used at Twinbrook for free/subsidized before/after care at the Twinbrook Community Center as well as free/subsidized summer came and enrichment programs. MCPS does not offer this to their "FOCUS" schools.

Damn.. that's a lot to lose for a poor family. I grew up lower income but didn't have those things. It would've really helped if we did. I was a latchkey kid and did absolutely nothing during the summer. And zero enrichment.

[Anonymous]

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

Proximity is just one factor. It doesn't mean it has to trump all the other factors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They sent an email around to the Boundary Advisory Committee with the information today.

Losing Title One means the loss of extra $ that is provided for use beyond smaller class size. TITLE I $ can (and is) used at Twinbrook for free/subsidized before/after care at the Twinbrook Community Center as well as free/subsidized summer came and enrichment programs. MCPS does not offer this to their "FOCUS" schools.

Anonymous wrote:Title one school has extra funding of $3000 per student, which translates to smaller classes

Thanks. I didn't know the details. It looks like D is bad for Twinbrook students. They need all the help they can get.

E is the only option left which does anything for FARMs diversity, but I think it's simply keeps all FARMs students within their current schools and not really getting them from other schools. Still better than any other alternative.

After a serious attempt to look for FARMs diversity in RM cluster, I hope MCPS keeps it in mind to apply in all clusters as much as possible. Some clusters it's not possible because every school is either too high or too low in FARMs. Hopefully Woodward boundaries will keep this in account.

And what about the other factors? Are you saying FARMs rate distribution is more important than proximity?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Proximity is just one factor. It doesn't mean it has to trump all the other factors.

And neither should FARMs factor trump proximity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They also get more highly trained teachers, free summer school, and they have been piloting a new curriculum which one of the parents noted last night. Any students bussed to a different school will lose all of those services plus the new curriculum.

As Twinbrook and the cluster reps repeatedly stated last night, what they need is not lower FARMS and a broken up community but a RENOVATES building. Their building is in serious disrepair and MCPS has repeatedly passed over Twinbrook for renovations for years. With the new Rev/Ex system, Twinbrook keeps losing out, AND one of the new data points for priority on renovations is capacity issues, which Twinbrook definitely won't have if a bunch of their students get taken away.

When writing to the BoE, asking for Twinbrook to get its renovations is a concrete way of ACTUALLY helping the students at Twinbrook instead of calling them a failing school and trying to split them all up.

Thanks for adding this details here. It's always good to know all details. Twinbrook should keep it's boundary. Not sure why E is not the choice of everyone here? I do think most folks don't want to change schools, but that's a short sighted way to look at things. No one likes to change schools mid way, but new boundary means doing it the best possible way and change. I watched the last night testimony and I saw a large group simply advocating for not wanting to change their current schools. It was very disappointing to see so many only thinking about their kids for the next few years. Understandable , but disappointing.

[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.

The option doesn't push RP2/6 out of their school, it keeps them in their current school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Thanks for adding this details here. It's always good to know all details. Twinbrook should keep it's boundary. Not sure why E is not the choice of everyone here? I do think most folks don't want to change schools, but that's a short sighted way to look at things. No one likes to change schools mid way, but new boundary means doing it the best possible way and change. I watched the last night testimony and I saw a large group simply advocating for not wanting to change their current schools. It was very disappointing to see so many only thinking about their kids for the next few years. Understandable , but disappointing.

It's not just about "I don't want to move school". For some, it's about "the commute is too far", which is true in some cases.

[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.

The option doesn't push RP2/6 out of their school, it keeps them in their current school.

But ES#5 would be their school since it's closer and within their neighborhood. So, effectively in 2018+, they are not allowed to go to their neighborhood school and instead are bused further away.

[Anonymous]

RP5 has a point with their extra commute