Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Funny how the most affordable neighborhood in the cluster tried their hardest to limit farms even if it means moving certain neighbors. I don't believe that hungerford asked for twinbrook to stay in RMES. Their proposal even removed twinbrook and the board (watch the videos) said how they received emails from hungerford in how students "don't belong." They have one of the cheapest neighborhoods in the cluster there will be some neighbors with farms, not a big deal(communities are built on neighborhoods not some farms number), especially if they are able to get title one in the future.

Get hold of 100s of letters send by Hungerford. It's there.

As soon as undated data came out, it was clear that TB overcapacity was possible to solve by moving T3 to RM#5 without taking away their title 1.

Try to sit through some data and you will come to the same conclusion. It hardly matters what you believe. Just go and ask BOE members if they received letters from HUngerford for including T3 in RM#5?

[Anonymous]

For those protesting Option B carving up zones, you don't have to assume nefarious intentions.

The Board threw it back on those opposing the Superintendent's recommendation to propose something else. The Superintendent had already rejected options 1-8, so assume you have to come up with something new.

Take it as a given that the Board and Superintendent wants all schools undercapacity since that seemed to be a driving motivation in the Superintendent's recommendation and the whole reason for a new school.

That means some zone out of CG has to move. CG3 is the most logical. But now that means additional students have to move from Beall.

Moving all of B6 really stinks for those directly along Montgomery Ave. Moving all of B5 really stinks for those at the upper end of B5. So, why are we bound to the existing polygons? The Board wants something new, so only move students from B5 and B6 with decent proximity to the new school who aren't within a 10 min walk to Beall anyway.

It's a compromise on capacity and proximity. The Board could have rejected it, as they rejected many other proposals emailed to them. They thought it had merits and should get public feedback. That's it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I did see Hungerford write ups. They had couple of write ups for BOE. They actually asked T3 to be moved to RM#5 in many letters. Not sure if you saw it, but one of the BOE member sshowed it to me.

T3 to Hungerford ?? , why on earth would they pry a high FARMS neighborhood away from TB and into their low FARMs heaven ?

Well, I am just sharing what I saw. It may have been an attempt to balance capacity. I meant trying to reduce TB below 100%. I don't see any other reason.

Well, we are not as bad as people might think. We are thinking about what's best for the cluster.

That would be great for RP, also. They would stay with their "neighborhood feel" and FARMS rate similar to other schools in their neighborhood.

I thought rezoning was Hungerford's idea to bring hardship to peaceful communities who simply want things to stay as they were ?

Ironic, huh?

How about we send RP2/6 to their new neighborhood school they are zoned for, and then bring in T3/4 as well. Then we bus Hungerford to TB. I mean if it balances FARMS, it is okay to bus people, right? They would be okay with that if it is best for the community and diversity.

[Anonymous]

I think there's a lot of "it's fine for your kids but not mine" going on.

People who think it's ok to bus kids all over (RP5 to #5), but if it was his/her own kids, that same person would be raising hell.

King farm parent who wants CG3 to leave. I'd guess if king farm was slated to move, the KF association would have mobilized and raised hell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How will RP serve them better? 24.5% FARMS instead of 26% (30% in class) with Option B. For 5% - really? For about 20 less FARMS kids in the whole school they can't go to their own neighborhood school that is being built for them to walk to? I think RP5 and RP2/6 are being used as pawns in some game in Option E. Both have to go further to look slightly better on paper. Same with B5. If it was a substantial difference, yes I can see maybe letting RP5 go a few lmilies further, but I will never advocate for a walkable section to get bussed elsewhere. We aren't doing it in any other cluster school and we shouldn't do it to RP2 with RM5 either.

The FARMS rate in regular classes at RMES5 would be 32%. There is a statistical difference between 24.5% and 32% , as studies show:
• 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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why can't farms students be allowed to attend any school that is under capacity? it seems more dynamic, if their parents are willing to drive them, what's the harm in opening the boundaries for families with low means can attend any school that is under capacity. If they feel they cannot get the same education at a high farms school, why can't they go to any school in the cluster that is under capacity. If my school had capacity, I think those students would be a great addition to our school

Thought is a good one here. One issue may be not many FARMs family having means to private transport. I do appreciate your thinking here though. I was a FARMs kids growing up. It's not about those fmilies not having money. When you are struggling with so little money, many other families issues starts surfacing. I had one abusing and alcoholic parent. My life was hell.

I wish folks can see some point from FARMs students well being as well rather than simply thinking about themselves. Well do families have enough voice. WG did all this just to not change to another walk able school. They shouted loudly to ignore FAMRS issue and even threatened BOE to not focus on SES diversity.

FARMs kids have virtually no voice. Only voice they had was from TB and one speaker from RP2 who advocated strongly for keeping RP2 kids in RP. Her reason was that more schools with 20% FARMS helping FARMs kids will help more FARMs kids in our country. That way other schools can also serve rest of the FARMs kids whenever it's possible. I don't think it's always possible to do in Potomac or Silver Spring due to nature of housing.

Folks don't have to agree with TB or RP2 speakers, but we can we take few minutes to think about FARMs kids who face 10 times hardship in their daily life. I know it's hard to imagine, but many things taken for granted by regular families are simply a dream for FARMs kids. I will not add more comments here, but I always appreciate any thoughtful comments to help the least privileged kids in our society. May be I am biased, but we all are biased based on our upbringings.

PP thanks again for being thoughtful here for how we can help FARMs kids. I will point out one thing here. There is research done within MCPS that it helps FARMs kids to improve their reading and math level if they attend schools around 20% or lower FARMs. None of us have to go by our feelings here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well I guess some of you CG parents should have shown up to testify on your school's behalf. Every CG presenter was for Option A.

CGES iss only affected if they don't lose capacity. Those testifying were the whiny CG3 people. They took as many spots as possible so other people can hear them whine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

King farm parent who wants CG3 to leave. I'd guess if king farm was slated to move, the KF association would have mobilized and raised hell.

CG3 noise is the most pathetic here. They don't want to move to one close school to another which is same distance. let's not use their example to make any point even if you want to make a point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Funny how the most affordable neighborhood in the cluster tried their hardest to limit farms even if it means moving certain neighbors. I don't believe that hungerford asked for twinbrook to stay in RMES. Their proposal even removed twinbrook and the board (watch the videos) said how they received emails from hungerford in how students "don't belong." They have one of the cheapest neighborhoods in the cluster there will be some neighbors with farms, not a big deal(communities are built on neighborhoods not some farms number), especially if they are able to get title one in the future.

We have many people in Hungerford. Some are not very well spoken and did say those things. They don't represent Hungerford Civic Association.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think there's a lot of "it's fine for your kids but not mine" going on.

Spot on here. WG is perfect example of this. I don't want to talk to another school, but you all can move.

[Anonymous]

*Spot on here. WG is perfect example of this. I don't want to move to another school, but you all can move. *

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yep - this King Farm CG parent supports Option B. Actually what I think should have been done is leave Twinbrook alone but blow up the rest of the boundaries and let the domino effect happen.

That would have been the smartest choice. RP5 would not be in this mess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How will RP serve them better? 24.5% FARMS instead of 26% (30% in class) with Option B. For 5% - really? For about 20 less FARMS kids in the whole school they can't go to their own neighborhood school that is being built for them to walk to? I think RP5 and RP2/6 are being used as pawns in some game in Option E. Both have to go further to look slightly better on paper. Same with B5. If it was a substantial difference, yes I can see maybe letting RP5 go a few lmilies further, but I will never advocate for a walkable section to get bussed elsewhere. We aren't doing it in any other cluster school and we shouldn't do it to RP2 with RM5 either.

The FARMS rate in regular classes at RMES5 would be 32%. There is a statistical difference between 24.5% and 32% , as studies show:
• 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.

I live in Hungerford and I think RMES5 will be a great school in any of the options. A FARMS of 30-something is not dooming anyone.

However, if Option E gives more students a higher probability of being on an even playing field by the time they reach middle school, that's good for the whole RM community and worth consideration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well I guess some of you CG parents should have shown up to testify on your school's behalf. Every CG presenter was for Option A.

CGES iss only affected if they don't lose capacity. Those testifying were the whiny CG3 people. They took as many spots as possible so other people can hear them whine.

57 people spoke...was anyone denied a chance?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think there's a lot of "it's fine for your kids but not mine" going on.

People who think it's ok to bus kids all over (RP5 to #5), but if it was his/her own kids, that same person would be raising hell.

King farm parent who wants CG3 to leave. I'd guess if king farm was slated to move, the KF association would have mobilized and raised hell.

It is a two minute difference for RP5. B7 has a bigger increase in travel time and the same bus time overall from moving to the new school. We have not heard a peep from them. It is a ridiculous argument.