Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

By taking so many spots to whine that "We belong to CG, don't move us in Beall" they denied a chance to people with real concerns. There were only 3 Twinbrook people speaking. Only one RP2 person. CG3 whined their way through all these meetings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

i wish people would stop saying that it’s a 2 min difference. that is under ideal conditions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Why are you framing this as RP2 isn't "welcome to stay" at Ritchie Park??? RP6 is also moving in the same scenarios - is RP6 also not welcome at Ritchie Park? In the scenarios where RP5 moves, is it because Fallsgrove is not welcome at Ritchie Park???

RP6 is welcome anywhere (so basically a non-factor) because there are few FARMS students. Please don't be this dense.

It's not being dense, it's calling people out on faulty and hate-mongering assumptions. If a zone has a higher FARMS rate and is slated to move schools, it is framed by some people that they are being moved because the other school is kicking them out or they are unwanted at the school. Zones with lower FARMS that are zoned to move are not viewed as being kicked out or unwanted at their schools. Because a zone slated to move to another school happens to have a higher percentage of FARMS doesn't mean it is being moved because it is unwanted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

i wish people would stop saying that it’s a 2 min difference. that is under ideal conditions

Even under ideal conditions it is more than a 2 minute drive from Falls Rd & Wootton Pkwy to the new school. If you're getting there that fast, you must have all the lights on your side and be driving over the speed limit.

[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.

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.

Yes!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

By taking so many spots to whine that "We belong to CG, don't move us in Beall" they denied a chance to people with real concerns. There were only 3 Twinbrook people speaking. Only one RP2 person. CG3 whined their way through all these meetings.

They should have asked for school/zone when calling to reserve a spot and assigned spots more equitably to hear a broad spectrum of voices throughout the cluster. Making it strictly first come-first served was a was of giving everyone an EQUAL chance to sign up, but not an EQUITABLE distribution of voices.

See what I did there...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why are you framing this as RP2 isn't "welcome to stay" at Ritchie Park??? RP6 is also moving in the same scenarios - is RP6 also not welcome at Ritchie Park? In the scenarios where RP5 moves, is it because Fallsgrove is not welcome at Ritchie Park???

RP6 is welcome anywhere (so basically a non-factor) because there are few FARMS students. Please don't be this dense.

It's not being dense, it's calling people out on faulty and hate-mongering assumptions. If a zone has a higher FARMS rate and is slated to move schools, it is framed by some people that they are being moved because the other school is kicking them out or they are unwanted at the school. Zones with lower FARMS that are zoned to move are not viewed as being kicked out or unwanted at their schools. Because a zone slated to move to another school happens to have a higher percentage of FARMS doesn't mean it is being moved because it is unwanted.

Boundaries for the schools have not been drawn yet. RP2 was not zoned to RMES5 yet. You want it zoned to RMES5 for the benefit of proximity. Others want it to stay to RPES (including people from B2 - see http://www.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/AT5QU86AE74C/$file/Laurie%20Brooks.pdf) for the benefit in potential student achievement.

[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.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

i wish people would stop saying that it’s a 2 min difference. that is under ideal conditions

Google says that under ideal conditions the drive is 12 vs 12 minutes. Under the worst circumstances, it predicts 26 vs 24 minutes. Take it with Google.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Google says that under ideal conditions the drive is 12 vs 12 minutes. Under the worst circumstances, it predicts 26 vs 24 minutes. Take it with Google.

Sorry, I meant 12 vs 10 minutes and 26 vs 24 minutes.

[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.

No, you can continue to bring up one person's testimony based on one 57 page study that actually backs Options A or B if you read it all. Saying that building low income housing in all neighborhoods and keeping proximinity is the best way. That is exactly what MC is starting to do. It never says to bus them further. It actually argues against it.

24.5 to 31.5% is about 30 kids more in FARMS in the entire 6 grades. So about 5 more kids in every grade for IN-CLASS, since that seems to be so important to Hungerford. So about 1, maybe 2 kids per 28 kid classroom. You think that stat is so drastic that RP2 shouldn't be allowed to walk to their neighborhood school? If they pulled you from walking to your new neighborhood school with this stat, you would flip.

Not to mention the new Tower Oaks development that starts construction in the Spring with 30 single family homes in the 1.2 million, 225 town homes in the high 900K, and 120 condos in the high 500K are going to decrease that FARMS rate even more. Only 4 MPDU are going to be in that new development. In Option E, RM5 will have an overall FARMS rate in the very low teens in about 5 years. It will be brand new and bring on a MASSIVE increase in home value to the Hungerford neighborhood. That is their priority. That is why they are okay with letting their neighbors go. They will gain the most in home values by far in the whole cluster. Meanwhile their bussed neighbors home values will stay the same or decrease as the map CLEARLY shows they were botched up to bring FARMS to RP higher. They will see Elwood Smith community center being used for before/after care but that neighborhood isn't involved with that school. It is just not right. Ironically, I think Hungerford will see the most home price increases even with A and B. But they are all eyeing up E because it cuts their rates 50% more than initially projected.

If RP5 was so interested in FARMS, they would want Option E too. It gives them very low FARMS. Lower than they currently have at RP where they are very happy. But they don't care about FARMS. They don't want a longer community than they have so a walkable area to the same school they are being bussed to, gets bussed to the school they want to stay in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why are you framing this as RP2 isn't "welcome to stay" at Ritchie Park??? RP6 is also moving in the same scenarios - is RP6 also not welcome at Ritchie Park? In the scenarios where RP5 moves, is it because Fallsgrove is not welcome at Ritchie Park???

RP6 is welcome anywhere (so basically a non-factor) because there are few FARMS students. Please don't be this dense.

It's not being dense, it's calling people out on faulty and hate-mongering assumptions. If a zone has a higher FARMS rate and is slated to move schools, it is framed by some people that they are being moved because the other school is kicking them out or they are unwanted at the school. Zones with lower FARMS that are zoned to move are not viewed as being kicked out or unwanted at their schools. Because a zone slated to move to another school happens to have a higher percentage of FARMS doesn't mean it is being moved because it is unwanted.

Boundaries for the schools have not been drawn yet. RP2 was not zoned to RMES5 yet. You want it zoned to RMES5 for the benefit of proximity. Others want it to stay to RPES (including people from B2 - see http://www.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/AT5QU86AE74C/$file/Laurie%20Brooks.pdf) for the benefit in potential student achievement.

Make no mistake about it . There is a small but vocal group of residents that could not care less about the cluster performance or children commutes. Their one and only goal is about home values. They are about to retire and want to reap the highest return they can before moving on. There is no argument that anyone can make that will change their minds and they will support any voice that gets them closer to the goal.

[Anonymous]

We'd all do a lot better if we'd stop assuming the worst about everyone's motivations, yeesh. I thought the testimonies were all very civil and respectful. Too bad we can't stick to that here. The pros and cons of each option can be debated without proclaiming that people's reasoning isn't genuine and they really mean xyz.

Thankfully Ms Dixon understands that parents just want what's best for their children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

If BOE's main issue was capacity, they should never have put C on the table as it puts both CG and RP at overcapacity from day 1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We'd all do a lot better if we'd stop assuming the worst about everyone's motivations, yeesh. I thought the testimonies were all very civil and respectful. Too bad we can't stick to that here. The pros and cons of each option can be debated without proclaiming that people's reasoning isn't genuine and they really mean xyz.

Thankfully Ms Dixon understands that parents just want what's best for their children.

This here is the truth. I don’t doubt that anybody is acting to hurt any kdy else. We all want what is best. There can be no perfect solution, but let’s make sure that the solution picked isn’t the one that is equal because it hurts everybody