Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries

[Anonymous]

Who cares about the children. Make RP look good on paper, flip your house and the hell out of the cluster

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up low income. There was a woman who spoke who grew up low income. I agree with what she said... having your neighborhood within a walking distance ES , or at least as close as possible, is extremely important as well. Parents don't have the means or time to pickup the child for after school activities and such. If the parents don't have their own transportation, it will be much more difficult for the parent to pick up a sick child.

I do understand about the "magic" FARMs number, but people shouldn't discount the hardship for low income families having to live further away from their ES, either.

I also want to point out that there are FARMs kids in RP5, too, though I don't know how many there are. I know it's not that big, but what about them in terms of the extra commute time, even if it is a few minutes. If they rely on before/after care, they will have to spend that much more time and money (on gas) to go a bit further out, too. It's not like ES#5 is on everyone's way to work. Some people may have to backtrack.

It sucks for anyone who has a longer commute because of the move.

It's a matter of proximity vs. concentration of FARMS students. Proximity is important, but achieving education goals should trump it. RP2 already goes to RPES, so the parents are integrated in that community and have things figured out. The woman who spoke at the boundary meeting said she wanted to give a voice to a few families who were in front holding signs saying that they want to stay at RPES.

If you only focus on proximity then that will always result in concentrating FARMs in one and not having in another. Whole point of this debate is to not focus solely on proximity to avoid segregation.

C exclusively focuses on FARMs at expense of proximity - Bad option

D keeps a balance for proximity and FARMs - Difficuolt due to TB

E leans towards proximity and does some job of FARMs diversity. - Not ideal, but a decent option

Are we now saying that let's focus only on proximity and just forget about FARMs diversity? Option A and B only focuses on proximity. Proximity is a important factor and ideally if TB was not facing trouble, option D does the best job of balancing proximity and FARMs diversity. Hopefully, BOE can fund some program for Twinbrook and go with option D.

The bolded point above is simply UNTRUE. It is untrue because the very neighborhood you are talking about bussing the most is the epitome of what the author of the study points to as the kind of neighborhood that allows for integrated schools and is held up in the study as a model of how to achieve this. I did not read every single sentence of the study (though I read a lot), and I don't recall the author suggesting ANYWHERE that economically integrated neighborhoods should be bussed out to other schools willy nilly to fix their insufficient diversity problems. The whole point of integrated neighborhoods is to AVOID bussing children long distances because the diversity already exists in their community.

Fallsgrove has MPDU homes for sale (12.5 % MPDU purchase units) as well as rentals, as well as low-income housing units run by Rockville Enterprises. However, everyone's perception of the neighborhood is that it is very high income (for the most part, it is). It is literally the definition of the type of housing that the study's author recommends as leading to integrated schools and better outcomes for kids using FARMS. So why are we contemplating bussing this progressively designed neighborhood far away to compensate for older communities that did not have these progressive policies in place?

Also, relatedly: http://www.bethesdamagazine.com/Bethesda-Beat/2017/Council-Member-Wants-To-Increase-Affordable-Housing-in-Development-Projects-in-Wealthy-Areas/#.WhA53nIZ5Rg.facebook

Both MoCo and the City of Rockville have their own, but very similar, MPDU and low-income housing policies.

Everyone who is touting that study about FARMS rates and student outcomes should be advocating for more integrated housing models, not bussing children all over the cluster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No math calculations are even needed. You must make an argument about the nature of the “big difference” in a few percentage points that justifies the gerrymandering. As has been pointed out, the study cited talked about integrated affordable housing producing better balance and housing stability which particularly helps where Farms is below 20 percent, which is not on the table for RP2 under any scenario.

I think you didn't really understand that research. Look at the bullet points here: http://www.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/AT5QU86AE74C/$file/Laurie%20Brooks.pdf
It says that the lower the FARMS rate, the better for FARMS students. It doesn't say that you have to be at FARMS below 20%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hmm. If only we could figure a way to get RP2 to Twinbrook. That would actually be ideal because I hear they benefit more at 70 percent farms.

They benefit at 70 due to getting title 1 funding, but they are already at 70 in many options. They don't need to have more FARMs to go over 70.

We could help hungerford get to title 1 status too so they have additional resources.

Well, I see that at least you are trying. You would do anything to keep RP at 7%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm a bit confused. What FARMs rate exactly was incorrect in the previous options? I thought one of the incorrect FARMs rate was ES#5, but what exactly was incorrect about it?

The previous options had RMES5 at 42% FARMS with 53% in regular classes. The MCPS staff overestimated those numbers for reasons that were not made public.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a bit confused. What FARMs rate exactly was incorrect in the previous options? I thought one of the incorrect FARMs rate was ES#5, but what exactly was incorrect about it?

The previous options had RMES5 at 42% FARMS with 53% in regular classes. The MCPS staff overestimated those numbers for reasons that were not made public.

Sorry, it should read: the superintendent's proposal had RMES5 at 42% FARMS with 53% in regular classes. The MCPS staff overestimated those numbers for reasons that were not made public.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up low income. There was a woman who spoke who grew up low income. I agree with what she said... having your neighborhood within a walking distance ES , or at least as close as possible, is extremely important as well. Parents don't have the means or time to pickup the child for after school activities and such. If the parents don't have their own transportation, it will be much more difficult for the parent to pick up a sick child.

I do understand about the "magic" FARMs number, but people shouldn't discount the hardship for low income families having to live further away from their ES, either.

I also want to point out that there are FARMs kids in RP5, too, though I don't know how many there are. I know it's not that big, but what about them in terms of the extra commute time, even if it is a few minutes. If they rely on before/after care, they will have to spend that much more time and money (on gas) to go a bit further out, too. It's not like ES#5 is on everyone's way to work. Some people may have to backtrack.

It sucks for anyone who has a longer commute because of the move.

It's a matter of proximity vs. concentration of FARMS students. Proximity is important, but achieving education goals should trump it. RP2 already goes to RPES, so the parents are integrated in that community and have things figured out. The woman who spoke at the boundary meeting said she wanted to give a voice to a few families who were in front holding signs saying that they want to stay at RPES.

The difference is 1 child in a classroom like a PP said. That is not enough FARMS integration to make a WALKABLE area move to getting bussed. Yes, they are already there but they would indeed now have neighbors on all sides of them going to RM5 with them. In Option E all surroundings areas but the small RP6 corner below would be at RM5 - but then. And they can walk/bike there. It also costs the school district more money in Option E. More busses, more gas, and longer routes that can get stuck in traffic, especially B5.. Adding 1 less kids in a FARMS class is not worth that hassle in cost or increased time to EVERYONE but B3 (who is going in all options.)

[Anonymous]

The board didn't create E so the board will not vote on E.

[Anonymous]

What is remarkable is that RMES#5 is already picking up several low income apartment complexes in the area. This whole debate is about RP keeping ONE that is currently attending RP in order to improve the whole cluster outcomes.

All else is noise brought up by forum trolls.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The board didn't create E so the board will not vote on E.

Option E is the original option #8.. not sure where it came from.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a bit confused. What FARMs rate exactly was incorrect in the previous options? I thought one of the incorrect FARMs rate was ES#5, but what exactly was incorrect about it?

The previous options had RMES5 at 42% FARMS with 53% in regular classes. The MCPS staff overestimated those numbers for reasons that were not made public.

Sorry, it should read: the superintendent's proposal had RMES5 at 42% FARMS with 53% in regular classes. The MCPS staff overestimated those numbers for reasons that were not made public.

It had something to do with the TB section that was moving to RM5 in most scenarios. . They thought it would decrease FARMS at TB by 11% but it actually increased it by 1.5% So obviously moving that section wouldn't have had increased FARMS to RM5.

So instead of looking them over again, they scraped them all and game no public reason why. What a bunch of idiots. And now we are scrambling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fallsgrove has MPDU homes for sale (12.5 % MPDU purchase units) as well as rentals, as well as low-income housing units run by Rockville Enterprises. However, everyone's perception of the neighborhood is that it is very high income (for the most part, it is). It is literally the definition of the type of housing that the study's author recommends as leading to integrated schools and better outcomes for kids using FARMS. So why are we contemplating bussing this progressively designed neighborhood far away to compensate for older communities that did not have these progressive policies in place?

Because of stupid school assignments. They have schools closer to them, but they are bused to RPES.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The difference is 1 child in a classroom like a PP said. That is not enough FARMS integration to make a WALKABLE area move to getting bussed. Yes, they are already there but they would indeed now have neighbors on all sides of them going to RM5 with them. In Option E all surroundings areas but the small RP6 corner below would be at RM5 - but then. And they can walk/bike there. It also costs the school district more money in Option E. More busses, more gas, and longer routes that can get stuck in traffic, especially B5.. Adding 1 less kids in a FARMS class is not worth that hassle in cost or increased time to EVERYONE but B3 (who is going in all options.)

Percentages are really hard to understand on this board. 24% means one in every 4 kids. That means 6 kids out of a class of 24. 32% means one in every 3 kids. That means 8 kids out of a class of 24. Where you got 1 kid difference is beyond me. And yes, research shows advantages for 25% vs 30%, no matter how many kids that means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fallsgrove has MPDU homes for sale (12.5 % MPDU purchase units) as well as rentals, as well as low-income housing units run by Rockville Enterprises. However, everyone's perception of the neighborhood is that it is very high income (for the most part, it is). It is literally the definition of the type of housing that the study's author recommends as leading to integrated schools and better outcomes for kids using FARMS. So why are we contemplating bussing this progressively designed neighborhood far away to compensate for older communities that did not have these progressive policies in place?

Because of stupid school assignments. They have schools closer to them, but they are bused to RPES.

So RP capacity looks reasonable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is remarkable is that RMES#5 is already picking up several low income apartment complexes in the area. This whole debate is about RP keeping ONE that is currently attending RP in order to improve the whole cluster outcomes.

All else is noise brought up by forum trolls.

+1