Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP.. you are pointing out one vocal person from RP2 who wants to stay in RP for the benefit of FARMs kids. I'm not even sure her kids are on FARMs, but how do those people who are FARMs families feel?

She wasn't vocal, she was quite emotional. Look at the video and you will see. She was speaking on behalf of a few families who were sitting in front with signs saying that they want to go to RPES. She did her research and her speech was very eloquent. She was called an idiot on this board by RP parents who did not agree that RP2 should stay in RPES.

She was called an "idiot" simply because she stated that FARMs kids would be better served at a school with 24% vs 26%. It's a 2% difference scattered by grade. I wasn't one who called her that, but that was the point some people were making.

She made a point that not using RP for FARMS kids means we are using one less elementary to help FARMs. RP is positioned with 20% FARMs to help as many FARMS kids RP can help. That way other schools can help other FARMs kids.

I am really shocked by intelligence of many posters here.

I couldn't attend, but watched it from home. Standing ovation was needed for the point she made.

RP2 speaker was the only person who put FARMs kids well being for entire county without any selfish reason and also backed up with documented research done within MCPS. I read the entire research and fully convinced that not paying attention to what she is saying is a huge mistake. Everyone should take some time to understand what she was saying and not simply cherypick to score points. She is talking about a much bigger issue than simply what we are facing in RM cluster.

Here is "standing ovation" lady troll again. I read the whole thing too. It says to integrate lower income housing within higher income neighborhoods. That is EXACTLY what MC does. In KF, PP, FG, RTC, and the new Tower Oaks. It NEVER once says to move walkable kids and bus them further them they they need to go. Not once. We are not talking about Potomac with no FARMS. This entire cluster is integrated with some FARMS and the middle school AND high school are both higher FARMS than 25% - and everyone is going there. Keep the kids close to home. That 1 child a class difference with extra hardship for more people is not what that report said. Not at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I guess we all better move out of our own cluster then. The middle and high school must me just terrible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is "standing ovation" lady troll again. I read the whole thing too. It says to integrate lower income housing within higher income neighborhoods. That is EXACTLY what MC does. In KF, PP, FG, RTC, and the new Tower Oaks. It NEVER once says to move walkable kids and bus them further them they they need to go. Not once. We are not talking about Potomac with no FARMS. This entire cluster is integrated with some FARMS and the middle school AND high school are both higher FARMS than 25% - and everyone is going there. Keep the kids close to home. That 1 child a class difference with extra hardship for more people is not what that report said. Not at all.

I've just proven that it is not one kid difference. Do you understand math at any reasonable level?

[Anonymous]

Honestly it seems like you all are dramatizing this situation. Why not wait until the 27th to find out what it will be instead of wasting your time debating back and forth about something you have no control over anyway?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That's why no one advocating for option C.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That's why no one advocating for option C.

But some people are supporting E which includes extra busing for Fallsgrove and RP2 & 6.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That's why no one advocating for option C.

But some people are supporting E which includes extra busing for Fallsgrove and RP2 & 6.

There is only one neighborhood advocating for option E and we all know which one that is.

[Anonymous]

seriously, people are underestimating traffic from fallsgrove to hungerford. it’ll be a disaster

[Anonymous]

Teacher can only do that much in a classroom, there is definitely a threshold, my friend is a teacher she said 4 is under control, 5, 6 Is overwhelming, above that is exshausing, that is why title 1 has small classroom size and extra teacher.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is "standing ovation" lady troll again. I read the whole thing too. It says to integrate lower income housing within higher income neighborhoods. That is EXACTLY what MC does. In KF, PP, FG, RTC, and the new Tower Oaks. It NEVER once says to move walkable kids and bus them further them they they need to go. Not once. We are not talking about Potomac with no FARMS. This entire cluster is integrated with some FARMS and the middle school AND high school are both higher FARMS than 25% - and everyone is going there. Keep the kids close to home. That 1 child a class difference with extra hardship for more people is not what that report said. Not at all.

I've just proven that it is not one kid difference. Do you understand math at any reasonable level?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

The debate is about proximity vs FARMs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:seriously, people are underestimating traffic from fallsgrove to hungerford. it’ll be a disaster

Including Fallsgrove in RM cluster was a disaster and a result of RP's culture wars of the past. Everything that's happened and will happen in the next 4-5 years is just a consequence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
There is only one neighborhood advocating for option E and we all know which one that is.

RP2?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

The debate is about proximity vs FARMs.

Absolutely not. The debate is about FARMs only, proximity is just a way to misdirect and disguise true motivations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP... you are making assumptions that the 24 vs 30% is within every class. As a PP noted, if you REALLY want to understand how the numbers play out per grade, you have to figure out the FARMs rate per grade, and not just apply a flat 24% or 30% across all grades.