Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is that what people are really fighting for? 2 kids?? Everyone needs to get bussed further than their home school in Option E for 2 more kids per class? That doesn't even include the Chinese immersion families that are heavily invested in their school and community. Good God you people are strange. Who is behind this fight? What is the point. I am more confused now than ever. What is wrong with B again? My head hurts.

It is easy for a clueless individual to say that 2 extra kids won't make any difference, but ask any teacher what it means to have 8 instead of 6 FARMS kids in their class. At 25% FARMS 6 kids have the chance to be brought to the same level as their peers close to the end of the elementary school. At 33% most of the 8 kids will still be behind at the end of elementary school. It's not about 2 kids. It is about 6 kids succeeding or 8 kids not succeeding.

Are you standing ovation troll? You are so over the top dramatic.
How many FARMS kids will be with your non IB, non honors kids in JW? I guess those 8 kids will never succeed in middle or high school either.

[Anonymous]

To answer the question from the other day about whether the new Tower Oaks development was included in the planning projections, this chart from the committee sessions in the spring seems to indicate YES: http://gis.mcpsmd.org/boundarystudypdfs/RMES5_Housing%20Developments.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And what is the travel time for students on those buses now? It's not about bus pick up time, it's travel time. Are they 4 miles away from Beall (serious question, I have no idea)?

Since some trolls started talking that those bus route won't exist next year, let me stick to one example which will exist next year.

Route: 5313 - FALLSMEAD ES (GREEN) Start time : 8:07 A.M first stop End time 8:40 ..... That's 33 minutes of bus ride , right here in nearby school.

It was blown out of proportion by RP parents as if Fallsgrove is suffering too much and no other kids suffer this much and I actually believed it.

? I'm sorry, but why are you bringing in a different ES in a different cluster into this discussion? Lots of kids from all over have long bus rides because of the gerrymandering.

That area from Fallsmeade is so far away and will be rezoned to Crown as soon as it is built. It isn't like they had boundary studies done and made them go further. There is a boundary study NOW for the RM cluster and FG should not have to be bussed further, but sadly they are off in the corner really no where near any school. It is a shame how far they are already. Just keep them in their school and let that other section walk. I can't believe moving people further in all aspects should even be an option, especially for them. If they were 40% FARMS instead of only 13% people would be in an uproar how unfair it is to them. If they fight they look like elitists. They are in a no win situation. I say this as a walkable GC parent. If someone pulled me from walking or bussing further I would fight too.

So you also believe B7 should not have to go to the new school since they have a ride just as long? There is no option that gives RP5 the longest bus ride. Why is that zone so special and why is no one else complaining?

DP.. how do you know how long B7's bus ride will be to the new ES? On the map, the distance is really short. It looks about equidistant to Beall from the center of B7.

I am not the PP, but Beall is a much shorter ride than RM#5. Don't look at the map from air. That's the mistake folks make when they think about neat looking maps.

I live in B7. I actually timed it and it's a significantly longer ride to RM#5. Dept of transportation estimate for B7 zone is much higher as well for Rm#5 when compared to Beall. They gave those estimates a while back. B7 bus will have to first go to B5 to go to RM#5.

You honestly make no sense and didn't answer the question.

MCPS estimates for B7 state that your current bus ride is 9 minutes and would increase to 12 minutes going to RM ES #5. They estimated RP5's current bus time as 10 minutes and would increase to 15 minutes going to RM ES #5. I would imagine that these estimates would very somewhat depending on what section of the zone you were in. But it sounds like B7 has and would have a slightly shorter commute than RP5. http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/departments/planning/Meeting5presentation050317.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is that what people are really fighting for? 2 kids?? Everyone needs to get bussed further than their home school in Option E for 2 more kids per class? That doesn't even include the Chinese immersion families that are heavily invested in their school and community. Good God you people are strange. Who is behind this fight? What is the point. I am more confused now than ever. What is wrong with B again? My head hurts.

It is easy for a clueless individual to say that 2 extra kids won't make any difference, but ask any teacher what it means to have 8 instead of 6 FARMS kids in their class. At 25% FARMS 6 kids have the chance to be brought to the same level as their peers close to the end of the elementary school. At 33% most of the 8 kids will still be behind at the end of elementary school. It's not about 2 kids. It is about 6 kids succeeding or 8 kids not succeeding.

Are you standing ovation troll? You are so over the top dramatic.
How many FARMS kids will be with your non IB, non honors kids in JW? I guess those 8 kids will never succeed in middle or high school either.

Stop debunking hungerford's argument for option E.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To answer the question from the other day about whether the new Tower Oaks development was included in the planning projections, this chart from the committee sessions in the spring seems to indicate YES: http://gis.mcpsmd.org/boundarystudypdfs/RMES5_Housing%20Developments.pdf

This does not prove they factored it in. The chart only says the development was included in the numbers. B5 grows as it should in the projections.

The numbers show B3 shrinking over the next five years. That is the concern, MCPS says they factored it in but the numbers don't show it. B3 is only about 100 kids, how does the population go down in 2024 and the new development is factored in.

Even if growth is slowing in the cluster it can't slow so much that 300 houses are absorbed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is that what people are really fighting for? 2 kids?? Everyone needs to get bussed further than their home school in Option E for 2 more kids per class? That doesn't even include the Chinese immersion families that are heavily invested in their school and community. Good God you people are strange. Who is behind this fight? What is the point. I am more confused now than ever. What is wrong with B again? My head hurts.

It is easy for a clueless individual to say that 2 extra kids won't make any difference, but ask any teacher what it means to have 8 instead of 6 FARMS kids in their class. At 25% FARMS 6 kids have the chance to be brought to the same level as their peers close to the end of the elementary school. At 33% most of the 8 kids will still be behind at the end of elementary school. It's not about 2 kids. It is about 6 kids succeeding or 8 kids not succeeding.

Are you standing ovation troll? You are so over the top dramatic.
How many FARMS kids will be with your non IB, non honors kids in JW? I guess those 8 kids will never succeed in middle or high school either.

They have a much better chance in MS and HS if they come out of ES at the same level as their peers. You really-really want that 7% FARMS id RPES, don't you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is that what people are really fighting for? 2 kids?? Everyone needs to get bussed further than their home school in Option E for 2 more kids per class? That doesn't even include the Chinese immersion families that are heavily invested in their school and community. Good God you people are strange. Who is behind this fight? What is the point. I am more confused now than ever. What is wrong with B again? My head hurts.

It is easy for a clueless individual to say that 2 extra kids won't make any difference, but ask any teacher what it means to have 8 instead of 6 FARMS kids in their class. At 25% FARMS 6 kids have the chance to be brought to the same level as their peers close to the end of the elementary school. At 33% most of the 8 kids will still be behind at the end of elementary school. It's not about 2 kids. It is about 6 kids succeeding or 8 kids not succeeding.

Are you standing ovation troll? You are so over the top dramatic.
How many FARMS kids will be with your non IB, non honors kids in JW? I guess those 8 kids will never succeed in middle or high school either.

Stop debunking hungerford's argument for option E.

He hasn't debunked anything. What s/he does is trying her/his best to keep RPES at 7%, so that RPES doesn't contribute equitable to the education of FARMS students in the cluster. Probably for the "community feel" or to be closer in FARMS rates with the other schools in the area.

[Anonymous]

Let's be honest here. RP PTA email clearly said that RP is near Potomac and even 7% is too high for us. We can be politically correct and not say it anymore, but that's the talking point given by PTA in email first time. I think it's not a wrong point.

I will send letter specifying that RP is in different neighborhood and 7% is not too low for our neighborhood. Enough of this political correct talk. It's reality that we don't have 20% FARMs in our neighborhood. We don't have even 7%. 7% is actually higher than what neighborhood looks like. We are already helping enough FARMs kids.

Some more RP parents need to speak up and not be afraid due to political nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is that what people are really fighting for? 2 kids?? Everyone needs to get bussed further than their home school in Option E for 2 more kids per class? That doesn't even include the Chinese immersion families that are heavily invested in their school and community. Good God you people are strange. Who is behind this fight? What is the point. I am more confused now than ever. What is wrong with B again? My head hurts.

It is easy for a clueless individual to say that 2 extra kids won't make any difference, but ask any teacher what it means to have 8 instead of 6 FARMS kids in their class. At 25% FARMS 6 kids have the chance to be brought to the same level as their peers close to the end of the elementary school. At 33% most of the 8 kids will still be behind at the end of elementary school. It's not about 2 kids. It is about 6 kids succeeding or 8 kids not succeeding.

Are you standing ovation troll? You are so over the top dramatic.
How many FARMS kids will be with your non IB, non honors kids in JW? I guess those 8 kids will never succeed in middle or high school either.

Stop debunking hungerford's argument for option E.

He hasn't debunked anything. What s/he does is trying her/his best to keep RPES at 7%, so that RPES doesn't contribute equitable to the education of FARMS students in the cluster. Probably for the "community feel" or to be closer in FARMS rates with the other schools in the area.

It is a reality that RP is surrounded by well-off neighborhoods and Hungerford/NMC by rent controlled apartments. This is how this democratic county / state always done this business with a huge doze of hypocrisy and cronyism. Just look at Leesburg / Potomac bridge and 270 expansion debate that is always about engendered species , farming and never about privilege and exclusion.

Republicans are at least upfront about it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is that what people are really fighting for? 2 kids?? Everyone needs to get bussed further than their home school in Option E for 2 more kids per class? That doesn't even include the Chinese immersion families that are heavily invested in their school and community. Good God you people are strange. Who is behind this fight? What is the point. I am more confused now than ever. What is wrong with B again? My head hurts.

It is easy for a clueless individual to say that 2 extra kids won't make any difference, but ask any teacher what it means to have 8 instead of 6 FARMS kids in their class. At 25% FARMS 6 kids have the chance to be brought to the same level as their peers close to the end of the elementary school. At 33% most of the 8 kids will still be behind at the end of elementary school. It's not about 2 kids. It is about 6 kids succeeding or 8 kids not succeeding.

People are so caught up about the numbers of FARMS kids in regular classrooms at RM ES #5 and the difference in percentages with and without CI - but has anyone considered that the with and without CI numbers are snapshots of the demographics NOW when CI is at College Gardens? Once CI moves to RM ES #5, that opens up the possibility that more children in the new surrounding neighborhood/home school will apply to the program, including children receiving FARMS. That will potentially lead to a balancing of the FARMS rates both in the CI program and in the regular school program which would bring the percentage even in the regular classrooms down to the "perfect" number that some people desire. With the added benefit of potentially offering this wonderful curriculum to more children who may not have had the opportunity to apply/attend before due to transportation needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let's be honest here. RP PTA email clearly said that RP is near Potomac and even 7% is too high for us. We can be politically correct and not say it anymore, but that's the talking point given by PTA in email first time. I think it's not a wrong point.

I will send letter specifying that RP is in different neighborhood and 7% is not too low for our neighborhood. Enough of this political correct talk. It's reality that we don't have 20% FARMs in our neighborhood. We don't have even 7%. 7% is actually higher than what neighborhood looks like. We are already helping enough FARMs kids.

Some more RP parents need to speak up and not be afraid due to political nonsense.

Thank you for saying that. At least we know what is your true motivation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is that what people are really fighting for? 2 kids?? Everyone needs to get bussed further than their home school in Option E for 2 more kids per class? That doesn't even include the Chinese immersion families that are heavily invested in their school and community. Good God you people are strange. Who is behind this fight? What is the point. I am more confused now than ever. What is wrong with B again? My head hurts.

It is easy for a clueless individual to say that 2 extra kids won't make any difference, but ask any teacher what it means to have 8 instead of 6 FARMS kids in their class. At 25% FARMS 6 kids have the chance to be brought to the same level as their peers close to the end of the elementary school. At 33% most of the 8 kids will still be behind at the end of elementary school. It's not about 2 kids. It is about 6 kids succeeding or 8 kids not succeeding.

People are so caught up about the numbers of FARMS kids in regular classrooms at RM ES #5 and the difference in percentages with and without CI - but has anyone considered that the with and without CI numbers are snapshots of the demographics NOW when CI is at College Gardens? Once CI moves to RM ES #5, that opens up the possibility that more children in the new surrounding neighborhood/home school will apply to the program, including children receiving FARMS. That will potentially lead to a balancing of the FARMS rates both in the CI program and in the regular school program which would bring the percentage even in the regular classrooms down to the "perfect" number that some people desire. With the added benefit of potentially offering this wonderful curriculum to more children who may not have had the opportunity to apply/attend before due to transportation needs.

Are you really that clueless or you just pretend to be? CI is for the whole county and is based on a lottery system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's be honest here. RP PTA email clearly said that RP is near Potomac and even 7% is too high for us. We can be politically correct and not say it anymore, but that's the talking point given by PTA in email first time. I think it's not a wrong point.

I will send letter specifying that RP is in different neighborhood and 7% is not too low for our neighborhood. Enough of this political correct talk. It's reality that we don't have 20% FARMs in our neighborhood. We don't have even 7%. 7% is actually higher than what neighborhood looks like. We are already helping enough FARMs kids.

Some more RP parents need to speak up and not be afraid due to political nonsense.

Thank you for saying that. At least we know what is your true motivation.

Not only you're not helping your overburdened neighbors with 7% FARMS, you are forcing Fallsgrove children to endure long bus rides so you can keep your little under capacity neighborhood school .

RP is the real problem in this cluster and one day the board will hopefully see the light.

[Anonymous]

I agree with above poster. RP is already helping enough FARMs kids. RP is more like Potomac and left that way.

[Anonymous]

*Should be left that way.*