Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exactly Plan B has some random line dividing a community. Please, what are those ivory tower folks in the Carver center thinking?

C&D are patently absurd, and E is almost as bizarre. Again, E is supported by people who want to walk to the new school but dont want too many of those people there. You know, the ones who get free lunches. So they want to bus in students who can walk to other schools. Splitting up other peoples communities is poor civics.

E is actually an option that optimizes school utilization and allows for projected growth (ensuring stability), promotes diversity (including socioeconomic diversity) and does a pretty good job at maintaining current assignments (proximity). These are the four factors that BOE has to take into account, not only proximity.

E makes a neighborhood near the new school not walk to it. They get bussed past that new school to one further. It also makes RP6, B5, and RP5 all have longer commutes. So very poor job for proximity

It has RM5 at a very high capacity and will be over capacity in 5 years when the 30 single family homes, 225 townhomes, and 120 condos are completely built. Not to mention Hungerford will be a desirable area for new families. Dogwood, Elwood Smith, and new School are all walkable. There will be decent turnover. So projected growth is not considered.

Diversity is the same almost across the board. FARMS rates are not. But again, not the only diversity to look at. Racial is well balanced.

Tough call on A, B or E.

IN all options, some one will have a longer commute.

Woodley Garden overplayed their card. Yes, having a council member in pocket helps, but blatant misuse of official position is getting noticed by many.

[Anonymous]

I also think that WG is not staying there. It will look uncomfortable for BOE members to keep WG after what has transpired specially if it means CG at 100% with no space for any housing turnover or no space any new housings in CG.

WG is equal distance to both schools and despite having political influence, I don't think it will happen. It will be some modification of B or E.

If BOE really wants to push for FARMs distribution then it will be option D.

A and C are horrible options for entire cluster.

[Anonymous]

Many outside groups are closely watching this development. Creating a school with 7% FARMs rate may look appealing for folks in RP, but it may look awkward given that even now school has 20% FARMs.

BOE may slightly modify one of the options to keep RP at 20% FARMs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I also think that WG is not staying there. It will look uncomfortable for BOE members to keep WG after what has transpired specially if it means CG at 100% with no space for any housing turnover or no space any new housings in CG.

WG is equal distance to both schools and despite having political influence, I don't think it will happen. It will be some modification of B or E.

If BOE really wants to push for FARMs distribution then it will be option D.

A and C are horrible options for entire cluster.

D is horrible for Twinbrook. Their two furthest neighborhoods. Small little clusters of Twinbrook bussed far to two different schools? Talk about complete isolation. That is not fair for them. I truly hope the board doesn’t rule out C because it is unfair to other schools but vote D because Twinbrook hasn’t been as vocal. BOTH options are horrible.

[Anonymous]

does anyone know if the board meeting on monday where they make the decision is going to be broadcast live?

[Anonymous]

watching the closed board meeting from a few weeks back where they discussed the various options, this is the impression i am getting from the BoE. not sure htough

in favor of proximity:
o'neill and smondrowski and docca

in favor of equitable farms:
dixon, post, ortman-fouse


i think durso also cares more about proximity as he made a comment about dc schools with 100 percent farms being highly regarded


not sure about evans as she hasnt really said much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Many outside groups are closely watching this development. Creating a school with 7% FARMs rate may look appealing for folks in RP, but it may look awkward given that even now school has 20% FARMs.

BOE may slightly modify one of the options to keep RP at 20% FARMs.

RP capacity is in the mid to high 90’s in every option and they are by far the smallest school in capacity (RP 380 vs TB 558, Beall 637, CG 693, RM5 740) which makes it tough to move around. There isn’t much room to change. RP2/RP6 combo and RP5 have almost the same exact numbers and are the exact needed to get RP below capacity. RP1 can’t be moved. RP4 has about 60 and is right across from the school. Moving them makes no sense. Not sure why RP3 is not being considered. No FARMS. My guess is their numbers are not equal with one other section. But they are close to RM5. Maybe moving them over to in Option A or B would increase FARMS% in RP, drop them below 96% capacity, while decrease FARMS % at RM5 while increasing their capacity since they are at 76% and 88% in those two options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:watching the closed board meeting from a few weeks back where they discussed the various options, this is the impression i am getting from the BoE. not sure htough

in favor of proximity:
o'neill and smondrowski and docca

in favor of equitable farms:
dixon, post, ortman-fouse


i think durso also cares more about proximity as he made a comment about dc schools with 100 percent farms being highly regarded


not sure about evans as she hasnt really said much.

Post does not get to vote, does he? He has no idea what goes into these type of changes. Of course he is going to vote for what looks on paper. Totally cool and PC thing to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Post does not get to vote, does he? He has no idea what goes into these type of changes. Of course he is going to vote for what looks on paper. Totally cool and PC thing to do.

He does get to vote.

[Anonymous]

"Since WG doesn't want to go to Beall,"

This is NOT TRUE. WG just start out stating it's opinion FOR A not against B.

"I actually suggested CG3 going to RM#5 to avoid any more movement. BOE said that they can consider 1 zone movement in their final decision. Since WG doesn't want to go to Beall, RM#5 is a good alternative.

- CG1 Parent"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Many outside groups are closely watching this development. Creating a school with 7% FARMs rate may look appealing for folks in RP, but it may look awkward given that even now school has 20% FARMs.

BOE may slightly modify one of the options to keep RP at 20% FARMs.

RP doesn’t want 7% FARMS. Stop saying that. I don’t care if A, B, or E get picked. Either way my kids are losing friends, many in RP5 and RP2/6. Personally I prefer RP2/6 to stay as I like those parents/kids more, but they deserve that walkable neighborhood feeling that the rest of their area is getting. Isolating them off while all surrounding neighborhoods go to the new school JUST because of one apartment complex is involved in a “FARMS battle” is really embarrassing to them and our whole school. I wish RP1, RP3, and RP4 had more FARMS so this would be a non issue and RP2 gets their neighborhood school. But because they don’t, they will probably stay isolated getting bussed to our school and RP5 moved further. Do I think it is a massive hardship for RP5? No. Do I think it is for RP2/6? Yes. They may get bussed now so it is the same but this brand new beautiful school is being built and everyone around them will be going to it, using Elwood Smith for aftercare, playground camp, break camps, etc... and it will sink in they were pulled from that because of Fireside. It doesn’t seem right. That is my take on it.

RP1 parent

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Post does not get to vote, does he? He has no idea what goes into these type of changes. Of course he is going to vote for what looks on paper. Totally cool and PC thing to do.

He does get to vote.

That is pathetic. Why is a kid making decisions like this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exactly Plan B has some random line dividing a community. Please, what are those ivory tower folks in the Carver center thinking?

C&D are patently absurd, and E is almost as bizarre. Again, E is supported by people who want to walk to the new school but dont want too many of those people there. You know, the ones who get free lunches. So they want to bus in students who can walk to other schools. Splitting up other peoples communities is poor civics.

E is actually an option that optimizes school utilization and allows for projected growth (ensuring stability), promotes diversity (including socioeconomic diversity) and does a pretty good job at maintaining current assignments (proximity). These are the four factors that BOE has to take into account, not only proximity.

E makes a neighborhood near the new school not walk to it. They get bussed past that new school to one further. It also makes RP6, B5, and RP5 all have longer commutes. So very poor job for proximity

It has RM5 at a very high capacity and will be over capacity in 5 years when the 30 single family homes, 225 townhomes, and 120 condos are completely built. Not to mention Hungerford will be a desirable area for new families. Dogwood, Elwood Smith, and new School are all walkable. There will be decent turnover. So projected growth is not considered.

Diversity is the same almost across the board. FARMS rates are not. But again, not the only diversity to look at. Racial is well balanced.

Tough call on A, B or E.

IN all options, some one will have a longer commute.

Woodley Garden overplayed their card. Yes, having a council member in pocket helps, but blatant misuse of official position is getting noticed by many.

Who has longer commutes in A or B?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Post does not get to vote, does he? He has no idea what goes into these type of changes. Of course he is going to vote for what looks on paper. Totally cool and PC thing to do.

He does get to vote.

That is pathetic. Why is a kid making decisions like this?

Because state law grants this authority to the student member of the board of education.

http://www.thesentinel.com/mont/news/local/item/3682-student-b-o-e-member-to-receive-expanded-voting-rights

[Anonymous]

poeple have said this already but they are NOT going to pick A.

building a new school because of capacity issues and then having that new school be extremely under capacity while other schools are at capacity?

the optics of that are terrible. not going to happen.