Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Neighborhood was code to keep certain crowd out. In earlier era it was about race and now race has been replaced by money. It's a well documented scenario in many cities. Not unique to WG.

Pretty much hungerford's entire argument about the fireside apartments to get them out of their walkable neighborhood.

Pretty much RP argument to kick fireside apartments out of their current school. "They belong to a different neighborhood" "The school should reflect the neighborhood feel" "The neighboring schools have less than 7% FARMS"

This is a ridiculous and offensive argument to keep repeating.

One of the Ritchie Park boundary study reps lives in RP2 and advocated very clearly for RP2 and RP6 to move to the new school - the evaluation form is included in the Boundary Study Committee Report released in August: http://gis.mcpsmd.org/boundarystudypdfs/RMES5_BoundaryStudyReport083017.pdf (pg. 48)
Are you saying that this person is trying to kick her own neighborhood out of Ritchie Park???? Someone who ACTUALLY LIVES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD represented Ritchie Park and advocated for the best options for Ritchie Park students and the students in RP2, including her family and the students living in her own neighborhood.

Imagine for a moment that the situation was reversed, and a new school was being built in Fallsgrove (which Fallsgrove families would be THRILLED about!). Of course, the obvious step would be to move all Fallsgrove students to the new school, EVEN IF some of the neighborhood is farther away walking distance (it is a far walk to the Thomas Farm Community Center from many parts of Fallsgrove - at least 15 minutes from the farthest areas of the neighborhood). Would anyone advocate continuing to bus Fallsgrove students to Ritchie Park (because they're used to that anyway - it would be no change for those students) while busing in students from RP2, the farthest distance from Fallsgrove, in order to balance out FARMS rates at the new school?? Of course not, because that would be a ridiculous option. It would be keeping potential walkers to a brand new school out of the new school in the name of "diversity" (but really only one data point of diversity, since there are other aspects of diversity in addition to FARMS rates). It would be increasing buses and travel times for multiple communities, and it would split up communities.

There has to be a BALANCE between proximity, diversity (again - diversity DOES NOT equal FARMS rates - there are many forms of diversity present at each school in the cluster), stability of boundaries over time, and utilization. Sending the farthest neighborhood to the new school while sending one of the closest to a different school farther away stretches the limits of "geographic proximity". Just as T5 to College Gardens or RP4 to Twinbrook are beyond the bounds of reasonable distance, sending walkers of one school to a different school while also increasing travel time for another zone goes beyond the limits of finding BALANCE between the 4 factors - it forces a choice between one or the other, and given the choice, most people are choosing proximity.

Unfortunately, the options and zones presented to move were imperfect. Perhaps if given more time and more options, one that found a better balance between proximity and diversity could have been found (moving RP3 to the new school in addition to RP2 & 6, for example...) but time is up and the options on the table that try to equalize FARMS rates at the expense of all other factors are just not reasonable options.

You didn't seem offended when the poster said that Hungerford tries to get RP2 out of their walkable neighborhood school. Why is that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I live in an MPDU in an economically integrated neighborhood in Rockville. Please explain to me again how I am in support of economic segregation??

Where do you live in economically integrated MPDU?

We have talked to over 50+ FARMs parents . If you want, we can come to your zone and talk to you and any other families.

My zone doesn't need the NAACP to come and talk to us, we are in support of Alternatives A & B as being best for our neighborhood and the cluster as a whole.

Are you unaware that the City of Rockville is FULL of MPDU units throughout all of its new developments??? 12.5% of all units in every new development in Rockville is required to be set aside as an MPDU. I bought my MPDU 15 years ago - there's no way I would be able to afford a market-rate home in my neighborhood. Since you seem unaware, here is the full program information: http://www.rockvillemd.gov/index.aspx?NID=194

In the RM cluster, there are MPDU units for purchase and rental in a number of communities including Park Potomac (RP3), Rockville Town Square (B5?), King Farm, and Fallsgrove (RP5) in addition to multiple MPDU units in new apartment buildings in the Twinbrook zones (full rental list here: http://rockvillemd.gov/index.aspx?NID=836). The new Tower Oaks development (B3) will also have MPDU units. There are probably even more that I am unaware of. In addition the City of Rockville, through Rockville Housing Enterprises, also has low-income units in Fallsgrove (RP5) and King Farm in addition to the MPDU units (which are for MODERATE income families), as well as the units that everyone seems to be talking about in RP2: http://www.rockvillehe.org/. Montgomery County has a similar program, and there is talk of increasing their MPDU rate from 12.5% to 15% in certain neighborhoods.

All of these neighborhoods in the RM cluster are examples of the economically integrative housing developments that the study you keep touting mentions as the model for achieving economically integrated schools. The study does NOT promote busing children away from their communities. The NAACP would be much better off (and have much more community support) by supporting even more progressive housing policies in Rockville and MoCo as a means to closing the achievement gap, as opposed to breaking up communities. If this boundary study has proven one thing, it is that people value proximity to their schools and the support of communities whether someone is rich, middle class, poor, white, African-American, Asian, or latino. No one wants to be bused. Everyone values community and proximity. The way to keep proximity AND achieve economic integration is through PROGRESSIVE HOUSING POLICY, not gerrymandering school districts and breaking up social connection and support, especially not for the people who need it most.

It is really unfortunate that people are coming into our cluster WITHOUT the knowledge of our communities and the economic integration and diversity that is already inherent in many of them and painting people as racist and segregationist. I believe you are finding that doing so is not a very successful strategy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

For all of these reasons above, on top of the fact that there is a local community center in walking distance for cheaper childcare, I believe RP2 should be zoned for their walkable neighborhood school RM5. It is what works best for FARMS and non-FARMS families. It will integrate them instead of splitting RP5 up JUST because of some apartments. Talk about humiliation. Talk about being a target. It makes me sad this entire board is so clueless. Sitting on their 1K laptops deciding the fate of others to look like they care. They know nothing about them.

How RP5 is getting split here? Wow, just for some apartments? They are real kids , just like you have kids.

Try and keep up, hungerford does not want the fireside apartments in their walkable school so moving them to RP. Aren't you on the associations email list ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pretty sure the "safe neighborhood schools" comment referred to Twinbrook.

I would like to see actual evidence (not vague references to "research") that shows that any FARMS kid performs better in any non-FARMS school. Also, compare FARMS students to FARMS students, not FARMS students to non-FARMS students. For the RM cluster, the actual data (PARCC scores) indicates that FARMS students are performing about the same in all 4 schools; Twinbrook FARMS kids, for instance, are neither appreciably better or worse than FARMS kids at CG, RP, or B.

Laurie Brooks has an excellent summary in her testimony and a link to the actual research:
http://www.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/AT5QU86AE74C/$file/Laurie%20Brooks.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: MCPS BOE members also need to read everything. That way they can focus on narrowing the achievement gaps.

So in D

What about the 400+ kids who remain at Twinbrook in a school with identified infrastructure needs that will still be over 50% FARMS. The remaining kids loose Title I funding and the after and summer care that provides. Where are the studies for those kids?

Also, what about the 100+ kids that will be bused into Twinbrook from the towncenter and other areas east of the pike. Those kids go from a school with a rate of 25% to one of 50%. How will they be affected?

FARMs kids have an out sized impact on them . Non-FARMs kids don't have the same impact. We won't worry about non-FARMs kids here when it comes to performance, but we will still not want them to travel too much extra. I don't think that TB is that far from the Town center. I am looking at MCPS estimated travel time right now. B5 is 12 minutes for current school. TB for B5 zone will be 15 minutes. Not a huge increase.

Yes, D does leave TB with 50% FARMs and it's not ideal. We already saw that C takes it to a bit lower level , but causes too much hardship in terms of travel times. So C is not a viable option. D is viable, and the best option. MCPS doesn't think that TB will be without support at 50%.

If you are talking about D still not solving everything, then yes it doesn't solve everything, but it does the best job. You got to take whatever best you can get.

E is not really helping with narrowing the achievement gaps, but keeping it the same.

A and B are simply widening the achievement gaps by pulling RP2 kids out of an affluent school. We saw many speakers supporting A or B. That will be taking a back step by MCPS. MCPS needs to move forward and not backward. Support for A or B is coming due to various reasons and MCPS needs to decide where it wants to go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I live in an MPDU in an economically integrated neighborhood in Rockville. Please explain to me again how I am in support of economic segregation??

Where do you live in economically integrated MPDU?

We have talked to over 50+ FARMs parents . If you want, we can come to your zone and talk to you and any other families.

My zone doesn't need the NAACP to come and talk to us, we are in support of Alternatives A & B as being best for our neighborhood and the cluster as a whole.

Are you unaware that the City of Rockville is FULL of MPDU units throughout all of its new developments??? 12.5% of all units in every new development in Rockville is required to be set aside as an MPDU. I bought my MPDU 15 years ago - there's no way I would be able to afford a market-rate home in my neighborhood. Since you seem unaware, here is the full program information: http://www.rockvillemd.gov/index.aspx?NID=194

We are fully aware of 12.5% rule. Having those in affluent neighborhoods gives you a far better chance than having them in poverty filled neighborhoods. You may be fine due to where you are , but you are making sure that FARMs kids in higher poverty area won't get the benefit by trying to segregate them. If you benefited from this then you should understand it very well.

I personally grew up in one of those units as well. Having them in rich neighborhood and poor neighborhood is not the same thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I live in an MPDU in an economically integrated neighborhood in Rockville. Please explain to me again how I am in support of economic segregation??

Where do you live in economically integrated MPDU?

We have talked to over 50+ FARMs parents . If you want, we can come to your zone and talk to you and any other families.

My zone doesn't need the NAACP to come and talk to us, we are in support of Alternatives A & B as being best for our neighborhood and the cluster as a whole.

Are you unaware that the City of Rockville is FULL of MPDU units throughout all of its new developments??? 12.5% of all units in every new development in Rockville is required to be set aside as an MPDU. I bought my MPDU 15 years ago - there's no way I would be able to afford a market-rate home in my neighborhood. Since you seem unaware, here is the full program information: http://www.rockvillemd.gov/index.aspx?NID=194

We are fully aware of 12.5% rule. Having those in affluent neighborhoods gives you a far better chance than having them in poverty filled neighborhoods. You may be fine due to where you are , but you are making sure that FARMs kids in higher poverty area won't get the benefit by trying to segregate them. If you benefited from this then you should understand it very well.

I personally grew up in one of those units as well. Having them in rich neighborhood and poor neighborhood is not the same thing.

RP2 is NOT a poor neighborhood. Have you visited that community???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pretty sure the "safe neighborhood schools" comment referred to Twinbrook.

I would like to see actual evidence (not vague references to "research") that shows that any FARMS kid performs better in any non-FARMS school. Also, compare FARMS students to FARMS students, not FARMS students to non-FARMS students. For the RM cluster, the actual data (PARCC scores) indicates that FARMS students are performing about the same in all 4 schools; Twinbrook FARMS kids, for instance, are neither appreciably better or worse than FARMS kids at CG, RP, or B.

Laurie Brooks has an excellent summary in her testimony and a link to the actual research:
http://www.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/AT5QU86AE74C/$file/Laurie%20Brooks.pdf

I read Schwartz's paper. As has been pointed out on this board repeatedly, the study is not relevant to the situation of the cluster; it is about the placement of public housing. Additionally, poverty ? FARMS, and Schwartz further states, "The differences suggest the shortcoming of the free and reduced-price meal metric as a single indicator of school need." Even if the study were relevant, it did not consider the influence of ESOL. Only 16% of the children living in public housing in the study were Hispanic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Incorrect. FARMS kids do best WHEN INTEGRATED within neighborhoods and attend their local schools that do not have high FARMS.

1. RM5 does not have high FARMS. Not even close to being a focus school, let alone a title 1 School. They are below the county average ES farms rates.

2. MCPS is already integrating FARMS kids in new neighborhoods. King Farm, Fallsgrove, Park Potomac, Rockville Town Center all have FARMS. This is exactly what the article is talking about.

3. None of the research says that bussings kids out of their neighborhood school to a further one benefits the child or family for ANY farms rate, let alone the 5-10% difference between between RP and RM5.

4. FARMS families in RM cluster that were interviewed door to door all said proximity and walkability were the MOST important for various reasons. No car, ability to pick up sick child, take a child in late, ability to attend school events, childcare, etc... These were even families further out than the 1 mile cut off. They still needed/wanted the closest school to walk to.

5. Jones Lane Elementary has a boundary with high FARMS kids being bussed in. They have had such a hard time keeping these families involved and kids coming into school at all (missed bus means no school) that the school is using PTA funds to allow families to use Uber to get to school. It isn’t working that great. Why? Humiliation. Who wants to be the family using PTA money to get a free Uber to bring your kid in late or pick up a sick kid. All these well off families mean well but they just don’t get it.

For all of these reasons above, on top of the fact that there is a local community center in walking distance for cheaper childcare, I believe RP2 should be zoned for their walkable neighborhood school RM5. It is what works best for FARMS and non-FARMS families. It will integrate them instead of splitting RP5 up JUST because of some apartments. Talk about humiliation. Talk about being a target. It makes me sad this entire board is so clueless. Sitting on their 1K laptops deciding the fate of others to look like they care. They know nothing about them.

1. Not only focus schools have high FARMS rates. RMES5 would have 38% FARMS (Alternative A) or 32% FARMS (Alternative B). This is exactly at the level where FARMS students do no benefit from being integrated (according to research).
2. Some of the FARMS students get bused even in integrated neighborhoods. Busing FARMS kids will not hurt the potential advantages of attending lower FARMS schools.
3. The research is clear. 24% is a much better alternative than 32% or 38%.
4. Any link?
5. RP2 has been going to RPES for quite a while now. Did you guys have problems like the one you describe?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Incorrect. FARMS kids do best WHEN INTEGRATED within neighborhoods and attend their local schools that do not have high FARMS.

1. RM5 does not have high FARMS. Not even close to being a focus school, let alone a title 1 School. They are below the county average ES farms rates.

2. MCPS is already integrating FARMS kids in new neighborhoods. King Farm, Fallsgrove, Park Potomac, Rockville Town Center all have FARMS. This is exactly what the article is talking about.

3. None of the research says that bussings kids out of their neighborhood school to a further one benefits the child or family for ANY farms rate, let alone the 5-10% difference between between RP and RM5.

4. FARMS families in RM cluster that were interviewed door to door all said proximity and walkability were the MOST important for various reasons. No car, ability to pick up sick child, take a child in late, ability to attend school events, childcare, etc... These were even families further out than the 1 mile cut off. They still needed/wanted the closest school to walk to.

5. Jones Lane Elementary has a boundary with high FARMS kids being bussed in. They have had such a hard time keeping these families involved and kids coming into school at all (missed bus means no school) that the school is using PTA funds to allow families to use Uber to get to school. It isn’t working that great. Why? Humiliation. Who wants to be the family using PTA money to get a free Uber to bring your kid in late or pick up a sick kid. All these well off families mean well but they just don’t get it.

For all of these reasons above, on top of the fact that there is a local community center in walking distance for cheaper childcare, I believe RP2 should be zoned for their walkable neighborhood school RM5. It is what works best for FARMS and non-FARMS families. It will integrate them instead of splitting RP5 up JUST because of some apartments. Talk about humiliation. Talk about being a target. It makes me sad this entire board is so clueless. Sitting on their 1K laptops deciding the fate of others to look like they care. They know nothing about them.

1. Not only focus schools have high FARMS rates. RMES5 would have 38% FARMS (Alternative A) or 32% FARMS (Alternative B). This is exactly at the level where FARMS students do no benefit from being integrated (according to research).
2. Some of the FARMS students get bused even in integrated neighborhoods. Busing FARMS kids will not hurt the potential advantages of attending lower FARMS schools.
3. The research is clear. 24% is a much better alternative than 32% or 38%.
4. Any link?
5. RP2 has been going to RPES for quite a while now. Did you guys have problems like the one you describe?

Yes, actually. It has been mentioned on this board before. There are families in RP2 without cars and a few parents who DO have cars volunteer to drive these parents to school events. Otherwise, they cannot participate in school meetings, events, etc. The PTA is even considering following the lead of Jones Lane and implementing the Lyft program to help these families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: MCPS BOE members also need to read everything. That way they can focus on narrowing the achievement gaps.

So in D

What about the 400+ kids who remain at Twinbrook in a school with identified infrastructure needs that will still be over 50% FARMS. The remaining kids loose Title I funding and the after and summer care that provides. Where are the studies for those kids?

Also, what about the 100+ kids that will be bused into Twinbrook from the towncenter and other areas east of the pike. Those kids go from a school with a rate of 25% to one of 50%. How will they be affected?

FARMs kids have an out sized impact on them . Non-FARMs kids don't have the same impact. We won't worry about non-FARMs kids here when it comes to performance, but we will still not want them to travel too much extra. I don't think that TB is that far from the Town center. I am looking at MCPS estimated travel time right now. B5 is 12 minutes for current school. TB for B5 zone will be 15 minutes. Not a huge increase.

Yes, D does leave TB with 50% FARMs and it's not ideal. We already saw that C takes it to a bit lower level , but causes too much hardship in terms of travel times. So C is not a viable option. D is viable, and the best option. MCPS doesn't think that TB will be without support at 50%.

If you are talking about D still not solving everything, then yes it doesn't solve everything, but it does the best job. You got to take whatever best you can get.

E is not really helping with narrowing the achievement gaps, but keeping it the same.

A and B are simply widening the achievement gaps by pulling RP2 kids out of an affluent school. We saw many speakers supporting A or B. That will be taking a back step by MCPS. MCPS needs to move forward and not backward. Support for A or B is coming due to various reasons and MCPS needs to decide where it wants t

Won't Twinbrook lose title I in C and D. The federally provided funds for before and aftercare as well as free or subsidized summer programs in the Twinbrrook community won't be lost? MCPS does not provide this support for Focus schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I live in an MPDU in an economically integrated neighborhood in Rockville. Please explain to me again how I am in support of economic segregation??

Where do you live in economically integrated MPDU?

We have talked to over 50+ FARMs parents . If you want, we can come to your zone and talk to you and any other families.

My zone doesn't need the NAACP to come and talk to us, we are in support of Alternatives A & B as being best for our neighborhood and the cluster as a whole.

Are you unaware that the City of Rockville is FULL of MPDU units throughout all of its new developments??? 12.5% of all units in every new development in Rockville is required to be set aside as an MPDU. I bought my MPDU 15 years ago - there's no way I would be able to afford a market-rate home in my neighborhood. Since you seem unaware, here is the full program information: http://www.rockvillemd.gov/index.aspx?NID=194

We are fully aware of 12.5% rule. Having those in affluent neighborhoods gives you a far better chance than having them in poverty filled neighborhoods. You may be fine due to where you are , but you are making sure that FARMs kids in higher poverty area won't get the benefit by trying to segregate them. If you benefited from this then you should understand it very well.

I personally grew up in one of those units as well. Having them in rich neighborhood and poor neighborhood is not the same thing.

RP2 is NOT a poor neighborhood. Have you visited that community???

Tried one round. Entire neighborhood is surely not poor. No one is saying that, but in case you are not aware of it, 57% students from RP2 are FARMs kids. If this doesn't strike you are kids growing up in poverty then I don't know what to say here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All of these neighborhoods in the RM cluster are examples of the economically integrative housing developments that the study you keep touting mentions as the model for achieving economically integrated schools. The study does NOT promote busing children away from their communities. The NAACP would be much better off (and have much more community support) by supporting even more progressive housing policies in Rockville and MoCo as a means to closing the achievement gap, as opposed to breaking up communities. If this boundary study has proven one thing, it is that people value proximity to their schools and the support of communities whether someone is rich, middle class, poor, white, African-American, Asian, or latino. No one wants to be bused. Everyone values community and proximity. The way to keep proximity AND achieve economic integration is through PROGRESSIVE HOUSING POLICY, not gerrymandering school districts and breaking up social connection and support, especially not for the people who need it most.

It is really unfortunate that people are coming into our cluster WITHOUT the knowledge of our communities and the economic integration and diversity that is already inherent in many of them and painting people as racist and segregationist. I believe you are finding that doing so is not a very successful strategy.

Are you sure that FARMS students were not put on the bus to go to school in this study? Were they all in walking distance of the school? What do you think gives FARMS students an academic advantage? Walking to the school or going to a lower FARMS rate school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: MCPS BOE members also need to read everything. That way they can focus on narrowing the achievement gaps.

So in D

What about the 400+ kids who remain at Twinbrook in a school with identified infrastructure needs that will still be over 50% FARMS. The remaining kids loose Title I funding and the after and summer care that provides. Where are the studies for those kids?

Also, what about the 100+ kids that will be bused into Twinbrook from the towncenter and other areas east of the pike. Those kids go from a school with a rate of 25% to one of 50%. How will they be affected?

FARMs kids have an out sized impact on them . Non-FARMs kids don't have the same impact. We won't worry about non-FARMs kids here when it comes to performance, but we will still not want them to travel too much extra. I don't think that TB is that far from the Town center. I am looking at MCPS estimated travel time right now. B5 is 12 minutes for current school. TB for B5 zone will be 15 minutes. Not a huge increase.

Yes, D does leave TB with 50% FARMs and it's not ideal. We already saw that C takes it to a bit lower level , but causes too much hardship in terms of travel times. So C is not a viable option. D is viable, and the best option. MCPS doesn't think that TB will be without support at 50%.

If you are talking about D still not solving everything, then yes it doesn't solve everything, but it does the best job. You got to take whatever best you can get.

E is not really helping with narrowing the achievement gaps, but keeping it the same.

A and B are simply widening the achievement gaps by pulling RP2 kids out of an affluent school. We saw many speakers supporting A or B. That will be taking a back step by MCPS. MCPS needs to move forward and not backward. Support for A or B is coming due to various reasons and MCPS needs to decide where it wants to go.

I think MCPS should put in writing exactly what services twinbrook would receive and for how long if the farms rate falls and they're no longer considered a title one school. I heard a boe member say twinbrook shouldn't worry about the farms rate so much and that they will still receive services even if not title one, but she didn't clarify what services.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, actually. It has been mentioned on this board before. There are families in RP2 without cars and a few parents who DO have cars volunteer to drive these parents to school events. Otherwise, they cannot participate in school meetings, events, etc. The PTA is even considering following the lead of Jones Lane and implementing the Lyft program to help these families.

And Twinbrook PTA has trouble having enough members to do all events despite all being walk able. RP2 is not anyway easy walk to RM#5.