Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
7 and 8 were not part of the entire process.

Boundary study started beginning of school year 2016.

7 and 8 were added late Spring 2017

Boundary options always come in iterations. Not sure what's your point here? MCPS presents few options and takes feedback and then present some more options. That's the normal way.

In fact case can be made for later presented boundaries being a better reflection of cluster needs because it came after many rounds of feedbacks.

Jesus Christ. The point is they knew they were going to RM5 and no one complained or asked to stay at RP. It was deemed a walkable zone as the school was being built in the same location as their former walkable school. Yes, everyone knew there could be changes but no one thought removing RP2 from a walkable school would even be an option, initially.

Do you know what initially means?


I truly wished they broke up another walkable zone and tried this bussing away. And then say, "you all knew there could be changes," That zone would have been freaking the F out. Why? Because they thought they were INITIALLY safe from the boundary changes SINCE THEY WERE WALKABLE TO THE SCHOOL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
7 and 8 were not part of the entire process.

Boundary study started beginning of school year 2016.

7 and 8 were added late Spring 2017

Boundary options always come in iterations. Not sure what's your point here? MCPS presents few options and takes feedback and then present some more options. That's the normal way.

In fact case can be made for later presented boundaries being a better reflection of cluster needs because it came after many rounds of feedbacks.

Option 6 was the most popular option by the boundary study reps.

Because it kept most parents not changing their schools, but that's a horrible way to draw any boundary.

Being popular with reps means nothing to be honest. One CG3 rep was supposed to represent CG, but he was pushing his personal agenda in all meeting to keep CG3 in CG. You can read his comments and decide yourself. His entire comments were based on which options keeps CG3 in CG. Other repl from CG was constantly opposing kepping CG3 in CG due to over crowding.

Let's look at this way,

Beall anyway had divided reps because it's the most impacted school in boundary change. No Beall rep supported 6. TB had no position excpet they want to keep TB together. Then one CG rep was totally against keeping CG3 in CG.

That leaves one CG3 rep who lives in CG3 and RP reps. So have it now....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
7 and 8 were not part of the entire process.

Boundary study started beginning of school year 2016.

7 and 8 were added late Spring 2017

Boundary options always come in iterations. Not sure what's your point here? MCPS presents few options and takes feedback and then present some more options. That's the normal way.

In fact case can be made for later presented boundaries being a better reflection of cluster needs because it came after many rounds of feedbacks.

Option 6 was the most popular option by the boundary study reps.

Because it kept most parents not changing their schools, but that's a horrible way to draw any boundary.

Being popular with reps means nothing to be honest. One CG3 rep was supposed to represent CG, but he was pushing his personal agenda in all meeting to keep CG3 in CG. You can read his comments and decide yourself. His entire comments were based on which options keeps CG3 in CG. Other repl from CG was constantly opposing kepping CG3 in CG due to over crowding.

Let's look at this way,

Beall anyway had divided reps because it's the most impacted school in boundary change. No Beall rep supported 6. TB had no position excpet they want to keep TB together. Then one CG rep was totally against keeping CG3 in CG.

That leaves one CG3 rep who lives in CG3 and RP reps. So have it now....

Are you the non-cluster troll?

If not what section do you reside in?

[Anonymous]

None of the CG reps live in WG and they weren’t divided.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
7 and 8 were not part of the entire process.

Boundary study started beginning of school year 2016.

7 and 8 were added late Spring 2017

Boundary options always come in iterations. Not sure what's your point here? MCPS presents few options and takes feedback and then present some more options. That's the normal way.

In fact case can be made for later presented boundaries being a better reflection of cluster needs because it came after many rounds of feedbacks.

Jesus Christ. The point is they knew they were going to RM5 and no one complained or asked to stay at RP. It was deemed a walkable zone as the school was being built in the same location as their former walkable school. Yes, everyone knew there could be changes but no one thought removing RP2 from a walkable school would even be an option, initially.

Do you know what initially means?


I truly wished they broke up another walkable zone and tried this bussing away. And then say, "you all knew there could be changes," That zone would have been freaking the F out. Why? Because they thought they were INITIALLY safe from the boundary changes SINCE THEY WERE WALKABLE TO THE SCHOOL.

Jesus Christ. There were two options on the table that kept them in RPES, but they always assumed that they would walk. If they really-really wanted to walk, they would have lined up to testify, not let Laurie be their only voice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Jesus Christ. The point is they knew they were going to RM5 and no one complained or asked to stay at RP. It was deemed a walkable zone as the school was being built in the same location as their former walkable school.

How many FARMs families even knew about this entire process. Let's be honest here.

Now many knew about it and still most don't. Parent's, who know about it, have given their feedback. I interact with many RP2 kids and parents due to my kid playing in Dogwood park with them. There is no strong preference for any school in RP2, but they do prefer having bus. But, again I know only 10-12 families and can't claim to know about entire RP2 view here.

It's pointless to talk about Initially or some random time line.

[Anonymous]

Based on all the development in the pipeline for Beall, can't image CG3 won't be right back at CG in a few years anyways-especially if KF becomes part of the Gaithersburg Cluster when Crown is built. Then maybe they will be a devoted Beall community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
7 and 8 were not part of the entire process.

Boundary study started beginning of school year 2016.

7 and 8 were added late Spring 2017

Boundary options always come in iterations. Not sure what's your point here? MCPS presents few options and takes feedback and then present some more options. That's the normal way.

In fact case can be made for later presented boundaries being a better reflection of cluster needs because it came after many rounds of feedbacks.

Jesus Christ. The point is they knew they were going to RM5 and no one complained or asked to stay at RP. It was deemed a walkable zone as the school was being built in the same location as their former walkable school. Yes, everyone knew there could be changes but no one thought removing RP2 from a walkable school would even be an option, initially.

Do you know what initially means?


I truly wished they broke up another walkable zone and tried this bussing away. And then say, "you all knew there could be changes," That zone would have been freaking the F out. Why? Because they thought they were INITIALLY safe from the boundary changes SINCE THEY WERE WALKABLE TO THE SCHOOL.

Jesus Christ. There were two options on the table that kept them in RPES, but they always assumed that they would walk. If they really-really wanted to walk, they would have lined up to testify, not let Laurie be their only voice.

There were people in RP2 at the meeting who couldn't get a speaking slot. Maybe you should have given them yours?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Option 6 was the most popular option by the boundary study reps. You can read all of their feedback. Many did include specific preferences in their written feedback. That was a later presented option. I didn't see any reps specifically write that options 7 or 8 were preferred. In fact, many pointed out problems with those 2 options.

Too bad this is not a popularity contest...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Jesus Christ. There were two options on the table that kept them in RPES, but they always assumed that they would walk. If they really-really wanted to walk, they would have lined up to testify, not let Laurie be their only voice.

I have talked to 10-12 families and 8 of of them don't want to walk 35-40 minute daily. Not sure why posters are making this assumption that all of RP2 wants to walk 0.7-0.9 miles.

It's not a 0.1-0.2 miles walk. Walking could be luxury for some and burned for others. Depends on distance and also how much time they have to walk. In Elementary, parents have to walk with kids. In middle school it will be a non issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Jesus Christ. The point is they knew they were going to RM5 and no one complained or asked to stay at RP. It was deemed a walkable zone as the school was being built in the same location as their former walkable school.

How many FARMs families even knew about this entire process. Let's be honest here.

Now many knew about it and still most don't. Parent's, who know about it, have given their feedback. I interact with many RP2 kids and parents due to my kid playing in Dogwood park with them. There is no strong preference for any school in RP2, but they do prefer having bus. But, again I know only 10-12 families and can't claim to know about entire RP2 view here.

It's pointless to talk about Initially or some random time line.

Do you think the entire RP2 is FARMS? Not even close. But I guess the non FARMS families don’t have a say?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Jesus Christ. The point is they knew they were going to RM5 and no one complained or asked to stay at RP. It was deemed a walkable zone as the school was being built in the same location as their former walkable school.

How many FARMs families even knew about this entire process. Let's be honest here.

Now many knew about it and still most don't. Parent's, who know about it, have given their feedback. I interact with many RP2 kids and parents due to my kid playing in Dogwood park with them. There is no strong preference for any school in RP2, but they do prefer having bus. But, again I know only 10-12 families and can't claim to know about entire RP2 view here.

It's pointless to talk about Initially or some random time line.

You should claim you know what RP2 wants. Based on your interactions, you probably know more that the rest of the people here who keep saying that RP2 people want to walk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The BOE knows based on letters/emails.
They realized going door to door that FARMS families want proximity

We will see what they pick.

Stop imagining things.

Not sure about RP2 but they did in Twinbrook, specifically the two apartment complexes affected in C and D.

Well, then you can say that BOE went door to door in two apartment complexes in TB affected in C and D.

I highly doubt that BOE went door to door even in two apt in TB. There was outreach effort in TB by MCPS and also by some outside organizations. That's what I know.

So I wasn't the previous poster, just trying to share what I know. The MCPS division of Student & Family Support & Engagement did go door to door last week. They went to over 160 apartments to talk with people. They also held a Twinbrook community meeting to gather information directly from that community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
7 and 8 were not part of the entire process.

Boundary study started beginning of school year 2016.

7 and 8 were added late Spring 2017

Boundary options always come in iterations. Not sure what's your point here? MCPS presents few options and takes feedback and then present some more options. That's the normal way.

In fact case can be made for later presented boundaries being a better reflection of cluster needs because it came after many rounds of feedbacks.

Jesus Christ. The point is they knew they were going to RM5 and no one complained or asked to stay at RP. It was deemed a walkable zone as the school was being built in the same location as their former walkable school. Yes, everyone knew there could be changes but no one thought removing RP2 from a walkable school would even be an option, initially.

Do you know what initially means?


I truly wished they broke up another walkable zone and tried this bussing away. And then say, "you all knew there could be changes," That zone would have been freaking the F out. Why? Because they thought they were INITIALLY safe from the boundary changes SINCE THEY WERE WALKABLE TO THE SCHOOL.

Jesus Christ. There were two options on the table that kept them in RPES, but they always assumed that they would walk. If they really-really wanted to walk, they would have lined up to testify, not let Laurie be their only voice.

There were people in RP2 at the meeting who couldn't get a speaking slot. Maybe you should have given them yours?

Who do you think you are talking to? Whining CG3 parents?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Jesus Christ. The point is they knew they were going to RM5 and no one complained or asked to stay at RP. It was deemed a walkable zone as the school was being built in the same location as their former walkable school.

How many FARMs families even knew about this entire process. Let's be honest here.

Now many knew about it and still most don't. Parent's, who know about it, have given their feedback. I interact with many RP2 kids and parents due to my kid playing in Dogwood park with them. There is no strong preference for any school in RP2, but they do prefer having bus. But, again I know only 10-12 families and can't claim to know about entire RP2 view here.

It's pointless to talk about Initially or some random time line.

You should claim you know what RP2 wants. Based on your interactions, you probably know more that the rest of the people here who keep saying that RP2 people want to walk.

I can't claim by just talking to 10-12 parents that I know what RP2 entire community want. That will be absurd. I was just pointing out that many parents don't want to walk and refuting the point about everyone wants to walk from RP2 to new school.