Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remember that older lady who testified well beyond her 3 minutes stating how Option A was the only fair option for the students of CG3?

Wonder what she's thinking today...

It was the most useless entire WG group taking valuable time to talk a bunch of nonsense. If all neighborhoods take that kind of stance then you can never change boundaries. Lady didn't just come alone, she was part of entire group making noise.


Many folks could have used that time to discussion something meaningful.

Fully agree here. I could listen to all other making some points even if I didn't agree with their all points, but WG group had absolutely nothing to add to this serious debate and yet WG had speakers lined up to make the loudest noise.

I live in Falls grove and even A would have been fine with me personally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RP was happy with 20% FARMs, too.

I seriously doubt that after reading circulation of PTA note in RP community. Without reading that I may have believed it. After backlash, PTA came up with clarifications and hushed it saying that some one got access and sent it, but no one gets access randomly and send something like that to entire PTA members. It had 15-20 talking points and not written by some one getting quick access.

I would say some sections in RP would have been happy with 20% in RP too, but some sections were surely gunning for 7% FARMs in RP. I also had benefit of interacting with many in RP due to having my son attending it. Anyway, RM#5 is closer for me , but I would have been fine in either RP or RM#5.

I could see how you could read that PTA email that way but I don't think the person wanted a 7% FARMS per se, rather, just was pointing out that for the area, 7% is more than any other ES, like Cold Spring. It was poorly done, I agree, but I really don't think that person was gunning for the 7% FARMs; more like that person didn't want a longer commute for the FG kids. I also highly doubt that the PTA agreed to that email since I'm in the PTA, and didn't hear anything about trying to get RP at 7%FARMs. Maybe some in RP do want RP at 7% FARMs, but that would be dumb for them to aim for that since they all go to JW/RM eventually, with a FARMs more like 25%. Why buy in this cluster if that is your aim, and knowing that your kids will eventuall mix with 25% FARMs? That's why I don't think that person was aiming for 7%FARMs, but then, maybe I'm wrong. Just doesn't seem to make sense to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:why did mrs dixon vote for option B? everything she was saying contradicted her choice.

She was fine with either A, B or E. Her point was to give extra help to 75 TB students as addendum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remember that older lady who testified well beyond her 3 minutes stating how Option A was the only fair option for the students of CG3?

Wonder what she's thinking today...

It was the most useless entire WG group taking valuable time to talk a bunch of nonsense. If all neighborhoods take that kind of stance then you can never change boundaries. Lady didn't just come alone, she was part of entire group making noise.


Many folks could have used that time to discussion something meaningful.

Fully agree here. I could listen to all other making some points even if I didn't agree with their all points, but WG group had absolutely nothing to add to this serious debate and yet WG had speakers lined up to make the loudest noise.

I live in Falls grove and even A would have been fine with me personally.

im sure the BoE felt the same way.


especially when that old black lady from WG rambled and durso said "is the end in sight?" LOL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:why did mrs dixon vote for option B? everything she was saying contradicted her choice.

I agree.. I was a bit surprised she chose B given everything else she said. Why not choose E then? I actually think they did give thought to FG and the extra commute, and the walkability of RP2 (per their opinion). Else, why pick B over E? The capacity is actually not that different between the two options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RP was happy with 20% FARMs, too.

I seriously doubt that after reading circulation of PTA note in RP community. Without reading that I may have believed it. After backlash, PTA came up with clarifications and hushed it saying that some one got access and sent it, but no one gets access randomly and send something like that to entire PTA members. It had 15-20 talking points and not written by some one getting quick access.

I would say some sections in RP would have been happy with 20% in RP too, but some sections were surely gunning for 7% FARMs in RP. I also had benefit of interacting with many in RP due to having my son attending it. Anyway, RM#5 is closer for me , but I would have been fine in either RP or RM#5.

I could see how you could read that PTA email that way but I don't think the person wanted a 7% FARMS per se, rather, just was pointing out that for the area, 7% is more than any other ES, like Cold Spring. It was poorly done, I agree, but I really don't think that person was gunning for the 7% FARMs; more like that person didn't want a longer commute for the FG kids. I also highly doubt that the PTA agreed to that email since I'm in the PTA, and didn't hear anything about trying to get RP at 7%FARMs. Maybe some in RP do want RP at 7% FARMs, but that would be dumb for them to aim for that since they all go to JW/RM eventually, with a FARMs more like 25%. Why buy in this cluster if that is your aim, and knowing that your kids will eventuall mix with 25% FARMs? That's why I don't think that person was aiming for 7%FARMs, but then, maybe I'm wrong. Just doesn't seem to make sense to me.

You could be right and my impression may be colored by 4-5 parents who talked to me privately without realizing that I am in RP6. If you are in PTA board and knew nothing about 7% effort then I will take your word.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remember that older lady who testified well beyond her 3 minutes stating how Option A was the only fair option for the students of CG3?

Wonder what she's thinking today...

It was the most useless entire WG group taking valuable time to talk a bunch of nonsense. If all neighborhoods take that kind of stance then you can never change boundaries. Lady didn't just come alone, she was part of entire group making noise.


Many folks could have used that time to discussion something meaningful.

Fully agree here. I could listen to all other making some points even if I didn't agree with their all points, but WG group had absolutely nothing to add to this serious debate and yet WG had speakers lined up to make the loudest noise.

I live in Falls grove and even A would have been fine with me personally.

im sure the BoE felt the same way.


especially when that old black lady from WG rambled and durso said "is the end in sight?" LOL

I was thinking that speech was going to backfire on her, but would the BOE really be that petty? Really?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:why did mrs dixon vote for option B? everything she was saying contradicted her choice.

She was fine with either A, B or E. Her point was to give extra help to 75 TB students as addendum.

yes, but when post put forward option E, dixon did not vote for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RP was happy with 20% FARMs, too.

I seriously doubt that after reading circulation of PTA note in RP community. Without reading that I may have believed it. After backlash, PTA came up with clarifications and hushed it saying that some one got access and sent it, but no one gets access randomly and send something like that to entire PTA members. It had 15-20 talking points and not written by some one getting quick access.

I would say some sections in RP would have been happy with 20% in RP too, but some sections were surely gunning for 7% FARMs in RP. I also had benefit of interacting with many in RP due to having my son attending it. Anyway, RM#5 is closer for me , but I would have been fine in either RP or RM#5.

I could see how you could read that PTA email that way but I don't think the person wanted a 7% FARMS per se, rather, just was pointing out that for the area, 7% is more than any other ES, like Cold Spring. It was poorly done, I agree, but I really don't think that person was gunning for the 7% FARMs; more like that person didn't want a longer commute for the FG kids. I also highly doubt that the PTA agreed to that email since I'm in the PTA, and didn't hear anything about trying to get RP at 7%FARMs. Maybe some in RP do want RP at 7% FARMs, but that would be dumb for them to aim for that since they all go to JW/RM eventually, with a FARMs more like 25%. Why buy in this cluster if that is your aim, and knowing that your kids will eventuall mix with 25% FARMs? That's why I don't think that person was aiming for 7%FARMs, but then, maybe I'm wrong. Just doesn't seem to make sense to me.

let's be honest here. everyone in RP was hoping for that 7 percent FARMs rate. regardless of what they publicly said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remember that older lady who testified well beyond her 3 minutes stating how Option A was the only fair option for the students of CG3?

Wonder what she's thinking today...

It was the most useless entire WG group taking valuable time to talk a bunch of nonsense. If all neighborhoods take that kind of stance then you can never change boundaries. Lady didn't just come alone, she was part of entire group making noise.


Many folks could have used that time to discussion something meaningful.

Fully agree here. I could listen to all other making some points even if I didn't agree with their all points, but WG group had absolutely nothing to add to this serious debate and yet WG had speakers lined up to make the loudest noise.

I live in Falls grove and even A would have been fine with me personally.

im sure the BoE felt the same way.


especially when that old black lady from WG rambled and durso said "is the end in sight?" LOL

I was thinking that speech was going to backfire on her, but would the BOE really be that petty? Really?

Justus Getty went about it the right way in his defense of option A. If all the woodley gardens parents followed suit, they might have had a chance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RP was happy with 20% FARMs, too.

I seriously doubt that after reading circulation of PTA note in RP community. Without reading that I may have believed it. After backlash, PTA came up with clarifications and hushed it saying that some one got access and sent it, but no one gets access randomly and send something like that to entire PTA members. It had 15-20 talking points and not written by some one getting quick access.

I would say some sections in RP would have been happy with 20% in RP too, but some sections were surely gunning for 7% FARMs in RP. I also had benefit of interacting with many in RP due to having my son attending it. Anyway, RM#5 is closer for me , but I would have been fine in either RP or RM#5.

I could see how you could read that PTA email that way but I don't think the person wanted a 7% FARMS per se, rather, just was pointing out that for the area, 7% is more than any other ES, like Cold Spring. It was poorly done, I agree, but I really don't think that person was gunning for the 7% FARMs; more like that person didn't want a longer commute for the FG kids. I also highly doubt that the PTA agreed to that email since I'm in the PTA, and didn't hear anything about trying to get RP at 7%FARMs. Maybe some in RP do want RP at 7% FARMs, but that would be dumb for them to aim for that since they all go to JW/RM eventually, with a FARMs more like 25%. Why buy in this cluster if that is your aim, and knowing that your kids will eventuall mix with 25% FARMs? That's why I don't think that person was aiming for 7%FARMs, but then, maybe I'm wrong. Just doesn't seem to make sense to me.

You could be right and my impression may be colored by 4-5 parents who talked to me privately without realizing that I am in RP6. If you are in PTA board and knew nothing about 7% effort then I will take your word.

I'm not on the Board, but part of the PTA. If the email was to represent the PTA as a whole, I would think they would discuss it prior to sending it. That's why I tend to think it was just a handful of people or just that one person.

Did the few people you spoke to actually say they were aiming to get RP to 7% FARMs, or that, as the email states, having RP at 7% FARMs is actually more than the surrounding area ES? I think that those are two different things. Getting RP at 7% FARMs as the sole aim is entirely different than just stating the truth, that RP is in an area with low FARMs, and at 7% it would be more than BFES or CSES.

In any case, I think most schools around here have some snooty people. It's unfortunate. I actually looked at Wootton cluster when looking to buy, and they have their share of snootiness. But, like I said, if the person is aiming for 7% FARMs at RP, then that person should move to Wootton cluster right across the street, because eventually, they all end up at a school with much higher FARMs rate than we have at RP now.

I'm sorry you made to feel badly, though. I would feel uncomfortable, too, if someone kept mentioning that to me, and I live in Horizon Hill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:why did mrs dixon vote for option B? everything she was saying contradicted her choice.

I agree.. I was a bit surprised she chose B given everything else she said. Why not choose E then? I actually think they did give thought to FG and the extra commute, and the walkability of RP2 (per their opinion). Else, why pick B over E? The capacity is actually not that different between the two options.

Dixon was mostly focused on giving opportunity to kids in school with 70% FARMs. She even made a point about TB kids doing poorly in Middle and high school due to huge disadvantage in elementary.

She was not supporting any option strongly on table except D, which was actually doing something for TB, but it was also causing hardship. Difficult task and I do get it, but I have to applaud her for understanding this serious topic. Well , her background helped her here. Jill and Post actually got the point as well. Some people think that Post shouldn't have vote, but he was very thoughtful and did his due diligence.

Jill, DIxon and Post fully understood FARMs issue. Evans certainly didn't understand it and Rebecca also doesn't get it. Other may have voted differently, but their comments made it clear that they understood FARMs issue.

Thanks to Durso for seconding Dixon to allow her to speak.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RP was happy with 20% FARMs, too.

I seriously doubt that after reading circulation of PTA note in RP community. Without reading that I may have believed it. After backlash, PTA came up with clarifications and hushed it saying that some one got access and sent it, but no one gets access randomly and send something like that to entire PTA members. It had 15-20 talking points and not written by some one getting quick access.

I would say some sections in RP would have been happy with 20% in RP too, but some sections were surely gunning for 7% FARMs in RP. I also had benefit of interacting with many in RP due to having my son attending it. Anyway, RM#5 is closer for me , but I would have been fine in either RP or RM#5.

I could see how you could read that PTA email that way but I don't think the person wanted a 7% FARMS per se, rather, just was pointing out that for the area, 7% is more than any other ES, like Cold Spring. It was poorly done, I agree, but I really don't think that person was gunning for the 7% FARMs; more like that person didn't want a longer commute for the FG kids. I also highly doubt that the PTA agreed to that email since I'm in the PTA, and didn't hear anything about trying to get RP at 7%FARMs. Maybe some in RP do want RP at 7% FARMs, but that would be dumb for them to aim for that since they all go to JW/RM eventually, with a FARMs more like 25%. Why buy in this cluster if that is your aim, and knowing that your kids will eventuall mix with 25% FARMs? That's why I don't think that person was aiming for 7%FARMs, but then, maybe I'm wrong. Just doesn't seem to make sense to me.

let's be honest here. everyone in RP was hoping for that 7 percent FARMs rate. regardless of what they publicly said.

troll.. do you know everyone at RP, even the RP2/6 folks were gunning for that precious 7% FARMs? I wasn't. And I don't live in Rp2/6.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RP was happy with 20% FARMs, too.

I seriously doubt that after reading circulation of PTA note in RP community. Without reading that I may have believed it. After backlash, PTA came up with clarifications and hushed it saying that some one got access and sent it, but no one gets access randomly and send something like that to entire PTA members. It had 15-20 talking points and not written by some one getting quick access.

I would say some sections in RP would have been happy with 20% in RP too, but some sections were surely gunning for 7% FARMs in RP. I also had benefit of interacting with many in RP due to having my son attending it. Anyway, RM#5 is closer for me , but I would have been fine in either RP or RM#5.

I could see how you could read that PTA email that way but I don't think the person wanted a 7% FARMS per se, rather, just was pointing out that for the area, 7% is more than any other ES, like Cold Spring. It was poorly done, I agree, but I really don't think that person was gunning for the 7% FARMs; more like that person didn't want a longer commute for the FG kids. I also highly doubt that the PTA agreed to that email since I'm in the PTA, and didn't hear anything about trying to get RP at 7%FARMs. Maybe some in RP do want RP at 7% FARMs, but that would be dumb for them to aim for that since they all go to JW/RM eventually, with a FARMs more like 25%. Why buy in this cluster if that is your aim, and knowing that your kids will eventuall mix with 25% FARMs? That's why I don't think that person was aiming for 7%FARMs, but then, maybe I'm wrong. Just doesn't seem to make sense to me.

let's be honest here. everyone in RP was hoping for that 7 percent FARMs rate. regardless of what they publicly said.

troll.. do you know everyone at RP, even the RP2/6 folks were gunning for that precious 7% FARMs? I wasn't. And I don't live in Rp2/6.

you have a child at RP. there are two options... one will make your school 24 percent farms, one will make it 7 percent farms. Who the hell would prefer 24 percent?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:why did mrs dixon vote for option B? everything she was saying contradicted her choice.

I agree.. I was a bit surprised she chose B given everything else she said. Why not choose E then? I actually think they did give thought to FG and the extra commute, and the walkability of RP2 (per their opinion). Else, why pick B over E? The capacity is actually not that different between the two options.

Dixon was mostly focused on giving opportunity to kids in school with 70% FARMs. She even made a point about TB kids doing poorly in Middle and high school due to huge disadvantage in elementary.

She was not supporting any option strongly on table except D, which was actually doing something for TB, but it was also causing hardship. Difficult task and I do get it, but I have to applaud her for understanding this serious topic. Well , her background helped her here. Jill and Post actually got the point as well. Some people think that Post shouldn't have vote, but he was very thoughtful and did his due diligence.

Jill, DIxon and Post fully understood FARMs issue. Evans certainly didn't understand it and Rebecca also doesn't get it. Other may have voted differently, but their comments made it clear that they understood FARMs issue.

Thanks to Durso for seconding Dixon to allow her to speak.

I agree that Post was very thoughtful, but the issue is that he is just a kid and does not have the education and/or life experience to make such a huge decision that impacts families.