Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries

[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.

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.

Their conversation was not about surrounding area having 7%. They simply wanted RP2 not coming to RP due to high FARMs. They didn't realize that I live in RP6 and I will go wherever RP2 goes. It was just a informal gathering where I joined a conversation when 4-5 parents were talking.

I didn't had any strong preference for RP vs RM#5 personally. I grew up in a very poor household and we struggled a lot. That's why when I see anyone trivializing it or simply want to get rid of FARMs kids, it makes it a bit personal for me. I am not a person who start confronting anyone so I left without getting into argument.

Anyway, you don't have to apologize. I know many wonderful people in HH who would be happy to have 20% FARMs. Actually they would prefer to have 20% FARMs. You are absolutely right about people wanting 7% should be not staying in RP to start with.

[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.

I won't say everyone. I am in RP6 ,who posted earlier. I do many who actually prefer 20% FARMs.

[Anonymous]

* I do know many ... *

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Saying that RP parents were not gunning for 7% FARMS is ridiculous. There were many on this forum invoking the "neighborhood feel" as a reason to keep the FARMS kids out of their school. The person who wrote that PTA email should run for RP PTA president now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still think the county should introduce a lottery system so students struggling at their home school can opt to go to one of the underenrolled ones.

I think this is a great idea, but it would be expensive for MCPS to offer buses to those kids. However, if the parents wanted to drive them, then it should be open to them.

Only to schools under 95% capacity and only FARMS kids. This isn’t a charter system here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

E could have had maximum 3 votes , including Dixon. Not enough and she knew it. She had made it clear that she wanted to attach an amendment to A, B or E. She was simply focused on TB. E did nothing for TB.

[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.

I won't say everyone. I am in RP6 ,who posted earlier. I do many who actually prefer 20% FARMs.

they may have told you this to be PC, but believe me, in their heart of hearts, they would have preferred 7 percent. Because ultimately, parents want the best education for their child. And with all other things being equal, having a lower farms rate gives the child the best education possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fallsgrove should be reassigned to Cold Spring.

To go even further? No

Cold Spring is exactly the same distance as Ritchie Park - they are across the street. Plus, in that case if a child from Fallsgrove got into the CES (formerly HGC) they could stay at Cold Spring instead of being bused out to Barnsley. There is no difference in distance between Cold Spring and Ritchie Park from Fallsgrove.

They aren’t across the street.
Cold Spring is in the back of a neighborhood. They have a school without a bus zone because the entire school walks. There is no where for 5 busses to drop off all of those students.

Also Horizon Hill would be first to go because it would continue on with Cold Spring not having any busses as Horizon Hill could walk to Cold Spring. If they ever moved out of cluster, they could also walk to Frost and Wootton as well.

Lastly, if RP lost 150 students they would be lower in % capacity than Cold Spring. About 61%, Now if they allow Fallsgrove North to be built, it will bring in about 30-50 more students. Exactly the amount Horizon Hill has - which would be moved to Cold Spring.

That all said. Cold Spring is an old school with open air classrooms. It is terrible. The only positive is they house a HGC that is much closer.

[Anonymous]

I can absolutely assure you MANY RP people would have wanted RP2/6 to stay. If RP2 was not walkable or getting carved out, I think many more from RP1, RP4, and RP3 would have fought for them to stay over Fallsgrove. I personally would have done that. I feel closer to those families and those kids than Fallsgrove. We have had to listen to them for years complain about they shouldn’t be part of our school, they drive so far, etc... And then this boundary study. Just no. They come off with a super fake smile and very obnoxious. You can tell a FG parent within 5min of meeting them.

I was for A,B, or E if only to allow Twinbrook to not be broken up and driven away with massive overhaul everywhere. It was a lame attempt. I also didn’t like B5 going far to RM5 carving out B8 alone. And I truly think RP2/6 will be happier at the new school than RP. And I also think RP will now be almost half Fallsgrove and half low key neighborhood families. It isn’t a good mesh. We shall see.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can absolutely assure you MANY RP people would have wanted RP2/6 to stay. If RP2 was not walkable or getting carved out, I think many more from RP1, RP4, and RP3 would have fought for them to stay over Fallsgrove. I personally would have done that. I feel closer to those families and those kids than Fallsgrove. We have had to listen to them for years complain about they shouldn’t be part of our school, they drive so far, etc... And then this boundary study. Just no. They come off with a super fake smile and very obnoxious. You can tell a FG parent within 5min of meeting them.

I was for A,B, or E if only to allow Twinbrook to not be broken up and driven away with massive overhaul everywhere. It was a lame attempt. I also didn’t like B5 going far to RM5 carving out B8 alone. And I truly think RP2/6 will be happier at the new school than RP. And I also think RP will now be almost half Fallsgrove and half low key neighborhood families. It isn’t a good mesh. We shall see.

you know that not everyone in fallsgrove is snobby and rich right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can absolutely assure you MANY RP people would have wanted RP2/6 to stay. If RP2 was not walkable or getting carved out, I think many more from RP1, RP4, and RP3 would have fought for them to stay over Fallsgrove. I personally would have done that. I feel closer to those families and those kids than Fallsgrove. We have had to listen to them for years complain about they shouldn’t be part of our school, they drive so far, etc... And then this boundary study. Just no. They come off with a super fake smile and very obnoxious. You can tell a FG parent within 5min of meeting them.

I was for A,B, or E if only to allow Twinbrook to not be broken up and driven away with massive overhaul everywhere. It was a lame attempt. I also didn’t like B5 going far to RM5 carving out B8 alone. And I truly think RP2/6 will be happier at the new school than RP. And I also think RP will now be almost half Fallsgrove and half low key neighborhood families. It isn’t a good mesh. We shall see.

you know that not everyone in fallsgrove is snobby and rich right?

Previous poster from RP6. I think many times generalizations are made based on personal experience, but it's best to not generalize it. Obviously, no one knows all parents in any zone, but some time you form an impression due to most parents saying something similar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I won't say everyone. I am in RP6 ,who posted earlier. I do many who actually prefer 20% FARMs.

they may have told you this to be PC, but believe me, in their heart of hearts, they would have preferred 7 percent. Because ultimately, parents want the best education for their child. And with all other things being equal, having a lower farms rate gives the child the best education possible.

I can't see what's in their hearts, but I can speak for myself. I will be very conformable with 20% FARMs and I won't see it as negative for my child.

[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.

I agree she didn't go alone and was part of a much larger group. But she was clearly preaching to the BOE about things like, "injustice" and "unfairness" since they had already moved schools FORTY YEARS AGO!!!

I don't think BOE did not vote for Option A due to the large CG3 group, but I don't think CG3 helped themselves 2 weeks ago. As another poster said, Justus Getty had the right approach. Nearly all of CG3 was whining based on "tradition."

The 2 members who could have swung the vote for Option A last night were Docca and Durso. They both voted for B, but not A. (Smondroski voted for A, not B.) Durso seemed very pissed with the woman back on November 16 (and rightly so). At the end of the public hearing he made a statement that children are better at handling change than their parents. So for whatever reason last night, Docxa & Durso felt B was a better choice than A.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

FARMS was not my goal. RP is 20% FARMs. I think people chose proximity over FARMS. If option B kept RP at 20% FARMS, I honestly don't think people would care. It's why they send their kids to RP. The don't care about 7% FARMS. Would some people like it to be 7% FARMs AND have proximity? Maybe, but for me, 7% FARMS was never my goal. It just so happens that the proximity issue brought RP FARMs down to 7%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can absolutely assure you MANY RP people would have wanted RP2/6 to stay. If RP2 was not walkable or getting carved out, I think many more from RP1, RP4, and RP3 would have fought for them to stay over Fallsgrove. I personally would have done that. I feel closer to those families and those kids than Fallsgrove. We have had to listen to them for years complain about they shouldn’t be part of our school, they drive so far, etc... And then this boundary study. Just no. They come off with a super fake smile and very obnoxious. You can tell a FG parent within 5min of meeting them.

I was for A,B, or E if only to allow Twinbrook to not be broken up and driven away with massive overhaul everywhere. It was a lame attempt. I also didn’t like B5 going far to RM5 carving out B8 alone. And I truly think RP2/6 will be happier at the new school than RP. And I also think RP will now be almost half Fallsgrove and half low key neighborhood families. It isn’t a good mesh. We shall see.

you know that not everyone in fallsgrove is snobby and rich right?

Did I ever say anything about snobby or rich? No. Do I know they have 13% FARMS? Yes. Do I think they are a welcoming inclusive light-hearted, low-key, and non-judging group as a whole? Absolutely not.