Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1

[Anonymous]

I am honestly surprised they picked B over E. I guess they thought proximity was more important than evening out FARMs at the other 4 schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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%.

That is my position as well. If the new School wasn’t in Hungerford and was built up north, I would have loved RP2 and RP6 to stay. Neither of those areas and the 20% FARMS we currently have, have anything to do with Ritchie Park’s problems as a whole. In fact, I am more nervous now for the change in Ritchie Park.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Some RP parents may have been gunning for it, but not all. Please stop generalizing. We chose RM cluster in part for its SES diversity. Otherwise, we would've chose Wootton cluster. We could've afforded that cluster.

Neighborhood feel is important. It's one of the reasons I fought against option C, and to some degree D. Why do you think folks in Beall and CG were fighting to keep their neighborhoods together? If parents in other zones fight for neighborhood feel it's fine and understandable. If parents in RP do it, it's elitist? Quite the double standard there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am honestly surprised they picked B over E. I guess they thought proximity was more important than evening out FARMs at the other 4 schools?

There was really not much changing in the FARMS. They are all teens or 20’s in E and they are two in 20’s, one in teen, and one at 7.5%. It really didn’t change that much if you don’t shift TB and B kept the two schools getting the most kids in the future, the most under capacity. I think that was a bigger deal. But yes RP2 wanted the change and walk and I am glad they gave that to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agree here. Lecturing others about tradition and justice to WG was a stupid way to go. Unfortunately most WG speakers went with that. They were pretty much shooting themselves in foot and then you add council member who lives in WG. It was a disaster, otherwise A needed just one more vote.

[Anonymous]

another thing that was very surprising was evans talking about people buying houses in certain locations expecting to be in certain school zones (paraphrasing)

this is obviously true, was just very surprised to hear a board member explicitly say it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

On other hand we have Evans, not a kid. Evans didn't even understand this FARMs issue. Looked clueless and tried to twist what Dixon was saying. Evans was more concerned about sending a message than looking at what could help students.

My take away from watching all this. Evans is a dummy when it comes to understanding serious issues. Rebecca also doesn't get it, but she may be playing to the gallery more than others due to being from this area. Everyone else understood FARMs issue despite voting differently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:another thing that was very surprising was evans talking about people buying houses in certain locations expecting to be in certain school zones (paraphrasing)

this is obviously true, was just very surprised to hear a board member explicitly say it

Ah , I forgot that gem from Evans. She shouldn't be taking these serious decisions, but we are stuck with this dummy for years to come.

She didn't get FARMS issue at all. She didn't get the fact that no boundary is set in stone and MCPS shouldn't care about why some one bought a house in certain area. That's nothing to do with MCPS providing education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

On other hand we have Evans, not a kid. Evans didn't even understand this FARMs issue. Looked clueless and tried to twist what Dixon was saying. Evans was more concerned about sending a message than looking at what could help students.

My take away from watching all this. Evans is a dummy when it comes to understanding serious issues. Rebecca also doesn't get it, but she may be playing to the gallery more than others due to being from this area. Everyone else understood FARMs issue despite voting differently.

you could tell dixon wanted to knock some sense into her last night. lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Some RP parents may have been gunning for it, but not all. Please stop generalizing. We chose RM cluster in part for its SES diversity. Otherwise, we would've chose Wootton cluster. We could've afforded that cluster.

Neighborhood feel is important. It's one of the reasons I fought against option C, and to some degree D. Why do you think folks in Beall and CG were fighting to keep their neighborhoods together? If parents in other zones fight for neighborhood feel it's fine and understandable. If parents in RP do it, it's elitist? Quite the double standard there.

Not the same PP , but fight was never about neighborhood feel. CG3 kids play with Beall kids all the time. They all go to Carmen's and hand out together in same park.

Fight was about not wanting ot change schools for their kids. No one likes to change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

On other hand we have Evans, not a kid. Evans didn't even understand this FARMs issue. Looked clueless and tried to twist what Dixon was saying. Evans was more concerned about sending a message than looking at what could help students.

My take away from watching all this. Evans is a dummy when it comes to understanding serious issues. Rebecca also doesn't get it, but she may be playing to the gallery more than others due to being from this area. Everyone else understood FARMs issue despite voting differently.

you could tell dixon wanted to knock some sense into her last night. lol

Sad part was seeing Evans trying to twist what Dixon was saying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agree here. Lecturing others about tradition and justice to WG was a stupid way to go. Unfortunately most WG speakers went with that. They were pretty much shooting themselves in foot and then you add council member who lives in WG. It was a disaster, otherwise A needed just one more vote.

There were many people for A that were not WG people. B split B6 and B5 in half, B6 particularly, plus all of B5S and most of B6S is about 1/2 from Beall so losing that walk-ability is a bummer. If it is the right thing for overcrowding then great, hopefully we are not jumping back to Beall in 5 years because the new school is over capacity per the resolution last night.

Most of the B5S and B6S people were comfortable going to either school it was just surprising that another neighborhood drew the boundary lines and got to decide who was B6N and who was B6S. A lot of people were frustrated with the process more than the outcome. Terrible math forcing a year long process down into 10 days with Thanksgiving included. It isn't the communities fault MCPS can't add. If you are going to have a boundary study process then follow it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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%.

That is my position as well. If the new School wasn’t in Hungerford and was built up north, I would have loved RP2 and RP6 to stay. Neither of those areas and the 20% FARMS we currently have, have anything to do with Ritchie Park’s problems as a whole. In fact, I am more nervous now for the change in Ritchie Park.

what do you mean?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

On other hand we have Evans, not a kid. Evans didn't even understand this FARMs issue. Looked clueless and tried to twist what Dixon was saying. Evans was more concerned about sending a message than looking at what could help students.

My take away from watching all this. Evans is a dummy when it comes to understanding serious issues. Rebecca also doesn't get it, but she may be playing to the gallery more than others due to being from this area. Everyone else understood FARMs issue despite voting differently.

Despite voting differently? Please.

At least some are truthful even if you don’t like it. Many politicians can play the crowd well. Dixon did that. Looked like she cared as she voted yes for B. Tried to sprinkle a few kids around knowing it would get turned down. Pathetic.