Forum Index
»
Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)
Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
DP.. Didn't Evans say she grew up going to a school with high FARMs? I think she was trying to balance out the needs of the kids in terms of proximity (long commute) vs FARMs rate at a school. I was low income while in ES, and I think the proximity issue is not a small factor for low income kids. |
Anonymous
Didn't Dixon vote once for E and once for B? |
Anonymous
Nope, Dixon was one of the 4 original "A" votes along with Evans, Rebecca, and O'Neil. Then she changed to B as did Evans. and O'Neil. Rebecca abstained. |
Anonymous
DP... I don't know about that PP, but for us, we chose RM cluster in part for its SES diversity. I find wealthy schools and high FARMs schools each have their respective types of problems. We liked that RM cluster, including RP, had that "magic" number of about 25%. I would be concerned for those 7% FARMs kids remaining at RP -- all from Fallsgrove - being surrounded by higher income families. The disparity will be obvious because there will only be a very small number of kids who are from low income families. No real dog in this fight as my kids will be in MS by the time this goes into affect. |
Anonymous
I know that, but WG had the most number of speakers lined up and their talk was just a bunch of non-sense. If all those speakers, except one, were replaced by other speakers from B5 and B6 then case for A would have been stronger. I am not in Hungerford, but they were told to come up with something when they protested 53% FARMs( wrong numbers). They had no clue if it will be even taken seriously, but they threw something out there to balance FARMs just between Beall and RM#5. NMC proposed something similar. Keeping B5 in Beall and Keeping B6 in RM#5 to balance FARMs. Not much different from HUngerford, but didn't divide B5 and B6. Both suggestions didn't touch RP because it started with Super's recommendation and wanted to make minimal changes. If numbers were not wrong to start with, 53% FARMs, I don't think that we would have seen such a reaction after Super sent his first recommendation. MCPS was at fault for having wrong data. Beall PTA reps actually asked MCPS to come up with smaller sub zones to better balance during previous boundary meetings, it it was ignored because MCPS staff didn't want to do extra work. It's hard to balance anything if you have to move 100 kids in one go. Since MCPS didn't come up with any smaller zones and BOE asked Hungerford to put some idea, they did. But it was not Hungerford , it was MCPS which ran numbers and it was BOE which made a call to split B5/B6. |
Anonymous
Then it's even more mind boggling to me that she voted for A and B rather than E, which does a much better job distributing FARMs. Or maybe she felt that the only real FARMS issues was TB, and even the 7% FARMs at RP and 29% FARMs at ES#5 (option A) was no big deal? I don't know.. that just seemed like lip service to me. If FARMs is such an important issue for her, why not go for E, which has all four ESs under 25% FARMs, while A doesn't. |
Anonymous
I think a lot of CG3 parents like the IB program and were hoping their younger kids could be a part of that program as well. |
Anonymous
Growing up in high FARMs and being affluent is different than actually facing poverty in your family. Dixon and Evans had different perspectives and they come form different background. |
Anonymous
Meaning Evans came from a more affluent family even though she went to a high FARMs school? I grew up mostly low income while in ES but live in a more affluent area now. I do know the differing perspectives. |
Anonymous
Ah, well if you are going to talk about MCPS caring about you attending certain school due to buying certain houses then you lost the plot right there. MCPS doesn't care and shouldn't care about it. Then you are more concerned about sending a message than understanding real issue to help kids. That's Evans for you. |
Anonymous
Based on what I saw, 29% FARMs was a non issue for her. It was clear that she was focused on TB. |
Anonymous
It's not a strong argument , but even this would have worked better than all those flower and garden talk. In the first testimony one lady from WG came and talked about imagining forest , path, flowers etc. |
Anonymous
+1 There were retirees from HH who wanted to testify about how Option C was bad because they had to suffer being zoned out of Wootton to RM 30 years ago, and with Option C HH is again having to be rezoned further away to up the FARMs numbers. The parents of school aged children in HH told them that this wasn't a good argument, and to not mention this. They were told to stick to the four factors - especially proximity. |
Anonymous
You have to remember timing...the first time anyone saw "B" was the evening of the 9th. This was the first option that moved B6 at all. Many families in the B6 neighborhood were not particularly engaged in the process because the previous 9 options never moved them from Beall. Signups to speak on the 16th were first thing on the 13th and filled up quickly. That is the point of the process issue, WG has been working this issue for a year and it is their right to sign up and speak if they so choose. It isn't like MCPS could say, oh sorry, you had your chance...these people want to talk now..... B5S and B6S found out the potential new option and had almost no time to organize and figure out what was going on. I agree with you, this entire mess all points back to the poor numbers MCPS generated. It wasn't just the FARMs, the total student populations didn't even add up in any of the Options 1-8 and Dr. Smith said he never would have even proposed his recommendation had the numbers been accurate. These mistakes are totally unacceptable and need to be fixed before the next boundary lines are drawn. If they were mistakes in projections i could at least forgive them...these were addition mistakes. COME ON How nobody bothered to see if they at least had the same number of kids in each option is beyond me. |
Anonymous
That was a right call. No one in entire cluster was supporting C even if they are not moving. Talking about past and injustice etc would have lost focus on main point that C is a bad option because C exclusively focuses on FARMs issue and ignores proximity. - NMC resident |