Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
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.

No disagreement here. B6 was not involved and it was understandable. Suddenly seeing split of B6 was a shock for many in B6. I can't blame them. I was just trying to explain based on my understanding.

Messed up basic math created all this issue.


While CG3 had every right to take slots, I think Alternative A would have higher chance without huge crowd from WG showing up and talking about random stuff. Also, Alternate A would have higher chance without Mark using his council position to push for it. Being vocal simply got everyone attention on WG and frankly speaking WG had the weakest case among all zones which were moving.

[Anonymous]

The last minute change ups and the quick turn around in responding are the main issues here. B6, RP4, splitting of B5 and then adding in T2/5 - gave all of those people very little time to react and it was unfair.

It was evident WG came out in full force in the beginning of the line up because they knew of their move from previous options. And then Horizon Hill came out towards the end because they were a last minute change.

Then we had sprinkling of parents and kids from other schools. No one from B5 or B6 or RP6. One from RP2 and only 2-3 from all of TB

The meeting should have been closed to just this issue since it was so last minute. They should have allowed max two speakers from every zone to speak.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The last minute change ups and the quick turn around in responding are the main issues here. B6, RP4, splitting of B5 and then adding in T2/5 - gave all of those people very little time to react and it was unfair.

It was evident WG came out in full force in the beginning of the line up because they knew of their move from previous options. And then Horizon Hill came out towards the end because they were a last minute change.

Then we had sprinkling of parents and kids from other schools. No one from B5 or B6 or RP6. One from RP2 and only 2-3 from all of TB

The meeting should have been closed to just this issue since it was so last minute. They should have allowed max two speakers from every zone to speak.

There were at least 4 speakers from B5S who spoke at the meeting, Justus Getty, who keeps getting mentioned, is one of them. But I agree, all the pro-A got roped in with the WG argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The last minute change ups and the quick turn around in responding are the main issues here. B6, RP4, splitting of B5 and then adding in T2/5 - gave all of those people very little time to react and it was unfair.

It was evident WG came out in full force in the beginning of the line up because they knew of their move from previous options. And then Horizon Hill came out towards the end because they were a last minute change.

Then we had sprinkling of parents and kids from other schools. No one from B5 or B6 or RP6. One from RP2 and only 2-3 from all of TB

The meeting should have been closed to just this issue since it was so last minute. They should have allowed max two speakers from every zone to speak.

Since everyone was stating their person opinion and not really speaking on behalf of their zones, I am not sure limiting was even possible. I recall at least one NMC speaker who supported B and E both despite NMC only supporting E. I also recall various voices from HH. Some supported A, some B and some E.

When you hear 10 from one zone, you get an idea, but just 2 may give misleading impression about that a zone wants.

May be 10 slots from each school would have done the job and 20 from Beall area because it was the most impacted school. Anyway, testimony is an old way to collect input and I am sure that BOE got lots of inputs other ways.

[Anonymous]

The problem with option A is it only met one of the four criteria. It was only popular because it moved less people and most don't like change. I was really disappointed so many on the board ignored thier own criteria and just voted based on popularity. B at least met 2 of thier criteria.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The last minute change ups and the quick turn around in responding are the main issues here. B6, RP4, splitting of B5 and then adding in T2/5 - gave all of those people very little time to react and it was unfair.

It was evident WG came out in full force in the beginning of the line up because they knew of their move from previous options. And then Horizon Hill came out towards the end because they were a last minute change.

Then we had sprinkling of parents and kids from other schools. No one from B5 or B6 or RP6. One from RP2 and only 2-3 from all of TB

The meeting should have been closed to just this issue since it was so last minute. They should have allowed max two speakers from every zone to speak.

There were at least 4 speakers from B5S who spoke at the meeting, Justus Getty, who keeps getting mentioned, is one of them. But I agree, all the pro-A got roped in with the WG argument.

That was bad. Getting roped in with WG made it hard to put attention on some logical arguments in favor of A.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The problem with option A is it only met one of the four criteria. It was only popular because it moved less people and most don't like change. I was really disappointed so many on the board ignored thier own criteria and just voted based on popularity. B at least met 2 of thier criteria.

Well BOE gets elected and most of them don't care about MCPS guidelines for boundary. They care about getting elected.

[Anonymous]

To the person referring to some of the BOE members by their first names.... specifically Jill and Rebecca... please use their last names. Or first and last names together. I literally had "Rebecca" mixed up with another BOE member because I don't think of Smondrowski as "Rebecca." The members nearly always refer to each other as Mr. So-and-So and Ms. So-and-So, only rarely do you hear a "Jill" comment.

Are you also calling the City Council member from CG1 by his first name? People who don't follow Rockville Mayor & City Council literally may have no idea who "Mark" refers to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To the person referring to some of the BOE members by their first names.... specifically Jill and Rebecca... please use their last names. Or first and last names together. I literally had "Rebecca" mixed up with another BOE member because I don't think of Smondrowski as "Rebecca." The members nearly always refer to each other as Mr. So-and-So and Ms. So-and-So, only rarely do you hear a "Jill" comment.

Are you also calling the City Council member from CG1 by his first name? People who don't follow Rockville Mayor & City Council literally may have no idea who "Mark" refers to.

I was also confused because I am not familiar with city council names. I had to look it up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the person referring to some of the BOE members by their first names.... specifically Jill and Rebecca... please use their last names. Or first and last names together. I literally had "Rebecca" mixed up with another BOE member because I don't think of Smondrowski as "Rebecca." The members nearly always refer to each other as Mr. So-and-So and Ms. So-and-So, only rarely do you hear a "Jill" comment.

Are you also calling the City Council member from CG1 by his first name? People who don't follow Rockville Mayor & City Council literally may have no idea who "Mark" refers to.

I was also confused because I am not familiar with city council names. I had to look it up.

Sorry for confusion.

Mark Pierzchala - Rockville city council referred as Mark in out community. He lives in WG(CG3) and I may have used his name as Mark some time in this thread.

[Anonymous]

Here are all BOE members full name,


Michael A. Durso

Judith Docca

Jeanette E. Dixon

Shebra L. Evans

Patricia O'Neill

Jill Ortman-Fouse

Rebecca Smondrowski

Matthew Post

This may help to avoid any confusion. Every post should use full name. No confusion that way. Many posters are using last or first or calling Jill Ortman-Fouse a blond in few earlier postings. Just keep it simple and use full name so no one gets confused.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Because you know that RP2 wanted the change and walk. Another lie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Because you know that RP2 wanted the change and walk. Another lie.

Many wanted to stay in RP and many wanted to go to RM#5. But that's just 5-6 parents I know in that area and can't speak for entire RP2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The last minute change ups and the quick turn around in responding are the main issues here. B6, RP4, splitting of B5 and then adding in T2/5 - gave all of those people very little time to react and it was unfair.

It was evident WG came out in full force in the beginning of the line up because they knew of their move from previous options. And then Horizon Hill came out towards the end because they were a last minute change.

Then we had sprinkling of parents and kids from other schools. No one from B5 or B6 or RP6. One from RP2 and only 2-3 from all of TB

The meeting should have been closed to just this issue since it was so last minute. They should have allowed max two speakers from every zone to speak.

Since everyone was stating their person opinion and not really speaking on behalf of their zones, I am not sure limiting was even possible. I recall at least one NMC speaker who supported B and E both despite NMC only supporting E. I also recall various voices from HH. Some supported A, some B and some E.

When you hear 10 from one zone, you get an idea, but just 2 may give misleading impression about that a zone wants.

May be 10 slots from each school would have done the job and 20 from Beall area because it was the most impacted school. Anyway, testimony is an old way to collect input and I am sure that BOE got lots of inputs other ways.

Sure they get input but does it have much effect or do they pretty much have their minds made up in advance? Obviously, there were early changes as several new boundary maps were released. How much of this was due to input (Hungerford splitting B5 and B6) and how much was due to bad numbers and bad math? Four criteria were mentioned. If A only met 1 and B met 2, how were the criteria ranked, how many points were given to each? Was the criteria scored and weighted?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Everybody else was ok with having 53% FARMS in the regular classes at the new school. That's the reason why everybody else was waiting for BOE to rubber stamp the superintendent's proposal. If that happened in your school, I am sure you would have fought against it. Stop blaming "one neighborhood" for trying to level out the playing field for all the students in the cluster.