Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Only BOE members can answer your questions. I also didn't see many members talking about 4 factors to make decisions. Most of them simply mentoned 1 or 2 factors when talking.

[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.

The PTA email was not gunning for a 7.5% FARMS and neither were parents. Talk about twisting someone’s words. Hopefully I can put this to bed…

Ritchie Park is overcapacity and needs to relocate approx 150 kids and RP2 is about 150 kids and located in the walk zone of the new school. So this was a no brainer.

The PTA email was simply explaining to their school why then there were maps developed that had RP2 staying at Ritchie Park and RP5 (Fallsgrove) going to the new school instead. The email said this was to show a map that would increase FARMS at Ritchie Park. That’s it. It was a fact. That is why those maps were created. The email then went on to state that the higher FARMS map came at the cost of barring RP2 from the new school in their neighborhood and moved RP5 farther instead. Finally it stated that while moving RP2 does result in a lower FARMS at RP, it is still in line with other surrounding schools, so not too low based on its location (Ritchie Park sits on the Potomac line) and raising the FARMS isn't worth barring RP2 from the new school.

In summary, this email was developed to explain to the Ritchie Park community why the maps were created and the affects they would have. That’s it. I don’t know if the confusion and negative response surrounding this email was the result of misunderstanding or a bad game of telephone, but this is what happened. It is a shame that some would take this and twist it and then make accusations that RP wants their FARMs kids out. Also, I’d just like to point out that receiving a free or reduced meal doesn’t make you undesirable. It doesn’t make you less smart. It doesn’t make you a burden on the class. It is offensive that people would say that Ritchie Park wants a lower FARMS.

[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.

The PTA email was not gunning for a 7.5% FARMS and neither were parents. Talk about twisting someone’s words. Hopefully I can put this to bed…

Ritchie Park is overcapacity and needs to relocate approx 150 kids and RP2 is about 150 kids and located in the walk zone of the new school. So this was a no brainer.

The PTA email was simply explaining to their school why then there were maps developed that had RP2 staying at Ritchie Park and RP5 (Fallsgrove) going to the new school instead. The email said this was to show a map that would increase FARMS at Ritchie Park. That’s it. It was a fact. That is why those maps were created. The email then went on to state that the higher FARMS map came at the cost of barring RP2 from the new school in their neighborhood and moved RP5 farther instead. Finally it stated that while moving RP2 does result in a lower FARMS at RP, it is still in line with other surrounding schools, so not too low based on its location (Ritchie Park sits on the Potomac line) and raising the FARMS isn't worth barring RP2 from the new school.

In summary, this email was developed to explain to the Ritchie Park community why the maps were created and the affects they would have. That’s it. I don’t know if the confusion and negative response surrounding this email was the result of misunderstanding or a bad game of telephone, but this is what happened. It is a shame that some would take this and twist it and then make accusations that RP wants their FARMs kids out. Also, I’d just like to point out that receiving a free or reduced meal doesn’t make you undesirable. It doesn’t make you less smart. It doesn’t make you a burden on the class. It is offensive that people would say that Ritchie Park wants a lower FARMS.

"In BOE Alt #2, Ritchie Park will still have a greater FARMS than all surrounding schools and to increase that by forcing RP2 out of their neighborhood and busing RP5 past another elementary school isn't fair to anyone."

[Anonymous]

Now what about CG3 siblings..do they have to attend different schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Now what about CG3 siblings..do they have to attend different schools?

Why shouldn’t they? There are potentially many siblings attending different elementary schools next year. Why should they make the exception for CG3?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Now what about CG3 siblings..do they have to attend different schools?

They might depending on age the same as any other zone that was moved. The BOE did agree to provide additional funding for busses and portables so that kids in CG3 could stay at College Gardens ES if they are rising 3rd graders. Meanwhile Twinbrook remains in disrepair.

The IB program needs to be moved to a school like Twinbrook or canceled. There is no reason to provide this kind of extra funding and additional advantage for one of the wealthier schools in the cluster. Why is the BOE dedicating so much extra funding to an already advantaged school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now what about CG3 siblings..do they have to attend different schools?

They might depending on age the same as any other zone that was moved. The BOE did agree to provide additional funding for busses and portables so that kids in CG3 could stay at College Gardens ES if they are rising 3rd graders. Meanwhile Twinbrook remains in disrepair.

The IB program needs to be moved to a school like Twinbrook or canceled. There is no reason to provide this kind of extra funding and additional advantage for one of the wealthier schools in the cluster. Why is the BOE dedicating so much extra funding to an already advantaged school?

As I understand it, CG parents paid out of pocket to bring the IB program to that school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now what about CG3 siblings..do they have to attend different schools?

They might depending on age the same as any other zone that was moved. The BOE did agree to provide additional funding for busses and portables so that kids in CG3 could stay at College Gardens ES if they are rising 3rd graders. Meanwhile Twinbrook remains in disrepair.

The IB program needs to be moved to a school like Twinbrook or canceled. There is no reason to provide this kind of extra funding and additional advantage for one of the wealthier schools in the cluster. Why is the BOE dedicating so much extra funding to an already advantaged school?

I am not an expert on the IB program, but I feel like having IB at twinbrook could be a terrible idea. With a 55% ESOL rate, learning both English and another language for IB could be pretty tough. I know some may not choose to take the option, but would sufficient numbers choose to take the language option? How many who choose would be also leaning English ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now what about CG3 siblings..do they have to attend different schools?

They might depending on age the same as any other zone that was moved. The BOE did agree to provide additional funding for busses and portables so that kids in CG3 could stay at College Gardens ES if they are rising 3rd graders. Meanwhile Twinbrook remains in disrepair.

The IB program needs to be moved to a school like Twinbrook or canceled. There is no reason to provide this kind of extra funding and additional advantage for one of the wealthier schools in the cluster. Why is the BOE dedicating so much extra funding to an already advantaged school?

An extra bus route is hardly comparable to a school rebuild and comes out of different budgets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now what about CG3 siblings..do they have to attend different schools?

They might depending on age the same as any other zone that was moved. The BOE did agree to provide additional funding for busses and portables so that kids in CG3 could stay at College Gardens ES if they are rising 3rd graders. Meanwhile Twinbrook remains in disrepair.

The IB program needs to be moved to a school like Twinbrook or canceled. There is no reason to provide this kind of extra funding and additional advantage for one of the wealthier schools in the cluster. Why is the BOE dedicating so much extra funding to an already advantaged school?

As I understand it, CG parents paid out of pocket to bring the IB program to that school.

Sounds good, they can start paying for it again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now what about CG3 siblings..do they have to attend different schools?

They might depending on age the same as any other zone that was moved. The BOE did agree to provide additional funding for busses and portables so that kids in CG3 could stay at College Gardens ES if they are rising 3rd graders. Meanwhile Twinbrook remains in disrepair.

The IB program needs to be moved to a school like Twinbrook or canceled. There is no reason to provide this kind of extra funding and additional advantage for one of the wealthier schools in the cluster. Why is the BOE dedicating so much extra funding to an already advantaged school?

I am not an expert on the IB program, but I feel like having IB at twinbrook could be a terrible idea. With a 55% ESOL rate, learning both English and another language for IB could be pretty tough. I know some may not choose to take the option, but would sufficient numbers choose to take the language option? How many who choose would be also leaning English ?

You could be right on this but extra funding and special privileges for a wealthy school with influence is just another example of lip service from the BOE on addressing the achievement gap.

[Anonymous]

See how many people in Bethesda think of CGES as a wealthy school....does it have a foundation raising 6 digit numbers to support extra services for the students? Is the FARMS rate in the single digits? Are there multi-family units?? I am not sure why MCPS put PYP there to start with but CGES does not meet the MoCo defintion of a wealthy school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now what about CG3 siblings..do they have to attend different schools?

They might depending on age the same as any other zone that was moved. The BOE did agree to provide additional funding for busses and portables so that kids in CG3 could stay at College Gardens ES if they are rising 3rd graders. Meanwhile Twinbrook remains in disrepair.

The IB program needs to be moved to a school like Twinbrook or canceled. There is no reason to provide this kind of extra funding and additional advantage for one of the wealthier schools in the cluster. Why is the BOE dedicating so much extra funding to an already advantaged school?

I am not an expert on the IB program, but I feel like having IB at twinbrook could be a terrible idea. With a 55% ESOL rate, learning both English and another language for IB could be pretty tough. I know some may not choose to take the option, but would sufficient numbers choose to take the language option? How many who choose would be also leaning English ?

You could be right on this but extra funding and special privileges for a wealthy school with influence is just another example of lip service from the BOE on addressing the achievement gap.

Talk talk talk, and no money for Twinbrook’s needed overdue renovation. It’s time our cluster advocate for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

An alternative for him is “well intentioned child fool who gets to vote on our $2B system”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

An alternative for him is “well intentioned child fool who gets to vote on our $2B system”

Where is the evidence that he is any bigger of a fool than anyone else on the Board? Or are we just throwing shade because he's 17 and having some sour grapes about a result where somebody would have always ended up unhappy anyway? Age is no insulation against idiocy. He's seemed just as sensible as the others throughout all this.