Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So let's see who actually outsmarted others here.

Pretty much everyone supported TB to keep their boundaries. RP2/RP6 had split voice. Let's look at strong voices here.

Hungerford and NMC lost.

B5, B6 and CG3 lost.

HH and RP5 won.

Argument used was 160 entry, where 50% entry was from one school, representing the will of the RM cluster. Also a claim to have support of Mayor's office, . That was strongly denied by Mayors office. Who cares if claims were plucked out of thin air, it did influence BOE members.


Now HH/RP5 went further by misleading BOE that FARMs has no correlation with school's performance. I couldn't stop laughing when one of the BOE members emailed me their analysis. Either some nut cases are representing RP5/HH who don't really understand the situation or they do understand but know how to BS to get the outcome they want. Take you pick.


Lessons here: Either you learn how to play this game or simply buy a house in HH/RP5. With all the focus on FARMs, and yet RP managed to reduce from 20% to 7%.

Option B was hungerford's proposal, not sure how they lost when they received the proposal requested. Also, we can all agree what was adopted is better than the original recommendation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So let's see who actually outsmarted others here.

Pretty much everyone supported TB to keep their boundaries. RP2/RP6 had split voice. Let's look at strong voices here.

Hungerford and NMC lost.

B5, B6 and CG3 lost.

HH and RP5 won.

Argument used was 160 entry, where 50% entry was from one school, representing the will of the RM cluster. Also a claim to have support of Mayor's office, . That was strongly denied by Mayors office. Who cares if claims were plucked out of thin air, it did influence BOE members.


Now HH/RP5 went further by misleading BOE that FARMs has no correlation with school's performance. I couldn't stop laughing when one of the BOE members emailed me their analysis. Either some nut cases are representing RP5/HH who don't really understand the situation or they do understand but know how to BS to get the outcome they want. Take you pick.


Lessons here: Either you learn how to play this game or simply buy a house in HH/RP5. With all the focus on FARMs, and yet RP managed to reduce from 20% to 7%.

FFS... not again. HH doesn't care about 24% FARMs. HH didn't want their kids bussed far out, just like every parent who didn't want their kids bussed further out. If people cared so much about 24% FARMs I don't think they'd choose to live in this cluster.

Where HH kids were getting bused further out in Alternative E? Can you remind me?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So let's see who actually outsmarted others here.

Pretty much everyone supported TB to keep their boundaries. RP2/RP6 had split voice. Let's look at strong voices here.

Hungerford and NMC lost.

B5, B6 and CG3 lost.

HH and RP5 won.


Lessons here: Either you learn how to play this game or simply buy a house in HH/RP5. With all the focus on FARMs, and yet RP managed to reduce from 20% to 7%.

Option B was hungerford's proposal, not sure how they lost when they received the proposal requested. Also, we can all agree what was adopted is better than the original recommendation.

Agreed on Hungerford, they got what they wanted. How did they lose?

B may have been better than the original Supt rec but the original rec was made with bad data and bad math so that really has no bearing. Floating a bad proposal and settling just short of that isn't winning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So let's see who actually outsmarted others here.

Pretty much everyone supported TB to keep their boundaries. RP2/RP6 had split voice. Let's look at strong voices here.

Hungerford and NMC lost.

B5, B6 and CG3 lost.

HH and RP5 won.

Argument used was 160 entry, where 50% entry was from one school, representing the will of the RM cluster. Also a claim to have support of Mayor's office, . That was strongly denied by Mayors office. Who cares if claims were plucked out of thin air, it did influence BOE members.


Now HH/RP5 went further by misleading BOE that FARMs has no correlation with school's performance. I couldn't stop laughing when one of the BOE members emailed me their analysis. Either some nut cases are representing RP5/HH who don't really understand the situation or they do understand but know how to BS to get the outcome they want. Take you pick.


Lessons here: Either you learn how to play this game or simply buy a house in HH/RP5. With all the focus on FARMs, and yet RP managed to reduce from 20% to 7%.

Option B was hungerford's proposal, not sure how they lost when they received the proposal requested. Also, we can all agree what was adopted is better than the original recommendation.

They put one illustration without having any data. No clue how it will look like and you think they were supporting B out of 5 finals options presented? Well, you don't have to even guess, they supported E . 5 Options were presented by MCPS after correcting all data and did you see anyone form Hungerford supporting B out of those 5 options? They lost just like B5, B6 and CG3. Only zones getting their wish is RP5/HH.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So let's see who actually outsmarted others here.

Pretty much everyone supported TB to keep their boundaries. RP2/RP6 had split voice. Let's look at strong voices here.

Hungerford and NMC lost.

B5, B6 and CG3 lost.

HH and RP5 won.

Argument used was 160 entry, where 50% entry was from one school, representing the will of the RM cluster. Also a claim to have support of Mayor's office, . That was strongly denied by Mayors office. Who cares if claims were plucked out of thin air, it did influence BOE members.


Now HH/RP5 went further by misleading BOE that FARMs has no correlation with school's performance. I couldn't stop laughing when one of the BOE members emailed me their analysis. Either some nut cases are representing RP5/HH who don't really understand the situation or they do understand but know how to BS to get the outcome they want. Take you pick.


Lessons here: Either you learn how to play this game or simply buy a house in HH/RP5. With all the focus on FARMs, and yet RP managed to reduce from 20% to 7%.

Option B was hungerford's proposal, not sure how they lost when they received the proposal requested. Also, we can all agree what was adopted is better than the original recommendation.

Original recommendation was not even applicable and MCPS admitted it. Only final recommendation A-E was on the table to choose.

Yah, original one was a bad one and surprise , surprise who fought to start the entire thing again. NMC and HUngerrford. Everyone else was happy whatever data was there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So let's see who actually outsmarted others here.

Pretty much everyone supported TB to keep their boundaries. RP2/RP6 had split voice. Let's look at strong voices here.

Hungerford and NMC lost.

B5, B6 and CG3 lost.

HH and RP5 won.

Argument used was 160 entry, where 50% entry was from one school, representing the will of the RM cluster. Also a claim to have support of Mayor's office, . That was strongly denied by Mayors office. Who cares if claims were plucked out of thin air, it did influence BOE members.


Now HH/RP5 went further by misleading BOE that FARMs has no correlation with school's performance. I couldn't stop laughing when one of the BOE members emailed me their analysis. Either some nut cases are representing RP5/HH who don't really understand the situation or they do understand but know how to BS to get the outcome they want. Take you pick.


Lessons here: Either you learn how to play this game or simply buy a house in HH/RP5. With all the focus on FARMs, and yet RP managed to reduce from 20% to 7%.

Pretty much everybody used that poll you are talking about in favor of option A. Including B5, B6, and CG3. Who claimed support from Mayor's office?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So let's see who actually outsmarted others here.

Pretty much everyone supported TB to keep their boundaries. RP2/RP6 had split voice. Let's look at strong voices here.

Hungerford and NMC lost.

B5, B6 and CG3 lost.

HH and RP5 won.

Argument used was 160 entry, where 50% entry was from one school, representing the will of the RM cluster. Also a claim to have support of Mayor's office, . That was strongly denied by Mayors office. Who cares if claims were plucked out of thin air, it did influence BOE members.


Now HH/RP5 went further by misleading BOE that FARMs has no correlation with school's performance. I couldn't stop laughing when one of the BOE members emailed me their analysis. Either some nut cases are representing RP5/HH who don't really understand the situation or they do understand but know how to BS to get the outcome they want. Take you pick.


Lessons here: Either you learn how to play this game or simply buy a house in HH/RP5. With all the focus on FARMs, and yet RP managed to reduce from 20% to 7%.

FFS... not again. HH doesn't care about 24% FARMs. HH didn't want their kids bussed far out, just like every parent who didn't want their kids bussed further out. If people cared so much about 24% FARMs I don't think they'd choose to live in this cluster.

Where HH kids were getting bused further out in Alternative E? Can you remind me?

E was the only sensible option which kept HH retaining 20% FARMs.

HH rep sent a analysis to show BOE that FARMs kids don't benefit by going to affluent school and here folks are claiming that HH resident didn't care about FARMs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:E was the only sensible option which kept HH retaining 20% FARMs.

HH rep sent a analysis to show BOE that FARMs kids don't benefit by going to affluent school and here folks are claiming that HH resident didn't care about FARMs?

What HH rep are you talking about and what analysis are you talking about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Pretty much everybody used that poll you are talking about in favor of option A.

I am from outside RM cluster .

Yesterday in Delegate Assembly in MCCPTA, one RP PTA delegate educated all of us about RM boundary process. She actually told entire crowd that having a survey helped to make a case which was done before options came out, it captures what RM cluster wanted and others should do the same in future. Some one else pointed out later to me that Survey was invalid and rejected because it had more than half entry from one school. I took a look and finally found the survey after spending half an hour. Even MCPS didn't consider it due to obvious flaws.

What do folks think about that survey now? Is it helpful in real sense or just point scoring? It's clear that RP PTA delegate think that survey was golden, but I am not sure about it after looking at it.

We will go through some boundary discussions in WJ in few years and it will help to learn something. We can also set up survey, but unless it's scientific, how do we use such surveys? It hardly captures views of of WJ if it's not scientific. May be MCPS can have a scientific survey. That will be a good idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:E was the only sensible option which kept HH retaining 20% FARMs.

HH rep sent a analysis to show BOE that FARMs kids don't benefit by going to affluent school and here folks are claiming that HH resident didn't care about FARMs?

What HH rep are you talking about and what analysis are you talking about?

+1 I'm from HH and this is the first I'm hearing about a rep from this area. There were several people present at the meeting from HH. There was not one person representing HH, but many. And HH fought against C. That was it. If you look back at the meeting, no HH resident held a sign supporting one option over another. We were just against C. That was it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Pretty much everybody used that poll you are talking about in favor of option A.

I am from outside RM cluster .

Yesterday in Delegate Assembly in MCCPTA, one RP PTA delegate educated all of us about RM boundary process. She actually told entire crowd that having a survey helped to make a case which was done before options came out, it captures what RM cluster wanted and others should do the same in future. Some one else pointed out later to me that Survey was invalid and rejected because it had more than half entry from one school. I took a look and finally found the survey after spending half an hour. Even MCPS didn't consider it due to obvious flaws.

What do folks think about that survey now? Is it helpful in real sense or just point scoring? It's clear that RP PTA delegate think that survey was golden, but I am not sure about it after looking at it.

We will go through some boundary discussions in WJ in few years and it will help to learn something. We can also set up survey, but unless it's scientific, how do we use such surveys? It hardly captures views of of WJ if it's not scientific. May be MCPS can have a scientific survey. That will be a good idea.

The survey was deeply flawed and not representative. It pretty much showed that people who took the survey valued school proximity more than other factors. Half of the entries were from CG parents who really wanted to stay in CGES. For some reason(s) other areas did not participate in the survey to such extent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:E was the only sensible option which kept HH retaining 20% FARMs.

HH rep sent a analysis to show BOE that FARMs kids don't benefit by going to affluent school and here folks are claiming that HH resident didn't care about FARMs?

What HH rep are you talking about and what analysis are you talking about?

+1 I'm from HH and this is the first I'm hearing about a rep from this area. There were several people present at the meeting from HH. There was not one person representing HH, but many. And HH fought against C. That was it. If you look back at the meeting, no HH resident held a sign supporting one option over another. We were just against C. That was it.

Not the same PP.

Majority of HH were opposing C and if you recall entire RM cluster was also against C. Many spoke against C even if they were not getting moved. So HH was not alone in that.

I have no clue who met with BOE from which zones , all I have is some analysis shared with BOE , which looks absurd. It tries to show that FARMs students don't benefit from going to affluent school. That was the logic used for rejecting E. I think all options are fine, but it's a misleading way to make a case for an option. I would have kept it limited to RP2 walks and extra bus ride for RP5. There was no other negative in E. There was benefit for keeping RP at 20% FARMs. Clearly, it was a trade off and not a simple call.

Anyway, boundary process is mess and it was made worse due to all data errors. I think many parents may have jumped to using faulty logic due to not having enough time to process everything. We should just move on.

WJ poster - Please use a scientific poll if you want to use a poll. All meetings were held in CG and most participants in those meetings were from CG. Naturally, the talked poll had 50% entry from CG. Don't do it that way in WJ. It won't help. Get MCPS to have a scientific poll and then you can use that poll to see how entire cluster is thinking. You have enough time in your hand so do it the right way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Pretty much everybody used that poll you are talking about in favor of option A.

I am from outside RM cluster .

Yesterday in Delegate Assembly in MCCPTA, one RP PTA delegate educated all of us about RM boundary process. She actually told entire crowd that having a survey helped to make a case which was done before options came out, it captures what RM cluster wanted and others should do the same in future. Some one else pointed out later to me that Survey was invalid and rejected because it had more than half entry from one school. I took a look and finally found the survey after spending half an hour. Even MCPS didn't consider it due to obvious flaws.

What do folks think about that survey now? Is it helpful in real sense or just point scoring? It's clear that RP PTA delegate think that survey was golden, but I am not sure about it after looking at it.

We will go through some boundary discussions in WJ in few years and it will help to learn something. We can also set up survey, but unless it's scientific, how do we use such surveys? It hardly captures views of of WJ if it's not scientific. May be MCPS can have a scientific survey. That will be a good idea.

The survey was deeply flawed and not representative. It pretty much showed that people who took the survey valued school proximity more than other factors. Half of the entries were from CG parents who really wanted to stay in CGES. For some reason(s) other areas did not participate in the survey to such extent.

Boundary meetings was held in CG all the tome and mostly CG residents showed up due to meeting location being close. MCPS should always rotate boundary meetings to ensure each school is getting involved equally otherwise you will see surveys like this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Pretty much everybody used that poll you are talking about in favor of option A.

I am from outside RM cluster .

Yesterday in Delegate Assembly in MCCPTA, one RP PTA delegate educated all of us about RM boundary process. She actually told entire crowd that having a survey helped to make a case which was done before options came out, it captures what RM cluster wanted and others should do the same in future. Some one else pointed out later to me that Survey was invalid and rejected because it had more than half entry from one school. I took a look and finally found the survey after spending half an hour. Even MCPS didn't consider it due to obvious flaws.

What do folks think about that survey now? Is it helpful in real sense or just point scoring? It's clear that RP PTA delegate think that survey was golden, but I am not sure about it after looking at it.

We will go through some boundary discussions in WJ in few years and it will help to learn something. We can also set up survey, but unless it's scientific, how do we use such surveys? It hardly captures views of of WJ if it's not scientific. May be MCPS can have a scientific survey. That will be a good idea.

That poll was misused to show that the entire cluster valued proximity versus other factors. It did keep RPES at 7% FARMS, which RP PTA can claim as a victory. Even if they don't publicly admit it, that's what they were after. "Many options on the table have RP5 going to the new school and RP2 being bused away from the new school in their community back to Ritchie Park. This is in an effort to increase FARMS at Ritchie Park. 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]

Anonymous wrote:I have no clue who met with BOE from which zones , all I have is some analysis shared with BOE , which looks absurd. It tries to show that FARMs students don't benefit from going to affluent school. That was the logic used for rejecting E. I think all options are fine, but it's a misleading way to make a case for an option. I would have kept it limited to RP2 walks and extra bus ride for RP5. There was no other negative in E. There was benefit for keeping RP at 20% FARMs. Clearly, it was a trade off and not a simple call.

Well, we need to find out who came up with this analysis and make sure people know who they are. They were clearly neglecting scientific findings and made up their own analysis to kick RP2 out of RPES.