Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries

[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.

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."

You lost me here with you post. I got the point about survey , but what's all other lines?

[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%.

i dont know about HH, but the fallsgrove community based their argument for options A and B solely on NOT wanting to commute further to school. This is an estimate, but the commute from fallsgrove to RMES#5 would have been 20-25 minutes long which is simply unacceptable for an elementary school commute. I think we presented a very valid argument.

[Anonymous]

another thing that i haven't really seen mentioned here is that options A and B were the "lowest cost" options in terms of bussing kids. Since those options prioritized proximity, less money would be need to bus kids to their respective schools.

With all the expenditures that are coming up for MCPS, this is surely something that had to be considered as well.

[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%.

i dont know about HH, but the fallsgrove community based their argument for options A and B solely on NOT wanting to commute further to school. This is an estimate, but the commute from fallsgrove to RMES#5 would have been 20-25 minutes long which is simply unacceptable for an elementary school commute. I think we presented a very valid argument.

Taking about longer bus ride is a valid point. No one will say that don't talk about it.

Problem comes when misleading information is used to collect signature in petitions and petition goes everywhere for signature. I am 100% sure that lots HH and Fallsgrove residents signed that petition even though it had misleading information. They may not have thought about it and simply went with because it was asking to reject all options except A and B. But you get my point here.

The same petition was shared by HH residents to collect more signature from outside of HH , and sharing stopped as soon as people started pointing out misleading information within that petition.

In short,

100s of HH and RP5 signed a petition which was misleading.

Many from HH even actively tried to collect signature and argued in support of misleading information. I don't know if anyone from RP5 was using misleading information actively.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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."

You lost me here with you post. I got the point about survey , but what's all other lines?

The bold part is a quote from an email RP PTA sent out in a call for action.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:another thing that i haven't really seen mentioned here is that options A and B were the "lowest cost" options in terms of bussing kids. Since those options prioritized proximity, less money would be need to bus kids to their respective schools.

With all the expenditures that are coming up for MCPS, this is surely something that had to be considered as well.

It should be always, Best education for all kids and how much it costs per kid.

Minimizing cost is not a factor if it widens the achievement gaps. Also, you are talking about 2-3 buses here maximum and on another hand 50-70 FARMs kids getting better education. I won't make any call here, but everyone should look at all angles to see what's happening.

Also, Boundary process has guidelines. Proximity is just one factor. Making it a sole factor in all decisions means, you will be ignoring all factors. Other factors are not there just for convenience. bus cost is simply another way to argue for proximity. It's already covered by proximity.

Anyway, HH and RP5 won , just move on everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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."

You lost me here with you post. I got the point about survey , but what's all other lines?

The bold part is a quote from an email RP PTA sent out in a call for action.

Thanks for clarifying.

[Anonymous]

For those who didn’t get what they wanted.

Anyway, you can’t always get what you want, but if you try some time, you might find....

[Anonymous]

MCPS made a call about widening the achievement gaps here. Incompetent BOE here.

Taking a school from 25% to 7%, seriously? After all this hoopla about equal distribution of FARMs?

Unbelievable. Rather than doing anything to narrow the achievement gaps, BOE makes a call to widens it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

For those who didn’t get what they wanted.

Anyway, you can’t always get what you want, but if you try some time, you might find....

Rightly said,

HH/RP5 won. Deal with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:MCPS made a call about widening the achievement gaps here. Incompetent BOE here.

Taking a school from 25% to 7%, seriously? After all this hoopla about equal distribution of FARMs?

Unbelievable. Rather than doing anything to narrow the achievement gaps, BOE makes a call to widens it.

And BOE members will have you fooled that they care about bridging the achievement gaps, lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

For those who didn’t get what they wanted.

Anyway, you can’t always get what you want, but if you try some time, you might find....

Rightly said,

HH/RP5 won. Deal with it.

+1

Better luck next time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:MCPS made a call about widening the achievement gaps here. Incompetent BOE here.

Taking a school from 25% to 7%, seriously? After all this hoopla about equal distribution of FARMs?

Unbelievable. Rather than doing anything to narrow the achievement gaps, BOE makes a call to widens it.

There is mention that MCPS didn't want to lose Title 1 $ from reducing the FARMS rate at Twinbrook. Does this extra $ equal better outcomes for Twinbrook students and if so, by how much? How does the achievement gap fair between extra Title 1 $ and lowering the FARMS rate significantly (from 70% to 25%-35%).

If it is proven and accepted that balancing FARMS raises achievement, why doesn't the BOE or MCPS put forth a plan to balance FARMS in the whole county? I understand the backlash that this would cause but we could be on the cutting edge of a trend to treat all students equally (including 30 minute bus rides for all).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And nor do they represent HH or RP as a whole. The HH parents of RP students I spoke to didn't have strong preference for one or the other (myself included). They just didn't want C.

-signed a HH resident who relunctantly supported E over B, but I did feel very badly for FG.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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."

You lost me here with you post. I got the point about survey , but what's all other lines?

The bold part is a quote from an email RP PTA sent out in a call for action.

Thanks for clarifying.

Again... that was one person. The PTA as a whole never agreed to sending out such an email. I have a feeling it was a FG parent.