Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

? FG has 5 busses not 2 or 3. Also, people who keep claiming that it's only an additional 2 or 3 min... that's 2 or 3 min NOW. Future state, it will be more because of the increased traffic in that area due to 600 or so kids being dropped off ES#5.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: HH/RP5 won. Deal with it.

I would say not picking option C or D was a win for TB, too, not just HH, no? TB didn't seem to want to be broken up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's easy now to say that you wanted the right thing. Why not fight for the right thing before the decision was made?

[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.

Both of the MCCPTA reps from Ritchie Park are male. Please don't spread false information.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So what are you going to do about it? Reward that person with RP PTA presidency?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: HH/RP5 won. Deal with it.

I would say not picking option C or D was a win for TB, too, not just HH, no? TB didn't seem to want to be broken up.

No zone advocated for D or C . TB not getting broken was a consensus.

HH/RP5 won here. Some tactics were cringe worthy, but it happens. Everyone should move on...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

? FG has 5 busses not 2 or 3.

5 buses were already going and they would have gone to RM#5 as well. I don't think PP was talking about cost for running those buses. I am pretty sure that he was talking about RP2 buses because they are the only ones with no us in approved scenario. How many buses RP2 has? That's the cost MCPS is saving here. If that savings is worth here, I don't know. If we start arguing for saving cost in buses, then pretty much ONLY one factor should be taken into account. PROXIMITY and ignore everything else.

I guess not many wanted to talk about FARMs being a factor from certain zones and it's clear. Let's just move on.

[Anonymous]

Majority of the cluster wanted option A or option B. Majority of the cluster received what they wanted, move on.

Even on the board only 2 votes for option E that is by no means a close vote. Let's work for funding for our schools that need the most resources now.

[Anonymous]

Seriously, each alternative had its pros and cons. Not everything needs to be couched in terms of 'winners' and 'losers'.

[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.

Both of the MCCPTA reps from Ritchie Park are male. Please don't spread false information.

What was the position of Lady , who addressed all delegates using microphone? I am sorry if she is not delegate, but she talked a great deal about RP coming together with TB and using the survey. Looking at survey I am even more puzzled because it has 2-3% input from TB.

Was she a replacement for delegates or president of RP? I will try to find recording and share.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Majority of the cluster wanted option A or option B. Majority of the cluster received what they wanted, move on.

Even on the board only 2 votes for option E that is by no means a close vote. Let's work for funding for our schools that need the most resources now.

I like this idea, any suggestions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Majority of the cluster wanted option A or option B. Majority of the cluster received what they wanted, move on.

Even on the board only 2 votes for option E that is by no means a close vote. Let's work for funding for our schools that need the most resources now.

Can you list the name of civic associations supporting B?

No civic association supported B unless they were from HH/Falls grove.

I will say kudos for getting B and don't sell yourself short by saying majority of zones wanted B.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Majority of the cluster wanted option A or option B. Majority of the cluster received what they wanted, move on.

Even on the board only 2 votes for option E that is by no means a close vote. Let's work for funding for our schools that need the most resources now.

Can you list the name of civic associations supporting B?

No civic association supported B unless they were from HH/Falls grove.

I will say kudos for getting B and don't sell yourself short by saying majority of zones wanted B.

Agree here.

Majority supported A.

B was supported by only HH/Fallsgrove.

E was supported by NMC/Hungerford

C/D had no support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Majority of the cluster wanted option A or option B. Majority of the cluster received what they wanted, move on.

Even on the board only 2 votes for option E that is by no means a close vote. Let's work for funding for our schools that need the most resources now.

Can you list the name of civic associations supporting B?

No civic association supported B unless they were from HH/Falls grove.

I will say kudos for getting B and don't sell yourself short by saying majority of zones wanted B.

Why does this matter? The BOE said this is not by popular vote, motion has passed, B was chosen, move on. I'm not the PP. Sometimes I just wonder if people are trying to get this thread going up to 200 pages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The BOE said this is not by popular vote, motion has passed, B was chosen, move on.

That's the right way to say it rather than saying majority wanted B and got B.