Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries

[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.

+1

Hungerford PROPOSED Option B. Otherwise there was no option B and A would have won.

Hungerford screwed B5 and 6. Not the board

[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.

Sure, it was a choice between 2-3 minutes extra ride( which many zones will be doing in chosen option) vs FARMs of 7 or 24%.

It's simple facts here. Oh, yeah, an misleading analysis showing that FARMs kids do the same no matter where they go had to do with busing? Right?

HH would have been bussed 20 minutes to Twinbrook instead of walking across the street or a 2min bus ride to their school. That isn't a few minutes. And if HH lost and C was passed, RP would have doubled FARMS to over 40%. Twinbrook would have lost Title 1 and no one there even wanted to be bussed to RP or CG.

HH was only against C. They had no other preference in the matter.

You are completely misinformed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

? I sent an email to them several weeks ago.

[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.

Yes, moving the one section to their walkable school, dropped the FARMS rate that low.

Walkability should always take priority. You never bus kids away from a school they can walk to, especially FARMS parents with limited transportation and often rely on walking to school events.

RP1 can't move
RP4 is right across the street
RP3 is low in numbers
RP5 is stuck at RP because their large capacity can't fit i the other schools.
RP is the lowest capacity school by hundreds in the rest of the cluster

Who do you want to bus in to raise the FARMS? The only option is T2/5 who strongly opposed or another section up north across 355. If they wanted equal FARMS, options would have looked like C and they are not cost effective, time effective, traffic friendly, community inclusive, and would be a nightmare to re boundary in another 5 years.

It you keep focusing on that 7% FARMS. For months every person or HOA was welcome to present better options. I guess you missed your chance. I am curious of how you would have attempted to try. Many did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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?

? What should I do about it? I don't even know who it was? I'm not going to paint the entire FG population with a broad brush. I know a few parents from there, several who live in the condos there, not the 800K houses.

[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%.

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.

+1

Hungerford PROPOSED Option B. Otherwise there was no option B and A would have won.

Hungerford screwed B5 and 6. Not the board

Without Hunger ford making noise, Nothing would have been proposed. Everyone else was happy with their FARMs rate not worried about RM#5 having high FARMs. Super recommendation woudl have gone without any issue and that was not option A.

[Anonymous]

Am I the only one who, watching the vote, wondered if it seemed planned to go down the way it did? That A and E would get some votes to throw bones to the vocal advocates of those options, but not enough to pass, so that the "second choice" would be the one the Board really thought was best?

I still have a really hard time seeing why the Board would choose "A" given that it would leave CG at/over capacity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, moving the one section to their walkable school, dropped the FARMS rate that low.

Walkability should always take priority. You never bus kids away from a school they can walk to, especially FARMS parents with limited transportation and often rely on walking to school events.

RP1 can't move
RP4 is right across the street
RP3 is low in numbers
RP5 is stuck at RP because their large capacity can't fit i the other schools.
RP is the lowest capacity school by hundreds in the rest of the cluster

Who do you want to bus in to raise the FARMS? The only option is T2/5 who strongly opposed or another section up north across 355. If they wanted equal FARMS, options would have looked like C and they are not cost effective, time effective, traffic friendly, community inclusive, and would be a nightmare to re boundary in another 5 years.

It you keep focusing on that 7% FARMS. For months every person or HOA was welcome to present better options. I guess you missed your chance. I am curious of how you would have attempted to try. Many did.

I think that education should always take priority, myself.

Regardless, the BoE has voted. Unless you're planning to sue them and win, their decision is final.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:HH would have been bussed 20 minutes to Twinbrook instead of walking across the street or a 2min bus ride to their school. That isn't a few minutes. And if HH lost and C was passed, RP would have doubled FARMS to over 40%. Twinbrook would have lost Title 1 and no one there even wanted to be bussed to RP or CG.

HH was only against C. They had no other preference in the matter.

You are completely misinformed.

Who fought so hard to kick RP2 out of RPES then?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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...

So how did HH win then? If no zone advocated for C and that was the only option HH was against, how did we win?

I personally said in all my emails to the board I was against C and even D and was fine with A, B, or E.

I didn't sign the A petition

I didn't support RP5 in their plea for Option B

Not sure how just being against C has turned HH into the enemy here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, moving the one section to their walkable school, dropped the FARMS rate that low.

Walkability should always take priority. You never bus kids away from a school they can walk to, especially FARMS parents with limited transportation and often rely on walking to school events.

RP1 can't move
RP4 is right across the street
RP3 is low in numbers
RP5 is stuck at RP because their large capacity can't fit i the other schools.
RP is the lowest capacity school by hundreds in the rest of the cluster

Who do you want to bus in to raise the FARMS? The only option is T2/5 who strongly opposed or another section up north across 355. If they wanted equal FARMS, options would have looked like C and they are not cost effective, time effective, traffic friendly, community inclusive, and would be a nightmare to re boundary in another 5 years.

It you keep focusing on that 7% FARMS. For months every person or HOA was welcome to present better options. I guess you missed your chance. I am curious of how you would have attempted to try. Many did.

That bolded part is a lie and you know it. The original Options 7 and 8, then Alternative E had RP5 comfortably at RMES5.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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?

? What should I do about it? I don't even know who it was? I'm not going to paint the entire FG population with a broad brush. I know a few parents from there, several who live in the condos there, not the 800K houses.

Well, the entire RPES community should try to figure out who that person was. Either to have somebody to blame or somebody to reward. I am sure people can find out if there is enough interest. Otherwise, just cover up, nothing to see here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: For months every person or HOA was welcome to present better options.

MCPS never asked anyone to present any option during those boundary meetings. MCPS even refused to entertain any idea about any new option. Folks could only comment on different options presented by MCPS. Let's not rewrite history.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:HH would have been bussed 20 minutes to Twinbrook instead of walking across the street or a 2min bus ride to their school. That isn't a few minutes. And if HH lost and C was passed, RP would have doubled FARMS to over 40%. Twinbrook would have lost Title 1 and no one there even wanted to be bussed to RP or CG.

HH was only against C. They had no other preference in the matter.

You are completely misinformed.

Who fought so hard to kick RP2 out of RPES then?

No one. The board said they were walkable. That was a done deal in their eyes. There was no mention of them at the meeting because they knew RP2 was walking to their new school. At the previous closed meeting (prior to testimony) there was multiple comments about these new jumbled up options and moving "a walkable neighborhood" back to Ritchie Park. It was obvious there were annoyed. The BOE made up Option C because the super (with his fudged up numbers) wanted to see what you would have to do to even numbers. Then he came out with 2 more in like a day after throwing 6 options away. It was obvious most were completely against all 3. Pretty sure they were annoyed that the super did that last minute and caused the uproar. It was always about A vs B.

But if you want to play word games, here is who "kicked them out"

The BOE
RP2 voices
RP5 voices

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: For months every person or HOA was welcome to present better options.

MCPS never asked anyone to present any option during those boundary meetings. MCPS even refused to entertain any idea about any new option. Folks could only comment on different options presented by MCPS. Let's not rewrite history.

So where did Option B come from? Think you need to do a little more following and research dear.