Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

The whole process was full of bone-throwing. Coming up with a solution that evens out the FARMS among all schools was a bone thrown to show that it would be unfeasible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you were just against C and D then you know that no one is blaming you. If you didn't sign petition with misleading information then you don't share any blame for that, but there were 150+ signatures on that petition and it was exclusively supported by RP.

[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.

That is BS. Kicking out RP2 from RPES dropped the FARMS rate that low. Another one pretending to be concerned about FARMS parents just to kick them out from the school they used to go to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Another lie. Why consider Alternative E if that was a done deal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You need help with reading comprehension.

PP is talking about boundary study meetings which went for many months. For months no was allowed to provide any options.

Hungerford proposal came after Super recommendation and it was done by some parents in few hours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not the person you are going back and forth with and I don't even know your PTA message you are talking about, but who are you that you are this upset? What zone are you in. You never say when asked. Why? It is really strange you are lashing out. No one at RP made this decision. The board did. And there was never anyone on the board remotely considering bussing RP2 out of their neighborhood school except the kid board member. The RP2 parents are excited to start the principal selection process.

But keep going on your rampage. It seems so positive and worthy of your time.

Have a nice day!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You need help with reading comprehension.

PP is talking about boundary study meetings which went for many months. For months no was allowed to provide any options.

Hungerford proposal came after Super recommendation and it was done by some parents in few hours.

Well I guess the PP missed his/her chance and HCA didn't.

HCA is the clear winner

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Another lie. Why consider Alternative E if that was a done deal?

MCPS put that as the best way to balance FARMs without causing hardship for TB. If you read Super's comment it's clear.

But MCPS doesn't decide that. It's BOE who takes vote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you were just against C and D then you know that no one is blaming you. If you didn't sign petition with misleading information then you don't share any blame for that, but there were 150+ signatures on that petition and it was exclusively supported by RP.

Which petition? The one by A was started by WG.

I don't think there was one for B, was there? It did not make it to me.

I only saw against C petition
For A petition.

Which one are you talking about?

[Anonymous]

Someone needs a Xanax. LOL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You need help with reading comprehension.

PP is talking about boundary study meetings which went for many months. For months no was allowed to provide any options.

Hungerford proposal came after Super recommendation and it was done by some parents in few hours.

Well I guess the PP missed his/her chance and HCA didn't.

Chance that was given for few days? Why make an absurd claim that for months everyone was welcome to provide options?

As B6 parent, I am fine to go to RM#5, but it's ridiculous to see posters making absurd claims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Another lie. Why consider Alternative E if that was a done deal?

Because they have to try other options and present them. If the BOE wanted it, someone would have proposed it (besides the kid) and all would have voted. Even Dixon didn't vote for E. The only other person that did also voted for B. You have issues? Take it up with them. Not an anonymous board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Which petition? The one by A was started by WG.

I don't think there was one for B, was there? It did not make it to me.

I only saw against C petition
For A petition.

Which one are you talking about?

Support option A or B. Reject C,D and E

No one from WG, B5 or B6 will support B. All 3 were only for A and no way they wanted B at any cost.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Another lie. Why consider Alternative E if that was a done deal?

Because they have to try other options and present them. If the BOE wanted it, someone would have proposed it (besides the kid) and all would have voted. Even Dixon didn't vote for E. The only other person that did also voted for B. You have issues? Take it up with them. Not an anonymous board.

Amen. Move on angry B6 parent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But you don't challenge the person who is now actively claiming that walkability is hands down the number one priority. You are not interested who wrote that email on behalf of RP PTA.