Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries

[Anonymous]

I'm following this thread for entertainment purposes only. A decision has been made. What else is there to discuss/argue about? It's all in the past. Move forward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm following this thread for entertainment purposes only. A decision has been made. What else is there to discuss/argue about? It's all in the past. Move forward.

waiting for this thread to reach 200

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm following this thread for entertainment purposes only. A decision has been made. What else is there to discuss/argue about? It's all in the past. Move forward.

It was always only about entertainment even before decision came out. Discussing anything here doesn't matter.

[Anonymous]

I think it should be locked at this point.

[Anonymous]

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

The issue is that HH residents are all over Facebook declaring themselves winners / victors / champions. They are all virtually high-fiving each other over keeping RP2 and by extension RP6 out -- and we as parents see that stuff even as we dry our kids tears that they are losing their friends next year.

--RP6 resident

[Anonymous]

This is true only in the minds of DCUM.

"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:

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

The issue is that HH residents are all over Facebook declaring themselves winners / victors / champions. They are all virtually high-fiving each other over keeping RP2 and by extension RP6 out -- and we as parents see that stuff even as we dry our kids tears that they are losing their friends next year.

--RP6 resident

Celebration or virtual victory lap will die down in a week or so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

The issue is that HH residents are all over Facebook declaring themselves winners / victors / champions. They are all virtually high-fiving each other over keeping RP2 and by extension RP6 out -- and we as parents see that stuff even as we dry our kids tears that they are losing their friends next year.

--RP6 resident

That can't be true. There is one HH parent over here claiming that s/he wanted Alternative E and wrote that to the board. You cannot paint all HH parents with one brush.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

People have been saying for a long time that the purpose of the new school is to relieve the other schools. They weren't going to leave CG at full capacity no matter how little growth they people were claiming the school would get going forward. If WG wanted to stay with CG so badly, they should have created their own map that reassigned ANOTHER CG zone to Beall rather than them. Other than that, they were going. How many times was it said for weeks, the BOE will not allow CG to be at capacity and 170+ empty seats in the new school? Now it's a done deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

People have been saying for a long time that the purpose of the new school is to relieve the other schools. They weren't going to leave CG at full capacity no matter how little growth they people were claiming the school would get going forward. If WG wanted to stay with CG so badly, they should have created their own map that reassigned ANOTHER CG zone to Beall rather than them. Other than that, they were going. How many times was it said for weeks, the BOE will not allow CG to be at capacity and 170+ empty seats in the new school? Now it's a done deal.

you do know that option A was only 1 vote from passing right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

People have been saying for a long time that the purpose of the new school is to relieve the other schools. They weren't going to leave CG at full capacity no matter how little growth they people were claiming the school would get going forward. If WG wanted to stay with CG so badly, they should have created their own map that reassigned ANOTHER CG zone to Beall rather than them. Other than that, they were going. How many times was it said for weeks, the BOE will not allow CG to be at capacity and 170+ empty seats in the new school? Now it's a done deal.

you do know that option A was only 1 vote from passing right?

And yet it failed.

[Anonymous]

http://www.bethesdamagazine.com/Bethesda-Beat/2017/Elementary-Age-Students-in-Rockville-Get-New-School-Assignments/

[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."

I live in RP2 and I'm excited to go to the new school and do not feel pushed out at all. In fact, I feel supported. This letter was stating that RP2 should not be bused away from their new neighborhood school just to keep the FARMS rate up at Ritchie Park. For me, I'm looking at a FARMS rate in the 20s whether I go to the new school or state at RP, so staying does nothing for me. You all are misreading it.

[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."

I live in RP2 and I'm excited to go to the new school and do not feel pushed out at all. In fact, I feel supported. This letter was stating that RP2 should not be bused away from their new neighborhood school just to keep the FARMS rate up at Ritchie Park. For me, I'm looking at a FARMS rate in the 20s whether I go to the new school or state at RP, so staying does nothing for me. You all are misreading it.

Newsflash for you: you will have 32% FARMS rate in the regular classes at RMES5.

[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."

I live in RP2 and I'm excited to go to the new school and do not feel pushed out at all. In fact, I feel supported. This letter was stating that RP2 should not be bused away from their new neighborhood school just to keep the FARMS rate up at Ritchie Park. For me, I'm looking at a FARMS rate in the 20s whether I go to the new school or state at RP, so staying does nothing for me. You all are misreading it.

Newsflash for you: you will have 32% FARMS rate in the regular classes at RMES5.

This. How can people not get it through their heads that Chinese Immersion is not actually going to decrease the FARMS rate of their classes? It's only going to change the numbers for the school overall to make them look more balanced.