Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries

[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.

id say that 32 percent farms accurately reflects the demographics of the area surrounding RMES#5

[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 Option A was still short by 20%.

[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.

So what? I'd much rather go to my neighborhood school at 32% than used as a pawn and sent back to RP so they can have 24%.

[Anonymous]

I wonder whether people in 2047 will still be complaining about this decision, as people are still complaining about the 1987 zoning decision. Maybe they'll still be complaining about the 1987 zoning decision in 2047, too!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 Option A was still short by 20%.

Option A was voted on first and got 4 votes. Option E was voted on second and got 2 votes. Option B was voted on third and got 5 votes. I'm going to go out on a limb and say, they all knew how this would turn out. They wanted to give the student member a chance to voice his opinion and they wanted to give the community a vote for A since so many people wanted it. I'm thinking they knew that A would fail. They wanted B because of the enrollment numbers. What I'm getting at is this: If A was going to get 5 votes, they would have had E voted on first then A.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder whether people in 2047 will still be complaining about this decision, as people are still complaining about the 1987 zoning decision. Maybe they'll still be complaining about the 1987 zoning decision in 2047, too!

Okay this made me laugh! It's funny because I think it will happen. There will be some rezoning then and they'll dig some fossil (who has current kids in ES at WG) up to get up there and talk about how they've been wronged twice now and the BOE better never reassign them again, even if it means they have to go to an overcrowded school in the year 2100!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder whether people in 2047 will still be complaining about this decision, as people are still complaining about the 1987 zoning decision. Maybe they'll still be complaining about the 1987 zoning decision in 2047, too!

LOL! RP will probably still talk about the 1987 zoning, WG will talk about the 2017 zoning. Unless it gets re-zoned again in the future.

[Anonymous]

Option A was voted on first and got 4 votes. Option E was voted on second and got 2 votes. Option B was voted on third and got 5 votes. I'm going to go out on a limb and say, they all knew how this would turn out. They wanted to give the student member a chance to voice his opinion and they wanted to give the community a vote for A since so many people wanted it. I'm thinking they knew that A would fail. They wanted B because of the enrollment numbers. What I'm getting at is this: If A was going to get 5 votes, they would have had E voted on first then A.

So free theater or theater of the absurd? There was some squabbling drama and a few soliloquy's.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 Option A was still short by 20%.

Option A was voted on first and got 4 votes. Option E was voted on second and got 2 votes. Option B was voted on third and got 5 votes. I'm going to go out on a limb and say, they all knew how this would turn out. They wanted to give the student member a chance to voice his opinion and they wanted to give the community a vote for A since so many people wanted it. I'm thinking they knew that A would fail. They wanted B because of the enrollment numbers. What I'm getting at is this: If A was going to get 5 votes, they would have had E voted on first then A.

so you are saying that everybody knew how the others were going to vote before the meeting? i guess that would make sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:watching the closed board meeting from a few weeks back where they discussed the various options, this is the impression i am getting from the BoE. not sure htough

in favor of proximity:
o'neill and smondrowski and docca

in favor of equitable farms:
dixon, post, ortman-fouse


i think durso also cares more about proximity as he made a comment about dc schools with 100 percent farms being highly regarded


not sure about evans as she hasnt really said much.

went down just how i predicted (cept for dixon)

[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.

I bet many of them, if not most, were retirees worried about their home values. I ive in HH and haven't seen all the signatures. There was an ipetition AGAINST C, but that petition didn't mention any other option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

no, I'm not all that interested because 1. my kids will be in MS by then 2. there is no point in outting anyone and making people from uncomfortable.

I don't challenge anyone who says walkability is #1 because to them, it is #1. Who am I to tell them their opinions don't matter? Just as I wouldn't want someone to tell me my opinion doesn't matter.

Vote is over. People provided their input, and BOE has decided. Done deal. Get over your anger or it's going to be a long 5 years for you.

[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."

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.

id say that 32 percent farms accurately reflects the demographics of the area surrounding RMES#5

Same argument that racists used to keep the black people out of their neighborhood schools. Now used by others to keep poor people out of their schools.

[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

They are happy that option C failed. That's it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 Option A was still short by 20%.

Option A was voted on first and got 4 votes. Option E was voted on second and got 2 votes. Option B was voted on third and got 5 votes. I'm going to go out on a limb and say, they all knew how this would turn out. They wanted to give the student member a chance to voice his opinion and they wanted to give the community a vote for A since so many people wanted it. I'm thinking they knew that A would fail. They wanted B because of the enrollment numbers. What I'm getting at is this: If A was going to get 5 votes, they would have had E voted on first then A.

so you are saying that everybody knew how the others were going to vote before the meeting? i guess that would make sense.

I’m not saying for sure, it just seemed that way to me. Didn’t one of them mention they had numerous phone conversations with one another?