Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries

[Anonymous]

Seems like no one will get title 1 services any more...are we sure that will make things better?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Seems like no one will get title 1 services any more...are we sure that will make things better?

<sarcasm> Busing everybody criss-cross across the cluster is an excellent idea! </sarcasm>

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The last one is indeed absurd, why take the farthest part of RP, and 40% FARMS? Is there no other way to make this 20-25%?

It's worse than that. In option 3, the Twinbrook neighborhood is completely split up. Part goes to RMES#5, part to Ritchie Park, part to Twinbrook, and part to College Gardens.

You are right, I did not see the 2 areas on the edge of the map. I don't understand why they thought this is a good option to present.

[Anonymous]

The more I look at it the more I'm convinced Option 3 is a practical joke.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The last one is indeed absurd, why take the farthest part of RP, and 40% FARMS? Is there no other way to make this 20-25%?

It's worse than that. In option 3, the Twinbrook neighborhood is completely split up. Part goes to RMES#5, part to Ritchie Park, part to Twinbrook, and part to College Gardens.

You are right, I did not see the 2 areas on the edge of the map. I don't understand why they thought this is a good option to present.

I can only assume that the BOE wanted to show an option that nearly equally distributed FARMS rates across the cluster. It is impossible to do that reasonably, so the option given is unreasonable. The purpose is to show what it would take to make FARMS rates equally divided. This option is not sustainable logistically. It breaks up communities terribly. Changes in bus times are not even given. To decide on Option 3 as the solution without even giving data about how it affects bus times, daycare, etc., is unconcsionable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The last one is indeed absurd, why take the farthest part of RP, and 40% FARMS? Is there no other way to make this 20-25%?

It's worse than that. In option 3, the Twinbrook neighborhood is completely split up. Part goes to RMES#5, part to Ritchie Park, part to Twinbrook, and part to College Gardens.

You are right, I did not see the 2 areas on the edge of the map. I don't understand why they thought this is a good option to present.

I can only assume that the BOE wanted to show an option that nearly equally distributed FARMS rates across the cluster. It is impossible to do that reasonably, so the option given is unreasonable. The purpose is to show what it would take to make FARMS rates equally divided. This option is not sustainable logistically. It breaks up communities terribly. Changes in bus times are not even given. To decide on Option 3 as the solution without even giving data about how it affects bus times, daycare, etc., is unconcsionable.

What is the minimum FARMS % required to get title 1?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The last one is indeed absurd, why take the farthest part of RP, and 40% FARMS? Is there no other way to make this 20-25%?

It's worse than that. In option 3, the Twinbrook neighborhood is completely split up. Part goes to RMES#5, part to Ritchie Park, part to Twinbrook, and part to College Gardens.

You are right, I did not see the 2 areas on the edge of the map. I don't understand why they thought this is a good option to present.

I can only assume that the BOE wanted to show an option that nearly equally distributed FARMS rates across the cluster. It is impossible to do that reasonably, so the option given is unreasonable. The purpose is to show what it would take to make FARMS rates equally divided. This option is not sustainable logistically. It breaks up communities terribly. Changes in bus times are not even given. To decide on Option 3 as the solution without even giving data about how it affects bus times, daycare, etc., is unconcsionable.

What is the minimum FARMS % required to get title 1?

I don't believe it works that way. I think its more dynamic--as in the X% of schools with the highest farms rates get it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The more I look at it the more I'm convinced Option 3 is a practical joke.

I dont think so. It is exactly what Ms. Ortman-Fouse (I think?) asked for in Nov 2 meeting. Brand new, throw away everything else option that just balances FARMS as much as possible.
It is ridiculous option though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The last one is indeed absurd, why take the farthest part of RP, and 40% FARMS? Is there no other way to make this 20-25%?

It's worse than that. In option 3, the Twinbrook neighborhood is completely split up. Part goes to RMES#5, part to Ritchie Park, part to Twinbrook, and part to College Gardens.

You are right, I did not see the 2 areas on the edge of the map. I don't understand why they thought this is a good option to present.

I can only assume that the BOE wanted to show an option that nearly equally distributed FARMS rates across the cluster. It is impossible to do that reasonably, so the option given is unreasonable. The purpose is to show what it would take to make FARMS rates equally divided. This option is not sustainable logistically. It breaks up communities terribly. Changes in bus times are not even given. To decide on Option 3 as the solution without even giving data about how it affects bus times, daycare, etc., is unconcsionable.

DP.. I hope so... it does indeed show how ridiculous the splits would look if they attempt to distribute FARMS as much as possible.

Plus, I thought one of the goals was to not have a domino affect - a zone got sent to ES#5 or not moved, but not to an existing ES.

[Anonymous]

Will there be a live broadcast for the meeting tonight?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Will there be a live broadcast for the meeting tonight?

Tonight's is a reconvening of the Boundary Committee and not the Board of Ed itself, so I'm not sure. The Board of Ed will be having a work session next Tuesday 11/14 at 2:30pm, then another public hearing next Thursday 11/16 at 6:30pm .

[Anonymous]

I agree this was one of the goals. But no one ever really explained why?

My guess now is that "no domino effect" prevents the craziest busing problems.

On the other hand, could we limit it to ONE set of dominoed areas to improve FARMs distribution as much as possible.

"Plus, I thought one of the goals was to not have a domino affect - a zone got sent to ES#5 or not moved, but not to an existing ES."

[Anonymous]

Is anyone her from Hungerford area? To me it looks like Alt option 2 is essentially Hungerford's proposal. It is fairly sensible and avoids most pitfalls other plans have, IMHO.

[Anonymous]

What is meant by the "domino effect" anyway?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree this was one of the goals. But no one ever really explained why?

My guess now is that "no domino effect" prevents the craziest busing problems.

On the other hand, could we limit it to ONE set of dominoed areas to improve FARMs distribution as much as possible.

"Plus, I thought one of the goals was to not have a domino affect - a zone got sent to ES#5 or not moved, but not to an existing ES."

Domino effects are really more indicative of additional changes. That is, if you move zone A to school X and zone B out of school X and into school Y, you have one more change than if you just moved zone A to school Y. In other words, the intention isn't really to limit domino effects, but to prevent complaints by limiting the number of overall changes, and decreasing complexity.