Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Yes, Alternative Option 2 is the Hungerford Civic Association's proposal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Yes, Alternative Option 2 is the Hungerford Civic Association's proposal.

How is it different than Option 6?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Yes, Alternative Option 2 is the Hungerford Civic Association's proposal.

How is it different than Option 6?

It subdivides B5 at Jefferson Ave and B6 at Rose Hills and sends the Southern parts to the new school rather than Beall to keep Beall at or below capacity.

[Anonymous]

Option 2 seems reasonable - what complaints do people have against it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Yes, Alternative Option 2 is the Hungerford Civic Association's proposal.

How is it different than Option 6?

It subdivides B5 at Jefferson Ave and B6 at Rose Hills and sends the Southern parts to the new school rather than Beall to keep Beall at or below capacity.

Thanks! Do you know, was that to make a difference in SES or capacity?

[Anonymous]

BOE #3 option is ridiculous, and doubles RP FARMS from about 20% to 40%, while Twinbrook would lose Title 1 status but still have 44% FARMS.

If they are trying to level the FARMS rate across all the other schools except Twinbrook to keep Title 1 status, then updated option #7 would be better. HOWEVER, it sucks for Fallsgrove because they will have an even longer bus ride.

http://gis.mcpsmd.org/boundarystudypdfs/RMES5_UpdatedOptionsforBoardReviewNovember2017.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:BOE #3 option is ridiculous, and doubles RP FARMS from about 20% to 40%, while Twinbrook would lose Title 1 status but still have 44% FARMS.

If they are trying to level the FARMS rate across all the other schools except Twinbrook to keep Title 1 status, then updated option #7 would be better. HOWEVER, it sucks for Fallsgrove because they will have an even longer bus ride.

http://gis.mcpsmd.org/boundarystudypdfs/RMES5_UpdatedOptionsforBoardReviewNovember2017.pdf

According to Google it's less than a 2 minutes difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BOE #3 option is ridiculous, and doubles RP FARMS from about 20% to 40%, while Twinbrook would lose Title 1 status but still have 44% FARMS.

If they are trying to level the FARMS rate across all the other schools except Twinbrook to keep Title 1 status, then updated option #7 would be better. HOWEVER, it sucks for Fallsgrove because they will have an even longer bus ride.

http://gis.mcpsmd.org/boundarystudypdfs/RMES5_UpdatedOptionsforBoardReviewNovember2017.pdf

According to Google it's less than a 2 minutes difference.

Busses drive slower. Also you can make a right at falls rd on red. It’s more like a 5-minute difference

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BOE #3 option is ridiculous, and doubles RP FARMS from about 20% to 40%, while Twinbrook would lose Title 1 status but still have 44% FARMS.

If they are trying to level the FARMS rate across all the other schools except Twinbrook to keep Title 1 status, then updated option #7 would be better. HOWEVER, it sucks for Fallsgrove because they will have an even longer bus ride.

http://gis.mcpsmd.org/boundarystudypdfs/RMES5_UpdatedOptionsforBoardReviewNovember2017.pdf

According to Google it's less than a 2 minutes difference.

Busses drive slower. Also you can make a right at falls rd on red. It’s more like a 5-minute difference

There would be morning traffic on Wootton Pkwy to ES#5 (if that is the way the bus would go), and it's a left turn into Edmonston.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Yes, Alternative Option 2 is the Hungerford Civic Association's proposal.

How is it different than Option 6?

It subdivides B5 at Jefferson Ave and B6 at Rose Hills and sends the Southern parts to the new school rather than Beall to keep Beall at or below capacity.

Thanks! Do you know, was that to make a difference in SES or capacity?

It was an attempt to improve upon the Superintendent's recommendation in terms of SES balance while also addressing capacity better than some of the other options, since that seemed to be the driving force of his proposal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BOE #3 option is ridiculous, and doubles RP FARMS from about 20% to 40%, while Twinbrook would lose Title 1 status but still have 44% FARMS.

If they are trying to level the FARMS rate across all the other schools except Twinbrook to keep Title 1 status, then updated option #7 would be better. HOWEVER, it sucks for Fallsgrove because they will have an even longer bus ride.

http://gis.mcpsmd.org/boundarystudypdfs/RMES5_UpdatedOptionsforBoardReviewNovember2017.pdf

According to Google it's less than a 2 minutes difference.

What about the difference Horizon Hill to RP and now to Twinbrook. Absurd.

How about breaking up the Twinbrook neighborhoods (who asked to stay together) to go to 4 different ES schools? Terrible for that community.

[Anonymous]

Just came back from the Committee meeting. I was so disturbed by NAACP's representative's threats and bizzare comments that I had to google her. She made an argument
for Alt 3 saying that MCPS should bus kids all over for the sake of diversity at TW. What is interesting she wrote a position paper for Silver Creek MS study arguing just the opposite - too much strain on disadvantaged communities due to excessive bussing.
She doesnt represent any school in RM cluster, but insinuated that TW kids have discipline problems and fail in school (almost brought TW rep to tears), She made up a lie about TWES principle requesting CI for her school in the report when principals are not allowed to comment (confirmed by MCPS rep).
Is NAACP just being controversial for the sake of it? I just dont get it. FYI, Latino rep didnt bother to show up at all.

[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?

Somewhere around 65%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:BOE #3 option is ridiculous, and doubles RP FARMS from about 20% to 40%, while Twinbrook would lose Title 1 status but still have 44% FARMS.

If they are trying to level the FARMS rate across all the other schools except Twinbrook to keep Title 1 status, then updated option #7 would be better. HOWEVER, it sucks for Fallsgrove because they will have an even longer bus ride.

http://gis.mcpsmd.org/boundarystudypdfs/RMES5_UpdatedOptionsforBoardReviewNovember2017.pdf

Option 8 improves option 7 by keeping CG below capacity for a long time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Option 8 improves option 7 by keeping CG below capacity for a long time.

Agree here. It also avoids creating an elite school in RP with 7% FARMs rate.

Alternate option 3 is weird. I think due to Twinbrook having a high concentration of FARMs and most of them being in walking distance, it may not be possible to distribute Twin brook FARMs rate. If you keep Twinbrook untouched then option 8 is the best option for FARMs diversity and it also balances the capacity utilization.