Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Superintendent's revised recommendation has been posted: http://gis.mcpsmd.org/boundarystudypdfs/RMES5_RecSuppA111317.pdf

I can't believe Alt#1 is still on the table. Most of the ESs would be completely fractured, especially TB.

Holy shit all those recommendations are bar shit crazy.

Maybe the superintendent picked crazy recommendations so the BOE will have to go it on their own, and then it won't be his fault. Because you know some people are going to be unhappy no matter what.

Maybe so...I blame CG3 for all of this...and guess what? They go to Beall under all 3 choices.

Richie Park is really getting a lot of FARMS kids.

[Anonymous]

Holy shit all those recommendations are bar shit crazy.

+1000.

Sending RP5 to the new school makes no sense. That means the buses with those kids will pass, what, 4 elementary schools on the way?

[Anonymous]

Am I understanding this correctly? So the Board, has y options, right? 3 that's on the link above and 3 from the Nov 2 session(BOE alternatives)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Am I understanding this correctly? So the Board, has y options, right? 3 that's on the link above and 3 from the Nov 2 session(BOE alternatives)?

I meant 6 options, not y

[Anonymous]

Where’s the “this will be the decline of the entire cluster” poster?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Holy shit all those recommendations are bar shit crazy.

+1000.

Sending RP5 to the new school makes no sense. That means the buses with those kids will pass, what, 4 elementary schools on the way?

Maybe it will cause the least disruption to the rest of the assignments if it moves to the Crown cluster in the future?

[Anonymous]

The only option that has any sort of community feel is the last one, where TB is kept the same. Are they still accepting community feedback? Where do I send them the feedback? I feel like that whole exercise we did months ago and the feedback we provided wasn't even considered. What a waste of time.

[Anonymous]

CG people need to accept the fact that the school system doesn’t build a new school and not fill it up. You guys in CG3 are screwing over everyone due to your selfish behavior.

[Anonymous]

The only option that has any sort of community feel is the last one, where TB is kept the same. Are they still accepting community feedback? Where do I send them the feedback? I feel like that whole exercise we did months ago and the feedback we provided wasn't even considered. What a waste of time.

You can testify at the meeting Thursday night: call 301-279-3617 to sign up for a slot.
Email your opinions/views to the BoE at [e-mail]

[Anonymous]

Hungerford drive civic association created this mess because they did not want current Twinbrook students in their area school, thus opposing the superintendents original recommendation. They even proposed splitting beall neighborhoods in their proposal to the board on November 2 and vocal opposition at the Nov. 8th meeting (you can watch the video from the meeting). The BoE should go with option 1 provided that is what the parents were calling for at the meeting on November 8. Check out their recommendation and email chain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:CG people need to accept the fact that the school system doesn’t build a new school and not fill it up. You guys in CG3 are screwing over everyone due to your selfish behavior.

Cg3 is not just one opinion...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hungerford drive civic association created this mess because they did not want current Twinbrook students in their area school, thus opposing the superintendents original recommendation. They even proposed splitting beall neighborhoods in their proposal to the board on November 2 and vocal opposition at the Nov. 8th meeting (you can watch the video from the meeting). The BoE should go with option 1 provided that is what the parents were calling for at the meeting on November 8. Check out their recommendation and email chain.

And New Mark commons. They drove this train with their stupid hashtag diversity at 25 or whatever it was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:CG people need to accept the fact that the school system doesn’t build a new school and not fill it up. You guys in CG3 are screwing over everyone due to your selfish behavior.

I don't get it. Isn't the proposal that CG3 move to Beall? What does that have to do with filling the new school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CG people need to accept the fact that the school system doesn’t build a new school and not fill it up. You guys in CG3 are screwing over everyone due to your selfish behavior.

I don't get it. Isn't the proposal that CG3 move to Beall? What does that have to do with filling the new school?

CG3 reps have been arguing they shouldn’t move out of CGES.

[Anonymous]

CG3 seems destined to move based on these proposals, but they are fighting this. I don't "get" their whole "We're beside CG neighborhood so we are linked."

I'm a CGES parent, but not in CG3.

I'm tempted to go Thursday just to watch it all.