Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The BOE wants equity so Dr. smith delivered on equity with his new recommendation:http://gis.mcpsmd.org/boundarystudypdfs/RMES5_RecSuppA111317.pdf . Now the most disrruptive option is ranked as No. 1 choice. I have thought he is a guy with common sense but I guess when your job is in danger, you obey the order from the board because they can dismiss you anytime.

The BoE cannot dismiss him anytime. He has a contract. His job is not in danger from this.

However, the BoE are his bosses. That's how the system works. We elect the BoE, then the BoE tells MCPS what to do. When your boss tells you what to do, you do it, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see people mentioning the hungerford proposal? Which proposal is that?

I’m not sure but I think it may be the BOE Alt #2 where they broke some Beall zones in half?

I’m all for that one because it keeps the town square area at Beall which makes sense to me as I can walk there from my B1 zone house.

This is the BOE option presented in the first week, Alt #2 is Hungerford's proposal. RP might need to take some FARMS to be a bit more balance but that's about it. Maybe take a portion of RP2 or RP6?

http://gis.mcpsmd.org/boundarystudypdfs/RMES5_BOEAdoptedAlternatives11092017.pdf

This is the most recent recommendation:
http://gis.mcpsmd.org/boundarystudypdfs/RMES5_RecSuppA111317.pdf

This is what the Superintendent said on the 2nd and third paragraph of his recent recommendation. Correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is that we have 6 recommendations from the 2 links above.

On November 2, 2017, the Board of Education approved three alternative
boundary assignments for consideration. The Board also adopted a resolution regarding
the socioeconomic diversity of the cluster assignments.
Boundary reassignments are challenging and require disruption to existing patterns and practices.
The Richard Montgomery Elementary School #5 boundary reassignment process has further been
complicated by changing conditions in recent stages of the process. As a result of three particular
events, we have distributed updated and corrected enrollment and demographic information
and have reconvened the Boundary Advisory Committee to discuss and provide feedback
on the updated information. In addition, I am submitting subsequent recommendations
for the Board’s review and consideration, pursuant to the Board’s November 2, 2017, resolution.
Members of the Board of Education 2 November 14, 2017
The following three events resulted in a need to provide updated boundary options.

Which one of these options would you be in favor of?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The BOE wants equity so Dr. smith delivered on equity with his new recommendation:http://gis.mcpsmd.org/boundarystudypdfs/RMES5_RecSuppA111317.pdf . Now the most disrruptive option is ranked as No. 1 choice. I have thought he is a guy with common sense but I guess when your job is in danger, you obey the order from the board because they can dismiss you anytime.

The BoE cannot dismiss him anytime. He has a contract. His job is not in danger from this.

However, the BoE are his bosses. That's how the system works. We elect the BoE, then the BoE tells MCPS what to do. When your boss tells you what to do, you do it, right?

The study group has spent almost a year to comment on various options presented by mcps. There are multiple facts were considered, minimize splits to community, minimize travel time, keep school below 100% cap, community center, diverse student body, etc. if Only equity should be considered, the BOE and mcps shouldnt waste everyons time and just issue orders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The BOE wants equity so Dr. smith delivered on equity with his new recommendation:http://gis.mcpsmd.org/boundarystudypdfs/RMES5_RecSuppA111317.pdf . Now the most disrruptive option is ranked as No. 1 choice. I have thought he is a guy with common sense but I guess when your job is in danger, you obey the order from the board because they can dismiss you anytime.

The BoE cannot dismiss him anytime. He has a contract. His job is not in danger from this.

However, the BoE are his bosses. That's how the system works. We elect the BoE, then the BoE tells MCPS what to do. When your boss tells you what to do, you do it, right?

The study group has spent almost a year to comment on various options presented by mcps. There are multiple facts were considered, minimize splits to community, minimize travel time, keep school below 100% cap, community center, diverse student body, etc. if Only equity should be considered, the BOE and mcps shouldnt waste everyons time and just issue orders.

There is no simple solution here that will make everybody happy. If there were, it would already be done. It's complicated, and there are lots of trade-offs. Would it have been better if BoE had issued a decree last year, without any community input or analysis of options? I don't think so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The BOE wants equity so Dr. smith delivered on equity with his new recommendation:http://gis.mcpsmd.org/boundarystudypdfs/RMES5_RecSuppA111317.pdf . Now the most disrruptive option is ranked as No. 1 choice. I have thought he is a guy with common sense but I guess when your job is in danger, you obey the order from the board because they can dismiss you anytime.

The BoE cannot dismiss him anytime. He has a contract. His job is not in danger from this.

However, the BoE are his bosses. That's how the system works. We elect the BoE, then the BoE tells MCPS what to do. When your boss tells you what to do, you do it, right?

He serves at the pleasure. He can go at any time. They just have to pay him out.

[Anonymous]

For anyone who wants to watch the BoE's work session today, the RMES #5 boundaries are on the agenda for 2:50pm.

You can watch it live on MCPS TV (Comcast Channel 34 and Verizon 36) or stream online here: http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/boe/meetings/live.aspx

[Anonymous]

I like the option 3 presented last evening. It's the best outcome given various concerns. It's also the least disruptive option because very few zones are moving out of their schools. Any other option, moves a lot more zones out of existing schools. This should calm down voices who are saying that options are disruptive. Talking about disruption is fine, but some zones need to be moved and this option moves the least amount of zones.

This keeps 4 schools well balanced and the most practical option. Cost is extra few minutes for RP5, but it ticks all other things. Least disruptive and makes schools balanced. Why not keep taking RP2 and RP6 in RP? Why insist on taking far away zone in RP , but not take some zones closer?

I am from RP6. I am happy to have our neighbors in RP2 with us in RP. Let's not argue for making RP same as other rich Potomac schools with no socioeconomic diversity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Out of all the options I've seen, I thought the Hungerford proposal would have made a lot of sense, not sure why it wasn't used for this proposal, the only change that

B5 and B6 both want to go to Beall and they opposed it saying that boy scout and girls scout are together. They used CG3 argument here.

B5, B6 and CG3 wants to remain at old school at any cost even if it means keeping older school over capacity.

It wasn't a strong opposition though, was it? The only arguments to it we're people who wants to stay in the same school like the ones tou said. But capacity and SES wise, this option would actually work, might need soime tweaks for RP's very low FARMS but that was about it.

Yes, the Hungerford proposal makes the most sense of all the crazy options that are on the table at this point. It's not perfect, but no option is, and it's much closer to perfect than many of the others. If more people can get behind this option, it will save a lot of children from being bussed all over the cluster...

How about 3rd option presented today? It doesn't change current boundary by much. It's not busing kids all over. It's balancing FARMs. It's leaving Twinbrook for title 1. It's balancing capacity.

Only downside will be extra few minutes of bus rides for RP5 kids. Still an option with most benefits and one negative.

Also that one RP neighborhood that will drive by the new school on their way to Ritchie Park...

Yes, I forgot about it. Also entire RP2 is not really walk able. We heard RP representative saying that on behalf of few RP2 parents in working session. If it's true then RP2 may need a bus to go to either RM#5 or RP. Right now they go to RP already.

Anyway, as I said earlier - Not possible to come up with a perfect solution. But option 3 presented today looks the best solution to me. CG3 may still object, but B5 and B6 are able to avoid moving. Main downside is still few minutes extra bus ride for RP5 kids. They are most easy to move due to already being an island.

Why not send Horizon Hill to RM ES #5? They are closer to the new school. Then the concern about distance/commute time is moot for both neighborhoods (Fallsgrove and Horizon Hill).

Horizon Hill is right across the street from Ritchie Park. I can walk thru Hadley's park right to the school. We are closer than half the RP1 kids but because of Falls Rd we are technically not walkers. That doesn't mean we should get bussed all over. RP2, RP6, and RP3 are all closer to RM5 and Twinbrook. RP5 is so far away from everyone. It amazes me our neighborhood even got brought into this mess last minute because a few people didn't like the FARMS rates?

The fact RP2 and RP6 are now not even moving to the new school when they are the closest and sending Fallsgrove to RM5 and potentially us to Twinbrook is ridiculous. Why aren't we sending CG4 or CG5 to Twinbrook or anywhere else? Why is far off neighborhoods of RP now getting all the changes?

Because HH has only 50 elementary school kids, and the BOE decided to pick on HH and give up on 50 votes in favor of some others. VOTE THEM OUT. I live in HH. I didn't vote for these clowns.

I don't believe that the BoE actually wants that option. They requested the option to prove a point. Save your outrage for if/when Horizon Hill ACTUALLY gets sent to Twinbrook or another far-away school.

Why would you wait to show outrage until after they decide? By then it is too late.

+1 And how does that PP know that the BOE doesn't want this option, and they just did it to prove a point? I would be happy if this is true since it's just wacky, but right now, I am not getting a good feeling about the BOE's intentions. And yes I emailed them.

I don't see how those two other options helps TB either because they end up losing Title 1 status and yet STILL have over 40% FARMS rate. The big losers here will be the kids who need the smaller class sizes that Title 1 affords.

[Anonymous]

It's a democratic process. If you don't like some option then present your arguments.

Advisory group , which met for the last one year, was not recommending any option. They were only commenting on all options. Superintended did admit mistake about data and that's why it was important to present options with correct data for public input. That's how democratic process works. I would have hated to see decision made with wrong data. That would not have served the RM cluster well.

Present your argument or present a scenario which keeps a well balanced school, uses capacity well and causes least amount of zones to move. I also agree with precious poster that option 3 presented last evening is the best one doing it. It's not perfect and we will not have any perfect solution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's a democratic process. If you don't like some option then present your arguments.

Advisory group , which met for the last one year, was not recommending any option. They were only commenting on all options. Superintended did admit mistake about data and that's why it was important to present options with correct data for public input. That's how democratic process works. I would have hated to see decision made with wrong data. That would not have served the RM cluster well.

Present your argument or present a scenario which keeps a well balanced school, uses capacity well and causes least amount of zones to move. I also agree with precious poster that option 3 presented last evening is the best one doing it. It's not perfect and we will not have any perfect solution.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I like the option 3 presented last evening. It's the best outcome given various concerns. It's also the least disruptive option because very few zones are moving out of their schools. Any other option, moves a lot more zones out of existing schools. This should calm down voices who are saying that options are disruptive. Talking about disruption is fine, but some zones need to be moved and this option moves the least amount of zones.

This keeps 4 schools well balanced and the most practical option. Cost is extra few minutes for RP5, but it ticks all other things. Least disruptive and makes schools balanced. Why not keep taking RP2 and RP6 in RP? Why insist on taking far away zone in RP , but not take some zones closer?

I am from RP6. I am happy to have our neighbors in RP2 with us in RP. Let's not argue for making RP same as other rich Potomac schools with no socioeconomic diversity.

+1 another RP parent... I agree.. alt option #3 makes the most sense. It ticks off all the right boxes:

1. Leave TB as is to keep Title 1 status - negative is that it is slightly over capacity. Maybe move T5, the smallest section to ES#5 to bring it under capacity. That may still allow them to keep title 1 status
2. most of the schools stay under capacity
3. FARMS rate among the four ESs are much more equitable - this is a big one because the alt #1 option make both RP and TB 40%+ FARMS, while the others have 25% or below. That's not equitable at all, and TB then loses Title 1 status as well. Similar issue for alt option #2 - TB loses Title 1 status.
4. least disruptive

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The BOE wants equity so Dr. smith delivered on equity with his new recommendation:http://gis.mcpsmd.org/boundarystudypdfs/RMES5_RecSuppA111317.pdf . Now the most disrruptive option is ranked as No. 1 choice. I have thought he is a guy with common sense but I guess when your job is in danger, you obey the order from the board because they can dismiss you anytime.

The BoE cannot dismiss him anytime. He has a contract. His job is not in danger from this.

However, the BoE are his bosses. That's how the system works. We elect the BoE, then the BoE tells MCPS what to do. When your boss tells you what to do, you do it, right?

The study group has spent almost a year to comment on various options presented by mcps. There are multiple facts were considered, minimize splits to community, minimize travel time, keep school below 100% cap, community center, diverse student body, etc. if Only equity should be considered, the BOE and mcps shouldnt waste everyons time and just issue orders.

So what? ALL THE PROJECTIONS WERE WRONG!! It was a complete waste of time. They can't just redo a whole bunch of shit in one week and then try to rush a decision all of a sudden.

[Anonymous]

So, I'm not in MCPS but I just want to draw your attention to the fact that you have thoughtful processes in place and leaders. If you think you have it bad, just look to your neighbors in Arlington County, VA. The boundary decisions are ridiculous, they have inaccurate data that they don't correct until after public comment has closed (and then they refuse to revisit decisions made with inaccurate data, even if some schools are left ridiculously over and under capacity), timelines are insanely short, and the processes only reward the most involved families and organized neighborhoods. The latest is the MS boundary revision, as a new MS is opening. Staff, aka the Superintendent, is going to recommend a plan to the School Board that pushes the fr/l rate at the least economically advantaged school up by 7 percentage points (I believe their projections are off and it will increase by closer to 10 percentage points). Not only that, but the most advantaged school will become 0% fr/l. And the kicker in all of this is that the wealthiest school will be left at 89% capacity and the least advantaged school will be pushed to over 111% capacity. And they claim nothing else can be done because they have promised that students who are in walk zones cannot be put on buses, and not only that, they have promised that even in overlapping walk zones (because we are a VERY small county), they will keep you at the closest school. This means more densely populated neighborhoods where multi family housing is built will always be overcapacity, and the neighborhoods that are zoned for only single family homes will sit underutilized. They've said they might allow transfers, or come up with option program to better distribute the student population, but I won't hold my breath since they've maintained the inequity at the elementary level for all the years I have lived here.

In short, you have competent people in MCPS and better processes. Consider yourselves lucky.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

So what? ALL THE PROJECTIONS WERE WRONG!! It was a complete waste of time. They can't just redo a whole bunch of shit in one week and then try to rush a decision all of a sudden.

What do you suggest instead?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So what? ALL THE PROJECTIONS WERE WRONG!! It was a complete waste of time. They can't just redo a whole bunch of shit in one week and then try to rush a decision all of a sudden.

What do you suggest instead?

+1 Whine endlessly