Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

+1

One more RP parent. "Superintendent's Recommendation #3 (Pursuant to Board Adopted Resolution),” which came last evening is the best one among all presented options.

- TB is fine with title 1 and if needed move small zone from TB to RM#5 to address capacity without taking their title 1 away.
- All other schools are under capacity.
- FARMs is fairly distributed among 4 schools. This does the best job here by keeping entire range 15-25%. Making RP either 7% or 40% is not a good way to go. Kepp RP in line with other schools and keep it in 15-25% range.
- Least number of zones are moved in this option.
- Adds only couple of minutes for RP5 bus to make it to RM#5. 270 is irrelevant here because no one is trying to cross it. Time was given by dept of transportation in previous presentations.


I see "Superintendent's Recommendation #3 (Pursuant to Board Adopted Resolution),” as the best outcome for entire cluster. it will not be a good idea to make RP 40%. it will be also not be a good idea to make RP 7% FARMs. Let's keep some balance.


I am using full title here, because I am am starting to get confused with all options with similar title.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

+1

One more RP parent. "Superintendent's Recommendation #3 (Pursuant to Board Adopted Resolution),” which came last evening is the best one among all presented options.

- TB is fine with title 1 and if needed move small zone from TB to RM#5 to address capacity without taking their title 1 away.
- All other schools are under capacity.
- FARMs is fairly distributed among 4 schools. This does the best job here by keeping entire range 15-25%. Making RP either 7% or 40% is not a good way to go. Kepp RP in line with other schools and keep it in 15-25% range.
- Least number of zones are moved in this option.
- Adds only couple of minutes for RP5 bus to make it to RM#5. 270 is irrelevant here because no one is trying to cross it. Time was given by dept of transportation in previous presentations.


I see "Superintendent's Recommendation #3 (Pursuant to Board Adopted Resolution),” as the best outcome for entire cluster. it will not be a good idea to make RP 40%. it will be also not be a good idea to make RP 7% FARMs. Let's keep some balance.


I am using full title here, because I am am starting to get confused with all options with similar title.

The CG3 people will cry. They can’t move!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

+1

One more RP parent. "Superintendent's Recommendation #3 (Pursuant to Board Adopted Resolution),” which came last evening is the best one among all presented options.

- TB is fine with title 1 and if needed move small zone from TB to RM#5 to address capacity without taking their title 1 away.
- All other schools are under capacity.
- FARMs is fairly distributed among 4 schools. This does the best job here by keeping entire range 15-25%. Making RP either 7% or 40% is not a good way to go. Kepp RP in line with other schools and keep it in 15-25% range.
- Least number of zones are moved in this option.
- Adds only couple of minutes for RP5 bus to make it to RM#5. 270 is irrelevant here because no one is trying to cross it. Time was given by dept of transportation in previous presentations.


I see "Superintendent's Recommendation #3 (Pursuant to Board Adopted Resolution),” as the best outcome for entire cluster. it will not be a good idea to make RP 40%. it will be also not be a good idea to make RP 7% FARMs. Let's keep some balance.


I am using full title here, because I am am starting to get confused with all options with similar title.

The CG3 people will cry. They can’t move!

A few months back, CG3 had signs in their front yard to say that don't move CG3 to Beall because Beall is overcrowded. It was very insulting as Beall parent to see something like that. I am not impacted in this because I am in walk zone in Beall, but if CG3 wants to avoid Beall then just bus them to RM#5.

There is natural boundary between CG3 and rest of CG. I have not heard any strong argument so far why CG3 can't move. They are not special. So many others have to move and it should be fine if CG3 has to move as well. Argument that you don't like Beall is a weird one. Beall is not inferior to CG. It's a strong school.

I have been following the discussions and read all arguments. I also like "Superintendent's Recommendation #3 (Pursuant to Board Adopted Resolution),” which came last night. It does the good job of balancing everything without cause hardship for anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

+1

One more RP parent. "Superintendent's Recommendation #3 (Pursuant to Board Adopted Resolution),” which came last evening is the best one among all presented options.

- TB is fine with title 1 and if needed move small zone from TB to RM#5 to address capacity without taking their title 1 away.
- All other schools are under capacity.
- FARMs is fairly distributed among 4 schools. This does the best job here by keeping entire range 15-25%. Making RP either 7% or 40% is not a good way to go. Kepp RP in line with other schools and keep it in 15-25% range.
- Least number of zones are moved in this option.
- Adds only couple of minutes for RP5 bus to make it to RM#5. 270 is irrelevant here because no one is trying to cross it. Time was given by dept of transportation in previous presentations.


I see "Superintendent's Recommendation #3 (Pursuant to Board Adopted Resolution),” as the best outcome for entire cluster. it will not be a good idea to make RP 40%. it will be also not be a good idea to make RP 7% FARMs. Let's keep some balance.


I am using full title here, because I am am starting to get confused with all options with similar title.

The CG3 people will cry. They can’t move!

A few months back, CG3 had signs in their front yard to say that don't move CG3 to Beall because Beall is overcrowded. It was very insulting as Beall parent to see something like that. I am not impacted in this because I am in walk zone in Beall, but if CG3 wants to avoid Beall then just bus them to RM#5.

There is natural boundary between CG3 and rest of CG. I have not heard any strong argument so far why CG3 can't move. They are not special. So many others have to move and it should be fine if CG3 has to move as well. Argument that you don't like Beall is a weird one. Beall is not inferior to CG. It's a strong school.

I have been following the discussions and read all arguments. I also like "Superintendent's Recommendation #3 (Pursuant to Board Adopted Resolution),” which came last night. It does the good job of balancing everything without cause hardship for anyone.

I live in CG3..the only signs I have seen went up this week. I don't think the argument of that group (which is not the whole neighborhood) is particularly strong but saying that Beall would still be overcrowded does not insult any aspect of Beall aside from the future capacity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

+1

One more RP parent. "Superintendent's Recommendation #3 (Pursuant to Board Adopted Resolution),” which came last evening is the best one among all presented options.

- TB is fine with title 1 and if needed move small zone from TB to RM#5 to address capacity without taking their title 1 away.
- All other schools are under capacity.
- FARMs is fairly distributed among 4 schools. This does the best job here by keeping entire range 15-25%. Making RP either 7% or 40% is not a good way to go. Kepp RP in line with other schools and keep it in 15-25% range.
- Least number of zones are moved in this option.
- Adds only couple of minutes for RP5 bus to make it to RM#5. 270 is irrelevant here because no one is trying to cross it. Time was given by dept of transportation in previous presentations.


I see "Superintendent's Recommendation #3 (Pursuant to Board Adopted Resolution),” as the best outcome for entire cluster. it will not be a good idea to make RP 40%. it will be also not be a good idea to make RP 7% FARMs. Let's keep some balance.


I am using full title here, because I am am starting to get confused with all options with similar title.

The CG3 people will cry. They can’t move!

A few months back, CG3 had signs in their front yard to say that don't move CG3 to Beall because Beall is overcrowded. It was very insulting as Beall parent to see something like that. I am not impacted in this because I am in walk zone in Beall, but if CG3 wants to avoid Beall then just bus them to RM#5.

There is natural boundary between CG3 and rest of CG. I have not heard any strong argument so far why CG3 can't move. They are not special. So many others have to move and it should be fine if CG3 has to move as well. Argument that you don't like Beall is a weird one. Beall is not inferior to CG. It's a strong school.

I have been following the discussions and read all arguments. I also like "Superintendent's Recommendation #3 (Pursuant to Board Adopted Resolution),” which came last night. It does the good job of balancing everything without cause hardship for anyone.

I live in CG3..the only signs I have seen went up this week. I don't think the argument of that group (which is not the whole neighborhood) is particularly strong but saying that Beall would still be overcrowded does not insult any aspect of Beall aside from the future capacity.

CG parent here - a loud, vocal group of CG3 parents were very insulting last spring. They badmouthed other CG parents and caused divisions at the school. I had heard about them putting up signs and other flyers (even at Carmen's I believe). The Beall parents I know were insulted by them.

They need to shut up and stop being so whiny. Their move is not a hardship at all. They will be going to a good school that is close to them. A school where those kids most likely belong to the same pool they do (Woodley Gardens) and hang out at the same ice cream place (Carmen's). They have a good situation.

[Anonymous]

Which of the remaining proposals (BOE Alt's 1, 2, and 3) and the Superintendent's updated 3 make Beall overcapacity? It appears to me that none of them do. I'm not sure what any signs going up this week would refer to...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I live in CG3..the only signs I have seen went up this week. I don't think the argument of that group (which is not the whole neighborhood) is particularly strong but saying that Beall would still be overcrowded does not insult any aspect of Beall aside from the future capacity.

Why talk about Beall being over crowded when CG is also overcrowded?

Everyone can put 2 and 2 together here. There were some other flyers and those were shared by a parent at Beall PTA meeting. Many parents were horrified to be honest.

After saying all that about Beall and overcrowding, CG3 wants to keep CG totally filled without leaving any room for any growth in CG. You can see where I am going here. I have never met more offensive group in entire RM cluster. Badmouthing a elementary school to avoid going there is very offensive.

[Anonymous]

I agree with 10:52. A loud vocal group of CG3 parents were insulting in the spring. CG3 is very well situated to two elementary schools in the cluster. It's better than getting bused from one end of the cluster to another.

[Anonymous]

as a fallsgrove resident, I also agree that the super's updated #3 is the best option. even if my kids will have to sit on the bus for a little longer

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Which of the remaining proposals (BOE Alt's 1, 2, and 3) and the Superintendent's updated 3 make Beall overcapacity? It appears to me that none of them do. I'm not sure what any signs going up this week would refer to...

I am not aware of anyone supporting any option which will make Beall overcrowded. To avoid a potential overcrowding, there is very little support of keeping CG3 within CG.

I also don't think that any of those options puts Beall as overcrowded school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree with 10:52. A loud vocal group of CG3 parents were insulting in the spring. CG3 is very well situated to two elementary schools in the cluster. It's better than getting bused from one end of the cluster to another.

If they stay this vocally whiny, I say they should go to ES#5, bus them even further away. I understand nobody really wants to move, but everyone needs to look at the cluster as a whole, and the decision should be based on the what's best for the *entire* cluster - every single ES and neighborhood, not just a tiny segment of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which of the remaining proposals (BOE Alt's 1, 2, and 3) and the Superintendent's updated 3 make Beall overcapacity? It appears to me that none of them do. I'm not sure what any signs going up this week would refer to...

I am not aware of anyone supporting any option which will make Beall overcrowded. To avoid a potential overcrowding, there is very little support of keeping CG3 within CG.

I also don't think that any of those options puts Beall as overcrowded school.

I think the CG3 people need to pipe down. They will move from one good school to another good school. Any discussion they have of sticking with CG causes far greater problems for everyone else than them being inconvenienced for a couple of years until the current crop of kids are in middle school. Besides, their current friends will still be available to play and hang out with after school plus they will make all new friends also living close by. The kids at Beall are good/nice kids and Beall is a good school. All the new proposals move CG3 to Beall. They are moving, period. It shouldn’t even be that bugbear of a deal!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with 10:52. A loud vocal group of CG3 parents were insulting in the spring. CG3 is very well situated to two elementary schools in the cluster. It's better than getting bused from one end of the cluster to another.

If they stay this vocally whiny, I say they should go to ES#5, bus them even further away. I understand nobody really wants to move, but everyone needs to look at the cluster as a whole, and the decision should be based on the what's best for the *entire* cluster - every single ES and neighborhood, not just a tiny segment of it.

Yes, If CG3 wants to avoid Beall then they should take a bus to RM#5. I am B4 and I can assure everyone that Beall is a solid school.

I also think that "Superintendent's Recommendation #3 (Pursuant to Board Adopted Resolution),” is a good option for entire cluster.

[Anonymous]

I would GLADLY move out of Ritchie Park.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with 10:52. A loud vocal group of CG3 parents were insulting in the spring. CG3 is very well situated to two elementary schools in the cluster. It's better than getting bused from one end of the cluster to another.

If they stay this vocally whiny, I say they should go to ES#5, bus them even further away. I understand nobody really wants to move, but everyone needs to look at the cluster as a whole, and the decision should be based on the what's best for the *entire* cluster - every single ES and neighborhood, not just a tiny segment of it.

Yes, If CG3 wants to avoid Beall then they should take a bus to RM#5. I am B4 and I can assure everyone that Beall is a solid school.

I also think that "Superintendent's Recommendation #3 (Pursuant to Board Adopted Resolution),” is a good option for entire cluster.

PP here.. as an RP parent in one of the higher SES areas, I would be fine with my kids going to Beall. I know some families from there, and their kids are solid students. You have my support