Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would GLADLY move out of Ritchie Park.

To Twinbrook? Because that is one of the options for one area of RP.

[Anonymous]

Wait so we are going to let a walkable area to the new school, and was originally assigned to Beall continue to still get bussed further to RP? That literally makes no sense.

[Anonymous]

The whole CG3 just needs to STFU. CG is barely changing at all and they still go to a community school close by. Ritchie Park and Twinbrook are getting butchered and CG3 is complaining about moving to Beall? Ugh! I may slap one of them tomorrow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would GLADLY move out of Ritchie Park.

To Twinbrook? Because that is one of the options for one area of RP.

Yes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wait so we are going to let a walkable area to the new school, and was originally assigned to Beall continue to still get bussed further to RP? That literally makes no sense.

Neither does causing islands and making families criss cross the cluster, as would be the case with Board Adopted Alternative #3. This alternative will cause two distinct groups in Twinbrook with zero community. It royally screws RP and TB (by losing Title 1 status yet still have 40%+ FARMS). I seriously seriously hope the person who drew up this option was not serious and did so just to prove a point. I hope this option is immediately taken off the table.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would GLADLY move out of Ritchie Park.

To Twinbrook? Because that is one of the options for one area of RP.

Yes

Are you in Horizon Hill and you want your child to get bussed away past 2 schools to go to Twinbrook?

[Anonymous]

I am honestly so f'ing confused.

If MCPS had the numbers wrong why aren't we just going with the initial super's recommendation that gives RM#5 29% FARMS, doesn't really move much of anyone, and keeps most neighborhoods to their closest school?

Why are there now so many crazy options and a mad rush to decide.

MCPS is beyond embarrassing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would GLADLY move out of Ritchie Park.

To Twinbrook? Because that is one of the options for one area of RP.

Yes

Are you in Horizon Hill and you want your child to get bussed away past 2 schools to go to Twinbrook?

I would be happy not to go to RP anymore. And if Twinbrook is the option on the table, I will take it.

That being said, there is no way this option will pass, because it is ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait so we are going to let a walkable area to the new school, and was originally assigned to Beall continue to still get bussed further to RP? That literally makes no sense.

Neither does causing islands and making families criss cross the cluster, as would be the case with Board Adopted Alternative #3. This alternative will cause two distinct groups in Twinbrook with zero community. It royally screws RP and TB (by losing Title 1 status yet still have 40%+ FARMS). I seriously seriously hope the person who drew up this option was not serious and did so just to prove a point. I hope this option is immediately taken off the table.

I envision the buses crossing paths and all the children high-fiving each other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would GLADLY move out of Ritchie Park.

To Twinbrook? Because that is one of the options for one area of RP.

Yes

Are you in Horizon Hill and you want your child to get bussed away past 2 schools to go to Twinbrook?

I would be happy not to go to RP anymore. And if Twinbrook is the option on the table, I will take it.

That being said, there is no way this option will pass, because it is ridiculous.

Wouldn't it have been easier for you to move within the cluster... totally off topic, I know. I've actually thought about that but not because of the Principal. I live in RP cluster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait so we are going to let a walkable area to the new school, and was originally assigned to Beall continue to still get bussed further to RP? That literally makes no sense.

Neither does causing islands and making families criss cross the cluster, as would be the case with Board Adopted Alternative #3. This alternative will cause two distinct groups in Twinbrook with zero community. It royally screws RP and TB (by losing Title 1 status yet still have 40%+ FARMS). I seriously seriously hope the person who drew up this option was not serious and did so just to prove a point. I hope this option is immediately taken off the table.

I envision the buses crossing paths and all the children high-fiving each other.

That's funny. I now have the visual in my head.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am honestly so f'ing confused.

If MCPS had the numbers wrong why aren't we just going with the initial super's recommendation that gives RM#5 29% FARMS, doesn't really move much of anyone, and keeps most neighborhoods to their closest school?

Why are there now so many crazy options and a mad rush to decide.

MCPS is beyond embarrassing.

Because NAACP rep threatened "action" unless more "equitable" options are considered. Mind you, they dont have any skin in the game (ie kids in the cluster). Let screw Twinbrook completely, aside from their loud objections, but the farms will be lower!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am honestly so f'ing confused.

If MCPS had the numbers wrong why aren't we just going with the initial super's recommendation that gives RM#5 29% FARMS, doesn't really move much of anyone, and keeps most neighborhoods to their closest school?

Why are there now so many crazy options and a mad rush to decide.

MCPS is beyond embarrassing.

Probably because his initial recommendation with new numbers makes the RP FARMS go down to ~7%. Which is not a problem for that school in a performance respect, but does make the cluster feel more imbalanced and goes against the stated principle of balanced diversity for all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am honestly so f'ing confused.

If MCPS had the numbers wrong why aren't we just going with the initial super's recommendation that gives RM#5 29% FARMS, doesn't really move much of anyone, and keeps most neighborhoods to their closest school?

Why are there now so many crazy options and a mad rush to decide.

MCPS is beyond embarrassing.

Because NAACP rep threatened "action" unless more "equitable" options are considered. Mind you, they dont have any skin in the game (ie kids in the cluster). Let screw Twinbrook completely, aside from their loud objections, but the farms will be lower!

Can't actual parents of a specific zone area also threaten "action"? If every zone threatens "action" what will BOE do?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am honestly so f'ing confused.

If MCPS had the numbers wrong why aren't we just going with the initial super's recommendation that gives RM#5 29% FARMS, doesn't really move much of anyone, and keeps most neighborhoods to their closest school?

Why are there now so many crazy options and a mad rush to decide.

MCPS is beyond embarrassing.

Because NAACP rep threatened "action" unless more "equitable" options are considered. Mind you, they dont have any skin in the game (ie kids in the cluster). Let screw Twinbrook completely, aside from their loud objections, but the farms will be lower!

Can't actual parents of a specific zone area also threaten "action"? If every zone threatens "action" what will BOE do?

Anybody can threaten action. The problem is which action is likely to succeed? The courts generally won't hear an argument in favor of the neighborhoods vs. one in favor of what the NAACP wants.