Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries

[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.

There are some better and some worse ideas than initial recommendation. You don't have to voice your support for any crazy option. I think Superintendent's Recommendation #3 (Pursuant to Board Adopted Resolution) which came out yesterday does the best job of taking concerns of most stakeholder here. Everyone will be little bit unhappy, but that means it's a good outcome.

Since breaking TB will cause a lots of hardship for students attending TB, this is the best option to balance SES level across other 4 schools without causing too much hardship for anyone. RP2 is described as a walk zone to RM#5, but it's not an easy walk from some parts of RP2. Some parents have raised that concern and asked for transportation if they end up going to RM#5. It may be possible to divide RP2 to make a real walk zone, but frankly speaking this existing option is the best option when you hear all concerns.

RM#5 will have around 37% FARMs rate in regular classes and 29% FARMs rate in entire school in initial super's recommendation. Based on what we are seeing in RP , no one wants to see RP going to 40% FARMs. It means we should also not advocate for any option which puts any other school in similar situation specially if it also makes RP 7% FARMs.

RP2 comes to RP right now. They should continue coming here. MCPS has done many boundaries to balance socioeconomic in many other places. We have many examples of students going to different schools even if they can walk to one school. If as RP parents, we keep insisting on options which puts RP at 7% FARMs, we will start looking like CG3 group.

We need to look for entire cluster here. It's better to take a less than ideal option than reject everything due to having some issues. Superintendent's Recommendation #3 (Pursuant to Board Adopted Resolution) has the east amount of issues. It's not perfect because it's not possible to have a perfect one.

- RP1 parent

[Anonymous]

I wish option titles were simple. They are confusing.

[Anonymous]

I agree, we should ask the board to pick Superintendent's Recommendation #3 , that will be the best possible outcome.



There are some better and some worse ideas than initial recommendation. You don't have to voice your support for any crazy option. I think Superintendent's Recommendation #3 (Pursuant to Board Adopted Resolution) which came out yesterday does the best job of taking concerns of most stakeholder here. Everyone will be little bit unhappy, but that means it's a good outcome.

Since breaking TB will cause a lots of hardship for students attending TB, this is the best option to balance SES level across other 4 schools without causing too much hardship for anyone. RP2 is described as a walk zone to RM#5, but it's not an easy walk from some parts of RP2. Some parents have raised that concern and asked for transportation if they end up going to RM#5. It may be possible to divide RP2 to make a real walk zone, but frankly speaking this existing option is the best option when you hear all concerns.

RM#5 will have around 37% FARMs rate in regular classes and 29% FARMs rate in entire school in initial super's recommendation. Based on what we are seeing in RP , no one wants to see RP going to 40% FARMs. It means we should also not advocate for any option which puts any other school in similar situation specially if it also makes RP 7% FARMs.

RP2 comes to RP right now. They should continue coming here. MCPS has done many boundaries to balance socioeconomic in many other places. We have many examples of students going to different schools even if they can walk to one school. If as RP parents, we keep insisting on options which puts RP at 7% FARMs, we will start looking like CG3 group.

We need to look for entire cluster here. It's better to take a less than ideal option than reject everything due to having some issues. Superintendent's Recommendation #3 (Pursuant to Board Adopted Resolution) has the east amount of issues. It's not perfect because it's not possible to have a perfect one.

- RP1 parent

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree, we should ask the board to pick Superintendent's Recommendation #3 , that will be the best possible outcome.

There are some better and some worse ideas than initial recommendation. You don't have to voice your support for any crazy option. I think Superintendent's Recommendation #3 (Pursuant to Board Adopted Resolution) which came out yesterday does the best job of taking concerns of most stakeholder here. Everyone will be little bit unhappy, but that means it's a good outcome.

Since breaking TB will cause a lots of hardship for students attending TB, this is the best option to balance SES level across other 4 schools without causing too much hardship for anyone. RP2 is described as a walk zone to RM#5, but it's not an easy walk from some parts of RP2. Some parents have raised that concern and asked for transportation if they end up going to RM#5. It may be possible to divide RP2 to make a real walk zone, but frankly speaking this existing option is the best option when you hear all concerns.

RM#5 will have around 37% FARMs rate in regular classes and 29% FARMs rate in entire school in initial super's recommendation. Based on what we are seeing in RP , no one wants to see RP going to 40% FARMs. It means we should also not advocate for any option which puts any other school in similar situation specially if it also makes RP 7% FARMs.

RP2 comes to RP right now. They should continue coming here. MCPS has done many boundaries to balance socioeconomic in many other places. We have many examples of students going to different schools even if they can walk to one school. If as RP parents, we keep insisting on options which puts RP at 7% FARMs, we will start looking like CG3 group.

We need to look for entire cluster here. It's better to take a less than ideal option than reject everything due to having some issues. Superintendent's Recommendation #3 (Pursuant to Board Adopted Resolution) has the east amount of issues. It's not perfect because it's not possible to have a perfect one.

- RP1 parent

+1 RP parent... I emailed the BOE yesterday stating this. I agree having RP FARMS rate at 7% is not right given the cluster FARMS rate, but having it at 40% is even more unfair to RP and TB given that it forces TB to lose Title 1 status AND still have FARMS at 50%.

[Anonymous]

RP2 is near Beall and even nearer to the new school. That this section gets "continuity" is only a very short term benefit, if a benefit at all. It doesn't favor RP2 students to stay at RP--it's to balance the FARMs for that neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:RP2 is near Beall and even nearer to the new school. That this section gets "continuity" is only a very short term benefit, if a benefit at all. It doesn't favor RP2 students to stay at RP--it's to balance the FARMs for that neighborhood.

Agreed, but the balancing of FARMS is important factor. One has to weigh the pros/cons of having a school with a highish FARMS rate vs proximity. Since RP2 already goes to RP, nothing changes for them by staying in RP. The purpose of rezoning is not just about proximity, though this is one factor.

-rp parent

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree, we should ask the board to pick Superintendent's Recommendation #3 , that will be the best possible outcome.

There are some better and some worse ideas than initial recommendation. You don't have to voice your support for any crazy option. I think Superintendent's Recommendation #3 (Pursuant to Board Adopted Resolution) which came out yesterday does the best job of taking concerns of most stakeholder here. Everyone will be little bit unhappy, but that means it's a good outcome.

Since breaking TB will cause a lots of hardship for students attending TB, this is the best option to balance SES level across other 4 schools without causing too much hardship for anyone. RP2 is described as a walk zone to RM#5, but it's not an easy walk from some parts of RP2. Some parents have raised that concern and asked for transportation if they end up going to RM#5. It may be possible to divide RP2 to make a real walk zone, but frankly speaking this existing option is the best option when you hear all concerns.

RM#5 will have around 37% FARMs rate in regular classes and 29% FARMs rate in entire school in initial super's recommendation. Based on what we are seeing in RP , no one wants to see RP going to 40% FARMs. It means we should also not advocate for any option which puts any other school in similar situation specially if it also makes RP 7% FARMs.

RP2 comes to RP right now. They should continue coming here. MCPS has done many boundaries to balance socioeconomic in many other places. We have many examples of students going to different schools even if they can walk to one school. If as RP parents, we keep insisting on options which puts RP at 7% FARMs, we will start looking like CG3 group.

We need to look for entire cluster here. It's better to take a less than ideal option than reject everything due to having some issues. Superintendent's Recommendation #3 (Pursuant to Board Adopted Resolution) has the east amount of issues. It's not perfect because it's not possible to have a perfect one.

- RP1 parent

+1 RP parent... I emailed the BOE yesterday stating this. I agree having RP FARMS rate at 7% is not right given the cluster FARMS rate, but having it at 40% is even more unfair to RP and TB given that it forces TB to lose Title 1 status AND still have FARMS at 50%.

+1 Another RP parent. I emailed as well.

Any RP parent agreeing with above sentiments should Email and voice support for Superintendent's Recommendation #3 (Pursuant to Board Adopted Resolution). It is not ideal for everyone , but a good balance for entire cluster. We do need to show support for some option which works for most parents otherwise I am afraid of RP getting a raw deal with 40% FARMs and all busing involve for RP and TB is not fair. It will cause too much hardship for kids.

We should not put any support for 7% or 40%. It's possible to have a nice balance here. Let's support that. It will eliminate all crazy options. We don't want to see those crazy options being implemented. We need to be vocal about it. If we don't put support for an option, which works for most parents, then we need to be ready for some crazy option as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RP2 is near Beall and even nearer to the new school. That this section gets "continuity" is only a very short term benefit, if a benefit at all. It doesn't favor RP2 students to stay at RP--it's to balance the FARMs for that neighborhood.

Agreed, but the balancing of FARMS is important factor. One has to weigh the pros/cons of having a school with a highish FARMS rate vs proximity. Since RP2 already goes to RP, nothing changes for them by staying in RP. The purpose of rezoning is not just about proximity, though this is one factor.

-rp parent

I moved to RP recently. If we look at the existing map. Beall is divided by RP2 . I suspect it was intentional to balance FARMs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RP2 is near Beall and even nearer to the new school. That this section gets "continuity" is only a very short term benefit, if a benefit at all. It doesn't favor RP2 students to stay at RP--it's to balance the FARMs for that neighborhood.

Agreed, but the balancing of FARMS is important factor. One has to weigh the pros/cons of having a school with a highish FARMS rate vs proximity. Since RP2 already goes to RP, nothing changes for them by staying in RP. The purpose of rezoning is not just about proximity, though this is one factor.

-rp parent

I moved to RP recently. If we look at the existing map. Beall is divided by RP2 . I suspect it was intentional to balance FARMs.

Hey, RP2. We know we built this new school in your neighborhood, but you can't go there because we need your poor kids so we'd like to keep bussing you to across 270.

[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.

You win the Internet today!

[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.

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.

WHY DIDNT ANYONE CARE THAT CG IS ONLY 14%?

It is 7% because that is the neighborhoods in the area. RP isn't near the apartments. Bussing kids far away in means bussing kids closer to that school away. That is not fair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RP2 is near Beall and even nearer to the new school. That this section gets "continuity" is only a very short term benefit, if a benefit at all. It doesn't favor RP2 students to stay at RP--it's to balance the FARMs for that neighborhood.

Agreed, but the balancing of FARMS is important factor. One has to weigh the pros/cons of having a school with a highish FARMS rate vs proximity. Since RP2 already goes to RP, nothing changes for them by staying in RP. The purpose of rezoning is not just about proximity, though this is one factor.

-rp parent

They are walkable to the new school, are you kidding me?
That should be the highest priority.

It saves the environment
Saves on costs to busses.
It allieviates traffic.
FARMS rate at RM5 is below 30% with RP2. No reason to move them. None

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

WHY DIDNT ANYONE CARE THAT CG IS ONLY 14%?

It is 7% because that is the neighborhoods in the area. RP isn't near the apartments. Bussing kids far away in means bussing kids closer to that school away. That is not fair.

What's unfair about it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RP2 is near Beall and even nearer to the new school. That this section gets "continuity" is only a very short term benefit, if a benefit at all. It doesn't favor RP2 students to stay at RP--it's to balance the FARMs for that neighborhood.

Agreed, but the balancing of FARMS is important factor. One has to weigh the pros/cons of having a school with a highish FARMS rate vs proximity. Since RP2 already goes to RP, nothing changes for them by staying in RP. The purpose of rezoning is not just about proximity, though this is one factor.

-rp parent

I moved to RP recently. If we look at the existing map. Beall is divided by RP2 . I suspect it was intentional to balance FARMs.

Hey, RP2. We know we built this new school in your neighborhood, but you can't go there because we need your poor kids so we'd like to keep bussing you to across 270.

+1
Ridiculous

I am in a school area that I won't be moved but I find this very disturbing. Walkability should always be #1. I guess the liberals don't care about the environment now, huh?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

+1
Ridiculous

I am in a school area that I won't be moved but I find this very disturbing. Walkability should always be #1. I guess the liberals don't care about the environment now, huh?

Being able to walk to school is important, certainly, but why should it be the most important?