Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries

[Anonymous]

I’m at RP and I fully support any of the options that go beyond 7%. I believe most of us do. I think the only option most people oppose is the 40% option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ty. Damn shame people equate wealth with being white.

It doesn't equate, but there is a strong correlation, especially in Montgomery County.

[Anonymous]

Watching the video and all they apparently got from TB is that there is no overwhelming want to leave TB? That is it? They just don't really care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m at RP and I fully support any of the options that go beyond 7%. I believe most of us do. I think the only option most people oppose is the 40% option.

Seems like there should be some option in between I agree..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m at RP and I fully support any of the options that go beyond 7%. I believe most of us do. I think the only option most people oppose is the 40% option.

Seems like there should be some option in between I agree..

You want MORE options?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m at RP and I fully support any of the options that go beyond 7%. I believe most of us do. I think the only option most people oppose is the 40% option.

Seems like there should be some option in between I agree..

Plenty are in between

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m at RP and I fully support any of the options that go beyond 7%. I believe most of us do. I think the only option most people oppose is the 40% option.

I am from CG1 and not impacted with this change, but if most parents from RP are fine with 20-25% FARMs rate( currently it's 20-25% ) then why not start supporting Superintendent's Recommendation #3 (Pursuant to Board Adopted Resolution). I think it will get a widespread support. I will surely support it.

RP PTA seems to not represent voice of many parets if what you are saying is true. They wan to simply support option which keeps RP at 7%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m at RP and I fully support any of the options that go beyond 7%. I believe most of us do. I think the only option most people oppose is the 40% option.

Seems like there should be some option in between I agree..

There is one option in between. Superintendent's Recommendation #3 (Pursuant to Board Adopted Resolution) FARMs at RP will be 24%

Based on what I know. NMC supports it. Hungerford supports it. Majority of CG supports it except CG3 who want to stay in CG and this option puts them in Beall. TB is beinhd it because it doesn't break TB.

Why not take this happy middle ground? I will suggest start drafting letter and send it to BOE.

[Anonymous]

I am from B1 and I fully support moving RP out of my cluster to Potomac, Wotten or whatever else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:judith docca was especially entertaining.

She’s a nutcase who sees everything as racism.

But wasn't she the one that said the R word?

Yep. Horrible person.

I just saw her piece, yes, she is seeing racism in everything! I wish someone would explain why people are trying to lower the FARMS rate to shut her up.

[Anonymous]

The issue here is not that people are opposed to a particular FARMS rate; it's that they are opposed to having students unnecessarily bussed a long distance for the sole purpose of trying to engineer comparable FARMS-eligibility rates between the five schools. The new options put an undue burden on residents in RP5 - if you want kids to endure a long bus ride to go to an HGC program, that's one thing, but they shouldn't have to do that to go to a local school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am from B1 and I fully support moving RP out of my cluster to Potomac, Wotten or whatever else.

Good luck.

[Anonymous]

Congrats on 50 pages!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m at RP and I fully support any of the options that go beyond 7%. I believe most of us do. I think the only option most people oppose is the 40% option.

Seems like there should be some option in between I agree..

There is one option in between. Superintendent's Recommendation #3 (Pursuant to Board Adopted Resolution) FARMs at RP will be 24%

Based on what I know. NMC supports it. Hungerford supports it. Majority of CG supports it except CG3 who want to stay in CG and this option puts them in Beall. TB is beinhd it because it doesn't break TB.

Why not take this happy middle ground? I will suggest start drafting letter and send it to BOE.

Because it puts all the burden on Fallsgrove, and Fallsgrove opposes it. If this is the only option that properly balances out the cluster, then just take Fallsgrove out of the cluster and put them where they geographically belong (Wootton).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The issue here is not that people are opposed to a particular FARMS rate; it's that they are opposed to having students unnecessarily bussed a long distance for the sole purpose of trying to engineer comparable FARMS-eligibility rates between the five schools. The new options put an undue burden on residents in RP5 - if you want kids to endure a long bus ride to go to an HGC program, that's one thing, but they shouldn't have to do that to go to a local school.

Everybody opposes unnecessary busing.

On the other hand, plenty of people -- possibly including the members of the Board of Education -- believe that busing students so that some schools aren't high-poverty while other schools are low-poverty, isn't unnecessary busing.