Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries

[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.

Unfortunately, that was a can of worms that unexpectedly opened when Superintendent put his proposal which has incorrect numbers.

[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.

How long?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, but it's a question of degree. There's no reason that students from Fallsgrove (west of 270) and Twinbrook (east of 355) need to bussed together to create economic diversity. Just look at a map. All you've done is create a school with no cohesion, all because you don't want to inconvenience a plethora of other neighborhoods.

If balancing poverty levels is that important, redraw the map between RM, Wootton and Churchill. You could create much better socioeconomic diversity without requiring any kids to take bus rides of the length that are being proposed now. (The Fallsmead, Beverly Farms and Cold Spring clusters are all much closer to Twinbrook.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, but it's a question of degree. There's no reason that students from Fallsgrove (west of 270) and Twinbrook (east of 355) need to bussed together to create economic diversity. Just look at a map. All you've done is create a school with no cohesion, all because you don't want to inconvenience a plethora of other neighborhoods.

If balancing poverty levels is that important, redraw the map between RM, Wootton and Churchill. You could create much better socioeconomic diversity without requiring any kids to take bus rides of the length that are being proposed now. (The Fallsmead, Beverly Farms and Cold Spring clusters are all much closer to Twinbrook.)

Why are we still arguing about this? Just buy a swath of land and put all MCPS schools on it. Then gerrymander each school to have perfect diversity of all factors, regardless of geography.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How long?

The distance from Fallsgrove to RM#5 is about four miles, and the entire way is bumper-to-bumper. I take the RideOn to work from Fallsgrove and we often sit for 10 minutes just to inch forward a half mile on Rt. 28 to turn back into College Gardens. Similar story on 270.

Students from Fallsgrove could walk to Lakewood (or even Fallsmead) in less time than they'll sit in traffic getting to RM#5.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How long?

The distance from Fallsgrove to RM#5 is about four miles, and the entire way is bumper-to-bumper. I take the RideOn to work from Fallsgrove and we often sit for 10 minutes just to inch forward a half mile on Rt. 28 to turn back into College Gardens. Similar story on 270.

Students from Fallsgrove could walk to Lakewood (or even Fallsmead) in less time than they'll sit in traffic getting to RM#5.

But how much worse is it than the ride to Ritchie Park ES where they go now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How long?

The distance from Fallsgrove to RM#5 is about four miles, and the entire way is bumper-to-bumper. I take the RideOn to work from Fallsgrove and we often sit for 10 minutes just to inch forward a half mile on Rt. 28 to turn back into College Gardens. Similar story on 270.

Students from Fallsgrove could walk to Lakewood (or even Fallsmead) in less time than they'll sit in traffic getting to RM#5.

But how much worse is it than the ride to Ritchie Park ES where they go now?

The ride now is unsatisfactory, and this just adds on to it.

As a history lesson here, remember that Fallsgrove was only zoned out of Wootton and into RM/RP because the county thought Wootton schools would be overcrowded and RM schools would be under capacity: http://www.gazette.net/gazette_archive/2000/200010/potomac/news/2687-1.html

In actuality, the exact opposite occurred - RM ended up bursting at the seams while Wootton is under-enrolled everywhere (to the point that Rachel Carson kids may now be bussed in to Dufief). Absent that original concern, Fallsgrove would never have been asked to endure the existing bus rides at the ES, MS and HS levels, let alone a longer one now being proposed at the ES level.

[Anonymous]

Were there any viable options that sent RP5 to CG or Beall though?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This whole thing where RP people want 7% FARMS is going to be the cause for them to become 40% FARMS. This is as stupid as CG3 believing they shapely stay with CG because they don’t feel like switching.

+1 Was going to post this exact thing.

-signed an RP parent

[Anonymous]

Someone please call the Associated Press ASAP. Show them how this thread as well.

[Anonymous]

I don’t think it’s true that most RP families want 7%. Rather, that is about the Fallsgrove community wanting to stay at RP and not add a few minutes to their commutes. I also don’t think there is a cohesive message coming from RP, which currently is populated by MANY communities. They don’t begin to agree. This boundary redraw should be an opportunity to apply reason and common sense and STOP having schools mixed up with all different neighborhoods going every which way. At least BOE 1 and 2 makes some sense when you look at the map.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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).

Some parents in working session said that RP5 would like to go to RM#5 if they have to change school when suggestion for moving RP5 to Beall or CG came. I thought that RP5 moving to Beall or CG was a good idea. It would reduce travel time for RP5 kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think it’s true that most RP families want 7%. Rather, that is about the Fallsgrove community wanting to stay at RP and not add a few minutes to their commutes. I also don’t think there is a cohesive message coming from RP, which currently is populated by MANY communities. They don’t begin to agree. This boundary redraw should be an opportunity to apply reason and common sense and STOP having schools mixed up with all different neighborhoods going every which way. At least BOE 1 and 2 makes some sense when you look at the map.

+1

[Anonymous]

Instead of raving on the Internet board , get organized like NM and Hungerford did, gather soke signatures and start horse trading.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think it’s true that most RP families want 7%. Rather, that is about the Fallsgrove community wanting to stay at RP and not add a few minutes to their commutes.

Adding few minutes is not a very strong counter point for net effect here. If you don't add few minutes then RP is reducing from 20% to 7% FARMs. I do see their point here, but I am trying to see it from all angles here.