Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

No one asked for 7% FARMS. The first 8 projections showed us in the teens at the lowest and always moving RP2/6 since they were the closest and walkable to RM5. The newest sets just came out. RP5 doesn't understand why they have to move further while a walkable neighborhood to RM5 gets bussed to RP. RP4 doesn't understand why they have to move away from a school across the street, literally a minute from them to Twinbrook Elementary. They were never even mentioned in the first 8 options. But now because Hungerford civic association didn't want 29% FARMS at RM#5, the BOE completely throws away months of studying for one civic complaint, quickly comes up with 3 new options and now everyone is okay with increasing RP to 25 or 40% FARMS? Was there money exchanged because it doesn't make sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

No one asked for 7% FARMS. The first 8 projections showed us in the teens at the lowest and always moving RP2/6 since they were the closest and walkable to RM5. The newest sets just came out. RP5 doesn't understand why they have to move further while a walkable neighborhood to RM5 gets bussed to RP. RP4 doesn't understand why they have to move away from a school across the street, literally a minute from them to Twinbrook Elementary. They were never even mentioned in the first 8 options. But now because Hungerford civic association didn't want 29% FARMS at RM#5, the BOE completely throws away months of studying for one civic complaint, quickly comes up with 3 new options and now everyone is okay with increasing RP to 25 or 40% FARMS? Was there money exchanged because it doesn't make sense.

Pls check your numbers and try again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

RP was pulled into this cluster from Wootton to help RM terrible FARMS rates. We have been rezoned twice since then to keep adding FARMS. So now our reward is the neighborhoods now get pulled and yanked the most, to make sure we have FARMS similar to downtown Rockville or in even one option, the absolute highest in the cluster now?? Sorry. Not apologizing for the 7% FARMS. That is higher than any other local school around us.

I know that a lot of people believe this, but the media reports at the time say otherwise: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1987/06/05/busing-ruling-saddens-ritchie-park-parents/cc3b67e6-b596-4247-ba3d-b4c076d37de8/?utm_term=.4678027d0651

Ritchie Park went to Richard Montgomery because Richard Montgomery enrollments were down and projected to drop further, while Wootton was over capacity.

Also, this happened in 1987. To repeat, 1987. What were you doing in 1987? In June 1987, I had just finished my sophomore year of college. And my youngest child started middle school this year, so if you have a child in elementary school, you're probably younger than I am.

The point is that RP is not near the typical parts of the RM cluster, especially the FARMS areas. The single family no-FARMS school was added to the RM cluster. They were way off the perimeter and parts are actually Potomac residents. They could have moved Fallsmeade or Maryvale which were closer to RM but they chose RP. It was an attempt to balance. Fine. But now the continued reazoning of our school (this will be the 4th time since we moved to RM) and now this new attempt to move those close/walkable to RP out to Twinbrook and keep a complete walkable area of RP2 not going to RM5 just to increase FARMS over 40% is terrible. It is not community friendly, it is not environmentally friendly, and it feels like a calculated agenda to prove something. Like RP needs to apologize for having surrounding neighborhoods that do not have FARMS and continue this blotchy zoning.

Superintendent's Recommendation #3 ( November 13, 2017) puts RP at 24%. In that option , RP doesn't have a rich zone like RP5, but a poor zone like RP2. Right now both zones attend RP. Parts of RP2 is walk able to the new school and parts of RP2 is not walk able to the new school.

Why all of RP is not getting behind this option? I know that some of you want 7% FARMs and want to look similar to other schools near by, but we are in RM cluster with a much higher average FARMs rate than clusters like Churchill.

The entire RP2 is walkable. The entire area.

It takes about 15-20 minutes for an adult , more for a child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

No one asked for 7% FARMS. The first 8 projections showed us in the teens at the lowest and always moving RP2/6 since they were the closest and walkable to RM5. The newest sets just came out. RP5 doesn't understand why they have to move further while a walkable neighborhood to RM5 gets bussed to RP. RP4 doesn't understand why they have to move away from a school across the street, literally a minute from them to Twinbrook Elementary. They were never even mentioned in the first 8 options. But now because Hungerford civic association didn't want 29% FARMS at RM#5, the BOE completely throws away months of studying for one civic complaint, quickly comes up with 3 new options and now everyone is okay with increasing RP to 25 or 40% FARMS? Was there money exchanged because it doesn't make sense.

It will help you have your facts straight.

Even earlier two options had RP2 and RP6 attending RP and Fallsgrove area moving to RM#5.

If RP5 doesn't understand why it should bus for 2-3 minutes extra then RP5 should read Super's report carefully. It's explained there.

Now why are you not OK with 24% FARMs in RP? Do you think that 24% is too high?

Before accusing anyone for money exchange, please educate yourself. Take some time and read reports.

If nothing works then carry a banner to say "24% FARMs is fine for all other schools in RM, but not fine for me."


- RP Parent

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

No one asked for 7% FARMS. The first 8 projections showed us in the teens at the lowest and always moving RP2/6 since they were the closest and walkable to RM5. The newest sets just came out. RP5 doesn't understand why they have to move further while a walkable neighborhood to RM5 gets bussed to RP. RP4 doesn't understand why they have to move away from a school across the street, literally a minute from them to Twinbrook Elementary. They were never even mentioned in the first 8 options. But now because Hungerford civic association didn't want 29% FARMS at RM#5, the BOE completely throws away months of studying for one civic complaint, quickly comes up with 3 new options and now everyone is okay with increasing RP to 25 or 40% FARMS? Was there money exchanged because it doesn't make sense.

It will help you have your facts straight.

Even earlier two options had RP2 and RP6 attending RP and Fallsgrove area moving to RM#5.

If RP5 doesn't understand why it should bus for 2-3 minutes extra then RP5 should read Super's report carefully. It's explained there.

Now why are you not OK with 24% FARMs in RP? Do you think that 24% is too high?

Before accusing anyone for money exchange, please educate yourself. Take some time and read reports.

If nothing works then carry a banner to say "24% FARMs is fine for all other schools in RM, but not fine for me."


- RP Parent

RP going from 20 to 24 is not much. After looking them over, I’d say the Superintendent #3 is the best choice.

[Anonymous]

Stop trolling Hungerford. They never raised an issue with 29% as that corrected data came out afterward and the Superintendent withdrew that option so it cannot even be considered. They don't support the option for 40% at RP for the same reason. It's an imbalance of kids from lower income households when very relevant studies show they have better outcomes when not concentrated together.

[Anonymous]

MCPS should be updating their website with the 5 options they put forward yesterday. They said they'd relabel them for less confusion on the titles.

Please email BOE with your thoughts on the options. If you are concerned about long bus rides, be sure to mention both time and higher costs of transportation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Stop trolling Hungerford. They never raised an issue with 29% as that corrected data came out afterward and the Superintendent withdrew that option so it cannot even be considered. They don't support the option for 40% at RP for the same reason. It's an imbalance of kids from lower income households when very relevant studies show they have better outcomes when not concentrated together.

RP is currently in 20-25% FARMS. I don't support an option which changes it to either 40% or 7%.


I do support an option which keeps RP in 20-25% range .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

No one asked for 7% FARMS. The first 8 projections showed us in the teens at the lowest and always moving RP2/6 since they were the closest and walkable to RM5. The newest sets just came out. RP5 doesn't understand why they have to move further while a walkable neighborhood to RM5 gets bussed to RP. RP4 doesn't understand why they have to move away from a school across the street, literally a minute from them to Twinbrook Elementary. They were never even mentioned in the first 8 options. But now because Hungerford civic association didn't want 29% FARMS at RM#5, the BOE completely throws away months of studying for one civic complaint, quickly comes up with 3 new options and now everyone is okay with increasing RP to 25 or 40% FARMS? Was there money exchanged because it doesn't make sense.

It will help you have your facts straight.

Even earlier two options had RP2 and RP6 attending RP and Fallsgrove area moving to RM#5.

If RP5 doesn't understand why it should bus for 2-3 minutes extra then RP5 should read Super's report carefully. It's explained there.

Now why are you not OK with 24% FARMs in RP? Do you think that 24% is too high?

Before accusing anyone for money exchange, please educate yourself. Take some time and read reports.

If nothing works then carry a banner to say "24% FARMs is fine for all other schools in RM, but not fine for me."


- RP Parent

So a 20 minute bus ride is too long for children in RP4 to get to Twinbrook for the sake of balancing out FARMS rates and maintaining diversity levels across cluster schools, but the kids and parents in RP5 should just deal with it. Got it. RP5 has already been bussed farther than it should for years for the sake of balancing out socioeconomic levels in the RM cluster. They shouldn't continue to be used as pawns in this game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Stop trolling Hungerford. They never raised an issue with 29% as that corrected data came out afterward and the Superintendent withdrew that option so it cannot even be considered. They don't support the option for 40% at RP for the same reason. It's an imbalance of kids from lower income households when very relevant studies show they have better outcomes when not concentrated together.

No one is trolling anyone. The BOE is not going to allow RP to be 7%. You need to accept that fact. That means your FARMS rate will either be 24% (which is about what it currently is) or 40%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
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.)

Given that this isn't going to happen, there doesn't seem to be much point in bringing it up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My favorite thing is the time line:

for one entire year, we all got together and poured through options. Then the superintendent makes a recommendation based on new conditions, invalidating all the work that everybody did for a year. Then a miscalculation is found, invalidating the superintendent's recommendation. The board pulls 3 options together out of their rear ends, and the superintendent barf's up 2 more options to prioritize a factor based on board resolution.

Why did we even waste our time? This cake has been prebaked. Somebody needs to slap the BOE members in the face.

One could certainly conclude from your timeline that the process is a mess. But I don't understand how one could conclude from your timeline that MCPS/BoE knew from the outset what the result would be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stop trolling Hungerford. They never raised an issue with 29% as that corrected data came out afterward and the Superintendent withdrew that option so it cannot even be considered. They don't support the option for 40% at RP for the same reason. It's an imbalance of kids from lower income households when very relevant studies show they have better outcomes when not concentrated together.

No one is trolling anyone. The BOE is not going to allow RP to be 7%. You need to accept that fact. That means your FARMS rate will either be 24% (which is about what it currently is) or 40%.

No one at Ritchie Park is actively trying to keep the FARMS rate low. The problem is in the zones that have been proposed to move are not the logical ones geographically. Once the zones were fixed, logical neighborhoods to move to balance out diversity among schools were off the table. For example - Park Potomac and Falls Ridge - both are close to the new school (much closer than Fallsgrove) would help balance out diversity levels, but they were lumped in with RP3 - Potomac Woods which claims to be walkable to RP (not sure why that matters anymore since we are now moving walk zones at other schools) so have never been considered. We could trade RP3 for RP2 & 6 (RP6 is also higher income, btw) and have a 24% FARMS rate at Ritchie Park, but no one is suggesting that. RP could even send RP3, RP2 and RP6 to the new school and still wind up with a higher FARMS rate at the school because FAllsgrove also includes low income units/housing vouchers from Rockville Enterprises. The problem is sending the farthest zone to the new school. Painting people as racist or anti-diversity because they don't want their child to have a long bus ride and want to feel connected to their school isn't helpful and also isn't true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My favorite thing is the time line:

for one entire year, we all got together and poured through options. Then the superintendent makes a recommendation based on new conditions, invalidating all the work that everybody did for a year. Then a miscalculation is found, invalidating the superintendent's recommendation. The board pulls 3 options together out of their rear ends, and the superintendent barf's up 2 more options to prioritize a factor based on board resolution.

Why did we even waste our time? This cake has been prebaked. Somebody needs to slap the BOE members in the face.

One could certainly conclude from your timeline that the process is a mess. But I don't understand how one could conclude from your timeline that MCPS/BoE knew from the outset what the result would be.

Not PP, but my question since this process started is do the decision makers care what the communities think? Or do they just want to be able to say that they had a process to engage the community?

[Anonymous]

Out of curiosity, to RPs who are not advocating Superintendent's Recommendation #3(SR3), would you be advocating for BOE #2? If so, will you be advocating for it as is or provide a suggestion to make FARMS around 20%. I understand the angst from the RP5, but right now, these 2 are the only ones that seem to make sense from most of the communities, and 7% FARMS does not seem right, nor is 40%.