Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

At the meeting yesterday, they talked about meeting with the PTA President at Twinbrook and other neighborhood association leaders, trying to reach out to families personally at schools to hear input (not just from boundary study reps) and taking a bus tour of the entire cluster to get a better understanding of the geography and travel times for the proposed oprions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Yes, I think so. Keeping in mind that "caring what the communities think" = "doing what the communities want", and also keeping in mind that

1. the different communities think different things
2. different people in the different communities think different things
3. the people who show up to make their opinions known are not necessarily representative of their communities

It's not easy. I wouldn't want to be a BoE member having to make a decision.

[Anonymous]

^^^Whoops-- I meant: "caring what the communities think" does NOT equal "doing what the communities want".

[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.

Hungerford doesn't accept 40% because THEY would be at RP then and once again have TB kids going them.

Once the correct data did come out, why didn't the Hungerford civic association say they would accept the 29% and not have 20+ people in protest. It was crickets. They don't want to move out of RP. They want a bus because they don't want to walk to the new school. They don't want to go to school with kids from TB. The "we couldn't do anything" line they keep saying is BS. There entire association is why we are in this last minute scramble of a mess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The bolded above is not actually a problem. The BOE has shown a willingness to buss kids across the district. The Super's #3 is perfectly fine. I would suggest everyone get behind that and ask the BOE to adopt that one because otherwise, all this hand-ringing about closer zones is going to cause them to adopt a proposal that is bad for everyone.

[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.

Hungerford doesn't accept 40% because THEY would be at RP then and once again have TB kids going them.

Once the correct data did come out, why didn't the Hungerford civic association say they would accept the 29% and not have 20+ people in protest. It was crickets. They don't want to move out of RP. They want a bus because they don't want to walk to the new school. They don't want to go to school with kids from TB. The "we couldn't do anything" line they keep saying is BS. There entire association is why we are in this last minute scramble of a mess.

I don't understand your post. The Hungerford neighborhood is in Beall not RP2.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Hungerford doesn't accept 40% because THEY would be at RP then and once again have TB kids going them.

Once the correct data did come out, why didn't the Hungerford civic association say they would accept the 29% and not have 20+ people in protest. It was crickets. They don't want to move out of RP. They want a bus because they don't want to walk to the new school. They don't want to go to school with kids from TB. The "we couldn't do anything" line they keep saying is BS. There entire association is why we are in this last minute scramble of a mess.

I don't understand your post. The Hungerford neighborhood is in Beall not RP2.

Just ignore the troll

[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.

I am not saying that MCPS or BOE knew ahead of time what the result would be, but only that the process would be thrown away anyway with the BOE deciding on something different and without reference to the committee work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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%.

As an RP parent, and from my discussions with a couple of others, we are fine with any option that doesn't make kids criss cross the cluster over the Pike. So yes, we are fine with either of the options that makes RP with a FARMS rate of 25% or 7%. However, if they were to present an option that doesn't make kids criss cross the cluster but have RP and TB at 40%+ FARMS, while the others have less than 25%, no, we wouldn't be in favor of that either.

I totally understand how 7% FARMS at RP is unfair in terms of FARMS rate, but no one can seriously think that making RP and TB 40%+ FARMS is fair, right? For those who don't live in the RP/TB cluster but advocate for equitable FARMs across the cluster, I do hope you are as much against that proposal as you would be for the 7% FARMs option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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%.

As an RP parent, and from my discussions with a couple of others, we are fine with any option that doesn't make kids criss cross the cluster over the Pike. So yes, we are fine with either of the options that makes RP with a FARMS rate of 25% or 7%. However, if they were to present an option that doesn't make kids criss cross the cluster but have RP and TB at 40%+ FARMS, while the others have less than 25%, no, we wouldn't be in favor of that either.

I totally understand how 7% FARMS at RP is unfair in terms of FARMS rate, but no one can seriously think that making RP and TB 40%+ FARMS is fair, right? For those who don't live in the RP/TB cluster but advocate for equitable FARMs across the cluster, I do hope you are as much against that proposal as you would be for the 7% FARMs option.

Everyone needs to get behind the Superintendent #3.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

For my information who determines cluster boundaries and at what time? Maybe a civic campaign to elect the right officials to solve this mess is what's needed. This whole mess is about progressive ideas and "fixing" the natural order of school boundaries to promote diversity.

Does the Farifax county have similar issues?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

20 minutes bus ride is neither a problem for RP4 nor should be for RP5(Fallsgrove). Problem is all lower SES areas from TB taking many buses to go to different zones. We in RP have cars, most of us have 2 cars. Most TB parents have no car. If they miss their bus it means they can't even send their kids to school.

As far as Fallsgrove(RP5) being a pawn in this game is concerned, let's get one fact straight here. You bought your house in Fallsgrove knowing fully well that it was not connected to RP. No one from RP played any game to put Falls grove in RP.

There is only one question here. How much hardship it's going to cause RP5(Fallsgrove) kids to attend RM#5 instead of RP? What's the additional time kids will need to to reach to RM#5? Arguments should be presented based on facts and let's discuss the facts here.

- RP parent

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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%.

As an RP parent, and from my discussions with a couple of others, we are fine with any option that doesn't make kids criss cross the cluster over the Pike. So yes, we are fine with either of the options that makes RP with a FARMS rate of 25% or 7%. However, if they were to present an option that doesn't make kids criss cross the cluster but have RP and TB at 40%+ FARMS, while the others have less than 25%, no, we wouldn't be in favor of that either.

I totally understand how 7% FARMS at RP is unfair in terms of FARMS rate, but no one can seriously think that making RP and TB 40%+ FARMS is fair, right? For those who don't live in the RP/TB cluster but advocate for equitable FARMs across the cluster, I do hope you are as much against that proposal as you would be for the 7% FARMs option.

I'm hoping that I'm right in the assumption that most communities do not want to have 2 schools in our cluster to have very high FARMS rate. That was the whole reason why Hungerford came out when the Superintendent presented the proposal. The kids are all going to meet up at MS and HS so we should make sure that we start with the strong ES. I personally do not think the 40% to RP is fair( I'm not in RP), but 7% is also not right. So if RP can't support the SR3, then the group should tweak BOE#2 so you can have a reasonable FARMS rate, as well as neighboring schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

For my information who determines cluster boundaries and at what time? Maybe a civic campaign to elect the right officials to solve this mess is what's needed. This whole mess is about progressive ideas and "fixing" the natural order of school boundaries to promote diversity.

Does the Farifax county have similar issues?

The BOE determines boundaries in accordance with regulations dictating procedure and involvement from community. We do not have a BOE election in the next 12 days.

The issue of segregation is real. The solution is a real-estate solution, though, not a public school solution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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%.

As an RP parent, and from my discussions with a couple of others, we are fine with any option that doesn't make kids criss cross the cluster over the Pike. So yes, we are fine with either of the options that makes RP with a FARMS rate of 25% or 7%. However, if they were to present an option that doesn't make kids criss cross the cluster but have RP and TB at 40%+ FARMS, while the others have less than 25%, no, we wouldn't be in favor of that either.

I totally understand how 7% FARMS at RP is unfair in terms of FARMS rate, but no one can seriously think that making RP and TB 40%+ FARMS is fair, right? For those who don't live in the RP/TB cluster but advocate for equitable FARMs across the cluster, I do hope you are as much against that proposal as you would be for the 7% FARMs option.

I'm hoping that I'm right in the assumption that most communities do not want to have 2 schools in our cluster to have very high FARMS rate. That was the whole reason why Hungerford came out when the Superintendent presented the proposal. The kids are all going to meet up at MS and HS so we should make sure that we start with the strong ES. I personally do not think the 40% to RP is fair( I'm not in RP), but 7% is also not right. So if RP can't support the SR3, then the group should tweak BOE#2 so you can have a reasonable FARMS rate, as well as neighboring schools.

There is no known or reasonable tweak to BOE#2 that doesn't make it SR#3.