Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries

[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.

PP RP parent here... from what I have heard, there are some parents especially in the Fallsgrove area who care more about proximity than equitable FARMS, not all, but some. There seems to be a split in the RP community about which option is best.

The other issue with this kind of criss crossing is the traffic congestion, which would add to the longer bus rides. Some parents drop their kids off at school for one reason or another, so there would be more cars as well as buses on the roads criss crossing the cluster. Terrible idea.

[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.

No one in RM cluster should support making RP 40% FARMs and crisscrossing kids all around. I am fully against it. I am also against reducing RP from 20-25% to 7%.

That's why we all should rally behind Superintendent's Recommendation #3 (Pursuant to Board Adopted Resolution). That doesn't change current FARMs rate of RP and keeps it in 20-25% range.


That's a great option and everyone from RP and outside RP should get behind it. It also avoids crisscrossing kids all around.

- Not a RP/TB parent

[Anonymous]

Looks like the labels on the options were updated to reduce confusion. Labeled A to E now.

http://gis.mcpsmd.org/boundarystudypdfs/RMES5_UpdatedBOEAlternativesAE111417.pdf

Hopefully, most people are good with Alt E - leaves TB at 70% FARMS and keeps title 1 status; RP at 24% FARMS. It's also the option that keeps as much of the "community" feel as possible while having equitable FARMS across the four ESs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Looks like the labels on the options were updated to reduce confusion. Labeled A to E now.

http://gis.mcpsmd.org/boundarystudypdfs/RMES5_UpdatedBOEAlternativesAE111417.pdf

Hopefully, most people are good with Alt E - leaves TB at 70% FARMS and keeps title 1 status; RP at 24% FARMS. It's also the option that keeps as much of the "community" feel as possible while having equitable FARMS across the four ESs.

I'll just add that Alt E has RP with the next highest FARMs rate even at about 24%. CG and ES#5 would have less than 20% FARMS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Looks like the labels on the options were updated to reduce confusion. Labeled A to E now.

http://gis.mcpsmd.org/boundarystudypdfs/RMES5_UpdatedBOEAlternativesAE111417.pdf

Hopefully, most people are good with Alt E - leaves TB at 70% FARMS and keeps title 1 status; RP at 24% FARMS. It's also the option that keeps as much of the "community" feel as possible while having equitable FARMS across the four ESs.

Wish they would put up an online poll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

PP RP parent here... from what I have heard, there are some parents especially in the Fallsgrove area who care more about proximity than equitable FARMS, not all, but some. There seems to be a split in the RP community about which option is best.

The other issue with this kind of criss crossing is the traffic congestion, which would add to the longer bus rides. Some parents drop their kids off at school for one reason or another, so there would be more cars as well as buses on the roads criss crossing the cluster. Terrible idea.

Criss crossing is a bad idea and I don't think that anyone likes it. What's the opposition for Superintendent's Recommendation #3 (Pursuant to Board Adopted Resolution) ? I do see that Falls grove will have couple of minutes of longer bus ride, but I don't see any other negative for Fallsgrove. Fallsgrove kids may actually like the new facilities. Anyway, there is no perfect solution here. All parents can never be made happy with any solution. RP needs to pick the one with least objection from entire cluster.

No one in cluster likes to see one school dropping from 20-25% FARMs to 7%. No one in cluster likes criss crossing as well. That means Superintendent's Recommendation #3 (Pursuant to Board Adopted Resolution) is the best idea on table we all should get behind. Otherwise RP can propose something better.

[Anonymous]

New sheet was released.
http://gis.mcpsmd.org/boundarystudypdfs/RMES5_UpdatedBOEAlternativesAE111417.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like the labels on the options were updated to reduce confusion. Labeled A to E now.

http://gis.mcpsmd.org/boundarystudypdfs/RMES5_UpdatedBOEAlternativesAE111417.pdf

Hopefully, most people are good with Alt E - leaves TB at 70% FARMS and keeps title 1 status; RP at 24% FARMS. It's also the option that keeps as much of the "community" feel as possible while having equitable FARMS across the four ESs.

I'll just add that Alt E has RP with the next highest FARMs rate even at about 24%. CG and ES#5 would have less than 20% FARMS.

I personally hope option A is chosen. FWIW I'm not an RP parent, the FARMs rate is actually higher at my school with Option A than it would be with option E, but I value school community/ neighborhood cohesiveness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Looks like the labels on the options were updated to reduce confusion. Labeled A to E now.

http://gis.mcpsmd.org/boundarystudypdfs/RMES5_UpdatedBOEAlternativesAE111417.pdf

Hopefully, most people are good with Alt E - leaves TB at 70% FARMS and keeps title 1 status; RP at 24% FARMS. It's also the option that keeps as much of the "community" feel as possible while having equitable FARMS across the four ESs.

Thanks for posting it here.


RP is currently in 20-25% FARMs

Alternative E keep RP in 20-25% FARMs

Alternative E avoids criss crossing

Alternative E avoid TB losing title 1


Looks pretty good to me. If RP has a better alternative to equitably distribute FARMs without criss crossing the please suggest and propose it to BOE. I don't think that we can do much with TB here, but alternative E doe sthe best job of distributing FARMs without creating any huge hardship for anyone. It's not perfect for everyone, but that's not even possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Looks like the labels on the options were updated to reduce confusion. Labeled A to E now.

http://gis.mcpsmd.org/boundarystudypdfs/RMES5_UpdatedBOEAlternativesAE111417.pdf

Hopefully, most people are good with Alt E - leaves TB at 70% FARMS and keeps title 1 status; RP at 24% FARMS. It's also the option that keeps as much of the "community" feel as possible while having equitable FARMS across the four ESs.

fallsgrove parents having to go to RMes#5 in the evening rush hour for events= ugh

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like the labels on the options were updated to reduce confusion. Labeled A to E now.

http://gis.mcpsmd.org/boundarystudypdfs/RMES5_UpdatedBOEAlternativesAE111417.pdf

Hopefully, most people are good with Alt E - leaves TB at 70% FARMS and keeps title 1 status; RP at 24% FARMS. It's also the option that keeps as much of the "community" feel as possible while having equitable FARMS across the four ESs.

Thanks for posting it here.


RP is currently in 20-25% FARMs

Alternative E keep RP in 20-25% FARMs

Alternative E avoids criss crossing

Alternative E avoid TB losing title 1


Looks pretty good to me. If RP has a better alternative to equitably distribute FARMs without criss crossing the please suggest and propose it to BOE. I don't think that we can do much with TB here, but alternative E doe sthe best job of distributing FARMs without creating any huge hardship for anyone. It's not perfect for everyone, but that's not even possible.

thats a long bus ride for the fallsgrove kids

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like the labels on the options were updated to reduce confusion. Labeled A to E now.

http://gis.mcpsmd.org/boundarystudypdfs/RMES5_UpdatedBOEAlternativesAE111417.pdf

Hopefully, most people are good with Alt E - leaves TB at 70% FARMS and keeps title 1 status; RP at 24% FARMS. It's also the option that keeps as much of the "community" feel as possible while having equitable FARMS across the four ESs.

fallsgrove parents having to go to RMes#5 in the evening rush hour for events= ugh

Well guess what, when there is no consensus they will chose Alt C and everyone will hate it.

[Anonymous]

Has anyone heard from RP2 parents as to whether they prefer going to the new school vs staying at Ritchie Park? It illustrates the issue the Board was struggling with -- is sending low-income students to a further school to promote diversity worth losing the advantages of proximity/community. It was the "well if a high FARMS rate is worse for outcomes, why aren't we breaking up Twinbrook" debate.

The fact is that while a low FARMS rate, i.e. 7% at RP, is an unfortunate lack of low-SES diversity, it doesn't have an actual harmful impact on student performance. Whereas avoiding concentrating HIGH FARMS rates does improve outcomes for everyone. The lower-income households need what's best for them, not to simply be a pawn in diversity-chess.

Maybe what's best for them is to stay at RP#5 where they have the advantages of proximity/community AND are still at a school with a reasonable threshold, like in Option A or B.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone heard from RP2 parents as to whether they prefer going to the new school vs staying at Ritchie Park? It illustrates the issue the Board was struggling with -- is sending low-income students to a further school to promote diversity worth losing the advantages of proximity/community. It was the "well if a high FARMS rate is worse for outcomes, why aren't we breaking up Twinbrook" debate.

The fact is that while a low FARMS rate, i.e. 7% at RP, is an unfortunate lack of low-SES diversity, it doesn't have an actual harmful impact on student performance. Whereas avoiding concentrating HIGH FARMS rates does improve outcomes for everyone. The lower-income households need what's best for them, not to simply be a pawn in diversity-chess.

Maybe what's best for them is to stay at RP#5 where they have the advantages of proximity/community AND are still at a school with a reasonable threshold, like in Option A or B.

ES#5, rather, not RP#5.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone heard from RP2 parents as to whether they prefer going to the new school vs staying at Ritchie Park? It illustrates the issue the Board was struggling with -- is sending low-income students to a further school to promote diversity worth losing the advantages of proximity/community. It was the "well if a high FARMS rate is worse for outcomes, why aren't we breaking up Twinbrook" debate.

The fact is that while a low FARMS rate, i.e. 7% at RP, is an unfortunate lack of low-SES diversity, it doesn't have an actual harmful impact on student performance. Whereas avoiding concentrating HIGH FARMS rates does improve outcomes for everyone. The lower-income households need what's best for them, not to simply be a pawn in diversity-chess.

Maybe what's best for them is to stay at RP#5 where they have the advantages of proximity/community AND are still at a school with a reasonable threshold, like in Option A or B.

ES#5, rather, not RP#5.

RP people sure are pushing for that 7.5% FARMS number. The BOE isn't going to go with Alt A because ES5 will have nearly 30% FARMS while RP has 7.5% and CG doesn't have enough room to grow. The best options here are Alt B and Alt E.