Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries

[Anonymous]

alt B is by far the best option. so what if ritchie park has a 7 percent farms rate? its located in potomac essentially.

the fact of the matter is that forcing low income FARMS kids to go to a high performing school further away for the sake of balancing FARMS rates is not beneficial to them whatsoever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm a PP RP parent who stated that some parents at RP are NOT for that option, but rather simply against ANY option that makes the kids criss cross the cluster OR puts RP at 40% FARMS. Stop lumping us all together. Thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:alt B is by far the best option. so what if ritchie park has a 7 percent farms rate? its located in potomac essentially.

the fact of the matter is that forcing low income FARMS kids to go to a high performing school further away for the sake of balancing FARMS rates is not beneficial to them whatsoever.

I'm fine with Alt B. Last time that option was suggested the folks from CG3 were complaining about changing schools. Their reason? Because they don't want to. I think E is also a good choice as it balances FARMS rates more without actually adding any new zone to RP. More kids stay at the same school.

[Anonymous]

do you know what happens when you put FARMS kids whose parents are just trying to survive day to day and put food on the table in schools where you have kids who have private tutors and parents that work with them on their homework daily?

they fall further and further behind.

[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.

Everyone needs to get behind the Superintendent #3.

Why are RP2 and RP6 always together? Why can't RP2 walk to the new school that they are zoned for and RP6 get bussed to RP.

I will not support any measure that sends walkable kids to bus to another school just to increase FARMS in one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:do you know what happens when you put FARMS kids whose parents are just trying to survive day to day and put food on the table in schools where you have kids who have private tutors and parents that work with them on their homework daily?

they fall further and further behind.

The kids under Alt E are already attending RP so it would make no difference for them.

[Anonymous]

Supposedly, the vast majority of parents from the cluster who sat on the boundary study committee support Option B.

How is it different from what the Superintendent recommended last week?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm actually a B2 parent who posted this, going to #5 no matter what and happy about it. I think all of the options are pretty fair for RMES#5 now. I agree B and E are the best ... but B also has 7.5 FARMS rate at RP. What's best for RP2, RP6, and RP5. Do they want to stay at RP? Is RP2 better off going to a school they can walk to and is shared with their neighbors, even if that means losing diversity at RP. Have they assumed this whole time they'll get to go to the new school which is much closer? Are they gonna be pissed when they find out they still have to go to RP? Or do they like being part of the RP community?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:do you know what happens when you put FARMS kids whose parents are just trying to survive day to day and put food on the table in schools where you have kids who have private tutors and parents that work with them on their homework daily?

they fall further and further behind.

Actually, no, what happens is that they do better academically than low-income kids in high-poverty schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm actually a B2 parent who posted this, going to #5 no matter what and happy about it. I think all of the options are pretty fair for RMES#5 now. I agree B and E are the best ... but B also has 7.5 FARMS rate at RP. What's best for RP2, RP6, and RP5. Do they want to stay at RP? Is RP2 better off going to a school they can walk to and is shared with their neighbors, even if that means losing diversity at RP. Have they assumed this whole time they'll get to go to the new school which is much closer? Are they gonna be pissed when they find out they still have to go to RP? Or do they like being part of the RP community?

whats wrong with RP having a 7 percent farms rate?

i keep seeing people mention this as a negative and I dont understand.

[Anonymous]

RP are not pushing for 7% FARMS. We are wondering why walkable areas of RM5 are going to get bussed to RP for no other reason than to increase FARMS? So that means RP5 has to go even further and be more isolated or RP5 still moves and RP4 goes to Twinbrook.

We aren't pushing for low FARMS. We are pushing for our families to not be bussed and disrupted further when there are walkable areas being bussed to us.

There is a difference. I can guarantee if the board decided to move King Farm to RM5 and send a walkable neighborhood to them, they would have the same issue. So why can't Fallsgrove complain? Because they already have been bussed 20min so it's okay to pick them all up and bus them 25+min? All for FARMS rates. How is that fair.

It will be much easier for RP2 to be in a walkable neighborhood and around surrounding by neighbors that can help. Keeping that cut up section going to RP between 2 other ES just keeps their isolation going. They have a chance to be part of a community with other neighbors near them in their same school. No transportation issues for parents either.

It makes no sense to vote for any walkable area to get bussed to another school, especially if it moves kids out of their home school and busses them further, which it does in every option if RP2/6 stay in RP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:do you know what happens when you put FARMS kids whose parents are just trying to survive day to day and put food on the table in schools where you have kids who have private tutors and parents that work with them on their homework daily?

they fall further and further behind.

Actually, no, what happens is that they do better academically than low-income kids in high-poverty schools.

lets say you have two twins that grow up in a low income, immigrant household with no home support


one goes to twinbrook which is still a decent school and gets additional support because of their title 1 status
and one goes to ritchie park


who do you think is going to do better?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm actually a B2 parent who posted this, going to #5 no matter what and happy about it. I think all of the options are pretty fair for RMES#5 now. I agree B and E are the best ... but B also has 7.5 FARMS rate at RP. What's best for RP2, RP6, and RP5. Do they want to stay at RP? Is RP2 better off going to a school they can walk to and is shared with their neighbors, even if that means losing diversity at RP. Have they assumed this whole time they'll get to go to the new school which is much closer? Are they gonna be pissed when they find out they still have to go to RP? Or do they like being part of the RP community?

whats wrong with RP having a 7 percent farms rate?

i keep seeing people mention this as a negative and I dont understand.

It creates disparities in the cluster where you have one distinctly low-income school, Twinbrook, and one distinctly high-income school, RP, with three others that are more balanced. It doesn't affect outcomes at RP, but it does just sort of stratify students more as they move together into middle and high school. You may end up with more de facto social separation. Some RP parents may prefer that their kids are exposed to more socioeconomic diversity from an early age.

[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.

You must be a Hungerford person. It also lowers RMES from 26.1% TO 17.5% and keeps CG at 15.1%. I am not saying this is a terrible plan, but that the motivation for it isn't balance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 Board of Education determines cluster boundaries, when they deem it appropriate to do so.

Keep in mind that this whole almost-60-page thread is solely about re-zoning an area that previously had four elementary schools and now will have five. Now imagine rezoning an area with three high schools (Wootton, Churchill, Richard Montgomery), four middle schools (Cabin John, Frost, Hoover, Julius West) and sixteen elementary schools (Cold Spring, Stone Mill, Dufief, Fallsmead, Lakewood, Travilah, Bells Mills, Seven Locks, Beverly Farms, Potomac, Wayside, Beall, College Gardens, Ritchie Park, Twinbrook, RM ES #5). Is that a can of worms you want to open?