Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries

[Anonymous]

Option E for me without a doubt. Anything else is a lunacy at this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I have a close relative that is a teacher in a high performing school with very few FARMS kids. They spend a lot of resources and time on those FARMS kids because its the right thing to do, but most of these kids are SO behind that the disparity between them and their classmates just grows larger and larger.

imagine being a kid that barely knows how to count in a class where other kids know how to add and subtract?

imagine being a kid that doesnt know their alphabet in a class where kids are reading books?

But, PP, we don't have to imagine. There is real actual data about this, from right here in Montgomery County. And the real actual data says that your imaginings are factually incorrect. Low-income kids in low-poverty schools do better academically than low-income kids in high-poverty schools. And, as I recall, this effect increases over time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Option E for me without a doubt. Anything else is a lunacy at this point.[/quote

disagree vehemently. option B is better. why is B lunacy? please dont say because RP has 7 percent FARMS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Option E for me without a doubt. Anything else is a lunacy at this point.

But why is Option B lunacy for you? Option E creates hardship for Fallsgrove students with having a slightly longer commute.

How does Fallsgrove feel about the two options? How do RP2 and RP6 feel? What do they prefer - B or E? At this point, they are the only opinions who matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I have a close relative that is a teacher in a high performing school with very few FARMS kids. They spend a lot of resources and time on those FARMS kids because its the right thing to do, but most of these kids are SO behind that the disparity between them and their classmates just grows larger and larger.

imagine being a kid that barely knows how to count in a class where other kids know how to add and subtract?

imagine being a kid that doesnt know their alphabet in a class where kids are reading books?

But, PP, we don't have to imagine. There is real actual data about this, from right here in Montgomery County. And the real actual data says that your imaginings are factually incorrect. Low-income kids in low-poverty schools do better academically than low-income kids in high-poverty schools. And, as I recall, this effect increases over time.

is the data directly applicable to this situation and these schools? not necessarily.

[Anonymous]

I'm in B1 and I'd be fine with Option B or E.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I have a close relative that is a teacher in a high performing school with very few FARMS kids. They spend a lot of resources and time on those FARMS kids because its the right thing to do, but most of these kids are SO behind that the disparity between them and their classmates just grows larger and larger.

imagine being a kid that barely knows how to count in a class where other kids know how to add and subtract?

imagine being a kid that doesnt know their alphabet in a class where kids are reading books?

But, PP, we don't have to imagine. There is real actual data about this, from right here in Montgomery County. And the real actual data says that your imaginings are factually incorrect. Low-income kids in low-poverty schools do better academically than low-income kids in high-poverty schools. And, as I recall, this effect increases over time.

is the data directly applicable to this situation and these schools? not necessarily.

Yes, it is. Read the study.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Option E for me without a doubt. Anything else is a lunacy at this point.

But why is Option B lunacy for you? Option E creates hardship for Fallsgrove students with having a slightly longer commute.

How does Fallsgrove feel about the two options? How do RP2 and RP6 feel? What do they prefer - B or E? At this point, they are the only opinions who matter.

I, fallsgrove resident, obivously prefer option B. RM#5 isnt that much further than RP in ideal conditions, but during traffic periods, its considerably worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That has not happened in MCPS and was mentioned in the meeting. There are more hardships for parents to get public transportation to make a school event and lessens the kids feeling part of the community. They can't be part of sports because the practices are too far away. They can't have play dates because the parents do not have transportation to go get them. All these issues were brought up by two board members yesterday who said balancing the FARMS would be a hardship for those isolated neighborhoods getting bussed.

It has happened in MCPS.

Incorrect. They blend in the scores. That is all it does. It looks better. The kids do not get the attention they need.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I have a close relative that is a teacher in a high performing school with very few FARMS kids. They spend a lot of resources and time on those FARMS kids because its the right thing to do, but most of these kids are SO behind that the disparity between them and their classmates just grows larger and larger.

imagine being a kid that barely knows how to count in a class where other kids know how to add and subtract?

imagine being a kid that doesnt know their alphabet in a class where kids are reading books?

But, PP, we don't have to imagine. There is real actual data about this, from right here in Montgomery County. And the real actual data says that your imaginings are factually incorrect. Low-income kids in low-poverty schools do better academically than low-income kids in high-poverty schools. And, as I recall, this effect increases over time.

is the data directly applicable to this situation and these schools? not necessarily.

It's directly applicable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That has not happened in MCPS and was mentioned in the meeting. There are more hardships for parents to get public transportation to make a school event and lessens the kids feeling part of the community. They can't be part of sports because the practices are too far away. They can't have play dates because the parents do not have transportation to go get them. All these issues were brought up by two board members yesterday who said balancing the FARMS would be a hardship for those isolated neighborhoods getting bussed.

It has happened in MCPS.

Incorrect. They blend in the scores. That is all it does. It looks better. The kids do not get the attention they need.

Please read the study.

https://tcf.org/assets/downloads/tcf-Schwartz.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That has not happened in MCPS and was mentioned in the meeting. There are more hardships for parents to get public transportation to make a school event and lessens the kids feeling part of the community. They can't be part of sports because the practices are too far away. They can't have play dates because the parents do not have transportation to go get them. All these issues were brought up by two board members yesterday who said balancing the FARMS would be a hardship for those isolated neighborhoods getting bussed.

It has happened in MCPS.

Incorrect. They blend in the scores. That is all it does. It looks better. The kids do not get the attention they need.

You are misinformed here. Read the study.

[Anonymous]

If you listened to the Board discussion yesterday, you know at least one member said he would not vote for an option that doesn't attempt to reduce FARMs at Twinbrook, which means either C or D for him. I know I see a lot of people here describing what Twinbrook wants, but it seems they haven't got much direct input from Twinbrook.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you listened to the Board discussion yesterday, you know at least one member said he would not vote for an option that doesn't attempt to reduce FARMs at Twinbrook, which means either C or D for him. I know I see a lot of people here describing what Twinbrook wants, but it seems they haven't got much direct input from Twinbrook.

I didn't catch that. There are only two male board members, and on one has a vote that counts. Who was it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Option E for me without a doubt. Anything else is a lunacy at this point.

Wait so we are okay with leaving TB at 70% so long as RP doesn't have 7%. And it is okay to bus walkable kids out of RM#5 and decrease their FARMS to 17% while bussing kids further to raise RP's FAEMS.

RP consistently gets screwed.