Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries

[Anonymous]

Given that TB will face lots of hardship, I see no huge hardship with option E here which leaves TB untouched.

Most zones should get behind this option. Not an ideal, but the best outcome for entire cluster.

This keeps RP at current FARMs level 20-25% and avoids any criss crossing.

- RP parent

[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.

Well whose issue is that? The incompetent board. The fact they even mentioned they haven't heard much speaks volumes of a complete waste of a year of these boundary studies.

[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.

They've definitely struggled with getting input from Twinbrook itself, which is a shame. But is there any evidence that reducing the FARMs rate at Twinbrook to 44.3% (option C) or 52.8% (option D) while still leaving a pretty high ESOL rates is really going to improve outcomes at that school? Particularly when it means losing their Title 1 funding?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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%.

It's not ok to leave TB at 70%. Only reason it should be left untouched is because TB families will face lots of hardship if they are moved. Most of them them don't own cars.

Try to see from other perspectives and not just focus on your RP FARMs rate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I for one would like to see option B but with either T5 or T2 or just a portion of these areas going to RP. I would be interested to see how FARMS and capacity is affected in RP and TB. They have indicated yesterday that T2 and T5 are not walkable zones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

You can watch the discussion here:
http://www.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=APLRZS6EBB72#

skip to part 14.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They've definitely struggled with getting input from Twinbrook itself, which is a shame. But is there any evidence that reducing the FARMs rate at Twinbrook to 44.3% (option C) or 52.8% (option D) while still leaving a pretty high ESOL rates is really going to improve outcomes at that school? Particularly when it means losing their Title 1 funding?

theyve struggled with getting input from twinbrook because most families from twinbrook are concerned with how they are going to keep their electricity on and feed their children.. not some boundary study for a new elementary school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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%.

It's not ok to leave TB at 70%. Only reason it should be left untouched is because TB families will face lots of hardship if they are moved. Most of them them don't own cars.

Try to see from other perspectives and not just focus on your RP FARMs rate.

I'm not focused on a specific FARMS rate. I am an RP parent who doesn't want to spend 30 more minutes a day to drop off and pick up a child in before- and aftercare programs. I don't want to be completely isolated from our elementary community. I don't want anybody to be completely isolated from their elementary communities.

[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.

The question of FARMS has been raised by Hungerford Civic ( rightfully or not ). By backing an option that gives us 7% is making the argument worse and alienates the board and all other communities in the cluster. Do what you will , my vote is with E.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

You can watch the discussion here:
http://www.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=APLRZS6EBB72#

skip to part 14.

I watched a lot of it, but I don't have time to rewatch the entire thing now just to catch 1 sentence. Who was it that said that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Given that TB will face lots of hardship, I see no huge hardship with option E here which leaves TB untouched.

Most zones should get behind this option. Not an ideal, but the best outcome for entire cluster.

This keeps RP at current FARMs level 20-25% and avoids any criss crossing.

- RP parent

It keeps RP2 which is walkable to RM5 bussed to RP and spliced between 2 other school boundaries.

It furthers the drive for RP2

Both of these are costlier and it saves about a flip of 13%!for or against RM to RP. I vote for the most environmentally and community friendly as this change in FARMS is not that drastic. Option B

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The entire cluster gets screwed so RM5 can have 17% FARMs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given that TB will face lots of hardship, I see no huge hardship with option E here which leaves TB untouched.

Most zones should get behind this option. Not an ideal, but the best outcome for entire cluster.

This keeps RP at current FARMs level 20-25% and avoids any criss crossing.

- RP parent

It keeps RP2 which is walkable to RM5 bussed to RP and spliced between 2 other school boundaries.

It furthers the drive for RP2

Both of these are costlier and it saves about a flip of 13%!for or against RM to RP. I vote for the most environmentally and community friendly as this change in FARMS is not that drastic. Option B

And it furthers the drive for RP5 who will have go further than they already do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I for one would like to see option B but with either T5 or T2 or just a portion of these areas going to RP. I would be interested to see how FARMS and capacity is affected in RP and TB. They have indicated yesterday that T2 and T5 are not walkable zones.

I have been thinking the same thing. But I worry about the hardship to those families (though why don't we worry about the hardship to low income RP2 families). And it is also hard to know when we don't have the # data for the individual segments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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%.

It's not ok to leave TB at 70%. Only reason it should be left untouched is because TB families will face lots of hardship if they are moved. Most of them them don't own cars.

Try to see from other perspectives and not just focus on your RP FARMs rate.

I'm not focused on a specific FARMS rate. I am an RP parent who doesn't want to spend 30 more minutes a day to drop off and pick up a child in before- and aftercare programs. I don't want to be completely isolated from our elementary community. I don't want anybody to be completely isolated from their elementary communities.

I don't think that anyone has advocated for 30 additional minutes travel for anyone. If you have that situation then present your case. Where are you and in which option it makes your travel 30 additional minutes?