Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries

[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?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Gotta love option E.

Low income neighborhood gets a brand new school and does its best to makes sure the other poor walkable kids get bussed away, TB doesn't come near us, and we get the lowest 17% FARMS. In a low income neighborhood. LOL.

Hungerford Civic Association rocks!

Trolling with right information will work better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

It was the student. So does his vote not count? Not being snarky. I don't know the answer.

[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

Agree

Not sure why keeping walkable RP2 being bussed to RP for such a small difference in FARMS is even on the table. The bus issue is unreal. They cost to get more, bus more further, when there is a viable walking option seems insane.

[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%. 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.

Either way, it would still be nice to see how this change would look like. Most of the families in this area probably have figured out their transportation since it's not a walkable area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

It was the student. So does his vote not count? Not being snarky. I don't know the answer.

He is an idiot. We just wants to look PC back at BCC. He has no idea as a parent

[Anonymous]

Option E has a 17% FARMS for a school in a low income neighborhood that is closest to another school, also in a low income neighborhood that has 70%

Why are kids being moved around from TB to RM5.

Why are TB only options being bussed out to RP and CG - the furthest schools away?

[Anonymous]

I think all RP parents should make strong case for RP not getting anything higher than 7%. Argument circulated by RP PTA which states that entire neighborhood is low farm. We are in near Potomac and typical Rockville neighborhood, so let's be real here. PTA circulation even states that 7% is actually even higher than what RP neighborhood has so it's already getting fair share of poor kids. Let's try to talk to BOE here saying that 7% itself is a huge sacrifice by RP.

If anyone wants, I will draft letters and collect signatures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

It was the student. So does his vote not count? Not being snarky. I don't know the answer.

He is an idiot. We just wants to look PC back at BCC. He has no idea as a parent

His bio says he goes to Sherwood, but I agree that he has no idea as a parent.

[Anonymous]

We are in near Potomac and *not* a typical Rockville neighborhood

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

To be fair, Fallsgrove agreed to be zoned out of Wootton in 2000 for the express reason of helping RP avoid closure due to lack of enrollment. Just because Fallsgrove agreed to move away from its geographic neighborhood zone doesn't mean that its residents forfeit their right to care about being moved even further away.

As for all this talk about 7% being "unfair," this just reflects the fact that RP is located west of 270. There are dozens of nearby elementary clusters in Churchill and Wootton that have <5% FARMS rates. It is what it is.

To better distribute FARMS-eligible students so that they aren't congregated, why not bus them to ES zones within Churchill and Wootton? Then we'd actually close the achievement gap by distributing people across clusters and get them more demographically comparable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

It was the student. So does his vote not count? Not being snarky. I don't know the answer.

He is an idiot. We just wants to look PC back at BCC. He has no idea as a parent

I'm no fan of the SMOB. He seems quite arrogant.

Yesterday, some of the board members seemed very concerned about busing long distances and cross town. I was watching but not paying 100% attention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Why are TB only options being bussed out to RP and CG - the furthest schools away?

Because other side of 270 is virtually FARMs free.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Option E has a 17% FARMS for a school in a low income neighborhood that is closest to another school, also in a low income neighborhood that has 70%

Why are kids being moved around from TB to RM5.

Why are TB only options being bussed out to RP and CG - the furthest schools away?

Because the same TB kids will go to your middle and high school and you REALLY don't want them to fail. Your house value is determined by your high school performance an you want the cluster as a hole to succeed.

Give them the best possible start in life and you will benefit from it yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

It was the student. So does his vote not count? Not being snarky. I don't know the answer.

He is an idiot. We just wants to look PC back at BCC. He has no idea as a parent

I'm no fan of the SMOB. He seems quite arrogant.

Yesterday, some of the board members seemed very concerned about busing long distances and cross town. I was watching but not paying 100% attention.

does he have a vote in this matter? he shouldn't. he's a fucking kid. he has no clue (regardless of how smart he may be)