Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries

[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?

That's what I keep saying!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Was Fallsgrove ever zoned for Wootton? Or you are talking about advertisements by builders to sell houses ?

[Anonymous]

im not sure if this has been mentioned, but is the BOE disregarding fallsgrove because it would be a good candidate to be moved out of the cluster when/if crown high gets built?

[Anonymous]

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

O.M.G. There is not typical Rockville neighborhood, but Potomac Woods is not much different than College Gardens or Woodley Gardens, for example. SO WHAT?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Stop trolling. Nobody advocating for BOE #1 or #2 is doing so because they object to RP having a higher FARMS rate than 7%. They object to being sent to a school that is far away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:im not sure if this has been mentioned, but is the BOE disregarding fallsgrove because it would be a good candidate to be moved out of the cluster when/if crown high gets built?

LOL. Thanks for the levity.

[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

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

Given that he's in high school and doesn't have any children (as far as I know), of course he doesn't have any idea as a parent. That's not what he's there for anyway. He's there to represent the students.

Yes, his vote counts on school boundaries.

[Anonymous]

the families that llive around ritchie park have the resources to enable their kids to thrive in a higher-pressure, higher-standard, low farm environment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

This will backfire on RP.

--RP parent in higher income area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:im not sure if this has been mentioned, but is the BOE disregarding fallsgrove because it would be a good candidate to be moved out of the cluster when/if crown high gets built?

My be true or many be not true. We can't make decisions based on speculation. I personally agree with it, but still a speculation.

Why do you think that FallsGirve voice is being ignored. Present your case and let BOE decide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Was Fallsgrove ever zoned for Wootton? Or you are talking about advertisements by builders to sell houses ?

The land on which Fallsgrove sits was zoned for Wootton until 2000:
http://www.gazette.net/gazette_archive/2000/200010/potomac/news/2687-1.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Was Fallsgrove ever zoned for Wootton? Or you are talking about advertisements by builders to sell houses ?

I'm sure when it was farmland, it was zoned for Wootton then the developers agreed to have it zones for RP when they started building houses.

Fallsgrove was starting to be built around the year 2003 or so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Given that he's in high school and doesn't have any children (as far as I know), of course he doesn't have any idea as a parent. That's not what he's there for anyway. He's there to represent the students.

Yes, his vote counts on school boundaries.

yikes.

as looney as she is, judy docca had the best views on the matter. im paraphrasing, but she essentially said to stop focusing on equalizing farms rates and concentrate more on giving the lower-performing schools the resources that they need.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

This will backfire on RP.

--RP parent in higher income area.

This is a ridiculous position.

-RP parent, Potomac Woods resident

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Traveling from RP4 to Twinbrook ES in the morning is about 20 minutes. It is a 10-minute commute to get back to 270 where one would have begun from at 270. Maybe its a 25-minute net difference in travel--still significant!