Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries

[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.

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.

Well, it's RP PTA letter which says that. Do you want me to post it here?

Do you think PTA circulation was a troll circulation? if that's true then you should quickly get rid of current PTA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Well, it's RP PTA letter which says that. Do you want me to post it here?

Do you think PTA circulation was a troll circulation? if that's true then you should quickly get rid of current PTA.

please post the letter. id like to see it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Well, it's RP PTA letter which says that. Do you want me to post it here?

Do you think PTA circulation was a troll circulation? if that's true then you should quickly get rid of current PTA.

I'm not referring to the RP PTA letter; I'm referring to you being a troll and misrepresenting what RP residents are saying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Well, it's RP PTA letter which says that. Do you want me to post it here?

Do you think PTA circulation was a troll circulation? if that's true then you should quickly get rid of current PTA.

I'm not referring to the RP PTA letter; I'm referring to you being a troll and misrepresenting what RP residents are saying.

I am not the PP here. You don't see anything wrong with RP PTA taking such position, but you think similar message is trolling when some one else says it? RP PTA is there to represent RP residents position.

[Anonymous]

Anybody know if the county already has any kind of lottery system where kids who are performing poorly at their assigned school can take a spot at any of the other underenrolled schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Well, it's RP PTA letter which says that. Do you want me to post it here?

Do you think PTA circulation was a troll circulation? if that's true then you should quickly get rid of current PTA.

Do you mean the PTA email that was sent out yesterday 11/14? Here's the part that i think you are referring to:

"BOE Alt #2, Ritchie Park will still have a greater FARMS than all surrounding schools and to increase that by forcing RP2 out of their neighborhood and busing RP5 past another elementary school isn't fair to anyone.)"

I suppose you could read it the way you wrote, but what I read is that RP is reflective of its surrounding neighborhood, yet still has a higher FARMs rate than Cold Spring, Fallsmead or Beverly Farms ESs - the surrounding ES to RP. Though I am not necessarily in favor of the options to have RP with only a 7% FARMs rate, what the PTA wrote is not wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anybody know if the county already has any kind of lottery system where kids who are performing poorly at their assigned school can take a spot at any of the other underenrolled schools?

That's not a bad idea. Once schools are under capacity why not open the remaning slots to lottery?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Well, it's RP PTA letter which says that. Do you want me to post it here?

Do you think PTA circulation was a troll circulation? if that's true then you should quickly get rid of current PTA.

I'm not referring to the RP PTA letter; I'm referring to you being a troll and misrepresenting what RP residents are saying.

I am not the PP here. You don't see anything wrong with RP PTA taking such position, but you think similar message is trolling when some one else says it? RP PTA is there to represent RP residents position.

I'd like to see the letter too. I am in the RP PTA and didn't get a letter. I did see a Facebook post written by one parent yesterday on the PTA page advocating for that option (I believe a Fallsgrove parent). But it was taken down from the PTA page shortly after with a new message urging all to let the BOE know their views, whatever they are.

[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.

I guess they expanded it for that. A person with no experience relevant to such education policy really shouldn't have a vote with such impact. I assume nothing needs to be unanimous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:


I guess they expanded it for that. A person with no experience relevant to such education policy really shouldn't have a vote with such impact. I assume nothing needs to be unanimous.

The student member of the board has a vote on everything except personnel, as I understand it.

Also, having experience relevant to education policy isn't a requirement for any member of the Board of Education. (Being a parent also isn't a requirement.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Well, it's RP PTA letter which says that. Do you want me to post it here?

Do you think PTA circulation was a troll circulation? if that's true then you should quickly get rid of current PTA.

I'm not referring to the RP PTA letter; I'm referring to you being a troll and misrepresenting what RP residents are saying.

I am not the PP here. You don't see anything wrong with RP PTA taking such position, but you think similar message is trolling when some one else says it? RP PTA is there to represent RP residents position.

The RP PTA isn't taking the position that a FARMS rate above 7% is objectionable. They are pointing out that the reason the FARMS rate comes in at that percentage when you organize the cluster by geography is that the FARMS students are disproportionately coming from the areas near 355. Their point is that nearby ES schools zones are actually lower FARMS than 7%.

In other words, there's no intent here to construct a school with a low FARMS rate; they're just explaining why it naturally falls that way.

From this, they're arguing that's its unfair to bus kids even further, when kids in nearby ES zones assigned to Wootton and Churchill don't have to endure any type of travel, and nobody objects when their schools come in at 0-5%.

Again, the objection is the travel time. The point about 7% FARMS is just to explain that there's no intent to gerrymander RP to be low FARMS; rather, it's a consequence of the geography.

Personally, I'm completely in favor of having a balanced FARMS rate throughout the country, but bussing RP5 even further doesn't really do that. You still don't change the fact that RM as a cluster is 30% FARMS and Wootton, Churchill, Whitman and WJ are all de minimis.

Note that there are elementary zones within Churchill and Wootton that are actually closer to Twinbrook than RP5, so if we want to use bussing to equalize FARMS, let's do it. However, let's not impose a huge geographic burden on RP5 just because nobody wants to actually integrate the clusters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Well, it's RP PTA letter which says that. Do you want me to post it here?

Do you think PTA circulation was a troll circulation? if that's true then you should quickly get rid of current PTA.

I'm not referring to the RP PTA letter; I'm referring to you being a troll and misrepresenting what RP residents are saying.

I am not the PP here. You don't see anything wrong with RP PTA taking such position, but you think similar message is trolling when some one else says it? RP PTA is there to represent RP residents position.

The RP PTA isn't taking the position that a FARMS rate above 7% is objectionable. They are pointing out that the reason the FARMS rate comes in at that percentage when you organize the cluster by geography is that the FARMS students are disproportionately coming from the areas near 355. Their point is that nearby ES schools zones are actually lower FARMS than 7%.

In other words, there's no intent here to construct a school with a low FARMS rate; they're just explaining why it naturally falls that way.

From this, they're arguing that's its unfair to bus kids even further, when kids in nearby ES zones assigned to Wootton and Churchill don't have to endure any type of travel, and nobody objects when their schools come in at 0-5%.

Again, the objection is the travel time. The point about 7% FARMS is just to explain that there's no intent to gerrymander RP to be low FARMS; rather, it's a consequence of the geography.

Personally, I'm completely in favor of having a balanced FARMS rate throughout the country, but bussing RP5 even further doesn't really do that. You still don't change the fact that RM as a cluster is 30% FARMS and Wootton, Churchill, Whitman and WJ are all de minimis.

Note that there are elementary zones within Churchill and Wootton that are actually closer to Twinbrook than RP5, so if we want to use bussing to equalize FARMS, let's do it. However, let's not impose a huge geographic burden on RP5 just because nobody wants to actually integrate the clusters.

The RP PTA has not taken a position yet--or at least has not pusblished it. There is no objection to a FARMS rate above 7%. There is objection among RP families in general for busing across the full district width.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Well, it's RP PTA letter which says that. Do you want me to post it here?

Do you think PTA circulation was a troll circulation? if that's true then you should quickly get rid of current PTA.

I'm not referring to the RP PTA letter; I'm referring to you being a troll and misrepresenting what RP residents are saying.

I am not the PP here. You don't see anything wrong with RP PTA taking such position, but you think similar message is trolling when some one else says it? RP PTA is there to represent RP residents position.

The RP PTA isn't taking the position that a FARMS rate above 7% is objectionable. They are pointing out that the reason the FARMS rate comes in at that percentage when you organize the cluster by geography is that the FARMS students are disproportionately coming from the areas near 355. Their point is that nearby ES schools zones are actually lower FARMS than 7%.

In other words, there's no intent here to construct a school with a low FARMS rate; they're just explaining why it naturally falls that way.

From this, they're arguing that's its unfair to bus kids even further, when kids in nearby ES zones assigned to Wootton and Churchill don't have to endure any type of travel, and nobody objects when their schools come in at 0-5%.

Again, the objection is the travel time. The point about 7% FARMS is just to explain that there's no intent to gerrymander RP to be low FARMS; rather, it's a consequence of the geography.

Personally, I'm completely in favor of having a balanced FARMS rate throughout the country, but bussing RP5 even further doesn't really do that. You still don't change the fact that RM as a cluster is 30% FARMS and Wootton, Churchill, Whitman and WJ are all de minimis.

Note that there are elementary zones within Churchill and Wootton that are actually closer to Twinbrook than RP5, so if we want to use bussing to equalize FARMS, let's do it. However, let's not impose a huge geographic burden on RP5 just because nobody wants to actually integrate the clusters.

The RP PTA has not taken a position yet--or at least has not pusblished it. There is no objection to a FARMS rate above 7%. There is objection among RP families in general for busing across the full district width.

You people will find something wrong with everything. E is fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The RP PTA has not taken a position yet--or at least has not pusblished it. There is no objection to a FARMS rate above 7%. There is objection among RP families in general for busing across the full district width.

Yesterday, an email was sent out from RP PTA advocating for a specific option. Maybe it was done by one person on the PTA board without the explicit agreement of the rest of the PTA Board, but certainly the PTA as a whole has NOT agreed on one specific option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Well, your argument is a fair one and it should be presented. I will be fully behind you on this. I am not impacted, but travel time should not be increased significantly for most zones. I personally think that option E is the best one for vast majority of RM cluster. It will still add few extra minutes for Fallsgrove kids . RP arguing for cases with 7% FARMs for RP is going to look really bad. Based on what I know from my limited interaction with few TB parents, majority wants to remain close to school. It's a dense area with high poverty.

Just my 2 cents