Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries

[Anonymous]

What does RP2, RP6 and all of TB want?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What does RP2, RP6 and all of TB want?

Can't speak for the RP zones but in the BOE Meeting yesterday, they said they can't get in touch with TB people. The head of the TB PTA had evidently had to go talk to parents at bus stops because there was no way to reach them. Many don't speak English, they aren't part of the PTA, aren't part of listserv, etc. In the BOE Meeting they said that the TB PTA President said that most of the parents at TB he spoke to "didn't care".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does RP2, RP6 and all of TB want?

Can't speak for the RP zones but in the BOE Meeting yesterday, they said they can't get in touch with TB people. The head of the TB PTA had evidently had to go talk to parents at bus stops because there was no way to reach them. Many don't speak English, they aren't part of the PTA, aren't part of listserv, etc. In the BOE Meeting they said that the TB PTA President said that most of the parents at TB he spoke to "didn't care".

They would be ok with their kids on a long bus ride? Was it presented to them that way? Perhaps they may not understand the importance of Title1 funding, but I'm sure they can appreciate and understand 20+ min bus ride and school further away for them to have to drive to get their kids from school.

[Anonymous]

I hope everyone who has advocated for equitable FARMs who speaks on Thursday speaks out against Alt C - where RP gets 40% FARMS, especially RP community members.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does RP2, RP6 and all of TB want?

Can't speak for the RP zones but in the BOE Meeting yesterday, they said they can't get in touch with TB people. The head of the TB PTA had evidently had to go talk to parents at bus stops because there was no way to reach them. Many don't speak English, they aren't part of the PTA, aren't part of listserv, etc. In the BOE Meeting they said that the TB PTA President said that most of the parents at TB he spoke to "didn't care".

I interpreted the "didn't care" to mean they didn't want to leave Twinbrook and didn't mind if Twinbrook remained over capacity, not that they didn't care if they got sent all over Rockville for schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I see the point here, but giving examples of Wootton or Churchill elementary schools having low FARMs rate to justify anything is missing one big point here.

RP is a part of RM. RM is a diverse community. Elementary in Churchill or Wootton can't be made diverse without changing high school boundary, but RP even now is at 20% FARMs. Supporting an option for 7% FARMs rate and then talking about some other Potomac elementary is going to give a certain message to other communities in RM cluster.

Not many RM parents supported putting RP at 40% because it's just a bad one to do due to all criss crossing. But RM cluster is seeing a huge push back from RP to not even have 20% FARMs( current level). That's how it is coming across.

If point is just about RP5 travel time then it should be pointed and any sane person will listen. Using examples of other Potomac Elementary is a crazy idea in this situation. RP PTA circulation was shared in all RM communities and it feels a bit bad from outside even if intention was different. I am not sure if BOE also has that circulation, but it's better to not circulate something like that. I didn't even pay attention to that earlier. I just read it.

I would say , all of us should highlight the biggest problem we will face collectively from all options and then we have to pick one which creates least problem for vast majority of students.

- CG parent( kids in high school)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

we need someone in RP to make it clear that we're not arguing for 7 percent farms. we're arguing against making an already long commute LONGER

[Anonymous]

I don't know how else to say it that hasn't been said already.

If you argue proximity vs FARMS you are opening yourself to the "bigotry" argument forcing other communities and the board to unite against you.

Instead call for socioeconomic diversity , capacity and balance . Stand for proximity , lower FARMs and such and it will backfire against you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't know how else to say it that hasn't been said already.

If you argue proximity vs FARMS you are opening yourself to the "bigotry" argument forcing other communities and the board to unite against you.

Instead call for socioeconomic diversity , capacity and balance . Stand for proximity , lower FARMs and such and it will backfire against you.

I'm a PP RP parent who wants the 25% FARMs rate option - I think "community" feel is a better word than proximity, and people shouldn't discount the importance of it.

I do think that Fallsgrove (as screwed as they have been) is a large community unto itself and will continue to have a strong community feel no matter where they go. The commute time is an important factor, though. It's not just buses, but the parents who have to drop their kids off for before/after care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I see the point here, but giving examples of Wootton or Churchill elementary schools having low FARMs rate to justify anything is missing one big point here.

RP is a part of RM. RM is a diverse community. Elementary in Churchill or Wootton can't be made diverse without changing high school boundary, but RP even now is at 20% FARMs. Supporting an option for 7% FARMs rate and then talking about some other Potomac elementary is going to give a certain message to other communities in RM cluster.

Not many RM parents supported putting RP at 40% because it's just a bad one to do due to all criss crossing. But RM cluster is seeing a huge push back from RP to not even have 20% FARMs( current level). That's how it is coming across.

If point is just about RP5 travel time then it should be pointed and any sane person will listen. Using examples of other Potomac Elementary is a crazy idea in this situation. RP PTA circulation was shared in all RM communities and it feels a bit bad from outside even if intention was different. I am not sure if BOE also has that circulation, but it's better to not circulate something like that. I didn't even pay attention to that earlier. I just read it.

I would say , all of us should highlight the biggest problem we will face collectively from all options and then we have to pick one which creates least problem for vast majority of students.

- CG parent( kids in high school)

ITA

-RP parent in one of the higher SES zones and whose kids will be in MS by the time this hits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't know how else to say it that hasn't been said already.

If you argue proximity vs FARMS you are opening yourself to the "bigotry" argument forcing other communities and the board to unite against you.

Instead call for socioeconomic diversity , capacity and balance . Stand for proximity , lower FARMs and such and it will backfire against you.

Well said here. Talking about proximity which leads to 7% FARMs is going to backfire for RP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know how else to say it that hasn't been said already.

If you argue proximity vs FARMS you are opening yourself to the "bigotry" argument forcing other communities and the board to unite against you.

Instead call for socioeconomic diversity , capacity and balance . Stand for proximity , lower FARMs and such and it will backfire against you.

Well said here. Talking about proximity which leads to 7% FARMs is going to backfire for RP.

And that leads to which alternative?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know how else to say it that hasn't been said already.

If you argue proximity vs FARMS you are opening yourself to the "bigotry" argument forcing other communities and the board to unite against you.

Instead call for socioeconomic diversity , capacity and balance . Stand for proximity , lower FARMs and such and it will backfire against you.

I'm a PP RP parent who wants the 25% FARMs rate option - I think "community" feel is a better word than proximity, and people shouldn't discount the importance of it.

I do think that Fallsgrove (as screwed as they have been) is a large community unto itself and will continue to have a strong community feel no matter where they go. The commute time is an important factor, though. It's not just buses, but the parents who have to drop their kids off for before/after care.

I agree here, but RP5 is not even geographically connected to rest of RP. RM#5 is surely a bit further, but as you said RP5 is community in itself and I am sure that they will find a great community in RM#5 as they found in RP.

Additional distance of RP5 should be pointed. That's a valid point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know how else to say it that hasn't been said already.

If you argue proximity vs FARMS you are opening yourself to the "bigotry" argument forcing other communities and the board to unite against you.

Instead call for socioeconomic diversity , capacity and balance . Stand for proximity , lower FARMs and such and it will backfire against you.

Well said here. Talking about proximity which leads to 7% FARMs is going to backfire for RP.

And that leads to which alternative?

Any other option except 7%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know how else to say it that hasn't been said already.

If you argue proximity vs FARMS you are opening yourself to the "bigotry" argument forcing other communities and the board to unite against you.

Instead call for socioeconomic diversity , capacity and balance . Stand for proximity , lower FARMs and such and it will backfire against you.

Well said here. Talking about proximity which leads to 7% FARMs is going to backfire for RP.

And that leads to which alternative?

Any other option except 7%.

30 minutes extra commute x 2 = 60 minutes extra per day
60 minutes per day x 180 days of school = 180 hours of extra commuting a year and time not spend with the child in a quality way.

that is INSANE. That's what you are trying to push. Think about it.