Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which schools in our cluster are currently tier 1 and tier 2? Won't this moving all around severely affect busses?

Right! Please testify tomorrow (as I will) that the more drastic plans change too many variable without even examining their impact. Trowing away a year of work and then plucking new options out of thin air without any metrics to go along with it is reckless. Doing that and asking for feedback from the community is idiocy.

The board will pay attention to a unified and rational community voice. Take a cue from Hungerford , they organized , collected signatures crafted a balanced and reasonable proposal that spoke to addressed all of the board's points.

Can we do the same at RP ? Instead of emotionally exhale hot air that gets un nowhere.

Hungerford had multiple months to address the board and we found out it will all a moot point because the 42% FARMS was actually 29%.

We don't even have time for one meeting? Is has been all done in one week. How is that fair?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which schools in our cluster are currently tier 1 and tier 2? Won't this moving all around severely affect busses?

Right! Please testify tomorrow (as I will) that the more drastic plans change too many variable without even examining their impact. Trowing away a year of work and then plucking new options out of thin air without any metrics to go along with it is reckless. Doing that and asking for feedback from the community is idiocy.

The board will pay attention to a unified and rational community voice. Take a cue from Hungerford , they organized , collected signatures crafted a balanced and reasonable proposal that spoke to addressed all of the board's points.

Can we do the same at RP ? Instead of emotionally exhale hot air that gets un nowhere.

Hungerford had multiple months to address the board and we found out it will all a moot point because the 42% FARMS was actually 29%.

We don't even have time for one meeting? Is has been all done in one week. How is that fair?

That's what I have been saying! They threw away a year to get everything done in a couple weeks. They declare special scenario. I declare shenanigans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which schools in our cluster are currently tier 1 and tier 2? Won't this moving all around severely affect busses?

Right! Please testify tomorrow (as I will) that the more drastic plans change too many variable without even examining their impact. Trowing away a year of work and then plucking new options out of thin air without any metrics to go along with it is reckless. Doing that and asking for feedback from the community is idiocy.

The board will pay attention to a unified and rational community voice. Take a cue from Hungerford , they organized , collected signatures crafted a balanced and reasonable proposal that spoke to addressed all of the board's points.

Can we do the same at RP ? Instead of emotionally exhale hot air that gets un nowhere.

We certainly could, and I would be willing to help collect those signatures with a few ground rules:

(1) We state what high-level goals we want and which plan(s) support that
(2) We have zero references to the 1987 change.
(3) We have zero references to any other school cluster
(4) We indicate that our community is united in the action

Based on what has been written here, #4 will be hard to achieve. Maybe unite around 2 options and list the concerns/feedback received from RP parents on both.

[Anonymous]

I love how everyone wants RP5 to move 5-7min further than their 20min commute and keep a walkable area of RP2 getting bussed. All for the sake of about 10% FARMS. Would all of you be okay with that? 100% sure the answer would be no.

Are we really screwing them over to give the brand new school the lowest FARMS? Just to show RP they can't. Because that is how it is coming off here on this forum and it is sad. A witch hunt for RP families. I much rather support ALL of the schools needs of proximity and not just my own. CG, Beall stay very similar. RM5 has 26% FARMS and TB stays at Title 1 all together.

I prefer A or B as the best for ALL families and the community.

Beall parent

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which schools in our cluster are currently tier 1 and tier 2? Won't this moving all around severely affect busses?

Right! Please testify tomorrow (as I will) that the more drastic plans change too many variable without even examining their impact. Trowing away a year of work and then plucking new options out of thin air without any metrics to go along with it is reckless. Doing that and asking for feedback from the community is idiocy.

The board will pay attention to a unified and rational community voice. Take a cue from Hungerford , they organized , collected signatures crafted a balanced and reasonable proposal that spoke to addressed all of the board's points.

Can we do the same at RP ? Instead of emotionally exhale hot air that gets un nowhere.

Hungerford had multiple months to address the board and we found out it will all a moot point because the 42% FARMS was actually 29%.

We don't even have time for one meeting? Is has been all done in one week. How is that fair?

That's what I have been saying! They threw away a year to get everything done in a couple weeks. They declare special scenario. I declare shenanigans.

+1 We don't have the time anymore to discuss it and put together a united front.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which schools in our cluster are currently tier 1 and tier 2? Won't this moving all around severely affect busses?

Right! Please testify tomorrow (as I will) that the more drastic plans change too many variable without even examining their impact. Trowing away a year of work and then plucking new options out of thin air without any metrics to go along with it is reckless. Doing that and asking for feedback from the community is idiocy.

The board will pay attention to a unified and rational community voice. Take a cue from Hungerford , they organized , collected signatures crafted a balanced and reasonable proposal that spoke to addressed all of the board's points.

Can we do the same at RP ? Instead of emotionally exhale hot air that gets un nowhere.

We certainly could, and I would be willing to help collect those signatures with a few ground rules:

(1) We state what high-level goals we want and which plan(s) support that
(2) We have zero references to the 1987 change.
(3) We have zero references to any other school cluster
(4) We indicate that our community is united in the action

Based on what has been written here, #4 will be hard to achieve. Maybe unite around 2 options and list the concerns/feedback received from RP parents on both.

I can pretty much guarantee that no current RP zone really wants Alternative C.
Alternatives A and B are the same for current RP zones
Alternatives D and E are the same for current RP zones

We can rally against Alternative C
I think we won't find unit on the others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I love how everyone wants RP5 to move 5-7min further than their 20min commute and keep a walkable area of RP2 getting bussed. All for the sake of about 10% FARMS. Would all of you be okay with that? 100% sure the answer would be no.

Are we really screwing them over to give the brand new school the lowest FARMS? Just to show RP they can't. Because that is how it is coming off here on this forum and it is sad. A witch hunt for RP families. I much rather support ALL of the schools needs of proximity and not just my own. CG, Beall stay very similar. RM5 has 26% FARMS and TB stays at Title 1 all together.

I prefer A or B as the best for ALL families and the community.

Beall parent

+1 also a Beall parent. One of the main reasons we moved here from DC was that we were tired of the disjointed feel of the school/neighborhood community. It would be disappointing to see convoluted bussing occur here all for the sake of a few FARMs percentages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I love how everyone wants RP5 to move 5-7min further than their 20min commute and keep a walkable area of RP2 getting bussed. All for the sake of about 10% FARMS. Would all of you be okay with that? 100% sure the answer would be no.

Are we really screwing them over to give the brand new school the lowest FARMS? Just to show RP they can't. Because that is how it is coming off here on this forum and it is sad. A witch hunt for RP families. I much rather support ALL of the schools needs of proximity and not just my own. CG, Beall stay very similar. RM5 has 26% FARMS and TB stays at Title 1 all together.

I prefer A or B as the best for ALL families and the community.

Beall parent

Also, who benefits here?

If we keep the RP2 kids at RP (option E), the FARMs rate at RP rises to 24 and would be 17.5 at RM5.
If we put the RP2 kids at RM5 (option B), the FAMRs rate at RP diminishes to 7.5 and would be 26 at RM5.

In other words, for the RP2 kids, who are supposedly the ones with the need, the FARMs rate is approximately the same. So we would be bussing them across 270 and making Fallsgove go further for what? So that non-FARMs students from the RP neighborhood benefit from exposure to more poor kids? Because it's the same percentage for those actual poor kids either way.

-RP2 parent

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I love how everyone wants RP5 to move 5-7min further than their 20min commute and keep a walkable area of RP2 getting bussed. All for the sake of about 10% FARMS. Would all of you be okay with that? 100% sure the answer would be no.

Are we really screwing them over to give the brand new school the lowest FARMS? Just to show RP they can't. Because that is how it is coming off here on this forum and it is sad. A witch hunt for RP families. I much rather support ALL of the schools needs of proximity and not just my own. CG, Beall stay very similar. RM5 has 26% FARMS and TB stays at Title 1 all together.

I prefer A or B as the best for ALL families and the community.

Beall parent

Actually CG would have the lowest FARMS at 14% and then RM5 with 17%. Everyone decreases FARMS and some drastically are low capacity, while RP increases to the 2nd highest FARMS and 2nd highest capacity in the cluster with option E. That is why everyone else in the cluster is on board. It only screws RP. And some RP parents are so scared to vote against it thinking they will get screwed more with 40% FARMS, that they are actually on board with it too. And if we vote for the ones that keep us all close, we are yelled at for "wanting" 7% FARMS. It is a no win situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how everyone wants RP5 to move 5-7min further than their 20min commute and keep a walkable area of RP2 getting bussed. All for the sake of about 10% FARMS. Would all of you be okay with that? 100% sure the answer would be no.

Are we really screwing them over to give the brand new school the lowest FARMS? Just to show RP they can't. Because that is how it is coming off here on this forum and it is sad. A witch hunt for RP families. I much rather support ALL of the schools needs of proximity and not just my own. CG, Beall stay very similar. RM5 has 26% FARMS and TB stays at Title 1 all together.

I prefer A or B as the best for ALL families and the community.

Beall parent

Also, who benefits here?

If we keep the RP2 kids at RP (option E), the FARMs rate at RP rises to 24 and would be 17.5 at RM5.
If we put the RP2 kids at RM5 (option B), the FAMRs rate at RP diminishes to 7.5 and would be 26 at RM5.

In other words, for the RP2 kids, who are supposedly the ones with the need, the FARMs rate is approximately the same. So we would be bussing them across 270 and making Fallsgove go further for what? So that non-FARMs students from the RP neighborhood benefit from exposure to more poor kids? Because it's the same percentage for those actual poor kids either way.

-RP2 parent

Please testify to this point tomorrow!

The concern is about being "fair"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how everyone wants RP5 to move 5-7min further than their 20min commute and keep a walkable area of RP2 getting bussed. All for the sake of about 10% FARMS. Would all of you be okay with that? 100% sure the answer would be no.

Are we really screwing them over to give the brand new school the lowest FARMS? Just to show RP they can't. Because that is how it is coming off here on this forum and it is sad. A witch hunt for RP families. I much rather support ALL of the schools needs of proximity and not just my own. CG, Beall stay very similar. RM5 has 26% FARMS and TB stays at Title 1 all together.

I prefer A or B as the best for ALL families and the community.

Beall parent

+1 also a Beall parent. One of the main reasons we moved here from DC was that we were tired of the disjointed feel of the school/neighborhood community. It would be disappointing to see convoluted bussing occur here all for the sake of a few FARMs percentages.

I am for RP5 walk to its closest school , RP as a whole to go back to Wotten and RMES5 serve its immediate neighborhood while getting CG ready to move to the new cluster in a few years.

I want a bridge to Leesburg , expanded 270 and a better Purple line

I also want Trump out of the white house, denuclearize North Korea and peace in the middle east.

sadly we can't get all that tomorrow. It is between option B and E

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how everyone wants RP5 to move 5-7min further than their 20min commute and keep a walkable area of RP2 getting bussed. All for the sake of about 10% FARMS. Would all of you be okay with that? 100% sure the answer would be no.

Are we really screwing them over to give the brand new school the lowest FARMS? Just to show RP they can't. Because that is how it is coming off here on this forum and it is sad. A witch hunt for RP families. I much rather support ALL of the schools needs of proximity and not just my own. CG, Beall stay very similar. RM5 has 26% FARMS and TB stays at Title 1 all together.

I prefer A or B as the best for ALL families and the community.

Beall parent

Also, who benefits here?

If we keep the RP2 kids at RP (option E), the FARMs rate at RP rises to 24 and would be 17.5 at RM5.
If we put the RP2 kids at RM5 (option B), the FAMRs rate at RP diminishes to 7.5 and would be 26 at RM5.

In other words, for the RP2 kids, who are supposedly the ones with the need, the FARMs rate is approximately the same. So we would be bussing them across 270 and making Fallsgove go further for what? So that non-FARMs students from the RP neighborhood benefit from exposure to more poor kids? Because it's the same percentage for those actual poor kids either way.

-RP2 parent

Please testify to this point tomorrow!

The concern is about being "fair"

This is a good point for tomorrow. Also, why not concentrate on B and E for discussion purposes. The other options will most likely lose support from communities because it's just a hell of a bus ride for everyone at the same time, it splits communities in the worst manner, or keeps schools over capacity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how everyone wants RP5 to move 5-7min further than their 20min commute and keep a walkable area of RP2 getting bussed. All for the sake of about 10% FARMS. Would all of you be okay with that? 100% sure the answer would be no.

Are we really screwing them over to give the brand new school the lowest FARMS? Just to show RP they can't. Because that is how it is coming off here on this forum and it is sad. A witch hunt for RP families. I much rather support ALL of the schools needs of proximity and not just my own. CG, Beall stay very similar. RM5 has 26% FARMS and TB stays at Title 1 all together.

I prefer A or B as the best for ALL families and the community.

Beall parent

Actually CG would have the lowest FARMS at 14% and then RM5 with 17%. Everyone decreases FARMS and some drastically are low capacity, while RP increases to the 2nd highest FARMS and 2nd highest capacity in the cluster with option E. That is why everyone else in the cluster is on board. It only screws RP. And some RP parents are so scared to vote against it thinking they will get screwed more with 40% FARMS, that they are actually on board with it too. And if we vote for the ones that keep us all close, we are yelled at for "wanting" 7% FARMS. It is a no win situation.

It's hard to argue that RP is "screwed" by Option E when their composition is going to be virtually the same as it is today, just minus RP5. You get a 3.3% rise in FARMs rates to 24% which is a perfectly acceptable number.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how everyone wants RP5 to move 5-7min further than their 20min commute and keep a walkable area of RP2 getting bussed. All for the sake of about 10% FARMS. Would all of you be okay with that? 100% sure the answer would be no.

Are we really screwing them over to give the brand new school the lowest FARMS? Just to show RP they can't. Because that is how it is coming off here on this forum and it is sad. A witch hunt for RP families. I much rather support ALL of the schools needs of proximity and not just my own. CG, Beall stay very similar. RM5 has 26% FARMS and TB stays at Title 1 all together.

I prefer A or B as the best for ALL families and the community.

Beall parent

Also, who benefits here?

If we keep the RP2 kids at RP (option E), the FARMs rate at RP rises to 24 and would be 17.5 at RM5.
If we put the RP2 kids at RM5 (option B), the FAMRs rate at RP diminishes to 7.5 and would be 26 at RM5.

In other words, for the RP2 kids, who are supposedly the ones with the need, the FARMs rate is approximately the same. So we would be bussing them across 270 and making Fallsgove go further for what? So that non-FARMs students from the RP neighborhood benefit from exposure to more poor kids? Because it's the same percentage for those actual poor kids either way.

-RP2 parent

Please testify to this point tomorrow!

The concern is about being "fair"

This is a good point for tomorrow. Also, why not concentrate on B and E for discussion purposes. The other options will most likely lose support from communities because it's just a hell of a bus ride for everyone at the same time, it splits communities in the worst manner, or keeps schools over capacity.

I think that is an excellent strategy. Perhaps we can all agree that Options A, C, and D are nonstarters--to hell with the SMOB. Then we can push for a valid discussion of the merits of Options B and E. I am adding this to my talking points.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how everyone wants RP5 to move 5-7min further than their 20min commute and keep a walkable area of RP2 getting bussed. All for the sake of about 10% FARMS. Would all of you be okay with that? 100% sure the answer would be no.

Are we really screwing them over to give the brand new school the lowest FARMS? Just to show RP they can't. Because that is how it is coming off here on this forum and it is sad. A witch hunt for RP families. I much rather support ALL of the schools needs of proximity and not just my own. CG, Beall stay very similar. RM5 has 26% FARMS and TB stays at Title 1 all together.

I prefer A or B as the best for ALL families and the community.

Beall parent

Also, who benefits here?

If we keep the RP2 kids at RP (option E), the FARMs rate at RP rises to 24 and would be 17.5 at RM5.
If we put the RP2 kids at RM5 (option B), the FAMRs rate at RP diminishes to 7.5 and would be 26 at RM5.

In other words, for the RP2 kids, who are supposedly the ones with the need, the FARMs rate is approximately the same. So we would be bussing them across 270 and making Fallsgove go further for what? So that non-FARMs students from the RP neighborhood benefit from exposure to more poor kids? Because it's the same percentage for those actual poor kids either way.
what would the FARMS rate be at ES#5 when not including the CI students? In the 30's?

-RP2 parent