Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Exactly. You'll want to present your case using the options that will most likely gather a huge support from all communities. I do agree with the ground rules set by another PP. There is really no point stating the items cited, it makes RP look whiny( based on the previous sessions).

[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

If you are really going to compare and make your argument based on this then get hold of data for FARMs rate for RP2 kids attending regular class. If you were not paying attention, RP2 kids are not going to attend CI. In regular class FARMs number for RM#5 are higher. MCPS did share it earlier in website. It's not there right now, but data is available.

RP2 kids won't be attending any classroom with 17% or 26% FARMs rate. It's higher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Exactly. You'll want to present your case using the options that will most likely gather a huge support from all communities. I do agree with the ground rules set by another PP. There is really no point stating the items cited, it makes RP look whiny( based on the previous sessions).

This will work as long as 2 options gets selected and they are common with other communities. Then you can put preference for one citing why you prefer it without attacking other community. Other community can also put their two preferfernce and as long as it's common, it will eliminate support for rest of crazy options. They can have different preference.

It's better to agree on something and not just keep arguing for sake of argument. Also any talk about Potomac having no FARMs etc should be avoided. We are part of RM cluster. No stupid circulation please.

Also, let's be honest here. TB is silent. Beall is not impacted much. CG is not impacted much. Just have a common voice with two preference with RM#5 zoned communities.

- RP1 parent

[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

If you are really going to compare and make your argument based on this then get hold of data for FARMs rate for RP2 kids attending regular class. If you were not paying attention, RP2 kids are not going to attend CI. In regular class FARMs number for RM#5 are higher. MCPS did share it earlier in website. It's not there right now, but data is available.

RP2 kids won't be attending any classroom with 17% or 26% FARMs rate. It's higher.

I take your point, but I've listened to the relevant BOE meetings, and they are NOT persuaded by arguments that parse CI from the numbers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

what is SMOB?

[Anonymous]

RP2 are currently with RP. if you move them out you are changing the status quo and 7.5% FARMS rate is the red flag that sets the neighborhood communities off and promotes their argument of socio-economic disbalance.

Option B is toxic.

[Anonymous]

RE: proximity, I grew up going to a lower income school, but I lived within walking distance to the school. I could participate in after school activities and then walk home by myself. If I had to take a bus to school, I wouldn't have been able to participate in these after school activities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

what is SMOB?

student member of the board

for some reason they give a vote to a high schooler

[Anonymous]

I agree with everyone that Options B and E should be the main ones considered here. If every person that talks says they believe options B and E are the best two then give their opinion on which of those they would prefer over the other, the BOE would likely chose one of those.

There's no way the BOE would vote against the entire community.

[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

If you are really going to compare and make your argument based on this then get hold of data for FARMs rate for RP2 kids attending regular class. If you were not paying attention, RP2 kids are not going to attend CI. In regular class FARMs number for RM#5 are higher. MCPS did share it earlier in website. It's not there right now, but data is available.

RP2 kids won't be attending any classroom with 17% or 26% FARMs rate. It's higher.

I take your point, but I've listened to the relevant BOE meetings, and they are NOT persuaded by arguments that parse CI from the numbers.

They don't want to say it , but surely aware of it. Putting it in website may create problem for them because then you have to do for other schools with magnet. Too much work. But they are surely paying attention to that. It's not that by magic RM#5 has one option with 17% FARMs. They know that in class it's in 20s. I was in council meeting few weeks back. Basing it on that.

[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

If you are really going to compare and make your argument based on this then get hold of data for FARMs rate for RP2 kids attending regular class. If you were not paying attention, RP2 kids are not going to attend CI. In regular class FARMs number for RM#5 are higher. MCPS did share it earlier in website. It's not there right now, but data is available.

RP2 kids won't be attending any classroom with 17% or 26% FARMs rate. It's higher.

I take your point, but I've listened to the relevant BOE meetings, and they are NOT persuaded by arguments that parse CI from the numbers.

chinese immersion really only affects the FARMS numbers by around 3-4 percent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:RE: proximity, I grew up going to a lower income school, but I lived within walking distance to the school. I could participate in after school activities and then walk home by myself. If I had to take a bus to school, I wouldn't have been able to participate in these after school activities.

BOE toured areas to see for themselves if entire RP2 is good walk for elementary aged kid to walk themselves. They got some impression that Walk argument for RP2 is being pushed by RP to get rid of RP2.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:RP2 are currently with RP. if you move them out you are changing the status quo and 7.5% FARMS rate is the red flag that sets the neighborhood communities off and promotes their argument of socio-economic disbalance.

Option B is toxic.

Still a good option to present due to RP5 not having to bus longer. As long as one more option is presented as acceptable by RP to show that RP is also fine with higher FARMs than 7%, it won't look toxic to present option B .

Problem comes if we only try to present one option as acceptable which has 7% FARMs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RE: proximity, I grew up going to a lower income school, but I lived within walking distance to the school. I could participate in after school activities and then walk home by myself. If I had to take a bus to school, I wouldn't have been able to participate in these after school activities.

BOE toured areas to see for themselves if entire RP2 is good walk for elementary aged kid to walk themselves. They got some impression that Walk argument for RP2 is being pushed by RP to get rid of RP2.

I have walked in that area myself. It's not really a good walk for elementary age kids alone from all parts of RP2.

We are better off by sticking to RP5 extra commute on top of long commute to present option B. Then we have two good options. Option E and option B.

Preference can be anything , but it will get us out of argument about RP only supporting 7%. I think we need to avoid that focus .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RE: proximity, I grew up going to a lower income school, but I lived within walking distance to the school. I could participate in after school activities and then walk home by myself. If I had to take a bus to school, I wouldn't have been able to participate in these after school activities.

BOE toured areas to see for themselves if entire RP2 is good walk for elementary aged kid to walk themselves. They got some impression that Walk argument for RP2 is being pushed by RP to get rid of RP2.

Didn't the committee determine that RP2 was a walk zone? Are they going to supply a bus? In any case, this logic also applies to TB area.