Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But some are silent about the option that makes RP 40% FARMs. They are ok with making it unbalanced where RP gets way more FARMs than the other schools (except TB), but not scream and yell when it is way less?

Option B has RP with about 7% less FARMs than CG, but option C makes FARMs at RP 15% more than CG. I'm not advocating for a 7% FARMS rate, but I find it disingenuous for these people to make a stink about a 7% FARMS rate at RP, but be silent on an option that ups the FARMs at RP to 40%.

Stop talking about Option C, no one wants that. Everyone wants either B or E and if everyone tells the BOE that, they will pick one of those options.

I only mention it because some people are so against option B as it lowers RP farms to 7%. So, if they are so vocally against that option because of the unequal distribution of FARMS then why don't those same people make as much stink about option C?

Obviously they are fine with an option that makes RP FARMS rate go up, even if that means making kids criss cross the cluster, but no way is having that school at 7% FARMS acceptable. That's my problem with this group and their anti-option B stance.

FWIW I'm fine with option E, just don't understand why they are so against B but not C.

I don't think it's that people are against B, I think that if you watch the board meeting from yesterday you'll see why people are afraid that if they advocate for B that they'll get C. Several people on the BOE talked about more equitable distribution. As for me, I'm fine with either B or E. I think A, C, and D are bad for the district.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

RP parent here. I do not know of anyone who wants to get rid of RP2. All of the arguments that I have heard for having RP2 leave RPES is that the NEW SCHOOL is IN their neighborhood. For elementary school, I think (and I am assuming that others do too because it came up in the boundary studies) that geographic proximity is important. I can understand when middle schools and high schools are a little farther away but elementary school children should be able to attend schools in their neighborhood and honestly this would be a NON issue if RP2 was upper middle class. RMES5 (and that crazy annoying Hungerford group) would say welcome with open arms.

You do realize Option B is the original proposal put forward by the Hungerford Civic Association, which has RP2 going to the new school with them.

Hungerford didn't want T3 coming to RM5. That was their beef. Thought it increased FARMS too much. Come to find out it wouldn't and it would have INCREASED farms in TB. So that is why T3 is staying in TB in all the new projections.

I think Hungerford approved option B.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But some are silent about the option that makes RP 40% FARMs. They are ok with making it unbalanced where RP gets way more FARMs than the other schools (except TB), but not scream and yell when it is way less?

Option B has RP with about 7% less FARMs than CG, but option C makes FARMs at RP 15% more than CG. I'm not advocating for a 7% FARMS rate, but I find it disingenuous for these people to make a stink about a 7% FARMS rate at RP, but be silent on an option that ups the FARMs at RP to 40%.

That's not true. A lot of other communities do not want the 40% FARMS to RP either, and taking away title 1 resources for TB. Get in with the majority of the community, which is B or E, there is no point in arguing the other options, we should just focus on these 2 as the most reasonable ones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But some are silent about the option that makes RP 40% FARMs. They are ok with making it unbalanced where RP gets way more FARMs than the other schools (except TB), but not scream and yell when it is way less?

Option B has RP with about 7% less FARMs than CG, but option C makes FARMs at RP 15% more than CG. I'm not advocating for a 7% FARMS rate, but I find it disingenuous for these people to make a stink about a 7% FARMS rate at RP, but be silent on an option that ups the FARMs at RP to 40%.

That's not true. A lot of other communities do not want the 40% FARMS to RP either, and taking away title 1 resources for TB. Get in with the majority of the community, which is B or E, there is no point in arguing the other options, we should just focus on these 2 as the most reasonable ones.

If RP FARMS rate of 7% is a non issue then option B is the logical choice in terms of proximity and not creaing silos, as option E would do with B8.

[Anonymous]

This may be of interest....
The parking lot across from the Regal is going to be built into another mixed use building with 178 apartments. I can't say how many of those will have children in them but it's definitely happening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This may be of interest....
The parking lot across from the Regal is going to be built into another mixed use building with 178 apartments. I can't say how many of those will have children in them but it's definitely happening.

Those won't be cheap apartments, though will they? Is that zone in RP2 or B2? Since ES#5 will have more room with the shell, then that area should go to ES#5, not RP. ES#5 can absorb way more than RP.

[Anonymous]

7% FARMS is the issue , especially when telling RP2 to switch schools. I vote for E

[Anonymous]

Well, folks, there you have, another Proof Positive that they only thing MCPS and MCPS BoE cares about is FARMs.
In about 10 years time, that may be all that's left living in the county anyhow.

[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

It all has to do with that hate for 7%
No one really cares for the actual FARMS kids

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:7% FARMS is the issue , especially when telling RP2 to switch schools. I vote for E

See... there are people who are against 7% FARMs at RP. Does RP2 want to switch schools? Do you even live in RP2? An RP zone is going to have to switch schools. Why not RP2?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This may be of interest....
The parking lot across from the Regal is going to be built into another mixed use building with 178 apartments. I can't say how many of those will have children in them but it's definitely happening.

Those won't be cheap apartments, though will they? Is that zone in RP2 or B2? Since ES#5 will have more room with the shell, then that area should go to ES#5, not RP. ES#5 can absorb way more than RP.

Neither. Rockville Town Center is B5N.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:7% FARMS is the issue , especially when telling RP2 to switch schools. I vote for E

Telling RP2 to switch schools TO THE NEW SCHOOL BEING BUILT IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This may be of interest....
The parking lot across from the Regal is going to be built into another mixed use building with 178 apartments. I can't say how many of those will have children in them but it's definitely happening.

Which may be why Beall is staying in the 80's in every option?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This may be of interest....
The parking lot across from the Regal is going to be built into another mixed use building with 178 apartments. I can't say how many of those will have children in them but it's definitely happening.

Those won't be cheap apartments, though will they? Is that zone in RP2 or B2? Since ES#5 will have more room with the shell, then that area should go to ES#5, not RP. ES#5 can absorb way more than RP.

My mistake, there will be 400 units. 250 market rate apartments, 150 age restricted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

That's not true. A lot of other communities do not want the 40% FARMS to RP either, and taking away title 1 resources for TB. Get in with the majority of the community, which is B or E, there is no point in arguing the other options, we should just focus on these 2 as the most reasonable ones.

I am from NMC. I will also not support RP going to 40%. I think you guys on right track here. Pick two options and carry banners for that.