Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Where are these kids from low-income families, currently? They're not being spontaneously generated by the construction of RM ES #5.

Beall is going from 25% to 17%. RP is going from 24% to 10% and then we are taking a high farm rate area from Twinbrook. Putting all of them in RM#5 is making this school a extremely high farm rate from day 1.

Tragic part is superintended pointing out that farm rate is getting reduced in other schools in summary when we are getting a RM#5 starting with 53% farm rate. If we can keep around 25% farm rate in RP and Beall then Rm#5 will not start with high poverty kids bunched together. Geography and proximity is good to have, but it doesn't impact the school performance the same way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since it is the exact same group of kids for JW and RM, I am not sure what the mix up for ES really matter is. Isn;t is possible that if both Twinbrook and #5 are Title 1/Focus, we will have more kids getting a higher level of service than before?

Higher concentration of FARMS in schools leads to lower performance for both FARMS and non-FARMS children. By the time they get to JW, it will be too late for RM5 and Twinbrook kids. Actually, reading ability at grade 3 predicts performance through to grade 12. Thus, JW and RM will have more remedial courses detracting from the higher level courses that are taught now. You essentially pull the performance of all down once you handicap 40-50% of your ES population.

Where are these kids from low-income families, currently? They're not being spontaneously generated by the construction of RM ES #5.

Right now they are in T3, RP2, RP6, and some in B5 and B7

They are NOT in RP6 - that is Tower Oaks off Wootton Parkway and is a higher income area.

RP6 includes the Fireside Apartments and the housing along Monroe south of Mount Vernon.

[Anonymous]

(alt+p)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Single biggest aim for any boundary study should be to provide the best environment for kids to suceed. We should try to set up kids for success as much as possible. Farm rate around 25% gives any school a good diversity and also not burden schools much.

Falls Grove can simply move to Beall and RP can take more farm kids from others side of 270. That way, Falls grove kids won't be commuting longer than their current travel time and we are not creating schools with 10% and 53% farm rates. We are robbing RP an opportunity of being a diverse school and at the same time not giving best possible chance to 100s of kids in Rm#5.

When you have 25% farm rate then farm kids benefit from non-farm students. If you start having 50-60% farm rate then Farm and non-Farm, both set of students are at disadvantage.

Why start with a situation which doesn't allow kids to succeed? 6 years in elementary and then the same students will join in middle and high school. JW and RM will have a long term impact here. It's hard to find a high performing middle school if two feeder schools are low performing.

You have a point, but I wonder if the RP parents are going to take this lightly.

I live in Fallsgrove and wouldn't mind moving to Beall or CGES - they're both closer than Ritchie Park. BUT - I don't know if you all realize how many children are in Fallsgrove - there are 5 buses that go from the neighborhood to Ritchie Park - any other school that takes in Fallsgrove will wind up with a major domino effect of many of the current students getting moved to another school. Would other schools really want that? Also, regardless, moving RP #2 to the new school makes sense. If RP5 & RP2 get moved out of Ritchie Park, that would put the RP population under 300 for sure, again, unless lots of kids wind up getting moved out of their schools and into Ritchie Park. I just don't see how this would work...

Avoiding domino effect is a decent goal , but it should be lowest in priority. Many current families may not want to move, but we should simply take the best decision for students who will be attending RM elementary schools in coming 10,15, and 20 years. Current families, who have been going to certain school and want to continue going there , will be in elementary for around 2 to 4 years. After boundary is changed , new students won't be impacted by this.

If we are trying to appease families, who are part of elementary schools for the next 2-4 years, then we are stuck with longer travel time for Fallsgrove kids, high Farm rate for RM#5 and RP having very little diversity. That means we created problems for students for the next 20-30 years. These issues will have a much longer term impact. If we are drawing a boundary, then let's do it right and not try to be short sighted.

We have one chance to get it right and focus should be providing the best possible opportunities for students. Putting all high poverty kids in one place to avoid domino effect doesn't make much sense. Anyway, if we redraw boundaries then kids do need to move and they will move. Why not do what's best for entire RM cluster in long term rather than worrying about some families not wanting to move.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: (alt+p)

Thanks for posting this. A picture is worth thousand words.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since it is the exact same group of kids for JW and RM, I am not sure what the mix up for ES really matter is. Isn;t is possible that if both Twinbrook and #5 are Title 1/Focus, we will have more kids getting a higher level of service than before?

Higher concentration of FARMS in schools leads to lower performance for both FARMS and non-FARMS children. By the time they get to JW, it will be too late for RM5 and Twinbrook kids. Actually, reading ability at grade 3 predicts performance through to grade 12. Thus, JW and RM will have more remedial courses detracting from the higher level courses that are taught now. You essentially pull the performance of all down once you handicap 40-50% of your ES population.

Where are these kids from low-income families, currently? They're not being spontaneously generated by the construction of RM ES #5.

There are essentially 2-3 areas of concentrated poverty on the west side of the "tracks":
The apartment complex below the Hungerford subdivision (1001 Rockville Pike)--currently at BEALL
The set of housing complexes just south of Town Center including the Fireside apts--currently zoned for RP
The housing surrounding Town Center--currently at BEALL.

The plan calls for the top 2 to be zoned for RM5, leaving BEALL and RP with half the FARMS population that they had.

Also, the T3 area has FARMS rates above 66%

Won't that move Twinbrook below their Focus school FARMS numbers? I am surprised they are moving any of Twinbrook.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Single biggest aim for any boundary study should be to provide the best environment for kids to suceed. We should try to set up kids for success as much as possible. Farm rate around 25% gives any school a good diversity and also not burden schools much.

Falls Grove can simply move to Beall and RP can take more farm kids from others side of 270. That way, Falls grove kids won't be commuting longer than their current travel time and we are not creating schools with 10% and 53% farm rates. We are robbing RP an opportunity of being a diverse school and at the same time not giving best possible chance to 100s of kids in Rm#5.

When you have 25% farm rate then farm kids benefit from non-farm students. If you start having 50-60% farm rate then Farm and non-Farm, both set of students are at disadvantage.

Why start with a situation which doesn't allow kids to succeed? 6 years in elementary and then the same students will join in middle and high school. JW and RM will have a long term impact here. It's hard to find a high performing middle school if two feeder schools are low performing.

Falls Grove goes to Beall, and the poor kids at Beall get bused across 270 to Ritchie Park?

DP... I live in RP area. There is already a section of area near Beall that goes to RP. It's a small area near RMHS. That area will be going to #5ES.

There are pros/cons to busing kids to an ES further out. I think having a good community feel of an ES is important, and for lower income parents, having their ES further away can be a hardship. But, yes, having a lower FARMS rate is important, too. I am not sure which is more important for FARMs students.

Has anyone thought about moving the Park Potomac neighborhood from RP to RM #5 along with RP2 & RP6 - that would help balance out SES demographics at RM ES #5 - Park Potomac is close to RM ES #5, is a newer development without as many ties to RP, and has many higher income families. It is a much smaller neighborhood than Fallsgrove, so less concerns about overcrowding by moving an entire neighborhood.

First off Park Potomac should have went to Beverly Farms which is closer to it and far less capacity than RP. I am not sure whose brilliant idea it was to add that whole area to an ES that was already over capacity.

That said, it doesn't bring in as many kids as you would think. It shares a bus with the neighborhood across the street of Seven Locks. That neighborhood backs to Potomac Woods park and some of those kids do bike thru Potomac Woods Park to RP. Taking that section away is minimal. The section they should have moved was Quince Ridge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: (alt+p)

Thanks for posting this. A picture is worth thousand words.

I'm not sure which thousand words, though. The graph shows the proficiency rate for the school. It doesn't say anything about individual kids' scores if at School A vs. School B.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I'm not sure which thousand words, though.

RM and JW moving towards two very low performing schools. Twinbrook is racially and economically segregated from other areas of RM. RM#5 will start moving in the same direction.

[Anonymous]

"moving towards having ..."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm not sure which thousand words, though.

RM and JW moving towards two very low performing schools. Twinbrook is racially and economically segregated from other areas of RM. RM#5 will start moving in the same direction.

The number of poor kids hasn't changed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Single biggest aim for any boundary study should be to provide the best environment for kids to suceed. We should try to set up kids for success as much as possible. Farm rate around 25% gives any school a good diversity and also not burden schools much.

Falls Grove can simply move to Beall and RP can take more farm kids from others side of 270. That way, Falls grove kids won't be commuting longer than their current travel time and we are not creating schools with 10% and 53% farm rates. We are robbing RP an opportunity of being a diverse school and at the same time not giving best possible chance to 100s of kids in Rm#5.

When you have 25% farm rate then farm kids benefit from non-farm students. If you start having 50-60% farm rate then Farm and non-Farm, both set of students are at disadvantage.

Why start with a situation which doesn't allow kids to succeed? 6 years in elementary and then the same students will join in middle and high school. JW and RM will have a long term impact here. It's hard to find a high performing middle school if two feeder schools are low performing.

Falls Grove goes to Beall, and the poor kids at Beall get bused across 270 to Ritchie Park?

DP... I live in RP area. There is already a section of area near Beall that goes to RP. It's a small area near RMHS. That area will be going to #5ES.

There are pros/cons to busing kids to an ES further out. I think having a good community feel of an ES is important, and for lower income parents, having their ES further away can be a hardship. But, yes, having a lower FARMS rate is important, too. I am not sure which is more important for FARMs students.

The hardship on lower income parents argument is specious. Take a look at the number of kids at BEALL that are COSAs from underperforming schools or are using "grandma's address" to go to BEALL as opposed to schools ranging from Gaithersburg to the Rockville cluster. These parents are putting the child's school performance above the "walk to school". Again, the "no bussing" argument is the same as those made following Brown v Board of Ed.

When parents can be involved in their child's education like going to BTSN, parent/teacher conferences, PTA meetings, after school activities, that helps the child. So, yes, living close to the school for lower income parents should be a consideration. As it is, lower income parents have a hard time making it to these events, and it's usually with their younger kids in tow. Why make it harder?

My DC went to Barnsely. We had the time and the ability to drive back/forth to Barnsely for all of DC's school activities and such. If we were lower income, and I couldn't take time off work, and/or had only one car, it would've been much harder to be involved.

But here's an idea... why not ask the lower income parents what they prefer?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm not sure which thousand words, though.

RM and JW moving towards two very low performing schools. Twinbrook is racially and economically segregated from other areas of RM. RM#5 will start moving in the same direction.

The number of poor kids hasn't changed.

I think what PPs are stating is that kids in the higher farms school will have a subpar education and not as ready for MS/HS compared to the other kids. By MS/HS it will be too late or that much more difficult for these kids to catch up, thus affecting the test scores (and ratings) of the MS/HS.

What is the cut off for FOCUS school to receive additional aid? Does ES#5 and Twinbrook still qualify as focus?

Also, this is just the Supe's recommendation. How likely is it that the BOE will 100% agree? Are they just rubber stampers? They are taking parental input, but is it just for show?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I think what PPs are stating is that kids in the higher farms school will have a subpar education and not as ready for MS/HS compared to the other kids. By MS/HS it will be too late or that much more difficult for these kids to catch up, thus affecting the test scores (and ratings) of the MS/HS.

What is the cut off for FOCUS school to receive additional aid? Does ES#5 and Twinbrook still qualify as focus?

Also, this is just the Supe's recommendation. How likely is it that the BOE will 100% agree? Are they just rubber stampers? They are taking parental input, but is it just for show?

The likeliest outcome is that the non-poor kids at the higher-FARMS schools will be just fine. The question is therefore only whether poor kids who are currently zoned for low-FARMS schools (i.e., not Twinbrook) will do worse when zoned for a high-FARMS school. And statistically the answer to this question is probably yes, unfortunately -- but it seems unlikely to me that there are enough poor kids who will do enough worse to bring down the average scores and environment of JW MS and RM HS as a whole.

In other words, worry about the effect on individual kids, not on JW and RM overall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm not sure which thousand words, though.

RM and JW moving towards two very low performing schools. Twinbrook is racially and economically segregated from other areas of RM. RM#5 will start moving in the same direction.

The number of poor kids hasn't changed.

75-25 distributions in two schools provide a much better environment to learn when compared to having two schools with 100-0 and 50-50 distribution.

Statement is true if we care about all kids here.