Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries

[Anonymous]

for the RP parents, your frustration is deeply felt looking back to history, moving from Wotton to RM, and you have been fight very hard for a better high school, because who don't want a better school for their children.

Right now, it is that time again, everybody is fighting for their elementary schools. But I honestly think that some of your efforts are putting into wrong place.

For those communities consist of high SES families with very few FARM kids, the elementary will always be very good, FARM rate 10% or 20%.

On the other hand, You are still belongs to RM cluster.

ES#5 has apartments and condos, but also has quite a few communities with moderate priced houses/townhomes , right now those community is very attractive to young professionals with little kids because of good schools and great location.

This will change if ES#5 end up being a low performing school, it will not only no longer attractive to young professionals but also losing it current non farm kids.

So ithe current proposal is not just moving FARM kids around, it will definitely INCREASE the FARM kids in RM cluster, causing RM performance going down.


By fighting to reduce farm from ~20% to ~10% will damage ES#5 community, end result will be RM cluster performance going down, I think that is the result everyone should try to avoid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:for the RP parents, your frustration is deeply felt looking back to history, moving from Wotton to RM, and you have been fight very hard for a better high school, because who don't want a better school for their children.

Right now, it is that time again, everybody is fighting for their elementary schools. But I honestly think that some of your efforts are putting into wrong place.

For those communities consist of high SES families with very few FARM kids, the elementary will always be very good, FARM rate 10% or 20%.

On the other hand, You are still belongs to RM cluster.

ES#5 has apartments and condos, but also has quite a few communities with moderate priced houses/townhomes , right now those community is very attractive to young professionals with little kids because of good schools and great location.

This will change if ES#5 end up being a low performing school, it will not only no longer attractive to young professionals but also losing it current non farm kids.

So ithe current proposal is not just moving FARM kids around, it will definitely INCREASE the FARM kids in RM cluster, causing RM performance going down.


By fighting to reduce farm from ~20% to ~10% will damage ES#5 community, end result will be RM cluster performance going down, I think that is the result everyone should try to avoid.

This boundary proposal wasn't put forth by RP parents, and RP parents didn't ask for their school to wind up with 10% FARMS. There were limited options given during the initial boundary study for RP and 6 out of 8 of them would have resulted in the same demographic result for RP. The other 2 options put the farthest zone to RM #5 at the new school - no other zones were ever proposed to move out of RP including closer neighborhoods. Why put this outcome on the RP families? This is a cluster issue - pitting schools against other schools doesn't help and making blanket assumptions about how parents at each school feels doesn't help.

[Anonymous]

What about moving B7 to RP instead of RM #5, and moving Falls Ridge and Park Potomac neighborhoods (part of RP3) along with RP2 and RP6 to RM #5? Seems like the most minimal geographic disruption and possibly balances demographics at the schools a bit more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RM cluster has been successfully because the current three schools are balanced, even it means some area were bused further, it is a route proven to work.

so we should follow those steps and also make ES#5 more balanced. Hollowing out the well educated professionals from ES#5 community will have big negative impact on the RM cluster.

No RM has been successful because they pulled RP out of Wootton, added Falllsgrove after promising plot owners Wottoon, building upper middle class neighborhoods like Rose Hill, and new home communities in West End. Oh and obviously adding IB. The kids in lower income neighborhoods are less of a percentage and still scoring just as low, if not lower than they were 20 years ago.

On what data are you basing this? The data from MoCo reported several years ago suggested quite the opposite. And this is born out by national data... "the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) given to fourth graders in math, for example, low-income students attending more affluent schools scored roughly two years of learning ahead of low-income students in high-poverty schools. Controlling carefully for students’ family background, another study found that students in mixed-income schools showed 30 percent more growth in test scores over their four years in high school than peers with similar socioeconomic backgrounds in schools with concentrated poverty." https://tcf.org/content/facts/the-benefits-of-socioeconomically-and-racially-integrated-schools-and-classrooms/

[Anonymous]

Oh no, my intention is definitely not to put one against the other,

Quite opposite, my intention is trying to call for all the communities to unify together and urge the board to come up a better plan for ES#5.

I apologize if my post was not able to deliver that message..

.


This boundary proposal wasn't put forth by RP parents, and RP parents didn't ask for their school to wind up with 10% FARMS. There were limited options given during the initial boundary study for RP and 6 out of 8 of them would have resulted in the same demographic result for RP. The other 2 options put the farthest zone to RM #5 at the new school - no other zones were ever proposed to move out of RP including closer neighborhoods. Why put this outcome on the RP families? This is a cluster issue - pitting schools against other schools doesn't help and making blanket assumptions about how parents at each school feels doesn't help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What about moving B7 to RP instead of RM #5, and moving Falls Ridge and Park Potomac neighborhoods (part of RP3) along with RP2 and RP6 to RM #5? Seems like the most minimal geographic disruption and possibly balances demographics at the schools a bit more.

RP6 was added later in the study and divided RP3 because part of RP3 is walkable and they didn't realize that in the initial proposal. So they took part of RP3 and turned it into RP6. At that point all cluster schools agreed these were the correct ways to break each area of their schools and it was deemed they wouldn't break any section/neighborhood up moving forward.

So you asking to now break up sections 18 months after this project/proposals started is about 12 months too late. You should have been more vocal at the meetings all last year. Not now when the decision is practically finalized.

That all said B7 has double the amount of kids the parts of RP3 you are talking about. Not even close to an even swap. RM#5 would be under enrolled, especially with them building out the shell, and RP would be over capacity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about moving B7 to RP instead of RM #5, and moving Falls Ridge and Park Potomac neighborhoods (part of RP3) along with RP2 and RP6 to RM #5? Seems like the most minimal geographic disruption and possibly balances demographics at the schools a bit more.

RP6 was added later in the study and divided RP3 because part of RP3 is walkable and they didn't realize that in the initial proposal. So they took part of RP3 and turned it into RP6. At that point all cluster schools agreed these were the correct ways to break each area of their schools and it was deemed they wouldn't break any section/neighborhood up moving forward.

So you asking to now break up sections 18 months after this project/proposals started is about 12 months too late. You should have been more vocal at the meetings all last year. Not now when the decision is practically finalized.

That all said B7 has double the amount of kids the parts of RP3 you are talking about. Not even close to an even swap. RM#5 would be under enrolled, especially with them building out the shell, and RP would be over capacity.

Observers couldn't even comment during the boundary study meetings. PTA representative were not there to recommend anything rather simply evaluate all options based on listed criterion. Still, SES was raised strongly by Rm#5 parents by whatever means they had to raise the issue after seeing option 1-8 having high farm rates for RM#5. Now we are coming out with a recommended option which has farm rate even higher than all options discussed earlier.

If there was any option with 53% in class farm rate for RM#5 during discussion then you would have heard a stronger objection.

Not sure how you are seeing it as

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This boundary proposal wasn't put forth by RP parents, and RP parents didn't ask for their school to wind up with 10% FARMS. There were limited options given during the initial boundary study for RP and 6 out of 8 of them would have resulted in the same demographic result for RP. The other 2 options put the farthest zone to RM #5 at the new school - no other zones were ever proposed to move out of RP including closer neighborhoods. Why put this outcome on the RP families? This is a cluster issue - pitting schools against other schools doesn't help and making blanket assumptions about how parents at each school feels doesn't help.

It's not about RP to be honest. We should avoid pitting one school vs other. We are all in RM.

Since boundary are being redrawn, it would make sense to not look at what exists right now and simply put the most efficient boundary balancing everything as much as possible for all schools. It looks like, there is no attempt to do that from MCPS. You are right, MCPS should have attempted to move some different portions of RP out and then take something in to distribute rater than simply listing 1-6 option which was not making any difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about moving B7 to RP instead of RM #5, and moving Falls Ridge and Park Potomac neighborhoods (part of RP3) along with RP2 and RP6 to RM #5? Seems like the most minimal geographic disruption and possibly balances demographics at the schools a bit more.

RP6 was added later in the study and divided RP3 because part of RP3 is walkable and they didn't realize that in the initial proposal. So they took part of RP3 and turned it into RP6. At that point all cluster schools agreed these were the correct ways to break each area of their schools and it was deemed they wouldn't break any section/neighborhood up moving forward.

So you asking to now break up sections 18 months after this project/proposals started is about 12 months too late. You should have been more vocal at the meetings all last year. Not now when the decision is practically finalized.

That all said B7 has double the amount of kids the parts of RP3 you are talking about. Not even close to an even swap. RM#5 would be under enrolled, especially with them building out the shell, and RP would be over capacity.

Observers couldn't even comment during the boundary study meetings. PTA representative were not there to recommend anything rather simply evaluate all options based on listed criterion. Still, SES was raised strongly by Rm#5 parents by whatever means they had to raise the issue after seeing option 1-8 having high farm rates for RM#5. Now we are coming out with a recommended option which has farm rate even higher than all options discussed earlier.

If there was any option with 53% in class farm rate for RM#5 during discussion then you would have heard a stronger objection.

Not sure how you are seeing it as

Right. The original Option 1 was 29% FARMS (37%without CI). None of the 8 options presented had 41% FARMS (52%without CI) or there would have been concerns and requests for additional options in the spring.

[Anonymous]

Moving kids in and out of the other cluster schools just to fulfill perfect FARMS schools is so ridiculous. This was never the main issue. I wonder if ANY of the people now complaining even attended the meetings? It is one thing to put areas close to the new school in the new school. It is another to move certain neighborhoods out of Beall to CG. Move Twinbrook neighborhood into RP. Then move an RP to Beall and a CG to Twinbrook etc... all for the sake of FARMS.

There would be an enourmous uproar because no cluster does that and this school cluster would not even have issues if the county didn't build King Farm, Fallsgrove, Park Potomac, and Rockville Town Center without adding another school. But they did and our schools are severely overcrowded. They have been for close to a decade. We have been the cluster that gets screwed while nearby Potomac schools get new schools for under-enrolled areas. So now we finally get a new school and it should not mean random neighborhoods not even close to one school, get moved to go there while walkable or close neighborhoods get busses elsewhere. They all go to JW and RM. Let's keep the ES communities strong with nearby neighborhoods that will increase participation and hopefully spill over to a better PTA/involvement/community for JW.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about moving B7 to RP instead of RM #5, and moving Falls Ridge and Park Potomac neighborhoods (part of RP3) along with RP2 and RP6 to RM #5? Seems like the most minimal geographic disruption and possibly balances demographics at the schools a bit more.

RP6 was added later in the study and divided RP3 because part of RP3 is walkable and they didn't realize that in the initial proposal. So they took part of RP3 and turned it into RP6. At that point all cluster schools agreed these were the correct ways to break each area of their schools and it was deemed they wouldn't break any section/neighborhood up moving forward.

So you asking to now break up sections 18 months after this project/proposals started is about 12 months too late. You should have been more vocal at the meetings all last year. Not now when the decision is practically finalized.

That all said B7 has double the amount of kids the parts of RP3 you are talking about. Not even close to an even swap. RM#5 would be under enrolled, especially with them building out the shell, and RP would be over capacity.

Observers couldn't even comment during the boundary study meetings. PTA representative were not there to recommend anything rather simply evaluate all options based on listed criterion. Still, SES was raised strongly by Rm#5 parents by whatever means they had to raise the issue after seeing option 1-8 having high farm rates for RM#5. Now we are coming out with a recommended option which has farm rate even higher than all options discussed earlier.

If there was any option with 53% in class farm rate for RM#5 during discussion then you would have heard a stronger objection.

Not sure how you are seeing it as

Right. The original Option 1 was 29% FARMS (37%without CI). None of the 8 options presented had 41% FARMS (52%without CI) or there would have been concerns and requests for additional options in the spring.

So how did it get to this? Are they not picking one of the 8 options?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This boundary proposal wasn't put forth by RP parents, and RP parents didn't ask for their school to wind up with 10% FARMS. There were limited options given during the initial boundary study for RP and 6 out of 8 of them would have resulted in the same demographic result for RP. The other 2 options put the farthest zone to RM #5 at the new school - no other zones were ever proposed to move out of RP including closer neighborhoods. Why put this outcome on the RP families? This is a cluster issue - pitting schools against other schools doesn't help and making blanket assumptions about how parents at each school feels doesn't help.

It's not about RP to be honest. We should avoid pitting one school vs other. We are all in RM.

Since boundary are being redrawn, it would make sense to not look at what exists right now and simply put the most efficient boundary balancing everything as much as possible for all schools. It looks like, there is no attempt to do that from MCPS. You are right, MCPS should have attempted to move some different portions of RP out and then take something in to distribute rater than simply listing 1-6 option which was not making any difference.

That is so stupid and the idea is about 2 years too late. The school is opening in August. They aren't going to scrap all their plans from the last 2 years. And they had 8 options and moved a couple of sections already. It has been a long work in progress that you obviously weren't very involved in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This boundary proposal wasn't put forth by RP parents, and RP parents didn't ask for their school to wind up with 10% FARMS. There were limited options given during the initial boundary study for RP and 6 out of 8 of them would have resulted in the same demographic result for RP. The other 2 options put the farthest zone to RM #5 at the new school - no other zones were ever proposed to move out of RP including closer neighborhoods. Why put this outcome on the RP families? This is a cluster issue - pitting schools against other schools doesn't help and making blanket assumptions about how parents at each school feels doesn't help.

It's not about RP to be honest. We should avoid pitting one school vs other. We are all in RM.

Since boundary are being redrawn, it would make sense to not look at what exists right now and simply put the most efficient boundary balancing everything as much as possible for all schools. It looks like, there is no attempt to do that from MCPS. You are right, MCPS should have attempted to move some different portions of RP out and then take something in to distribute rater than simply listing 1-6 option which was not making any difference.

That is so stupid and the idea is about 2 years too late. The school is opening in August. They aren't going to scrap all their plans from the last 2 years. And they had 8 options and moved a couple of sections already. It has been a long work in progress that you obviously weren't very involved in.

The superintendent's recommendation is different than any of the original 1-8 options. He calls it a "modified option 1" but it's really "Option 9." It I'd the extra zone moved from Beall to RM ES that accounts for the increased FARMS rate in ES #5.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

That is so stupid and the idea is about 2 years too late. The school is opening in August. They aren't going to scrap all their plans from the last 2 years. And they had 8 options and moved a couple of sections already. It has been a long work in progress that you obviously weren't very involved in.

I was involved in every single meeting. What plans from the last 2 years you are talking here?

Boundary study suggested some options and it happened in the last 6-8 months. There is process to provide input and change everything even after Superintended recommendation. Let's not make assumptions about the process and people involved in it if you are ignorant about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about moving B7 to RP instead of RM #5, and moving Falls Ridge and Park Potomac neighborhoods (part of RP3) along with RP2 and RP6 to RM #5? Seems like the most minimal geographic disruption and possibly balances demographics at the schools a bit more.

RP6 was added later in the study and divided RP3 because part of RP3 is walkable and they didn't realize that in the initial proposal. So they took part of RP3 and turned it into RP6. At that point all cluster schools agreed these were the correct ways to break each area of their schools and it was deemed they wouldn't break any section/neighborhood up moving forward.

So you asking to now break up sections 18 months after this project/proposals started is about 12 months too late. You should have been more vocal at the meetings all last year. Not now when the decision is practically finalized.

That all said B7 has double the amount of kids the parts of RP3 you are talking about. Not even close to an even swap. RM#5 would be under enrolled, especially with them building out the shell, and RP would be over capacity.

Observers couldn't even comment during the boundary study meetings. PTA representative were not there to recommend anything rather simply evaluate all options based on listed criterion. Still, SES was raised strongly by Rm#5 parents by whatever means they had to raise the issue after seeing option 1-8 having high farm rates for RM#5. Now we are coming out with a recommended option which has farm rate even higher than all options discussed earlier.

If there was any option with 53% in class farm rate for RM#5 during discussion then you would have heard a stronger objection.

Not sure how you are seeing it as

Right. The original Option 1 was 29% FARMS (37%without CI). None of the 8 options presented had 41% FARMS (52%without CI) or there would have been concerns and requests for additional options in the spring.

So how did it get to this? Are they not picking one of the 8 options?

The Superintendent's recommendation included a recommendation to build out the shell of RM ES #5 to accommodate more students at the new school and reduce overcrowding at the other cluster schools, which EVERYONE advocated for and is GOOD NEWS. However, because of that, an additional zone was recommended to move into RM ES #5 by the superintendent. That is what caused the change in FARMS rates and why.