Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are many people in the CG community (including people in CG3) that oppose CG begin overcrowded. Unfortunately, when these people express their opinions in public, it is being taken personally and CG3 says that communities are not supporting them (such as King Farm). It really isn't a personal issue. People really just want what is best for the school and their kids. There are very valid concerns about leaving CG overcrowded, not only from the lack of build out potential in the future, but also from the errors in the data (both historically and in the BS so far). So far, the most vocal group has been CG3, however they are only a small part of the school. If people have concerns about CG remaining overcrowded, I hope that they are writing to the BOE to let them know this.

I'm one of those people who don't want CGES to remain at capacity. Just moving CI isn't enough. I wrote BOE last week, but I feel like I need to write them again. I don't feel like the CG3 argument of "community" and "sister neighborhood" and "history" is worthy of being considered. It's a load of hooey. And you're correct - if you expressed an opinion against Option A (i.e., against CG3), you'd look mean and like you somehow don't love the current community at CGES.

This perspective was largely missing from the last public hearing so it would be good to send some emails to the BOE. It would make no sense for them to leave Woodley Gardens at College Gardens ES but who knows the BOE could do anything.

[Anonymous]

Agree here,

All CG folks , please send your letters to BOE. You don't want to have portables just because Woodley Gardens is afraid to move to Beall

I send mine today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agree here,

All CG folks , please send your letters to BOE. You don't want to have portables just because Woodley Gardens is afraid to move to Beall

I send mine today.

It isn’t just about WG. More Beall sections get moved to the new school in plan B.

Also, the only option that might have you in portables is plan C.

I will be curious how this turns out. Many people want WG to stay in the school and many Beall residents seem to prefer A to B as well. It is the only two schools it really affects.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree here,

All CG folks , please send your letters to BOE. You don't want to have portables just because Woodley Gardens is afraid to move to Beall

I send mine today.

It isn’t just about WG. More Beall sections get moved to the new school in plan B.

Also, the only option that might have you in portables is plan C.

I will be curious how this turns out. Many people want WG to stay in the school and many Beall residents seem to prefer A to B as well. It is the only two schools it really affects.

Exactly Plan B has some random line dividing a community. Please, what are those ivory tower folks in the Carver center thinking?

C&D are patently absurd, and E is almost as bizarre. Again, E is supported by people who want to walk to the new school but dont want too many of those people there. You know, the ones who get free lunches. So they want to bus in students who can walk to other schools. Splitting up other peoples communities is poor civics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agree here,

All CG folks , please send your letters to BOE. You don't want to have portables just because Woodley Gardens is afraid to move to Beall

I send mine today.

You are on your own there, this CG 1parent and many others in CG1, are in support of option A.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Exactly Plan B has some random line dividing a community. Please, what are those ivory tower folks in the Carver center thinking?

C&D are patently absurd, and E is almost as bizarre. Again, E is supported by people who want to walk to the new school but dont want too many of those people there. You know, the ones who get free lunches. So they want to bus in students who can walk to other schools. Splitting up other peoples communities is poor civics.

E is actually an option that optimizes school utilization and allows for projected growth (ensuring stability), promotes diversity (including socioeconomic diversity) and does a pretty good job at maintaining current assignments (proximity). These are the four factors that BOE has to take into account, not only proximity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree here,

All CG folks , please send your letters to BOE. You don't want to have portables just because Woodley Gardens is afraid to move to Beall

I send mine today.

It isn’t just about WG. More Beall sections get moved to the new school in plan B.

Also, the only option that might have you in portables is plan C.

I will be curious how this turns out. Many people want WG to stay in the school and many Beall residents seem to prefer A to B as well. It is the only two schools it really affects.

Why do think that moving is bad? Ridiculous stuff by WG here. Making so much noise just to avoid going to Beall. yes, you don't like Beall, but Beall is not a horrible school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree here,

All CG folks , please send your letters to BOE. You don't want to have portables just because Woodley Gardens is afraid to move to Beall

I send mine today.

You are on your own there, this CG 1parent and many others in CG1, are in support of option A.

I am not my own here. Huge number of folks are worried about overcrowding in CG. Many have sent letter to BOE and I will encourage even sane folks for CG3 to do as well. I don't want portable. Keeping school at 100% when new school is there is a crazy idea.

[Anonymous]

I also sent letters against option A. I don't want CG to be over crowded. Horrible idea when you have a new school just to not have overcrowding.

- King farm parent

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree here,

All CG folks , please send your letters to BOE. You don't want to have portables just because Woodley Gardens is afraid to move to Beall

I send mine today.

It isn’t just about WG. More Beall sections get moved to the new school in plan B.

Also, the only option that might have you in portables is plan C.

I will be curious how this turns out. Many people want WG to stay in the school and many Beall residents seem to prefer A to B as well. It is the only two schools it really affects.

I actually suggested CG3 going to RM#5 to avoid any more movement. BOE said that they can consider 1 zone movement in their final decision. Since WG doesn't want to go to Beall, RM#5 is a good alternative.

- CG1 Parent

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OMG when will you all stop with this?!?? Just wait until the 27th to hear the decision and move on! Bantor on dcum is changing and doing nothing. Move on!!!

guys there are lots of suburban privates that are more than fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exactly Plan B has some random line dividing a community. Please, what are those ivory tower folks in the Carver center thinking?

C&D are patently absurd, and E is almost as bizarre. Again, E is supported by people who want to walk to the new school but dont want too many of those people there. You know, the ones who get free lunches. So they want to bus in students who can walk to other schools. Splitting up other peoples communities is poor civics.

E is actually an option that optimizes school utilization and allows for projected growth (ensuring stability), promotes diversity (including socioeconomic diversity) and does a pretty good job at maintaining current assignments (proximity). These are the four factors that BOE has to take into account, not only proximity.

E makes a neighborhood near the new school not walk to it. They get bussed past that new school to one further. It also makes RP6, B5, and RP5 all have longer commutes. So very poor job for proximity

It has RM5 at a very high capacity and will be over capacity in 5 years when the 30 single family homes, 225 townhomes, and 120 condos are completely built. Not to mention Hungerford will be a desirable area for new families. Dogwood, Elwood Smith, and new School are all walkable. There will be decent turnover. So projected growth is not considered.

Diversity is the same almost across the board. FARMS rates are not. But again, not the only diversity to look at. Racial is well balanced.

Tough call on A, B or E.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OMG when will you all stop with this?!?? Just wait until the 27th to hear the decision and move on! Bantor on dcum is changing and doing nothing. Move on!!!

guys there are lots of suburban privates that are more than fine.

Funny, all the privates are probably pushing for C!!

[Anonymous]

I also sent emails to the BOE in support of option A. Keep our communities together.

-KF parent

[Anonymous]

The more I keep looking at the options, the more I think B will be picked. Not because of overcapacity of CG which is minimal, but it lowers the FARMS at RM5 while still keeping the walkable section there I feel like it is the best compromise without major changes that increase bus time for kids.