Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:poeple have said this already but they are NOT going to pick A.

building a new school because of capacity issues and then having that new school be extremely under capacity while other schools are at capacity?

the optics of that are terrible. not going to happen.

also, snobby woodley gardens residents saying how they should remain at CG because thats how its always been will not persuade anyone. If anything, its upsetting the members of the board

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:watching the closed board meeting from a few weeks back where they discussed the various options, this is the impression i am getting from the BoE. not sure htough

in favor of proximity:
o'neill and smondrowski and docca

in favor of equitable farms:
dixon, post, ortman-fouse


i think durso also cares more about proximity as he made a comment about dc schools with 100 percent farms being highly regarded


not sure about evans as she hasnt really said much.

Ha we're former DC residents at a Title 1 school and this has been in the back of my mind reading this thread. 6-8 FARM kids in a class is really not worth 100 pages of whining folks. Some of those kids are more academically prepared than posters give them credit for.

[Anonymous]

imagine the shitshow when they redistrict for crown high and pull people out of wootton.

this is NOTHING compared to that possibility.

[Anonymous]

Or open the new Woodward HS...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Since WG doesn't want to go to Beall,"

This is NOT TRUE. WG just start out stating it's opinion FOR A not against B.

- CG1 Parent"

That would be more believable if some (we know not all) of the WG testimonies didn't use dramatic language like their children being "sacrificed" and communities being "ripped apart". Sorry, but some definitely weren't just stating a preference for A, they were acting like anything short of A was catastrophic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many outside groups are closely watching this development. Creating a school with 7% FARMs rate may look appealing for folks in RP, but it may look awkward given that even now school has 20% FARMs.

BOE may slightly modify one of the options to keep RP at 20% FARMs.

RP doesn’t want 7% FARMS. Stop saying that. I don’t care if A, B, or E get picked. Either way my kids are losing friends, many in RP5 and RP2/6. Personally I prefer RP2/6 to stay as I like those parents/kids more, but they deserve that walkable neighborhood feeling that the rest of their area is getting. Isolating them off while all surrounding neighborhoods go to the new school JUST because of one apartment complex is involved in a “FARMS battle” is really embarrassing to them and our whole school. I wish RP1, RP3, and RP4 had more FARMS so this would be a non issue and RP2 gets their neighborhood school. But because they don’t, they will probably stay isolated getting bussed to our school and RP5 moved further. Do I think it is a massive hardship for RP5? No. Do I think it is for RP2/6? Yes. They may get bussed now so it is the same but this brand new beautiful school is being built and everyone around them will be going to it, using Elwood Smith for aftercare, playground camp, break camps, etc... and it will sink in they were pulled from that because of Fireside. It doesn’t seem right. That is my take on it.

RP1 parent

What hardship are you talking about? They continue to go to the same school. It's not that far and some may prefer a short bubs ride than a 20 minute walk. So far we have one official position from RP2 (pretty well documented I might say): http://www.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/AT5QU86AE74C/$file/Laurie%20Brooks.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Since WG doesn't want to go to Beall,"

This is NOT TRUE. WG just start out stating it's opinion FOR A not against B.

- CG1 Parent"

That would be more believable if some (we know not all) of the WG testimonies didn't use dramatic language like their children being "sacrificed" and communities being "ripped apart". Sorry, but some definitely weren't just stating a preference for A, they were acting like anything short of A was catastrophic.

Agreed. Their pleas of leaving CG and the precious IB curriculum makes it seem like all the other RM schools are inferior. As a parent at another school, I would take offense to that. I who said it at the meeting (Durso or someone else), but something to the effect of the kids take it the best - the parents need to get over it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Since WG doesn't want to go to Beall,"

This is NOT TRUE. WG just start out stating it's opinion FOR A not against B.

- CG1 Parent"

That would be more believable if some (we know not all) of the WG testimonies didn't use dramatic language like their children being "sacrificed" and communities being "ripped apart". Sorry, but some definitely weren't just stating a preference for A, they were acting like anything short of A was catastrophic.

Now they have have petitions and politicians saying that communities are being ripped apart unless Option A is chosen. Well, let me tell you Woodley/CG3... there are options that don't rip communities apart, aside from A. Granted some do, but some don't. And... they adhere to the MCPS criteria. Stop with you alternative facts!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Since WG doesn't want to go to Beall,"

This is NOT TRUE. WG just start out stating it's opinion FOR A not against B.

- CG1 Parent"

That would be more believable if some (we know not all) of the WG testimonies didn't use dramatic language like their children being "sacrificed" and communities being "ripped apart". Sorry, but some definitely weren't just stating a preference for A, they were acting like anything short of A was catastrophic.

Agreed. Their pleas of leaving CG and the precious IB curriculum makes it seem like all the other RM schools are inferior. As a parent at another school, I would take offense to that. I who said it at the meeting (Durso or someone else), but something to the effect of the kids take it the best - the parents need to get over it.

yup. woodley gardens better get ready to go to beall. option A aint happening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ha we're former DC residents at a Title 1 school and this has been in the back of my mind reading this thread. 6-8 FARM kids in a class is really not worth 100 pages of whining folks. Some of those kids are more academically prepared than posters give them credit for.

Anonymous wrote:It is easy for a clueless individual to say that 2 extra kids won't make any difference, but ask any teacher what it means to have 8 instead of 6 FARMS kids in their class. At 25% FARMS 6 kids have the chance to be brought to the same level as their peers close to the end of the elementary school. At 33% most of the 8 kids will still be behind at the end of elementary school. It's not about 2 kids. It is about 6 kids succeeding or 8 kids not succeeding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Since WG doesn't want to go to Beall,"

This is NOT TRUE. WG just start out stating it's opinion FOR A not against B.

- CG1 Parent"

That would be more believable if some (we know not all) of the WG testimonies didn't use dramatic language like their children being "sacrificed" and communities being "ripped apart". Sorry, but some definitely weren't just stating a preference for A, they were acting like anything short of A was catastrophic.

Now they have have petitions and politicians saying that communities are being ripped apart unless Option A is chosen. Well, let me tell you Woodley/CG3... there are options that don't rip communities apart, aside from A. Granted some do, but some don't. And... they adhere to the MCPS criteria. Stop with you alternative facts!

Where is it publicly stated that all the politicians and community civic associations support option A? I want to see the data. Publicly available board votes or public statements. Show me links Woodley. Otherwise, I can just throw anything on paper and say my neighborhood supports something. I think it is pretty clear by now that portions of all neighborhoods are both for and against all options. Simply saying this in a plea to the BOE or in letters is not enough for me and I think the BOE will see through it.

[Anonymous]

MCPS sent new data to the school board over the weekend that they did in fact not factor the Tower Oaks development into the projections. Updated numbers show the new school capacity at 85% in Option A, 99.6% in Option B, and 99.2% in Option E.


Excerpt from email:
"Approved development is included in our capacity and enrollment projections for schools or for any CIP purpose. We do not include proposed development that is not yet approved, as prior to development approval the timing and actual building plans are uncertain and may change over time. The table below shows the plans in the Richard Montgomery Cluster that we are aware of through the Rockville City Planning Department. The student generation rates for various types of housing in areas of the county are developed by Park and Planning. The table below shows the number of expected students at full build out for each development plan in the RM cluster, using the Park and Planning student generation rates.

While the Tower Oaks development plan is approved, it was approved very recently, in October of this year. As a result, the development was not included in the enrollment projections during the boundary review process. "

[Anonymous]

Jennifer Strohm spoke in the name of West End, Woodley Gardens, and the College Gardens Civic Associations (over 2,500 residences in the Cluster):
http://www.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/AT6KTJ51C198/$file/Jennifer%20Strohm.pdf
It looks like strong popular support for Option A.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ha we're former DC residents at a Title 1 school and this has been in the back of my mind reading this thread. 6-8 FARM kids in a class is really not worth 100 pages of whining folks. Some of those kids are more academically prepared than posters give them credit for.

Anonymous wrote:It is easy for a clueless individual to say that 2 extra kids won't make any difference, but ask any teacher what it means to have 8 instead of 6 FARMS kids in their class. At 25% FARMS 6 kids have the chance to be brought to the same level as their peers close to the end of the elementary school. At 33% most of the 8 kids will still be behind at the end of elementary school. It's not about 2 kids. It is about 6 kids succeeding or 8 kids not succeeding.

How do some 100% farms schools manage to get 8+ kids to profiency and beyond?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Since WG doesn't want to go to Beall,"

This is NOT TRUE. WG just start out stating it's opinion FOR A not against B.

- CG1 Parent"

That would be more believable if some (we know not all) of the WG testimonies didn't use dramatic language like their children being "sacrificed" and communities being "ripped apart". Sorry, but some definitely weren't just stating a preference for A, they were acting like anything short of A was catastrophic.

Now they have have petitions and politicians saying that communities are being ripped apart unless Option A is chosen. Well, let me tell you Woodley/CG3... there are options that don't rip communities apart, aside from A. Granted some do, but some don't. And... they adhere to the MCPS criteria. Stop with you alternative facts!

Where is it publicly stated that all the politicians and community civic associations support option A? I want to see the data. Publicly available board votes or public statements. Show me links Woodley. Otherwise, I can just throw anything on paper and say my neighborhood supports something. I think it is pretty clear by now that portions of all neighborhoods are both for and against all options. Simply saying this in a plea to the BOE or in letters is not enough for me and I think the BOE will see through it.

Agreed. I'm finally getting a chance to review the board meeting statements. Many contain references to civic groups supporting a position with no references. As a board member, I'd be curious as to whether these groups represent all the citizens of a particular neighborhood or just the most vocal few. It would be a shame if the loudest talkers shifted this decision kids for several decades. I would bet most of the vocal groups, CG3 included, will have children out of elementary school before the ramifications take hold (overcrowding at CG).