Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries

[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.

Not sure about Woodley Gardens but below is the facebook page for the West End Citizens Association. A post from November 11th states the following:

As you may know, Montgomery County Public Schools is currently considering boundary options for the new Richard Montgomery Cluster Elementary School (RMES #5), which will open in Fall, 2018 at 332 West Edmonston Drive. While the new school is a welcome addition to the RM cluster, we believe all West End children who attend Beall Elementary School today should remain at Beall, our neighborhood school and the heart of our community. We have unanimously passed a Motion in favor of keeping the West End together at Beall, over other alternatives proposed by the Board of Education that would divide the West End and send many of our children to RMES#5.

https://www.facebook.com/WECARockville/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Yes, but that is ONE person speaking on behalf of over 2,500 residences. Did she personally go to each residence? I highly doubt it. So, as one person said, show me the data on which those ASSUMPTIONS are based!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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. "

This is crazy!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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. "

WHOAAAAAAAAAaaa i take back what i said about A having no chance. this changes everything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Yes, but that is ONE person speaking on behalf of over 2,500 residences. Did she personally go to each residence? I highly doubt it. So, as one person said, show me the data on which those ASSUMPTIONS are based!

"As you may know, Montgomery County Public Schools is currently considering boundary options for the new Richard Montgomery Cluster Elementary School (RMES #5), which will open in Fall, 2018 at 332 West Edmonston Drive. While the new school is a welcome addition to the RM cluster, we believe all West End children who attend Beall Elementary School today should remain at Beall, our neighborhood school and the heart of our community. We have unanimously passed a Motion in favor of keeping the West End together at Beall, over other alternatives proposed by the Board of Education that would divide the West End and send many of our children to RMES#5."

https://www.facebook.com/WECARockville/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Some do. Statistically speaking most don't. Look at data from MCPS (Figure 1): https://education.umd.edu/research/centers/mep/research/k-12-education/does-school-composition-matter-estimating-relationship

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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).

Woodley Gardens President's Testimony: http://www.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/AT7MPV5C4038/$file/Jim%20Reschovsky.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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. "

WHOAAAAAAAAAaaa i take back what i said about A having no chance. this changes everything.

So now we have two schools at max capacity in the cluster with now room for future rev/ex expansion - CG and RM#5. Nice

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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. "

WHOAAAAAAAAAaaa i take back what i said about A having no chance. this changes everything.

So now we have two schools at max capacity in the cluster with now room for future rev/ex expansion - CG and RM#5. Nice

No, Option A has the new school at 85% still. Option B and E have CG at 89% and the new school at 100%. It is all about which area will see more growth.... College Gardens area or Rockville Pike from Twinbrook up to the Towncenter which is almost all zoned to the new school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Some do. Statistically speaking most don't. Look at data from MCPS (Figure 1): https://education.umd.edu/research/centers/mep/research/k-12-education/does-school-composition-matter-estimating-relationship

Data within the cluster -
5th grade Math met/exceeding expectations rates for FARM students
College Gardens - 27.8%
Twinbrook - 27.3%
Beall - 26.1%
Ritchie Park - 21.8%

Not a significant difference considering the varying populations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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. "

WHOAAAAAAAAAaaa i take back what i said about A having no chance. this changes everything.

So now we have two schools at max capacity in the cluster with now room for future rev/ex expansion - CG and RM#5. Nice

Will this information become public?

No, Option A has the new school at 85% still. Option B and E have CG at 89% and the new school at 100%. It is all about which area will see more growth.... College Gardens area or Rockville Pike from Twinbrook up to the Towncenter which is almost all zoned to the new school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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. "

WHOAAAAAAAAAaaa i take back what i said about A having no chance. this changes everything.

So now we have two schools at max capacity in the cluster with now room for future rev/ex expansion - CG and RM#5. Nice

Will this be publicly available?

Will this information become public?

No, Option A has the new school at 85% still. Option B and E have CG at 89% and the new school at 100%. It is all about which area will see more growth.... College Gardens area or Rockville Pike from Twinbrook up to the Towncenter which is almost all zoned to the new school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Some do. Statistically speaking most don't. Look at data from MCPS (Figure 1): https://education.umd.edu/research/centers/mep/research/k-12-education/does-school-composition-matter-estimating-relationship

Data within the cluster -
5th grade Math met/exceeding expectations rates for FARM students
College Gardens - 27.8%
Twinbrook - 27.3%
Beall - 26.1%
Ritchie Park - 21.8%

Not a significant difference considering the varying populations.

Do you know how many students you have per class in Twinbrook versus the other schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Some do. Statistically speaking most don't. Look at data from MCPS (Figure 1): https://education.umd.edu/research/centers/mep/research/k-12-education/does-school-composition-matter-estimating-relationship

Data within the cluster -
5th grade Math met/exceeding expectations rates for FARM students
College Gardens - 27.8%
Twinbrook - 27.3%
Beall - 26.1%
Ritchie Park - 21.8%

Not a significant difference considering the varying populations.

Can you link the source for this data?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Yes, but that is ONE person speaking on behalf of over 2,500 residences. Did she personally go to each residence? I highly doubt it. So, as one person said, show me the data on which those ASSUMPTIONS are based!

"As you may know, Montgomery County Public Schools is currently considering boundary options for the new Richard Montgomery Cluster Elementary School (RMES #5), which will open in Fall, 2018 at 332 West Edmonston Drive. While the new school is a welcome addition to the RM cluster, we believe all West End children who attend Beall Elementary School today should remain at Beall, our neighborhood school and the heart of our community. We have unanimously passed a Motion in favor of keeping the West End together at Beall, over other alternatives proposed by the Board of Education that would divide the West End and send many of our children to RMES#5."

https://www.facebook.com/WECARockville/

That's great. A facebook page with 131 members

https://www.facebook.com/WECARockville/

Again, no official resolution adopted that can be referenced. The official West End website has not such item on their agenda:

http://westendmd.blogspot.com/

No official meeting minutes referencing this and, in fact, nothing at all about the RM#5! This is my point entirely. This is someone who is hosting a Facebook site with 131 people who supposedly represent an entire neighborhood. More like oligarchy than a democracy.