Forum Index
»
Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)
Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
From an email they sent members: The WECA Motion In response to review of the Boundary Advisory Committee options (below in “Background,”) the West End Citizens Association passed the following motion at the Emergency Board Meeting held on November 9, 2017: In deciding which children will attend Richard Montgomery Cluster #5 Elementary School, the West End Citizens Association (WECA) strongly supports boundaries for the elementary school districts that allow children to attend elementary schools in their own neighborhoods. Specifically this means that all children in the West End and Planning Area 4 who currently attend Beall Elementary School would continue to attend Beall Elementary School. As of November 9, 2017, Alternative 1/Option 6, proposed by the Richard Montgomery Elementary School #5 Boundary Advisory Committee, meets these goals and is the one supported by WECA. The West End and Planning Area 4 encompasses zones B1, B5, B6 and a portion of zone B4, shown in Alternative1/Option6. Further, except for small boundary deviations, the zones in Alternative1/Option 6 are coincident with the definition of the West End and Planning Area 4 contained in Rockville’s Comprehensive Master Plan. Alternative 1/Option 6 keeps our community together at Beall Elementary School by following natural community boundaries and making each elementary school the center of its neighborhood. The vote was unanimous, with 12 members voting for the motion, no votes in opposition, and no abstentions. Option 6/Alternative 1 is the best option for the West End because it keeps West End children at Beall without tearing West End communities apart. Option 6/Alternative 1 is best not only for the West End, but all of the communities in the RM Cluster, including Twinbrook, College Gardens, and Woodley Gardens. Throughout the eight month boundary study process, Option 6/Alternative 1 has been the most popular. Option 6/Alternative 1 was also the one the City of Rockville Mayor and Council officially endorsed on October 30th. Background Last spring, the MCPS Boundary Advisory Committee presented eight options regarding the boundaries for the RM elementary school cluster. These options assumed a student population at RMES #5 of 602 children. On October 23rd, the Superindendent released his recommendation. The new recommendation advocated for buildout of a “shell” to accommodate future growth at the new school. The buildout resulted in an increase of the student capacity from 602 to 740 students. This increased capacity essentially rendered the previous eight options moot. Members of the community also highlighted obvious mathematical errors in the Superintendent’s recommendation and the previous eight options, such as varying total student population numbers. These new, last minute developments have made the final month of the boundary study unnecessarily hurried. On November 2, the Board of Education (BOE) requested MCPS to update the numbers in the original eight options to account for the 740 capacity and to correct the math errors. The BOE introduced two options that it requested the Boundary Advisory Committee to consider in formulating its new calculations: Original Option 6 (now Alternative 1) and the Hungerford Proposal (Alternative 2). The Hungerford Proposal was put forth by the Hungerford Park community, which borders the new school. This community was concerned about high Free and Reduced Meals (FARMS) rates at the new school. However, we find this proposal troubling because it separates West End communities from each other in order to attain a lower FARMS rate at the new school. The Boundary Advisory Committee released these new options with updated numbers on November 9, along with a third new option (Alternative 3): http://gis.mcpsmd.org/boundarystudypdfs/RMES5_BOEAdoptedAlternatives11092017.pdf In Alternatives 2 and 3, parts of the West End would attend the new school. Attached is a map juxtaposing the West End community with the Beall school boundary zones. The Superintendent will release one or more new recommendations on Monday, November 13. The BOE will hold a worksession on Tuesday, November 14, and a public hearing will be held on Thursday, November 16. The BOE is expected to make its decision on November 27. NOW IS THE TIME WHEN WE NEED YOU TO SPEAK OUT. Please help to support your fellow West End children! Sincerely, Noreen Bryan WECA President |
Anonymous
Nice try.... select the archive of emails at the very top of the page website you mention and you will see the email communication that went to all members of WECA from the President on November 10 and November 21st. "The WECA Executive Board has voted in favor of Alternative A, which would keep West End children at Beall Elementary School. Further, it would keep all Rockville children at their neighborhood schools." Here is the link.... if that helps. https://us13.campaign-archive.com/home/?u=8064f85cd627e04316b9ba374&id=b143ad8c20 |
Anonymous
And on what authority does he speak for all 630 households of WG? He does not reference any vote or poll, nor does he reference going door to door. He simply says that because he is "president of the Woodley Gardens Civic Association" he thinks he knows what is best for the entire neighborhood. There is some twisted politics here. |
Anonymous
Jill Ortman-Fouse has commented on her (her children's) Focus/Title I school and how it was a wonderful environment. I interpreted that as not wanting to rip apart Twinbrook and letting it be. I agree on O'Neill, Smondrowski, and Docca... and Post. Not sure about Dixon. Durso said at the very end of the public hearing on 11/16 how kids are resilient and likely better at accepting change than their parents. I was hoping that was in regard to Options A/B/E, not C/D. |
Anonymous
Thanks. Helpful. Is there a formally adopted resolution and how was it passed? I'd be interested in that. |
Anonymous
This is basically what changed my vote to A. Especially when it was confirmed that the Tower Oakes development was not included on the estimates. http://www.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/AT6KU451EB9E/$file/Justus%20Getty.pdf |
Anonymous
ortman-fouse talked about the haves covering for the haves not at her school, i interpreted that as mixing up different socioeconomic groups. |
Anonymous
This is an interesting thread. I just looked up College Gardens Civic Association's website and they have no formal resolution for Option A. The last meeting according to their website was in May 2017, well before any of the new options (A-E) were put forth by board. This is very strange and leads me to not only question MCPS's data, but the "data" of some of the parents who testified. |
Anonymous
And now everyone is throwing all these neighborhood associations behind option A without any real information, data, formal adoptions to support it. Pathetic. I bet many WG, CG and Tower Oaks families would be surprised that their "civic" associations acted on their behalf and are now politizing this issue by using them and their children as pawns in a game. |
Anonymous
Except you don't have a vote. Unless you're one of the 8 on the BOE??? |
Anonymous
RM#5 having capacity issue after 7 years vs CG having capacity issue right now? Take your pick. Every school in RM will have capacity pressure after 10 years, but it will be unfair to subjects kids to portables in CG just because Woodley garden doesn't want to go to Beall. Beall is not an untouchable school. |
Anonymous
I would be surprised if this is true. I would hope the BOE would not be making decisions based on secret data. Its hard to make any kind of judgement based on the limited data in this post. |
Anonymous
I am sure that BOE will act ethically and take decision based on publicly available data which was debated. Rockville will continue approving plans. Many more plans will keep getting approved. All discussions and debates were done with publicly available data. All decisions should be made on that. Otherwise it's lawsuit waiting here. MCPS went back and corrected data. A-E option is on table. Now coming up with any secret data means , you are trying to make the entire process worthless. If MCPS wants to correct numbers again,it will mean restarting the process again. Backdoor decisions can't be made here and I am sure BOE is ethical enough. They are not like Rockville council members with no ethics. |
Anonymous
I agree with this. They announced previously that an additional public hearing was required when they updated the data so it would be the same here. In order to change the data here an additional public hearing would be required. I really hope this is just someone trolling because I do not think any of us want that. |
Anonymous
+1 MCPS had to present alternative A-E, because previous data was wrong. MCPS had to put correct numbers to keep the process transparent. If MCPS admits that A-E was also presented based on garbage numbers then we will have a new rounds of boundary options. MCPS will have to again put correct numbers to keep the process transparent. Otherwise it will be a decision based on data which was not even available to anyone. I seriously hope that some one is trolling here and MCPS is not using any secret data. I don't want to have delay in boundary decisions. All data was presented for review and people commented. Doing it for another round will be so frustrating. |