Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries

[Anonymous]

Tower Oaks approval date - 10/11/2017

Avalon Twinbrook Station approval date - 10/16/2015

Many more will keep coming....


MCPS can't use these approved projects selectively. Either use all or simply stick to the correct data presented to public.

Anyway, none of them will add any students for many years to come and that's why MCPS didn't include them in their next 4-5 years of projections.

[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

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.

But in 10 years Crown will likely have been built. Fallsgrove and/or Kings Farm could be out of the cluster. Many things may have changed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Tower Oaks approval date - 10/11/2017

Avalon Twinbrook Station approval date - 10/16/2015

Many more will keep coming....


MCPS can't use these approved projects selectively. Either use all or simply stick to the correct data presented to public.

Anyway, none of them will add any students for many years to come and that's why MCPS didn't include them in their next 4-5 years of projections.

So MCPS didn't use Twinbrook approved project because it won't add students till 2024?

[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

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.

But in 10 years Crown will likely have been built. Fallsgrove and/or Kings Farm could be out of the cluster. Many things may have changed.

I don't believe Crown will be built in 10 years. Look at how quickly things get dropped or pushed back from the CIP.

[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

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.

But in 10 years Crown will likely have been built. Fallsgrove and/or Kings Farm could be out of the cluster. Many things may have changed.

Agree. That's why instead of worrying about 10 years later, MCPS should focus on crowding issue right now and not leave any school overcrowded. No one likes portables. If RM#5 has empty space right now then let's fill it rather than keep it empty and then having to keep using portables in next 2-3 years in some other schools.

Tower Oaks is not even started , let's focus on not keeping schools at 100% right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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.

But in 10 years Crown will likely have been built. Fallsgrove and/or Kings Farm could be out of the cluster. Many things may have changed.

Agree. That's why instead of worrying about 10 years later, MCPS should focus on crowding issue right now and not leave any school overcrowded. No one likes portables. If RM#5 has empty space right now then let's fill it rather than keep it empty and then having to keep using portables in next 2-3 years in some other schools.

Tower Oaks is not even started , let's focus on not keeping schools at 100% right now.

Agree. Let's not forget that this is about kids. Ritchie Park, Twinbrook and Beall all have rev/ex potential. RM#5 and CG do not. It seems strange to me that some people don't get this concept. If Ritchie Park, Twinbrook and Beall go over 100% utilization in the future, they have opportunity for expansion. RM#5 and CG do not. Their only option is portables. BOE should focus on keeping those schools under 100% for long term to accommodate any growth - because we know it is coming (all over Rockville, not just in the south).

[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.

How about they keep Option A, save the money and stop the build-out, and fix Twinbrook. It’s sounds terrible there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agree. As soon as Hungerford Civic Association showed up bumping and chopping a whole bunch of Beall neighborhoods and the BOE came up with 3 terrible options, the circus ensued. For such a small FARMS differential. It makes no sense. They should have stuck with Option A to begin with and make everyone happy. Allow CI families to grandfather siblings in regular classes. The End.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agree. As soon as Hungerford Civic Association showed up bumping and chopping a whole bunch of Beall neighborhoods and the BOE came up with 3 terrible options, the circus ensued. For such a small FARMS differential. It makes no sense. They should have stuck with Option A to begin with and make everyone happy. Allow CI families to grandfather siblings in regular classes. The End.

Woodley Garden won't go to CG. Stop your hatred for going to Beall. Beall is not untouchable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

I posted the hardship. It islands them around all neighborhoods walking to the school because of ONE apartment complex. Talk about sticking out like a sore thumb. I have many friends in RP2. They want the walk. They want the change in administration, and new School. They want to get to know their Beall neighbors. Everyone talking about them like they are all poor and needy. They aren’t. It’s insulting. They don’t need a bus away from their neighborhood school so it looks better on paper for you. Laurie did not speak out for the majority. She had one opinion and based it on numbers from research that actively goes against what she thinks will work. (Bussing kids away) Having Elwood Smith for super cheap after-care and daycare for days off is key. Being able to walk to get your child at school and a community center is very much needed. Many families only have one care. Aftercare at RP is pricy and hard to get to. It will be much nicer.

[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.

Agree. As soon as Hungerford Civic Association showed up bumping and chopping a whole bunch of Beall neighborhoods and the BOE came up with 3 terrible options, the circus ensued. For such a small FARMS differential. It makes no sense. They should have stuck with Option A to begin with and make everyone happy. Allow CI families to grandfather siblings in regular classes. The End.

The key word there is "Some". Statistically they lag behind their peers. Check Figure Nr. 1 here:
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: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.

Agree. As soon as Hungerford Civic Association showed up bumping and chopping a whole bunch of Beall neighborhoods and the BOE came up with 3 terrible options, the circus ensued. For such a small FARMS differential. It makes no sense. They should have stuck with Option A to begin with and make everyone happy. Allow CI families to grandfather siblings in regular classes. The End.

Woodley Garden won't go to CG. Stop your hatred for going to Beall. Beall is not untouchable.

I am not a WG or a CG parent. And last I checked, no one hates Beall

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agree. As soon as Hungerford Civic Association showed up bumping and chopping a whole bunch of Beall neighborhoods and the BOE came up with 3 terrible options, the circus ensued. For such a small FARMS differential. It makes no sense. They should have stuck with Option A to begin with and make everyone happy. Allow CI families to grandfather siblings in regular classes. The End.

Option A does not make everyone happy. Besides, the role of the board is not to make everyone happy. The role of the board is to make sure that all the children have access to the best education possible.

[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. "

Is this legit? I have heard nothing about this. Is this 5yr projections?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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.

But in 10 years Crown will likely have been built. Fallsgrove and/or Kings Farm could be out of the cluster. Many things may have changed.

Agree. That's why instead of worrying about 10 years later, MCPS should focus on crowding issue right now and not leave any school overcrowded. No one likes portables. If RM#5 has empty space right now then let's fill it rather than keep it empty and then having to keep using portables in next 2-3 years in some other schools.

Tower Oaks is not even started , let's focus on not keeping schools at 100% right now.

Agree. Let's not forget that this is about kids. Ritchie Park, Twinbrook and Beall all have rev/ex potential. RM#5 and CG do not. It seems strange to me that some people don't get this concept. If Ritchie Park, Twinbrook and Beall go over 100% utilization in the future, they have opportunity for expansion. RM#5 and CG do not. Their only option is portables. BOE should focus on keeping those schools under 100% for long term to accommodate any growth - because we know it is coming (all over Rockville, not just in the south).

If I got it right,

Schools which can be expanded,

RP
TB
Beall

Schools which can't be expanded,

CG
RM#5

If it's right then it will make sense to keep CG and RM#5 below 100 to make sure they don't get crowded. In all projected numbers in CIP, CG is the only one at 100%. I saw the MCPS letter talking about Tower oaks. RM# won't be at 100% in this CIP. If you make aggressive assumptions then it will be at 100%.

CG is at 100% in this CIP in every single year and leaves no room. CG3 should be shifted to Beall to allow CG some breathing space.

BOE should probably put B5(north) rather than entire B5 in Beall if RM#5 capacity is touching 100%, because Beall can be expanded. That will leave room in Rm#5 as well because RM#5 will get only B5(south).



Basically, a slightly modified version of alternate A

Put CG3 in Beall & put B5(south) in RM#5.

Takes care of any school touching 100%.