Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well that is not in any school in MCPS. We have been on the decline for years. We can all agree with that.

[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. "

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

It's not a 5 year projection and that's why MCPS didn't include it in discussion.

[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.

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.

ortman-fouse talked about the haves covering for the haves not at her school, i interpreted that as mixing up different socioeconomic groups.

. Well the Twinbrook moms that testified said they raised $12,000 for all kids to have free field trips all year. Pretty impressive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Continuing to go to the same school is not quite hardship. They don't see any difference between before and after. Busing kids to attend a lower FARMS school can make a big difference for those kids. That's what research says. Laurie may have not spoken for the majority, but was the only one who spoke. You don't even know what the majority wants. There is no super cheap after-care at Elwood Smith. After care will probably be in the new school at prices similar to Ritchie Park. "Much nicer" is debatable.

[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.

Because as a parent in this cluster not affected with any boundary changes, I don’t want to do this again in 5-7 years. A few schools can have a few percentages over. Not that big of a deal. We have lived with 135+% capacity for years now. 102% will be fine.

The board just asked for a Crown committee - it won’t be 10 years. It will be completed in 5.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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%.

Do you mean a modified Alternative B?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Continuing to go to the same school is not quite hardship. They don't see any difference between before and after. Busing kids to attend a lower FARMS school can make a big difference for those kids. That's what research says. Laurie may have not spoken for the majority, but was the only one who spoke. You don't even know what the majority wants. There is no super cheap after-care at Elwood Smith. After care will probably be in the new school at prices similar to Ritchie Park. "Much nicer" is debatable.

City of Rockville already mentioned having the same after school care program Twinbrook has. A few hundred a year vs a few hundred a month. You don’t see the hardship. You are fixated on paper numbers, maybe not even 10% off. Possibly 1-2 kids more. And so you thinking butchering up that neighborhood and making that section continue to not be part of their neighborhood (because it happened to be included with Fireside) not go to their new school - is better? Oh and B6 has to go along for the ride. No new School for any of you. No walking. Same chopped up area. Sorry you have Fireside apartments or this would be a non issue? That is what you are saying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:City of Rockville already mentioned having the same after school care program Twinbrook has. A few hundred a year vs a few hundred a month. You don’t see the hardship. You are fixated on paper numbers, maybe not even 10% off. Possibly 1-2 kids more. And so you thinking butchering up that neighborhood and making that section continue to not be part of their neighborhood (because it happened to be included with Fireside) not go to their new school - is better? Oh and B6 has to go along for the ride. No new School for any of you. No walking. Same chopped up area. Sorry you have Fireside apartments or this would be a non issue? That is what you are saying.

That was not what I was saying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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%.

Do you mean a modified Alternative B?

I don't care what we call it. I was just trying to think how you can balance capacity keeping in mind that CG and RM#5 can't be expanded. Other 3 can be expanded.

You can pick A, B or E and work it through.

Put CG3 in Beall to first allow CG some room.

Then keep B6 in Beall. B5(south ) in RM#5 and B5(north) in Beall. Basically, don't put entire B5 in RM#5.

That will ensure that RM#5 and CG both have enough extra capacity left for housing turn over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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%.

Do you mean a modified Alternative B?

I don't care what we call it. I was just trying to think how you can balance capacity keeping in mind that CG and RM#5 can't be expanded. Other 3 can be expanded.

You can pick A, B or E and work it through.

Put CG3 in Beall to first allow CG some room.

Then keep B6 in Beall. B5(south ) in RM#5 and B5(north) in Beall. Basically, don't put entire B5 in RM#5.

That will ensure that RM#5 and CG both have enough extra capacity left for housing turn over.

Finally, some rational thought!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Continuing to go to the same school is not quite hardship. They don't see any difference between before and after. Busing kids to attend a lower FARMS school can make a big difference for those kids. That's what research says. Laurie may have not spoken for the majority, but was the only one who spoke. You don't even know what the majority wants. There is no super cheap after-care at Elwood Smith. After care will probably be in the new school at prices similar to Ritchie Park. "Much nicer" is debatable.

City of Rockville already mentioned having the same after school care program Twinbrook has. A few hundred a year vs a few hundred a month. You don’t see the hardship. You are fixated on paper numbers, maybe not even 10% off. Possibly 1-2 kids more. And so you thinking butchering up that neighborhood and making that section continue to not be part of their neighborhood (because it happened to be included with Fireside) not go to their new school - is better? Oh and B6 has to go along for the ride. No new School for any of you. No walking. Same chopped up area. Sorry you have Fireside apartments or this would be a non issue? That is what you are saying.

Elwood Smith is not for elementary aged kids. I live in B2. Not sure why both of you are fighting over cost when in reality that center is useless for elementary aged kids. It;s good for middle school and high school kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Elwood Smith is not for elementary aged kids. I live in B2. Not sure why both of you are fighting over cost when in reality that center is useless for elementary aged kids. It;s good for middle school and high school kids.

Forgot to add: I live in B2, but I have used it for my kids.

[Anonymous]

The agenda for Monday has been posted. On RMES #5, see the resolution.

http://www.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/ATCLPC577E6D/$file/Richard%20Montgomery%20ES%205%20Boundaries.pdf

Does this mean they will only consider one of the 5 Alternatives A-E and not any variation of an option?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Continuing to go to the same school is not quite hardship. They don't see any difference between before and after. Busing kids to attend a lower FARMS school can make a big difference for those kids. That's what research says. Laurie may have not spoken for the majority, but was the only one who spoke. You don't even know what the majority wants. There is no super cheap after-care at Elwood Smith. After care will probably be in the new school at prices similar to Ritchie Park. "Much nicer" is debatable.

City of Rockville already mentioned having the same after school care program Twinbrook has. A few hundred a year vs a few hundred a month. You don’t see the hardship. You are fixated on paper numbers, maybe not even 10% off. Possibly 1-2 kids more. And so you thinking butchering up that neighborhood and making that section continue to not be part of their neighborhood (because it happened to be included with Fireside) not go to their new school - is better? Oh and B6 has to go along for the ride. No new School for any of you. No walking. Same chopped up area. Sorry you have Fireside apartments or this would be a non issue? That is what you are saying.

I agree with this. Fireside NEEDS walkable and the rec center. In all the public feedback responses, Twinbrook families mentioned over and over again being in walking distance to school and recreation center (even those kids bussed in T2/5, parents mentioned no car/can walk) as the most needed. They wanted to stay for those main reasons. They mentioned in multiple commemts, if kids are sick, they can’t pick them up in further schools/no car.

If these actual FARMS parents want proximity, walkability, and depend on the TB recreation Center, I think RP2 would need that too. Instead a bunch of DCUMer’s think bussing them is better. Oh which by the way, not one comment from FARMS parents wanting their kid to go to a better school or mentioned wanting less poverty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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%.

Do you mean a modified Alternative B?

I don't care what we call it. I was just trying to think how you can balance capacity keeping in mind that CG and RM#5 can't be expanded. Other 3 can be expanded.

You can pick A, B or E and work it through.

Put CG3 in Beall to first allow CG some room.

Then keep B6 in Beall. B5(south ) in RM#5 and B5(north) in Beall. Basically, don't put entire B5 in RM#5.

That will ensure that RM#5 and CG both have enough extra capacity left for housing turn over.

Finally, some rational thought!!

You do realize that B5s has only about 25 kids? Why bother moving them for the sake of moving them?