Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

?????? We use it for playground camp every summer. It is totally for grade school kids. Beautiful playground and fields too

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

It's not for sake of moving, move if they need to move to balance capacity. I get it that you don't want your kids to move school in middle. No one wants that, but it will be very selfish if not wanting to move takes priority of over other bigger issues.

Also, everyone should be ready to move if it helps with capacity. No zone should be immune from this. If not needed to move then don't move, but if needed then move. Not moving zones from current school is simply a luxury and not a requirement. We need to keep our priorities right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I don't think you or I know what the Fireside parents really want. We both make assumptions. This is the only official position that we have from that area:
http://www.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/AT5QU86AE74C/$file/Laurie%20Brooks.pdf

[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.

Laurie was the only one in RP2 who spoke because, as most people know, there was a waiting list to testify. There were other RP2 parents at the hearing with different views - they couldn't get a speaking slot. They wrote letters to the BoE. The majority of families in RP2 want to go to the new school. The ones who don't are in the minority, just like there are minority views in every school and neighborhood that is up for discussion. The ones who are worried about transportation issues going to the new school have transportation issues NOW going to Ritchie Park. Having a new school in the community will make it easier for families without cars to get to school events, PTA meetings, teacher conferences, picking up kids when sick, etc. People may be *used* to dealing with those issues at RP now, but it is just trading 6 of one for half a dozen of the other. The walking to school issue cited by a few parents can be easily fixed by creating walking groups and carpools among parents who *do* have cars. The issues that are fixed by giving all of the children in RP2 a new school in their neighborhood far outweighs any potential (easily resolvable) issues.

No one is in support of busing students on the edge of the walk zone in Twinbrook to a completely different school so they can get a bus instead of walk. Why are we even contemplating this for a walk-zone in RM ES 5??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

?????? We use it for playground camp every summer. It is totally for grade school kids. Beautiful playground and fields too

+1 My child loved doing the playgrounds program over the summer - we actually live in a farther away neighborhood in Rockville (with its own Playgrounds camp) but chose Elwood Smith because it had an after-care program. That program gets a wait list every summer. Once RM ES #5 is open, there will definitely be even more programming there for elementary children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

?????? We use it for playground camp every summer. It is totally for grade school kids. Beautiful playground and fields too

I was not talking about summer camps here. Elementary school kids when school is running. You can go and check it yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

It's not for sake of moving, move if they need to move to balance capacity. I get it that you don't want your kids to move school in middle. No one wants that, but it will be very selfish if not wanting to move takes priority of over other bigger issues.

Also, everyone should be ready to move if it helps with capacity. No zone should be immune from this. If not needed to move then don't move, but if needed then move. Not moving zones from current school is simply a luxury and not a requirement. We need to keep our priorities right.

I'm just saying 20 kids are not really going to effect capacity much.

[Anonymous]

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

25 kids = one portable

Of course, they aren't all in one grade, but they impact the school's overall staffing and how classes get broken out. They make a difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

?????? We use it for playground camp every summer. It is totally for grade school kids. Beautiful playground and fields too

I was not talking about summer camps here. Elementary school kids when school is running. You can go and check it yourself.

What is your point here. People have used it for camps already. Not just outside but inside. City of Rockville will be using it for aftercare. I have been inside it and outside multiple times. There is nothing that makes it “just for high schoolers.” It’s a great community facility that will work well for all the walkers at RM5. But you go ahead and keep pushing that agenda of how terrible Elwood smith is for elementary school kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I don't think you or I know what the Fireside parents really want. We both make assumptions. This is the only official position that we have from that area:
http://www.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/AT5QU86AE74C/$file/Laurie%20Brooks.pdf

Laurie isn’t FARMS. The families at Twinbrook interviewed were. 32 of them. They all said walkability/proximity was the most important. One mentioned her one child goes to head start at Beall and it is very difficult for her. Multiple mentioned they would have to leave sick kids at school until bus went home at another school. All of these are parents need that walking access and they aren’t even in the T1 one mile zone. They have busses in T2/T5 but the parents can walk over a mile before taking expensive bus routes to another school. More than the T1 kids and parents do right now. Why do you think most FARMS can’t get to school for events, conferences, etc... No car! I trust their input on what is important in a school for them struggling, than Laurie spewing off facts that don’t accurately represent what is going on in this boundary and acting like she is looking out for others. She isn’t. She is looking out for herself like everyone else.

If we are saying we need to leave Twinbrook alone, keep them in their community, and their proximity close, why not for RP2? Just because they were pulled out of Beall and bussed to RP a decade or so ago doesn’t mean they have to stay there. New school in their neighborhood. Walkable communities are always closer. Getting out and getting to low each other. It is a positive. Like another person said, it all comes down to people not wanting a school to have low FARMS. Even in Laurie’s argument she says that. It isn’t what is easiest or best for families and kids in need. It is the numbers game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I don't think you or I know what the Fireside parents really want. We both make assumptions. This is the only official position that we have from that area:
http://www.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/AT5QU86AE74C/$file/Laurie%20Brooks.pdf

Laurie isn’t FARMS. The families at Twinbrook interviewed were. 32 of them. They all said walkability/proximity was the most important. One mentioned her one child goes to head start at Beall and it is very difficult for her. Multiple mentioned they would have to leave sick kids at school until bus went home at another school. All of these are parents need that walking access and they aren’t even in the T1 one mile zone. They have busses in T2/T5 but the parents can walk over a mile before taking expensive bus routes to another school. More than the T1 kids and parents do right now. Why do you think most FARMS can’t get to school for events, conferences, etc... No car! I trust their input on what is important in a school for them struggling, than Laurie spewing off facts that don’t accurately represent what is going on in this boundary and acting like she is looking out for others. She isn’t. She is looking out for herself like everyone else.

If we are saying we need to leave Twinbrook alone, keep them in their community, and their proximity close, why not for RP2? Just because they were pulled out of Beall and bussed to RP a decade or so ago doesn’t mean they have to stay there. New school in their neighborhood. Walkable communities are always closer. Getting out and getting to low each other. It is a positive. Like another person said, it all comes down to people not wanting a school to have low FARMS. Even in Laurie’s argument she says that. It isn’t what is easiest or best for families and kids in need. It is the numbers game.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Laurie was the only one in RP2 who spoke because, as most people know, there was a waiting list to testify. There were other RP2 parents at the hearing with different views - they couldn't get a speaking slot. They wrote letters to the BoE. The majority of families in RP2 want to go to the new school. The ones who don't are in the minority, just like there are minority views in every school and neighborhood that is up for discussion. The ones who are worried about transportation issues going to the new school have transportation issues NOW going to Ritchie Park. Having a new school in the community will make it easier for families without cars to get to school events, PTA meetings, teacher conferences, picking up kids when sick, etc. People may be *used* to dealing with those issues at RP now, but it is just trading 6 of one for half a dozen of the other. The walking to school issue cited by a few parents can be easily fixed by creating walking groups and carpools among parents who *do* have cars. The issues that are fixed by giving all of the children in RP2 a new school in their neighborhood far outweighs any potential (easily resolvable) issues.

No one is in support of busing students on the edge of the walk zone in Twinbrook to a completely different school so they can get a bus instead of walk. Why are we even contemplating this for a walk-zone in RM ES 5??

You are just making things up. How do you know that a majority of families in RP2 want to go to the new school? Did you go door-to-door?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Laurie isn’t FARMS. The families at Twinbrook interviewed were. 32 of them. They all said walkability/proximity was the most important. One mentioned her one child goes to head start at Beall and it is very difficult for her. Multiple mentioned they would have to leave sick kids at school until bus went home at another school. All of these are parents need that walking access and they aren’t even in the T1 one mile zone. They have busses in T2/T5 but the parents can walk over a mile before taking expensive bus routes to another school. More than the T1 kids and parents do right now. Why do you think most FARMS can’t get to school for events, conferences, etc... No car! I trust their input on what is important in a school for them struggling, than Laurie spewing off facts that don’t accurately represent what is going on in this boundary and acting like she is looking out for others. She isn’t. She is looking out for herself like everyone else.

If we are saying we need to leave Twinbrook alone, keep them in their community, and their proximity close, why not for RP2? Just because they were pulled out of Beall and bussed to RP a decade or so ago doesn’t mean they have to stay there. New school in their neighborhood. Walkable communities are always closer. Getting out and getting to low each other. It is a positive. Like another person said, it all comes down to people not wanting a school to have low FARMS. Even in Laurie’s argument she says that. It isn’t what is easiest or best for families and kids in need. It is the numbers game.

Sorry, but Laurie based her testimony on actual research. Show me research that says walkability is more important than FARMS rates for student outcomes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

?????? We use it for playground camp every summer. It is totally for grade school kids. Beautiful playground and fields too

I was not talking about summer camps here. Elementary school kids when school is running. You can go and check it yourself.

What is your point here. People have used it for camps already. Not just outside but inside. City of Rockville will be using it for aftercare. I have been inside it and outside multiple times. There is nothing that makes it “just for high schoolers.” It’s a great community facility that will work well for all the walkers at RM5. But you go ahead and keep pushing that agenda of how terrible Elwood smith is for elementary school kids.

Have you ever seen any elementary kids there in after care? There is reason for that. Just go there and drop your elementary kids in after care and you will realize what I am saying. Stop talking as if everything is driven by agenda. I don't care about any option because I won't have any kids in elementary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Laurie was the only one in RP2 who spoke because, as most people know, there was a waiting list to testify. There were other RP2 parents at the hearing with different views - they couldn't get a speaking slot. They wrote letters to the BoE. The majority of families in RP2 want to go to the new school. The ones who don't are in the minority, just like there are minority views in every school and neighborhood that is up for discussion. The ones who are worried about transportation issues going to the new school have transportation issues NOW going to Ritchie Park. Having a new school in the community will make it easier for families without cars to get to school events, PTA meetings, teacher conferences, picking up kids when sick, etc. People may be *used* to dealing with those issues at RP now, but it is just trading 6 of one for half a dozen of the other. The walking to school issue cited by a few parents can be easily fixed by creating walking groups and carpools among parents who *do* have cars. The issues that are fixed by giving all of the children in RP2 a new school in their neighborhood far outweighs any potential (easily resolvable) issues.

No one is in support of busing students on the edge of the walk zone in Twinbrook to a completely different school so they can get a bus instead of walk. Why are we even contemplating this for a walk-zone in RM ES 5??

You are just making things up. How do you know that a majority of families in RP2 want to go to the new school? Did you go door-to-door?

I live in RP6.

I know many in RP2. Some wants to go to new school. Some wants to go to RP. Most want to have bus no matter where they go.