Forum Index
»
Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)
Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
CG - Highest % of 2 or more races, highest % of African Americans, 2nd highest % of Asian students in the cluster...... |
Anonymous
beall is more diverse. Less white kids. |
Anonymous
|
WG is entitled to not change school. I don't have an issue in calling it an elite neighborhood. Just live with it.
|
Anonymous
May be it's an elite neighborhood but, it's good for elites to mix with others. Beall has done fine with current FARMs rate and it's not too high. WG won't be joining Twinbrook here to show kind of outraged WG showed to avoid Beall. |
Anonymous
|
Neighborhood was code to keep certain crowd out. In earlier era it was about race and now race has been replaced by money. It's a well documented scenario in many cities. Not unique to WG.
|
Anonymous
Pretty much hungerford's entire argument about the fireside apartments to get them out of their walkable neighborhood. |
Anonymous
Hungerford argument was exact opposite of keeping neighborhood together and to maximize economic integration. When you don't want to have any economic integration then you use this neighborhood argument. It has been used many times in many cities. I also don't think that WG is really that much of elite neighborhood. I have some friends there, but, this vocal minority may have given that impression to everyone. I live in Horizon Hill and I am fine with RP2 kids continuing in RP. I am also fine with RP5 kids continuing in RP. BOE will decide and I said my preference to BOE in my letter. BOE needs to weigh pros and cons here. |
Anonymous
If MCPS needs to move more kids then B5 can be left in Beall and B6s can be moved to RM#5. B6s has 50 kids. You can start from option A, B or E and do this to balance capacity to leave room in each school. It will be criminal to leave CG at 100% for the next 6 years leaving no room for housing turnover. |
Anonymous
Why? I don't think that any neighborhood is entitled to not change schools. They might prefer to not change schools, but that's different. |
Anonymous
Pretty much RP argument to kick fireside apartments out of their current school. "They belong to a different neighborhood" "The school should reflect the neighborhood feel" "The neighboring schools have less than 7% FARMS" |
Anonymous
Fewer, not less |
Anonymous
A very sensible post here. RM#5 and CG both will have extra capacity. These two can't be expanded so it make sense to keep extra capacity in these two schools for future growth. If I got it right then , CG3+B5+B6n are in Beall. RM# doesn't get B5, but only gets B6S. You can start from A, B or E and still do this. BOE mentioned that they can do small modifications in any option. They can reach to this by doing a small modification. |
Anonymous
Spot on here if focus is on capacity. I also read that Tower Oaks coming after 5-6 years and potential to add 50 kids in RM#5 after that. That may take RM#5 in 85-100 range in the next 8-10 years, but immediately CG is at 100% in each year. If RM adding 50 kids from Tower oaks is an issue then RM#5 should have less kids coming from current Beall zones. Moving only B6S to RM#5 does it. It leaves extra space in RM#5 and then CG won't be at 100% when CG3 is moved to Beall. Beall, CG and RP can be expanded, but RM#5 and CG can't be expanded. It make sense to not get into situation where either CG or RM#5 hit 100% in near future. This capacity situation can be addressed easily in alternative A, Alternative B or in Alternative E by making some small changes. Although, I think we will be all over crowd after 8-10 years in all schools. I also don't have confidence in projections. I will make sure that schools have room for the next 5 years to start with and then try to see if plan can be made better. |
Anonymous
|
* Beall, CG and RP can be expanded, but RM#5 and CG can't be expanded. *
Correction: * Beall, TB and RP can be expanded, but RM#5 and CG can't be expanded. * |
Anonymous
This is a ridiculous and offensive argument to keep repeating. One of the Ritchie Park boundary study reps lives in RP2 and advocated very clearly for RP2 and RP6 to move to the new school - the evaluation form is included in the Boundary Study Committee Report released in August: http://gis.mcpsmd.org/boundarystudypdfs/RMES5_BoundaryStudyReport083017.pdf (pg. 48) Are you saying that this person is trying to kick her own neighborhood out of Ritchie Park???? Someone who ACTUALLY LIVES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD represented Ritchie Park and advocated for the best options for Ritchie Park students and the students in RP2, including her family and the students living in her own neighborhood. Imagine for a moment that the situation was reversed, and a new school was being built in Fallsgrove (which Fallsgrove families would be THRILLED about!). Of course, the obvious step would be to move all Fallsgrove students to the new school, EVEN IF some of the neighborhood is farther away walking distance (it is a far walk to the Thomas Farm Community Center from many parts of Fallsgrove - at least 15 minutes from the farthest areas of the neighborhood). Would anyone advocate continuing to bus Fallsgrove students to Ritchie Park (because they're used to that anyway - it would be no change for those students) while busing in students from RP2, the farthest distance from Fallsgrove, in order to balance out FARMS rates at the new school?? Of course not, because that would be a ridiculous option. It would be keeping potential walkers to a brand new school out of the new school in the name of "diversity" (but really only one data point of diversity, since there are other aspects of diversity in addition to FARMS rates). It would be increasing buses and travel times for multiple communities, and it would split up communities. There has to be a BALANCE between proximity, diversity (again - diversity DOES NOT equal FARMS rates - there are many forms of diversity present at each school in the cluster), stability of boundaries over time, and utilization. Sending the farthest neighborhood to the new school while sending one of the closest to a different school farther away stretches the limits of "geographic proximity". Just as T5 to College Gardens or RP4 to Twinbrook are beyond the bounds of reasonable distance, sending walkers of one school to a different school while also increasing travel time for another zone goes beyond the limits of finding BALANCE between the 4 factors - it forces a choice between one or the other, and given the choice, most people are choosing proximity. Unfortunately, the options and zones presented to move were imperfect. Perhaps if given more time and more options, one that found a better balance between proximity and diversity could have been found (moving RP3 to the new school in addition to RP2 & 6, for example...) but time is up and the options on the table that try to equalize FARMS rates at the expense of all other factors are just not reasonable options. |