Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most of the boundaries have to do with capacity issues and not FARMS. New developments and moving them further than overfilled schools and restructuring new ones when they are rebuilt.

I am still waiting for the person to post all of these schools that bus kids out of a walkable neighborhood school to a further school?

If everyone is okay with RP2 getting bussed, why don’t we just move Hungerford out to Twinbrook to assist with easening FARMS. Maybe RP1 or B1? They wouldn’t mind right. That walk is SO tough. I bet they would prefer a 15-20min bus ride away instead. How about CG1 instead of CG3 moving. Walking shouldn’t matter, right?

Some people on this board don't understand logical fallacies. In what world the situation of RP2 is similar to that of RP1 or B1?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of the boundaries have to do with capacity issues and not FARMS. New developments and moving them further than overfilled schools and restructuring new ones when they are rebuilt.

I am still waiting for the person to post all of these schools that bus kids out of a walkable neighborhood school to a further school?

If everyone is okay with RP2 getting bussed, why don’t we just move Hungerford out to Twinbrook to assist with easening FARMS. Maybe RP1 or B1? They wouldn’t mind right. That walk is SO tough. I bet they would prefer a 15-20min bus ride away instead. How about CG1 instead of CG3 moving. Walking shouldn’t matter, right?

Some people on this board don't understand logical fallacies. In what world the situation of RP2 is similar to that of RP1 or B1?

They are all designated walk-zones by MCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Ritchie Park is about 96% capacity in ever option but sure give us another new community.

RP5 ( Fallsgrove) has 459 new housing proposed. RP2 has zero new housing coming up. Why not keep RP2 instead of RP5?

If RP is 96% in every option then it makes no sense to put RP5 in RP from capacity perspective. I have not paid attention to RP earlier. I was only focused on my school CG.

Makes perfect sence !!! RP is a tiny little school it makes perfect sence to assign a neighborhood that is not likely to grow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of the boundaries have to do with capacity issues and not FARMS. New developments and moving them further than overfilled schools and restructuring new ones when they are rebuilt.

I am still waiting for the person to post all of these schools that bus kids out of a walkable neighborhood school to a further school?

If everyone is okay with RP2 getting bussed, why don’t we just move Hungerford out to Twinbrook to assist with easening FARMS. Maybe RP1 or B1? They wouldn’t mind right. That walk is SO tough. I bet they would prefer a 15-20min bus ride away instead. How about CG1 instead of CG3 moving. Walking shouldn’t matter, right?

Some people on this board don't understand logical fallacies. In what world the situation of RP2 is similar to that of RP1 or B1?

It is a walkable zone. So really the same exact thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When is the decision made again?

Monday night at 6 p.m. You can go to the BoE to watch (no public comments), or watch via livestream online.

Thank god. This discussion is going nowhere. People keep saying the same things. Fundamentally, the purpose of the new school is to reduce the number of children in all schools beneath the max head count. The fact that this isn’t goal number one for everyone says more about the people discussing here than it does about anything else. I’m sure the BOE will bow to political pressure and all the parents and choose Option A regardless of enrollment levels. CG will get some shifting demographics or new housing built and the school will have too many kids again but I guess that’s okay so long as no one is mad.

[Anonymous]

its going to be option E for sure. having a school with 7 percent farms within the cluster completely ignores 1 of the 4 criteria in the FAARA or whatever its called.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If everyone is okay with RP2 getting bussed, why don’t we just move Hungerford out to Twinbrook to assist with easening FARMS. Maybe RP1 or B1? They wouldn’t mind right. That walk is SO tough. I bet they would prefer a 15-20min bus ride away instead. How about CG1 instead of CG3 moving. Walking shouldn’t matter, right?

Only RP2 should decide if they are ok to be bussed or they want to walk. It doesn't make difference to any other zone if RP2 walks or gets bussed.

Everyone else is just using Walk vs Bus to make case for whatever outcome they want to see.

They can definitely make their preference known. It doesn't mean they will end up doing what they want. The same way as CG3 will not end up in CGES.

Anonymous wrote:
Just like CG3 should be the only one to decide if they want to stay at CG or move to Beall?? And like RP5 should decide if they wan to be bused further to RM ES 5?? Lots of people are fine telling other zones whether or not they should move, too. There are families in RP2 who want to walk to the new school and families in RP2 who want to stay at Ritchie Park. The decision is ultimately up to the BoE, not RP2, not any other zone.

I should have worded it differently. I meant to say that RP2 busing or walking is not going to force other zones to walk or bus. RP2 walking and busing also has nothing to do with capacity here. RP2/6 is pretty much same as RP5 in capacity. Capacity argument is totally different. Overcrowded schools impact the entire school and not just one zone.

As I said, many zones are using RP2 argument only to serve their own agenda. Some zones want RP2 to walk despite being a 0.7-0.9 miles walk and not an easy walk. Some zones want RP2 to take bus despite it's being less than 1 mile from new school. Both sides are making argument only to serve their own agenda and they don't care if those FARMs kids continue going to RP with bus or walk to new school.


CG3 issue is totally different. It impacts other zones in CG directly. Hope it makes it clear.

- CG1 Parent

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Ritchie Park is about 96% capacity in ever option but sure give us another new community.

RP5 ( Fallsgrove) has 459 new housing proposed. RP2 has zero new housing coming up. Why not keep RP2 instead of RP5?

If RP is 96% in every option then it makes no sense to put RP5 in RP from capacity perspective. I have not paid attention to RP earlier. I was only focused on my school CG.

Makes perfect sence !!! RP is a tiny little school it makes perfect sence to assign a neighborhood that is not likely to grow.

As other posters have mentioned, RP has taken in Park Potomac, Fallsgrove, and other new developments that have put it way overcapacity. Why continue to send new developments to RP when it can either be absorbed by the new elementary school in our cluster, or by underenrolled schools nearby like Beverly Farms or Cold Spring. Cold Is undercapacity by 150 students. That is the obvious school to zone new developments to, not RP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When is the decision made again?

Monday night at 6 p.m. You can go to the BoE to watch (no public comments), or watch via livestream online.

Thank god. This discussion is going nowhere. People keep saying the same things. Fundamentally, the purpose of the new school is to reduce the number of children in all schools beneath the max head count. The fact that this isn’t goal number one for everyone says more about the people discussing here than it does about anything else. I’m sure the BOE will bow to political pressure and all the parents and choose Option A regardless of enrollment levels. CG will get some shifting demographics or new housing built and the school will have too many kids again but I guess that’s okay so long as no one is mad.

Why not wait for it? After listening to testimonies for all the overcrowding issue in so many MCPS schools , I seriously doubt that BOE will just to something to please politicians. You may be underestimate the competence of BOE members. They may not make always prefect decisions, but they are aware of capacity being the largest concern in entire MCPS.

Also, why will BOE care about pleasing Rockville Politicians? I may be missing something here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:its going to be option E for sure. having a school with 7 percent farms within the cluster completely ignores 1 of the 4 criteria in the FAARA or whatever its called.

How is capacity distribution in Alternate E for all schools? I think Capacity should be the biggest concern here and then demography and other things can follow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Ritchie Park is about 96% capacity in ever option but sure give us another new community.

RP5 ( Fallsgrove) has 459 new housing proposed. RP2 has zero new housing coming up. Why not keep RP2 instead of RP5?

If RP is 96% in every option then it makes no sense to put RP5 in RP from capacity perspective. I have not paid attention to RP earlier. I was only focused on my school CG.

Makes perfect sence !!! RP is a tiny little school it makes perfect sence to assign a neighborhood that is not likely to grow.

As other posters have mentioned, RP has taken in Park Potomac, Fallsgrove, and other new developments that have put it way overcapacity. Why continue to send new developments to RP when it can either be absorbed by the new elementary school in our cluster, or by underenrolled schools nearby like Beverly Farms or Cold Spring. Cold Is undercapacity by 150 students. That is the obvious school to zone new developments to, not RP.

495 new housing units will fall under RP5 boundary. Since RP is at 96%, putting RP5(Fallsgrove) in RP will ensure that it will become overcrowded. I am all for putting some section of RP5 going to BF or CS, but that's out of scope when making decision for RM boundary right now. New development is currently in RP5 and RP5 is simply going to to go either RM5 or RP. It makes no sense to put it in RP given that it's at 96% in all scenarios.

Which options avoids putting RP5 in RP? BOE should pick one of those options. Any other scenario should be simply avoided from capacity perspective of RP.

Capacity has to be the number one concern for BOE here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Ritchie Park is about 96% capacity in ever option but sure give us another new community.

RP5 ( Fallsgrove) has 459 new housing proposed. RP2 has zero new housing coming up. Why not keep RP2 instead of RP5?

If RP is 96% in every option then it makes no sense to put RP5 in RP from capacity perspective. I have not paid attention to RP earlier. I was only focused on my school CG.

Makes perfect sence !!! RP is a tiny little school it makes perfect sence to assign a neighborhood that is not likely to grow.

As other posters have mentioned, RP has taken in Park Potomac, Fallsgrove, and other new developments that have put it way overcapacity. Why continue to send new developments to RP when it can either be absorbed by the new elementary school in our cluster, or by underenrolled schools nearby like Beverly Farms or Cold Spring. Cold Is undercapacity by 150 students. That is the obvious school to zone new developments to, not RP.

495 new housing units will fall under RP5 boundary. Since RP is at 96%, putting RP5(Fallsgrove) in RP will ensure that it will become overcrowded. I am all for putting some section of RP5 going to BF or CS, but that's out of scope when making decision for RM boundary right now. New development is currently in RP5 and RP5 is simply going to to go either RM5 or RP. It makes no sense to put it in RP given that it's at 96% in all scenarios.

Which options avoids putting RP5 in RP? BOE should pick one of those options. Any other scenario should be simply avoided from capacity perspective of RP.

Capacity has to be the number one concern for BOE here.

New development in Fallsgrove is proposed, not approved. No one in Fallsgrove was even aware of it. I do not doubt that community members would oppose it in front of the Council before it even gets approved. Anyway, it is clearly more than 5 years out so shouldn't be factored in. There will be new boundaries drawn when Crown HS is built anyway. An unapproved development should not be factored into this boundary study.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Ritchie Park is about 96% capacity in ever option but sure give us another new community.

RP5 ( Fallsgrove) has 459 new housing proposed. RP2 has zero new housing coming up. Why not keep RP2 instead of RP5?

If RP is 96% in every option then it makes no sense to put RP5 in RP from capacity perspective. I have not paid attention to RP earlier. I was only focused on my school CG.

Makes perfect sence !!! RP is a tiny little school it makes perfect sence to assign a neighborhood that is not likely to grow.

As other posters have mentioned, RP has taken in Park Potomac, Fallsgrove, and other new developments that have put it way overcapacity. Why continue to send new developments to RP when it can either be absorbed by the new elementary school in our cluster, or by underenrolled schools nearby like Beverly Farms or Cold Spring. Cold Is undercapacity by 150 students. That is the obvious school to zone new developments to, not RP.

495 new housing units will fall under RP5 boundary. Since RP is at 96%, putting RP5(Fallsgrove) in RP will ensure that it will become overcrowded. I am all for putting some section of RP5 going to BF or CS, but that's out of scope when making decision for RM boundary right now. New development is currently in RP5 and RP5 is simply going to to go either RM5 or RP. It makes no sense to put it in RP given that it's at 96% in all scenarios.

Which options avoids putting RP5 in RP? BOE should pick one of those options. Any other scenario should be simply avoided from capacity perspective of RP.

Capacity has to be the number one concern for BOE here.

New development in Fallsgrove is proposed, not approved. No one in Fallsgrove was even aware of it. I do not doubt that community members would oppose it in front of the Council before it even gets approved. Anyway, it is clearly more than 5 years out so shouldn't be factored in. There will be new boundaries drawn when Crown HS is built anyway. An unapproved development should not be factored into this boundary study.

Either we can focus on simply what looks like in the next 5 years or think long term. I was going long term because many are talking about all developments impacting our cluster beyond the next 5 years. Approved or not approved doesn't matter. I think we will be having developments in RM cluster due to huge influence by developers. I started thinking about long term because Tower oaks came in picture, but Tower oaks doesn't have any time line for phased development yet and not going to add anything in the next 5 years. Just going to MCPS communication and details posted in city of Rockville site.

Do you know the time line for Crown high School? Hopefully it gets built quickly. It's a crazy situation. We have a new school and still over crowding in our cluster after 5 years. We are not going to get another school in our cluster for decades to come.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Ritchie Park is about 96% capacity in ever option but sure give us another new community.

RP5 ( Fallsgrove) has 459 new housing proposed. RP2 has zero new housing coming up. Why not keep RP2 instead of RP5?

If RP is 96% in every option then it makes no sense to put RP5 in RP from capacity perspective. I have not paid attention to RP earlier. I was only focused on my school CG.

Makes perfect sence !!! RP is a tiny little school it makes perfect sence to assign a neighborhood that is not likely to grow.

As other posters have mentioned, RP has taken in Park Potomac, Fallsgrove, and other new developments that have put it way overcapacity. Why continue to send new developments to RP when it can either be absorbed by the new elementary school in our cluster, or by underenrolled schools nearby like Beverly Farms or Cold Spring. Cold Is undercapacity by 150 students. That is the obvious school to zone new developments to, not RP.

495 new housing units will fall under RP5 boundary. Since RP is at 96%, putting RP5(Fallsgrove) in RP will ensure that it will become overcrowded. I am all for putting some section of RP5 going to BF or CS, but that's out of scope when making decision for RM boundary right now. New development is currently in RP5 and RP5 is simply going to to go either RM5 or RP. It makes no sense to put it in RP given that it's at 96% in all scenarios.

Which options avoids putting RP5 in RP? BOE should pick one of those options. Any other scenario should be simply avoided from capacity perspective of RP.

Capacity has to be the number one concern for BOE here.

New development in Fallsgrove is proposed, not approved. No one in Fallsgrove was even aware of it. I do not doubt that community members would oppose it in front of the Council before it even gets approved. Anyway, it is clearly more than 5 years out so shouldn't be factored in. There will be new boundaries drawn when Crown HS is built anyway. An unapproved development should not be factored into this boundary study.

Either we can focus on simply what looks like in the next 5 years or think long term. I was going long term because many are talking about all developments impacting our cluster beyond the next 5 years. Approved or not approved doesn't matter. I think we will be having developments in RM cluster due to huge influence by developers. I started thinking about long term because Tower oaks came in picture, but Tower oaks doesn't have any time line for phased development yet and not going to add anything in the next 5 years. Just going to MCPS communication and details posted in city of Rockville site.

Do you know the time line for Crown high School? Hopefully it gets built quickly. It's a crazy situation. We have a new school and still over crowding in our cluster after 5 years. We are not going to get another school in our cluster for decades to come.

I don't disagree with anything you say here but it is important to note that the City website states that for the Tower Oaks development will begin construction in 2018 to be completed, in phases, by 2025. You have to go and read the Project Description and Site Plan documents linked on the planning page. True, it isn't clear what the phases but there will be units open in the next five years.

I know all of Hungerford has been painted as only wanting E because of the FARMs rates but there are many of us worried about capacity. Option E has Beall and CG under 90% and RP at 92%. RMES#5 is also listed at 92% but that is without Tower Oaks factored in which I understand MCPS admitted. Option E has all of the Town Center which has new construction already in progress, Tower Oaks development, several other major developments in pre-planning along Rockville Pike, and RM5. I am personally very concerned that in 6 years or so the new school is going to be over capacity and Beall will still hover around 90% and we will be doing this all over again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Ritchie Park is about 96% capacity in ever option but sure give us another new community.

RP5 ( Fallsgrove) has 459 new housing proposed. RP2 has zero new housing coming up. Why not keep RP2 instead of RP5?

If RP is 96% in every option then it makes no sense to put RP5 in RP from capacity perspective. I have not paid attention to RP earlier. I was only focused on my school CG.

Makes perfect sence !!! RP is a tiny little school it makes perfect sence to assign a neighborhood that is not likely to grow.

? What new development is happening in Fallsgrove? Per Rockville city website, I don't see that happeniing.

http://www.rockvillemd.gov/index.aspx?NID=621