Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries

[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.

? That's just ONE of FOUR criteria. Proximity and scalability are two of the four criteria. Is FARMs criteria more important than the others?

[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.

BOE thinks it matters when looking at capacity -- they don't look at pre-application phase when determining capacity and boundaries. If you want to argue that the new Fallsgrove development should be looked at then they should leave FG at RP because by the time that new development happens, and that's a BIG IF since it's in pre-application phase, Crown HS might be built, so FG can be rezoned to that HS. So leave FG as is until Crown and new development happen. No sense in having them rezoned again. I don't live in FG.

In any case, this really is a moot point since BOE don't look at non-approved development.

[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.

? 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

Fallsgrove at West Montgomery...it is orange on the map you sent, right next to Research Blvd. 450 apartments in two buildings with retail on the 1st floor. Kids will still be living there for sure but they are all apartments/condos and all 1 or 2 bedrooms so probable less impact than other developments that are approved and/or in pre-planning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

? That's just ONE of FOUR criteria. Proximity and scalability are two of the four criteria. Is FARMs criteria more important than the others?

Capacity, proximity, stability and demography. All 4 have been balanced very well in alternative D.

E balances all 4 factors only in 4 schools and not in 5 schools so not a great alternative.

A and B focus on proximity exclusively.

MCPS needs to decide if they want to increase achievement gaps or decrease achievement gaps? MCPS has stated goal to narrow the achievements gap and only D looks like a good way to go here which will not have lots of kids bussing long distance.

A and B will widen the achievement gaps by keeping RP at 7% FARMs and not using it for helping as many FARMs students the school can help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

? That's just ONE of FOUR criteria. Proximity and scalability are two of the four criteria. Is FARMs criteria more important than the others?

Capacity, proximity, stability and demography. All 4 have been balanced very well in alternative D.

E balances all 4 factors only in 4 schools and not in 5 schools so not a great alternative.

A and B focus on proximity exclusively.

MCPS needs to decide if they want to increase achievement gaps or decrease achievement gaps? MCPS has stated goal to narrow the achievements gap and only D looks like a good way to go here which will not have lots of kids bussing long distance.

A and B will widen the achievement gaps by keeping RP at 7% FARMs and not using it for helping as many FARMs students the school can help.

I wouldn't say D balances proximity. It sends two areas of Twinbrook to remote parts of the cluster. Has proper analysis been done to determine whether this is a hardship? Is there public transportation for these routes for parents to attend meetings and events at the schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

? That's just ONE of FOUR criteria. Proximity and scalability are two of the four criteria. Is FARMs criteria more important than the others?

Capacity, proximity, stability and demography. All 4 have been balanced very well in alternative D.

E balances all 4 factors only in 4 schools and not in 5 schools so not a great alternative.

A and B focus on proximity exclusively.

MCPS needs to decide if they want to increase achievement gaps or decrease achievement gaps? MCPS has stated goal to narrow the achievements gap and only D looks like a good way to go here which will not have lots of kids bussing long distance.

A and B will widen the achievement gaps by keeping RP at 7% FARMs and not using it for helping as many FARMs students the school can help.

I wouldn't say D balances proximity. It sends two areas of Twinbrook to remote parts of the cluster. Has proper analysis been done to determine whether this is a hardship? Is there public transportation for these routes for parents to attend meetings and events at the schools?

I wouldn't say D balances proximity. It sends two areas of Twinbrook to remote parts of the cluster. Has proper analysis been done to determine whether this is a hardship? Is there public transportation for these routes for parents to attend meetings and events at the schools?


The public transportation available all involve buses or the metro and at least a 15 minute walk since nothing goes within at least .5 to .8 miles of Beall and RMES#5. Everything is between 30 and 45 minutes one way and most buses only run every 15 or 30 minutes depending on the route.

It also moves B5 which is .5 miles away from Beall to Twinbrook which is 3.0 to 3.5 miles away depending on location in B5. MCPS says this will only add 3 minutes which sounds pretty silly. For those that live in the apartments in B5 who may not have transportation it is a .5 mile walk to the Rockville metro and a .5 mile walk to Twinbrook Elementary school. Better than the Twinbrook families but still an added 1 mile round trip on foot plus a metro ride.

[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.

? 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

Fallsgrove at West Montgomery...it is orange on the map you sent, right next to Research Blvd. 450 apartments in two buildings with retail on the 1st floor. Kids will still be living there for sure but they are all apartments/condos and all 1 or 2 bedrooms so probable less impact than other developments that are approved and/or in pre-planning.

that's considered part of fallsgrove? Moot point in any case, since that development is in the pre-application phase.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

? That's just ONE of FOUR criteria. Proximity and scalability are two of the four criteria. Is FARMs criteria more important than the others?

Capacity, proximity, stability and demography. All 4 have been balanced very well in alternative D.

E balances all 4 factors only in 4 schools and not in 5 schools so not a great alternative.

A and B focus on proximity exclusively.

MCPS needs to decide if they want to increase achievement gaps or decrease achievement gaps? MCPS has stated goal to narrow the achievements gap and only D looks like a good way to go here which will not have lots of kids bussing long distance.

A and B will widen the achievement gaps by keeping RP at 7% FARMs and not using it for helping as many FARMs students the school can help.

I wouldn't say D balances proximity. It sends two areas of Twinbrook to remote parts of the cluster. Has proper analysis been done to determine whether this is a hardship? Is there public transportation for these routes for parents to attend meetings and events at the schools?

D balances proximity with other 3 factors. D is not focusing just on one factor. You are talking about focusing on proximity. There is huge difference. MCPS has a duty to balance all factors as much as possible.

D balances all 4 factors as much as possible without focusing on just one factor. C doesn't do balancing and focuses on FARMs. If you are mainly going to stick to proximity and focus slightly on demography them E is the only option left. E doesn't cause hardship for anyone , but it only balances demography across 4 schools. E doesn't attempt to include TB in anything.

MCPS choosing E will be a disappointing outcome. E won't help in narrowing the achievement gaps. It will keep it at the same level. MCPS choosing A or B will result in widening the achievement gaps and goes against their stated goal of narrowing it.

[Anonymous]

I am not aware of any neighborhood supporting D.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am not aware of any neighborhood supporting D.

It hardly matters what is supported by neighborhoods. MCPS should focus on 4 factors while considering boundary. D does the best job taking account of all 4 factors as much as possible. Yes, it's not perfect, but no boundary is going to be perfect. D will help MCPS in narrowing the achievement gaps as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Do you have any schoo right in the middle of RP2?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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

Everybody knows by now that CG3 is special.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

Everybody knows by now that CG3 is special.

Hopefully, Boundary decisions are not made hostage to CG3 being special.

[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.

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.

Exactly. Many want to walk and want the new school. Some don’t want to leave because it is a change they currently don’t want. Just like CG3, RP5, B5, T2/5, etc... Many people don’t like change. IHowever, deciding to bus a walkable area because a few prefer the comfort of no change isn’t a good decision. Bussing kids further past a few schools isn’t a good decision either.

I wish RP just had 20% FARMS no matter what so that RP2 neighborhood doesn’t get carved out of RM5. It will serve them well, even if some kids just want to stay in the school they know now. I think they will regret the other neighbors around them going to the new school and community center. They will forever be the outcasts and I believe they will hold not so good feelings towards Fireside for being the issue that bumped them from the school a few years down the line or even as early as tomorrow. My gut is telling me the board will pick E. I don’t think it is the right choice but with everyone harping on RP getting 7% many other zones are going to get bumped from the school they wanted to stay in to bring RP up to the 2nd highest FARMS in the cluster. Pretty sad for B5, RP5, CG3, RP2/6, etc... but those focused on FARMS and bussing kids in to do it will be happy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Exactly. Many want to walk and want the new school. Some don’t want to leave because it is a change they currently don’t want. Just like CG3, RP5, B5, T2/5, etc... Many people don’t like change. IHowever, deciding to bus a walkable area because a few prefer the comfort of no change isn’t a good decision. Bussing kids further past a few schools isn’t a good decision either.

I wish RP just had 20% FARMS no matter what so that RP2 neighborhood doesn’t get carved out of RM5. It will serve them well, even if some kids just want to stay in the school they know now. I think they will regret the other neighbors around them going to the new school and community center. They will forever be the outcasts and I believe they will hold not so good feelings towards Fireside for being the issue that bumped them from the school a few years down the line or even as early as tomorrow. My gut is telling me the board will pick E. I don’t think it is the right choice but with everyone harping on RP getting 7% many other zones are going to get bumped from the school they wanted to stay in to bring RP up to the 2nd highest FARMS in the cluster. Pretty sad for B5, RP5, CG3, RP2/6, etc... but those focused on FARMS and bussing kids in to do it will be happy.

This is not about personal preferences. This is about giving every child the chance to the best education possible. Don't worry, there won't be any outcasts. They will all meet in Julius West statistically better prepared for middle school.