Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meaningless discussion here.

Mark Pierzchala is going to ensure that Woodley Garden is protected. Alternative A, here we come .....

Why?

Alternative A is the only option which protects Woodley Gardens. That's why.

Why does he want to protect cg3?

He is just supporting the option with the most community support. From the last meeting you hear loud and clear the rockville community wants option A or B (with only a small localized area in support of option E).

You mean Hungerford who originally brought Option B and started this mess? Then got giddy at seeing Option E presented and changed their tune?

I REALLY wanted an option that moved them out of the cluster all together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
D has CG over capacity; creates an island for B5; and TB loses Title 1 status but still have very high FARMs. TB becomes the biggest loser here.

D doesn't have any school at 100%. Keeping a school above 70% intentionally just to give them title 1 is not a good idea when you can have 52% FARMs.

Many boundaries in MCPS have islands. It's better to avoid it, but those islands anyway get bus service. Narrowing the achievement gaps should be the focus.

Option D
CG - 109%
RP - 106%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meaningless discussion here.

Mark Pierzchala is going to ensure that Woodley Garden is protected. Alternative A, here we come .....

Mark may have actually hurt WG cause by pushing it too much, but Mayor lives in B5 and many parents in B5 wants to not change schools. Political pressure may be too much here for Alternative A.

And why will BOE will care about Rockville politicians, specially if it results in keeping CG at 100% with 80-90 townhouses coming in CG and also housing turnover being a factor?

Well, BOE may not care too much, but they still care about Rockville politicians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1

Agree with all of this. It should be A or B. I feel bad for RP and Beall if Option E is picked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
D has CG over capacity; creates an island for B5; and TB loses Title 1 status but still have very high FARMs. TB becomes the biggest loser here.

D doesn't have any school at 100%. Keeping a school above 70% intentionally just to give them title 1 is not a good idea when you can have 52% FARMs.

Many boundaries in MCPS have islands. It's better to avoid it, but those islands anyway get bus service. Narrowing the achievement gaps should be the focus.

Option D
CG - 109%
RP - 106%

You are looking at first year numbers, they are meaningless because 5th graders will not be changing schools. CG also has few years of gradual decrease due to IB grandfather for some grades.

Look at 2023-2024 numbers .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
D has CG over capacity; creates an island for B5; and TB loses Title 1 status but still have very high FARMs. TB becomes the biggest loser here.

D doesn't have any school at 100%. Keeping a school above 70% intentionally just to give them title 1 is not a good idea when you can have 52% FARMs.

Many boundaries in MCPS have islands. It's better to avoid it, but those islands anyway get bus service. Narrowing the achievement gaps should be the focus.

? D has CG over capacity till 2021. Folks at TB think it's a good idea to keep TB with Title 1 status. Who are you to gainsay them? I guess you didn't read that report where it states that over 35% is not a good idea, but at least at 70% TB gets Title 1 status and all the services that go with it. 52% gets them zilch.

http://gis.mcpsmd.org/boundarystudypdfs/RMES5_UpdatedBOEAlternativesAE111417.pdf

Can you point me to report which says over 35% is not a good idea? 35% should be better than 50% and 50% should be better than 70%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
D has CG over capacity; creates an island for B5; and TB loses Title 1 status but still have very high FARMs. TB becomes the biggest loser here.

D doesn't have any school at 100%. Keeping a school above 70% intentionally just to give them title 1 is not a good idea when you can have 52% FARMs.

Many boundaries in MCPS have islands. It's better to avoid it, but those islands anyway get bus service. Narrowing the achievement gaps should be the focus.

Option D
CG - 109%
RP - 106%

You are looking at first year numbers, they are meaningless because 5th graders will not be changing schools. CG also has few years of gradual decrease due to IB grandfather for some grades.

Look at 2023-2024 numbers .

Well if we did that Option A is the best option. New projected numbers with Tower Oaks (MCPS admitted they forgot to add) have RM5 at 90% capacity in 2023.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meaningless discussion here.

Mark Pierzchala is going to ensure that Woodley Garden is protected. Alternative A, here we come .....

Why?

Alternative A is the only option which protects Woodley Gardens. That's why.

Why does he want to protect cg3?

He lives in Woodley Gardens and he was the president of Civic Association of WG for 4 years. He always advocated for WG not going to Beall. WG residents even had posters saying that " Don't send our kids to over crowded Beall" when CG itself is 129% utilization. Posters were shared in Beall PTA meetings and Beall parents were horrified.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
D has CG over capacity; creates an island for B5; and TB loses Title 1 status but still have very high FARMs. TB becomes the biggest loser here.

D doesn't have any school at 100%. Keeping a school above 70% intentionally just to give them title 1 is not a good idea when you can have 52% FARMs.

Many boundaries in MCPS have islands. It's better to avoid it, but those islands anyway get bus service. Narrowing the achievement gaps should be the focus.

Option D
CG - 109%
RP - 106%

You are looking at first year numbers, they are meaningless because 5th graders will not be changing schools. CG also has few years of gradual decrease due to IB grandfather for some grades.

Look at 2023-2024 numbers .

Well if we did that Option A is the best option. New projected numbers with Tower Oaks (MCPS admitted they forgot to add) have RM5 at 90% capacity in 2023.

Wait, sorry. 90% at 2022 and 99% in 2026.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is only zoned “not around RM5” because it was already a section removed from Beall awhile back and had to be labeled RP2 since it now goes to RP. If it was still in Beall it would be known as part of B2 and it would 100% be the new walkable zone of RM5.

Look at the size of B2 compared to CG1, B1, TB1? Remove the RP2 label and blend it with B2 and it still won’t be the size of CG1 or TB1. Because RP2 SHOULD be part of B2 walkable area.

So why not remove parts or cut up parts of CG1 to another school? A part of B1 or T1. It is absolutely no different.

RP2 woulda shoulda coulda be part of B2. It is not. No need to bend logic here. RP2 is currently part of RPES community and there is no school in the middle of RP2. They are not similar to B1 or T1. RP2 can continue going to RPES like nothing happened.

Sorry, I agree with the other poster. It is indeed a walkable section. It was said right from the start that RP2 and B2 were the walkable neighborhoods to the new school and off limits in the boundary changes. That is why they are both listed as 2 even though both aren't near their 1 sections. The first 4 options and then the next 2 all had RP2 going to RM5 as planned. RP2 knew this and had no complaints. None. They only starting moving RP2 back to RP when Hungerford complained about the FARMS rates that were ironically wrong for everyone and the super wanted to try a few things to balance the farms. Then instead of 12% FARMS rate that RP was supposed to have in options 1-6, the new numbers show it at 7.5% and some people like you PP began over focusing on. There are no sections to bring to RP unless it is far away to bring higher FARMS. But now moving RP2 back in is wrong. They need to walk. Bus Lincoln Park in. Bus apartment sections of Beall in that aren't walkable. But leave RP2 to walk to their new school like it was originally planned. It is like they are used as a pawn in a game. I know many people from that school and RP2/6 knew they were going from the time the school was being built and were happy.

+1000

Ritchie Park had a boundary study rep from RP2. There was no opposition from RP2 in the spring during the boundary study meetings. It was always expected that their zone would move. It is unfortunate the way the neighborhood is being used and talked about now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
D has CG over capacity; creates an island for B5; and TB loses Title 1 status but still have very high FARMs. TB becomes the biggest loser here.

D doesn't have any school at 100%. Keeping a school above 70% intentionally just to give them title 1 is not a good idea when you can have 52% FARMs.

Many boundaries in MCPS have islands. It's better to avoid it, but those islands anyway get bus service. Narrowing the achievement gaps should be the focus.

Option D
CG - 109%
RP - 106%

You are looking at first year numbers, they are meaningless because 5th graders will not be changing schools. CG also has few years of gradual decrease due to IB grandfather for some grades.

Look at 2023-2024 numbers .

Well if we did that Option A is the best option. New projected numbers with Tower Oaks (MCPS admitted they forgot to add) have RM5 at 90% capacity in 2023.

RM#5 is not getting over crowded in 2023-2024 in any alternative even after making aggressive assumptions about Tower Oaks. MCPS sent a note with full details. RM#5 doesn't go to 90% in option A. Not sure where you are getting these number.

A is bad option because it keeps CG at 100% and leaves very little room for 87 new townhouses and housing turn over. On top of that CG can't be expanded even if it gets over crowded. Beall, TB and RP can be expanded. RM#5 also can't be expanded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
D has CG over capacity; creates an island for B5; and TB loses Title 1 status but still have very high FARMs. TB becomes the biggest loser here.

D doesn't have any school at 100%. Keeping a school above 70% intentionally just to give them title 1 is not a good idea when you can have 52% FARMs.

Many boundaries in MCPS have islands. It's better to avoid it, but those islands anyway get bus service. Narrowing the achievement gaps should be the focus.

Option D
CG - 109%
RP - 106%

You are looking at first year numbers, they are meaningless because 5th graders will not be changing schools. CG also has few years of gradual decrease due to IB grandfather for some grades.

Look at 2023-2024 numbers .

Well if we did that Option A is the best option. New projected numbers with Tower Oaks (MCPS admitted they forgot to add) have RM5 at 90% capacity in 2023.

RM#5 is not getting over crowded in 2023-2024 in any alternative even after making aggressive assumptions about Tower Oaks. MCPS sent a note with full details. RM#5 doesn't go to 90% in option A. Not sure where you are getting these number.

A is bad option because it keeps CG at 100% and leaves very little room for 87 new townhouses and housing turn over. On top of that CG can't be expanded even if it gets over crowded. Beall, TB and RP can be expanded. RM#5 also can't be expanded.

In theory those schools can be expanded, but it is doubtful that would happen at any of the cluster schools anytime soon. Twinbrook has gas leaks and can't even get to the top of the Rev/ex list. School expansions are theoretical only, even if the possibility exists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Ritchie Park had a boundary study rep from RP2. There was no opposition from RP2 in the spring during the boundary study meetings. It was always expected that their zone would move.

If it was always expected that RP will only keep affluent areas then why do you think MCPS gave option 7 and 8 which had RP taking areas from other side of 270?


And CG had one rep wanting to keep CG3 in CG because he lives in CG3 and other rep consistently pointing out that CG will be over crowded. So much for all these reps and them taking a rational decisions. Anyway, reps were only allowed to comment on all options presented and not pick an option. Their comments were tailored around that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Well if we did that Option A is the best option. New projected numbers with Tower Oaks (MCPS admitted they forgot to add) have RM5 at 90% capacity in 2023.

RM#5 is not getting over crowded in 2023-2024 in any alternative even after making aggressive assumptions about Tower Oaks. MCPS sent a note with full details. RM#5 doesn't go to 90% in option A. Not sure where you are getting these number.

A is bad option because it keeps CG at 100% and leaves very little room for 87 new townhouses and housing turn over. On top of that CG can't be expanded even if it gets over crowded. Beall, TB and RP can be expanded. RM#5 also can't be expanded.

In theory those schools can be expanded, but it is doubtful that would happen at any of the cluster schools anytime soon. Twinbrook has gas leaks and can't even get to the top of the Rev/ex list. School expansions are theoretical only, even if the possibility exists.

MCPS has abandoned the policy of queue. I hope TB gets renovated soon. BOE members toured TB few days back and they saw how bad the situation is in TB.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
D has CG over capacity; creates an island for B5; and TB loses Title 1 status but still have very high FARMs. TB becomes the biggest loser here.

D doesn't have any school at 100%. Keeping a school above 70% intentionally just to give them title 1 is not a good idea when you can have 52% FARMs.

Many boundaries in MCPS have islands. It's better to avoid it, but those islands anyway get bus service. Narrowing the achievement gaps should be the focus.

Option D
CG - 109%
RP - 106%

You are looking at first year numbers, they are meaningless because 5th graders will not be changing schools. CG also has few years of gradual decrease due to IB grandfather for some grades.

Look at 2023-2024 numbers .

Well if we did that Option A is the best option. New projected numbers with Tower Oaks (MCPS admitted they forgot to add) have RM5 at 90% capacity in 2023.

RM#5 is not getting over crowded in 2023-2024 in any alternative even after making aggressive assumptions about Tower Oaks. MCPS sent a note with full details. RM#5 doesn't go to 90% in option A. Not sure where you are getting these number.

A is bad option because it keeps CG at 100% and leaves very little room for 87 new townhouses and housing turn over. On top of that CG can't be expanded even if it gets over crowded. Beall, TB and RP can be expanded. RM#5 also can't be expanded.

You are right, it does not go to 90% in option A but it does in all the other options.

The email says "aggressive" projections for the Tower Oaks development is 56 kids. Even if you consider 56 "aggressive" for 255 townhouses and single family homes plus another 120 apartments then the projection #'s for 2023-2024 school year for the new school are as follows:

A = 85%
B = 99.6%
C = 105%
D = 97%
E = 99.2%

College Gardens has another projected 16 kids if you use the email sent to the school board.
The new school has another 39 coming from a large development proposed on the Pike for the same time frame.

Basically with Tower Oaks considered Option A has CG at 100% and the new school at 85%. In B-E CG is under 100% and the new school is at or over capacity.

The board needs to decide where additional new growth will be