Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries

[Anonymous]

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

There are no numbers for 2026 for any school. Numbers only cover this CIP period.

Developments are happening all over and if you are considering 8-10 years later then many schools will be over crowded. I don't think any school will be less than 100% after 10 years in RM cluster. Just going by when I look at all development plans. Not a good news, but it doesn't justify building RM#5 and keep it 77% utilization for many years and keep another school at 100%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Same letter lists lots of developments in all parts of RM cluster. Developments in B5, in RP, in CG in TB ....

BOE doesn't need to decide where additional growth will be. BOE already have data to see that additional growth is happening everywhere. Leaving any school near 100% right now is guaranteed portables in few years.

[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.

Your memory is playing games. Tell me more about the original Options 7 and 8.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

There are no numbers for 2026 for any school. Numbers only cover this CIP period.

Developments are happening all over and if you are considering 8-10 years later then many schools will be over crowded. I don't think any school will be less than 100% after 10 years in RM cluster. Just going by when I look at all development plans. Not a good news, but it doesn't justify building RM#5 and keep it 77% utilization for many years and keep another school at 100%.

All that just to keep Mark Pierzchala happy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

There are no numbers for 2026 for any school. Numbers only cover this CIP period.

Developments are happening all over and if you are considering 8-10 years later then many schools will be over crowded. I don't think any school will be less than 100% after 10 years in RM cluster. Just going by when I look at all development plans. Not a good news, but it doesn't justify building RM#5 and keep it 77% utilization for many years and keep another school at 100%.

All that just to keep Mark Pierzchala happy.

Mark Pierzchala is all about keeping neighborhood together and protected. It's a great idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Mark Pierzchala is all about keeping neighborhood together and protected. It's a great idea.

60 years back - keeping neighborhood together was a code for racial segregation.

Now - keeping neighborhood together is a code for economic segregation.

Mark Pierzchala should have been born 200 years back with his slogan of keeping neighborhood together and protected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Mark Pierzchala is all about keeping neighborhood together and protected. It's a great idea.

60 years back - keeping neighborhood together was a code for racial segregation.

Now - keeping neighborhood together is a code for economic segregation.

Mark Pierzchala should have been born 200 years back with his slogan of keeping neighborhood together and protected.

Economic segregation from College Gardens neighborhoods to Beall? Please...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Same letter lists lots of developments in all parts of RM cluster. Developments in B5, in RP, in CG in TB ....

BOE doesn't need to decide where additional growth will be. BOE already have data to see that additional growth is happening everywhere. Leaving any school near 100% right now is guaranteed portables in few years.

Again you are right .... it does list additional growth. 83 students if you don't count tower oaks. 139 if you do.

B5N = 16
B3 = 26 or 82 if you pull Tower Oaks Back Out
16 = College Gardens
25 = RP5


I didn't run the full numbers on C and D given Twinbrooks' strong opposition to breaking them up but looking at A, B and E here you go.... assuming all the growth the letter says is coming and keeping everything else constant.

RMES#5 A = 88.6% B = 103.1% E = 107.8%
Beall A = 94% B = 89% E = 86%
CG A = 102% B = 91% E = 91%
RP A = 98% B = 98% E = 92%
TB A = 105% B = 105% E = 105%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Economic segregation from College Gardens neighborhoods to Beall? Please...

Not the same Poster, but CG had posters saying that "don't send our kids to over crowded Beall" when CG itself is 129%. Take it for whatever you want. Surely, some residents of WG were totally against attending Beall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Economic segregation from College Gardens neighborhoods to Beall? Please...

Not the same Poster, but CG had posters saying that "don't send our kids to over crowded Beall" when CG itself is 129%. Take it for whatever you want. Surely, some residents of WG were totally against attending Beall.

It is clear Woodley Gardens wants to stay at CG, but the PP claiming the reasoning is economic segregation is ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Your memory is playing games. Tell me more about the original Options 7 and 8.

Not the PP but the original 7 and 8 were much later. There were only 4 in the original plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:


Again you are right .... it does list additional growth. 83 students if you don't count tower oaks. 139 if you do.

B5N = 16
B3 = 26 or 82 if you pull Tower Oaks Back Out
16 = College Gardens
25 = RP5

Without going into any details, let's do one sanity check

B5N itself has 400 + 275 + 240 + 52 = 967 housing units coming under approved and proposed section.

That's a huge number to be honest. Projecting so less elementary kids with around 1000 housing units is insane. Well, MCPS openly admitted that their projections don't work in certain areas because they don't use localized formula. MCPS is working on to use a better method and they said it openly.

We all saw assumption that condos don't add kids were wrong in the last 4-5 years. 967 housing units means that you will add 100s of kids.

No other zone is adding 900+ housing units so quickly and yet no one seems to be worried about it.

[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.

Crown is going to be built and areas in the north part of this cluster. King Farm for sure will be moved to it. There is no where down cluster that will be moving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Economic segregation from College Gardens neighborhoods to Beall? Please...

Not the same Poster, but CG had posters saying that "don't send our kids to over crowded Beall" when CG itself is 129%. Take it for whatever you want. Surely, some residents of WG were totally against attending Beall.

It is clear Woodley Gardens wants to stay at CG, but the PP claiming the reasoning is economic segregation is ridiculous.

Many have stated that CG has far less FARMs. Beall always had around 25-30%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Crown is going to be built and areas in the north part of this cluster. King Farm for sure will be moved to it. There is no where down cluster that will be moving.

Fallsgrove will also get moved. It is just as close if not closer to Downtown Crown than King Farm