Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The options that leave Beall at 83% is good.

But this issue with MCPS not making builders front schools like other states and counties do, and the county continuing to allow these over buildings issues is the problem. But the contractors line the local politicians pockets.

The fact we had to wait THIS long just for one school (and beg for it) has been ridiculous. Add to this total BS messing up of FARMS numbers and this last minute rush, the BOE just sucks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
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.

If you are saying that you will have only movement in northern part and southern parts of RM cluster will be untouched then I don't agree.

For example in Alternate A, RP will have around 200 kids left if Fallsgrove moves out. School simply can't remain open with 200 kids. Pipe dream about it's folding into Wootton is simply a pipe dream. RM cluster is going to have lots of growth in the next 10 years. Just in B5 we are adding 900+ housing units and many more will come. Obviously if Fallsgrove moves out, there will be changes in southern part as well.

[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.

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

The whole King Farm will move to the Gaithersburg cluster after Crown is opened and parts of Gaithersburg move to Crown. Yes Fallsgrove may go but right now there is no ES or MS for them to go to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

If you are saying that you will have only movement in northern part and southern parts of RM cluster will be untouched then I don't agree.

For example in Alternate A, RP will have around 200 kids left if Fallsgrove moves out. School simply can't remain open with 200 kids. Pipe dream about it's folding into Wootton is simply a pipe dream. RM cluster is going to have lots of growth in the next 10 years. Just in B5 we are adding 900+ housing units and many more will come. Obviously if Fallsgrove moves out, there will be changes in southern part as well.

Fallsgrove will only go to Crown for high school. There is absolutely no middle or elementary school that can take another 150+ kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The options that leave Beall at 83% is good.

But this issue with MCPS not making builders front schools like other states and counties do, and the county continuing to allow these over buildings issues is the problem. But the contractors line the local politicians pockets.

The fact we had to wait THIS long just for one school (and beg for it) has been ridiculous. Add to this total BS messing up of FARMS numbers and this last minute rush, the BOE just sucks.

That will be alternative B if I recall it right. If BOE wants to balance FARMs then Alternative B can have swapping of RP5 with RP2/6. That will keep some room in all schools and also balance the FARMs. If BOE doesn't want to balance the FARMs then leave B as it is.


Basically go with alternative B without caring about FARMs

Or

Modify B to keep RP2/6 in RP and have RP5 in RM#5 [ RP5 and RP2/6 have similar numbers ]. This will balance FARMs

Many parents are paying too much attention to Tower oaks which is relatively small when you consider all the developments happening in B5. 900+ housing units in B5 shouldn't be ignored at any cost. Beall will suffer greatly if no one is paying any attention here. I am in Beall in all options and I have 2 future elementary kids going to Beall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

If you are saying that you will have only movement in northern part and southern parts of RM cluster will be untouched then I don't agree.

For example in Alternate A, RP will have around 200 kids left if Fallsgrove moves out. School simply can't remain open with 200 kids. Pipe dream about it's folding into Wootton is simply a pipe dream. RM cluster is going to have lots of growth in the next 10 years. Just in B5 we are adding 900+ housing units and many more will come. Obviously if Fallsgrove moves out, there will be changes in southern part as well.

Fallsgrove will only go to Crown for high school. There is absolutely no middle or elementary school that can take another 150+ kids.

Then any argument about Elementary schools shouldn't have any mention of Crown. Elementary boundary won't change and we have 450+ housing units in proposed in Fallsgrove.

That's why I think best option is to simply keep all schools below 100 as much as possible to leave room for future growth. I am sure we will have portables in all schools after looking at all proposed developments and future developments, but it's better to minimize portables in all schools. I don't think we will get another elementary in near future in our cluster so it make sense to not push any school at 100 right now. Forget about 10 years later, because I am sure that all schools will be over 100% after 10 years.

Development is happening all around in our cluster and talking about CIP or anything is just technicality. MCPS projections are wrong and they have admitted that. BOE knows that development is happening all around in our cluster and hopefully they take that into account to not put any school at huge disadvantage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

If you are saying that you will have only movement in northern part and southern parts of RM cluster will be untouched then I don't agree.

For example in Alternate A, RP will have around 200 kids left if Fallsgrove moves out. School simply can't remain open with 200 kids. Pipe dream about it's folding into Wootton is simply a pipe dream. RM cluster is going to have lots of growth in the next 10 years. Just in B5 we are adding 900+ housing units and many more will come. Obviously if Fallsgrove moves out, there will be changes in southern part as well.

Fallsgrove will only go to Crown for high school. There is absolutely no middle or elementary school that can take another 150+ kids.

Then any argument about Elementary schools shouldn't have any mention of Crown. Elementary boundary won't change and we have 450+ housing units in proposed in Fallsgrove.

That's why I think best option is to simply keep all schools below 100 as much as possible to leave room for future growth. I am sure we will have portables in all schools after looking at all proposed developments and future developments, but it's better to minimize portables in all schools. I don't think we will get another elementary in near future in our cluster so it make sense to not push any school at 100 right now. Forget about 10 years later, because I am sure that all schools will be over 100% after 10 years.

Development is happening all around in our cluster and talking about CIP or anything is just technicality. MCPS projections are wrong and they have admitted that. BOE knows that development is happening all around in our cluster and hopefully they take that into account to not put any school at huge disadvantage.

I think if the numbers increase again certain sections of Falls Rd will get pulled to the under capacity Potomac schools. Fallsgrove will move out to Crown. King Farm to Gaithersburg.. All sections south of Beall will go to RP and Beall will just be north and west of 28 only. TB will get an addition if they ever revitalize that school and most of the new 355 housing will go there. They can work around increases if we are diligent in fighting for them.

[Anonymous]

TONIGHT 6pm is the Board of Ed's final meeting to decide on the boundaries of the new elementary school. There are other items on their agenda, but this one's the first.

This session is closed to the public, but can be watched online: http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/boe/meetings/live.aspx or on Comcast Channel 34 , Verizon FIOS Channel 36, and RCN Channel 88. Meetings are rebroadcast at 1 p.m. on the Saturday and Sunday following the meeting.

[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.

? 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%.

It's that report that lady from RP2 cited in her testimony, the one that shows the "magic" number being 25% and less. That's been cited here again and again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:TONIGHT 6pm is the Board of Ed's final meeting to decide on the boundaries of the new elementary school. There are other items on their agenda, but this one's the first.

This session is closed to the public, but can be watched online: http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/boe/meetings/live.aspx or on Comcast Channel 34 , Verizon FIOS Channel 36, and RCN Channel 88. Meetings are rebroadcast at 1 p.m. on the Saturday and Sunday following the meeting.

The meeting is absolutely not closed to the public. There is a session from 5-6 that is closed to discuss acquisition of property and collective bargaining then the open meeting begins at 6 where the boundary study is first on the list.

[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.

? 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%.

It's that report that lady from RP2 cited in her testimony, the one that shows the "magic" number being 25% and less. That's been cited here again and again.

OK, just read the cited study. It's not 25%. It says 20% or below helps FARMs kids with their Math and readings. Then at 20-35% , positive effect starts getting reduced and above 35% no difference. I just took a cursory look. I am going to read it entirely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TONIGHT 6pm is the Board of Ed's final meeting to decide on the boundaries of the new elementary school. There are other items on their agenda, but this one's the first.

This session is closed to the public, but can be watched online: http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/boe/meetings/live.aspx or on Comcast Channel 34 , Verizon FIOS Channel 36, and RCN Channel 88. Meetings are rebroadcast at 1 p.m. on the Saturday and Sunday following the meeting.

The meeting is absolutely not closed to the public. There is a session from 5-6 that is closed to discuss acquisition of property and collective bargaining then the open meeting begins at 6 where the boundary study is first on the list.

Thanks for the correction. It is not a public hearing with public testimony, however.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

If you are saying that you will have only movement in northern part and southern parts of RM cluster will be untouched then I don't agree.

For example in Alternate A, RP will have around 200 kids left if Fallsgrove moves out. School simply can't remain open with 200 kids. Pipe dream about it's folding into Wootton is simply a pipe dream. RM cluster is going to have lots of growth in the next 10 years. Just in B5 we are adding 900+ housing units and many more will come. Obviously if Fallsgrove moves out, there will be changes in southern part as well.

Fallsgrove will only go to Crown for high school. There is absolutely no middle or elementary school that can take another 150+ kids.

Then any argument about Elementary schools shouldn't have any mention of Crown. Elementary boundary won't change and we have 450+ housing units in proposed in Fallsgrove.

That's why I think best option is to simply keep all schools below 100 as much as possible to leave room for future growth. I am sure we will have portables in all schools after looking at all proposed developments and future developments, but it's better to minimize portables in all schools. I don't think we will get another elementary in near future in our cluster so it make sense to not push any school at 100 right now. Forget about 10 years later, because I am sure that all schools will be over 100% after 10 years.

Development is happening all around in our cluster and talking about CIP or anything is just technicality. MCPS projections are wrong and they have admitted that. BOE knows that development is happening all around in our cluster and hopefully they take that into account to not put any school at huge disadvantage.

I think if the numbers increase again certain sections of Falls Rd will get pulled to the under capacity Potomac schools. Fallsgrove will move out to Crown. King Farm to Gaithersburg.. All sections south of Beall will go to RP and Beall will just be north and west of 28 only. TB will get an addition if they ever revitalize that school and most of the new 355 housing will go there. They can work around increases if we are diligent in fighting for them.

It will be music to my ears if all of the above listed things can happen. We bought house near Beall 3 years ago and now looking at 900+ housing units in B5N zone scared me totally. Most troubling was not many are even discussing it and talking about 50 units here and there in many other zones.

I wasn't involved too much earlier because my kids are not in school yet, but it will be tragic if MCPS puts Beall at a huge disadvantage. BOE needs to leave as much room in Beall as possible because B5N is going to add the most number of housing units. MCPS simply under projects the number of kids in condos and that's why we have such a huge mess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The options that leave Beall at 83% is good.

But this issue with MCPS not making builders front schools like other states and counties do, and the county continuing to allow these over buildings issues is the problem. But the contractors line the local politicians pockets.

The fact we had to wait THIS long just for one school (and beg for it) has been ridiculous. Add to this total BS messing up of FARMS numbers and this last minute rush, the BOE just sucks.

That will be alternative B if I recall it right. If BOE wants to balance FARMs then Alternative B can have swapping of RP5 with RP2/6. That will keep some room in all schools and also balance the FARMs. If BOE doesn't want to balance the FARMs then leave B as it is.


Basically go with alternative B without caring about FARMs

Or

Modify B to keep RP2/6 in RP and have RP5 in RM#5 [ RP5 and RP2/6 have similar numbers ]. This will balance FARMs

Many parents are paying too much attention to Tower oaks which is relatively small when you consider all the developments happening in B5. 900+ housing units in B5 shouldn't be ignored at any cost. Beall will suffer greatly if no one is paying any attention here. I am in Beall in all options and I have 2 future elementary kids going to Beall.

Tower oaks is 250+ single family and town homes which historically have more children then one and two bedroom apartments in the towncenter. The first two numbers mentioned above 400 and 275 are already included in the BOE Alternatives. While all the other zones remain flat or decrease B5 almost doubles from today to the 2023-2024 school year. The 240 housing unit is not included but was provided by the BOE, right or wrong they estimate 13 elementary school kids when it opens based on the rate of elementary school kids coming out of the other apartments in B5. Finally, the 52 building is for adult dependent children with special needs, no one under 18 will be living there. As an interesting note...B5N only has about 55 kids in it with all the apartments already there.

Parents are paying attention to the Tower Oaks of 375 new units, 255 of which are houses because they were not factored in. 675 of the 900 in towncenter you mention were included.

Additionally, parents going to the new school are paying attention because a plan that brings B5 with all that growth plus B3 with Tower Oaks and another 470 unit complex along the pike all to the new school is worrisome. Adding Tower Oaks puts the new school at 99 - 100% capacity in B-E in 2024-2025 school year. I get trying to balance current enrollment today and you can only work with the numbers we have but there has to be some thought about how to prepare smartly for growth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is an excellent point the most popular plan would not move anyone and keep the new school empty since it seems no one wants to move. The decision needs to be based in data and facts not whatever the richest nieghborhoods and thier politicians want.