Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

◄ 1 2 3 ... 168 169 170 ... 196 197 198 ► Go

Go to page...

11/27/2017 09:31

Subject: Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries

Anonymous

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Future estimate of having 13 kids, freaking 13 kids out of 240 condos, is not based on the rate of elementary school kids coming out of the other apartments in B5. MCPS already admitted that they are not using forecast based on what's happening in Rockville. They are using the same forecast for entire MCPS and that's why we have such a huge under projection and so many portables. MCPS is going to chanage it, but putting Beall at huge disadvantage is not fair based on clearly wrong projections.

Since MCPS projections are wrong and they have openly admitted it getting it wrong for condos in Rockville, those estimates of 10 kids or 13 kids are not even funny. It's painful. I see here Beall getting the short end of stick even though B5N has the most number of housing coming. There are lots of kids in those condos and many of them are not even occupied fully. In many other areas , condos may not have so many kids, but it;s not true for RM cluster zone or even in WJ zone. WJ is is in huge mess with capacity for exactly same reason and now MCPS is opening Woodward.

Trying to make a decision based on those 10 or 13 kids coming from 100s of condos will create another mess and portables in Beall will never go away. I guess many current parents don't care about it because they won't suffer. Beall zones have the most condos and if MCPS makes decision based on huge under projections for all condos then Beall will suffer the most.