Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So Woodley Gardens isn't happy with B, Rose Hill isn't happy with B and B5S isn't happy with B. They "mostly" wanted A.

All other areas stayed the same between A and B?

B gets the FARMS down at #5 by 3% or so and it opens capacity at College Gardens ES, down from 100% to 83%. That's it? .

You break up Woodley/College Gardens, Rockville West End and divide Rose Hill? For 3%?

i am a fallsgrove resident and a bunch of us bombarded the boe with emails about how the commute would have been to the new school.


however, i do not think they considered fallsgrove at all in their decision. it was all about having rp2 go to their neighborhood school.

[Anonymous]

i am still shocked that they went for option b when it makes ritchie park 7 percent farms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:i am still shocked that they went for option b when it makes ritchie park 7 percent farms.

They didn’t even want to bus 75 kids from TB to RP. I knew that would fail because if it worked and those kids were followed through HS graduation and they performed better then the richest schools would have been compelled to accept kids from poor schools. We can’t have poor kids at the W schools now can we? It was obvious that would fail.

[Anonymous]

It is pathetic how the board keeps kicking the can down the road.

The real elephant in the room is Twinbrook with 70% FARMs and 64% Hispanic population and Ritchie Park a tiny elitist enclave with 7% FARMs and a misfit RP5 appendix. All within a short distance from each other.

The cluster boundaries need to be redrawn or these imbalances and fights will keep coming up over and over. Especially when neighboring schools are under capacity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Woodley Gardens isn't happy with B, Rose Hill isn't happy with B and B5S isn't happy with B. They "mostly" wanted A.

All other areas stayed the same between A and B?

B gets the FARMS down at #5 by 3% or so and it opens capacity at College Gardens ES, down from 100% to 83%. That's it? .

You break up Woodley/College Gardens, Rockville West End and divide Rose Hill? For 3%?

Maybe it's because A left CG at over capacity still, and ES#5 too much under capacity. I think capacit was a key factor, as it should be. It's the main purpose of opening the new ES.

In A, CG is over capacity by 16, 9, 6,2 and 0 over 5 years. Twinbrook is still over capacity by 8-32 kids in A or B. In B, CG opens 37 to 76 seats. B does bring 100 more kids to #5 but it doesn't address Twinbrook overcrowding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Woodley Gardens isn't happy with B, Rose Hill isn't happy with B and B5S isn't happy with B. They "mostly" wanted A.

All other areas stayed the same between A and B?

B gets the FARMS down at #5 by 3% or so and it opens capacity at College Gardens ES, down from 100% to 83%. That's it? .

You break up Woodley/College Gardens, Rockville West End and divide Rose Hill? For 3%?

B does not break up west End.

?? I believe all but one street defined as Rockville West End would go to Beall ES under option A. Under B, a large portion of the West End (B5s) moves from Beall to RM #5, including several of the past West End Presidents. Boundary lines for schools, even elementary schools, are important for neighborhood cohesion and a sense of community, particularly for those with school aged children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Woodley Gardens isn't happy with B, Rose Hill isn't happy with B and B5S isn't happy with B. They "mostly" wanted A.

All other areas stayed the same between A and B?

B gets the FARMS down at #5 by 3% or so and it opens capacity at College Gardens ES, down from 100% to 83%. That's it? .

You break up Woodley/College Gardens, Rockville West End and divide Rose Hill? For 3%?

Maybe it's because A left CG at over capacity still, and ES#5 too much under capacity. I think capacit was a key factor, as it should be. It's the main purpose of opening the new ES.

In A, CG is over capacity by 16, 9, 6,2 and 0 over 5 years. Twinbrook is still over capacity by 8-32 kids in A or B. In B, CG opens 37 to 76 seats. B does bring 100 more kids to #5 but it doesn't address Twinbrook overcrowding.

You are correct. Do you also know that Twinbrook wanted to be left out of the study? Alternative E also had the same boundaries for Twinbrook as A/B, which is its current boundaries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Woodley Gardens isn't happy with B, Rose Hill isn't happy with B and B5S isn't happy with B. They "mostly" wanted A.

All other areas stayed the same between A and B?

B gets the FARMS down at #5 by 3% or so and it opens capacity at College Gardens ES, down from 100% to 83%. That's it? .

You break up Woodley/College Gardens, Rockville West End and divide Rose Hill? For 3%?

B does not break up west End.

?? I believe all but one street defined as Rockville West End would go to Beall ES under option A. Under B, a large portion of the West End (B5s) moves from Beall to RM #5, including several of the past West End Presidents. Boundary lines for schools, even elementary schools, are important for neighborhood cohesion and a sense of community, particularly for those with school aged children.

Well, the West End has been broken up for a long time, as at least 90 households have been zoned to Ritchie Park in RP2 for years. So the break is just in a different place now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Woodley Gardens isn't happy with B, Rose Hill isn't happy with B and B5S isn't happy with B. They "mostly" wanted A.

All other areas stayed the same between A and B?

B gets the FARMS down at #5 by 3% or so and it opens capacity at College Gardens ES, down from 100% to 83%. That's it? .

You break up Woodley/College Gardens, Rockville West End and divide Rose Hill? For 3%?

Maybe it's because A left CG at over capacity still, and ES#5 too much under capacity. I think capacit was a key factor, as it should be. It's the main purpose of opening the new ES.

In A, CG is over capacity by 16, 9, 6,2 and 0 over 5 years. Twinbrook is still over capacity by 8-32 kids in A or B. In B, CG opens 37 to 76 seats. B does bring 100 more kids to #5 but it doesn't address Twinbrook overcrowding.

You are correct. Do you also know that Twinbrook wanted to be left out of the study? Alternative E also had the same boundaries for Twinbrook as A/B, which is its current boundaries.

Yes. I suppose they wanted to keep their community together?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So Woodley Gardens isn't happy with B, Rose Hill isn't happy with B and B5S isn't happy with B. They "mostly" wanted A.

All other areas stayed the same between A and B?

B gets the FARMS down at #5 by 3% or so and it opens capacity at College Gardens ES, down from 100% to 83%. That's it? .

You break up Woodley/College Gardens, Rockville West End and divide Rose Hill? For 3%?

Break up WG? what are you talking here?

Anyway, boundaries are not election to keep current parents happy. It should have been never about that to start with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Woodley Gardens isn't happy with B, Rose Hill isn't happy with B and B5S isn't happy with B. They "mostly" wanted A.

All other areas stayed the same between A and B?

B gets the FARMS down at #5 by 3% or so and it opens capacity at College Gardens ES, down from 100% to 83%. That's it? .

You break up Woodley/College Gardens, Rockville West End and divide Rose Hill? For 3%?

B does not break up west End.

?? I believe all but one street defined as Rockville West End would go to Beall ES under option A. Under B, a large portion of the West End (B5s) moves from Beall to RM #5, including several of the past West End Presidents. Boundary lines for schools, even elementary schools, are important for neighborhood cohesion and a sense of community, particularly for those with school aged children.

I have lived in this area for 6-7 years now. It's not like 200 west ends kids play together. I have seen lots of NMC kids playing with others across Maryalnd avenue. Many West end residents join NMC pool in summer. I never heard any NMC resident making argument based on that. I have a school aged kid and I do live in B6.

West end or any large area with 200-300 kids shouldn't be expecting to be kept in one school. It's not practical and you can't make boundary based on that. It's not like you are moving alone. All your houses on your street will be moving with you.

Do you think it's possible to draw any sensible boundary if every one start saying that hey you need to move these 300 kids in one school or another.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i am still shocked that they went for option b when it makes ritchie park 7 percent farms.

They didn’t even want to bus 75 kids from TB to RP. I knew that would fail because if it worked and those kids were followed through HS graduation and they performed better then the richest schools would have been compelled to accept kids from poor schools. We can’t have poor kids at the W schools now can we? It was obvious that would fail.

RP couldn’t take the 75 kids. They are at 96% capacity with only a few seats open. They are the smallest school in the cluster by 150 seats.

Dixon wanted 74 kids out of T1. A walkable location to TB and move about 20 to each of the 4 schools. A terrible idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is pathetic how the board keeps kicking the can down the road.

The real elephant in the room is Twinbrook with 70% FARMs and 64% Hispanic population and Ritchie Park a tiny elitist enclave with 7% FARMs and a misfit RP5 appendix. All within a short distance from each other.

The cluster boundaries need to be redrawn or these imbalances and fights will keep coming up over and over. Especially when neighboring schools are under capacity.

1. Where do you want Fallsgrove to go? CG already has King Farm, a huge walkable cluster, and Derwood. None of them can go to another school without being an appendix - same as Fallsgrove. The rest of CG doesn’t even equal the amount of seats that need to move out to even fit Fallsgrove. So where do you want them to go?

2. Seemed like Twinbrook wanted their 70% much more than RP wanted 7%

3. Who did you want bussed in to RP to raise FARMS. It would have to be Twinbrook or apartment complex areas of Beall. RP2 is walkable to RM5. All other sections anywhere near RP have zero to 4% FARMS. Fallsgrove gives the most FARMS right now and even they aren’t close. There just isn’t FARMS areas across 270.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is pathetic how the board keeps kicking the can down the road.

The real elephant in the room is Twinbrook with 70% FARMs and 64% Hispanic population and Ritchie Park a tiny elitist enclave with 7% FARMs and a misfit RP5 appendix. All within a short distance from each other.

The cluster boundaries need to be redrawn or these imbalances and fights will keep coming up over and over. Especially when neighboring schools are under capacity.

TB is happy with 70% FARMs and RP is happy with 7% FARMs. That's how segregation works and cycle continues.


It's not even about what you can do. TB and RP are happy to maintain 70% and 7%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Woodley Gardens isn't happy with B, Rose Hill isn't happy with B and B5S isn't happy with B. They "mostly" wanted A.

All other areas stayed the same between A and B?

B gets the FARMS down at #5 by 3% or so and it opens capacity at College Gardens ES, down from 100% to 83%. That's it? .

You break up Woodley/College Gardens, Rockville West End and divide Rose Hill? For 3%?

i am a fallsgrove resident and a bunch of us bombarded the boe with emails about how the commute would have been to the new school.


however, i do not think they considered fallsgrove at all in their decision. it was all about having rp2 go to their neighborhood school.

Falls grove was a non-factor for sure.