Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Fallsgrove needs to go to their neighborhood school just like anyone else.

RP needs to be expanded to match other schools capacity or be moved out of the cluster possibly to Potomac.

T3 and perhaps parts of T2 need to move out of TB to Beall or ES5

[Anonymous]

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

I think it was Evans, who was convinced that going to neighborhood school improves test scores more than going to affluent schools. She didn't look at any data presented and just went by her feelings. These kind of BOE members play it for the gallery rather than taking decisions to help kids.

Evans even tried to twist what Dixon was saying. I found it pathetic. I guess first term members and she can get reelected so it's better to play it for the gallery than making unpopular decisions to help kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Fallsgrove needs to go to their neighborhood school just like anyone else.

RP needs to be expanded to match other schools capacity or be moved out of the cluster possibly to Potomac.

T3 and perhaps parts of T2 need to move out of TB to Beall or ES5

What neighborhood school do you suggest FG go to? Lakewood is their closest

They will. Ever pay for an expansion on RP when the three closest ES are below 80% capacity. That doesn't make sense. Also, even if you expand the school, all surrounding areas do not have FARMS. You will still have to bus kids in from a few miles away to make that happen.

I agree that parts of TB need to move out but TB3 doesn't have much FARMS. Moving them out actually INCREASED the FARMS rate at TB. T2 and T5 have the most and they are the furthest from anywhere in the cluster by miles. Like another board member said. Looking at other options outside of the cluster. Who is on their backside boundary lines? Maybe moving them to that ES would be easier. T1 has a lot too but they are walkable. Who gets bussed in? Closest is areas walkable to RM5. The schools just aren't spread out properly and when we expanded our cluster by taking in Kings Farm, Derwood, Fallsgrove - there aren't many options for areas with that student size. King Farm should have always gotten their ES. That was a game changer in this massive overcrowding trickling down. Hopefully Crown boundaries help with these areas.

[Anonymous]

Rich and Poor divisions will perpetuate simply because both feel comfortable with their boundaries. A sad situation, but it's reality.

Sure, BOE can change few things, but most BOE members simply play for the gallery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Rich and Poor divisions will perpetuate simply because both feel comfortable with their boundaries. A sad situation, but it's reality.

Sure, BOE can change few things, but most BOE members simply play for the gallery.

Things will get better with time. Most modern developments are mixed with single family and multi family in the same area. Rockville is one of the better areas. It has to start with housing policies throughout moco and allowing for multi family complex development.

[Anonymous]

Fallsgrove should be reassigned to Cold Spring.

[Anonymous]

I still think the county should introduce a lottery system so students struggling at their home school can opt to go to one of the underenrolled ones.

[Anonymous]

Most people believed options B and E were the best. They chose B so I think we should be happy with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most people believed options B and E were the best. They chose B so I think we should be happy with it.

Most people have no idea what most people think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most people believed options B and E were the best. They chose B so I think we should be happy with it.

Most people have no idea what most people think.

Well if you are unhappy with the change, there is nothing you can do now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Fallsgrove needs to go to their neighborhood school just like anyone else.

RP needs to be expanded to match other schools capacity or be moved out of the cluster possibly to Potomac.

T3 and perhaps parts of T2 need to move out of TB to Beall or ES5

Fallsgrove never belonged in RP in the first place. They should have gone to Lakewood or Fallsmead. Throwing that neighborhood into the RM cluster was simply to up the SES in RM and reduce overcrowding at Wootton at the time.

[Anonymous]

The best way to redistribute the FARM students is the unroot the high dnsity housing project and redevelop the land into mixed use development. The current policy is working well but it is too slow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The best way to redistribute the FARM students is the unroot the high dnsity housing project and redevelop the land into mixed use development. The current policy is working well but it is too slow.

Across all of Twinbrook?!!?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

It's much harder on low income families to have an ES further away than middle/upper income. Also, TB losing Title 1 status would hurt them, and MCPS would have to make up the difference in loss of funding if they were serious about helping TB.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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%.

Twinbrook is segregated because they want to be. If you moved to another country, you would more than likely find an area with people like you. Twinbrook has grown into a high Hispanic population by choice. Many do not speak English. I highly doubt they would be happy moving and feeling isolated. If you want to call that segregation, then go ahead.

I understand what Dixon wanted to do but with the timing and all the changes, it was too late. Sprinkling kids is a terrible idea. Add the fact that TB is already the lowest FARMS school receiving Title 1 at 67% means even 75 kids could affect that. Pulling from T1 was even worse since it is the walkable zone. Bussing 20 kids to each school in 4 separate busses going to each school 20min away only half full. Too costly. It just wouldn't work.

There is no way to restructure Twinbrook without looking at other cluster schools around their zone. Beall is easy to move because they are centered. RP, GC, and TB have more boundary lines hitting other out of cluster ES than in-cluster. We need to stop focusing on in-cluster to keep kids closer to their homes.
I would have