Thoughts about Richard Montgomery HS?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Be aware that the school is already overcrowded and there is a ton of overdevelopment scheduled for that cluster. There will be a boat load of new housing going up in the area, and there are no plans to alleviate the already overcrowded HS.

The development is taking place over decades, and is mostly luxury METRO-based development that will have few kids. It's really a non-issue when you factor in that two new HSs will open before that development ever fully builds out.

1. RM is already overcrowded without any additional developments
2. There are other approved developments already in production that have nothing to do with the Twinbrook apartments. If you lived in the cluster you would realize this was an issue that was brought up during the RM ES #5 boundary study. There is new development expected in Tower Oaks which will be assigned to Bayard Rustin and other approved housing in the cluster. I believe around Fallsgrove was another approved site. I can't remember the other sites off the top of my head, but you can look in.the boundary study info online for all the developments that MCPS included for informational purposes, but conveniently did not include in their future projection numbers.

If the developments are already approved, then they're also already included in the enrollment projections.

No, this was a big point of contention during the boundary study. They were NOT included in the projections, and MCPS had already made major errors in projections which lead to a very chaotic process. If you weren't involved in this boundary study, stop making assumptions.

What boundary study? The Bayard Rustin boundary study? If so, then they were not initially included in the projections BY MISTAKE - the mistake being that approved developments are supposed to be included in the enrollment projections. But then they corrected that mistake.

Nope. That wasn't the cause of the projection error. The errors were literally math mistakes.

What do math mistakes have to do with approved developments being included in the enrollment projections?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thinking about buying a home in that cluster. I know it's not Wootton but is it at least better than average?

OP, when you say good school, what specifically do you mean? What makes a school a good school, in your opinion?

OP here. That’s a really good question. My kids are 12 months and 3.5. So I don’t know a whole lot about schools here. I didn’t attend HS here. I guess when I said I mean a school that focuses on academic achieving, preparing students for college vs graduating students, good PTA, a place where mi kids will thrive? I’m afraid I didn’t give a good description.

No, that's a good description!

So, for academics and college - you can get that at any school in the RM cluster (and most other schools in MCPS).

For PTA - that really depends on who volunteers, which changes from year to year.

For a place where your kids will thrive - that depends a lot on your children, who are 12 months and 3.5 so who knows at this point, and on the principal, who may change.

Be aware that when people say the Wootton cluster has a "good schools", what they mean is: standardized test scores in the Wootton cluster are high.

I think you are "down-playing" the significance of "high test scores". Higher test scores usually means higher college acceptance too. These days even UMDCP is not a given thing so having high scores is helpful

MCPS is a rapidly changing school system. By the time OP's kids are in high school, the school system will look nothing like today. I don't know how OP can factor that in her decision making process but the system will continue to change.

Good point. What is the MCPS vision 10 and 20 years down the road? It sounds like a bifurcated school district of high performers and low performers so how does it teach to these two large segments?

That is a very good observation. That is one of the major issues MCPS's been struggling to solve (but unable to yet). The system is simply too big and too diverse. MCPS spends a lot of resources trying to narrow the gap (e.g., closing the achievement gap; new magnet selection criteria/process...etc) but nothing has worked. The changes they put in doesn't help the high performers and I am not sure if it helps low performing kids either. Simply speaking, the MCPS is a mess...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Be aware that the school is already overcrowded and there is a ton of overdevelopment scheduled for that cluster. There will be a boat load of new housing going up in the area, and there are no plans to alleviate the already overcrowded HS.

The development is taking place over decades, and is mostly luxury METRO-based development that will have few kids. It's really a non-issue when you factor in that two new HSs will open before that development ever fully builds out.

1. RM is already overcrowded without any additional developments
2. There are other approved developments already in production that have nothing to do with the Twinbrook apartments. If you lived in the cluster you would realize this was an issue that was brought up during the RM ES #5 boundary study. There is new development expected in Tower Oaks which will be assigned to Bayard Rustin and other approved housing in the cluster. I believe around Fallsgrove was another approved site. I can't remember the other sites off the top of my head, but you can look in.the boundary study info online for all the developments that MCPS included for informational purposes, but conveniently did not include in their future projection numbers.

If the developments are already approved, then they're also already included in the enrollment projections.

No, this was a big point of contention during the boundary study. They were NOT included in the projections, and MCPS had already made major errors in projections which lead to a very chaotic process. If you weren't involved in this boundary study, stop making assumptions.

What boundary study? The Bayard Rustin boundary study? If so, then they were not initially included in the projections BY MISTAKE - the mistake being that approved developments are supposed to be included in the enrollment projections. But then they corrected that mistake.

Nope. That wasn't the cause of the projection error. The errors were literally math mistakes.

And to clarify more, it was related to a math error on calculating percentages of students on FARMS in each of the possible boundary scenarios. This is made clear in the updated superintendent recommendation letter which can be found online. The data absolutely DID NOT include the above mentioned projects and MCPS officials specified during the BoE meetings that those developments were not included in the projections. You can go into the transcripts of the BoE meetings if you don't want to take my word for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Be aware that the school is already overcrowded and there is a ton of overdevelopment scheduled for that cluster. There will be a boat load of new housing going up in the area, and there are no plans to alleviate the already overcrowded HS.

The development is taking place over decades, and is mostly luxury METRO-based development that will have few kids. It's really a non-issue when you factor in that two new HSs will open before that development ever fully builds out.

1. RM is already overcrowded without any additional developments
2. There are other approved developments already in production that have nothing to do with the Twinbrook apartments. If you lived in the cluster you would realize this was an issue that was brought up during the RM ES #5 boundary study. There is new development expected in Tower Oaks which will be assigned to Bayard Rustin and other approved housing in the cluster. I believe around Fallsgrove was another approved site. I can't remember the other sites off the top of my head, but you can look in.the boundary study info online for all the developments that MCPS included for informational purposes, but conveniently did not include in their future projection numbers.

If the developments are already approved, then they're also already included in the enrollment projections.

No, this was a big point of contention during the boundary study. They were NOT included in the projections, and MCPS had already made major errors in projections which lead to a very chaotic process. If you weren't involved in this boundary study, stop making assumptions.

What boundary study? The Bayard Rustin boundary study? If so, then they were not initially included in the projections BY MISTAKE - the mistake being that approved developments are supposed to be included in the enrollment projections. But then they corrected that mistake.

Nope. That wasn't the cause of the projection error. The errors were literally math mistakes.

What do math mistakes have to do with approved developments being included in the enrollment projections?

They don't. The PP stated that the mistakes in the boundary study were related to the approved projects not being included in the enrollment process ions initially but that the corrected models included them. That is not true. The errors were related to calculations of FARMS students and had NOTHING to do with adding in enrollment projections for the approved developments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I think you are "down-playing" the significance of "high test scores". Higher test scores usually means higher college acceptance too. These days even UMDCP is not a given thing so having high scores is helpful

MCPS is a rapidly changing school system. By the time OP's kids are in high school, the school system will look nothing like today. I don't know how OP can factor that in her decision making process but the system will continue to change.

Good point. What is the MCPS vision 10 and 20 years down the road? It sounds like a bifurcated school district of high performers and low performers so how does it teach to these two large segments?

No, the plan has been and continues to be to teach (ineffectively) to the middle. Kids who are above grade level fend for themselves, and kids who are below grade level struggle to catch up.

well then.

[Anonymous]

OP, not sure if this is helpful, we don’t have kids at RM yet. We live in the college gardens neighborhood and love it. We’ve been very happy with CGES. The principal seems very dedicated to the school, and teachers are great.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

And to clarify more, it was related to a math error on calculating percentages of students on FARMS in each of the possible boundary scenarios. This is made clear in the updated superintendent recommendation letter which can be found online. The data absolutely DID NOT include the above mentioned projects and MCPS officials specified during the BoE meetings that those developments were not included in the projections. You can go into the transcripts of the BoE meetings if you don't want to take my word for it.

I don't know about the Bayard Rustin boundary study, but at one of the meetings for the Clarksburg/NW/SV boundary study last week, MCPS staff specified that the approved developments are included in the projections.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Be aware that the school is already overcrowded and there is a ton of overdevelopment scheduled for that cluster. There will be a boat load of new housing going up in the area, and there are no plans to alleviate the already overcrowded HS.

The development is taking place over decades, and is mostly luxury METRO-based development that will have few kids. It's really a non-issue when you factor in that two new HSs will open before that development ever fully builds out.

1. RM is already overcrowded without any additional developments
2. There are other approved developments already in production that have nothing to do with the Twinbrook apartments. If you lived in the cluster you would realize this was an issue that was brought up during the RM ES #5 boundary study. There is new development expected in Tower Oaks which will be assigned to Bayard Rustin and other approved housing in the cluster. I believe around Fallsgrove was another approved site. I can't remember the other sites off the top of my head, but you can look in.the boundary study info online for all the developments that MCPS included for informational purposes, but conveniently did not include in their future projection numbers.

If the developments are already approved, then they're also already included in the enrollment projections.

You can look at projected number of Bayard Rustin used by MCPS and just take a look at capacity. BRES will be near capacity in 1-2 years. MCPS was still projecting that there will be empty seats after many years.

Clearly, numbers from new developments are included, but they are under-projected numbers and wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Be aware that the school is already overcrowded and there is a ton of overdevelopment scheduled for that cluster. There will be a boat load of new housing going up in the area, and there are no plans to alleviate the already overcrowded HS.

The development is taking place over decades, and is mostly luxury METRO-based development that will have few kids. It's really a non-issue when you factor in that two new HSs will open before that development ever fully builds out.

1. RM is already overcrowded without any additional developments
2. There are other approved developments already in production that have nothing to do with the Twinbrook apartments. If you lived in the cluster you would realize this was an issue that was brought up during the RM ES #5 boundary study. There is new development expected in Tower Oaks which will be assigned to Bayard Rustin and other approved housing in the cluster. I believe around Fallsgrove was another approved site. I can't remember the other sites off the top of my head, but you can look in.the boundary study info online for all the developments that MCPS included for informational purposes, but conveniently did not include in their future projection numbers.

If the developments are already approved, then they're also already included in the enrollment projections.

No, this was a big point of contention during the boundary study. They were NOT included in the projections, and MCPS had already made major errors in projections which lead to a very chaotic process. If you weren't involved in this boundary study, stop making assumptions.

What boundary study? The Bayard Rustin boundary study? If so, then they were not initially included in the projections BY MISTAKE - the mistake being that approved developments are supposed to be included in the enrollment projections. But then they corrected that mistake.

MCPS number used for Bayard Rustin projections are proving to be wrong just 1 year later.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And to clarify more, it was related to a math error on calculating percentages of students on FARMS in each of the possible boundary scenarios. This is made clear in the updated superintendent recommendation letter which can be found online. The data absolutely DID NOT include the above mentioned projects and MCPS officials specified during the BoE meetings that those developments were not included in the projections. You can go into the transcripts of the BoE meetings if you don't want to take my word for it.

I don't know about the Bayard Rustin boundary study, but at one of the meetings for the Clarksburg/NW/SV boundary study last week, MCPS staff specified that the approved developments are included in the projections.

Approved developments are always under projected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Be aware that the school is already overcrowded and there is a ton of overdevelopment scheduled for that cluster. There will be a boat load of new housing going up in the area, and there are no plans to alleviate the already overcrowded HS.

The development is taking place over decades, and is mostly luxury METRO-based development that will have few kids. It's really a non-issue when you factor in that two new HSs will open before that development ever fully builds out.

1. RM is already overcrowded without any additional developments
2. There are other approved developments already in production that have nothing to do with the Twinbrook apartments. If you lived in the cluster you would realize this was an issue that was brought up during the RM ES #5 boundary study. There is new development expected in Tower Oaks which will be assigned to Bayard Rustin and other approved housing in the cluster. I believe around Fallsgrove was another approved site. I can't remember the other sites off the top of my head, but you can look in.the boundary study info online for all the developments that MCPS included for informational purposes, but conveniently did not include in their future projection numbers.

If the developments are already approved, then they're also already included in the enrollment projections.

This is not true. They used 2016 housing stock data and added 1% increase per year, County-wide, regardless of approved development in the catchment area. These are your “hired consultants” at work.

[Anonymous]

If you want to stay in RM cluster and have young kids, I will avoid CG.

CG is likely to move out of RM and join either Gaithersburg or Crown HS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thinking about buying a home in that cluster. I know it's not Wootton but is it at least better than average?

OP, when you say good school, what specifically do you mean? What makes a school a good school, in your opinion?

OP here. That’s a really good question. My kids are 12 months and 3.5. So I don’t know a whole lot about schools here. I didn’t attend HS here. I guess when I said I mean a school that focuses on academic achieving, preparing students for college vs graduating students, good PTA, a place where mi kids will thrive? I’m afraid I didn’t give a good description.

No, that's a good description!

So, for academics and college - you can get that at any school in the RM cluster (and most other schools in MCPS).

For PTA - that really depends on who volunteers, which changes from year to year.

For a place where your kids will thrive - that depends a lot on your children, who are 12 months and 3.5 so who knows at this point, and on the principal, who may change.

Be aware that when people say the Wootton cluster has a "good schools", what they mean is: standardized test scores in the Wootton cluster are high.

I think you are "down-playing" the significance of "high test scores". Higher test scores usually means higher college acceptance too. These days even UMDCP is not a given thing so having high scores is helpful

MCPS is a rapidly changing school system. By the time OP's kids are in high school, the school system will look nothing like today. I don't know how OP can factor that in her decision making process but the system will continue to change.

Good point. What is the MCPS vision 10 and 20 years down the road? It sounds like a bifurcated school district of high performers and low performers so how does it teach to these two large segments?

I was thinking the same thing. Parts of RM (and Wootton) cluster will probably be rezoned to Crown HS, but that may not be a bad thing. It will be a brand new school. After the rezoning, both RM and Wootton will look different. CGES will probably get rezoned to Crown HS.

As for ES, I would say Beall ES is pretty good too and I also hear good things about Rustin. Just about the only weakest link is Twinbrook ES. RP ES has the lowest FARMs (and despite what a PP stated, not all RPES lobbied to get low income kids out.. it was about geography, not income). Socially, RP ES has the Potomac Woods right next door, and a lot of the kids seem to go to that pool. RPES just opened up an outdoor education area and planted a garden. Your kids will probably be the recipient of the fruits of that garden.

Like any cluster, there are not so great teachers and great teachers in the RM cluster. We live in the RM cluster, and I have an 8th and 5th grader. It's been fine. 5th grader *loves* RPES.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Be aware that the school is already overcrowded and there is a ton of overdevelopment scheduled for that cluster. There will be a boat load of new housing going up in the area, and there are no plans to alleviate the already overcrowded HS.

The development is taking place over decades, and is mostly luxury METRO-based development that will have few kids. It's really a non-issue when you factor in that two new HSs will open before that development ever fully builds out.

1. RM is already overcrowded without any additional developments
2. There are other approved developments already in production that have nothing to do with the Twinbrook apartments. If you lived in the cluster you would realize this was an issue that was brought up during the RM ES #5 boundary study. There is new development expected in Tower Oaks which will be assigned to Bayard Rustin and other approved housing in the cluster. I believe around Fallsgrove was another approved site. I can't remember the other sites off the top of my head, but you can look in.the boundary study info online for all the developments that MCPS included for informational purposes, but conveniently did not include in their future projection numbers.

If the developments are already approved, then they're also already included in the enrollment projections.

This is not true. They used 2016 housing stock data and added 1% increase per year, County-wide, regardless of approved development in the catchment area. These are your “hired consultants” at work.

That's not what MCPS staff said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you want to stay in RM cluster and have young kids, I will avoid CG.

CG is likely to move out of RM and join either Gaithersburg or Crown HS.

CG has the IB program as does JW and RM. Seems like they’d want to keep the program together, instead of moving CG.