Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Option 8 improves option 7 by keeping CG below capacity for a long time.

Agree here. It also avoids creating an elite school in RP with 7% FARMs rate.

Alternate option 3 is weird. I think due to Twinbrook having a high concentration of FARMs and most of them being in walking distance, it may not be possible to distribute Twin brook FARMs rate. If you keep Twinbrook untouched then option 8 is the best option for FARMs diversity and it also balances the capacity utilization.

The irony in that is RMES having a 42% FARMS also due to their walkable location is somehow not right, which started this whole process all over again.

So then we have insane options like #3 which busses kids all over the city, in an already traffic-congested area.

Actually at the meeting last night MCPS admitted they made FARMS mistake and the rate for original superintendant's rec is 29.5%. Granted, at this point after a year of constant "mistakes" from MCPS stuff I have no clue which numbers are actually correct.

I agree. The numbers keep changing. Like every single time. I am not sure why they can't figure this out. Can they just have an IB student from RM come over and do the percentages for them? They look pathetic.

no.. because apparently RMIB is being watered down, according to some posters, so it's now full of not so smart kids. Sorry.. I know.. off topic.

Back to the topic... if they are willing to break up zones and have a domino affect, why not break up Fallsgrove. Send some to ES#5 and others to CG. And B4 could go to CG, too. Wouldn't that distribute FARMS better? Option 7 has CG FARMS at 14% while other ESs have rates over 20%.

I don't live in Fallsgrove but I am very much against that. They did that to Kings Farm and it is not right. Those neighborhoods have huge HOA with a lot of involvement. Those kids play and hang out together for years prior to school. To divide them between 2 schools, even for just elementary school doesn't seem right. Fallsgrove is off the beaten path of the entire cluster. They need to keep them together. Also, if you split them, you would have to split the condo/apartments down the middle since they house the low income families. That would just be wrong.

I also think moving CG3 out of College Gardens is wrong. That feels like another neighborhood begin split up.

And most options for Twinbrook pulls kids in tiny sections away from all of their neighbors going to the walkable school.

PP here.. I don't disagree with you, but given the angst around FARMS rate equity and now that we see BOE is willing to break up zones.. why not? They already have a broken up zone in RP2 in that a tiny strip on Montgomery Ave goes to RP, and the rest to Beall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe MCPS should put a red flag on each FARM household on a map and draw lines in between them to evently distribute the FARM families.

That is exactly what that crazy lady last night wanted.

Wait, they should also mark each household's race with piick, green, orange flags.

If they are multi-racial family and low income, then they will have multiple flags.

This is getting ridiculous. Isn't RM cluster going to be rezoned when Crown HS opens.. I know I know.. who knows when that will be. But if/when it opens, more than likely Fallsgrove will get rezoned to Crown HS. So in some of the options Fallsgrove kids would be bussed all the way to ES#5, then to JW, then the other way for Crown HS.

[Anonymous]

Just so I understand this better, the line between B1 and B6n is West Montgomery Ave (28) right? If so then in BOE Alt #2 houses on both sides of 28 would continue to go to Beall but people living a few streets further South wouldn't. That seems fine with me but then again our house is in B1 so people living in that neighborhood really need to weigh in. I don't like any of the maps that has B5 (and in the BOE maps B5n) going to a school other than Beall. While I live in B1 and this wouldn't impact my kid, I think it would be disruptive. I can walk to the Town Center from my house and anyone living there would be zoned for a different and more distant school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Option 2 seems reasonable - what complaints do people have against it?

waiting for an answer to this

some would say it's wrong to have RP have only 7% FARMS which makes them an elite school.

I have a better idea... if they really want to lower farms in RM cluster, why not send part of the lower income areas to Fallsmeade. It's actually closer than RP for RP2.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just so I understand this better, the line between B1 and B6n is West Montgomery Ave (28) right? If so then in BOE Alt #2 houses on both sides of 28 would continue to go to Beall but people living a few streets further South wouldn't. That seems fine with me but then again our house is in B1 so people living in that neighborhood really need to weigh in. I don't like any of the maps that has B5 (and in the BOE maps B5n) going to a school other than Beall. While I live in B1 and this wouldn't impact my kid, I think it would be disruptive. I can walk to the Town Center from my house and anyone living there would be zoned for a different and more distant school.

Clearly, BOE doesn't seem to care about walkability or disruption. Look at the alt#3 option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why don't any of the options have RP 5 going to Beall or CG? Is there a reason that area has to be bused so far? Surely if that was moved to let's say, CG and some of CG was moved to Beall then some of Beall could go to RMES #5 and one of their lower income zones can go to RP to at least give it a 10% FARMS rate?

Thats the domino effect in a nutshell. Aside from the fact that RP5 is strongly opposed to it (they would prefer to stay at RP, but are open to new school per rep) such domino displaces way too many kids while still not providing benefits thought.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Option 2 seems reasonable - what complaints do people have against it?

waiting for an answer to this

None, except CG3 wants to stay at CG

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don't any of the options have RP 5 going to Beall or CG? Is there a reason that area has to be bused so far? Surely if that was moved to let's say, CG and some of CG was moved to Beall then some of Beall could go to RMES #5 and one of their lower income zones can go to RP to at least give it a 10% FARMS rate?

Thats the domino effect in a nutshell. Aside from the fact that RP5 is strongly opposed to it (they would prefer to stay at RP, but are open to new school per rep) such domino displaces way too many kids while still not providing benefits thought.

I don't think it's any more of a "domino effect" than any of these other crazy maps. The fact is, 500 kids have to move to the new school. If you only plan on moving kids from their old school to the new school and not moving kids from one of the older schools to a different older school then you're handicapping yourself. No wonder this whole thing is a train wreck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Option 2 seems reasonable - what complaints do people have against it?

waiting for an answer to this

None, except CG3 wants to stay at CG

The problem with Option 2 is primarily capacity. Beall and Twinbrook are at 105% overcapacity while RMES#5 is at 77% undercapacity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Option 2 seems reasonable - what complaints do people have against it?

waiting for an answer to this

None, except CG3 wants to stay at CG

The problem with Option 2 is primarily capacity. Beall and Twinbrook are at 105% overcapacity while RMES#5 is at 77% undercapacity.

that was only in the first year, possibly because the 5th graders would be staying as is for that year

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Option 2 seems reasonable - what complaints do people have against it?

waiting for an answer to this

None, except CG3 wants to stay at CG

The problem with Option 2 is primarily capacity. Beall and Twinbrook are at 105% overcapacity while RMES#5 is at 77% undercapacity.

BOE option 2–not original option 2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don't any of the options have RP 5 going to Beall or CG? Is there a reason that area has to be bused so far? Surely if that was moved to let's say, CG and some of CG was moved to Beall then some of Beall could go to RMES #5 and one of their lower income zones can go to RP to at least give it a 10% FARMS rate?

Thats the domino effect in a nutshell. Aside from the fact that RP5 is strongly opposed to it (they would prefer to stay at RP, but are open to new school per rep) such domino displaces way too many kids while still not providing benefits thought.

Exactly. Also, someone posted up thread that the car and bus ride to CG and Beall would be longer in the morning due to 28 traffic. It looks closer but RP is actually the quickest morning commute. There is currently 5 full busses of kids I believe coming from Fallsgrove. Moving them to already overcrowded CG and Beall would mean multiple other sections in either one of those neighborhoods would have to move to another school. So if you move to CG, most of CG neighborhoods would have to move out of CG. So where? Unless it is RP or RM#5, then there is more domino effect. I don't think CG3 would want to be bussed away to RP or RM5. So if you move those neighborhoods to the closest school, Beall - well then Beall now has to move even more sections, and then to where. I do not like the domino effect at all. I don't think it is right in anyway to disrupt 4 schools in such a huge capacity. So I do agree that Fallsgrove should only go to RP or RM#5.

[Anonymous]

I like BOE Option #1 the best. I know it keeps CG and TB a few percentages over capacity but it is the least disruptive to all of the kids moving all over and I believe it is one that everyone could agree on.

It keeps all of Twinbrook together and keeps their Title 1 status, which is what their reps wanted.

It keeps CG3 at College Gardens which is what they wanted, even if it means being 102% capacity

It keeps from taking B5S and B6S out of Beall which I just think is too many kids away from Beall to just add some kids in CG3, that don't want to go.

It keeps RM#5 half RP and half Beall instead of almost all Beall kids with a small addition of RP. Makes an easier transition.

It keeps Fallsgrove in RP which is what they want

I believe the most likely to have new construction would be B3 if they revamp 355 in that Twinbrook area. This leaves room for growth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Option 2 seems reasonable - what complaints do people have against it?

waiting for an answer to this

None, except CG3 wants to stay at CG

Well why move CG3 from CG and their friends to Beall, to then move 2 more sections of Beall to RM#5, to be able to accept CG3. That doesn't really make sense. If College Gardens is okay with 102% capacity and I think the majority of that area is on the downturn of King Farm new families and CG empty nester sales, I think it will be fine. You are still cutting 35% out of the school.

If they really want to increase capacity at RM#5 in option #1, just put one section of Beall over (B5s?) and let CG3 stay at CG.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Option 8 improves option 7 by keeping CG below capacity for a long time.

Agree here. It also avoids creating an elite school in RP with 7% FARMs rate.

Alternate option 3 is weird. I think due to Twinbrook having a high concentration of FARMs and most of them being in walking distance, it may not be possible to distribute Twin brook FARMs rate. If you keep Twinbrook untouched then option 8 is the best option for FARMs diversity and it also balances the capacity utilization.

Wait, so you want Twinbrook to keep their high FARMS because of their neighborhood proximity, but you think RP at 7% will be an "elite" school, so you are okay with walkable areas for RM#5 (and were initially boundaries for Beall) stay at RP so their FARMS stays at a "non-elite" rate?

I am not the PP, but argument for keeping TB mostly the same is not just the walk option. TB gets title 1 and don't want to lose that. That leaves other 4 and option 8 balances that. 7 does as well, but it pushed CG near capacity which CG representative objected in work session. Option 8 is also not ideal, but those kids are already attending RP. Anyway, it's a question of optimization and it will come down to who give preference to which factor. There is no single option which is going to make everyone happy.