Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries

[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

CG3's arguments for staying are not too strong though vocal. They have a strong bond with the other neighborhoods? Don't most neighborhoods that attend the same school have a bond? The parents meet through playdates and volunteering. They are just as close to Beall. They will form the same bond in the West End if moved. PYP-none of the other schools in the cluster have it. Every neighborhood could argue that they should have access to it. No one likes change I know but CG3 needs some stronger arguments IMO

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

Really? Was this from last night? In the previous work sessions the CG community wanted to stay together.

[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

CG3's arguments for staying are not too strong though vocal. They have a strong bond with the other neighborhoods? Don't most neighborhoods that attend the same school have a bond? The parents meet through playdates and volunteering. They are just as close to Beall. They will form the same bond in the West End if moved. PYP-none of the other schools in the cluster have it. Every neighborhood could argue that they should have access to it. No one likes change I know but CG3 needs some stronger arguments IMO

CG3 and CG1 are basically the same neighborhood. They have always attended the same schools, the same park, pool, etc... Kids within those neighborhoods play together as in bike to each other's homes. There are many neighborhoods that are separated by major roads, woods, or non-access. There is absolutely no reason to move them to Beall to just have Beall turn around and move two sections elsewhere to accommodate them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

CG3's arguments for staying are not too strong though vocal. They have a strong bond with the other neighborhoods? Don't most neighborhoods that attend the same school have a bond? The parents meet through playdates and volunteering. They are just as close to Beall. They will form the same bond in the West End if moved. PYP-none of the other schools in the cluster have it. Every neighborhood could argue that they should have access to it. No one likes change I know but CG3 needs some stronger arguments IMO

CG3 and CG1 are basically the same neighborhood. They have always attended the same schools, the same park, pool, etc... Kids within those neighborhoods play together as in bike to each other's homes. There are many neighborhoods that are separated by major roads, woods, or non-access. There is absolutely no reason to move them to Beall to just have Beall turn around and move two sections elsewhere to accommodate them.

Many Beall kids also use the Woodley Gardens park and pool. They are actually closer to CG3 than College Garden is just across Nelson Street. If they went to school together they would play together and bike between houses as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

CG3's arguments for staying are not too strong though vocal. They have a strong bond with the other neighborhoods? Don't most neighborhoods that attend the same school have a bond? The parents meet through playdates and volunteering. They are just as close to Beall. They will form the same bond in the West End if moved. PYP-none of the other schools in the cluster have it. Every neighborhood could argue that they should have access to it. No one likes change I know but CG3 needs some stronger arguments IMO

CG3 and CG1 are basically the same neighborhood. They have always attended the same schools, the same park, pool, etc... Kids within those neighborhoods play together as in bike to each other's homes. There are many neighborhoods that are separated by major roads, woods, or non-access. There is absolutely no reason to move them to Beall to just have Beall turn around and move two sections elsewhere to accommodate them.

Many Beall kids also use the Woodley Gardens park and pool. They are actually closer to CG3 than College Garden is just across Nelson Street. If they went to school together they would play together and bike between houses as well.

Down The Hill in Woodley Gardens Park is a trail that goes straight to the neighborhood. Kids could walk to new friends from Beall.

[Anonymous]

IIRC, the issue with keeping CG3 at CG is that other CG neighborhoods (I don't know the numbers) would bus down Rockville Pike - past CG - to Beall.

CG3 is equidistant to Beall and CG and is surrounded by similar neighborhoods and local roads, so they were the domino of choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

CG3's arguments for staying are not too strong though vocal. They have a strong bond with the other neighborhoods? Don't most neighborhoods that attend the same school have a bond? The parents meet through playdates and volunteering. They are just as close to Beall. They will form the same bond in the West End if moved. PYP-none of the other schools in the cluster have it. Every neighborhood could argue that they should have access to it. No one likes change I know but CG3 needs some stronger arguments IMO

CG3 and CG1 are basically the same neighborhood. They have always attended the same schools, the same park, pool, etc... Kids within those neighborhoods play together as in bike to each other's homes. There are many neighborhoods that are separated by major roads, woods, or non-access. There is absolutely no reason to move them to Beall to just have Beall turn around and move two sections elsewhere to accommodate them.

Many Beall kids also use the Woodley Gardens park and pool. They are actually closer to CG3 than College Garden is just across Nelson Street. If they went to school together they would play together and bike between houses as well.

But again, it does nothing to change anything. You are moving one section to move two more sections out of Beall. The domino effect is too much and doesn't help/hurt FARMS. Not sure what the point is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

CG3's arguments for staying are not too strong though vocal. They have a strong bond with the other neighborhoods? Don't most neighborhoods that attend the same school have a bond? The parents meet through playdates and volunteering. They are just as close to Beall. They will form the same bond in the West End if moved. PYP-none of the other schools in the cluster have it. Every neighborhood could argue that they should have access to it. No one likes change I know but CG3 needs some stronger arguments IMO

CG3 and CG1 are basically the same neighborhood. They have always attended the same schools, the same park, pool, etc... Kids within those neighborhoods play together as in bike to each other's homes. There are many neighborhoods that are separated by major roads, woods, or non-access. There is absolutely no reason to move them to Beall to just have Beall turn around and move two sections elsewhere to accommodate them.

Many Beall kids also use the Woodley Gardens park and pool. They are actually closer to CG3 than College Garden is just across Nelson Street. If they went to school together they would play together and bike between houses as well.

But again, it does nothing to change anything. You are moving one section to move two more sections out of Beall. The domino effect is too much and doesn't help/hurt FARMS. Not sure what the point is.

The point of this is to make free at less than 100% capacity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

CG3's arguments for staying are not too strong though vocal. They have a strong bond with the other neighborhoods? Don't most neighborhoods that attend the same school have a bond? The parents meet through playdates and volunteering. They are just as close to Beall. They will form the same bond in the West End if moved. PYP-none of the other schools in the cluster have it. Every neighborhood could argue that they should have access to it. No one likes change I know but CG3 needs some stronger arguments IMO

CG3 and CG1 are basically the same neighborhood. They have always attended the same schools, the same park, pool, etc... Kids within those neighborhoods play together as in bike to each other's homes. There are many neighborhoods that are separated by major roads, woods, or non-access. There is absolutely no reason to move them to Beall to just have Beall turn around and move two sections elsewhere to accommodate them.

Then we should get students to fill RM#5 from outside of RM cluster, right? Everyone agrees that we need new school because RM cluster needs it, but no one wants to move?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

CG3's arguments for staying are not too strong though vocal. They have a strong bond with the other neighborhoods? Don't most neighborhoods that attend the same school have a bond? The parents meet through playdates and volunteering. They are just as close to Beall. They will form the same bond in the West End if moved. PYP-none of the other schools in the cluster have it. Every neighborhood could argue that they should have access to it. No one likes change I know but CG3 needs some stronger arguments IMO

CG3 and CG1 are basically the same neighborhood. They have always attended the same schools, the same park, pool, etc... Kids within those neighborhoods play together as in bike to each other's homes. There are many neighborhoods that are separated by major roads, woods, or non-access. There is absolutely no reason to move them to Beall to just have Beall turn around and move two sections elsewhere to accommodate them.

Many Beall kids also use the Woodley Gardens park and pool. They are actually closer to CG3 than College Garden is just across Nelson Street. If they went to school together they would play together and bike between houses as well.

But again, it does nothing to change anything. You are moving one section to move two more sections out of Beall. The domino effect is too much and doesn't help/hurt FARMS. Not sure what the point is.

The point of this is to make free at less than 100% capacity.

Seriously, it’s like these people don’t understand the purpose of the new school. Look at the superintendent’s suggestion. The number one reason for reasoning is capacity. All other issues are low priority.

[Anonymous]

CG argument is a poor one. There are lots of neighborhoods who do things together, but boundary can't stay the same. If we are going to move kids to fill Rm#5 then Beall sections need to move to RM#5 and CG sections need to move to Beall.

CG3 wanting to stay in CG or B5/B6 wanting to stay in Beall is absurd because then we could simply keep schools overcrowded. Why we are even having a new school in this cluster?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

CG3's arguments for staying are not too strong though vocal. They have a strong bond with the other neighborhoods? Don't most neighborhoods that attend the same school have a bond? The parents meet through playdates and volunteering. They are just as close to Beall. They will form the same bond in the West End if moved. PYP-none of the other schools in the cluster have it. Every neighborhood could argue that they should have access to it. No one likes change I know but CG3 needs some stronger arguments IMO

CG3 and CG1 are basically the same neighborhood. They have always attended the same schools, the same park, pool, etc... Kids within those neighborhoods play together as in bike to each other's homes. There are many neighborhoods that are separated by major roads, woods, or non-access. There is absolutely no reason to move them to Beall to just have Beall turn around and move two sections elsewhere to accommodate them.

Many Beall kids also use the Woodley Gardens park and pool. They are actually closer to CG3 than College Garden is just across Nelson Street. If they went to school together they would play together and bike between houses as well.

But again, it does nothing to change anything. You are moving one section to move two more sections out of Beall. The domino effect is too much and doesn't help/hurt FARMS. Not sure what the point is.

The point of this is to make free at less than 100% capacity.

Seriously, it’s like these people don’t understand the purpose of the new school. Look at the superintendent’s suggestion. The number one reason for reasoning is capacity. All other issues are low priority.

Reasoning = rezoning (obviously)

[Anonymous]

I am from CG. It's best to not keep CG overcrowded. CG3 should move out to keep some extra capacity free at CG.

Argument that after a while everything will be overcrowded is not a good one. It's simple math. If population is going to grow then you want to start with 104% or 84%? It's madness to start with 104% and then say that we all know that we will be crowded anyway. Starting with 84% gives you some room to grow and it's a far better choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:CG argument is a poor one. There are lots of neighborhoods who do things together, but boundary can't stay the same. If we are going to move kids to fill Rm#5 then Beall sections need to move to RM#5 and CG sections need to move to Beall.

CG3 wanting to stay in CG or B5/B6 wanting to stay in Beall is absurd because then we could simply keep schools overcrowded. Why we are even having a new school in this cluster?

Agreed, they are basically saying they want to stay overcapacity simply because.....something something...domino. The schools won’t be overcapacity when this is done. Accept that fact and deal with it.

[Anonymous]

Any boundary should keep some extra room for growth in each school. It wasn't even funny to see a CG representative making every argument for all options only from CG3 perspective rather than looking out for the best outcome for entire cluster or even entire CG.

Other CG representative had to remind every time that keeping CG3 in CG will make it over crowded. Only one of them should represent CG.