Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries

[Anonymous]

I live n CG3 and I don't think we are the same neighborhood as CG. The kids a take a bus to school...though it is a short ride A young child is not going to ride a bike or walk between them alone. They have separate parks and Civic associations.The pool is used by families from many nearby neighborhoods including Beall.

[Anonymous]

I suspect part of CG3's desire to stay is the primary IB program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I suspect part of CG3's desire to stay is the primary IB program.

Considering 4/5 schools will not have PYP, it is not that great of an argument. Every non-CG neighborhood could use it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suspect part of CG3's desire to stay is the primary IB program.

Considering 4/5 schools will not have PYP, it is not that great of an argument. Every non-CG neighborhood could use it.

Children at CGES in grades 3-5 will get to stay to complete the PYP anyway, so not a strong argument. A better argument (which I believe the RM Cluster Coordinators are advocating for) is to make RM ES #5 an IB school.

What I've learned from this process is that no one wants their neighborhood to move, and all schools would actually prefer to remain overcrowded so no one has to leave. It will be unfortunate to have a brand new beautiful school sitting empty because everyone wanted to stay at their old, overcrowded schools with all of their friends. Isn't ANYONE excited about going to the new school??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suspect part of CG3's desire to stay is the primary IB program.

Considering 4/5 schools will not have PYP, it is not that great of an argument. Every non-CG neighborhood could use it.

Children at CGES in grades 3-5 will get to stay to complete the PYP anyway, so not a strong argument. A better argument (which I believe the RM Cluster Coordinators are advocating for) is to make RM ES #5 an IB school.

What I've learned from this process is that no one wants their neighborhood to move, and all schools would actually prefer to remain overcrowded so no one has to leave. It will be unfortunate to have a brand new beautiful school sitting empty because everyone wanted to stay at their old, overcrowded schools with all of their friends. Isn't ANYONE excited about going to the new school??

Which is why the new alternative option #1 is the best plan. Most areas get to stay. No domino effect and RM#5 is at 77% Then add an in-cluster only IB/HGC or a Spanish Immersion program in RM#5.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Because they are only at 102% and that will go down in the future, and drastically if they pull King Farm and move all of it to Crown cluster.

[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.

Most options have 1-2 schools with 98-103% capacity. There are 3 schools that are currently at 130+% capacity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suspect part of CG3's desire to stay is the primary IB program.

Considering 4/5 schools will not have PYP, it is not that great of an argument. Every non-CG neighborhood could use it.

Children at CGES in grades 3-5 will get to stay to complete the PYP anyway, so not a strong argument. A better argument (which I believe the RM Cluster Coordinators are advocating for) is to make RM ES #5 an IB school.

What I've learned from this process is that no one wants their neighborhood to move, and all schools would actually prefer to remain overcrowded so no one has to leave. It will be unfortunate to have a brand new beautiful school sitting empty because everyone wanted to stay at their old, overcrowded schools with all of their friends. Isn't ANYONE excited about going to the new school??

Which is why the new alternative option #1 is the best plan. Most areas get to stay. No domino effect and RM#5 is at 77% Then add an in-cluster only IB/HGC or a Spanish Immersion program in RM#5.

I would agree on advocating for IB, but know that this is not under MCPS control. There is a process for it and approved by an independent body. Its not like MCPS can automatically make it IB. There's no point in doing another immersion since CI is already moving there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Because they are only at 102% and that will go down in the future, and drastically if they pull King Farm and move all of it to Crown cluster.

This is a huge assumption. There's not even a boundary study for this yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Because they are only at 102% and that will go down in the future, and drastically if they pull King Farm and move all of it to Crown cluster.

This is a huge assumption. There's not even a boundary study for this yet.

There is only going to be *potentially* a Crown High School - NOT a new middle school or elementary school. When it finally gets built (if it ever gets built) it could be a magnet school, a consortium school, or something else entirely. It is supposed to help with overcrowding in multiple clusters, which means there will likely be split articulation to the high school. Even if some current RM cluster students go there for high school, it will not impact overcrowding at the elementary school level. The argument to keep CGES overcrowded because a new HIGH school might be built in the future that could pull a small sub-section of the RM population is mis-guided. Also, it would be a lot more helpful right now for people to be advocating for the RM addition to get funded instead of waiting for a fantasy high school that may or may not ever get built. Otherwise, we will have both overcrowded elementary schools and an increasingly overcrowded high school for the foreseeable future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suspect part of CG3's desire to stay is the primary IB program.

Considering 4/5 schools will not have PYP, it is not that great of an argument. Every non-CG neighborhood could use it.

Children at CGES in grades 3-5 will get to stay to complete the PYP anyway, so not a strong argument. A better argument (which I believe the RM Cluster Coordinators are advocating for) is to make RM ES #5 an IB school.

What I've learned from this process is that no one wants their neighborhood to move, and all schools would actually prefer to remain overcrowded so no one has to leave. It will be unfortunate to have a brand new beautiful school sitting empty because everyone wanted to stay at their old, overcrowded schools with all of their friends. Isn't ANYONE excited about going to the new school??

Which is why the new alternative option #1 is the best plan. Most areas get to stay. No domino effect and RM#5 is at 77% Then add an in-cluster only IB/HGC or a Spanish Immersion program in RM#5.

Absolutely selfish. Those 77% have to move from their school but your neighborhood shouldn’t have to move. You know what I say? Take the BOE #1 and move CG3 to ES5. That solves our problems with over crowding. Oh that’s right, the Beall zones moving to the new ES is fine but by god CGES can’t budge.

[Anonymous]

Actually, moving CG3 to RMES5 is a good idea because that solves capacity issues and stops all the domino effects. It would be good because more areas can just stay at Beall. Why move 2 areas from Beall to the new ES then move CG3 to Beall when we can just reassign CG3 to ES5. The domino effect is what matters right? RIGHT?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suspect part of CG3's desire to stay is the primary IB program.

Considering 4/5 schools will not have PYP, it is not that great of an argument. Every non-CG neighborhood could use it.

Children at CGES in grades 3-5 will get to stay to complete the PYP anyway, so not a strong argument. A better argument (which I believe the RM Cluster Coordinators are advocating for) is to make RM ES #5 an IB school.

What I've learned from this process is that no one wants their neighborhood to move, and all schools would actually prefer to remain overcrowded so no one has to leave. It will be unfortunate to have a brand new beautiful school sitting empty because everyone wanted to stay at their old, overcrowded schools with all of their friends. Isn't ANYONE excited about going to the new school??

Which is why the new alternative option #1 is the best plan. Most areas get to stay. No domino effect and RM#5 is at 77% Then add an in-cluster only IB/HGC or a Spanish Immersion program in RM#5.

I would agree on advocating for IB, but know that this is not under MCPS control. There is a process for it and approved by an independent body. Its not like MCPS can automatically make it IB. There's no point in doing another immersion since CI is already moving there.

They can make it a HGC without issue

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Actually, moving CG3 to RMES5 is a good idea because that solves capacity issues and stops all the domino effects. It would be good because more areas can just stay at Beall. Why move 2 areas from Beall to the new ES then move CG3 to Beall when we can just reassign CG3 to ES5. The domino effect is what matters right? RIGHT?

I think some of the options have too much movement. The point should be to move the closest areas near RM#5 to get the other schools below capacity.

CG gives up CI
Beall gives up their 2 closest zones
RP gives up their 2 closest zones
TB gives up 1 zone (should be their smallest numbers since they are barely overcrowded)

That brings everyone under capacity in the 90's or high 80's (except CG at 102%) and no moving zones to and from other schools or bussing kids all over. This is not rocket science but man the BOE are a bunch of idiots. The last year with WRONG numbers has been a complete waste of time. The new numbers show with this set up, RM#5 would have 30% FARMS. Completely doable. It also shows that TB doesn't go below their FARMS for extra funding.

Not sure why they just can't admit their mistake, keep the Super's recommendation and end this now. Instead, they make up 3 more options, THEN say they made number mistakes. Now one of the options which has kids in every school being bussed further. Some wacko from NAACP (that has no kids in the cluster) shows up saying this is the only way to do it and parents in an uproar calling to testify at a hearing for an option they will never ever pick. This entire board needs to be removed next vote. It is embarrassing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I live n CG3 and I don't think we are the same neighborhood as CG. The kids a take a bus to school...though it is a short ride A young child is not going to ride a bike or walk between them alone. They have separate parks and Civic associations.The pool is used by families from many nearby neighborhoods including Beall.

It looks like there is hardly any connection here for all practical purposes. More I look at this , more petty this argument looks to me. If every neighborhood starts making argument like this then you can't redraw any boundary. Hopefully this petty argument will be ignored by BOE and Superintendent.