Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries

[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.

It's a horrible idea to keep all schools overcrowded when we can distribute is evenly. School boundary shouldn't be decided based on petty argument like I want to stay with my friends.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 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?

Hilarious. The person representing CG3, who is supposed to represent CG, should be called out openly and shamed. He shouldn't be representing CG. Many outsiders are getting wrong impression about CG. CG parents need to speak up. I don't want to see overcrowded CG. CG3 should move to Beall and if domino effect is issue then take CG3 to RM#5.

[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.

It's a horrible idea to keep all schools overcrowded when we can distribute is evenly. School boundary shouldn't be decided based on petty argument like I want to stay with my friends.

Not one school will be overcrowded no matter which option is chosen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Except it’s ridiculous to keep CG overcapacity with new development on the way and 160+ open seats at ES5. CG needs to have that zone reassigned to Beall. The schools are just as good and the homes are the same price. There is no way they build a school and allow CG to anything above 100%.

[Anonymous]

Where is the new development in CG cluster? I thought it was the only area that did not have new development? Twinbrook, RM5, have it and RP just finished.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where is the new development in CG cluster? I thought it was the only area that did not have new development? Twinbrook, RM5, have it and RP just finished.

http://www.rockvillenights.com/2017/09/162-new-housing-units-proposed-for-king.html?m=1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where is the new development in CG cluster? I thought it was the only area that did not have new development? Twinbrook, RM5, have it and RP just finished.

http://www.rockvillenights.com/2017/09/162-new-housing-units-proposed-for-king.html?m=1

These developments are not in CG. They are north of Redland Rd and thus not even part of RM cluster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where is the new development in CG cluster? I thought it was the only area that did not have new development? Twinbrook, RM5, have it and RP just finished.

There is no CG development. They are the least likely to have any increase. RM5, Beall, and TB should get a few more with newer buildings. CG is on the downslope.

[Anonymous]

The CG3 person IS REPRESENTING CG loudly and correctly. CG is split about what should happen with CG3. Some don't want overcrowding and some don't want to move.

Most of those worried about overcrowding just want the decision made before the finger of fate moves on from CG3 to Derwood or King Farm.

The problem with having both voices is that it means that OUTSIDERS are going to break the tie and make the call as to what happens with CG3.

As a long time CG3 resident, whose kids are now heading to college and have had many friends at JW and RM from Beall, the better choice is going to Beall.

As this poster suggests, the longer CG3 fights, the more likely we are to end up riding the bus to RM#5 and losing any type of neighborhood feel to the school.

We know lots of families who live near RM#5, they are great people, but it is not the same as being as close as we are to Beall, a similar distance to CG now.

"Hilarious. The person representing CG3, who is supposed to represent CG, should be called out openly and shamed. He shouldn't be representing CG. Many outsiders are getting wrong impression about CG. CG parents need to speak up. I don't want to see overcrowded CG. CG3 should move to Beall and if domino effect is issue then take CG3 to RM#5."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The CG3 person IS REPRESENTING CG loudly and correctly. CG is split about what should happen with CG3. Some don't want overcrowding and some don't want to move.

Most of those worried about overcrowding just want the decision made before the finger of fate moves on from CG3 to Derwood or King Farm.

The problem with having both voices is that it means that OUTSIDERS are going to break the tie and make the call as to what happens with CG3.

As a long time CG3 resident, whose kids are now heading to college and have had many friends at JW and RM from Beall, the better choice is going to Beall.

As this poster suggests, the longer CG3 fights, the more likely we are to end up riding the bus to RM#5 and losing any type of neighborhood feel to the school.

We know lots of families who live near RM#5, they are great people, but it is not the same as being as close as we are to Beall, a similar distance to CG now.

"Hilarious. The person representing CG3, who is supposed to represent CG, should be called out openly and shamed. He shouldn't be representing CG. Many outsiders are getting wrong impression about CG. CG parents need to speak up. I don't want to see overcrowded CG. CG3 should move to Beall and if domino effect is issue then take CG3 to RM#5."

Another long terms resident of CG3, I agree. CG3 is closer to Beall than KF or Derwood...it is really very close! We liked CG but Beall also has a great reputation. In a few years I am sure we will be very integrated with the Beall community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The CG3 person IS REPRESENTING CG loudly and correctly. CG is split about what should happen with CG3. Some don't want overcrowding and some don't want to move.

Most of those worried about overcrowding just want the decision made before the finger of fate moves on from CG3 to Derwood or King Farm.

The problem with having both voices is that it means that OUTSIDERS are going to break the tie and make the call as to what happens with CG3.

As a long time CG3 resident, whose kids are now heading to college and have had many friends at JW and RM from Beall, the better choice is going to Beall.

As this poster suggests, the longer CG3 fights, the more likely we are to end up riding the bus to RM#5 and losing any type of neighborhood feel to the school.

We know lots of families who live near RM#5, they are great people, but it is not the same as being as close as we are to Beall, a similar distance to CG now.

"Hilarious. The person representing CG3, who is supposed to represent CG, should be called out openly and shamed. He shouldn't be representing CG. Many outsiders are getting wrong impression about CG. CG parents need to speak up. I don't want to see overcrowded CG. CG3 should move to Beall and if domino effect is issue then take CG3 to RM#5."

Another long terms resident of CG3, I agree. CG3 is closer to Beall than KF or Derwood...it is really very close! We liked CG but Beall also has a great reputation. In a few years I am sure we will be very integrated with the Beall community.

Thank you. That's how all other communities are taking it as well when they are changing their schools. CG should get some kind of special treatment to not change any zones due to neighborhood argument can be made by various other zones. Some are actually making it. Nothing wrong in making the point, but it shouldn't create bigger problems. That's why a representative who is representing all other parts of CG kept reminding everyone about CG being overcrowded if no zones are moved out of CG and CG having no room for addition. Outsiders are hearing two voices here.

I do agree that CG3 is better off with Beall than RM#5. That's a more reasonable option. It hardly makes any sense to bus CG3 to Rm#5 just to avoid domino effect. Domino effect is something all of us have to live with in any boundary change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The CG3 person IS REPRESENTING CG loudly and correctly. CG is split about what should happen with CG3. Some don't want overcrowding and some don't want to move.

Most of those worried about overcrowding just want the decision made before the finger of fate moves on from CG3 to Derwood or King Farm.

The problem with having both voices is that it means that OUTSIDERS are going to break the tie and make the call as to what happens with CG3.

As a long time CG3 resident, whose kids are now heading to college and have had many friends at JW and RM from Beall, the better choice is going to Beall.

As this poster suggests, the longer CG3 fights, the more likely we are to end up riding the bus to RM#5 and losing any type of neighborhood feel to the school.

We know lots of families who live near RM#5, they are great people, but it is not the same as being as close as we are to Beall, a similar distance to CG now.

"Hilarious. The person representing CG3, who is supposed to represent CG, should be called out openly and shamed. He shouldn't be representing CG. Many outsiders are getting wrong impression about CG. CG parents need to speak up. I don't want to see overcrowded CG. CG3 should move to Beall and if domino effect is issue then take CG3 to RM#5."

To be fair, Derwood sided with CG3 in keeping school together debate. KF are the ones opposing. And I completely agree, just make the decision already...

[Anonymous]

I don't think it is so much moving to Beall than Beall having two more sections possibly moving to RM#5. I understand there has to be some domino effect. I get that. But the numbers don't seem to line up THAT much different to think all of that domino should really have to happen.

I find it ironic that King Farm wants CG3 to go. First off, THEY are the reason CG is so crowded. The entire community should have went to Gaithersburg cluster. I also think it is because they are hoping not to be pulled away to Crown later. The less crowded CG is, the less likely they are going to get pulled. And they are probably the most likely candidate since Fallsgrove will fill either half of RP or RM5.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think it is so much moving to Beall than Beall having two more sections possibly moving to RM#5. I understand there has to be some domino effect. I get that. But the numbers don't seem to line up THAT much different to think all of that domino should really have to happen.

I find it ironic that King Farm wants CG3 to go. First off, THEY are the reason CG is so crowded. The entire community should have went to Gaithersburg cluster. I also think it is because they are hoping not to be pulled away to Crown later. The less crowded CG is, the less likely they are going to get pulled. And they are probably the most likely candidate since Fallsgrove will fill either half of RP or RM5.

I think that the BOE Map #2 is the best. It makes a lot of sense to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think it is so much moving to Beall than Beall having two more sections possibly moving to RM#5. I understand there has to be some domino effect. I get that. But the numbers don't seem to line up THAT much different to think all of that domino should really have to happen.

I find it ironic that King Farm wants CG3 to go. First off, THEY are the reason CG is so crowded. The entire community should have went to Gaithersburg cluster. I also think it is because they are hoping not to be pulled away to Crown later. The less crowded CG is, the less likely they are going to get pulled. And they are probably the most likely candidate since Fallsgrove will fill either half of RP or RM5.

Minimizing domino effect is not even a criterion by MCPS when re-drawing boundaries. They have a criterion for long term stability of boundaries. If what you are saying is true then It makes even more sense to put CG3 in Beall to avoid having unstable boundary in CG. If moving CG3 to Beall makes CG boundary stable then it's a net positive. I am just talking from MCPS point of view here and I am not from CG. I am from RP.