24 kids in kindergarten?? That is insane!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another vote for FARMS … DD had 16 in her K class and DS will have 19 when he starts next week. DD has gotten an amazing education. You get what you pay for when you buy those houses in more expensive neighbor …. oh, wait ...

It's OK in elementary, but peer influences become much more important as the kids get older.

… your implication being that people from lower SES will automatically be negative influences? That's an interesting mindset to have about the world. I'd beg to differ, being the daughter of a debutante who married the dirt-poor son of farmers.

I'm the daughter of a dirt-poor daughter of a farmer who married a WASP. Unfortunately, you do tend to see more negative-influences with lower SES. Look at the statistics. Schools (high schools & middle schools) with higher SES rates have more drop-outs, pregnancy, kids with arrest records, etc. You're incredibly naive if you don't think a child's peer group can influence their educational experience. There are many low SES kids who are great students, and who go on to achieve great things- my mother being one of them- but the odds are stacked against them. However, statistically, low SES kids are less likely to perform well I'm school and are less likely to go to college.

As much as I hate large classes, I'd choose a large class in a high SES school over a small class in a low SES school any day. Unfortunatly, SES has more of an influence on academic performance than class size.

I agree. And most of the time the FARMS schools have high ESL enrollment and they eat up so much of the teacher's time because they don't understand a lick of what she is saying. I will take a few more kids any day of the week over 16 kids with 6 that don't speak English. And once middle school hits SES does make a huge difference. The test scores, attendance, drop-out and police records of certain schools do not lie.

Wow. I forgot I was on DCUM for a minute and that I was someplace where people were actually reasonable. DD's class has had several ESL students and she has been rigorously challenged and had tons of teacher attention, as opposed to the former classmates who get no individual attention at their "more desirable" schools. These are the years that count, folks. You're laying the educational foundation. Your kids will befriend the same types of kids regardless of where they are. DD who is in to unicorns will not be playing with the girls who are into Hunger Games or whatever, no matter the school. But, hey, this works for me, I get to have DD around the type of people I'd like for her to associate with - open minded, generous of spirit, caring, accepting - there is trouble everywhere, the W schools just have more $$ to cover it up so it doesn't get to the press.

Peace[b].

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just bet that they will have some funky redistricting when ES #5 opens up where some neighborhoods have to pass 3 ESs to get to their home school, like how it is now for those in the Fallsgrove area. Oh, I can't wait to see how they redistrict. I'm sure it will be even more convoluted than it is now.

Well, Fallsgrove passes closer ESs because they are in a different cluster. RP is about as easy as a commute from Fallsgrove as Beall or College Gardens would be, and certainly much closer than Twinbrook.

As for the zoning of ES#5, I'm sure the reallocation from the current four ESs will be based mostly on geographic considerations, with some SES balancing thrown in as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just bet that they will have some funky redistricting when ES #5 opens up where some neighborhoods have to pass 3 ESs to get to their home school, like how it is now for those in the Fallsgrove area. Oh, I can't wait to see how they redistrict. I'm sure it will be even more convoluted than it is now.

Well, Fallsgrove passes closer ESs because they are in a different cluster. RP is about as easy as a commute from Fallsgrove as Beall or College Gardens would be, and certainly much closer than Twinbrook.

As for the zoning of ES#5, I'm sure the reallocation from the current four ESs will be based mostly on geographic considerations, with some SES balancing thrown in as well.

Um... that's my point. They are in a different cluster but have to pass 3 ESs on the way (2 of which are under capacity). So, with ES#5 why not make the whole of RP geographically based. And my other point about the income disparity was that if they don't want to rezone by geography because of the income disparity, then rezone lower SES to a much richer area like in Churchill. If income disparity is a factor, then this kind of zoning would make way more sense than what they have now. Either way, income disparity or geography, the way it is now doesn't make *any* sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just bet that they will have some funky redistricting when ES #5 opens up where some neighborhoods have to pass 3 ESs to get to their home school, like how it is now for those in the Fallsgrove area. Oh, I can't wait to see how they redistrict. I'm sure it will be even more convoluted than it is now.

Well, Fallsgrove passes closer ESs because they are in a different cluster. RP is about as easy as a commute from Fallsgrove as Beall or College Gardens would be, and certainly much closer than Twinbrook.

As for the zoning of ES#5, I'm sure the reallocation from the current four ESs will be based mostly on geographic considerations, with some SES balancing thrown in as well.

Um... that's my point. They are in a different cluster but have to pass 3 ESs on the way (2 of which are under capacity). So, with ES#5 why not make the whole of RP geographically based. And my other point about the income disparity was that if they don't want to rezone by geography because of the income disparity, then rezone lower SES to a much richer area like in Churchill. If income disparity is a factor, then this kind of zoning would make way more sense than what they have now. Either way, income disparity or geography, the way it is now doesn't make *any* sense.

I don't really follow you here. The ESs that are closer to Fallsgrove aren't in the RM cluster - that's why Fallsgrove travels to RP. They go to the ES that's closest to them within their cluster assignment. Hence, the same should apply with ES#5.

In terms of redistricting between HS clusters, you and I know that's a larger topic that's difficult for many reasons. In any event, the geographic burden on Fallsgrove isn't much different that what it would be for the best geographic candidates for an exchange (which would likely be parts of Fallsmead or Cold Spring). No matter what you do, some kids will always have longer geographic commutes at ES, MS or HS. This is true in almost every cluster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just bet that they will have some funky redistricting when ES #5 opens up where some neighborhoods have to pass 3 ESs to get to their home school, like how it is now for those in the Fallsgrove area. Oh, I can't wait to see how they redistrict. I'm sure it will be even more convoluted than it is now.

Well, Fallsgrove passes closer ESs because they are in a different cluster. RP is about as easy as a commute from Fallsgrove as Beall or College Gardens would be, and certainly much closer than Twinbrook.

As for the zoning of ES#5, I'm sure the reallocation from the current four ESs will be based mostly on geographic considerations, with some SES balancing thrown in as well.

Um... that's my point. They are in a different cluster but have to pass 3 ESs on the way (2 of which are under capacity). So, with ES#5 why not make the whole of RP geographically based. And my other point about the income disparity was that if they don't want to rezone by geography because of the income disparity, then rezone lower SES to a much richer area like in Churchill. If income disparity is a factor, then this kind of zoning would make way more sense than what they have now. Either way, income disparity or geography, the way it is now doesn't make *any* sense.

I don't really follow you here. The ESs that are closer to Fallsgrove aren't in the RM cluster - that's why Fallsgrove travels to RP. They go to the ES that's closest to them within their cluster assignment. Hence, the same should apply with ES#5.

In terms of redistricting between HS clusters, you and I know that's a larger topic that's difficult for many reasons. In any event, the geographic burden on Fallsgrove isn't much different that what it would be for the best geographic candidates for an exchange (which would likely be parts of Fallsmead or Cold Spring). No matter what you do, some kids will always have longer geographic commutes at ES, MS or HS. This is true in almost every cluster.

My point is that with ES#5 they are going to have to rezone the RM cluster. So, while they are doing that, I really don't see why rezoning one geographic area to another HS cluster would be so difficult. The school bus is only for that neighborhood, so I really don't think busing is the issue. So, then, what could be the issue?

[Anonymous]

Starr and his cronies continue to let the RM cluster burst at the seams so that the Wootton and Churchill ES's remain undercapacity. Starr is beholden to the Wootton/Churchill lords. It is disgusting and disgraceful.

[Anonymous]

Surprising when his own children are not in that cluster..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just bet that they will have some funky redistricting when ES #5 opens up where some neighborhoods have to pass 3 ESs to get to their home school, like how it is now for those in the Fallsgrove area. Oh, I can't wait to see how they redistrict. I'm sure it will be even more convoluted than it is now.

Well, Fallsgrove passes closer ESs because they are in a different cluster. RP is about as easy as a commute from Fallsgrove as Beall or College Gardens would be, and certainly much closer than Twinbrook.

As for the zoning of ES#5, I'm sure the reallocation from the current four ESs will be based mostly on geographic considerations, with some SES balancing thrown in as well.

Um... that's my point. They are in a different cluster but have to pass 3 ESs on the way (2 of which are under capacity). So, with ES#5 why not make the whole of RP geographically based. And my other point about the income disparity was that if they don't want to rezone by geography because of the income disparity, then rezone lower SES to a much richer area like in Churchill. If income disparity is a factor, then this kind of zoning would make way more sense than what they have now. Either way, income disparity or geography, the way it is now doesn't make *any* sense.

I don't really follow you here. The ESs that are closer to Fallsgrove aren't in the RM cluster - that's why Fallsgrove travels to RP. They go to the ES that's closest to them within their cluster assignment. Hence, the same should apply with ES#5.

In terms of redistricting between HS clusters, you and I know that's a larger topic that's difficult for many reasons. In any event, the geographic burden on Fallsgrove isn't much different that what it would be for the best geographic candidates for an exchange (which would likely be parts of Fallsmead or Cold Spring). No matter what you do, some kids will always have longer geographic commutes at ES, MS or HS. This is true in almost every cluster.

My point is that with ES#5 they are going to have to rezone the RM cluster. So, while they are doing that, I really don't see why rezoning one geographic area to another HS cluster would be so difficult. The school bus is only for that neighborhood, so I really don't think busing is the issue. So, then, what could be the issue?

Yes, they will have to rezone the RM cluster internally at the ES level, which they will do. Nothing will change at the MS or HS level. Why you think they need to do rezone between RM and Wootton at that point (as opposed to any point in the past) is unclear to me. What part of Wootton would be a better geographic fit to be in RM? You'd be creating change for change's sake, but the new portion assigned to RM would likely have the same geographic issues that Fallsgrove has today. Put another way, what specific change would you make in a RM/Wootton or RM/Churchill swap?

[Anonymous]

It would be more efficient if kids could be moved to schools they are closer to and who have plenty of space..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It would be more efficient if kids could be moved to schools they are closer to and who have plenty of space..

So specifically how would they do that, and please consider MS and HS as part of your answer.

[Anonymous]

My kids go to BFES. Class sizes around 18 per class. We don't want any extra kids in our ES or our cluster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just bet that they will have some funky redistricting when ES #5 opens up where some neighborhoods have to pass 3 ESs to get to their home school, like how it is now for those in the Fallsgrove area. Oh, I can't wait to see how they redistrict. I'm sure it will be even more convoluted than it is now.

Well, Fallsgrove passes closer ESs because they are in a different cluster. RP is about as easy as a commute from Fallsgrove as Beall or College Gardens would be, and certainly much closer than Twinbrook.

As for the zoning of ES#5, I'm sure the reallocation from the current four ESs will be based mostly on geographic considerations, with some SES balancing thrown in as well.

Um... that's my point. They are in a different cluster but have to pass 3 ESs on the way (2 of which are under capacity). So, with ES#5 why not make the whole of RP geographically based. And my other point about the income disparity was that if they don't want to rezone by geography because of the income disparity, then rezone lower SES to a much richer area like in Churchill. If income disparity is a factor, then this kind of zoning would make way more sense than what they have now. Either way, income disparity or geography, the way it is now doesn't make *any* sense.

I don't really follow you here. The ESs that are closer to Fallsgrove aren't in the RM cluster - that's why Fallsgrove travels to RP. They go to the ES that's closest to them within their cluster assignment. Hence, the same should apply with ES#5.

In terms of redistricting between HS clusters, you and I know that's a larger topic that's difficult for many reasons. In any event, the geographic burden on Fallsgrove isn't much different that what it would be for the best geographic candidates for an exchange (which would likely be parts of Fallsmead or Cold Spring). No matter what you do, some kids will always have longer geographic commutes at ES, MS or HS. This is true in almost every cluster.

My point is that with ES#5 they are going to have to rezone the RM cluster. So, while they are doing that, I really don't see why rezoning one geographic area to another HS cluster would be so difficult. The school bus is only for that neighborhood, so I really don't think busing is the issue. So, then, what could be the issue?

Yes, they will have to rezone the RM cluster internally at the ES level, which they will do. Nothing will change at the MS or HS level. Why you think they need to do rezone between RM and Wootton at that point (as opposed to any point in the past) is unclear to me. What part of Wootton would be a better geographic fit to be in RM? You'd be creating change for change's sake, but the new portion assigned to RM would likely have the same geographic issues that Fallsgrove has today. Put another way, what specific change would you make in a RM/Wootton or RM/Churchill swap?

It would make more sense for Fallsgrove to go to any of the ESs in the Wootton cluster that they pass by on the way to RP. I think they need to rezone also because it's ridiculous for those kids to have to pass by 3 mostly under utilized ESs in order to get to RP. Put them in schools closer to home.

I don't understand why income disparity is an issue in the RM cluster so much so that they've zoned it in this manner. Why isn't this an even bigger issue in the Churchill/Wootton cluster? If they are trying to make RM more balanced from an SES stand point, why aren't they doing more to balance Wootton/Churchill? That's my point, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just bet that they will have some funky redistricting when ES #5 opens up where some neighborhoods have to pass 3 ESs to get to their home school, like how it is now for those in the Fallsgrove area. Oh, I can't wait to see how they redistrict. I'm sure it will be even more convoluted than it is now.

Well, Fallsgrove passes closer ESs because they are in a different cluster. RP is about as easy as a commute from Fallsgrove as Beall or College Gardens would be, and certainly much closer than Twinbrook.

As for the zoning of ES#5, I'm sure the reallocation from the current four ESs will be based mostly on geographic considerations, with some SES balancing thrown in as well.

Um... that's my point. They are in a different cluster but have to pass 3 ESs on the way (2 of which are under capacity). So, with ES#5 why not make the whole of RP geographically based. And my other point about the income disparity was that if they don't want to rezone by geography because of the income disparity, then rezone lower SES to a much richer area like in Churchill. If income disparity is a factor, then this kind of zoning would make way more sense than what they have now. Either way, income disparity or geography, the way it is now doesn't make *any* sense.

I don't really follow you here. The ESs that are closer to Fallsgrove aren't in the RM cluster - that's why Fallsgrove travels to RP. They go to the ES that's closest to them within their cluster assignment. Hence, the same should apply with ES#5.

In terms of redistricting between HS clusters, you and I know that's a larger topic that's difficult for many reasons. In any event, the geographic burden on Fallsgrove isn't much different that what it would be for the best geographic candidates for an exchange (which would likely be parts of Fallsmead or Cold Spring). No matter what you do, some kids will always have longer geographic commutes at ES, MS or HS. This is true in almost every cluster.

My point is that with ES#5 they are going to have to rezone the RM cluster. So, while they are doing that, I really don't see why rezoning one geographic area to another HS cluster would be so difficult. The school bus is only for that neighborhood, so I really don't think busing is the issue. So, then, what could be the issue?

Yes, they will have to rezone the RM cluster internally at the ES level, which they will do. Nothing will change at the MS or HS level. Why you think they need to do rezone between RM and Wootton at that point (as opposed to any point in the past) is unclear to me. What part of Wootton would be a better geographic fit to be in RM? You'd be creating change for change's sake, but the new portion assigned to RM would likely have the same geographic issues that Fallsgrove has today. Put another way, what specific change would you make in a RM/Wootton or RM/Churchill swap?

It would make more sense for Fallsgrove to go to any of the ESs in the Wootton cluster that they pass by on the way to RP. I think they need to rezone also because it's ridiculous for those kids to have to pass by 3 mostly under utilized ESs in order to get to RP. Put them in schools closer to home.

I don't understand why income disparity is an issue in the RM cluster so much so that they've zoned it in this manner. Why isn't this an even bigger issue in the Churchill/Wootton cluster? If they are trying to make RM more balanced from an SES stand point, why aren't they doing more to balance Wootton/Churchill? That's my point, too.

You haven't offered which part of Wootton you'd ship in the other direction though. That's the problem. On a temporary basis, RM has an ES overcrowding issue compared to Wootton, but ES#5 addresses it already. At the MS and HS level, RM does not have a long-term capacity issue compared to Wootton, so if you're going to start moving RM areas to Wootton, you need to state what part of Wootton you plan to move in the other direction.

[Anonymous]

^^ On the second part of your question, Fallsgrove was zoned this way a decade ago. At the time, I'm sure SES factors played a role, as it puts a lot of wealthy homeowners into RM, which is perceived of needing that influx more than Wootton. This is different than rezoning existing areas, which is much more difficult to do politically and practically.

Similarly, it's not coincidence that the new Crown Farm area is zoned for Gaithersburg, when the area further north along Washingtonian Blvd is zoned for Wootton. It's an attempt to allocate new, wealthy developments to zones that aren't as wealthy so that some balancing occurs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in the RP/JW/RM cluster as well, but note that the 5th elementary for RM is already approved for funding and will open in a couple years, so the overcrowding issue at the ES level is already being addressed.


I don't think this is true..it has been delayed.
http://news.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/quicknotes/six-year-school-construction-plan-approved/. The Chinese Immersion program should be moved from College Gardens. This would not alter any disparities. The all kids already travel to get there. The whole program and teachers could stay the same. Just a different building.

No, RM ES#5 has now been "approved," meaning that the appropriation has been made and (at least for fiscal reasons) it cannot be delayed further. It is scheduled to open in 2018.

http://gis.mcpsmd.org/cipmasterpdfs/MP15CH4_MontgomeryR.pdf

In the prior CIP, it was "programmed" for 2017.

In other words, the project was delayed a year, but actually funded this time.

Read again. At the end of each elementary school writeup it says that for the fifth school to be built on time, funding will have to be approved. So they can delay it again. Actually, it's been delayed twice. The BOE recommended that the 5th elementary be built in 2015 but the County Council nixed it. I would not put money on the school being built in 2018. Also it's not clear how many kids from each school will be assigned to the new school so overcrowding could persist at some schools.

Redistricting some of Ritchie Park into Cold Springs would make sense. I've heard from teachers at Cold Springs that they have problems filling the classrooms.