Superintendent's Recommendation for Richard Montgomery ES #5 Boundaries

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Why would we talk about property value? Property value is not, and should not be, a consideration when MCPS establishes school boundaries.

Agree here. Main factor should be providing kids the best possible environment to succeed.


Only one question should be asked,

35% - 25% split in farm rate while sacrificing the proximity gives a better chance to all kids to succeed?

Or

50 - 10 split in farm rate while keeping proximity the only criterion gives a better chance to all kids to succeed?


Questions can be framed many different ways and you can pick any criterion, but boundary should be about providing kids the best possible environment to succeed. Many parents are missing the forest and focusing too much on trees. Domino effect, boy scout etc are a factors in short term, but is it a bigger factor than proving the best possible environment for kids to do well over the long term?

[Anonymous]

Since it is the exact same group of kids for JW and RM, I am not sure what the mix up for ES really matter is. Isn;t is possible that if both Twinbrook and #5 are Title 1/Focus, we will have more kids getting a higher level of service than before?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Single biggest aim for any boundary study should be to provide the best environment for kids to suceed. We should try to set up kids for success as much as possible. Farm rate around 25% gives any school a good diversity and also not burden schools much.

Falls Grove can simply move to Beall and RP can take more farm kids from others side of 270. That way, Falls grove kids won't be commuting longer than their current travel time and we are not creating schools with 10% and 53% farm rates. We are robbing RP an opportunity of being a diverse school and at the same time not giving best possible chance to 100s of kids in Rm#5.

When you have 25% farm rate then farm kids benefit from non-farm students. If you start having 50-60% farm rate then Farm and non-Farm, both set of students are at disadvantage.

Why start with a situation which doesn't allow kids to succeed? 6 years in elementary and then the same students will join in middle and high school. JW and RM will have a long term impact here. It's hard to find a high performing middle school if two feeder schools are low performing.

You have a point, but I wonder if the RP parents are going to take this lightly.

I live in Fallsgrove and wouldn't mind moving to Beall or CGES - they're both closer than Ritchie Park. BUT - I don't know if you all realize how many children are in Fallsgrove - there are 5 buses that go from the neighborhood to Ritchie Park - any other school that takes in Fallsgrove will wind up with a major domino effect of many of the current students getting moved to another school. Would other schools really want that? Also, regardless, moving RP #2 to the new school makes sense. If RP5 & RP2 get moved out of Ritchie Park, that would put the RP population under 300 for sure, again, unless lots of kids wind up getting moved out of their schools and into Ritchie Park. I just don't see how this would work...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Single biggest aim for any boundary study should be to provide the best environment for kids to suceed. We should try to set up kids for success as much as possible. Farm rate around 25% gives any school a good diversity and also not burden schools much.

Falls Grove can simply move to Beall and RP can take more farm kids from others side of 270. That way, Falls grove kids won't be commuting longer than their current travel time and we are not creating schools with 10% and 53% farm rates. We are robbing RP an opportunity of being a diverse school and at the same time not giving best possible chance to 100s of kids in Rm#5.

When you have 25% farm rate then farm kids benefit from non-farm students. If you start having 50-60% farm rate then Farm and non-Farm, both set of students are at disadvantage.

Why start with a situation which doesn't allow kids to succeed? 6 years in elementary and then the same students will join in middle and high school. JW and RM will have a long term impact here. It's hard to find a high performing middle school if two feeder schools are low performing.

Falls Grove goes to Beall, and the poor kids at Beall get bused across 270 to Ritchie Park?

DP... I live in RP area. There is already a section of area near Beall that goes to RP. It's a small area near RMHS. That area will be going to #5ES.

There are pros/cons to busing kids to an ES further out. I think having a good community feel of an ES is important, and for lower income parents, having their ES further away can be a hardship. But, yes, having a lower FARMS rate is important, too. I am not sure which is more important for FARMs students.

Has anyone thought about moving the Park Potomac neighborhood from RP to RM #5 along with RP2 & RP6 - that would help balance out SES demographics at RM ES #5 - Park Potomac is close to RM ES #5, is a newer development without as many ties to RP, and has many higher income families. It is a much smaller neighborhood than Fallsgrove, so less concerns about overcrowding by moving an entire neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RM#5 effective farm rate is 53% in recommended option.

So? That area has a massive FARMS and Hispanic population. It will be a better served school if the kids are walkers and they have a communizing feel. By adding the Immersion program there, they bring in some really bright involved families. Win win

#1 Actually, the Hungerford area does not have a massive FARMS rate. You are incredibly misinformed. Average income >$100K. Average housing value >4450K
#2 The "walker only" argument is the inverse of the "don't bus them to my school" argument used against the Civil Rights laws enacted following Brown vs. Board of Ed. Julian Bond, former NAACP President, made the point repeatedly that schools are more segregated now than in 1970 because of the concentration of low income communities and schools.
#3 As has been mentioned repeatedly, concentrating poverty into one school decreases learning across the board. You want data, I've got tons.
#4 Immersion and Magnet programs are schools within schools and never make an impact on the general population other than to make the demographic data look slightly less bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Since it is the exact same group of kids for JW and RM, I am not sure what the mix up for ES really matter is. Isn;t is possible that if both Twinbrook and #5 are Title 1/Focus, we will have more kids getting a higher level of service than before?

Higher concentration of FARMS in schools leads to lower performance for both FARMS and non-FARMS children. By the time they get to JW, it will be too late for RM5 and Twinbrook kids. Actually, reading ability at grade 3 predicts performance through to grade 12. Thus, JW and RM will have more remedial courses detracting from the higher level courses that are taught now. You essentially pull the performance of all down once you handicap 40-50% of your ES population.

[Anonymous]

I would like to see MCPS maps of the actual walk zones for each elementary school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since it is the exact same group of kids for JW and RM, I am not sure what the mix up for ES really matter is. Isn;t is possible that if both Twinbrook and #5 are Title 1/Focus, we will have more kids getting a higher level of service than before?

Higher concentration of FARMS in schools leads to lower performance for both FARMS and non-FARMS children. By the time they get to JW, it will be too late for RM5 and Twinbrook kids. Actually, reading ability at grade 3 predicts performance through to grade 12. Thus, JW and RM will have more remedial courses detracting from the higher level courses that are taught now. You essentially pull the performance of all down once you handicap 40-50% of your ES population.

Where are these kids from low-income families, currently? They're not being spontaneously generated by the construction of RM ES #5.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Single biggest aim for any boundary study should be to provide the best environment for kids to suceed. We should try to set up kids for success as much as possible. Farm rate around 25% gives any school a good diversity and also not burden schools much.

Falls Grove can simply move to Beall and RP can take more farm kids from others side of 270. That way, Falls grove kids won't be commuting longer than their current travel time and we are not creating schools with 10% and 53% farm rates. We are robbing RP an opportunity of being a diverse school and at the same time not giving best possible chance to 100s of kids in Rm#5.

When you have 25% farm rate then farm kids benefit from non-farm students. If you start having 50-60% farm rate then Farm and non-Farm, both set of students are at disadvantage.

Why start with a situation which doesn't allow kids to succeed? 6 years in elementary and then the same students will join in middle and high school. JW and RM will have a long term impact here. It's hard to find a high performing middle school if two feeder schools are low performing.

Falls Grove goes to Beall, and the poor kids at Beall get bused across 270 to Ritchie Park?

DP... I live in RP area. There is already a section of area near Beall that goes to RP. It's a small area near RMHS. That area will be going to #5ES.

There are pros/cons to busing kids to an ES further out. I think having a good community feel of an ES is important, and for lower income parents, having their ES further away can be a hardship. But, yes, having a lower FARMS rate is important, too. I am not sure which is more important for FARMs students.

The hardship on lower income parents argument is specious. Take a look at the number of kids at BEALL that are COSAs from underperforming schools or are using "grandma's address" to go to BEALL as opposed to schools ranging from Gaithersburg to the Rockville cluster. These parents are putting the child's school performance above the "walk to school". Again, the "no bussing" argument is the same as those made following Brown v Board of Ed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since it is the exact same group of kids for JW and RM, I am not sure what the mix up for ES really matter is. Isn;t is possible that if both Twinbrook and #5 are Title 1/Focus, we will have more kids getting a higher level of service than before?

Higher concentration of FARMS in schools leads to lower performance for both FARMS and non-FARMS children. By the time they get to JW, it will be too late for RM5 and Twinbrook kids. Actually, reading ability at grade 3 predicts performance through to grade 12. Thus, JW and RM will have more remedial courses detracting from the higher level courses that are taught now. You essentially pull the performance of all down once you handicap 40-50% of your ES population.

Where are these kids from low-income families, currently? They're not being spontaneously generated by the construction of RM ES #5.

Right now they are in T3, RP2, RP6, and some in B5 and B7

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since it is the exact same group of kids for JW and RM, I am not sure what the mix up for ES really matter is. Isn;t is possible that if both Twinbrook and #5 are Title 1/Focus, we will have more kids getting a higher level of service than before?

Higher concentration of FARMS in schools leads to lower performance for both FARMS and non-FARMS children. By the time they get to JW, it will be too late for RM5 and Twinbrook kids. Actually, reading ability at grade 3 predicts performance through to grade 12. Thus, JW and RM will have more remedial courses detracting from the higher level courses that are taught now. You essentially pull the performance of all down once you handicap 40-50% of your ES population.

Where are these kids from low-income families, currently? They're not being spontaneously generated by the construction of RM ES #5.

There are essentially 2-3 areas of concentrated poverty on the west side of the "tracks":
The apartment complex below the Hungerford subdivision (1001 Rockville Pike)--currently at BEALL
The set of housing complexes just south of Town Center including the Fireside apts--currently zoned for RP
The housing surrounding Town Center--currently at BEALL.

The plan calls for the top 2 to be zoned for RM5, leaving BEALL and RP with half the FARMS population that they had.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since it is the exact same group of kids for JW and RM, I am not sure what the mix up for ES really matter is. Isn;t is possible that if both Twinbrook and #5 are Title 1/Focus, we will have more kids getting a higher level of service than before?

Higher concentration of FARMS in schools leads to lower performance for both FARMS and non-FARMS children. By the time they get to JW, it will be too late for RM5 and Twinbrook kids. Actually, reading ability at grade 3 predicts performance through to grade 12. Thus, JW and RM will have more remedial courses detracting from the higher level courses that are taught now. You essentially pull the performance of all down once you handicap 40-50% of your ES population.

Where are these kids from low-income families, currently? They're not being spontaneously generated by the construction of RM ES #5.

There are essentially 2-3 areas of concentrated poverty on the west side of the "tracks":
The apartment complex below the Hungerford subdivision (1001 Rockville Pike)--currently at BEALL
The set of housing complexes just south of Town Center including the Fireside apts--currently zoned for RP
The housing surrounding Town Center--currently at BEALL.

The plan calls for the top 2 to be zoned for RM5, leaving BEALL and RP with half the FARMS population that they had.

Also, the T3 area has FARMS rates above 66%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Hi PP. How has your RM experience been? Asking bc I may move in bounds to that hs.

RM is fine school, but you have to see it as two different part. IB and non-IB. IB part puts it in one of the top schools in MD. Non-IB part puts you simply an average HS in MCPS. Over all a pretty good school, but two totally different experience for kids depending on if they are IB or regular. Recently, RM started taking more kids from home school in IB. Some parents may see it as a good thing, but it is diluting the non-IB group too much.

I may have confused you here, but it's hard to talk about RM without getting into IB and regular program.

That's a loaded statement. My daughter is non-IB and outperforming most of her IB friends in most areas. The IB issues selectively places certain kids into the school. But for RM in general, they have a substantially large number of non-IB honors and AP courses. It is not the "school within a school" problem like you have at BLAIR or other consortia schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since it is the exact same group of kids for JW and RM, I am not sure what the mix up for ES really matter is. Isn;t is possible that if both Twinbrook and #5 are Title 1/Focus, we will have more kids getting a higher level of service than before?

Higher concentration of FARMS in schools leads to lower performance for both FARMS and non-FARMS children. By the time they get to JW, it will be too late for RM5 and Twinbrook kids. Actually, reading ability at grade 3 predicts performance through to grade 12. Thus, JW and RM will have more remedial courses detracting from the higher level courses that are taught now. You essentially pull the performance of all down once you handicap 40-50% of your ES population.

Where are these kids from low-income families, currently? They're not being spontaneously generated by the construction of RM ES #5.

Right now they are in T3, RP2, RP6, and some in B5 and B7

They are NOT in RP6 - that is Tower Oaks off Wootton Parkway and is a higher income area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since it is the exact same group of kids for JW and RM, I am not sure what the mix up for ES really matter is. Isn;t is possible that if both Twinbrook and #5 are Title 1/Focus, we will have more kids getting a higher level of service than before?

Higher concentration of FARMS in schools leads to lower performance for both FARMS and non-FARMS children. By the time they get to JW, it will be too late for RM5 and Twinbrook kids. Actually, reading ability at grade 3 predicts performance through to grade 12. Thus, JW and RM will have more remedial courses detracting from the higher level courses that are taught now. You essentially pull the performance of all down once you handicap 40-50% of your ES population.

Where are these kids from low-income families, currently? They're not being spontaneously generated by the construction of RM ES #5.

Right now they are in T3, RP2, RP6, and some in B5 and B7

They are NOT in RP6 - that is Tower Oaks off Wootton Parkway and is a higher income area.

Fireside looks more like its in RP6