Carson?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Your subjective examples are pretty worthless. Neighborhood demographics age and renew in waves..thats just a fact

And if MCPS long range planning could predict those waves, we'd all be better off!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, the projections were for the original owners to age and elementary enrollment to stabilize, but then it just kept increasing well past new homes being built in Lakelands.

But the point no one seems to want to recognize is that, since RCES was built with Kentlands in mind (not Lakelands), as soon as Lakelands was built, RCES basically hit capacity. Add the non-Kentlands/Lakelands families and you have an over-enrolled school.

You think that when RCES was planned, no one had any idea Lakelands was coming? Kids from Kentlands didn’t even make up half the student body at the time that enrollment peaked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, the projections were for the original owners to age and elementary enrollment to stabilize, but then it just kept increasing well past new homes being built in Lakelands.

But the point no one seems to want to recognize is that, since RCES was built with Kentlands in mind (not Lakelands), as soon as Lakelands was built, RCES basically hit capacity. Add the non-Kentlands/Lakelands families and you have an over-enrolled school.

You think that when RCES was planned, no one had any idea Lakelands was coming? Kids from Kentlands didn’t even make up half the student body at the time that enrollment peaked.

Whether they knew it was coming or not, RCES hit capacity as soon as Lakelands was populated with families. People act like the capacity issue would be solved if RCES was limited to Kentlands & Lakelands, but that’s not the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Then explain why enrollment went from just over 1,000 a couple years ago to 873 and is projected in future years to be in the 870s. Also explain RCES’s lagging test scores.

I’d love to believe you that RCES is this terrific school, as we’re districted to it and love the neighborhood, but the numbers just don’t back you up.

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/regulatoryaccountability/glance/currentyear/schools/02159.pdf

What's your explanation for Matsunaga ES doing exactly the same thing?

2002: 808
2003: 986
2004: 1,043
2005: 1,152
2006: 924
2007: 877
2008: 948
2009: 1,015
2010: 1,025
2011: 1,036
2012: 1,009
2013: 958
2014: 919
2015: 856
2016: 794
2017: 770
2018: 728
2019: 710

I’m not all that concerned with them; that’s not my ES.

Rather than engaging in whataboutism, how about you explain RCES?

It's not whataboutism. How about you explain how you know that a bad principal is responsible for this phenomenon at Rachel Carson, rather than other, more obvious explanations for the same phenomenon at other schools, such as neighborhood turnover?

The neighborhood turnover thing doesn’t hold up. The homes are selling across Kentlands and Lakelands, and to many young families. We’re one of them and we’re hardly the only ones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your subjective examples are pretty worthless. Neighborhood demographics age and renew in waves..thats just a fact

And if MCPS long range planning could predict those waves, we'd all be better off!

Mcps has nothing to do with it. You, the uneducated voter, do.

County planning boards can make developers set aside land for schools but mocos planning board put a moratorium on building only to come up with the notion that schools aren't overcrowded because of new developments.

In any case. The planning mcps doesn't get to add new schools or expand existing ones. They just get to deal with the ones that are already here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The neighborhood turnover thing doesn’t hold up. The homes are selling across Kentlands and Lakelands, and to many young families. We’re one of them and we’re hardly the only ones.

Must be a conspiracy!

Until you run the numbers to show what percentage of homes turn over and between what demographics, you're just confirming your own bias.

MCPS and MoCo Planning are trying to model student yield rates based on how long houses have had the same owners when they're sold. I look forward to them figuring that one out! Outside specific circumstances, most overcrowding doesn't happen from new development but rather from bunched, generational turnover.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The neighborhood turnover thing doesn’t hold up. The homes are selling across Kentlands and Lakelands, and to many young families. We’re one of them and we’re hardly the only ones.

Must be a conspiracy!

Until you run the numbers to show what percentage of homes turn over and between what demographics, you're just confirming your own bias.

MCPS and MoCo Planning are trying to model student yield rates based on how long houses have had the same owners when they're sold. I look forward to them figuring that one out! Outside specific circumstances, most overcrowding doesn't happen from new development but rather from bunched, generational turnover.

Oh yeah, I totally believe you, as opposed to my own lived experience, being part of this neighborhood.

If you have actual numbers to back this up, provide them. Otherwise, stop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The neighborhood turnover thing doesn’t hold up. The homes are selling across Kentlands and Lakelands, and to many young families. We’re one of them and we’re hardly the only ones.

It's good to know that the homes are selling, vs. sitting vacant? Nonetheless, that doesn't relate to number of school-aged children in Kentlands and Lakelands - or the Governor Square Apartments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The neighborhood turnover thing doesn’t hold up. The homes are selling across Kentlands and Lakelands, and to many young families. We’re one of them and we’re hardly the only ones.

It's good to know that the homes are selling, vs. sitting vacant? Nonetheless, that doesn't relate to number of school-aged children in Kentlands and Lakelands - or the Governor Square Apartments.

It’s a counterargument to the theory on this thread regarding why enrollment at RCES is down (aka that the original owners are aging, so there are fewer younger families in the neighborhood).

The fact is that there hasn’t been an appreciable decline in the number of families with school-aged kids in this neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The neighborhood turnover thing doesn’t hold up. The homes are selling across Kentlands and Lakelands, and to many young families. We’re one of them and we’re hardly the only ones.

It's good to know that the homes are selling, vs. sitting vacant? Nonetheless, that doesn't relate to number of school-aged children in Kentlands and Lakelands - or the Governor Square Apartments.

It’s a counterargument to the theory on this thread regarding why enrollment at RCES is down (aka that the original owners are aging, so there are fewer younger families in the neighborhood).

The fact is that there hasn’t been an appreciable decline in the number of families with school-aged kids in this neighborhood.

What are you basing this statement on? If the number of families with school-aged kids in Kentlands and Lakelands is indeed remaining the same, then it's behaving very differently from normal areas, and a person might wonder why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The neighborhood turnover thing doesn’t hold up. The homes are selling across Kentlands and Lakelands, and to many young families. We’re one of them and we’re hardly the only ones.

It's good to know that the homes are selling, vs. sitting vacant? Nonetheless, that doesn't relate to number of school-aged children in Kentlands and Lakelands - or the Governor Square Apartments.

It’s a counterargument to the theory on this thread regarding why enrollment at RCES is down (aka that the original owners are aging, so there are fewer younger families in the neighborhood).

The fact is that there hasn’t been an appreciable decline in the number of families with school-aged kids in this neighborhood.

What are you basing this statement on? If the number of families with school-aged kids in Kentlands and Lakelands is indeed remaining the same, then it's behaving very differently from normal areas, and a person might wonder why.

I’m basing it on having lived in the neighborhood for years and seeing the streets teeming with school-aged kids.

The neighborhood remains very attractive to young families. There are a lot of amenities, it’s walkable, the houses are nice, etc. The fact that RCES enrollment has gone down by 150 kids in the last few years is due to the fact that was so overcrowded, MCPS is having a lot of problems in general, and a good number of Kentlands/Lakelands families can afford private school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh yeah, I totally believe you, as opposed to my own lived experience, being part of this neighborhood.

If you have actual numbers to back this up, provide them. Otherwise, stop.

Almost a perfect example of confirmation bias.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The neighborhood turnover thing doesn’t hold up. The homes are selling across Kentlands and Lakelands, and to many young families. We’re one of them and we’re hardly the only ones.

It's good to know that the homes are selling, vs. sitting vacant? Nonetheless, that doesn't relate to number of school-aged children in Kentlands and Lakelands - or the Governor Square Apartments.

It’s a counterargument to the theory on this thread regarding why enrollment at RCES is down (aka that the original owners are aging, so there are fewer younger families in the neighborhood).

The fact is that there hasn’t been an appreciable decline in the number of families with school-aged kids in this neighborhood.

What are you basing this statement on? If the number of families with school-aged kids in Kentlands and Lakelands is indeed remaining the same, then it's behaving very differently from normal areas, and a person might wonder why.

I’m basing it on having lived in the neighborhood for years and seeing the streets teeming with school-aged kids.

The neighborhood remains very attractive to young families. There are a lot of amenities, it’s walkable, the houses are nice, etc. The fact that RCES enrollment has gone down by 150 kids in the last few years is due to the fact that was so overcrowded, MCPS is having a lot of problems in general, and a good number of Kentlands/Lakelands families can afford private school.

PP, have you heard the statement "the plural of anecdote is not data"? That applies here. If what you say is true, then people disproprortionately leave Kentlands/Lakelands to move elsewhere, once their children are out of school, compared to other neighborhoods. Why would that be? Is Kentlands/Lakelands are bad place to live, once your children are grown? If the neighborhood is so attractive, with amenities, walkable, nice houses, etc., then people ought to disproportionately stay when their children are grown, not disproportionately leave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh yeah, I totally believe you, as opposed to my own lived experience, being part of this neighborhood.

If you have actual numbers to back this up, provide them. Otherwise, stop.

Almost a perfect example of confirmation bias.

Alright, you stick with your theory. I’ll recognize it’s BS because I see my neighborhood chock full of families.

Have fun.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The neighborhood turnover thing doesn’t hold up. The homes are selling across Kentlands and Lakelands, and to many young families. We’re one of them and we’re hardly the only ones.

It's good to know that the homes are selling, vs. sitting vacant? Nonetheless, that doesn't relate to number of school-aged children in Kentlands and Lakelands - or the Governor Square Apartments.

It’s a counterargument to the theory on this thread regarding why enrollment at RCES is down (aka that the original owners are aging, so there are fewer younger families in the neighborhood).

The fact is that there hasn’t been an appreciable decline in the number of families with school-aged kids in this neighborhood.

What are you basing this statement on? If the number of families with school-aged kids in Kentlands and Lakelands is indeed remaining the same, then it's behaving very differently from normal areas, and a person might wonder why.

I’m basing it on having lived in the neighborhood for years and seeing the streets teeming with school-aged kids.

The neighborhood remains very attractive to young families. There are a lot of amenities, it’s walkable, the houses are nice, etc. The fact that RCES enrollment has gone down by 150 kids in the last few years is due to the fact that was so overcrowded, MCPS is having a lot of problems in general, and a good number of Kentlands/Lakelands families can afford private school.

PP, have you heard the statement "the plural of anecdote is not data"? That applies here. If what you say is true, then people disproprortionately leave Kentlands/Lakelands to move elsewhere, once their children are out of school, compared to other neighborhoods. Why would that be? Is Kentlands/Lakelands are bad place to live, once your children are grown? If the neighborhood is so attractive, with amenities, walkable, nice houses, etc., then people ought to disproportionately stay when their children are grown, not disproportionately leave.

It’s a family-oriented neighborhood. It’s attractive for families more than for most retirees. MD is a high-tax state. A lot of people don’t want to be in a high-tax state when they retire.

Is that really that hard to understand?