Reply to Thoughts about Richard Montgomery HS?

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

Reply to "Thoughts about Richard Montgomery HS?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Be aware that the school is already overcrowded and there is a ton of overdevelopment scheduled for that cluster.  There will be a boat load of new housing going up in the area, and there are no plans to alleviate the already overcrowded HS.[/quote]
The development is taking place over decades, and is mostly luxury METRO-based development that will have few kids. It's really a non-issue when you factor in that two new HSs will open before that development ever fully builds out.[/quote]

1. RM is already overcrowded without any additional developments 
2. There are other approved developments already in production that have nothing to do with the Twinbrook apartments. If you lived in the cluster you would realize this was an issue that was brought up during the RM ES #5 boundary study. There is new development expected in Tower Oaks which will be assigned to Bayard Rustin and other approved housing in the cluster. I believe around Fallsgrove was another approved site. I can't remember the other sites off the top of my head, but you can look in.the boundary study info online for all the developments that MCPS included for informational purposes, but conveniently did not include in their future projection numbers.
[/quote]

If the developments are already approved, then they're also already included in the enrollment projections.[/quote]

No, this was a big point of contention during the boundary study. They were NOT included in the projections, and MCPS had already made major errors in projections which lead to a very chaotic process. If you weren't involved in this boundary study, stop making assumptions.[/quote]

What boundary study? The Bayard Rustin boundary study? If so, then they were not initially included in the projections BY MISTAKE - the mistake being that approved developments are supposed to be included in the enrollment projections. But then they corrected that mistake.[/quote]

Nope. That wasn't the cause of the projection error. The errors were literally math mistakes. [/quote]

What do math mistakes have to do with approved developments being included in the enrollment projections?[/quote]

They don't. The PP stated that the mistakes in the boundary study were related to the approved projects not being included in the enrollment process ions initially but that the corrected models included them. That is not true. The errors were related to calculations of FARMS students and had NOTHING to do with adding in enrollment projections for the approved developments.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics