Reply to RM Cluster Overcrowding?

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

Reply to "RM Cluster Overcrowding?"

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]

[b]Mark Pierzchala is not lobbying to build two buildings or asking for 15 extra seats in RM due to two buildings.

Mark Pierzchala is lobbying to have 1000+ extra kids in RM without having capacity in school.[/b] That's what is asking when lobbying for 150% capacity in RM.

Huge difference between these two situations. Please don't spread misinformation.

[/quote]

The capacity of RM is 2,236 students. 120% of capacity is 2,683 students. 150% of capacity is 3,354. 3,354 - 2,683 = 671 students.

Mark Pierzchala thinks that the limit for the City of Rockville to allow development plans should be raised from the projected enrollment 5 years out at Richard Montgomery HS being 2,683 to the projected enrollment being 3,354 - i.e., 671 more students than currently.

Note that this doesn't mean that the *actual* enrollment at Richard Montgomery would ever be 3,354. MCPS is building Crown HS (funding for the project starts in July 2019), and Richard Montgomery HS will be part of the rezoning.[/quote]
[b]
Mark Pierzchala  thinks that it's a perfectly all right to have 150% students in RM HS. [/b][b]That means he is lobbying for having 3354 kids in a facility designed for 2236 kids.

[/b]

Increasing limit to 3,354 exactly means that Mark Pierzchala is perfectly fine to have 3354 students.

There is no confusion in that part and please don't confuse anyone. Everyone needs to vote out council members who don't care about education and only care about grocery stores and developers.

Crown doesn't have any start date right now. Constructions doesn't start in July 2019. Simply said, RM is not going to get any help in near future, but Mark Pierzchala is happy to make a crowded situation worse.

[/quote]

Why are you making things up? [b] He literally said this wouldn’t happen. [/b] [/quote]

I am not the PP, but this cracks me up. He doesn't think  or need 150%, but he is lobbying for 150% limit. No one is getting fooled here. [/quote]

How will these two districts, one of which 80% will go to WJ, possibly bring RM to 150%?  Would you be fine if he was increasing the two performance districts to 130%?[/quote]

Developer listed less than 20 HS students due to his development and if that's what all this discussion is about then Council member should lobby for 121%.

Why anyone should agree to add extra 10%( 220 extra students) in already over crowded school?[/quote]

Right, because the Twinbrook development is going to add very few students to RM but the 120% capacity number is going to stop all building at Twinbrook because, because banks will be less likely to lend and because the infrastructure they need to build there will take a long time to turn to profit (ie the first buildings won't recoup infrastructure expenses).  Any new students generated from RTC will all go to Beall/JW/RM though.  So how about we raise it to 130% for those two areas instead of 150% and leave the rest of the city at 120%?  Will that be good with you?[/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