Anonymous wrote:

1. Better odds does not mean for certain. Given the history of this project no one should assume it will be done in 2018.

2. MCPS has not said how many kids from each school will move to the new school. I may be mistaken, but I haven't seen that number. MCPS should disclose that information so parents will know if their schools will still be over capacity (with some relief) after the new school opens.

3. If Cold Springs is being underutilized then yes, they should put kid from other schools like Richie Park. It's a waste. Oh but that would lead to overcrowding at Frost and Wootton--perish the thought. Certainly we can't allow that cluster to see any overcrowding.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yup, technically true points. But it's also true that it was changed from programmed (last year) to approved, and the technical appropriation needs at this point are very different from where things were last year. It's not worth debating, but the odds of it opening in 2018 are much better now than odds were 12 months ago of the programmed 2017 schedule at that time.

The capacity of ES#5 is equal to the aggregate projected overcapacity at the current four, so I doubt that there will be residual ES issues (or that any of the 4 current ES zones will stay exactly as they are today).

As for shifting RP to CS, are you talking about shifting those kids there solely for ES, and then keeping them in the RM cluster for MS and HS? MCPS isn't going to do that, as they want to preserve continuity. Speaking as someone in RP, I'd rather have my kid in portables than to have them as part of a minority in the ES program that will be pulled away to a different MS and lose all their ES friends at that point.

If you're suggesting moving them to Frost/Wootton as well, then you've actually created a capacity problem at the MS and HS level just to solve a temporary ES issue that won't exist anymore in 4 years.

1. Better odds does not mean for certain. Given the history of this project no one should assume it will be done in 2018.

2. MCPS has not said how many kids from each school will move to the new school. I may be mistaken, but I haven't seen that number. MCPS should disclose that information so parents will know if their schools will still be over capacity (with some relief) after the new school opens.

3. If Cold Springs is being underutilized then yes, they should put kid from other schools like Richie Park. It's a waste. Oh but that would lead to overcrowding at Frost and Wootton--perish the thought. Certainly we can't allow that cluster to see any overcrowding.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No crowded classes at Cold Spring where my DD is in third grade. most classes around 14-18 kids. plenty of empty classrooms for extra individual attention and tutoring (or to remove one of the bad kids).

See that really pisses me off. We are right across the street at Ritchie Park. We have tons of portables, high ratios and every school in our cluster is just as bad or worse. Why they can not relocate Horizon Hill to Cold Spring is beyond me. Either that or they should redistrict the never ending new buildings of Park Potomac to you or Beverly Farms - both under enrolled. Yet they gave the overcrowded school who already had to deal with all of Fallsgrove coming to it, another new section when Park Potomac was built. It is actually closer to Beverly Farms anyway. I just do not understand it. A new condo building will be opening in Spring 2015 and another round of increased enrollment will be hitting Ritchie Park.

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.

With respect to the new condo/apartment development in Park Potomac, it's doubtful that it will add many students given the demographics (pre-marriage millennials and empty nesters) of likely buyers/renters. In any event though, there will be other new construction coming to Wootton if the current zoning is retained when the Belwood Farm property is developed.

Lastly, if there were a permanent size imbalance between RM and Wootton or Churchill, moving Fallsgrove or Park Potomac would have the effect of increasing the socio-economic disparities between the two clusters given those are the two wealthiest pockets in RM.

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.

Anonymous wrote:20:43, get your head out of the sand. CSES. Is. Empty.

Anonymous wrote:Surprising when his own children are not in that cluster..

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yup, technically true points. But it's also true that it was changed from programmed (last year) to approved, and the technical appropriation needs at this point are very different from where things were last year. It's not worth debating, but the odds of it opening in 2018 are much better now than odds were 12 months ago of the programmed 2017 schedule at that time.

The capacity of ES#5 is equal to the aggregate projected overcapacity at the current four, so I doubt that there will be residual ES issues (or that any of the 4 current ES zones will stay exactly as they are today).

As for shifting RP to CS, are you talking about shifting those kids there solely for ES, and then keeping them in the RM cluster for MS and HS? MCPS isn't going to do that, as they want to preserve continuity. Speaking as someone in RP, I'd rather have my kid in portables than to have them as part of a minority in the ES program that will be pulled away to a different MS and lose all their ES friends at that point.

If you're suggesting moving them to Frost/Wootton as well, then you've actually created a capacity problem at the MS and HS level just to solve a temporary ES issue that won't exist anymore in 4 years.

Anonymous wrote:344 kids in a school built for 800?? State of the art facilities?

Yeah, that is fair.

Anonymous wrote:CSES = home to 100 students total, and 16 empty rooms. What a joke. Thanks Starr.

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.