Petition to Support Alternative A

We, the undersigned, represent families who are affected by the Richard Montgomery Elementary School (RMES) #5 Boundary Study. This petition demonstrates why Alternative A is the best solution for the Richard Montgomery Cluster, and describes why Alternatives B through E are highly objectionable.

We support Alternative A for the following reasons:

1. Alternative A adequately meets the four requirements under the Board of Education (BOE) Policy FAA. Alternative A ensures that all five elementary schools benefit from the enormous demographic diversity that currently exists throughout our community, providing a demographic distribution that is comparable to other alternatives. It also places the elementary school at the center of each community and maximizes geographic proximity. Proximity to each school increases walkability and provides the greatest stability of school assignments over time. Lastly, Alternative A keeps utilization rates below 100 percent for most schools and stabilizes the existing rate at Twinbrook elementary school.

2. Alternative A reflects the will of the Richard Montgomery Cluster as reflected in the parent survey. Prior to the release of the initial boundary options on August 30, 2017, families in the RM Cluster were surveyed to learn about parents’ priorities for developing the boundary lines. The results show that more than 80 percent of parents favor geographic proximity as the most important factor for creating the school catchment areas. No other factor was nearly as important. Alternative A is based on the contiguous areas around each school and emphasizes geographic proximity. Alternative A preserves the long-standing neighborhood boundaries that define our friendships, support structures, and the well-being of our children.

3. Alternative A allows for future growth that is planned for the City of Rockville. Future development in the City of Rockville will be concentrated in the southern portion of the cluster along Rockville Pike. There are 375 planned units coming to Preserve Parkway in Tower Oaks, including 30 houses, 217 town homes, and 128 condos. Based on the City’s master plans, more developments are coming, and thus many more children will be looking for a school. Alternative A is the only option that can absorb this future growth by keeping the projected capacity in RMES#5 under 100 percent.

4. Alternative A has broad support from many civic associations, the City, and the Council. Alternative A has been endorsed by the West End Citizens Association, the Rockville Mayor and Council, the College Gardens Civic Association, the Rose Hill Homeowner Association, and the Woodley Gardens Civic Association. No other alternative has garnered this broad coalition of support.

We reject Alternatives B through E as highly objectionable for the following reasons:

1. Alternatives B through E tear communities apart. These other alternatives separate whole portions of a community (e.g., CG3, RP5, and T2) or divide existing neighborhoods (e.g., B5 and B6), sending our children to different schools in distant locations. These proposals upend established routines, the deep roots that families have developed over time, and the friendships between children. Alternative B is especially egregious because, on the surface it appears similar to Alternative A, but it creates an incomprehensible boundary between homes (in B6), tearing a neighborhood apart street by street, based on questionable data and a disregard for the families in this neighborhood. Alternatives C through E gerrymander the cluster into disconnected and irregularly shaped polygons, upending communities and producing major transportation problems.

2. Alternatives B through E propose sweeping changes that were not properly vetted. The process for reviewing these alternatives was patently unfair to the Rockville community. Data underpinning these alternatives were repeatedly found to be erroneous; the superintendent recommended alternatives that were previously undisclosed; maps that severed our neighborhoods were not transparent or released in a timely manner; and the public comment period was unjustly compressed. Overall, the RMES #5 Boundary Study lacked legitimacy, and it would be irresponsible for the BOE to adopt the sweeping changes proposed by Alternatives B through E under these circumstances.

In closing, we ask the BOE to consider these issues carefully and reflect on the review process before making a final decision. We believe that keeping neighborhoods together and making elementary schools the heart of each community is critical to our quality life and the well-being of our children. We strongly urge the BOE to support Alternative A.