Do the recommendations re: BCC boundary study come out today?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At any moment in this process CCES (tweedledee) and NCC (tweedledum) from the Triad can step up and offer themselves to be bussed to Westland in place of RCF so you want be uncomfortable in the overcrowded/poor middle school. Go for it!

Wait, I thought the triad was Somerset, Westbrook, and Bethesda. Wouldn't NCC and CC just be a duo? In any case, that's a snappy response to avoid an issue you don't want to address, but the reality is that those schools have no ability to self-select, and you know that.

You keep pushing this narrative about a "poor" middle school. If that helps you get through side-stepping substantive issues, fine, but no one here is complaining about their kids going to school with so-called "poor" kids. The issue is one of physical capacity. The new school starts off at a deficit compared to Westland. According to the Superintendent's report, it hits 99% capacity within five years, before any development kicks in. That's a stupid result when the whole point of building the school was to relieve over-crowding.

CCES, NCC and RHPS = Triad

So, there are two triads, one in the east, and one in the west? Wasn't this a martial arts movie?

No you are late to the discussion it seems. CCES, NCC and RHPS have always been the Triad from many historical threads, not the other schools you mentioned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At any moment in this process CCES (tweedledee) and NCC (tweedledum) from the Triad can step up and offer themselves to be bussed to Westland in place of RCF so you want be uncomfortable in the overcrowded/poor middle school. Go for it!

Wait, I thought the triad was Somerset, Westbrook, and Bethesda. Wouldn't NCC and CC just be a duo? In any case, that's a snappy response to avoid an issue you don't want to address, but the reality is that those schools have no ability to self-select, and you know that.

You keep pushing this narrative about a "poor" middle school. If that helps you get through side-stepping substantive issues, fine, but no one here is complaining about their kids going to school with so-called "poor" kids. The issue is one of physical capacity. The new school starts off at a deficit compared to Westland. According to the Superintendent's report, it hits 99% capacity within five years, before any development kicks in. That's a stupid result when the whole point of building the school was to relieve over-crowding.

CCES, NCC and RHPS = Triad

So, there are two triads, one in the east, and one in the west? Wasn't this a martial arts movie?

No you are late to the discussion it seems. CCES, NCC and RHPS have always been the Triad from many historical threads, not the other schools you mentioned.

Correct. No one calls Westbrook, Somerset and Bethesda the Triad.

And there have been a few mentions of the former Leland Junior High School in this thread, as a member of the second site selection committee I can tell you that it was considered but deemed way way way way too small for a middle school. Anyone who is at all familiar with the current Lawton Community Center should be able to attest to that. I don't think there would be room for a large enough building there, much less a field.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are always people who live close to a school who aren't zoned for it-- it's almost mathematically impossible to send everyone to the closest school. I know families a couple blocks from Westland that go to Pyle. Complaining about that at this point is beside the point.

Yes. I live in Kensington. We are bisected with three different school districts.

If Montgomery County was structured at the town level rather than the county level, like Massachusetts, then we could incorporate all of 20895 plus whatever Garret Park into our own little city and then all go to Kensington Parkwood, New Middle School and Einstein together. That would be great. But that is not reality and no other area in Montgomery County is structured like that.

There are more sections of Kensington and the 20895 zip code but I guess those don't qualify in your mind. Not everyone wants to be a part of the Town, which is why we bought out of bounds.

You misread my post. 20895 is coterminous with all areas that have a Kensington address. Much larger than the Town. I also don't live in the Town and none of the schools I mentioned are actually in the very small Town boundaries. I was suggesting a different form of political governance, based on large towns rather than a county. This is common in other parts of our country, like in New England. There are positives and negatives of each approach, but people tend to be more involved in local government if power is devolved, so on the whole that would be my preference.

The Town right now is really silly, it's only 2,000 people and had no real power. I was envisioning a larger incorporated area of 25,000 with its own schools, police, etc. But I was also suggesting this will never happen, so given the county's current governance structure there is no logical reason to reorganize school boundaries without devolved political power to run the new Kensington schools that PP was envisioning.

Also, for other PP, my post was incorrect when I said it was three "districts." I meant three clusters. Thanks for clarifying.

We could have bought in the town of Kensington and when we rented there, we were not at all impressed with the politics. Many of us living on the poor side of the tracks make $200,000+ and choose our small homes which has a much better community feel than do the other parts of Kensington or even Chevy Chase.

They should have rebuilt Leland and put it in Chevy Chase where all the kids are being bussed from. It makes no sense to have a school in Kensington that Kensington kids are not allowed.

Let's try this again. It's not in Kensington. It has the same zip code as Kensington, but it's not in Kensington. Further, it never was in Kensington. Kensington is a town with a defined border. The school is outside that border. Arguing that the Town of Kensington should go there is like arguing the Town of Kensington should go to Einstein, which is located in North Kensington, also outside the town's border.

B-CC Middle School #2
Address: 3701 Saul Road
Kensington, MD

I believe the previous posters were not speaking of the "Town of Kensington", but Kensington itself.

There is much more to Kensington than just the town. Very few people care about the town. A bunch of crappy stores and rules that don't allow anything decent to come in. No one calls the part of Kensington "North Kensington." It has its own distinct sections, including Homewood which is a lovely area.

It actually makes no sense to bus kids to WJ over Einstein. WJ is no where near Kensington.

It makes sense to the people who paid $600,000 for the house in the WJ district instead of $450,000 for the same house in the Einstein district.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a Chevy Chase parent I would want my children to attend the less crowded school WITH the Silver Spring kids they have been paired with since Kindergarten. I would also like them to be with the NCC kids they attended K-2 and are currently on sports teams right now, but would give that up for a less crowded school.

I currently have a child at Westland and the overcrowding is ridiculous. Really no child can express their voice or learn much in a class with 35 other kids, especially with this dumbed down curriculum.

Middle school is not like elementary school, there is much less parental involvement in the school. The distance is not that big of a deal, it's a pain on school event nights during rush hour but that is just a handful of times a year.

If I was a Rock Creek Forest parent, I would want to continue to go to Westland. I wouldn't want my kids crammed into a new middle school just because it was closer.

We are talking about maybe a 10-20 minute difference in bus rides. The morning bus picks up so early it misses rush hour, and the afternoon just catches a piece of the beginning of high traffic time.

What is unfair is to bus the CCES and NCC kids back and forth in the BCC cluster and then continue to place them in overcrowded schools when the opportunity exists to split the populations in a fair socio-economic manner.

This is astonishing! The sole reason that RCF supported #6 is for the FARMS populations overwhelming support of it. They would be most impacted and they view things differently i.e. I would rather have a crowded school than to not ever be able to visit the school. So you are addressing the wrong people in this forum and are disconnected to the population who is advocating for this.

Hello? It's not all about RCF. There are other schools involved here, too. They're concerns should just get flushed because RCF doesn't agree with them.

Exactly, other schools concerns should be considered!

* The Triad didn't want to get split up - Check
* The Triad wanted to go to the closest school - Check
*The Triad thought it fine to have demographic difference similar to option #1 which option #7 fulfills - Check
* The Triad wants the school to less crowed - Sorry Triad you can't have it all!

Uh, hold the phone.

The eastern triad "thought it fine to have demographic difference similar to option #1 which option #7 fulfills" UNCHECK that one, pal. Option 7 is no way similar to Option 1, and we don't have to debate what you consider "similar" to mean. To quote a PP from several pages ago, "Option 7 still maxes out the capacity of the new school while creating a more affluent, less diverse school with excess capacity. That inequity would be bad enough, but it exacerbates the inequitable educational facilities that we start with. The new school is built on hilly land that is less than half the size of Westland. The new school has less physical plant (in all fairness, not a catastrophe), and less outside facilities, than Westland. Never mind the lack of fairness, how is this new school supposed to accommodate any future growth? Under the worst case scenario, Westland can build on its site."

That PP asked, "why is it that the new, less equitable school goes to the community with more diversity and three times the FARMS rate of the larger, more affluent school?" If that question doesn't concern you, fine. You can't escape the reality that, according to the Superintendent's recommendation, Option 7 condems the new school to over-crowding while Westland will operate at 82-83% of capacity.

Finally, is this a discussion about form, or is it a discussion about substance? Are you saying that because the eastern triad recieved three decisions you consider wins, we should do something stupid to avoid giving the eastern triad a fourth win? What if the fourth issue were human sacrifice; would you say that we have to start killing people because the eastern triad already had three wins?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At any moment in this process CCES (tweedledee) and NCC (tweedledum) from the Triad can step up and offer themselves to be bussed to Westland in place of RCF so you want be uncomfortable in the overcrowded/poor middle school. Go for it!

Wait, I thought the triad was Somerset, Westbrook, and Bethesda. Wouldn't NCC and CC just be a duo? In any case, that's a snappy response to avoid an issue you don't want to address, but the reality is that those schools have no ability to self-select, and you know that.

You keep pushing this narrative about a "poor" middle school. If that helps you get through side-stepping substantive issues, fine, but no one here is complaining about their kids going to school with so-called "poor" kids. The issue is one of physical capacity. The new school starts off at a deficit compared to Westland. According to the Superintendent's report, it hits 99% capacity within five years, before any development kicks in. That's a stupid result when the whole point of building the school was to relieve over-crowding.

CCES, NCC and RHPS = Triad

So, there are two triads, one in the east, and one in the west? Wasn't this a martial arts movie?

No you are late to the discussion it seems. CCES, NCC and RHPS have always been the Triad from many historical threads, not the other schools you mentioned.

Correct. No one calls Westbrook, Somerset and Bethesda the Triad.

And there have been a few mentions of the former Leland Junior High School in this thread, as a member of the second site selection committee I can tell you that it was considered but deemed way way way way too small for a middle school. Anyone who is at all familiar with the current Lawton Community Center should be able to attest to that. I don't think there would be room for a large enough building there, much less a field.

Thank you. I was the PP that didn't undertsand the Triad. I also agree, no way Leland could house a middle school. My kids attended the day care there, and it is just too small a site.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are always people who live close to a school who aren't zoned for it-- it's almost mathematically impossible to send everyone to the closest school. I know families a couple blocks from Westland that go to Pyle. Complaining about that at this point is beside the point.

Yes. I live in Kensington. We are bisected with three different school districts.

If Montgomery County was structured at the town level rather than the county level, like Massachusetts, then we could incorporate all of 20895 plus whatever Garret Park into our own little city and then all go to Kensington Parkwood, New Middle School and Einstein together. That would be great. But that is not reality and no other area in Montgomery County is structured like that.

There are more sections of Kensington and the 20895 zip code but I guess those don't qualify in your mind. Not everyone wants to be a part of the Town, which is why we bought out of bounds.

You misread my post. 20895 is coterminous with all areas that have a Kensington address. Much larger than the Town. I also don't live in the Town and none of the schools I mentioned are actually in the very small Town boundaries. I was suggesting a different form of political governance, based on large towns rather than a county. This is common in other parts of our country, like in New England. There are positives and negatives of each approach, but people tend to be more involved in local government if power is devolved, so on the whole that would be my preference.

The Town right now is really silly, it's only 2,000 people and had no real power. I was envisioning a larger incorporated area of 25,000 with its own schools, police, etc. But I was also suggesting this will never happen, so given the county's current governance structure there is no logical reason to reorganize school boundaries without devolved political power to run the new Kensington schools that PP was envisioning.

Also, for other PP, my post was incorrect when I said it was three "districts." I meant three clusters. Thanks for clarifying.

We could have bought in the town of Kensington and when we rented there, we were not at all impressed with the politics. Many of us living on the poor side of the tracks make $200,000+ and choose our small homes which has a much better community feel than do the other parts of Kensington or even Chevy Chase.

They should have rebuilt Leland and put it in Chevy Chase where all the kids are being bussed from. It makes no sense to have a school in Kensington that Kensington kids are not allowed.

Let's try this again. It's not in Kensington. It has the same zip code as Kensington, but it's not in Kensington. Further, it never was in Kensington. Kensington is a town with a defined border. The school is outside that border. Arguing that the Town of Kensington should go there is like arguing the Town of Kensington should go to Einstein, which is located in North Kensington, also outside the town's border.

B-CC Middle School #2
Address: 3701 Saul Road
Kensington, MD

I believe the previous posters were not speaking of the "Town of Kensington", but Kensington itself.

There is much more to Kensington than just the town. Very few people care about the town. A bunch of crappy stores and rules that don't allow anything decent to come in. No one calls the part of Kensington "North Kensington." It has its own distinct sections, including Homewood which is a lovely area.

It actually makes no sense to bus kids to WJ over Einstein. WJ is no where near Kensington.

It makes sense to the people who paid $600,000 for the house in the WJ district instead of $450,000 for the same house in the Einstein district.

You need to re-orient your mind. According to PPs, the higher price for the WJ house is really a tax to keep poor people out of WJ. (Sarcasm)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a Chevy Chase parent I would want my children to attend the less crowded school WITH the Silver Spring kids they have been paired with since Kindergarten. I would also like them to be with the NCC kids they attended K-2 and are currently on sports teams right now, but would give that up for a less crowded school.

I currently have a child at Westland and the overcrowding is ridiculous. Really no child can express their voice or learn much in a class with 35 other kids, especially with this dumbed down curriculum.

Middle school is not like elementary school, there is much less parental involvement in the school. The distance is not that big of a deal, it's a pain on school event nights during rush hour but that is just a handful of times a year.

If I was a Rock Creek Forest parent, I would want to continue to go to Westland. I wouldn't want my kids crammed into a new middle school just because it was closer.

We are talking about maybe a 10-20 minute difference in bus rides. The morning bus picks up so early it misses rush hour, and the afternoon just catches a piece of the beginning of high traffic time.

What is unfair is to bus the CCES and NCC kids back and forth in the BCC cluster and then continue to place them in overcrowded schools when the opportunity exists to split the populations in a fair socio-economic manner.

This is astonishing! The sole reason that RCF supported #6 is for the FARMS populations overwhelming support of it. They would be most impacted and they view things differently i.e. I would rather have a crowded school than to not ever be able to visit the school. So you are addressing the wrong people in this forum and are disconnected to the population who is advocating for this.

Hello? It's not all about RCF. There are other schools involved here, too. They're concerns should just get flushed because RCF doesn't agree with them.

Exactly, other schools concerns should be considered!

* The Triad didn't want to get split up - Check
* The Triad wanted to go to the closest school - Check
*The Triad thought it fine to have demographic difference similar to option #1 which option #7 fulfills - Check
* The Triad wants the school to less crowed - Sorry Triad you can't have it all!

Uh, hold the phone.

The eastern triad "thought it fine to have demographic difference similar to option #1 which option #7 fulfills" UNCHECK that one, pal. Option 7 is no way similar to Option 1, and we don't have to debate what you consider "similar" to mean. To quote a PP from several pages ago, "Option 7 still maxes out the capacity of the new school while creating a more affluent, less diverse school with excess capacity. That inequity would be bad enough, but it exacerbates the inequitable educational facilities that we start with. The new school is built on hilly land that is less than half the size of Westland. The new school has less physical plant (in all fairness, not a catastrophe), and less outside facilities, than Westland. Never mind the lack of fairness, how is this new school supposed to accommodate any future growth? Under the worst case scenario, Westland can build on its site."

That PP asked, "why is it that the new, less equitable school goes to the community with more diversity and three times the FARMS rate of the larger, more affluent school?" If that question doesn't concern you, fine. You can't escape the reality that, according to the Superintendent's recommendation, Option 7 condems the new school to over-crowding while Westland will operate at 82-83% of capacity.

Finally, is this a discussion about form, or is it a discussion about substance? Are you saying that because the eastern triad recieved three decisions you consider wins, we should do something stupid to avoid giving the eastern triad a fourth win? What if the fourth issue were human sacrifice; would you say that we have to start killing people because the eastern triad already had three wins?

Look similar to me.... As for your form or substance comment, I wasn't the one who stated that the whole process is derailed because of one school RCF who only got a half of a concession they advocated for when the Triad wants it all. Thank you Jack Smith!

Bethesda-Chevy Chase MS #2 Westland MS
MS#2 Westland
Option 1 Option 7 Option 1 Option 7
African-American 16.7 17.5 10.4 8
Asian <5 <5 7 7.7
Hispanic 14.9 17.5 15.2 12.2
White 58.6 55.4 63.1 67.7
Two or More Races 6.5 6 <5 <5

FARMS 9.7 15.4 11.3 5.1
ESOL <5 5.5 6.5 5.3

[Anonymous]

Reading through this thread, why are people so ticked at RCF families? What do you expect them to do, advocate for something they don't want? If I lived there, and someone asked me what middle school I want my kids to go to, I'd say the closer one. Apparently a large portion of RCF wants to do that. I understand that many think that opinion is misguided, but it is what it is.

Are you expecting RCF families to advocate instead for something they think is not as good for their families? I mean, the other schools are advocating vehemently for their preferred option; why shouldn't RCF do the same? It doesn't make them any more selfish than everyone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a Chevy Chase parent I would want my children to attend the less crowded school WITH the Silver Spring kids they have been paired with since Kindergarten. I would also like them to be with the NCC kids they attended K-2 and are currently on sports teams right now, but would give that up for a less crowded school.

I currently have a child at Westland and the overcrowding is ridiculous. Really no child can express their voice or learn much in a class with 35 other kids, especially with this dumbed down curriculum.

Middle school is not like elementary school, there is much less parental involvement in the school. The distance is not that big of a deal, it's a pain on school event nights during rush hour but that is just a handful of times a year.

If I was a Rock Creek Forest parent, I would want to continue to go to Westland. I wouldn't want my kids crammed into a new middle school just because it was closer.

We are talking about maybe a 10-20 minute difference in bus rides. The morning bus picks up so early it misses rush hour, and the afternoon just catches a piece of the beginning of high traffic time.

What is unfair is to bus the CCES and NCC kids back and forth in the BCC cluster and then continue to place them in overcrowded schools when the opportunity exists to split the populations in a fair socio-economic manner.

This is astonishing! The sole reason that RCF supported #6 is for the FARMS populations overwhelming support of it. They would be most impacted and they view things differently i.e. I would rather have a crowded school than to not ever be able to visit the school. So you are addressing the wrong people in this forum and are disconnected to the population who is advocating for this.

Hello? It's not all about RCF. There are other schools involved here, too. They're concerns should just get flushed because RCF doesn't agree with them.

Exactly, other schools concerns should be considered!

* The Triad didn't want to get split up - Check
* The Triad wanted to go to the closest school - Check
*The Triad thought it fine to have demographic difference similar to option #1 which option #7 fulfills - Check
* The Triad wants the school to less crowed - Sorry Triad you can't have it all!

Uh, hold the phone.

The eastern triad "thought it fine to have demographic difference similar to option #1 which option #7 fulfills" UNCHECK that one, pal. Option 7 is no way similar to Option 1, and we don't have to debate what you consider "similar" to mean. To quote a PP from several pages ago, "Option 7 still maxes out the capacity of the new school while creating a more affluent, less diverse school with excess capacity. That inequity would be bad enough, but it exacerbates the inequitable educational facilities that we start with. The new school is built on hilly land that is less than half the size of Westland. The new school has less physical plant (in all fairness, not a catastrophe), and less outside facilities, than Westland. Never mind the lack of fairness, how is this new school supposed to accommodate any future growth? Under the worst case scenario, Westland can build on its site."

That PP asked, "why is it that the new, less equitable school goes to the community with more diversity and three times the FARMS rate of the larger, more affluent school?" If that question doesn't concern you, fine. You can't escape the reality that, according to the Superintendent's recommendation, Option 7 condems the new school to over-crowding while Westland will operate at 82-83% of capacity.

Finally, is this a discussion about form, or is it a discussion about substance? Are you saying that because the eastern triad recieved three decisions you consider wins, we should do something stupid to avoid giving the eastern triad a fourth win? What if the fourth issue were human sacrifice; would you say that we have to start killing people because the eastern triad already had three wins?

Look similar to me.... As for your form or substance comment, I wasn't the one who stated that the whole process is derailed because of one school RCF who only got a half of a concession they advocated for when the Triad wants it all. Thank you Jack Smith!

Bethesda-Chevy Chase MS #2 Westland MS
MS#2 Westland
Option 1 Option 7 Option 1 Option 7
African-American 16.7 17.5 10.4 8
Asian <5 <5 7 7.7
Hispanic 14.9 17.5 15.2 12.2
White 58.6 55.4 63.1 67.7
Two or More Races 6.5 6 <5 <5

FARMS 9.7 15.4 11.3 5.1
ESOL <5 5.5 6.5 5.3

You really are amazing. You keep bringing the discussion back to demographics so we get mired in a debate over which numbers are significant. Yet, you avoid the other chart, Utilization, which actually is the focus of the concerns raised by PPs.

Within five years of opening, under option 1, the new school (with a capacity of 935 students) will be at 83% of capacity, and Westland (with a capacity of 1,079 students) will be at 96% of capacity. Under option 7, the new school will be at 99% of capacity, and Westland will be at 82% of capacity. The Lyttonsville and Chevy Chase Lake Sector Plans anticipate growth in enrollment at the new school, and the Downtown Bethesda Plan (if it happens) anticipates growth in enrollment at Westland.

Notwithstanding the enrollment numbers at Westland, Option 1 allows for growth at both schools, and option 7 does not. Westland’s land footprint is twice the size of the new school’s. So, even though, under option 1, it starts with an enrollment at 96% of capacity, Westland has enough flat space to accommodate new students with additional facilities and still have a larger set of fields and other outside facilities than the new school. The new school is being built into the slopes of the old park in order to preserve the little remaining flat space for fields and parking, which is significantly less than Westland’s. Under option 7, at 99% of capacity, where will addition facilities be built at the new school to accommodate the influx of students, on the trackbaseballsoccer-overlay field? On the space between the retaining walls? It’s nice that Westland will be at 82% of capacity under option 7, but how will that solve the new school’s capacity issue?

Although PPs have pointed out that, under option 7, the new school will have three times the FARMS rate as Westland, and that Westland will have significantly lower minority population and a significantly higher white population than the new school, that has not been the core of the opposition discussion. From a facility/capacity standpoint, the Superintendent’s recommendation for option 7 just makes no sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Reading through this thread, why are people so ticked at RCF families? What do you expect them to do, advocate for something they don't want? If I lived there, and someone asked me what middle school I want my kids to go to, I'd say the closer one. Apparently a large portion of RCF wants to do that. I understand that many think that opinion is misguided, but it is what it is.

Are you expecting RCF families to advocate instead for something they think is not as good for their families? I mean, the other schools are advocating vehemently for their preferred option; why shouldn't RCF do the same? It doesn't make them any more selfish than everyone else.

You're absolutely right, but there is more than one community involved here, and those communities also have a right to advocate for their families. No one objects to RCF advocating for itself and putting forth its best arguments, along with everyone else, resulting in a decision based on the merits. The problem is that the unelected superintendent has decided that "some [issues] are more equal than others," effectively favoring one community over others (while placating the communities who, winding up in Westland, are unlikely to join the opposition).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a Chevy Chase parent I would want my children to attend the less crowded school WITH the Silver Spring kids they have been paired with since Kindergarten. I would also like them to be with the NCC kids they attended K-2 and are currently on sports teams right now, but would give that up for a less crowded school.

I currently have a child at Westland and the overcrowding is ridiculous. Really no child can express their voice or learn much in a class with 35 other kids, especially with this dumbed down curriculum.

Middle school is not like elementary school, there is much less parental involvement in the school. The distance is not that big of a deal, it's a pain on school event nights during rush hour but that is just a handful of times a year.

If I was a Rock Creek Forest parent, I would want to continue to go to Westland. I wouldn't want my kids crammed into a new middle school just because it was closer.

We are talking about maybe a 10-20 minute difference in bus rides. The morning bus picks up so early it misses rush hour, and the afternoon just catches a piece of the beginning of high traffic time.

What is unfair is to bus the CCES and NCC kids back and forth in the BCC cluster and then continue to place them in overcrowded schools when the opportunity exists to split the populations in a fair socio-economic manner.

This is astonishing! The sole reason that RCF supported #6 is for the FARMS populations overwhelming support of it. They would be most impacted and they view things differently i.e. I would rather have a crowded school than to not ever be able to visit the school. So you are addressing the wrong people in this forum and are disconnected to the population who is advocating for this.

Hello? It's not all about RCF. There are other schools involved here, too. They're concerns should just get flushed because RCF doesn't agree with them.

Exactly, other schools concerns should be considered!

* The Triad didn't want to get split up - Check
* The Triad wanted to go to the closest school - Check
*The Triad thought it fine to have demographic difference similar to option #1 which option #7 fulfills - Check
* The Triad wants the school to less crowed - Sorry Triad you can't have it all!

Uh, hold the phone.

The eastern triad "thought it fine to have demographic difference similar to option #1 which option #7 fulfills" UNCHECK that one, pal. Option 7 is no way similar to Option 1, and we don't have to debate what you consider "similar" to mean. To quote a PP from several pages ago, "Option 7 still maxes out the capacity of the new school while creating a more affluent, less diverse school with excess capacity. That inequity would be bad enough, but it exacerbates the inequitable educational facilities that we start with. The new school is built on hilly land that is less than half the size of Westland. The new school has less physical plant (in all fairness, not a catastrophe), and less outside facilities, than Westland. Never mind the lack of fairness, how is this new school supposed to accommodate any future growth? Under the worst case scenario, Westland can build on its site."

That PP asked, "why is it that the new, less equitable school goes to the community with more diversity and three times the FARMS rate of the larger, more affluent school?" If that question doesn't concern you, fine. You can't escape the reality that, according to the Superintendent's recommendation, Option 7 condems the new school to over-crowding while Westland will operate at 82-83% of capacity.

Finally, is this a discussion about form, or is it a discussion about substance? Are you saying that because the eastern triad recieved three decisions you consider wins, we should do something stupid to avoid giving the eastern triad a fourth win? What if the fourth issue were human sacrifice; would you say that we have to start killing people because the eastern triad already had three wins?

Look similar to me.... As for your form or substance comment, I wasn't the one who stated that the whole process is derailed because of one school RCF who only got a half of a concession they advocated for when the Triad wants it all. Thank you Jack Smith!

Bethesda-Chevy Chase MS #2 Westland MS
MS#2 Westland
Option 1 Option 7 Option 1 Option 7
African-American 16.7 17.5 10.4 8
Asian <5 <5 7 7.7
Hispanic 14.9 17.5 15.2 12.2
White 58.6 55.4 63.1 67.7
Two or More Races 6.5 6 <5 <5

FARMS 9.7 15.4 11.3 5.1
ESOL <5 5.5 6.5 5.3

You really are amazing. You keep bringing the discussion back to demographics so we get mired in a debate over which numbers are significant. Yet, you avoid the other chart, Utilization, which actually is the focus of the concerns raised by PPs.

Within five years of opening, under option 1, the new school (with a capacity of 935 students) will be at 83% of capacity, and Westland (with a capacity of 1,079 students) will be at 96% of capacity. Under option 7, the new school will be at 99% of capacity, and Westland will be at 82% of capacity. The Lyttonsville and Chevy Chase Lake Sector Plans anticipate growth in enrollment at the new school, and the Downtown Bethesda Plan (if it happens) anticipates growth in enrollment at Westland.

Notwithstanding the enrollment numbers at Westland, Option 1 allows for growth at both schools, and option 7 does not. Westland’s land footprint is twice the size of the new school’s. So, even though, under option 1, it starts with an enrollment at 96% of capacity, Westland has enough flat space to accommodate new students with additional facilities and still have a larger set of fields and other outside facilities than the new school. The new school is being built into the slopes of the old park in order to preserve the little remaining flat space for fields and parking, which is significantly less than Westland’s. Under option 7, at 99% of capacity, where will addition facilities be built at the new school to accommodate the influx of students, on the trackbaseballsoccer-overlay field? On the space between the retaining walls? It’s nice that Westland will be at 82% of capacity under option 7, but how will that solve the new school’s capacity issue?

Although PPs have pointed out that, under option 7, the new school will have three times the FARMS rate as Westland, and that Westland will have significantly lower minority population and a significantly higher white population than the new school, that has not been the core of the opposition discussion. From a facility/capacity standpoint, the Superintendent’s recommendation for option 7 just makes no sense.

See you are getting all bent out of shape because of your pet issue here, utilization and RCF is spazzing out over their issue which is proximity/transportation. I dont' think the capacity is trivial, yes ma'am its a concern and so is the transportation issue. Unfortunately, hard decisions were made and your issue didn't make the cut. I understand your frustration but part of growing up is that you don't get everything you want. No one would be 100% happy here on the eastern part of the cluster where we have to face most of the burden. So based on everything laid out in front of the superintendent he made a compromise. I personally have to get ready for the long commute to Westland but I'm very happy that RCF neighborhood parents will not face the same hardship.

See how that works?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a Chevy Chase parent I would want my children to attend the less crowded school WITH the Silver Spring kids they have been paired with since Kindergarten. I would also like them to be with the NCC kids they attended K-2 and are currently on sports teams right now, but would give that up for a less crowded school.

I currently have a child at Westland and the overcrowding is ridiculous. Really no child can express their voice or learn much in a class with 35 other kids, especially with this dumbed down curriculum.

Middle school is not like elementary school, there is much less parental involvement in the school. The distance is not that big of a deal, it's a pain on school event nights during rush hour but that is just a handful of times a year.

If I was a Rock Creek Forest parent, I would want to continue to go to Westland. I wouldn't want my kids crammed into a new middle school just because it was closer.

We are talking about maybe a 10-20 minute difference in bus rides. The morning bus picks up so early it misses rush hour, and the afternoon just catches a piece of the beginning of high traffic time.

What is unfair is to bus the CCES and NCC kids back and forth in the BCC cluster and then continue to place them in overcrowded schools when the opportunity exists to split the populations in a fair socio-economic manner.

This is astonishing! The sole reason that RCF supported #6 is for the FARMS populations overwhelming support of it. They would be most impacted and they view things differently i.e. I would rather have a crowded school than to not ever be able to visit the school. So you are addressing the wrong people in this forum and are disconnected to the population who is advocating for this.

Hello? It's not all about RCF. There are other schools involved here, too. They're concerns should just get flushed because RCF doesn't agree with them.

Exactly, other schools concerns should be considered!

* The Triad didn't want to get split up - Check
* The Triad wanted to go to the closest school - Check
*The Triad thought it fine to have demographic difference similar to option #1 which option #7 fulfills - Check
* The Triad wants the school to less crowed - Sorry Triad you can't have it all!

Uh, hold the phone.

The eastern triad "thought it fine to have demographic difference similar to option #1 which option #7 fulfills" UNCHECK that one, pal. Option 7 is no way similar to Option 1, and we don't have to debate what you consider "similar" to mean. To quote a PP from several pages ago, "Option 7 still maxes out the capacity of the new school while creating a more affluent, less diverse school with excess capacity. That inequity would be bad enough, but it exacerbates the inequitable educational facilities that we start with. The new school is built on hilly land that is less than half the size of Westland. The new school has less physical plant (in all fairness, not a catastrophe), and less outside facilities, than Westland. Never mind the lack of fairness, how is this new school supposed to accommodate any future growth? Under the worst case scenario, Westland can build on its site."

That PP asked, "why is it that the new, less equitable school goes to the community with more diversity and three times the FARMS rate of the larger, more affluent school?" If that question doesn't concern you, fine. You can't escape the reality that, according to the Superintendent's recommendation, Option 7 condems the new school to over-crowding while Westland will operate at 82-83% of capacity.

Finally, is this a discussion about form, or is it a discussion about substance? Are you saying that because the eastern triad recieved three decisions you consider wins, we should do something stupid to avoid giving the eastern triad a fourth win? What if the fourth issue were human sacrifice; would you say that we have to start killing people because the eastern triad already had three wins?

Look similar to me.... As for your form or substance comment, I wasn't the one who stated that the whole process is derailed because of one school RCF who only got a half of a concession they advocated for when the Triad wants it all. Thank you Jack Smith!

Bethesda-Chevy Chase MS #2 Westland MS
MS#2 Westland
Option 1 Option 7 Option 1 Option 7
African-American 16.7 17.5 10.4 8
Asian <5 <5 7 7.7
Hispanic 14.9 17.5 15.2 12.2
White 58.6 55.4 63.1 67.7
Two or More Races 6.5 6 <5 <5

FARMS 9.7 15.4 11.3 5.1
ESOL <5 5.5 6.5 5.3

You really are amazing. You keep bringing the discussion back to demographics so we get mired in a debate over which numbers are significant. Yet, you avoid the other chart, Utilization, which actually is the focus of the concerns raised by PPs.

Within five years of opening, under option 1, the new school (with a capacity of 935 students) will be at 83% of capacity, and Westland (with a capacity of 1,079 students) will be at 96% of capacity. Under option 7, the new school will be at 99% of capacity, and Westland will be at 82% of capacity. The Lyttonsville and Chevy Chase Lake Sector Plans anticipate growth in enrollment at the new school, and the Downtown Bethesda Plan (if it happens) anticipates growth in enrollment at Westland.

Notwithstanding the enrollment numbers at Westland, Option 1 allows for growth at both schools, and option 7 does not. Westland’s land footprint is twice the size of the new school’s. So, even though, under option 1, it starts with an enrollment at 96% of capacity, Westland has enough flat space to accommodate new students with additional facilities and still have a larger set of fields and other outside facilities than the new school. The new school is being built into the slopes of the old park in order to preserve the little remaining flat space for fields and parking, which is significantly less than Westland’s. Under option 7, at 99% of capacity, where will addition facilities be built at the new school to accommodate the influx of students, on the trackbaseballsoccer-overlay field? On the space between the retaining walls? It’s nice that Westland will be at 82% of capacity under option 7, but how will that solve the new school’s capacity issue?

Although PPs have pointed out that, under option 7, the new school will have three times the FARMS rate as Westland, and that Westland will have significantly lower minority population and a significantly higher white population than the new school, that has not been the core of the opposition discussion. From a facility/capacity standpoint, the Superintendent’s recommendation for option 7 just makes no sense.

See you are getting all bent out of shape because of your pet issue here, utilization and RCF is spazzing out over their issue which is proximity/transportation. I dont' think the capacity is trivial, yes ma'am its a concern and so is the transportation issue. Unfortunately, hard decisions were made and your issue didn't make the cut. I understand your frustration but part of growing up is that you don't get everything you want. No one would be 100% happy here on the eastern part of the cluster where we have to face most of the burden. So based on everything laid out in front of the superintendent he made a compromise. I personally have to get ready for the long commute to Westland but I'm very happy that RCF neighborhood parents will not face the same hardship.

See how that works?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are always people who live close to a school who aren't zoned for it-- it's almost mathematically impossible to send everyone to the closest school. I know families a couple blocks from Westland that go to Pyle. Complaining about that at this point is beside the point.

Yes. I live in Kensington. We are bisected with three different school districts.

If Montgomery County was structured at the town level rather than the county level, like Massachusetts, then we could incorporate all of 20895 plus whatever Garret Park into our own little city and then all go to Kensington Parkwood, New Middle School and Einstein together. That would be great. But that is not reality and no other area in Montgomery County is structured like that.

There are more sections of Kensington and the 20895 zip code but I guess those don't qualify in your mind. Not everyone wants to be a part of the Town, which is why we bought out of bounds.

You misread my post. 20895 is coterminous with all areas that have a Kensington address. Much larger than the Town. I also don't live in the Town and none of the schools I mentioned are actually in the very small Town boundaries. I was suggesting a different form of political governance, based on large towns rather than a county. This is common in other parts of our country, like in New England. There are positives and negatives of each approach, but people tend to be more involved in local government if power is devolved, so on the whole that would be my preference.

The Town right now is really silly, it's only 2,000 people and had no real power. I was envisioning a larger incorporated area of 25,000 with its own schools, police, etc. But I was also suggesting this will never happen, so given the county's current governance structure there is no logical reason to reorganize school boundaries without devolved political power to run the new Kensington schools that PP was envisioning.

Also, for other PP, my post was incorrect when I said it was three "districts." I meant three clusters. Thanks for clarifying.

We could have bought in the town of Kensington and when we rented there, we were not at all impressed with the politics. Many of us living on the poor side of the tracks make $200,000+ and choose our small homes which has a much better community feel than do the other parts of Kensington or even Chevy Chase.

They should have rebuilt Leland and put it in Chevy Chase where all the kids are being bussed from. It makes no sense to have a school in Kensington that Kensington kids are not allowed.

Let's try this again. It's not in Kensington. It has the same zip code as Kensington, but it's not in Kensington. Further, it never was in Kensington. Kensington is a town with a defined border. The school is outside that border. Arguing that the Town of Kensington should go there is like arguing the Town of Kensington should go to Einstein, which is located in North Kensington, also outside the town's border.

B-CC Middle School #2
Address: 3701 Saul Road
Kensington, MD

I believe the previous posters were not speaking of the "Town of Kensington", but Kensington itself.

There is much more to Kensington than just the town. Very few people care about the town. A bunch of crappy stores and rules that don't allow anything decent to come in. No one calls the part of Kensington "North Kensington." It has its own distinct sections, including Homewood which is a lovely area.

It actually makes no sense to bus kids to WJ over Einstein. WJ is no where near Kensington.

It makes sense to the people who paid $600,000 for the house in the WJ district instead of $450,000 for the same house in the Einstein district.

You need to re-orient your mind. According to PPs, the higher price for the WJ house is really a tax to keep poor people out of WJ. (Sarcasm)

Exactly. I hope ToK and other Kensington neighorhoods get booted out of WJ cluster. It makes NO sense. Those students need to go to Einstein with everyone else from Kensington. Maybe then they might do some work to get equality in that school. And I'd have a chuckle about their declining home value just across the road from me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are always people who live close to a school who aren't zoned for it-- it's almost mathematically impossible to send everyone to the closest school. I know families a couple blocks from Westland that go to Pyle. Complaining about that at this point is beside the point.

Yes. I live in Kensington. We are bisected with three different school districts.

If Montgomery County was structured at the town level rather than the county level, like Massachusetts, then we could incorporate all of 20895 plus whatever Garret Park into our own little city and then all go to Kensington Parkwood, New Middle School and Einstein together. That would be great. But that is not reality and no other area in Montgomery County is structured like that.

There are more sections of Kensington and the 20895 zip code but I guess those don't qualify in your mind. Not everyone wants to be a part of the Town, which is why we bought out of bounds.

You misread my post. 20895 is coterminous with all areas that have a Kensington address. Much larger than the Town. I also don't live in the Town and none of the schools I mentioned are actually in the very small Town boundaries. I was suggesting a different form of political governance, based on large towns rather than a county. This is common in other parts of our country, like in New England. There are positives and negatives of each approach, but people tend to be more involved in local government if power is devolved, so on the whole that would be my preference.

The Town right now is really silly, it's only 2,000 people and had no real power. I was envisioning a larger incorporated area of 25,000 with its own schools, police, etc. But I was also suggesting this will never happen, so given the county's current governance structure there is no logical reason to reorganize school boundaries without devolved political power to run the new Kensington schools that PP was envisioning.

Also, for other PP, my post was incorrect when I said it was three "districts." I meant three clusters. Thanks for clarifying.

We could have bought in the town of Kensington and when we rented there, we were not at all impressed with the politics. Many of us living on the poor side of the tracks make $200,000+ and choose our small homes which has a much better community feel than do the other parts of Kensington or even Chevy Chase.

They should have rebuilt Leland and put it in Chevy Chase where all the kids are being bussed from. It makes no sense to have a school in Kensington that Kensington kids are not allowed.

Let's try this again. It's not in Kensington. It has the same zip code as Kensington, but it's not in Kensington. Further, it never was in Kensington. Kensington is a town with a defined border. The school is outside that border. Arguing that the Town of Kensington should go there is like arguing the Town of Kensington should go to Einstein, which is located in North Kensington, also outside the town's border.

B-CC Middle School #2
Address: 3701 Saul Road
Kensington, MD

I believe the previous posters were not speaking of the "Town of Kensington", but Kensington itself.

There is much more to Kensington than just the town. Very few people care about the town. A bunch of crappy stores and rules that don't allow anything decent to come in. No one calls the part of Kensington "North Kensington." It has its own distinct sections, including Homewood which is a lovely area.

It actually makes no sense to bus kids to WJ over Einstein. WJ is no where near Kensington.

It makes sense to the people who paid $600,000 for the house in the WJ district instead of $450,000 for the same house in the Einstein district.

You need to re-orient your mind. According to PPs, the higher price for the WJ house is really a tax to keep poor people out of WJ. (Sarcasm)

Exactly. I hope ToK and other Kensington neighorhoods get booted out of WJ cluster. It makes NO sense. Those students need to go to Einstein with everyone else from Kensington. Maybe then they might do some work to get equality in that school. And I'd have a chuckle about their declining home value just across the road from me.

But not everyone else from Kensington goes to Einstein. There are about a half a dozen neighborhoods that go to B-CC and who will go to the new middle school. You know, the one that is the actual topic of this thread?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a Chevy Chase parent I would want my children to attend the less crowded school WITH the Silver Spring kids they have been paired with since Kindergarten. I would also like them to be with the NCC kids they attended K-2 and are currently on sports teams right now, but would give that up for a less crowded school.

I currently have a child at Westland and the overcrowding is ridiculous. Really no child can express their voice or learn much in a class with 35 other kids, especially with this dumbed down curriculum.

Middle school is not like elementary school, there is much less parental involvement in the school. The distance is not that big of a deal, it's a pain on school event nights during rush hour but that is just a handful of times a year.

If I was a Rock Creek Forest parent, I would want to continue to go to Westland. I wouldn't want my kids crammed into a new middle school just because it was closer.

We are talking about maybe a 10-20 minute difference in bus rides. The morning bus picks up so early it misses rush hour, and the afternoon just catches a piece of the beginning of high traffic time.

What is unfair is to bus the CCES and NCC kids back and forth in the BCC cluster and then continue to place them in overcrowded schools when the opportunity exists to split the populations in a fair socio-economic manner.

This is astonishing! The sole reason that RCF supported #6 is for the FARMS populations overwhelming support of it. They would be most impacted and they view things differently i.e. I would rather have a crowded school than to not ever be able to visit the school. So you are addressing the wrong people in this forum and are disconnected to the population who is advocating for this.

Hello? It's not all about RCF. There are other schools involved here, too. They're concerns should just get flushed because RCF doesn't agree with them.

Exactly, other schools concerns should be considered!

* The Triad didn't want to get split up - Check
* The Triad wanted to go to the closest school - Check
*The Triad thought it fine to have demographic difference similar to option #1 which option #7 fulfills - Check
* The Triad wants the school to less crowed - Sorry Triad you can't have it all!

Uh, hold the phone.

The eastern triad "thought it fine to have demographic difference similar to option #1 which option #7 fulfills" UNCHECK that one, pal. Option 7 is no way similar to Option 1, and we don't have to debate what you consider "similar" to mean. To quote a PP from several pages ago, "Option 7 still maxes out the capacity of the new school while creating a more affluent, less diverse school with excess capacity. That inequity would be bad enough, but it exacerbates the inequitable educational facilities that we start with. The new school is built on hilly land that is less than half the size of Westland. The new school has less physical plant (in all fairness, not a catastrophe), and less outside facilities, than Westland. Never mind the lack of fairness, how is this new school supposed to accommodate any future growth? Under the worst case scenario, Westland can build on its site."

That PP asked, "why is it that the new, less equitable school goes to the community with more diversity and three times the FARMS rate of the larger, more affluent school?" If that question doesn't concern you, fine. You can't escape the reality that, according to the Superintendent's recommendation, Option 7 condems the new school to over-crowding while Westland will operate at 82-83% of capacity.

Finally, is this a discussion about form, or is it a discussion about substance? Are you saying that because the eastern triad recieved three decisions you consider wins, we should do something stupid to avoid giving the eastern triad a fourth win? What if the fourth issue were human sacrifice; would you say that we have to start killing people because the eastern triad already had three wins?

Look similar to me.... As for your form or substance comment, I wasn't the one who stated that the whole process is derailed because of one school RCF who only got a half of a concession they advocated for when the Triad wants it all. Thank you Jack Smith!

Bethesda-Chevy Chase MS #2 Westland MS
MS#2 Westland
Option 1 Option 7 Option 1 Option 7
African-American 16.7 17.5 10.4 8
Asian <5 <5 7 7.7
Hispanic 14.9 17.5 15.2 12.2
White 58.6 55.4 63.1 67.7
Two or More Races 6.5 6 <5 <5

FARMS 9.7 15.4 11.3 5.1
ESOL <5 5.5 6.5 5.3

You really are amazing. You keep bringing the discussion back to demographics so we get mired in a debate over which numbers are significant. Yet, you avoid the other chart, Utilization, which actually is the focus of the concerns raised by PPs.

Within five years of opening, under option 1, the new school (with a capacity of 935 students) will be at 83% of capacity, and Westland (with a capacity of 1,079 students) will be at 96% of capacity. Under option 7, the new school will be at 99% of capacity, and Westland will be at 82% of capacity. The Lyttonsville and Chevy Chase Lake Sector Plans anticipate growth in enrollment at the new school, and the Downtown Bethesda Plan (if it happens) anticipates growth in enrollment at Westland.

Notwithstanding the enrollment numbers at Westland, Option 1 allows for growth at both schools, and option 7 does not. Westland’s land footprint is twice the size of the new school’s. So, even though, under option 1, it starts with an enrollment at 96% of capacity, Westland has enough flat space to accommodate new students with additional facilities and still have a larger set of fields and other outside facilities than the new school. The new school is being built into the slopes of the old park in order to preserve the little remaining flat space for fields and parking, which is significantly less than Westland’s. Under option 7, at 99% of capacity, where will addition facilities be built at the new school to accommodate the influx of students, on the trackbaseballsoccer-overlay field? On the space between the retaining walls? It’s nice that Westland will be at 82% of capacity under option 7, but how will that solve the new school’s capacity issue?

Although PPs have pointed out that, under option 7, the new school will have three times the FARMS rate as Westland, and that Westland will have significantly lower minority population and a significantly higher white population than the new school, that has not been the core of the opposition discussion. From a facility/capacity standpoint, the Superintendent’s recommendation for option 7 just makes no sense.

See you are getting all bent out of shape because of your pet issue here, utilization and RCF is spazzing out over their issue which is proximity/transportation. I dont' think the capacity is trivial, yes ma'am its a concern and so is the transportation issue. Unfortunately, hard decisions were made and your issue didn't make the cut. I understand your frustration but part of growing up is that you don't get everything you want. No one would be 100% happy here on the eastern part of the cluster where we have to face most of the burden. So based on everything laid out in front of the superintendent he made a compromise. I personally have to get ready for the long commute to Westland but I'm very happy that RCF neighborhood parents will not face the same hardship.

See how that works?

So enlightened. I wish I had your broad view of things.

This is not about growing up or getting everything you want, and while this kind of disrespectful riposte has crept into our current social exchanges, it really is just a facade covering up the fact that there’s a real issue you don’t want to address. Under your analysis, you view the elements of the mix as interchangeable, but there are some issues that have a greater impact than others.

The capacity issue, affecting several communities, has been laid out. The desire to reduce transportation for one community also has been laid out. If you don’t see the difference, our back-and-forth is not going to change things. Hopefully, there will be others in the decision-making process that are will to engage in a thoughtful exchange. That doesn’t mean my view will prevail, but at least we will take comfort in the fact that both sides tried to understand the substance of this matter.