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

[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.

So, forget about the kids. You're real issue is that you envy your neighbors?

[Anonymous]

I think it will be awesome when the new middle school is ultimately rezoned for Einstein! Only other thing the county needs to do is fund more low income housing smack dab in the W cluster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it will be awesome when the new middle school is ultimately rezoned for Einstein! Only other thing the county needs to do is fund more low income housing smack dab in the W cluster.

Are families actually afraid of this? Shit would hit the FAN if MCPS rezoned the new MS for Einstein. Bwahahahaha!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it will be awesome when the new middle school is ultimately rezoned for Einstein! Only other thing the county needs to do is fund more low income housing smack dab in the W cluster.

Are families actually afraid of this? Shit would hit the FAN if MCPS rezoned the new MS for Einstein. Bwahahahaha!

Or, the new middle school might get some needed resources from MCPS.

BTW, are you trying to see if someone takes the bait so you can construct a narrative?

[Anonymous]

I am an NCC parent who strongly supported Option 1, as did most of the parents I know. Fwiw, these include families like my own, who are mixed race/ethnicities and have personal experience with immigration.

However, if the Board votes for Option 7, let's be clear what that means: it means that the new superintendent and the Board do not believe kids should be bussed to support greater racial and socio-economic diversity. Okay. Then stop busing my kids to RHPS; let them go to their neighborhood school just like every other part of Bethesda.

Cause if it's okay to bus 5yos to achieve a desired social outcome, it ought to be okay to bus 12-14yos. Just don't make the families in CC and NCC the only ones who are expected to sacrifice convenience and a neighborhood school to achieve diversity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So, forget about the kids. You're real issue is that you envy your neighbors?

You do realize people on the other side of the tracks are often just as comfortable as those in the town. Many of us choose to live in a more family oriented neighborhood that has a much more friendly feel. We could easily move to the WJ section. If I move, I'm getting out of the county as MCPS has greatly declined and is riding off of old reputation vs. doing a good job educating our kids. Our home values have not declined at all. They have stayed stable.

[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.

Funny, it worked fine for many years as a middle school. It was not way to small. The town doesn't want all the noise and buses in the community. I grew up there. I remember the old Leland very well. Kids could be bused or walk to BCC for the field. Or, they do without like many other schools do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it will be awesome when the new middle school is ultimately rezoned for Einstein! Only other thing the county needs to do is fund more low income housing smack dab in the W cluster.

Are families actually afraid of this? Shit would hit the FAN if MCPS rezoned the new MS for Einstein. Bwahahahaha!

Or, the new middle school might get some needed resources from MCPS.

BTW, are you trying to see if someone takes the bait so you can construct a narrative?

Personally think this is much ado about nothing. Of course parents want the best for their children, but these changes will have little to no impact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Looking forward to my property value going up based on this decision

I'm confused (new to this issue) - whose property values are expected to go up? Those feeding to the brand new school or those staying with Westland?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Funny, it worked fine for many years as a middle school. It was not way to small. The town doesn't want all the noise and buses in the community. I grew up there. I remember the old Leland very well. Kids could be bused or walk to BCC for the field. Or, they do without like many other schools do.

PP you are quoting - I'm too young to remember Leland as a middle school but I grew up very nearby, my dad (who went to Western and BCC) has friends who went there, I have taught and taken MCRD classes there, my kids have done activities there, I have early voted there, we applied to the preschool there, etc. etc. etc. I am ridiculously familiar with the site. That site, in 2016, is in no way compatible with the guidelines that MCPS has set for middle school facilities to be built in the county. That's why it was right out. I agree with you that the town would probably not want it there, but it never got to that point because the size of the site was like a quarter of the minimum recommended. Total non-starter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm confused - aren't the other neighborhoods zoned for the new middle school also getting the benefit of reduced transportation in addition to RCF? Yes, I understand these schools are bussed in the primary years, but don't act like RCF is the only school that benefits from a decision based on proximity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm confused - aren't the other neighborhoods zoned for the new middle school also getting the benefit of reduced transportation in addition to RCF? Yes, I understand these schools are bussed in the primary years, but don't act like RCF is the only school that benefits from a decision based on proximity.

It sounds like it's an issue of priorities. Some people place a higher priority on convenience, other people place a higher priority on the quality of education, and still others fall somewhere in between.

To be fair, though, the Superintendent did focus on the transportation issue, and that has been raised for some here. A PP said that people who don't like option 7 should offer to go to the school they want. If that were an option, I would stay at Westland, even with the long commute, based on the facilities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm confused - aren't the other neighborhoods zoned for the new middle school also getting the benefit of reduced transportation in addition to RCF? Yes, I understand these schools are bussed in the primary years, but don't act like RCF is the only school that benefits from a decision based on proximity.

Exactly! Every single school in the cluster is benefitting from reduced transportation. All of them. There was an option to have Somerset bussed as well as Bethesda. So it's not a one school issue it impacts every school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: It sounds like it's an issue of priorities. Some people place a higher priority on convenience, other people place a higher priority on the quality of education, and still others fall somewhere in between.

To be fair, though, the Superintendent did focus on the transportation issue, and that has been raised for some here. A PP said that people who don't like option 7 should offer to go to the school they want. If that were an option, I would stay at Westland, even with the long commute, based on the facilities. ?

It can always be proposed..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am an NCC parent who strongly supported Option 1, as did most of the parents I know. Fwiw, these include families like my own, who are mixed race/ethnicities and have personal experience with immigration.

However, if the Board votes for Option 7, let's be clear what that means: it means that the new superintendent and the Board do not believe kids should be bussed to support greater racial and socio-economic diversity. Okay. Then stop busing my kids to RHPS; let them go to their neighborhood school just like every other part of Bethesda.

Cause if it's okay to bus 5yos to achieve a desired social outcome, it ought to be okay to bus 12-14yos. Just don't make the families in CC and NCC the only ones who are expected to sacrifice convenience and a neighborhood school to achieve diversity.

THANK YOU!!!! THIS ALL DAY LONG! What the Superintendent did was a slap in the face to RHPS families who have sacrificed having neighborhood elementary schools to achieve equity in the lower income neighborhood that houses RHPS. Stop busing tiny Kindergarteners out of their neighborhoods to achieve a more balanced racial and socio economic if the Super is saying it doesn't matter! Why would the Super think it is acceptable to bus 5 year olds out of their home neighborhoods to a neighborhood several miles away for school but that a 12 to 14 year old can't hack the same bus trip in the name of socioeconomic equity. If this decision stands, then the NCC and CCES communities need to rise up and demand an end to bussing tiny children who live in Chevy Chase to Silver Spring. Montco can't have it both ways! Either socioeconomic equity is important or it isn't. Montco Schools and the Super are being a hypocrits and need to be called out.