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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OK, yes, I don't think anyone objects to the RHPS families advocating for this. But these families, who obviously don't like the bussing situation, are now saying that to be fair RCF families should have to deal with the same thing? Like, we're in a bad situation, so you should be too? Instead - advocate for the RCF families going to school nearby, and then maybe they will support RHPS families in a push to end bussing. Good for all!

(But just as a side note, my K student takes the bus and freakin' loves it, as do the other K students we know. So the poor little K student taking the bus thing of the prior post does seem a bit dramatic).

[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.

+1. Or change the use of nearby parks like Elm Park and Norwood Park. Or get creative and start purchasing or reining land. Why aren't we digging the parking lots behind the east side of Wisconsin Avenue and topping them with greenspace. MCPS could have partnered with the county to have more parking and more greenspace. Or they could have built a much larger middle school at Norwood, with racial balance, by simply changing some of the roads.

The lack of creativity in the site selection process was apalling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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..

I would chose Westland as well. I actually live much closer to Westland than the new middle and it is far more convenient for my kids to go there, transportation wise. My older bikes all the way to Westland on the trail to and from school. Takes him 15 minutes. Convenient and healthy for him and for our family. My younger sons will not get to do the same thing under this new alignment. If the Super is going to base his decision on proximity, then let the CCES kids be able to bike to school on the trail. But we all know the Superintendent isn't worried about how my kids get to school, just the ones at RCF.

I think Chevy Chase areas nearer to Westland should get to go to Westland. Heck give everyone the option, school choice! Let people in CCES, NCC and RCF decide where they want to go. I guarantee not all the RCF parents see the new middle as the be all end all and are steamed at the new middle lines too. The ones who are smart see the larger facility, fields and under capacity as the huge bonuses they are. No one wants to be in an overcrowded school. I would drive miles to get away from an overcrowded school, knowing that a school with fewer kids is ultimately better for my kids. I don't want my kids at a school that is at capacity on the first day it opens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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..

I would chose Westland as well. I actually live much closer to Westland than the new middle and it is far more convenient for my kids to go there, transportation wise. My older bikes all the way to Westland on the trail to and from school. Takes him 15 minutes. Convenient and healthy for him and for our family. My younger sons will not get to do the same thing under this new alignment. If the Super is going to base his decision on proximity, then let the CCES kids be able to bike to school on the trail. But we all know the Superintendent isn't worried about how my kids get to school, just the ones at RCF.

I think Chevy Chase areas nearer to Westland should get to go to Westland. Heck give everyone the option, school choice! Let people in CCES, NCC and RCF decide where they want to go. I guarantee not all the RCF parents see the new middle as the be all end all and are steamed at the new middle lines too. The ones who are smart see the larger facility, fields and under capacity as the huge bonuses they are. No one wants to be in an overcrowded school. I would drive miles to get away from an overcrowded school, knowing that a school with fewer kids is ultimately better for my kids. I don't want my kids at a school that is at capacity on the first day it opens.

Hmmm, we're in the immersion program at RCF, and I think you've just convinced me to be happy that our group will stay at Westland. The new middle location is much closer to us, but maybe Westland is the better bet, despite the distance. Of course we feel lucky to be in immersion at all, so either option is fine with me in the end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1. Or change the use of nearby parks like Elm Park and Norwood Park. Or get creative and start purchasing or reining land. Why aren't we digging the parking lots behind the east side of Wisconsin Avenue and topping them with greenspace. MCPS could have partnered with the county to have more parking and more greenspace. Or they could have built a much larger middle school at Norwood, with racial balance, by simply changing some of the roads.

The lack of creativity in the site selection process was apalling.

Norwood Park was on the list of considered sites but was a problem in part due to the very limited access and also because of the historic landmark right smack in the middle of it. Elm Street Park is one square block - are you suggesting that is adequate for a middle school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OK, yes, I don't think anyone objects to the RHPS families advocating for this. But these families, who obviously don't like the bussing situation, are now saying that to be fair RCF families should have to deal with the same thing? Like, we're in a bad situation, so you should be too? Instead - advocate for the RCF families going to school nearby, and then maybe they will support RHPS families in a push to end bussing. Good for all!

(But just as a side note, my K student takes the bus and freakin' loves it, as do the other K students we know. So the poor little K student taking the bus thing of the prior post does seem a bit dramatic).

Well, good for your precious little snowflake that she loves the bus so much! Let me educate you on what RHPS kids go through. My kids hate it because the bus ride from RHPS to our house is 45 minutes long as they are the last stop. My son gets off the bus every single day car sick and complaining. Your RCF kid probably spend 5-10 minutes on the bus max, most of RCF kids are walkable to their school. Totally different scenario as you have had the luxury of a neighborhood school unlike RHPS kids who have been bused straight into another city. RCF families can't even see they have cut their nose off to spite their face. Welcome to the overcrowded new middle school RCF! Your kids will be in a school bursting at the seams instead of in a more moderately occupied school. Geez, you people are insane. Give me the school, any school, with the fewer kids and bigger better facility and fields.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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..

I would chose Westland as well. I actually live much closer to Westland than the new middle and it is far more convenient for my kids to go there, transportation wise. My older bikes all the way to Westland on the trail to and from school. Takes him 15 minutes. Convenient and healthy for him and for our family. My younger sons will not get to do the same thing under this new alignment. If the Super is going to base his decision on proximity, then let the CCES kids be able to bike to school on the trail. But we all know the Superintendent isn't worried about how my kids get to school, just the ones at RCF.

I think Chevy Chase areas nearer to Westland should get to go to Westland. Heck give everyone the option, school choice! Let people in CCES, NCC and RCF decide where they want to go. I guarantee not all the RCF parents see the new middle as the be all end all and are steamed at the new middle lines too. The ones who are smart see the larger facility, fields and under capacity as the huge bonuses they are. No one wants to be in an overcrowded school. I would drive miles to get away from an overcrowded school, knowing that a school with fewer kids is ultimately better for my kids. I don't want my kids at a school that is at capacity on the first day it opens.

Why would you say they only care about RCF kids. The decision could have easily gone the other way. Furthermore, CCES and NCC decided that for the purposes of this study they didn't want to split. The board and super took that into consideration. You guys. Ouldve supported a split.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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..

I would chose Westland as well. I actually live much closer to Westland than the new middle and it is far more convenient for my kids to go there, transportation wise. My older bikes all the way to Westland on the trail to and from school. Takes him 15 minutes. Convenient and healthy for him and for our family. My younger sons will not get to do the same thing under this new alignment. If the Super is going to base his decision on proximity, then let the CCES kids be able to bike to school on the trail. But we all know the Superintendent isn't worried about how my kids get to school, just the ones at RCF.

I think Chevy Chase areas nearer to Westland should get to go to Westland. Heck give everyone the option, school choice! Let people in CCES, NCC and RCF decide where they want to go. I guarantee not all the RCF parents see the new middle as the be all end all and are steamed at the new middle lines too. The ones who are smart see the larger facility, fields and under capacity as the huge bonuses they are. No one wants to be in an overcrowded school. I would drive miles to get away from an overcrowded school, knowing that a school with fewer kids is ultimately better for my kids. I don't want my kids at a school that is at capacity on the first day it opens.

Hmmm, we're in the immersion program at RCF, and I think you've just convinced me to be happy that our group will stay at Westland. The new middle location is much closer to us, but maybe Westland is the better bet, despite the distance. Of course we feel lucky to be in immersion at all, so either option is fine with me in the end.

You are definitely better off. The RCF immersion kids are going to have a better experience at Westland. Better facility, less crowded halls, more time with teachers, better fields. You lucked out that you weren't lumped in that group. Be happy, because I would be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OK, yes, I don't think anyone objects to the RHPS families advocating for this. But these families, who obviously don't like the bussing situation, are now saying that to be fair RCF families should have to deal with the same thing? Like, we're in a bad situation, so you should be too? Instead - advocate for the RCF families going to school nearby, and then maybe they will support RHPS families in a push to end bussing. Good for all!

(But just as a side note, my K student takes the bus and freakin' loves it, as do the other K students we know. So the poor little K student taking the bus thing of the prior post does seem a bit dramatic).

Well, good for your precious little snowflake that she loves the bus so much! Let me educate you on what RHPS kids go through. My kids hate it because the bus ride from RHPS to our house is 45 minutes long as they are the last stop. My son gets off the bus every single day car sick and complaining. Your RCF kid probably spend 5-10 minutes on the bus max, most of RCF kids are walkable to their school. Totally different scenario as you have had the luxury of a neighborhood school unlike RHPS kids who have been bused straight into another city. RCF families can't even see they have cut their nose off to spite their face. Welcome to the overcrowded new middle school RCF! Your kids will be in a school bursting at the seams instead of in a more moderately occupied school. Geez, you people are insane. Give me the school, any school, with the fewer kids and bigger better facility and fields.

PP you are responding to: first of all, why are you assuming that my child goes to RCF? Second of all, my K student does also have a 45 minute bus ride, as do his K friends. They love it. I'm sorry your kid gets car sick - I don't think that is the norm. Look, it's great you prioritize a school with fewer kids and better facilities. Some prioritize proximity. Both are fine points of view.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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..

I would chose Westland as well. I actually live much closer to Westland than the new middle and it is far more convenient for my kids to go there, transportation wise. My older bikes all the way to Westland on the trail to and from school. Takes him 15 minutes. Convenient and healthy for him and for our family. My younger sons will not get to do the same thing under this new alignment. If the Super is going to base his decision on proximity, then let the CCES kids be able to bike to school on the trail. But we all know the Superintendent isn't worried about how my kids get to school, just the ones at RCF.

I think Chevy Chase areas nearer to Westland should get to go to Westland. Heck give everyone the option, school choice! Let people in CCES, NCC and RCF decide where they want to go. I guarantee not all the RCF parents see the new middle as the be all end all and are steamed at the new middle lines too. The ones who are smart see the larger facility, fields and under capacity as the huge bonuses they are. No one wants to be in an overcrowded school. I would drive miles to get away from an overcrowded school, knowing that a school with fewer kids is ultimately better for my kids. I don't want my kids at a school that is at capacity on the first day it opens.

Why would you say they only care about RCF kids. The decision could have easily gone the other way. Furthermore, CCES and NCC decided that for the purposes of this study they didn't want to split. The board and super took that into consideration. You guys. Ouldve supported a split.

I and others I know would have supported a supported a split in a heart beat if they did away with RHPS which is comprised of kids bused in from Chevy Chase neighborhoods into Silver Spring and let us have our own neighborhood schools like everyone else in Montco. Montco said they would not do away with RHPS. But it they did, then there would be zero need to keep NCC and CCES kids together as they would be at different schools anyway and would never have the relationships that are ripped apart in 2nd grade and promised they can have back in 6th grade. Since equity doesn't matter as stated by this new decision and proximity does, then RHPS needs to be split into three neighborhood K-5 schools and quit giving these kids the short end of the stick. If you aren't going to bus middle schoolers in the name of equity, then quit busing my kindergartner!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OK, yes, I don't think anyone objects to the RHPS families advocating for this. But these families, who obviously don't like the bussing situation, are now saying that to be fair RCF families should have to deal with the same thing? Like, we're in a bad situation, so you should be too? Instead - advocate for the RCF families going to school nearby, and then maybe they will support RHPS families in a push to end bussing. Good for all!

(But just as a side note, my K student takes the bus and freakin' loves it, as do the other K students we know. So the poor little K student taking the bus thing of the prior post does seem a bit dramatic).

That's exactly it, PP: as you note, CCES and NCC are "in a bad situation" as you put it -- but we're only there because MCPS leadership decided at some point that diversity was more important than convenience for our neighborhoods. OK, if that's your logic, then why isn't diversity in the middle schools more important than convenience? Why does ease of transportation matter more for RCF - and the rest of Bethesda for that matter - than it does for us in Chevy Chase? The county can't have it both ways. If diversity is a lower priority, great, then let my 1st grader walk to his neighborhood school, which isn't Rosemary Hills.

It's not about the horrors of a bus ride. My kids didn't mind the bus. It does create a lot of complications for families and once you have a child in CCES or NCC, you realize how much nicer it is to have a neighborhood school. The real point is that there should be some basic consistency, if not across the county then at least within the BCC cluster. You can't tell me that my 5yo should be sent to a different school to achieve a certain social goal, but then insist that the same social goal is not a priority for older kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, but the impact on one school is being elevated over the impacts on other schools. I would gladly trade going to school close to home for a school that's not over-crowded from day one. If RCF wants to stay local, then let those of us in NCC go to Westland. If you want to bring Somerset up to the new school for balance or to round out the numbers, that's fine with me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OK, yes, I don't think anyone objects to the RHPS families advocating for this. But these families, who obviously don't like the bussing situation, are now saying that to be fair RCF families should have to deal with the same thing? Like, we're in a bad situation, so you should be too? Instead - advocate for the RCF families going to school nearby, and then maybe they will support RHPS families in a push to end bussing. Good for all!

(But just as a side note, my K student takes the bus and freakin' loves it, as do the other K students we know. So the poor little K student taking the bus thing of the prior post does seem a bit dramatic).

Well, good for your precious little snowflake that she loves the bus so much! Let me educate you on what RHPS kids go through. My kids hate it because the bus ride from RHPS to our house is 45 minutes long as they are the last stop. My son gets off the bus every single day car sick and complaining. Your RCF kid probably spend 5-10 minutes on the bus max, most of RCF kids are walkable to their school. Totally different scenario as you have had the luxury of a neighborhood school unlike RHPS kids who have been bused straight into another city. RCF families can't even see they have cut their nose off to spite their face. Welcome to the overcrowded new middle school RCF! Your kids will be in a school bursting at the seams instead of in a more moderately occupied school. Geez, you people are insane. Give me the school, any school, with the fewer kids and bigger better facility and fields.

PP you are responding to: first of all, why are you assuming that my child goes to RCF? Second of all, my K student does also have a 45 minute bus ride, as do his K friends. They love it. I'm sorry your kid gets car sick - I don't think that is the norm. Look, it's great you prioritize a school with fewer kids and better facilities. Some prioritize proximity. Both are fine points of view.

Uh, both are fine points of view until you start imposing one view on someone else. Like other PPs, I prioritize a school with fewer kids and better facilities. I believe that most of the other PTAs, except for one, had a similar focus. It certainly was the motivation for building the new school, but the new, unelected superintendent knew better and chose a different solution. Perhaps we've all gotten too used to this autocratic mentality, but something has broken down when the will of the taxpayers can be overidden with caprice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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..

I would chose Westland as well. I actually live much closer to Westland than the new middle and it is far more convenient for my kids to go there, transportation wise. My older bikes all the way to Westland on the trail to and from school. Takes him 15 minutes. Convenient and healthy for him and for our family. My younger sons will not get to do the same thing under this new alignment. If the Super is going to base his decision on proximity, then let the CCES kids be able to bike to school on the trail. But we all know the Superintendent isn't worried about how my kids get to school, just the ones at RCF.

I think Chevy Chase areas nearer to Westland should get to go to Westland. Heck give everyone the option, school choice! Let people in CCES, NCC and RCF decide where they want to go. I guarantee not all the RCF parents see the new middle as the be all end all and are steamed at the new middle lines too. The ones who are smart see the larger facility, fields and under capacity as the huge bonuses they are. No one wants to be in an overcrowded school. I would drive miles to get away from an overcrowded school, knowing that a school with fewer kids is ultimately better for my kids. I don't want my kids at a school that is at capacity on the first day it opens.

Hmmm, we're in the immersion program at RCF, and I think you've just convinced me to be happy that our group will stay at Westland. The new middle location is much closer to us, but maybe Westland is the better bet, despite the distance. Of course we feel lucky to be in immersion at all, so either option is fine with me in the end.

You are definitely better off. The RCF immersion kids are going to have a better experience at Westland. Better facility, less crowded halls, more time with teachers, better fields. You lucked out that you weren't lumped in that group. Be happy, because I would be.

What is the deal with this immersion program and shipping kids in from out of cluster? Is this program causing the population increases that spark the need for construction at BCC? Why not offer immersion in the home clusters of these students?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1. Or change the use of nearby parks like Elm Park and Norwood Park. Or get creative and start purchasing or reining land. Why aren't we digging the parking lots behind the east side of Wisconsin Avenue and topping them with greenspace. MCPS could have partnered with the county to have more parking and more greenspace. Or they could have built a much larger middle school at Norwood, with racial balance, by simply changing some of the roads.

The lack of creativity in the site selection process was apalling.

Norwood Park was on the list of considered sites but was a problem in part due to the very limited access and also because of the historic landmark right smack in the middle of it. Elm Street Park is one square block - are you suggesting that is adequate for a middle school?

It was adequate for those who went to Leland so why isn't it ok now. Not everyone uses the fields so only the sports teams benefit. BCC is in walking distance. After school they can walk to BCC. Or, they could have bought up the nearby houses to make them fields. Why should Kensington have to deal with the traffic, noise and all the crap that comes along with a school and none of our kids are eligible to go. Maybe we don't want your kids in our neighborhoods any more than you don't want our "poor" kids in your neighborhood.

I think its funny as when I grew up, Chevy Chase was much more in the middle. Lots of gov't workers as the housing was affordable.