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

[Anonymous]

sorry --affected. It's late.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

We say they only care about RCF kids because they addressed that neighborhood's needs above all others. The result is that all the communities involved now will go to an overcrowded school so that RCF does not have to commute as they do now. And when we complain, we're told that we don't like mixing with poor kids or that the socio-economic demographics that required us to ship our kindergarteners out of our neighborhoods and split articulations really don't matter all that much. I don't believe that, but, for the sake of a shorter commute, some people are making socio-economic demographics look like a convenient argument when it suits their purposes.

But it does consider the needs of other schools beyond RCF! It takes into account proximity of the other elementary schools. It also doesn't split up (i.e. "tear apart") the Triad schools. And RCF didn't get everything it wanted...it advocated for its programs not being split up, but they are - immersion stays at Westland under this option. So really no one fully won, and no one fully lost in terms of what they were asking for.

Whenever I wonder why we have a felon and a lunatic running for president, I need look no further than these posts. It''s not about who gets everything they want. It's about what's right and what's wrong. Inequitable academic facilities are wrong, regardless of demographics. Option 7 creates inequitable academic facilities. It should not be implemented.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It seems t me that the should decide what kids are going to a school first then build the school that will accommodate them instead of build a school and then find out at the end that the surrounding schools don't fit.

Yes, they should, but then they wouldn't be able to railroad their decisions. By building first, they con all the PTAs into supporting the site selection on the hope that they'all get a new school. Then, they announce the superintendent's recommendation with a short turn-around time for a decision so the opposition can't get organized. Integrity isn't at the core here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

We say they only care about RCF kids because they addressed that neighborhood's needs above all others. The result is that all the communities involved now will go to an overcrowded school so that RCF does not have to commute as they do now. And when we complain, we're told that we don't like mixing with poor kids or that the socio-economic demographics that required us to ship our kindergarteners out of our neighborhoods and split articulations really don't matter all that much. I don't believe that, but, for the sake of a shorter commute, some people are making socio-economic demographics look like a convenient argument when it suits their purposes.

But it does consider the needs of other schools beyond RCF! It takes into account proximity of the other elementary schools. It also doesn't split up (i.e. "tear apart") the Triad schools. And RCF didn't get everything it wanted...it advocated for its programs not being split up, but they are - immersion stays at Westland under this option. So really no one fully won, and no one fully lost in terms of what they were asking for.

Whenever I wonder why we have a felon and a lunatic running for president, I need look no further than these posts. It''s not about who gets everything they want. It's about what's right and what's wrong. Inequitable academic facilities are wrong, regardless of demographics. Option 7 creates inequitable academic facilities. It should not be implemented.

And see, I think it's wrong to have the lowest-SES families travel to the school farther away when they want to go to the closest one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

We say they only care about RCF kids because they addressed that neighborhood's needs above all others. The result is that all the communities involved now will go to an overcrowded school so that RCF does not have to commute as they do now. And when we complain, we're told that we don't like mixing with poor kids or that the socio-economic demographics that required us to ship our kindergarteners out of our neighborhoods and split articulations really don't matter all that much. I don't believe that, but, for the sake of a shorter commute, some people are making socio-economic demographics look like a convenient argument when it suits their purposes.

But it does consider the needs of other schools beyond RCF! It takes into account proximity of the other elementary schools. It also doesn't split up (i.e. "tear apart") the Triad schools. And RCF didn't get everything it wanted...it advocated for its programs not being split up, but they are - immersion stays at Westland under this option. So really no one fully won, and no one fully lost in terms of what they were asking for.

Whenever I wonder why we have a felon and a lunatic running for president, I need look no further than these posts. It''s not about who gets everything they want. It's about what's right and what's wrong. Inequitable academic facilities are wrong, regardless of demographics. Option 7 creates inequitable academic facilities. It should not be implemented.

I say the same thing when I read your posts.... you are right because you are right and don't even consider the other side. You just cover year ears, finger point and yell your point the other side to heck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

We say they only care about RCF kids because they addressed that neighborhood's needs above all others. The result is that all the communities involved now will go to an overcrowded school so that RCF does not have to commute as they do now. And when we complain, we're told that we don't like mixing with poor kids or that the socio-economic demographics that required us to ship our kindergarteners out of our neighborhoods and split articulations really don't matter all that much. I don't believe that, but, for the sake of a shorter commute, some people are making socio-economic demographics look like a convenient argument when it suits their purposes.

But it does consider the needs of other schools beyond RCF! It takes into account proximity of the other elementary schools. It also doesn't split up (i.e. "tear apart") the Triad schools. And RCF didn't get everything it wanted...it advocated for its programs not being split up, but they are - immersion stays at Westland under this option. So really no one fully won, and no one fully lost in terms of what they were asking for.

Whenever I wonder why we have a felon and a lunatic running for president, I need look no further than these posts. It''s not about who gets everything they want. It's about what's right and what's wrong. Inequitable academic facilities are wrong, regardless of demographics. Option 7 creates inequitable academic facilities. It should not be implemented.

Thank you PP. You have hit the nail on the head. Option 7 is wrong for all 3 of the communities involved. Even if RCF can not initially see that. Why would they even want to be in an overcrowded school? I just don't get it! Fewer kids, a better facilities equal a better education, all at a school that would remain under capicity. Demographics are secondary although a distant second.

Which brings up the point, MCPS is talking out of both sides of it's mouth. Option 7 is wrong and if the people of RHPS CCES and NCC do not stand up and demand an equitable facility, then they are allowing themselves to be railroaded again, just as they have been railroaded with the whole RHPS experiment which has been splitting up families and friends for decades in the name of social equity. Social Demographics either matters or it doesn't but MCPS should not be allowed to have it both ways and rob the same set of RHPS kids TWICE. They need to show RHPS parents that the busing is not all for naught. If MCPS values proximity as the most important issue then split up RHPS into neighborhood schools and send the CCES kids to their closest school which is Westland by far. CCES kids can even bike to school!

But RHPS families need to rise up and fight this or else their kids will suffer for decades more just like they have under the RHPS venture. Enough already. Finally make it FAIR for EVERYONE!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

We say they only care about RCF kids because they addressed that neighborhood's needs above all others. The result is that all the communities involved now will go to an overcrowded school so that RCF does not have to commute as they do now. And when we complain, we're told that we don't like mixing with poor kids or that the socio-economic demographics that required us to ship our kindergarteners out of our neighborhoods and split articulations really don't matter all that much. I don't believe that, but, for the sake of a shorter commute, some people are making socio-economic demographics look like a convenient argument when it suits their purposes.

But it does consider the needs of other schools beyond RCF! It takes into account proximity of the other elementary schools. It also doesn't split up (i.e. "tear apart") the Triad schools. And RCF didn't get everything it wanted...it advocated for its programs not being split up, but they are - immersion stays at Westland under this option. So really no one fully won, and no one fully lost in terms of what they were asking for.

Whenever I wonder why we have a felon and a lunatic running for president, I need look no further than these posts. It''s not about who gets everything they want. It's about what's right and what's wrong. Inequitable academic facilities are wrong, regardless of demographics. Option 7 creates inequitable academic facilities. It should not be implemented.

Thank you PP. You have hit the nail on the head. Option 7 is wrong for all 3 of the communities involved. Even if RCF can not initially see that. Why would they even want to be in an overcrowded school? I just don't get it! Fewer kids, a better facilities equal a better education, all at a school that would remain under capicity. Demographics are secondary although a distant second.

Which brings up the point, MCPS is talking out of both sides of it's mouth. Option 7 is wrong and if the people of RHPS CCES and NCC do not stand up and demand an equitable facility, then they are allowing themselves to be railroaded again, just as they have been railroaded with the whole RHPS experiment which has been splitting up families and friends for decades in the name of social equity. Social Demographics either matters or it doesn't but MCPS should not be allowed to have it both ways and rob the same set of RHPS kids TWICE. They need to show RHPS parents that the busing is not all for naught. If MCPS values proximity as the most important issue then split up RHPS into neighborhood schools and send the CCES kids to their closest school which is Westland by far. CCES kids can even bike to school!

But RHPS families need to rise up and fight this or else their kids will suffer for decades more just like they have under the RHPS venture. Enough already. Finally make it FAIR for EVERYONE!

Trumpian end of the world scenarios. You folks are looneys. What we say is best for you no matter what you decide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

We say they only care about RCF kids because they addressed that neighborhood's needs above all others. The result is that all the communities involved now will go to an overcrowded school so that RCF does not have to commute as they do now. And when we complain, we're told that we don't like mixing with poor kids or that the socio-economic demographics that required us to ship our kindergarteners out of our neighborhoods and split articulations really don't matter all that much. I don't believe that, but, for the sake of a shorter commute, some people are making socio-economic demographics look like a convenient argument when it suits their purposes.

But it does consider the needs of other schools beyond RCF! It takes into account proximity of the other elementary schools. It also doesn't split up (i.e. "tear apart") the Triad schools. And RCF didn't get everything it wanted...it advocated for its programs not being split up, but they are - immersion stays at Westland under this option. So really no one fully won, and no one fully lost in terms of what they were asking for.

Whenever I wonder why we have a felon and a lunatic running for president, I need look no further than these posts. It''s not about who gets everything they want. It's about what's right and what's wrong. Inequitable academic facilities are wrong, regardless of demographics. Option 7 creates inequitable academic facilities. It should not be implemented.

And see, I think it's wrong to have the lowest-SES families travel to the school farther away when they want to go to the closest one.

So, an option that involves the same commute that they're taking now, but provides academically equitable facilities and teaching is less important than a shorter commute to academically inequitable facilities and teaching? i don't see how that helps the lowest-SEs families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

We say they only care about RCF kids because they addressed that neighborhood's needs above all others. The result is that all the communities involved now will go to an overcrowded school so that RCF does not have to commute as they do now. And when we complain, we're told that we don't like mixing with poor kids or that the socio-economic demographics that required us to ship our kindergarteners out of our neighborhoods and split articulations really don't matter all that much. I don't believe that, but, for the sake of a shorter commute, some people are making socio-economic demographics look like a convenient argument when it suits their purposes.

But it does consider the needs of other schools beyond RCF! It takes into account proximity of the other elementary schools. It also doesn't split up (i.e. "tear apart") the Triad schools. And RCF didn't get everything it wanted...it advocated for its programs not being split up, but they are - immersion stays at Westland under this option. So really no one fully won, and no one fully lost in terms of what they were asking for.

Whenever I wonder why we have a felon and a lunatic running for president, I need look no further than these posts. It''s not about who gets everything they want. It's about what's right and what's wrong. Inequitable academic facilities are wrong, regardless of demographics. Option 7 creates inequitable academic facilities. It should not be implemented.

Thank you PP. You have hit the nail on the head. Option 7 is wrong for all 3 of the communities involved. Even if RCF can not initially see that. Why would they even want to be in an overcrowded school? I just don't get it! Fewer kids, a better facilities equal a better education, all at a school that would remain under capicity. Demographics are secondary although a distant second.

Which brings up the point, MCPS is talking out of both sides of it's mouth. Option 7 is wrong and if the people of RHPS CCES and NCC do not stand up and demand an equitable facility, then they are allowing themselves to be railroaded again, just as they have been railroaded with the whole RHPS experiment which has been splitting up families and friends for decades in the name of social equity. Social Demographics either matters or it doesn't but MCPS should not be allowed to have it both ways and rob the same set of RHPS kids TWICE. They need to show RHPS parents that the busing is not all for naught. If MCPS values proximity as the most important issue then split up RHPS into neighborhood schools and send the CCES kids to their closest school which is Westland by far. CCES kids can even bike to school!

But RHPS families need to rise up and fight this or else their kids will suffer for decades more just like they have under the RHPS venture. Enough already. Finally make it FAIR for EVERYONE!

Trumpian end of the world scenarios. You folks are looneys. What we say is best for you no matter what you decide.

OK, OP here. What the hell does Trump have to do with this? Is it that you don't have a substantive argument, and all you have left is insults (because that's a big insult)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

We say they only care about RCF kids because they addressed that neighborhood's needs above all others. The result is that all the communities involved now will go to an overcrowded school so that RCF does not have to commute as they do now. And when we complain, we're told that we don't like mixing with poor kids or that the socio-economic demographics that required us to ship our kindergarteners out of our neighborhoods and split articulations really don't matter all that much. I don't believe that, but, for the sake of a shorter commute, some people are making socio-economic demographics look like a convenient argument when it suits their purposes.

But it does consider the needs of other schools beyond RCF! It takes into account proximity of the other elementary schools. It also doesn't split up (i.e. "tear apart") the Triad schools. And RCF didn't get everything it wanted...it advocated for its programs not being split up, but they are - immersion stays at Westland under this option. So really no one fully won, and no one fully lost in terms of what they were asking for.

Whenever I wonder why we have a felon and a lunatic running for president, I need look no further than these posts. It''s not about who gets everything they want. It's about what's right and what's wrong. Inequitable academic facilities are wrong, regardless of demographics. Option 7 creates inequitable academic facilities. It should not be implemented.

Thank you PP. You have hit the nail on the head. Option 7 is wrong for all 3 of the communities involved. Even if RCF can not initially see that. Why would they even want to be in an overcrowded school? I just don't get it! Fewer kids, a better facilities equal a better education, all at a school that would remain under capicity. Demographics are secondary although a distant second.

Which brings up the point, MCPS is talking out of both sides of it's mouth. Option 7 is wrong and if the people of RHPS CCES and NCC do not stand up and demand an equitable facility, then they are allowing themselves to be railroaded again, just as they have been railroaded with the whole RHPS experiment which has been splitting up families and friends for decades in the name of social equity. Social Demographics either matters or it doesn't but MCPS should not be allowed to have it both ways and rob the same set of RHPS kids TWICE. They need to show RHPS parents that the busing is not all for naught. If MCPS values proximity as the most important issue then split up RHPS into neighborhood schools and send the CCES kids to their closest school which is Westland by far. CCES kids can even bike to school!

But RHPS families need to rise up and fight this or else their kids will suffer for decades more just like they have under the RHPS venture. Enough already. Finally make it FAIR for EVERYONE!

Trumpian end of the world scenarios. You folks are looneys. What we say is best for you no matter what you decide.

OK, OP here. What the hell does Trump have to do with this? Is it that you don't have a substantive argument, and all you have left is insults (because that's a big insult)?

Because wanting what's best for my children and the kids in my community makes me like Trump? Lol no, because you think what's best for your kids is the only thing that matters. pathetic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

We say they only care about RCF kids because they addressed that neighborhood's needs above all others. The result is that all the communities involved now will go to an overcrowded school so that RCF does not have to commute as they do now. And when we complain, we're told that we don't like mixing with poor kids or that the socio-economic demographics that required us to ship our kindergarteners out of our neighborhoods and split articulations really don't matter all that much. I don't believe that, but, for the sake of a shorter commute, some people are making socio-economic demographics look like a convenient argument when it suits their purposes.

But it does consider the needs of other schools beyond RCF! It takes into account proximity of the other elementary schools. It also doesn't split up (i.e. "tear apart") the Triad schools. And RCF didn't get everything it wanted...it advocated for its programs not being split up, but they are - immersion stays at Westland under this option. So really no one fully won, and no one fully lost in terms of what they were asking for.

Whenever I wonder why we have a felon and a lunatic running for president, I need look no further than these posts. It''s not about who gets everything they want. It's about what's right and what's wrong. Inequitable academic facilities are wrong, regardless of demographics. Option 7 creates inequitable academic facilities. It should not be implemented.

Thank you PP. You have hit the nail on the head. Option 7 is wrong for all 3 of the communities involved. Even if RCF can not initially see that. Why would they even want to be in an overcrowded school? I just don't get it! Fewer kids, a better facilities equal a better education, all at a school that would remain under capicity. Demographics are secondary although a distant second.

Which brings up the point, MCPS is talking out of both sides of it's mouth. Option 7 is wrong and if the people of RHPS CCES and NCC do not stand up and demand an equitable facility, then they are allowing themselves to be railroaded again, just as they have been railroaded with the whole RHPS experiment which has been splitting up families and friends for decades in the name of social equity. Social Demographics either matters or it doesn't but MCPS should not be allowed to have it both ways and rob the same set of RHPS kids TWICE. They need to show RHPS parents that the busing is not all for naught. If MCPS values proximity as the most important issue then split up RHPS into neighborhood schools and send the CCES kids to their closest school which is Westland by far. CCES kids can even bike to school!

But RHPS families need to rise up and fight this or else their kids will suffer for decades more just like they have under the RHPS venture. Enough already. Finally make it FAIR for EVERYONE!

Trumpian end of the world scenarios. You folks are looneys. What we say is best for you no matter what you decide.

OK, OP here. What the hell does Trump have to do with this? Is it that you don't have a substantive argument, and all you have left is insults (because that's a big insult)?

Uh no... I'm responding to the Triad folks who introduced Trump insults.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

We say they only care about RCF kids because they addressed that neighborhood's needs above all others. The result is that all the communities involved now will go to an overcrowded school so that RCF does not have to commute as they do now. And when we complain, we're told that we don't like mixing with poor kids or that the socio-economic demographics that required us to ship our kindergarteners out of our neighborhoods and split articulations really don't matter all that much. I don't believe that, but, for the sake of a shorter commute, some people are making socio-economic demographics look like a convenient argument when it suits their purposes.

But it does consider the needs of other schools beyond RCF! It takes into account proximity of the other elementary schools. It also doesn't split up (i.e. "tear apart") the Triad schools. And RCF didn't get everything it wanted...it advocated for its programs not being split up, but they are - immersion stays at Westland under this option. So really no one fully won, and no one fully lost in terms of what they were asking for.

Whenever I wonder why we have a felon and a lunatic running for president, I need look no further than these posts. It''s not about who gets everything they want. It's about what's right and what's wrong. Inequitable academic facilities are wrong, regardless of demographics. Option 7 creates inequitable academic facilities. It should not be implemented.

Thank you PP. You have hit the nail on the head. Option 7 is wrong for all 3 of the communities involved. Even if RCF can not initially see that. Why would they even want to be in an overcrowded school? I just don't get it! Fewer kids, a better facilities equal a better education, all at a school that would remain under capicity. Demographics are secondary although a distant second.

Which brings up the point, MCPS is talking out of both sides of it's mouth. Option 7 is wrong and if the people of RHPS CCES and NCC do not stand up and demand an equitable facility, then they are allowing themselves to be railroaded again, just as they have been railroaded with the whole RHPS experiment which has been splitting up families and friends for decades in the name of social equity. Social Demographics either matters or it doesn't but MCPS should not be allowed to have it both ways and rob the same set of RHPS kids TWICE. They need to show RHPS parents that the busing is not all for naught. If MCPS values proximity as the most important issue then split up RHPS into neighborhood schools and send the CCES kids to their closest school which is Westland by far. CCES kids can even bike to school!

But RHPS families need to rise up and fight this or else their kids will suffer for decades more just like they have under the RHPS venture. Enough already. Finally make it FAIR for EVERYONE!

Trumpian end of the world scenarios. You folks are looneys. What we say is best for you no matter what you decide.

That's right. Take their money; impose your will; and tell them what's good for them. Up is down; black is white; inequitable is equitable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

We say they only care about RCF kids because they addressed that neighborhood's needs above all others. The result is that all the communities involved now will go to an overcrowded school so that RCF does not have to commute as they do now. And when we complain, we're told that we don't like mixing with poor kids or that the socio-economic demographics that required us to ship our kindergarteners out of our neighborhoods and split articulations really don't matter all that much. I don't believe that, but, for the sake of a shorter commute, some people are making socio-economic demographics look like a convenient argument when it suits their purposes.

But it does consider the needs of other schools beyond RCF! It takes into account proximity of the other elementary schools. It also doesn't split up (i.e. "tear apart") the Triad schools. And RCF didn't get everything it wanted...it advocated for its programs not being split up, but they are - immersion stays at Westland under this option. So really no one fully won, and no one fully lost in terms of what they were asking for.

Whenever I wonder why we have a felon and a lunatic running for president, I need look no further than these posts. It''s not about who gets everything they want. It's about what's right and what's wrong. Inequitable academic facilities are wrong, regardless of demographics. Option 7 creates inequitable academic facilities. It should not be implemented.

Thank you PP. You have hit the nail on the head. Option 7 is wrong for all 3 of the communities involved. Even if RCF can not initially see that. Why would they even want to be in an overcrowded school? I just don't get it! Fewer kids, a better facilities equal a better education, all at a school that would remain under capicity. Demographics are secondary although a distant second.

Which brings up the point, MCPS is talking out of both sides of it's mouth. Option 7 is wrong and if the people of RHPS CCES and NCC do not stand up and demand an equitable facility, then they are allowing themselves to be railroaded again, just as they have been railroaded with the whole RHPS experiment which has been splitting up families and friends for decades in the name of social equity. Social Demographics either matters or it doesn't but MCPS should not be allowed to have it both ways and rob the same set of RHPS kids TWICE. They need to show RHPS parents that the busing is not all for naught. If MCPS values proximity as the most important issue then split up RHPS into neighborhood schools and send the CCES kids to their closest school which is Westland by far. CCES kids can even bike to school!

But RHPS families need to rise up and fight this or else their kids will suffer for decades more just like they have under the RHPS venture. Enough already. Finally make it FAIR for EVERYONE!

Trumpian end of the world scenarios. You folks are looneys. What we say is best for you no matter what you decide.

OK, OP here. What the hell does Trump have to do with this? Is it that you don't have a substantive argument, and all you have left is insults (because that's a big insult)?

Because wanting what's best for my children and the kids in my community makes me like Trump? Lol no, because you think what's best for your kids is the only thing that matters. pathetic.

Right, and the only thing that seems to constitute what's best for his/her kids is a short commute.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

We say they only care about RCF kids because they addressed that neighborhood's needs above all others. The result is that all the communities involved now will go to an overcrowded school so that RCF does not have to commute as they do now. And when we complain, we're told that we don't like mixing with poor kids or that the socio-economic demographics that required us to ship our kindergarteners out of our neighborhoods and split articulations really don't matter all that much. I don't believe that, but, for the sake of a shorter commute, some people are making socio-economic demographics look like a convenient argument when it suits their purposes.

But it does consider the needs of other schools beyond RCF! It takes into account proximity of the other elementary schools. It also doesn't split up (i.e. "tear apart") the Triad schools. And RCF didn't get everything it wanted...it advocated for its programs not being split up, but they are - immersion stays at Westland under this option. So really no one fully won, and no one fully lost in terms of what they were asking for.

Whenever I wonder why we have a felon and a lunatic running for president, I need look no further than these posts. It''s not about who gets everything they want. It's about what's right and what's wrong. Inequitable academic facilities are wrong, regardless of demographics. Option 7 creates inequitable academic facilities. It should not be implemented.

Thank you PP. You have hit the nail on the head. Option 7 is wrong for all 3 of the communities involved. Even if RCF can not initially see that. Why would they even want to be in an overcrowded school? I just don't get it! Fewer kids, a better facilities equal a better education, all at a school that would remain under capicity. Demographics are secondary although a distant second.

Which brings up the point, MCPS is talking out of both sides of it's mouth. Option 7 is wrong and if the people of RHPS CCES and NCC do not stand up and demand an equitable facility, then they are allowing themselves to be railroaded again, just as they have been railroaded with the whole RHPS experiment which has been splitting up families and friends for decades in the name of social equity. Social Demographics either matters or it doesn't but MCPS should not be allowed to have it both ways and rob the same set of RHPS kids TWICE. They need to show RHPS parents that the busing is not all for naught. If MCPS values proximity as the most important issue then split up RHPS into neighborhood schools and send the CCES kids to their closest school which is Westland by far. CCES kids can even bike to school!

But RHPS families need to rise up and fight this or else their kids will suffer for decades more just like they have under the RHPS venture. Enough already. Finally make it FAIR for EVERYONE!

Trumpian end of the world scenarios. You folks are looneys. What we say is best for you no matter what you decide.

OK, OP here. What the hell does Trump have to do with this? Is it that you don't have a substantive argument, and all you have left is insults (because that's a big insult)?

Uh no... I'm responding to the Triad folks who introduced Trump insults.

I thought the Trump insults were coming from the RCF people. Guys, when we can't figure out which side is insulting the other, we have a problem. Everybody, PAY ATTENTION WHEN YOU'RE BEING VILIFIED!

[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: 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.

We say they only care about RCF kids because they addressed that neighborhood's needs above all others. The result is that all the communities involved now will go to an overcrowded school so that RCF does not have to commute as they do now. And when we complain, we're told that we don't like mixing with poor kids or that the socio-economic demographics that required us to ship our kindergarteners out of our neighborhoods and split articulations really don't matter all that much. I don't believe that, but, for the sake of a shorter commute, some people are making socio-economic demographics look like a convenient argument when it suits their purposes.

But it does consider the needs of other schools beyond RCF! It takes into account proximity of the other elementary schools. It also doesn't split up (i.e. "tear apart") the Triad schools. And RCF didn't get everything it wanted...it advocated for its programs not being split up, but they are - immersion stays at Westland under this option. So really no one fully won, and no one fully lost in terms of what they were asking for.

Whenever I wonder why we have a felon and a lunatic running for president, I need look no further than these posts. It''s not about who gets everything they want. It's about what's right and what's wrong. Inequitable academic facilities are wrong, regardless of demographics. Option 7 creates inequitable academic facilities. It should not be implemented.

Thank you PP. You have hit the nail on the head. Option 7 is wrong for all 3 of the communities involved. Even if RCF can not initially see that. Why would they even want to be in an overcrowded school? I just don't get it! Fewer kids, a better facilities equal a better education, all at a school that would remain under capicity. Demographics are secondary although a distant second.

Which brings up the point, MCPS is talking out of both sides of it's mouth. Option 7 is wrong and if the people of RHPS CCES and NCC do not stand up and demand an equitable facility, then they are allowing themselves to be railroaded again, just as they have been railroaded with the whole RHPS experiment which has been splitting up families and friends for decades in the name of social equity. Social Demographics either matters or it doesn't but MCPS should not be allowed to have it both ways and rob the same set of RHPS kids TWICE. They need to show RHPS parents that the busing is not all for naught. If MCPS values proximity as the most important issue then split up RHPS into neighborhood schools and send the CCES kids to their closest school which is Westland by far. CCES kids can even bike to school!

But RHPS families need to rise up and fight this or else their kids will suffer for decades more just like they have under the RHPS venture. Enough already. Finally make it FAIR for EVERYONE!

Trumpian end of the world scenarios. You folks are looneys. What we say is best for you no matter what you decide.

OK, OP here. What the hell does Trump have to do with this? Is it that you don't have a substantive argument, and all you have left is insults (because that's a big insult)?

Because wanting what's best for my children and the kids in my community makes me like Trump? Lol no, because you think what's best for your kids is the only thing that matters. pathetic.

Right, and the only thing that seems to constitute what's best for his/her kids is a short commute.

Agreed! They value a short commute above getting a quality education at a smaller school with better facilities. Incredible. Give me a longer commute to a better school any day. I'll sacrifice valuable time in the car or on the bus if it means a better educational experience. Why do you think the people who can afford it go private even if the private school is all the way in Potomac and a pain to get to? For smaller class sizes and a better facility, that's why. RCF obviously does not understand this concept.