Split articulation (bussing) for the new BCC Middle School?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It does not make sense to move the immersion program from Westland to the new middle school. It does make sense to remove RCF from BCC to ease overcrowding at the high school level.

Whether it does or it doesn't make sense, it's not happening. So focusing on it is a waste of time.

Indeed. The link above says specifically that no change like that will be made.

That's the thing... The link and slides say no school boundaries will change. It also asks "what to do with the Rosemary Hills kids?" I'm not sure why it says that but it does. NCC is obviously going to the new BCC MS, so to even ask what to do when the school is split into NCC and CC is weird. The only way to do anything is to unbind it to these schools in some way. The question also hints at some possible issue with going to the new BCC MS when that's the most obvious choice based on location. So will special interests push for it to go to Westland and create some alternate path than the obvious? Its certainly a possibility.

I've heard some chatter from neighbors that it's possible Rosemary Hills could go from a K-2 primary school to a K-5 elementary school at some point in the future. I think it used to be called Rosemary Hills Primary School and is now Rosemary Hills Elementary School, and the slides do reference a significant re-do of the facilities in the not-too-distant future.

Rosemary Hills just had a huge addition project.

[Anonymous]

I'm the poster to whom you're responding and also have a child at RHES. They did complete a very nice new wing last year, but see Slide 11 of the presentation from the Monday night meeting (http://gis.mcpsmd.org/boundarystudypdfs/BCCMS2_PublicMeeting020116.pdf) - looks like it will be another significant project in 2023. Slide 10 references the recently completed project.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm the poster to whom you're responding and also have a child at RHES. They did complete a very nice new wing last year, but see Slide 11 of the presentation from the Monday night meeting (http://gis.mcpsmd.org/boundarystudypdfs/BCCMS2_PublicMeeting020116.pdf) - looks like it will be another significant project in 2023. Slide 10 references the recently completed project.

Given the current state of the capital budget, I wouldn't hold my breath about a project that is scheduled to begin in 2023.

[Anonymous]

Did anyone go to the Feb 11th meeting, it looked like options were supposed to be presented / developed?

[Anonymous]

Here you go: http://gis.mcpsmd.org/boundarystudypdfs/BCCMS2_Meeting1Materials.pdf

[Anonymous]

I think:

Westland - Westbrook, Somerset, RCF
New - NCC, Bethesda ES, CCES

This
-balances FARMS, ESOL
-balances school population
-keeps walkers within walking distance (somerset kids in Kenwood are within walking distance to Westland)
-keeps the rosemary hills kids together

[Anonymous]

I agree with PP

It also keeps the Spanish immersion kids from RCF at westland -- apparently there is some certification they have.

I believe it is certain that:

Westland = westbrook, somerset
MS #2 = NCC, CC

So the only other option would be

Westland = Westbrook, Somerset, Bethesda
MS #2 = CC, NCC, RCF

I suppose there is a (pseudo)-split articulation where the RCF splits Spanish Immersion to one, and in boundary kids to the other.

[Anonymous]

Are either of these two PPs participating in the boundary study? If not, why not?

The meeting about the first round of boundary options will be on February 18 in the B-CC cafeteria, 7:30 pm - 9:30 pm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think:

Westland - Westbrook, Somerset, RCF
New - NCC, Bethesda ES, CCES

This
-balances FARMS, ESOL
-balances school population
-keeps walkers within walking distance (somerset kids in Kenwood are within walking distance to Westland)
-keeps the rosemary hills kids together

Why is there an absolute need to balance the farms? Why not just let them go to the closer more convenient school for them or do you suggest that they care more about some weird middle class paranoia about being surrounded by them more than their own logistics? I purpose that there isn't enough of them to worry about gerrymandering for any other reason other then locality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Why is there an absolute need to balance the farms? Why not just let them go to the closer more convenient school for them or do you suggest that they care more about some weird middle class paranoia about being surrounded by them more than their own logistics? I purpose that there isn't enough of them to worry about gerrymandering for any other reason other then locality.

PP, you are referring to poor people as "them". Who is "us", in this case?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why is there an absolute need to balance the farms? Why not just let them go to the closer more convenient school for them or do you suggest that they care more about some weird middle class paranoia about being surrounded by them more than their own logistics? I purpose that there isn't enough of them to worry about gerrymandering for any other reason other then locality.

PP, you are referring to poor people as "them". Who is "us", in this case?

+1

[Anonymous]

I have lots of friends at RCF and RH who mercifully have no idea that so many people are afraid of their children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think:

Westland - Westbrook, Somerset, RCF
New - NCC, Bethesda ES, CCES

This
-balances FARMS, ESOL
-balances school population
-keeps walkers within walking distance (somerset kids in Kenwood are within walking distance to Westland)
-keeps the rosemary hills kids together

Why is there an absolute need to balance the farms? Why not just let them go to the closer more convenient school for them or do you suggest that they care more about some weird middle class paranoia about being surrounded by them more than their own logistics? I purpose that there isn't enough of them to worry about gerrymandering for any other reason other then locality.

I'm going to ignore the us and them stuff.

My two cents are that 1) MCPS doesn't want to create a school that is so overwhelmingly white and high income because it messes with their ideals of racial and socioeconomic diversity and inclusion. Studies have shown that kids who are academically disadvantaged (usually due to poverty/language barriers/lack of education in parents) do better when surrounded by high achieving classmates, so that is a way to boost the achievemnet gap between those kids and the high SES kids. 2) i firmly believe that if one of the middle schools has a significant percentage of FARMs kids, even if it is no more than 20 percent, that it will scare away many of the more affluent families who will try to COSA into Westland or Pyle or go private. There are lots of people who don't send their kids to RHPS and RCF for this very reason, despite what they tell you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why is there an absolute need to balance the farms? Why not just let them go to the closer more convenient school for them or do you suggest that they care more about some weird middle class paranoia about being surrounded by them more than their own logistics? I purpose that there isn't enough of them to worry about gerrymandering for any other reason other then locality.

PP, you are referring to poor people as "them". Who is "us", in this case?

+1

I think PP makes a fair point that people of lesser means don't necessarily benefit from or want a longer school commute.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why is there an absolute need to balance the farms? Why not just let them go to the closer more convenient school for them or do you suggest that they care more about some weird middle class paranoia about being surrounded by them more than their own logistics? I purpose that there isn't enough of them to worry about gerrymandering for any other reason other then locality.

PP, you are referring to poor people as "them". Who is "us", in this case?

+1

I think PP makes a fair point that people of lesser means don't necessarily benefit from or want a longer school commute.

"People of lesser means" are entirely capable of speaking for themselves about what they want or don't want.

Lots of the posts on this thread have boiled down to, "My kid should go to School A, and the poor kids should go to School B." It doesn't make it better to say, "My kid should go to School A, and the poor kids should go to School B -- for their own good, plus surely that's what they want anyway."