BCC Middle School Site Selction number 2 - 2012 version -

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know what schools will feed into the new middle school? I know there is concern that the new school should be as demographically balanced as possible, but a previous post referred to Joshua Starr's desire for walkable schools, and would seem to be at odds with a far eastern or western placement.

It also would seem to be at odds with the NCC location. That would almost seem to be the least likely option for walking from surrounding neighborhoods.

I only attended the first ssac meeting but the concept of a 6th grade academy was brought up, which would keep all the kids together through middle school (a good thing in my mind). But it seemed to be quickly shot down by mcps rep. Why?

This was brought up in reference to Westland. But couldn't a 6th grade academy be built in many of the other sites that have been eliminated as being too small? It would seem that a 6th grade academy would be less land hungry and solve the over crowding problem.

This deserves more consideration.

MCPS will not decide the boundaries for the new middle school until a year before the school opens. As for walkability, Westland is not a walkable school. Most of the neighborhoods around Westland go to Pyle/Whitman (I think the school is actually in the Whitman cluster, with a little BCC cluster boundary line around it). However, Starr said that some Pyle kids may go to Westland once the new MS opens.

So, it seems like the new middle school is not just being built just to support the BCC cluster. It is being built to support overcrowding at other schools as well, and who knows, it could also include students from clusters other than Whitman since MCPS has not said for certain who is going to BCC MS #2.

[Anonymous]

To respond to those who are concerned that MCPS hasn't drawn boundaries for BCC MS #2, the point is they cannot draw boundaries until the site is selected. Here are the rules on bussing:

http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/transportation/rules/riding.aspx

Middle school students who live within a 1.5 mile boundary of a middle school will be districted to that middle school because they're expected to walk. If you don't live within 1.5 miles, you may be districted to a middle school that is actually further away. As it stands now, only those who have kids living within 1.5 miles of Westland know where they're going to middle school. That includes all students at Westbrook, but I don't think any other elementary's boundaries are all within 1.5 miles of Westland. So the rest of us will just have to wait to find out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To respond to those who are concerned that MCPS hasn't drawn boundaries for BCC MS #2, the point is they cannot draw boundaries until the site is selected. Here are the rules on bussing:

http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/transportation/rules/riding.aspx

Middle school students who live within a 1.5 mile boundary of a middle school will be districted to that middle school because they're expected to walk. If you don't live within 1.5 miles, you may be districted to a middle school that is actually further away. As it stands now, only those who have kids living within 1.5 miles of Westland know where they're going to middle school. That includes all students at Westbrook, but I don't think any other elementary's boundaries are all within 1.5 miles of Westland. So the rest of us will just have to wait to find out.

Children within 1.5 miles will be expected to walk, if it is safe. At last week's site selection advisory committee meeting, Montgomery County Public Schools staff said that if a school were to be built on the site of Rock Creek Hills Park, then students would not be expected to cross either Connecticut Ave or Beach Drive to get to it, because those roads are not safe for middle school students to cross.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like the North Bethesda Park option. Good location and a good amount if land.

What park are you even referring to? And, why is somebody back to talk about how we should develop our parks? If one more MoCo bureaucrat wants to tell me that today we have more parkland than we had 30 years ago, I will puke. Because thirty years ago we had way more green space in this county. It's just that every inch of that privately held farmland now has office parks and retail space sitting on it. MoCo officials are pushing the southern part of the county to start looking like the Bronx.

Hey, I'm with you in the sense that they should stop building in the Bethesda/CC/Kensington areas that comprise the BCC closter, but if that is not going to happen then we need more schools. What are the alternatives to parks? Buy and raze a large number of houses? I'd be for the state taking land from one of the two country clubs on Conneticut Avenue, but I think I'd be in the minority.

The only other option I can think of is to redesign the BCC cluster so that anyone outside the beltway is put into Walter Johnson, Einstein or Silver Spring. Though that doesn't seem fair to those residents.

I used to live in East Bethesda and the dream of a new elementray school at Lynbrook has been around for years and years and years.
They need to give up that dream.

[Anonymous]

Children within 1.5 miles will be expected to walk, if it is safe. At last week's site selection advisory committee meeting, Montgomery County Public Schools staff said that if a school were to be built on the site of Rock Creek Hills Park, then students would not be expected to cross either Connecticut Ave or Beach Drive to get to it, because those roads are not safe for middle school students to cross.

This makes sense but I'm not sure it's true... I see a large group of younger kids walking east from CCES every day - I don't follow them the whole way, but they appear to cross Conn Ave to Section 3/5/Martins Addition neighborhoods of CC MD.

If there are restrictions on walkers crossing Connecticut or Beach, then that would mean almost no kids would be eligible to walk to a MS if the NCC park is chosen - there are very few houses within walking distance that would not have to cross Connecticut or walk past onramps to the Beltway. Another strike against NCC as a realistic alternative. At least in the RCH neighborhood, there would be a reasonable number of students who live in the immediate vicinity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Children within 1.5 miles will be expected to walk, if it is safe. At last week's site selection advisory committee meeting, Montgomery County Public Schools staff said that if a school were to be built on the site of Rock Creek Hills Park, then students would not be expected to cross either Connecticut Ave or Beach Drive to get to it, because those roads are not safe for middle school students to cross.

This makes sense but I'm not sure it's true... I see a large group of younger kids walking east from CCES every day - I don't follow them the whole way, but they appear to cross Conn Ave to Section 3/5/Martins Addition neighborhoods of CC MD.

If there are restrictions on walkers crossing Connecticut or Beach, then that would mean almost no kids would be eligible to walk to a MS if the NCC park is chosen - there are very few houses within walking distance that would not have to cross Connecticut or walk past onramps to the Beltway. Another strike against NCC as a realistic alternative. At least in the RCH neighborhood, there would be a reasonable number of students who live in the immediate vicinity.

The Superintendent specified eight criteria which are to be used to evaluate sites; student walkability is mentioned in two of 'em: Under "location" the Superintendent writes: "If possible, a school site should be located to allow students to walk to school". Under "access", the Superintendent writes: "Community sidewalks are preferred to enhance safe student walking access to the school."

So, two observations: First, "walkability" is preferred, but not required. Second, the RCH neighborhood lacks community sidewalks.

[Anonymous]

The Superintendent specified eight criteria which are to be used to evaluate sites; student walkability is mentioned in two of 'em: Under "location" the Superintendent writes: "If possible, a school site should be located to allow students to walk to school". Under "access", the Superintendent writes: "Community sidewalks are preferred to enhance safe student walking access to the school."

So, two observations: First, "walkability" is preferred, but not required. Second, the RCH neighborhood lacks community sidewalks.



Sidewlkas can be in that area in a week. thsi school is not going to be built for 4 years.

[Anonymous]

I used to live in East Bethesda and the dream of a new elementray school at Lynbrook has been around for years and years and years.
They need to give up that dream. [code]

Yes, they do need to give up that dream. Why was that school property voted off so quickly and without a fair discussion? It may be the only real option for new school construction at this point. It is not too small, especially if MCPS gets creative in their feasibility study, which they are known to do. Parks are off the table, except in cases where the is a reclaim right, but RCH will be taking this to court so I suppose that could delay things indefinitely. I am not sure why MCPS persists in their greedy land grab from parks, while continuing to under use and fritter away the school properties they already own.

A close examination of the various leased properties within the cluster should be undertaken.

Lynnbrook should be under real scrutiny and consideration, as should Westland, though that would be less attractive to those who live too far away and don't want a huge school. Though why couldn't a 6th grade academy work on the Lynnbrook property, or even the old Rollingwood property? Why do we persist in the notion that in the 21st century when open land is scarce we need to build a big sprawling school?

Maybe I am naive and it has taken me a few years but I am starting to think that MCPS is wasteful, arrogant, and greedy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know what schools will feed into the new middle school? I know there is concern that the new school should be as demographically balanced as possible, but a previous post referred to Joshua Starr's desire for walkable schools, and would seem to be at odds with a far eastern or western placement.

It also would seem to be at odds with the NCC location. That would almost seem to be the least likely option for walking from surrounding neighborhoods.

I only attended the first ssac meeting but the concept of a 6th grade academy was brought up, which would keep all the kids together through middle school (a good thing in my mind). But it seemed to be quickly shot down by mcps rep. Why?

This was brought up in reference to Westland. But couldn't a 6th grade academy be built in many of the other sites that have been eliminated as being too small? It would seem that a 6th grade academy would be less land hungry and solve the over crowding problem.

This deserves more consideration.

MCPS will not decide the boundaries for the new middle school until a year before the school opens. As for walkability, Westland is not a walkable school. Most of the neighborhoods around Westland go to Pyle/Whitman (I think the school is actually in the Whitman cluster, with a little BCC cluster boundary line around it). However, Starr said that some Pyle kids may go to Westland once the new MS opens.

So, it seems like the new middle school is not just being built just to support the BCC cluster. It is being built to support overcrowding at other schools as well, and who knows, it could also include students from clusters other than Whitman since MCPS has not said for certain who is going to BCC MS #2.

I don't know what you envision exactly by 6th grade academy, but many parents at NCC and CCES have lobbied for their kids to stay at CCES and NCC where they are currently in 6th grade, when MCPS abruptly decided they should all be transferred to Westland. The revolt of the CCES and NCC parents lead MCPS to accept that a new middle school should be built.

Throughout the debate over whether CCES/NCC students could stay in 6th grade at their elementary schools, MCPS insisted that it wasn't developmentally appropriate to keep 6th grade away from 7th and 8th. MCPS seemed, IMO, to want to get economies of scale by moving everyone to middle school, wanted to simplify administration (because they don't seem to be able to cope with the minor creative management necessary to keep this 6th grade format) and seems to think that keeping 6th grade separate means that kids are not pushed as hard academically. I don't think the latter is necessarily true.

MCPS was so devoted to the idea of moving the 6th grades to Westland, that they basically forced the parents at these schools into a choice -- move to Westland or we will slowing academically strangle your 6th grade with substandard educaitonal offerings and relentless budget cuts. Given that choice, these parents advocated for a new middle school, rather than a super-size Westland.

I can't imagine that the NCC or CCES parents would accept the idea of a 6th grade academy at a non-Westland site that would then feed to 7/8 at Westland. It would mean that these students would go to a split elementary school (K-2 at RHPS and 3-6 at CCES or NCC) and then to a separate 6th grade, and then on to 7/8. Most parents feel that the paired elementary school set-up puts an increased burden on them, and I can't imagine they'd accept yet another extra transition.

Given the history, imagine the uproar that MCPS would create if they created a "6th grade academy" in this cluster?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Children within 1.5 miles will be expected to walk, if it is safe. At last week's site selection advisory committee meeting, Montgomery County Public Schools staff said that if a school were to be built on the site of Rock Creek Hills Park, then students would not be expected to cross either Connecticut Ave or Beach Drive to get to it, because those roads are not safe for middle school students to cross.

This makes sense but I'm not sure it's true... I see a large group of younger kids walking east from CCES every day - I don't follow them the whole way, but they appear to cross Conn Ave to Section 3/5/Martins Addition neighborhoods of CC MD.

If there are restrictions on walkers crossing Connecticut or Beach, then that would mean almost no kids would be eligible to walk to a MS if the NCC park is chosen - there are very few houses within walking distance that would not have to cross Connecticut or walk past onramps to the Beltway. Another strike against NCC as a realistic alternative. At least in the RCH neighborhood, there would be a reasonable number of students who live in the immediate vicinity.

FWIW, there is a crossing guard at CT and Raymond St. But, kids who live east of CT, but closer to EW HWY frequently cross to the north of Raymond St., w/o the crossing guard because it is shorter to go the back way along Meadow Lane to CCES. Years and years ago, a child was even hit by a car and killed while crossing near Leland St. A stop light was put in to ease the pedestrian crossing problems.

I just relate this to show that the pedestrian analysis can be complicated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like the North Bethesda Park option. Good location and a good amount if land.

What park are you even referring to? And, why is somebody back to talk about how we should develop our parks? If one more MoCo bureaucrat wants to tell me that today we have more parkland than we had 30 years ago, I will puke. Because thirty years ago we had way more green space in this county. It's just that every inch of that privately held farmland now has office parks and retail space sitting on it. MoCo officials are pushing the southern part of the county to start looking like the Bronx.

Hey, I'm with you in the sense that they should stop building in the Bethesda/CC/Kensington areas that comprise the BCC closter, but if that is not going to happen then we need more schools. What are the alternatives to parks? Buy and raze a large number of houses? I'd be for the state taking land from one of the two country clubs on Conneticut Avenue, but I think I'd be in the minority.

The only other option I can think of is to redesign the BCC cluster so that anyone outside the beltway is put into Walter Johnson, Einstein or Silver Spring. Though that doesn't seem fair to those residents.

I used to live in East Bethesda and the dream of a new elementray school at Lynbrook has been around for years and years and years.
They need to give up that dream.

Walter Johnson takes from INSIDE the beltway (down to NIH) as well as outside, so not sure what you are talking about here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Starr is easily conned. Look at how hard he fell for perpetuating the Rosemary Hills scam.

What does this mean?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just out of curiousity, all you Lynnbrook booster(s) - how many of you are there and how many of you live in Rock Creek Hills?

I have no dog in this fight, but I don't see the inherent advantage of Lynnbrook over RCH - if anything, the Kensington neighborhood has less congestion and will be easier to access, plus the site is larger. So what's the hangup?

I don't have a dog in this fight either. I don't live in Kensington, nor do I live near the Lynnbrook site, but after all this discussion I drove by there. I have to concur that it would be a good site for a middle school because as one poster said, it has few trees, a lot of parking lot and a couple (actually I think 3) decrepit buildings. I can't imagine tearing those down would be as much of a loss as building in what is now a park (I drove by RCH park also). I don't understand why the Lynnbrook site was eliminated in the last go round in spring. Why is MCPS protecting that site? Anybody??

I went to a meeting about this - the reason Lynnbrook was eliminated is the site's usable acreage is just 8.5 acres. The County would prefer 20 for a middle school, but will go to 10. 8.5 is just too small.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I still think RCH is the best choice. My 2 cents...

Hello RCH resident! I think you will not be disappointed. I bet it will come right back to you guys, now that they have done the requisite open meetings and civic input, as well as public input...But I am not sure why there is any support for NCC Park. That I do find strange since it seems kinda outta the way.

I sure hope I am not living around here when it comes time to site the new high school! Look Out!
LOL!!!

Exactly...I live in East Bethesda and went to our community meeting with the intention of supporting a middle school. However, the data presented to us made it look really unfeasible. As a PP said, I think the issue is MCPS's requirements are outdated. How do NYC, San Jose, Chicago, et al plan for schools? Bethesda is a semi-urban environment - we need to build UP, not across. Parking can be underground.

One person at the meeting suggested we may end up using Lynbrook as overflow for BCC when that site gets overcrowded...as it undoubtedly will, with all the development that's coming to downtown Bethesda, Chevy Chase, and the surrounding area.

Bethesda desperately wants walkable schools for our kids. The NCC site does look good because the park is really underutlilized and there's tons of green space. Perhaps they could do SOMETHING about traffic..and have crossing guards for the kids, so kids from downtown and East Bethesda could walk or bike to school? Amazingly, walkability isn't even on the list of considerations that the County considers when evaluating a potential site.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]One of the problems with Lynnbrook is that it is right at the BARE minimum acreage of the smallest middle school site that MCPS can imagine. Another problem is that teams from B-CC are already using all the fields there in the afternoons, so that leaves B-CC looking for different fields if the MS is built there and MS kids start using the fields.[/quote]

There are already some middle schools in the county that are on small parcels. Here are some MS in MoCo that are under 10 acres: Lakelands Park (Northwest cluster), Newport Mills (DC Consortium), Earle Wood (Rockville), Parkland (DC Consortium). Even Pyle is on fewer than 15 acres. What is it about the 4 MS on small parcels that made it workable, and why would those same conditions not apply to BCC MS #2? I believe Newport Mills abuts Einstein and they share the fields. Why can't the MS field be shared with BCC if such a plan works elsewhere?
[/quote]

I don't think RCH or Lynnbrook are good sites for the middle school. Neither is large enough to accommodate the school and athletic fields. And, both parks host BCC athletic teams. As for the other middle schools in the county that are "under 10 acres," they all sit adjacent to parks. Under an agreement with the City of Gaithersburg, Lakelands Park Middle School uses the fields for PE and after-school athletics (total acreage: 19 acres). We have been told that Pyle kids will probably go to Westland once the new school is built. What other plans does MCPS have for the new middle school?

Their track record for building adequate capacity at new and/or modernized schools is deplorable. Kensington-Parkwood is now undergoing a feasibility study for an addition, five years after it re-opened (the portables arrived shortly after opeening). And, the McKinney Hills (which hasn't even opened yet) was supposed to relieve overcrowding at two schools: Oakland Terrace and Woodlin, but now they've discovered that it can only accommodate Oakland Terrace. Woodlin will get portables instead.

I'm not sure why the neighbors of any of these sites are being demonized for speaking out instead of the people who created this problem. The county has given up many school sites in the BCC cluster (Kensington Jr. High is now a retirement home housing 200 people and Grace Episcopal was sold 10 years ago for $2 million). Now, MCPS says simply that there is nowhere to build except parks. After the middle school site is selected, there will be a site selection for a high school. That is when Norwood and/or NCC Park will be on the chopping block. Then all of us in the downcounty will be on I-270 driving to find places to play soccer, football, lacrosse, field hockey, etc.

We need to make smart, forward-thinking decisions in the face of huge development in CC Lake, Kensington, Wheaton and White Flint. Why can't a deal be made with these developers for land? Why are we adding more people if we can't take care of the ones who already live here?[/quote]

Exactly. You're very well spoken. I hope you're speaking up at neighborhood meetings, the next site selection meeting 2/22, etc....