Safety in Portable Classrooms

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree and had the same fears, particularly on a day like today. Must be nice for the W schools that don't have portables. Damn you, Governor Hogan, for cutting school funding and making our kids stay in these damn portables.

He didn't cut school funding. In fact, he increased it. He just didn't increase it enough for the county to continue to waste money fast enough. So instead of cutting the huge overhead, wasted free programs, and county administrative, the board decided to increase ratios last year and spend time and money telling all the clueless people how awful it is that we don't get the money we asked for. And people like you just believe it. They have been telling overcrowded schools/districts for YEARS (prior to Hogan) that they need more money to build more schools.

Instead of blindly blaming the governor, do your research. MCPS has more and more people in poverty. That equals to higher funding needs for the schools with less tax revenue from the people. They are also over building and there are no new schools for all the new housing. How is this the governor's fault? Time to start placing blame on the county government and the county board. Stomping your feet and demanding more money doesn't always get you want you want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree and had the same fears, particularly on a day like today. Must be nice for the W schools that don't have portables. Damn you, Governor Hogan, for cutting school funding and making our kids stay in these damn portables.

He didn't cut school funding. In fact, he increased it. He just didn't increase it enough for the county to continue to waste money fast enough. So instead of cutting the huge overhead, wasted free programs, and county administrative, the board decided to increase ratios last year and spend time and money telling all the clueless people how awful it is that we don't get the money we asked for. And people like you just believe it. They have been telling overcrowded schools/districts for YEARS (prior to Hogan) that they need more money to build more schools.

Instead of blindly blaming the governor, do your research. MCPS has more and more people in poverty. That equals to higher funding needs for the schools with less tax revenue from the people. They are also over building and there are no new schools for all the new housing. How is this the governor's fault? Time to start placing blame on the county government and the county board. Stomping your feet and demanding more money doesn't always get you want you want.

If MCPS has higher funding needs, wouldn't it have made sense for the governor to have provided the increased funding that everybody was basing their budget assumptions on?

I also don't quite understand the argument about capital funding. Hogan didn't provide the capital funding that MCPS expected, but this is ok (I guess?) because MCPS's capital needs have exceeded MCPS's capital funding for years?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No school in the Churchill or Whitman cluster has portables. The rest of the county is exposed while those clusters are protected in their gleaming new facilities.

The people that live in those two clusters and their taxes probably pay for 70% of the county taxes. They also don't have urban areas and built up apartments, condos or many townhomes. Stop bitching about them. Why don't you start complaining to those that do not pay taxes at all?

And last I checked, Churchill is not gleaming. Northwest, RM, BCC, Gaithersburg and other high schools are a lot nicer.

Now can we get back to the topic?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree and had the same fears, particularly on a day like today. Must be nice for the W schools that don't have portables. Damn you, Governor Hogan, for cutting school funding and making our kids stay in these damn portables.

He didn't cut school funding. In fact, he increased it. He just didn't increase it enough for the county to continue to waste money fast enough. So instead of cutting the huge overhead, wasted free programs, and county administrative, the board decided to increase ratios last year and spend time and money telling all the clueless people how awful it is that we don't get the money we asked for. And people like you just believe it. They have been telling overcrowded schools/districts for YEARS (prior to Hogan) that they need more money to build more schools.

Instead of blindly blaming the governor, do your research. MCPS has more and more people in poverty. That equals to higher funding needs for the schools with less tax revenue from the people. They are also over building and there are no new schools for all the new housing. How is this the governor's fault? Time to start placing blame on the county government and the county board. Stomping your feet and demanding more money doesn't always get you want you want.

If MCPS has higher funding needs, wouldn't it have made sense for the governor to have provided the increased funding that everybody was basing their budget assumptions on?

I also don't quite understand the argument about capital funding. Hogan didn't provide the capital funding that MCPS expected, but this is ok (I guess?) because MCPS's capital needs have exceeded MCPS's capital funding for years?

So because the county had an astronomical number wanted this year and assumed they could get it, the governor should just give it to them? Are you the same people that thinks that we should always get a snow waiver each year from the state because it is assumed? Instead of fixing the problems (budget, sticking with contingency plan) you just assume someone above them should help them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No school in the Churchill or Whitman cluster has portables. The rest of the county is exposed while those clusters are protected in their gleaming new facilities.

The people that live in those two clusters and their taxes probably pay for 70% of the county taxes. They also don't have urban areas and built up apartments, condos or many townhomes. Stop bitching about them. Why don't you start complaining to those that do not pay taxes at all?

And last I checked, Churchill is not gleaming. Northwest, RM, BCC, Gaithersburg and other high schools are a lot nicer.

Now can we get back to the topic?

I am very confused about the connection between paying taxes and living in urban areas (for example, Bethesda).

Churchill was renovated/modernized in 2001. Northwest was built in 1998 (with an addition in 2006). Richard Montgomery was modernized in 2007. B-CC was renovated/modernized in 2001. Gaithersburg is brand-new as of 2013, and the building looks lovely -- why don't you move and send your children there? Or Paint Branch, new as of 2012?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No school in the Churchill or Whitman cluster has portables. The rest of the county is exposed while those clusters are protected in their gleaming new facilities.

The people that live in those two clusters and their taxes probably pay for 70% of the county taxes. They also don't have urban areas and built up apartments, condos or many townhomes. Stop bitching about them. Why don't you start complaining to those that do not pay taxes at all?

And last I checked, Churchill is not gleaming. Northwest, RM, BCC, Gaithersburg and other high schools are a lot nicer.

Now can we get back to the topic?

That bolded part doesn't really matter. They live in MoCo. That's the way it works. But I agree that that first PP is either a troll or uninformed. I think it's the former, so stop feeding the troll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

So because the county had an astronomical number wanted this year and assumed they could get it, the governor should just give it to them? Are you the same people that thinks that we should always get a snow waiver each year from the state because it is assumed? Instead of fixing the problems (budget, sticking with contingency plan) you just assume someone above them should help them?

When Hogan allocates less state money per pupil to MCPS, and less state money per high-needs pupil to MCPS, then I call that a funding cut.

And yes, the state should contribute to MCPS funding. That's how the state funding of K-12 education works in Maryland.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No school in the Churchill or Whitman cluster has portables. The rest of the county is exposed while those clusters are protected in their gleaming new facilities.

The people that live in those two clusters and their taxes probably pay for 70% of the county taxes. They also don't have urban areas and built up apartments, condos or many townhomes. Stop bitching about them. Why don't you start complaining to those that do not pay taxes at all?

And last I checked, Churchill is not gleaming. Northwest, RM, BCC, Gaithersburg and other high schools are a lot nicer.

Now can we get back to the topic?

I am very confused about the connection between paying taxes and living in urban areas (for example, Bethesda).

Churchill was renovated/modernized in 2001. Northwest was built in 1998 (with an addition in 2006). Richard Montgomery was modernized in 2007. B-CC was renovated/modernized in 2001. Gaithersburg is brand-new as of 2013, and the building looks lovely -- why don't you move and send your children there? Or Paint Branch, new as of 2012?

RM was brand new as of 2007, not modernized. I think the point is many other schools are GLEAMING better than Churchill and the county doesn't give special attention to those clusters. They aren't having the growth the other areas are so why would they have portables? In the last 10-15 years there has been Kendlands, Lakelands, Kings Farm, Fallsgrove, Clarksburg, Boyds, Rockville Town Center, Park Potomac, Crown, Strathmore, new condo/apartment construction along 355, 28, Darnestown Rd. North Bethesda, Twinbrook etc... Huge populations in a smaller locations and maybe 1 or 2 new schools to go along with it. This would be a non-issue if they agreed with the multi-million dollar builders to BUILD schools when making these massive new developments. They chose not to and now they are scrambling year after year to keep up. They can not budget, prioritize or do anything in advance. They wait until the shit hits the fan and then whines.

[Anonymous]

Agreed with the PP. It's a funding cut. The previous poster trying to give us a page from the "Hogan really does help education" platform is spouting nonsense. Even my friends who voted for Hogan agree that he is slashing school funding to the detriment of students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

RM was brand new as of 2007, not modernized. I think the point is many other schools are GLEAMING better than Churchill and the county doesn't give special attention to those clusters. They aren't having the growth the other areas are so why would they have portables? In the last 10-15 years there has been Kendlands, Lakelands, Kings Farm, Fallsgrove, Clarksburg, Boyds, Rockville Town Center, Park Potomac, Crown, Strathmore, new condo/apartment construction along 355, 28, Darnestown Rd. North Bethesda, Twinbrook etc... Huge populations in a smaller locations and maybe 1 or 2 new schools to go along with it. This would be a non-issue if they agreed with the multi-million dollar builders to BUILD schools when making these massive new developments. They chose not to and now they are scrambling year after year to keep up. They can not budget, prioritize or do anything in advance. They wait until the shit hits the fan and then whines.

In most places (Clarksburg is an obvious exception), schools are over capacity because people with children are moving into existing houses. There are plenty of schools that are over capacity even though there has been little or no new development in the area.

Also, should we list all of the capital spending in the Churchill cluster that has occurred in the past few years, is occurring now, or is planned for the near future? (Speaking of places where MCPS is spending capital funds even though there has been little or no new development in the area.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

RM was brand new as of 2007, not modernized. I think the point is many other schools are GLEAMING better than Churchill and the county doesn't give special attention to those clusters. They aren't having the growth the other areas are so why would they have portables? In the last 10-15 years there has been Kendlands, Lakelands, Kings Farm, Fallsgrove, Clarksburg, Boyds, Rockville Town Center, Park Potomac, Crown, Strathmore, new condo/apartment construction along 355, 28, Darnestown Rd. North Bethesda, Twinbrook etc... Huge populations in a smaller locations and maybe 1 or 2 new schools to go along with it. This would be a non-issue if they agreed with the multi-million dollar builders to BUILD schools when making these massive new developments. They chose not to and now they are scrambling year after year to keep up. They can not budget, prioritize or do anything in advance. They wait until the shit hits the fan and then whines.

In most places (Clarksburg is an obvious exception), schools are over capacity because people with children are moving into existing houses. There are plenty of schools that are over capacity even though there has been little or no new development in the area.


Also, should we list all of the capital spending in the Churchill cluster that has occurred in the past few years, is occurring now, or is planned for the near future? (Speaking of places where MCPS is spending capital funds even though there has been little or no new development in the area.)

The bolded is completely false. Huge developments such as Fallsgrove and Kings Farm that started up with zero planned schools have overfilled schools beyond capacity with no end in site. It was county's fault for not securing land and making the builders build adequate schools for these areas back then. I believe there are 7 portables at both College Gardens and Ritchie Park and it has everything to do with those new developments feeding into them. If people with children moving into old homes is an issue why are schools like Cold Spring, Dufief, Fallsmead, with no development or boundary changes under capacity?

Find me a school that has more than 2-3 portables (or any portables) that has had no new development or boundary changes in the last 10-15 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

RM was brand new as of 2007, not modernized. I think the point is many other schools are GLEAMING better than Churchill and the county doesn't give special attention to those clusters. They aren't having the growth the other areas are so why would they have portables? In the last 10-15 years there has been Kendlands, Lakelands, Kings Farm, Fallsgrove, Clarksburg, Boyds, Rockville Town Center, Park Potomac, Crown, Strathmore, new condo/apartment construction along 355, 28, Darnestown Rd. North Bethesda, Twinbrook etc... Huge populations in a smaller locations and maybe 1 or 2 new schools to go along with it. This would be a non-issue if they agreed with the multi-million dollar builders to BUILD schools when making these massive new developments. They chose not to and now they are scrambling year after year to keep up. They can not budget, prioritize or do anything in advance. They wait until the shit hits the fan and then whines.

In most places (Clarksburg is an obvious exception), schools are over capacity because people with children are moving into existing houses. There are plenty of schools that are over capacity even though there has been little or no new development in the area.


Also, should we list all of the capital spending in the Churchill cluster that has occurred in the past few years, is occurring now, or is planned for the near future? (Speaking of places where MCPS is spending capital funds even though there has been little or no new development in the area.)

The bolded is completely false. Huge developments such as Fallsgrove and Kings Farm that started up with zero planned schools have overfilled schools beyond capacity with no end in site. It was county's fault for not securing land and making the builders build adequate schools for these areas back then. I believe there are 7 portables at both College Gardens and Ritchie Park and it has everything to do with those new developments feeding into them. If people with children moving into old homes is an issue why are schools like Cold Spring, Dufief, Fallsmead, with no development or boundary changes under capacity?

Find me a school that has more than 2-3 portables (or any portables) that has had no new development or boundary changes in the last 10-15 years.

Well, that's what Bruce Crispell says. And he knows where all of the students live. Maybe you have a data source that he doesn't have?

[Anonymous]

Churchill might not be new but Hoover was just rebuilt...hardly an ignored cluster.

[Anonymous]

And Cabin John MS. And Beverly Farms. Need I go on?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

RM was brand new as of 2007, not modernized. I think the point is many other schools are GLEAMING better than Churchill and the county doesn't give special attention to those clusters. They aren't having the growth the other areas are so why would they have portables? In the last 10-15 years there has been Kendlands, Lakelands, Kings Farm, Fallsgrove, Clarksburg, Boyds, Rockville Town Center, Park Potomac, Crown, Strathmore, new condo/apartment construction along 355, 28, Darnestown Rd. North Bethesda, Twinbrook etc... Huge populations in a smaller locations and maybe 1 or 2 new schools to go along with it. This would be a non-issue if they agreed with the multi-million dollar builders to BUILD schools when making these massive new developments. They chose not to and now they are scrambling year after year to keep up. They can not budget, prioritize or do anything in advance. They wait until the shit hits the fan and then whines.

In most places (Clarksburg is an obvious exception), schools are over capacity because people with children are moving into existing houses. There are plenty of schools that are over capacity even though there has been little or no new development in the area.


Also, should we list all of the capital spending in the Churchill cluster that has occurred in the past few years, is occurring now, or is planned for the near future? (Speaking of places where MCPS is spending capital funds even though there has been little or no new development in the area.)

The bolded is completely false. Huge developments such as Fallsgrove and Kings Farm that started up with zero planned schools have overfilled schools beyond capacity with no end in site. It was county's fault for not securing land and making the builders build adequate schools for these areas back then. I believe there are 7 portables at both College Gardens and Ritchie Park and it has everything to do with those new developments feeding into them. If people with children moving into old homes is an issue why are schools like Cold Spring, Dufief, Fallsmead, with no development or boundary changes under capacity?

Find me a school that has more than 2-3 portables (or any portables) that has had no new development or boundary changes in the last 10-15 years.

Well, that's what Bruce Crispell says. And he knows where all of the students live. Maybe you have a data source that he doesn't have?

Yes, it is called school directories. You honestly believe that chump? His job is to skim numbers, place blame elsewhere, and promise chances that never happen. You confront the issue and he says it's not all the new developments and building but old homes? Give me an f'ing break. How gullible can you be.

And still waiting on those schools that are over capacity with no boundary changes or development over the last 10-15yrs.