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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The RCF posters here harping on false allegations that somehow NCC and CCES had anything to do with the crappy site of the new middle are desperately trying to change the conversation. I live in Chevy Chase and had nothing to do with the terrible site choice and neither did anyone of I know or any one of my neighbors. No one protested anything until now.

RFC wants divert the discussion because they know that Option 7 is horrible for all the kids. The overcrowding and inequity issues were brought on by the RCF campaign of convenience at the expense to all. It is their turn to participate in the shared bussing platform embraced by MCPS for diversity. RCF also had an inside tract on the BOE decision due to some high powered people behind the scenes. Would love to out some people. NCC and CCES never had a chance for fairness with this person intervening.

That wouldn't be a state senator, would it?

The CCES PTA is relentless. You'll stop at nothing.

I'm the PP. I'm neither affiliated with CCES nor a CC resident, and I don't have a child involved. I don't understand "stop at nothing." Are you implying that the decision was immersed in something?

Not PP, but they are clearly implying that CCES PTA members were trying to anonymously smear a local politician. There is also a tinge of conspiracy about it, as well as a denigration of the morality/ethics of CCES PTA members. Pretty nasty stuff, but also just another typical day on DCUM.

I'm amazed at how people can take a swipe at a whole community with no evidence. This getting crazy. I'm not exonerating these people in any way for their misguided behavior, but, like many issues decided by MCPS, this matter could have been handled better. If you're a new superintendent, maybe you do a listening session with each of the communities, especially given the controversy with this school? Leaving this decision hanging is only increasing the divisions between the communities. Then again, maybe he just doesn't care.

Right, but it's okay to claim there could be no fairness for NCC/CCES because "RCF had an inside tract [sic] on the BOE decision due to some high powered people". What a bunch of garbage. You guys just make stuff up with impunity. But, hey, rich people ain't happy, ain't nobody happy.

I posted the comment right above yours. I did not post the comment you quoted, and I don't know why the person posted it. I don't see what someone being rich has to do with anything. You seem angry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The RCF posters here harping on false allegations that somehow NCC and CCES had anything to do with the crappy site of the new middle are desperately trying to change the conversation. I live in Chevy Chase and had nothing to do with the terrible site choice and neither did anyone of I know or any one of my neighbors. No one protested anything until now.

RFC wants divert the discussion because they know that Option 7 is horrible for all the kids. The overcrowding and inequity issues were brought on by the RCF campaign of convenience at the expense to all. It is their turn to participate in the shared bussing platform embraced by MCPS for diversity. RCF also had an inside tract on the BOE decision due to some high powered people behind the scenes. Would love to out some people. NCC and CCES never had a chance for fairness with this person intervening.

That wouldn't be a state senator, would it?

The CCES PTA is relentless. You'll stop at nothing.

I'm the PP. I'm neither affiliated with CCES nor a CC resident, and I don't have a child involved. I don't understand "stop at nothing." Are you implying that the decision was immersed in something?

Not PP, but they are clearly implying that CCES PTA members were trying to anonymously smear a local politician. There is also a tinge of conspiracy about it, as well as a denigration of the morality/ethics of CCES PTA members. Pretty nasty stuff, but also just another typical day on DCUM.

I'm amazed at how people can take a swipe at a whole community with no evidence. This getting crazy. I'm not exonerating these people in any way for their misguided behavior, but, like many issues decided by MCPS, this matter could have been handled better. If you're a new superintendent, maybe you do a listening session with each of the communities, especially given the controversy with this school? Leaving this decision hanging is only increasing the divisions between the communities. Then again, maybe he just doesn't care.

This seems like a ridiculous criticism. There were endless listening sessions. There were pros and cons to all the options. Whatever option was selected would leave some people unhappy. How are they "leaving the decision hanging" and why blame the superintendant for "increasing the divisions between the communities"?

Frankly to my mind most of the things said here about what the "community" thinks is bunk. I cry fowl-- cockadoodledooooo!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The RCF posters here harping on false allegations that somehow NCC and CCES had anything to do with the crappy site of the new middle are desperately trying to change the conversation. I live in Chevy Chase and had nothing to do with the terrible site choice and neither did anyone of I know or any one of my neighbors. No one protested anything until now.

RFC wants divert the discussion because they know that Option 7 is horrible for all the kids. The overcrowding and inequity issues were brought on by the RCF campaign of convenience at the expense to all. It is their turn to participate in the shared bussing platform embraced by MCPS for diversity. RCF also had an inside tract on the BOE decision due to some high powered people behind the scenes. Would love to out some people. NCC and CCES never had a chance for fairness with this person intervening.

Please, Big Red Fiery Frequent poster, for your mental health, give it a break. Find something else into which to channel this destructive bitterness, something other than this thread or your school listserv. Tennis perhaps?

[Anonymous]

You people are getting way off track, it's a pretty simple issue of balancing FARMS and student population between the two middle schools.

The middle school site selection is over and done with, and my child attends CCES, we are not "rich", I don't play tennis.

I have attended some of the meetings am on the PTA board and have never heard of any politician providing favoritism for RCF. It's a pretty nasty rumour which needs to die. I probably remember more about the NCC neighborhood opposition about the school being built. A key sticking point was the size of the lot, and that it would be overcrowded from Day 1, to which MCPS assured the community that it would not be overcrowded.

Through volunteer work I know a couple of friends that live in RCF and they are also adamant about their position, because they feel it serves them best, I feel my position serves my community the best. We have to agree to disagree.

[Anonymous]

My family is an incoming RHPS/CCES family (entering K next year) and are disappointed that the middle school will be overcrowded from the start. But we are happy to see that it will be diverse. The diversity of RHPS was the reason we looked to buy in its cachement. So, although we would have preferred option 1 simply because of the overcrowding issue, we're happy that the superintendent went with option 7 over the other options. Our hope was that the result woudl keep the kids from RHPS (whether they go onto NCCES or CCES) together in middle school.

I read the superintendent's opinion and thought it was pretty thoughtful and well-articulated. I would not have made the same choice, but I don't think it's fair to cast aspersions on him or his motivations.

[Anonymous]

I agree. There are valid positions on each side. Every school community deals with its own circumstances that are outside any parents’ control, and everyone is advocating for what they see as best for their own community. This is what they are supposed to do, and casting any one school as the villain is ridiculous.

I participated in the process, but come from a school that ends up at Westland with 1 or 7. I am irritated by the insinuations I read in these messages, and I want to share two things from a committee member perspective:

1) At the outset all schools were told several times that MCPS wanted to see representation from all communities, especially those that don't typically have a strong voice. RCF did that really well, organizing their Hispanic/Latino neighborhood community and putting a rep from that community on the committee. CCES had the same opportunity, but chose not to do so.

2) Option 7 was not one of the original options. The first 6 options included three that divided the CCES/NCC/RH communities, and understandably angered those communities. Nearly all committee reps asked for more options to consider, but CCES reps demanded an option that specifically split the RCF school by program. They wanted Option 10, but they got Option 7.

Sometimes our choices come back to bite us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree. There are valid positions on each side. Every school community deals with its own circumstances that are outside any parents’ control, and everyone is advocating for what they see as best for their own community. This is what they are supposed to do, and casting any one school as the villain is ridiculous.

I participated in the process, but come from a school that ends up at Westland with 1 or 7. I am irritated by the insinuations I read in these messages, and I want to share two things from a committee member perspective:

1) At the outset all schools were told several times that MCPS wanted to see representation from all communities, especially those that don't typically have a strong voice. RCF did that really well, organizing their Hispanic/Latino neighborhood community and putting a rep from that community on the committee. CCES had the same opportunity, but chose not to do so.

2) Option 7 was not one of the original options. The first 6 options included three that divided the CCES/NCC/RH communities, and understandably angered those communities. Nearly all committee reps asked for more options to consider, but CCES reps demanded an option that specifically split the RCF school by program. They wanted Option 10, but they got Option 7.

Sometimes our choices come back to bite us.

Ouch.

[Anonymous]

Anyone know if there is any truth to the rumor that the BOE is considering overriding the Superintendent's recommendation and selecting Option 8 over Option 7?

I don't have a dog in this fight, but this certainly represents the worst possible of all available options, creating split articulations out the wazoo.

But I guess their own bizarre twisted logic is that the final outcome is more palatable if they piss off even more people?

There is a strong geographic logic to Option 8 and it also evens out the FARMS, which I know is the biggest objection, however it completely ignores existing boundaries and turns everything into a mess. Unless of course they have the fortitude to actually clean up this mess and redraw all of the ES boundaries in the cluster. They might be idiots, but they are not that stupid.

How hard is it to get a decent school board?

[Anonymous]

option 8? I hadn't heard that one. Where did you hear the rumor?

Did anyone go to or hear about the BOE session tonight?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone know if there is any truth to the rumor that the BOE is considering overriding the Superintendent's recommendation and selecting Option 8 over Option 7?

I don't have a dog in this fight, but this certainly represents the worst possible of all available options, creating split articulations out the wazoo.

But I guess their own bizarre twisted logic is that the final outcome is more palatable if they piss off even more people?

There is a strong geographic logic to Option 8 and it also evens out the FARMS, which I know is the biggest objection, however it completely ignores existing boundaries and turns everything into a mess. Unless of course they have the fortitude to actually clean up this mess and redraw all of the ES boundaries in the cluster. They might be idiots, but they are not that stupid.

How hard is it to get a decent school board?

I don't think that's the best choice but if communities keep fighting more reasonable options why not just blow everything up...

[Anonymous]

Option 8 is not one of the options they will consider. They dismissed it. They will consider Options 7 and 1, and a new Option 11, which would put Bethesda, CCES, NCC, and RH a MS#2, and RCF, Westbrook, Somerset at Westland. It has terrible utllization numbers (MS#2 at 115% in 2022-23 and westland at 69%) and they acknowledge they won't pass it, but want to be able to discuss it. They will also consider Option 6, which they also agree they have no intention of passing, but they want to be able to discuss it.

Really, it's down to 7 and 1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Option 8 is not one of the options they will consider. They dismissed it. They will consider Options 7 and 1, and a new Option 11, which would put Bethesda, CCES, NCC, and RH a MS#2, and RCF, Westbrook, Somerset at Westland. It has terrible utllization numbers (MS#2 at 115% in 2022-23 and westland at 69%) and they acknowledge they won't pass it, but want to be able to discuss it. They will also consider Option 6, which they also agree they have no intention of passing, but they want to be able to discuss it.

Really, it's down to 7 and 1.

Seriously?!?! Why keep coming up with options that are no better than the previous options. The primary complaint with Option #7 was that it caused overcrowding at BCC MS#2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Option 8 is not one of the options they will consider. They dismissed it. They will consider Options 7 and 1, and a new Option 11, which would put Bethesda, CCES, NCC, and RH a MS#2, and RCF, Westbrook, Somerset at Westland. It has terrible utllization numbers (MS#2 at 115% in 2022-23 and westland at 69%) and they acknowledge they won't pass it, but want to be able to discuss it. They will also consider Option 6, which they also agree they have no intention of passing, but they want to be able to discuss it.

Really, it's down to 7 and 1.

Where is there any detail about option 11?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Option 8 is not one of the options they will consider. They dismissed it. They will consider Options 7 and 1, and a new Option 11, which would put Bethesda, CCES, NCC, and RH a MS#2, and RCF, Westbrook, Somerset at Westland. It has terrible utllization numbers (MS#2 at 115% in 2022-23 and westland at 69%) and they acknowledge they won't pass it, but want to be able to discuss it. They will also consider Option 6, which they also agree they have no intention of passing, but they want to be able to discuss it.

Really, it's down to 7 and 1.

Where is there any detail about option 11?

I too am confused by this Option 11. This has been a long public process, to dump in another option at the last minute without any public input or consultation is egregiously poor on behalf of the BOE if it is true that it is being discussed. An awful BOE seems par for the course though.

Option 1 will probably not in the end be endorsed because it is a political non-starter as it leaves MS#2 with more spare capacity than Westland. However Westland must accommodate the downtown Bethesda sector plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Option 8 is not one of the options they will consider. They dismissed it. They will consider Options 7 and 1, and a new Option 11, which would put Bethesda, CCES, NCC, and RH a MS#2, and RCF, Westbrook, Somerset at Westland. It has terrible utllization numbers (MS#2 at 115% in 2022-23 and westland at 69%) and they acknowledge they won't pass it, but want to be able to discuss it. They will also consider Option 6, which they also agree they have no intention of passing, but they want to be able to discuss it.

Really, it's down to 7 and 1.

Where is there any detail about option 11?

I too am confused by this Option 11. This has been a long public process, to dump in another option at the last minute without any public input or consultation is egregiously poor on behalf of the BOE if it is true that it is being discussed. An awful BOE seems par for the course though.

Option 1 will probably not in the end be endorsed because it is a political non-starter as it leaves MS#2 with more spare capacity than Westland. However Westland must accommodate the downtown Bethesda sector plan.

In fact, 1 would just flip the capacity burden from MS2 to Westland, while 7 is basically vice-versa.

In 2021, 7 would leave Westland at 81% and MS2 at 96%. 1 would leave Westland at 92% and MS2 at 82%.

I wouldn't believe any of these projections though. We know that there will be substantial growth throughout this area, but the key question is which will grow fastest. That will be the school that deserves the lower capacity.