BCC Middle School Site Selction number 2 - 2012 version -

[Anonymous]

Why doesn't MCPS want to pursue the expansion of Westland? Also, isn't MCPS saying that Lynnbrook isn't big enough for an elementary school, much less a middle school? It's my understanding that MCPS says an ES site requires 10-acres and Lynnbrook is just a bit under that.

[Anonymous]

As a parent of a kid who will go to Westland and another who will go to whereever this new middle school windw up, expanding Westland seems like the WORST possible idea. Middle school is a crucial period in a kid's life, and it is too often a horrible one as well. Having a middle school of 1500-2000 kids just sounds like hell on earth, for all involved. Plus for lots of us Westland involves an incredibly long bus ride - it's not even in the BCC catchment properly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why doesn't MCPS want to pursue the expansion of Westland? Also, isn't MCPS saying that Lynnbrook isn't big enough for an elementary school, much less a middle school? It's my understanding that MCPS says an ES site requires 10-acres and Lynnbrook is just a bit under that.

Where did you hear that MCPS requires 10 acres for an ES site? According to schools at a glance, there is only one site in the BCC cluster that is over 10 acres, and that is Westbrook. CCES is 3.8 acres, Somerset is only 3.7. There are lots of ES sites in the county that are less than 10 acres. And, where would you like to find this magical 10 acre+ plot in the BCC cluster?

[Anonymous]

IIRC, MCPS (not the "EBCA Mafia", whatever PP means by that) is saying Lynnbrook is not big enough for a MS, and a MS there would conflict with BCC use of the athletic fields there, but Lynnbrook would be a good site for an ES, and an ES would not need afternoon use of the athletic fields so there would not be a conflict with BCC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:IIRC, MCPS (not the "EBCA Mafia", whatever PP means by that) is saying Lynnbrook is not big enough for a MS, and a MS there would conflict with BCC use of the athletic fields there, but Lynnbrook would be a good site for an ES, and an ES would not need afternoon use of the athletic fields so there would not be a conflict with BCC.

As has been repeatedly pointed out, not an insurmountable obstacle. Fields can be shared and scheduled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IIRC, MCPS (not the "EBCA Mafia", whatever PP means by that) is saying Lynnbrook is not big enough for a MS, and a MS there would conflict with BCC use of the athletic fields there, but Lynnbrook would be a good site for an ES, and an ES would not need afternoon use of the athletic fields so there would not be a conflict with BCC.

As has been repeatedly pointed out, not an insurmountable obstacle. Fields can be shared and scheduled.

But only at Lynnbrook and not at RCH?

[Anonymous]

At its current enrollment of 1200 students Westland is already a big school The Gazette reported yesterday that the "By 2017 there are projected to be 200 6th-graders that cannot be accommodated" in Westland's current building. So an expanded Westland would not have an appreciatively larger student body. Moreover, expansion would allow an opportunity to re-structure the school both physically and organizationally to make it feel smaller and more intimate through by creating learning communities within the larger school. This model is already being implemented with considerable success in middle schools and high schools across the country.

With re to the necessary parcel size for an ES, that info again comes from the Gazette's reporting on MCPS policy. While there are schools in the system that are much smaller than 10 acres, those schools were built decades ago. Westbrook is significantly overcrowded and Somerset, which my children attended, is already bursting at the seams despite its renovation less than 10 years ago, which left it with very little outdoor space.

I don't live in EBeth, so I don't have a dog in this fight, but having lived there in the early '90s I know how significant the park is to that community. The same is probably true in every neighborhood, so it just makes sense to consider sites that don't require taking parkland away from any community.

[Anonymous]

As a parent of a kid who will go to Westland and another who will go to wherever this new middle school winds up, expanding Westland seems like the WORST possible idea. Middle school is a crucial period in a kid's life, and it is too often a horrible one as well. Having a middle school of 1500-2000 kids just sounds like hell on earth, for all involved. Plus for lots of us Westland involves an incredibly long bus ride - it's not even in the BCC catchment properly.

THIS. I was on the committee and expanding Westland was discussed at length - there were several very vocal proponents of this idea. It is too far from most of the cluster - 45-minute bus rides are the norm. And while MCPS could build additional classrooms, the student body would be too big for most of the programs at the middle school level - think about 2000 students competing for 20 speaking parts in a school play, for example. And the fields would not be sufficient once land was taken for the additional building facilities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IIRC, MCPS (not the "EBCA Mafia", whatever PP means by that) is saying Lynnbrook is not big enough for a MS, and a MS there would conflict with BCC use of the athletic fields there, but Lynnbrook would be a good site for an ES, and an ES would not need afternoon use of the athletic fields so there would not be a conflict with BCC.

As has been repeatedly pointed out, not an insurmountable obstacle. Fields can be shared and scheduled.

But only at Lynnbrook and not at RCH?

The fields at Rock Creek Hills are shared and scheduled. They have 2 regulation sized adult soccer fields. Lynnbrook's field is smaller and used much less, this from Park's records, this community would not lose a park because the school would be built where the old school and parking lots are. The park would remain, and collocate with the school as it has for the past 70 some years.

[Anonymous]

Redistribute the cluster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Redistribute the cluster.

Well, they will have to once the new school is built.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Redistribute the cluster.

Well, they will have to once the new school is built.

Sounds like maybe the poster is saying they wouldn't need a new middle school if they redrew the boundaries and had fewer kids in the cluster.

[Anonymous]

All the other clusters in the area are overcrowded, too, though - that doesn't solve anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Redistribute the cluster.

Well, they will have to once the new school is built.

Sounds like maybe the poster is saying they wouldn't need a new middle school if they redrew the boundaries and had fewer kids in the cluster.

Seems to me that discussion was broached by the BOE sometime last year and they quickly dismissed it as being too politically charged to consider even if the numbers could work. For one thing, Blair is already huge, cannot be expanded and is at capacity so you can't push in that direction. Pushing WJ or BCC cluster schools into Einstein would reduce property values. People would go completely ape sh*t, including residents who don't have school age children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Seems to me that discussion was broached by the BOE sometime last year and they quickly dismissed it as being too politically charged to consider even if the numbers could work. For one thing, Blair is already huge, cannot be expanded and is at capacity so you can't push in that direction. Pushing WJ or BCC cluster schools into Einstein would reduce property values. People would go completely ape sh*t, including residents who don't have school age children.

If they are attempting to defend their property values by insuring their children don't have to go to school with minorities, maybe they deserve to go ape sh*t.