B-CC/WJ capacity cluster meeting

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So they are considering expanding current schools in both clusters to have 740 students each? How does that work in the Rosemary Hills area - it would have 740 students, and then half the students would go to CCES and the other half to NCC, but each of those schools would need to have 740 students? The math does not work.

The WJ elementary schools are already all built (or in the midst of being built) to 715-770. They are looking at taking more of the B-CC cluster elementary schools to that size but a parameter of this capacity study was that they are not considering de-coupling RH, NCC and CC. So they are not looking at taking those 3 up to 740. For example, the NCC site is relatively large and relatively flat with good bus access and could pretty easily accommodate a larger school, but they did not consider that option due to the priority for keeping the RH/NCC/CC grouping intact.

In other words, you are correct that the math doesn't work for those three schools to remain linked but each go to 740.

Thanks. I'm surprised they are not even considering decoupling.

Undoing the pairing with RHPS - "decoupling" - would essentially re-segregate the cluster. I doubt they could do it.

I live in the cluster. I went to the school in the cluster when it was desegregated. I certainly wouldn't support re-segregation, and I think that many parents feel the same. I also don't think legally it would be viable to uncouple schools. There would likely be law suits to oppose.

I also live in the cluster. Everyone I know, no matter where they live, would like to have one ES to go to. People who live near RHES would like to stay there; those near CCES would like to go there; and those near NCC there. RHES is way too big and is like Lord of the Flies at lunch and recess. (I know; I regularly volunteer then.) And it makes no sense to start with a huge school for K-2 when a more nurturing environment is desired and then move to a smaller school about half the size for 3-5. I know of no one happy with the current arrangement.

Actually, a lot of parents like that RHPS is only K-2 and consider that "nurturing" -- I agree that lunch is not handled well, but that is a principal management issues. Playground and lunch both need better and kinder supervision and more eyes on playground.

There is nothing nurturing about RHES. The principal keeps that from happening.

They will not get more staff for lunch and recess. The principal said they get one adult for every 50 kids, per MCPS policy. When I volunteer there, much of my time at recess is spent shuffling injured kids with bloody noses to the nurse.

again, that is a management issue, not a building/pairing issue. Lobby for more volunteers, press the school sytem for more aides as a special exception to ratio due to all K-2, and make it clear that MCPS has been warned about the playground liability they are facing.

What you describe is no reason to re-segregate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:WJ already did a site selection and rejected most of those sites:

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/departments/facilities/rem/SSAC_Report_Walter_Johnson.pdf

Why are they wasting time doing this again?

Here is the explanation from the CIP:

Planning Study: A Site Selection Committee was held in
spring 2018, to identify possible sites for a new elementary
school in the Walter Johnson Cluster. The projected space
deficits at the elementary school level in the cluster are not
sufficient to recommend a new elementary school for the
Walter Johnson Cluster at this time. In November 2018, the
Board of Education adopted a capacity study for the elementary
schools in the Bethesda-Chevy Chase Cluster. Given the
space deficits in the Walter Johnson Cluster, in November
2018 the Board of Education expanded the capacity study to
explore possible solutions that would include the elementary
schools in both the Walter Johnson and Bethesda-Chevy Chase
Clusters. The Board of Education also included a joint site
selection process for the two clusters. Once the capacity study
and site selection process are complete, a recommendation to
address the overutilization at the elementary school level for
both clusters will be included for consideration in the next
CIP. Once the capacity study is complete, a recommendation
to address the overutilization at the elementary school
level in both clusters will be included for consideration in the
next CIP. The revitalization/expansion project for Luxmanor
Elementary School includes additional capacity to allow
for the reassignment of students to address a portion of the
overutilization at the elementary school level in the Walter
Johnson Cluster. A boundary study will be considered once the
capacity study is complete in order to make holistic decisions
for all of the elementary schools in both the Walter Johnson
and Bethesda-Chevy Chase clusters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WJ already did a site selection and rejected most of those sites:

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/departments/facilities/rem/SSAC_Report_Walter_Johnson.pdf

Why are they wasting time doing this again?

Here is the explanation from the CIP:

Planning Study: A Site Selection Committee was held in
spring 2018, to identify possible sites for a new elementary
school in the Walter Johnson Cluster. The projected space
deficits at the elementary school level in the cluster are not
sufficient to recommend a new elementary school for the
Walter Johnson Cluster at this time. In November 2018, the
Board of Education adopted a capacity study for the elementary
schools in the Bethesda-Chevy Chase Cluster. Given the
space deficits in the Walter Johnson Cluster, in November
2018 the Board of Education expanded the capacity study to
explore possible solutions that would include the elementary
schools in both the Walter Johnson and Bethesda-Chevy Chase
Clusters. The Board of Education also included a joint site
selection process for the two clusters. Once the capacity study
and site selection process are complete, a recommendation to
address the overutilization at the elementary school level for
both clusters will be included for consideration in the next
CIP. Once the capacity study is complete, a recommendation
to address the overutilization at the elementary school
level in both clusters will be included for consideration in the
next CIP. The revitalization/expansion project for Luxmanor
Elementary School includes additional capacity to allow
for the reassignment of students to address a portion of the
overutilization at the elementary school level in the Walter
Johnson Cluster. A boundary study will be considered once the
capacity study is complete in order to make holistic decisions
for all of the elementary schools in both the Walter Johnson
and Bethesda-Chevy Chase clusters.

Basically they couldn't really justify building a whole new ES just within either cluster, but maybe they could if the school was intended to serve both clusters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know why Somerset is so severely under capacity?

It's great for the kids/parents who live/attend that school, it's just such a different dynamic than all of the other schools on this list.

Sorry, meant to type Westbrook!

It’s catchment area is all SFHs, so there is very low density in that part of the cluster. It would make sense to move some of the high rise buildings in Friendship Heights that are now in Somerset into Westbrook. Then you could move some of the crowding in the Bethesda ES catchment into Somerset.

I agree as things stand now, that would make sense. However, I think it's more likely they will rezone the coming Westbard redevelopment for Westbrook (it currently is zoned for Wood Acres). That has the added benefit of having those future kids go to Westland (which they are directly next to, and which has capacity after Silver Creek has opened) rather than Pyle.

I have nothing to base this on, it's just speculation - but it makes a ton of sense.

[Anonymous]

I think this is the most civil thread on DCUM in the history of DCUM. Hooray for people!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know why Somerset is so severely under capacity?

It's great for the kids/parents who live/attend that school, it's just such a different dynamic than all of the other schools on this list.

Sorry, meant to type Westbrook!

It’s catchment area is all SFHs, so there is very low density in that part of the cluster. It would make sense to move some of the high rise buildings in Friendship Heights that are now in Somerset into Westbrook. Then you could move some of the crowding in the Bethesda ES catchment into Somerset.

I agree as things stand now, that would make sense. However, I think it's more likely they will rezone the coming Westbard redevelopment for Westbrook (it currently is zoned for Wood Acres). That has the added benefit of having those future kids go to Westland (which they are directly next to, and which has capacity after Silver Creek has opened) rather than Pyle.

I have nothing to base this on, it's just speculation - but it makes a ton of sense.

ITA, except the problem will be in HS because B-CC has now expanded so much it has run out of room to expand any more.

[Anonymous]

In BCC cluster, only Bethesda ES needs help. Westbrook ES can absorb all extra students from BEES. If MCPS shift the south bounary of BEES and RMES, problem could be solved. It seems too easy so I wonder why no one propose that.

[Anonymous]

Except that it takes 5 years to build an elementary school. And Ashburton and Farmland can already fill half of a new elementary school between them. In five years, White Flint will be built out more, the Grosvenor Strathmore metro buildings will be built out, and so many more that are in the queue. I'm in the WJ cluster, and have a preschooler and one on the way. I would like them to attend schoolw that are not overcrowded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know why Somerset is so severely under capacity?

It's great for the kids/parents who live/attend that school, it's just such a different dynamic than all of the other schools on this list.

Sorry, meant to type Westbrook!

It’s catchment area is all SFHs, so there is very low density in that part of the cluster. It would make sense to move some of the high rise buildings in Friendship Heights that are now in Somerset into Westbrook. Then you could move some of the crowding in the Bethesda ES catchment into Somerset.

I agree as things stand now, that would make sense. However, I think it's more likely they will rezone the coming Westbard redevelopment for Westbrook (it currently is zoned for Wood Acres). That has the added benefit of having those future kids go to Westland (which they are directly next to, and which has capacity after Silver Creek has opened) rather than Pyle.

I have nothing to base this on, it's just speculation - but it makes a ton of sense.

ITA, except the problem will be in HS because B-CC has now expanded so much it has run out of room to expand any more.

Right. They could split-articulate and do Westbrook, Westland, Whitman instead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So they are considering expanding current schools in both clusters to have 740 students each? How does that work in the Rosemary Hills area - it would have 740 students, and then half the students would go to CCES and the other half to NCC, but each of those schools would need to have 740 students? The math does not work.

The WJ elementary schools are already all built (or in the midst of being built) to 715-770. They are looking at taking more of the B-CC cluster elementary schools to that size but a parameter of this capacity study was that they are not considering de-coupling RH, NCC and CC. So they are not looking at taking those 3 up to 740. For example, the NCC site is relatively large and relatively flat with good bus access and could pretty easily accommodate a larger school, but they did not consider that option due to the priority for keeping the RH/NCC/CC grouping intact.

In other words, you are correct that the math doesn't work for those three schools to remain linked but each go to 740.

Thanks. I'm surprised they are not even considering decoupling.

Undoing the pairing with RHPS - "decoupling" - would essentially re-segregate the cluster. I doubt they could do it.

I live in the cluster. I went to the school in the cluster when it was desegregated. I certainly wouldn't support re-segregation, and I think that many parents feel the same. I also don't think legally it would be viable to uncouple schools. There would likely be law suits to oppose.

I also live in the cluster. Everyone I know, no matter where they live, would like to have one ES to go to. People who live near RHES would like to stay there; those near CCES would like to go there; and those near NCC there. RHES is way too big and is like Lord of the Flies at lunch and recess. (I know; I regularly volunteer then.) And it makes no sense to start with a huge school for K-2 when a more nurturing environment is desired and then move to a smaller school about half the size for 3-5. I know of no one happy with the current arrangement.

Actually, a lot of parents like that RHPS is only K-2 and consider that "nurturing" -- I agree that lunch is not handled well, but that is a principal management issues. Playground and lunch both need better and kinder supervision and more eyes on playground.

There is nothing nurturing about RHES. The principal keeps that from happening.

They will not get more staff for lunch and recess. The principal said they get one adult for every 50 kids, per MCPS policy. When I volunteer there, much of my time at recess is spent shuffling injured kids with bloody noses to the nurse.

again, that is a management issue, not a building/pairing issue. Lobby for more volunteers, press the school sytem for more aides as a special exception to ratio due to all K-2, and make it clear that MCPS has been warned about the playground liability they are facing.

What you describe is no reason to re-segregate.

The real problem is that the RHES principal is awful. she doesn’t give a damn what anyone thinks, teachers, staff, parents. She somehow keeps her job. Even with the terrible principal, the families I know who live near the school would prefer to go there all 5 years for the convenience.

BTW: why isn’t busing used to integrate Bethesda schools, as it is in Chevy Chase?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So they are considering expanding current schools in both clusters to have 740 students each? How does that work in the Rosemary Hills area - it would have 740 students, and then half the students would go to CCES and the other half to NCC, but each of those schools would need to have 740 students? The math does not work.

The WJ elementary schools are already all built (or in the midst of being built) to 715-770. They are looking at taking more of the B-CC cluster elementary schools to that size but a parameter of this capacity study was that they are not considering de-coupling RH, NCC and CC. So they are not looking at taking those 3 up to 740. For example, the NCC site is relatively large and relatively flat with good bus access and could pretty easily accommodate a larger school, but they did not consider that option due to the priority for keeping the RH/NCC/CC grouping intact.

In other words, you are correct that the math doesn't work for those three schools to remain linked but each go to 740.

Thanks. I'm surprised they are not even considering decoupling.

Undoing the pairing with RHPS - "decoupling" - would essentially re-segregate the cluster. I doubt they could do it.

I live in the cluster. I went to the school in the cluster when it was desegregated. I certainly wouldn't support re-segregation, and I think that many parents feel the same. I also don't think legally it would be viable to uncouple schools. There would likely be law suits to oppose.

I also live in the cluster. Everyone I know, no matter where they live, would like to have one ES to go to. People who live near RHES would like to stay there; those near CCES would like to go there; and those near NCC there. RHES is way too big and is like Lord of the Flies at lunch and recess. (I know; I regularly volunteer then.) And it makes no sense to start with a huge school for K-2 when a more nurturing environment is desired and then move to a smaller school about half the size for 3-5. I know of no one happy with the current arrangement.

Actually, a lot of parents like that RHPS is only K-2 and consider that "nurturing" -- I agree that lunch is not handled well, but that is a principal management issues. Playground and lunch both need better and kinder supervision and more eyes on playground.

There is nothing nurturing about RHES. The principal keeps that from happening.

They will not get more staff for lunch and recess. The principal said they get one adult for every 50 kids, per MCPS policy. When I volunteer there, much of my time at recess is spent shuffling injured kids with bloody noses to the nurse.

again, that is a management issue, not a building/pairing issue. Lobby for more volunteers, press the school sytem for more aides as a special exception to ratio due to all K-2, and make it clear that MCPS has been warned about the playground liability they are facing.

What you describe is no reason to re-segregate.

The real problem is that the RHES principal is awful. she doesn’t give a damn what anyone thinks, teachers, staff, parents. She somehow keeps her job. Even with the terrible principal, the families I know who live near the school would prefer to go there all 5 years for the convenience.

BTW: why isn’t busing used to integrate Bethesda schools, as it is in Chevy Chase?

Someone upstream described the atmosphere at lunch and recess at RHES. It has been like that for many years, at least over a decade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know why Somerset is so severely under capacity?

It's great for the kids/parents who live/attend that school, it's just such a different dynamic than all of the other schools on this list.

Sorry, meant to type Westbrook!

It’s catchment area is all SFHs, so there is very low density in that part of the cluster. It would make sense to move some of the high rise buildings in Friendship Heights that are now in Somerset into Westbrook. Then you could move some of the crowding in the Bethesda ES catchment into Somerset.

I agree as things stand now, that would make sense. However, I think it's more likely they will rezone the coming Westbard redevelopment for Westbrook (it currently is zoned for Wood Acres). That has the added benefit of having those future kids go to Westland (which they are directly next to, and which has capacity after Silver Creek has opened) rather than Pyle.

I have nothing to base this on, it's just speculation - but it makes a ton of sense.

ITA, except the problem will be in HS because B-CC has now expanded so much it has run out of room to expand any more.

PP here, and absolutely. But isn't Whitman similarly full to the brim? Perhaps make room at BCC by shifting kids to WJ?

Not sure what can be done here, but it illustrates that the planning can't just address the issues now, but needs to deal with things that are coming 5, 10, and 15 years down the road.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In BCC cluster, only Bethesda ES needs help. Westbrook ES can absorb all extra students from BEES. If MCPS shift the south bounary of BEES and RMES, problem could be solved. It seems too easy so I wonder why no one propose that.

Westbrook doesn't border BEES. It's the logical place to increase enrollment, but unless you want some more lunacy like Bannockburn's and Rosemary Hills's catchment areas, has it needs to be done in combination with other boundary moves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know why Somerset is so severely under capacity?

It's great for the kids/parents who live/attend that school, it's just such a different dynamic than all of the other schools on this list.

Sorry, meant to type Westbrook!

It’s catchment area is all SFHs, so there is very low density in that part of the cluster. It would make sense to move some of the high rise buildings in Friendship Heights that are now in Somerset into Westbrook. Then you could move some of the crowding in the Bethesda ES catchment into Somerset.

I agree as things stand now, that would make sense. However, I think it's more likely they will rezone the coming Westbard redevelopment for Westbrook (it currently is zoned for Wood Acres). That has the added benefit of having those future kids go to Westland (which they are directly next to, and which has capacity after Silver Creek has opened) rather than Pyle.

I have nothing to base this on, it's just speculation - but it makes a ton of sense.

ITA, except the problem will be in HS because B-CC has now expanded so much it has run out of room to expand any more.

PP here, and absolutely. But isn't Whitman similarly full to the brim? Perhaps make room at BCC by shifting kids to WJ?

Not sure what can be done here, but it illustrates that the planning can't just address the issues now, but needs to deal with things that are coming 5, 10, and 15 years down the road.

Yes, but it's getting an addition.

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/departments/facilities/construction/project-final/SD%20Brochure%202019-01-23%20REV8.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know why Somerset is so severely under capacity?

It's great for the kids/parents who live/attend that school, it's just such a different dynamic than all of the other schools on this list.

Sorry, meant to type Westbrook!

It’s catchment area is all SFHs, so there is very low density in that part of the cluster. It would make sense to move some of the high rise buildings in Friendship Heights that are now in Somerset into Westbrook. Then you could move some of the crowding in the Bethesda ES catchment into Somerset.

I agree as things stand now, that would make sense. However, I think it's more likely they will rezone the coming Westbard redevelopment for Westbrook (it currently is zoned for Wood Acres). That has the added benefit of having those future kids go to Westland (which they are directly next to, and which has capacity after Silver Creek has opened) rather than Pyle.



I have nothing to base this on, it's just speculation - but it makes a ton of sense.

ITA, except the problem will be in HS because B-CC has now expanded so much it has run out of room to expand any more.

BCC could expand into office buildings on EW Hwy.