Anonymous wrote:Interesting that no one has yet mentioned Middle School #2 for BCC. Where on earth is the wave of current elementary kids in the cluster going to go for Middle School? We heard that Westland is already over capacity and no room for more portables. And no signs of construction of Middle School #2.

Last year, Clarksburg Damascus Middle School #2 construction was supposed to start in June of this year. I don't know what the status is of that.

Anonymous wrote:I think the size of all the middle schools in general are appalling.

How big do you think middle schools should be? MCPS seems to aim for 1,000 students.

I think the size of all the middle schools in general are appalling.

Interesting that no one has yet mentioned Middle School #2 for BCC. Where on earth is the wave of current elementary kids in the cluster going to go for Middle School? We heard that Westland is already over capacity and no room for more portables. And no signs of construction of Middle School #2.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then they built Park Potomac. Also goes to RP. We were told those homes were meant for those downsizing in Potomac mansions (aka low school enrollment) but what they got instead was Asian families renting/purchasing them and living with large extended familes. So more kids than ever anticipated came from that development and they are still building. RP's enrollment goes up every year as new homes with babies grow and older homes with empty nesters turn over.

The new housing developers with their big pockets should be paying a large part of new schools and have them being built at the same time.

Yes. Everybody involved in planning in Montgomery County needs to stop with the idea that people with children don't live in apartments.

Right now the housing developers only have to turn over school sites to MCPS, and MCPS is on its own for actually building the school.

Excellent point and one of the problems--no coordination (at least no obvious coordination) between planning divisions. These were foreseeable issues and the County in general dropped the ball. Growth can be a good thing but fails without proper planning and infrastructure.

The problem isn't "no coordination". MCPS knows about the school sites in the county's plans. The problem is that the county isn't making the developers contribute to paying for the actual schools. If the county can make the developers contribute to paying for road, water, and sewer construction, I don't know why the county can't make the developers contribute to paying for school construction.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Then they built Park Potomac. Also goes to RP. We were told those homes were meant for those downsizing in Potomac mansions (aka low school enrollment) but what they got instead was Asian families renting/purchasing them and living with large extended familes. So more kids than ever anticipated came from that development and they are still building. RP's enrollment goes up every year as new homes with babies grow and older homes with empty nesters turn over.

The new housing developers with their big pockets should be paying a large part of new schools and have them being built at the same time.

Yes. Everybody involved in planning in Montgomery County needs to stop with the idea that people with children don't live in apartments.

Right now the housing developers only have to turn over school sites to MCPS, and MCPS is on its own for actually building the school.

Excellent point and one of the problems--no coordination (at least no obvious coordination) between planning divisions. These were foreseeable issues and the County in general dropped the ball. Growth can be a good thing but fails without proper planning and infrastructure.

Anonymous wrote:Then they built Park Potomac. Also goes to RP. We were told those homes were meant for those downsizing in Potomac mansions (aka low school enrollment) but what they got instead was Asian families renting/purchasing them and living with large extended familes. So more kids than ever anticipated came from that development and they are still building. RP's enrollment goes up every year as new homes with babies grow and older homes with empty nesters turn over.

The new housing developers with their big pockets should be paying a large part of new schools and have them being built at the same time.

Yes. Everybody involved in planning in Montgomery County needs to stop with the idea that people with children don't live in apartments.

Right now the housing developers only have to turn over school sites to MCPS, and MCPS is on its own for actually building the school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But this is precisely the problem. Granted, if there is flooding issues or mold or things are collapsing, then OK. But to not consider capacity is ridiculous. And it's not like the overcrowded schools are in shiny new buildings. Some merely had additions put on them that did little to ease the overcrowding. But because it was done "recently" that means they go to the back of the line? Ultimately, the decision should be based on how is the environment affecting the quality of learning. IMHO, overcrowding affects learning more negatively than a building that's a little long in the tooth, so to speak.

The line is not based on original age or recency of the last expansion/modernization. That's why Seneca Valley can be 20 years newer than Poolesville and get a higher priority FACT score. Again, I highly recommend reading the links, as they explain exactly how the decisions are made.

I did read and it sounds nice in theory. But practically speaking it's flawed. This is just my opinion based on what I've seen and read about around the county. Based on this, I would think the mold issue at Rolling Terrace would move them to the top of the list. Or the flooding issue at Wheaton Woods would make them a priority. But it hasn't. And meanwhile, we're just supposed to tell kids at the overcrowded Richard Montgomery elementary schools, sorry, we can't build that 5th elementary school because it's not cost efficient but we can build at other places that are under capacity. So do you see my problem with the decision making process?

Not really. The 5th elementary school is not being delayed because it's not cost efficient - it's being delayed because of the overall problem getting the CIP budget approved in Annapolis. The ES projects that you're noting were all approved at an earlier point, and the facilities are all much more outdated than any ES facility in the RM cluster. Note for the record that I live in the RM cluster, so I feel your pain on the overcrowding issue generally, but there's no conspiracy in the capital plan against our cluster.

This all being said, I do agree that there are many frustrating aspects to the capital planning process, such as College Gardens being almost brand new yet already filled over capacity.

I guess this is really the issue. Funding IS tight and getting tighter. The question is where do you prioritize? That's a very tough issue. But I still think overcrowding should factor into the decision process more than it does now whether you're talking new construction or shifting things around a bit. And there should be flexibility to address problems that come up late like serious mold or infrastructure issues.

+1

Prioritizing is in ESL now. Have you seen the numbers in funding for that compared to 10-15 years ago? Billions for our county.

Anonymous wrote:RPES students are used to bouy up RM, there is no way MCPS will let those kids get away from RM.

Exactly. That is why they rezoned them 20 years ago. There are kids that could walk to Wootton and they started bussing them to RM. But RM now has the IB which also bumps up its scores. And Fallsgrove was an added plus in test scores. They can afford to do a little rezoning. And most parents would be happy as a clam to go to Frost or CJ instead of the over crowded and underperforming Julius West

NP here. Ritchie Park was also rebuilt and slightly under capacity about 10 years ago (maybe 1 classroom not used) but Fallsgrove was built - with no idea where they were going to school (a HUGE problem in MC) and they decided to bus them to RP. To even out the SES, they added a small slice of apartments in lower Rockville too. Then they built Park Potomac. Also goes to RP. We were told those homes were meant for those downsizing in Potomac mansions (aka low school enrollment) but what they got instead was Asian families renting/purchasing them and living with large extended familes. So more kids than ever anticipated came from that development and they are still building. RP's enrollment goes up every year as new homes with babies grow and older homes with empty nesters turn over.

The new housing developers with their big pockets should be paying a large part of new schools and have them being built at the same time.

The quality in RP has gone down over the last 5 years. The cafeteria is too small, not enough K classes, no blacktop for playground, less time in PE, music and art as they have to fit in each class once a week. It is very frustrating as a parent. They need to rezone because this school won't get better unless Fallsgrove gets redistricted to the new school but they are going to fight tooth and nail against it as there will be a higher SES going to school #5 and their home prices will drop. But even still, we are looking at over 5 years away and something needs to be done NOW.

At the very least let Horizon Hill have an option to walk to Cold Spring, which for half the development is very doable. Let them choose a school until school #5 is built. Get rid of these portables and give RP back it's normal school and numbers.

Another option is to redistrict Park Potomac to Beverly Farms which too is closer than RP.

There seems to be very easy common sense ways to address a school that looks to be 200 over capacity by next year with multiples schools around it 100 under capacity.

RPES students are used to bouy up RM, there is no way MCPS will let those kids get away from RM.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But this is precisely the problem. Granted, if there is flooding issues or mold or things are collapsing, then OK. But to not consider capacity is ridiculous. And it's not like the overcrowded schools are in shiny new buildings. Some merely had additions put on them that did little to ease the overcrowding. But because it was done "recently" that means they go to the back of the line? Ultimately, the decision should be based on how is the environment affecting the quality of learning. IMHO, overcrowding affects learning more negatively than a building that's a little long in the tooth, so to speak.

The line is not based on original age or recency of the last expansion/modernization. That's why Seneca Valley can be 20 years newer than Poolesville and get a higher priority FACT score. Again, I highly recommend reading the links, as they explain exactly how the decisions are made.

I did read and it sounds nice in theory. But practically speaking it's flawed. This is just my opinion based on what I've seen and read about around the county. Based on this, I would think the mold issue at Rolling Terrace would move them to the top of the list. Or the flooding issue at Wheaton Woods would make them a priority. But it hasn't. And meanwhile, we're just supposed to tell kids at the overcrowded Richard Montgomery elementary schools, sorry, we can't build that 5th elementary school because it's not cost efficient but we can build at other places that are under capacity. So do you see my problem with the decision making process?

Not really. The 5th elementary school is not being delayed because it's not cost efficient - it's being delayed because of the overall problem getting the CIP budget approved in Annapolis. The ES projects that you're noting were all approved at an earlier point, and the facilities are all much more outdated than any ES facility in the RM cluster. Note for the record that I live in the RM cluster, so I feel your pain on the overcrowding issue generally, but there's no conspiracy in the capital plan against our cluster.

This all being said, I do agree that there are many frustrating aspects to the capital planning process, such as College Gardens being almost brand new yet already filled over capacity.

I guess this is really the issue. Funding IS tight and getting tighter. The question is where do you prioritize? That's a very tough issue. But I still think overcrowding should factor into the decision process more than it does now whether you're talking new construction or shifting things around a bit. And there should be flexibility to address problems that come up late like serious mold or infrastructure issues.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But this is precisely the problem. Granted, if there is flooding issues or mold or things are collapsing, then OK. But to not consider capacity is ridiculous. And it's not like the overcrowded schools are in shiny new buildings. Some merely had additions put on them that did little to ease the overcrowding. But because it was done "recently" that means they go to the back of the line? Ultimately, the decision should be based on how is the environment affecting the quality of learning. IMHO, overcrowding affects learning more negatively than a building that's a little long in the tooth, so to speak.

The line is not based on original age or recency of the last expansion/modernization. That's why Seneca Valley can be 20 years newer than Poolesville and get a higher priority FACT score. Again, I highly recommend reading the links, as they explain exactly how the decisions are made.

I did read and it sounds nice in theory. But practically speaking it's flawed. This is just my opinion based on what I've seen and read about around the county. Based on this, I would think the mold issue at Rolling Terrace would move them to the top of the list. Or the flooding issue at Wheaton Woods would make them a priority. But it hasn't. And meanwhile, we're just supposed to tell kids at the overcrowded Richard Montgomery elementary schools, sorry, we can't build that 5th elementary school because it's not cost efficient but we can build at other places that are under capacity. So do you see my problem with the decision making process?

Not really. The 5th elementary school is not being delayed because it's not cost efficient - it's being delayed because of the overall problem getting the CIP budget approved in Annapolis. The ES projects that you're noting were all approved at an earlier point, and the facilities are all much more outdated than any ES facility in the RM cluster. Note for the record that I live in the RM cluster, so I feel your pain on the overcrowding issue generally, but there's no conspiracy in the capital plan against our cluster.

This all being said, I do agree that there are many frustrating aspects to the capital planning process, such as College Gardens being almost brand new yet already filled over capacity.

I guess this is really the issue. Funding IS tight and getting tighter. The question is where do you prioritize? That's a very tough issue. But I still think overcrowding should factor into the decision process more than it does now whether you're talking new construction or shifting things around a bit. And there should be flexibility to address problems that come up late like serious mold or infrastructure issues.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But this is precisely the problem. Granted, if there is flooding issues or mold or things are collapsing, then OK. But to not consider capacity is ridiculous. And it's not like the overcrowded schools are in shiny new buildings. Some merely had additions put on them that did little to ease the overcrowding. But because it was done "recently" that means they go to the back of the line? Ultimately, the decision should be based on how is the environment affecting the quality of learning. IMHO, overcrowding affects learning more negatively than a building that's a little long in the tooth, so to speak.

The line is not based on original age or recency of the last expansion/modernization. That's why Seneca Valley can be 20 years newer than Poolesville and get a higher priority FACT score. Again, I highly recommend reading the links, as they explain exactly how the decisions are made.

I did read and it sounds nice in theory. But practically speaking it's flawed. This is just my opinion based on what I've seen and read about around the county. Based on this, I would think the mold issue at Rolling Terrace would move them to the top of the list. Or the flooding issue at Wheaton Woods would make them a priority. But it hasn't. And meanwhile, we're just supposed to tell kids at the overcrowded Richard Montgomery elementary schools, sorry, we can't build that 5th elementary school because it's not cost efficient but we can build at other places that are under capacity. So do you see my problem with the decision making process?

Not really. The 5th elementary school is not being delayed because it's not cost efficient - it's being delayed because of the overall problem getting the CIP budget approved in Annapolis. The ES projects that you're noting were all approved at an earlier point, and the facilities are all much more outdated than any ES facility in the RM cluster. Note for the record that I live in the RM cluster, so I feel your pain on the overcrowding issue generally, but there's no conspiracy in the capital plan against our cluster.

This all being said, I do agree that there are many frustrating aspects to the capital planning process, such as College Gardens being almost brand new yet already filled over capacity.

Agree there's no conspiracy but the funding is approved year to year by the Council to move forward. Is their planning really so rigid that they can't make changes when needed. And it's not just the RM cluster.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, I know the problem. Do you want to solve it by building elementary schools with a capacity of 800 students?

No, but you can increase capacity in some to relieve others.

How would that work, exactly? MCPS should find schools that have a capacity of less than 650, and spend the capital improvement money on increasing their capacity to 650? And then redistrict neighborhoods to fit into those elementary schools, regardless of the capacity of the middle schools and high schools?

I think the poster means that you'd move kids from overcapacity schools to those with available capacity (i.e., I think what was meant was to increase enrollment as opposed to capacity).

However, as you note, the problem with this is that the capacity differences may not exist at the MS and HS levels, which is why this really only works if you're talking about two ESs that are in the same cluster.