Anonymous wrote:It's high time the county ends segregation at our schools and embraces diversity bussing!

Find another hobby, please.

It's high time the county ends segregation at our schools and embraces diversity bussing!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it hypocritical when Consortium residents get so excited about the prospects of rezoneing the W’s to the DCC. As if they are like; yah that will show them how miserable we are and help offload the oppressive amount of problem kids our communities are burdened with!!

But they they turn around and say how great their schools are and poor kids aren’t a problem. Which way is it?

I haven’t heard any DCC parents say that on this thread. What I’ve heard — and what I totally agree with — is a certain satisfaction that parents who paid an extra $300k segregation fee when they bought their houses may have to send their children to school with brown kids after all. It’s basically schadenfreude. I live in an area that could possibly be rezoned to Woodward and believe it or not I’d rather my kid stay at Einstein.

+1

I am perfectly happy with the DCC schools my kids have attended, but I do love to see racists hoisted by their own petards. You do not buy into a school pyramid, you buy into a district and your pyramid can change at any time for reasons that benefit the entire student population.

Protecting the property values of people willing to pay a segregation tax is not actually the job of MCPS.

PP, be careful what you wish for. People in million dollar plus homes pay a premium in taxes to go to a school in their neighborhoods. If the board starts bussing these upper income kids across the county to other neighborhoods, the county will see a mass exodus of wealth to Virginia.

You're right, property values across the county will drop precipitously.

What that means to the lower income people (who are not able to move because they can't afford to) is there will less tax money funding all Montco schools. Watch it vanish overnight. The only wealth left in Montco will be those whose kids are in privates.

Don't let your jealousy and bitterness of financial success make you wish for their demise. They will vote with their feet, take their money with them and the lower income poor will be left holding the rotten bag. It's called Shooting the goose that laid the golden egg.

Good riddance!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it hypocritical when Consortium residents get so excited about the prospects of rezoneing the W’s to the DCC. As if they are like; yah that will show them how miserable we are and help offload the oppressive amount of problem kids our communities are burdened with!!

But they they turn around and say how great their schools are and poor kids aren’t a problem. Which way is it?

I haven’t heard any DCC parents say that on this thread. What I’ve heard — and what I totally agree with — is a certain satisfaction that parents who paid an extra $300k segregation fee when they bought their houses may have to send their children to school with brown kids after all. It’s basically schadenfreude. I live in an area that could possibly be rezoned to Woodward and believe it or not I’d rather my kid stay at Einstein.

+1

I am perfectly happy with the DCC schools my kids have attended, but I do love to see racists hoisted by their own petards. You do not buy into a school pyramid, you buy into a district and your pyramid can change at any time for reasons that benefit the entire student population.

Protecting the property values of people willing to pay a segregation tax is not actually the job of MCPS.

PP, be careful what you wish for. People in million dollar plus homes pay a premium in taxes to go to a school in their neighborhoods. If the board starts bussing these upper income kids across the county to other neighborhoods, the county will see a mass exodus of wealth to Virginia.

You're right, property values across the county will drop precipitously.

What that means to the lower income people (who are not able to move because they can't afford to) is there will less tax money funding all Montco schools. Watch it vanish overnight. The only wealth left in Montco will be those whose kids are in privates.

Don't let your jealousy and bitterness of financial success make you wish for their demise. They will vote with their feet, take their money with them and the lower income poor will be left holding the rotten bag. It's called Shooting the goose that laid the golden egg.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to FAA-RA:

School Site Size is the minimum acreage desired to accommodate the full instructional program, as follows:
1. Elementary schools——a minimum useable site size of 7.5 acres that is capable of fitting the instructional program, including site requirements. The 7.5 acres is based on an ideal leveled site, and the size may vary depending on site shapes and surrounding site constraints.
2. Middle schools——a minimum useable site size of 15.5 acres that is capable of fitting the instructional program, including site requirements. The 15.5 acres is based on an ideal leveled site, and the size may vary depending on site shapes and surrounding site constraints.
3. High schools——a minimum useable site size of 35 acres that is capable of fitting the instructional program, including site requirements. The 35 acres is based on an ideal leveled site, and the size may vary depending on site shapes and surrounding site constraints.

That is a regulation, not a policy. It doesn't have any meaning and doesn't have to be followed. The superintendent can change a regulation tomorrow without telling anyone.

None of this has anything to do with the Brickyard site. Elrich and Pat O'Neill have promised it won't be touched. Pat O'Neill has told parents it can not be used for a school.

Eh. Anybody can say anything. And then they can change their minds.

Also, here's how much control the county executive has over MCPS's use of a BoE-owned site for a school: zero.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:According to FAA-RA:

School Site Size is the minimum acreage desired to accommodate the full instructional program, as follows:
1. Elementary schools——a minimum useable site size of 7.5 acres that is capable of fitting the instructional program, including site requirements. The 7.5 acres is based on an ideal leveled site, and the size may vary depending on site shapes and surrounding site constraints.
2. Middle schools——a minimum useable site size of 15.5 acres that is capable of fitting the instructional program, including site requirements. The 15.5 acres is based on an ideal leveled site, and the size may vary depending on site shapes and surrounding site constraints.
3. High schools——a minimum useable site size of 35 acres that is capable of fitting the instructional program, including site requirements. The 35 acres is based on an ideal leveled site, and the size may vary depending on site shapes and surrounding site constraints.

That is a regulation, not a policy. It doesn't have any meaning and doesn't have to be followed. The superintendent can change a regulation tomorrow without telling anyone.


None of this has anything to do with the Brickyard site. Elrich and Pat O'Neill have promised it won't be touched. Pat O'Neill has told parents it can not be used for a school.

Why?? Why on earth would that be?

Anonymous wrote:According to FAA-RA:

School Site Size is the minimum acreage desired to accommodate the full instructional program, as follows:
1. Elementary schools——a minimum useable site size of 7.5 acres that is capable of fitting the instructional program, including site requirements. The 7.5 acres is based on an ideal leveled site, and the size may vary depending on site shapes and surrounding site constraints.
2. Middle schools——a minimum useable site size of 15.5 acres that is capable of fitting the instructional program, including site requirements. The 15.5 acres is based on an ideal leveled site, and the size may vary depending on site shapes and surrounding site constraints.
3. High schools——a minimum useable site size of 35 acres that is capable of fitting the instructional program, including site requirements. The 35 acres is based on an ideal leveled site, and the size may vary depending on site shapes and surrounding site constraints.

That is a regulation, not a policy. It doesn't have any meaning and doesn't have to be followed. The superintendent can change a regulation tomorrow without telling anyone.


None of this has anything to do with the Brickyard site. Elrich and Pat O'Neill have promised it won't be touched. Pat O'Neill has told parents it can not be used for a school.

Anonymous wrote:According to FAA-RA:

School Site Size is the minimum acreage desired to accommodate the full instructional program, as follows:
1. Elementary schools——a minimum useable site size of 7.5 acres that is capable of fitting the instructional program, including site requirements. The 7.5 acres is based on an ideal leveled site, and the size may vary depending on site shapes and surrounding site constraints.
2. Middle schools——a minimum useable site size of 15.5 acres that is capable of fitting the instructional program, including site requirements. The 15.5 acres is based on an ideal leveled site, and the size may vary depending on site shapes and surrounding site constraints.
3. High schools——a minimum useable site size of 35 acres that is capable of fitting the instructional program, including site requirements. The 35 acres is based on an ideal leveled site, and the size may vary depending on site shapes and surrounding site constraints.

Sounds like 35 acres would only apply to the ‘special’ people of Potomac, given the size of BCC (16 acres)

The revised resolution from yesterday's BOE meeting. Note that the consultant's report is now due in March 2020:

Resolved, That the superintendent of schools hire a consultant to review school boundaries in light of revised Policy FAA, Educational Facilities Planning, gather information and data regarding current school boundaries, benchmark with comparable school systems, and collect community input on the opportunities and challenges related to boundary setting using multiple methods and venues, including but not limited to Capital Improvements Program hearings in fall 2019; and be it further

Resolved, That the consultant present the findings and options to the Board of Education and the superintendent of schools with all deliberate speed, no later than March 2020, and that the findings and options explore potential modifications to current school boundaries that comport to the four factors in Policy FAA, Educational Facilities Planning: student demographics, geography, stability of assignments over time, and facility utilization; and be it further

Resolved, That, after receiving the consultant’s report, the Board of Education determine next steps, including how to obtain feedback from the community.

https://www.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/B894FY5336CA/$file/20190108%20Rev%20Boundary%20Assessment%20Study-FAA.pdf

The CIP includes Brickyard MS on its list of Future School Sites (see page 5).

http://gis.mcpsmd.org/cipmasterpdfs/CIP20_AppendixI.pdf

Anonymous wrote:According to FAA-RA:

School Site Size is the minimum acreage desired to accommodate the full instructional program, as follows:
1. Elementary schools——a minimum useable site size of 7.5 acres that is capable of fitting the instructional program, including site requirements. The 7.5 acres is based on an ideal leveled site, and the size may vary depending on site shapes and surrounding site constraints.
2. Middle schools——a minimum useable site size of 15.5 acres that is capable of fitting the instructional program, including site requirements. The 15.5 acres is based on an ideal leveled site, and the size may vary depending on site shapes and surrounding site constraints.
3. High schools——a minimum useable site size of 35 acres that is capable of fitting the instructional program, including site requirements. The 35 acres is based on an ideal leveled site, and the size may vary depending on site shapes and surrounding site constraints.

Important part bolded. "Minimum acreage desired" =/= will not build on less. In fact, if MCPS insists on a minimum of 35 acres, they will never be able to build another new high school in the downcounty. The Brickyard site is as good as it gets.

According to FAA-RA:

School Site Size is the minimum acreage desired to accommodate the full instructional program, as follows:
1. Elementary schools——a minimum useable site size of 7.5 acres that is capable of fitting the instructional program, including site requirements. The 7.5 acres is based on an ideal leveled site, and the size may vary depending on site shapes and surrounding site constraints.
2. Middle schools——a minimum useable site size of 15.5 acres that is capable of fitting the instructional program, including site requirements. The 15.5 acres is based on an ideal leveled site, and the size may vary depending on site shapes and surrounding site constraints.
3. High schools——a minimum useable site size of 35 acres that is capable of fitting the instructional program, including site requirements. The 35 acres is based on an ideal leveled site, and the size may vary depending on site shapes and surrounding site constraints.

7 acres for an ES
15 for a MS
30 for a HS

Those are the preferred sizes. And, they have built ESs on less than e acres, and have informed the public that as the county becomes more urbanized, we will have to expect smaller sites for schools. Because ES students don't need that much play space and HS students don't need to have so much practice and field space, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OK, we'll call it West Rock Run High School.

But surely the people around there wouldn't object to a high school, after stating so emphatically during the soccer imbroglio that it wasn't development they objected to, it was the lack of transparency in leasing the field to MSI when it was supposed to be used for a school? Right?

I thought it was a proposed middle school site. It's only 20 acres, and MCPS prefers at least 35 for a new high school.

Yes, I expect that will be the argument from the neighbors - middle school or bust!

B-CC is on 16 acres. The Brickyard site is 20. That's plenty.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can MCPS not put a go$da$mned school on the SCHOOL PROPERTY on Brickyard road? That would alleviate a lot of crowding and busing kids everywhere. Do Lotomac kids HAVE to go to Pyle and Whitman in Bethesda? Can’t you name a new Potomac school Lil Whitman or Whitman II and just get on with life?
Talk about people being ready to spontaneously combust..

Because the schools near the Brickyard site are not the schools that are overcrowded....

That's what rezoning is for. Build a high school at Brickyard and call it West Potomac (so that it starts with a W). Rezone western Churchill to West Potomac. Rezone western Whitman to Churchill. Rezone southern Walter Johnson to Whitman. Everyone stays at a W school, everyone's happy.

You can’t call those people ‘West Potomac’ - they would spontaneously combust with rage after nuclear bombing the rest of us.
They can only be known as ‘Potomac’ aka ‘The REAL Potomac’ or ‘20854- the real part of it’.
Because Potomac used to be a ‘thing’.

West Potomac. Omg- watch out for nuclear warheads.

Marc Elrich visited the Potomac people and promised that nothing would be built on that school property.
At least that is what some in the Potomac community in that area stated on their list-serve.

OK, we'll call it West Rock Run High School.

But surely the people around there wouldn't object to a high school, after stating so emphatically during the soccer imbroglio that it wasn't development they objected to, it was the lack of transparency in leasing the field to MSI when it was supposed to be used for a school? Right?

I thought it was a proposed middle school site. It's only 20 acres, and MCPS prefers at least 35 for a new high school.