Anonymous wrote:
1) Very intelligent children will have a better shot at maximizing their potential in a place where they can be appropriately challenged. Having a critical mass of peers with the same level of commitment is important to that end. (I'm not interested in whether it's better to be bottom 25% at WJ or average at Einstein -- I'll leave that to others to debate).

2) It's important to work towards accomplishments in as many domains as possible. So obviously focusing solely on career and damaging health is not strategic in the long run. Better to be as competent as possible in as many domains as possible.

3) I used the schools mentioned in the prior post. Did you get your reading comprehension skills from your years at Einstein? (Sorry, couldn't resist. If you are rude, expect rudeness back).

Smart peers who raise their hands and participate in class, like being in and going to class, etc. all very important to my high schooler as expressed by him.

1) Very intelligent children will have a better shot at maximizing their potential in a place where they can be appropriately challenged. Having a critical mass of peers with the same level of commitment is important to that end. (I'm not interested in whether it's better to be bottom 25% at WJ or average at Einstein -- I'll leave that to others to debate).

2) It's important to work towards accomplishments in as many domains as possible. So obviously focusing solely on career and damaging health is not strategic in the long run. Better to be as competent as possible in as many domains as possible.

3) I used the schools mentioned in the prior post. Did you get your reading comprehension skills from your years at Einstein? (Sorry, couldn't resist. If you are rude, expect rudeness back).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is so interesting. What is the point of sending kids to "good" schools - I'm talking elementary, middle, high schools and colleges and universities?

Seriously - what are people who fret about this really worried about? I really want to know because I don't get it.

Is it for them to make a lot of money?

For you to feel good that your kids are superlative?

For your children to be as happy as possible and support themselves in a wider, rapidly diversifying world?

I overheard someone saying they had lied and used another address to get their kids out of KP and into a "browner" Einstein school. After reading 14 pages of this forum post, I am thinking that's probably not such a bad idea.

When you say schools are "worse" because of FARMS kids -- what the heck does that mean? In the end, it means those students have the chance for friends who are different from themselves.

And let me say, as someone who has seen firsthand, there are just as many troubled kids in immigrant families as there are from wealthy white families around here. A business walking distance to WJ has one of the highest shoplifting rates in the region - always during school lunch breaks...hmmm.... Why would that be?

You do understand that going to the "best" schools in a way limits your college choices, right? Because universities can only take a certain number of kids from each high school. How many at Churchill apply to Harvard, vs. at Einstein? I know plenty of kids at "top" high schools who did not get into the University of Maryland at College Park -- there can only be a certain number admitted from each in-state high school, right? Otherwise, the entire freshman class would come from three counties and nowhere else in the state.

What about "good" colleges? What even does that mean? What is the goal -- after four years, your child is ... what? Smarter? Can support themselves in a high-paying job? Because you don't need a degree from a "good" college for that. And you definitely shouldn't be borrowing money to get them there. Probably investing the $300,000 into a business you gave them would be a better use of your money if that's the case.

Winning some science award or perfect SATs or a really nice house doesn't mean your kid will be happy. But constantly comparing themselves to others based on hearing those values will certainly make them a poorer person inside.

And one last word - what about religious values? What happened to loving thy neighbor, particularly the least among us?

I'm genuinely curious. What is the fear about Rock View or Wheaton or Woodward or Einstein or Northwood or Montgomery College? What will happen if your kid went there instead of WJ or Churchill and then Vanderbilt or whatever?

Thanks!

Very simple. If my kid is capable of Montgomery College but not Vanderbilt, then MC is fine. If my kid is capable of Vanderbilt, I want them to have that opportunity. If my kid is capable of theoretical physics at MIT, then I want them to have THAT opportunity.

Look, being mediocre does not mean you are bad. But everyone should strive to maximize their potential. Which is different for different people.

It is not wrong for parents to want the best for their children. Actually, it's what keeps the lights on and our civilization humming.

And you think kids who go to Einstein can't maximize their potential because...?

Also, saying that everyone "should" struggle to maximize their potential is (1) debatable and (2) complex. Plenty of people "maximize" their career potential at grave cost to their health. Is that worth it?

Finally, why such black and white thinking? It's MC or Vandy? Nothing in between? Now that's some mediocre cognitive skills right there.

Anonymous wrote:This is so interesting. What is the point of sending kids to "good" schools - I'm talking elementary, middle, high schools and colleges and universities?

Seriously - what are people who fret about this really worried about? I really want to know because I don't get it.

Is it for them to make a lot of money?

For you to feel good that your kids are superlative?

For your children to be as happy as possible and support themselves in a wider, rapidly diversifying world?

I overheard someone saying they had lied and used another address to get their kids out of KP and into a "browner" Einstein school. After reading 14 pages of this forum post, I am thinking that's probably not such a bad idea.

When you say schools are "worse" because of FARMS kids -- what the heck does that mean? In the end, it means those students have the chance for friends who are different from themselves.

And let me say, as someone who has seen firsthand, there are just as many troubled kids in immigrant families as there are from wealthy white families around here. A business walking distance to WJ has one of the highest shoplifting rates in the region - always during school lunch breaks...hmmm.... Why would that be?

You do understand that going to the "best" schools in a way limits your college choices, right? Because universities can only take a certain number of kids from each high school. How many at Churchill apply to Harvard, vs. at Einstein? I know plenty of kids at "top" high schools who did not get into the University of Maryland at College Park -- there can only be a certain number admitted from each in-state high school, right? Otherwise, the entire freshman class would come from three counties and nowhere else in the state.

What about "good" colleges? What even does that mean? What is the goal -- after four years, your child is ... what? Smarter? Can support themselves in a high-paying job? Because you don't need a degree from a "good" college for that. And you definitely shouldn't be borrowing money to get them there. Probably investing the $300,000 into a business you gave them would be a better use of your money if that's the case.

Winning some science award or perfect SATs or a really nice house doesn't mean your kid will be happy. But constantly comparing themselves to others based on hearing those values will certainly make them a poorer person inside.

And one last word - what about religious values? What happened to loving thy neighbor, particularly the least among us?

I'm genuinely curious. What is the fear about Rock View or Wheaton or Woodward or Einstein or Northwood or Montgomery College? What will happen if your kid went there instead of WJ or Churchill and then Vanderbilt or whatever?

Thanks!

Very simple. If my kid is capable of Montgomery College but not Vanderbilt, then MC is fine. If my kid is capable of Vanderbilt, I want them to have that opportunity. If my kid is capable of theoretical physics at MIT, then I want them to have THAT opportunity.

Look, being mediocre does not mean you are bad. But everyone should strive to maximize their potential. Which is different for different people.

It is not wrong for parents to want the best for their children. Actually, it's what keeps the lights on and our civilization humming.

Anonymous wrote:

Seriously - what are people who fret about this really worried about? I really want to know because I don't get it.

For elementary school, schools with higher poverty like those in the Einstein or Wheaton cluster have children with severe academic deficits. Your child will be sitting in a classroom working independently or waiting while the teacher spend the majority of her time trying to fill in the extreme background knowledge gaps of the lower performing kids. Your kid may get one or two pull outs occasionally but he or she will have fewer peers at grade level and even fewer above grade level as opposed to higher performing schools.

Group projects become an issue unless the teacher really tries to group kids by performance. Best practices in teaching now though push mixing this up so the lower performing kids can learn from the few higher performing kids. The higher performing kid does not get much out of this.

Poverty brings behavior issue and MCPS does not address behavior issues. Within low income schools, there are more kids with untreated and unaccommodated learning and emotional disabilities. Its not the fault of the kids but the combination of poor prenatal health and at home poverty increases the likelihood if these disorders and they can unaddressed. These kids need even more parental support, para educators, medication, and specialists but they get known of this and simply disrupt the class.

Teacher expectations are lower in low performing schools. The school and teachers are pressured to bring up the bottom and resources go there accordingly. Once acceleration begins, these classes are often watered down to get enough kids to hold a class.

Once middle school and high school begins, you combine all the problems that happen anywhere with problems that are more unique and prevalent with poverty. Your child will see many of their former ES classmates drop out, get pregnant, join gangs, go to jail etc. Some people want their kids exposed to this on a daily basis and others do not.

You can decide that school experience doesn't really matter and that is your choice but there is nothing beneficial about poverty and academic failure. Its not a benefit and choosing a school with high levels of academic failure and poverty to get a cheaper house comes at its own cost.

This is hilarious!

Anonymous wrote:
Seriously - what are people who fret about this really worried about? I really want to know because I don't get it.


"For elementary school, schools with higher poverty like those in the Einstein or Wheaton cluster have children with severe academic deficits. Your child will be sitting in a classroom working independently or waiting while the teacher spend the majority of her time trying to fill in the extreme background knowledge gaps of the lower performing kids. Your kid may get one or two pull outs occasionally but he or she will have fewer peers at grade level and even fewer above grade level as opposed to higher performing schools."

Completely incorrect. The above-grade level math classes are bursting in the Einstein cluster. (A different, but opposite, problem.)

"Best practices in teaching now though push mixing this up so the lower performing kids can learn from the few higher performing kids. The higher performing kid does not get much out of this."
>>>Again, wrong. People need to learn to work with others with different ability levels, life experiences, etc. There are magnet schools and upper-level classes in these high school districts. Students who are not challenged enough can and do take advantage. And to your point: Some people have coworkers and friends from whom they feel the racism and elitism and gut through time with them anyway.


"Once middle school and high school begins, you combine all the problems that happen anywhere with problems that are more unique and prevalent with poverty. Your child will see many of their former ES classmates drop out, get pregnant, join gangs, go to jail etc. Some people want their kids exposed to this on a daily basis and others do not."
>>>This is just not correct, based on firsthand experience. No one wants their kids exposed to crime and violence. But it's happening at every high school in this county. Do not kid yourself. The drug dealing and addiction, bullying, sexual assaults, they do not discriminate. Some students are held accountable; others have good lawyers.

"You can decide that school experience doesn't really matter and that is your choice but there is nothing beneficial about poverty and academic failure. Its not a benefit and choosing a school with high levels of academic failure and poverty to get a cheaper house comes at its own cost."
>>>Some people aren't "choosing" a cheaper house -- they are overextended at $500,000. Thus, the student loan nightmare. There is plenty of academic success at Einstein and in its feeder schools. And sure, there are poor kids who struggle, who make bad choices. There are also comfortable kids who struggle, who make bad choices. As someone who counsels young people around here, the level of academic and financial pressure is absolutely damaging these kids from "good" schools, too. That would be like not letting a child attend Damascus, or play any sport because you know how "those people (athletes)" are - they are all rapists and if my precious comes into contact with them, they will get raped! It will rub off! And the suicide and attempted suicide rates at "good" schools .... it's a damn shame.

I appreciate the point that you want your kids challenged, and safe. Being involved in your school -- whatever it is -- and open communication with your child, keeping them well-rounded and easing off of the pressure are the best antidotes to "failure". The broad-brush attitude that paints all "poor/brown" schools in a certain light is so narrow. Intolerance is such a rot from the inside, and it's infectious.

Anonymous wrote:

Seriously - what are people who fret about this really worried about? I really want to know because I don't get it.

For elementary school, schools with higher poverty like those in the Einstein or Wheaton cluster have children with severe academic deficits. Your child will be sitting in a classroom working independently or waiting while the teacher spend the majority of her time trying to fill in the extreme background knowledge gaps of the lower performing kids. Your kid may get one or two pull outs occasionally but he or she will have fewer peers at grade level and even fewer above grade level as opposed to higher performing schools.

Group projects become an issue unless the teacher really tries to group kids by performance. Best practices in teaching now though push mixing this up so the lower performing kids can learn from the few higher performing kids. The higher performing kid does not get much out of this.

Poverty brings behavior issue and MCPS does not address behavior issues. Within low income schools, there are more kids with untreated and unaccommodated learning and emotional disabilities. Its not the fault of the kids but the combination of poor prenatal health and at home poverty increases the likelihood if these disorders and they can unaddressed. These kids need even more parental support, para educators, medication, and specialists but they get known of this and simply disrupt the class.

Teacher expectations are lower in low performing schools. The school and teachers are pressured to bring up the bottom and resources go there accordingly. Once acceleration begins, these classes are often watered down to get enough kids to hold a class.

Once middle school and high school begins, you combine all the problems that happen anywhere with problems that are more unique and prevalent with poverty. Your child will see many of their former ES classmates drop out, get pregnant, join gangs, go to jail etc. Some people want their kids exposed to this on a daily basis and others do not.

You can decide that school experience doesn't really matter and that is your choice but there is nothing beneficial about poverty and academic failure. Its not a benefit and choosing a school with high levels of academic failure and poverty to get a cheaper house comes at its own cost.

Yeah, I know these things happen in many schools--too many--but your description of what you think happens in most DCC elementary schools is laughable. Truly. Whatever you need to keep telling yourself, I guess.

Anonymous wrote:

Seriously - what are people who fret about this really worried about? I really want to know because I don't get it.

For elementary school, schools with higher poverty like those in the Einstein or Wheaton cluster have children with severe academic deficits. Your child will be sitting in a classroom working independently or waiting while the teacher spend the majority of her time trying to fill in the extreme background knowledge gaps of the lower performing kids. Your kid may get one or two pull outs occasionally but he or she will have fewer peers at grade level and even fewer above grade level as opposed to higher performing schools.

Group projects become an issue unless the teacher really tries to group kids by performance. Best practices in teaching now though push mixing this up so the lower performing kids can learn from the few higher performing kids. The higher performing kid does not get much out of this.

Poverty brings behavior issue and MCPS does not address behavior issues. Within low income schools, there are more kids with untreated and unaccommodated learning and emotional disabilities. Its not the fault of the kids but the combination of poor prenatal health and at home poverty increases the likelihood if these disorders and they can unaddressed. These kids need even more parental support, para educators, medication, and specialists but they get known of this and simply disrupt the class.

Teacher expectations are lower in low performing schools. The school and teachers are pressured to bring up the bottom and resources go there accordingly. Once acceleration begins, these classes are often watered down to get enough kids to hold a class.

Once middle school and high school begins, you combine all the problems that happen anywhere with problems that are more unique and prevalent with poverty. Your child will see many of their former ES classmates drop out, get pregnant, join gangs, go to jail etc. Some people want their kids exposed to this on a daily basis and others do not.

You can decide that school experience doesn't really matter and that is your choice but there is nothing beneficial about poverty and academic failure. Its not a benefit and choosing a school with high levels of academic failure and poverty to get a cheaper house comes at its own cost.
at is not the same thing

I'm sorry, but this is just not true. We're talking about Kensington-Parkwood or Garrett Park vs Oakland Terrace or Rock View. Have you ever even been east of Connecticut Avenue?

Seriously - what are people who fret about this really worried about? I really want to know because I don't get it.

For elementary school, schools with higher poverty like those in the Einstein or Wheaton cluster have children with severe academic deficits. Your child will be sitting in a classroom working independently or waiting while the teacher spend the majority of her time trying to fill in the extreme background knowledge gaps of the lower performing kids. Your kid may get one or two pull outs occasionally but he or she will have fewer peers at grade level and even fewer above grade level as opposed to higher performing schools.

Group projects become an issue unless the teacher really tries to group kids by performance. Best practices in teaching now though push mixing this up so the lower performing kids can learn from the few higher performing kids. The higher performing kid does not get much out of this.

Poverty brings behavior issue and MCPS does not address behavior issues. Within low income schools, there are more kids with untreated and unaccommodated learning and emotional disabilities. Its not the fault of the kids but the combination of poor prenatal health and at home poverty increases the likelihood if these disorders and they can unaddressed. These kids need even more parental support, para educators, medication, and specialists but they get known of this and simply disrupt the class.

Teacher expectations are lower in low performing schools. The school and teachers are pressured to bring up the bottom and resources go there accordingly. Once acceleration begins, these classes are often watered down to get enough kids to hold a class.

Once middle school and high school begins, you combine all the problems that happen anywhere with problems that are more unique and prevalent with poverty. Your child will see many of their former ES classmates drop out, get pregnant, join gangs, go to jail etc. Some people want their kids exposed to this on a daily basis and others do not.

You can decide that school experience doesn't really matter and that is your choice but there is nothing beneficial about poverty and academic failure. Its not a benefit and choosing a school with high levels of academic failure and poverty to get a cheaper house comes at its own cost.

This is so interesting. What is the point of sending kids to "good" schools - I'm talking elementary, middle, high schools and colleges and universities?

Seriously - what are people who fret about this really worried about? I really want to know because I don't get it.

Is it for them to make a lot of money?

For you to feel good that your kids are superlative?

For your children to be as happy as possible and support themselves in a wider, rapidly diversifying world?

I overheard someone saying they had lied and used another address to get their kids out of KP and into a "browner" Einstein school. After reading 14 pages of this forum post, I am thinking that's probably not such a bad idea.

When you say schools are "worse" because of FARMS kids -- what the heck does that mean? In the end, it means those students have the chance for friends who are different from themselves.

And let me say, as someone who has seen firsthand, there are just as many troubled kids in immigrant families as there are from wealthy white families around here. A business walking distance to WJ has one of the highest shoplifting rates in the region - always during school lunch breaks...hmmm.... Why would that be?

You do understand that going to the "best" schools in a way limits your college choices, right? Because universities can only take a certain number of kids from each high school. How many at Churchill apply to Harvard, vs. at Einstein? I know plenty of kids at "top" high schools who did not get into the University of Maryland at College Park -- there can only be a certain number admitted from each in-state high school, right? Otherwise, the entire freshman class would come from three counties and nowhere else in the state.

What about "good" colleges? What even does that mean? What is the goal -- after four years, your child is ... what? Smarter? Can support themselves in a high-paying job? Because you don't need a degree from a "good" college for that. And you definitely shouldn't be borrowing money to get them there. Probably investing the $300,000 into a business you gave them would be a better use of your money if that's the case.

Winning some science award or perfect SATs or a really nice house doesn't mean your kid will be happy. But constantly comparing themselves to others based on hearing those values will certainly make them a poorer person inside.

And one last word - what about religious values? What happened to loving thy neighbor, particularly the least among us?

I'm genuinely curious. What is the fear about Rock View or Wheaton or Woodward or Einstein or Northwood or Montgomery College? What will happen if your kid went there instead of WJ or Churchill and then Vanderbilt or whatever?

Thanks!

Anonymous wrote:A couple points:

1) Acting like your kids will be marginalized at WJ if you have enough money to afford a single family house in Rock View or Oakland Terrace is a bit much. Homes “on the other side of the tracks” are going for $550,000+ at least for a 3 br 2 bth cape cod that still needs some work. Full renos in the area are going for well over $650 and new builds fetch close to $1M. Kids in WJ are not hopping out of the suicide doors of a Tesla SUV in Ballenciaga sneakers and Moncler jackets. If you can afford some dirty vans and white tube socks for DS and a pair of white low-top Chucks and an oversized graphic t-shirt for DD you’ll fit in just fine.

2) PP mocking east Chevy Chase as “Section 8 Chevy Chase” is the kind of person that probably has a country kitchen and cuts coupons on a TV table whilst watching Hannity. Stop derailing the thread with your weird tangents.

3) There’s a reason historic Kensington commands higher prices than Oakland Terrace and Rock View. It’s objectively a nicer neighborhood with historic architecture, a great park system and its walkable to MARC, restaurants and stores. Acting like something on the south side of Plyers Mill east of Oakland Terrace is as nice as a place off of Warner Circle, but is only priced lower because of schools, is bending the truth. If you’re talking about the houses in Rock View vs. Parkwood, I see you’re point, but let’s not act that all WJ neighborhoods have nothing else going for them besides schools.

4) The odds of Kensington being zoned for Woodward are slim because it’s zoned for North Bethesda Middle, one of two middle schools that feed into WJ. The other middle school, Tilden, feeds from 3 ESs and is located at the Woodward site. It would make logical sense to peel these Tilden-zoned ES clusters from WJ to Woodward first.

5) Even if Kensington gets redistricted to Einstein or Woodward this is going to happen in 6 years. Prices are going to be up in the entire area by the because of the Purple Line, Rockville Pike developments, the gentrification and development near Wheaton Metro and the Amazon effect, which will make places like Oakland Terrace an affordable option for people priced out of areas closer to Amazon HQ. If you buy now your house will appreciate by 3% a year anyway, so you barely feel the effects of any zoning change. On the other hand, if you wait until 2025 you’ll probably be priced out of even Oakland Terrace or Rock View, where homes will be close to $800,000 by then.

That’s the comparison I’m making, same with many of the small houses on Perry, Farragut, etc., zoned for KP vs. OTES houses. But then, if my money bought literally half the house so I could send my kids to WJ vs. Einstein, I’d probably have to convince myself it was the most amazing decision ever, too. Of course the big, gorgeous homes on large lots are in a different category, and honestly, I’ve not heard the same kind of snobbery from those folks on this issue.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OK here are all these "high poverty" families that attend RHPS living? Rents and housing prices in that area aren't cheap.

This is what I am wondering. Silver Spring prices and getting BCC is an amazing deal. Prices could be depressed because of a stigma of living Silver Spring BUT it can't be that bad. Since BCC is far, far better than any other school in Silver Spring it should be the most expensive area in Silver Spring.

I don't understand how RHPS can have low income families. Is there a subsidized apartment building that only allows low income residents, homeless shelter, or halfway house for ex cons with children or something?

PP, look at a map. Here are the service areas, to get you started.

http://gis.mcpsmd.org/ServiceAreaMaps/RosemaryHillsNorthChevyChaseES.pdf
http://gis.mcpsmd.org/ServiceAreaMaps/RosemaryHillsChevyChaseES.pdf

Geographically, isn’t it odd to split the eastern side of the school zone when the schools split to CC/NCC? Shouldn’t the whole area move on to NCC since it’s north of EW Highway, and also because NCC has more space?

Yes, it's odd, geographically, but it was considered preferable, demographically, to send some of the apartment buildings to NCC and some to CC. (And the eastern-most Summit Hills buildings go to Woodlin.)

Summit Hills is now turned over some but when we grew up it was not particularly nice and we weren't allow to visit friends as it was a pretty unsafe area. Clearly you didn't grow up here if you aren't aware of that area.

I lived in Summit Hills 20 years ago after college. Get a grip.

Me too, I lived there as a single woman and never felt unsafe. And they had not been recently renovated as far as I could tell. Bethesda/Chevy Chase peeps who are from here grew up scared of brown people and “ apartment people”. I do not see any evidence that silver spring schools have “ improved” since they were kids. As far as I can tell silver spring high schools have always been fine if your family cared about education. Just like now.

A couple points:

1) Acting like your kids will be marginalized at WJ if you have enough money to afford a single family house in Rock View or Oakland Terrace is a bit much. Homes “on the other side of the tracks” are going for $550,000+ at least for a 3 br 2 bth cape cod that still needs some work. Full renos in the area are going for well over $650 and new builds fetch close to $1M. Kids in WJ are not hopping out of the suicide doors of a Tesla SUV in Ballenciaga sneakers and Moncler jackets. If you can afford some dirty vans and white tube socks for DS and a pair of white low-top Chucks and an oversized graphic t-shirt for DD you’ll fit in just fine.

2) PP mocking east Chevy Chase as “Section 8 Chevy Chase” is the kind of person that probably has a country kitchen and cuts coupons on a TV table whilst watching Hannity. Stop derailing the thread with your weird tangents.

3) There’s a reason historic Kensington commands higher prices than Oakland Terrace and Rock View. It’s objectively a nicer neighborhood with historic architecture, a great park system and its walkable to MARC, restaurants and stores. Acting like something on the south side of Plyers Mill east of Oakland Terrace is as nice as a place off of Warner Circle, but is only priced lower because of schools, is bending the truth. If you’re talking about the houses in Rock View vs. Parkwood, I see you’re point, but let’s not act that all WJ neighborhoods have nothing else going for them besides schools.

4) The odds of Kensington being zoned for Woodward are slim because it’s zoned for North Bethesda Middle, one of two middle schools that feed into WJ. The other middle school, Tilden, feeds from 3 ESs and is located at the Woodward site. It would make logical sense to peel these Tilden-zoned ES clusters from WJ to Woodward first.

5) Even if Kensington gets redistricted to Einstein or Woodward this is going to happen in 6 years. Prices are going to be up in the entire area by the because of the Purple Line, Rockville Pike developments, the gentrification and development near Wheaton Metro and the Amazon effect, which will make places like Oakland Terrace an affordable option for people priced out of areas closer to Amazon HQ. If you buy now your house will appreciate by 3% a year anyway, so you barely feel the effects of any zoning change. On the other hand, if you wait until 2025 you’ll probably be priced out of even Oakland Terrace or Rock View, where homes will be close to $800,000 by then.

I agree with the PPs who are defending the "east" part of Chevy Chase. We've been here for 15+ years and it's been a great choice - good schools, easy access to both Bethesda and Silver Spring, and a short(ish) commute to DC. Soon we'll be walking distance the Purple Line and lots of new retail. A friend who lives in the Village or Town of CC once remarked that we don't "really" live in Chevy Chase since nothing north of EW Highway is "real Chevy Chase." Tell it to the school system, the post office, and the tax man, please. She paid 5x what we did for our house; if affixing the phrase "real" in front of her neighborhood makes her feel better, go right ahead.

I think the area around Rosemary Hills is a huge bargain; lots of the houses have been fixed up since my oldest started there a long time ago and it seems like a nice family neighborhood. It's not Bethesda, neither is my neighborhood, and that's okay. Personally I wish we'd bought in the part of Kensington that's zoned for BCC - it's the perfect suburban neighborhood to me - but it's a bit risky today because of the Woodward reopening.

FYI, the above PP who says NCC is bursting at the seams hasn't been there in awhile. It's actually way under capacity right now - about 200 kids in a building that used to have nearly 400. There's a whole wing of the school that they don't really use except for indoor recess. Also, the name of Rosemary Hills was changed from "primary" to "elementary" school about 5+ years ago.

Anonymous wrote:

OK here are all these "high poverty" families that attend RHPS living? Rents and housing prices in that area aren't cheap.

This is what I am wondering. Silver Spring prices and getting BCC is an amazing deal. Prices could be depressed because of a stigma of living Silver Spring BUT it can't be that bad. Since BCC is far, far better than any other school in Silver Spring it should be the most expensive area in Silver Spring.

I don't understand how RHPS can have low income families. Is there a subsidized apartment building that only allows low income residents, homeless shelter, or halfway house for ex cons with children or something?

This is the myth that surrounds RHPS. I have long heard the trope that if CCES (less so regarding NCC) were to be de-coupled from RHPS, there would be no one left but low income families. The neighborhood that surrounds RPHS is filled with single family homes--lots of families with young kids, civil servants, etc. There is one apartment complex near the school (Barrington) and some of the children from the Summit Hills complex go to RHPS; others go to Woodlin. In my time at RHPS the children from the nearby apartments made up about 20% of the school population. And it would be a stretch to say that all apartment dwelling families in are automatically low-income.

As for NCC and CCES converting to K-5 schools, that rumor has circulated for years. It got a big second life when the 6th grade classes left NCC and CCES to go to Silver Creek/Westland. There is a remarkable amount of infill development occuring in the NCC area (new townhomes at Chevy Chase Lake). The school is bursting at the seams even with the new addition. There is simply not the space in the school to handle a K-5 population.