Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP - this is *exactly* what I am referring to. It makes no sense to me why they don't take this area and redistrict to somewhere closer where it's under capacity. And obviously, there's no classism or racism about this since, as you noted, that is an expensive area, more so than some Wootton neighborhoods.

They are currently building a 5th elementary school in the RM cluster, so the ES level overcrowding is already being dealt with. Similarly, JW MS has an addition being built. The JH Science Center property development will also add housing in this general area over time, which might be allocated to Wootton. Due to all of the foregoing, I doubt Fallsgrove will be redistricted, though the neighborhood is in fact closer to Lakewood, Frost & Wootton.

The last I heard at the RP PTA meeting in May was that funding for building the new elementary school did not get approved - it is on hold indefinitely with no guarantee it will ever get built.

Not to sound like a broken record but to reiterate, the Board of Education recommended that the 5th elementary school in this cluster be built by 2015, so construction would have had to begun by 2013. What happened was that the County Council voted to delay the funding for construction until 2015 with completion by 2017. Meanwhile, they approved funding for BFES, Wayside, Candlewood and possibly others (these are the only three I've seen) even though these were under enrolled.

Someone also said that decisions about school construction are made years in advance. That's true. But if the projections on population are wrong---and they are wrong and that can be seen years in advance---then there should be some flexibility to address that. Some may disagree, but I don't think a county that believes its schools are the best in the nation should have campuses that resemble a trailer park more than a school playground.

Does anyone know how much is costs to do redistricting? I know that the new RM ES #5 is going to cost $35 million (or would have several years ago) if/when it finally gets built. Curious about the cost/benefit analysis between building a new building to relieve overcrowding vs. redistricting to relieve overcrowding.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP - this is *exactly* what I am referring to. It makes no sense to me why they don't take this area and redistrict to somewhere closer where it's under capacity. And obviously, there's no classism or racism about this since, as you noted, that is an expensive area, more so than some Wootton neighborhoods.

They are currently building a 5th elementary school in the RM cluster, so the ES level overcrowding is already being dealt with. Similarly, JW MS has an addition being built. The JH Science Center property development will also add housing in this general area over time, which might be allocated to Wootton. Due to all of the foregoing, I doubt Fallsgrove will be redistricted, though the neighborhood is in fact closer to Lakewood, Frost & Wootton.

The last I heard at the RP PTA meeting in May was that funding for building the new elementary school did not get approved - it is on hold indefinitely with no guarantee it will ever get built.

Not to sound like a broken record but to reiterate, the Board of Education recommended that the 5th elementary school in this cluster be built by 2015, so construction would have had to begun by 2013. What happened was that the County Council voted to delay the funding for construction until 2015 with completion by 2017. Meanwhile, they approved funding for BFES, Wayside, Candlewood and possibly others (these are the only three I've seen) even though these were under enrolled.

Someone also said that decisions about school construction are made years in advance. That's true. But if the projections on population are wrong---and they are wrong and that can be seen years in advance---then there should be some flexibility to address that. Some may disagree, but I don't think a county that believes its schools are the best in the nation should have campuses that resemble a trailer park more than a school playground.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Not to sound like a broken record but to reiterate, the Board of Education recommended that the 5th elementary school in this cluster be built by 2015, so construction would have had to begun by 2013. What happened was that the County Council voted to delay the funding for construction until 2015 with completion by 2017. Meanwhile, they approved funding for BFES, Wayside, Candlewood and possibly others (these are the only three I've seen) even though these were under enrolled.

Someone also said that decisions about school construction are made years in advance. That's true. But if the projections on population are wrong---and they are wrong and that can be seen years in advance---then there should be some flexibility to address that. Some may disagree, but I don't think a county that believes its schools are the best in the nation should have campuses that resemble a trailer park more than a school playground.

I'm guessing that MCPS has provided reasons for why Beverly Farms, Wayside, and Candlewood are (were?) on the list. What are those reasons? For example, Wayside was built in 1969 and has never been modernized. Candlewood was built in 1968 and has never been modernized. Maybe MCPS thinks that modernization of 40+-year-old buildings, even if they're below capacity, is a higher priority than building new schools/wings for schools that are over capacity in modern/modernized buildings? If so, that makes sense to me, from a facilities management point of view.

But not from a quality of education POV. Which trumps? Why can't they look at both the facilities condition as well as other factors? Not saying if a building is falling apart and has mold, etc.. it shouldn't be renovated. But they should really look at the current state of the building rather than just whether it was ever renovated or not. If it still works fine, no structural issues, why renovate it if there are more pressing issues? Admittedly, I have no idea whether those schools were in dire conditions, but do they ever inspect the buildings before making these decisions?

"Do they ever inspect the buildings before making these decisions"? Really, you're asking this as a serious question?

It was somewhat of a rhetorical question, but these decision seem to beg such a stupid question.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Not to sound like a broken record but to reiterate, the Board of Education recommended that the 5th elementary school in this cluster be built by 2015, so construction would have had to begun by 2013. What happened was that the County Council voted to delay the funding for construction until 2015 with completion by 2017. Meanwhile, they approved funding for BFES, Wayside, Candlewood and possibly others (these are the only three I've seen) even though these were under enrolled.

Someone also said that decisions about school construction are made years in advance. That's true. But if the projections on population are wrong---and they are wrong and that can be seen years in advance---then there should be some flexibility to address that. Some may disagree, but I don't think a county that believes its schools are the best in the nation should have campuses that resemble a trailer park more than a school playground.

I'm guessing that MCPS has provided reasons for why Beverly Farms, Wayside, and Candlewood are (were?) on the list. What are those reasons? For example, Wayside was built in 1969 and has never been modernized. Candlewood was built in 1968 and has never been modernized. Maybe MCPS thinks that modernization of 40+-year-old buildings, even if they're below capacity, is a higher priority than building new schools/wings for schools that are over capacity in modern/modernized buildings? If so, that makes sense to me, from a facilities management point of view.

But not from a quality of education POV. Which trumps? Why can't they look at both the facilities condition as well as other factors? Not saying if a building is falling apart and has mold, etc.. it shouldn't be renovated. But they should really look at the current state of the building rather than just whether it was ever renovated or not. If it still works fine, no structural issues, why renovate it if there are more pressing issues? Admittedly, I have no idea whether those schools were in dire conditions, but do they ever inspect the buildings before making these decisions?

"Do they ever inspect the buildings before making these decisions"? Really, you're asking this as a serious question?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Not to sound like a broken record but to reiterate, the Board of Education recommended that the 5th elementary school in this cluster be built by 2015, so construction would have had to begun by 2013. What happened was that the County Council voted to delay the funding for construction until 2015 with completion by 2017. Meanwhile, they approved funding for BFES, Wayside, Candlewood and possibly others (these are the only three I've seen) even though these were under enrolled.

Someone also said that decisions about school construction are made years in advance. That's true. But if the projections on population are wrong---and they are wrong and that can be seen years in advance---then there should be some flexibility to address that. Some may disagree, but I don't think a county that believes its schools are the best in the nation should have campuses that resemble a trailer park more than a school playground.

I'm guessing that MCPS has provided reasons for why Beverly Farms, Wayside, and Candlewood are (were?) on the list. What are those reasons? For example, Wayside was built in 1969 and has never been modernized. Candlewood was built in 1968 and has never been modernized. Maybe MCPS thinks that modernization of 40+-year-old buildings, even if they're below capacity, is a higher priority than building new schools/wings for schools that are over capacity in modern/modernized buildings? If so, that makes sense to me, from a facilities management point of view.

But not from a quality of education POV. Which trumps? Why can't they look at both the facilities condition as well as other factors? Not saying if a building is falling apart and has mold, etc.. it shouldn't be renovated. But they should really look at the current state of the building rather than just whether it was ever renovated or not. If it still works fine, no structural issues, why renovate it if there are more pressing issues? Admittedly, I have no idea whether those schools were in dire conditions, but do they ever inspect the buildings before making these decisions?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP - this is *exactly* what I am referring to. It makes no sense to me why they don't take this area and redistrict to somewhere closer where it's under capacity. And obviously, there's no classism or racism about this since, as you noted, that is an expensive area, more so than some Wootton neighborhoods.

They are currently building a 5th elementary school in the RM cluster, so the ES level overcrowding is already being dealt with. Similarly, JW MS has an addition being built. The JH Science Center property development will also add housing in this general area over time, which might be allocated to Wootton. Due to all of the foregoing, I doubt Fallsgrove will be redistricted, though the neighborhood is in fact closer to Lakewood, Frost & Wootton.

The last I heard at the RP PTA meeting in May was that funding for building the new elementary school did not get approved - it is on hold indefinitely with no guarantee it will ever get built.

Not to sound like a broken record but to reiterate, the Board of Education recommended that the 5th elementary school in this cluster be built by 2015, so construction would have had to begun by 2013. What happened was that the County Council voted to delay the funding for construction until 2015 with completion by 2017. Meanwhile, they approved funding for BFES, Wayside, Candlewood and possibly others (these are the only three I've seen) even though these were under enrolled.

Someone also said that decisions about school construction are made years in advance. That's true. But if the projections on population are wrong---and they are wrong and that can be seen years in advance---then there should be some flexibility to address that. Some may disagree, but I don't think a county that believes its schools are the best in the nation should have campuses that resemble a trailer park more than a school playground.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Not to sound like a broken record but to reiterate, the Board of Education recommended that the 5th elementary school in this cluster be built by 2015, so construction would have had to begun by 2013. What happened was that the County Council voted to delay the funding for construction until 2015 with completion by 2017. Meanwhile, they approved funding for BFES, Wayside, Candlewood and possibly others (these are the only three I've seen) even though these were under enrolled.

Someone also said that decisions about school construction are made years in advance. That's true. But if the projections on population are wrong---and they are wrong and that can be seen years in advance---then there should be some flexibility to address that. Some may disagree, but I don't think a county that believes its schools are the best in the nation should have campuses that resemble a trailer park more than a school playground.

I'm guessing that MCPS has provided reasons for why Beverly Farms, Wayside, and Candlewood are (were?) on the list. What are those reasons? For example, Wayside was built in 1969 and has never been modernized. Candlewood was built in 1968 and has never been modernized. Maybe MCPS thinks that modernization of 40+-year-old buildings, even if they're below capacity, is a higher priority than building new schools/wings for schools that are over capacity in modern/modernized buildings? If so, that makes sense to me, from a facilities management point of view.

Anonymous wrote:
Not to sound like a broken record but to reiterate, the Board of Education recommended that the 5th elementary school in this cluster be built by 2015, so construction would have had to begun by 2013. What happened was that the County Council voted to delay the funding for construction until 2015 with completion by 2017. Meanwhile, they approved funding for BFES, Wayside, Candlewood and possibly others (these are the only three I've seen) even though these were under enrolled.

Someone also said that decisions about school construction are made years in advance. That's true. But if the projections on population are wrong---and they are wrong and that can be seen years in advance---then there should be some flexibility to address that. Some may disagree, but I don't think a county that believes its schools are the best in the nation should have campuses that resemble a trailer park more than a school playground.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP - this is *exactly* what I am referring to. It makes no sense to me why they don't take this area and redistrict to somewhere closer where it's under capacity. And obviously, there's no classism or racism about this since, as you noted, that is an expensive area, more so than some Wootton neighborhoods.

They are currently building a 5th elementary school in the RM cluster, so the ES level overcrowding is already being dealt with. Similarly, JW MS has an addition being built. The JH Science Center property development will also add housing in this general area over time, which might be allocated to Wootton. Due to all of the foregoing, I doubt Fallsgrove will be redistricted, though the neighborhood is in fact closer to Lakewood, Frost & Wootton.

The last I heard at the RP PTA meeting in May was that funding for building the new elementary school did not get approved - it is on hold indefinitely with no guarantee it will ever get built.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP - this is *exactly* what I am referring to. It makes no sense to me why they don't take this area and redistrict to somewhere closer where it's under capacity. And obviously, there's no classism or racism about this since, as you noted, that is an expensive area, more so than some Wootton neighborhoods.

They are currently building a 5th elementary school in the RM cluster, so the ES level overcrowding is already being dealt with. Similarly, JW MS has an addition being built. The JH Science Center property development will also add housing in this general area over time, which might be allocated to Wootton. Due to all of the foregoing, I doubt Fallsgrove will be redistricted, though the neighborhood is in fact closer to Lakewood, Frost & Wootton.

The last I heard at the RP PTA meeting in May was that funding for building the new elementary school did not get approved - it is on hold indefinitely with no guarantee it will ever get built.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP - this is *exactly* what I am referring to. It makes no sense to me why they don't take this area and redistrict to somewhere closer where it's under capacity. And obviously, there's no classism or racism about this since, as you noted, that is an expensive area, more so than some Wootton neighborhoods.

They are currently building a 5th elementary school in the RM cluster, so the ES level overcrowding is already being dealt with. Similarly, JW MS has an addition being built. The JH Science Center property development will also add housing in this general area over time, which might be allocated to Wootton. Due to all of the foregoing, I doubt Fallsgrove will be redistricted, though the neighborhood is in fact closer to Lakewood, Frost & Wootton.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP - this is *exactly* what I am referring to. It makes no sense to me why they don't take this area and redistrict to somewhere closer where it's under capacity. And obviously, there's no classism or racism about this since, as you noted, that is an expensive area, more so than some Wootton neighborhoods.

They are currently building a 5th elementary school in the RM cluster, so the ES level overcrowding is already being dealt with. Similarly, JW MS has an addition being built. The JH Science Center property development will also add housing in this general area over time, which might be allocated to Wootton. Due to all of the foregoing, I doubt Fallsgrove will be redistricted, though the neighborhood is in fact closer to Lakewood, Frost & Wootton.

From what I just read, the funding for the new ES has been delayed until 2017. Which means that the school cannot open until 2018 at the earliest. In 2011, they had initially agreed to have the new school open in 2015. This would've relieved the over-crowding in the entire RM cluster. Not anymore. And who knows, next year they may decide there are more urgent issues so they delay it again.

And the JW MS new addition is not going to happen for another couple of years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP - this is *exactly* what I am referring to. It makes no sense to me why they don't take this area and redistrict to somewhere closer where it's under capacity. And obviously, there's no classism or racism about this since, as you noted, that is an expensive area, more so than some Wootton neighborhoods.

They are currently building a 5th elementary school in the RM cluster, so the ES level overcrowding is already being dealt with. Similarly, JW MS has an addition being built. The JH Science Center property development will also add housing in this general area over time, which might be allocated to Wootton. Due to all of the foregoing, I doubt Fallsgrove will be redistricted, though the neighborhood is in fact closer to Lakewood, Frost & Wootton.