Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are always people who live close to a school who aren't zoned for it-- it's almost mathematically impossible to send everyone to the closest school. I know families a couple blocks from Westland that go to Pyle. Complaining about that at this point is beside the point.

Yes. I live in Kensington. We are bisected with three different school districts.

If Montgomery County was structured at the town level rather than the county level, like Massachusetts, then we could incorporate all of 20895 plus whatever Garret Park into our own little city and then all go to Kensington Parkwood, New Middle School and Einstein together. That would be great. But that is not reality and no other area in Montgomery County is structured like that.

There are more sections of Kensington and the 20895 zip code but I guess those don't qualify in your mind. Not everyone wants to be a part of the Town, which is why we bought out of bounds.

You misread my post. 20895 is coterminous with all areas that have a Kensington address. Much larger than the Town. I also don't live in the Town and none of the schools I mentioned are actually in the very small Town boundaries. I was suggesting a different form of political governance, based on large towns rather than a county. This is common in other parts of our country, like in New England. There are positives and negatives of each approach, but people tend to be more involved in local government if power is devolved, so on the whole that would be my preference.

The Town right now is really silly, it's only 2,000 people and had no real power. I was envisioning a larger incorporated area of 25,000 with its own schools, police, etc. But I was also suggesting this will never happen, so given the county's current governance structure there is no logical reason to reorganize school boundaries without devolved political power to run the new Kensington schools that PP was envisioning.

Also, for other PP, my post was incorrect when I said it was three "districts." I meant three clusters. Thanks for clarifying.

We could have bought in the town of Kensington and when we rented there, we were not at all impressed with the politics. Many of us living on the poor side of the tracks make $200,000+ and choose our small homes which has a much better community feel than do the other parts of Kensington or even Chevy Chase.

They should have rebuilt Leland and put it in Chevy Chase where all the kids are being bussed from. It makes no sense to have a school in Kensington that Kensington kids are not allowed.

Let's try this again. It's not in Kensington. It has the same zip code as Kensington, but it's not in Kensington. Further, it never was in Kensington. Kensington is a town with a defined border. The school is outside that border. Arguing that the Town of Kensington should go there is like arguing the Town of Kensington should go to Einstein, which is located in North Kensington, also outside the town's border.

I'm surprised at all the comments about Westland. When I grew up we always called it Wasteland.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are always people who live close to a school who aren't zoned for it-- it's almost mathematically impossible to send everyone to the closest school. I know families a couple blocks from Westland that go to Pyle. Complaining about that at this point is beside the point.

Yes. I live in Kensington. We are bisected with three different school districts.

If Montgomery County was structured at the town level rather than the county level, like Massachusetts, then we could incorporate all of 20895 plus whatever Garret Park into our own little city and then all go to Kensington Parkwood, New Middle School and Einstein together. That would be great. But that is not reality and no other area in Montgomery County is structured like that.

There are more sections of Kensington and the 20895 zip code but I guess those don't qualify in your mind. Not everyone wants to be a part of the Town, which is why we bought out of bounds.

You misread my post. 20895 is coterminous with all areas that have a Kensington address. Much larger than the Town. I also don't live in the Town and none of the schools I mentioned are actually in the very small Town boundaries. I was suggesting a different form of political governance, based on large towns rather than a county. This is common in other parts of our country, like in New England. There are positives and negatives of each approach, but people tend to be more involved in local government if power is devolved, so on the whole that would be my preference.

The Town right now is really silly, it's only 2,000 people and had no real power. I was envisioning a larger incorporated area of 25,000 with its own schools, police, etc. But I was also suggesting this will never happen, so given the county's current governance structure there is no logical reason to reorganize school boundaries without devolved political power to run the new Kensington schools that PP was envisioning.

Also, for other PP, my post was incorrect when I said it was three "districts." I meant three clusters. Thanks for clarifying.

We could have bought in the town of Kensington and when we rented there, we were not at all impressed with the politics. Many of us living on the poor side of the tracks make $200,000+ and choose our small homes which has a much better community feel than do the other parts of Kensington or even Chevy Chase.

They should have rebuilt Leland and put it in Chevy Chase where all the kids are being bussed from. It makes no sense to have a school in Kensington that Kensington kids are not allowed.

Anonymous wrote:There is not a major disparity in capacity between option 1 and option 7, so if that's your argument you need to be supporting some other option. There is a disparity in FARMS but it's not as if one school is at 20% and the other is at 60%.

I see, so we're going to debate "major" now? The bottom line is that Option 1 provided the closest demographic balance between the two schools, and it allowed for both schools to grow. You seem to be arguing that it's OK if we don't achieve the closest demographic balance for whatever reason, perhaps the superintendent's faux argument on transportation.

Let's say you're right. Option 7 still maxes out the capacity of the new school while creating a more affluent, less diverse school with excess capacity. That inequity would be bad enough, but it exacerbates the inequitable educational facilities that we start with. The new school is built on hilly land that is less than half the size of Westland. The new school has less physical plant (in all fairness, not a catastrophe), and less outside facilities, than Westland. Never mind the lack of fairness, how is this new school supposed to accommodate any future growth? Under the worst case scenario, Westland can build on its site. Further, why is it that the new, less equitable school goes to the community with more diversity and three times the FARMS rate of the larger, more affluent school?

Based on a reading of the input of all the PTAs involved, the superintendent's decision imposed a weighting that does not reflect the views of the majority of stakeholders affected.

There is not a major disparity in capacity between option 1 and option 7, so if that's your argument you need to be supporting some other option. There is a disparity in FARMS but it's not as if one school is at 20% and the other is at 60%.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought that the superintendent's recommendation isn't the final say. Doesn't the BOE have to accept the recommendation? As an RCFES parent, I leaned toward wanting the kids to go to Westland. It would be nice to be closer to home, but I worry that a few vocal CCES parents will make those kids feel unwelcome, and will continue to feel (quite irrationally, in my view) that their personal resources are being directed toward lower SES kids.

Bethesda has always resented the RCF kids.

That's interesting. Do you have a source for that? Do you think they resent the RCF kids, or do they RCF parents that, for the sake of their transportation convenience, want two inequitable schools to exist in the cluster with the potential of exacerbating the opportunity gap?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, you bring up an interesting point. Under Option 7, MS#2 will be at full capacity practically from day one, while Westland will be well under capacity. Given what you say about end of sibling preference, travel distance from Silver Spring for immersion students, and the like, Westland will likely be even MORE under capacity (since not all the immersion students will actually transfer there) and will have even LESS economic diversity (since immersion students probably provide some economic diversity) than projected. And personally, I think the MS#2 enrollment projections are likely well below reality given the forthcoming Chevy Chase Lake development (which has begun) and the trends we've seen on the eastern side of the cluster, and MS#2 easily will be OVER capacity from day 1.

You are correct, the new middle will be overcapacity from Day one. You will see portables in less than 5 years. It is also lopsided that all of the diversity is in one school, the new middle. There is no equity between the new middle in and Westland in the new boundary. Months ago I started researching private middle schools because we felt Option 7 was the worst possible option and could not even believe it was on the table because the disparity in capacity and diversity was alarming.

My kids classes have been maxed out and out of control for years due to the high rate of illegal immigration in this cluster that is continuing to explode unchecked. So we are checking out. Not my problem anymore. Rock Creek is going to regret pushing for this. If I had been them, I would have been thrilled with Westland and preferred it. Bigger facilty and less kids. In fact, I am sad my kids aren't going there. RCF made a bad decision for their kids and everyone else's. Now everyone in the new middle will have a lesser experience.

Drama queen.

Now I see why sites have dropped the anonymous comments. It makes it easy for cowards, like you, to be nasty and disrespectful without any cost to your reputation. Sleep well.

Not that poster, but I thought drama queen was pretty accurate, and if you don't think your post was as or more nasty you should re-read it.

I re-read the first post, and I realized I focused on the first paragraph without looking at the second. I don't know how one can tie illegal immigration into this, unless they have some magic way they figured out who is here illegally. Still, if you take away the strange stuff, the substance of the comment, i.e., the deficient school, the FARMS imbalance, and the lack of capacity, is true. It's in the superintendent's recommendation, and to me, it doesn't make sense.

Perhaps I was harsh, but dismissing someone with name-calling instead of trying to understand what you can will not move the debate along.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, you bring up an interesting point. Under Option 7, MS#2 will be at full capacity practically from day one, while Westland will be well under capacity. Given what you say about end of sibling preference, travel distance from Silver Spring for immersion students, and the like, Westland will likely be even MORE under capacity (since not all the immersion students will actually transfer there) and will have even LESS economic diversity (since immersion students probably provide some economic diversity) than projected. And personally, I think the MS#2 enrollment projections are likely well below reality given the forthcoming Chevy Chase Lake development (which has begun) and the trends we've seen on the eastern side of the cluster, and MS#2 easily will be OVER capacity from day 1.

You are correct, the new middle will be overcapacity from Day one. You will see portables in less than 5 years. It is also lopsided that all of the diversity is in one school, the new middle. There is no equity between the new middle in and Westland in the new boundary. Months ago I started researching private middle schools because we felt Option 7 was the worst possible option and could not even believe it was on the table because the disparity in capacity and diversity was alarming.

My kids classes have been maxed out and out of control for years due to the high rate of illegal immigration in this cluster that is continuing to explode unchecked. So we are checking out. Not my problem anymore. Rock Creek is going to regret pushing for this. If I had been them, I would have been thrilled with Westland and preferred it. Bigger facilty and less kids. In fact, I am sad my kids aren't going there. RCF made a bad decision for their kids and everyone else's. Now everyone in the new middle will have a lesser experience.

Drama queen.

Now I see why sites have dropped the anonymous comments. It makes it easy for cowards, like you, to be nasty and disrespectful without any cost to your reputation. Sleep well.

Not that poster, but I thought drama queen was pretty accurate, and if you don't think your post was as or more nasty you should re-read it.

Anonymous wrote:Man neither site wants the RCF kids, it is just funny the talking point arguments they use to beat around the bush about it too. While it is funny watching the BCC middle #2 parents bitch in defeat, I think people are forgetting the the super's recommendations are non-binding and this could very well be him working a deal with the board to allow him to look pro-west knowing full well the board will vote to bus the farm kids. Gamesmanship matters when deciding who gets the hot potato

You obviously played Risk as a kid. Genius, with a swipe at a whole bunch of your neighbors, too!

Anonymous wrote:I thought that the superintendent's recommendation isn't the final say. Doesn't the BOE have to accept the recommendation? As an RCFES parent, I leaned toward wanting the kids to go to Westland. It would be nice to be closer to home, but I worry that a few vocal CCES parents will make those kids feel unwelcome, and will continue to feel (quite irrationally, in my view) that their personal resources are being directed toward lower SES kids.

Bethesda has always resented the RCF kids.

Man neither site wants the RCF kids, it is just funny the talking point arguments they use to beat around the bush about it too. While it is funny watching the BCC middle #2 parents bitch in defeat, I think people are forgetting the the super's recommendations are non-binding and this could very well be him working a deal with the board to allow him to look pro-west knowing full well the board will vote to bus the farm kids. Gamesmanship matters when deciding who gets the hot potato

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, you bring up an interesting point. Under Option 7, MS#2 will be at full capacity practically from day one, while Westland will be well under capacity. Given what you say about end of sibling preference, travel distance from Silver Spring for immersion students, and the like, Westland will likely be even MORE under capacity (since not all the immersion students will actually transfer there) and will have even LESS economic diversity (since immersion students probably provide some economic diversity) than projected. And personally, I think the MS#2 enrollment projections are likely well below reality given the forthcoming Chevy Chase Lake development (which has begun) and the trends we've seen on the eastern side of the cluster, and MS#2 easily will be OVER capacity from day 1.

You are correct, the new middle will be overcapacity from Day one. You will see portables in less than 5 years. It is also lopsided that all of the diversity is in one school, the new middle. There is no equity between the new middle in and Westland in the new boundary. Months ago I started researching private middle schools because we felt Option 7 was the worst possible option and could not even believe it was on the table because the disparity in capacity and diversity was alarming.

My kids classes have been maxed out and out of control for years due to the high rate of illegal immigration in this cluster that is continuing to explode unchecked. So we are checking out. Not my problem anymore. Rock Creek is going to regret pushing for this. If I had been them, I would have been thrilled with Westland and preferred it. Bigger facilty and less kids. In fact, I am sad my kids aren't going there. RCF made a bad decision for their kids and everyone else's. Now everyone in the new middle will have a lesser experience.

Drama queen.

Now I see why sites have dropped the anonymous comments. It makes it easy for cowards, like you, to be nasty and disrespectful without any cost to your reputation. Sleep well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WHat is the best way to provide feedback to the BOE?

People need to organize in their communities and their PTAs. They need to write to the BOE and County Council and show up to the meeting for public comments. Based on postings earlier this year, it's clear that people have "worked the process," while the rest of us foolishly relied on the integrity of the committee process actually being honored.

So if your first choice isn't selected, the process was fraudulent? Okay, Mr. Trump.

It's easy to reply with snark, but I don't see you addressing the concerns raised in the chain. A PP noted the disparity is demographics and physical plant. The same was recognized during committee process (I was involved). These concerns were subordinated to a transportation "issue" for one community. In other words, to address the purported concerns of that one community, the concerns of the balance of the cluster were given less weight. Thinking that result is wrong makes me no more Trumpian than violating process and the greater good of the community makes the superintendent Clintonian.

Anonymous wrote:I thought that the superintendent's recommendation isn't the final say. Doesn't the BOE have to accept the recommendation? As an RCFES parent, I leaned toward wanting the kids to go to Westland. It would be nice to be closer to home, but I worry that a few vocal CCES parents will make those kids feel unwelcome, and will continue to feel (quite irrationally, in my view) that their personal resources are being directed toward lower SES kids.

I think you should spend less time reading dcum (and I don't mean for that to sound rude)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WHat is the best way to provide feedback to the BOE?

People need to organize in their communities and their PTAs. They need to write to the BOE and County Council and show up to the meeting for public comments. Based on postings earlier this year, it's clear that people have "worked the process," while the rest of us foolishly relied on the integrity of the committee process actually being honored.

So if your first choice isn't selected, the process was fraudulent? Okay, Mr. Trump.