Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Still is. Probably because, like all middle schools, it's a small prison.

No, kids call it Wasteland because the instruction is really boring and unchallenging and so the kids focus instead on social life and the boredom leads to high risk behaviors like drinking and sexual activity. Intellectually it's a waste of time and socially getting wasted becomes a thing.

If BCC parents want to address the binge-drinking problem, they should look at Westland.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

The objections are famously vitriolic when they included a silver spring school in the cluster and then they worked to close it which the county was prepared to do in 1982 to placate them. It was only after the threat of losing federal school money by resegragrating that the county dropped the plan to close the school.

I don't speak for those parents but I am pretty sure they weren't focused on convenience or the opportunities afforded those kids. They knew it was a harbinger for the darkening of the county and they were afraid it would give poor people a way to there school without paying the segregation real estate tax that is homeownership in places like Bethesda. Basically the same objections you hear today when people try to add density to better neighborhoods.

Those objections took place almost 35 years ago. Aren’t at least some of those people dead or on their way out the door? Couldn’t it be possible that some of the people in the cluster actually care about the opportunity gap?

Several PPs arguments against the superintendent’s recommendation seem to be making your point about an equitable education. Unless I’m misreading what they said, one PP basically asked why the superintendent would recommend creating a rich, white school in the west that’s not full, and an overcrowded school in the east that’s smaller and has less facilities. Isn’t that concern for the opportunity gap?

I’m not sure what you mean by, “afraid it would give poor people a way to there school without paying the segregation real estate tax that is homeownership in places like Bethesda.” House prices are set in a market. Anyway, the disparity you’re pointing to actually is another strike against the superintendent’s decision. Why create two fundamentally unequal educational environments and leave the lesser facility to the more diverse of the two?

It's great for people to want more diverse schools, but I don't think the answer to that is bussing the kids that will create the diversity to the school farther away from their homes. RCF did substantial outreach to its community, including targeted outreach to the more diverse areas that feed into the school -- and the overwhelming majority wanted a closer school. It appears that this factor outweighed the over-crowdedness issue and the relatively small difference in diversity that would result at the two schools. Maybe the Superintendent thought that it would be pretty lame to disregard the input of those lower-SES and/or minority communities.

Well, it’s nice that the needs of RCF have been taken into account, but what about the needs of the rest of the communities? They did their outreach. They did not support this option, and they voiced their opposition in the PTA process. One community’s desire for a closer school shouldn’t outweigh the balance of all the issues for the balance of all the communities.

And before we go too far down the road of the “bussing the kids that will create the diversity to the school farther away from their homes” argument, let’s remember that “bussing” in the classic sense of the word was not being proposed. What was being proposed is having the students attend the school they’re attending now.

RCF may not care about over-crowding, but the rest of the communities sending their children to the new school do. The Superintendent’s recommendation is condemning the new school to capacity issues without the ability to address those issues. In fact, even without the capacity issues, the school starts out at a physical deficit compared to Westland. As one PP said, it’s smaller and has less than half the land as Westland.

If RCF doesn’t care about the socio-economic factors (three times the FARMS rate in the new school and less diversity at Westland), that doesn’t mean there aren’t other communities concerned or that the socio-economic factors are the only issue. In fact, putting all socio-economic factors aside, some people simply feel they shouldn’t have to send their kids to a lesser school, while another larger, less diverse, affluent school operates at 82% capacity, just to address the concerns of one community. It makes no management sense, especially in light of the anticipated development in the area, and it’s not fair.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

B-CC Middle School #2
Address: 3701 Saul Road
Kensington, MD

I believe the previous posters were not speaking of the "Town of Kensington", but Kensington itself.

Anonymous wrote:

Several PPs arguments against the superintendent’s recommendation seem to be making your point about an equitable education. Unless I’m misreading what they said, one PP basically asked why the superintendent would recommend creating a rich, white school in the west that’s not full, and an overcrowded school in the east that’s smaller and has less facilities. Isn’t that concern for the opportunity gap?

In a nutshell this is exactly what option 7 does.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

The objections are famously vitriolic when they included a silver spring school in the cluster and then they worked to close it which the county was prepared to do in 1982 to placate them. It was only after the threat of losing federal school money by resegragrating that the county dropped the plan to close the school.

I don't speak for those parents but I am pretty sure they weren't focused on convenience or the opportunities afforded those kids. They knew it was a harbinger for the darkening of the county and they were afraid it would give poor people a way to there school without paying the segregation real estate tax that is homeownership in places like Bethesda. Basically the same objections you hear today when people try to add density to better neighborhoods.

Those objections took place almost 35 years ago. Aren’t at least some of those people dead or on their way out the door? Couldn’t it be possible that some of the people in the cluster actually care about the opportunity gap?

Several PPs arguments against the superintendent’s recommendation seem to be making your point about an equitable education. Unless I’m misreading what they said, one PP basically asked why the superintendent would recommend creating a rich, white school in the west that’s not full, and an overcrowded school in the east that’s smaller and has less facilities. Isn’t that concern for the opportunity gap?

I’m not sure what you mean by, “afraid it would give poor people a way to there school without paying the segregation real estate tax that is homeownership in places like Bethesda.” House prices are set in a market. Anyway, the disparity you’re pointing to actually is another strike against the superintendent’s decision. Why create two fundamentally unequal educational environments and leave the lesser facility to the more diverse of the two?

It's great for people to want more diverse schools, but I don't think the answer to that is bussing the kids that will create the diversity to the school farther away from their homes. RCF did substantial outreach to its community, including targeted outreach to the more diverse areas that feed into the school -- and the overwhelming majority wanted a closer school. It appears that this factor outweighed the over-crowdedness issue and the relatively small difference in diversity that would result at the two schools. Maybe the Superintendent thought that it would be pretty lame to disregard the input of those lower-SES and/or minority communities.

Several PPs arguments against the superintendent’s recommendation seem to be making your point about an equitable education. Unless I’m misreading what they said, one PP basically asked why the superintendent would recommend creating a rich, white school in the west that’s not full, and an overcrowded school in the east that’s smaller and has less facilities. Isn’t that concern for the opportunity gap?

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

It's great for people to want more diverse schools, but I don't think the answer to that is bussing the kids that will create the diversity to the school farther away from their homes. RCF did substantial outreach to its community, including targeted outreach to the more diverse areas that feed into the school -- and the overwhelming majority wanted a closer school. It appears that this factor outweighed the over-crowdedness issue and the relatively small difference in diversity that would result at the two schools. Maybe the Superintendent thought that it would be pretty lame to disregard the input of those lower-SES and/or minority communities

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

The objections are famously vitriolic when they included a silver spring school in the cluster and then they worked to close it which the county was prepared to do in 1982 to placate them. It was only after the threat of losing federal school money by resegragrating that the county dropped the plan to close the school.

I don't speak for those parents but I am pretty sure they weren't focused on convenience or the opportunities afforded those kids. They knew it was a harbinger for the darkening of the county and they were afraid it would give poor people a way to there school without paying the segregation real estate tax that is homeownership in places like Bethesda. Basically the same objections you hear today when people try to add density to better neighborhoods.

Those objections took place almost 35 years ago. Aren’t at least some of those people dead or on their way out the door? Couldn’t it be possible that some of the people in the cluster actually care about the opportunity gap?

Several PPs arguments against the superintendent’s recommendation seem to be making your point about an equitable education. Unless I’m misreading what they said, one PP basically asked why the superintendent would recommend creating a rich, white school in the west that’s not full, and an overcrowded school in the east that’s smaller and has less facilities. Isn’t that concern for the opportunity gap?

I’m not sure what you mean by, “afraid it would give poor people a way to there school without paying the segregation real estate tax that is homeownership in places like Bethesda.” House prices are set in a market. Anyway, the disparity you’re pointing to actually is another strike against the superintendent’s decision. Why create two fundamentally unequal educational environments and leave the lesser facility to the more diverse of the two?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

B-CC Middle School #2
Address: 3701 Saul Road
Kensington, MD

I believe the previous posters were not speaking of the "Town of Kensington", but Kensington itself.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

The objections are famously vitriolic when they included a silver spring school in the cluster and then they worked to close it which the county was prepared to do in 1982 to placate them. It was only after the threat of losing federal school money by resegragrating that the county dropped the plan to close the school.

I don't speak for those parents but I am pretty sure they weren't focused on convenience or the opportunities afforded those kids. They knew it was a harbinger for the darkening of the county and they were afraid it would give poor people a way to there school without paying the segregation real estate tax that is homeownership in places like Bethesda. Basically the same objections you hear today when people try to add density to better neighborhoods.

Anonymous wrote:

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

Still is. Probably because, like all middle schools, it's a small prison.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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