Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a poster on all these Woodward threads who is constantly insisting on redrawing the BCC boundaries to incorporate more of Silver Spring. Wonder where that poster lives?

They're not going to redistrict the northern part of the BCC catchment because that's where they just put the new BCC MS (Silver Creek) after an ugly debate about elementary assignments.

BCCSS fixed.

We live in SS and prefer our children attend Blair since our cohort does better there. Nevertheless, BCC test scores aren't that much worse for our demographic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:B-CC itself doesn't have serious overcrowding after the expansion but does seem to be at the nexus of many schools that either are or have the capacity so will probably be part of any solution. Nevertheless, I wouldn't get worked up over it.

By the time Woodward opens, B-CC is projected to be overcapacity again. But, as has been already stated, B-CC's chapter in the CIP makes no mention of Woodward.

Would you mention this? Seriously just the rumor of minor changes to a school's bounary makes parents go bananas.

True. But the point is Woodward *is* mentioned in the WJ and DCC chapters.

Right. The CIP includes a discussion of Woodward for the following chapters:

1. WJ
2. DCC

The CIP does NOT include a discussion for the following chapters:

1. all of the other clusters (including B-CC)

So why does that one poster keep insisting that the Woodward rezoning will include B-CC? I don't know.

The map of the area to be part of the boundary study w/re Woodward included both BCC and Whitman: https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/departments/planning/Map2.23.17(2).pdf which is probably why it keeps coming up. Has this changed?

Anonymous wrote:There is a poster on all these Woodward threads who is constantly insisting on redrawing the BCC boundaries to incorporate more of Silver Spring. Wonder where that poster lives?

They're not going to redistrict the northern part of the BCC catchment because that's where they just put the new BCC MS (Silver Creek) after an ugly debate about elementary assignments.

BCCSS fixed.

The reason Whitman and BCC keep being brought up in terms of Woodward, is because in their master and sector plans Woodward was mentioned as a solution to those schools overcrowding. So you can keep saying it's not going to happen all you want. Until 18 months before Woodward opens, no one knows who will go there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody should be bused anywhere. If they want to spread the wealth so to speak they should be putting in more affordable housing in the wealthier areas. If they can build huge mansions on tiny lots in Bethesda they can build duplexes in Bethesda. People should be a part of the community where they go to school.
In contrast they should put in more attractive housing in less affluent areas- walkable neighborhoods close to the metro and a place to work out and restaurants would attract millenials and downsizing adults both.

Of course Potomac refuses to put a school that their own children will attend and they have steadfastly refused any affordable housing there (it’s basically how all MoCo politicians get elected - they promise to protect ‘Potomac’s way of life’ (ie: keeping the Pope’s out in every way) so they all vote for that person) so maybe they should bus those kids.

They, who? MCPS/BoE has zero say in zoning, land use, and housing policy. And the agencies who do have a say in zoning, land use, and housing policy have zero say in school boundaries.

They must be up to something.

Please give me a scenario where Laytonsville would be zoned for Magruder or Sherwood instead of Gaithersburg Middle and Gaithersburg HS.

Anonymous wrote:Nobody should be bused anywhere. If they want to spread the wealth so to speak they should be putting in more affordable housing in the wealthier areas. If they can build huge mansions on tiny lots in Bethesda they can build duplexes in Bethesda. People should be a part of the community where they go to school.
In contrast they should put in more attractive housing in less affluent areas- walkable neighborhoods close to the metro and a place to work out and restaurants would attract millenials and downsizing adults both.

Of course Potomac refuses to put a school that their own children will attend and they have steadfastly refused any affordable housing there (it’s basically how all MoCo politicians get elected - they promise to protect ‘Potomac’s way of life’ (ie: keeping the Pope’s out in every way) so they all vote for that person) so maybe they should bus those kids.

They, who? MCPS/BoE has zero say in zoning, land use, and housing policy. And the agencies who do have a say in zoning, land use, and housing policy have zero say in school boundaries.

Anonymous wrote:

The CIP discusses overcrowding and expansion projects at several MCPS schools. These projects by themselves aren't sufficient to manage the overcrowding without changes to existing boundaries. B-CC is one school sandwiched between a school with capacity and several that lack it. It is likely part of any solution to these problems whether parents like it or not.

You keep saying that. Or somebody does. But you (or whoever) saying it's likely doesn't make it actually so.

Nobody should be bused anywhere. If they want to spread the wealth so to speak they should be putting in more affordable housing in the wealthier areas. If they can build huge mansions on tiny lots in Bethesda they can build duplexes in Bethesda. People should be a part of the community where they go to school.
In contrast they should put in more attractive housing in less affluent areas- walkable neighborhoods close to the metro and a place to work out and restaurants would attract millenials and downsizing adults both.

Of course Potomac refuses to put a school that their own children will attend and they have steadfastly refused any affordable housing there (it’s basically how all MoCo politicians get elected - they promise to protect ‘Potomac’s way of life’ (ie: keeping the Pope’s out in every way) so they all vote for that person) so maybe they should bus those kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:B-CC itself doesn't have serious overcrowding after the expansion but does seem to be at the nexus of many schools that either are or have the capacity so will probably be part of any solution. Nevertheless, I wouldn't get worked up over it.

By the time Woodward opens, B-CC is projected to be overcapacity again. But, as has been already stated, B-CC's chapter in the CIP makes no mention of Woodward.

Would you mention this? Seriously just the rumor of minor changes to a school's bounary makes parents go bananas.

True. But the point is Woodward *is* mentioned in the WJ and DCC chapters.

Right. The CIP includes a discussion of Woodward for the following chapters:

1. WJ
2. DCC

The CIP does NOT include a discussion for the following chapters:

1. all of the other clusters (including B-CC)

So why does that one poster keep insisting that the Woodward rezoning will include B-CC? I don't know.

Not that poster but probably because they invited reps from BCC to the first discussions about the new high school if I recall correctly. I believe in these sam3 meetings proposals about bcc using office space was discussed

The CIP discusses overcrowding and expansion projects at several MCPS schools. These projects by themselves aren't sufficient to manage the overcrowding without changes to existing boundaries. B-CC is one school sandwiched between a school with capacity and several that lack it. It is likely part of any solution to these problems whether parents like it or not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a poster on all these Woodward threads who is constantly insisting on redrawing the BCC boundaries to incorporate more of Silver Spring. Wonder where that poster lives?

They're not going to redistrict the northern part of the BCC catchment because that's where they just put the new BCC MS (Silver Creek) after an ugly debate about elementary assignments.

Silver Creek -> Woodward. Problem solved.

As a silver creek parent, I love it! Anything is a step up for BCC!

It is Bethesda CHEVY CHASE Highschool. Nearly All of Chevy Chase feeds into Silver Creek except for a a small sliver...Somerset. Chevy Chase is walkable to BCC.

Chevy Chase gets screwed every which way and they take it. With the crappy split elementary RHPS/CCES, losing their entire 6th grade at CCES only to have it replaced by 60% of school by talented and gifted center kids from other clusters. And a Principal who only values the center and treats the local parents with no respect or gratitude, like they are just a piggy bank.

To overstuffing Silver Creek to overcapacity with three schools while Westland remains under capacity with no diversity. Chevy Chase always gets screwed over. Watch hell freeze over if they took BCC away.

The walkability from Chevy Chase and North Chevy Chase to BCC is why CCES and NCCES and aren’t getting rezoned. Besides Bethesda Elementary, they’re the closest elemtary schools to BCC! I could see the feeder elementary schools to BCC eventually exactly mirrorig the name of the high school: only Bethesda Elementary, CCES and NCCES. There will be so much growth in the Bethesda Elemetary zone and, to a lesser extent, NCC, that it may push out the borders of the district (namely, Kensington, Rock Creek Forest, Somerset and Westbrook) into other Bethesda, North Bethesda or Silver Spring schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a poster on all these Woodward threads who is constantly insisting on redrawing the BCC boundaries to incorporate more of Silver Spring. Wonder where that poster lives?

They're not going to redistrict the northern part of the BCC catchment because that's where they just put the new BCC MS (Silver Creek) after an ugly debate about elementary assignments.

Silver Creek -> Woodward. Problem solved.

As a silver creek parent, I love it! Anything is a step up for BCC!

It is Bethesda CHEVY CHASE Highschool. Nearly All of Chevy Chase feeds into Silver Creek except for a a small sliver...Somerset. Chevy Chase is walkable to BCC.

Chevy Chase gets screwed every which way and they take it. With the crappy split elementary RHPS/CCES, losing their entire 6th grade at CCES only to have it replaced by 60% of school by talented and gifted center kids from other clusters. And a Principal who only values the center and treats the local parents with no respect or gratitude, like they are just a piggy bank.

To overstuffing Silver Creek to overcapacity with three schools while Westland remains under capacity with no diversity. Chevy Chase always gets screwed over. Watch hell freeze over if they took BCC away.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Of course. That relieves current overcrowding and ups capacity. But they still need a plan to deal with Westbard, and Wood Acres and Pyle are packed, while Westbrook and Westland have capacity.

The additional housing in the Westbard Plan area is entirely in the Whitman cluster.

Sigh. Yes, it is. For now. But if you'd read the earlier posts, you'd see that I pointed out that Wood Acres and Pyle are overcrowded, and Westbrook and Westland have capacity. Moreover, the new residences will be closer to Westland than all but a couple of the houses in Westland's current catchment area. Look at a map, and see how easy it would be to extend the Westbrook (and hence Westland) catchment areas to include Westbard.

Also, don't you feel a little silly posting "but those residences will be in the Whitman cluster" in a thread entitled, and dedicated to the discussion of, altering school boundaries? The entire point of this discussion is the potential *change* of current boundaries. Sheesh.

NP. It certainly wouldn't be unreasonable geographically to have Westbard go to Westland. Even the rest of Wood Acres could go to Westland and it wouldn't be illogical. But it makes no sense for people zoned for Wood Acres to go to BCC over Whitman since Whitman is much is closer. The northern parts zoned for Wood Acres can easily walk to Whitman.

Not even on this thread, where people are postulating all sorts of ridiculous scenarios, did anyone suggest rezoning Wood Acres for BCC. Just altering the Westbrook/Wood Acres boundary a little to include the new residences (and I suppose the existing apartments) in the Westbrook boundary.

Wood Acres is nowhere near BCC. Honestly, neither is Westbrook. Both should go to Whitman, and on Whitman ES will go to Woodward. Problem solved.

NCC and NCC are literally a mile from BCC and will never be rezonef away from BCC (what do you think the CC in BCC stands for??).

What cramped thinking. You're talking about redistricting whole schools. That is a radical change, which will be very difficult for anyone to push through. It's far easier to nibble around the boundaries. You're also deluded if you think the BOE is looking to add a whole new school to Pyle, while taking away from Westland, which has capacity after the completion of Silver Creek.

You seem to believe typing "problem solved" at the end of your posts gives them extra validity. It doesn't - if I look back at all those posts, they are simplistic, siloed solutions to complex issues. Please go away and allow the adults to continue this discussion.

“Nibbling around the boundaries” would, in your example, be moving the Kensington kids out of BCC, when they’re walking distance from Siover Creek?

The Westbrook suggestion is much more surgical than some of the other ridiculous solutions being discussed in his thread. Especially if Bradley Hills is rezoned to Woodward to help free space at Pyle.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:B-CC itself doesn't have serious overcrowding after the expansion but does seem to be at the nexus of many schools that either are or have the capacity so will probably be part of any solution. Nevertheless, I wouldn't get worked up over it.

By the time Woodward opens, B-CC is projected to be overcapacity again. But, as has been already stated, B-CC's chapter in the CIP makes no mention of Woodward.

Would you mention this? Seriously just the rumor of minor changes to a school's bounary makes parents go bananas.

True. But the point is Woodward *is* mentioned in the WJ and DCC chapters.

Right. The CIP includes a discussion of Woodward for the following chapters:

1. WJ
2. DCC

The CIP does NOT include a discussion for the following chapters:

1. all of the other clusters (including B-CC)

So why does that one poster keep insisting that the Woodward rezoning will include B-CC? I don't know.

Not that poster but probably because they invited reps from BCC to the first discussions about the new high school if I recall correctly. I believe in these sam3 meetings proposals about bcc using office space was discussed

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:B-CC itself doesn't have serious overcrowding after the expansion but does seem to be at the nexus of many schools that either are or have the capacity so will probably be part of any solution. Nevertheless, I wouldn't get worked up over it.

By the time Woodward opens, B-CC is projected to be overcapacity again. But, as has been already stated, B-CC's chapter in the CIP makes no mention of Woodward.

Would you mention this? Seriously just the rumor of minor changes to a school's bounary makes parents go bananas.

True. But the point is Woodward *is* mentioned in the WJ and DCC chapters.

Right. The CIP includes a discussion of Woodward for the following chapters:

1. WJ
2. DCC

The CIP does NOT include a discussion for the following chapters:

1. all of the other clusters (including B-CC)

So why does that one poster keep insisting that the Woodward rezoning will include B-CC? I don't know.