In the article, Mrs. O'Neill was quoted saying, "But there is a difference between [getting] input and [reaching] agreement."

If school board members are elected to represent the people, and the majority of the people (neighboring communities, Seven Locks PTA) oppose the plan, then why would getting input and reaching agreement be any different? Why do the school board and the school system continue to push for a project opposed by the community?

Thomas Chen, Bethesda

The Seven Locks Coalition thinks that the community and county could and should cooperate to find a solution in the clash over the fate of Seven Locks Elementary School.

One option: Build the addition for the school (10 classrooms and gym) originally proposed by the school board. That would address the overcrowding at Potomac Elementary that is driving this project.

It would cost about $7.5 million -- one half the likely full cost ($15 million) for the Kendale Road replacement school. That addition could be ready one year earlier (September 2006) than the Kendale replacement, with no need to put children into a holding school during construction.

The first school board plan for Seven Locks Elementary (approved 2000-03) is just fine. It solves the traffic concern at the Seven Locks intersection and provides much more space for parking and recreation than does the huge 740-student Kendale school.

That site has only eight buildable acres and major environmental challenges (over 1,000 trees to be cut down and storm water challenge near flood area), plus the need to widen narrow Kendale Road.

A simple addition to Seven Locks ES, creating a 550-student facility, would serve our children best, save a school that is also our main community and recreation center, save two neighborhoods (Seven Locks and Kendale) from major change, and save taxpayer money.

Sandy Vogelgesang, Bethesda

The writer is with the West Bradley Citizens' Association and the Seven Locks Coalition.

The school board tells us that it can't avoid big budgets. Why, then, are we closing schools that are already paid for?

It is extraordinary to behold the verbal gymnastics of government officials as they try to explain the reasons for knocking down the fully-paid-for Seven Locks Elementary School so as to spend umpteen millions for a new white elephant mega-school on Kendale Road, in the face of furious community opposition.

In an effort to get back to basics, board President Patricia O'Neill is quoted as saying the purpose of destroying Seven Locks ES is to do what is "in the best interest of the kids." No one, however, has explained why an expensive, unbuilt, untried big school is better for the kids than an existing small school that is a proven success.

This latest attempt to explain the inexplicable also conflicts with earlier explanations, one being a statement by a high-level government official that the plan is not driven by education but by housing policy -- consistent with former board President Sharon Cox' public statement at a candidates' forum that the school board "should" be involved in housing policy. In the event of a conflict such as the Seven Locks situation, does housing trump education?

At a PTA meeting, a school system official came up with another reason, traffic, but then admitted that no study had been done comparing existing Seven Locks traffic with the traffic that would result from the new Kendale mega-school.

We have also been told that the school destruction plan responded to "community input," even though Joseph Lavorgna, the school system planning director, now admits the unprecedented level of community opposition, saying, "This is highly unusual, the reaction."

Irrespective of what may really be driving this deal, it's time for our government to respond to the people, preserve what it is paid for and save Seven Locks ES.

Courtenay Ellis, Potomac