Woodward HS boundary study - BCC, Blair, Einstein, WJ, Kennedy, Northwood, Wheaton, Whitman impacts

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This also sucks for WJ. It is so so overcrowded!

I know! It has almost as many students as Blair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Extending Northwood's use of the holding school for three years is really a terrible thing. The community wanted a holding school in the DCC but MCPS forced Woodward, which families were at least ok with because it would be new.

But how long are the kids not going to have athletic facilities or performing arts spaces...for a school that has a performing arts academy?

Plus Northwood is one of the poorer schools and transportation is an issue. They are flat out going to be eliminating many parents from being able to engage at all with their child's school for up to 75% of their high school career.

What other options were there that were less bad than Woodward?

There was an option discussed of an urban campus in DTSS or utilizing space on the Adventist campus in TkPk. Both would have required MCPS to spend more money, though, so Woodward was the best option.

A lot more money, I'm guessing.

Yes.

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/BAEVW7736805/$file/Northwood%20HS%20Holding%20Ctr%20Eval%20MGT%20Consulting%20Grp%20190314%20PPT.pdf

?

It appears the costs were fractional of that required to build Woodward. There was also a failure of vision.

Why didn't they sue to void the ridiculous contract that rules the old Montgomery Hills JHS property and combine that with the Woodlin property (which ended up being demolished anyway) to make a HS-sized holding school, needing, then, only to find space for an ES? How about refurbish the old Blair as a holding school and find smaller spaces for SSIMS and SCES? Perhaps the complete old Parkside property, asking the private-use Acorn Hill Waldorf to move? Perhaps one of the other options rejected for a HS but suitable for a MS? Perhaps one of the other options for an area elementary school rejected a decade ago over vocal objection from community members participating in the review because MCPS presented jaded views of the options and wouldn't evaluate independent ideas? Too many sacred cows and not enough dedication to the area, in comparison to that given others (though not exactly great, there, either).

Sure, they don't want to spend $. But their mandate should be to provide reasonably equivalent educational services, including facilities, to each community in the county, not to provide similar funding to each. The "it's their turn" approach only works when the turns result in that equivalence and are jiggered to address, for the most part, whatever facilities are most presently at a deficit in relation to others -- not aimed simply to spread facility improvement activity across the county. Unfortunately, MCPS hasn't lived up to that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Extending Northwood's use of the holding school for three years is really a terrible thing. The community wanted a holding school in the DCC but MCPS forced Woodward, which families were at least ok with because it would be new.

But how long are the kids not going to have athletic facilities or performing arts spaces...for a school that has a performing arts academy?

Plus Northwood is one of the poorer schools and transportation is an issue. They are flat out going to be eliminating many parents from being able to engage at all with their child's school for up to 75% of their high school career.

What other options were there that were less bad than Woodward?

There was an option discussed of an urban campus in DTSS or utilizing space on the Adventist campus in TkPk. Both would have required MCPS to spend more money, though, so Woodward was the best option.

A lot more money, I'm guessing.

Yes.

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/BAEVW7736805/$file/Northwood%20HS%20Holding%20Ctr%20Eval%20MGT%20Consulting%20Grp%20190314%20PPT.pdf

?

It appears the costs were fractional of that required to build Woodward. There was also a failure of vision.

Why didn't they sue to void the ridiculous contract that rules the old Montgomery Hills JHS property and combine that with the Woodlin property (which ended up being demolished anyway) to make a HS-sized holding school, needing, then, only to find space for an ES? How about refurbish the old Blair as a holding school and find smaller spaces for SSIMS and SCES? Perhaps the complete old Parkside property, asking the private-use Acorn Hill Waldorf to move? Perhaps one of the other options rejected for a HS but suitable for a MS? Perhaps one of the other options for an area elementary school rejected a decade ago over vocal objection from community members participating in the review because MCPS presented jaded views of the options and wouldn't evaluate independent ideas? Too many sacred cows and not enough dedication to the area, in comparison to that given others (though not exactly great, there, either).

Sure, they don't want to spend $. But their mandate should be to provide reasonably equivalent educational services, including facilities, to each community in the county, not to provide similar funding to each. The "it's their turn" approach only works when the turns result in that equivalence and are jiggered to address, for the most part, whatever facilities are most presently at a deficit in relation to others -- not aimed simply to spread facility improvement activity across the county. Unfortunately, MCPS hasn't lived up to that.

They were already going to build Woodward regardless, as a new high school. The idea of using it as a holding school was not the original purpose. These costs would have been in addition to the Woodward costs, not instead of.

But I agree with your other suggestions that should have been considered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This also sucks for WJ. It is so so overcrowded!

Also sucks for Wheaton and Einstein.

Einstein is in portables and the building is super old. Wheaton they should have made bigger.

[Anonymous]

Well at least with the new dates, dd will be a junior at WJ when they open Woodward and may get to finish up at WJ instead of being rezoned to Einstein or Woodward halfway through high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Extending Northwood's use of the holding school for three years is really a terrible thing. The community wanted a holding school in the DCC but MCPS forced Woodward, which families were at least ok with because it would be new.

But how long are the kids not going to have athletic facilities or performing arts spaces...for a school that has a performing arts academy?

Plus Northwood is one of the poorer schools and transportation is an issue. They are flat out going to be eliminating many parents from being able to engage at all with their child's school for up to 75% of their high school career.

What other options were there that were less bad than Woodward?

There was an option discussed of an urban campus in DTSS or utilizing space on the Adventist campus in TkPk. Both would have required MCPS to spend more money, though, so Woodward was the best option.

A lot more money, I'm guessing.

Yes.

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/BAEVW7736805/$file/Northwood%20HS%20Holding%20Ctr%20Eval%20MGT%20Consulting%20Grp%20190314%20PPT.pdf

?

It appears the costs were fractional of that required to build Woodward. There was also a failure of vision.

Why didn't they sue to void the ridiculous contract that rules the old Montgomery Hills JHS property and combine that with the Woodlin property (which ended up being demolished anyway) to make a HS-sized holding school, needing, then, only to find space for an ES? How about refurbish the old Blair as a holding school and find smaller spaces for SSIMS and SCES? Perhaps the complete old Parkside property, asking the private-use Acorn Hill Waldorf to move? Perhaps one of the other options rejected for a HS but suitable for a MS? Perhaps one of the other options for an area elementary school rejected a decade ago over vocal objection from community members participating in the review because MCPS presented jaded views of the options and wouldn't evaluate independent ideas? Too many sacred cows and not enough dedication to the area, in comparison to that given others (though not exactly great, there, either).

Sure, they don't want to spend $. But their mandate should be to provide reasonably equivalent educational services, including facilities, to each community in the county, not to provide similar funding to each. The "it's their turn" approach only works when the turns result in that equivalence and are jiggered to address, for the most part, whatever facilities are most presently at a deficit in relation to others -- not aimed simply to spread facility improvement activity across the county. Unfortunately, MCPS hasn't lived up to that.

They were already going to build Woodward regardless, as a new high school. The idea of using it as a holding school was not the original purpose. These costs would have been in addition to the Woodward costs, not instead of.

But I agree with your other suggestions that should have been considered.

They didn't move forward to approve Woodward until they had dispensed with the idea of a HS serving the lower DCC area, then justifying Woodward with the idea that it amd the Northwood expansion would do the job.

The language they used was nebulous, failing to provide any of the specifics that they floated as ideas offline to ensure support. Totally unsurprising that they'd been walking back the commitment bit by bit ever since, but I doubt they will be able to dispense with it entirely. Then again, if past behaviors tell us anything...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Extending Northwood's use of the holding school for three years is really a terrible thing. The community wanted a holding school in the DCC but MCPS forced Woodward, which families were at least ok with because it would be new.

But how long are the kids not going to have athletic facilities or performing arts spaces...for a school that has a performing arts academy?

Plus Northwood is one of the poorer schools and transportation is an issue. They are flat out going to be eliminating many parents from being able to engage at all with their child's school for up to 75% of their high school career.

What other options were there that were less bad than Woodward?

There was an option discussed of an urban campus in DTSS or utilizing space on the Adventist campus in TkPk. Both would have required MCPS to spend more money, though, so Woodward was the best option.

A lot more money, I'm guessing.

Yes.

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/BAEVW7736805/$file/Northwood%20HS%20Holding%20Ctr%20Eval%20MGT%20Consulting%20Grp%20190314%20PPT.pdf

?

It appears the costs were fractional of that required to build Woodward. There was also a failure of vision.

Why didn't they sue to void the ridiculous contract that rules the old Montgomery Hills JHS property and combine that with the Woodlin property (which ended up being demolished anyway) to make a HS-sized holding school, needing, then, only to find space for an ES? How about refurbish the old Blair as a holding school and find smaller spaces for SSIMS and SCES? Perhaps the complete old Parkside property, asking the private-use Acorn Hill Waldorf to move? Perhaps one of the other options rejected for a HS but suitable for a MS? Perhaps one of the other options for an area elementary school rejected a decade ago over vocal objection from community members participating in the review because MCPS presented jaded views of the options and wouldn't evaluate independent ideas? Too many sacred cows and not enough dedication to the area, in comparison to that given others (though not exactly great, there, either).

Sure, they don't want to spend $. But their mandate should be to provide reasonably equivalent educational services, including facilities, to each community in the county, not to provide similar funding to each. The "it's their turn" approach only works when the turns result in that equivalence and are jiggered to address, for the most part, whatever facilities are most presently at a deficit in relation to others -- not aimed simply to spread facility improvement activity across the county. Unfortunately, MCPS hasn't lived up to that.

They were already going to build Woodward regardless, as a new high school. The idea of using it as a holding school was not the original purpose. These costs would have been in addition to the Woodward costs, not instead of.

But I agree with your other suggestions that should have been considered.

They didn't move forward to approve Woodward until they had dispensed with the idea of a HS serving the lower DCC area, then justifying Woodward with the idea that it amd the Northwood expansion would do the job.

The language they used was nebulous, failing to provide any of the specifics that they floated as ideas offline to ensure support. Totally unsurprising that they'd been walking back the commitment bit by bit ever since, but I doubt they will be able to dispense with it entirely. Then again, if past behaviors tell us anything...

I think we can all already tell that the decision to cut back capacity at Woodward from 2700 to 2160 was a mistake.

[Anonymous]

What happens to kids who are starting 10th grade when the new boundaries go in place? How would they decide who moves to Woodward since many DCC kids don’t attend their home high school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What happens to kids who are starting 10th grade when the new boundaries go in place? How would they decide who moves to Woodward since many DCC kids don’t attend their home high school?

I doubt Woodward will be part of the DCC. I mean, shouldn't it be limited to schools that are actually down county inside the beltway?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Extending Northwood's use of the holding school for three years is really a terrible thing. The community wanted a holding school in the DCC but MCPS forced Woodward, which families were at least ok with because it would be new.

But how long are the kids not going to have athletic facilities or performing arts spaces...for a school that has a performing arts academy?

Plus Northwood is one of the poorer schools and transportation is an issue. They are flat out going to be eliminating many parents from being able to engage at all with their child's school for up to 75% of their high school career.

What other options were there that were less bad than Woodward?

There was an option discussed of an urban campus in DTSS or utilizing space on the Adventist campus in TkPk. Both would have required MCPS to spend more money, though, so Woodward was the best option.

A lot more money, I'm guessing.

Yes.

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/BAEVW7736805/$file/Northwood%20HS%20Holding%20Ctr%20Eval%20MGT%20Consulting%20Grp%20190314%20PPT.pdf

?

It appears the costs were fractional of that required to build Woodward. There was also a failure of vision.

Why didn't they sue to void the ridiculous contract that rules the old Montgomery Hills JHS property and combine that with the Woodlin property (which ended up being demolished anyway) to make a HS-sized holding school, needing, then, only to find space for an ES? How about refurbish the old Blair as a holding school and find smaller spaces for SSIMS and SCES? Perhaps the complete old Parkside property, asking the private-use Acorn Hill Waldorf to move? Perhaps one of the other options rejected for a HS but suitable for a MS? Perhaps one of the other options for an area elementary school rejected a decade ago over vocal objection from community members participating in the review because MCPS presented jaded views of the options and wouldn't evaluate independent ideas? Too many sacred cows and not enough dedication to the area, in comparison to that given others (though not exactly great, there, either).

Sure, they don't want to spend $. But their mandate should be to provide reasonably equivalent educational services, including facilities, to each community in the county, not to provide similar funding to each. The "it's their turn" approach only works when the turns result in that equivalence and are jiggered to address, for the most part, whatever facilities are most presently at a deficit in relation to others -- not aimed simply to spread facility improvement activity across the county. Unfortunately, MCPS hasn't lived up to that.

They were already going to build Woodward regardless, as a new high school. The idea of using it as a holding school was not the original purpose. These costs would have been in addition to the Woodward costs, not instead of.

But I agree with your other suggestions that should have been considered.

They didn't move forward to approve Woodward until they had dispensed with the idea of a HS serving the lower DCC area, then justifying Woodward with the idea that it amd the Northwood expansion would do the job.

The language they used was nebulous, failing to provide any of the specifics that they floated as ideas offline to ensure support. Totally unsurprising that they'd been walking back the commitment bit by bit ever since, but I doubt they will be able to dispense with it entirely. Then again, if past behaviors tell us anything...

I think we can all already tell that the decision to cut back capacity at Woodward from 2700 to 2160 was a mistake.

Too small a site to go the full 2700.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What happens to kids who are starting 10th grade when the new boundaries go in place? How would they decide who moves to Woodward since many DCC kids don’t attend their home high school?

It's a big question. I'm the person who posted about their DD who will be a junior. In my opinion (which means jack) they should start the school with a freshman class and build from there. If they do that though, how do they have sports teams? Do kids just miss our? I honestly have no idea. I really hope that they don't make juniors and seniors move though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What happens to kids who are starting 10th grade when the new boundaries go in place? How would they decide who moves to Woodward since many DCC kids don’t attend their home high school?

It's a big question. I'm the person who posted about their DD who will be a junior. In my opinion (which means jack) they should start the school with a freshman class and build from there. If they do that though, how do they have sports teams? Do kids just miss our? I honestly have no idea. I really hope that they don't make juniors and seniors move though.

My friend is in Crofton which just opened a new high school. First of all, she had a junior who stayed at Arundel and a sophomore who had to start at the new Crofton HS despite having a brother only a year older. The new high school started with freshmen and sophomores so they only had JV sports - a fair amount of Crofton HS kids went private just because of that. And the brothers had to play against each other the next year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What happens to kids who are starting 10th grade when the new boundaries go in place? How would they decide who moves to Woodward since many DCC kids don’t attend their home high school?

It's a big question. I'm the person who posted about their DD who will be a junior. In my opinion (which means jack) they should start the school with a freshman class and build from there. If they do that though, how do they have sports teams? Do kids just miss our? I honestly have no idea. I really hope that they don't make juniors and seniors move though.

Juniors and seniors are typically allowed to remain at their previous schools. Sophomores are likely to be moved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What happens to kids who are starting 10th grade when the new boundaries go in place? How would they decide who moves to Woodward since many DCC kids don’t attend their home high school?

That is an interesting question, as any option maps they draw up won't really be as representative of the proposed changes as they usually would be.

[Anonymous]

I’m starting to think that my kid, who starts HS in 2026, is going to end up not impacted by this at all because they will either be graduated or a junior/senior by the time Woodward actually opens as it’s own school.