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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Mine too,

[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...

It would have been nice if they added a new DCC school but they had this land and property. They need to redraw all the lines but a DCC school makes no sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

IIRC, they had the full 2700 approved at that site when including both phases. They reduced scope/capacity due to increasing cost, no?

[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...

It would have been nice if they added a new DCC school but they had this land and property. They need to redraw all the lines but a DCC school makes no sense.

Um, it makes sense to place services where they are needed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

IIRC, they had the full 2700 approved at that site when including both phases. They reduced scope/capacity due to increasing cost, no?

I think it went down because when they started drawing it up beyond early concept sketches they couldn't reasonably squeeze everything in for 2700.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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...

It would have been nice if they added a new DCC school but they had this land and property. They need to redraw all the lines but a DCC school makes no sense.

Um, it makes sense to place services where they are needed.

It is needed in that area for WJ. But, that location is not good for down county families who would have to be bussed. So, if helps WJ, but not all the DCC schools that are overcrowded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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...

It would have been nice if they added a new DCC school but they had this land and property. They need to redraw all the lines but a DCC school makes no sense.

Um, it makes sense to place services where they are needed.

It is needed in that area for WJ. But, that location is not good for down county families who would have to be bussed. So, if helps WJ, but not all the DCC schools that are overcrowded.

I think the only way it helps is to include a magnet option open to DCC kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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...

It would have been nice if they added a new DCC school but they had this land and property. They need to redraw all the lines but a DCC school makes no sense.

Um, it makes sense to place services where they are needed.

It is needed in that area for WJ. But, that location is not good for down county families who would have to be bussed. So, if helps WJ, but not all the DCC schools that are overcrowded.

I think the only way it helps is to include a magnet option open to DCC kids.

That isn’t going to help with overcrowding when magnets typically are very small.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

IIRC, they had the full 2700 approved at that site when including both phases. They reduced scope/capacity due to increasing cost, no?

I think it went down because when they started drawing it up beyond early concept sketches they couldn't reasonably squeeze everything in for 2700.

It was cost-related:

https://moco360.media/2021/09/10/mcps-scales-down-plans-for-woodward-high-as-costs-increase/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

IIRC, they had the full 2700 approved at that site when including both phases. They reduced scope/capacity due to increasing cost, no?

I think it went down because when they started drawing it up beyond early concept sketches they couldn't reasonably squeeze everything in for 2700.

It was cost-related:

https://moco360.media/2021/09/10/mcps-scales-down-plans-for-woodward-high-as-costs-increase/

Costs drive a lot of short-sighted decisions.

[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...

It would have been nice if they added a new DCC school but they had this land and property. They need to redraw all the lines but a DCC school makes no sense.

Besides nobody cares if we bus DCC kids all over the place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

IIRC, they had the full 2700 approved at that site when including both phases. They reduced scope/capacity due to increasing cost, no?

I think it went down because when they started drawing it up beyond early concept sketches they couldn't reasonably squeeze everything in for 2700.

It was cost-related:

https://moco360.media/2021/09/10/mcps-scales-down-plans-for-woodward-high-as-costs-increase/

Costs drive a lot of short-sighted decisions.

Also, non-short-sighted decisions.

[Anonymous]

I am really frustrated with these overcapacity schools that the BOE seems to leave to rot for years on end. According to the projections, another year delay is punishing:

WJ is +700
Blair +500
Einstein + 400
Wheaton +500

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Or could be the first year graduate of the Woodward

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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...

It would have been nice if they added a new DCC school but they had this land and property. They need to redraw all the lines but a DCC school makes no sense.

Um, it makes sense to place services where they are needed.

Then they need to add another school DCC not in Bethesda/Rockville for DCC kids.