Woodward boundary study public hearing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fyi there was a VMES parent who testified in support of moving VMES to WJ (see 2nd video testimony)

She doesn’t even really have a child in MCPS so put that one in the category of Farmland realtors looking at property value preservation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rita Montoya stated the truth at the end! All those Farmland people speaking ill about our poor neighbors and children who receive Free and Reduced Meals. Shame on you!!!! Farmland just cares about their property values. That was clear.

No one spoke ill of anyone except Taylor waa repeatedly reminded of his so what email.

"I'm very disappointed in the language I'm hearing here today. Because I hear for example someone saying they want to have an inclusive space, right? Which is a value of mine. And probably a value some of you would say is yours. But it is simultaneously coming out with "but we don't want those FARMS kids here". Excuse me, excuse me, it is my opportunity to speak. We cannot both be inclusive and talk poorly about children and families who have financial difficulties. And so, I want us to be mindful that at all of our schools... I don't think we have one school where children don't qualify for Free and Reduced Meals. So wherever we go, whoever we are with, there are children who qualify for FARMS now so I want everyone be mindful how we speak... "

+1 best part . Rest of it was boring and repetitive

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is painful to read the (pretend) outrage toward Woodward families because they are requesting for WJ and Woodward - and every high school ideally! - to have similar utilization rates.

There is something very, very wrong when utilization rates differ so widely among schools. This is the opportunity to even it out and this recommendation absolutely does not do that.

The truth is parents are mostly outraged at the numbers of FARMS kids now attending their kids school. I guarantee they would have said nothing about utilization rates if two wealthier elementary schools were zoned for Woodward. This sentiment about FARMS kids does not just apply to these Farmland and Luxmanor parents, it really applies to all these Bethesda and Potomac parents who would be protesting if this situation happened to them. These families don’t mind financially supporting these FARMS families and schools, but they definitely don’t want them coming to their kids school. Let’s not kid ourselves that it’s anything other than that….

+1

It's simple: Caucasian Farmland and Luxmanor home owners do not want poor, brown Wheaton kids affecting the value of their homes and the perceived quality of the school.

They repeatedly said they were OK with the options presented and pretended as if they thought those were the only menu of options that could be picked (so they are either liars or stupid if they really didn't know the Super couldn't propose something else). But in theory they were OK with up to 32% FARMS and 90% Utilizations. So they get 3% more FARMS kids with the superintendent's recommendation and they cry foul now. Why didn't they comment all year strongly opposed to say Option D and F?

Option A had 27% FARMS for Woodward and 80% Utilization
Option B had 28% FARMS and 73% Utilization
Option C had 27% FARMS and 81% Utilization
Option D had 32% FARMS and 86% Utilization
Option E had 27% FARMS and 80% Utilization
Option F had 30% FARMS and 90% Utilization
Option G had 27% FARMS and 81% Utilization

+1

No sympathy. I’m zoned for Woodward and like the recommendation fine. Sorry my kids rely on FARMS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fyi there was a VMES parent who testified in support of moving VMES to WJ (see 2nd video testimony)

She doesn’t even really have a child in MCPS so put that one in the category of Farmland realtors looking at property value preservation

Are you saying she is a realtor?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is painful to read the (pretend) outrage toward Woodward families because they are requesting for WJ and Woodward - and every high school ideally! - to have similar utilization rates.

There is something very, very wrong when utilization rates differ so widely among schools. This is the opportunity to even it out and this recommendation absolutely does not do that.

The truth is parents are mostly outraged at the numbers of FARMS kids now attending their kids school. I guarantee they would have said nothing about utilization rates if two wealthier elementary schools were zoned for Woodward. This sentiment about FARMS kids does not just apply to these Farmland and Luxmanor parents, it really applies to all these Bethesda and Potomac parents who would be protesting if this situation happened to them. These families don’t mind financially supporting these FARMS families and schools, but they definitely don’t want them coming to their kids school. Let’s not kid ourselves that it’s anything other than that….

+1

It's simple: Caucasian Farmland and Luxmanor home owners do not want poor, brown Wheaton kids affecting the value of their homes and the perceived quality of the school.

They repeatedly said they were OK with the options presented and pretended as if they thought those were the only menu of options that could be picked (so they are either liars or stupid if they really didn't know the Super couldn't propose something else). But in theory they were OK with up to 32% FARMS and 90% Utilizations. So they get 3% more FARMS kids with the superintendent's recommendation and they cry foul now. Why didn't they comment all year strongly opposed to say Option D and F?

Option A had 27% FARMS for Woodward and 80% Utilization
Option B had 28% FARMS and 73% Utilization
Option C had 27% FARMS and 81% Utilization
Option D had 32% FARMS and 86% Utilization
Option E had 27% FARMS and 80% Utilization
Option F had 30% FARMS and 90% Utilization
Option G had 27% FARMS and 81% Utilization

+1

No sympathy. I’m zoned for Woodward and like the recommendation fine. Sorry my kids rely on FARMS

The post you’re quoting is actually really helpful for showing that the consultants proposed a range of recommended options and where Taylor landed is not anywhere within the range shown. This decision impacts thousands of children. Taylor has not faced enough scrutiny for his changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fyi there was a VMES parent who testified in support of moving VMES to WJ (see 2nd video testimony)

She doesn’t even really have a child in MCPS so put that one in the category of Farmland realtors looking at property value preservation

Are you saying she is a realtor?

A simple google search shows she's a mom of two, and works in data visualization. Not a realtor. The poster is a troll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fyi there was a VMES parent who testified in support of moving VMES to WJ (see 2nd video testimony)

She doesn’t even really have a child in MCPS so put that one in the category of Farmland realtors looking at property value preservation

Are you saying she is a realtor?

A simple google search shows she's a mom of two, and works in data visualization. Not a realtor. The poster is a troll.

Sounds to me like the realtor here is the poster trying to discredit the person who publicly advocated for moving VMES to WJ

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fyi there was a VMES parent who testified in support of moving VMES to WJ (see 2nd video testimony)

She doesn’t even really have a child in MCPS so put that one in the category of Farmland realtors looking at property value preservation

Are you saying she is a realtor?

A simple google search shows she's a mom of two, and works in data visualization. Not a realtor. The poster is a troll.

Sounds to me like the realtor here is the poster trying to discredit the person who publicly advocated for moving VMES to WJ

I think they mean that the Farmland people ONLY care about their real estate prices. Like that VM person who doesn’t represent their community with zero kids in the school (another post mentions that as well in a different thread)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is painful to read the (pretend) outrage toward Woodward families because they are requesting for WJ and Woodward - and every high school ideally! - to have similar utilization rates.

There is something very, very wrong when utilization rates differ so widely among schools. This is the opportunity to even it out and this recommendation absolutely does not do that.

The truth is parents are mostly outraged at the numbers of FARMS kids now attending their kids school. I guarantee they would have said nothing about utilization rates if two wealthier elementary schools were zoned for Woodward. This sentiment about FARMS kids does not just apply to these Farmland and Luxmanor parents, it really applies to all these Bethesda and Potomac parents who would be protesting if this situation happened to them. These families don’t mind financially supporting these FARMS families and schools, but they definitely don’t want them coming to their kids school. Let’s not kid ourselves that it’s anything other than that….

+1

It's simple: Caucasian Farmland and Luxmanor home owners do not want poor, brown Wheaton kids affecting the value of their homes and the perceived quality of the school.

They repeatedly said they were OK with the options presented and pretended as if they thought those were the only menu of options that could be picked (so they are either liars or stupid if they really didn't know the Super couldn't propose something else). But in theory they were OK with up to 32% FARMS and 90% Utilizations. So they get 3% more FARMS kids with the superintendent's recommendation and they cry foul now. Why didn't they comment all year strongly opposed to say Option D and F?

Option A had 27% FARMS for Woodward and 80% Utilization
Option B had 28% FARMS and 73% Utilization
Option C had 27% FARMS and 81% Utilization
Option D had 32% FARMS and 86% Utilization
Option E had 27% FARMS and 80% Utilization
Option F had 30% FARMS and 90% Utilization
Option G had 27% FARMS and 81% Utilization

+1

No sympathy. I’m zoned for Woodward and like the recommendation fine. Sorry my kids rely on FARMS

The post you’re quoting is actually really helpful for showing that the consultants proposed a range of recommended options and where Taylor landed is not anywhere within the range shown. This decision impacts thousands of children. Taylor has not faced enough scrutiny for his changes.

It’s really helpful for Taylor to illustrate it was single digit changes from what he proposed in farms and utilization. Not catastrophic 11th hour changes like the orange shirts want everyone to think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did not watch the hearing, but recently heard from a neighbor that there is growing advocacy to push for option B. Is there truth to this and did it come up in the public meeting? That option would be terrible for our neighborhood- we are walking sitance to Sligo but kids would be sent to SSIMS- I don't know why that was thrown out there as a potential option to begin with. So overall I was ok with Taylor's recommendation as it relates to our neighborhood. It's just hard to keep up with the changes and to anticipate what MCPS will throw out there next. The options for our neighborhood changed pretty drastically from the first to second round and caught a lot of people off guard.

There is some push for original Option B with regard to the now Current WJ cluster (sounds mainly like the Farmland/Luxmanor crew at the BOE mtg), not necessarily rest of map (but clearly would send WW back to Wheaton High).

Wasn't there someone from Silver Spring who mentioned it too? Either way, there were definitely SSiMS folks who wanted to increase the number of kids assigned to SSIMS and wanted to go back to one of the original maps, and I can't imagine the Board would choose the option B map for WJ/Wheaton and a totally different map for Silver Spring...

The Northwood Cluster Coordinator from MCCPTA testified about SSIMS going down to 55% utilization being an attempt to start the closure without appropriate process and being problematic for the kids who go there at that low utilization.

The options really treat the 2 regions as separate entities and the Board could adopt a different option for region 3 and for region 1 without causing domino effect problems but so far no one seems to be talking about it that way. I think the Board would have to vote to consider a different option and then also vote to adopt it but I’m not sure. I am not a Robert’s Rules of Order aficionado.

+1

After being called out by the BOE, Elrich, Kate Stewart and others for lack of community engagement, Taylor is trying to use the boundary study to justify a future closure of SSIMS. It’s laughably transparent and also very manipulative. If this goes through he is inviting a law suit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fyi there was a VMES parent who testified in support of moving VMES to WJ (see 2nd video testimony)

She doesn’t even really have a child in MCPS so put that one in the category of Farmland realtors looking at property value preservation

Are you saying she is a realtor?

A simple google search shows she's a mom of two, and works in data visualization. Not a realtor. The poster is a troll.

Sounds to me like the realtor here is the poster trying to discredit the person who publicly advocated for moving VMES to WJ

I think they mean that the Farmland people ONLY care about their real estate prices. Like that VM person who doesn’t represent their community with zero kids in the school (another post mentions that as well in a different thread)

Not sure why you are bringing Farmland into this discussion. As I understand from previous posts, the VMES person who testified resides in the VMES community and has kids that will attend VMES. The fact folks are trying to discredit her is a little ridiculous and says more about them than it does about her.

Fyi if you are
- someone living in a neighborhood that Taylor's recommendation places in WJ and
- gleefully calling Luxmanor and Farmland people racist and that they "only care about property values"

then we have a pot/kettle situation here because it is pretty clear what you care about. The only difference is you are feeling smug and the Farmland/Luxmanor people are feeling scared but for both it is because you want your property values to stay up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did not watch the hearing, but recently heard from a neighbor that there is growing advocacy to push for option B. Is there truth to this and did it come up in the public meeting? That option would be terrible for our neighborhood- we are walking sitance to Sligo but kids would be sent to SSIMS- I don't know why that was thrown out there as a potential option to begin with. So overall I was ok with Taylor's recommendation as it relates to our neighborhood. It's just hard to keep up with the changes and to anticipate what MCPS will throw out there next. The options for our neighborhood changed pretty drastically from the first to second round and caught a lot of people off guard.

There is some push for original Option B with regard to the now Current WJ cluster (sounds mainly like the Farmland/Luxmanor crew at the BOE mtg), not necessarily rest of map (but clearly would send WW back to Wheaton High).

Wasn't there someone from Silver Spring who mentioned it too? Either way, there were definitely SSiMS folks who wanted to increase the number of kids assigned to SSIMS and wanted to go back to one of the original maps, and I can't imagine the Board would choose the option B map for WJ/Wheaton and a totally different map for Silver Spring...

The Northwood Cluster Coordinator from MCCPTA testified about SSIMS going down to 55% utilization being an attempt to start the closure without appropriate process and being problematic for the kids who go there at that low utilization.

The options really treat the 2 regions as separate entities and the Board could adopt a different option for region 3 and for region 1 without causing domino effect problems but so far no one seems to be talking about it that way. I think the Board would have to vote to consider a different option and then also vote to adopt it but I’m not sure. I am not a Robert’s Rules of Order aficionado.

+1

After being called out by the BOE, Elrich, Kate Stewart and others for lack of community engagement, Taylor is trying to use the boundary study to justify a future closure of SSIMS. It’s laughably transparent and also very manipulative. If this goes through he is inviting a law suit.

I don't think it has anything to do with justifying the closure-- he will either get support for closing it or not, no one's going to say "you assigned fewer kids there and now there are fewer kids there, it's my deciding reason to close it!"

I think it is about trying to make it simpler and less disruptive to families if/when it does get closed. No one at other schools wants to get sent there for a couple years just to live through the dying years of a closing school and then get reassigned away again. So they minimized the new students they added-- just a portion of Woodlin-- so fewer families have to go through that (and fewer families get upset and protest being assigned to SSIMS.) They could have kept the current Forest Knolls and Montgomery Knolls kids there, which probably would have made the most sense, but I think I heard that SSIMS families all supported them leaving? So that all adds up to only 650-700 kids left at SSIMS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is painful to read the (pretend) outrage toward Woodward families because they are requesting for WJ and Woodward - and every high school ideally! - to have similar utilization rates.

There is something very, very wrong when utilization rates differ so widely among schools. This is the opportunity to even it out and this recommendation absolutely does not do that.

The truth is parents are mostly outraged at the numbers of FARMS kids now attending their kids school. I guarantee they would have said nothing about utilization rates if two wealthier elementary schools were zoned for Woodward. This sentiment about FARMS kids does not just apply to these Farmland and Luxmanor parents, it really applies to all these Bethesda and Potomac parents who would be protesting if this situation happened to them. These families don’t mind financially supporting these FARMS families and schools, but they definitely don’t want them coming to their kids school. Let’s not kid ourselves that it’s anything other than that….

+1

It's simple: Caucasian Farmland and Luxmanor home owners do not want poor, brown Wheaton kids affecting the value of their homes and the perceived quality of the school.

They repeatedly said they were OK with the options presented and pretended as if they thought those were the only menu of options that could be picked (so they are either liars or stupid if they really didn't know the Super couldn't propose something else). But in theory they were OK with up to 32% FARMS and 90% Utilizations. So they get 3% more FARMS kids with the superintendent's recommendation and they cry foul now. Why didn't they comment all year strongly opposed to say Option D and F?

Option A had 27% FARMS for Woodward and 80% Utilization
Option B had 28% FARMS and 73% Utilization
Option C had 27% FARMS and 81% Utilization
Option D had 32% FARMS and 86% Utilization
Option E had 27% FARMS and 80% Utilization
Option F had 30% FARMS and 90% Utilization
Option G had 27% FARMS and 81% Utilization

+1

No sympathy. I’m zoned for Woodward and like the recommendation fine. Sorry my kids rely on FARMS

The post you’re quoting is actually really helpful for showing that the consultants proposed a range of recommended options and where Taylor landed is not anywhere within the range shown. This decision impacts thousands of children. Taylor has not faced enough scrutiny for his changes.

It’s really helpful for Taylor to illustrate it was single digit changes from what he proposed in farms and utilization. Not catastrophic 11th hour changes like the orange shirts want everyone to think.

The GP split articulation between WJ and Woodward was an unwelcome surprise. Maybe they should split articulate VM instead, sending all of GP to Woodward. That probably would satisfy a lot of folks as long as it keeps the utilization down below 90% (ideally well below 90%). This doesn’t have to be so hard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did not watch the hearing, but recently heard from a neighbor that there is growing advocacy to push for option B. Is there truth to this and did it come up in the public meeting? That option would be terrible for our neighborhood- we are walking sitance to Sligo but kids would be sent to SSIMS- I don't know why that was thrown out there as a potential option to begin with. So overall I was ok with Taylor's recommendation as it relates to our neighborhood. It's just hard to keep up with the changes and to anticipate what MCPS will throw out there next. The options for our neighborhood changed pretty drastically from the first to second round and caught a lot of people off guard.

There is some push for original Option B with regard to the now Current WJ cluster (sounds mainly like the Farmland/Luxmanor crew at the BOE mtg), not necessarily rest of map (but clearly would send WW back to Wheaton High).

Wasn't there someone from Silver Spring who mentioned it too? Either way, there were definitely SSiMS folks who wanted to increase the number of kids assigned to SSIMS and wanted to go back to one of the original maps, and I can't imagine the Board would choose the option B map for WJ/Wheaton and a totally different map for Silver Spring...

The Northwood Cluster Coordinator from MCCPTA testified about SSIMS going down to 55% utilization being an attempt to start the closure without appropriate process and being problematic for the kids who go there at that low utilization.

The options really treat the 2 regions as separate entities and the Board could adopt a different option for region 3 and for region 1 without causing domino effect problems but so far no one seems to be talking about it that way. I think the Board would have to vote to consider a different option and then also vote to adopt it but I’m not sure. I am not a Robert’s Rules of Order aficionado.

+1

After being called out by the BOE, Elrich, Kate Stewart and others for lack of community engagement, Taylor is trying to use the boundary study to justify a future closure of SSIMS. It’s laughably transparent and also very manipulative. If this goes through he is inviting a law suit.

I don't think it has anything to do with justifying the closure-- he will either get support for closing it or not, no one's going to say "you assigned fewer kids there and now there are fewer kids there, it's my deciding reason to close it!"

I think it is about trying to make it simpler and less disruptive to families if/when it does get closed. No one at other schools wants to get sent there for a couple years just to live through the dying years of a closing school and then get reassigned away again. So they minimized the new students they added-- just a portion of Woodlin-- so fewer families have to go through that (and fewer families get upset and protest being assigned to SSIMS.) They could have kept the current Forest Knolls and Montgomery Knolls kids there, which probably would have made the most sense, but I think I heard that SSIMS families all supported them leaving? So that all adds up to only 650-700 kids left at SSIMS.

Hi there, I remember you from previous threads. I’m glad you got your way in terms of your child being zoned to Sligo. No SSIMS parent “supported” any schools leaving. You have just repeatedly made that argument to twist the advocacy efforts of parents. But thanks for obsessively tracking/commenting on these threads to spread misinformation and pit schools against one another!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is painful to read the (pretend) outrage toward Woodward families because they are requesting for WJ and Woodward - and every high school ideally! - to have similar utilization rates.

There is something very, very wrong when utilization rates differ so widely among schools. This is the opportunity to even it out and this recommendation absolutely does not do that.

The truth is parents are mostly outraged at the numbers of FARMS kids now attending their kids school. I guarantee they would have said nothing about utilization rates if two wealthier elementary schools were zoned for Woodward. This sentiment about FARMS kids does not just apply to these Farmland and Luxmanor parents, it really applies to all these Bethesda and Potomac parents who would be protesting if this situation happened to them. These families don’t mind financially supporting these FARMS families and schools, but they definitely don’t want them coming to their kids school. Let’s not kid ourselves that it’s anything other than that….

+1

It's simple: Caucasian Farmland and Luxmanor home owners do not want poor, brown Wheaton kids affecting the value of their homes and the perceived quality of the school.

They repeatedly said they were OK with the options presented and pretended as if they thought those were the only menu of options that could be picked (so they are either liars or stupid if they really didn't know the Super couldn't propose something else). But in theory they were OK with up to 32% FARMS and 90% Utilizations. So they get 3% more FARMS kids with the superintendent's recommendation and they cry foul now. Why didn't they comment all year strongly opposed to say Option D and F?

Option A had 27% FARMS for Woodward and 80% Utilization
Option B had 28% FARMS and 73% Utilization
Option C had 27% FARMS and 81% Utilization
Option D had 32% FARMS and 86% Utilization
Option E had 27% FARMS and 80% Utilization
Option F had 30% FARMS and 90% Utilization
Option G had 27% FARMS and 81% Utilization

+1

No sympathy. I’m zoned for Woodward and like the recommendation fine. Sorry my kids rely on FARMS

The post you’re quoting is actually really helpful for showing that the consultants proposed a range of recommended options and where Taylor landed is not anywhere within the range shown. This decision impacts thousands of children. Taylor has not faced enough scrutiny for his changes.

It’s really helpful for Taylor to illustrate it was single digit changes from what he proposed in farms and utilization. Not catastrophic 11th hour changes like the orange shirts want everyone to think.

The GP split articulation between WJ and Woodward was an unwelcome surprise. Maybe they should split articulate VM instead, sending all of GP to Woodward. That probably would satisfy a lot of folks as long as it keeps the utilization down below 90% (ideally well below 90%). This doesn’t have to be so hard.

Why? Because you want the rich white kids in GP at Woodward instead?