MCPs county wide boundary study

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

BCCSS fixed.

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

That's fine since our W children don't have to take classes with poor people and we'd like to keep it that way!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

1. WJ
2. DCC

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

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

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

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

broken link

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

1. WJ
2. DCC

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

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

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

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

No, BCC was included in a Roundtable discussion of theoretical options for Woodward. It was not a Boundary Study and there has been no announcement of who is in/out of a Woodward boundary study because that boundary study will not even be announced until approx. 18 months before the school opens. They haven't even done the planning for construction, let alone broken ground so the Boundary Study is still a ways off.

I think BCC continues to be brought into the convo because 1) the BCC catchment area has continuing housing development ongoing; 2) BCC is currently built to its max capacity - MCPS says that they cannot put another addition onto BCC to add capacity; 3) BCC is either already overcapacity or expected to become overcapacity in the same time frame as the plan to re-open Woodward (I haven't paid close attention to this so I don't personally know what the current numbers are); and 4) the BCC cluster boundaries abut the WJ boundaries.

That doesn't mean that anyone from BCC would be redistricted into Woodward or WJ, nor does it mean that BCC will necessarily be included in the boundary study. But it's not crazy to think it could happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

1. WJ
2. DCC

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

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

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

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

No, BCC was included in a Roundtable discussion of theoretical options for Woodward. It was not a Boundary Study and there has been no announcement of who is in/out of a Woodward boundary study because that boundary study will not even be announced until approx. 18 months before the school opens. They haven't even done the planning for construction, let alone broken ground so the Boundary Study is still a ways off.

I think BCC continues to be brought into the convo because 1) the BCC catchment area has continuing housing development ongoing; 2) BCC is currently built to its max capacity - MCPS says that they cannot put another addition onto BCC to add capacity; 3) BCC is either already overcapacity or expected to become overcapacity in the same time frame as the plan to re-open Woodward (I haven't paid close attention to this so I don't personally know what the current numbers are); and 4) the BCC cluster boundaries abut the WJ boundaries.

That doesn't mean that anyone from BCC would be redistricted into Woodward or WJ, nor does it mean that BCC will necessarily be included in the boundary study. But it's not crazy to think it could happen.

B-CC is part of this conversation because it is the only HS that is close in and sandwiched between Woodward, Einstein and Blair. That is one school with capacity and two with none. Sure, B-CC's addition may address it's problems but modifying its boundary to accommodate these issues makes a lot of sense as opposed to implementing bussing which isn't as cost effective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

B-CC is part of this conversation because it is the only HS that is close in and sandwiched between Woodward, Einstein and Blair. That is one school with capacity and two with none. Sure, B-CC's addition may address it's problems but modifying its boundary to accommodate these issues makes a lot of sense as opposed to implementing bussing which isn't as cost effective.

B-CC is part of this conversation, on DCUM, because somebody on DCUM wants it to be. However, there is no indication, as far as I know, that MCPS considers B-CC to be part of the conversation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Silver Creek seems as close to Woodward as it is B-CC. May simply need to split the students for the greater good.

Possible but it’s in the extreme northern border. Most Silver Creek students could walk to BCC and are many miles from Woodward.

BCC's middle schools are in weird locations. Westland is located in the Whitman cluster and Silver Creek is at the extreme opposite border of the BCC district. Neither is centrally located to the BCC area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

B-CC is part of this conversation because it is the only HS that is close in and sandwiched between Woodward, Einstein and Blair. That is one school with capacity and two with none. Sure, B-CC's addition may address it's problems but modifying its boundary to accommodate these issues makes a lot of sense as opposed to implementing bussing which isn't as cost effective.

B-CC is part of this conversation, on DCUM, because somebody on DCUM wants it to be. However, there is no indication, as far as I know, that MCPS considers B-CC to be part of the conversation.

It's part of the conversation because MCPS put BCC into the original conversation about reopening Woodward, per the previous post.

[Anonymous]

Isn't BCC that MCPS school pyramid that MCPS wanted to pull half the kids from Bethesda and half from Silver Spring and hope the scores all evened out.

Just forced more kids into private school for K-2, instead of getting bussed to silver spring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

B-CC is part of this conversation because it is the only HS that is close in and sandwiched between Woodward, Einstein and Blair. That is one school with capacity and two with none. Sure, B-CC's addition may address it's problems but modifying its boundary to accommodate these issues makes a lot of sense as opposed to implementing bussing which isn't as cost effective.

B-CC is part of this conversation, on DCUM, because somebody on DCUM wants it to be. However, there is no indication, as far as I know, that MCPS considers B-CC to be part of the conversation.

Why is this possibility so threatening to you?

FYI, I attended one of the Woodward reopening meetings at Tilden in spring of 2017. At the meeting, one of the mcps reps talked about the need to redraw boundaries at all of the lower county high schools because they were all either over crowded now or would be in the future. The example she gave was BCC, which at the time was awaiting its addition. She said the addition would handle current space needs but that it would be reaching capacity again around the time Woodward is to open and that there is no more room the expand on the BCC campus after this latest addition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Isn't BCC that MCPS school pyramid that MCPS wanted to pull half the kids from Bethesda and half from Silver Spring and hope the scores all evened out.

Just forced more kids into private school for K-2, instead of getting bussed to silver spring.

No.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

B-CC is part of this conversation because it is the only HS that is close in and sandwiched between Woodward, Einstein and Blair. That is one school with capacity and two with none. Sure, B-CC's addition may address it's problems but modifying its boundary to accommodate these issues makes a lot of sense as opposed to implementing bussing which isn't as cost effective.

B-CC is part of this conversation, on DCUM, because somebody on DCUM wants it to be. However, there is no indication, as far as I know, that MCPS considers B-CC to be part of the conversation.

It's part of the conversation because MCPS put BCC into the original conversation about reopening Woodward, per the previous post.

Maybe, but if so, it's not there anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

B-CC is part of this conversation because it is the only HS that is close in and sandwiched between Woodward, Einstein and Blair. That is one school with capacity and two with none. Sure, B-CC's addition may address it's problems but modifying its boundary to accommodate these issues makes a lot of sense as opposed to implementing bussing which isn't as cost effective.

B-CC is part of this conversation, on DCUM, because somebody on DCUM wants it to be. However, there is no indication, as far as I know, that MCPS considers B-CC to be part of the conversation.

It's part of the conversation because MCPS put BCC into the original conversation about reopening Woodward, per the previous post.

Maybe, but if so, it's not there anymore.

I have no doubt that BCC is part of the greater solution to overcrowding in MCPS even if its own expansion addressed their more local problems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

B-CC is part of this conversation because it is the only HS that is close in and sandwiched between Woodward, Einstein and Blair. That is one school with capacity and two with none. Sure, B-CC's addition may address it's problems but modifying its boundary to accommodate these issues makes a lot of sense as opposed to implementing bussing which isn't as cost effective.

B-CC is part of this conversation, on DCUM, because somebody on DCUM wants it to be. However, there is no indication, as far as I know, that MCPS considers B-CC to be part of the conversation.

It's part of the conversation because MCPS put BCC into the original conversation about reopening Woodward, per the previous post.

Maybe, but if so, it's not there anymore.

I have no doubt that BCC is part of the greater solution to overcrowding in MCPS even if its own expansion addressed their more local problems.

BCC was originally part of the DCC and is the HS that is furthest down in the county. It sure seems like it should better serve the DCC. Let's hope that happens as part of the county's diversity rezoning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

B-CC is part of this conversation because it is the only HS that is close in and sandwiched between Woodward, Einstein and Blair. That is one school with capacity and two with none. Sure, B-CC's addition may address it's problems but modifying its boundary to accommodate these issues makes a lot of sense as opposed to implementing bussing which isn't as cost effective.

B-CC is part of this conversation, on DCUM, because somebody on DCUM wants it to be. However, there is no indication, as far as I know, that MCPS considers B-CC to be part of the conversation.

It's part of the conversation because MCPS put BCC into the original conversation about reopening Woodward, per the previous post.

Maybe, but if so, it's not there anymore.

I have no doubt that BCC is part of the greater solution to overcrowding in MCPS even if its own expansion addressed their more local problems.

BCC was originally part of the DCC and is the HS that is furthest down in the county. It sure seems like it should better serve the DCC. Let's hope that happens as part of [b]the county's diversity rezoning.

]

Is "diversity rezoning" really a thing. MCPS has so much to work on wrt improving test scores, lowering class sizes and ensuring enough differentiation for students that increasingly have varying abilities, providing enough resources for a growing number of ESL students, do they really want to tackle such a divisive issue?

[Anonymous]

BCC is also part of the Woodward conversation because it's in the master plan that Woodward will help solve their overcrowding. That's a Planning Board/Coundil document, not an MCPS document, but it is out there. And, in 10-ish years, may e less, BCC will be overcrowded again and have zero room to expand. They're not talking about it now, because the BCC community is still bruised and battered over the miserable Silver Creek boundary study. Talk about nasty, it was heinous.

We won't know anything about who will be going to Woodward until 18 months before it opens. So debate all you want, fight all you want, but you're just spewing hot air.