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

[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.

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

They need both.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

My oldest also starts HS in 2026 - curious to see how she’ll be impacted (we’re DCC, home school is Einstein). My younger two will start HS in 2028 and 2030, so they’ll be impacted, for sure.

[Anonymous]

Is Crown getting delayed also?

[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.

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

They need both.

Absolutely. One of the county's most vibrant growth centers will be in the Pike/North Bethesda area, and the DCC is already underserved by MCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is Crown getting delayed also?

Nope. So as of now Woodward, Northwood, and Crown will all be opening in Fall 2027.

[Anonymous]

The new CIP is posted ahead of Tuesday's meeting. Here is the language about the delay:

"As part of the recommended FY 2025–2030 CIP, the completion date for the Northwood High School project is delayed one-year due to an extension of the construction timeline. As a result of Northwood High School remaining at Charles W. Woodward High School, its holding facility, for one additional year, the recommended completion date for the reopening of Charles W. Woodward High school is August 2027. A recommendation to adjust the timeline of the approved boundary study to align with the opening of Charles W. Woodward High School will be presented as part of the Board of Education’s worksessions on the FY 2025-2030 CIP."

[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.

Then they needed to have added another school for inside-the-beltway, current DCC communities rather than simply appeasing Bethesda/Rockville/Potomac/Chevy Chase communities while offering ephemeral promises of bread and circuses for DCC kids.

Fixed it for ya.

[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.

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

They need both.

Completely agree. This is a good solution for WJ, but not all the DCC schools, including Einstein. Thankfully we'll miss the opening but the bussing would be a nightmare. Its easily 20 minutes or more no traffic and no bus stops for us.

[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.

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

There's a shortage of affordable real estate down county. Woodward works - barely - but it's 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...

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.

There's a shortage of affordable real estate down county. Woodward works - barely - but it's small.

Housing is more affordable DCC. Woodward is no where near DCC. They need another hs dcc but that’s not happening. Multiple other schools also need replaced.

[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...

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.

There's a shortage of affordable real estate down county. Woodward works - barely - but it's small.

Housing is more affordable DCC. Woodward is no where near DCC. They need another hs dcc but that’s not happening. Multiple other schools also need replaced.

Walter Johnson and the DCC border each other. Woodward is within the current Walter Johnson boundaries. Saying "Woodward is nowhere near DCC" is like saying "the USA is nowhere near Canada".

[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.

Then they needed to have added another school for inside-the-beltway, current DCC communities rather than simply appeasing Bethesda/Rockville/Potomac/Chevy Chase communities while offering ephemeral promises of bread and circuses for DCC kids.

Fixed it for ya.

OK, now I really need to know what the "ephemeral promises of bread and circuses for DCC kids" were.

[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...

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 needed to have added another school for inside-the-beltway, current DCC communities rather than simply appeasing Bethesda/Rockville/Potomac/Chevy Chase communities while offering ephemeral promises of bread and circuses for DCC kids.

Fixed it for ya.

OK, now I really need to know what the "ephemeral promises of bread and circuses for DCC kids" were.

Whatever else may count, the notion bandied about as they were prepping for BOE approval of Woodward that it would be used to meaningfully alleviate DCC overcrowding has eroded over time, with fewer and fewer Woodward seats envisioned as coming from that which currently is DCC. "Oh, look, an arts magnet for which DCC kids might be eligible!" fits the B&C metaphor -- not a significant number and not a likely opportunity for most of the population.

Really, all you have to do is look at the projected numbers just as they were getting approval and compare it to current projections. Unless they go back and add a new DCC HS, radically shift the feeders on the margins or go back to the idea of DCC really being the entire Down County, and not just the part on the wrong side of the tracks, the Woodward reopening story ends as one might have anticipated: a gift to the wealthier parts of the county by focusing the alleviation of overcrowding on the school that serves them (WJ) or serves as a buffer for them to maintain their preferred boundaries while avoiding significant overcrowding, themselves.

[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...

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.

There's a shortage of affordable real estate down county. Woodward works - barely - but it's small.

Housing is more affordable DCC. Woodward is no where near DCC. They need another hs dcc but that’s not happening. Multiple other schools also need replaced.

Walter Johnson and the DCC border each other. Woodward is within the current Walter Johnson boundaries. Saying "Woodward is nowhere near DCC" is like saying "the USA is nowhere near Canada".

It's a haul from most of DCC. WJ is right there, schools like Einstein and Wheaton are much further and we'd pass our home school to have to get to Woodward so it would make no sense.

[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...

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 needed to have added another school for inside-the-beltway, current DCC communities rather than simply appeasing Bethesda/Rockville/Potomac/Chevy Chase communities while offering ephemeral promises of bread and circuses for DCC kids.

Fixed it for ya.

OK, now I really need to know what the "ephemeral promises of bread and circuses for DCC kids" were.

Whatever else may count, the notion bandied about as they were prepping for BOE approval of Woodward that it would be used to meaningfully alleviate DCC overcrowding has eroded over time, with fewer and fewer Woodward seats envisioned as coming from that which currently is DCC. "Oh, look, an arts magnet for which DCC kids might be eligible!" fits the B&C metaphor -- not a significant number and not a likely opportunity for most of the population.

Really, all you have to do is look at the projected numbers just as they were getting approval and compare it to current projections. Unless they go back and add a new DCC HS, radically shift the feeders on the margins or go back to the idea of DCC really being the entire Down County, and not just the part on the wrong side of the tracks, the Woodward reopening story ends as one might have anticipated: a gift to the wealthier parts of the county by focusing the alleviation of overcrowding on the school that serves them (WJ) or serves as a buffer for them to maintain their preferred boundaries while avoiding significant overcrowding, themselves.

The DCC has arts programs. If you want another one, put it in a DCC school vs. busing our kids across town. It will mainly help WJ.