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

[Anonymous]

And Crown and Woodward are as different from each other as either one is from Seneca Valley, the most recently built high school:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Adventist hospital site would have worked but it seems like the DCC just isn't a priority.

I agree the hospital is the largest potential site inside the beltway. But even that is only 14 acres. BCC is the smallest current HS site, and it's 16.36 acres.

Maybe not ideal but would work if they built up and didn't bother with nonsense like a sports arena which doesn't seem all that necessary anyway.

It may not seem all that necessary to you, but the discussion about Woodward showed that most people disagree with you and believe a high school needs a sports stadium.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And Crown and Woodward are as different from each other as either one is from Seneca Valley, the most recently built high school:

You keep saying that they're very different. HOW are they very different?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Adventist hospital site would have worked but it seems like the DCC just isn't a priority.

I agree the hospital is the largest potential site inside the beltway. But even that is only 14 acres. BCC is the smallest current HS site, and it's 16.36 acres.

Maybe not ideal but would work if they built up and didn't bother with nonsense like a sports arena which doesn't seem all that necessary anyway.

It may not seem all that necessary to you, but the discussion about Woodward showed that most people disagree with you and believe a high school needs a sports stadium.

Washington Adventist University is across the street and has athletic fields already; maybe they could share?

[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:

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.

Where is the 30 to 40 acres an MCPS HS needs?

MCPS says minimum preferred site size of 35 acres. That's for their current school design, which is based on a site size of 35 acres. It's obviously possible to put a school on a smaller site (see BCC), but they would have to use a different school design. I don't know how much of their school design is based on "This is how we do it because this is how we do it," and how much is based on state requirements.

Woodward is 28 acres. They have site-specific designs.

They have a general design template, which they modify for specific sites.

For new elementary schools, that is sometimes true. Not so for high schools. Look how different the Woodward and Crown designs are.

It's also true for high schools and middle schools.

Also, maybe you can explain how the Woodward and Crown designs are very different from each other? I don't perceive any big differences.

For one thing, Crown is L-shaped with a front entrance in the middle of one level and a back entrance for the bus loop one level down. Woodward is square-ish with a central courtyard and has entrances at the two front corners. Crown's architect is Stantec, and Woodward's is Grimm & Parker.

[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:

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.

Where is the 30 to 40 acres an MCPS HS needs?

MCPS says minimum preferred site size of 35 acres. That's for their current school design, which is based on a site size of 35 acres. It's obviously possible to put a school on a smaller site (see BCC), but they would have to use a different school design. I don't know how much of their school design is based on "This is how we do it because this is how we do it," and how much is based on state requirements.

Woodward is 28 acres. They have site-specific designs.

They have a general design template, which they modify for specific sites.

For new elementary schools, that is sometimes true. Not so for high schools. Look how different the Woodward and Crown designs are.

It's also true for high schools and middle schools.

Also, maybe you can explain how the Woodward and Crown designs are very different from each other? I don't perceive any big differences.

For one thing, Crown is L-shaped with a front entrance in the middle of one level and a back entrance for the bus loop one level down. Woodward is square-ish with a central courtyard and has entrances at the two front corners. Crown's architect is Stantec, and Woodward's is Grimm & Parker.

How are they very different from each other in terms of site design?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Adventist hospital site would have worked but it seems like the DCC just isn't a priority.

I agree the hospital is the largest potential site inside the beltway. But even that is only 14 acres. BCC is the smallest current HS site, and it's 16.36 acres.

Maybe not ideal but would work if they built up and didn't bother with nonsense like a sports arena which doesn't seem all that necessary anyway.

It may not seem all that necessary to you, but the discussion about Woodward showed that most people disagree with you and believe a high school needs a sports stadium.

Washington Adventist University is across the street and has athletic fields already; maybe they could share?

How do you imagine that would work?

[Anonymous]

Cue the dulcet tones of Seth Adams, accompanied by a deck of visuals drawn from across the country, encouraging consideration of alternate approaches to educational architecture in light of exigencies, receiving gentle nods from the BOE & audience...but then roundly ignored by his own department when push comes to shove. Adventist would have required verticality, both up and down (for parking/transportation, though the low elevation would present a challenge), and greater imaginative vision to accommodate fields and the like.

It wasn't/isn't the only option, but when it comes to providing for reasonably equivalent educational services/facilities in the area, MCPS has no stomach for the cost, and MoCo has no interest in existing-community-serving long-range planning that would tend to preserve options. Instead, that "let's think outside the box" approach only seems to come into play for something like low-cost repurposing an office building for a specialty campus, failing to serve the majority of the local population and leaving the school bereft of athletics, etc. Only the classical area of TP, with its own governance and heavy political influence, seems to get any consideration, but even they fall short on the scale of a modern high school, the catchment for which would require inclusion of less-favored inside-the-beltway areas.

Side note: it will be interesting to see whether the CIP finally including study funding for Eastern MS results in something comparable to newer facilities elsewhere or more of an unimaginative minimalist whitewash.

[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:

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.

Where is the 30 to 40 acres an MCPS HS needs?

MCPS says minimum preferred site size of 35 acres. That's for their current school design, which is based on a site size of 35 acres. It's obviously possible to put a school on a smaller site (see BCC), but they would have to use a different school design. I don't know how much of their school design is based on "This is how we do it because this is how we do it," and how much is based on state requirements.

Woodward is 28 acres. They have site-specific designs.

They have a general design template, which they modify for specific sites.

For new elementary schools, that is sometimes true. Not so for high schools. Look how different the Woodward and Crown designs are.

It's also true for high schools and middle schools.

Also, maybe you can explain how the Woodward and Crown designs are very different from each other? I don't perceive any big differences.

For one thing, Crown is L-shaped with a front entrance in the middle of one level and a back entrance for the bus loop one level down. Woodward is square-ish with a central courtyard and has entrances at the two front corners. Crown's architect is Stantec, and Woodward's is Grimm & Parker.

How are they very different from each other in terms of site design?

Keep going with the I'll-badger-by-continually-questioning-them-without-providing-a-defensible-statement-with-specifics-of-my-own rhetoric. Not saying you're wrong, but until you stop that approach, I'm siding with the other party.

[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:

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.

Where is the 30 to 40 acres an MCPS HS needs?

MCPS says minimum preferred site size of 35 acres. That's for their current school design, which is based on a site size of 35 acres. It's obviously possible to put a school on a smaller site (see BCC), but they would have to use a different school design. I don't know how much of their school design is based on "This is how we do it because this is how we do it," and how much is based on state requirements.

Woodward is 28 acres. They have site-specific designs.

They have a general design template, which they modify for specific sites.

For new elementary schools, that is sometimes true. Not so for high schools. Look how different the Woodward and Crown designs are.

It's also true for high schools and middle schools.

Also, maybe you can explain how the Woodward and Crown designs are very different from each other? I don't perceive any big differences.

For one thing, Crown is L-shaped with a front entrance in the middle of one level and a back entrance for the bus loop one level down. Woodward is square-ish with a central courtyard and has entrances at the two front corners. Crown's architect is Stantec, and Woodward's is Grimm & Parker.

How are they very different from each other in terms of site design?

Why don't you just tell us all what the point is you're trying to make?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Cue the dulcet tones of Seth Adams, accompanied by a deck of visuals drawn from across the country, encouraging consideration of alternate approaches to educational architecture in light of exigencies, receiving gentle nods from the BOE & audience...but then roundly ignored by his own department when push comes to shove. Adventist would have required verticality, both up and down (for parking/transportation, though the low elevation would present a challenge), and greater imaginative vision to accommodate fields and the like.

It wasn't/isn't the only option, but when it comes to providing for reasonably equivalent educational services/facilities in the area, MCPS has no stomach for the cost, and MoCo has no interest in existing-community-serving long-range planning that would tend to preserve options. Instead, that "let's think outside the box" approach only seems to come into play for something like low-cost repurposing an office building for a specialty campus, failing to serve the majority of the local population and leaving the school bereft of athletics, etc. Only the classical area of TP, with its own governance and heavy political influence, seems to get any consideration, but even they fall short on the scale of a modern high school, the catchment for which would require inclusion of less-favored inside-the-beltway areas.

Side note: it will be interesting to see whether the CIP finally including study funding for Eastern MS results in something comparable to newer facilities elsewhere or more of an unimaginative minimalist whitewash.

Does anyone know how big Northwood's footprint is? The new building is going to be put on the existing footprint.

Adventist would be the perfect site for a smaller school-- if it is a scale issue, then the County is failing it's citizens with its lack of imagination. Why not build a smaller school on Adventist and zone it for the surrounding SS and TP neighborhoods that border Sligo Creek? Or make it a high school that's application only? Kids walk down/bike to Sligo Creek to get to school

[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:

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.

Where is the 30 to 40 acres an MCPS HS needs?

MCPS says minimum preferred site size of 35 acres. That's for their current school design, which is based on a site size of 35 acres. It's obviously possible to put a school on a smaller site (see BCC), but they would have to use a different school design. I don't know how much of their school design is based on "This is how we do it because this is how we do it," and how much is based on state requirements.

Woodward is 28 acres. They have site-specific designs.

They have a general design template, which they modify for specific sites.

For new elementary schools, that is sometimes true. Not so for high schools. Look how different the Woodward and Crown designs are.

It's also true for high schools and middle schools.

Also, maybe you can explain how the Woodward and Crown designs are very different from each other? I don't perceive any big differences.

For one thing, Crown is L-shaped with a front entrance in the middle of one level and a back entrance for the bus loop one level down. Woodward is square-ish with a central courtyard and has entrances at the two front corners. Crown's architect is Stantec, and Woodward's is Grimm & Parker.

How are they very different from each other in terms of site design?

Why don't you just tell us all what the point is you're trying to make?

The point I'm trying to make is that they are very similar in terms of site design. MCPS has a design template for high schools - and middle schools, and elementary schools. If MCPS were going to put a high school on a much smaller site, they would have to come up with a different design template. They would have to do things differently. And the MCPS school-building department keeps demonstrating that they do not want to do things differently.

[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:

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.

Where is the 30 to 40 acres an MCPS HS needs?

MCPS says minimum preferred site size of 35 acres. That's for their current school design, which is based on a site size of 35 acres. It's obviously possible to put a school on a smaller site (see BCC), but they would have to use a different school design. I don't know how much of their school design is based on "This is how we do it because this is how we do it," and how much is based on state requirements.

Woodward is 28 acres. They have site-specific designs.

They have a general design template, which they modify for specific sites.

For new elementary schools, that is sometimes true. Not so for high schools. Look how different the Woodward and Crown designs are.

It's also true for high schools and middle schools.

Also, maybe you can explain how the Woodward and Crown designs are very different from each other? I don't perceive any big differences.

For one thing, Crown is L-shaped with a front entrance in the middle of one level and a back entrance for the bus loop one level down. Woodward is square-ish with a central courtyard and has entrances at the two front corners. Crown's architect is Stantec, and Woodward's is Grimm & Parker.

How are they very different from each other in terms of site design?

Keep going with the I'll-badger-by-continually-questioning-them-without-providing-a-defensible-statement-with-specifics-of-my-own rhetoric. Not saying you're wrong, but until you stop that approach, I'm siding with the other party.

Me: MCPS has a site design template.
Other posters: No, they don't. Crown and Woodward are very different
Me: How are the site designs at Crown and Woodward different?
Other posters: The buildings at Crown and Woodward are different shapes and have different architects.
Me: How are the site designs at Crown and Woodward different?

[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:

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.

Where is the 30 to 40 acres an MCPS HS needs?

MCPS says minimum preferred site size of 35 acres. That's for their current school design, which is based on a site size of 35 acres. It's obviously possible to put a school on a smaller site (see BCC), but they would have to use a different school design. I don't know how much of their school design is based on "This is how we do it because this is how we do it," and how much is based on state requirements.

Woodward is 28 acres. They have site-specific designs.

They have a general design template, which they modify for specific sites.

For new elementary schools, that is sometimes true. Not so for high schools. Look how different the Woodward and Crown designs are.

It's also true for high schools and middle schools.

Also, maybe you can explain how the Woodward and Crown designs are very different from each other? I don't perceive any big differences.

For one thing, Crown is L-shaped with a front entrance in the middle of one level and a back entrance for the bus loop one level down. Woodward is square-ish with a central courtyard and has entrances at the two front corners. Crown's architect is Stantec, and Woodward's is Grimm & Parker.

How are they very different from each other in terms of site design?

Why don't you just tell us all what the point is you're trying to make?

The point I'm trying to make is that they are very similar in terms of site design. MCPS has a design template for high schools - and middle schools, and elementary schools. If MCPS were going to put a high school on a much smaller site, they would have to come up with a different design template. They would have to do things differently. And the MCPS school-building department keeps demonstrating that they do not want to do things differently.

Can you share a link to these design templates?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cue the dulcet tones of Seth Adams, accompanied by a deck of visuals drawn from across the country, encouraging consideration of alternate approaches to educational architecture in light of exigencies, receiving gentle nods from the BOE & audience...but then roundly ignored by his own department when push comes to shove. Adventist would have required verticality, both up and down (for parking/transportation, though the low elevation would present a challenge), and greater imaginative vision to accommodate fields and the like.

It wasn't/isn't the only option, but when it comes to providing for reasonably equivalent educational services/facilities in the area, MCPS has no stomach for the cost, and MoCo has no interest in existing-community-serving long-range planning that would tend to preserve options. Instead, that "let's think outside the box" approach only seems to come into play for something like low-cost repurposing an office building for a specialty campus, failing to serve the majority of the local population and leaving the school bereft of athletics, etc. Only the classical area of TP, with its own governance and heavy political influence, seems to get any consideration, but even they fall short on the scale of a modern high school, the catchment for which would require inclusion of less-favored inside-the-beltway areas.

Side note: it will be interesting to see whether the CIP finally including study funding for Eastern MS results in something comparable to newer facilities elsewhere or more of an unimaginative minimalist whitewash.

Does anyone know how big Northwood's footprint is? The new building is going to be put on the existing footprint.

Adventist would be the perfect site for a smaller school-- if it is a scale issue, then the County is failing it's citizens with its lack of imagination. Why not build a smaller school on Adventist and zone it for the surrounding SS and TP neighborhoods that border Sligo Creek? Or make it a high school that's application only? Kids walk down/bike to Sligo Creek to get to school

Isn't the Adventist site privately owned and not for sale?