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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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."

Today they briefly showed a slide which proposed pushing all of the Woodward study dates forward by one year, so the vote on new boundaries would now happen in March 2026, with the school(s) opening in Fall 2027. But then Rebecca Smondrowski asked if all these HS projects coinciding would be a good opportunity to look a countywide boundary study, and Seth Adams didn't say yes or no, but said they would have to evaluate the possibilities and could come back to the board in the spring with some new proposals.

It’s a good opportunity sure, but they can’t seem to make any progress on conducting any of these boundary studies on their own, individuallly. That is not going to become any easier by adding significant complexity to the task.

They do actually conduct boundary studies all the time, individually. Yes it will be a lot more complex with multiple high schools, but it happens elsewhere so why not here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They do actually conduct boundary studies all the time, individually. Yes it will be a lot more complex with multiple high schools, but it happens elsewhere so why not here?

There are several capital projects in different clusters that will need boundary studies prior to completion to decide on their boundaries.

Each of these projects is experiencing delay after delay after delay. In some cases, they get downsized or shelved.

Trying to do a single, sprawling boundary study of all of MCPS implies coordinating all of completion of all of these projects. Now a single delay in any project would set back all of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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."

Today they briefly showed a slide which proposed pushing all of the Woodward study dates forward by one year, so the vote on new boundaries would now happen in March 2026, with the school(s) opening in Fall 2027. But then Rebecca Smondrowski asked if all these HS projects coinciding would be a good opportunity to look a countywide boundary study, and Seth Adams didn't say yes or no, but said they would have to evaluate the possibilities and could come back to the board in the spring with some new proposals.

It’s a good opportunity sure, but they can’t seem to make any progress on conducting any of these boundary studies on their own, individuallly. That is not going to become any easier by adding significant complexity to the task.

They do actually conduct boundary studies all the time, individually. Yes it will be a lot more complex with multiple high schools, but it happens elsewhere so why not here?

They do not conduct boundary studies "all the time," not least because they're not opening new school buildings or new schools "all the time."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They do actually conduct boundary studies all the time, individually. Yes it will be a lot more complex with multiple high schools, but it happens elsewhere so why not here?

There are several capital projects in different clusters that will need boundary studies prior to completion to decide on their boundaries.

Each of these projects is experiencing delay after delay after delay. In some cases, they get downsized or shelved.

Trying to do a single, sprawling boundary study of all of MCPS implies coordinating all of completion of all of these projects. Now a single delay in any project would set back all of them.

The cost of contingency planning would be less damaging than the continued inefficiencies and inequities that result from piecemeal studies/boundary decisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They do actually conduct boundary studies all the time, individually. Yes it will be a lot more complex with multiple high schools, but it happens elsewhere so why not here?

There are several capital projects in different clusters that will need boundary studies prior to completion to decide on their boundaries.

Each of these projects is experiencing delay after delay after delay. In some cases, they get downsized or shelved.

Trying to do a single, sprawling boundary study of all of MCPS implies coordinating all of completion of all of these projects. Now a single delay in any project would set back all of them.

The cost of contingency planning would be less damaging than the continued inefficiencies and inequities that result from piecemeal studies/boundary decisions.

We get it; you want busing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They do actually conduct boundary studies all the time, individually. Yes it will be a lot more complex with multiple high schools, but it happens elsewhere so why not here?

There are several capital projects in different clusters that will need boundary studies prior to completion to decide on their boundaries.

Each of these projects is experiencing delay after delay after delay. In some cases, they get downsized or shelved.

Trying to do a single, sprawling boundary study of all of MCPS implies coordinating all of completion of all of these projects. Now a single delay in any project would set back all of them.

The cost of contingency planning would be less damaging than the continued inefficiencies and inequities that result from piecemeal studies/boundary decisions.

We get it; you want busing.

I think most people do want MCPS to provide bus service. Do you not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They do actually conduct boundary studies all the time, individually. Yes it will be a lot more complex with multiple high schools, but it happens elsewhere so why not here?

There are several capital projects in different clusters that will need boundary studies prior to completion to decide on their boundaries.

Each of these projects is experiencing delay after delay after delay. In some cases, they get downsized or shelved.

Trying to do a single, sprawling boundary study of all of MCPS implies coordinating all of completion of all of these projects. Now a single delay in any project would set back all of them.

The cost of contingency planning would be less damaging than the continued inefficiencies and inequities that result from piecemeal studies/boundary decisions.

We get it; you want busing.

I think most people do want MCPS to provide bus service. Do you not?

DP. I agree. In fact, there are people with kids in MCPS who want MCPS to provide more bus service.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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."

Today they briefly showed a slide which proposed pushing all of the Woodward study dates forward by one year, so the vote on new boundaries would now happen in March 2026, with the school(s) opening in Fall 2027. But then Rebecca Smondrowski asked if all these HS projects coinciding would be a good opportunity to look a countywide boundary study, and Seth Adams didn't say yes or no, but said they would have to evaluate the possibilities and could come back to the board in the spring with some new proposals.

It’s a good opportunity sure, but they can’t seem to make any progress on conducting any of these boundary studies on their own, individuallly. That is not going to become any easier by adding significant complexity to the task.

They do actually conduct boundary studies all the time, individually. Yes it will be a lot more complex with multiple high schools, but it happens elsewhere so why not here?

They do not conduct boundary studies "all the time," not least because they're not opening new school buildings or new schools "all the time."

During the past five years, MCPS completed five different boundary studies, each of which resulted in boundaries being changed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They do actually conduct boundary studies all the time, individually. Yes it will be a lot more complex with multiple high schools, but it happens elsewhere so why not here?

There are several capital projects in different clusters that will need boundary studies prior to completion to decide on their boundaries.

Each of these projects is experiencing delay after delay after delay. In some cases, they get downsized or shelved.

Trying to do a single, sprawling boundary study of all of MCPS implies coordinating all of completion of all of these projects. Now a single delay in any project would set back all of them.

The cost of contingency planning would be less damaging than the continued inefficiencies and inequities that result from piecemeal studies/boundary decisions.

We get it; you want busing.

I think most people do want MCPS to provide bus service. Do you not?

Yes, of course I want MCPS to provide bus service. I, and 95+% of the county want those buses to take kids to the school nearest their home, not farther from home just to allow white progressives to feel like white saviors.

Then it sounds like you are looking for boundary changes since so many children are currently not attending the school closest to their home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:During the past five years, MCPS completed five different boundary studies, each of which resulted in boundaries being changed.

How many capital projects were scheduled to be completed in the past five years? How many were actually completed? How many times has each project delayed since they were initially planned?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They do actually conduct boundary studies all the time, individually. Yes it will be a lot more complex with multiple high schools, but it happens elsewhere so why not here?

There are several capital projects in different clusters that will need boundary studies prior to completion to decide on their boundaries.

Each of these projects is experiencing delay after delay after delay. In some cases, they get downsized or shelved.

Trying to do a single, sprawling boundary study of all of MCPS implies coordinating all of completion of all of these projects. Now a single delay in any project would set back all of them.

The cost of contingency planning would be less damaging than the continued inefficiencies and inequities that result from piecemeal studies/boundary decisions.

We get it; you want busing.

I think most people do want MCPS to provide bus service. Do you not?

Yes, of course I want MCPS to provide bus service. I, and 95+% of the county want those buses to take kids to the school nearest their home, not farther from home just to allow white progressives to feel like white saviors.

Why do you always think making this about white people should put an end to the discussion? Dan Reed was arguing in GGW years ago to change boundaries within MCPS. You can agree with him or not, but he’s not white.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:During the past five years, MCPS completed five different boundary studies, each of which resulted in boundaries being changed.

How many capital projects were scheduled to be completed in the past five years? How many were actually completed? How many times has each project delayed since they were initially planned?

You can look up those answers in the CIP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They do actually conduct boundary studies all the time, individually. Yes it will be a lot more complex with multiple high schools, but it happens elsewhere so why not here?

There are several capital projects in different clusters that will need boundary studies prior to completion to decide on their boundaries.

Each of these projects is experiencing delay after delay after delay. In some cases, they get downsized or shelved.

Trying to do a single, sprawling boundary study of all of MCPS implies coordinating all of completion of all of these projects. Now a single delay in any project would set back all of them.

The cost of contingency planning would be less damaging than the continued inefficiencies and inequities that result from piecemeal studies/boundary decisions.

We get it; you want busing.

I think most people do want MCPS to provide bus service. Do you not?

Yes, of course I want MCPS to provide bus service. I, and 95+% of the county want those buses to take kids to the school nearest their home, not farther from home just to allow white progressives to feel like white saviors.

Then it sounds like you are looking for boundary changes since so many children are currently not attending the school closest to their home.

Unfortunately, back in 2018, the policy that determines boundaries was changed (without proper notice) to prioritize diversity. This DEprioritized the other 3 factors: proximity, stability, and capacity. So any boundary change done under that policy won't move kids to closer schools. And 95% of the county also said they didn't want to be moved for any reason because they valued stability so highly. The only factor people said didn't care about was the one factor the white progressives champion so vehemently: diversity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They do actually conduct boundary studies all the time, individually. Yes it will be a lot more complex with multiple high schools, but it happens elsewhere so why not here?

There are several capital projects in different clusters that will need boundary studies prior to completion to decide on their boundaries.

Each of these projects is experiencing delay after delay after delay. In some cases, they get downsized or shelved.

Trying to do a single, sprawling boundary study of all of MCPS implies coordinating all of completion of all of these projects. Now a single delay in any project would set back all of them.

The cost of contingency planning would be less damaging than the continued inefficiencies and inequities that result from piecemeal studies/boundary decisions.

We get it; you want busing.

I think most people do want MCPS to provide bus service. Do you not?

Yes, of course I want MCPS to provide bus service. I, and 95+% of the county want those buses to take kids to the school nearest their home, not farther from home just to allow white progressives to feel like white saviors.

You want to eliminate magnets programs?! That’s not going to popular on here.

[Anonymous]

According to the boundary analysis report, a little bit over a third of respondents rated balancing diversity as "not important". The remaining two thirds appear to have rated it as at least somewhat important and 10% rated it as extremely important. People do want to balance demographics which include income, race, ethnicity and language background. The data also show that the people who rated balancing diversity as most important were not from Takoma Park or even Silver Spring, but from Burtonsville, Fairland and Colesville.