Initial boundary options for Woodward study area are up

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Man, I didn't realize just how massive the variation in EML/FARMS is between high schools right now, and these options barely touch it (even option 3, which looks like it does the most to balance those factors, still has really large disparities)...

Exactly, and with the program analysis likely to move high performing programs to Woodward and perhaps Crown, the FARMS disparity between the high schools will increase. It's the 1970s all over again.

Where are you getting that idea?

Watch both videos on the MCPS BOE meetings, and note that it was said that Woodward and Crown, as new high schools, need programs. https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/curriculum/academic-programs-analysis/

[Anonymous]

Ok I officially got an answer whether one of these options will be chosen with slight modifications or if they are simply a representation of the 4 factors. This is the response I received:

“The Superintendent may recommend one of the options from round 1, round 2, or a partially or entirely different option.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Man, I didn't realize just how massive the variation in EML/FARMS is between high schools right now, and these options barely touch it (even option 3, which looks like it does the most to balance those factors, still has really large disparities)...

Exactly, and with the program analysis likely to move high performing programs to Woodward and perhaps Crown, the FARMS disparity between the high schools will increase. It's the 1970s all over again.

Where are you getting that idea?

It's their crystal ball, super reliable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok I officially got an answer whether one of these options will be chosen with slight modifications or if they are simply a representation of the 4 factors. This is the response I received:

“The Superintendent may recommend one of the options from round 1, round 2, or a partially or entirely different option.”

lol so helpful!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok I officially got an answer whether one of these options will be chosen with slight modifications or if they are simply a representation of the 4 factors. This is the response I received:

“The Superintendent may recommend one of the options from round 1, round 2, or a partially or entirely different option.”

At any rate this suggests that Option 3 may be a contender, and to not pretend it is fake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok I officially got an answer whether one of these options will be chosen with slight modifications or if they are simply a representation of the 4 factors. This is the response I received:

“The Superintendent may recommend one of the options from round 1, round 2, or a partially or entirely different option.”

lol so helpful!

Hahahah

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why they would make 7th and 10th graders move to a new school if their inbounds school change. They should have just 6th and 9th graders implement it in the first school, so that 7th and 10th graders do not have to move to a new school, which is really disruptive.

Then they'd be opening Woodward and Crown with no one but ninth graders there. That's not efficient, and leaves a lot of unnecessary overcrowding.

It’s not just about efficiency. It’s about emotional toll on so many kids. We could be talking about thousands of kids here. They’re not just numbers.

Kids have been dealing with changing schools for decades. They are more resilient than we give them credit for.

Yeah other kids are resilient as long as it’s not impacting your kids.

And we could also stop testing their resiliency. Aren’t these kids the same kids who had their whole kindergarten year online? Kindergarten has been proven to be the most important and formative year in K-12. Changing schools is fine but changing them without a more natural phase-out process seems cruel. Other districts do it differently.

[Anonymous]

Ugh Woodward pulling from the bad elementary/middle schools... AND it might be an arts magnet. Double whammy. Mix in a little MS13. Let's bring everyone down.

It will be an inferior to school to WJ. Who cares about a new building. Property values on the west side or the CSX will go down. On the east side they will go up.

If we are lucky they won't find the money to put in the auditorium to throw sand in the gears on an arts magnet. Arts don't create jobs. Waste.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ugh Woodward pulling from the bad elementary/middle schools... AND it might be an arts magnet. Double whammy. Mix in a little MS13. Let's bring everyone down.

It will be an inferior to school to WJ. Who cares about a new building. Property values on the west side or the CSX will go down. On the east side they will go up.

If we are lucky they won't find the money to put in the auditorium to throw sand in the gears on an arts magnet. Arts don't create jobs. Waste.

And don't forget the blight at the old white flint mall site. Nothing there for over ten years. Thanks lerner. Eminent domain that thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ugh Woodward pulling from the bad elementary/middle schools... AND it might be an arts magnet. Double whammy. Mix in a little MS13. Let's bring everyone down.

It will be an inferior to school to WJ. Who cares about a new building. Property values on the west side or the CSX will go down. On the east side they will go up.

If we are lucky they won't find the money to put in the auditorium to throw sand in the gears on an arts magnet. Arts don't create jobs. Waste.

Woodward will not get an arts magnet - that's talk from a few years back, when Woodward was under discussion to be rebuilt. Now that MCPS is in line to get regional programs, I think Woodward is more likely to get a STEM-based program like a Computer, Science, and Mathematics regional program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ugh Woodward pulling from the bad elementary/middle schools... AND it might be an arts magnet. Double whammy. Mix in a little MS13. Let's bring everyone down.

It will be an inferior to school to WJ. Who cares about a new building. Property values on the west side or the CSX will go down. On the east side they will go up.

If we are lucky they won't find the money to put in the auditorium to throw sand in the gears on an arts magnet. Arts don't create jobs. Waste.

….?……

[Anonymous]

But perhaps worst of all, it won’t really be a neighborhood school if they send Farmlamd and Garrett Park - who can WALK to Woodward — off to Kennedy and Wheaton. That leaves only walkers at Luxmanor.

[Anonymous]

Just to bring in some history, years ago WJ families were asked by MCPS survey whether they would like to stay together and build huge addition on WJ or reopen Woodward to accommodate the growing number of students, while likely taking in some DCC schools.

Overwhelmingly, WJ parents voted to reopen Woodward. WJ parents and students went to County Council meetings all decked out in Green to show support for funding for Woodward. We’ve filled out I don’t know how many surveys about Woodward.

Now it looks like MCPS may renege on that and send WJ families from Farmland, Garrett Park and KP to other parts of the county. That’s half of WJ.

No good deed shall go unpunished. Bait and switch.

[Anonymous]

Really sad and disappointing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am voting for Option 3 along with a bunch of other people I know. Makes the most send to address racial inequities and demographic changes. Kids are very resilient. It’s not as big of a deal to have split articulation and bussing.It may actually be good for your kid.

You don't get to vote for anything in the survey. You put pros and cons of each option in as feedback.

I wrote on each of them that none of them are good options and that they need to focus on minimizing disruption, period.

I agree with this. Plus maximizing community - in other words, avoid split articulations wherever possible. To me those are the two most important lessons we (should have) got(ten) out of the Covid years.