Initial boundary options for Woodward study area are up

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we learned in covid to not trust the schools.

I thought one of them was focused on rebuilding trust? Was it McKnight?

We need that trust rebuilt at this point.

Too much disruption already over the last several years, between covid and the shenanigans under McKnight. Looking for some reasonableness at this point.

I feel like Taylor will come up with something reasonable in the end.

You have way more faith than I do. Everyone should be rallying against 3, and not just on DCUM.

Option 3 isn't happening.

I’m certainly not making any assumptions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:JFC, none of the 4 are real options - they are showing you an option that focus on each one of the 4 priorities in FAA. The options the Superintendent will chose from, to recommend to try BOE, haven't been shared yet.

What MCPS staff allowed the consultants to release these 4 options, when none of them are actual options anyone will be choosing from, and why MCPS staff and consultants are holding all these meetings, which is a huge waste of time and resources, is beyond me

So wait, non of these options are even reak? WTF is the point? When will the real options be presented? This is super dumb.

Correct

Well according to the MCPS website they are options that will be “refined.” I wouldn’t bank on random internet poster’s statements that they aren’t at least somewhat indicative of what the eventual option will be.

Or, some of you could try reading. The FAA policy says that all 4 options are equally weighted, so no, none of the 4 options released are real, because they each weigh only one of the 4 FAA priorities

Do you work for MCPS or Flo Analytics?

Nice try, but I'm an educated, involved parent

Lol but that's not what the FAA policy says

[Anonymous]

Option 3 is most definitely on the table! Sorry but a badly needed change is coming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Option 3 is most definitely on the table! Sorry but a badly needed change is coming.

Too costly to implement.

[Anonymous]

They should send all the Woodward kids to Whitman and all the Whitman kids to Woodward. This sounds crazy, right? Whitman gets off the hook too easy lol

[Anonymous]

You know, even if they go with something similar to options 1, 2 or 4, the busing costs are going to be temporarily higher because you have multiple neighborhoods that need double busing. For example, let’s say I have an 11th grader and a 9th grader in 2027. My 11th grader would get to stay put and would need a bus to school A and my 9th grader would need a bus to school B.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Wow, this is just...wow. The entitlement in this post is staggering. WJ families are not entitled to anything more than other MCPS families. Wow.

I would agree with you, but I know how effective WJ cluster is - The WJ PTA cluster operates with corporate discipline. It's impressive. Westside parents are tired of having their magnet students on the bus to Blair every day. So this academic program analysis is very focused on travel time for students, to dovetail with this westside community point of view.

WJ has a huge amount of advanced and AP classes. There is no need for them to go to Blair. Don't like the commute, move. Why are you all good enough to come to our schools but we aren't to your schools?

I agree no one has to go to Blair ..but Blair SMCS is not the same as taking AP classes at another HS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Wow, this is just...wow. The entitlement in this post is staggering. WJ families are not entitled to anything more than other MCPS families. Wow.

I would agree with you, but I know how effective WJ cluster is - The WJ PTA cluster operates with corporate discipline. It's impressive. Westside parents are tired of having their magnet students on the bus to Blair every day. So this academic program analysis is very focused on travel time for students, to dovetail with this westside community point of view.

WJ has a huge amount of advanced and AP classes. There is no need for them to go to Blair. Don't like the commute, move. Why are you all good enough to come to our schools but we aren't to your schools?

I agree no one has to go to Blair ..but Blair SMCS is not the same as taking AP classes at another HS.

Given some of our schools don’t have a lot of ap classes it should be limited to the dcc. You all moved to your good school districts for the schools so why use ours that you claim otherwise are bad.

[Anonymous]

And if we are doing something costly to help poor kids is this the thing that actually helps? Versus improving schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And if we are doing something costly to help poor kids is this the thing that actually helps? Versus improving schools.

No, it's not! Bussing white kids to low performing, high-minority schools will NOT make them better.

If MCPS wants to improve lower performing, high-minority/FARMS schools, they need to:

1) Prioritize hiring and retaining quality school leadership. If you look at many of the high schools in the bottom rung of MCPS, you'll find admin deficiencies. It's very hard for a school to thrive with ineffective or incompetent leadership

2) Take a hard look at instructional quality. Lower performing schools tend to have a higher proportion of inexperienced teachers, since rookie teachers don't get as much of a voice in where they're placed compared to their veteran counterparts. These newbie teachers flounder and struggle. Some of them flame out and quit the profession, in fact. If MCPS had competent school leaders who were capable of evaluating and improving classroom instruction, you'd see improvements in the school. The problem is improving instructional quality is the job of the admin team, but as mentioned in the point above, many of these lower performing schools have incompetent or low-performing admin teams.

3) More money for resources and programming. The higher performing schools in MCPS have an abundance of resources that ensure supplies and programming are available to their kids that is usually supplied by active and resourced PTAs. Lower performing MCPS schools tend to have smaller or inactive PTAs that can't fill those gaps. Taylor's school-based equity funding in the budget for next year is meant to close this gap. We'll have to see how it goes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And if we are doing something costly to help poor kids is this the thing that actually helps? Versus improving schools.

No, it's not! Bussing white kids to low performing, high-minority schools will NOT make them better.

If MCPS wants to improve lower performing, high-minority/FARMS schools, they need to:

1) Prioritize hiring and retaining quality school leadership. If you look at many of the high schools in the bottom rung of MCPS, you'll find admin deficiencies. It's very hard for a school to thrive with ineffective or incompetent leadership

2) Take a hard look at instructional quality. Lower performing schools tend to have a higher proportion of inexperienced teachers, since rookie teachers don't get as much of a voice in where they're placed compared to their veteran counterparts. These newbie teachers flounder and struggle. Some of them flame out and quit the profession, in fact. If MCPS had competent school leaders who were capable of evaluating and improving classroom instruction, you'd see improvements in the school. The problem is improving instructional quality is the job of the admin team, but as mentioned in the point above, many of these lower performing schools have incompetent or low-performing admin teams.

3) More money for resources and programming. The higher performing schools in MCPS have an abundance of resources that ensure supplies and programming are available to their kids that is usually supplied by active and resourced PTAs. Lower performing MCPS schools tend to have smaller or inactive PTAs that can't fill those gaps. Taylor's school-based equity funding in the budget for next year is meant to close this gap. We'll have to see how it goes.

Plus security.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And if we are doing something costly to help poor kids is this the thing that actually helps? Versus improving schools.

No, it's not! Bussing white kids to low performing, high-minority schools will NOT make them better.

If MCPS wants to improve lower performing, high-minority/FARMS schools, they need to:

1) Prioritize hiring and retaining quality school leadership. If you look at many of the high schools in the bottom rung of MCPS, you'll find admin deficiencies. It's very hard for a school to thrive with ineffective or incompetent leadership

2) Take a hard look at instructional quality. Lower performing schools tend to have a higher proportion of inexperienced teachers, since rookie teachers don't get as much of a voice in where they're placed compared to their veteran counterparts. These newbie teachers flounder and struggle. Some of them flame out and quit the profession, in fact. If MCPS had competent school leaders who were capable of evaluating and improving classroom instruction, you'd see improvements in the school. The problem is improving instructional quality is the job of the admin team, but as mentioned in the point above, many of these lower performing schools have incompetent or low-performing admin teams.

3) More money for resources and programming. The higher performing schools in MCPS have an abundance of resources that ensure supplies and programming are available to their kids that is usually supplied by active and resourced PTAs. Lower performing MCPS schools tend to have smaller or inactive PTAs that can't fill those gaps. Taylor's school-based equity funding in the budget for next year is meant to close this gap. We'll have to see how it goes.

Plus security.

Will MCPS do these things or just shuffle kids around and create more issues with long bus rides?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Option 3 is most definitely on the table! Sorry but a badly needed change is coming.

Agree it’s in the table. Parents who oppose it should organize now.

But if it does happen, many parents will move/go private to avoid it. That’s just the reality.

[Anonymous]

I like the option 3. It tries to bring much needed diversity in many schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I like the option 3. It tries to bring much needed diversity in many schools.

WJ becomes 30%, Woodward 50% and Whitman 20% FARMS?

MCPS needs to calculate bus time and see if it's practical. As long as bus rude is not longer than 20-25 minutes, it will work. Longer than than is impractical.