Second round options for Woodward boundary study
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Guess you are missing the "WALTER JOHNSON" signs suggesting folks select Option B. |
Anonymous
--------------------------- What is wrong with wanting to be zoned at a better school esp since it it preserves the status quo those people "signed up for"? If I am WJ currently, I would fight to maintain WJ. BCC and Whitman are pleased to maintain status quo. (Unrelated, there are Kensington and Kensington Parkwood families closer to Einstein than GP, who are WJ under all options.) Garrett Park folks are currently at WJ I believe. Why wouldn't they want to maintain it? It's been that way for generations. They have relationships with that school for decades. Do you know how hard and long it takes a "Start up" to get up an running? News flash...many fail. Let alone a government run start up? Woodward will be inferior for at least a generation. Additionally, you can put your head in the sand, but many mention the High FARMS rates do affect education quality. And an arts magnet is not exactly a rigorous education. There is an evident disparity between WJ and Woodward. The other more seemingly more disgusting entitlement is those who think they are entitled to a "brand new school" and have the ability to "hand pick teachers" in a government run enterprise. Talk about entitled. It looks like under option B, they maintain the status quo for broader Garrett Park and keeps as much of that area together. Other options split up more segments of that neighborhood between Woodward and WJ. Under no option is Einstein on the table. |
Anonymous
+1 Option B actually has the least “split” articulation/splitting up of schools in the entire boundary study. (Some may not know, but even today there are split articulations). GP folks acting entitled if they think they deserve brand new construction and no split articulations. Moreover, that Town of Garrett Park literally has metal barriers to blockade it from Parkside condoes, Stonybrook townhomes, White Flint Park/GP estates, and Randolph Hills…despite the Town kids going to school with those kids. Elitists want the brand new stuff. |
Anonymous
T’s and P’s to the down county poors but as a Wootton Family we are extremely happy. Keep our schools mostly white and rich, doing the good lord’s work. 
|
Anonymous
Einstein has no room for them so it’s a nonissue. Boundaries are not made by what is closer. Einstein could have room for them if they keep Woodlin and Flora together as has been heavily advocated by those communities. WJ Cluster elementary PTAs advocating for no split articulations (Garrett Park, Kensington Parkwood) are acting entitled. There will be split articulations just as there are today. Also the elementary boundary study may rectify some of this issue in a couple years. Just like PTA says that MCPs should not do program analysis or regional thing. It makes perfect sense to consider together. |
Anonymous
It is the option that keeps that neighborhood together. Fine to ask for it, but boundaries will inherently result in a line being drawn. Perhaps the line ends up as Strathmore Ave. |
Anonymous
|
If you are current WJ and get switched to Woodward, your property value will take a hit. If you are not currently WJ, and get switched to WJ your property value will go up a lot.
If you are not currently WJ, and get zoned Woodward your property value may go up a little. Purely economics, you should want WJ under the above scenarios. Nothing wrong with that. |
Anonymous
+1, but if you have a shot at Future WJ, you go with WJ. Looking at you Garrett Park. Nice signs on Strathmore. The signs just say keep both sides of the street together. Don’t live there so I don’t know but it sounded like they were fine with either school. *** Schools become part of a community. Like neighborhood gatherings, pools, sports teams, churches etc. If you’re happy with your community, of course you would want to preserve that aspect. New school is complete unknown and would have growing pains. No denying that. |
Anonymous
Agree. Just pick the option that actually keeps you together as a neighborhood. Keep it simple. Don’t try for your own perceived perfection by attempting to modify the near final options. That’s a silly strategy. The MCPS folks will just look at what bubble was selected on their form and not read content. |
Anonymous
MCPS already knows the conclusion. These public feedback this are smoke and mirrors. I agree they won’t read survey content. Flo Analytics artificial intelligence software will just sort stuff. Which MCPS will ignore. |
Anonymous
| Some school districts redraw boundaries every 10 years. That way ppl don’t feel entitled to a certain school or shocked when boundaries are redrawn to keep schools balanced in many ways. MCPS also changes boundaries a little bit when a school is added but the whole point of this boundary study is to even stuff out. No one has a claim to a public school because of past history attending it - privates offer legacy but publics absolutely do not nor should they. Boundaries need to be drawn to serve kids in the best possible way. |
Anonymous
But the regional program introduces superboundaries which render boundary studies pretty useless. |
Anonymous
And it may serve kids to maintain status quo in a community/neighnorhood. Shocking. “The whole point of this boundary study is to even stuff out.”? Where does it say that in boundary study materials. It does not. WJ was over-crowded so they built a new school. Now they will determine who continues to attend WJ, and who goes to a different school. |
Anonymous
+1 Biggest hit will be taken by families getting rezoned from WJ to Wooward. I am less concerend about property values but due to higher FARMS, less number of students and meaningless Art program will result in lack of higher level courses. |
Anonymous
+1, if WJ is an option for you, vote for that |