Second round options for Woodward boundary study

[Anonymous]

I prefer Option A. Least amount of split articulations across all schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Entitled GP folks actually saying “WJ is in GP DNA” - they are absolutely trying to be zoned to WJ despite the fact Einstein is a full *MILE* closer to them

Woodward will be inferior to WJ, Whitman, BCC, Chirchill, RM, Wootton and many more HS when it comes to higher level courses.

Current WJ > Future WJ >> Woodward

---------------------------

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.

+1 We saw this with our boundary study when a new school opened in our cluster a few years ago. The new one has lovely new facilities and it had an enthusiastic starter staff, but everything needed to be built up/established and the other existing school, which ended up with lower FARMS rates, is noticeably stronger. That dynamic starter staff has almost entirely moved on.

[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:If you think Woodward won’t have AP classes, and a lot of them, then you know nothing of the families in the areas likely to be part of the Woodward cluster (based on current options).

it wont have as many as IB/AP as BCC, Churchill, Whitman, Blair.... heck, even Wheaton since it will be STEM

Woodward will be inferior to WJ, Whitman, BCC, Chirchill, RM, Wootton and many more HS when it comes to higher level courses.

It's not about what students or families want, it's about having enough numbers to offer higher level courses. With combination of smaller size, high FARMS ES, Art magnet and encouragement for STEM kids to leave Woodward to attend other HS, Woodward will be left with very few students who want to take higher level courses. When HS has 3-4 factors working agasint them, it is going to be hard.

What exactly makes you think that Woodward students will leave Woodward and neighborhood friends etc to attend Wheaton or Kennedy?

Currently WJ kids leave WJ to have better oppurtunities.

Kennedy is unlikely to attract anyone but many high achieving kids from Woodward will opt for WJ( in general) and Wheaton( for Stem).

WJ students have most everything. No one is going to choose Kennedy.

Even Woodward students are not likely to chose Kenneddy, but Woodward students will be forced to go outside HS or MC for higher level courses.

They can get the classes at MC or go to WJ or another local school if they provide their own transportation. They will still have far more than what our kids get. Woodward will probably be more like WJ.

Woodward will have twice the FARMS comapred to WJ and a meanigless Art program in it. No way both schools will be the same. Even WJ will lose some high level courses.

Current WJ > Future WJ >> Woodward

+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.

Guess you are missing the "WALTER JOHNSON" signs suggesting folks select Option B.

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.

https://www.canva.com/design/DAG4CVjo4nY/tt9GFMAdCmuHguJtxoDsMA/view?utm_content=DAG4CVjo4nY&utm_campaign=designshare&utm_medium=link2&utm_source=uniquelinks&utlId=h3368c71889

These entitled GP folks should count their blessings they have B/WJ as an option. They really think they can get a brand new school and pick which segments of their tiny town go to it by modifying A?

We Einstein folks have options that are less than ideal. I actually think B is good for us too for the articulation point. But none of them are drastic changes since we keep same HS in my neck of the woods

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

+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.

Yah, it will take 1-2 years for prices to adjust for Luxmanor/Old Farm area losing WJ. Some buyers already know it but some don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I prefer Option A. Least amount of split articulations across all schools.

That’s not true. It’s actually B for the broader MCPS community. The delta between the current split articulations to possible new split articulations in entire county is the LEASt with option B. I’m not speaking for any particular neighborhood. But option B is most equitable for the camp that cares about split articulations in the broader community. Not just their block

[Anonymous]

All options have pros and cons for different areas, but over all I like Option A.

[Anonymous]

Option A for me as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

But the regional program introduces superboundaries which render boundary studies pretty useless.

Yeah they are creating an actual problem by locking themselves into these regional superboundaries, especially since they didn’t include all high schools in this study and also because they didn’t include elementary schools.

[Anonymous]

D for me. I’m in Randolph hills and it gets me WJ. Woodward otherwise and I don’t want those growing pains. Glad to be out of DCC though

[Anonymous]

B for me. Least split articulation and better school.

[Anonymous]

It's hard to have an opinion about this anymore for those of us affected by the proposed SSIMS closure. Waiting on those edits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Entitled GP folks actually saying “WJ is in GP DNA” - they are absolutely trying to be zoned to WJ despite the fact Einstein is a full *MILE* closer to them

Woodward will be inferior to WJ, Whitman, BCC, Chirchill, RM, Wootton and many more HS when it comes to higher level courses.

Current WJ > Future WJ >> Woodward

---------------------------

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.

+2 credibility lost well before “too infinity and beyond”. Very entitled to new construction

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Entitled GP folks actually saying “WJ is in GP DNA” - they are absolutely trying to be zoned to WJ despite the fact Einstein is a full *MILE* closer to them

Woodward will be inferior to WJ, Whitman, BCC, Chirchill, RM, Wootton and many more HS when it comes to higher level courses.

Current WJ > Future WJ >> Woodward

---------------------------

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.

+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.

The “nuclear free zone” does in fact have metal barriers. They’re the same folks opposed to building a wall…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I prefer Option A. Least amount of split articulations across all schools.

That’s not true. It’s actually B for the broader MCPS community. The delta between the current split articulations to possible new split articulations in entire county is the LEASt with option B. I’m not speaking for any particular neighborhood. But option B is most equitable for the camp that cares about split articulations in the broader community. Not just their block

+1 that is true.

A = 20 splits; 42 no splits
B= 16 splits; 46 no splits
C= 22 splits; 40 no splits
D=20 splits; 42 no splits

currently there are about a 10-12 splits.

if you are opposed to split articulation, B does the the least "damage" boundary-study-wide.

also, looking at the data more closely, B does a better job generally keeping schools with less drastic splits. i think the elemtnary study will lower this further.

it would be equitable to advocate for B if you are in the "no splits" camp

personally, split articulation doesn't seem like a major issue and shouldn't be given much weight by those making the decision. ignore the PTAs crying about it.

[Anonymous]

Voted A.