All the boundary options are bad for the DCC-- how do we organize against that? (Any ideas for alternative options?)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s sad that so many people are so late to understanding that the DCC is done.

The original options screwed some portions of the SCC. Where were all the Sligo/Takoma Park parents then? You ignored us because you thought you would stay at Einstein and/or continue to have choice in secondary schools.

What is the SCC?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's hard to summarize simply, but basically you need to move everyone a little counter-clockwise.

Move some of Wheaton to Woodward (and maybe some Kennedy to Wheaton if needed to relieve overcrowding at Kennedy), some of Woodward to WJ, and Kensington from WJ to Einstein.

Some portion of kennedy to Woodward.
All GP to Woodward.
Viers Mill ES to WJ
Kensington from WJ to Einstein.

it will allow Kensington to atten closer school and less bussing.
It will create WJ and Woodward at roughly equal FARMS rate.
It will also keep Enstein FARMS to go very high.

I like the Idea. It will also avoid split articualtion for GP ES.

People need to get over split articulation at the elementary level. This already happens with immersion and CES programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone wrote the following in another thread anyone have an answer?: “Do these tables have an error for Northwood's future capacity? They say it's 2,260 (including new building in 2027), but everywhere else I've seen the new building's capacity reported at 2,700.

If there is an error, then all of these options would have NW's utilization at 70-80%.”

But what’s the story there? The original plans were for 2,700… when was the decision made to scale in down by 440 seats?

If that's the case then capacity utilization should be a non-issue. Some shifting can happen to balance.

It's not the case. The 2260 number for Northwood is correct and is listed in the current MCPS CIP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone wrote the following in another thread anyone have an answer?: “Do these tables have an error for Northwood's future capacity? They say it's 2,260 (including new building in 2027), but everywhere else I've seen the new building's capacity reported at 2,700.

If there is an error, then all of these options would have NW's utilization at 70-80%.”

But what’s the story there? The original plans were for 2,700… when was the decision made to scale in down by 440 seats?

If that's the case then capacity utilization should be a non-issue. Some shifting can happen to balance.

It's not the case. The 2260 number for Northwood is correct and is listed in the current MCPS CIP.

But what’s the story there? The original plans were for 2,700… when was the decision made to scale in down by 440 seats?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone wrote the following in another thread anyone have an answer?: “Do these tables have an error for Northwood's future capacity? They say it's 2,260 (including new building in 2027), but everywhere else I've seen the new building's capacity reported at 2,700.

If there is an error, then all of these options would have NW's utilization at 70-80%.”

But what’s the story there? The original plans were for 2,700… when was the decision made to scale in down by 440 seats?

If that's the case then capacity utilization should be a non-issue. Some shifting can happen to balance.

It's not the case. The 2260 number for Northwood is correct and is listed in the current MCPS CIP.

But what’s the story there? The original plans were for 2,700… when was the decision made to scale in down by 440 seats?

I don't know man look it up

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone wrote the following in another thread anyone have an answer?: “Do these tables have an error for Northwood's future capacity? They say it's 2,260 (including new building in 2027), but everywhere else I've seen the new building's capacity reported at 2,700.

If there is an error, then all of these options would have NW's utilization at 70-80%.”

But what’s the story there? The original plans were for 2,700… when was the decision made to scale in down by 440 seats?

If that's the case then capacity utilization should be a non-issue. Some shifting can happen to balance.

It's not the case. The 2260 number for Northwood is correct and is listed in the current MCPS CIP.

But what’s the story there? The original plans were for 2,700… when was the decision made to scale in down by 440 seats?

I don't know man look it up

I tried! But I honestly couldn’t find anything. Almost everywhere you’ll see sources saying the school will hold 2700. I’d hope for more transparency behind a decision to drastically downscale a $100m+ capital project while not spending any less money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone wrote the following in another thread anyone have an answer?: “Do these tables have an error for Northwood's future capacity? They say it's 2,260 (including new building in 2027), but everywhere else I've seen the new building's capacity reported at 2,700.

If there is an error, then all of these options would have NW's utilization at 70-80%.”

But what’s the story there? The original plans were for 2,700… when was the decision made to scale in down by 440 seats?

If that's the case then capacity utilization should be a non-issue. Some shifting can happen to balance.

It's not the case. The 2260 number for Northwood is correct and is listed in the current MCPS CIP.

But what’s the story there? The original plans were for 2,700… when was the decision made to scale in down by 440 seats?

Looking at the previous master plans, it was at 2,498 here:

https://gis.mcpsmd.org/cipmasterpdfs/Archive_MP23EntireBook.pdf


But dropped to 2,260 here:

https://gis.mcpsmd.org/cipmasterpdfs/Archive_MP24EntireBook.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sargent Shriver from Wheaton to Woodward, Farmland from Woodward to WJ. Move some Kensington kids from WJ into Einstein (if that makes Einstein too overcrowded, make small tweaks like maybe keeping the Flora Singer kids together and sending them to Northwood.) Move some kids from Kennedy into Wheaton to address overcrowding if needed. Done.

I don’t disagree with any of this but good lord, the ToK families who live thisclose to Einstein would throw a fit. Why the BOE won’t stand up to them is beyond me.

All that said, thank you, OP, for starting this thread. I’ve already submitted feedback to the survey a few times and have emailed Councilmembers. I know other parents at our schools are doing the same. I’m all for a larger organizing effort - it’s infuriating that yet again, the wealthiest communities are appeased.

Those wealthy communities organized, responded, and used the forms available to advocate for what they wanted. Unlike the person above said they didn’t think it would make a difference so they didn’t bother responding. Organize and get people engaged!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s sad that so many people are so late to understanding that the DCC is done.

The original options screwed some portions of the SCC. Where were all the Sligo/Takoma Park parents then? You ignored us because you thought you would stay at Einstein and/or continue to have choice in secondary schools.

Most people are voting based on their neighborhood. I am not new to the discussion, but I’m in a DCC neighborhood that appeared untouched by the first set of options that is now scrambled in half of the “final” options. Not sure that you can reasonably expect people to get bent out of shape when it seems nothing is changing. For some of us this is a bit of a bait and switch.

[Anonymous]

Follow the money. This is corruption. Pretty obvious.

[Anonymous]

It also takes a long time to understand the impact of 4 different proposed boundary options on your own community, let alone other communities. I have no idea which other neighborhoods didn't like the initial round of options or which options they didn't like. Fwiw, I did notice in this round other DCC schools are left overcrowded while all the west county schools are under capacity and I find that pretty appalling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The DCC response rate was very low in the last survey. I hope that will change. But to me it seems like the loudest voices got their way.

Yep. So how do we become louder? They will force this on us if we're not.

You file a suit saying that you are being discriminated against and that your kids need the same school options as kids in other places in the county.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It also takes a long time to understand the impact of 4 different proposed boundary options on your own community, let alone other communities. I have no idea which other neighborhoods didn't like the initial round of options or which options they didn't like. Fwiw, I did notice in this round other DCC schools are left overcrowded while all the west county schools are under capacity and I find that pretty appalling.

Agreed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The DCC response rate was very low in the last survey. I hope that will change. But to me it seems like the loudest voices got their way.

Yep. So how do we become louder? They will force this on us if we're not.

You file a suit saying that you are being discriminated against and that your kids need the same school options as kids in other places in the county.

DP - this, and go to the media. MCPS doesn’t want a ton of negative press.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s sad that so many people are so late to understanding that the DCC is done.

The original options screwed some portions of the SCC. Where were all the Sligo/Takoma Park parents then? You ignored us because you thought you would stay at Einstein and/or continue to have choice in secondary schools.

Who are the “you” and “us” you’re talking about? Condescension isn’t helpful.

Also: we all knew the boundary study and subsequent changes were coming. What we did NOT know is that Taylor and co would spring this “regional program” BS on us at about the same time. We’re in-bounds for Einstein and if it were only the boundary changes, I could probably live with those. But those changes *and* the new regions? No. Too much. Of course we assumed we’d have choice in secondary schools - that’s been the DCC for years now. If you’re not going to be helpful, please don’t post here.