Woodward Auditorium Construction Advocacy Ahead of Monday County Council Meeting

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Northwood is getting a new and larger building. Kennedy just got a larger building. Their space will alleviate Blair's overcrowding, and probably some of Wheaton's and Einstein's. Woodward is reopening as a new building. Its space will alleviate WJ's overcrowding and probably the rest of Wheaton's and Einstein's. BCC and Whitman are in the study too to allow for additional options that may make things work better.

Look at the projections (currently to 2029-30):

WW/BCC/WJ
Capacity 6992
Enrollment 7359 (367 over capacity, or 5%)

Blair/Northwood/Kennedy
Capacity 7308
Enrollment 7302 (6 under capacity, or 0%)

Einstein/Wheaton
Capacity 3839
Enrollment 4756 (917 over capacity, or 24%)

This includes new Northwood capacity but not Woodward. And WJ has all the overage in the first set -- WW & BCC remain under capacity (and could take on some small amount of shift). And Blair has all the overage in the second set, while both Wheaton and Einstein are over in the third. This is versus current catchments.

Even to get to that enrollment = capacity for the middle three, you'd need to bus large numbers past Blair and up to Northwood, shifting some of Northwood to Kennedy. And that's with none of the overage from Einstein & Wheaton -- all that Northwood & Kennedy capacity is used already.

This means large portions of Einstein and Wheaton will need to go to Woodward or shift to BCC, presuming Woodward naturally assumes more of the existing WJ catchment than needed to alleviate WJ's overcrowding. Possibly even some of the lower Northwood and Blair catchments to even out the enrollment vs. capacity once Woodward's 2160 comes online after Northwood moves out (the additional 540 might come online in a later phase, now, if funded). That's 882 seats across 8 high schools in 2029-30, and we know that the DCC is likely to continue growing faster than WW/BCC/WJ after the current projection timeline, so there might be greater shifts than some anticipate.

Unless the Ws keep up the pressure, of course. Then we'll have the expected: overcrowded DCC and under capacity Ws, with no solution for inside-the-beltway/east of the MARC tracks.

Why is it expected that Ws will be under capacity and DCC over when Woodward is being built to relieve overcrowding at WJ AND DCC?

Isn’t that why there will be a massive boundary study involving all these schools?

Woodward is not going to be just for WJ students. Current DCC students will go there too

Given the distance it's doubtful that a lot of DCC students will go. Maybe the Town of Kensington and those more toward Rockville, but otherwise, no. Its probably the W under capacity as they are getting two new schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Northwood is getting a new and larger building. Kennedy just got a larger building. Their space will alleviate Blair's overcrowding, and probably some of Wheaton's and Einstein's. Woodward is reopening as a new building. Its space will alleviate WJ's overcrowding and probably the rest of Wheaton's and Einstein's. BCC and Whitman are in the study too to allow for additional options that may make things work better.

Look at the projections (currently to 2029-30):

WW/BCC/WJ
Capacity 6992
Enrollment 7359 (367 over capacity, or 5%)

Blair/Northwood/Kennedy
Capacity 7308
Enrollment 7302 (6 under capacity, or 0%)

Einstein/Wheaton
Capacity 3839
Enrollment 4756 (917 over capacity, or 24%)

This includes new Northwood capacity but not Woodward. And WJ has all the overage in the first set -- WW & BCC remain under capacity (and could take on some small amount of shift). And Blair has all the overage in the second set, while both Wheaton and Einstein are over in the third. This is versus current catchments.

Even to get to that enrollment = capacity for the middle three, you'd need to bus large numbers past Blair and up to Northwood, shifting some of Northwood to Kennedy. And that's with none of the overage from Einstein & Wheaton -- all that Northwood & Kennedy capacity is used already.

This means large portions of Einstein and Wheaton will need to go to Woodward or shift to BCC, presuming Woodward naturally assumes more of the existing WJ catchment than needed to alleviate WJ's overcrowding. Possibly even some of the lower Northwood and Blair catchments to even out the enrollment vs. capacity once Woodward's 2160 comes online after Northwood moves out (the additional 540 might come online in a later phase, now, if funded). That's 882 seats across 8 high schools in 2029-30, and we know that the DCC is likely to continue growing faster than WW/BCC/WJ after the current projection timeline, so there might be greater shifts than some anticipate.

Unless the Ws keep up the pressure, of course. Then we'll have the expected: overcrowded DCC and under capacity Ws, with no solution for inside-the-beltway/east of the MARC tracks.

It would make so much more sense if they would just build the addition at Einstein too.

Einstein is ancient. It needs fully replaced, not an addition. They could easily add on top.

Einstein isn't ancient. It's a year older than Blair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Northwood is getting a new and larger building. Kennedy just got a larger building. Their space will alleviate Blair's overcrowding, and probably some of Wheaton's and Einstein's. Woodward is reopening as a new building. Its space will alleviate WJ's overcrowding and probably the rest of Wheaton's and Einstein's. BCC and Whitman are in the study too to allow for additional options that may make things work better.

Look at the projections (currently to 2029-30):

WW/BCC/WJ
Capacity 6992
Enrollment 7359 (367 over capacity, or 5%)

Blair/Northwood/Kennedy
Capacity 7308
Enrollment 7302 (6 under capacity, or 0%)

Einstein/Wheaton
Capacity 3839
Enrollment 4756 (917 over capacity, or 24%)

This includes new Northwood capacity but not Woodward. And WJ has all the overage in the first set -- WW & BCC remain under capacity (and could take on some small amount of shift). And Blair has all the overage in the second set, while both Wheaton and Einstein are over in the third. This is versus current catchments.

Even to get to that enrollment = capacity for the middle three, you'd need to bus large numbers past Blair and up to Northwood, shifting some of Northwood to Kennedy. And that's with none of the overage from Einstein & Wheaton -- all that Northwood & Kennedy capacity is used already.

This means large portions of Einstein and Wheaton will need to go to Woodward or shift to BCC, presuming Woodward naturally assumes more of the existing WJ catchment than needed to alleviate WJ's overcrowding. Possibly even some of the lower Northwood and Blair catchments to even out the enrollment vs. capacity once Woodward's 2160 comes online after Northwood moves out (the additional 540 might come online in a later phase, now, if funded). That's 882 seats across 8 high schools in 2029-30, and we know that the DCC is likely to continue growing faster than WW/BCC/WJ after the current projection timeline, so there might be greater shifts than some anticipate.

Unless the Ws keep up the pressure, of course. Then we'll have the expected: overcrowded DCC and under capacity Ws, with no solution for inside-the-beltway/east of the MARC tracks.

Why is it expected that Ws will be under capacity and DCC over when Woodward is being built to relieve overcrowding at WJ AND DCC?

Isn’t that why there will be a massive boundary study involving all these schools?

Woodward is not going to be just for WJ students. Current DCC students will go there too

Given the distance it's doubtful that a lot of DCC students will go. Maybe the Town of Kensington and those more toward Rockville, but otherwise, no. Its probably the W under capacity as they are getting two new schools.

It'll be like dominoes. For example, you move a lot of WJ and some of Wheaton to Woodward, some of Whitman to WJ, some of BCC to Whitman, some of Einstein to BCC, some of Einstein to Northwood, some of Blair to Northwood, some of Northwood to Kennedy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Northwood is getting a new and larger building. Kennedy just got a larger building. Their space will alleviate Blair's overcrowding, and probably some of Wheaton's and Einstein's. Woodward is reopening as a new building. Its space will alleviate WJ's overcrowding and probably the rest of Wheaton's and Einstein's. BCC and Whitman are in the study too to allow for additional options that may make things work better.

Look at the projections (currently to 2029-30):

WW/BCC/WJ
Capacity 6992
Enrollment 7359 (367 over capacity, or 5%)

Blair/Northwood/Kennedy
Capacity 7308
Enrollment 7302 (6 under capacity, or 0%)

Einstein/Wheaton
Capacity 3839
Enrollment 4756 (917 over capacity, or 24%)

This includes new Northwood capacity but not Woodward. And WJ has all the overage in the first set -- WW & BCC remain under capacity (and could take on some small amount of shift). And Blair has all the overage in the second set, while both Wheaton and Einstein are over in the third. This is versus current catchments.

Even to get to that enrollment = capacity for the middle three, you'd need to bus large numbers past Blair and up to Northwood, shifting some of Northwood to Kennedy. And that's with none of the overage from Einstein & Wheaton -- all that Northwood & Kennedy capacity is used already.

This means large portions of Einstein and Wheaton will need to go to Woodward or shift to BCC, presuming Woodward naturally assumes more of the existing WJ catchment than needed to alleviate WJ's overcrowding. Possibly even some of the lower Northwood and Blair catchments to even out the enrollment vs. capacity once Woodward's 2160 comes online after Northwood moves out (the additional 540 might come online in a later phase, now, if funded). That's 882 seats across 8 high schools in 2029-30, and we know that the DCC is likely to continue growing faster than WW/BCC/WJ after the current projection timeline, so there might be greater shifts than some anticipate.

Unless the Ws keep up the pressure, of course. Then we'll have the expected: overcrowded DCC and under capacity Ws, with no solution for inside-the-beltway/east of the MARC tracks.

Why is it expected that Ws will be under capacity and DCC over when Woodward is being built to relieve overcrowding at WJ AND DCC?

Isn’t that why there will be a massive boundary study involving all these schools?

Woodward is not going to be just for WJ students. Current DCC students will go there too

It's about that "don't send those students over here" influence that has WW folks trying to keep out of the study altogether (they don't want the hoi polloi from BCC), the BCC folks trying to limit any consequent shift from Silver Spring and the WJ folks on the Woodward side saying, "Sure, maybe nicer parts of Kensingson, but not further over -- they're much closer to Einstein and Wheaton so they should stay there!" in the face of the prospect of larger swaths of those catchments being shifted to be with them. And then there's the prospect of a broader or reconfigured consortium arrangement that might result from all of that.

MCPS, for its part, has been swayed in the past by such influence (e.g., BCC being "saved" from being part of the original DCC, with focus shifting more north-south than east-west). It also has walked back rhetoric that brought Woodward reopening to the table in the first place, initially more broadly inclusive of handling DCC overcrowding, then more limited, with thoughts that DCC-area draw to an eventual magnet at Woodward might be all they would implement. (That might get placed elsewhere, now, with the last Woodward phase in jeopardy, or abandoned altogether.)

We'll have to see, given the numbers, but if past is prologue, then the expected might be as above.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Northwood is getting a new and larger building. Kennedy just got a larger building. Their space will alleviate Blair's overcrowding, and probably some of Wheaton's and Einstein's. Woodward is reopening as a new building. Its space will alleviate WJ's overcrowding and probably the rest of Wheaton's and Einstein's. BCC and Whitman are in the study too to allow for additional options that may make things work better.

Look at the projections (currently to 2029-30):

WW/BCC/WJ
Capacity 6992
Enrollment 7359 (367 over capacity, or 5%)

Blair/Northwood/Kennedy
Capacity 7308
Enrollment 7302 (6 under capacity, or 0%)

Einstein/Wheaton
Capacity 3839
Enrollment 4756 (917 over capacity, or 24%)

This includes new Northwood capacity but not Woodward. And WJ has all the overage in the first set -- WW & BCC remain under capacity (and could take on some small amount of shift). And Blair has all the overage in the second set, while both Wheaton and Einstein are over in the third. This is versus current catchments.

Even to get to that enrollment = capacity for the middle three, you'd need to bus large numbers past Blair and up to Northwood, shifting some of Northwood to Kennedy. And that's with none of the overage from Einstein & Wheaton -- all that Northwood & Kennedy capacity is used already.

This means large portions of Einstein and Wheaton will need to go to Woodward or shift to BCC, presuming Woodward naturally assumes more of the existing WJ catchment than needed to alleviate WJ's overcrowding. Possibly even some of the lower Northwood and Blair catchments to even out the enrollment vs. capacity once Woodward's 2160 comes online after Northwood moves out (the additional 540 might come online in a later phase, now, if funded). That's 882 seats across 8 high schools in 2029-30, and we know that the DCC is likely to continue growing faster than WW/BCC/WJ after the current projection timeline, so there might be greater shifts than some anticipate.

Unless the Ws keep up the pressure, of course. Then we'll have the expected: overcrowded DCC and under capacity Ws, with no solution for inside-the-beltway/east of the MARC tracks.

It would make so much more sense if they would just build the addition at Einstein too.

Einstein is ancient. It needs fully replaced, not an addition. They could easily add on top.

Einstein isn't ancient. It's a year older than Blair.

Have you been in Einstein and Blair to actually compare the two? Einstein was built in the 1960s and renovated in the early/mid 90s. The renovation mainly included adding on a new gym. There are lots of spaces in that school that indeed look ancient. The auditorium and performance spaces (like band room) have not been touched since the 1960s. The cafeteria was never enlarged. Blair had an entire new building built in 1998. Nobody would walk around these two schools and think Einstein was built at the same time as Blair. Newport Mill is even more embarassing than Einstein. It is just a FU to all of us zoned to Rockview/Newport Mill/Einstein.

[Anonymous]

^^ there's always an oldest school, and then it gets renovated (see Gaithersburg HS, Paintbranch HS, Senaca Valley HS ), and then those are the newest. Soon there will be 3 newly renovated HSs (Northwood, Woodward and Crown), and then it'll be another school's turn

Of those 6 new HSs listed, only one is a W

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Northwood is getting a new and larger building. Kennedy just got a larger building. Their space will alleviate Blair's overcrowding, and probably some of Wheaton's and Einstein's. Woodward is reopening as a new building. Its space will alleviate WJ's overcrowding and probably the rest of Wheaton's and Einstein's. BCC and Whitman are in the study too to allow for additional options that may make things work better.

Look at the projections (currently to 2029-30):

WW/BCC/WJ
Capacity 6992
Enrollment 7359 (367 over capacity, or 5%)

Blair/Northwood/Kennedy
Capacity 7308
Enrollment 7302 (6 under capacity, or 0%)

Einstein/Wheaton
Capacity 3839
Enrollment 4756 (917 over capacity, or 24%)

This includes new Northwood capacity but not Woodward. And WJ has all the overage in the first set -- WW & BCC remain under capacity (and could take on some small amount of shift). And Blair has all the overage in the second set, while both Wheaton and Einstein are over in the third. This is versus current catchments.

Even to get to that enrollment = capacity for the middle three, you'd need to bus large numbers past Blair and up to Northwood, shifting some of Northwood to Kennedy. And that's with none of the overage from Einstein & Wheaton -- all that Northwood & Kennedy capacity is used already.

This means large portions of Einstein and Wheaton will need to go to Woodward or shift to BCC, presuming Woodward naturally assumes more of the existing WJ catchment than needed to alleviate WJ's overcrowding. Possibly even some of the lower Northwood and Blair catchments to even out the enrollment vs. capacity once Woodward's 2160 comes online after Northwood moves out (the additional 540 might come online in a later phase, now, if funded). That's 882 seats across 8 high schools in 2029-30, and we know that the DCC is likely to continue growing faster than WW/BCC/WJ after the current projection timeline, so there might be greater shifts than some anticipate.

Unless the Ws keep up the pressure, of course. Then we'll have the expected: overcrowded DCC and under capacity Ws, with no solution for inside-the-beltway/east of the MARC tracks.

It would make so much more sense if they would just build the addition at Einstein too.

Einstein is ancient. It needs fully replaced, not an addition. They could easily add on top.

Einstein isn't ancient. It's a year older than Blair.

Have you been in Einstein and Blair to actually compare the two? Einstein was built in the 1960s and renovated in the early/mid 90s. The renovation mainly included adding on a new gym. There are lots of spaces in that school that indeed look ancient. The auditorium and performance spaces (like band room) have not been touched since the 1960s. The cafeteria was never enlarged. Blair had an entire new building built in 1998. Nobody would walk around these two schools and think Einstein was built at the same time as Blair. Newport Mill is even more embarassing than Einstein. It is just a FU to all of us zoned to Rockview/Newport Mill/Einstein.

Einstein's renovation was in 1997.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Northwood is getting a new and larger building. Kennedy just got a larger building. Their space will alleviate Blair's overcrowding, and probably some of Wheaton's and Einstein's. Woodward is reopening as a new building. Its space will alleviate WJ's overcrowding and probably the rest of Wheaton's and Einstein's. BCC and Whitman are in the study too to allow for additional options that may make things work better.

Look at the projections (currently to 2029-30):

WW/BCC/WJ
Capacity 6992
Enrollment 7359 (367 over capacity, or 5%)

Blair/Northwood/Kennedy
Capacity 7308
Enrollment 7302 (6 under capacity, or 0%)

Einstein/Wheaton
Capacity 3839
Enrollment 4756 (917 over capacity, or 24%)

This includes new Northwood capacity but not Woodward. And WJ has all the overage in the first set -- WW & BCC remain under capacity (and could take on some small amount of shift). And Blair has all the overage in the second set, while both Wheaton and Einstein are over in the third. This is versus current catchments.

Even to get to that enrollment = capacity for the middle three, you'd need to bus large numbers past Blair and up to Northwood, shifting some of Northwood to Kennedy. And that's with none of the overage from Einstein & Wheaton -- all that Northwood & Kennedy capacity is used already.

This means large portions of Einstein and Wheaton will need to go to Woodward or shift to BCC, presuming Woodward naturally assumes more of the existing WJ catchment than needed to alleviate WJ's overcrowding. Possibly even some of the lower Northwood and Blair catchments to even out the enrollment vs. capacity once Woodward's 2160 comes online after Northwood moves out (the additional 540 might come online in a later phase, now, if funded). That's 882 seats across 8 high schools in 2029-30, and we know that the DCC is likely to continue growing faster than WW/BCC/WJ after the current projection timeline, so there might be greater shifts than some anticipate.

Unless the Ws keep up the pressure, of course. Then we'll have the expected: overcrowded DCC and under capacity Ws, with no solution for inside-the-beltway/east of the MARC tracks.

Why is it expected that Ws will be under capacity and DCC over when Woodward is being built to relieve overcrowding at WJ AND DCC?

Isn’t that why there will be a massive boundary study involving all these schools?

Woodward is not going to be just for WJ students. Current DCC students will go there too

It's about that "don't send those students over here" influence that has WW folks trying to keep out of the study altogether (they don't want the hoi polloi from BCC), the BCC folks trying to limit any consequent shift from Silver Spring and the WJ folks on the Woodward side saying, "Sure, maybe nicer parts of Kensingson, but not further over -- they're much closer to Einstein and Wheaton so they should stay there!" in the face of the prospect of larger swaths of those catchments being shifted to be with them. And then there's the prospect of a broader or reconfigured consortium arrangement that might result from all of that.

MCPS, for its part, has been swayed in the past by such influence (e.g., BCC being "saved" from being part of the original DCC, with focus shifting more north-south than east-west). It also has walked back rhetoric that brought Woodward reopening to the table in the first place, initially more broadly inclusive of handling DCC overcrowding, then more limited, with thoughts that DCC-area draw to an eventual magnet at Woodward might be all they would implement. (That might get placed elsewhere, now, with the last Woodward phase in jeopardy, or abandoned altogether.)

We'll have to see, given the numbers, but if past is prologue, then the expected might be as above.

Citation needed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^ there's always an oldest school, and then it gets renovated (see Gaithersburg HS, Paintbranch HS, Senaca Valley HS ), and then those are the newest. Soon there will be 3 newly renovated HSs (Northwood, Woodward and Crown), and then it'll be another school's turn

Of those 6 new HSs listed, only one is a W

It remains to be seen whether Woodward will be a W like Whitman or just have a name that starts with W. It’s not off to a good start, having had its construction budget cut twice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ there's always an oldest school, and then it gets renovated (see Gaithersburg HS, Paintbranch HS, Senaca Valley HS ), and then those are the newest. Soon there will be 3 newly renovated HSs (Northwood, Woodward and Crown), and then it'll be another school's turn

Of those 6 new HSs listed, only one is a W

It remains to be seen whether Woodward will be a W like Whitman or just have a name that starts with W. It’s not off to a good start, having had its construction budget cut twice.

That's the main thing people are concerned with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^ there's always an oldest school, and then it gets renovated (see Gaithersburg HS, Paintbranch HS, Senaca Valley HS ), and then those are the newest. Soon there will be 3 newly renovated HSs (Northwood, Woodward and Crown), and then it'll be another school's turn

Of those 6 new HSs listed, only one is a W

The type/extent of renovation matters. Crown, Woodward and Northwood all will be new buildings. Blair was a new building in the late 90s. As PP stated, Einstien has a marker in the CIP that says renovated in the 90s (completed 97, per the other post), but it was far from the overhaul that would have made it reasonably comparable to then-newer buildings in the facilities/services it provided to that school's community.

Schools like that are not the newest, they just have a few new parts. It's like outfitting an old car with replacements only for the things most in need (alternator, tires, wipers, muffler, battery etc.). You can't then sell it as a new car.

The extent to which MCPS chooses a light overhaul vs. a full overhaul (like a classic car might be fully refurbished for an auto show) or complete reconstruction/new school can tell the story of preference, if any. The PP was noting that the table in the CIP that indicates date constructed/renovated can be misleading, as is the case for Einstein (and many others).

MCPS does not include the detail that would allow the BOE or others to discern the actual state (the condition report is the closest thing, and that is both limited and of questionalble relative accuracy among schools). That isn't an easy task, especially across so many schools, but having only the one piece of data allows for glossing over of relative condition when presenting their prioritizations (or discussing them here).

[Anonymous]

I'm an Einstein parent and I have no issues with the age or overall condition of the building. It's noticeably better than other MCPS buildings I've seen. I would like there to be a sizable addition, however, to eliminate the 15 portable classrooms currently in use.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Northwood is getting a new and larger building. Kennedy just got a larger building. Their space will alleviate Blair's overcrowding, and probably some of Wheaton's and Einstein's. Woodward is reopening as a new building. Its space will alleviate WJ's overcrowding and probably the rest of Wheaton's and Einstein's. BCC and Whitman are in the study too to allow for additional options that may make things work better.

Look at the projections (currently to 2029-30):

WW/BCC/WJ
Capacity 6992
Enrollment 7359 (367 over capacity, or 5%)

Blair/Northwood/Kennedy
Capacity 7308
Enrollment 7302 (6 under capacity, or 0%)

Einstein/Wheaton
Capacity 3839
Enrollment 4756 (917 over capacity, or 24%)

This includes new Northwood capacity but not Woodward. And WJ has all the overage in the first set -- WW & BCC remain under capacity (and could take on some small amount of shift). And Blair has all the overage in the second set, while both Wheaton and Einstein are over in the third. This is versus current catchments.

Even to get to that enrollment = capacity for the middle three, you'd need to bus large numbers past Blair and up to Northwood, shifting some of Northwood to Kennedy. And that's with none of the overage from Einstein & Wheaton -- all that Northwood & Kennedy capacity is used already.

This means large portions of Einstein and Wheaton will need to go to Woodward or shift to BCC, presuming Woodward naturally assumes more of the existing WJ catchment than needed to alleviate WJ's overcrowding. Possibly even some of the lower Northwood and Blair catchments to even out the enrollment vs. capacity once Woodward's 2160 comes online after Northwood moves out (the additional 540 might come online in a later phase, now, if funded). That's 882 seats across 8 high schools in 2029-30, and we know that the DCC is likely to continue growing faster than WW/BCC/WJ after the current projection timeline, so there might be greater shifts than some anticipate.

Unless the Ws keep up the pressure, of course. Then we'll have the expected: overcrowded DCC and under capacity Ws, with no solution for inside-the-beltway/east of the MARC tracks.

Why is it expected that Ws will be under capacity and DCC over when Woodward is being built to relieve overcrowding at WJ AND DCC?

Isn’t that why there will be a massive boundary study involving all these schools?

Woodward is not going to be just for WJ students. Current DCC students will go there too

It's about that "don't send those students over here" influence that has WW folks trying to keep out of the study altogether (they don't want the hoi polloi from BCC), the BCC folks trying to limit any consequent shift from Silver Spring and the WJ folks on the Woodward side saying, "Sure, maybe nicer parts of Kensingson, but not further over -- they're much closer to Einstein and Wheaton so they should stay there!" in the face of the prospect of larger swaths of those catchments being shifted to be with them. And then there's the prospect of a broader or reconfigured consortium arrangement that might result from all of that.

MCPS, for its part, has been swayed in the past by such influence (e.g., BCC being "saved" from being part of the original DCC, with focus shifting more north-south than east-west). It also has walked back rhetoric that brought Woodward reopening to the table in the first place, initially more broadly inclusive of handling DCC overcrowding, then more limited, with thoughts that DCC-area draw to an eventual magnet at Woodward might be all they would implement. (That might get placed elsewhere, now, with the last Woodward phase in jeopardy, or abandoned altogether.)

We'll have to see, given the numbers, but if past is prologue, then the expected might be as above.

Citation needed.

Yes, it's misleading to say that since Woodward isn't even in the DCC or near it. It would make almost no sense to bus DCC kids crosscounty. There are much easier solutions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Northwood is getting a new and larger building. Kennedy just got a larger building. Their space will alleviate Blair's overcrowding, and probably some of Wheaton's and Einstein's. Woodward is reopening as a new building. Its space will alleviate WJ's overcrowding and probably the rest of Wheaton's and Einstein's. BCC and Whitman are in the study too to allow for additional options that may make things work better.

Look at the projections (currently to 2029-30):

WW/BCC/WJ
Capacity 6992
Enrollment 7359 (367 over capacity, or 5%)

Blair/Northwood/Kennedy
Capacity 7308
Enrollment 7302 (6 under capacity, or 0%)

Einstein/Wheaton
Capacity 3839
Enrollment 4756 (917 over capacity, or 24%)

This includes new Northwood capacity but not Woodward. And WJ has all the overage in the first set -- WW & BCC remain under capacity (and could take on some small amount of shift). And Blair has all the overage in the second set, while both Wheaton and Einstein are over in the third. This is versus current catchments.

Even to get to that enrollment = capacity for the middle three, you'd need to bus large numbers past Blair and up to Northwood, shifting some of Northwood to Kennedy. And that's with none of the overage from Einstein & Wheaton -- all that Northwood & Kennedy capacity is used already.

This means large portions of Einstein and Wheaton will need to go to Woodward or shift to BCC, presuming Woodward naturally assumes more of the existing WJ catchment than needed to alleviate WJ's overcrowding. Possibly even some of the lower Northwood and Blair catchments to even out the enrollment vs. capacity once Woodward's 2160 comes online after Northwood moves out (the additional 540 might come online in a later phase, now, if funded). That's 882 seats across 8 high schools in 2029-30, and we know that the DCC is likely to continue growing faster than WW/BCC/WJ after the current projection timeline, so there might be greater shifts than some anticipate.

Unless the Ws keep up the pressure, of course. Then we'll have the expected: overcrowded DCC and under capacity Ws, with no solution for inside-the-beltway/east of the MARC tracks.

Why is it expected that Ws will be under capacity and DCC over when Woodward is being built to relieve overcrowding at WJ AND DCC?

Isn’t that why there will be a massive boundary study involving all these schools?

Woodward is not going to be just for WJ students. Current DCC students will go there too

It's about that "don't send those students over here" influence that has WW folks trying to keep out of the study altogether (they don't want the hoi polloi from BCC), the BCC folks trying to limit any consequent shift from Silver Spring and the WJ folks on the Woodward side saying, "Sure, maybe nicer parts of Kensingson, but not further over -- they're much closer to Einstein and Wheaton so they should stay there!" in the face of the prospect of larger swaths of those catchments being shifted to be with them. And then there's the prospect of a broader or reconfigured consortium arrangement that might result from all of that.

MCPS, for its part, has been swayed in the past by such influence (e.g., BCC being "saved" from being part of the original DCC, with focus shifting more north-south than east-west). It also has walked back rhetoric that brought Woodward reopening to the table in the first place, initially more broadly inclusive of handling DCC overcrowding, then more limited, with thoughts that DCC-area draw to an eventual magnet at Woodward might be all they would implement. (That might get placed elsewhere, now, with the last Woodward phase in jeopardy, or abandoned altogether.)

We'll have to see, given the numbers, but if past is prologue, then the expected might be as above.

Citation needed.

Yes, it's misleading to say that since Woodward isn't even in the DCC or near it. It would make almost no sense to bus DCC kids crosscounty. There are much easier solutions.

Woodward is literally adjacent to the DCC. But continue to live in your fantasy land of "easier solutions". We bus tons of kids "crosscounty" already. What's a few more?

[Anonymous]

DP. WJ is literally adjacent to the DCC. Woodward has no boundaries yet, so isn't adjacent to anything yet.