Second round options for Woodward boundary study
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Intentioanally concentrating poverty in one school when they are less than a mile is just poor job by cosultants. I am not aware of make up of WJ PTA and if they come from mainly from future WJ or future Woodward area. I am also not sure how much influence they have, In general WJ PTA used to be very well organized. |
Anonymous
| Looks like Woodward is in Region 3 with WJ, Wheaton and Kennedy. Is there a link for which school offers which programs? |
Anonymous
Yes, but Taylor said that’s fluid based on student interest. Then he laughed at Julie Yang about how they would both be gone b fire it was time to move programs to different schools. Remember that these “programs” are just code for the illusion of access to 4 sequential electives. The whole plan is built on the assumption that most kids will attend their home school. They are just ignoring things like Thrive 2050 that concentrate high density housing in already ff dense housing areas. I thought the whole point of the consortiums was to make it easy to keep the schools equally filled. |
Anonymous
The existing consortia never kept schools equally filled. |
Anonymous
|
WJ is overcrowded because of all the new building in the area, which hasn't stopped. I think for once they did something in a good way, because otherwise WJ would be overcrowded again, quickly.
Why has no one mentioned the overcrowded planned for Kennedy, in all 4 options? In the program analysis, WJ is not intended as a STEM school, its a humanities school, with rare foreign language (rare isn't the right word, but Im not taking the time to look up what is). And starting so under capacity, I dont think WJ will become the great STEM hub you all think it will. |
Anonymous
| They are not ignoring Thrive. That’s why WJ and Woodward have lower capacities to start - to accommodate all the new building going in (I assume!) |
Anonymous
Why have public engagement if they just present stuff without context? If they are considering factors like the development pipeline that might be good to be transparent about. |
Anonymous
| I’m tired so apologies for not looking this up myself but what is the current FARM rate atWJ vs proposed FARM rate? I love the diversity at WJ and hope that it doesn’t go away. |
Anonymous
| This link has my address in a different zone than all of the information that our PTAs have linked to today… I have an 8th grader and really want to know what happens to busing when/if he can stay in his *current* school which isn’t likely to be our home school once Woodward opens. |
Anonymous
This doc says 20% https://mdstudentcouncils.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/FARMS-MD-DATA-2024-2025.pdf |
Anonymous
It looks like this is due to load balancing between Kennedy and Wheaton, which are in the same region, as Wheaton was SEVERELY overutilized in the first set of options (some of them had Wheaton at 120% utilization). But I have a feeling Wheaton families are not going to like losing access to Wheaton for Kennedy, whose building is not as new or nice as Wheaton. Also, it's interesting the disparity for Kennedy in terms of actual '25-'26 enrollment and resident students within bounds. I think that means Kennedy is losing anywhere up to about 300 students to other DCC schools, and maybe some countywide programs. Is that read right? |
Anonymous
| The articulation chart for my address does not match the map. |
Anonymous
If he will be a 10th grader in fall 2027, 10th graders are typically required to change schools to the new boundaries. You usually have to be an 11th or 12th grader to be allowed to stay at the school where you started HS. (Although if you are in the DCC I believe they have said they are making an exception and you will be able to continue in your DCC school all 4 years.) |
Anonymous
That's a good catch about Kennedy, thanks for flagging. I suspect it's because they assume that many families in Kennedy boundaries will find various ways to not actually attend and so it won't actually end up over-capacity, but it's still not right. |
Anonymous
|
Can anyone provide a meaningful explanation of the differences between the 4 options? We have gone from 4 extremely different and bewildering options in round 1 to a set of 4 options that are so similar they are difficult to tell apart in round 2.
I found the consultants recitation of the same talking points over and over today completely unhelpful. I also felt it was a glaring omission to not summarize the feedback they heard in the last round and to not explain how they refined these options and why certain factors got priority over others (eg clearly proximity was what they were going for). It’s not a transparent process if they don’t share any context for how their thinking and decision making have evolved. While I certainly think this round of options is much better, it makes you wonder why there is such a disconnect between the first set of options and this set of options, and if they planned to end up here all along. And I also wonder about the widespread split articulation in all of the new options, when a consistent piece of feedback in the Zoom feedback sessions across pretty much every school was that people wanted to avoid split articulation. And yes, they will eventually do an elementary school boundary study. I’ve heard from parents who have heard Julie Yang say this. MCPS has significant overcrowding at some elementary schools (like Ashburton and Bethesda) and tons of open seats in others. It seems it would have been more effective for them to do the elementary, middle and high school boundary changes all together, but it seems they kicked the elementary can down the road for now. |