Thurs Feb 5: Board Work Session

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Current VM family and we are pleased. We would rather be in Woodward than WJ

I am curious why. With this new map, I struggle to see a single advantage of being in Woodward than being in WJ. Maybe I am missing something.

We are in VM. I will pick WJ over Woodward.

In fact, if FARMS are evens out, I will be equally fine with both. Both are same distance so nothing to see there for us.

[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:Anything controversial in the Woodward recommendations? I personally like it for our neighborhood, but curious if there's any hot-button changes included.

I think split articulating Garrett Park and Kensington-Parkwood is going to generate a lot of opposition. There is also a ton of split articulation for Wheaton and Kennedy feeder schools. What I find weird is they do all this split articulation, and Woodward's FARMS rate ends up more than double that of Walter Johnson. That's insane to me for high schools that are so close to each other. Viers Mill ES should be zoned to WJ, not Woodward.

+1

Woodward and WJ should be getting one high FARMS ES each. Putting 2 in one and zero ion another makes no sense then both HS are less than mile apart. Ceoncentrating poverty should be avoided whenver it's possible.

Taylor is MAGA so he is against diversity, equity and inclusion. He uses the word equity a lot, but it is performative and it is clear in the way he uses it that he doesn't know what that word means and/or doesn't care.

I don't know him, but this makes no sense to me. it was a low hanging fruit to put one high FARMS ES each in Woodward and WJ. Not very complicated unless WJ PTA lobbied to make WJ Whitman 2.0 and got this result.

I am neither in Woodward nor in WJ but this jumps out. Putting 35% FARMS in new school is poor start specially given special program is also not much to do with academics. Worst possible combination of FARMS and program out of all choices.

But just picture this. Now, a BOE member gets to bravely stand up for equity by proposing moving Veirs Mill to Walter Johnson. The rest of the BOE gets to bravely vote in favor of this. All without impacting property values in the Town of Kensington. Yang and Silvestre will campaign on their bravery in their runs for Council.

It may not work as you are imagining and recommended option is liklely to be approved. There is no Woodward PTA to advocate for Woodward.

Does Viers Mill ES want to go to WJ?

The WJ PTA has not taken a position on any particular option.

I am in VM and love to be assinged to WJ. I don't see why one any one will object. It;s not like WJ and Woodward are far apar. They are next to each opther on same road less than mile.

Same! And same! I think it would solve some of the remaining problems with this option

Viers Mill to WJ and who to Woodward? All of KP?

All KP to Woodward to avoid split articulation in KP. It should satisfy "don't split our kids and keep community together crowd" satisfied.

Where do you see Viers Mill at WJ? I see Viers Mill assigned to Woodward:
https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DQZPBR63DB92/$file/Supt%20Rec%20Woodward%20Northwood%20HS%20Map%20260205.pdf

I am not the PP, but he meant shifting entire GP or KP to Woodward and VM to WJ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also interested in seeing the data charts swapping VM with either KP or GP. Why would they concentrate poverty in one school when they could easily make an adjustment to align more closely with their equity goal? It makes no sense given their stated priorities. Unless they actually want to create another Whitman as a way of keeping wealthier families in MCPS.

But will the current WJ families that are being rezoned to Woodward stay if it ends up being a high need school?

What is this “high need” at Woodward?! MCPS has about a 50% farms rate overall. Let’s live in the real world here.

County could be 5% FARMS or 80% FARMS. Both will not be relavant in this discussion.

MCPS can create two schools around 20% FARMS instead of one with 35% and one with 15% when they are right next to each other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also interested in seeing the data charts swapping VM with either KP or GP. Why would they concentrate poverty in one school when they could easily make an adjustment to align more closely with their equity goal? It makes no sense given their stated priorities. Unless they actually want to create another Whitman as a way of keeping wealthier families in MCPS.

But will the current WJ families that are being rezoned to Woodward stay if it ends up being a high need school?

Do the WJ families staying at WJ have more political connections and influence then the WJ families going to Woodward? I don't know much about that part of the county but could be a possibility.

Yes, they have. Far more wealthy portion over all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also interested in seeing the data charts swapping VM with either KP or GP. Why would they concentrate poverty in one school when they could easily make an adjustment to align more closely with their equity goal? It makes no sense given their stated priorities. Unless they actually want to create another Whitman as a way of keeping wealthier families in MCPS.

But will the current WJ families that are being rezoned to Woodward stay if it ends up being a high need school?

What is this “high need” at Woodward?! MCPS has about a 50% farms rate overall. Let’s live in the real world here.

County could be 5% FARMS or 80% FARMS. Both will not be relavant in this discussion.

MCPS can create two schools around 20% FARMS instead of one with 35% and one with 15% when they are right next to each other.

none of the options a-g have the two schools at about 20

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also interested in seeing the data charts swapping VM with either KP or GP. Why would they concentrate poverty in one school when they could easily make an adjustment to align more closely with their equity goal? It makes no sense given their stated priorities. Unless they actually want to create another Whitman as a way of keeping wealthier families in MCPS.

But will the current WJ families that are being rezoned to Woodward stay if it ends up being a high need school?

What is this “high need” at Woodward?! MCPS has about a 50% farms rate overall. Let’s live in the real world here.

County could be 5% FARMS or 80% FARMS. Both will not be relavant in this discussion.

MCPS can create two schools around 20% FARMS instead of one with 35% and one with 15% when they are right next to each other.

You’re factoring in all the shuffling around with these programs. Certain families will do all they can do get their kids into certain buildings under the guise of these “programs in name only”

[Anonymous]

I’m the PP. I meant to say you’re NOT factoring how some families will game the system and other families will be sold a product that doesn’t deliver

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Current VM family and we are pleased. We would rather be in Woodward than WJ

I am curious why. With this new map, I struggle to see a single advantage of being in Woodward than being in WJ. Maybe I am missing something.

We are in VM. I will pick WJ over Woodward.

In fact, if FARMS are evens out, I will be equally fine with both. Both are same distance so nothing to see there for us.

Highly doubt you are a VM family. Makes the opinion more credible though, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m the PP. I meant to say you’re NOT factoring how some families will game the system and other families will be sold a product that doesn’t deliver

That will happen anyway, but if you create two well balanced schools then families have less incentive to game the system.

If you create lopsided two schools next to each other then you are simply encouraging gaming the system and it will only go one way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the PP. I meant to say you’re NOT factoring how some families will game the system and other families will be sold a product that doesn’t deliver

That will happen anyway, but if you create two well balanced schools then families have less incentive to game the system.

If you create lopsided two schools next to each other then you are simply encouraging gaming the system and it will only go one way.

None of the schools will be balanced because of the multiple programs kids can move into from other schools in the region. I would pay more attention to the demographics of the entire region than individual schools.