Woodward boundary study public hearing

[Anonymous]

Does anyone know what happens at the boundary study “work sessions”? I think the first one is on March 3…assume for both boundary studies. Is this all theater at this point and we know the ultimate conclusion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know what happens at the boundary study “work sessions”? I think the first one is on March 3…assume for both boundary studies. Is this all theater at this point and we know the ultimate conclusion?

CO staff are supposed to answer questions that board members asked during the public hearings. There may be additional details shared about some of the options considered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Woodward kind of looks like a prison. They couldn’t have designed it a bit nicer?

Northwood parent here. It's actually very nice inside. The atrium is lovely and the media center is great. The classrooms are large and well-lit and the hallways are spacious. I wish I'd attended a school that nice (instead I got stuck with old Blair).

Yes, but the facade looks like a prison and is incredibly bland for the money they spent building it. MCPS should spend some time vetting architects when they shell out money like this. Go to any renovated school in DC and see how much nicer they look from outside. Eaton and Lafayette ES come to mind. New high schools like Dunbar are MUCH better looking that Woodward as well. If you are building a school that will be around for several decades or more you don’t brush over aesthetics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Woodward kind of looks like a prison. They couldn’t have designed it a bit nicer?

Northwood parent here. It's actually very nice inside. The atrium is lovely and the media center is great. The classrooms are large and well-lit and the hallways are spacious. I wish I'd attended a school that nice (instead I got stuck with old Blair).

Yes, but the facade looks like a prison and is incredibly bland for the money they spent building it. MCPS should spend some time vetting architects when they shell out money like this. Go to any renovated school in DC and see how much nicer they look from outside. Eaton and Lafayette ES come to mind. New high schools like Dunbar are MUCH better looking that Woodward as well. If you are building a school that will be around for several decades or more you don’t brush over aesthetics.

+1 yea it's ugly on the outside for sure. are they putting on a garage too? imagine all the 16-17 year old fender benders in that student parking garage

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know what happens at the boundary study “work sessions”? I think the first one is on March 3…assume for both boundary studies. Is this all theater at this point and we know the ultimate conclusion?

CO staff are supposed to answer questions that board members asked during the public hearings. There may be additional details shared about some of the options considered.

does anyone have a synopsis of what homework CO was given at the last hearing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fyi there was a VMES parent who testified in support of moving VMES to WJ (see 2nd video testimony)

She doesn’t even really have a child in MCPS so put that one in the category of Farmland realtors looking at property value preservation

I’ve been told this poster is going around spreading lies on all the message boards. I am that woman who testified my child literally has a student ID and will be attending VMES starting in August. Jesus Christ

My guess is it's a bunch of future WJ people who are gleefully calling the Farmland and Luxmanor people "racists", trying to discredit you with vague and ridiculous accusations while hiding behind the anonymity of DCUM

Disagree. WJ family here. Stronger high schools in the region benefit everyone. And Woodward will be fine with any of the options. Though, a better magnet would be something with a direct benefit to my family and a broad benefit to the whole region.

You are probably right in the long run, but not in the short run. That particular poster doesn't strike me as someone with a strong relationship to any school, and is more likely property value obsessed that he then projects on everybody else.

Taylor with his recommendation made, completely unnecessary I would add, a very sharp line in North Bethesda. If you are zoned for WJ and next to a weak Woodward, and you plan to sell in the next year or two, you may gain a lot. This is the area that attracts educated families that are known to open their wallets when they see 9/10 vs 7/10 school. This could be a difference of $100k or more in sale proceeds for someone. So why not spend hours trolling on DCUM. It doesn't cost anything.

In the long run, I don't think it will matter much. The whole region has many good things going on.

With respect to property values, the recommendation helps WJ much more than it hurts Woodward.

On the other hand, with respect to school, the proposal hurts Woodward much more than it helps WJ.

Sorry you made a bad financial decision and overpaid. Thank goodness some of us didn’t and that’s the bigger issue for you. It’s not going to drop because of Woodward.

My issue is with people with no kids in any of the schools affected being vocal about what boundaries should be because of their 'financial decisions'. They should be exposed as such and given zero consideration when making boundary decisions.

I moved into the area before the latest boom, like it here and don't plan on going anywhere anytime soon. I do, however, care care if Woodward will turn out to be a good school or not.

Any taxpayer should be able to comment on the process. The people with financial stake are going to be inclined to ask questions and have opinions. The boundary decision should be able to stand up to the scrutiny.

Any taxpayer should be able to comment on the process, but if they are more interested in their property value than the public good of quality education for students, nobody should care.

Except the people that fund MCPS. Because when property values drop, funding dries up and the school system collapses.

Funding from whom? Maybe local funding would dry up with a lower tax base but there are also state and federal funds based on enrollment, FARMS and SpEd populations

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know what happens at the boundary study “work sessions”? I think the first one is on March 3…assume for both boundary studies. Is this all theater at this point and we know the ultimate conclusion?

CO staff are supposed to answer questions that board members asked during the public hearings. There may be additional details shared about some of the options considered.

does anyone have a synopsis of what homework CO was given at the last hearing?

None. Taylor made his recommendation and the BOE votes yes or no on March 26. The timeline has been followed as they advertised it for over 8 months.

[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:Fyi there was a VMES parent who testified in support of moving VMES to WJ (see 2nd video testimony)

She doesn’t even really have a child in MCPS so put that one in the category of Farmland realtors looking at property value preservation

I’ve been told this poster is going around spreading lies on all the message boards. I am that woman who testified my child literally has a student ID and will be attending VMES starting in August. Jesus Christ

My guess is it's a bunch of future WJ people who are gleefully calling the Farmland and Luxmanor people "racists", trying to discredit you with vague and ridiculous accusations while hiding behind the anonymity of DCUM

Disagree. WJ family here. Stronger high schools in the region benefit everyone. And Woodward will be fine with any of the options. Though, a better magnet would be something with a direct benefit to my family and a broad benefit to the whole region.

You are probably right in the long run, but not in the short run. That particular poster doesn't strike me as someone with a strong relationship to any school, and is more likely property value obsessed that he then projects on everybody else.

Taylor with his recommendation made, completely unnecessary I would add, a very sharp line in North Bethesda. If you are zoned for WJ and next to a weak Woodward, and you plan to sell in the next year or two, you may gain a lot. This is the area that attracts educated families that are known to open their wallets when they see 9/10 vs 7/10 school. This could be a difference of $100k or more in sale proceeds for someone. So why not spend hours trolling on DCUM. It doesn't cost anything.

In the long run, I don't think it will matter much. The whole region has many good things going on.

With respect to property values, the recommendation helps WJ much more than it hurts Woodward.

On the other hand, with respect to school, the proposal hurts Woodward much more than it helps WJ.

Sorry you made a bad financial decision and overpaid. Thank goodness some of us didn’t and that’s the bigger issue for you. It’s not going to drop because of Woodward.

My issue is with people with no kids in any of the schools affected being vocal about what boundaries should be because of their 'financial decisions'. They should be exposed as such and given zero consideration when making boundary decisions.

I moved into the area before the latest boom, like it here and don't plan on going anywhere anytime soon. I do, however, care care if Woodward will turn out to be a good school or not.

Any taxpayer should be able to comment on the process. The people with financial stake are going to be inclined to ask questions and have opinions. The boundary decision should be able to stand up to the scrutiny.

Any taxpayer should be able to comment on the process, but if they are more interested in their property value than the public good of quality education for students, nobody should care.

Except the people that fund MCPS. Because when property values drop, funding dries up and the school system collapses.

Funding from whom? Maybe local funding would dry up with a lower tax base but there are also state and federal funds based on enrollment, FARMS and SpEd populations

DP
The vast majority of MCPS funding is local and comes from property taxes

That being said, the notion that boundary changes will result in huge property tax revenue decreased is questionable to say the least.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know what happens at the boundary study “work sessions”? I think the first one is on March 3…assume for both boundary studies. Is this all theater at this point and we know the ultimate conclusion?

i



Yes. They are likely working out the staffing, transportation and finance side of the transition knowing the county council never gives 100% of the budget requested from MCPS. There are also lots of interest surveys and other things related to programs that are listed in the timeline. So they need those ready to go after the vote on 3/26

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know what happens at the boundary study “work sessions”? I think the first one is on March 3…assume for both boundary studies. Is this all theater at this point and we know the ultimate conclusion?

i



Yes. They are likely working out the staffing, transportation and finance side of the transition knowing the county council never gives 100% of the budget requested from MCPS. There are also lots of interest surveys and other things related to programs that are listed in the timeline. So they need those ready to go after the vote on 3/26

I don't know if "never" is accurate but the size of the request matters. It is always well above the amount the county is required to contribute (which I believe is based on enrollment and inflation) and there is a long history of distrust with regards to MCPS spending.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know what happens at the boundary study “work sessions”? I think the first one is on March 3…assume for both boundary studies. Is this all theater at this point and we know the ultimate conclusion?

CO staff are supposed to answer questions that board members asked during the public hearings. There may be additional details shared about some of the options considered.

does anyone have a synopsis of what homework CO was given at the last hearing?

None. Taylor made his recommendation and the BOE votes yes or no on March 26. The timeline has been followed as they advertised it for over 8 months.

That's just not true. There were several questions asked, I'd say 5-10 per study, where they said they would provide an answer at the work session. Whether they will or not Is anyone's guess, but they certainly have promised additional information.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know what happens at the boundary study “work sessions”? I think the first one is on March 3…assume for both boundary studies. Is this all theater at this point and we know the ultimate conclusion?

i



Yes. They are likely working out the staffing, transportation and finance side of the transition knowing the county council never gives 100% of the budget requested from MCPS. There are also lots of interest surveys and other things related to programs that are listed in the timeline. So they need those ready to go after the vote on 3/26

I don't know if "never" is accurate but the size of the request matters. It is always well above the amount the county is required to contribute (which I believe is based on enrollment and inflation) and there is a long history of distrust with regards to MCPS spending.

The anomaly in the last 20 years was 2020. Every other year it’s been 90something percent which ij MCPS cries back as “budget cuts” even when council’s approved funds are above the state required maintenance of effort

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fyi there was a VMES parent who testified in support of moving VMES to WJ (see 2nd video testimony)

She doesn’t even really have a child in MCPS so put that one in the category of Farmland realtors looking at property value preservation

I’ve been told this poster is going around spreading lies on all the message boards. I am that woman who testified my child literally has a student ID and will be attending VMES starting in August. Jesus Christ

My guess is it's a bunch of future WJ people who are gleefully calling the Farmland and Luxmanor people "racists", trying to discredit you with vague and ridiculous accusations while hiding behind the anonymity of DCUM

Disagree. WJ family here. Stronger high schools in the region benefit everyone. And Woodward will be fine with any of the options. Though, a better magnet would be something with a direct benefit to my family and a broad benefit to the whole region.

You are probably right in the long run, but not in the short run. That particular poster doesn't strike me as someone with a strong relationship to any school, and is more likely property value obsessed that he then projects on everybody else.

Taylor with his recommendation made, completely unnecessary I would add, a very sharp line in North Bethesda. If you are zoned for WJ and next to a weak Woodward, and you plan to sell in the next year or two, you may gain a lot. This is the area that attracts educated families that are known to open their wallets when they see 9/10 vs 7/10 school. This could be a difference of $100k or more in sale proceeds for someone. So why not spend hours trolling on DCUM. It doesn't cost anything.

In the long run, I don't think it will matter much. The whole region has many good things going on.

With respect to property values, the recommendation helps WJ much more than it hurts Woodward.

On the other hand, with respect to school, the proposal hurts Woodward much more than it helps WJ.

Sorry you made a bad financial decision and overpaid. Thank goodness some of us didn’t and that’s the bigger issue for you. It’s not going to drop because of Woodward.

My issue is with people with no kids in any of the schools affected being vocal about what boundaries should be because of their 'financial decisions'. They should be exposed as such and given zero consideration when making boundary decisions.

I moved into the area before the latest boom, like it here and don't plan on going anywhere anytime soon. I do, however, care care if Woodward will turn out to be a good school or not.

Any taxpayer should be able to comment on the process. The people with financial stake are going to be inclined to ask questions and have opinions. The boundary decision should be able to stand up to the scrutiny.

Any taxpayer should be able to comment on the process, but if they are more interested in their property value than the public good of quality education for students, nobody should care.

Except the people that fund MCPS. Because when property values drop, funding dries up and the school system collapses.

Then, they take a serious look at the budget and work with what they have.

[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:Fyi there was a VMES parent who testified in support of moving VMES to WJ (see 2nd video testimony)

She doesn’t even really have a child in MCPS so put that one in the category of Farmland realtors looking at property value preservation

I’ve been told this poster is going around spreading lies on all the message boards. I am that woman who testified my child literally has a student ID and will be attending VMES starting in August. Jesus Christ

My guess is it's a bunch of future WJ people who are gleefully calling the Farmland and Luxmanor people "racists", trying to discredit you with vague and ridiculous accusations while hiding behind the anonymity of DCUM

Disagree. WJ family here. Stronger high schools in the region benefit everyone. And Woodward will be fine with any of the options. Though, a better magnet would be something with a direct benefit to my family and a broad benefit to the whole region.

You are probably right in the long run, but not in the short run. That particular poster doesn't strike me as someone with a strong relationship to any school, and is more likely property value obsessed that he then projects on everybody else.

Taylor with his recommendation made, completely unnecessary I would add, a very sharp line in North Bethesda. If you are zoned for WJ and next to a weak Woodward, and you plan to sell in the next year or two, you may gain a lot. This is the area that attracts educated families that are known to open their wallets when they see 9/10 vs 7/10 school. This could be a difference of $100k or more in sale proceeds for someone. So why not spend hours trolling on DCUM. It doesn't cost anything.

In the long run, I don't think it will matter much. The whole region has many good things going on.

With respect to property values, the recommendation helps WJ much more than it hurts Woodward.

On the other hand, with respect to school, the proposal hurts Woodward much more than it helps WJ.

Sorry you made a bad financial decision and overpaid. Thank goodness some of us didn’t and that’s the bigger issue for you. It’s not going to drop because of Woodward.

My issue is with people with no kids in any of the schools affected being vocal about what boundaries should be because of their 'financial decisions'. They should be exposed as such and given zero consideration when making boundary decisions.

I moved into the area before the latest boom, like it here and don't plan on going anywhere anytime soon. I do, however, care care if Woodward will turn out to be a good school or not.

Any taxpayer should be able to comment on the process. The people with financial stake are going to be inclined to ask questions and have opinions. The boundary decision should be able to stand up to the scrutiny.

Any taxpayer should be able to comment on the process, but if they are more interested in their property value than the public good of quality education for students, nobody should care.

Except the people that fund MCPS. Because when property values drop, funding dries up and the school system collapses.

Then, they take a serious look at the budget and work with what they have.

MCPS has never done that. They continue to spend without a thought.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fyi there was a VMES parent who testified in support of moving VMES to WJ (see 2nd video testimony)

She doesn’t even really have a child in MCPS so put that one in the category of Farmland realtors looking at property value preservation

I’ve been told this poster is going around spreading lies on all the message boards. I am that woman who testified my child literally has a student ID and will be attending VMES starting in August. Jesus Christ

My guess is it's a bunch of future WJ people who are gleefully calling the Farmland and Luxmanor people "racists", trying to discredit you with vague and ridiculous accusations while hiding behind the anonymity of DCUM

Disagree. WJ family here. Stronger high schools in the region benefit everyone. And Woodward will be fine with any of the options. Though, a better magnet would be something with a direct benefit to my family and a broad benefit to the whole region.

You are probably right in the long run, but not in the short run. That particular poster doesn't strike me as someone with a strong relationship to any school, and is more likely property value obsessed that he then projects on everybody else.

Taylor with his recommendation made, completely unnecessary I would add, a very sharp line in North Bethesda. If you are zoned for WJ and next to a weak Woodward, and you plan to sell in the next year or two, you may gain a lot. This is the area that attracts educated families that are known to open their wallets when they see 9/10 vs 7/10 school. This could be a difference of $100k or more in sale proceeds for someone. So why not spend hours trolling on DCUM. It doesn't cost anything.

In the long run, I don't think it will matter much. The whole region has many good things going on.

With respect to property values, the recommendation helps WJ much more than it hurts Woodward.

On the other hand, with respect to school, the proposal hurts Woodward much more than it helps WJ.

Sorry you made a bad financial decision and overpaid. Thank goodness some of us didn’t and that’s the bigger issue for you. It’s not going to drop because of Woodward.

My issue is with people with no kids in any of the schools affected being vocal about what boundaries should be because of their 'financial decisions'. They should be exposed as such and given zero consideration when making boundary decisions.

I moved into the area before the latest boom, like it here and don't plan on going anywhere anytime soon. I do, however, care care if Woodward will turn out to be a good school or not.

Any taxpayer should be able to comment on the process. The people with financial stake are going to be inclined to ask questions and have opinions. The boundary decision should be able to stand up to the scrutiny.

Any taxpayer should be able to comment on the process, but if they are more interested in their property value than the public good of quality education for students, nobody should care.

Except the people that fund MCPS. Because when property values drop, funding dries up and the school system collapses.

So, for that aspect, they should be looking at the effect across the entirety of the tax base, not one school, and certainly not one neighborhood. And then evaluate that versus other likely effects of a decision, such as those which more directly might impact the educational experience, like alleviation of overcrowding.

They could consider widely disparate impact on current property value to try to avoid having a tremendous societally-driven burden being borne only by a few, but then they should be doing much the same in relation to any disparate educational services delivered, whether viewed as great benefit accruing to the few or as more easily identifiable deficits occuring for some/in some places.