Initial boundary options for Woodward study area are up

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Garrett Park and Tilden will get $300k cheaper soon.

Pretty much.
Caveat: Options 2 and 4 send the south side of Garrett Park to WJ ( the handful of homes on the south side of Strathmore). Town of GP, as small as it is, getting broken up.

Please! The 300K post was most likely trolling and you actually agree with that alarmist nonsense.

First of all, WJ today is not some amazing school that drives property values. It is weaker than other W schools and not much better than, for example, Richard Montgomery that has similar demographics to Woodward options 1,2 and 4.

Second, it is not all about the quality of high schools. Garret Park and Tilden will still have mostly the same teachers and same kids going there. So if parents were happy with what they were getting with these two schools before, there is no reason to suddenly completely turn their backs. Even more importantly, Garret Park and Tilden neighborhoods are very safe and walkable, a rare combination that will not change with the new school.

Every responsible new home buyer in the last two years knew that the rezoning is coming and that for some neighborhoods (for example Old Georgetown Village and Timberlawn) it will be a miracle not to end up in the new HS. And yet, home prices in that area went up by more than 15%.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still can’t get over the fact that Option 3 is going to bus kids who live in the walk zone for one school to another school far away.

Doesn’t the BOE/mcps take some sort of oath or something that they will use taxpayer funds wisely or at least not waste funds? Busing kids WHO CAN AND SHOULD WALK is wasteful and harmful to the environment.

They are spending our hard earned taxpayer dollars after all.

The most savings from boundary studies comes from maximizing capacity. That typically means bussing certain kids to further schools. The walk zones are 2 miles which is enormous. Even if there was an extra school in the DCC you still couldn't have every potential walker assigned to the school closest to them. It is simply impossible to locate the schools perfectly in this way. And buying land and building schools is $$$$$$$ so stop pretending you care about being responsible with taxpayers dollars.

I think most have conveniently forgotten that the Woodward family bequethed the land for Woodward to MCPS, and required it to always be used as a school.

So this would suggest that MCPS has approximately zero money to institute and maintain this rezoning.

Your logic is not like our earth logic

MCPS can’t build a new school. Can they rent space? No? Can they build out existing spaces? No? The only option is to use the free space?

Wait I forget do we care about appropriate use of taxpayer dollars or not? Because YES, free land is cheaper than buying land at market rate

I am PP and that is my point. The fact that we have to use Woodward’s free land suggests that there is little money to implement the rezoning.

Nope.

Shrug

What you are arguing is that MCPS should spend MORE money to buy land. Eminent domain is absurdly expensive.

These are all just lame excuses to oppose a boundary study that everyone knows is needed and then to pretend kids from the DCC should not be zoned to Woodward. Gmafb

No I am actually not arguing that MCPS should buy land. I am just saying that we don’t know if there are finances to put toward rezoning and if there are what the amounts are. I’m trying to figure out based on their actions what kind of resources they have.

You can look at their budget documents to find this information.

They are building 2 new high schools. They need to adjust boundaries. It's not a question of "if". Adjusting boundaries is generally a money saver because it maximizes the resources we have instead of having some buildings over capacity and other buildings under capacity

Yes obviously they have to adjust boundaries and have already built two schools. The decision to locate one of those high schools where it is appears to be due to free land.

I dont think NO kids should be bused around to help utilization. It’s that some of these options do way more than satisfy utilization. Can MCPS afford to do more than just optimize utilization.

Options 2 and 3 are the only ones that optimize utilization. They others assume MCPS will spend MORE money to build out Edison

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still can’t get over the fact that Option 3 is going to bus kids who live in the walk zone for one school to another school far away.

Doesn’t the BOE/mcps take some sort of oath or something that they will use taxpayer funds wisely or at least not waste funds? Busing kids WHO CAN AND SHOULD WALK is wasteful and harmful to the environment.

They are spending our hard earned taxpayer dollars after all.

The most savings from boundary studies comes from maximizing capacity. That typically means bussing certain kids to further schools. The walk zones are 2 miles which is enormous. Even if there was an extra school in the DCC you still couldn't have every potential walker assigned to the school closest to them. It is simply impossible to locate the schools perfectly in this way. And buying land and building schools is $$$$$$$ so stop pretending you care about being responsible with taxpayers dollars.

I think most have conveniently forgotten that the Woodward family bequethed the land for Woodward to MCPS, and required it to always be used as a school.

So this would suggest that MCPS has approximately zero money to institute and maintain this rezoning.

Your logic is not like our earth logic

MCPS can’t build a new school. Can they rent space? No? Can they build out existing spaces? No? The only option is to use the free space?

Wait I forget do we care about appropriate use of taxpayer dollars or not? Because YES, free land is cheaper than buying land at market rate

I am PP and that is my point. The fact that we have to use Woodward’s free land suggests that there is little money to implement the rezoning.

Nope.

Shrug

What you are arguing is that MCPS should spend MORE money to buy land. Eminent domain is absurdly expensive.

These are all just lame excuses to oppose a boundary study that everyone knows is needed and then to pretend kids from the DCC should not be zoned to Woodward. Gmafb

No I am actually not arguing that MCPS should buy land. I am just saying that we don’t know if there are finances to put toward rezoning and if there are what the amounts are. I’m trying to figure out based on their actions what kind of resources they have.

You can look at their budget documents to find this information.

They are building 2 new high schools. They need to adjust boundaries. It's not a question of "if". Adjusting boundaries is generally a money saver because it maximizes the resources we have instead of having some buildings over capacity and other buildings under capacity

Yes obviously they have to adjust boundaries and have already built two schools. The decision to locate one of those high schools where it is appears to be due to free land.

I dont think NO kids should be bused around to help utilization. It’s that some of these options do way more than satisfy utilization. Can MCPS afford to do more than just optimize utilization.

Options 2 and 3 are the only ones that optimize utilization. They others assume MCPS will spend MORE money to build out Edison

Is there a document that says they intend to build out Edison under options 1 and 4? Or how are you reaching that conclusion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Garrett Park and Tilden will get $300k cheaper soon.

Pretty much.
Caveat: Options 2 and 4 send the south side of Garrett Park to WJ ( the handful of homes on the south side of Strathmore). Town of GP, as small as it is, getting broken up.

Please! The 300K post was most likely trolling and you actually agree with that alarmist nonsense.

First of all, WJ today is not some amazing school that drives property values. It is weaker than other W schools and not much better than, for example, Richard Montgomery that has similar demographics to Woodward options 1,2 and 4.

Second, it is not all about the quality of high schools. Garret Park and Tilden will still have mostly the same teachers and same kids going there. So if parents were happy with what they were getting with these two schools before, there is no reason to suddenly completely turn their backs. Even more importantly, Garret Park and Tilden neighborhoods are very safe and walkable, a rare combination that will not change with the new school.

Every responsible new home buyer in the last two years knew that the rezoning is coming and that for some neighborhoods (for example Old Georgetown Village and Timberlawn) it will be a miracle not to end up in the new HS. And yet, home prices in that area went up by more than 15%.

I can understand about home purchases near WJ and Woodward. But the boundary study extends to rezoning homes far away from it. The more an option does that the more complaints there will about property values.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Garrett Park and Tilden will get $300k cheaper soon.

Is that true if options other than 3? Because I don’t think MCPS can afford 3 so likey it will be off the table

Yes, because Woodward will be more than 30-47% FARMS in any scenario. Huge difference compared to a W school. At the very best, it will be another QO. At the worst, it will be another Einstein (and actually, Einstein would be the better school).

What do people have against medium-FARMS schools? Like, I get why folks would be nervous about high FARMS schools (and why white families might be hesitant about schools that are less than 10% white), but are there reasons (besides racism-- trying to give people the benefit of the doubt here) that medium FARMS schools with racial diversity reflective of the county are a problem too? We are a white middle-class family in a medium-FARMS elementary focus school with about 30% white kids, currently zoned for middle and high schools with similar demographics, and it all seems pretty great so far to us. Genuinely wondering why it would be so terrible for Woodward to be medium-FARMS instead of low-FARMS?

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still can’t get over the fact that Option 3 is going to bus kids who live in the walk zone for one school to another school far away.

Doesn’t the BOE/mcps take some sort of oath or something that they will use taxpayer funds wisely or at least not waste funds? Busing kids WHO CAN AND SHOULD WALK is wasteful and harmful to the environment.

They are spending our hard earned taxpayer dollars after all.

The most savings from boundary studies comes from maximizing capacity. That typically means bussing certain kids to further schools. The walk zones are 2 miles which is enormous. Even if there was an extra school in the DCC you still couldn't have every potential walker assigned to the school closest to them. It is simply impossible to locate the schools perfectly in this way. And buying land and building schools is $$$$$$$ so stop pretending you care about being responsible with taxpayers dollars.

I think most have conveniently forgotten that the Woodward family bequethed the land for Woodward to MCPS, and required it to always be used as a school.

So this would suggest that MCPS has approximately zero money to institute and maintain this rezoning.

Your logic is not like our earth logic

MCPS can’t build a new school. Can they rent space? No? Can they build out existing spaces? No? The only option is to use the free space?

Wait I forget do we care about appropriate use of taxpayer dollars or not? Because YES, free land is cheaper than buying land at market rate

I am PP and that is my point. The fact that we have to use Woodward’s free land suggests that there is little money to implement the rezoning.

Nope.

Shrug

What you are arguing is that MCPS should spend MORE money to buy land. Eminent domain is absurdly expensive.

These are all just lame excuses to oppose a boundary study that everyone knows is needed and then to pretend kids from the DCC should not be zoned to Woodward. Gmafb

No I am actually not arguing that MCPS should buy land. I am just saying that we don’t know if there are finances to put toward rezoning and if there are what the amounts are. I’m trying to figure out based on their actions what kind of resources they have.

You can look at their budget documents to find this information.

They are building 2 new high schools. They need to adjust boundaries. It's not a question of "if". Adjusting boundaries is generally a money saver because it maximizes the resources we have instead of having some buildings over capacity and other buildings under capacity

Yes obviously they have to adjust boundaries and have already built two schools. The decision to locate one of those high schools where it is appears to be due to free land.

I dont think NO kids should be bused around to help utilization. It’s that some of these options do way more than satisfy utilization. Can MCPS afford to do more than just optimize utilization.

Options 2 and 3 are the only ones that optimize utilization. They others assume MCPS will spend MORE money to build out Edison

Is there a document that says they intend to build out Edison under options 1 and 4? Or how are you reaching that conclusion?

Both of those options result in 20% overcrowding at Wheaton. In the meetings, the consultants have said there is a "shell space" at Edison that can be finished to absorb that capacity. Several posters have identified issues with this, including the time it takes Wheaton students to walk to Edison given the size of Wheaton HS, as well as the fact that capital projects like this one take years just to get funded. This year, the Council dug into the retiree health fund to pay for MCPS's budget request. There is not extra money for this when other high schools have space.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Garrett Park and Tilden will get $300k cheaper soon.

Is that true if options other than 3? Because I don’t think MCPS can afford 3 so likey it will be off the table

Yes, because Woodward will be more than 30-47% FARMS in any scenario. Huge difference compared to a W school. At the very best, it will be another QO. At the worst, it will be another Einstein (and actually, Einstein would be the better school).

What do people have against medium-FARMS schools? Like, I get why folks would be nervous about high FARMS schools (and why white families might be hesitant about schools that are less than 10% white), but are there reasons (besides racism-- trying to give people the benefit of the doubt here) that medium FARMS schools with racial diversity reflective of the county are a problem too? We are a white middle-class family in a medium-FARMS elementary focus school with about 30% white kids, currently zoned for middle and high schools with similar demographics, and it all seems pretty great so far to us. Genuinely wondering why it would be so terrible for Woodward to be medium-FARMS instead of low-FARMS?

People are upset their property values might go down. Regardless of whether individuals are racist, home values in MoCo differ in part due to perceived school quality and fears about Black and Latino youth.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still can’t get over the fact that Option 3 is going to bus kids who live in the walk zone for one school to another school far away.

Doesn’t the BOE/mcps take some sort of oath or something that they will use taxpayer funds wisely or at least not waste funds? Busing kids WHO CAN AND SHOULD WALK is wasteful and harmful to the environment.

They are spending our hard earned taxpayer dollars after all.

The most savings from boundary studies comes from maximizing capacity. That typically means bussing certain kids to further schools. The walk zones are 2 miles which is enormous. Even if there was an extra school in the DCC you still couldn't have every potential walker assigned to the school closest to them. It is simply impossible to locate the schools perfectly in this way. And buying land and building schools is $$$$$$$ so stop pretending you care about being responsible with taxpayers dollars.

I think most have conveniently forgotten that the Woodward family bequethed the land for Woodward to MCPS, and required it to always be used as a school.

So this would suggest that MCPS has approximately zero money to institute and maintain this rezoning.

Your logic is not like our earth logic

MCPS can’t build a new school. Can they rent space? No? Can they build out existing spaces? No? The only option is to use the free space?

Wait I forget do we care about appropriate use of taxpayer dollars or not? Because YES, free land is cheaper than buying land at market rate

I am PP and that is my point. The fact that we have to use Woodward’s free land suggests that there is little money to implement the rezoning.

Nope.

Shrug

What you are arguing is that MCPS should spend MORE money to buy land. Eminent domain is absurdly expensive.

These are all just lame excuses to oppose a boundary study that everyone knows is needed and then to pretend kids from the DCC should not be zoned to Woodward. Gmafb

No I am actually not arguing that MCPS should buy land. I am just saying that we don’t know if there are finances to put toward rezoning and if there are what the amounts are. I’m trying to figure out based on their actions what kind of resources they have.

You can look at their budget documents to find this information.

They are building 2 new high schools. They need to adjust boundaries. It's not a question of "if". Adjusting boundaries is generally a money saver because it maximizes the resources we have instead of having some buildings over capacity and other buildings under capacity

Yes obviously they have to adjust boundaries and have already built two schools. The decision to locate one of those high schools where it is appears to be due to free land.

I dont think NO kids should be bused around to help utilization. It’s that some of these options do way more than satisfy utilization. Can MCPS afford to do more than just optimize utilization.

Options 2 and 3 are the only ones that optimize utilization. They others assume MCPS will spend MORE money to build out Edison

Is there a document that says they intend to build out Edison under options 1 and 4? Or how are you reaching that conclusion?

Both of those options result in 20% overcrowding at Wheaton. In the meetings, the consultants have said there is a "shell space" at Edison that can be finished to absorb that capacity. Several posters have identified issues with this, including the time it takes Wheaton students to walk to Edison given the size of Wheaton HS, as well as the fact that capital projects like this one take years just to get funded. This year, the Council dug into the retiree health fund to pay for MCPS's budget request. There is not extra money for this when other high schools have space.

Thank you for that synopsis. Since Option 3 looks like a non starter based on busing kids away from walk zones, option 2 seems to be the one that solves utilization. But upthread it was suggested that the major downside is many split articulations in Option 2. (My kids would not be impacted in that way so I’m taking DCUM’s word for it.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still can’t get over the fact that Option 3 is going to bus kids who live in the walk zone for one school to another school far away.

Doesn’t the BOE/mcps take some sort of oath or something that they will use taxpayer funds wisely or at least not waste funds? Busing kids WHO CAN AND SHOULD WALK is wasteful and harmful to the environment.

They are spending our hard earned taxpayer dollars after all.

The most savings from boundary studies comes from maximizing capacity. That typically means bussing certain kids to further schools. The walk zones are 2 miles which is enormous. Even if there was an extra school in the DCC you still couldn't have every potential walker assigned to the school closest to them. It is simply impossible to locate the schools perfectly in this way. And buying land and building schools is $$$$$$$ so stop pretending you care about being responsible with taxpayers dollars.

+1 The Woodward option worked because there was an existing building, that MCPS already owned, centrally located in the county. As much as I want a downcounty school to serve TkPk/SS inside the Beltway, the only property recently available was 1) not for sale; 2) not already owned by MCPS; 3) not appropriate in its current form for a school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I heard some Bethesda parents are going to propose an alternative option where no DCC students attend Woodward and a new consortium is formed that consists of Whitman, WJ, Churchill, Wootton, RM, BCC, and Woodward.

....and some folks have been proposing the State of Jefferson for 50 years, but that's not going to happen either.

[Anonymous]

Option 3 is batshit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Garrett Park and Tilden will get $300k cheaper soon.

Pretty much.
Caveat: Options 2 and 4 send the south side of Garrett Park to WJ ( the handful of homes on the south side of Strathmore). Town of GP, as small as it is, getting broken up.

Please! The 300K post was most likely trolling and you actually agree with that alarmist nonsense.

First of all, WJ today is not some amazing school that drives property values. It is weaker than other W schools and not much better than, for example, Richard Montgomery that has similar demographics to Woodward options 1,2 and 4.

Second, it is not all about the quality of high schools. Garret Park and Tilden will still have mostly the same teachers and same kids going there. So if parents were happy with what they were getting with these two schools before, there is no reason to suddenly completely turn their backs. Even more importantly, Garret Park and Tilden neighborhoods are very safe and walkable, a rare combination that will not change with the new school.

Every responsible new home buyer in the last two years knew that the rezoning is coming and that for some neighborhoods (for example Old Georgetown Village and Timberlawn) it will be a miracle not to end up in the new HS. And yet, home prices in that area went up by more than 15%.

No, this is incorrect. Current Tilden families with students THAT CURRENTLY WALK (and you are right that it is safe and lovely) would be bussed A LONG WAY to other middle schools under some of the option.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still can’t get over the fact that Option 3 is going to bus kids who live in the walk zone for one school to another school far away.

Doesn’t the BOE/mcps take some sort of oath or something that they will use taxpayer funds wisely or at least not waste funds? Busing kids WHO CAN AND SHOULD WALK is wasteful and harmful to the environment.

They are spending our hard earned taxpayer dollars after all.

The most savings from boundary studies comes from maximizing capacity. That typically means bussing certain kids to further schools. The walk zones are 2 miles which is enormous. Even if there was an extra school in the DCC you still couldn't have every potential walker assigned to the school closest to them. It is simply impossible to locate the schools perfectly in this way. And buying land and building schools is $$$$$$$ so stop pretending you care about being responsible with taxpayers dollars.

I think most have conveniently forgotten that the Woodward family bequethed the land for Woodward to MCPS, and required it to always be used as a school.

So this would suggest that MCPS has approximately zero money to institute and maintain this rezoning.

Your logic is not like our earth logic

MCPS can’t build a new school. Can they rent space? No? Can they build out existing spaces? No? The only option is to use the free space?

Wait I forget do we care about appropriate use of taxpayer dollars or not? Because YES, free land is cheaper than buying land at market rate

I am PP and that is my point. The fact that we have to use Woodward’s free land suggests that there is little money to implement the rezoning.

Nope.

Shrug

What you are arguing is that MCPS should spend MORE money to buy land. Eminent domain is absurdly expensive.

These are all just lame excuses to oppose a boundary study that everyone knows is needed and then to pretend kids from the DCC should not be zoned to Woodward. Gmafb

No I am actually not arguing that MCPS should buy land. I am just saying that we don’t know if there are finances to put toward rezoning and if there are what the amounts are. I’m trying to figure out based on their actions what kind of resources they have.

You can look at their budget documents to find this information.

They are building 2 new high schools. They need to adjust boundaries. It's not a question of "if". Adjusting boundaries is generally a money saver because it maximizes the resources we have instead of having some buildings over capacity and other buildings under capacity

Yes obviously they have to adjust boundaries and have already built two schools. The decision to locate one of those high schools where it is appears to be due to free land.

I dont think NO kids should be bused around to help utilization. It’s that some of these options do way more than satisfy utilization. Can MCPS afford to do more than just optimize utilization.

Options 2 and 3 are the only ones that optimize utilization. They others assume MCPS will spend MORE money to build out Edison

Is there a document that says they intend to build out Edison under options 1 and 4? Or how are you reaching that conclusion?

Both of those options result in 20% overcrowding at Wheaton. In the meetings, the consultants have said there is a "shell space" at Edison that can be finished to absorb that capacity. Several posters have identified issues with this, including the time it takes Wheaton students to walk to Edison given the size of Wheaton HS, as well as the fact that capital projects like this one take years just to get funded. This year, the Council dug into the retiree health fund to pay for MCPS's budget request. There is not extra money for this when other high schools have space.

Thank you for that synopsis. Since Option 3 looks like a non starter based on busing kids away from walk zones, option 2 seems to be the one that solves utilization. But upthread it was suggested that the major downside is many split articulations in Option 2. (My kids would not be impacted in that way so I’m taking DCUM’s word for it.)

I imagine they could adjust options 1 and 4. It would require split articulation, but Option 1 has no split articulation so adding one split articulation is not the end of the world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Garrett Park and Tilden will get $300k cheaper soon.

Is that true if options other than 3? Because I don’t think MCPS can afford 3 so likey it will be off the table

Yes, because Woodward will be more than 30-47% FARMS in any scenario. Huge difference compared to a W school. At the very best, it will be another QO. At the worst, it will be another Einstein (and actually, Einstein would be the better school).

What do people have against medium-FARMS schools? Like, I get why folks would be nervous about high FARMS schools (and why white families might be hesitant about schools that are less than 10% white), but are there reasons (besides racism-- trying to give people the benefit of the doubt here) that medium FARMS schools with racial diversity reflective of the county are a problem too? We are a white middle-class family in a medium-FARMS elementary focus school with about 30% white kids, currently zoned for middle and high schools with similar demographics, and it all seems pretty great so far to us. Genuinely wondering why it would be so terrible for Woodward to be medium-FARMS instead of low-FARMS?

That’s not actually the issue. The issue is for neighborhoods who basically figured they would go to Woodward (as they are within the walk zone for Woodward) are getting bused to Wheaton and Kennedy, while current Wheaton and Kennedy (maybe Einstein too) are bused into Woodward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I heard some Bethesda parents are going to propose an alternative option where no DCC students attend Woodward and a new consortium is formed that consists of Whitman, WJ, Churchill, Wootton, RM, BCC, and Woodward.

....and some folks have been proposing the State of Jefferson for 50 years, but that's not going to happen either.

Maybe some will but they would not be speaking for all WJ parents.

In fact, the WJ PTA cluster testimony has always made it clear that they support reopening Woodward for WJ AND DCC.