Woodward boundary study public 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.

[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.

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.

It this Farmland’s new take?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did not watch the hearing, but recently heard from a neighbor that there is growing advocacy to push for option B. Is there truth to this and did it come up in the public meeting? That option would be terrible for our neighborhood- we are walking sitance to Sligo but kids would be sent to SSIMS- I don't know why that was thrown out there as a potential option to begin with. So overall I was ok with Taylor's recommendation as it relates to our neighborhood. It's just hard to keep up with the changes and to anticipate what MCPS will throw out there next. The options for our neighborhood changed pretty drastically from the first to second round and caught a lot of people off guard.

There is some push for original Option B with regard to the now Current WJ cluster (sounds mainly like the Farmland/Luxmanor crew at the BOE mtg), not necessarily rest of map (but clearly would send WW back to Wheaton High).

Wasn't there someone from Silver Spring who mentioned it too? Either way, there were definitely SSiMS folks who wanted to increase the number of kids assigned to SSIMS and wanted to go back to one of the original maps, and I can't imagine the Board would choose the option B map for WJ/Wheaton and a totally different map for Silver Spring...

The Northwood Cluster Coordinator from MCCPTA testified about SSIMS going down to 55% utilization being an attempt to start the closure without appropriate process and being problematic for the kids who go there at that low utilization.



The options really treat the 2 regions as separate entities and the Board could adopt a different option for region 3 and for region 1 without causing domino effect problems but so far no one seems to be talking about it that way. I think the Board would have to vote to consider a different option and then also vote to adopt it but I’m not sure. I am not a Robert’s Rules of Order aficionado.

+1

After being called out by the BOE, Elrich, Kate Stewart and others for lack of community engagement, Taylor is trying to use the boundary study to justify a future closure of SSIMS. It’s laughably transparent and also very manipulative. If this goes through he is inviting a law suit.

I don't think it has anything to do with justifying the closure-- he will either get support for closing it or not, no one's going to say "you assigned fewer kids there and now there are fewer kids there, it's my deciding reason to close it!"

I think it is about trying to make it simpler and less disruptive to families if/when it does get closed. No one at other schools wants to get sent there for a couple years just to live through the dying years of a closing school and then get reassigned away again. So they minimized the new students they added-- just a portion of Woodlin-- so fewer families have to go through that (and fewer families get upset and protest being assigned to SSIMS.) They could have kept the current Forest Knolls and Montgomery Knolls kids there, which probably would have made the most sense, but I think I heard that SSIMS families all supported them leaving? So that all adds up to only 650-700 kids left at SSIMS.

They're upset about going down to 650-700 kids? I mean, that's a tad low, but there's a bunch of MCPS middle schools will less than 800 kids. Sligo only has about 700. When I first heard about it I thought they were talking about going down to like 400-500 kids or something.

(Plus isn't that only "resident students" and doesn't factor in all the immersion kids transferring in? That adds another 150 kids or so, right? So they'd actually be at like 800-850.)

I don't think the concern is the absolute number of students. Many would agree that small middle schools can be great and may even be preferred. It's more that it's clearly being done to justify a future closure.

MCPS has said that it will use facility condition and facility utilization to decide which schools to close. Taylor has been very clear and adamant that he wants to close SSIMS. He couldn't get the closure through the appropriate ways (expedited closure was voted down unanimously by BOE and then funding for expansions to Sligo and Eastern were pulled by Elrich from CIP) so he is obviously trying another way.

This community has been lied to and jerked around so many times that they are rightfully not willing to trust Taylor here. There's no way he is doing this to help SSIMS and make it smaller.

They'll use capacity and facility conditions to identify schools for potential closure, but SSIMS has already been identified and even if they have super high utilization it would never take them off the target list. It will get put up for a vote either way, and do you really think that anybody is going to base their closure vote on whether or not SSIMS has another 150 kids more or fewer? It's all gonna be about politics and whether the politicians who weighed in to say "not now" end up saying "not ever," or if they decide they don't care enough to prioritize fighting to keep it open.

I don’t know but do you fault SSIMS parents for calling him out on decreasing utilization without even acknowledging it? I get that it’s going to come up for a vote regardless and it’s going to be political but that doesn’t mean the SSIMS community should just silently sit by while their school is devalued over and over.

[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.

They clearly care about the quality of education for the school they are zoned to because it plays a factor in the value of the home they’re invested in.

And the school system should be delivering quality of education such that it doesn't matter, from that educational perspective, where in the county a person lives. Let people pay for size, design, quality of construction, proximity to work, etc., not the expectation of preferential services from the common wealth.

[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.

They clearly care about the quality of education for the school they are zoned to because it plays a factor in the value of the home they’re invested in.

And the school system should be delivering quality of education such that it doesn't matter, from that educational perspective, where in the county a person lives. Let people pay for size, design, quality of construction, proximity to work, etc., not the expectation of preferential services from the common wealth.

School quality and school ratings are not the same. There are quality schools throughout the county. People do pay for a higher school rating since it is tied to home resale value.

[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?

Basically to explain their reasoning on most of the stuff people complained about.