Initial boundary options for Woodward study area are up

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Option 3 has got to be the throw away option.

It has united DCUM in opposition to it.

Do you think those lower income clusters are going to benefit from being shipped across town? Do you think their parents want the extra commuting time and costs, much less to be surrounded by a bunch of affluent families who most definitely don't want it? I think the universal feedback is people want to attend local schools in their neighborhoods that aren't overcrowded. If they can enhance diversity and minimize overcrowding around the edges, then great! Anything else is an exercise in social engineering and will make just about everyone unhappy.

This! Even many students in lower socio economic schools don’t want to be bussed away, they want equality in resources. This should be the focus!

I'd nuance that by saying the focus should be reasonable equivalence of educational service levels instead of equality in resources, and I hope that's more what was meant. Some might interpret "equality in resources" as "the same funding" for each school and that would not allow the system to provide equivalent services across schools while there are considerably different conditions/populations among them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The data they provided is interesting. To me it makes Option 2 a very good one as it balances out Facility Utilization. If the goal of the boundary study is to solve overcrowding in some schools, a balanced school utilization is critical. The data is showing that Option 2 will not create overcrowding and middle or high school.

On the other hand Option 1 is horrible for a school like Wheaton HS, where it is left with 117% utilization where 5 other high schools are at 80% to 85%. Thye will need to do another boundary study in 5 years if they go with Option 1.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1erYX17GJAfJWhgro-0eLXujXxpiNdfU4/view

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_OLXKCe7_iNFN1ydbXZZgNurJabZhCwz/view

They said something in the meeting tonight about how Wheaton and Edison are right next to each other and that option 1 wasn't as bad as it looked because there was a way to absorb the extra students -- I really couldn't follow it.

They want money to expand Edison. But there are enough seats in the existing buildings if they use them efficiently. And it will take time to build that out, otherwise they would have already done it. Not just time to actually build it but also to approve it, if it is ever approved. In the meantime, Latinos at Wheaton endure more overcrowding unless we launch an opposition campaign (which the White communities do not have to do, since their schools will be protected from overcrowding).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The data they provided is interesting. To me it makes Option 2 a very good one as it balances out Facility Utilization. If the goal of the boundary study is to solve overcrowding in some schools, a balanced school utilization is critical. The data is showing that Option 2 will not create overcrowding and middle or high school.

On the other hand Option 1 is horrible for a school like Wheaton HS, where it is left with 117% utilization where 5 other high schools are at 80% to 85%. Thye will need to do another boundary study in 5 years if they go with Option 1.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1erYX17GJAfJWhgro-0eLXujXxpiNdfU4/view

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_OLXKCe7_iNFN1ydbXZZgNurJabZhCwz/view

They said something in the meeting tonight about how Wheaton and Edison are right next to each other and that option 1 wasn't as bad as it looked because there was a way to absorb the extra students -- I really couldn't follow it.

They,are but Edison is a trade school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The data they provided is interesting. To me it makes Option 2 a very good one as it balances out Facility Utilization. If the goal of the boundary study is to solve overcrowding in some schools, a balanced school utilization is critical. The data is showing that Option 2 will not create overcrowding and middle or high school.

On the other hand Option 1 is horrible for a school like Wheaton HS, where it is left with 117% utilization where 5 other high schools are at 80% to 85%. Thye will need to do another boundary study in 5 years if they go with Option 1.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1erYX17GJAfJWhgro-0eLXujXxpiNdfU4/view

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_OLXKCe7_iNFN1ydbXZZgNurJabZhCwz/view

They said something in the meeting tonight about how Wheaton and Edison are right next to each other and that option 1 wasn't as bad as it looked because there was a way to absorb the extra students -- I really couldn't follow it.

They want money to expand Edison. But there are enough seats in the existing buildings if they use them efficiently. And it will take time to build that out, otherwise they would have already done it. Not just time to actually build it but also to approve it, if it is ever approved. In the meantime, Latinos at Wheaton endure more overcrowding unless we launch an opposition campaign (which the White communities do not have to do, since their schools will be protected from overcrowding).

The communities you are talking about are mixed and we know no one cares about our overcrowding and portables.

Edison is a trade school. Expanding it makes sense. They had two auto programs and shut one down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Option 3 has got to be the throw away option.

It has united DCUM in opposition to it.

Do you think those lower income clusters are going to benefit from being shipped across town? Do you think their parents want the extra commuting time and costs, much less to be surrounded by a bunch of affluent families who most definitely don't want it? I think the universal feedback is people want to attend local schools in their neighborhoods that aren't overcrowded. If they can enhance diversity and minimize overcrowding around the edges, then great! Anything else is an exercise in social engineering and will make just about everyone unhappy.

This! Even many students in lower socio economic schools don’t want to be bussed away, they want equality in resources. This should be the focus!

This. I don’t want my kids bused and I am fine with a lower income school. I do care w don’t have the same classes and opportunities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The data they provided is interesting. To me it makes Option 2 a very good one as it balances out Facility Utilization. If the goal of the boundary study is to solve overcrowding in some schools, a balanced school utilization is critical. The data is showing that Option 2 will not create overcrowding and middle or high school.

On the other hand Option 1 is horrible for a school like Wheaton HS, where it is left with 117% utilization where 5 other high schools are at 80% to 85%. Thye will need to do another boundary study in 5 years if they go with Option 1.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1erYX17GJAfJWhgro-0eLXujXxpiNdfU4/view

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_OLXKCe7_iNFN1ydbXZZgNurJabZhCwz/view

They said something in the meeting tonight about how Wheaton and Edison are right next to each other and that option 1 wasn't as bad as it looked because there was a way to absorb the extra students -- I really couldn't follow it.

They want money to expand Edison. But there are enough seats in the existing buildings if they use them efficiently. And it will take time to build that out, otherwise they would have already done it. Not just time to actually build it but also to approve it, if it is ever approved. In the meantime, Latinos at Wheaton endure more overcrowding unless we launch an opposition campaign (which the White communities do not have to do, since their schools will be protected from overcrowding).

WJ's "white communities" have been enduring overcrowding for many years.

[Anonymous]

Option 3 is the only one that addressed diversity/demographics. Not perfect but with some tweaks they can make it work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well pretty clearly they are trying to “fix” Kennedy and Wheaton.

They are already doing that with the DCC lottery. So many of my kid’s white friends got Wheaton or Northwood instead of Einstein despite the MCPS claim that 85% of kids gets their first choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well pretty clearly they are trying to “fix” Kennedy and Wheaton.

They are already doing that with the DCC lottery. So many of my kid’s white friends got Wheaton or Northwood instead of Einstein despite the MCPS claim that 85% of kids gets their first choice.

Was Einstein their home school? Wheaton is ok. Kennedy has some good kids but lots of issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think what's shocking to me is how high FARMS Woodward HS could end up relative to the other schools in the study, could be up to almost 50% FARMS and as low as 14% white. That's shocking to me considering I thought the majority of its students would come from WJ. Option 3 significantly cuts FARMS at Einstein and would make it whiter than WJ, and it also significantly diversifies Whitman.

That’s because they are sending current WJ kids across county to Kennedy and Wheaton (who could walk or easily take public transportation to Woodward) in an effort to have every school down county have balanced (but high) FARMs.

Don’t worry about the bussing - it’ll be fine for the kids. Don’t worry about parents without cars that will never be able to make it to a school event either as they would have to take public transportation across county.

Because newsflash, not everyone at current WJ is as rich as they think and many live in apartments with limited transportation.

Except Whitman of course. Don’t move them ever. They are a pristine island unto themselves.

[Anonymous]

We need to return to home school only. Period. You go to school where you live. Works just fine.

Edison can be a county wide program. Actually they should buy a close cars dealership type building and expand the trades. That’s where they should focus. Training kids for jobs they can actually make a living at.

[Anonymous]

Here’s the irony. The wealthier kids will not move from WJ to Kennedy. MCPS surely knows that. These neighborhoods will become exclusively for families that go to private school (many already do). And that’s ok (a shame but it’s ok).

It will be our poorer and international students who go to Kennedy. Those will be the families on long bus rides to Kennedy. These are families who are struggling already due to federal cuts. I’m so sorry for them. We had a good thing here at WJ for so many years and thought we could keep that really special, diverse community going at Woodward, but it looks like the county has other ideas.

I mean if you’re going to drive to Kennedy you might as well drive to Good Counsel. No brainer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, if I were Taylor and consultants produced option 3 for me, I would fire them. I am not sure why MCPS would think that it would be wise to present such a crazy plan to the public, unless they wanted to make the whole county angry.

It's so they can tell everyone about the ultimately chosen plan that inevitably some people dislike "at least it wasn't option 3"

Exactly. Option 3 is not going to happen. But it will, temporarily, hog all the attention.

https://montgomeryperspective.com/2025/05/28/mcpss-insane-boundary-maps/

[Anonymous]

If people dislike option 3, they should fill out the survey and provide, calmly, their reasons why.

[Anonymous]

The county knows what they need to do to fix Kennedy. It’s very simple. Move the magnets from Blair to Kennedy. All the sudden, you’ve got a really nice, attractive school.

Maybe even the wealthy/UMC folks who already live near Kennedy will start sending their kids there rather than private school.