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:

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.

Please, give us some examples of schools with poor ratings that provide quality education. We would love to know those hidden gems.

Look at any school that houses a large program for students with special needs (must be a diploma tracked program) where there are academic deficits. Those schools are going to have lower ratings but it is not related to the quality of education.

Ok but you can't provide specific examples?

DP but school rankings and ratings are affected by the surrounding income levels. So how would you compare and measure school quality in a meaningful way? That is why no one can answer your question.

PP stated that there are schools throughout the county with poor ratings that provide quality education. It would be interesting to get some examples even with their own definition of 'quality education'.

BTW, WJ doesn't count as the school has good ranking.

I am not trying to be difficult. I would love to hear some with examples (ES, MS, HS) where a school has poor ranking on some of the major ranking sites but is actually quite good and numbers don't tell the whole story.

Teacher is far more important than most everything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is painful to read the (pretend) outrage toward Woodward families because they are requesting for WJ and Woodward - and every high school ideally! - to have similar utilization rates.

There is something very, very wrong when utilization rates differ so widely among schools. This is the opportunity to even it out and this recommendation absolutely does not do that.

The truth is parents are mostly outraged at the numbers of FARMS kids now attending their kids school. I guarantee they would have said nothing about utilization rates if two wealthier elementary schools were zoned for Woodward. This sentiment about FARMS kids does not just apply to these Farmland and Luxmanor parents, it really applies to all these Bethesda and Potomac parents who would be protesting if this situation happened to them. These families don’t mind financially supporting these FARMS families and schools, but they definitely don’t want them coming to their kids school. Let’s not kid ourselves that it’s anything other than that….

Yes, there is a lot of hypocrisy in criticizing those neighborhoods specifically. And people know that and are just stirring the pot.

I think the Luxmanor and Farmland parents should just embrace Woodward. But the criticism of them has been outsized. They are being asked to go from a solid, high performing school to one that is entirely new and no one knows how good it will be. They have the right to fight for factors - utilization and programs in particular- that may impact the school quality substantially. FARMs and EML they need to let go of.

Let’s not kid ourselves. Woodward would not be a good school.

[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: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.

Please, give us some examples of schools with poor ratings that provide quality education. We would love to know those hidden gems.

Look at any school that houses a large program for students with special needs (must be a diploma tracked program) where there are academic deficits. Those schools are going to have lower ratings but it is not related to the quality of education.

Ok but you can't provide specific examples?

DP but school rankings and ratings are affected by the surrounding income levels. So how would you compare and measure school quality in a meaningful way? That is why no one can answer your question.

PP stated that there are schools throughout the county with poor ratings that provide quality education. It would be interesting to get some examples even with their own definition of 'quality education'.

BTW, WJ doesn't count as the school has good ranking.

I am not trying to be difficult. I would love to hear some with examples (ES, MS, HS) where a school has poor ranking on some of the major ranking sites but is actually quite good and numbers don't tell the whole story.

Teacher is far more important than most everything.

A teacher can't teach a course that their school's administration decides not to offer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is painful to read the (pretend) outrage toward Woodward families because they are requesting for WJ and Woodward - and every high school ideally! - to have similar utilization rates.

There is something very, very wrong when utilization rates differ so widely among schools. This is the opportunity to even it out and this recommendation absolutely does not do that.

The truth is parents are mostly outraged at the numbers of FARMS kids now attending their kids school. I guarantee they would have said nothing about utilization rates if two wealthier elementary schools were zoned for Woodward. This sentiment about FARMS kids does not just apply to these Farmland and Luxmanor parents, it really applies to all these Bethesda and Potomac parents who would be protesting if this situation happened to them. These families don’t mind financially supporting these FARMS families and schools, but they definitely don’t want them coming to their kids school. Let’s not kid ourselves that it’s anything other than that….

Yes, there is a lot of hypocrisy in criticizing those neighborhoods specifically. And people know that and are just stirring the pot.

I think the Luxmanor and Farmland parents should just embrace Woodward. But the criticism of them has been outsized. They are being asked to go from a solid, high performing school to one that is entirely new and no one knows how good it will be. They have the right to fight for factors - utilization and programs in particular- that may impact the school quality substantially. FARMs and EML they need to let go of.

Let’s not kid ourselves. Woodward would not be a good school.

It’s another w school.

[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:

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.

Please, give us some examples of schools with poor ratings that provide quality education. We would love to know those hidden gems.

Look at any school that houses a large program for students with special needs (must be a diploma tracked program) where there are academic deficits. Those schools are going to have lower ratings but it is not related to the quality of education.

Ok but you can't provide specific examples?

DP but school rankings and ratings are affected by the surrounding income levels. So how would you compare and measure school quality in a meaningful way? That is why no one can answer your question.

PP stated that there are schools throughout the county with poor ratings that provide quality education. It would be interesting to get some examples even with their own definition of 'quality education'.

BTW, WJ doesn't count as the school has good ranking.

I am not trying to be difficult. I would love to hear some with examples (ES, MS, HS) where a school has poor ranking on some of the major ranking sites but is actually quite good and numbers don't tell the whole story.

Teacher is far more important than most everything.

A teacher can't teach a course that their school's administration decides not to offer.

Yes but the teaching and classroom style makes the biggest impact outside course options.

[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: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.

Please, give us some examples of schools with poor ratings that provide quality education. We would love to know those hidden gems.

Look at any school that houses a large program for students with special needs (must be a diploma tracked program) where there are academic deficits. Those schools are going to have lower ratings but it is not related to the quality of education.

Ok but you can't provide specific examples?

DP but school rankings and ratings are affected by the surrounding income levels. So how would you compare and measure school quality in a meaningful way? That is why no one can answer your question.

PP stated that there are schools throughout the county with poor ratings that provide quality education. It would be interesting to get some examples even with their own definition of 'quality education'.

BTW, WJ doesn't count as the school has good ranking.

I am not trying to be difficult. I would love to hear some with examples (ES, MS, HS) where a school has poor ranking on some of the major ranking sites but is actually quite good and numbers don't tell the whole story.

NP - The numbers don't tell the whole story at *any* school, "good" or "bad" or in-between. Thinking otherwise is naive.

The biggest disparities in Montgomery County are by race. There really aren't that many low income White kids (yes, there are some). Look up test scores for White kids across schools and you find some schools that surprisingly do better than you'd think compared with some of the schools folks pay $$$$ to have their kids assigned to them.

[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:

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.

Please, give us some examples of schools with poor ratings that provide quality education. We would love to know those hidden gems.

Look at any school that houses a large program for students with special needs (must be a diploma tracked program) where there are academic deficits. Those schools are going to have lower ratings but it is not related to the quality of education.

Ok but you can't provide specific examples?

DP but school rankings and ratings are affected by the surrounding income levels. So how would you compare and measure school quality in a meaningful way? That is why no one can answer your question.

PP stated that there are schools throughout the county with poor ratings that provide quality education. It would be interesting to get some examples even with their own definition of 'quality education'.

BTW, WJ doesn't count as the school has good ranking.

I am not trying to be difficult. I would love to hear some with examples (ES, MS, HS) where a school has poor ranking on some of the major ranking sites but is actually quite good and numbers don't tell the whole story.

Teacher is far more important than most everything.

A teacher can't teach a course that their school's administration decides not to offer.

Yes but the teaching and classroom style makes the biggest impact outside course options.

So, just to be clear, with a mission to provide quality education across the entire county, it would be important for MCPS to create the conditions such that both course access and teaching quality are reasonably similar across the system.

[Anonymous]

Curious about the Northwood FARMS. In the table on the second page of the Superintedent's Recommendation Data Tables (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cdtTBaAd7ZcPh5mczdbJc4MS_HkOVfuJ/view) it says the Northwood FARMS rate for "Resident Student Demographics within Current Boundaries" is 44%. Under his recommendation the FARMS rate goes down to about 40%.

The current Northwood FARMS rate is 60% per the MCPS school profiles. Why is the current Northwood FARMS rate so different from the "Resident Student Demographics within Current Boundaries"? Is it because a lot of wealthier families either lottery out through the DCC process or go private?

[Anonymous]

It’s because Northwood demographics change that much based on transfers/ lottery out.
Similar issue with middle school data, which seems to only use “resident students.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Curious about the Northwood FARMS. In the table on the second page of the Superintedent's Recommendation Data Tables (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cdtTBaAd7ZcPh5mczdbJc4MS_HkOVfuJ/view) it says the Northwood FARMS rate for "Resident Student Demographics within Current Boundaries" is 44%. Under his recommendation the FARMS rate goes down to about 40%.

The current Northwood FARMS rate is 60% per the MCPS school profiles. Why is the current Northwood FARMS rate so different from the "Resident Student Demographics within Current Boundaries"? Is it because a lot of wealthier families either lottery out through the DCC process or go private?

The last few years kids have lotteries out due to the commute to Woodward. It also backs up to a heavy orthodox community and most of those wealthier families send the kids to Jewish privates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s because Northwood demographics change that much based on transfers/ lottery out.
Similar issue with middle school data, which seems to only use “resident students.”

They should with the removal of the DCC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Curious about the Northwood FARMS. In the table on the second page of the Superintedent's Recommendation Data Tables (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cdtTBaAd7ZcPh5mczdbJc4MS_HkOVfuJ/view) it says the Northwood FARMS rate for "Resident Student Demographics within Current Boundaries" is 44%. Under his recommendation the FARMS rate goes down to about 40%.

The current Northwood FARMS rate is 60% per the MCPS school profiles. Why is the current Northwood FARMS rate so different from the "Resident Student Demographics within Current Boundaries"? Is it because a lot of wealthier families either lottery out through the DCC process or go private?

The last few years kids have lotteries out due to the commute to Woodward. It also backs up to a heavy orthodox community and most of those wealthier families send the kids to Jewish privates.

I guess my question is do the resident demographics listed in the Superintendent's table include households that currently and will continue to send their kids to private schools? How much does that impact the current Northwood FARMS rate versus the DCC choice process? My guess is the FARMS rate after the boundary change and dissolution of the DCC will be closer to the current actual FARMS rate than what the Superintendent's boundary tables suggest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Curious about the Northwood FARMS. In the table on the second page of the Superintedent's Recommendation Data Tables (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cdtTBaAd7ZcPh5mczdbJc4MS_HkOVfuJ/view) it says the Northwood FARMS rate for "Resident Student Demographics within Current Boundaries" is 44%. Under his recommendation the FARMS rate goes down to about 40%.

The current Northwood FARMS rate is 60% per the MCPS school profiles. Why is the current Northwood FARMS rate so different from the "Resident Student Demographics within Current Boundaries"? Is it because a lot of wealthier families either lottery out through the DCC process or go private?

The last few years kids have lotteries out due to the commute to Woodward. It also backs up to a heavy orthodox community and most of those wealthier families send the kids to Jewish privates.

Also the Catholics in Woodmoor

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Curious about the Northwood FARMS. In the table on the second page of the Superintedent's Recommendation Data Tables (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cdtTBaAd7ZcPh5mczdbJc4MS_HkOVfuJ/view) it says the Northwood FARMS rate for "Resident Student Demographics within Current Boundaries" is 44%. Under his recommendation the FARMS rate goes down to about 40%.

The current Northwood FARMS rate is 60% per the MCPS school profiles. Why is the current Northwood FARMS rate so different from the "Resident Student Demographics within Current Boundaries"? Is it because a lot of wealthier families either lottery out through the DCC process or go private?

The last few years kids have lotteries out due to the commute to Woodward. It also backs up to a heavy orthodox community and most of those wealthier families send the kids to Jewish privates.

I guess my question is do the resident demographics listed in the Superintendent's table include households that currently and will continue to send their kids to private schools? How much does that impact the current Northwood FARMS rate versus the DCC choice process? My guess is the FARMS rate after the boundary change and dissolution of the DCC will be closer to the current actual FARMS rate than what the Superintendent's boundary tables suggest.

The only thing that matters is the demographics at the public schools, i.e. Northwood, not the community as the community has nothing to do with Farms rates. They don't care about Northwood, sadly as its a good school with lots of great students. It may change the farms so for the kids who cannot go to the regional schools but the orthodox population currently going to private schools would not send their kids to public.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Curious about the Northwood FARMS. In the table on the second page of the Superintedent's Recommendation Data Tables (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cdtTBaAd7ZcPh5mczdbJc4MS_HkOVfuJ/view) it says the Northwood FARMS rate for "Resident Student Demographics within Current Boundaries" is 44%. Under his recommendation the FARMS rate goes down to about 40%.

The current Northwood FARMS rate is 60% per the MCPS school profiles. Why is the current Northwood FARMS rate so different from the "Resident Student Demographics within Current Boundaries"? Is it because a lot of wealthier families either lottery out through the DCC process or go private?

The last few years kids have lotteries out due to the commute to Woodward. It also backs up to a heavy orthodox community and most of those wealthier families send the kids to Jewish privates.

I guess my question is do the resident demographics listed in the Superintendent's table include households that currently and will continue to send their kids to private schools? How much does that impact the current Northwood FARMS rate versus the DCC choice process? My guess is the FARMS rate after the boundary change and dissolution of the DCC will be closer to the current actual FARMS rate than what the Superintendent's boundary tables suggest.

The only thing that matters is the demographics at the public schools, i.e. Northwood, not the community as the community has nothing to do with Farms rates. They don't care about Northwood, sadly as its a good school with lots of great students. It may change the farms so for the kids who cannot go to the regional schools but the orthodox population currently going to private schools would not send their kids to public.

You're stating the obvious here except I suspect Taylor is using data about community demographics to calculate the FARMS rate for Northwood after the boundary change.