Initial boundary options for Woodward study area are up

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I will link to this again at this point in the thread. Here is the board policy on what factors will be taken into account in all boundary studies: https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/policy/pdf/FAA.pdf

Property values have never and will never be a part of it.

These 4 proposed options appear to each focus on one of the factors: student demographics, geography, facility utilization, and stability over time. The final option is much more likely to be a mix of these.

Nothing about what is presently under discussion in the last few pages is qbout property values.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about Option 4 but send all of Viers Mill elementary to WJ and all of Garrett Park Elementary to Woodward (instead of that portion going to WJ)? Seems like that would mitigate the overcrowding at Wheaton with oversubscribing WJ and also makes the FARMs levels a little more comparable between WJ and Woodward. All without bussing kids long distances.

A good idea. One problem we may encounter with this - Number of kids in entire school of viers Mill is not going to be close to small area of Garrett Park. I don't know exact numbers but they will be quite far in my opinion.

Actully, I took a look ayt option 4 capacity utilization. WJ is only 77% in option 4 and Woodward is 94%. So swapping small portion of Garrett Park with entire Viers MIll will bring both scools in 85-90% range and leave room for futuere kids due to so many new housing coming in the area.

This solution won't create much of travel time as well and no walker is forced to take a bus. Viersm Mills students will be taking bus already and WJ is only couple of minutes away from Woodward.

This will create two well balanced schools.

It is the South side of Garrett Park (South of Strathmore) including the nearby Parkside apartments and townhomes? Or just the town?

If you take option 4 map then it shows an area of Garrett park going to WJ. That area can go to Woodward. it will also support argument about trying to keep split articualtion to minimum unless it's needed. Entire Viers mill going to WJ means no split articulation for that ES as well.

In map, it's South of Strathmore. Area is solit into two zones. ONe is going to WJ and one is going to Woodward in option 4. Both can go to Woodward to keep the community together.

- RM parent

Garrett Park ES catchment area south of Strathmore Ave includes the part of the town of Garrett Park south of Strathmore Ave plus Parkside, Avalon and Meridian appartments. And maybe the new appartments on Tuckerman at Grosvenor Strathmore? And maybe the new homes being built at Holy Cross? Not sure where they are/will be zoned.
Is this what you mean?

[Anonymous]

Okay parent disguised as being an “RM” parent .. you are clearly too invested to not have a dog in this fight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about Option 4 but send all of Viers Mill elementary to WJ and all of Garrett Park Elementary to Woodward (instead of that portion going to WJ)? Seems like that would mitigate the overcrowding at Wheaton with oversubscribing WJ and also makes the FARMs levels a little more comparable between WJ and Woodward. All without bussing kids long distances.

A good idea. One problem we may encounter with this - Number of kids in entire school of viers Mill is not going to be close to small area of Garrett Park. I don't know exact numbers but they will be quite far in my opinion.

Actully, I took a look ayt option 4 capacity utilization. WJ is only 77% in option 4 and Woodward is 94%. So swapping small portion of Garrett Park with entire Viers MIll will bring both scools in 85-90% range and leave room for futuere kids due to so many new housing coming in the area.

This solution won't create much of travel time as well and no walker is forced to take a bus. Viersm Mills students will be taking bus already and WJ is only couple of minutes away from Woodward.

This will create two well balanced schools.

It is the South side of Garrett Park (South of Strathmore) including the nearby Parkside apartments and townhomes? Or just the town?

If you take option 4 map then it shows an area of Garrett park going to WJ. That area can go to Woodward. it will also support argument about trying to keep split articualtion to minimum unless it's needed. Entire Viers mill going to WJ means no split articulation for that ES as well.

In map, it's South of Strathmore. Area is solit into two zones. ONe is going to WJ and one is going to Woodward in option 4. Both can go to Woodward to keep the community together.

- RM parent

Garrett Park ES catchment area south of Strathmore Ave includes the part of the town of Garrett Park south of Strathmore Ave plus Parkside, Avalon and Meridian appartments. And maybe the new appartments on Tuckerman at Grosvenor Strathmore? And maybe the new homes being built at Holy Cross? Not sure where they are/will be zoned.
Is this what you mean?

In option 4 most of Garrret Park goes to Woodward esxcept small area. You can play around with the map and zones.

I am suggesting a modification of option 4:

Entire Garrett Park ES going to Woodward without any split articualtion.
Entire Viers Mill going to WJ without any split articulation.

This keeps all HS at or below capacity. It also narrows the FARMS rate between WJ and Woodward.

- RM Parent

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Okay parent disguised as being an “RM” parent .. you are clearly too invested to not have a dog in this fight.

Honestly, I live in Bayard Rustin zoned in RM cluster. I was involved with boundary study for new school in RM cluster and familiar with the process. Today I had free time so I looked at my Cluster and Woodward as well. I saw a way improve Woodward option 4 and shared. I had off day so commenting on both threads.

Anyway, why do you care about messenger. Just focus on message and debate, improve and so on...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay parent disguised as being an “RM” parent .. you are clearly too invested to not have a dog in this fight.

Honestly, I live in Bayard Rustin zoned in RM cluster. I was involved with boundary study for new school in RM cluster and familiar with the process. Today I had free time so I looked at my Cluster and Woodward as well. I saw a way improve Woodward option 4 and shared. I had off day so commenting on both threads.

Anyway, why do you care about messenger. Just focus on message and debate, improve and so on...

RM parent improved WJ and Woodward community with this suggestion. Crowd sourcing on DCUM. Despite the mud slinging that occurs. Harder part is getting the stubborn policy makers to listen

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay parent disguised as being an “RM” parent .. you are clearly too invested to not have a dog in this fight.

Honestly, I live in Bayard Rustin zoned in RM cluster. I was involved with boundary study for new school in RM cluster and familiar with the process. Today I had free time so I looked at my Cluster and Woodward as well. I saw a way improve Woodward option 4 and shared. I had off day so commenting on both threads.

Anyway, why do you care about messenger. Just focus on message and debate, improve and so on...

RM parent improved WJ and Woodward community with this suggestion. Crowd sourcing on DCUM. Despite the mud slinging that occurs. Harder part is getting the stubborn policy makers to listen

What worked best during RM 5 ES:

1) Showing up and giving testimony and large number of families being present with banner during testimony. Sending electronic mail is way less effective than physically being present and supporting.

2 ) Getting community members educated by having meetings in various HOA. Once everyone agrees then have HOA president write and sign the letter. Then you can have all member signing the letter. Deliver the letter to BOE. Make copies and give it to all BOE member individually. Ther eis plenty of politics between members so don't assume that giving to one means you gave to everyone. But just be polite and ovey the message.

3) Arrange meetings with BOE members with core group of your community( likely to be your PTA board members who ) who can communicate well and know MCPS process somewhat. Try to do it with each BOE member and some time 2-3 may just attend one, that's fine. You have to probbaly do 2 rounds and then you will get clear idea which member will support you. Don't talk about property value. That's not the job of MCPS. Just stick to logical arguments and don't say negative about anyone.

4) Have various member of your community send emall in support of modified version of option 4 with justification.

Basically make your presence felt and it will help. It's a tiring process but if you don't advocate then who else will do it. Fortunately RM is not changing much so I plan to not get involved in anything.

I grew up in 99% FARMS equivalent in some other country and I can assure you that most parents want to support their kids. At least that's what I saw while growing up. I don't have the link handy but we came across a research during RM process that once you start crossing 20% FARMS it becomes harder and harder for school to support FAMRS and NON-FARMS both. So, I think it's advatageious to have as many HS as possible with 20% FARMS. I mean it can be 20-25%. Near zero FARMS is also not good. We also don't gain much by changing 70% FARMS to 55% and some time it makes the school worse due to losing the federal funds.

Good luck with boudaries. I am sure, it will work out fine.

[Anonymous]

Other people don't want option 4. Of course option 4 makes the most sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay parent disguised as being an “RM” parent .. you are clearly too invested to not have a dog in this fight.

Honestly, I live in Bayard Rustin zoned in RM cluster. I was involved with boundary study for new school in RM cluster and familiar with the process. Today I had free time so I looked at my Cluster and Woodward as well. I saw a way improve Woodward option 4 and shared. I had off day so commenting on both threads.

Anyway, why do you care about messenger. Just focus on message and debate, improve and so on...

RM parent improved WJ and Woodward community with this suggestion. Crowd sourcing on DCUM. Despite the mud slinging that occurs. Harder part is getting the stubborn policy makers to listen

What worked best during RM 5 ES:

1) Showing up and giving testimony and large number of families being present with banner during testimony. Sending electronic mail is way less effective than physically being present and supporting.

2 ) Getting community members educated by having meetings in various HOA. Once everyone agrees then have HOA president write and sign the letter. Then you can have all member signing the letter. Deliver the letter to BOE. Make copies and give it to all BOE member individually. Ther eis plenty of politics between members so don't assume that giving to one means you gave to everyone. But just be polite and ovey the message.

3) Arrange meetings with BOE members with core group of your community( likely to be your PTA board members who ) who can communicate well and know MCPS process somewhat. Try to do it with each BOE member and some time 2-3 may just attend one, that's fine. You have to probbaly do 2 rounds and then you will get clear idea which member will support you. Don't talk about property value. That's not the job of MCPS. Just stick to logical arguments and don't say negative about anyone.

4) Have various member of your community send emall in support of modified version of option 4 with justification.

Basically make your presence felt and it will help. It's a tiring process but if you don't advocate then who else will do it. Fortunately RM is not changing much so I plan to not get involved in anything.

I grew up in 99% FARMS equivalent in some other country and I can assure you that most parents want to support their kids. At least that's what I saw while growing up. I don't have the link handy but we came across a research during RM process that once you start crossing 20% FARMS it becomes harder and harder for school to support FAMRS and NON-FARMS both. So, I think it's advatageious to have as many HS as possible with 20% FARMS. I mean it can be 20-25%. Near zero FARMS is also not good. We also don't gain much by changing 70% FARMS to 55% and some time it makes the school worse due to losing the federal funds.

Good luck with boudaries. I am sure, it will work out fine.

Find this study. And hire RM parent to save Woodward and WJ and our schools.

[Anonymous]

Under option 4, Northwood and Einstein would have way higher FARMS rate than other schools so it’s not equal. I do like the idea of every school having 20% FARMS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Under option 4, Northwood and Einstein would have way higher FARMS rate than other schools so it’s not equal. I do like the idea of every school having 20% FARMS.

I think it's almost impossible for FARMS to be in 20% for location like Whitman, Chrichill, Northwood etc due to where they are located. Offcourse you can do something but it will involve lots of busssing. Now if something is in middle like WJ/BCC/Woodward/RM etc then MCPS has an oppurtunity to make sure we don't create situation where one school is middle has 10% FARMS and other school in middle has 40% FARMS. It should be easier to keep all of them around 20-25% range due to being in middle.

Due to county FARMS rate being much higher than 20-25%, it is impossibe for every school to have 20-25% FARMS. What we can do is to try to get as many schools in that range.

[Anonymous]

True. RM parent is right. WJ has been showing up in green with signs at BOE and county council meetings when needed to keep funding going for years. Emails not enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about Option 4 but send all of Viers Mill elementary to WJ and all of Garrett Park Elementary to Woodward (instead of that portion going to WJ)? Seems like that would mitigate the overcrowding at Wheaton with oversubscribing WJ and also makes the FARMs levels a little more comparable between WJ and Woodward. All without bussing kids long distances.

A good idea. One problem we may encounter with this - Number of kids in entire school of viers Mill is not going to be close to small area of Garrett Park. I don't know exact numbers but they will be quite far in my opinion.

Actully, I took a look ayt option 4 capacity utilization. WJ is only 77% in option 4 and Woodward is 94%. So swapping small portion of Garrett Park with entire Viers MIll will bring both scools in 85-90% range and leave room for futuere kids due to so many new housing coming in the area.

This solution won't create much of travel time as well and no walker is forced to take a bus. Viersm Mills students will be taking bus already and WJ is only couple of minutes away from Woodward.

This will create two well balanced schools.

It is the South side of Garrett Park (South of Strathmore) including the nearby Parkside apartments and townhomes? Or just the town?

If you take option 4 map then it shows an area of Garrett park going to WJ. That area can go to Woodward. it will also support argument about trying to keep split articualtion to minimum unless it's needed. Entire Viers mill going to WJ means no split articulation for that ES as well.

In map, it's South of Strathmore. Area is solit into two zones. ONe is going to WJ and one is going to Woodward in option 4. Both can go to Woodward to keep the community together.

- RM parent

Garrett Park ES catchment area south of Strathmore Ave includes the part of the town of Garrett Park south of Strathmore Ave plus Parkside, Avalon and Meridian appartments. And maybe the new appartments on Tuckerman at Grosvenor Strathmore? And maybe the new homes being built at Holy Cross? Not sure where they are/will be zoned.
Is this what you mean?

In option 4 most of Garrret Park goes to Woodward esxcept small area. You can play around with the map and zones.

I am suggesting a modification of option 4:

Entire Garrett Park ES going to Woodward without any split articualtion.
Entire Viers Mill going to WJ without any split articulation.

This keeps all HS at or below capacity. It also narrows the FARMS rate between WJ and Woodward.

- RM Parent

I’m a Viers Mill parent and I don’t want my kid at WJ. We live 1.9 miles from Einstein, 2 miles from Wheaton, 2.4 miles from Woodward and over 3 miles from WJ. This is an awful idea!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Other people don't want option 4. Of course option 4 makes the most sense.

What factor does Option 4 maximize?

[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:Property values are something that any BOE member should care about.

Or at least the county council.

No. If some people's property values go down, others will go up. It's all the same to the Council. Sorry the government won't prop up your wealth.

Do you know that for a fact? Bc it seems like several options lead to overall decreases in property values versus a zero sum game.

Property values should not be the priority. Student needs should be. You don’t care about the kids, just money.

Property values fund schools. Caring about property values is actually caring about kids.

Option 3 still has most kids going to a school close to them. Most property values will not be impacted. Some will go down, some will go up, and it will be a wash. Be more worried about DOGE.

No it does not. And again you have no way of knowing it will be a wash.

Oh my goodness, yes it does.

It also has some pretty nice areas with SFH zoning in the DCC rezoned to BCC. Those values have been rising and this would give them another big push up. And the Veirs Mill and Highland ES areas that would be zoned to WJ would be completely transformed in 10 years. So many teardowns. This will be amazing for property values in some pretty dense areas.

Why would DCC people want to be rezoned to BCC?

Not option 3 specifically but BCC is not far for Woodlin, etc. It's not even further than Einstein depending on where you live.

But everyone is talking about better opportunities in the DCC magnets. Don’t you not have those at BCC? This is an honest question since I don’t live in either one.

DP. Magnets and special programs aren't set in stone either. The program analysis may move everything around too.

So you’re saying the uncertainty of the magnets makes people want to switch from DCC to BCC?

No one in the DCC cares about bcc.

Yah that’s not true, Woodside has had a wet dream about getting zoned to it for decades. The select few homes in silver spring zoned for it are among the most expensive sqft in all of silver spring