Second round options for Woodward boundary study

post reply Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

◄ 1 2 3 ... 18 19 20 ... 106 107 108 ► Go

Go to page...

10/08/2025 02:45

Subject: Second round options for Woodward boundary study

quote

Anonymous

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And despite assuming this extra capacity at Wheaton that doesn't yet exist, they still leave Wheaton overcrowded over that inflated number. Wow.

Yup and WJ is now at sub 80% capacity. Shows what they care about.

This makes sense there’s so much MFH development proposed in the current boundary near the mall for example. Need to leave capacity there vs filling it up.

Wouldn't it be nice if they documented how much housing is in the pipeline within each boundary? They could do that, but since I doubt they actually did that analysis my guess is this isn't the reason. Vague vibes that "there's so much MFH development" in a particular boundary is not a good enough reason to leave some schools overcrowded and others significantly under capacity.

Or just go look at the MCPS Capital Improvement Program and you’ll see the authorized number of new developments tied to each cluster. I did this in two minutes. WJ has 11,340 units approved but unbuilt and only 440 units are single family homes.

You're referring to a 400 page document. No, most people can't find this info if they don't know it's there and where it is. Certainly not in 2 minutes. Care to share?

There’s a pdf of each cluster. Try making an effort instead of being force-fed info and then complaining that you can’t be bothered to do the bare minimum of looking up what you want.

You sound really angry - are you okay?

Your previous post implied it is easy to identify the housing in the pipeline for each cluster. But it would take at least an hour or 2 to compile the info for each cluster and compare them. The consultants should have done this and presented it.

Btw I added up 35,000 housing units in land use plans in the DCC.

DCC is a lot of schools which doesn't really tell you anything but way to Math.

Okay? Are you saying I should also take "2 minutes" to go through all the master plans and figure out how many are in which boundaries and how they compare to other school clusters? Shall I make you a table? Because this information is not disaggregated by high school in the DCC in the 400 page CIP that I'm supposed to be intimately familiar with and be able to pull out statistics from in 2 minutes.

Might I once again suggest this is something the consultants paid to do the boundary study should have done? The notion that if parents can't find information that isn't in a 400 page document, that's their own fault for not caring enough about their children, would be hilarious if we didn't know it's entitled wealthy White people (who "don't see race") saying that about Black and Latino families

I’m jumping in here, I had looked at this in the first round feedback phase and submitted some feedback how I thought it was very shortsighted to have schools where there was a lot of planned MFH or even SFH development be near capacity and conversely but to a lesser extent shortsighted to worry about currently overcrowded schools but which have very little planned development.

Anyway here is the link someone mentioned earlier: https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/planning/cipmaster

The clusters with highest development planned are (in no order)
BCC
Clarksburg
DCC
Gaithersburg
WJ
Watkins Mill
Wootton
Whitman
RM (long term)
SV, NW, Poolesville (long term MARC rails community plan)

Whereas clusters like Churchill, QO and Damascus have little development planned.

So given this, ensuring WJ/BCC/Gaithersburg don’t remain overcrowded is important and not sweating the overcrowding at QO and Churchill which may be temporary and not likely to increase were my biggest takeaways. The former seemed especially wise.