Initial boundary options for Woodward study area are up

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They should just have the Tilden MS kids matriculate to Woodward and add some kids from Einstein and Wheaton to fill the seats. Leave everything else alone.

But that would be too easy.

[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.

I also thought this was shocking. And unlikely to produce a good result. You will see the wealthier people go private or just move a few blocks to go to one of the other schools. Not saying it’s right, simply that if you introduce such big changes, then over time you will just see the population adjust and resist. Better would be to introduce a more moderate option that is going to be palatable to the neighborhoods immediately surrounding Woodward and have them supporting the new school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These 4 maps are clearly tied to the 4 priorities. I don't think any is going to stay the same. I think we will have some new maps that look different and are a combination of these. I don't understand what the purpose of having maps that are very clearly tied to one of the priorities are. They obviously will work to balance them -- this is not a helpful starting place.

Can you help name which map goes to which? Clearly map 3 is the diversity map. What are the others?

Map 2 is the utilization map

Is option 4 supposed to be the proximity map? What’s weird about that one is the split articulation. That’s antithetical to neighborhood schools

I think it maximizes walk zone potential (least busing).

But it doesn't maximize walkers at Blair, Wheaton, or Einstein.

There's no way you can maximize walkers at every single school without sending the non-walkers to schools pretty far away (in which case you're not really prioritizing proximity anymore.) Parents seem to think there is some magic way to do this but there is not. Schools are not equally spread out, they are clumped in some places and far from others, so you have to do things like send Takoma Park kids to Blair and send kids near Blair further north. #4 is likely the best they can do on the proximity front, or close to it, especially since it seems to do a poor job on all of the other three factors.

I think they can do better. They need to draw the potential walk zones rather than just the existing ones. Start there and then work out the options for the remaining available space. Like TOK isn't shaded as being in the walk zone for Einstein, but that's only because it's not currently zoned to Einstein. They need to look at the walk zones without being restricted by current boundary lines.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should just have the Tilden MS kids matriculate to Woodward and add some kids from Einstein and Wheaton to fill the seats. Leave everything else alone.

But that would be too easy.

They should do this but instead of messing with Einstein and Wheaton, add a magnet program for the central location.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know option 3 = bad, but which option is good?

I'd say option 2 -- good utilization and reasonable looking distances/clusters.

+1

[Anonymous]

Failing to do this on a county-wide and all-grades basis will result in huge inefficiencies, including inefficiencies toward the goals of diversity and continuity. Too bad county influencers have kept a system-wide boundary study off the table for three decades while the inefficiencies and inequities piled up, and too bad the County Council has underfunded capital needs for equally long, leaving few good realignment options to go with facility deficits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should just have the Tilden MS kids matriculate to Woodward and add some kids from Einstein and Wheaton to fill the seats. Leave everything else alone.

But that would be too easy.

They should do this but instead of messing with Einstein and Wheaton, add a magnet program for the central location.

Guys, it isn't all about you. There are numerous overcrowded schools and schools with capacity. Nit really takes a huge sense of entitlement to demand taxpayers fund even more buildings to accommodate a shrinking student population because you snowflakes can't handle change.

[Anonymous]

I think they can do better. They need to draw the potential walk zones rather than just the existing ones. Start there and then work out the options for the remaining available space. Like TOK isn't shaded as being in the walk zone for Einstein, but that's only because it's not currently zoned to Einstein. They need to look at the walk zones without being restricted by current boundary lines.


Agreed on the TOK issue. It is ridiculous that TOK won't walk to Einstein. We're zoned as walkers to Einstein and TOK is even closer. It is a no brainer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should just have the Tilden MS kids matriculate to Woodward and add some kids from Einstein and Wheaton to fill the seats. Leave everything else alone.

But that would be too easy.

They should do this but instead of messing with Einstein and Wheaton, add a magnet program for the central location.

What schools are extremely under utilized?

Guys, it isn't all about you. There are numerous overcrowded schools and schools with capacity. Nit really takes a huge sense of entitlement to demand taxpayers fund even more buildings to accommodate a shrinking student population because you snowflakes can't handle change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

They should definitely do option 3 with some tweaks. It's the only option that can add real diversity to Whitman.

Yes, let’s rearrange the entire county just to add diversity to Whitman. That makes sense, isn’t at all biased, and will certainly not cause a massive revolt.

No need to do that. Simply take a chunk of Whitman and swap it with a chuck of high farm area with 15-20 minute bus ride. Keep bus ride to 20 minutes and make sure we are not taking in walk zone.

Whitman desperately needs diversity otherwise we will keep seeing racist stuff in Whitman in future.

What chunk of Whitman is a 15-20 minute ride (in rush hour) from a high FARMS area?

You could move certain apartment buildings in downtown Bethesda to help some, but it would have to be super targeted because everything else in downtown Bethesda is definitely not FARMS.

Exactly. You try to bus Whitman kids up north and the parents will either pull their kids for private or move into a house in the new Whitman boundaries. Meanwhile, the property values of Whitman houses no longer zoned there will decline drastically, and even though no one seems to care about that, Whitman’s property taxes fund more of the mcps budget than any other school cluster so yes the board is going to listen to those parents .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

They should definitely do option 3 with some tweaks. It's the only option that can add real diversity to Whitman.

I'm not a Whitman parent but honestly, I don't think diversity should be the end-all be-all. Option 3 sucks for a lot of people.

I mean, could we just get super simple and say let’s pick the option that sucks for the fewest people? Maximize happiness?

If it were that easy, it would be a much simpler process! But how would you do that? Every option sucks for a significant number of kids.

I mean you could use these 4 options (or a set of refined options in the future) and ask families to pick the one that they like best. Or you could get fancier and do rank choice. Yes every option has downsides for some people, but it doesn’t need to be hard to figure out which scenario has the most support and minimizes unhappy people.

My perception right now is that option 3 is deeply unpopular and I don’t even know why you bother having community input and engagement if you’re seriously considering the option that the fewest people prefer (that incidentally is likely to cost the most money).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

They should definitely do option 3 with some tweaks. It's the only option that can add real diversity to Whitman.

I'm not a Whitman parent but honestly, I don't think diversity should be the end-all be-all. Option 3 sucks for a lot of people.

I mean, could we just get super simple and say let’s pick the option that sucks for the fewest people? Maximize happiness?

If it were that easy, it would be a much simpler process! But how would you do that? Every option sucks for a significant number of kids.

I mean you could use these 4 options (or a set of refined options in the future) and ask families to pick the one that they like best. Or you could get fancier and do rank choice. Yes every option has downsides for some people, but it doesn’t need to be hard to figure out which scenario has the most support and minimizes unhappy people.

My perception right now is that option 3 is deeply unpopular and I don’t even know why you bother having community input and engagement if you’re seriously considering the option that the fewest people prefer (that incidentally is likely to cost the most money).

The problem is that folks from wealthier areas will respond in greater numbers while the folks meaningfully impacted in poorer ones won’t. It’s the level of parental engagement that diversity or social engineering can’t overcome. But I’m fine with this approach since the affluent in my cluster would get a disproportionate say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

They should definitely do option 3 with some tweaks. It's the only option that can add real diversity to Whitman.

I'm not a Whitman parent but honestly, I don't think diversity should be the end-all be-all. Option 3 sucks for a lot of people.

I mean, could we just get super simple and say let’s pick the option that sucks for the fewest people? Maximize happiness?

If it were that easy, it would be a much simpler process! But how would you do that? Every option sucks for a significant number of kids.

I mean you could use these 4 options (or a set of refined options in the future) and ask families to pick the one that they like best. Or you could get fancier and do rank choice. Yes every option has downsides for some people, but it doesn’t need to be hard to figure out which scenario has the most support and minimizes unhappy people.

My perception right now is that option 3 is deeply unpopular and I don’t even know why you bother having community input and engagement if you’re seriously considering the option that the fewest people prefer (that incidentally is likely to cost the most money).

I agree that a lot of people of different income, ethnic and racial backgrounds would be very unhappy with option 3. It seems like they instructed the consultant to develop options that maximize each of the four factors. I am not sure what the point of that is but it clearly was based on the policy approved by the BOE rather than perceived public opinion.

I think most people can agree a balance must be struck, but that is not what these options seem to be intended to do. I guess to figure out which ones of the unpopular things will generate the most opposition?

[Anonymous]

It should be easy for the consultants to add walk zones to their pretty maps, right? It’s a priority to keep kids in the walk zones, is it not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

They should definitely do option 3 with some tweaks. It's the only option that can add real diversity to Whitman.

I'm not a Whitman parent but honestly, I don't think diversity should be the end-all be-all. Option 3 sucks for a lot of people.

I mean, could we just get super simple and say let’s pick the option that sucks for the fewest people? Maximize happiness?

If it were that easy, it would be a much simpler process! But how would you do that? Every option sucks for a significant number of kids.

I mean you could use these 4 options (or a set of refined options in the future) and ask families to pick the one that they like best. Or you could get fancier and do rank choice. Yes every option has downsides for some people, but it doesn’t need to be hard to figure out which scenario has the most support and minimizes unhappy people.

My perception right now is that option 3 is deeply unpopular and I don’t even know why you bother having community input and engagement if you’re seriously considering the option that the fewest people prefer (that incidentally is likely to cost the most money).

The problem is that folks from wealthier areas will respond in greater numbers while the folks meaningfully impacted in poorer ones won’t. It’s the level of parental engagement that diversity or social engineering can’t overcome. But I’m fine with this approach since the affluent in my cluster would get a disproportionate say.

Right, because they stand to lose the most in terms of the loss to their property values (when they likely purchased their home specifically for the zoned schools at the time) and sending their children to a worse school. It’d be nice to think all MCPS schools are equivalent and kids will do fine wherever they go, but we all know they are not and most people buy or rent in the best school district they can find. Also, the split articulation is going to be a huge problem for kids who likely all think they would be with a cohort of friends from their community for their K-12 education. It’s hard enough to be a kid nowadays at these massive middle and high schools, where they are literally a number. Now the kids will have to deal with losing seeing their friend groups, too, at these major school transition points? It’s frankly not taking their mental health or social needs into account at all, and everyone knows kids now need help with both of those issues more so than in the past due to technology and Covid.