Second round options for Woodward boundary study

[Anonymous]

Entire Garret park can be put in Woodward

Viers Mill ES can be put in WJ

Some area of Kenneddy can be added in Wooward.

It will take care of no school being over crowded. It will also insure WJ does not become another Whitman. It can keep Woodward and WJ FARMS closer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They freaking contorted themselves to come up with four sets of options that all keep Whitman, BCC, and WJ families happy. Nevermind the utilization issues, split articulation, or anything else. It's really messed up.

Current WJ families staying in WJ wil be happy with all these options, but not if they are in Woodward. Both will be vastly different school.

Woodward will be another BCC basically. If that's not good enough for WJ parents, cry me a river. They can't possibly have expected relief from overcrowding without any demographic change/with Woodward being filled 100% by WJ kids. They got as close as can possibly be expected with these options.

Earlier BCC, WJ was in the same range.

Woodward will be worse than BCC with 30% + FARMS. BCC has 22% and WJ will be closer to Whitman with 15%.

Woodward will be another RM without IB magnet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They freaking contorted themselves to come up with four sets of options that all keep Whitman, BCC, and WJ families happy. Nevermind the utilization issues, split articulation, or anything else. It's really messed up.

Current WJ families staying in WJ wil be happy with all these options, but not if they are in Woodward. Both will be vastly different school.

Woodward will be another BCC basically. If that's not good enough for WJ parents, cry me a river. They can't possibly have expected relief from overcrowding without any demographic change/with Woodward being filled 100% by WJ kids. They got as close as can possibly be expected with these options.

Demography change is expected but both schools are right next to each other on same road. No reason to have one at 15% and another at 30%.

[Anonymous]

They definitely should move Sargent Shriver from Wheaton to Woodward, and move Farmland from Woodward to WJ. That addresses Wheaton overcrowding and WJ underutilization, and leaves space for tweaks on the Wheaton/Kennedy border to address Kennedy overcrowding.

Ideally you also move some Kensington kids into Einstein and do some other adjustments on the DCC side of things as well.

[Anonymous]

Is it safe to summarize as:
- option D tries to address overcrowding (while causing the most split articulation)
- option B tries to minimize split articulation
(while ignoring some obvious proximity issues)

Are options A and C the middle ground between those two forces? Or …?

[Anonymous]

Do these tables have an error for Northwood's future capacity? They say it's 2,260 (including new building in 2027), but everywhere else I've seen the new building's capacity reported at 2,700.

If there is an error, then all of these options would have NW's utilization at 70-80%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They definitely should move Sargent Shriver from Wheaton to Woodward, and move Farmland from Woodward to WJ. That addresses Wheaton overcrowding and WJ underutilization, and leaves space for tweaks on the Wheaton/Kennedy border to address Kennedy overcrowding.

Ideally you also move some Kensington kids into Einstein and do some other adjustments on the DCC side of things as well.

Poor idea.

Farmland is rich area with virtually no FARMS. Woodward has twice the FARMS comapred to WJ. It will make it even more lopsided.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is it safe to summarize as:
- option D tries to address overcrowding (while causing the most split articulation)
- option B tries to minimize split articulation
(while ignoring some obvious proximity issues)

Are options A and C the middle ground between those two forces? Or …?

I like option A.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it safe to summarize as:
- option D tries to address overcrowding (while causing the most split articulation)
- option B tries to minimize split articulation
(while ignoring some obvious proximity issues)

Are options A and C the middle ground between those two forces? Or …?

I like option A.

Yes and if it’s right they made an error in # of seats at Northwood could move some from Kennedy to Northwood and solve Kennedy over-utilization, thereby addressing the one downside to Option A. Plus that option has the fewest split articulations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it safe to summarize as:
- option D tries to address overcrowding (while causing the most split articulation)
- option B tries to minimize split articulation
(while ignoring some obvious proximity issues)

Are options A and C the middle ground between those two forces? Or …?

I like option A.

Yes and if it’s right they made an error in # of seats at Northwood could move some from Kennedy to Northwood and solve Kennedy over-utilization, thereby addressing the one downside to Option A. Plus that option has the fewest split articulations.

Thats the reason I like it.

I don't think it's an error in Northwood numbers. Numbes are correct becasue capacity was scaled down.

Take Option A:

Move entire GP to Woodward
Move Entire Viers Mills ES + south of Viers Mills Rd from Wheaton to WJ to create space from Kenneddy to Wheaton.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it safe to summarize as:
- option D tries to address overcrowding (while causing the most split articulation)
- option B tries to minimize split articulation
(while ignoring some obvious proximity issues)

Are options A and C the middle ground between those two forces? Or …?

I like option A.

Yes and if it’s right they made an error in # of seats at Northwood could move some from Kennedy to Northwood and solve Kennedy over-utilization, thereby addressing the one downside to Option A. Plus that option has the fewest split articulations.

Thats the reason I like it.

I don't think it's an error in Northwood numbers. Numbes are correct becasue capacity was scaled down.

Take Option A:

Move entire GP to Woodward
Move Entire Viers Mills ES + south of Viers Mills Rd from Wheaton to WJ to create space from Kenneddy to Wheaton.

Entire GP going to Woodward avoid split articualtion for GP
Entire Viers Mill going to WJ avoids split articualtion for VM

I like this idea. Whenver possible we should try to avoid split articulations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it safe to summarize as:
- option D tries to address overcrowding (while causing the most split articulation)
- option B tries to minimize split articulation
(while ignoring some obvious proximity issues)

Are options A and C the middle ground between those two forces? Or …?

I like option A.

Yes and if it’s right they made an error in # of seats at Northwood could move some from Kennedy to Northwood and solve Kennedy over-utilization, thereby addressing the one downside to Option A. Plus that option has the fewest split articulations.

Thats the reason I like it.

I don't think it's an error in Northwood numbers. Numbes are correct becasue capacity was scaled down.

Take Option A:

Move entire GP to Woodward
Move Entire Viers Mills ES + south of Viers Mills Rd from Wheaton to WJ to create space from Kenneddy to Wheaton.

This could work. Consultants need to run numbers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Entire Garret park can be put in Woodward

Viers Mill ES can be put in WJ

Some area of Kenneddy can be added in Wooward.

It will take care of no school being over crowded. It will also insure WJ does not become another Whitman. It can keep Woodward and WJ FARMS closer.

VM should not have to drive by Woodward to go to WJ. That’s stupid!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is it safe to summarize as:
- option D tries to address overcrowding (while causing the most split articulation)
- option B tries to minimize split articulation
(while ignoring some obvious proximity issues)

Are options A and C the middle ground between those two forces? Or …?

I voted for options B and C because it has the least surprises for our neighborhood. Any split articulations makes sense geographically. All of the demographics in these options and messed up but I don’t think it’s the jobs of the school system to solve decades of societal problems. None of the options solve overcrowding at all DCC schools which is what they said the reopening of Woodward would solve. Why are my taxpayers going to this if it doesn’t solve anything?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They will never make everyone happy but these options make the most sense. Also there is supposed to be a demographic cliff at some point, with fewer children being born resulting of course in fewer students in our schools.

Except on facility utilization and demographics, two of the four factors and these options are terrible on these

Might as well give up on trying to equalize demographics unless you want super long bus rides for poor kids.

Or change housing policy.

The housing policy that seems most likely to change is an end to inclusionary zoning. Friedson basically already did that for the areas included in his big rezoning package. The MPDU program will be next. What effect do you think that will have on demographics given how expensive the new housing will be?