Option B Alternate - Adding extra ES to WJ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are some really interesting posts here but also just so much name-calling. Like, why? What is the purpose or goal of spending so much time name-calling and accusing other people of being liars? I don’t think it’s super hard to tell which posts seem like sincere comments from thoughtful parents and community members and which ones seem like a desperate attempt to either sew acrimony or disparage other points of view and communities. It’s honestly deeply weird.

And as you were typing this, the post that came at the same time provided a perfect example of what you are saying.

The problem with this topic is that it is very polarizing. No matter what the outcome, there will be winners and losers. Taylor made a mistake by making his own modification to one of the options. By doing that, he divided current WJ community, he divided current GPES community and he created bad blood among future Woodward community.

By your point he divided the KPES too? But to be honest. GPES and KPES "islands" going to Woodward make complete sense. "Core" GPES (town, neighborhood near the school, parkside) and "Core" KPES (parkwood near the school) going to WJ makes complete sense too. MCPS will do a boundary study for elementary soon. KPES is under capacity by a lot. Ashburton is way over capacity. They will re-draw to bring some of Ashburton into "Core" KPES and GPES, and the islands are likely gone mooting this point.

He gave all groups what they wanted except Farmland....BUT farmland should go to Woodward and be fine with VMES and WWES going to their school.

That is an oversimplification. If they make the change as proposed by the petition you could also say that "all groups got what they wanted", given what was discussed for months prior to the recommendation. But now, that we have the recommendation, the goal post has shifted and different groups have recalibrated their ambitions.

I can use GPES as an example. For months they were united and advocated against split articulation, Woodward or WJ. One of the reasons was that they were worried some parts may end up in Wheaton. But now with the recommendation, WJ part is happy and don't want anything to change and the other part is supporting the petition.

The petition is clear in their reasoning and they are making valid points. This whole Farmland/ Luxmanor are not being principled is just a noise from other groups that now feel threatened because their perspective shifted.

GPES and KPES islands probably join Farmland and Luxmanor elementary in the next study. The petition is because Farmland is upset with demographics at new Woodward.

Every group pays attention to FARMS. Why is MCPS including FARMS numbers in tables for all options? They are pretty much the only stat presented when describing different options. But somehow Farmland should ignore that they are getting the biggest jump by far. While at the same time WJ is getting some hypothetical considerations like "there will be a lot of developments here so let's keep utilization at 77%". There are developments everywhere.

They include race. English as second language too. It’s not only stat.

Farmland was not entitled to maintain WJ level FARMS in new Woodward. They are behaving as if they were.

And the development in new WJ is real. Not hypothetical.

You are just proving my point that demographics drives discussion and that Farmland's concern is as legitimate as concerns that other neighborhoods have.

Farmland is not asking in this petition to maintain WJ FARMS levels, just to narrow the gap. But you probably know that and are purposefully misrepresenting the proposal to keep WJ FARMS as low as possible.

Developments are happening everywhere. It is not BOE primary function to make sure that new Strathmore townhomes are priced at 2mil.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are some really interesting posts here but also just so much name-calling. Like, why? What is the purpose or goal of spending so much time name-calling and accusing other people of being liars? I don’t think it’s super hard to tell which posts seem like sincere comments from thoughtful parents and community members and which ones seem like a desperate attempt to either sew acrimony or disparage other points of view and communities. It’s honestly deeply weird.

And as you were typing this, the post that came at the same time provided a perfect example of what you are saying.

The problem with this topic is that it is very polarizing. No matter what the outcome, there will be winners and losers. Taylor made a mistake by making his own modification to one of the options. By doing that, he divided current WJ community, he divided current GPES community and he created bad blood among future Woodward community.

By your point he divided the KPES too? But to be honest. GPES and KPES "islands" going to Woodward make complete sense. "Core" GPES (town, neighborhood near the school, parkside) and "Core" KPES (parkwood near the school) going to WJ makes complete sense too. MCPS will do a boundary study for elementary soon. KPES is under capacity by a lot. Ashburton is way over capacity. They will re-draw to bring some of Ashburton into "Core" KPES and GPES, and the islands are likely gone mooting this point.

He gave all groups what they wanted except Farmland....BUT farmland should go to Woodward and be fine with VMES and WWES going to their school.

That is an oversimplification. If they make the change as proposed by the petition you could also say that "all groups got what they wanted", given what was discussed for months prior to the recommendation. But now, that we have the recommendation, the goal post has shifted and different groups have recalibrated their ambitions.

I can use GPES as an example. For months they were united and advocated against split articulation, Woodward or WJ. One of the reasons was that they were worried some parts may end up in Wheaton. But now with the recommendation, WJ part is happy and don't want anything to change and the other part is supporting the petition.

The petition is clear in their reasoning and they are making valid points. This whole Farmland/ Luxmanor are not being principled is just a noise from other groups that now feel threatened because their perspective shifted.

GPES and KPES islands probably join Farmland and Luxmanor elementary in the next study. The petition is because Farmland is upset with demographics at new Woodward.

Every group pays attention to FARMS. Why is MCPS including FARMS numbers in tables for all options? They are pretty much the only stat presented when describing different options. But somehow Farmland should ignore that they are getting the biggest jump by far. While at the same time WJ is getting some hypothetical considerations like "there will be a lot of developments here so let's keep utilization at 77%". There are developments everywhere.

They include race. English as second language too. It’s not only stat.

Farmland was not entitled to maintain WJ level FARMS in new Woodward. They are behaving as if they were.

And the development in new WJ is real. Not hypothetical.

You are just proving my point that demographics drives discussion and that Farmland's concern is as legitimate as concerns that other neighborhoods have.

Farmland is not asking in this petition to maintain WJ FARMS levels, just to narrow the gap. But you probably know that and are purposefully misrepresenting the proposal to keep WJ FARMS as low as possible.

Developments are happening everywhere. It is not BOE primary function to make sure that new Strathmore townhomes are priced at 2mil.

Mental gymnastics and inferiority complex always assuming it is a WJ person wanting to stop this. I am from VM and do not want to go to WJ! Why do you not want my community at Woodward so badly?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are some really interesting posts here but also just so much name-calling. Like, why? What is the purpose or goal of spending so much time name-calling and accusing other people of being liars? I don’t think it’s super hard to tell which posts seem like sincere comments from thoughtful parents and community members and which ones seem like a desperate attempt to either sew acrimony or disparage other points of view and communities. It’s honestly deeply weird.

And as you were typing this, the post that came at the same time provided a perfect example of what you are saying.

The problem with this topic is that it is very polarizing. No matter what the outcome, there will be winners and losers. Taylor made a mistake by making his own modification to one of the options. By doing that, he divided current WJ community, he divided current GPES community and he created bad blood among future Woodward community.

By your point he divided the KPES too? But to be honest. GPES and KPES "islands" going to Woodward make complete sense. "Core" GPES (town, neighborhood near the school, parkside) and "Core" KPES (parkwood near the school) going to WJ makes complete sense too. MCPS will do a boundary study for elementary soon. KPES is under capacity by a lot. Ashburton is way over capacity. They will re-draw to bring some of Ashburton into "Core" KPES and GPES, and the islands are likely gone mooting this point.

He gave all groups what they wanted except Farmland....BUT farmland should go to Woodward and be fine with VMES and WWES going to their school.

That is an oversimplification. If they make the change as proposed by the petition you could also say that "all groups got what they wanted", given what was discussed for months prior to the recommendation. But now, that we have the recommendation, the goal post has shifted and different groups have recalibrated their ambitions.

I can use GPES as an example. For months they were united and advocated against split articulation, Woodward or WJ. One of the reasons was that they were worried some parts may end up in Wheaton. But now with the recommendation, WJ part is happy and don't want anything to change and the other part is supporting the petition.

The petition is clear in their reasoning and they are making valid points. This whole Farmland/ Luxmanor are not being principled is just a noise from other groups that now feel threatened because their perspective shifted.

Wrong about GPES. The PTA leadership was all from the “islands” off Tuckerman and Nicholson. They wanted no split articulation because it meant bringing everyone to Woodward with them... including the Town of GP, Parkside, Estates. They didn’t care about the views of those living near the school.

The area close to GPES clearly wanted to keep the neighborhood together, not necessarily the entire school…elementsa Boundary is going to change soon anyway. And the Option that the superintended selected was the one they were ok with because it kept the town and adjacent neighborhood together. They literally had signs and flyers advocating for Option B.

The recommendation is not Option B. The recommendation is modified Option B. I started this whole exchange by saying that Taylor made a mistake by making his own modifications. If he simply selected one of the Options, let's say Option B, there would be less pushback since options have been discussed for quite some time. But with modifications, he deepened divide, unbalanced utilization and made some groups justifiably upset.

They stated all along MCPS could modify and it was not necessarily going to be one of the options. That was crystal clear.

And he made bad modifications. I assume you will be fine when BOE makes their own modifications (since it is crystal clear they have the authority to do so), or the process should stop at the moment you are happy with the outcome.

They have very little authority to switch this to say Option F right now. He presented a 80 page justification in support. They will have to adopt.

FAA language says minor only. Swapping around 3 different schools isn’t minor. At a certain point the board needs to back up their super too.

They do not need to back up their super. They are entitled to propose their own alternative options, and if enough of them agree with any alternative, it can replace the super's recommendation. That's not likely to happen, knowing what we know about this board, but it is consistent with policy FAA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are some really interesting posts here but also just so much name-calling. Like, why? What is the purpose or goal of spending so much time name-calling and accusing other people of being liars? I don’t think it’s super hard to tell which posts seem like sincere comments from thoughtful parents and community members and which ones seem like a desperate attempt to either sew acrimony or disparage other points of view and communities. It’s honestly deeply weird.

And as you were typing this, the post that came at the same time provided a perfect example of what you are saying.

The problem with this topic is that it is very polarizing. No matter what the outcome, there will be winners and losers. Taylor made a mistake by making his own modification to one of the options. By doing that, he divided current WJ community, he divided current GPES community and he created bad blood among future Woodward community.

By your point he divided the KPES too? But to be honest. GPES and KPES "islands" going to Woodward make complete sense. "Core" GPES (town, neighborhood near the school, parkside) and "Core" KPES (parkwood near the school) going to WJ makes complete sense too. MCPS will do a boundary study for elementary soon. KPES is under capacity by a lot. Ashburton is way over capacity. They will re-draw to bring some of Ashburton into "Core" KPES and GPES, and the islands are likely gone mooting this point.

He gave all groups what they wanted except Farmland....BUT farmland should go to Woodward and be fine with VMES and WWES going to their school.

That is an oversimplification. If they make the change as proposed by the petition you could also say that "all groups got what they wanted", given what was discussed for months prior to the recommendation. But now, that we have the recommendation, the goal post has shifted and different groups have recalibrated their ambitions.

I can use GPES as an example. For months they were united and advocated against split articulation, Woodward or WJ. One of the reasons was that they were worried some parts may end up in Wheaton. But now with the recommendation, WJ part is happy and don't want anything to change and the other part is supporting the petition.

The petition is clear in their reasoning and they are making valid points. This whole Farmland/ Luxmanor are not being principled is just a noise from other groups that now feel threatened because their perspective shifted.

Wrong about GPES. The PTA leadership was all from the “islands” off Tuckerman and Nicholson. They wanted no split articulation because it meant bringing everyone to Woodward with them... including the Town of GP, Parkside, Estates. They didn’t care about the views of those living near the school.

The area close to GPES clearly wanted to keep the neighborhood together, not necessarily the entire school…elementsa Boundary is going to change soon anyway. And the Option that the superintended selected was the one they were ok with because it kept the town and adjacent neighborhood together. They literally had signs and flyers advocating for Option B.

The recommendation is not Option B. The recommendation is modified Option B. I started this whole exchange by saying that Taylor made a mistake by making his own modifications. If he simply selected one of the Options, let's say Option B, there would be less pushback since options have been discussed for quite some time. But with modifications, he deepened divide, unbalanced utilization and made some groups justifiably upset.

They stated all along MCPS could modify and it was not necessarily going to be one of the options. That was crystal clear.

And he made bad modifications. I assume you will be fine when BOE makes their own modifications (since it is crystal clear they have the authority to do so), or the process should stop at the moment you are happy with the outcome.

They have very little authority to switch this to say Option F right now. He presented a 80 page justification in support. They will have to adopt.

FAA language says minor only. Swapping around 3 different schools isn’t minor. At a certain point the board needs to back up their super too.

They do not need to back up their super. They are entitled to propose their own alternative options, and if enough of them agree with any alternative, it can replace the super's recommendation. That's not likely to happen, knowing what we know about this board, but it is consistent with policy FAA.

Incorrect. That would be inconsistent with FAA. Language says “minor”. Farmland wants to swamp multiple schools. Not minor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are some really interesting posts here but also just so much name-calling. Like, why? What is the purpose or goal of spending so much time name-calling and accusing other people of being liars? I don’t think it’s super hard to tell which posts seem like sincere comments from thoughtful parents and community members and which ones seem like a desperate attempt to either sew acrimony or disparage other points of view and communities. It’s honestly deeply weird.

And as you were typing this, the post that came at the same time provided a perfect example of what you are saying.

The problem with this topic is that it is very polarizing. No matter what the outcome, there will be winners and losers. Taylor made a mistake by making his own modification to one of the options. By doing that, he divided current WJ community, he divided current GPES community and he created bad blood among future Woodward community.

By your point he divided the KPES too? But to be honest. GPES and KPES "islands" going to Woodward make complete sense. "Core" GPES (town, neighborhood near the school, parkside) and "Core" KPES (parkwood near the school) going to WJ makes complete sense too. MCPS will do a boundary study for elementary soon. KPES is under capacity by a lot. Ashburton is way over capacity. They will re-draw to bring some of Ashburton into "Core" KPES and GPES, and the islands are likely gone mooting this point.

He gave all groups what they wanted except Farmland....BUT farmland should go to Woodward and be fine with VMES and WWES going to their school.

That is an oversimplification. If they make the change as proposed by the petition you could also say that "all groups got what they wanted", given what was discussed for months prior to the recommendation. But now, that we have the recommendation, the goal post has shifted and different groups have recalibrated their ambitions.

I can use GPES as an example. For months they were united and advocated against split articulation, Woodward or WJ. One of the reasons was that they were worried some parts may end up in Wheaton. But now with the recommendation, WJ part is happy and don't want anything to change and the other part is supporting the petition.

The petition is clear in their reasoning and they are making valid points. This whole Farmland/ Luxmanor are not being principled is just a noise from other groups that now feel threatened because their perspective shifted.

Wrong about GPES. The PTA leadership was all from the “islands” off Tuckerman and Nicholson. They wanted no split articulation because it meant bringing everyone to Woodward with them... including the Town of GP, Parkside, Estates. They didn’t care about the views of those living near the school.

The area close to GPES clearly wanted to keep the neighborhood together, not necessarily the entire school…elementsa Boundary is going to change soon anyway. And the Option that the superintended selected was the one they were ok with because it kept the town and adjacent neighborhood together. They literally had signs and flyers advocating for Option B.

The recommendation is not Option B. The recommendation is modified Option B. I started this whole exchange by saying that Taylor made a mistake by making his own modifications. If he simply selected one of the Options, let's say Option B, there would be less pushback since options have been discussed for quite some time. But with modifications, he deepened divide, unbalanced utilization and made some groups justifiably upset.

They stated all along MCPS could modify and it was not necessarily going to be one of the options. That was crystal clear.

And he made bad modifications. I assume you will be fine when BOE makes their own modifications (since it is crystal clear they have the authority to do so), or the process should stop at the moment you are happy with the outcome.

They have very little authority to switch this to say Option F right now. He presented a 80 page justification in support. They will have to adopt.

FAA language says minor only. Swapping around 3 different schools isn’t minor. At a certain point the board needs to back up their super too.

They do not need to back up their super. They are entitled to propose their own alternative options, and if enough of them agree with any alternative, it can replace the super's recommendation. That's not likely to happen, knowing what we know about this board, but it is consistent with policy FAA.

They need to back him up. It would set them up for major legal challenge to swap things around at this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are some really interesting posts here but also just so much name-calling. Like, why? What is the purpose or goal of spending so much time name-calling and accusing other people of being liars? I don’t think it’s super hard to tell which posts seem like sincere comments from thoughtful parents and community members and which ones seem like a desperate attempt to either sew acrimony or disparage other points of view and communities. It’s honestly deeply weird.

And as you were typing this, the post that came at the same time provided a perfect example of what you are saying.

The problem with this topic is that it is very polarizing. No matter what the outcome, there will be winners and losers. Taylor made a mistake by making his own modification to one of the options. By doing that, he divided current WJ community, he divided current GPES community and he created bad blood among future Woodward community.

By your point he divided the KPES too? But to be honest. GPES and KPES "islands" going to Woodward make complete sense. "Core" GPES (town, neighborhood near the school, parkside) and "Core" KPES (parkwood near the school) going to WJ makes complete sense too. MCPS will do a boundary study for elementary soon. KPES is under capacity by a lot. Ashburton is way over capacity. They will re-draw to bring some of Ashburton into "Core" KPES and GPES, and the islands are likely gone mooting this point.

He gave all groups what they wanted except Farmland....BUT farmland should go to Woodward and be fine with VMES and WWES going to their school.

That is an oversimplification. If they make the change as proposed by the petition you could also say that "all groups got what they wanted", given what was discussed for months prior to the recommendation. But now, that we have the recommendation, the goal post has shifted and different groups have recalibrated their ambitions.

I can use GPES as an example. For months they were united and advocated against split articulation, Woodward or WJ. One of the reasons was that they were worried some parts may end up in Wheaton. But now with the recommendation, WJ part is happy and don't want anything to change and the other part is supporting the petition.

The petition is clear in their reasoning and they are making valid points. This whole Farmland/ Luxmanor are not being principled is just a noise from other groups that now feel threatened because their perspective shifted.

GPES and KPES islands probably join Farmland and Luxmanor elementary in the next study. The petition is because Farmland is upset with demographics at new Woodward.

Every group pays attention to FARMS. Why is MCPS including FARMS numbers in tables for all options? They are pretty much the only stat presented when describing different options. But somehow Farmland should ignore that they are getting the biggest jump by far. While at the same time WJ is getting some hypothetical considerations like "there will be a lot of developments here so let's keep utilization at 77%". There are developments everywhere.

They include race. English as second language too. It’s not only stat.

Farmland was not entitled to maintain WJ level FARMS in new Woodward. They are behaving as if they were.

And the development in new WJ is real. Not hypothetical.

You are just proving my point that demographics drives discussion and that Farmland's concern is as legitimate as concerns that other neighborhoods have.

Farmland is not asking in this petition to maintain WJ FARMS levels, just to narrow the gap. But you probably know that and are purposefully misrepresenting the proposal to keep WJ FARMS as low as possible.

Developments are happening everywhere. It is not BOE primary function to make sure that new Strathmore townhomes are priced at 2mil.

Farmland is not entitled to “narrowing the gap” either. The Superintendents recommendation is consistent with the FAA policy and their “alternative” does not solve any problems with the proposal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are some really interesting posts here but also just so much name-calling. Like, why? What is the purpose or goal of spending so much time name-calling and accusing other people of being liars? I don’t think it’s super hard to tell which posts seem like sincere comments from thoughtful parents and community members and which ones seem like a desperate attempt to either sew acrimony or disparage other points of view and communities. It’s honestly deeply weird.

And as you were typing this, the post that came at the same time provided a perfect example of what you are saying.

The problem with this topic is that it is very polarizing. No matter what the outcome, there will be winners and losers. Taylor made a mistake by making his own modification to one of the options. By doing that, he divided current WJ community, he divided current GPES community and he created bad blood among future Woodward community.

By your point he divided the KPES too? But to be honest. GPES and KPES "islands" going to Woodward make complete sense. "Core" GPES (town, neighborhood near the school, parkside) and "Core" KPES (parkwood near the school) going to WJ makes complete sense too. MCPS will do a boundary study for elementary soon. KPES is under capacity by a lot. Ashburton is way over capacity. They will re-draw to bring some of Ashburton into "Core" KPES and GPES, and the islands are likely gone mooting this point.

He gave all groups what they wanted except Farmland....BUT farmland should go to Woodward and be fine with VMES and WWES going to their school.

That is an oversimplification. If they make the change as proposed by the petition you could also say that "all groups got what they wanted", given what was discussed for months prior to the recommendation. But now, that we have the recommendation, the goal post has shifted and different groups have recalibrated their ambitions.

I can use GPES as an example. For months they were united and advocated against split articulation, Woodward or WJ. One of the reasons was that they were worried some parts may end up in Wheaton. But now with the recommendation, WJ part is happy and don't want anything to change and the other part is supporting the petition.

The petition is clear in their reasoning and they are making valid points. This whole Farmland/ Luxmanor are not being principled is just a noise from other groups that now feel threatened because their perspective shifted.

GPES and KPES islands probably join Farmland and Luxmanor elementary in the next study. The petition is because Farmland is upset with demographics at new Woodward.

Every group pays attention to FARMS. Why is MCPS including FARMS numbers in tables for all options? They are pretty much the only stat presented when describing different options. But somehow Farmland should ignore that they are getting the biggest jump by far. While at the same time WJ is getting some hypothetical considerations like "there will be a lot of developments here so let's keep utilization at 77%". There are developments everywhere.

They include race. English as second language too. It’s not only stat.

Farmland was not entitled to maintain WJ level FARMS in new Woodward. They are behaving as if they were.

And the development in new WJ is real. Not hypothetical.

You are just proving my point that demographics drives discussion and that Farmland's concern is as legitimate as concerns that other neighborhoods have.

Farmland is not asking in this petition to maintain WJ FARMS levels, just to narrow the gap. But you probably know that and are purposefully misrepresenting the proposal to keep WJ FARMS as low as possible.

Developments are happening everywhere. It is not BOE primary function to make sure that new Strathmore townhomes are priced at 2mil.

Mental gymnastics and inferiority complex always assuming it is a WJ person wanting to stop this. I am from VM and do not want to go to WJ! Why do you not want my community at Woodward so badly?

I am replying to a specific post and that post is certainly not from VM. VM posters don't obsess about Farmland and don't have strong opinions on real estate developments in WJ area. So you are not fooling anybody pretending to be from VM.

VM will be welcomed at Woodward if it comes to that, but in the meantime Farmland/Luxmanor will fight the inbalance that the recommendation created.

[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:There are some really interesting posts here but also just so much name-calling. Like, why? What is the purpose or goal of spending so much time name-calling and accusing other people of being liars? I don’t think it’s super hard to tell which posts seem like sincere comments from thoughtful parents and community members and which ones seem like a desperate attempt to either sew acrimony or disparage other points of view and communities. It’s honestly deeply weird.

And as you were typing this, the post that came at the same time provided a perfect example of what you are saying.

The problem with this topic is that it is very polarizing. No matter what the outcome, there will be winners and losers. Taylor made a mistake by making his own modification to one of the options. By doing that, he divided current WJ community, he divided current GPES community and he created bad blood among future Woodward community.

By your point he divided the KPES too? But to be honest. GPES and KPES "islands" going to Woodward make complete sense. "Core" GPES (town, neighborhood near the school, parkside) and "Core" KPES (parkwood near the school) going to WJ makes complete sense too. MCPS will do a boundary study for elementary soon. KPES is under capacity by a lot. Ashburton is way over capacity. They will re-draw to bring some of Ashburton into "Core" KPES and GPES, and the islands are likely gone mooting this point.

He gave all groups what they wanted except Farmland....BUT farmland should go to Woodward and be fine with VMES and WWES going to their school.

That is an oversimplification. If they make the change as proposed by the petition you could also say that "all groups got what they wanted", given what was discussed for months prior to the recommendation. But now, that we have the recommendation, the goal post has shifted and different groups have recalibrated their ambitions.

I can use GPES as an example. For months they were united and advocated against split articulation, Woodward or WJ. One of the reasons was that they were worried some parts may end up in Wheaton. But now with the recommendation, WJ part is happy and don't want anything to change and the other part is supporting the petition.

The petition is clear in their reasoning and they are making valid points. This whole Farmland/ Luxmanor are not being principled is just a noise from other groups that now feel threatened because their perspective shifted.

Wrong about GPES. The PTA leadership was all from the “islands” off Tuckerman and Nicholson. They wanted no split articulation because it meant bringing everyone to Woodward with them... including the Town of GP, Parkside, Estates. They didn’t care about the views of those living near the school.

The area close to GPES clearly wanted to keep the neighborhood together, not necessarily the entire school…elementsa Boundary is going to change soon anyway. And the Option that the superintended selected was the one they were ok with because it kept the town and adjacent neighborhood together. They literally had signs and flyers advocating for Option B.

The recommendation is not Option B. The recommendation is modified Option B. I started this whole exchange by saying that Taylor made a mistake by making his own modifications. If he simply selected one of the Options, let's say Option B, there would be less pushback since options have been discussed for quite some time. But with modifications, he deepened divide, unbalanced utilization and made some groups justifiably upset.

They stated all along MCPS could modify and it was not necessarily going to be one of the options. That was crystal clear.

And he made bad modifications. I assume you will be fine when BOE makes their own modifications (since it is crystal clear they have the authority to do so), or the process should stop at the moment you are happy with the outcome.

They have very little authority to switch this to say Option F right now. He presented a 80 page justification in support. They will have to adopt.

FAA language says minor only. Swapping around 3 different schools isn’t minor. At a certain point the board needs to back up their super too.

They do not need to back up their super. They are entitled to propose their own alternative options, and if enough of them agree with any alternative, it can replace the super's recommendation. That's not likely to happen, knowing what we know about this board, but it is consistent with policy FAA.

Incorrect. That would be inconsistent with FAA. Language says “minor”. Farmland wants to swamp multiple schools. Not minor.

No. You're not reading the whole policy. Section F. 1 states that the board may identify their own alternatives.

[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:There are some really interesting posts here but also just so much name-calling. Like, why? What is the purpose or goal of spending so much time name-calling and accusing other people of being liars? I don’t think it’s super hard to tell which posts seem like sincere comments from thoughtful parents and community members and which ones seem like a desperate attempt to either sew acrimony or disparage other points of view and communities. It’s honestly deeply weird.

And as you were typing this, the post that came at the same time provided a perfect example of what you are saying.

The problem with this topic is that it is very polarizing. No matter what the outcome, there will be winners and losers. Taylor made a mistake by making his own modification to one of the options. By doing that, he divided current WJ community, he divided current GPES community and he created bad blood among future Woodward community.

By your point he divided the KPES too? But to be honest. GPES and KPES "islands" going to Woodward make complete sense. "Core" GPES (town, neighborhood near the school, parkside) and "Core" KPES (parkwood near the school) going to WJ makes complete sense too. MCPS will do a boundary study for elementary soon. KPES is under capacity by a lot. Ashburton is way over capacity. They will re-draw to bring some of Ashburton into "Core" KPES and GPES, and the islands are likely gone mooting this point.

He gave all groups what they wanted except Farmland....BUT farmland should go to Woodward and be fine with VMES and WWES going to their school.

That is an oversimplification. If they make the change as proposed by the petition you could also say that "all groups got what they wanted", given what was discussed for months prior to the recommendation. But now, that we have the recommendation, the goal post has shifted and different groups have recalibrated their ambitions.

I can use GPES as an example. For months they were united and advocated against split articulation, Woodward or WJ. One of the reasons was that they were worried some parts may end up in Wheaton. But now with the recommendation, WJ part is happy and don't want anything to change and the other part is supporting the petition.

The petition is clear in their reasoning and they are making valid points. This whole Farmland/ Luxmanor are not being principled is just a noise from other groups that now feel threatened because their perspective shifted.

Wrong about GPES. The PTA leadership was all from the “islands” off Tuckerman and Nicholson. They wanted no split articulation because it meant bringing everyone to Woodward with them... including the Town of GP, Parkside, Estates. They didn’t care about the views of those living near the school.

The area close to GPES clearly wanted to keep the neighborhood together, not necessarily the entire school…elementsa Boundary is going to change soon anyway. And the Option that the superintended selected was the one they were ok with because it kept the town and adjacent neighborhood together. They literally had signs and flyers advocating for Option B.

The recommendation is not Option B. The recommendation is modified Option B. I started this whole exchange by saying that Taylor made a mistake by making his own modifications. If he simply selected one of the Options, let's say Option B, there would be less pushback since options have been discussed for quite some time. But with modifications, he deepened divide, unbalanced utilization and made some groups justifiably upset.

They stated all along MCPS could modify and it was not necessarily going to be one of the options. That was crystal clear.

And he made bad modifications. I assume you will be fine when BOE makes their own modifications (since it is crystal clear they have the authority to do so), or the process should stop at the moment you are happy with the outcome.

They have very little authority to switch this to say Option F right now. He presented a 80 page justification in support. They will have to adopt.

FAA language says minor only. Swapping around 3 different schools isn’t minor. At a certain point the board needs to back up their super too.

They do not need to back up their super. They are entitled to propose their own alternative options, and if enough of them agree with any alternative, it can replace the super's recommendation. That's not likely to happen, knowing what we know about this board, but it is consistent with policy FAA.

Incorrect. That would be inconsistent with FAA. Language says “minor”. Farmland wants to swamp multiple schools. Not minor.

What is your definition of 'minor'. Nothing is being swamped as nothing happened yet. All FARMS and uitlization numbers will change by not more than 10 points. In a grand scheme of things, it is pretty minor.

[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:There are some really interesting posts here but also just so much name-calling. Like, why? What is the purpose or goal of spending so much time name-calling and accusing other people of being liars? I don’t think it’s super hard to tell which posts seem like sincere comments from thoughtful parents and community members and which ones seem like a desperate attempt to either sew acrimony or disparage other points of view and communities. It’s honestly deeply weird.

And as you were typing this, the post that came at the same time provided a perfect example of what you are saying.

The problem with this topic is that it is very polarizing. No matter what the outcome, there will be winners and losers. Taylor made a mistake by making his own modification to one of the options. By doing that, he divided current WJ community, he divided current GPES community and he created bad blood among future Woodward community.

By your point he divided the KPES too? But to be honest. GPES and KPES "islands" going to Woodward make complete sense. "Core" GPES (town, neighborhood near the school, parkside) and "Core" KPES (parkwood near the school) going to WJ makes complete sense too. MCPS will do a boundary study for elementary soon. KPES is under capacity by a lot. Ashburton is way over capacity. They will re-draw to bring some of Ashburton into "Core" KPES and GPES, and the islands are likely gone mooting this point.

He gave all groups what they wanted except Farmland....BUT farmland should go to Woodward and be fine with VMES and WWES going to their school.

That is an oversimplification. If they make the change as proposed by the petition you could also say that "all groups got what they wanted", given what was discussed for months prior to the recommendation. But now, that we have the recommendation, the goal post has shifted and different groups have recalibrated their ambitions.

I can use GPES as an example. For months they were united and advocated against split articulation, Woodward or WJ. One of the reasons was that they were worried some parts may end up in Wheaton. But now with the recommendation, WJ part is happy and don't want anything to change and the other part is supporting the petition.

The petition is clear in their reasoning and they are making valid points. This whole Farmland/ Luxmanor are not being principled is just a noise from other groups that now feel threatened because their perspective shifted.

Wrong about GPES. The PTA leadership was all from the “islands” off Tuckerman and Nicholson. They wanted no split articulation because it meant bringing everyone to Woodward with them... including the Town of GP, Parkside, Estates. They didn’t care about the views of those living near the school.

The area close to GPES clearly wanted to keep the neighborhood together, not necessarily the entire school…elementsa Boundary is going to change soon anyway. And the Option that the superintended selected was the one they were ok with because it kept the town and adjacent neighborhood together. They literally had signs and flyers advocating for Option B.

The recommendation is not Option B. The recommendation is modified Option B. I started this whole exchange by saying that Taylor made a mistake by making his own modifications. If he simply selected one of the Options, let's say Option B, there would be less pushback since options have been discussed for quite some time. But with modifications, he deepened divide, unbalanced utilization and made some groups justifiably upset.

They stated all along MCPS could modify and it was not necessarily going to be one of the options. That was crystal clear.

And he made bad modifications. I assume you will be fine when BOE makes their own modifications (since it is crystal clear they have the authority to do so), or the process should stop at the moment you are happy with the outcome.

They have very little authority to switch this to say Option F right now. He presented a 80 page justification in support. They will have to adopt.

FAA language says minor only. Swapping around 3 different schools isn’t minor. At a certain point the board needs to back up their super too.

They do not need to back up their super. They are entitled to propose their own alternative options, and if enough of them agree with any alternative, it can replace the super's recommendation. That's not likely to happen, knowing what we know about this board, but it is consistent with policy FAA.

Incorrect. That would be inconsistent with FAA. Language says “minor”. Farmland wants to swamp multiple schools. Not minor.

What is your definition of 'minor'. Nothing is being swamped as nothing happened yet. All FARMS and uitlization numbers will change by not more than 10 points. In a grand scheme of things, it is pretty minor.

Real families. You want to swap perceived better demographics from KPES and GPES when those people advocated for their positions and input was heard. You do not want VMES and WWES when those people also advocated for their concerns which were heard. Major.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are some really interesting posts here but also just so much name-calling. Like, why? What is the purpose or goal of spending so much time name-calling and accusing other people of being liars? I don’t think it’s super hard to tell which posts seem like sincere comments from thoughtful parents and community members and which ones seem like a desperate attempt to either sew acrimony or disparage other points of view and communities. It’s honestly deeply weird.

And as you were typing this, the post that came at the same time provided a perfect example of what you are saying.

The problem with this topic is that it is very polarizing. No matter what the outcome, there will be winners and losers. Taylor made a mistake by making his own modification to one of the options. By doing that, he divided current WJ community, he divided current GPES community and he created bad blood among future Woodward community.

By your point he divided the KPES too? But to be honest. GPES and KPES "islands" going to Woodward make complete sense. "Core" GPES (town, neighborhood near the school, parkside) and "Core" KPES (parkwood near the school) going to WJ makes complete sense too. MCPS will do a boundary study for elementary soon. KPES is under capacity by a lot. Ashburton is way over capacity. They will re-draw to bring some of Ashburton into "Core" KPES and GPES, and the islands are likely gone mooting this point.

He gave all groups what they wanted except Farmland....BUT farmland should go to Woodward and be fine with VMES and WWES going to their school.

That is an oversimplification. If they make the change as proposed by the petition you could also say that "all groups got what they wanted", given what was discussed for months prior to the recommendation. But now, that we have the recommendation, the goal post has shifted and different groups have recalibrated their ambitions.

I can use GPES as an example. For months they were united and advocated against split articulation, Woodward or WJ. One of the reasons was that they were worried some parts may end up in Wheaton. But now with the recommendation, WJ part is happy and don't want anything to change and the other part is supporting the petition.

The petition is clear in their reasoning and they are making valid points. This whole Farmland/ Luxmanor are not being principled is just a noise from other groups that now feel threatened because their perspective shifted.

GPES and KPES islands probably join Farmland and Luxmanor elementary in the next study. The petition is because Farmland is upset with demographics at new Woodward.

Every group pays attention to FARMS. Why is MCPS including FARMS numbers in tables for all options? They are pretty much the only stat presented when describing different options. But somehow Farmland should ignore that they are getting the biggest jump by far. While at the same time WJ is getting some hypothetical considerations like "there will be a lot of developments here so let's keep utilization at 77%". There are developments everywhere.

They include race. English as second language too. It’s not only stat.

Farmland was not entitled to maintain WJ level FARMS in new Woodward. They are behaving as if they were.

And the development in new WJ is real. Not hypothetical.

You are just proving my point that demographics drives discussion and that Farmland's concern is as legitimate as concerns that other neighborhoods have.

Farmland is not asking in this petition to maintain WJ FARMS levels, just to narrow the gap. But you probably know that and are purposefully misrepresenting the proposal to keep WJ FARMS as low as possible.

Developments are happening everywhere. It is not BOE primary function to make sure that new Strathmore townhomes are priced at 2mil.

Farmland is not entitled to “narrowing the gap” either. The Superintendents recommendation is consistent with the FAA policy and their “alternative” does not solve any problems with the proposal.

Nobody is entitled to anything. But Farmland has every right to try. The alternative smoothens the numbers and is also consistent with the FAA policy.

[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:There are some really interesting posts here but also just so much name-calling. Like, why? What is the purpose or goal of spending so much time name-calling and accusing other people of being liars? I don’t think it’s super hard to tell which posts seem like sincere comments from thoughtful parents and community members and which ones seem like a desperate attempt to either sew acrimony or disparage other points of view and communities. It’s honestly deeply weird.

And as you were typing this, the post that came at the same time provided a perfect example of what you are saying.

The problem with this topic is that it is very polarizing. No matter what the outcome, there will be winners and losers. Taylor made a mistake by making his own modification to one of the options. By doing that, he divided current WJ community, he divided current GPES community and he created bad blood among future Woodward community.

By your point he divided the KPES too? But to be honest. GPES and KPES "islands" going to Woodward make complete sense. "Core" GPES (town, neighborhood near the school, parkside) and "Core" KPES (parkwood near the school) going to WJ makes complete sense too. MCPS will do a boundary study for elementary soon. KPES is under capacity by a lot. Ashburton is way over capacity. They will re-draw to bring some of Ashburton into "Core" KPES and GPES, and the islands are likely gone mooting this point.

He gave all groups what they wanted except Farmland....BUT farmland should go to Woodward and be fine with VMES and WWES going to their school.

That is an oversimplification. If they make the change as proposed by the petition you could also say that "all groups got what they wanted", given what was discussed for months prior to the recommendation. But now, that we have the recommendation, the goal post has shifted and different groups have recalibrated their ambitions.

I can use GPES as an example. For months they were united and advocated against split articulation, Woodward or WJ. One of the reasons was that they were worried some parts may end up in Wheaton. But now with the recommendation, WJ part is happy and don't want anything to change and the other part is supporting the petition.

The petition is clear in their reasoning and they are making valid points. This whole Farmland/ Luxmanor are not being principled is just a noise from other groups that now feel threatened because their perspective shifted.

Wrong about GPES. The PTA leadership was all from the “islands” off Tuckerman and Nicholson. They wanted no split articulation because it meant bringing everyone to Woodward with them... including the Town of GP, Parkside, Estates. They didn’t care about the views of those living near the school.

The area close to GPES clearly wanted to keep the neighborhood together, not necessarily the entire school…elementsa Boundary is going to change soon anyway. And the Option that the superintended selected was the one they were ok with because it kept the town and adjacent neighborhood together. They literally had signs and flyers advocating for Option B.

The recommendation is not Option B. The recommendation is modified Option B. I started this whole exchange by saying that Taylor made a mistake by making his own modifications. If he simply selected one of the Options, let's say Option B, there would be less pushback since options have been discussed for quite some time. But with modifications, he deepened divide, unbalanced utilization and made some groups justifiably upset.

They stated all along MCPS could modify and it was not necessarily going to be one of the options. That was crystal clear.

And he made bad modifications. I assume you will be fine when BOE makes their own modifications (since it is crystal clear they have the authority to do so), or the process should stop at the moment you are happy with the outcome.

They have very little authority to switch this to say Option F right now. He presented a 80 page justification in support. They will have to adopt.

FAA language says minor only. Swapping around 3 different schools isn’t minor. At a certain point the board needs to back up their super too.

They do not need to back up their super. They are entitled to propose their own alternative options, and if enough of them agree with any alternative, it can replace the super's recommendation. That's not likely to happen, knowing what we know about this board, but it is consistent with policy FAA.

Incorrect. That would be inconsistent with FAA. Language says “minor”. Farmland wants to swamp multiple schools. Not minor.

No. You're not reading the whole policy. Section F. 1 states that the board may identify their own alternatives.

Oh I read it. The section goes on to say that they need to find that such action will not have a significant impact on an option for a …school boundary…that has received public review. This had a year of review and would not be a minor change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are some really interesting posts here but also just so much name-calling. Like, why? What is the purpose or goal of spending so much time name-calling and accusing other people of being liars? I don’t think it’s super hard to tell which posts seem like sincere comments from thoughtful parents and community members and which ones seem like a desperate attempt to either sew acrimony or disparage other points of view and communities. It’s honestly deeply weird.

And as you were typing this, the post that came at the same time provided a perfect example of what you are saying.

The problem with this topic is that it is very polarizing. No matter what the outcome, there will be winners and losers. Taylor made a mistake by making his own modification to one of the options. By doing that, he divided current WJ community, he divided current GPES community and he created bad blood among future Woodward community.

By your point he divided the KPES too? But to be honest. GPES and KPES "islands" going to Woodward make complete sense. "Core" GPES (town, neighborhood near the school, parkside) and "Core" KPES (parkwood near the school) going to WJ makes complete sense too. MCPS will do a boundary study for elementary soon. KPES is under capacity by a lot. Ashburton is way over capacity. They will re-draw to bring some of Ashburton into "Core" KPES and GPES, and the islands are likely gone mooting this point.

He gave all groups what they wanted except Farmland....BUT farmland should go to Woodward and be fine with VMES and WWES going to their school.

That is an oversimplification. If they make the change as proposed by the petition you could also say that "all groups got what they wanted", given what was discussed for months prior to the recommendation. But now, that we have the recommendation, the goal post has shifted and different groups have recalibrated their ambitions.

I can use GPES as an example. For months they were united and advocated against split articulation, Woodward or WJ. One of the reasons was that they were worried some parts may end up in Wheaton. But now with the recommendation, WJ part is happy and don't want anything to change and the other part is supporting the petition.

The petition is clear in their reasoning and they are making valid points. This whole Farmland/ Luxmanor are not being principled is just a noise from other groups that now feel threatened because their perspective shifted.

GPES and KPES islands probably join Farmland and Luxmanor elementary in the next study. The petition is because Farmland is upset with demographics at new Woodward.

Every group pays attention to FARMS. Why is MCPS including FARMS numbers in tables for all options? They are pretty much the only stat presented when describing different options. But somehow Farmland should ignore that they are getting the biggest jump by far. While at the same time WJ is getting some hypothetical considerations like "there will be a lot of developments here so let's keep utilization at 77%". There are developments everywhere.

They include race. English as second language too. It’s not only stat.

Farmland was not entitled to maintain WJ level FARMS in new Woodward. They are behaving as if they were.

And the development in new WJ is real. Not hypothetical.

You are just proving my point that demographics drives discussion and that Farmland's concern is as legitimate as concerns that other neighborhoods have.

Farmland is not asking in this petition to maintain WJ FARMS levels, just to narrow the gap. But you probably know that and are purposefully misrepresenting the proposal to keep WJ FARMS as low as possible.

Developments are happening everywhere. It is not BOE primary function to make sure that new Strathmore townhomes are priced at 2mil.

Farmland is not entitled to “narrowing the gap” either. The Superintendents recommendation is consistent with the FAA policy and their “alternative” does not solve any problems with the proposal.

Nobody is entitled to anything. But Farmland has every right to try. The alternative smoothens the numbers and is also consistent with the FAA policy.

It’s not consistent with FAA to do as Farmland is suggesting. Too late in the game to make significant impact changes. Only minor things will fly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are some really interesting posts here but also just so much name-calling. Like, why? What is the purpose or goal of spending so much time name-calling and accusing other people of being liars? I don’t think it’s super hard to tell which posts seem like sincere comments from thoughtful parents and community members and which ones seem like a desperate attempt to either sew acrimony or disparage other points of view and communities. It’s honestly deeply weird.

And as you were typing this, the post that came at the same time provided a perfect example of what you are saying.

The problem with this topic is that it is very polarizing. No matter what the outcome, there will be winners and losers. Taylor made a mistake by making his own modification to one of the options. By doing that, he divided current WJ community, he divided current GPES community and he created bad blood among future Woodward community.

By your point he divided the KPES too? But to be honest. GPES and KPES "islands" going to Woodward make complete sense. "Core" GPES (town, neighborhood near the school, parkside) and "Core" KPES (parkwood near the school) going to WJ makes complete sense too. MCPS will do a boundary study for elementary soon. KPES is under capacity by a lot. Ashburton is way over capacity. They will re-draw to bring some of Ashburton into "Core" KPES and GPES, and the islands are likely gone mooting this point.

He gave all groups what they wanted except Farmland....BUT farmland should go to Woodward and be fine with VMES and WWES going to their school.

That is an oversimplification. If they make the change as proposed by the petition you could also say that "all groups got what they wanted", given what was discussed for months prior to the recommendation. But now, that we have the recommendation, the goal post has shifted and different groups have recalibrated their ambitions.

I can use GPES as an example. For months they were united and advocated against split articulation, Woodward or WJ. One of the reasons was that they were worried some parts may end up in Wheaton. But now with the recommendation, WJ part is happy and don't want anything to change and the other part is supporting the petition.

The petition is clear in their reasoning and they are making valid points. This whole Farmland/ Luxmanor are not being principled is just a noise from other groups that now feel threatened because their perspective shifted.

GPES and KPES islands probably join Farmland and Luxmanor elementary in the next study. The petition is because Farmland is upset with demographics at new Woodward.

Every group pays attention to FARMS. Why is MCPS including FARMS numbers in tables for all options? They are pretty much the only stat presented when describing different options. But somehow Farmland should ignore that they are getting the biggest jump by far. While at the same time WJ is getting some hypothetical considerations like "there will be a lot of developments here so let's keep utilization at 77%". There are developments everywhere.

They include race. English as second language too. It’s not only stat.

Farmland was not entitled to maintain WJ level FARMS in new Woodward. They are behaving as if they were.

And the development in new WJ is real. Not hypothetical.

You are just proving my point that demographics drives discussion and that Farmland's concern is as legitimate as concerns that other neighborhoods have.

Farmland is not asking in this petition to maintain WJ FARMS levels, just to narrow the gap. But you probably know that and are purposefully misrepresenting the proposal to keep WJ FARMS as low as possible.

Developments are happening everywhere. It is not BOE primary function to make sure that new Strathmore townhomes are priced at 2mil.

Farmland is not entitled to “narrowing the gap” either. The Superintendents recommendation is consistent with the FAA policy and their “alternative” does not solve any problems with the proposal.

Nobody is entitled to anything. But Farmland has every right to try. The alternative smoothens the numbers and is also consistent with the FAA policy.

It’s not consistent with FAA to do as Farmland is suggesting. Too late in the game to make significant impact changes. Only minor things will fly.

So you are arguing on a technicality not on principles. Fine. There will be a public debate for the next month or so and then we will see what BOE considers minor.

[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:There are some really interesting posts here but also just so much name-calling. Like, why? What is the purpose or goal of spending so much time name-calling and accusing other people of being liars? I don’t think it’s super hard to tell which posts seem like sincere comments from thoughtful parents and community members and which ones seem like a desperate attempt to either sew acrimony or disparage other points of view and communities. It’s honestly deeply weird.

And as you were typing this, the post that came at the same time provided a perfect example of what you are saying.

The problem with this topic is that it is very polarizing. No matter what the outcome, there will be winners and losers. Taylor made a mistake by making his own modification to one of the options. By doing that, he divided current WJ community, he divided current GPES community and he created bad blood among future Woodward community.

By your point he divided the KPES too? But to be honest. GPES and KPES "islands" going to Woodward make complete sense. "Core" GPES (town, neighborhood near the school, parkside) and "Core" KPES (parkwood near the school) going to WJ makes complete sense too. MCPS will do a boundary study for elementary soon. KPES is under capacity by a lot. Ashburton is way over capacity. They will re-draw to bring some of Ashburton into "Core" KPES and GPES, and the islands are likely gone mooting this point.

He gave all groups what they wanted except Farmland....BUT farmland should go to Woodward and be fine with VMES and WWES going to their school.

That is an oversimplification. If they make the change as proposed by the petition you could also say that "all groups got what they wanted", given what was discussed for months prior to the recommendation. But now, that we have the recommendation, the goal post has shifted and different groups have recalibrated their ambitions.

I can use GPES as an example. For months they were united and advocated against split articulation, Woodward or WJ. One of the reasons was that they were worried some parts may end up in Wheaton. But now with the recommendation, WJ part is happy and don't want anything to change and the other part is supporting the petition.

The petition is clear in their reasoning and they are making valid points. This whole Farmland/ Luxmanor are not being principled is just a noise from other groups that now feel threatened because their perspective shifted.

Wrong about GPES. The PTA leadership was all from the “islands” off Tuckerman and Nicholson. They wanted no split articulation because it meant bringing everyone to Woodward with them... including the Town of GP, Parkside, Estates. They didn’t care about the views of those living near the school.

The area close to GPES clearly wanted to keep the neighborhood together, not necessarily the entire school…elementsa Boundary is going to change soon anyway. And the Option that the superintended selected was the one they were ok with because it kept the town and adjacent neighborhood together. They literally had signs and flyers advocating for Option B.

The recommendation is not Option B. The recommendation is modified Option B. I started this whole exchange by saying that Taylor made a mistake by making his own modifications. If he simply selected one of the Options, let's say Option B, there would be less pushback since options have been discussed for quite some time. But with modifications, he deepened divide, unbalanced utilization and made some groups justifiably upset.

They stated all along MCPS could modify and it was not necessarily going to be one of the options. That was crystal clear.

And he made bad modifications. I assume you will be fine when BOE makes their own modifications (since it is crystal clear they have the authority to do so), or the process should stop at the moment you are happy with the outcome.

They have very little authority to switch this to say Option F right now. He presented a 80 page justification in support. They will have to adopt.

FAA language says minor only. Swapping around 3 different schools isn’t minor. At a certain point the board needs to back up their super too.

They do not need to back up their super. They are entitled to propose their own alternative options, and if enough of them agree with any alternative, it can replace the super's recommendation. That's not likely to happen, knowing what we know about this board, but it is consistent with policy FAA.

Incorrect. That would be inconsistent with FAA. Language says “minor”. Farmland wants to swamp multiple schools. Not minor.

No. You're not reading the whole policy. Section F. 1 states that the board may identify their own alternatives.

Oh I read it. The section goes on to say that they need to find that such action will not have a significant impact on an option for a …school boundary…that has received public review. This had a year of review and would not be a minor change.

You're conflating different sections. Section F. 1 says board members can identify their own alternative options in addition to the superintendent's recommendation. Section F. 2 says there would be public hearings and written testimony solicited, on both the superintendent's recommendation and any board-identified options. Section F. 3 says, after the public hearings, the board can still then adopt minor modifications to either the super's or the board's options, if a majority votes to do so.