Initial boundary options for Woodward study area are up

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What they should do is build the new high schools where the majority of new housing - apartments & condos are- and that’s East County.

They did a cursory look at that prior to deciding to rebuild/reopen Woodward and rebuild/expand Northwood. The County Council indicated it wouldn't support the price tag where the county had failed to preserve adequate land for schools as it allowed denser residential infill over decades in the lower DCC. The BOE read those tea leaves to come to the present situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing that most concerns me is that, with all the options, they'd move kids around right in the middle of middle school.

If I read it correctly, a rising 7th grader in the 2027-28 school year who lives within a shifting boundary would be forced to move to their new boundary-assigned school. It's a recipe for disaster for those kids.

I mean, this is what always happens when a new school opens, and they will move alongside their entire neighborhood or even their entire ES cohort. It's not that big of a deal.

I’m sorry but you are really minimizing something that is totally a big deal for some people (obviously not you). The current 7th graders at my zoned middle school, under option 3, would all start at our current zoned HS for 9th grade and then depending on neighborhood would be split up and fanned out to FOUR differently high schools for 10th grade, with four out of seven neighborhoods taking on a significant commute and zero neighborhoods reducing commute. Not to mention those with older siblings who stay at the zoned HS so families juggling commute on top of two different HSs, plus all the social disruptions this can bring.

Plus, as we all know, different high schools have different offerings and sequences so you may have been taking Italian in 9th grade and it’s not offered at your next school in 10th or you may be on the crew team in 9th but your next school doesn’t have a spot for you or offer crew.

Will everyone survive? Sure. But it’s a big deal to some and it’s not helpful to minimize.

[Anonymous]

Do we know if there would be sibling COSAs available to try to keep families at the same school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I agree. If Woodward HS is 47% FARMS and Walter Johnson is only 15% FARMS, that will increase segregation. Woodward will become another high-poverty school that parents want to avoid while WJ will absorb wealthy kids from Whitman and BCC and become even more of an exclusive school than it already is. I think it would be more fair for both WJ and Woodward to take an equal number of kids from the DCC, if possible, to avoid this problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Man, I didn't realize just how massive the variation in EML/FARMS is between high schools right now, and these options barely touch it (even option 3, which looks like it does the most to balance those factors, still has really large disparities)...

It is not up to schools to social engineer this.

You are right. We shouldn't intentionally keep the richest Kensington families in SFHs separate from the lower income ones in the apartments on University. Social engineering is what is currently happening.

Exactly. That Town of Kensington carve out for those rich mostly white students to ride a bus all the way to Walter Johnson when they could WALK to Einstein is somehow not social engineering?

They cannot walk to Einstein. Most parts are 2-4 miles and not safe.

NP - if kids who attend Rock View and Oakland Terrace live close enough that they are expected to cross University to walk to Einstein, plenty of kids in ToK live close enough, as well. Those outside the two mile radius can get a bus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I agree. If Woodward HS is 47% FARMS and Walter Johnson is only 15% FARMS, that will increase segregation. Woodward will become another high-poverty school that parents want to avoid while WJ will absorb wealthy kids from Whitman and BCC and become even more of an exclusive school than it already is. I think it would be more fair for both WJ and Woodward to take an equal number of kids from the DCC, if possible, to avoid this problem.

Is that option 3 (Woodward 47%) Sounds like it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I agree. If Woodward HS is 47% FARMS and Walter Johnson is only 15% FARMS, that will increase segregation. Woodward will become another high-poverty school that parents want to avoid while WJ will absorb wealthy kids from Whitman and BCC and become even more of an exclusive school than it already is. I think it would be more fair for both WJ and Woodward to take an equal number of kids from the DCC, if possible, to avoid this problem.

Yes, and it is ironic since it is supposed to be the diversity map, but it makes Woodward one of the most economically disadvantaged schools in the batch. However, it does do a better job at balancing Einstein and WJ.



Is that option 3 (Woodward 47%) Sounds like it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Man, I didn't realize just how massive the variation in EML/FARMS is between high schools right now, and these options barely touch it (even option 3, which looks like it does the most to balance those factors, still has really large disparities)...

It is not up to schools to social engineer this.

You are right. We shouldn't intentionally keep the richest Kensington families in SFHs separate from the lower income ones in the apartments on University. Social engineering is what is currently happening.

Exactly. That Town of Kensington carve out for those rich mostly white students to ride a bus all the way to Walter Johnson when they could WALK to Einstein is somehow not social engineering?

They cannot walk to Einstein. Most parts are 2-4 miles and not safe.

It’s probably closer to 2 miles but I agree the area across Connecticut and University is not walker friendly and is a traffic nightmare. The crosswalks are horrible and the sidewalks are narrow. And there are plenty of kids who are lower income who live in the TOK in the apartment buildings there and aren’t living in SFHs. So don’t act like you understand the demos of an area when you don’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I agree. If Woodward HS is 47% FARMS and Walter Johnson is only 15% FARMS, that will increase segregation. Woodward will become another high-poverty school that parents want to avoid while WJ will absorb wealthy kids from Whitman and BCC and become even more of an exclusive school than it already is. I think it would be more fair for both WJ and Woodward to take an equal number of kids from the DCC, if possible, to avoid this problem.

Yes, and it is ironic since it is supposed to be the diversity map, but it makes Woodward one of the most economically disadvantaged schools in the batch. However, it does do a better job at balancing Einstein and WJ.
Is that option 3 (Woodward 47%) Sounds like it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Man, I didn't realize just how massive the variation in EML/FARMS is between high schools right now, and these options barely touch it (even option 3, which looks like it does the most to balance those factors, still has really large disparities)...

It is not up to schools to social engineer this.

You are right. We shouldn't intentionally keep the richest Kensington families in SFHs separate from the lower income ones in the apartments on University. Social engineering is what is currently happening.

Exactly. That Town of Kensington carve out for those rich mostly white students to ride a bus all the way to Walter Johnson when they could WALK to Einstein is somehow not social engineering?

They cannot walk to Einstein. Most parts are 2-4 miles and not safe.

NP - if kids who attend Rock View and Oakland Terrace live close enough that they are expected to cross University to walk to Einstein, plenty of kids in ToK live close enough, as well. Those outside the two mile radius can get a bus.

That's just a very small part of the TOK. And no its not safe. Kids have been hit by cars on Conn, University and Viers Mill.

[Anonymous]

Isn’t MCPS policy literally that all 4 factors must be considered equally? Why are we even looking at these 4 options that don’t even try to do that?

Waste of taxpayer money for consultants to do that. Let’s see options consistent with policy.

Unless of course the board has changed the policy when we weren’t looking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Man, I didn't realize just how massive the variation in EML/FARMS is between high schools right now, and these options barely touch it (even option 3, which looks like it does the most to balance those factors, still has really large disparities)...

It is not up to schools to social engineer this.

You are right. We shouldn't intentionally keep the richest Kensington families in SFHs separate from the lower income ones in the apartments on University. Social engineering is what is currently happening.

Exactly. That Town of Kensington carve out for those rich mostly white students to ride a bus all the way to Walter Johnson when they could WALK to Einstein is somehow not social engineering?

They cannot walk to Einstein. Most parts are 2-4 miles and not safe.

It’s probably closer to 2 miles but I agree the area across Connecticut and University is not walker friendly and is a traffic nightmare. The crosswalks are horrible and the sidewalks are narrow. And there are plenty of kids who are lower income who live in the TOK in the apartment buildings there and aren’t living in SFHs. So don’t act like you understand the demos of an area when you don’t.

Only a small part is under two miles. What sidewalks? We have very few. You walk it the street. The tok apartments aren’t really low income. Of course I understand it, you don’t. I’ve lived here many many years.

[Anonymous]

Crossing Conn Ave, Veirs Mill and University are all challenging today for current Einstein walkers. And let’s be real, many people will be driven or drive themselves to school, just like today. The parts of TOK near St Paul Ave are much closer than areas where current walkers live.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Man, I didn't realize just how massive the variation in EML/FARMS is between high schools right now, and these options barely touch it (even option 3, which looks like it does the most to balance those factors, still has really large disparities)...

It is not up to schools to social engineer this.

You are right. We shouldn't intentionally keep the richest Kensington families in SFHs separate from the lower income ones in the apartments on University. Social engineering is what is currently happening.

Exactly. That Town of Kensington carve out for those rich mostly white students to ride a bus all the way to Walter Johnson when they could WALK to Einstein is somehow not social engineering?

They cannot walk to Einstein. Most parts are 2-4 miles and not safe.

NP - if kids who attend Rock View and Oakland Terrace live close enough that they are expected to cross University to walk to Einstein, plenty of kids in ToK live close enough, as well. Those outside the two mile radius can get a bus.

That's just a very small part of the TOK. And no its not safe. Kids have been hit by cars on Conn, University and Viers Mill.

And yet current Einstein students have been crossing all three of those streets for many years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t MCPS policy literally that all 4 factors must be considered equally? Why are we even looking at these 4 options that don’t even try to do that?

Waste of taxpayer money for consultants to do that. Let’s see options consistent with policy.

Unless of course the board has changed the policy when we weren’t looking.

Yes, exactly! This is what we should all be telling the board. We need to demand new options that actually consider multiple factors. The ones we have are pretty terrible on all but one dimension (i.e. everything except #1 has tons of split articulation, everything except #3 doesn't improve demographics at all, etc.)