Initial boundary options for Woodward study area are up

[Anonymous]

Are there any parents anywhere that support the change? If not, why is so much time being spent on this? Wont the parents/families have a say in this? I haven’t met anyone who supports any if these boundary changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone else hear the rumors that they are shortening the process? Only giving a few options in October and one will be chosen as the final without further tweaks?

I heard at one of the MCCPTA area meetings this summer that they expect there to be two more options in October. But no one can know if there will be tweaks after that because the Superintendent will make his recommendation to the BOE (which could be a tweaked version of what his staff recommends to him) and the BOE can accept Taylor’s recommendation as is or with modifications. So no one can know at this point if whatever comes out in October will be tweaked before final adoption.

Thanks for the additional information. That feels like a shorter process than originally indicated.

I think it is still on track with what they said previously. We are a little behind because the updates recommendations meetings aren’t until Oct.

Here is what they said in the presentation at the last Board meeting:
Sept - refined options sessions and feedback survey
Oct & Nov - synthesize feedback
Dec - superintendent’s recommendation developed
Jan 2026 - superintendent’s recommendation presented to BOE
Feb/March - public hearings and written testimony from community
March - final decision

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are there any parents anywhere that support the change? If not, why is so much time being spent on this? Wont the parents/families have a say in this? I haven’t met anyone who supports any if these boundary changes.

Most people I know support boundary changes because they are rational people who don't want a high school that cost almost $200 million to build to sit empty while numerous high schools nearby remain overcrowded. But maybe you live in some weird part of the county where that's exactly what people want?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are there any parents anywhere that support the change? If not, why is so much time being spent on this? Wont the parents/families have a say in this? I haven’t met anyone who supports any if these boundary changes.

There are two new high schools built and highschools that are overcrowded. They have to change boundaries to create student bodies for these new schools. So redistricting is necessary. They kicked the can down the road until this moment because parents and home owners didn't want any changes to protect their house prices. Should have done all this before Woodward even broke ground though to have a long process with details and data and population planning. But MCPS and the county in general do not plan more than 2 years out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there any parents anywhere that support the change? If not, why is so much time being spent on this? Wont the parents/families have a say in this? I haven’t met anyone who supports any if these boundary changes.

There are two new high schools built and highschools that are overcrowded. They have to change boundaries to create student bodies for these new schools. So redistricting is necessary. They kicked the can down the road until this moment because parents and home owners didn't want any changes to protect their house prices. Should have done all this before Woodward even broke ground though to have a long process with details and data and population planning. But MCPS and the county in general do not plan more than 2 years out.

I think they conduct boundary studies relatively close to a new building's opening because they want to use the most up-to-date enrollment numbers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there any parents anywhere that support the change? If not, why is so much time being spent on this? Wont the parents/families have a say in this? I haven’t met anyone who supports any if these boundary changes.

Most people I know support boundary changes because they are rational people who don't want a high school that cost almost $200 million to build to sit empty while numerous high schools nearby remain overcrowded. But maybe you live in some weird part of the county where that's exactly what people want?

In theory people might want that, but they misled communities when they named their studies after those schools leaving families in the dark that communities 30 miles away would have their boundaries and consortia impacted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there any parents anywhere that support the change? If not, why is so much time being spent on this? Wont the parents/families have a say in this? I haven’t met anyone who supports any if these boundary changes.

Most people I know support boundary changes because they are rational people who don't want a high school that cost almost $200 million to build to sit empty while numerous high schools nearby remain overcrowded. But maybe you live in some weird part of the county where that's exactly what people want?

In theory people might want that, but they misled communities when they named their studies after those schools leaving families in the dark that communities 30 miles away would have their boundaries and consortia impacted.

Wow that sounds awful! Which neighborhood do you live in that is 30 miles away from Woodward?

[Anonymous]

Yeah, as a taxpayer I'd be WAY more angry if they didn't change boundaries to populate schools that cost hundreds of millions of dollars to build.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there any parents anywhere that support the change? If not, why is so much time being spent on this? Wont the parents/families have a say in this? I haven’t met anyone who supports any if these boundary changes.

There are two new high schools built and highschools that are overcrowded. They have to change boundaries to create student bodies for these new schools. So redistricting is necessary. They kicked the can down the road until this moment because parents and home owners didn't want any changes to protect their house prices. Should have done all this before Woodward even broke ground though to have a long process with details and data and population planning. But MCPS and the county in general do not plan more than 2 years out.

I think they conduct boundary studies relatively close to a new building's opening because they want to use the most up-to-date enrollment numbers.

I think PP also may be alluding to the decades of entrenched-interest resistance to a county-wide boundary study, which probably should have been undertaken on something like a decennial basis (and should be -- the current studies aren't all-of-county & at all levels, and, unfathomably, they don't allow border shifts between the two regions under study).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone else hear the rumors that they are shortening the process? Only giving a few options in October and one will be chosen as the final without further tweaks?

I heard at one of the MCCPTA area meetings this summer that they expect there to be two more options in October. But no one can know if there will be tweaks after that because the Superintendent will make his recommendation to the BOE (which could be a tweaked version of what his staff recommends to him) and the BOE can accept Taylor’s recommendation as is or with modifications. So no one can know at this point if whatever comes out in October will be tweaked before final adoption.

Thanks for the additional information. That feels like a shorter process than originally indicated.

I think it is still on track with what they said previously. We are a little behind because the updates recommendations meetings aren’t until Oct.

Here is what they said in the presentation at the last Board meeting:
Sept - refined options sessions and feedback survey
Oct & Nov - synthesize feedback
Dec - superintendent’s recommendation developed
Jan 2026 - superintendent’s recommendation presented to BOE
Feb/March - public hearings and written testimony from community
March - final decision

Thanks for finding that - appreciate it. I'm a bit surprised they are only presenting two options in this next round but we will see what they look like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone else hear the rumors that they are shortening the process? Only giving a few options in October and one will be chosen as the final without further tweaks?

I heard at one of the MCCPTA area meetings this summer that they expect there to be two more options in October. But no one can know if there will be tweaks after that because the Superintendent will make his recommendation to the BOE (which could be a tweaked version of what his staff recommends to him) and the BOE can accept Taylor’s recommendation as is or with modifications. So no one can know at this point if whatever comes out in October will be tweaked before final adoption.

Thanks for the additional information. That feels like a shorter process than originally indicated.

I think it is still on track with what they said previously. We are a little behind because the updates recommendations meetings aren’t until Oct.

Here is what they said in the presentation at the last Board meeting:
Sept - refined options sessions and feedback survey
Oct & Nov - synthesize feedback
Dec - superintendent’s recommendation developed
Jan 2026 - superintendent’s recommendation presented to BOE
Feb/March - public hearings and written testimony from community
March - final decision

Thanks for finding that - appreciate it. I'm a bit surprised they are only presenting two options in this next round but we will see what they look like.

Where did you hear that it's only 2 options?

[Anonymous]

The problem isn't the timeline, it's the process. Secret meetings for public schools, not listening to the communities they are supposed to serve, not reaching out to many of the communities they are supposed to serve, and so much more.

I believe the entire process is to check a box that they've talked to the community. In reality, they do what they want, and don't listen to anyone's feedback anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The problem isn't the timeline, it's the process. Secret meetings for public schools, not listening to the communities they are supposed to serve, not reaching out to many of the communities they are supposed to serve, and so much more.

I believe the entire process is to check a box that they've talked to the community. In reality, they do what they want, and don't listen to anyone's feedback anyway.

I don't know, the list of working assumptions they presented for the upcoming options seemed very much to be in response to the community concerns that I've heard. Let's see what they come up with next.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem isn't the timeline, it's the process. Secret meetings for public schools, not listening to the communities they are supposed to serve, not reaching out to many of the communities they are supposed to serve, and so much more.

I believe the entire process is to check a box that they've talked to the community. In reality, they do what they want, and don't listen to anyone's feedback anyway.

I don't know, the list of working assumptions they presented for the upcoming options seemed very much to be in response to the community concerns that I've heard. Let's see what they come up with next.

Next Round of Boundary Study Options

Working Assumptions Aligned to Board Policy FAA Factors and Feedback from Initial Options

● Include Proposed 6 Region Model in option development
● Prioritize proximity of neighborhoods and communities to schools (this the #1 piece of feedback we have received from community engagement)
● Minimize length of school bus rides and maximize safe walk zones whenever possible
● Avoid disproportionate split articulation whenever possible
● Minimize disruptions for communities who have experienced recent boundary changes and those who experience additional school transitions (primary and intermediate schools)
● Maintain the 80 to 100 percent efficient facility utilization range for middle and high schools included in the boundary study scopes
● Consider costs for resources associated with options (staffing, facilities, transportation, etc.) in order to be fiscally responsible

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem isn't the timeline, it's the process. Secret meetings for public schools, not listening to the communities they are supposed to serve, not reaching out to many of the communities they are supposed to serve, and so much more.

I believe the entire process is to check a box that they've talked to the community. In reality, they do what they want, and don't listen to anyone's feedback anyway.

I don't know, the list of working assumptions they presented for the upcoming options seemed very much to be in response to the community concerns that I've heard. Let's see what they come up with next.

Next Round of Boundary Study Options

Working Assumptions Aligned to Board Policy FAA Factors and Feedback from Initial Options

● Include Proposed 6 Region Model in option development
● Prioritize proximity of neighborhoods and communities to schools (this the #1 piece of feedback we have received from community engagement)
● Minimize length of school bus rides and maximize safe walk zones whenever possible
● Avoid disproportionate split articulation whenever possible
● Minimize disruptions for communities who have experienced recent boundary changes and those who experience additional school transitions (primary and intermediate schools)
● Maintain the 80 to 100 percent efficient facility utilization range for middle and high schools included in the boundary study scopes
● Consider costs for resources associated with options (staffing, facilities, transportation, etc.) in order to be fiscally responsible

They have constructed a minimal glossing over of expressed community concerns. They are unwilling even to name many of the specific concerns expressed that do not fall under these assumptions or the several that do but which lose the possibility of being addressed with appropriate nuance when so bundled.