Initial boundary options for Woodward study area are up

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I’m the PP that said 2 options. That’s what people from MCCPTA said they expect at one of the area meetings this summer. I have no idea what that’s based on, other than MCCPTA folks are typically well-connected within MCPS. It may or may not be accurate.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe Einstein will do better without the IB program - it can have more APs.

I think they would but the huge draw is for music and theater and if they move both of those programs that leaves nothing specialized except the vac.

Also, any high school has the option to offer AP or IB courses according to the program study analysis team’s presentations. So I don’t see anything changing about Einstein IB despite less than 10% of the students getting IB diplomas.

Where are you seeing that in the program study? It just looks like they have to have AP or IB courses, but not both. I can’t imagine central office will agree to pay for more IB programs (beyond the 1/regions they have already committed to).

Einstein only has IB Science classes, not AP. So they are meeting the minimum for advanced students according to the program analysis

Yes, but they could retire the IB program and convert those classes to AP. And that is likely to happen -- Einstein's outcomes are not good for IB.

MCPS is not going to pay for IB certification and the IB coordinator at any school -- most likely it will be 1/region and that's it.

DP. Honestly I bet many would be ok with that. IB is actively sought out by a relatively small number of families compared to the district as a whole. My kids aren't HS age yet but for the moment our home school is Einstein and the lack of AP classes has given me pause, because my oldest is more inclined towards STEM. I've otherwise heard positive feedback about Einstein, so I would welcome this change, especially if the choice process is going away.

Last few years it’s gone down hill. Go to Wheaton or Blair for stem. Principal is not strong.

In the new model, everyone will go to their home school (according to the new boundaries), except for the relatively few admitted to a regional program. There will not be the choice process we have currently in the DCC/NEC.

That’s going to suck and families will bail.

Why? WHat school were you hoping to get into through the choice process? It's not like you can go anywhere you want, most students end up at their home school anyway.

DP - I know plenty of kids who didn't go to their home school. I don't know that families will bail - plenty of us in the DCC are happy with our local schools, even if we also appreciated the choice process.

The issue is lack of STEM offerings at schools like Einstein. Not unhappy but its not meeting some of the kids needs.

It's the lack of AP science classes in particular, correct? They have AP math. I don't think advanced technology and engineering courses are a reasonable expectation for public high schools. Yes, I know MCPS has offered them through special programs.

Not all kids are going to have their every academic need met in public school. That's fine. I'd rather MCPS improve their ability to meet more needs of more kids than have these super specialized programs that meet almost all needs of very few kids.

It's not fine when Einstein doesn't really offer the necessary STEM classes for college prep. Have you seen their acceptance rate to UMD CP? It's not great.

This poster is not factual. Per the link below, Einstein’s admission rate to College Park is 38.8%. In MCPS as a whole, that rate is 32.4%. Here are others:

BCC: 40.2%
WJ: 32.5%
Whitman: 33.8%
Blair: 28.4%

So quit with your narrative about Einstein.

[Anonymous]

Here is the link:

https://bethesdamagazine.com/2025/09/10/mcps-students-college/

Page 28

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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).

I'm the PP and yes. We could have been tweaking and redistricting every decade to make sure there isn't too much overcrowding and other issues. And it would have entrenched people less. Now some say their house has been in the same zone for 30 years so how dare it be moved. Howard redirects much more frequently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I’m the PP that said 2 options. That’s what people from MCCPTA said they expect at one of the area meetings this summer. I have no idea what that’s based on, other than MCCPTA folks are typically well-connected within MCPS. It may or may not be accurate.

I wonder if they had 2 additional options in round 2 past (smaller) boundary studies and that is what they are basing it on. I would be surprised if there were only 2 in such a large study.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I’m the PP that said 2 options. That’s what people from MCCPTA said they expect at one of the area meetings this summer. I have no idea what that’s based on, other than MCCPTA folks are typically well-connected within MCPS. It may or may not be accurate.

I wonder if they had 2 additional options in round 2 past (smaller) boundary studies and that is what they are basing it on. I would be surprised if there were only 2 in such a large study.

The last HS study had something like 14 options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I’m the PP that said 2 options. That’s what people from MCCPTA said they expect at one of the area meetings this summer. I have no idea what that’s based on, other than MCCPTA folks are typically well-connected within MCPS. It may or may not be accurate.

I wonder if they had 2 additional options in round 2 past (smaller) boundary studies and that is what they are basing it on. I would be surprised if there were only 2 in such a large study.

The last HS study had something like 14 options.

Well then it is even less likely this time that there will be only 2 in Sept/early Oct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I’m the PP that said 2 options. That’s what people from MCCPTA said they expect at one of the area meetings this summer. I have no idea what that’s based on, other than MCCPTA folks are typically well-connected within MCPS. It may or may not be accurate.

Are you sure you understood them correctly? I went to an area meeting as well and didn't hear anything like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I’m the PP that said 2 options. That’s what people from MCCPTA said they expect at one of the area meetings this summer. I have no idea what that’s based on, other than MCCPTA folks are typically well-connected within MCPS. It may or may not be accurate.

Are you sure you understood them correctly? I went to an area meeting as well and didn't hear anything like that.

Yep. It wasn’t said as part of a presentation to the whole group. It was in one of the breakout groups moderated by a cluster coordinators from one of the clusters hosting the meeting. She said that’s MCCPTA’s expectation. Like I said, I have no idea if what she said is accurate. We’ll know in less than a month.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe Einstein will do better without the IB program - it can have more APs.

I think they would but the huge draw is for music and theater and if they move both of those programs that leaves nothing specialized except the vac.

Also, any high school has the option to offer AP or IB courses according to the program study analysis team’s presentations. So I don’t see anything changing about Einstein IB despite less than 10% of the students getting IB diplomas.

Where are you seeing that in the program study? It just looks like they have to have AP or IB courses, but not both. I can’t imagine central office will agree to pay for more IB programs (beyond the 1/regions they have already committed to).

Einstein only has IB Science classes, not AP. So they are meeting the minimum for advanced students according to the program analysis

Yes, but they could retire the IB program and convert those classes to AP. And that is likely to happen -- Einstein's outcomes are not good for IB.

MCPS is not going to pay for IB certification and the IB coordinator at any school -- most likely it will be 1/region and that's it.

DP. Honestly I bet many would be ok with that. IB is actively sought out by a relatively small number of families compared to the district as a whole. My kids aren't HS age yet but for the moment our home school is Einstein and the lack of AP classes has given me pause, because my oldest is more inclined towards STEM. I've otherwise heard positive feedback about Einstein, so I would welcome this change, especially if the choice process is going away.

Last few years it’s gone down hill. Go to Wheaton or Blair for stem. Principal is not strong.

In the new model, everyone will go to their home school (according to the new boundaries), except for the relatively few admitted to a regional program. There will not be the choice process we have currently in the DCC/NEC.

That’s going to suck and families will bail.

Why? WHat school were you hoping to get into through the choice process? It's not like you can go anywhere you want, most students end up at their home school anyway.

DP - I know plenty of kids who didn't go to their home school. I don't know that families will bail - plenty of us in the DCC are happy with our local schools, even if we also appreciated the choice process.

The issue is lack of STEM offerings at schools like Einstein. Not unhappy but its not meeting some of the kids needs.

It's the lack of AP science classes in particular, correct? They have AP math. I don't think advanced technology and engineering courses are a reasonable expectation for public high schools. Yes, I know MCPS has offered them through special programs.

Not all kids are going to have their every academic need met in public school. That's fine. I'd rather MCPS improve their ability to meet more needs of more kids than have these super specialized programs that meet almost all needs of very few kids.

It's not fine when Einstein doesn't really offer the necessary STEM classes for college prep. Have you seen their acceptance rate to UMD CP? It's not great.

This poster is not factual. Per the link below, Einstein’s admission rate to College Park is 38.8%. In MCPS as a whole, that rate is 32.4%. Here are others:

BCC: 40.2%
WJ: 32.5%
Whitman: 33.8%
Blair: 28.4%

So quit with your narrative about Einstein.

Speaking of factual, per the link you provided: “This data was supplied by the Montgomery County Public Schools Office of Shared Accountability and high school counselors, based on self-reported information. Officials could not guarantee complete information.”