Second round options for Woodward boundary study

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My neighborhood, which has a very logical articulation pattern at the moment, has sudden uncertainty/split articulation introduced in this scenario.

Weird to have zero changes in the first set of maps, then a bunch of proposed splits the second time around, suggesting they were lulling some neighborhoods into thinking no changes were coming.

I can see this. Changes from first to second survey make little sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And despite assuming this extra capacity at Wheaton that doesn't yet exist, they still leave Wheaton overcrowded over that inflated number. Wow.

Yup and WJ is now at sub 80% capacity. Shows what they care about.

Exactly. I am completely fine with all the options for my kid and how it affects my family (we're not zoned for Wheaton), but as a taxpayer this is absolutely maddening. Such a blatant disregard for fiscal responsibility in a time of massive fiscal uncertainty. MCPS administrators are like children who think money grows on trees. Then they will come crying to taxpayers begging them to pay more while thousands are out of work and have possibly left the region entirely.

Or maybe lots of WHJ-zoned families will return to the public school, once the out of control overcrowding is finally fixed. Many in my neighborhood go to private schools in order to avoid over-crowded WJ. Now they will once again have reasonable access to their tax-funded local school.

So in this scenario WJ is at capacity and Wheaton wildly overcrowded. Nice!

And BCC and Whitman are untouched.

If they're untouched why are their utilization percentages changing?

Never mind, misread the columns.

Because the maps and articulation charts are really confusing.

[Anonymous]

How is all the housing development that’s going on (currently and proposed) factoring into this?

[Anonymous]

I like option B. It balances capacity issues (sorry DCC... WJ and Woodward need a buffer with the housing development concentrated in WJ and Woodward) and the split articulation issue (some care about this issue more than others). Also, it tries to balance FARMS better than some others.

I'm submitting survey feedback in favor option B.

At least they improved it from the prior rounds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How is all the housing development that’s going on (currently and proposed) factoring into this?

I haven't seen any data comparing housing units in the pipeline within each proposed boundary. This would be a pretty easy lift with GIS software.

If it is being taken into account it is probably based on some stakeholder feedback about how many buildings they see going up on 355.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I like option B. It balances capacity issues (sorry DCC... WJ and Woodward need a buffer with the housing development concentrated in WJ and Woodward) and the split articulation issue (some care about this issue more than others). Also, it tries to balance FARMS better than some others.

I'm submitting survey feedback in favor option B.

At least they improved it from the prior rounds.

Go f$k yourself

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I like option B. It balances capacity issues (sorry DCC... WJ and Woodward need a buffer with the housing development concentrated in WJ and Woodward) and the split articulation issue (some care about this issue more than others). Also, it tries to balance FARMS better than some others.

I'm submitting survey feedback in favor option B.

At least they improved it from the prior rounds.

I’m in the DCC and I submitted survey feedback yesterday saying basically what you’ve said above. This option is the kind of compromise solution that I support as a tax paying county resident. (Now, the academic programming piece - that I need a lot more info about to not be very skeptical.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I like option B. It balances capacity issues (sorry DCC... WJ and Woodward need a buffer with the housing development concentrated in WJ and Woodward) and the split articulation issue (some care about this issue more than others). Also, it tries to balance FARMS better than some others.

I'm submitting survey feedback in favor option B.

At least they improved it from the prior rounds.

How exactly does option B balance farms?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like option B. It balances capacity issues (sorry DCC... WJ and Woodward need a buffer with the housing development concentrated in WJ and Woodward) and the split articulation issue (some care about this issue more than others). Also, it tries to balance FARMS better than some others.

I'm submitting survey feedback in favor option B.

At least they improved it from the prior rounds.

How exactly does option B balance farms?

It doesn't it's just the least bad on FARMS compared with the other 3 options so it gives White liberals in west county the warm fuzzies and eases their useless White guilt about hoarding public resources for themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like option B. It balances capacity issues (sorry DCC... WJ and Woodward need a buffer with the housing development concentrated in WJ and Woodward) and the split articulation issue (some care about this issue more than others). Also, it tries to balance FARMS better than some others.

I'm submitting survey feedback in favor option B.

At least they improved it from the prior rounds.

How exactly does option B balance farms?

It doesn't it's just the least bad on FARMS compared with the other 3 options so it gives White liberals in west county the warm fuzzies and eases their useless White guilt about hoarding public resources for themselves.

Salty!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I perosnally don't get the logic of reserving seats for home school. It puts kids from other schools at disadvantage. No one should have reserved seats.

My understanding is that traditionally magnets have had some slots reserved for local kids to avoid dynamics where a very selective academic magnet is placed at a low SES school where few or no local kids would score high enough to make it in if they were in the general eligibility pool.

I can see some value in that-- there are definitely issues with having a school which has one set of classes for the local low-SES kids and a whole higher tier available for magnet kids which the local kids rarely or never get to access. But I feel like MCPS central office is performing, like, a cargo cult version of that by parroting "Local set-asides are more equitable and important for helping programs feel like part of the school community rather than a school-within-a-school" without stopping to think about whether giving disproportionate seats in a desirable magnet to kids from a rich school is actually really equitable.

If they really want to do local set-asides, they should just calculate the number of seats the local school should get proportional to the total number of kids in the region, and make that the set-aside. If you want to actively make sure the local kids get their "fair share" of seats, fine. But they should not get any extra.

This the magnets were original designed to get West county kids to self bus to the schools that needed the bump. Predictable up roar when they were completely filled with Bethesda and Chevy Chase kids which then gave them the inside lane to the HS magnets making the local communities notice what they were missing out on. The problem needed the anchored slots to ensure they could get in. The magnets used to be complete transparent with who they carted to, to get the Bethesda kids to opt in to Blair they had to put them in a different building with a different lunch period and even a different class bell so the kids didn't even mix in the hall ways. Their are kids who graduated from blair back in the day who never actually met a magnet kid. They address much of that but don't ever forget why the programs are where they are and it isn't because of local student need. It is a obfuscating of test and demographic results of the school to make it look better on paper

[Anonymous]

Can someone who knows the area explain in Option B that block north of the option B Einstein zone that is sent to Northwood? It looks like an island.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like option B. It balances capacity issues (sorry DCC... WJ and Woodward need a buffer with the housing development concentrated in WJ and Woodward) and the split articulation issue (some care about this issue more than others). Also, it tries to balance FARMS better than some others.

I'm submitting survey feedback in favor option B.

At least they improved it from the prior rounds.

How exactly does option B balance farms?

It doesn't it's just the least bad on FARMS compared with the other 3 options so it gives White liberals in west county the warm fuzzies and eases their useless White guilt about hoarding public resources for themselves.

Salty!

There's literally no other explanation for advocating an option that leaves multiple schools overcrowded (including one that they've announced now has 500 more seats than it did during the last round of options), while other schools are more than 20% under capacity. They are building housing in the DCC has well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone who knows the area explain in Option B that block north of the option B Einstein zone that is sent to Northwood? It looks like an island.

Yes, that's the Arcola island, already currently zoned to Northwood.

https://gis.mcpsmd.org/ServiceAreaMaps/ArcolaES.pdf

[Anonymous]

So our PTA is recommending voting for all four options even though I think that's kind of stupid. We're not affected by any of them. What do you all recommend as being the best and why?