Option B Alternate - Adding extra ES to WJ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hope they push for a better magnet. In parallel to this noise or however they want to do it. That will attract top talent from the region.

We are zoned for WJ. I would gladly go to Woodward if it wasn't slated to be an arts school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:VM parents strongly support Taylor's plan. We want Woodward, not WJ.

No, you support Taylor's plan. And that is fine. But stop pretending that you speak for the entire VM community.

The opinions in the VM parent Whatsapp group are largely unanimous. Are you a current VM parent?

DP

I don't question that what you are saying about sentiment on WhatsApp is true. But I find it mind-boggling that there would be such a strong consensus not to select a school that will almost certainly have better class offering, better teacher and overall better academic reputation. Not to mention that Woodward will be stuck with the art magnet, additionally diverting resources from things that matter.

I’m a VM parents and I agree with this. Granted I’m new (kid will be in K next year). I strongly support going to WJ if we can. Stronger school, barely different distance, less utilization, more reasonable farms rates. Very confused by the backlash here. I don’t feel used at all or a token poor person. I simply want what’s best for my kids

Then you’re not a VM parent now and likely a Farmland parent. Or if you are you want to be able to afford a better home addition.
I’m a VM parent and we want Woodward for the many reasons above.

So sick of the assumptions!! God forbid someone disagrees with you. I LIVE in holiday park. I am a VM parent. I don’t have millions of dollars for a home addition what is this nonsense?! These two neighboring schools should be very similar to each other given they are RIGHT next to each other and this proposal along with the class offerings/programs ensures they won’t be

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:VM parents strongly support Taylor's plan. We want Woodward, not WJ.

No, you support Taylor's plan. And that is fine. But stop pretending that you speak for the entire VM community.

The opinions in the VM parent Whatsapp group are largely unanimous. Are you a current VM parent?

DP

I don't question that what you are saying about sentiment on WhatsApp is true. But I find it mind-boggling that there would be such a strong consensus not to select a school that will almost certainly have better class offering, better teacher and overall better academic reputation. Not to mention that Woodward will be stuck with the art magnet, additionally diverting resources from things that matter.

I’m a VM parents and I agree with this. Granted I’m new (kid will be in K next year). I strongly support going to WJ if we can. Stronger school, barely different distance, less utilization, more reasonable farms rates. Very confused by the backlash here. I don’t feel used at all or a token poor person. I simply want what’s best for my kids

Then you’re not a VM parent now and likely a Farmland parent. Or if you are you want to be able to afford a better home addition.
I’m a VM parent and we want Woodward for the many reasons above.

So sick of the assumptions!! God forbid someone disagrees with you. I LIVE in holiday park. I am a VM parent. I don’t have millions of dollars for a home addition what is this nonsense?! These two neighboring schools should be very similar to each other given they are RIGHT next to each other and this proposal along with the class offerings/programs ensures they won’t be

Yes you want the increase in home equity that comes with WJ. Then you can do your addition.

Right next to each other…Similar distance as BCC and Whitman. Yet differences exist

The Farmland group isn’t arguing programs. Seems like they’re OK with arts which is where they should focus effort. Everyone other region spreads around the arts. And some even put STEM and IB in desirable locations. Not our region.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope they push for a better magnet. In parallel to this noise or however they want to do it. That will attract top talent from the region.

We are zoned for WJ. I would gladly go to Woodward if it wasn't slated to be an arts school.

+1 same

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:VM parents strongly support Taylor's plan. We want Woodward, not WJ.

No, you support Taylor's plan. And that is fine. But stop pretending that you speak for the entire VM community.

The opinions in the VM parent Whatsapp group are largely unanimous. Are you a current VM parent?

DP

I don't question that what you are saying about sentiment on WhatsApp is true. But I find it mind-boggling that there would be such a strong consensus not to select a school that will almost certainly have better class offering, better teacher and overall better academic reputation. Not to mention that Woodward will be stuck with the art magnet, additionally diverting resources from things that matter.

I’m a VM parents and I agree with this. Granted I’m new (kid will be in K next year). I strongly support going to WJ if we can. Stronger school, barely different distance, less utilization, more reasonable farms rates. Very confused by the backlash here. I don’t feel used at all or a token poor person. I simply want what’s best for my kids

Then you’re not a VM parent now and likely a Farmland parent. Or if you are you want to be able to afford a better home addition.
I’m a VM parent and we want Woodward for the many reasons above.

So sick of the assumptions!! God forbid someone disagrees with you. I LIVE in holiday park. I am a VM parent. I don’t have millions of dollars for a home addition what is this nonsense?! These two neighboring schools should be very similar to each other given they are RIGHT next to each other and this proposal along with the class offerings/programs ensures they won’t be

+1

LOL, everyone has to agree to attend inferior school(Woodward) and reject better school otherwise some posters will start saying that thye don't live in VM. It's hillarious. I suspect it's noise by some trolls and nothing else.

How hard it is to believe that many VM families would want a better school by getting assigned to WJ. This will also help narrow the gap between Woodward and WJ. It's better for larger number of students.

I could see some developers losing expensive housing if those gets assinegd to Woodward instead of WJ. But BOE shouldn;t care about developers losing money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:VM parents strongly support Taylor's plan. We want Woodward, not WJ.

No, you support Taylor's plan. And that is fine. But stop pretending that you speak for the entire VM community.

The opinions in the VM parent Whatsapp group are largely unanimous. Are you a current VM parent?

DP

I don't question that what you are saying about sentiment on WhatsApp is true. But I find it mind-boggling that there would be such a strong consensus not to select a school that will almost certainly have better class offering, better teacher and overall better academic reputation. Not to mention that Woodward will be stuck with the art magnet, additionally diverting resources from things that matter.

I’m a VM parents and I agree with this. Granted I’m new (kid will be in K next year). I strongly support going to WJ if we can. Stronger school, barely different distance, less utilization, more reasonable farms rates. Very confused by the backlash here. I don’t feel used at all or a token poor person. I simply want what’s best for my kids

Then you’re not a VM parent now and likely a Farmland parent. Or if you are you want to be able to afford a better home addition.
I’m a VM parent and we want Woodward for the many reasons above.

So sick of the assumptions!! God forbid someone disagrees with you. I LIVE in holiday park. I am a VM parent. I don’t have millions of dollars for a home addition what is this nonsense?! These two neighboring schools should be very similar to each other given they are RIGHT next to each other and this proposal along with the class offerings/programs ensures they won’t be

Yes you want the increase in home equity that comes with WJ. Then you can do your addition.

Right next to each other…Similar distance as BCC and Whitman. Yet differences exist

The Farmland group isn’t arguing programs. Seems like they’re OK with arts which is where they should focus effort. Everyone other region spreads around the arts. And some even put STEM and IB in desirable locations. Not our region.

Person is a troll or has no clue about this area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From the realtor lobby at Luxmanor -Farmland and a person who will have no children impacted by this (based on the signatory email at the end). Lots of words and outrage, little substance. The recent testimony:

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DREJJ84D5DF9/$file/LCA%20Testimony.pdf

It says they are OK with original B, which had Woodward at 73% utilization and Wheaton at 96% utilization. The VM switch to Woodward ameliorated that and balanced that one ...talk about equity/parity : https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oArFYgC_oD8I798hzzyyo3JzwyJPyT4h/view

It also says they are OK with original option F, which had Woodward at 91% utilization and WJ at 78%. Nearly identical to what Taylor proposed.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ibX2JMWG2hzFUVO3kBcupsvN4SK45yOB/view

So it really boils down to having about an extra 5% poor kids at Woodward that causes the outrage. And the color of their skin.

Thank you for sharing. I just read the letter. I wonder if you think there is any validity to balancing FARMS rates and/or utilization between the schools? Like, if it did not offend you personally could you see the reason to support it. And if so, do you also agree that this particular lobby of people likely saw the need to point to existing options in the course of making their point? If not, I would love to hear why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the realtor lobby at Luxmanor -Farmland and a person who will have no children impacted by this (based on the signatory email at the end). Lots of words and outrage, little substance. The recent testimony:

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DREJJ84D5DF9/$file/LCA%20Testimony.pdf

It says they are OK with original B, which had Woodward at 73% utilization and Wheaton at 96% utilization. The VM switch to Woodward ameliorated that and balanced that one ...talk about equity/parity : https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oArFYgC_oD8I798hzzyyo3JzwyJPyT4h/view

It also says they are OK with original option F, which had Woodward at 91% utilization and WJ at 78%. Nearly identical to what Taylor proposed.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ibX2JMWG2hzFUVO3kBcupsvN4SK45yOB/view

So it really boils down to having about an extra 5% poor kids at Woodward that causes the outrage. And the color of their skin.

Thank you for sharing. I just read the letter. I wonder if you think there is any validity to balancing FARMS rates and/or utilization between the schools? Like, if it did not offend you personally could you see the reason to support it. And if so, do you also agree that this particular lobby of people likely saw the need to point to existing options in the course of making their point? If not, I would love to hear why.

Different poster.

While not a panacea, reducing intense concentration of poverty in specific school is generally supported for improving educational opportunities. However, I would not describe Woodward as an intense concentration of poverty.

Research suggests that focusing on creating better resourced, high quality schools in all neighborhoods (Wheaton, Kennedy, Woodward, WJ, all MCPS), may be more effective than simply reassigning students to achieve specific demographic balance. Consider focus on the program analysis which the Woodward families are ignoring.

Shifting student populations (eg, VM parents say they like the Hispanic majority in their current schools like Wheaton and they wouldn’t get that at WJ, but do with Woodward) is complex but feel compelling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hope they push for a better magnet. In parallel to this noise or however they want to do it. That will attract top talent from the region.

The magnet process is less transparent than the boundary study process. Many would like to fight the useless art magnet and argue for a more relevant one but it is not clear how.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope they push for a better magnet. In parallel to this noise or however they want to do it. That will attract top talent from the region.

The magnet process is less transparent than the boundary study process. Many would like to fight the useless art magnet and argue for a more relevant one but it is not clear how.

The same way. Write the BOE and/or show up at meetings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the realtor lobby at Luxmanor -Farmland and a person who will have no children impacted by this (based on the signatory email at the end). Lots of words and outrage, little substance. The recent testimony:

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DREJJ84D5DF9/$file/LCA%20Testimony.pdf

It says they are OK with original B, which had Woodward at 73% utilization and Wheaton at 96% utilization. The VM switch to Woodward ameliorated that and balanced that one ...talk about equity/parity : https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oArFYgC_oD8I798hzzyyo3JzwyJPyT4h/view

It also says they are OK with original option F, which had Woodward at 91% utilization and WJ at 78%. Nearly identical to what Taylor proposed.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ibX2JMWG2hzFUVO3kBcupsvN4SK45yOB/view

So it really boils down to having about an extra 5% poor kids at Woodward that causes the outrage. And the color of their skin.

Thank you for sharing. I just read the letter. I wonder if you think there is any validity to balancing FARMS rates and/or utilization between the schools? Like, if it did not offend you personally could you see the reason to support it. And if so, do you also agree that this particular lobby of people likely saw the need to point to existing options in the course of making their point? If not, I would love to hear why.

Different poster.

While not a panacea, reducing intense concentration of poverty in specific school is generally supported for improving educational opportunities. However, I would not describe Woodward as an intense concentration of poverty.

Research suggests that focusing on creating better resourced, high quality schools in all neighborhoods (Wheaton, Kennedy, Woodward, WJ, all MCPS), may be more effective than simply reassigning students to achieve specific demographic balance. Consider focus on the program analysis which the Woodward families are ignoring.

Shifting student populations (eg, VM parents say they like the Hispanic majority in their current schools like Wheaton and they wouldn’t get that at WJ, but do with Woodward) is complex but feel compelling.

One has nothing to do with the other and if more resources were put into the schools that needed it, w parents would have a fit. They don’t want the other schools and students to be successful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the realtor lobby at Luxmanor -Farmland and a person who will have no children impacted by this (based on the signatory email at the end). Lots of words and outrage, little substance. The recent testimony:

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DREJJ84D5DF9/$file/LCA%20Testimony.pdf

It says they are OK with original B, which had Woodward at 73% utilization and Wheaton at 96% utilization. The VM switch to Woodward ameliorated that and balanced that one ...talk about equity/parity : https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oArFYgC_oD8I798hzzyyo3JzwyJPyT4h/view

It also says they are OK with original option F, which had Woodward at 91% utilization and WJ at 78%. Nearly identical to what Taylor proposed.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ibX2JMWG2hzFUVO3kBcupsvN4SK45yOB/view

So it really boils down to having about an extra 5% poor kids at Woodward that causes the outrage. And the color of their skin.

Thank you for sharing. I just read the letter. I wonder if you think there is any validity to balancing FARMS rates and/or utilization between the schools? Like, if it did not offend you personally could you see the reason to support it. And if so, do you also agree that this particular lobby of people likely saw the need to point to existing options in the course of making their point? If not, I would love to hear why.

Different poster.

While not a panacea, reducing intense concentration of poverty in specific school is generally supported for improving educational opportunities. However, I would not describe Woodward as an intense concentration of poverty.

Research suggests that focusing on creating better resourced, high quality schools in all neighborhoods (Wheaton, Kennedy, Woodward, WJ, all MCPS), may be more effective than simply reassigning students to achieve specific demographic balance. Consider focus on the program analysis which the Woodward families are ignoring.

Shifting student populations (eg, VM parents say they like the Hispanic majority in their current schools like Wheaton and they wouldn’t get that at WJ, but do with Woodward) is complex but feel compelling.

All of this makes sense to me and I personally think the needs of Hispanic majority schools should be considered in this process. All kids in our county deserve a great education in a supportive community. I also think 1 in 3 FARMs is a significant amount of kids and I would not leap to a conclusion that this has *only* positive ramifications for Woodward. I think it is reasonable for communities to question whether a large shift in student body demographics (or programs) will impact their kids. Finally, if people participated in this comment process in good faith with an understanding that they will need to compromise with other communities, I can also understand being upset at an un-vetted change being made in the 11th hour.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope they push for a better magnet. In parallel to this noise or however they want to do it. That will attract top talent from the region.

The magnet process is less transparent than the boundary study process. Many would like to fight the useless art magnet and argue for a more relevant one but it is not clear how.

Agreed, I looked for info and couldn’t find any.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:VM parents strongly support Taylor's plan. We want Woodward, not WJ.

No, you support Taylor's plan. And that is fine. But stop pretending that you speak for the entire VM community.

The opinions in the VM parent Whatsapp group are largely unanimous. Are you a current VM parent?

DP

I don't question that what you are saying about sentiment on WhatsApp is true. But I find it mind-boggling that there would be such a strong consensus not to select a school that will almost certainly have better class offering, better teacher and overall better academic reputation. Not to mention that Woodward will be stuck with the art magnet, additionally diverting resources from things that matter.

I’m a VM parents and I agree with this. Granted I’m new (kid will be in K next year). I strongly support going to WJ if we can. Stronger school, barely different distance, less utilization, more reasonable farms rates. Very confused by the backlash here. I don’t feel used at all or a token poor person. I simply want what’s best for my kids

Then you’re not a VM parent now and likely a Farmland parent. Or if you are you want to be able to afford a better home addition.
I’m a VM parent and we want Woodward for the many reasons above.

So sick of the assumptions!! God forbid someone disagrees with you. I LIVE in holiday park. I am a VM parent. I don’t have millions of dollars for a home addition what is this nonsense?! These two neighboring schools should be very similar to each other given they are RIGHT next to each other and this proposal along with the class offerings/programs ensures they won’t be

Yes you want the increase in home equity that comes with WJ. Then you can do your addition.

Right next to each other…Similar distance as BCC and Whitman. Yet differences exist

The Farmland group isn’t arguing programs. Seems like they’re OK with arts which is where they should focus effort. Everyone other region spreads around the arts. And some even put STEM and IB in desirable locations. Not our region.

Distance from WJ to Woodward: 1.0 miles
Distance from BCC to Whitman: 2.6 miles

So, not “similar”

[Anonymous]

Seems a proposal to shift back to the original option B may go further. That option was prepared and presented in detail and got positive feedback from the community.