Forum Index
»
Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)
Boundary study (2025 )
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
The "similar walk" is not cited by MCPS, just parents on this board. MCPS said that all "incorporated towns" were kept together throughout MCPS and they were not going to break from precedent for Kensington. To large degree, school = community. |
Anonymous
See the CIP - joint BCC/WJ elementary school postponed to the out years. It has already had two site selection committees over the last 7 years or so. |
Anonymous
I'm not sure that's true, at least at the ES and MS levels. Town of Takoma Park is split between TPES and Rolling Terrace, and then between TPMS and SSIMS. |
Anonymous
Takoma Park is a city, not a town. |
Anonymous
The PP was talking about east of Rock Creek. |
Anonymous
Are you TOK? Parkwood is a different matter. Plenty of those houses are closer to WJ than Einstein (or equidistant), so it makes more sense that some or all of Parkwood would be zoned for WJ. Parkwood ES itself is actually slightly closer to Einstein. |
Anonymous
You are assuming half of WJ gets moved to Woodward. MCPS can decide to move 1000 kids and then add 2 DCC elementary to Woodward. I am not saying that's a likely outcome but one of the possible outcomes. |
Anonymous
No one said anything against Einstein. And in fact if you go read the BoE meeting notes from late 1999 and early 2000 the intent you will see the intent was explicitly for town unity and keeping all of the students from the town within 1 cluster (regardless of whatever HS that end up being). But please go ahead and continue with your preconceived notions. |
Anonymous
Can you cite some evidence for this? I have tried to find primary evidence from that 1999-2000 time period when the decision was made but the only evidence I can find is the BoE meeting minutes. Based on those minutes it seems there was input from individual school PTA position papers and community input but I can't find any of that online. With a 5-2 vote the amendment was approved to change from the existing split in ToK of BCC/WJ/Einstiein (which the Superintendent was recommending to keep) to assign all to WJ. I wonder what if any relation Mr. Abrams or Mrs. King had to ToK at that time to propose the amendment for WJ assignment to ToK. Meeting minutes from March 2000 where it was decided see pages 5-9: https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/siteassets/district/boe/meetings/minutes/2000/minutes.032200.pdf From the BoE discussion on page 8:
From page 9:
|
Anonymous
[Scratches head] Lesse, 'ere... This is a discussion about the current boundary studies, which don't include changes to elementary boundaries. It's the high schools that are the main focus, where, for the Woodward study, density in the southeast of the county has both greater projected overcrowding of current schools and fewer/more expensive options for facilities, but where there is equal responsibility of MCPS to provide facilities & programs. From the Woodward study and CIP, DCC middle and high schools are projected to be at higher capacity utilization than the non-DCC middle and high schools. The only non-DCC schools in that study with a concerning capacity projection are North Bethesda MS and WJ. Tilden"s excess capacity eclipses NBMS's overage, and, overcrowded as WJ currently is, it will get complete relief, and then some, from Woodward's reopening, which was pursued after eschewing poorly conceived/limited-vision options for a replacement HS inside the Beltway/east of Rock Creek. Meanwhile, the overcrowding in the DCC will eat up Northwood's projected extra capacity from expansion three times over. Moreover, nearly all the student population growth is projected to be in the DCC (the projection across current B-CC, Whitman and WJ catchments is a decrease/i] of 35 students), and that's not counting the likely lopsided effects in the DCC area of recent state and county housing legislation. So, back to that equal responsibility bit. Some not-too-small portion of the current DCC boundary will need to shift, both internally and to the non-DCC schools, Woodward included, and shifts to equilibrate among those non-DCC schools will be needed, as well. If in some decade hence MCPS builds a new HS in the lower DCC area, [i]then they might consider shifting back to achieve that relative equilibrium That Bethesda-area ES that's been postponed? At least they have a workable site. The new (read: reopen a decrepit facility) DCC ES studied at the same time? Not even on the radar, as the options provided for review were not even feasible, for the most part. (If you sense a theme between that and the options for the DCC HS, you'd be right -- ask any of the folks who were on the public review committees.) Across the elementaries in the Woodward study area, each grouping of DCC, WJ and Whitman elementaries are projected to be, collectively, at about 90% capacity. BCC elementaries, collectively, are projected closer to 80% capacity. If one looks only at elementaries inside the Beltway, those to the east of Rock Creek, collectively (now including Nix & Leleck) are projected to use about 2% more of their collective capacities than those to the west. That's counting the effect of current expansions (i.e., Leleck & Highland View) in the east but not the relief expected from the new Bethesda ES to any in the west, which would see a more notable divergence in utilization, with the west being relatively less crowded, still. The lumpy distribution of overcrowding among all of these, east and west, inside the Beltway and not, DCC and BCC/WJ/Whitman, really calls for redistricting of elementaries, as well. With its having been an age since a whole-of-system boundary study, the spectre of such a challenge on top of the secondary school redistricting is probably too much for MCPS to contemplate. It ain't gettin' any better waitin', tho... There are a ton of school projects needed across the whole system (whether expansion, revitalization or new construction) and the county (Council & Planning Board) isn't doing residents any favors, here, between continued underfunding (some resulting from tax giveaways) and continued development allowance in areas that are relatively saturated. MCPS tries to do what it can within that paradigm -- there remains a disconnect, likely because of the inconvenient truths bringing them to the table would mean for county politicians. I'm not saying that MCPS does a great job of it, but one has to give them some consideration related to the circumstance. |
Anonymous
| At the first community engagement meeting for Woodward in March they put up dates for the next round of meetings (in person and virtual options the week of May 12). Since then, MCPS took over community engagement from the consultant and there are no meetings listed on the boundary study website. Has anyone heard anything through their PTSAs or whatever about whether/when these meetings are still happening?? |
Anonymous
We're supposed to get an update at the May 8 BOE meeting. https://mocoshow.com/2025/05/01/mcps-board-of-education-to-provide-update-on-boundary-study-projects/ |
Anonymous
Good points here. Although, in the WJ clusters, part of the solution to the ES problem was to expand buildings to 750 capacity, which I am not sure was a great decision. Would that change be something folks would want replicated into the DCC? |
Anonymous
DP. I don't think that would be necessary. Very few DCC elementaries are projected to be over capacity. And there are already several with 100+ seats available. |
Anonymous
Thank you! |