Option B Alternate - Adding extra ES to WJ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Agree.

Luxmanor realtor is for it. She can say we need to send WW back to Wheaton because they increase FARMS too much at Woodward for her liking. But it fixes her utilization issue by making it underutilized even more than 9% to 27%. Clearly they have room for WW but don’t want them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Agree.

Luxmanor realtor is for it. She can say we need to send WW back to Wheaton because they increase FARMS too much at Woodward for her liking. But it fixes her utilization issue by making it underutilized even more than 9% to 27%. Clearly they have room for WW but don’t want them.

She outlines a number of points related to utilization. Which do you think are false/misstated?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Agree.

Luxmanor realtor is for it. She can say we need to send WW back to Wheaton because they increase FARMS too much at Woodward for her liking. But it fixes her utilization issue by making it underutilized even more than 9% to 27%. Clearly they have room for WW but don’t want them.

She outlines a number of points related to utilization. Which do you think are false/misstated?

She was ok with Option F that had 93% utilization, just was a little less ethnic.

I’m sure the motorcycle school at old White Flint mall will produce a ton of kids for Woodward. Superintendent recommendation has plenty of cushion for Woodward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Agree.

Luxmanor realtor is for it. She can say we need to send WW back to Wheaton because they increase FARMS too much at Woodward for her liking. But it fixes her utilization issue by making it underutilized even more than 9% to 27%. Clearly they have room for WW but don’t want them.

And WJ realtor is against it as it will bump WJ FARMS by 1.6%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Going back to option B means sending WW back to overcrowded Wheaton, right? And reversing a bunch of un-related changes in Silver Spring? That doesn't make any sense. Why would they propose that rather than just switching the boundaries between WJ and Woodward?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Agree.

Luxmanor realtor is for it. She can say we need to send WW back to Wheaton because they increase FARMS too much at Woodward for her liking. But it fixes her utilization issue by making it underutilized even more than 9% to 27%. Clearly they have room for WW but don’t want them.

And WJ realtor is against it as it will bump WJ FARMS by 1.6%.

Only 1.6? Woodward can handle those kids fine.

There’s a WJ realtor letter? Only saw a Luxmanor letter grasping at straws and pleading for mercy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Going back to option B means sending WW back to overcrowded Wheaton, right? And reversing a bunch of un-related changes in Silver Spring? That doesn't make any sense. Why would they propose that rather than just switching the boundaries between WJ and Woodward?

Consensus per the data cited by Taylor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Agree.

Luxmanor realtor is for it. She can say we need to send WW back to Wheaton because they increase FARMS too much at Woodward for her liking. But it fixes her utilization issue by making it underutilized even more than 9% to 27%. Clearly they have room for WW but don’t want them.

And WJ realtor is against it as it will bump WJ FARMS by 1.6%.

Only 1.6? Woodward can handle those kids fine.

There’s a WJ realtor letter? Only saw a Luxmanor letter grasping at straws and pleading for mercy

Yes, there is. It is more like a deranged rant. You are running it here 24/7.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Agree.

Luxmanor realtor is for it. She can say we need to send WW back to Wheaton because they increase FARMS too much at Woodward for her liking. But it fixes her utilization issue by making it underutilized even more than 9% to 27%. Clearly they have room for WW but don’t want them.

She outlines a number of points related to utilization. Which do you think are false/misstated?

She was ok with Option F that had 93% utilization, just was a little less ethnic.

I’m sure the motorcycle school at old White Flint mall will produce a ton of kids for Woodward. Superintendent recommendation has plenty of cushion for Woodward.

Option F excludes several of the developments she cites. Her position is consistent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Agree.

Luxmanor realtor is for it. She can say we need to send WW back to Wheaton because they increase FARMS too much at Woodward for her liking. But it fixes her utilization issue by making it underutilized even more than 9% to 27%. Clearly they have room for WW but don’t want them.

And WJ realtor is against it as it will bump WJ FARMS by 1.6%.

Only 1.6? Woodward can handle those kids fine.

There’s a WJ realtor letter? Only saw a Luxmanor letter grasping at straws and pleading for mercy

Yes, there is. It is more like a deranged rant. You are running it here 24/7.

Most be confusing it with the 5 page single space of TLDR from the Luxmanor realtor with advanced degrees in urban planning and statistical modeling

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

1 in 3 FARMS is low for MCPS high schools. Only 9 of 25 high schools are under 30%, with 8 above 50%, and 8 between 30 and 50. 11/40 middle schools are under 30%, with 17 above 50%.

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/siteassets/district/departments/food-and-nutrition/meal-payments/mcpsofficialfarms2025-2026.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Agree.

Luxmanor realtor is for it. She can say we need to send WW back to Wheaton because they increase FARMS too much at Woodward for her liking. But it fixes her utilization issue by making it underutilized even more than 9% to 27%. Clearly they have room for WW but don’t want them.

She outlines a number of points related to utilization. Which do you think are false/misstated?

She was ok with Option F that had 93% utilization, just was a little less ethnic.

I’m sure the motorcycle school at old White Flint mall will produce a ton of kids for Woodward. Superintendent recommendation has plenty of cushion for Woodward.

Option F excludes several of the developments she cites. Her position is consistent.

Wrong. 90% utilization+

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

1 in 3 FARMS is low for MCPS high schools. Only 9 of 25 high schools are under 30%, with 8 above 50%, and 8 between 30 and 50. 11/40 middle schools are under 30%, with 17 above 50%.

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/siteassets/district/departments/food-and-nutrition/meal-payments/mcpsofficialfarms2025-2026.pdf

Agree. Solution in search of a problem that doesn’t exist here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Agree.

Luxmanor realtor is for it. She can say we need to send WW back to Wheaton because they increase FARMS too much at Woodward for her liking. But it fixes her utilization issue by making it underutilized even more than 9% to 27%. Clearly they have room for WW but don’t want them.

And WJ realtor is against it as it will bump WJ FARMS by 1.6%.

WJ FARMS shold not increase even by 1-2 % at any cost.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Agree.

Luxmanor realtor is for it. She can say we need to send WW back to Wheaton because they increase FARMS too much at Woodward for her liking. But it fixes her utilization issue by making it underutilized even more than 9% to 27%. Clearly they have room for WW but don’t want them.

And WJ realtor is against it as it will bump WJ FARMS by 1.6%.

WJ FARMS shold not increase even by 1-2 % at any cost.

::eye roll:: now farmland with the trolling due to inferiority complex