Second round options for Woodward boundary study

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

Vote Option B. See above.
Aka
Plan B. It's the emergency contraception this county needs.

[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: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.

Forget the farms issue and focus on strong course offerings at all schools.

I literally just want them to utilize the space they spent hundreds of millions on and not leave it 25% empty while other buildings sit over crowded.

Clearly that’s not the goal here. And instead of spreading out kids who may need more,just give the schools more resources to support all kids.

You sound like a selfish pig who wants more space for your kids and less space for other kids.

You sound like you are a nasty person. No, I don’t care about space or farms, I care about access to courses. You are a resource hoarder so keep it. This entire plan hurts DCC schools and we may get less overcrowding but we lose resources, staff and classes. Our kids are forced into MC or go without and it’s and issue when you cannot even get enough classes to graduate at your school.

How is any of that happen from the change in boundaries? What new school with less offerings have you been rezoned to?

The schools with less offerings are already like that. If you reduce farms, you lose the extra funds. If you remove students, you lose staffing allocations which means less classes. You think they are going to do more offerings with less staff and resources? How does that work? Having farms is not a bad thing. It’s the real word. I don’t mind my kids going to school with your hardworking housekeepers kids.

No high school in MCPS has FARMS funding. So you don’t need to worry about that.

And you WANT the school to stay overcrowded? Honestly that’s just a losing cause.

Do I want them overcrowded? No, but the tradeoff is losing resources in an aready stretched school. They focus on the resource classes and lower classes to get kids to graduation which is a good thing but they should not be sacrificing other students educations in the process. So, given the choice I’d rather have overcrowding and receiving more teachers and resources. We e only been to severely overcrowded schools. We don’t know any different. My kids are used to portables, sitting on air vents or crowded tables. It is what it is.

What do you think will happen when they pull teachers to fill Woodward? The schools already struggling will have to make cuts. Maybe that is why they are removing the arts from Einstein, for example.

They are?

Theater and music will go to Northwood.

Currently, both Einstein and Northwood have performing arts "academies" that draw students from throughout the DCC. Einstein also has the countywide visual arts magnet. The regional model proposes:
- Eliminating the DCC, so students in DCC schools will no longer be able to lottery into different DCC schools, they will need to apply for specific programs with limited space in order to attend a school other than their home school. This could weaken "local" programs like the performing arts program at Einstein because even though it is not a magnet or criteria based program, it benefits from attracting students interested in performing arts from other schools.
- Making existing countywide magnets regional and replicating them in each region, so Einstein's Visual Arts magnet will be a criteria based magnet serving Region 1 instead of countywide
- placing a new regional criteria based performing arts magnet at Northwood

They are not "removing the arts" from Einstein but the decades old performing arts program may be weakened because it will only draw students in the Einstein catchment area. The visual arts magnet will remain albeit as a regional rather than countywide magnet.

That’s ridiculous. The visual and performing arts naturally complement one another, and students across different artistic disciplines often learn and grow through each other. Splitting them apart undermines that. Northwood is a great school, but it’s never been a true “arts school” like Einstein, nor has it had the same impact on its community or the county as VAPA has. I understand VAPA isn’t being “dismantled,” but this would still cause harm to Einstein and their community. I don’t speak for everyone, but if any program deserves to be regional or countywide, it’s VAPA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about this, let BCC and WJ and the W schools have Woodward and leave DCC alone as the DCC gets no benefit from this.

Taxpayers in the DCC helped fund Woodward you entitled little sh&t

That was someone from the DCC you are responding to…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about this, let BCC and WJ and the W schools have Woodward and leave DCC alone as the DCC gets no benefit from this.

Taxpayers in the DCC helped fund Woodward you entitled little sh&t

That was someone from the DCC you are responding to…

So they say

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

that’s a rude statement about the PTA considering I bet you haven't done much to help in the process. The PTAs advocating for that approach are trying not to advocate for options that do not directly affect them so that the voices of those affected can be heard more loudly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, I think they are embarrassing themselves by using the term equity to describe the regional model they are proposing. It's disgraceful.

I loved Fani-Gonzalez calling them out for this at the Council hearing! Talking about how throwing the word equity into things doesn't actually make it equitable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

Don't vote for any of them-- they don't solve the real problems and leave Wheaton overcrowded (or require tons of money in capital funding to add space there there that wouldn't be needed if anyone was willing to inconvenience WJ or BCC families even a little.)

Tell them instead they should move Sargent Shriver from Wheaton to Woodward, Farmland from Woodward to WJ, and move some Kensington kids into Einstein.

[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: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.

Forget the farms issue and focus on strong course offerings at all schools.

I literally just want them to utilize the space they spent hundreds of millions on and not leave it 25% empty while other buildings sit over crowded.

Clearly that’s not the goal here. And instead of spreading out kids who may need more,just give the schools more resources to support all kids.

You sound like a selfish pig who wants more space for your kids and less space for other kids.

You sound like you are a nasty person. No, I don’t care about space or farms, I care about access to courses. You are a resource hoarder so keep it. This entire plan hurts DCC schools and we may get less overcrowding but we lose resources, staff and classes. Our kids are forced into MC or go without and it’s and issue when you cannot even get enough classes to graduate at your school.

How is any of that happen from the change in boundaries? What new school with less offerings have you been rezoned to?

The schools with less offerings are already like that. If you reduce farms, you lose the extra funds. If you remove students, you lose staffing allocations which means less classes. You think they are going to do more offerings with less staff and resources? How does that work? Having farms is not a bad thing. It’s the real word. I don’t mind my kids going to school with your hardworking housekeepers kids.

No high school in MCPS has FARMS funding. So you don’t need to worry about that.

And you WANT the school to stay overcrowded? Honestly that’s just a losing cause.

Do I want them overcrowded? No, but the tradeoff is losing resources in an aready stretched school. They focus on the resource classes and lower classes to get kids to graduation which is a good thing but they should not be sacrificing other students educations in the process. So, given the choice I’d rather have overcrowding and receiving more teachers and resources. We e only been to severely overcrowded schools. We don’t know any different. My kids are used to portables, sitting on air vents or crowded tables. It is what it is.

What do you think will happen when they pull teachers to fill Woodward? The schools already struggling will have to make cuts. Maybe that is why they are removing the arts from Einstein, for example.

They are?

Theater and music will go to Northwood.

Currently, both Einstein and Northwood have performing arts "academies" that draw students from throughout the DCC. Einstein also has the countywide visual arts magnet. The regional model proposes:
- Eliminating the DCC, so students in DCC schools will no longer be able to lottery into different DCC schools, they will need to apply for specific programs with limited space in order to attend a school other than their home school. This could weaken "local" programs like the performing arts program at Einstein because even though it is not a magnet or criteria based program, it benefits from attracting students interested in performing arts from other schools.
- Making existing countywide magnets regional and replicating them in each region, so Einstein's Visual Arts magnet will be a criteria based magnet serving Region 1 instead of countywide
- placing a new regional criteria based performing arts magnet at Northwood

They are not "removing the arts" from Einstein but the decades old performing arts program may be weakened because it will only draw students in the Einstein catchment area. The visual arts magnet will remain albeit as a regional rather than countywide magnet.

That’s ridiculous. The visual and performing arts naturally complement one another, and students across different artistic disciplines often learn and grow through each other. Splitting them apart undermines that. Northwood is a great school, but it’s never been a true “arts school” like Einstein, nor has it had the same impact on its community or the county as VAPA has. I understand VAPA isn’t being “dismantled,” but this would still cause harm to Einstein and their community. I don’t speak for everyone, but if any program deserves to be regional or countywide, it’s VAPA.

It would be great if both schools could have strong arts programs. Many of the students participate in more than one type of arts, especially music, drawing and theater. Some all three.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

Don't vote for any of them-- they don't solve the real problems and leave Wheaton overcrowded (or require tons of money in capital funding to add space there there that wouldn't be needed if anyone was willing to inconvenience WJ or BCC families even a little.)

Tell them instead they should move Sargent Shriver from Wheaton to Woodward, Farmland from Woodward to WJ, and move some Kensington kids into Einstein.

Shriver is entirely within the Wheaton walk zone. It shouldn't be moved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

Don't vote for any of them-- they don't solve the real problems and leave Wheaton overcrowded (or require tons of money in capital funding to add space there there that wouldn't be needed if anyone was willing to inconvenience WJ or BCC families even a little.)

Tell them instead they should move Sargent Shriver from Wheaton to Woodward, Farmland from Woodward to WJ, and move some Kensington kids into Einstein.

Shriver is entirely within the Wheaton walk zone. It shouldn't be moved.

And Kensington is within the Einstein walk zone. Not everyone can be zoned to the schools they can walk to and still make everything work out. It's not okay for Wheaton to remain overcrowded (or for MCPS to ask for funding for unnecessary construction) as under the current options. So do a little shifting and rather than have the Shriver kids walk to Wheaton, have the Kensington kids walk to Einstein instead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Forget the farms issue and focus on strong course offerings at all schools.

I literally just want them to utilize the space they spent hundreds of millions on and not leave it 25% empty while other buildings sit over crowded.

Clearly that’s not the goal here. And instead of spreading out kids who may need more,just give the schools more resources to support all kids.

You sound like a selfish pig who wants more space for your kids and less space for other kids.

You sound like you are a nasty person. No, I don’t care about space or farms, I care about access to courses. You are a resource hoarder so keep it. This entire plan hurts DCC schools and we may get less overcrowding but we lose resources, staff and classes. Our kids are forced into MC or go without and it’s and issue when you cannot even get enough classes to graduate at your school.

How is any of that happen from the change in boundaries? What new school with less offerings have you been rezoned to?

The schools with less offerings are already like that. If you reduce farms, you lose the extra funds. If you remove students, you lose staffing allocations which means less classes. You think they are going to do more offerings with less staff and resources? How does that work? Having farms is not a bad thing. It’s the real word. I don’t mind my kids going to school with your hardworking housekeepers kids.

Every HS will have less offerings
s because they will have less teachers. MCPS has to staff 2 new buildings plus the Damascus expansion. They have to balance the budget somewhere for the increased costs of these program studies and additional bus routes with new buildings

Yes this has really bothered me since day 1. Totally understand the need for Woodward given WJ has been 800-1000 students over capacity for decades it feels like. This could also help relieve overcrowding from DCC schools and to a lesser extent RM and Churchill.

From day one though I’ve not understood the logic for Crown. It’s construction will likely cost $250M+ when all said and done and as you noted because two new schools are opening all schools will have reduced classes.

I feel like that money would have been better spent on accelerating the replacement/enlargement of QO (super tiny and overcrowded), finally replace Wootton (and enlarge helps relieve overcrowding at Gaithersburg HS), do the expansion at Damascus which will help alleviate overcrowding at Clarksburg, and possibly do a small addition at Churchill, Northwest and RM.
Of course this all would have cost more than Crown, but the replacement of Wootton is likely due to happen in the next 5-7 years and QO in the next 10-12. So really that money is just reallocated to additions at 3-4 schools. Probably saves a ton of money in the long run to have a smaller number of slightly larger schools.

Really hoping we don’t see teachers lost at every school with resulting losses in classes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

Don't vote for any of them-- they don't solve the real problems and leave Wheaton overcrowded (or require tons of money in capital funding to add space there there that wouldn't be needed if anyone was willing to inconvenience WJ or BCC families even a little.)

Tell them instead they should move Sargent Shriver from Wheaton to Woodward, Farmland from Woodward to WJ, and move some Kensington kids into Einstein.

Shriver is entirely within the Wheaton walk zone. It shouldn't be moved.

And Kensington is within the Einstein walk zone. Not everyone can be zoned to the schools they can walk to and still make everything work out. It's not okay for Wheaton to remain overcrowded (or for MCPS to ask for funding for unnecessary construction) as under the current options. So do a little shifting and rather than have the Shriver kids walk to Wheaton, have the Kensington kids walk to Einstein instead.

Not all parts of Kensington are walkable. The town is not walkable nor is it safe.

You move the town and Wheaton to Woodward.

[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: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.

Forget the farms issue and focus on strong course offerings at all schools.

I literally just want them to utilize the space they spent hundreds of millions on and not leave it 25% empty while other buildings sit over crowded.

Clearly that’s not the goal here. And instead of spreading out kids who may need more,just give the schools more resources to support all kids.

You sound like a selfish pig who wants more space for your kids and less space for other kids.

You sound like you are a nasty person. No, I don’t care about space or farms, I care about access to courses. You are a resource hoarder so keep it. This entire plan hurts DCC schools and we may get less overcrowding but we lose resources, staff and classes. Our kids are forced into MC or go without and it’s and issue when you cannot even get enough classes to graduate at your school.

How is any of that happen from the change in boundaries? What new school with less offerings have you been rezoned to?

The schools with less offerings are already like that. If you reduce farms, you lose the extra funds. If you remove students, you lose staffing allocations which means less classes. You think they are going to do more offerings with less staff and resources? How does that work? Having farms is not a bad thing. It’s the real word. I don’t mind my kids going to school with your hardworking housekeepers kids.

Every HS will have less offerings
s because they will have less teachers. MCPS has to staff 2 new buildings plus the Damascus expansion. They have to balance the budget somewhere for the increased costs of these program studies and additional bus routes with new buildings

Yes this has really bothered me since day 1. Totally understand the need for Woodward given WJ has been 800-1000 students over capacity for decades it feels like. This could also help relieve overcrowding from DCC schools and to a lesser extent RM and Churchill.

From day one though I’ve not understood the logic for Crown. It’s construction will likely cost $250M+ when all said and done and as you noted because two new schools are opening all schools will have reduced classes.

I feel like that money would have been better spent on accelerating the replacement/enlargement of QO (super tiny and overcrowded), finally replace Wootton (and enlarge helps relieve overcrowding at Gaithersburg HS), do the expansion at Damascus which will help alleviate overcrowding at Clarksburg, and possibly do a small addition at Churchill, Northwest and RM.
Of course this all would have cost more than Crown, but the replacement of Wootton is likely due to happen in the next 5-7 years and QO in the next 10-12. So really that money is just reallocated to additions at 3-4 schools. Probably saves a ton of money in the long run to have a smaller number of slightly larger schools.

Really hoping we don’t see teachers lost at every school with resulting losses in classes.

I thought they had to build within a specific timeframe as the land was given to them by developers but not sure if that’s true.

[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: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.

Forget the farms issue and focus on strong course offerings at all schools.

I literally just want them to utilize the space they spent hundreds of millions on and not leave it 25% empty while other buildings sit over crowded.

Clearly that’s not the goal here. And instead of spreading out kids who may need more,just give the schools more resources to support all kids.

You sound like a selfish pig who wants more space for your kids and less space for other kids.

You sound like you are a nasty person. No, I don’t care about space or farms, I care about access to courses. You are a resource hoarder so keep it. This entire plan hurts DCC schools and we may get less overcrowding but we lose resources, staff and classes. Our kids are forced into MC or go without and it’s and issue when you cannot even get enough classes to graduate at your school.

How is any of that happen from the change in boundaries? What new school with less offerings have you been rezoned to?

The schools with less offerings are already like that. If you reduce farms, you lose the extra funds. If you remove students, you lose staffing allocations which means less classes. You think they are going to do more offerings with less staff and resources? How does that work? Having farms is not a bad thing. It’s the real word. I don’t mind my kids going to school with your hardworking housekeepers kids.

Every HS will have less offerings
s because they will have less teachers. MCPS has to staff 2 new buildings plus the Damascus expansion. They have to balance the budget somewhere for the increased costs of these program studies and additional bus routes with new buildings

Yes this has really bothered me since day 1. Totally understand the need for Woodward given WJ has been 800-1000 students over capacity for decades it feels like. This could also help relieve overcrowding from DCC schools and to a lesser extent RM and Churchill.

From day one though I’ve not understood the logic for Crown. It’s construction will likely cost $250M+ when all said and done and as you noted because two new schools are opening all schools will have reduced classes.

I feel like that money would have been better spent on accelerating the replacement/enlargement of QO (super tiny and overcrowded), finally replace Wootton (and enlarge helps relieve overcrowding at Gaithersburg HS), do the expansion at Damascus which will help alleviate overcrowding at Clarksburg, and possibly do a small addition at Churchill, Northwest and RM.
Of course this all would have cost more than Crown, but the replacement of Wootton is likely due to happen in the next 5-7 years and QO in the next 10-12. So really that money is just reallocated to additions at 3-4 schools. Probably saves a ton of money in the long run to have a smaller number of slightly larger schools.

Really hoping we don’t see teachers lost at every school with resulting losses in classes.

I thought they had to build within a specific timeframe as the land was given to them by developers but not sure if that’s true.

It is true, otherwise the land was going to revert to the city of Gaithersburg I think? But I think they made a poor financial decision because they felt forced to. And having one extra school when several others could have been made larger (QO, Watkins Mill and Churchill as 3 down/mid county schools with capacity of 1800-1950 doesn’t make sense).

Who knows where the teachers transfer from to fill Woodward and Crown but I’m assuming it’ll come from a lot of schools and result in losing some classes potentially.

[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: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.

Forget the farms issue and focus on strong course offerings at all schools.

I literally just want them to utilize the space they spent hundreds of millions on and not leave it 25% empty while other buildings sit over crowded.

Clearly that’s not the goal here. And instead of spreading out kids who may need more,just give the schools more resources to support all kids.

You sound like a selfish pig who wants more space for your kids and less space for other kids.

You sound like you are a nasty person. No, I don’t care about space or farms, I care about access to courses. You are a resource hoarder so keep it. This entire plan hurts DCC schools and we may get less overcrowding but we lose resources, staff and classes. Our kids are forced into MC or go without and it’s and issue when you cannot even get enough classes to graduate at your school.

How is any of that happen from the change in boundaries? What new school with less offerings have you been rezoned to?

The schools with less offerings are already like that. If you reduce farms, you lose the extra funds. If you remove students, you lose staffing allocations which means less classes. You think they are going to do more offerings with less staff and resources? How does that work? Having farms is not a bad thing. It’s the real word. I don’t mind my kids going to school with your hardworking housekeepers kids.

Every HS will have less offerings
s because they will have less teachers. MCPS has to staff 2 new buildings plus the Damascus expansion. They have to balance the budget somewhere for the increased costs of these program studies and additional bus routes with new buildings

Yes this has really bothered me since day 1. Totally understand the need for Woodward given WJ has been 800-1000 students over capacity for decades it feels like. This could also help relieve overcrowding from DCC schools and to a lesser extent RM and Churchill.

From day one though I’ve not understood the logic for Crown. It’s construction will likely cost $250M+ when all said and done and as you noted because two new schools are opening all schools will have reduced classes.

I feel like that money would have been better spent on accelerating the replacement/enlargement of QO (super tiny and overcrowded), finally replace Wootton (and enlarge helps relieve overcrowding at Gaithersburg HS), do the expansion at Damascus which will help alleviate overcrowding at Clarksburg, and possibly do a small addition at Churchill, Northwest and RM.
Of course this all would have cost more than Crown, but the replacement of Wootton is likely due to happen in the next 5-7 years and QO in the next 10-12. So really that money is just reallocated to additions at 3-4 schools. Probably saves a ton of money in the long run to have a smaller number of slightly larger schools.

Really hoping we don’t see teachers lost at every school with resulting losses in classes.

I thought they had to build within a specific timeframe as the land was given to them by developers but not sure if that’s true.

It is true, otherwise the land was going to revert to the city of Gaithersburg I think? But I think they made a poor financial decision because they felt forced to. And having one extra school when several others could have been made larger (QO, Watkins Mill and Churchill as 3 down/mid county schools with capacity of 1800-1950 doesn’t make sense).

Who knows where the teachers transfer from to fill Woodward and Crown but I’m assuming it’ll come from a lot of schools and result in losing some classes potentially.

High schools are already huge. Kids get lost because there is no personal attention in less they stand out good or bad. With the continued high density building they will be overcrowded in no time.