Option B Alternate - Adding extra ES to WJ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The superintendent's recommendation for Woodward/WJ was odd and not in alignment with the board's clearly stated goals.

The WJ cluster is currently made up of Tilden MS (Farmland ES, Luxmanor ES and Garrett Park ES) and North Bethesda MS (Ashburton ES, Wyngate ES and Kensington Parkwood ES). He recommends adding two more elementary schools - Wheaton Woods and Viers Mill. Both of these schools have substantially higher poverty with 95% FARMS rates. Rather than put one at each high school to better balance the FARMS rate, the recommendation puts Garrett Park (splitting off from Tilden) and puts both WW and VM at Woodward. Small "islands" of GP and KP also go to Woodward. All of this means that Woodward is close to 40% FARMS and WJ is 13%. WJ would also be at 77% utilitzation and Woodward at 91% - also odd because of all the multi-family development going up in the new Woodward cluster. WJ might have some development but not nearly as much. So in addition to Woodward having much higher poverty than WJ it is also likely to be overcrowded almost immediately.

It is completely contrary to what the BOE has been trying to achieve and goes directly against their Policy FAA. Was there a data error? It is politically motivated? Do powerful people live in the Towns of Kensington and Garrett Park? Lots of people are struggling to make sense of this one!

Why do we need to “balance the FARMS rate”? Do we “balance the Whites” or “balance the Asians”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The irony, of course, is that Wheaton may very well end up being a better (higher ranked) high school than Woodward with the coveted Engineering program.

This is not ironic at all. It is great if Wheaton is a great school. This should not be zero sum.

[Anonymous]

If this turns into “how can we be more like Wheaton?” in a few years, look to the magnet program. Woodward could start that process now. STEM magnet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If this turns into “how can we be more like Wheaton?” in a few years, look to the magnet program. Woodward could start that process now. STEM magnet.

The stem magnet is at Wheaton and I doubt MCPS will move that.

[Anonymous]

Why not? If the demand is there. How about statistics? Economics? Finance? Some niche.

[Anonymous]

Certainly enough demand for two STEM related magnets. It’s a big catch all theme.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Certainly enough demand for two STEM related magnets. It’s a big catch all theme.

STEAM

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Certainly enough demand for two STEM related magnets. It’s a big catch all theme.

STEAM

Not an entirely bad idea …

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The superintendent's recommendation for Woodward/WJ was odd and not in alignment with the board's clearly stated goals.

The WJ cluster is currently made up of Tilden MS (Farmland ES, Luxmanor ES and Garrett Park ES) and North Bethesda MS (Ashburton ES, Wyngate ES and Kensington Parkwood ES). He recommends adding two more elementary schools - Wheaton Woods and Viers Mill. Both of these schools have substantially higher poverty with 95% FARMS rates. Rather than put one at each high school to better balance the FARMS rate, the recommendation puts Garrett Park (splitting off from Tilden) and puts both WW and VM at Woodward. Small "islands" of GP and KP also go to Woodward. All of this means that Woodward is close to 40% FARMS and WJ is 13%. WJ would also be at 77% utilitzation and Woodward at 91% - also odd because of all the multi-family development going up in the new Woodward cluster. WJ might have some development but not nearly as much. So in addition to Woodward having much higher poverty than WJ it is also likely to be overcrowded almost immediately.

It is completely contrary to what the BOE has been trying to achieve and goes directly against their Policy FAA. Was there a data error? It is politically motivated? Do powerful people live in the Towns of Kensington and Garrett Park? Lots of people are struggling to make sense of this one!

Why do we need to “balance the FARMS rate”? Do we “balance the Whites” or “balance the Asians”?

Yes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Since there is a split of opinion among VM, perhaps split articulation between WJ and Woodward and send all of Garrett Park to Woodward.

Town of GP supports the Superintendents proposal. Split articulation is moot with elementary boundary study next year

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Certainly enough demand for two STEM related magnets. It’s a big catch all theme.

STEAM

I all seriousness, I’m not zoned for Woodward. But, would be nice to have it as an option if they had a desirable magnet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Certainly enough demand for two STEM related magnets. It’s a big catch all theme.

Current program at Wheaton that they are very proud of is unique and nothing like, for example, Blair magnet program. Wheaton program is focused on engineering and doesn't really have strong course offering for sciences (physics, chemistry, biology), certainly not nearly what Blair has.

So one way to handle this is to continue engineering focused program at Wheaton (sTEm) that will attract kids that like to build things (more practical ones) and open a new SteM magnet at Woodward that will attract science nerds. That way Wheaton continues with what has been a fairly successful program and Woodward gets something meaningful to build on other than pointless art magnet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Certainly enough demand for two STEM related magnets. It’s a big catch all theme.

Current program at Wheaton that they are very proud of is unique and nothing like, for example, Blair magnet program. Wheaton program is focused on engineering and doesn't really have strong course offering for sciences (physics, chemistry, biology), certainly not nearly what Blair has.

So one way to handle this is to continue engineering focused program at Wheaton (sTEm) that will attract kids that like to build things (more practical ones) and open a new SteM magnet at Woodward that will attract science nerds. That way Wheaton continues with what has been a fairly successful program and Woodward gets something meaningful to build on other than pointless art magnet.

I like it. With the new regional model what it is, it would be nice to have other great magnet options. Something science or math would draw a lot of interest. A big win for Woodward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Certainly enough demand for two STEM related magnets. It’s a big catch all theme.

Current program at Wheaton that they are very proud of is unique and nothing like, for example, Blair magnet program. Wheaton program is focused on engineering and doesn't really have strong course offering for sciences (physics, chemistry, biology), certainly not nearly what Blair has.

So one way to handle this is to continue engineering focused program at Wheaton (sTEm) that will attract kids that like to build things (more practical ones) and open a new SteM magnet at Woodward that will attract science nerds. That way Wheaton continues with what has been a fairly successful program and Woodward gets something meaningful to build on other than pointless art magnet.

I like it. With the new regional model what it is, it would be nice to have other great magnet options. Something science or math would draw a lot of interest. A big win for Woodward.

This is an excellent idea! More of this

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The superintendent's recommendation for Woodward/WJ was odd and not in alignment with the board's clearly stated goals.

The WJ cluster is currently made up of Tilden MS (Farmland ES, Luxmanor ES and Garrett Park ES) and North Bethesda MS (Ashburton ES, Wyngate ES and Kensington Parkwood ES). He recommends adding two more elementary schools - Wheaton Woods and Viers Mill. Both of these schools have substantially higher poverty with 95% FARMS rates. Rather than put one at each high school to better balance the FARMS rate, the recommendation puts Garrett Park (splitting off from Tilden) and puts both WW and VM at Woodward. Small "islands" of GP and KP also go to Woodward. All of this means that Woodward is close to 40% FARMS and WJ is 13%. WJ would also be at 77% utilitzation and Woodward at 91% - also odd because of all the multi-family development going up in the new Woodward cluster. WJ might have some development but not nearly as much. So in addition to Woodward having much higher poverty than WJ it is also likely to be overcrowded almost immediately.

It is completely contrary to what the BOE has been trying to achieve and goes directly against their Policy FAA. Was there a data error? It is politically motivated? Do powerful people live in the Towns of Kensington and Garrett Park? Lots of people are struggling to make sense of this one!

Why do we need to “balance the FARMS rate”? Do we “balance the Whites” or “balance the Asians”?

One of the criteria is diversity, including racial/ethnic and low-income. So yes, whites, Asians, other races/ethnicities, and FARMs should all be balanced under one of the factors. -DP