differences between Winston Churchill high school and Walt Whitman high school

[Anonymous]

Damn

[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:Whitman boundary may change due to Woodward High School Opening. Apart from that, there is not much difference.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1128527.page

Could Churchill's boundary change due to Woodward?

No, Churchill is not part of the Woodward boundary study, but it is expected to be part of the Crown boundary study.

The current CIP includes other five high schools and Churchill is not one of them. Even if MCPS does include it, the worst case is that a small portion goes to Wootton. It’s not a big deal.

The lines between Churchill, Wootton, and RM could be redrawn.

The only part connecting to RM is Beverly farm ES and a big portion of it is in walking distance to Churchill.

The cluster boundary for all the clusters will probably change, and that includes adding some areas to the cluster, not just taking neighborhoods away.

I don’t see much change to Churchill and it’s already over capacity. It’s not on the Crown study plan yet either.

Being over capacity is a good reason for boundary changes, no?

As I said, from the current map, I only see a small portion goes to Wootton, which is not a big deal.

Think bigger. The whole northern and western sections could be part of a boundary change with NW, QO, Crown, and Wootton.

It could, but kids from Churchill needs to be bused much further to be redrawn and could got significant number of walkers to busers. Just from the map, it would seem to be the least impacted.

Plus the small single lane roads in Potomac would it make it a nightmare for MCPS to bus them further.

They're already on the bus. It would make no difference which high school the bus is going to or from.

The walk zone is smaller than you probably think.

[Anonymous]

Nobody busing my kid away from Church Thrill

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whitman boundary may change due to Woodward High School Opening. Apart from that, there is not much difference.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1128527.page

Could Churchill's boundary change due to Woodward?

No, Churchill is not part of the Woodward boundary study, but it is expected to be part of the Crown boundary study.

The current CIP includes other five high schools and Churchill is not one of them. Even if MCPS does include it, the worst case is that a small portion goes to Wootton. It’s not a big deal.

The lines between Churchill, Wootton, and RM could be redrawn.

The only part connecting to RM is Beverly farm ES and a big portion of it is in walking distance to Churchill.

The cluster boundary for all the clusters will probably change, and that includes adding some areas to the cluster, not just taking neighborhoods away.

I don’t see much change to Churchill and it’s already over capacity. It’s not on the Crown study plan yet either.

Whitman and BCC weren't part of the Woodward plans at this point yet either, but they both ended up being included in the study.

Keeping telling yourself this. It's all connected and these boundaries are nearby and adjacent.

[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:Whitman boundary may change due to Woodward High School Opening. Apart from that, there is not much difference.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1128527.page

Could Churchill's boundary change due to Woodward?

No, Churchill is not part of the Woodward boundary study, but it is expected to be part of the Crown boundary study.

The current CIP includes other five high schools and Churchill is not one of them. Even if MCPS does include it, the worst case is that a small portion goes to Wootton. It’s not a big deal.

The lines between Churchill, Wootton, and RM could be redrawn.

The only part connecting to RM is Beverly farm ES and a big portion of it is in walking distance to Churchill.

The cluster boundary for all the clusters will probably change, and that includes adding some areas to the cluster, not just taking neighborhoods away.

I don’t see much change to Churchill and it’s already over capacity. It’s not on the Crown study plan yet either.

Being over capacity is a good reason for boundary changes, no?

As I said, from the current map, I only see a small portion goes to Wootton, which is not a big deal.

Think bigger. The whole northern and western sections could be part of a boundary change with NW, QO, Crown, and Wootton.

It could, but kids from Churchill needs to be bused much further to be redrawn and could got significant number of walkers to busers. Just from the map, it would seem to be the least impacted.

I have always said that Churchill cluster is pretty bullet proof when it comes to redistricting. Wootton and Whitman are adjacent. WJ is already overcrowded. Nowhere to send the Churchill kids and it is too over capacity to have incoming. We are protected, and people hate that lol.

[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:Whitman boundary may change due to Woodward High School Opening. Apart from that, there is not much difference.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1128527.page

Could Churchill's boundary change due to Woodward?

No, Churchill is not part of the Woodward boundary study, but it is expected to be part of the Crown boundary study.

The current CIP includes other five high schools and Churchill is not one of them. Even if MCPS does include it, the worst case is that a small portion goes to Wootton. It’s not a big deal.

The lines between Churchill, Wootton, and RM could be redrawn.

The only part connecting to RM is Beverly farm ES and a big portion of it is in walking distance to Churchill.

The cluster boundary for all the clusters will probably change, and that includes adding some areas to the cluster, not just taking neighborhoods away.

I don’t see much change to Churchill and it’s already over capacity. It’s not on the Crown study plan yet either.

Being over capacity is a good reason for boundary changes, no?

As I said, from the current map, I only see a small portion goes to Wootton, which is not a big deal.

Think bigger. The whole northern and western sections could be part of a boundary change with NW, QO, Crown, and Wootton.

It could, but kids from Churchill needs to be bused much further to be redrawn and could got significant number of walkers to busers. Just from the map, it would seem to be the least impacted.

I have always said that Churchill cluster is pretty bullet proof when it comes to redistricting. Wootton and Whitman are adjacent. WJ is already overcrowded. Nowhere to send the Churchill kids and it is too over capacity to have incoming. We are protected, and people hate that lol.

Some Churchill may join RM.

[Anonymous]

No

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

No, Churchill is not part of the Woodward boundary study, but it is expected to be part of the Crown boundary study.

As with Whitman, a sizable portion of Churchill's catchment boundary corresponds with the river (and with Whitman). As such, that limits the possible avenues for changing its boundary.

Because Churchill was included in the Crown study but excluded from the Woodward study, that suggests to me that any changes to the Churchill boundary would be made to the northern portions, and not the eastern or southern portions.

Does anyone know if the boundary studies for Woodward and Crown will be looking at just changing the composition of the elementary schools (but leaving their boundaries) or also changing the boundaries of the elementary schools as well as the middle and high schools? Or are all those options (and others) possible?

ES boundaries are not part of the Woodward study, but where any particular ES students head to MS or HS may change, including splitting any one elementary school's articulation to multiple middle schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Churchill has always seemed majority Asian to me.
Our friends left their local elementary school which was 80%+ asian and cliquey.

It's interesting that you consider 32% to be majority Asian-American. The plurality demographic group at Churchill is non-Hispanic white, at 43%.

https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/regulatoryaccountability/glance/currentyear/schools/04602.pdf

While we're at it, let's look at the elementary schools in the Churchill cluster:

Bells Mill: 27% Asian-American, 8% 2+, 41% non-Hispanic white
Seven Locks: 26% Asian-American, <5% 2+, 49% non-Hispanic white
Beverly Farms: 30% Asian-American, 9% 2+, 45% non-Hispanic white
Potomac: 33% Asian-American, 11% 2+, 39% non-Hispanic white
Wayside: 41% Asian-American, 6% 2+, 38% non-Hispanic white

Asian families go where the good schools are. Churchill is an excellent school. As a PP noted, accurately, there is a decent amount of middle-class housing in Potomac that is a factor too.

Huge Chinese American christian church there. Plus all the food along 270. It’s their community there.

Just like tons of Koreans in Vienna, Ethiopians in NE DC, Hispanics in silver spring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No, Churchill is not part of the Woodward boundary study, but it is expected to be part of the Crown boundary study.

As with Whitman, a sizable portion of Churchill's catchment boundary corresponds with the river (and with Whitman). As such, that limits the possible avenues for changing its boundary.

Because Churchill was included in the Crown study but excluded from the Woodward study, that suggests to me that any changes to the Churchill boundary would be made to the northern portions, and not the eastern or southern portions.

Does anyone know if the boundary studies for Woodward and Crown will be looking at just changing the composition of the elementary schools (but leaving their boundaries) or also changing the boundaries of the elementary schools as well as the middle and high schools? Or are all those options (and others) possible?

ES boundaries are not part of the Woodward study, but where any particular ES students head to MS or HS may change, including splitting any one elementary school's articulation to multiple middle schools.

I think in Woodward boundary they say they will avoid split Articulations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Churchill has always seemed majority Asian to me.
Our friends left their local elementary school which was 80%+ asian and cliquey.

It's interesting that you consider 32% to be majority Asian-American. The plurality demographic group at Churchill is non-Hispanic white, at 43%.

https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/regulatoryaccountability/glance/currentyear/schools/04602.pdf

While we're at it, let's look at the elementary schools in the Churchill cluster:

Bells Mill: 27% Asian-American, 8% 2+, 41% non-Hispanic white
Seven Locks: 26% Asian-American, <5% 2+, 49% non-Hispanic white
Beverly Farms: 30% Asian-American, 9% 2+, 45% non-Hispanic white
Potomac: 33% Asian-American, 11% 2+, 39% non-Hispanic white
Wayside: 41% Asian-American, 6% 2+, 38% non-Hispanic white

Asian families go where the good schools are. Churchill is an excellent school. As a PP noted, accurately, there is a decent amount of middle-class housing in Potomac that is a factor too.

Huge Chinese American christian church there. Plus all the food along 270. It’s their community there.

Just like tons of Koreans in Vienna, Ethiopians in NE DC, Hispanics in silver spring.

"all the food along 270"?

"Hispanics in Silver Spring"?

Do you live in Montgomery County?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whitman boundary may change due to Woodward High School Opening. Apart from that, there is not much difference.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1128527.page

Could Churchill's boundary change due to Woodward?

No, Churchill is not part of the Woodward boundary study, but it is expected to be part of the Crown boundary study.

The current CIP includes other five high schools and Churchill is not one of them. Even if MCPS does include it, the worst case is that a small portion goes to Wootton. It’s not a big deal.

The lines between Churchill, Wootton, and RM could be redrawn.

The only part connecting to RM is Beverly farm ES and a big portion of it is in walking distance to Churchill.

The cluster boundary for all the clusters will probably change, and that includes adding some areas to the cluster, not just taking neighborhoods away.

I don’t see much change to Churchill and it’s already over capacity. It’s not on the Crown study plan yet either.

Whitman and BCC weren't part of the Woodward plans at this point yet either, but they both ended up being included in the study.

Keeping telling yourself this. It's all connected and these boundaries are nearby and adjacent.

Yep, the diversity bus is a commin to Churchill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No, Churchill is not part of the Woodward boundary study, but it is expected to be part of the Crown boundary study.

As with Whitman, a sizable portion of Churchill's catchment boundary corresponds with the river (and with Whitman). As such, that limits the possible avenues for changing its boundary.

Because Churchill was included in the Crown study but excluded from the Woodward study, that suggests to me that any changes to the Churchill boundary would be made to the northern portions, and not the eastern or southern portions.

Does anyone know if the boundary studies for Woodward and Crown will be looking at just changing the composition of the elementary schools (but leaving their boundaries) or also changing the boundaries of the elementary schools as well as the middle and high schools? Or are all those options (and others) possible?

ES boundaries are not part of the Woodward study, but where any particular ES students head to MS or HS may change, including splitting any one elementary school's articulation to multiple middle schools.

I think in Woodward boundary they say they will avoid split Articulations.

Or attempt to, anyway. Keeping ES boundaries while changing MS and HS boundaries will leave them with few choices.

The other choice is deciding to move ES boundaries to avoid split articulation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No, Churchill is not part of the Woodward boundary study, but it is expected to be part of the Crown boundary study.

As with Whitman, a sizable portion of Churchill's catchment boundary corresponds with the river (and with Whitman). As such, that limits the possible avenues for changing its boundary.

Because Churchill was included in the Crown study but excluded from the Woodward study, that suggests to me that any changes to the Churchill boundary would be made to the northern portions, and not the eastern or southern portions.

Does anyone know if the boundary studies for Woodward and Crown will be looking at just changing the composition of the elementary schools (but leaving their boundaries) or also changing the boundaries of the elementary schools as well as the middle and high schools? Or are all those options (and others) possible?

ES boundaries are not part of the Woodward study, but where any particular ES students head to MS or HS may change, including splitting any one elementary school's articulation to multiple middle schools.

I think in Woodward boundary they say they will avoid split Articulations.

Or attempt to, anyway. Keeping ES boundaries while changing MS and HS boundaries will leave them with few choices.

The other choice is deciding to move ES boundaries to avoid split articulation.

Involving ES boundary change is going to be a huge amount of work for boundary studies. Keeping at MS and HS levels is reasonable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No, Churchill is not part of the Woodward boundary study, but it is expected to be part of the Crown boundary study.

As with Whitman, a sizable portion of Churchill's catchment boundary corresponds with the river (and with Whitman). As such, that limits the possible avenues for changing its boundary.

Because Churchill was included in the Crown study but excluded from the Woodward study, that suggests to me that any changes to the Churchill boundary would be made to the northern portions, and not the eastern or southern portions.

Does anyone know if the boundary studies for Woodward and Crown will be looking at just changing the composition of the elementary schools (but leaving their boundaries) or also changing the boundaries of the elementary schools as well as the middle and high schools? Or are all those options (and others) possible?

ES boundaries are not part of the Woodward study, but where any particular ES students head to MS or HS may change, including splitting any one elementary school's articulation to multiple middle schools.

I think in Woodward boundary they say they will avoid split Articulations.

Or attempt to, anyway. Keeping ES boundaries while changing MS and HS boundaries will leave them with few choices.

The other choice is deciding to move ES boundaries to avoid split articulation.

Yes. They will likely try to avoid split articulations. They may not succeed in avoiding split articulations.