Option B Alternate - Adding extra ES to WJ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Option B alternate is certainly better than the Sup. recommendation.

Not for us in VMES. You’re splitting up friendships. My block gets sent back to over crowded and unsafe Wheaton. We were looking forward to the change to Woodward

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I kind of feel like the VMES split is a poison pill from Taylor. You want an alternative with better utilization balance - here, now you get to see how everyone hates it

Yea this alternative isn’t that good

The fact that they wouldn't open up the data (neighborhood-by-neighborhood FARMS and student population/generation assumptions) to a crowdsourced solution, or even to BOE members to construct their own alternatives, presaged that this was the way it would be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Today at the BOE meeting, the central office stood behind the Superintendent’s recommendation.

However…to respond to some comments, they propose an alternative to the BOE that would cut Viers Mill Elementary in two for split articulation. The half in the walk zone to Wheaton would go to Wheaton. The other half would go to WJ. This is instead of all of VMES going to Woodward.

Thoughts?

This compromise is certainly more balanced then Taylor's recommendation.

I’m Woodward regardless. Is it? I guess I’m in favor of my school being less crowded but it looks like musical chairs.

WJ 77 to 84
Wheaton 86 to 93
Woodward 91 to 76

I don’t think balance is the right word here because it’s similar utilization rates just houses differently.

FARMS balance

WJ from 15.3 to 17.7
Wheaton from 59.2 to 58.7
Woodward from 35.7 to 32.1

Did it move the needle that much?

I agree it basically just moves around utilization rates without much change to farms. I guess a smidge but nothing meaningful worth breaking up communities over.

So you are saying just send the whole VMES to WJ as the Option B Alternate recommended. More meaningful FARMS balance and no breaking up communities.

VM in Woodward creates a better FARMs balance between Woodward and Wheaton. More meaningful FARMs balance and no breaking up communities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Today at the BOE meeting, the central office stood behind the Superintendent’s recommendation.

However…to respond to some comments, they propose an alternative to the BOE that would cut Viers Mill Elementary in two for split articulation. The half in the walk zone to Wheaton would go to Wheaton. The other half would go to WJ. This is instead of all of VMES going to Woodward.

Thoughts?

This compromise is certainly more balanced then Taylor's recommendation.

I’m Woodward regardless. Is it? I guess I’m in favor of my school being less crowded but it looks like musical chairs.

WJ 77 to 84
Wheaton 86 to 93
Woodward 91 to 76

I don’t think balance is the right word here because it’s similar utilization rates just houses differently.

FARMS balance

WJ from 15.3 to 17.7
Wheaton from 59.2 to 58.7
Woodward from 35.7 to 32.1

Did it move the needle that much?

I agree it basically just moves around utilization rates without much change to farms. I guess a smidge but nothing meaningful worth breaking up communities over.

So you are saying just send the whole VMES to WJ as the Option B Alternate recommended. More meaningful FARMS balance and no breaking up communities.

VM in Woodward creates a better FARMs balance between Woodward and Wheaton. More meaningful FARMs balance and no breaking up communities.

+1

I think there’s why they should go with what was recommended. There aren’t real pros to this, just enough cons to not make it worth it.

[Anonymous]

The BOE is so pissed at Farmland. They're not making any changes to this recommendation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I kind of feel like the VMES split is a poison pill from Taylor. You want an alternative with better utilization balance - here, now you get to see how everyone hates it

This was my thought as well. I don't see the board going for this.

[Anonymous]

The board must recognize that the superintendent's proposal is deeply flawed and will have to modify it in some shape of form. This is not just because of FARMS divide but because WJ being less utilized than Woodward makes no sense. They just presented a slide that shows that there is more upcoming development in Woodward than WJ, significantly more.

So the only rationale to underutilize WJ is belief that everybody will be applying to magnets in WJ and very few to other magnets in that region. But that is the same as saying - hey, we know that most of our magnets will be terrible. Not to mention that it will further concentrate advanced students in just one school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The board must recognize that the superintendent's proposal is deeply flawed and will have to modify it in some shape of form. This is not just because of FARMS divide but because WJ being less utilized than Woodward makes no sense. They just presented a slide that shows that there is more upcoming development in Woodward than WJ, significantly more.

So the only rationale to underutilize WJ is belief that everybody will be applying to magnets in WJ and very few to other magnets in that region. But that is the same as saying - hey, we know that most of our magnets will be terrible. Not to mention that it will further concentrate advanced students in just one school.

Yup.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The board must recognize that the superintendent's proposal is deeply flawed and will have to modify it in some shape of form. This is not just because of FARMS divide but because WJ being less utilized than Woodward makes no sense. They just presented a slide that shows that there is more upcoming development in Woodward than WJ, significantly more.

So the only rationale to underutilize WJ is belief that everybody will be applying to magnets in WJ and very few to other magnets in that region. But that is the same as saying - hey, we know that most of our magnets will be terrible. Not to mention that it will further concentrate advanced students in just one school.

You ignore currently existing housing in both zones. It isn’t like the only kids come from possible new housing…. And the 100 new unit disparity accounts for about 14 high school kids at a given time according to those slides and multipliers.

You also ignore wear and tear on the older facility that has been above capacity for a decade+ where as we spent hundreds of millions on a brand new facility with a lower depreciation factor

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The board must recognize that the superintendent's proposal is deeply flawed and will have to modify it in some shape of form. This is not just because of FARMS divide but because WJ being less utilized than Woodward makes no sense. They just presented a slide that shows that there is more upcoming development in Woodward than WJ, significantly more.

So the only rationale to underutilize WJ is belief that everybody will be applying to magnets in WJ and very few to other magnets in that region. But that is the same as saying - hey, we know that most of our magnets will be terrible. Not to mention that it will further concentrate advanced students in just one school.

You ignore currently existing housing in both zones. It isn’t like the only kids come from possible new housing…. And the 100 new unit disparity accounts for about 14 high school kids at a given time according to those slides and multipliers.

You also ignore wear and tear on the older facility that has been above capacity for a decade+ where as we spent hundreds of millions on a brand new facility with a lower depreciation factor

Agree. Plus transportation. Adding unnecessary split articulation etc

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The board must recognize that the superintendent's proposal is deeply flawed and will have to modify it in some shape of form. This is not just because of FARMS divide but because WJ being less utilized than Woodward makes no sense. They just presented a slide that shows that there is more upcoming development in Woodward than WJ, significantly more.

So the only rationale to underutilize WJ is belief that everybody will be applying to magnets in WJ and very few to other magnets in that region. But that is the same as saying - hey, we know that most of our magnets will be terrible. Not to mention that it will further concentrate advanced students in just one school.

You ignore currently existing housing in both zones. It isn’t like the only kids come from possible new housing…. And the 100 new unit disparity accounts for about 14 high school kids at a given time according to those slides and multipliers.

You also ignore wear and tear on the older facility that has been above capacity for a decade+ where as we spent hundreds of millions on a brand new facility with a lower depreciation factor

Yea WJ could be the next Wootton with the way MCPS maintains buildings…only no new school will be built.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The board must recognize that the superintendent's proposal is deeply flawed and will have to modify it in some shape of form. This is not just because of FARMS divide but because WJ being less utilized than Woodward makes no sense. They just presented a slide that shows that there is more upcoming development in Woodward than WJ, significantly more.

So the only rationale to underutilize WJ is belief that everybody will be applying to magnets in WJ and very few to other magnets in that region. But that is the same as saying - hey, we know that most of our magnets will be terrible. Not to mention that it will further concentrate advanced students in just one school.

You ignore currently existing housing in both zones. It isn’t like the only kids come from possible new housing…. And the 100 new unit disparity accounts for about 14 high school kids at a given time according to those slides and multipliers.

You also ignore wear and tear on the older facility that has been above capacity for a decade+ where as we spent hundreds of millions on a brand new facility with a lower depreciation factor

Agree. Plus transportation. Adding unnecessary split articulation etc

The alternate would reduce bus transportation, as it adds walkers to Wheaton.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Today at the BOE meeting, the central office stood behind the Superintendent’s recommendation.

However…to respond to some comments, they propose an alternative to the BOE that would cut Viers Mill Elementary in two for split articulation. The half in the walk zone to Wheaton would go to Wheaton. The other half would go to WJ. This is instead of all of VMES going to Woodward.

Thoughts?

This compromise is certainly more balanced then Taylor's recommendation.

I’m Woodward regardless. Is it? I guess I’m in favor of my school being less crowded but it looks like musical chairs.

WJ 77 to 84
Wheaton 86 to 93
Woodward 91 to 76

I don’t think balance is the right word here because it’s similar utilization rates just houses differently.

Which area is getting added in this proposal to increase WJ from 77 to 84?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Today at the BOE meeting, the central office stood behind the Superintendent’s recommendation.

However…to respond to some comments, they propose an alternative to the BOE that would cut Viers Mill Elementary in two for split articulation. The half in the walk zone to Wheaton would go to Wheaton. The other half would go to WJ. This is instead of all of VMES going to Woodward.

Thoughts?

This compromise is certainly more balanced then Taylor's recommendation.

I’m Woodward regardless. Is it? I guess I’m in favor of my school being less crowded but it looks like musical chairs.

WJ 77 to 84
Wheaton 86 to 93
Woodward 91 to 76

I don’t think balance is the right word here because it’s similar utilization rates just houses differently.

FARMS balance

WJ from 15.3 to 17.7
Wheaton from 59.2 to 58.7
Woodward from 35.2 to 32.2

Did it move the needle that much?

I agree it basically just moves around utilization rates without much change to farms. I guess a smidge but nothing meaningful worth breaking up communities over.

It's not a meaningful farms difference.

What is happening is that they inflated the capacity of Wheaton HS by 500 seats over what is in the CIP for that school. So the Superintendent's recommendation actually leaves Wheaton HS over capacity. Adding half of Viers Mill would make this worse. In two years they will cry about how overcrowded Wheaton is and how the Council MUST fund an expansion of Edison HS (next door) for overflow. They will say this was promised to them, but it should never have been promised with the current fiscal situation. There is plenty of capacity in existing buildings, and the walk from Viers Mill to Wheaton is not safe. Everyone is better off with them getting a bus to another school with actual capacity.

What happens right now? Do kids walk? If yes, then why can't they continue walking? If no then this is certainly an issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Today at the BOE meeting, the central office stood behind the Superintendent’s recommendation.

However…to respond to some comments, they propose an alternative to the BOE that would cut Viers Mill Elementary in two for split articulation. The half in the walk zone to Wheaton would go to Wheaton. The other half would go to WJ. This is instead of all of VMES going to Woodward.

Thoughts?

This compromise is certainly more balanced then Taylor's recommendation.

I’m Woodward regardless. Is it? I guess I’m in favor of my school being less crowded but it looks like musical chairs.

WJ 77 to 84
Wheaton 86 to 93
Woodward 91 to 76

I don’t think balance is the right word here because it’s similar utilization rates just houses differently.

FARMS balance

WJ from 15.3 to 17.7
Wheaton from 59.2 to 58.7
Woodward from 35.2 to 32.2

Did it move the needle that much?

I agree it basically just moves around utilization rates without much change to farms. I guess a smidge but nothing meaningful worth breaking up communities over.

It's not a meaningful farms difference.

What is happening is that they inflated the capacity of Wheaton HS by 500 seats over what is in the CIP for that school. So the Superintendent's recommendation actually leaves Wheaton HS over capacity. Adding half of Viers Mill would make this worse. In two years they will cry about how overcrowded Wheaton is and how the Council MUST fund an expansion of Edison HS (next door) for overflow. They will say this was promised to them, but it should never have been promised with the current fiscal situation. There is plenty of capacity in existing buildings, and the walk from Viers Mill to Wheaton is not safe. Everyone is better off with them getting a bus to another school with actual capacity.

What happens right now? Do kids walk? If yes, then why can't they continue walking? If no then this is certainly an issue.

They currently get driven or walk along unsafe roads to an overcrowded school.