Option B Alternate - Adding extra ES to WJ?

[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

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

The new school is already here. Woodward was opened specifically to address overcrowding at WJ. But you are saying that is not enough and they should also go easy on old WJ building because of wear and tear and keep it significantly under capacity. You are pushing it. Even CO sees it and that is why they spent some time in the presentation talking about building number projections. WJ is not the only old school in the county.

[Anonymous]

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.

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

The western half of Viers Mill ES.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

The new school is already here. Woodward was opened specifically to address overcrowding at WJ. But you are saying that is not enough and they should also go easy on old WJ building because of wear and tear and keep it significantly under capacity. You are pushing it. Even CO sees it and that is why they spent some time in the presentation talking about building number projections. WJ is not the only old school in the county.

Exactly. No reason for Woodward to be under capacity at 76.5%. The heat map of students didn’t illustrate Woodward would be over crowded. In fact the kids are at Wheaton so why make them crowded? Build a new school and don’t use it? The Superintendent stood by his original recommendation.

[Anonymous]

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.

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

The western half of Viers Mill ES.

I wonder how splitting VMES like that would play into the elementary school study. Could they be sent to an under capacity Kensington Parkwood?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

The new school is already here. Woodward was opened specifically to address overcrowding at WJ. But you are saying that is not enough and they should also go easy on old WJ building because of wear and tear and keep it significantly under capacity. You are pushing it. Even CO sees it and that is why they spent some time in the presentation talking about building number projections. WJ is not the only old school in the county.

Exactly. No reason for Woodward to be under capacity at 76.5%. The heat map of students didn’t illustrate Woodward would be over crowded. In fact the kids are at Wheaton so why make them crowded? Build a new school and don’t use it? The Superintendent stood by his original recommendation.

Exactly. And no reason for WJ to be at 77% either. That is why Option B Alternate is by far the best way to go. It keeps both Woodward and WJ above 80% and avoids some split articulations. The Superintendent is warming up to the idea and is upset with FLO Analytics for setting him up with bad recommendation when clearly superior solution was sitting in plain sight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

The new school is already here. Woodward was opened specifically to address overcrowding at WJ. But you are saying that is not enough and they should also go easy on old WJ building because of wear and tear and keep it significantly under capacity. You are pushing it. Even CO sees it and that is why they spent some time in the presentation talking about building number projections. WJ is not the only old school in the county.

Exactly. No reason for Woodward to be under capacity at 76.5%. The heat map of students didn’t illustrate Woodward would be over crowded. In fact the kids are at Wheaton so why make them crowded? Build a new school and don’t use it? The Superintendent stood by his original recommendation.

Exactly. And no reason for WJ to be at 77% either. That is why Option B Alternate is by far the best way to go. It keeps both Woodward and WJ above 80% and avoids some split articulations. The Superintendent is warming up to the idea and is upset with FLO Analytics for setting him up with bad recommendation when clearly superior solution was sitting in plain sight.

The option B alternate does not keep Woodward above 80%.

You must have seen an entirely different work session or be on a different planet. That entire meeting was defending his original recommendation. And even when he presented the new option he was crystal clear that he still stood by his original recommendation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

The new school is already here. Woodward was opened specifically to address overcrowding at WJ. But you are saying that is not enough and they should also go easy on old WJ building because of wear and tear and keep it significantly under capacity. You are pushing it. Even CO sees it and that is why they spent some time in the presentation talking about building number projections. WJ is not the only old school in the county.

Exactly. No reason for Woodward to be under capacity at 76.5%. The heat map of students didn’t illustrate Woodward would be over crowded. In fact the kids are at Wheaton so why make them crowded? Build a new school and don’t use it? The Superintendent stood by his original recommendation.

He also said that he will support the alternative if BOA selects it and mentioned its several positive features. It is all in the video (around 2:55).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

The new school is already here. Woodward was opened specifically to address overcrowding at WJ. But you are saying that is not enough and they should also go easy on old WJ building because of wear and tear and keep it significantly under capacity. You are pushing it. Even CO sees it and that is why they spent some time in the presentation talking about building number projections. WJ is not the only old school in the county.

Exactly. No reason for Woodward to be under capacity at 76.5%. The heat map of students didn’t illustrate Woodward would be over crowded. In fact the kids are at Wheaton so why make them crowded? Build a new school and don’t use it? The Superintendent stood by his original recommendation.

Exactly. And no reason for WJ to be at 77% either. That is why Option B Alternate is by far the best way to go. It keeps both Woodward and WJ above 80% and avoids some split articulations. The Superintendent is warming up to the idea and is upset with FLO Analytics for setting him up with bad recommendation when clearly superior solution was sitting in plain sight.

The option B alternate does not keep Woodward above 80%.

You must have seen an entirely different work session or be on a different planet. That entire meeting was defending his original recommendation. And even when he presented the new option he was crystal clear that he still stood by his original recommendation.

And more importantly the BOE members were praising MCPS for providing one of the best most data driven presentations they have seen. I think the writing is on the wall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

The new school is already here. Woodward was opened specifically to address overcrowding at WJ. But you are saying that is not enough and they should also go easy on old WJ building because of wear and tear and keep it significantly under capacity. You are pushing it. Even CO sees it and that is why they spent some time in the presentation talking about building number projections. WJ is not the only old school in the county.

Exactly. No reason for Woodward to be under capacity at 76.5%. The heat map of students didn’t illustrate Woodward would be over crowded. In fact the kids are at Wheaton so why make them crowded? Build a new school and don’t use it? The Superintendent stood by his original recommendation.

Exactly. And no reason for WJ to be at 77% either. That is why Option B Alternate is by far the best way to go. It keeps both Woodward and WJ above 80% and avoids some split articulations. The Superintendent is warming up to the idea and is upset with FLO Analytics for setting him up with bad recommendation when clearly superior solution was sitting in plain sight.

The option B alternate does not keep Woodward above 80%.

You must have seen an entirely different work session or be on a different planet. That entire meeting was defending his original recommendation. And even when he presented the new option he was crystal clear that he still stood by his original recommendation.

Wishful thinking. First of all, only the small part of the meeting was about the Woodward boundary recommendation and its alternative. One had to wait for three hours for this particular discussion to take place. Whoever is interested can make judgment for themselves. It is all in the video. He was crystal clear that he sees the Alternative also as a positive solution with many good features and that he will support it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

The new school is already here. Woodward was opened specifically to address overcrowding at WJ. But you are saying that is not enough and they should also go easy on old WJ building because of wear and tear and keep it significantly under capacity. You are pushing it. Even CO sees it and that is why they spent some time in the presentation talking about building number projections. WJ is not the only old school in the county.

Exactly. No reason for Woodward to be under capacity at 76.5%. The heat map of students didn’t illustrate Woodward would be over crowded. In fact the kids are at Wheaton so why make them crowded? Build a new school and don’t use it? The Superintendent stood by his original recommendation.

He also said that he will support the alternative if BOA selects it and mentioned its several positive features. It is all in the video (around 2:55).

It is all a show to pretend the BOE has an actual role and decision making ability here

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

The new school is already here. Woodward was opened specifically to address overcrowding at WJ. But you are saying that is not enough and they should also go easy on old WJ building because of wear and tear and keep it significantly under capacity. You are pushing it. Even CO sees it and that is why they spent some time in the presentation talking about building number projections. WJ is not the only old school in the county.

Exactly. No reason for Woodward to be under capacity at 76.5%. The heat map of students didn’t illustrate Woodward would be over crowded. In fact the kids are at Wheaton so why make them crowded? Build a new school and don’t use it? The Superintendent stood by his original recommendation.

He also said that he will support the alternative if BOA selects it and mentioned its several positive features. It is all in the video (around 2:55).

“We still standby the recommendation that is in front of you….”-MCPS staff

“Just want to elevate one feature here, we absolutely standby the recommendation that has been made…”-Taylor

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

The new school is already here. Woodward was opened specifically to address overcrowding at WJ. But you are saying that is not enough and they should also go easy on old WJ building because of wear and tear and keep it significantly under capacity. You are pushing it. Even CO sees it and that is why they spent some time in the presentation talking about building number projections. WJ is not the only old school in the county.

Exactly. No reason for Woodward to be under capacity at 76.5%. The heat map of students didn’t illustrate Woodward would be over crowded. In fact the kids are at Wheaton so why make them crowded? Build a new school and don’t use it? The Superintendent stood by his original recommendation.

Exactly. And no reason for WJ to be at 77% either. That is why Option B Alternate is by far the best way to go. It keeps both Woodward and WJ above 80% and avoids some split articulations. The Superintendent is warming up to the idea and is upset with FLO Analytics for setting him up with bad recommendation when clearly superior solution was sitting in plain sight.

The option B alternate does not keep Woodward above 80%.

You must have seen an entirely different work session or be on a different planet. That entire meeting was defending his original recommendation. And even when he presented the new option he was crystal clear that he still stood by his original recommendation.

Wishful thinking. First of all, only the small part of the meeting was about the Woodward boundary recommendation and its alternative. One had to wait for three hours for this particular discussion to take place. Whoever is interested can make judgment for themselves. It is all in the video. He was crystal clear that he sees the Alternative also as a positive solution with many good features and that he will support it.

As a VMES family, if what was proposed in early Feb was “11th hour” then this alternate is being proposed at 11:59. And we don’t get the 100 pages of analysis. Just 2 slides and 4 minutes of discussion. We don’t like this idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

The new school is already here. Woodward was opened specifically to address overcrowding at WJ. But you are saying that is not enough and they should also go easy on old WJ building because of wear and tear and keep it significantly under capacity. You are pushing it. Even CO sees it and that is why they spent some time in the presentation talking about building number projections. WJ is not the only old school in the county.

Exactly. No reason for Woodward to be under capacity at 76.5%. The heat map of students didn’t illustrate Woodward would be over crowded. In fact the kids are at Wheaton so why make them crowded? Build a new school and don’t use it? The Superintendent stood by his original recommendation.

He also said that he will support the alternative if BOA selects it and mentioned its several positive features. It is all in the video (around 2:55).

“We still standby the recommendation that is in front of you….”-MCPS staff

“Just want to elevate one feature here, we absolutely standby the recommendation that has been made…”-Taylor

Selective editing. Again, if one wants to get a feel for where this is going they should watch the video and make their own judgment. The slide about the Alternative is titled "We ARE Listening". They wouldn't call it that if CO doesn't believe in it. It will be on BOE to endorse one of the two options or come up with the third one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

The new school is already here. Woodward was opened specifically to address overcrowding at WJ. But you are saying that is not enough and they should also go easy on old WJ building because of wear and tear and keep it significantly under capacity. You are pushing it. Even CO sees it and that is why they spent some time in the presentation talking about building number projections. WJ is not the only old school in the county.

Exactly. No reason for Woodward to be under capacity at 76.5%. The heat map of students didn’t illustrate Woodward would be over crowded. In fact the kids are at Wheaton so why make them crowded? Build a new school and don’t use it? The Superintendent stood by his original recommendation.

He also said that he will support the alternative if BOA selects it and mentioned its several positive features. It is all in the video (around 2:55).

“We still standby the recommendation that is in front of you….”-MCPS staff

“Just want to elevate one feature here, we absolutely standby the recommendation that has been made…”-Taylor

Selective editing. Again, if one wants to get a feel for where this is going they should watch the video and make their own judgment. The slide about the Alternative is titled "We ARE Listening". They wouldn't call it that if CO doesn't believe in it. It will be on BOE to endorse one of the two options or come up with the third one.

DP. I didn’t interpret that as positively as you are…. But let’s say you’re right. When do we see a BOE endorsement? March 26?

[Anonymous]

He has to give them an option so they can claim they "make difficult decisions" and "balance competing priorities" rather than simply rubber stamping Taylor's recommendation (which is what they will do)