Woodward HS boundary study - BCC, Blair, Einstein, WJ, Kennedy, Northwood, Wheaton, Whitman impacts

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the biggest impact will be felt in the DCC w/ Einstein. They will probably lose an elementary school so that the Kensington Parkwood Elementary kids can be re-districted to Einstein.

From what I have been told from those in the know is that doing this helps improve a number of state measured metrics and that every potential model starts with this move.

Einstein is already 500 students overcapacity. There are 15 portables surrounding the school. To lose one elementary school only to gain another one would do nothing to address the ridiculous overcrowding.

+1, if there is consideration being given to adding Parkwood to Einstein there would have to be 2 existing Einstein feeders sent elsewhere because of the overcrowding.

Geographically, Kensington Parkwood should have a split articulation. The western part would be walk to Woodward, and the eastern part would be walk or bus to Einstein.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the biggest impact will be felt in the DCC w/ Einstein. They will probably lose an elementary school so that the Kensington Parkwood Elementary kids can be re-districted to Einstein.

From what I have been told from those in the know is that doing this helps improve a number of state measured metrics and that every potential model starts with this move.

Einstein is already 500 students overcapacity. There are 15 portables surrounding the school. To lose one elementary school only to gain another one would do nothing to address the ridiculous overcrowding.

They need to remodel Einstein and make it bigger. Moving one school will help but not as much as there is a lot of growth in the area and its is/was more affordable housing so its had a huge influx of families. Einstein needs to be torn down and rebuilt.

They don't need to do a whole rebuild, they just need a substantial addition built onto the back of the school. Which they looked into a few years back, but somehow decided against.

Not currently in the plans. Time to get the Einstein PTSA together to advocate.

I agree, but it's not going to even be considered until after the new boundaries are settled and we have new enrollment numbers and projections.

Speculation: Walter Johnson capacity is 2291 (573 ish per year) and it is projected to be 792 over capacity at the end of the '25-'26 school year when Woodward reopens for the cluster. North Bethesda has projected about 411 per year in 2026, so 1644 seats. Leaving 647 open at WJ or about 162 per year. Tilden projections show accounts for about 414 students per year, so about 1656 total. Woodward capacity is 2159, or about 540 per year. If, as we are guessing, Tilden goes to Woodward, that leaves about 126 per year. Please recall that ES boundaries are NOT in play in this boundary study. With these numbers, we are not looking at moving more than 2 ESes.

Why would WJ be split in half, and and two crowded DCC schools (Einstein and Wheaton) get little relief? I get that your plan sounds clean from an articulation perspective, but it does little to address crowding overall. What about sending two of WJ's elementaries to Woodward and then pulling two elementaries from the DCC there? Sure, that would mean some reshuffling for middle between Tilden and NB, but that would be more equitable overall.

The reality is that there are no easy answers, as much as everyone, myself included, wishes for those.

Agree even with the added capacity from both Northwood and Woodward many of these schools will still be at capacotu. These things will let them get by but aren't a solution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the biggest impact will be felt in the DCC w/ Einstein. They will probably lose an elementary school so that the Kensington Parkwood Elementary kids can be re-districted to Einstein.

From what I have been told from those in the know is that doing this helps improve a number of state measured metrics and that every potential model starts with this move.

Einstein is already 500 students overcapacity. There are 15 portables surrounding the school. To lose one elementary school only to gain another one would do nothing to address the ridiculous overcrowding.

+1, if there is consideration being given to adding Parkwood to Einstein there would have to be 2 existing Einstein feeders sent elsewhere because of the overcrowding.

Geographically, Kensington Parkwood should have a split articulation. The western part would be walk to Woodward, and the eastern part would be walk or bus to Einstein.

What about middle school in that scenario?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the biggest impact will be felt in the DCC w/ Einstein. They will probably lose an elementary school so that the Kensington Parkwood Elementary kids can be re-districted to Einstein.

From what I have been told from those in the know is that doing this helps improve a number of state measured metrics and that every potential model starts with this move.

Einstein is already 500 students overcapacity. There are 15 portables surrounding the school. To lose one elementary school only to gain another one would do nothing to address the ridiculous overcrowding.

+1, if there is consideration being given to adding Parkwood to Einstein there would have to be 2 existing Einstein feeders sent elsewhere because of the overcrowding.

Geographically, Kensington Parkwood should have a split articulation. The western part would be walk to Woodward, and the eastern part would be walk or bus to Einstein.

What about middle school in that scenario?

What about middle school? The simplest option would be for everyone to stay at NBMS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the biggest impact will be felt in the DCC w/ Einstein. They will probably lose an elementary school so that the Kensington Parkwood Elementary kids can be re-districted to Einstein.

From what I have been told from those in the know is that doing this helps improve a number of state measured metrics and that every potential model starts with this move.

Einstein is already 500 students overcapacity. There are 15 portables surrounding the school. To lose one elementary school only to gain another one would do nothing to address the ridiculous overcrowding.

+1, if there is consideration being given to adding Parkwood to Einstein there would have to be 2 existing Einstein feeders sent elsewhere because of the overcrowding.

Geographically, Kensington Parkwood should have a split articulation. The western part would be walk to Woodward, and the eastern part would be walk or bus to Einstein.

What about middle school in that scenario?

What about middle school? The simplest option would be for everyone to stay at NBMS.

Yes, but that could make NBMS triple-split-articulated between WJ, Woodward, and Einstein.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s hard to understand what they can do with BCC and Whitman clusters because their needs are not well aligned.

Whitman has HS capacity but Pyle is over capacity. By contrast, BCC is nearing capacity while Westland is below capacity.

I would guess they could send some kids to Westland and then they would reunite at Whitman. But that’s an odd approach. And all of the Whitman ESs near Westland are so huge, I don’t see how they could send one to Westland.

Pyle is not over capacity any more. It has 200+ empty seats.

https://gis.mcpsmd.org/cipmasterpdfs/MP24_Chapter4Whitman.pdf

That link shows the problem across most of these boundaries, more demand for HS than lower grades. What can you do when you have Whitman HS at 95% capacity and Pyle MS at 80%? That’s the same situation as Westland and BCC. Too many people either move to the area only for HS or put kids in private through 8 and return public for HS. Speaks to really poor long term planning and decision making by MCPS and the county, including the inexplicable reason to cut capacity at Woodward when it is so obviously needed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s hard to understand what they can do with BCC and Whitman clusters because their needs are not well aligned.

Whitman has HS capacity but Pyle is over capacity. By contrast, BCC is nearing capacity while Westland is below capacity.

I would guess they could send some kids to Westland and then they would reunite at Whitman. But that’s an odd approach. And all of the Whitman ESs near Westland are so huge, I don’t see how they could send one to Westland.

Pyle is not over capacity any more. It has 200+ empty seats.

https://gis.mcpsmd.org/cipmasterpdfs/MP24_Chapter4Whitman.pdf

That link shows the problem across most of these boundaries, more demand for HS than lower grades. What can you do when you have Whitman HS at 95% capacity and Pyle MS at 80%? That’s the same situation as Westland and BCC. Too many people either move to the area only for HS or put kids in private through 8 and return public for HS. Speaks to really poor long term planning and decision making by MCPS and the county, including the inexplicable reason to cut capacity at Woodward when it is so obviously needed.

It's MCPS's and the county's fault if people move to Bethesda for high school and/or put kids in private for K-8? Really?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the biggest impact will be felt in the DCC w/ Einstein. They will probably lose an elementary school so that the Kensington Parkwood Elementary kids can be re-districted to Einstein.

From what I have been told from those in the know is that doing this helps improve a number of state measured metrics and that every potential model starts with this move.

I feel like there are people on this thread for whom the only goal of this entire process is to move kids in Kensington from WJ to Einstein. Don’t be shocked if this doesn’t happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Boundaries are decided based on neighborhoods, not individuals. This isn’t selective admissions. The SC case isn’t going to be a driver in this boundary decision.

Correct. In case folks are curious, there is plenty of case law around this, most of which boils down to the fact that the State government can not substitute its judgement for that of a local governing body in matter of local policy unless that policy is capricious or illegal.

Plenty of folks have tested this theory, including recently in MCPS, and the outcome has been the same.

Now, when school districts have attempted to assign *individual* students on the basis of race (Parents Involved v. Seattle Schools), SCOTUS has struck that down, but in the same ruling they affirmed the right of school districts to utlize their own discretion to avoid racial isolation.

From the majority ruling:

A compelling interest exists in avoiding racial isolation, an interest that a school district, in its discretion and expertise, may choose to pursue. Likewise, a district may consider it a compelling interest to achieve a diverse student population. Race may be one component of that diversity, but other demographic factors, plus special talents and needs, should also be considered. What the government is not permitted to do, absent a showing of necessity not made here, is to classify every student on the basis of race and to assign each of them to schools based on that classification.

Now, someone might choose to file a lawsuit, but under both Maryland statute and settled case law, they are very very unlikely to succeed and under both MCPS is within its rights to conduct and act on a boundary analysis as long as individual students are not assigned base on race (no racial quotas for admission) and as long as other factors such as FARMS status and proximity are also considered.

Not sure what your point is. A lot of lawsuits also created caselaw around Roe v Wade, and it was overturned.

Maybe its possible to challenge the local school district on the basis that it took race into consideration when drawing boundaries? At the pre-college level, boundaries are the same as "school admissions" - no difference at all. There's ton's of materials published on MCPS website that show statistics about the quantity of children's ethnicity and race at a particular school, as well as (as you point out) use it as the basis for making boundary decisions.

The Court's opinion employs broad language against racial preferences, reasoning that “[e]liminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it.”

The way I read that is race cannot be a factor of decision-making, subject to very narrow exceptions?

What?! Those are not at all the same.

Are you saying that the MCPS CO and the BOE has never publicly stated / documented that it makes boundary decisions, in part, based upon race and ethnicity (ex. when it considers the demographics and ethnic / racial diversity of the school)? And that School Assignment / Boundary decision is not enforced by the School Locator by a resident's address? In order to change this school assignment, it's by individual student through a COSA.

How is that not discriminating based upon race?

“[e]liminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it.”

They aren't selecting individual students based on race. They aren't saying, you are White so you can't go to this school. They are trying to balance demographics through their boundary decisions but don't control which specific students live in those areas and attend those schools.

Why is it necessary to "balance demographics" if all racial discrimination is eliminated? Aren't you proving the point?

I could be wrong, but I don't recall the Supreme Court making a distinction that their decision was solely limited to "selecting individual students based on race"? Can you provide the exact legal citation, page and paragraph please? Honestly, I feel you're making things up to suit your opinion?

For example, the next time MCPS and the BOE redraws school boundaries, what was the legally sustainable compelling interest and when will it end? Was it provide a benefit to some but not to others? Did it necessarily provide advantages to a new group at the expense of the former group? I might ask, when a family purchased a home in a school assignment whose boundaries changed, were they provided the option to remain in their old school assignment?

Racial and/or ethnic groups are only one component of "demographics." They are more interested in looking at FARMS rates in the latest boundary studies.

My take.

If someone says 'historical' this or that, it's history. It's rear-view mirror. The question is whether a child, starting fresh, has the same educational opportunities as the child in the seat next to them; or whether something or someone will hold them back.

What bothers me is when children aren't equal or treated equally. That's an issue. Treat everyone equally and they're equal. Provide resources equally so all students are able to access them. Ensure supports are available for all students that need them. Select the best students so that children learn there is no favoritism. Draw boundaries by whether the bus route is shorter, or kids can walk to school safely without getting hit by a car. If a school doesn't have enough this-or-that, provide this-or-that.

But that also means no personal preferences, no set-asides, no pets, no favors. All children are equal and "Education is Blind" the way Justice should be. And when inequality is introduced, call it out. Don't stand by and let it happen.

Although “Education is Blind" the way Justice should be is the right way in theory, it will never be equal. You can say no personal preferences, no set-asides, no pets, no favors but you can’t control when parents are able to hire private tutors or pay for SAT prep courses, or pay for college consultants, etc. The rich will always be able to hire high powered attorneys to get their clients off when the poor are forced to use a public defender. It will never be truly equal.

Sometimes what makes a student thrive is parental support. It doesn’t matter how you draw the boundaries. Why are Asians alway thriving no matter what school they are in? W school or not. Their parents focus on their education and how important it is. Title One schools are spending more per student than W schools and the students still don’t thrive. Test scores are poor. Why is that? Something is wrong. Redrawing to fit some agenda will never solve that problem.

Society does not have to compensate for the fact that rich parents may provide tutors or SAT prep courses. The government's job is to provide basic services to all children. This has been adequate to ensure social mobility for more than a century. If the available free education is well designed and children who meet its expectations are able to pursue further opportunities, then society has done its job. If families do not take advantage of the free public education, society does not bear the responsibility for poor outcomes and should inflict consequences as required.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the biggest impact will be felt in the DCC w/ Einstein. They will probably lose an elementary school so that the Kensington Parkwood Elementary kids can be re-districted to Einstein.

From what I have been told from those in the know is that doing this helps improve a number of state measured metrics and that every potential model starts with this move.

I feel like there are people on this thread for whom the only goal of this entire process is to move kids in Kensington from WJ to Einstein. Don’t be shocked if this doesn’t happen.

Einstein is too overcrowded to absorb the Kensington kids. They will probably go to Woodward or stay at WJ. The town fought too hard to keep them out of Einstein. They aren't going to allow their kids to go to Einstein.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Boundaries are decided based on neighborhoods, not individuals. This isn’t selective admissions. The SC case isn’t going to be a driver in this boundary decision.

Correct. In case folks are curious, there is plenty of case law around this, most of which boils down to the fact that the State government can not substitute its judgement for that of a local governing body in matter of local policy unless that policy is capricious or illegal.

Plenty of folks have tested this theory, including recently in MCPS, and the outcome has been the same.

Now, when school districts have attempted to assign *individual* students on the basis of race (Parents Involved v. Seattle Schools), SCOTUS has struck that down, but in the same ruling they affirmed the right of school districts to utlize their own discretion to avoid racial isolation.

From the majority ruling:

A compelling interest exists in avoiding racial isolation, an interest that a school district, in its discretion and expertise, may choose to pursue. Likewise, a district may consider it a compelling interest to achieve a diverse student population. Race may be one component of that diversity, but other demographic factors, plus special talents and needs, should also be considered. What the government is not permitted to do, absent a showing of necessity not made here, is to classify every student on the basis of race and to assign each of them to schools based on that classification.

Now, someone might choose to file a lawsuit, but under both Maryland statute and settled case law, they are very very unlikely to succeed and under both MCPS is within its rights to conduct and act on a boundary analysis as long as individual students are not assigned base on race (no racial quotas for admission) and as long as other factors such as FARMS status and proximity are also considered.

Not sure what your point is. A lot of lawsuits also created caselaw around Roe v Wade, and it was overturned.

Maybe its possible to challenge the local school district on the basis that it took race into consideration when drawing boundaries? At the pre-college level, boundaries are the same as "school admissions" - no difference at all. There's ton's of materials published on MCPS website that show statistics about the quantity of children's ethnicity and race at a particular school, as well as (as you point out) use it as the basis for making boundary decisions.

The Court's opinion employs broad language against racial preferences, reasoning that “[e]liminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it.”

The way I read that is race cannot be a factor of decision-making, subject to very narrow exceptions?

What?! Those are not at all the same.

Are you saying that the MCPS CO and the BOE has never publicly stated / documented that it makes boundary decisions, in part, based upon race and ethnicity (ex. when it considers the demographics and ethnic / racial diversity of the school)? And that School Assignment / Boundary decision is not enforced by the School Locator by a resident's address? In order to change this school assignment, it's by individual student through a COSA.

How is that not discriminating based upon race?

“[e]liminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it.”

They aren't selecting individual students based on race. They aren't saying, you are White so you can't go to this school. They are trying to balance demographics through their boundary decisions but don't control which specific students live in those areas and attend those schools.

Why is it necessary to "balance demographics" if all racial discrimination is eliminated? Aren't you proving the point?

I could be wrong, but I don't recall the Supreme Court making a distinction that their decision was solely limited to "selecting individual students based on race"? Can you provide the exact legal citation, page and paragraph please? Honestly, I feel you're making things up to suit your opinion?

For example, the next time MCPS and the BOE redraws school boundaries, what was the legally sustainable compelling interest and when will it end? Was it provide a benefit to some but not to others? Did it necessarily provide advantages to a new group at the expense of the former group? I might ask, when a family purchased a home in a school assignment whose boundaries changed, were they provided the option to remain in their old school assignment?

Racial and/or ethnic groups are only one component of "demographics." They are more interested in looking at FARMS rates in the latest boundary studies.

My take.

If someone says 'historical' this or that, it's history. It's rear-view mirror. The question is whether a child, starting fresh, has the same educational opportunities as the child in the seat next to them; or whether something or someone will hold them back.

What bothers me is when children aren't equal or treated equally. That's an issue. Treat everyone equally and they're equal. Provide resources equally so all students are able to access them. Ensure supports are available for all students that need them. Select the best students so that children learn there is no favoritism. Draw boundaries by whether the bus route is shorter, or kids can walk to school safely without getting hit by a car. If a school doesn't have enough this-or-that, provide this-or-that.

But that also means no personal preferences, no set-asides, no pets, no favors. All children are equal and "Education is Blind" the way Justice should be. And when inequality is introduced, call it out. Don't stand by and let it happen.

Although “Education is Blind" the way Justice should be is the right way in theory, it will never be equal. You can say no personal preferences, no set-asides, no pets, no favors but you can’t control when parents are able to hire private tutors or pay for SAT prep courses, or pay for college consultants, etc. The rich will always be able to hire high powered attorneys to get their clients off when the poor are forced to use a public defender. It will never be truly equal.

Sometimes what makes a student thrive is parental support. It doesn’t matter how you draw the boundaries. Why are Asians alway thriving no matter what school they are in? W school or not. Their parents focus on their education and how important it is. Title One schools are spending more per student than W schools and the students still don’t thrive. Test scores are poor. Why is that? Something is wrong. Redrawing to fit some agenda will never solve that problem.

Society does not have to compensate for the fact that rich parents may provide tutors or SAT prep courses. The government's job is to provide basic services to all children. This has been adequate to ensure social mobility for more than a century. If the available free education is well designed and children who meet its expectations are able to pursue further opportunities, then society has done its job. If families do not take advantage of the free public education, society does not bear the responsibility for poor outcomes and should inflict consequences as required.

For the past two years, until the end of last year, MCPS provided free tutoring so if you choose not to use it, that was on you.

Many kids who live in other areas have comfortable parents who pay for those things too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the biggest impact will be felt in the DCC w/ Einstein. They will probably lose an elementary school so that the Kensington Parkwood Elementary kids can be re-districted to Einstein.

From what I have been told from those in the know is that doing this helps improve a number of state measured metrics and that every potential model starts with this move.

I feel like there are people on this thread for whom the only goal of this entire process is to move kids in Kensington from WJ to Einstein. Don’t be shocked if this doesn’t happen.

Einstein is too overcrowded to absorb the Kensington kids. They will probably go to Woodward or stay at WJ. The town fought too hard to keep them out of Einstein. They aren't going to allow their kids to go to Einstein.

How so? When did this hard "fight" take place?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the biggest impact will be felt in the DCC w/ Einstein. They will probably lose an elementary school so that the Kensington Parkwood Elementary kids can be re-districted to Einstein.

From what I have been told from those in the know is that doing this helps improve a number of state measured metrics and that every potential model starts with this move.

Einstein is already 500 students overcapacity. There are 15 portables surrounding the school. To lose one elementary school only to gain another one would do nothing to address the ridiculous overcrowding.

They need to remodel Einstein and make it bigger. Moving one school will help but not as much as there is a lot of growth in the area and its is/was more affordable housing so its had a huge influx of families. Einstein needs to be torn down and rebuilt.

They don't need to do a whole rebuild, they just need a substantial addition built onto the back of the school. Which they looked into a few years back, but somehow decided against.

Not currently in the plans. Time to get the Einstein PTSA together to advocate.

I agree, but it's not going to even be considered until after the new boundaries are settled and we have new enrollment numbers and projections.

Speculation: Walter Johnson capacity is 2291 (573 ish per year) and it is projected to be 792 over capacity at the end of the '25-'26 school year when Woodward reopens for the cluster. North Bethesda has projected about 411 per year in 2026, so 1644 seats. Leaving 647 open at WJ or about 162 per year. Tilden projections show accounts for about 414 students per year, so about 1656 total. Woodward capacity is 2159, or about 540 per year. If, as we are guessing, Tilden goes to Woodward, that leaves about 126 per year. Please recall that ES boundaries are NOT in play in this boundary study. With these numbers, we are not looking at moving more than 2 ESes.

Why would WJ be split in half, and and two crowded DCC schools (Einstein and Wheaton) get little relief? I get that your plan sounds clean from an articulation perspective, but it does little to address crowding overall. What about sending two of WJ's elementaries to Woodward and then pulling two elementaries from the DCC there? Sure, that would mean some reshuffling for middle between Tilden and NB, but that would be more equitable overall.

The reality is that there are no easy answers, as much as everyone, myself included, wishes for those.

Blair, Einstein, Northwood and Wheaton are all over capacity in the DCC. BCC is essentially at capacity and Whitman has about 150-200 seats, but I don't think those projections account for the new choice program there. They can definitely move people around on the margins in Bethesda, but in terms of additional space, there's Northwood and Woodward. It is also important to recall that ESes have been expanded to over 700 kids. They're not addressing ES boundaries in this study, so chunking the possible moves of 100-200 kids per year is riddled with a lot of potentially unhappy split articulations. As a community, is it alright to have 25% of a middle school feeding to a different high school? Do we continue with our suburban expectations, or have to move to a more urban school district model?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the biggest impact will be felt in the DCC w/ Einstein. They will probably lose an elementary school so that the Kensington Parkwood Elementary kids can be re-districted to Einstein.

From what I have been told from those in the know is that doing this helps improve a number of state measured metrics and that every potential model starts with this move.

I feel like there are people on this thread for whom the only goal of this entire process is to move kids in Kensington from WJ to Einstein. Don’t be shocked if this doesn’t happen.

I don't think that's the entire goal, and I think it shouldn't be the entire goal. However, there are many reasons why it makes sense for the kids east of Rock Creek to be assigned to Einstein, and few reasons why it makes sense for the kids east of Rock Creek to be assigned to Walter Johnson or Woodward.

(I live in upcounty Ganglandia, so I won't be affected no matter what happens.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the biggest impact will be felt in the DCC w/ Einstein. They will probably lose an elementary school so that the Kensington Parkwood Elementary kids can be re-districted to Einstein.

From what I have been told from those in the know is that doing this helps improve a number of state measured metrics and that every potential model starts with this move.

Einstein is already 500 students overcapacity. There are 15 portables surrounding the school. To lose one elementary school only to gain another one would do nothing to address the ridiculous overcrowding.

They need to remodel Einstein and make it bigger. Moving one school will help but not as much as there is a lot of growth in the area and its is/was more affordable housing so its had a huge influx of families. Einstein needs to be torn down and rebuilt.

They don't need to do a whole rebuild, they just need a substantial addition built onto the back of the school. Which they looked into a few years back, but somehow decided against.

Not currently in the plans. Time to get the Einstein PTSA together to advocate.

I agree, but it's not going to even be considered until after the new boundaries are settled and we have new enrollment numbers and projections.

Speculation: Walter Johnson capacity is 2291 (573 ish per year) and it is projected to be 792 over capacity at the end of the '25-'26 school year when Woodward reopens for the cluster. North Bethesda has projected about 411 per year in 2026, so 1644 seats. Leaving 647 open at WJ or about 162 per year. Tilden projections show accounts for about 414 students per year, so about 1656 total. Woodward capacity is 2159, or about 540 per year. If, as we are guessing, Tilden goes to Woodward, that leaves about 126 per year. Please recall that ES boundaries are NOT in play in this boundary study. With these numbers, we are not looking at moving more than 2 ESes.

Why would WJ be split in half, and and two crowded DCC schools (Einstein and Wheaton) get little relief? I get that your plan sounds clean from an articulation perspective, but it does little to address crowding overall. What about sending two of WJ's elementaries to Woodward and then pulling two elementaries from the DCC there? Sure, that would mean some reshuffling for middle between Tilden and NB, but that would be more equitable overall.

The reality is that there are no easy answers, as much as everyone, myself included, wishes for those.

Blair, Einstein, Northwood and Wheaton are all over capacity in the DCC. BCC is essentially at capacity and Whitman has about 150-200 seats, but I don't think those projections account for the new choice program there. They can definitely move people around on the margins in Bethesda, but in terms of additional space, there's Northwood and Woodward. It is also important to recall that ESes have been expanded to over 700 kids. They're not addressing ES boundaries in this study, so chunking the possible moves of 100-200 kids per year is riddled with a lot of potentially unhappy split articulations. As a community, is it alright to have 25% of a middle school feeding to a different high school? Do we continue with our suburban expectations, or have to move to a more urban school district model?

Yes. And I don't understand why split articulations would be an inherently "urban school district model" thing. Suburban school districts can have split articulations and do have split articulations.