Option B Alternate - Adding extra ES to WJ?

[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:Sending western half of VM to WJ without neighbors doesn’t make sense. It creates an island for WJ. We are blocked off by the CSX tracks from the rest of WJ. For community cohesiveness they should keep us with the eastern part of VMES and the area north. This is one reason why I, as a VMES parent, support superintendent recommendation to send us to Woodward.

Though it isn't an island, as both sides of the CSX tracks are zoned to WJ there. And WJ has extended east of the tracks into Kensington for decades.

It is. I live there. We are blocked off my the tracks from Garrett Park/Garrett Park Estates. You have to traverse several miles to get to them. It is effectively an island. Or call it a wall. That’s very different than the other area you’re referring to which is actually connected by the roads!

That’s true. From a transportation standpoint it isn’t like a bus could pick up kids from western part of VM and then just go directly to GP. They’re blocked off by several miles of circuitous path.

From a community standpoint there is a path at GP Road and people can walk between the neighborhoods but for bus transportation it is more cut off. A lot of these neighborhoods that are so close to each other were designed to be insular. You can’t get out to CT from the VMES east section for no obvious reason. There is only one way to get from the VMES east area to the Rock View neighborhoods even though they’re right next to each other and don’t have RR tracks between them. The streets just don’t go through and wind around until you’re somewhere else in the neighborhood.

A long uphill path through woods. I hope they keep us in VM together at Woodward. Don’t want to be the island.

But the railroad tracks separate you from Woodward just the same as WJ.

It is close to impossible on this thread to distinguish from real VMES community concerns (and I am sure there are some quite valid ones) and that WJ poster that posts here all the time pretending to be VMES. Usually his hatred for Farmland shows in his posts and unmasks that he has no connection to VMES.

Well we know you’re a man. Try not to project so much. As a VMES parent, is it really hard to think we want to stay that at Woodward? You really just want to stifle us.

VMES is not at Woodward. VMES is proposed to go to Woodward and may end up at Woodward. The poster I am referring to has dozens of posts here trashing Farmland, talking about some realtors and brown people at Wheaton. That poster, almost certainly a man, is the one who tries to stifle VMES.

You chose to come here. Resist the temptation of visiting the website if you don’t like the views of others.

I come here to get informed about the status of the boundary study. I realize that it is too much to expect given that the forum is anonymous and that the topic is polarizing. I do stand behind the claim that what you describe as 'the views of others' is often the same person trying to discourage discussion. And if you don't like that, you can take your own advice and ignore my posts.

Only the views of the BOE matter at this point.

Where do we think they’re coming out on this?

[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:

Anonymous wrote:Sending western half of VM to WJ without neighbors doesn’t make sense. It creates an island for WJ. We are blocked off by the CSX tracks from the rest of WJ. For community cohesiveness they should keep us with the eastern part of VMES and the area north. This is one reason why I, as a VMES parent, support superintendent recommendation to send us to Woodward.

Though it isn't an island, as both sides of the CSX tracks are zoned to WJ there. And WJ has extended east of the tracks into Kensington for decades.

It is. I live there. We are blocked off my the tracks from Garrett Park/Garrett Park Estates. You have to traverse several miles to get to them. It is effectively an island. Or call it a wall. That’s very different than the other area you’re referring to which is actually connected by the roads!

That’s true. From a transportation standpoint it isn’t like a bus could pick up kids from western part of VM and then just go directly to GP. They’re blocked off by several miles of circuitous path.

From a community standpoint there is a path at GP Road and people can walk between the neighborhoods but for bus transportation it is more cut off. A lot of these neighborhoods that are so close to each other were designed to be insular. You can’t get out to CT from the VMES east section for no obvious reason. There is only one way to get from the VMES east area to the Rock View neighborhoods even though they’re right next to each other and don’t have RR tracks between them. The streets just don’t go through and wind around until you’re somewhere else in the neighborhood.

A long uphill path through woods. I hope they keep us in VM together at Woodward. Don’t want to be the island.

But the railroad tracks separate you from Woodward just the same as WJ.

It is close to impossible on this thread to distinguish from real VMES community concerns (and I am sure there are some quite valid ones) and that WJ poster that posts here all the time pretending to be VMES. Usually his hatred for Farmland shows in his posts and unmasks that he has no connection to VMES.

Well we know you’re a man. Try not to project so much. As a VMES parent, is it really hard to think we want to stay that at Woodward? You really just want to stifle us.

VMES is not at Woodward. VMES is proposed to go to Woodward and may end up at Woodward. The poster I am referring to has dozens of posts here trashing Farmland, talking about some realtors and brown people at Wheaton. That poster, almost certainly a man, is the one who tries to stifle VMES.

You chose to come here. Resist the temptation of visiting the website if you don’t like the views of others.

I come here to get informed about the status of the boundary study. I realize that it is too much to expect given that the forum is anonymous and that the topic is polarizing. I do stand behind the claim that what you describe as 'the views of others' is often the same person trying to discourage discussion. And if you don't like that, you can take your own advice and ignore my posts.

Only the views of the BOE matter at this point.

Where do we think they’re coming out on this?

They're going to go with Taylor's recommendation. Bet. They did not look thrilled with Farmland's demonstration.

[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?

Horrible. In 2 years they will cry that Wheaton is overcrowded and how horrible it is for taxpayers not to fund an expansion of Edison "for equity". When they should have just done the boundary study correctly without inflating Wheaton HS capacity with seats that don't exist.

+1 the utilization presentation made it clear that it is Wheaton that needs alleviation, not Woodward. So this will make Woodward 76% utilized and Wheaton 93%. This is not parity and equity.

And Woodward shouldn’t have 9% less utilization than WJ. That’s greater wear and tear on the older facility. But more importantly, demand for WJ magnet will be greater than Woodward magnet creating capacity issue at WJ. This is fiscally irresponsible to build a new school and not use it.

Learn to read and do math. Look at the slides with the projected +/-20% enrollment to and from various programs. All you Farmland richies do is complain about Woodward having a Perfirming arts program, so I would assume you are the 20% leaving. And if your prediction that it’s so terrible or undesirable is right, those spots won’t all get filled with kids from other schools. That’s how you will get holding utilization equity in modified option B.

In the optional alternative, Wheaton already starts crowded, then brings in 20% more for their STEM programs! This is not equity. But we all know that Farmland only wants to go to school with people within their socioeconomic and religious circles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For what it is worth, Farmland / Luxmanor did have multiple realtors as part of the petition and at public hearing.

Are there certain professions that are forbidden from advocating that their kids get good education?

The problem is when that “profession” is trying to exclude others from the neighborhood school claiming equity and parity when that exclusion is nothing but.

The main realtor’s youngest child is a senior at WJ. These changes will have no effect on her children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For what it is worth, Farmland / Luxmanor did have multiple realtors as part of the petition and at public hearing.

Are there certain professions that are forbidden from advocating that their kids get good education?

Certainly not but these individuals noted do not have children in the system so their motivations are seemingly different. And even they did, reasonable people can assume bias.

It was a public hearing. I find it hard to believe that anyone that talked in front of BOE did not have a kid in one of the affected schools. Point us to the video, or this is just another false accusation, similar to the earlier one on this thread.

At the 2/24 meeting, the first video testimony was submitted by a woman with NO kids currently in MCPS.

At the 2/24 and 3/3 meeting there was a realtor giving the same talking points whose youngest child is a senior at WJ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does Wheaton woods want??

Woodward

I remember in the Wheaton cluster testimony they said Wheaton Woods wanted to stay at Wheaton.

She did not say that. She said that she received concerns and questions from a small group of parents that completed her survey. Then she proceeded to state those questions to the BOE. Narissa doesn’t even live in Region 3. She does not speak for an entire school community. Schools have been communicating directly with the BOE and Superintendent but they aren’t listening. Laura Stewart and Taylor seem to only be listening to Farmland.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Seems like VMES don’t want split articulation and want Woodward. I don’t view MCPS alternate as serious. There’s been zero outreach to us at VMES about this.

WRONG! Taylor called a meeting with the VM LTA board and school leadership right after the 3/3 work session. They made it clear VM expects to stay together and got to Woodward. Taylor knew this already which is why it’s infuriating he would give in to Farmland and suggest anything else.

[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).

What a snake! He tells everyone what they want to hear. So sad to see a white man like that literally lie to the face of black and brown parents saying he will represent their interests and then do the exact opposite.

[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?

I do not like it as a VMES family. Unnecessarily splits up VMES so Farmland families can be happier about 3% less poor kids at Woodward. Sends us to the old WJ and old Wheaton buildings rather than the brand new school we were promised and expected.

I hope they adopt original Superintendent rec.

Given your hate for Farmland, one would expect that you would like to stay as far as possible from them. Or you are not really a VMES family but the WJ troll who posts here all the time.

There are multiple VM families posting on this thread. I personally think Farmland should go to Churchill or Wootton over Woodward or WJ. Wish Tylor had suggested this to solve their complaints.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For what it is worth, Farmland / Luxmanor did have multiple realtors as part of the petition and at public hearing.

Are there certain professions that are forbidden from advocating that their kids get good education?

Certainly not but these individuals noted do not have children in the system so their motivations are seemingly different. And even they did, reasonable people can assume bias.

It was a public hearing. I find it hard to believe that anyone that talked in front of BOE did not have a kid in one of the affected schools. Point us to the video, or this is just another false accusation, similar to the earlier one on this thread.

At the 2/24 meeting, the first video testimony was submitted by a woman with NO kids currently in MCPS.

At the 2/24 and 3/3 meeting there was a realtor giving the same talking points whose youngest child is a senior at WJ.

Her child is registered for K next year at VMES. Who tf are you?

[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?

I do not like it as a VMES family. Unnecessarily splits up VMES so Farmland families can be happier about 3% less poor kids at Woodward. Sends us to the old WJ and old Wheaton buildings rather than the brand new school we were promised and expected.

I hope they adopt original Superintendent rec.

Given your hate for Farmland, one would expect that you would like to stay as far as possible from them. Or you are not really a VMES family but the WJ troll who posts here all the time.

There are multiple VM families posting on this thread. I personally think Farmland should go to Churchill or Wootton over Woodward or WJ. Wish Tylor had suggested this to solve their complaints.

Churchill and Wootton are in the other boundary study. There is no way for Taylor to propose changes that move students currently in the WJ area to schools in the Crown boundary study.

Some of the conversation between MCPS and the BOE happens at public meetings. Some of it happens at other times and places. Providing an alternative option in response to very public feedback is not supporting it, but is an exercise in making it virar the ultimate decision-maker is the Board. It doesn’t necessarily change anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For what it is worth, Farmland / Luxmanor did have multiple realtors as part of the petition and at public hearing.

Are there certain professions that are forbidden from advocating that their kids get good education?

Certainly not but these individuals noted do not have children in the system so their motivations are seemingly different. And even they did, reasonable people can assume bias.

It was a public hearing. I find it hard to believe that anyone that talked in front of BOE did not have a kid in one of the affected schools. Point us to the video, or this is just another false accusation, similar to the earlier one on this thread.

At the 2/24 meeting, the first video testimony was submitted by a woman with NO kids currently in MCPS.

At the 2/24 and 3/3 meeting there was a realtor giving the same talking points whose youngest child is a senior at WJ.

Her child is registered for K next year at VMES. Who tf are you?

Still not a current parent. Doesn’t come to PTA meetings or other schooo events such as the carnivals, art night where Laura Stewart showed up. Still could be working their way to another ES option that still exists before 2027z

Any taxpayer should be able to share their views regardless of where they live or if they even have kids in MCPS. We all benefit from a safe, safe educated society. The problem is when people’s views are so narrow that they can’t include anyone outside of their own personal experiences.

[Anonymous]

Ohhh ok so you have to be in the PTA to have an opinion on this public matter? Get off your high horse

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For what it is worth, Farmland / Luxmanor did have multiple realtors as part of the petition and at public hearing.

Are there certain professions that are forbidden from advocating that their kids get good education?

Certainly not but these individuals noted do not have children in the system so their motivations are seemingly different. And even they did, reasonable people can assume bias.

It was a public hearing. I find it hard to believe that anyone that talked in front of BOE did not have a kid in one of the affected schools. Point us to the video, or this is just another false accusation, similar to the earlier one on this thread.

At the 2/24 meeting, the first video testimony was submitted by a woman with NO kids currently in MCPS.

At the 2/24 and 3/3 meeting there was a realtor giving the same talking points whose youngest child is a senior at WJ.

Her child is registered for K next year at VMES. Who tf are you?

Still not a current parent. Doesn’t come to PTA meetings or other schooo events such as the carnivals, art night where Laura Stewart showed up. Still could be working their way to another ES option that still exists before 2027z

Any taxpayer should be able to share their views regardless of where they live or if they even have kids in MCPS. We all benefit from a safe, safe educated society. The problem is when people’s views are so narrow that they can’t include anyone outside of their own personal experiences.

You're not a current parent or are you just trying to discredit someone else who spoke about what they want for their community without telling us who you are?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For what it is worth, Farmland / Luxmanor did have multiple realtors as part of the petition and at public hearing.

Are there certain professions that are forbidden from advocating that their kids get good education?

Certainly not but these individuals noted do not have children in the system so their motivations are seemingly different. And even they did, reasonable people can assume bias.

It was a public hearing. I find it hard to believe that anyone that talked in front of BOE did not have a kid in one of the affected schools. Point us to the video, or this is just another false accusation, similar to the earlier one on this thread.

At the 2/24 meeting, the first video testimony was submitted by a woman with NO kids currently in MCPS.

At the 2/24 and 3/3 meeting there was a realtor giving the same talking points whose youngest child is a senior at WJ.

Her child is registered for K next year at VMES. Who tf are you?

Still not a current parent. Doesn’t come to PTA meetings or other schooo events such as the carnivals, art night where Laura Stewart showed up. Still could be working their way to another ES option that still exists before 2027z

Any taxpayer should be able to share their views regardless of where they live or if they even have kids in MCPS. We all benefit from a safe, safe educated society. The problem is when people’s views are so narrow that they can’t include anyone outside of their own personal experiences.

DP but everyone has a right to testify at these hearings. What is your problem?