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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is a summary. People in bad school districts want to try and get their foot in the door at WJ Whitman and BCC. People in those districts have very valuable homes because of the school district. They paid a lot of $ to not send their kid to Blair Northwood Wheaton Kennedy Einstein. People at the bad schools would benefit academically and financially from being slotted into a Bethesda school district. This is the battle at hand. I would suggest mcps investing money in making the DCC better and not diluting the W schools. Don’t fix what isn’t broken

No, we don't. We purposely bought so we'd avoid those schools and I'd be really pissed if they transferred my child to woodward but hopefully mine will graduate before that happens since they are using it as a holding school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is a summary. People in bad school districts want to try and get their foot in the door at WJ Whitman and BCC. People in those districts have very valuable homes because of the school district. They paid a lot of $ to not send their kid to Blair Northwood Wheaton Kennedy Einstein. People at the bad schools would benefit academically and financially from being slotted into a Bethesda school district. This is the battle at hand. I would suggest mcps investing money in making the DCC better and not diluting the W schools. Don’t fix what isn’t broken

No, we don't. We purposely bought so we'd avoid those schools and I'd be really pissed if they transferred my child to woodward but hopefully mine will graduate before that happens since they are using it as a holding school.

Damn you, Poe's Law!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The WJ community has been advocating for no split articulations for as long as they've been advocating to reopen Woodward (MCPS originally wanted to build WJ to 3500). Cannot believe there's over 50 pages of speculation and snark. The boundary process will start "early 2024" and go through Fall 2024, so we will all know soon enough what MCPS is proposong https://gis.mcpsmd.org/boundarystudypdfs/WoodwardHS_BoundaryStudyScope.pdf

But until then, by all means, carry on

By explicitly including the high schools and middle schools in the boundary study while excluding elementary schools, MCPS is either going to move ES's around wholesale or have split articulation. They'll struggle to make it work without split articulation.

Exactly. Part of the goal is to break the clusters, which was the impetus for the district wide boundary analysis. And despite some of the bizarre claims in this thread, the spilt articulations will be at the ES level, not the neighborhood level. Whole ESs will split articulate to different MSs and HSs.

Yes, but that all depends on where they draw the lines. Your idea of what constitutes a neighborhood may not match MCPS's.

Huh? They have explicitly committed to not looking at ES boundaries. So this is a shell game of moving around different ESs to assign to different MSs and HSs to maximize capacity while taking into account diversity and distance.

Or parts of different ESs. And I don't think it's a shell game. There is a new high school. The point of the boundary study is to decide who will attend it. There is no way to make this decision that doesn't involve reassigning addresses from one high school to a different high school.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only way to potentially reduce segregation or at least keep it flat is to move KP to Einstein. Also move two ESs out of Einstein to either Woodward, WJ or BCC. Probably Woodlin and maybe OTES or Highland. Some other shuffling would also need to happen. I have my doubts that MCPS will be willing to do this, but if they are prioritizing equity this would be one approach.

If KP moves into Einstein I can’t see them moving OTES out, that’s just trading one part of Kensington for another.

+1. Flora Singer and Woodlin are easier to rezone since their students are all bus riders already.

I’m in Flora Singer zone so this is potentially against my self interest but I think they should move Flora Singer to Northwood and KP to Einstein. Geographically and demographically makes sense.

If they move KP out of WJ and over to Einstein, that leaves more seats to fill at WJ.

They can move a BCC feeder to WJ.

Which one? It can’t be RHES/CCES/NCCES. BES is in the walk zone. RCF, Somerset and Westbrook make zero geographic sense.

Maybe Westbrook could move to Whitman, and at least the northern parts of Bradley Hills and Burning Tree could move to WJ?

But then that’s adding two new split articulations, when they specifically said they plan to avoid those. I think they’ll move whole elementary schools only.

I doubt that will be possible. Geography, capacity, and demographics are factors in boundary studies. Avoiding split articulations is not a factor. Will MCPS leave schools substantially over/under capacity, or assign students to schools that are very far away, or maintain large disparities between adjacent schools, just to avoid split articulations? I don't think they will do that, and I also don't think they should do that.

+1, I don’t see any way for them to balance out the crowding at these schools without split articulations. Maybe the majority of Woodward gets filled with whole ESs, but beyond that they are going to be moving small areas around the edges to balance things out. That’s why Whitman and BCC became part of the study, not necessarily because they are going to have students moved to Woodward, but so Whitman could take some BCC kids, so that BCC can probably take on some kids from Blair or Woodlin HS, and so on.

This is impractical and wishful thinking. Whitman is projected to have 130 spare seats in 2029. BCC 30. So basically there is no wiggle room because they are not touching ES boundaries.

However, both Pyle and Westland have spare capacity and I could see some rearranging there. For example, Bethesda Elementary could go to Pyle which would free up space at Westland to send RCF. That in turn would free up space at Silver Creek for Singer or Woodlin ES that would split articulate to Woodward.

That means they won't reassign people to different elementary schools. It doesn't mean they won't reassign elementary schools (or parts of elementary schools) to different high schools. In fact, it is a 100% guarantee that they will reassign elementary schools (or parts of elementary schools) to different high schools. They have to. There's a whole new high school, and the purpose of the boundary study is to decide who will be assigned to that high school.

They just completed a boundary study for ESs that feed to Westland, which rebalanced the neighborhood assignments. They are not doing that again just a couple years later. Sorry to burst your bubble.

You missed the whole point of what the PP wrote. That Bethesda boundary study they "just completed" established ES boundaries only. It had nothing to do with which MS or HS those schools feed to. This Woodward study will be to set new MS and HS boundaries only--no ES boundaries will be redrawn. But there will definitely be new feeder patterns for which ES go on to which MS and which HS.

There is literally no reason to include BCC and Whitman then. Because MCPS expects both schools to be at 95%+ capacity in a couple years and the additional Woodward and WJ capacity can be filled from DCC overcrowding.

As has already been mentioned here, the reason to include BCC and Whitman is to consider smaller shifts in the direction of Woodward/WJ, rather than moving kids from further away areas directly there.

And how does including BCC and Whitman accomplish that? Neither school needs the capacity relief that Woodward would provide either now or the medium term future.

One example could be shifting part of Einstein to BCC, part of BCC to Whitman, part of Whitman to WJ, part of WJ to Woodward.

“Parts of”. What parts and how?

That is what the boundary study will figure out.

I think you need to reevaluate your expectations. The boundary study is not going to produce census block level analysis to extract a specific neighborhood with 30 HS kids or less that will be reassigned to BCC and another specific neighborhood with 100 HS kids or less to reassign to Whitman. This defies common sense.

Actually they do kind of do that.

-person in a small-population neighborhood that has been reassigned in two recent boundary studies

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is a summary. People in bad school districts want to try and get their foot in the door at WJ Whitman and BCC. People in those districts have very valuable homes because of the school district. They paid a lot of $ to not send their kid to Blair Northwood Wheaton Kennedy Einstein. People at the bad schools would benefit academically and financially from being slotted into a Bethesda school district. This is the battle at hand. I would suggest mcps investing money in making the DCC better and not diluting the W schools. Don’t fix what isn’t broken

What are you talking about? There is only one school district in Montgomery County: Montgomery County Public Schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The WJ community has been advocating for no split articulations for as long as they've been advocating to reopen Woodward (MCPS originally wanted to build WJ to 3500). Cannot believe there's over 50 pages of speculation and snark. The boundary process will start "early 2024" and go through Fall 2024, so we will all know soon enough what MCPS is proposong https://gis.mcpsmd.org/boundarystudypdfs/WoodwardHS_BoundaryStudyScope.pdf

But until then, by all means, carry on

By explicitly including the high schools and middle schools in the boundary study while excluding elementary schools, MCPS is either going to move ES's around wholesale or have split articulation. They'll struggle to make it work without split articulation.

Exactly. Part of the goal is to break the clusters, which was the impetus for the district wide boundary analysis. And despite some of the bizarre claims in this thread, the spilt articulations will be at the ES level, not the neighborhood level. Whole ESs will split articulate to different MSs and HSs.

Yes, but that all depends on where they draw the lines. Your idea of what constitutes a neighborhood may not match MCPS's.

Huh? They have explicitly committed to not looking at ES boundaries. So this is a shell game of moving around different ESs to assign to different MSs and HSs to maximize capacity while taking into account diversity and distance.

"Not looking at ES boundaries" only means that everyone will stay assigned to the ES they are at now. But they can and likely will take one or two neighborhoods within an ES zone and reassign them to a different MS and/or HS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The WJ community has been advocating for no split articulations for as long as they've been advocating to reopen Woodward (MCPS originally wanted to build WJ to 3500). Cannot believe there's over 50 pages of speculation and snark. The boundary process will start "early 2024" and go through Fall 2024, so we will all know soon enough what MCPS is proposong https://gis.mcpsmd.org/boundarystudypdfs/WoodwardHS_BoundaryStudyScope.pdf

But until then, by all means, carry on

By explicitly including the high schools and middle schools in the boundary study while excluding elementary schools, MCPS is either going to move ES's around wholesale or have split articulation. They'll struggle to make it work without split articulation.

Exactly. Part of the goal is to break the clusters, which was the impetus for the district wide boundary analysis. And despite some of the bizarre claims in this thread, the spilt articulations will be at the ES level, not the neighborhood level. Whole ESs will split articulate to different MSs and HSs.

Yes, but that all depends on where they draw the lines. Your idea of what constitutes a neighborhood may not match MCPS's.

Huh? They have explicitly committed to not looking at ES boundaries. So this is a shell game of moving around different ESs to assign to different MSs and HSs to maximize capacity while taking into account diversity and distance.

Or parts of different ESs. And I don't think it's a shell game. There is a new high school. The point of the boundary study is to decide who will attend it. There is no way to make this decision that doesn't involve reassigning addresses from one high school to a different high school.

Looking at “parts of ESs” requires doing census tract level analysis (which is how ES boundaries are drawn) and quickly becomes impractical once you ask basic questions like, which census tract that is in boundary to one ES gets chosen for BCC over a different census tract in boundary for that same school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The WJ community has been advocating for no split articulations for as long as they've been advocating to reopen Woodward (MCPS originally wanted to build WJ to 3500). Cannot believe there's over 50 pages of speculation and snark. The boundary process will start "early 2024" and go through Fall 2024, so we will all know soon enough what MCPS is proposong https://gis.mcpsmd.org/boundarystudypdfs/WoodwardHS_BoundaryStudyScope.pdf

But until then, by all means, carry on

By explicitly including the high schools and middle schools in the boundary study while excluding elementary schools, MCPS is either going to move ES's around wholesale or have split articulation. They'll struggle to make it work without split articulation.

Exactly. Part of the goal is to break the clusters, which was the impetus for the district wide boundary analysis. And despite some of the bizarre claims in this thread, the spilt articulations will be at the ES level, not the neighborhood level. Whole ESs will split articulate to different MSs and HSs.

Yes, but that all depends on where they draw the lines. Your idea of what constitutes a neighborhood may not match MCPS's.

Huh? They have explicitly committed to not looking at ES boundaries. So this is a shell game of moving around different ESs to assign to different MSs and HSs to maximize capacity while taking into account diversity and distance.

"Not looking at ES boundaries" only means that everyone will stay assigned to the ES they are at now. But they can and likely will take one or two neighborhoods within an ES zone and reassign them to a different MS and/or HS.

No they won’t and there are obvious and basic practical reasons why they won’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The WJ community has been advocating for no split articulations for as long as they've been advocating to reopen Woodward (MCPS originally wanted to build WJ to 3500). Cannot believe there's over 50 pages of speculation and snark. The boundary process will start "early 2024" and go through Fall 2024, so we will all know soon enough what MCPS is proposong https://gis.mcpsmd.org/boundarystudypdfs/WoodwardHS_BoundaryStudyScope.pdf

But until then, by all means, carry on

By explicitly including the high schools and middle schools in the boundary study while excluding elementary schools, MCPS is either going to move ES's around wholesale or have split articulation. They'll struggle to make it work without split articulation.

Exactly. Part of the goal is to break the clusters, which was the impetus for the district wide boundary analysis. And despite some of the bizarre claims in this thread, the spilt articulations will be at the ES level, not the neighborhood level. Whole ESs will split articulate to different MSs and HSs.

Yes, but that all depends on where they draw the lines. Your idea of what constitutes a neighborhood may not match MCPS's.

Huh? They have explicitly committed to not looking at ES boundaries. So this is a shell game of moving around different ESs to assign to different MSs and HSs to maximize capacity while taking into account diversity and distance.

Or parts of different ESs. And I don't think it's a shell game. There is a new high school. The point of the boundary study is to decide who will attend it. There is no way to make this decision that doesn't involve reassigning addresses from one high school to a different high school.

Looking at “parts of ESs” requires doing census tract level analysis (which is how ES boundaries are drawn) and quickly becomes impractical once you ask basic questions like, which census tract that is in boundary to one ES gets chosen for BCC over a different census tract in boundary for that same school.

You don't have to like it, but MCPS conducts boundary studies that divide up elementary school zones into smaller zones all the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The WJ community has been advocating for no split articulations for as long as they've been advocating to reopen Woodward (MCPS originally wanted to build WJ to 3500). Cannot believe there's over 50 pages of speculation and snark. The boundary process will start "early 2024" and go through Fall 2024, so we will all know soon enough what MCPS is proposong https://gis.mcpsmd.org/boundarystudypdfs/WoodwardHS_BoundaryStudyScope.pdf

But until then, by all means, carry on

By explicitly including the high schools and middle schools in the boundary study while excluding elementary schools, MCPS is either going to move ES's around wholesale or have split articulation. They'll struggle to make it work without split articulation.

Exactly. Part of the goal is to break the clusters, which was the impetus for the district wide boundary analysis. And despite some of the bizarre claims in this thread, the spilt articulations will be at the ES level, not the neighborhood level. Whole ESs will split articulate to different MSs and HSs.

Yes, but that all depends on where they draw the lines. Your idea of what constitutes a neighborhood may not match MCPS's.

Huh? They have explicitly committed to not looking at ES boundaries. So this is a shell game of moving around different ESs to assign to different MSs and HSs to maximize capacity while taking into account diversity and distance.

Or parts of different ESs. And I don't think it's a shell game. There is a new high school. The point of the boundary study is to decide who will attend it. There is no way to make this decision that doesn't involve reassigning addresses from one high school to a different high school.

Looking at “parts of ESs” requires doing census tract level analysis (which is how ES boundaries are drawn) and quickly becomes impractical once you ask basic questions like, which census tract that is in boundary to one ES gets chosen for BCC over a different census tract in boundary for that same school.

You don't have to like it, but MCPS conducts boundary studies that divide up elementary school zones into smaller zones all the time.

Can you provide an example of what you are talking about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The WJ community has been advocating for no split articulations for as long as they've been advocating to reopen Woodward (MCPS originally wanted to build WJ to 3500). Cannot believe there's over 50 pages of speculation and snark. The boundary process will start "early 2024" and go through Fall 2024, so we will all know soon enough what MCPS is proposong https://gis.mcpsmd.org/boundarystudypdfs/WoodwardHS_BoundaryStudyScope.pdf

But until then, by all means, carry on

By explicitly including the high schools and middle schools in the boundary study while excluding elementary schools, MCPS is either going to move ES's around wholesale or have split articulation. They'll struggle to make it work without split articulation.

Exactly. Part of the goal is to break the clusters, which was the impetus for the district wide boundary analysis. And despite some of the bizarre claims in this thread, the spilt articulations will be at the ES level, not the neighborhood level. Whole ESs will split articulate to different MSs and HSs.

Yes, but that all depends on where they draw the lines. Your idea of what constitutes a neighborhood may not match MCPS's.

Huh? They have explicitly committed to not looking at ES boundaries. So this is a shell game of moving around different ESs to assign to different MSs and HSs to maximize capacity while taking into account diversity and distance.

"Not looking at ES boundaries" only means that everyone will stay assigned to the ES they are at now. But they can and likely will take one or two neighborhoods within an ES zone and reassign them to a different MS and/or HS.

No they won’t and there are obvious and basic practical reasons why they won’t.

Go look at the Clarksburg/Northwest/Seneca Valley study, which was the most recent redrawing of HS boundaries. There were several places where they carved out one part of an ES, usually because it made sense due to proximity/walkability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The WJ community has been advocating for no split articulations for as long as they've been advocating to reopen Woodward (MCPS originally wanted to build WJ to 3500). Cannot believe there's over 50 pages of speculation and snark. The boundary process will start "early 2024" and go through Fall 2024, so we will all know soon enough what MCPS is proposong https://gis.mcpsmd.org/boundarystudypdfs/WoodwardHS_BoundaryStudyScope.pdf

But until then, by all means, carry on

By explicitly including the high schools and middle schools in the boundary study while excluding elementary schools, MCPS is either going to move ES's around wholesale or have split articulation. They'll struggle to make it work without split articulation.

Exactly. Part of the goal is to break the clusters, which was the impetus for the district wide boundary analysis. And despite some of the bizarre claims in this thread, the spilt articulations will be at the ES level, not the neighborhood level. Whole ESs will split articulate to different MSs and HSs.

Yes, but that all depends on where they draw the lines. Your idea of what constitutes a neighborhood may not match MCPS's.

Huh? They have explicitly committed to not looking at ES boundaries. So this is a shell game of moving around different ESs to assign to different MSs and HSs to maximize capacity while taking into account diversity and distance.

Or parts of different ESs. And I don't think it's a shell game. There is a new high school. The point of the boundary study is to decide who will attend it. There is no way to make this decision that doesn't involve reassigning addresses from one high school to a different high school.

Looking at “parts of ESs” requires doing census tract level analysis (which is how ES boundaries are drawn) and quickly becomes impractical once you ask basic questions like, which census tract that is in boundary to one ES gets chosen for BCC over a different census tract in boundary for that same school.

It may or may not be impractical, but they have actually done this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The WJ community has been advocating for no split articulations for as long as they've been advocating to reopen Woodward (MCPS originally wanted to build WJ to 3500). Cannot believe there's over 50 pages of speculation and snark. The boundary process will start "early 2024" and go through Fall 2024, so we will all know soon enough what MCPS is proposong https://gis.mcpsmd.org/boundarystudypdfs/WoodwardHS_BoundaryStudyScope.pdf

But until then, by all means, carry on

By explicitly including the high schools and middle schools in the boundary study while excluding elementary schools, MCPS is either going to move ES's around wholesale or have split articulation. They'll struggle to make it work without split articulation.

Exactly. Part of the goal is to break the clusters, which was the impetus for the district wide boundary analysis. And despite some of the bizarre claims in this thread, the spilt articulations will be at the ES level, not the neighborhood level. Whole ESs will split articulate to different MSs and HSs.

Yes, but that all depends on where they draw the lines. Your idea of what constitutes a neighborhood may not match MCPS's.

Huh? They have explicitly committed to not looking at ES boundaries. So this is a shell game of moving around different ESs to assign to different MSs and HSs to maximize capacity while taking into account diversity and distance.

"Not looking at ES boundaries" only means that everyone will stay assigned to the ES they are at now. But they can and likely will take one or two neighborhoods within an ES zone and reassign them to a different MS and/or HS.

No they won’t and there are obvious and basic practical reasons why they won’t.

Go look at the Clarksburg/Northwest/Seneca Valley study, which was the most recent redrawing of HS boundaries. There were several places where they carved out one part of an ES, usually because it made sense due to proximity/walkability.

So in this dream you have where your house gets reassigned to BCC, how do they fit? The school has a spare capacity of 30 seats and there are thousands of new housing units being built in the walk zone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The WJ community has been advocating for no split articulations for as long as they've been advocating to reopen Woodward (MCPS originally wanted to build WJ to 3500). Cannot believe there's over 50 pages of speculation and snark. The boundary process will start "early 2024" and go through Fall 2024, so we will all know soon enough what MCPS is proposong https://gis.mcpsmd.org/boundarystudypdfs/WoodwardHS_BoundaryStudyScope.pdf

But until then, by all means, carry on

By explicitly including the high schools and middle schools in the boundary study while excluding elementary schools, MCPS is either going to move ES's around wholesale or have split articulation. They'll struggle to make it work without split articulation.

Exactly. Part of the goal is to break the clusters, which was the impetus for the district wide boundary analysis. And despite some of the bizarre claims in this thread, the spilt articulations will be at the ES level, not the neighborhood level. Whole ESs will split articulate to different MSs and HSs.

Yes, but that all depends on where they draw the lines. Your idea of what constitutes a neighborhood may not match MCPS's.

Huh? They have explicitly committed to not looking at ES boundaries. So this is a shell game of moving around different ESs to assign to different MSs and HSs to maximize capacity while taking into account diversity and distance.

Or parts of different ESs. And I don't think it's a shell game. There is a new high school. The point of the boundary study is to decide who will attend it. There is no way to make this decision that doesn't involve reassigning addresses from one high school to a different high school.

Looking at “parts of ESs” requires doing census tract level analysis (which is how ES boundaries are drawn) and quickly becomes impractical once you ask basic questions like, which census tract that is in boundary to one ES gets chosen for BCC over a different census tract in boundary for that same school.

You don't have to like it, but MCPS conducts boundary studies that divide up elementary school zones into smaller zones all the time.

Can you provide an example of what you are talking about?

Look at the new map for Germantown ES. The northern part was zoned to Seneca Valley, and the southern part was zoned for Northwest.

https://gis.mcpsmd.org/ServiceAreaMaps/GermantownES.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The WJ community has been advocating for no split articulations for as long as they've been advocating to reopen Woodward (MCPS originally wanted to build WJ to 3500). Cannot believe there's over 50 pages of speculation and snark. The boundary process will start "early 2024" and go through Fall 2024, so we will all know soon enough what MCPS is proposong https://gis.mcpsmd.org/boundarystudypdfs/WoodwardHS_BoundaryStudyScope.pdf

But until then, by all means, carry on

By explicitly including the high schools and middle schools in the boundary study while excluding elementary schools, MCPS is either going to move ES's around wholesale or have split articulation. They'll struggle to make it work without split articulation.

Exactly. Part of the goal is to break the clusters, which was the impetus for the district wide boundary analysis. And despite some of the bizarre claims in this thread, the spilt articulations will be at the ES level, not the neighborhood level. Whole ESs will split articulate to different MSs and HSs.

Yes, but that all depends on where they draw the lines. Your idea of what constitutes a neighborhood may not match MCPS's.

Huh? They have explicitly committed to not looking at ES boundaries. So this is a shell game of moving around different ESs to assign to different MSs and HSs to maximize capacity while taking into account diversity and distance.

"Not looking at ES boundaries" only means that everyone will stay assigned to the ES they are at now. But they can and likely will take one or two neighborhoods within an ES zone and reassign them to a different MS and/or HS.

No they won’t and there are obvious and basic practical reasons why they won’t.

Go look at the Clarksburg/Northwest/Seneca Valley study, which was the most recent redrawing of HS boundaries. There were several places where they carved out one part of an ES, usually because it made sense due to proximity/walkability.

So in this dream you have where your house gets reassigned to BCC, how do they fit? The school has a spare capacity of 30 seats and there are thousands of new housing units being built in the walk zone.

+1 Quite obviously the only reason to include BCC and Whitman is to plan how to use available capacity at WJ to accommodate enrollment growth at those two schools due to current and future planned development. Woodard will be the outlet for DCC HS overcapacity, as MCPS has already committed.