Woodward boundary study public hearing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did not watch the hearing, but recently heard from a neighbor that there is growing advocacy to push for option B. Is there truth to this and did it come up in the public meeting? That option would be terrible for our neighborhood- we are walking sitance to Sligo but kids would be sent to SSIMS- I don't know why that was thrown out there as a potential option to begin with. So overall I was ok with Taylor's recommendation as it relates to our neighborhood. It's just hard to keep up with the changes and to anticipate what MCPS will throw out there next. The options for our neighborhood changed pretty drastically from the first to second round and caught a lot of people off guard.

There is some push for original Option B with regard to the now Current WJ cluster (sounds mainly like the Farmland/Luxmanor crew at the BOE mtg), not necessarily rest of map (but clearly would send WW back to Wheaton High).

Yes, the push for original option B is focused on the option B region 3 boundaries and has ignored the differences between original option B and the Superintendent’s rec for Region 1. Everyone who bothers to comment on here about how a change would affect them should take 5 min to email the BOE. It is not hard to do and more effective in making sure the Board considers various points of view than posting here.

I'm the PP two messages up- I am planning to write, I'm just trying to understand what's going on. Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did not watch the hearing, but recently heard from a neighbor that there is growing advocacy to push for option B. Is there truth to this and did it come up in the public meeting? That option would be terrible for our neighborhood- we are walking sitance to Sligo but kids would be sent to SSIMS- I don't know why that was thrown out there as a potential option to begin with. So overall I was ok with Taylor's recommendation as it relates to our neighborhood. It's just hard to keep up with the changes and to anticipate what MCPS will throw out there next. The options for our neighborhood changed pretty drastically from the first to second round and caught a lot of people off guard.

There is some push for original Option B with regard to the now Current WJ cluster (sounds mainly like the Farmland/Luxmanor crew at the BOE mtg), not necessarily rest of map (but clearly would send WW back to Wheaton High).

Wasn't there someone from Silver Spring who mentioned it too? Either way, there were definitely SSiMS folks who wanted to increase the number of kids assigned to SSIMS and wanted to go back to one of the original maps, and I can't imagine the Board would choose the option B map for WJ/Wheaton and a totally different map for Silver Spring...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did not watch the hearing, but recently heard from a neighbor that there is growing advocacy to push for option B. Is there truth to this and did it come up in the public meeting? That option would be terrible for our neighborhood- we are walking sitance to Sligo but kids would be sent to SSIMS- I don't know why that was thrown out there as a potential option to begin with. So overall I was ok with Taylor's recommendation as it relates to our neighborhood. It's just hard to keep up with the changes and to anticipate what MCPS will throw out there next. The options for our neighborhood changed pretty drastically from the first to second round and caught a lot of people off guard.

There is some push for original Option B with regard to the now Current WJ cluster (sounds mainly like the Farmland/Luxmanor crew at the BOE mtg), not necessarily rest of map (but clearly would send WW back to Wheaton High).

Wasn't there someone from Silver Spring who mentioned it too? Either way, there were definitely SSiMS folks who wanted to increase the number of kids assigned to SSIMS and wanted to go back to one of the original maps, and I can't imagine the Board would choose the option B map for WJ/Wheaton and a totally different map for Silver Spring...

There was also someone who, frankly, seemed pretty unhinged and possibly racist from Flora Singer who testified asking to go back to original Option B because she wanted to stay at Einstein and was mad about being assigned to Northwood which she thought wouldn't have any rigor (she seemed to have very negative views of Northwood which are not backed up at all by anyone I know with kids there.) As someone from Flora Singer myself it was very frustrating because I don't think she's representative of what Singer families want at all but she was the only one who testified so I worry that the Board will think Flora Singer families want option B too. (Yes, I emailed, but I don't know that it holds the same weight as testimony.)

oh wow- is there video of the meeting? I'm curious who this is because I agree that does not seem representitive of what I've heard from other Flora SInger parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did not watch the hearing, but recently heard from a neighbor that there is growing advocacy to push for option B. Is there truth to this and did it come up in the public meeting? That option would be terrible for our neighborhood- we are walking sitance to Sligo but kids would be sent to SSIMS- I don't know why that was thrown out there as a potential option to begin with. So overall I was ok with Taylor's recommendation as it relates to our neighborhood. It's just hard to keep up with the changes and to anticipate what MCPS will throw out there next. The options for our neighborhood changed pretty drastically from the first to second round and caught a lot of people off guard.

There is some push for original Option B with regard to the now Current WJ cluster (sounds mainly like the Farmland/Luxmanor crew at the BOE mtg), not necessarily rest of map (but clearly would send WW back to Wheaton High).

Wasn't there someone from Silver Spring who mentioned it too? Either way, there were definitely SSiMS folks who wanted to increase the number of kids assigned to SSIMS and wanted to go back to one of the original maps, and I can't imagine the Board would choose the option B map for WJ/Wheaton and a totally different map for Silver Spring...

There was also someone who, frankly, seemed pretty unhinged and possibly racist from Flora Singer who testified asking to go back to original Option B because she wanted to stay at Einstein and was mad about being assigned to Northwood which she thought wouldn't have any rigor (she seemed to have very negative views of Northwood which are not backed up at all by anyone I know with kids there.) As someone from Flora Singer myself it was very frustrating because I don't think she's representative of what Singer families want at all but she was the only one who testified so I worry that the Board will think Flora Singer families want option B too. (Yes, I emailed, but I don't know that it holds the same weight as testimony.)

oh wow- is there video of the meeting? I'm curious who this is because I agree that does not seem representitive of what I've heard from other Flora SInger parents.

This was the written testimony she submitted, which to my recollection is fairly close to what she said out loud: https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DRLRFU6DD4F1/$file/Dawn%20Brosnan%20Boundary%20Study%20Reaction%20-%20Flora%20Singer%20West%20-%20Feb%202026.pdf

She seems to have some weird idea that IB is the only way you can have rigor so that makes Einstein the most rigorous school, which is funny because I hear many Einstein parents complaining that the school is not rigorous enough-- it gets praised for its arts focus, not for its rigor. We are on the side of Georgia which would be going to Northwood either way and the kids going to the same school is way more important to me than Einstein vs Northwood which both seem like perfectly fine schools, but honestly I slightly prefer Northwood of the two because parents of non-artsy kids seem happier with it. Not sure if she really is that obsessed about IB (or the driving distance she mentions, which is actually very similar to Northwood and Einstein) or if it is basically all cover for the fact that right now Northwood has a higher FARMS rate and less white kids than Einstein (although ironically under the Superintendent's recommendations, the future Northwood will have basically the same number of FARMS kids and white kids as Einstein does now, but she probably doesn't realize it.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did not watch the hearing, but recently heard from a neighbor that there is growing advocacy to push for option B. Is there truth to this and did it come up in the public meeting? That option would be terrible for our neighborhood- we are walking sitance to Sligo but kids would be sent to SSIMS- I don't know why that was thrown out there as a potential option to begin with. So overall I was ok with Taylor's recommendation as it relates to our neighborhood. It's just hard to keep up with the changes and to anticipate what MCPS will throw out there next. The options for our neighborhood changed pretty drastically from the first to second round and caught a lot of people off guard.

There is some push for original Option B with regard to the now Current WJ cluster (sounds mainly like the Farmland/Luxmanor crew at the BOE mtg), not necessarily rest of map (but clearly would send WW back to Wheaton High).

Wasn't there someone from Silver Spring who mentioned it too? Either way, there were definitely SSiMS folks who wanted to increase the number of kids assigned to SSIMS and wanted to go back to one of the original maps, and I can't imagine the Board would choose the option B map for WJ/Wheaton and a totally different map for Silver Spring...

The Northwood Cluster Coordinator from MCCPTA testified about SSIMS going down to 55% utilization being an attempt to start the closure without appropriate process and being problematic for the kids who go there at that low utilization.

The options really treat the 2 regions as separate entities and the Board could adopt a different option for region 3 and for region 1 without causing domino effect problems but so far no one seems to be talking about it that way. I think the Board would have to vote to consider a different option and then also vote to adopt it but I’m not sure. I am not a Robert’s Rules of Order aficionado.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did not watch the hearing, but recently heard from a neighbor that there is growing advocacy to push for option B. Is there truth to this and did it come up in the public meeting? That option would be terrible for our neighborhood- we are walking sitance to Sligo but kids would be sent to SSIMS- I don't know why that was thrown out there as a potential option to begin with. So overall I was ok with Taylor's recommendation as it relates to our neighborhood. It's just hard to keep up with the changes and to anticipate what MCPS will throw out there next. The options for our neighborhood changed pretty drastically from the first to second round and caught a lot of people off guard.

There is some push for original Option B with regard to the now Current WJ cluster (sounds mainly like the Farmland/Luxmanor crew at the BOE mtg), not necessarily rest of map (but clearly would send WW back to Wheaton High).

Wasn't there someone from Silver Spring who mentioned it too? Either way, there were definitely SSiMS folks who wanted to increase the number of kids assigned to SSIMS and wanted to go back to one of the original maps, and I can't imagine the Board would choose the option B map for WJ/Wheaton and a totally different map for Silver Spring...

There was also someone who, frankly, seemed pretty unhinged and possibly racist from Flora Singer who testified asking to go back to original Option B because she wanted to stay at Einstein and was mad about being assigned to Northwood which she thought wouldn't have any rigor (she seemed to have very negative views of Northwood which are not backed up at all by anyone I know with kids there.) As someone from Flora Singer myself it was very frustrating because I don't think she's representative of what Singer families want at all but she was the only one who testified so I worry that the Board will think Flora Singer families want option B too. (Yes, I emailed, but I don't know that it holds the same weight as testimony.)

oh wow- is there video of the meeting? I'm curious who this is because I agree that does not seem representitive of what I've heard from other Flora SInger parents.

This was the written testimony she submitted, which to my recollection is fairly close to what she said out loud: https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DRLRFU6DD4F1/$file/Dawn%20Brosnan%20Boundary%20Study%20Reaction%20-%20Flora%20Singer%20West%20-%20Feb%202026.pdf

She seems to have some weird idea that IB is the only way you can have rigor so that makes Einstein the most rigorous school, which is funny because I hear many Einstein parents complaining that the school is not rigorous enough-- it gets praised for its arts focus, not for its rigor. We are on the side of Georgia which would be going to Northwood either way and the kids going to the same school is way more important to me than Einstein vs Northwood which both seem like perfectly fine schools, but honestly I slightly prefer Northwood of the two because parents of non-artsy kids seem happier with it. Not sure if she really is that obsessed about IB (or the driving distance she mentions, which is actually very similar to Northwood and Einstein) or if it is basically all cover for the fact that right now Northwood has a higher FARMS rate and less white kids than Einstein (although ironically under the Superintendent's recommendations, the future Northwood will have basically the same number of FARMS kids and white kids as Einstein does now, but she probably doesn't realize it.)

Is Einstein losing IB? They don’t have many ap classes, no math past calc, and no so science. Very limited computer science and engineering. Arts are hit or miss. The tester teacher has brought in a renewed energy. It really varies by the teacher, like anything but arts at Einstein are also very limited. It’s also lacking clubs. They really need new leadership to bring in new and innovative things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did not watch the hearing, but recently heard from a neighbor that there is growing advocacy to push for option B. Is there truth to this and did it come up in the public meeting? That option would be terrible for our neighborhood- we are walking sitance to Sligo but kids would be sent to SSIMS- I don't know why that was thrown out there as a potential option to begin with. So overall I was ok with Taylor's recommendation as it relates to our neighborhood. It's just hard to keep up with the changes and to anticipate what MCPS will throw out there next. The options for our neighborhood changed pretty drastically from the first to second round and caught a lot of people off guard.

There is some push for original Option B with regard to the now Current WJ cluster (sounds mainly like the Farmland/Luxmanor crew at the BOE mtg), not necessarily rest of map (but clearly would send WW back to Wheaton High).

Wasn't there someone from Silver Spring who mentioned it too? Either way, there were definitely SSiMS folks who wanted to increase the number of kids assigned to SSIMS and wanted to go back to one of the original maps, and I can't imagine the Board would choose the option B map for WJ/Wheaton and a totally different map for Silver Spring...

The Northwood Cluster Coordinator from MCCPTA testified about SSIMS going down to 55% utilization being an attempt to start the closure without appropriate process and being problematic for the kids who go there at that low utilization.

The options really treat the 2 regions as separate entities and the Board could adopt a different option for region 3 and for region 1 without causing domino effect problems but so far no one seems to be talking about it that way. I think the Board would have to vote to consider a different option and then also vote to adopt it but I’m not sure. I am not a Robert’s Rules of Order aficionado.

Our MS are way too big. Smaller schools for MS is better to give kids more support and attention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did not watch the hearing, but recently heard from a neighbor that there is growing advocacy to push for option B. Is there truth to this and did it come up in the public meeting? That option would be terrible for our neighborhood- we are walking sitance to Sligo but kids would be sent to SSIMS- I don't know why that was thrown out there as a potential option to begin with. So overall I was ok with Taylor's recommendation as it relates to our neighborhood. It's just hard to keep up with the changes and to anticipate what MCPS will throw out there next. The options for our neighborhood changed pretty drastically from the first to second round and caught a lot of people off guard.

There is some push for original Option B with regard to the now Current WJ cluster (sounds mainly like the Farmland/Luxmanor crew at the BOE mtg), not necessarily rest of map (but clearly would send WW back to Wheaton High).

Wasn't there someone from Silver Spring who mentioned it too? Either way, there were definitely SSiMS folks who wanted to increase the number of kids assigned to SSIMS and wanted to go back to one of the original maps, and I can't imagine the Board would choose the option B map for WJ/Wheaton and a totally different map for Silver Spring...

There was also someone who, frankly, seemed pretty unhinged and possibly racist from Flora Singer who testified asking to go back to original Option B because she wanted to stay at Einstein and was mad about being assigned to Northwood which she thought wouldn't have any rigor (she seemed to have very negative views of Northwood which are not backed up at all by anyone I know with kids there.) As someone from Flora Singer myself it was very frustrating because I don't think she's representative of what Singer families want at all but she was the only one who testified so I worry that the Board will think Flora Singer families want option B too. (Yes, I emailed, but I don't know that it holds the same weight as testimony.)

oh wow- is there video of the meeting? I'm curious who this is because I agree that does not seem representitive of what I've heard from other Flora SInger parents.

This was the written testimony she submitted, which to my recollection is fairly close to what she said out loud: https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DRLRFU6DD4F1/$file/Dawn%20Brosnan%20Boundary%20Study%20Reaction%20-%20Flora%20Singer%20West%20-%20Feb%202026.pdf

She seems to have some weird idea that IB is the only way you can have rigor so that makes Einstein the most rigorous school, which is funny because I hear many Einstein parents complaining that the school is not rigorous enough-- it gets praised for its arts focus, not for its rigor. We are on the side of Georgia which would be going to Northwood either way and the kids going to the same school is way more important to me than Einstein vs Northwood which both seem like perfectly fine schools, but honestly I slightly prefer Northwood of the two because parents of non-artsy kids seem happier with it. Not sure if she really is that obsessed about IB (or the driving distance she mentions, which is actually very similar to Northwood and Einstein) or if it is basically all cover for the fact that right now Northwood has a higher FARMS rate and less white kids than Einstein (although ironically under the Superintendent's recommendations, the future Northwood will have basically the same number of FARMS kids and white kids as Einstein does now, but she probably doesn't realize it.)

Is Einstein losing IB? They don’t have many ap classes, no math past calc, and no so science. Very limited computer science and engineering. Arts are hit or miss. The tester teacher has brought in a renewed energy. It really varies by the teacher, like anything but arts at Einstein are also very limited. It’s also lacking clubs. They really need new leadership to bring in new and innovative things.

No, it's not that Einstein is losing IB, it's that the person who testified was freaking out about being reassigned from Einstein to Northwood because Northwood does not have IB and she thinks Einstein is a way better and more rigorous school than Northwood, which I don't think is true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did not watch the hearing, but recently heard from a neighbor that there is growing advocacy to push for option B. Is there truth to this and did it come up in the public meeting? That option would be terrible for our neighborhood- we are walking sitance to Sligo but kids would be sent to SSIMS- I don't know why that was thrown out there as a potential option to begin with. So overall I was ok with Taylor's recommendation as it relates to our neighborhood. It's just hard to keep up with the changes and to anticipate what MCPS will throw out there next. The options for our neighborhood changed pretty drastically from the first to second round and caught a lot of people off guard.

There is some push for original Option B with regard to the now Current WJ cluster (sounds mainly like the Farmland/Luxmanor crew at the BOE mtg), not necessarily rest of map (but clearly would send WW back to Wheaton High).

Wasn't there someone from Silver Spring who mentioned it too? Either way, there were definitely SSiMS folks who wanted to increase the number of kids assigned to SSIMS and wanted to go back to one of the original maps, and I can't imagine the Board would choose the option B map for WJ/Wheaton and a totally different map for Silver Spring...

There was also someone who, frankly, seemed pretty unhinged and possibly racist from Flora Singer who testified asking to go back to original Option B because she wanted to stay at Einstein and was mad about being assigned to Northwood which she thought wouldn't have any rigor (she seemed to have very negative views of Northwood which are not backed up at all by anyone I know with kids there.) As someone from Flora Singer myself it was very frustrating because I don't think she's representative of what Singer families want at all but she was the only one who testified so I worry that the Board will think Flora Singer families want option B too. (Yes, I emailed, but I don't know that it holds the same weight as testimony.)

oh wow- is there video of the meeting? I'm curious who this is because I agree that does not seem representitive of what I've heard from other Flora SInger parents.

This was the written testimony she submitted, which to my recollection is fairly close to what she said out loud: https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DRLRFU6DD4F1/$file/Dawn%20Brosnan%20Boundary%20Study%20Reaction%20-%20Flora%20Singer%20West%20-%20Feb%202026.pdf

She seems to have some weird idea that IB is the only way you can have rigor so that makes Einstein the most rigorous school, which is funny because I hear many Einstein parents complaining that the school is not rigorous enough-- it gets praised for its arts focus, not for its rigor. We are on the side of Georgia which would be going to Northwood either way and the kids going to the same school is way more important to me than Einstein vs Northwood which both seem like perfectly fine schools, but honestly I slightly prefer Northwood of the two because parents of non-artsy kids seem happier with it. Not sure if she really is that obsessed about IB (or the driving distance she mentions, which is actually very similar to Northwood and Einstein) or if it is basically all cover for the fact that right now Northwood has a higher FARMS rate and less white kids than Einstein (although ironically under the Superintendent's recommendations, the future Northwood will have basically the same number of FARMS kids and white kids as Einstein does now, but she probably doesn't realize it.)

Is Einstein losing IB? They don’t have many ap classes, no math past calc, and no so science. Very limited computer science and engineering. Arts are hit or miss. The tester teacher has brought in a renewed energy. It really varies by the teacher, like anything but arts at Einstein are also very limited. It’s also lacking clubs. They really need new leadership to bring in new and innovative things.

No, it's not that Einstein is losing IB, it's that the person who testified was freaking out about being reassigned from Einstein to Northwood because Northwood does not have IB and she thinks Einstein is a way better and more rigorous school than Northwood, which I don't think is true.

IB is not as rigorous as ap. If you have a stem kid, you want ap, if you have a humanities kid, either or both. I think Einstein and Northwood are comparable but Northwood probably has much better facilities. She needs to look at the course offerings at each school. Einstein is not rigorous for math or science so she may be making a mistake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did not watch the hearing, but recently heard from a neighbor that there is growing advocacy to push for option B. Is there truth to this and did it come up in the public meeting? That option would be terrible for our neighborhood- we are walking sitance to Sligo but kids would be sent to SSIMS- I don't know why that was thrown out there as a potential option to begin with. So overall I was ok with Taylor's recommendation as it relates to our neighborhood. It's just hard to keep up with the changes and to anticipate what MCPS will throw out there next. The options for our neighborhood changed pretty drastically from the first to second round and caught a lot of people off guard.

There is some push for original Option B with regard to the now Current WJ cluster (sounds mainly like the Farmland/Luxmanor crew at the BOE mtg), not necessarily rest of map (but clearly would send WW back to Wheaton High).

Wasn't there someone from Silver Spring who mentioned it too? Either way, there were definitely SSiMS folks who wanted to increase the number of kids assigned to SSIMS and wanted to go back to one of the original maps, and I can't imagine the Board would choose the option B map for WJ/Wheaton and a totally different map for Silver Spring...

There was also someone who, frankly, seemed pretty unhinged and possibly racist from Flora Singer who testified asking to go back to original Option B because she wanted to stay at Einstein and was mad about being assigned to Northwood which she thought wouldn't have any rigor (she seemed to have very negative views of Northwood which are not backed up at all by anyone I know with kids there.) As someone from Flora Singer myself it was very frustrating because I don't think she's representative of what Singer families want at all but she was the only one who testified so I worry that the Board will think Flora Singer families want option B too. (Yes, I emailed, but I don't know that it holds the same weight as testimony.)

oh wow- is there video of the meeting? I'm curious who this is because I agree that does not seem representitive of what I've heard from other Flora SInger parents.

This was the written testimony she submitted, which to my recollection is fairly close to what she said out loud: https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DRLRFU6DD4F1/$file/Dawn%20Brosnan%20Boundary%20Study%20Reaction%20-%20Flora%20Singer%20West%20-%20Feb%202026.pdf

She seems to have some weird idea that IB is the only way you can have rigor so that makes Einstein the most rigorous school, which is funny because I hear many Einstein parents complaining that the school is not rigorous enough-- it gets praised for its arts focus, not for its rigor. We are on the side of Georgia which would be going to Northwood either way and the kids going to the same school is way more important to me than Einstein vs Northwood which both seem like perfectly fine schools, but honestly I slightly prefer Northwood of the two because parents of non-artsy kids seem happier with it. Not sure if she really is that obsessed about IB (or the driving distance she mentions, which is actually very similar to Northwood and Einstein) or if it is basically all cover for the fact that right now Northwood has a higher FARMS rate and less white kids than Einstein (although ironically under the Superintendent's recommendations, the future Northwood will have basically the same number of FARMS kids and white kids as Einstein does now, but she probably doesn't realize it.)

Is Einstein losing IB? They don’t have many ap classes, no math past calc, and no so science. Very limited computer science and engineering. Arts are hit or miss. The tester teacher has brought in a renewed energy. It really varies by the teacher, like anything but arts at Einstein are also very limited. It’s also lacking clubs. They really need new leadership to bring in new and innovative things.

No, it's not that Einstein is losing IB, it's that the person who testified was freaking out about being reassigned from Einstein to Northwood because Northwood does not have IB and she thinks Einstein is a way better and more rigorous school than Northwood, which I don't think is true.

IB is not as rigorous as ap. If you have a stem kid, you want ap, if you have a humanities kid, either or both. I think Einstein and Northwood are comparable but Northwood probably has much better facilities. She needs to look at the course offerings at each school. Einstein is not rigorous for math or science so she may be making a mistake.

Maybe she has an artsy kid...but yeah we live in the same area and I'd be totally fine getting rezoned from Einstein to Northwood because my oldest is more of a STEM kid (but not sure he'd get into a magnet).

[Anonymous]

As for the Northwood Cluster Coordinator, she seemed to be pointing out that the ES schools articulating to SSIMS is reduced from 4.5 to 2.5 ES; resulting in a laughable 55% utilization. No prior survey option had anything similar to this for community feedback. BOE had said in December that SSIMS closure hearings require community engagement and would be delayed until the future ES boundary study. So what the coordinator seemed to be pointing out is that MCPS/Taylor is reducing the enrollment in the boundary, that way when closure is discussed again he can say “the enrollment is so small!” So this choice does not seem to be done for purpose of “let’s have smaller MS.” Rather, it just sends the kids to other MS instead resulting in large utilization disparities between MS in close proximity. Which is counter to the MCPS boundary policy process in FAA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did not watch the hearing, but recently heard from a neighbor that there is growing advocacy to push for option B. Is there truth to this and did it come up in the public meeting? That option would be terrible for our neighborhood- we are walking sitance to Sligo but kids would be sent to SSIMS- I don't know why that was thrown out there as a potential option to begin with. So overall I was ok with Taylor's recommendation as it relates to our neighborhood. It's just hard to keep up with the changes and to anticipate what MCPS will throw out there next. The options for our neighborhood changed pretty drastically from the first to second round and caught a lot of people off guard.

There is some push for original Option B with regard to the now Current WJ cluster (sounds mainly like the Farmland/Luxmanor crew at the BOE mtg), not necessarily rest of map (but clearly would send WW back to Wheaton High).

Wasn't there someone from Silver Spring who mentioned it too? Either way, there were definitely SSiMS folks who wanted to increase the number of kids assigned to SSIMS and wanted to go back to one of the original maps, and I can't imagine the Board would choose the option B map for WJ/Wheaton and a totally different map for Silver Spring...

There was also someone who, frankly, seemed pretty unhinged and possibly racist from Flora Singer who testified asking to go back to original Option B because she wanted to stay at Einstein and was mad about being assigned to Northwood which she thought wouldn't have any rigor (she seemed to have very negative views of Northwood which are not backed up at all by anyone I know with kids there.) As someone from Flora Singer myself it was very frustrating because I don't think she's representative of what Singer families want at all but she was the only one who testified so I worry that the Board will think Flora Singer families want option B too. (Yes, I emailed, but I don't know that it holds the same weight as testimony.)

oh wow- is there video of the meeting? I'm curious who this is because I agree that does not seem representitive of what I've heard from other Flora SInger parents.

This was the written testimony she submitted, which to my recollection is fairly close to what she said out loud: https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DRLRFU6DD4F1/$file/Dawn%20Brosnan%20Boundary%20Study%20Reaction%20-%20Flora%20Singer%20West%20-%20Feb%202026.pdf

She seems to have some weird idea that IB is the only way you can have rigor so that makes Einstein the most rigorous school, which is funny because I hear many Einstein parents complaining that the school is not rigorous enough-- it gets praised for its arts focus, not for its rigor. We are on the side of Georgia which would be going to Northwood either way and the kids going to the same school is way more important to me than Einstein vs Northwood which both seem like perfectly fine schools, but honestly I slightly prefer Northwood of the two because parents of non-artsy kids seem happier with it. Not sure if she really is that obsessed about IB (or the driving distance she mentions, which is actually very similar to Northwood and Einstein) or if it is basically all cover for the fact that right now Northwood has a higher FARMS rate and less white kids than Einstein (although ironically under the Superintendent's recommendations, the future Northwood will have basically the same number of FARMS kids and white kids as Einstein does now, but she probably doesn't realize it.)

Is Einstein losing IB? They don’t have many ap classes, no math past calc, and no so science. Very limited computer science and engineering. Arts are hit or miss. The tester teacher has brought in a renewed energy. It really varies by the teacher, like anything but arts at Einstein are also very limited. It’s also lacking clubs. They really need new leadership to bring in new and innovative things.

No, it's not that Einstein is losing IB, it's that the person who testified was freaking out about being reassigned from Einstein to Northwood because Northwood does not have IB and she thinks Einstein is a way better and more rigorous school than Northwood, which I don't think is true.

IB is not as rigorous as ap. If you have a stem kid, you want ap, if you have a humanities kid, either or both. I think Einstein and Northwood are comparable but Northwood probably has much better facilities. She needs to look at the course offerings at each school. Einstein is not rigorous for math or science so she may be making a mistake.

Maybe she has an artsy kid...but yeah we live in the same area and I'd be totally fine getting rezoned from Einstein to Northwood because my oldest is more of a STEM kid (but not sure he'd get into a magnet).

Yup, but unfortunately she comes off as speaking for all Flora Singer families because she was the only one to testify. In retrospect I wish I'd signed up to testify too, but I didn't prioritize it because I liked the recommendations and assumed they'd sail through. I guess at this point we just need to send as many emails as we can? Any other ideas folks have beyond that for making it clear how many Flora Singer families like the Superintendent's recommendations and don't want them to change?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did not watch the hearing, but recently heard from a neighbor that there is growing advocacy to push for option B. Is there truth to this and did it come up in the public meeting? That option would be terrible for our neighborhood- we are walking sitance to Sligo but kids would be sent to SSIMS- I don't know why that was thrown out there as a potential option to begin with. So overall I was ok with Taylor's recommendation as it relates to our neighborhood. It's just hard to keep up with the changes and to anticipate what MCPS will throw out there next. The options for our neighborhood changed pretty drastically from the first to second round and caught a lot of people off guard.

There is some push for original Option B with regard to the now Current WJ cluster (sounds mainly like the Farmland/Luxmanor crew at the BOE mtg), not necessarily rest of map (but clearly would send WW back to Wheaton High).

Wasn't there someone from Silver Spring who mentioned it too? Either way, there were definitely SSiMS folks who wanted to increase the number of kids assigned to SSIMS and wanted to go back to one of the original maps, and I can't imagine the Board would choose the option B map for WJ/Wheaton and a totally different map for Silver Spring...

There was also someone who, frankly, seemed pretty unhinged and possibly racist from Flora Singer who testified asking to go back to original Option B because she wanted to stay at Einstein and was mad about being assigned to Northwood which she thought wouldn't have any rigor (she seemed to have very negative views of Northwood which are not backed up at all by anyone I know with kids there.) As someone from Flora Singer myself it was very frustrating because I don't think she's representative of what Singer families want at all but she was the only one who testified so I worry that the Board will think Flora Singer families want option B too. (Yes, I emailed, but I don't know that it holds the same weight as testimony.)

Yes, I was pretty shocked by this lady. My kids don't go to Flora Singer, but we live in the neighborhood very close to the school. She has some weird ideas about IB at Einstein. Haven't heard any of my neighbors worried about this. Most would be fine with either Einstein or Northwood.

When they decrease Einstein's numbers, most likely they will remove the few remaining Stem classes as the principal and some of the VP's don't make that a prioirty and with less students, less funding and less teachers.

[Anonymous]

Fyi there was a VMES parent who testified in support of moving VMES to WJ (see 2nd video testimony)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did not watch the hearing, but recently heard from a neighbor that there is growing advocacy to push for option B. Is there truth to this and did it come up in the public meeting? That option would be terrible for our neighborhood- we are walking sitance to Sligo but kids would be sent to SSIMS- I don't know why that was thrown out there as a potential option to begin with. So overall I was ok with Taylor's recommendation as it relates to our neighborhood. It's just hard to keep up with the changes and to anticipate what MCPS will throw out there next. The options for our neighborhood changed pretty drastically from the first to second round and caught a lot of people off guard.

There is some push for original Option B with regard to the now Current WJ cluster (sounds mainly like the Farmland/Luxmanor crew at the BOE mtg), not necessarily rest of map (but clearly would send WW back to Wheaton High).

Wasn't there someone from Silver Spring who mentioned it too? Either way, there were definitely SSiMS folks who wanted to increase the number of kids assigned to SSIMS and wanted to go back to one of the original maps, and I can't imagine the Board would choose the option B map for WJ/Wheaton and a totally different map for Silver Spring...

There was also someone who, frankly, seemed pretty unhinged and possibly racist from Flora Singer who testified asking to go back to original Option B because she wanted to stay at Einstein and was mad about being assigned to Northwood which she thought wouldn't have any rigor (she seemed to have very negative views of Northwood which are not backed up at all by anyone I know with kids there.) As someone from Flora Singer myself it was very frustrating because I don't think she's representative of what Singer families want at all but she was the only one who testified so I worry that the Board will think Flora Singer families want option B too. (Yes, I emailed, but I don't know that it holds the same weight as testimony.)

oh wow- is there video of the meeting? I'm curious who this is because I agree that does not seem representitive of what I've heard from other Flora SInger parents.

This was the written testimony she submitted, which to my recollection is fairly close to what she said out loud: https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DRLRFU6DD4F1/$file/Dawn%20Brosnan%20Boundary%20Study%20Reaction%20-%20Flora%20Singer%20West%20-%20Feb%202026.pdf

She seems to have some weird idea that IB is the only way you can have rigor so that makes Einstein the most rigorous school, which is funny because I hear many Einstein parents complaining that the school is not rigorous enough-- it gets praised for its arts focus, not for its rigor. We are on the side of Georgia which would be going to Northwood either way and the kids going to the same school is way more important to me than Einstein vs Northwood which both seem like perfectly fine schools, but honestly I slightly prefer Northwood of the two because parents of non-artsy kids seem happier with it. Not sure if she really is that obsessed about IB (or the driving distance she mentions, which is actually very similar to Northwood and Einstein) or if it is basically all cover for the fact that right now Northwood has a higher FARMS rate and less white kids than Einstein (although ironically under the Superintendent's recommendations, the future Northwood will have basically the same number of FARMS kids and white kids as Einstein does now, but she probably doesn't realize it.)

Is Einstein losing IB? They don’t have many ap classes, no math past calc, and no so science. Very limited computer science and engineering. Arts are hit or miss. The tester teacher has brought in a renewed energy. It really varies by the teacher, like anything but arts at Einstein are also very limited. It’s also lacking clubs. They really need new leadership to bring in new and innovative things.

No, it's not that Einstein is losing IB, it's that the person who testified was freaking out about being reassigned from Einstein to Northwood because Northwood does not have IB and she thinks Einstein is a way better and more rigorous school than Northwood, which I don't think is true.

IB is not as rigorous as ap. If you have a stem kid, you want ap, if you have a humanities kid, either or both. I think Einstein and Northwood are comparable but Northwood probably has much better facilities. She needs to look at the course offerings at each school. Einstein is not rigorous for math or science so she may be making a mistake.

Maybe she has an artsy kid...but yeah we live in the same area and I'd be totally fine getting rezoned from Einstein to Northwood because my oldest is more of a STEM kid (but not sure he'd get into a magnet).

Yup, but unfortunately she comes off as speaking for all Flora Singer families because she was the only one to testify. In retrospect I wish I'd signed up to testify too, but I didn't prioritize it because I liked the recommendations and assumed they'd sail through. I guess at this point we just need to send as many emails as we can? Any other ideas folks have beyond that for making it clear how many Flora Singer families like the Superintendent's recommendations and don't want them to change?

You can write up a more formal letter and solicit people to sign on as signatories and send it to the Board and Superintendent. If the Flora Singer PTA Board wants to officially take a position the PTA can send a letter. But really emails are fine