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

[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:

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.

Not exactly. Any school included in the boundary study may be an outlet for another school being overcapacity. The fact that Woodward is very inconveniently located for most DCC schools means there aren't a lot of sensible choices for rezoning them directly to Woodward. But they can stagger the reassignments in a westward direction to maximize walkers and shorten bus route times.

The whole point of a consortium is you can balance capacity. All 5 consortia schools are not bursting at the the seams they have mechanisms to balance this out without adding a school, they are just choosing not to do so

By the time Woodward opens, the only DCC school with any capacity will be the expanded Northwood, with 471 seats open. Not nearly enough to account for the overcrowding at Blair (-582 seats), Einstein (-465 seats), and Wheaton (-368 seats). And that doesn't even factor in the projected growth in each school in the years after that.

Woodward is supposed to address adjacent schools like Wheaton and Einstein as much as WJ.

By taking that area from BCC in Kensington and giving it to one of the closer schools they can shift it's boundary east and pick up more from Einstein too. By freeing up more room at Einstein they can shift some seats from Blair boundary and between that and Northwood reduce overcrowding.

The only school closer to the Kensington part of BCC than BCC itself is Einstein. So that won't be a way to free up any room at Einstein.

But Woodward will free up space at Einstein.

In theory. Still waiting for anyone to come up with a plausible scenario that keeps current Einstein walkers as walkers, adds additional walkers to Einstein who are currently bussed elsewhere, and frees up enough space so that everyone will fit inside the building, which as a reminder, has a capacity of only 1602.

You seem quite caught up on protecting Einstein walkers from a change of assignment. No solution is going to be perfect for everyone.

Many of us purposely choose to live in the Einstein catchment and want our kids there. We don't want our kids bussed to Woodward which isn't convenient for drop off/pick up if you have a kid in activities/sports.

Why can’t the Sligo kids go to Woodward? Many are far from Einstein

Why can't the Takoma Park kids go to Woodward? Many are far from Blair

I thought we were talking about Einstein walkers.

True, but Blair's boundary is based on its original location in downtown Silver Spring.

Einstein walkers should not go to Woodward. But some of Einstein that is not walkers and not close to Einstein could go to Woodward.

Boundaries in the DCC don't often reflect proximity since schools aren't distributed evenly or proportionally to the population's they serve. It's likely people to the West but near Einstein will end up elsewhere to help address the overcrowding.

Yep and the unregulated building the county council has allowed has only made the situation worse.

The County Council has not allowed unregulated building, as you would soon discover if you tried to build.

Sorry I forgot that you must first contribute to their re-election committees.

[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:

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.

Not exactly. Any school included in the boundary study may be an outlet for another school being overcapacity. The fact that Woodward is very inconveniently located for most DCC schools means there aren't a lot of sensible choices for rezoning them directly to Woodward. But they can stagger the reassignments in a westward direction to maximize walkers and shorten bus route times.

The whole point of a consortium is you can balance capacity. All 5 consortia schools are not bursting at the the seams they have mechanisms to balance this out without adding a school, they are just choosing not to do so

By the time Woodward opens, the only DCC school with any capacity will be the expanded Northwood, with 471 seats open. Not nearly enough to account for the overcrowding at Blair (-582 seats), Einstein (-465 seats), and Wheaton (-368 seats). And that doesn't even factor in the projected growth in each school in the years after that.

Woodward is supposed to address adjacent schools like Wheaton and Einstein as much as WJ.

By taking that area from BCC in Kensington and giving it to one of the closer schools they can shift it's boundary east and pick up more from Einstein too. By freeing up more room at Einstein they can shift some seats from Blair boundary and between that and Northwood reduce overcrowding.

The only school closer to the Kensington part of BCC than BCC itself is Einstein. So that won't be a way to free up any room at Einstein.

But Woodward will free up space at Einstein.

In theory. Still waiting for anyone to come up with a plausible scenario that keeps current Einstein walkers as walkers, adds additional walkers to Einstein who are currently bussed elsewhere, and frees up enough space so that everyone will fit inside the building, which as a reminder, has a capacity of only 1602.

You seem quite caught up on protecting Einstein walkers from a change of assignment. No solution is going to be perfect for everyone.

Many of us purposely choose to live in the Einstein catchment and want our kids there. We don't want our kids bussed to Woodward which isn't convenient for drop off/pick up if you have a kid in activities/sports.

Why can’t the Sligo kids go to Woodward? Many are far from Einstein

Why can't the Takoma Park kids go to Woodward? Many are far from Blair

I thought we were talking about Einstein walkers.

True, but Blair's boundary is based on its original location in downtown Silver Spring.

Einstein walkers should not go to Woodward. But some of Einstein that is not walkers and not close to Einstein could go to Woodward.

Boundaries in the DCC don't often reflect proximity since schools aren't distributed evenly or proportionally to the population's they serve. It's likely people to the West but near Einstein will end up elsewhere to help address the overcrowding.

Yep and the unregulated building the county council has allowed has only made the situation worse.

The County Council has not allowed unregulated building, as you would soon discover if you tried to build.

Except they did for years and even gave them a pass to not contribute to funds for schools.

No, they have never allowed unregulated building.

[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:

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.

Not exactly. Any school included in the boundary study may be an outlet for another school being overcapacity. The fact that Woodward is very inconveniently located for most DCC schools means there aren't a lot of sensible choices for rezoning them directly to Woodward. But they can stagger the reassignments in a westward direction to maximize walkers and shorten bus route times.

The whole point of a consortium is you can balance capacity. All 5 consortia schools are not bursting at the the seams they have mechanisms to balance this out without adding a school, they are just choosing not to do so

By the time Woodward opens, the only DCC school with any capacity will be the expanded Northwood, with 471 seats open. Not nearly enough to account for the overcrowding at Blair (-582 seats), Einstein (-465 seats), and Wheaton (-368 seats). And that doesn't even factor in the projected growth in each school in the years after that.

Woodward is supposed to address adjacent schools like Wheaton and Einstein as much as WJ.

By taking that area from BCC in Kensington and giving it to one of the closer schools they can shift it's boundary east and pick up more from Einstein too. By freeing up more room at Einstein they can shift some seats from Blair boundary and between that and Northwood reduce overcrowding.

The only school closer to the Kensington part of BCC than BCC itself is Einstein. So that won't be a way to free up any room at Einstein.

But Woodward will free up space at Einstein.

In theory. Still waiting for anyone to come up with a plausible scenario that keeps current Einstein walkers as walkers, adds additional walkers to Einstein who are currently bussed elsewhere, and frees up enough space so that everyone will fit inside the building, which as a reminder, has a capacity of only 1602.

You seem quite caught up on protecting Einstein walkers from a change of assignment. No solution is going to be perfect for everyone.

Many of us purposely choose to live in the Einstein catchment and want our kids there. We don't want our kids bussed to Woodward which isn't convenient for drop off/pick up if you have a kid in activities/sports.

Why can’t the Sligo kids go to Woodward? Many are far from Einstein

Why can't the Takoma Park kids go to Woodward? Many are far from Blair

I thought we were talking about Einstein walkers.

True, but Blair's boundary is based on its original location in downtown Silver Spring.

Einstein walkers should not go to Woodward. But some of Einstein that is not walkers and not close to Einstein could go to Woodward.

Boundaries in the DCC don't often reflect proximity since schools aren't distributed evenly or proportionally to the population's they serve. It's likely people to the West but near Einstein will end up elsewhere to help address the overcrowding.

Yep and the unregulated building the county council has allowed has only made the situation worse.

The County Council has not allowed unregulated building, as you would soon discover if you tried to build.

Except they did for years and even gave them a pass to not contribute to funds for schools.

You may not like the regulations as written and enforced, but there are, and have been for a long time, regulations for building.

[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:

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.

Not exactly. Any school included in the boundary study may be an outlet for another school being overcapacity. The fact that Woodward is very inconveniently located for most DCC schools means there aren't a lot of sensible choices for rezoning them directly to Woodward. But they can stagger the reassignments in a westward direction to maximize walkers and shorten bus route times.

The whole point of a consortium is you can balance capacity. All 5 consortia schools are not bursting at the the seams they have mechanisms to balance this out without adding a school, they are just choosing not to do so

By the time Woodward opens, the only DCC school with any capacity will be the expanded Northwood, with 471 seats open. Not nearly enough to account for the overcrowding at Blair (-582 seats), Einstein (-465 seats), and Wheaton (-368 seats). And that doesn't even factor in the projected growth in each school in the years after that.

Woodward is supposed to address adjacent schools like Wheaton and Einstein as much as WJ.

By taking that area from BCC in Kensington and giving it to one of the closer schools they can shift it's boundary east and pick up more from Einstein too. By freeing up more room at Einstein they can shift some seats from Blair boundary and between that and Northwood reduce overcrowding.

The only school closer to the Kensington part of BCC than BCC itself is Einstein. So that won't be a way to free up any room at Einstein.

But Woodward will free up space at Einstein.

In theory. Still waiting for anyone to come up with a plausible scenario that keeps current Einstein walkers as walkers, adds additional walkers to Einstein who are currently bussed elsewhere, and frees up enough space so that everyone will fit inside the building, which as a reminder, has a capacity of only 1602.

You seem quite caught up on protecting Einstein walkers from a change of assignment. No solution is going to be perfect for everyone.

Many of us purposely choose to live in the Einstein catchment and want our kids there. We don't want our kids bussed to Woodward which isn't convenient for drop off/pick up if you have a kid in activities/sports.

Why can’t the Sligo kids go to Woodward? Many are far from Einstein

Why can't the Takoma Park kids go to Woodward? Many are far from Blair

I thought we were talking about Einstein walkers.

True, but Blair's boundary is based on its original location in downtown Silver Spring.

Einstein walkers should not go to Woodward. But some of Einstein that is not walkers and not close to Einstein could go to Woodward.

Boundaries in the DCC don't often reflect proximity since schools aren't distributed evenly or proportionally to the population's they serve. It's likely people to the West but near Einstein will end up elsewhere to help address the overcrowding.

Yep and the unregulated building the county council has allowed has only made the situation worse.

The County Council has not allowed unregulated building, as you would soon discover if you tried to build.

Except they did for years and even gave them a pass to not contribute to funds for schools.

You may not like the regulations as written and enforced, but there are, and have been for a long time, regulations for building.

Ya they have regs but seem to suspend them or give everyone an exemption so they might as well have none.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Plus, most of the Kensington Parkwood area is not in the Town of Kensington anyway - or the Town of Chevy Chase View.

The boundary of Kensington feeding to WJ is a long standing one. Kensington Jr. High, basically where Silver Creek is now, fed to WJ way back in the early 70s.

That matters not when it comes to deciding what makes most sense today. Additionally, any argument based in historical school boundaries that were nearly all influenced by blatant segregation really takesx the knees out of the appropriateness of that argument today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Plus, most of the Kensington Parkwood area is not in the Town of Kensington anyway - or the Town of Chevy Chase View.

The boundary of Kensington feeding to WJ is a long standing one. Kensington Jr. High, basically where Silver Creek is now, fed to WJ way back in the early 70s.

That matters not when it comes to deciding what makes most sense today. Additionally, any argument based in historical school boundaries that were nearly all influenced by blatant segregation really takesx the knees out of the appropriateness of that argument today.

It is a problem that the entire housing pattern in MoCo is based on historical patterns of segregation. It's not really possible for the school system to fix that. They can make decisions at the margins. There needs to be some nuance in the equation to manage this issue. It's not KP --> Einstein = problem fixed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Plus, most of the Kensington Parkwood area is not in the Town of Kensington anyway - or the Town of Chevy Chase View.

The boundary of Kensington feeding to WJ is a long standing one. Kensington Jr. High, basically where Silver Creek is now, fed to WJ way back in the early 70s.

That matters not when it comes to deciding what makes most sense today. Additionally, any argument based in historical school boundaries that were nearly all influenced by blatant segregation really takesx the knees out of the appropriateness of that argument today.

It is a problem that the entire housing pattern in MoCo is based on historical patterns of segregation. It's not really possible for the school system to fix that. They can make decisions at the margins. There needs to be some nuance in the equation to manage this issue. It's not KP --> Einstein = problem fixed.

That's nonsense. They can do better and end the defacto longterm segregation.

[Anonymous]

They need a new HS inside the Beltway and east of Rock Creek/the MARC tracks. Moving Blair outside the Beltway and excluding the western inner suburbs from the DCC, while, over time, preferentially addressing needs to the west (not fully addressing, just not as underaddressed) and failing to make proper investment with the development/redevelopment of higher-density areas set up today's situation.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous]They need a new HS inside the Beltway and east of Rock Creek/the MARC tracks. Moving Blair outside the Beltway and excluding the western inner suburbs from the DCC, while, over time, preferentially addressing needs to the west (not fully addressing, just not as underaddressed) and failing to make proper investment with the development/redevelopment of higher-density areas set up today's situation.

That would be great, but on which land?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[quote=Anonymous]They need a new HS inside the Beltway and east of Rock Creek/the MARC tracks. Moving Blair outside the Beltway and excluding the western inner suburbs from the DCC, while, over time, preferentially addressing needs to the west (not fully addressing, just not as underaddressed) and failing to make proper investment with the development/redevelopment of higher-density areas set up today's situation.

That would be great, but on which land?

I had heard talk at one point about using the Adventist Hospital site but that seemed to get a big NO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:quote=Anonymous]They need a new HS inside the Beltway and east of Rock Creek/the MARC tracks. Moving Blair outside the Beltway and excluding the western inner suburbs from the DCC, while, over time, preferentially addressing needs to the west (not fully addressing, just not as underaddressed) and failing to make proper investment with the development/redevelopment of higher-density areas set up today's situation.

That would be great, but on which land?

They already did this when they purchased the land to build Blair high-school. The case is closed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:quote=Anonymous]They need a new HS inside the Beltway and east of Rock Creek/the MARC tracks. Moving Blair outside the Beltway and excluding the western inner suburbs from the DCC, while, over time, preferentially addressing needs to the west (not fully addressing, just not as underaddressed) and failing to make proper investment with the development/redevelopment of higher-density areas set up today's situation.

That would be great, but on which land?

They already did this when they purchased the land to build Blair high-school. The case is closed.

That didn't add a new high school, it moved an existing school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:quote=Anonymous]They need a new HS inside the Beltway and east of Rock Creek/the MARC tracks. Moving Blair outside the Beltway and excluding the western inner suburbs from the DCC, while, over time, preferentially addressing needs to the west (not fully addressing, just not as underaddressed) and failing to make proper investment with the development/redevelopment of higher-density areas set up today's situation.

That would be great, but on which land?

They already did this when they purchased the land to build Blair high-school. The case is closed.

That didn't add a new high school, it moved an existing school.

And it's been 25 years since then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Plus, most of the Kensington Parkwood area is not in the Town of Kensington anyway - or the Town of Chevy Chase View.

The boundary of Kensington feeding to WJ is a long standing one. Kensington Jr. High, basically where Silver Creek is now, fed to WJ way back in the early 70s.

That matters not when it comes to deciding what makes most sense today. Additionally, any argument based in historical school boundaries that were nearly all influenced by blatant segregation really takesx the knees out of the appropriateness of that argument today.

It is a problem that the entire housing pattern in MoCo is based on historical patterns of segregation. It's not really possible for the school system to fix that. They can make decisions at the margins. There needs to be some nuance in the equation to manage this issue. It's not KP --> Einstein = problem fixed.

Nobody here has argued that moving KP to Einstein is going to eliminate segregation in MCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[quote=Anonymous]They need a new HS inside the Beltway and east of Rock Creek/the MARC tracks. Moving Blair outside the Beltway and excluding the western inner suburbs from the DCC, while, over time, preferentially addressing needs to the west (not fully addressing, just not as underaddressed) and failing to make proper investment with the development/redevelopment of higher-density areas set up today's situation.

That would be great, but on which land?

I had heard talk at one point about using the Adventist Hospital site but that seemed to get a big NO.

A lot of missed opportunities in there over the past 25+ years, with continued repurposing of public land for private purposes and strawman presentations of options, failing to present, investigate or even envision the possible that would work for the system & communities, bowing to sacred cows and developer interests. Adventist was one such "here's an option we know is limited, but we're not going to see what would be necessary to make it a good option because we really don't want to spend the money that would be needed to provide something equitable for these communities (but we're happy enough to cry 'equity' when the price tag is relatively low)" show.

Woodward reopening approval waited on that kabuki theater/dog & pony to play out, then setting the stage for, "Well, it's OK, we'll address that by saying Woodward will help solve DCC overcrowding," which, unsurprisingly, was re-envisioned at least twice in the intervening years since approval to limit most direct effect and leave DCC in a perpetual state of disadvantage.

Forgive me if I'm not sympathetic to those in CC/lower Kensington/Bethesda/Potomac who are angsting about redistricting on the geographic margins to spread capacity utilization.