Initial boundary options for Woodward study area are up

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New Boundary Study that will “help” with Wheaton’s overcrowding shows:

Option #1: Wheaton [...] would then be above 100% capacity.

Option #2: "All of the high schools would fall between 80% and 100% of enrollment capacity and the majority of the attendance zones would have contiguous boundaries, except for a small area of Wheaton’s attendance zone. "

Option #3: "Wheaton would be slightly above 100% of capacity."

Option #4: "Wheaton [...] would be at about 120% [of capacity]."

https://bethesdamagazine....84YKnifJPw

Most posters on this thread are oblivious to the needs of schools like Wheaton HS and were easily placated by the notion of adding more capacity at Edison.

Ignorant bethesdan here and didn't go to meeting....what is the Edison plan and what's wrong with it? ( assume not expanding the Edison program..?)

They want to put portables at Edison…. For Wheaton students to use because there is NO LAND OR SPACE to put portables at Wheaton. This is not feasible. Kids have huge problems getting to class on time as it is with the size of the school… having them walk 15 mins from another site is NOT going to work. We will continue to be pushed out of our classrooms and made to float. Right now we are having classes in the library and the cafeteria. Let me say that again. Classes in the CAFETERIA. It is not fair for other schools like WJ to be at 77% capacity and Wheaton at 120%. Who in their right mind thinks that is a good idea?

People without empathy. Imagine the uproar if 2 of 4 options left WJ or BCC 20% overcrowded. What a horrible message to send. It's like they decided to send a message to the Latino community to say "Sorry, you don't matter, you are not valued."

[Anonymous]

I’d like to know why they aren’t using Edison fully for trades. That’s what they said they were going to do with it and it hasn’t been that long since it was built.

[Anonymous]

BTW Wheaton and Edison have a beautiful campus. Worth the trip to check it out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Repeat after me:

These are not the actual options. These 4 options show how to emphasize each of the 4 equal parts of the FAA policy.

Real options will come in the Fall.

No need to go crazy at this time.

But fill out the survey. There will not be unlimited opportunities for feedback.

[Anonymous]

Curious what the Wheaton community thinks the best solution is? Different matriculation pattern or sounds like adding on isn’t possible with the distance between buildings? FLO analytics kept mentioning the Edison building and sounds like that is not helpful? Seems like FLO has a disconnect on this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is highly inadvisable for people to start their objections to these proposed boundaries with fears about their property values. It will not play out well with the MCPS decision makers or the media. If you don’t feel the inherent wrongness of these objections yourself, at least be practical and read the room and realize that these objections will not get you anywhere in a county that is majority minority and 50% FARMS.

I think this is exactly incorrect. People will care about moco trying to decrease its tax revenue base.

They do, but will never say so. The board will not and you will regret ever bringing it. Third rail.

Stick to the FAA policy and why what they’ve offered up doesn’t work.

Weird. Why is this a third rail? Why willl I regret it? What happens to me? Do I get shunned?

I think you could go back through this thread and have a pretty good idea of reactions.

The reaction to stating that property values will change based on rezoning has been “yes it will”, “good,” and some weird statements from progressives who are rich enough to not worry about money. These reactions don’t at all seem to be beyond the pale.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New Boundary Study that will “help” with Wheaton’s overcrowding shows:

Option #1: Wheaton [...] would then be above 100% capacity.

Option #2: "All of the high schools would fall between 80% and 100% of enrollment capacity and the majority of the attendance zones would have contiguous boundaries, except for a small area of Wheaton’s attendance zone. "

Option #3: "Wheaton would be slightly above 100% of capacity."

Option #4: "Wheaton [...] would be at about 120% [of capacity]."

https://bethesdamagazine....84YKnifJPw

Most posters on this thread are oblivious to the needs of schools like Wheaton HS and were easily placated by the notion of adding more capacity at Edison.

Ignorant bethesdan here and didn't go to meeting....what is the Edison plan and what's wrong with it? ( assume not expanding the Edison program..?)

They want to put portables at Edison…. For Wheaton students to use because there is NO LAND OR SPACE to put portables at Wheaton. This is not feasible. Kids have huge problems getting to class on time as it is with the size of the school… having them walk 15 mins from another site is NOT going to work. We will continue to be pushed out of our classrooms and made to float. Right now we are having classes in the library and the cafeteria. Let me say that again. Classes in the CAFETERIA. It is not fair for other schools like WJ to be at 77% capacity and Wheaton at 120%. Who in their right mind thinks that is a good idea?

People without empathy. Imagine the uproar if 2 of 4 options left WJ or BCC 20% overcrowded. What a horrible message to send. It's like they decided to send a message to the Latino community to say "Sorry, you don't matter, you are not valued."

Please just talk about yourself and try not using other groups to make your points.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New Boundary Study that will “help” with Wheaton’s overcrowding shows:

Option #1: Wheaton [...] would then be above 100% capacity.

Option #2: "All of the high schools would fall between 80% and 100% of enrollment capacity and the majority of the attendance zones would have contiguous boundaries, except for a small area of Wheaton’s attendance zone. "

Option #3: "Wheaton would be slightly above 100% of capacity."

Option #4: "Wheaton [...] would be at about 120% [of capacity]."

https://bethesdamagazine....84YKnifJPw

Most posters on this thread are oblivious to the needs of schools like Wheaton HS and were easily placated by the notion of adding more capacity at Edison.

Ignorant bethesdan here and didn't go to meeting....what is the Edison plan and what's wrong with it? ( assume not expanding the Edison program..?)

They want to put portables at Edison…. For Wheaton students to use because there is NO LAND OR SPACE to put portables at Wheaton. This is not feasible. Kids have huge problems getting to class on time as it is with the size of the school… having them walk 15 mins from another site is NOT going to work. We will continue to be pushed out of our classrooms and made to float. Right now we are having classes in the library and the cafeteria. Let me say that again. Classes in the CAFETERIA. It is not fair for other schools like WJ to be at 77% capacity and Wheaton at 120%. Who in their right mind thinks that is a good idea?

People without empathy. Imagine the uproar if 2 of 4 options left WJ or BCC 20% overcrowded. What a horrible message to send. It's like they decided to send a message to the Latino community to say "Sorry, you don't matter, you are not valued."

Please just talk about yourself and try not using other groups to make your points.

I am Latina

[Anonymous]

What I don’t get is why they are insisting using the new school as an excuse to attempt to reengineer the county. Seems like this should be simple — Wheaton and WJ get split and go to the new school. Period.

All this nonsense is going to do is deflate property values some places, increase them in others, and cause people with means to shift where they can go to better schools. Trying to force boundary changes isn’t going to work

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Repeat after me:

These are not the actual options. These 4 options show how to emphasize each of the 4 equal parts of the FAA policy.

Real options will come in the Fall.

No need to go crazy at this time.

This is a little silly though. What a waste of time and energy it would be to purposely release options that are deeply flawed, only to release completely different ones months later. I think that’s BS. I think these are more like rough drafts. They will refine or combine element/priorities, but I don’t think the real options are going to be massively different. I think it’s naive to tell people to ignore what they’ve been shown and hold out hope that the Fall options will magically be super different or better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What I don’t get is why they are insisting using the new school as an excuse to attempt to reengineer the county. Seems like this should be simple — Wheaton and WJ get split and go to the new school. Period.

All this nonsense is going to do is deflate property values some places, increase them in others, and cause people with means to shift where they can go to better schools. Trying to force boundary changes isn’t going to work

Do you think Option 1 is "reengineering" the county? Have you even looked at the options or are you just reacting to what people are saying about Option 3?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think what people are mostly upset over is the option 3 long bus rides when they are in walk zones. Plus frustration at the deep pockets of poverty that exist and the failure of housing and zoning policy to address that.

People are also frustrated that better opportunities aren’t available at all schools (like all APs - it’s not that hard just make it available online or bus to another high school for first period!). Plus the reality is that some (maybe all) schools have some pretty serious security issues (again that should be fixable).

Of course we need to fill the new schools and everyone understands they could have to move schools. But why should kids have to take long bus rides cross county (East and West) to make up for failed policies? You’re putting it all on them to shoulder, and they’re just kids. Plus their parents who may or may not have reliable transportation. You could be taking away the ability for a kid and their parents to fully participate in all that a school has to offer, just because of transportation. I know I love going to concerts and home games and I just couldn’t do that if the school was a half hour away (and I have a car).

But yes, you are right, some are upset about property values. Just try to have some empathy on that. You’re probably talking $100,000 to $200,000 cut in property value for some areas and that’s going to hurt some families. Maybe affect retirements and sending kids to college etc. so it is a real issue for most families. Be kind on that issue.

We can pretend that we are above that, or it shouldn’t matter, but it does. That doesn’t make it predatory capitalism. You will understand one day when you have a mortgage. (Don’t worry, I fully understand that MCPS is not responsible for my property values and I understand the history.)

Finally, you have to recognize that the playing field is not the same, the Supreme Court has changed, and things sadly just are not the same as they were even 5 or 7 years ago. Recognizing that reality is being a reasonable adult and is not the same as acquiescing.

These issues are hard ones and so glad I don’t have to make these decisions myself. I do think we can all be kind though, not extremist, and empathetic.

This kind of condescending shit while preaching about kindness is unreal.

Not being condescending, it’s just that when you sign that big mortgage … things change.

You're assuming that anyone who disagrees with you about the role of property values in this conversation doesn't have a mortgage. Most of us do. I do. I didn't change when I bought a house. Maybe you did, but you need to own your beliefs there rather than acting like people who don't share them must not understand what it's like. That's condescending.

+1 and this is so obvious

Speak for yourselves
Don't pretend you are entitled to be assigned to any particular school
Recognize low income kids by and large want to learn and do not deserve to be in schools with disruptive kids or that lack advanced classes any more than your kids do.

But this thread shows that there are disruptive kids everywhere, in every school. Sounds like you are making a judgement about poor kids.

Yes, kids whose families have fewer resources are more at risk of having behavior issues, for a wide range of reasons. That doesn't mean all of them do. That's why a large body of research shows that concentrating poverty in certain schools is really bad for kids.

So you’re just saying poor kids are more likely to have behavior problems. Still sounds like you are making a judgement. Why not just speak for yourself, versus having to use stereotypes about others?

NP - comments based on data are not stereotypes, they are empirical observations. We need to speak about them in order to solve problems, not cover our eyes and pretend they don't exist. Most intelligent people understand that when you talk about averages or tendencies, you don't assume every person shares those characteristics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New Boundary Study that will “help” with Wheaton’s overcrowding shows:

Option #1: Wheaton [...] would then be above 100% capacity.

Option #2: "All of the high schools would fall between 80% and 100% of enrollment capacity and the majority of the attendance zones would have contiguous boundaries, except for a small area of Wheaton’s attendance zone. "

Option #3: "Wheaton would be slightly above 100% of capacity."

Option #4: "Wheaton [...] would be at about 120% [of capacity]."

https://bethesdamagazine....84YKnifJPw

Most posters on this thread are oblivious to the needs of schools like Wheaton HS and were easily placated by the notion of adding more capacity at Edison.

Ignorant bethesdan here and didn't go to meeting....what is the Edison plan and what's wrong with it? ( assume not expanding the Edison program..?)

They want to put portables at Edison…. For Wheaton students to use because there is NO LAND OR SPACE to put portables at Wheaton. This is not feasible. Kids have huge problems getting to class on time as it is with the size of the school… having them walk 15 mins from another site is NOT going to work. We will continue to be pushed out of our classrooms and made to float. Right now we are having classes in the library and the cafeteria. Let me say that again. Classes in the CAFETERIA. It is not fair for other schools like WJ to be at 77% capacity and Wheaton at 120%. Who in their right mind thinks that is a good idea?

People without empathy. Imagine the uproar if 2 of 4 options left WJ or BCC 20% overcrowded. What a horrible message to send. It's like they decided to send a message to the Latino community to say "Sorry, you don't matter, you are not valued."

Rich family schools, that's why Woodward is being built... they don't care. The DCC schools except Blair and Wheaton are the only ones with advanced classes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think what people are mostly upset over is the option 3 long bus rides when they are in walk zones. Plus frustration at the deep pockets of poverty that exist and the failure of housing and zoning policy to address that.

People are also frustrated that better opportunities aren’t available at all schools (like all APs - it’s not that hard just make it available online or bus to another high school for first period!). Plus the reality is that some (maybe all) schools have some pretty serious security issues (again that should be fixable).

Of course we need to fill the new schools and everyone understands they could have to move schools. But why should kids have to take long bus rides cross county (East and West) to make up for failed policies? You’re putting it all on them to shoulder, and they’re just kids. Plus their parents who may or may not have reliable transportation. You could be taking away the ability for a kid and their parents to fully participate in all that a school has to offer, just because of transportation. I know I love going to concerts and home games and I just couldn’t do that if the school was a half hour away (and I have a car).

But yes, you are right, some are upset about property values. Just try to have some empathy on that. You’re probably talking $100,000 to $200,000 cut in property value for some areas and that’s going to hurt some families. Maybe affect retirements and sending kids to college etc. so it is a real issue for most families. Be kind on that issue.

We can pretend that we are above that, or it shouldn’t matter, but it does. That doesn’t make it predatory capitalism. You will understand one day when you have a mortgage. (Don’t worry, I fully understand that MCPS is not responsible for my property values and I understand the history.)

Finally, you have to recognize that the playing field is not the same, the Supreme Court has changed, and things sadly just are not the same as they were even 5 or 7 years ago. Recognizing that reality is being a reasonable adult and is not the same as acquiescing.

These issues are hard ones and so glad I don’t have to make these decisions myself. I do think we can all be kind though, not extremist, and empathetic.

This kind of condescending shit while preaching about kindness is unreal.

Not being condescending, it’s just that when you sign that big mortgage … things change.

You're assuming that anyone who disagrees with you about the role of property values in this conversation doesn't have a mortgage. Most of us do. I do. I didn't change when I bought a house. Maybe you did, but you need to own your beliefs there rather than acting like people who don't share them must not understand what it's like. That's condescending.

+1 and this is so obvious

Speak for yourselves
Don't pretend you are entitled to be assigned to any particular school
Recognize low income kids by and large want to learn and do not deserve to be in schools with disruptive kids or that lack advanced classes any more than your kids do.

But this thread shows that there are disruptive kids everywhere, in every school. Sounds like you are making a judgement about poor kids.

Yes, kids whose families have fewer resources are more at risk of having behavior issues, for a wide range of reasons. That doesn't mean all of them do. That's why a large body of research shows that concentrating poverty in certain schools is really bad for kids.

So you’re just saying poor kids are more likely to have behavior problems. Still sounds like you are making a judgement. Why not just speak for yourself, versus having to use stereotypes about others?

NP - comments based on data are not stereotypes, they are empirical observations. We need to speak about them in order to solve problems, not cover our eyes and pretend they don't exist. Most intelligent people understand that when you talk about averages or tendencies, you don't assume every person shares those characteristics.

It will happen as they are families that generally will not protest and fight it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Curious what the Wheaton community thinks the best solution is? Different matriculation pattern or sounds like adding on isn’t possible with the distance between buildings? FLO analytics kept mentioning the Edison building and sounds like that is not helpful? Seems like FLO has a disconnect on this point.

There is no other solution if they are adding 500 students next year. Its pretty bad.