Reply to Second round options for Woodward boundary study

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

Reply to "Second round options for Woodward boundary study "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Agree. Vote for ALL the schools to be under 100% occupied, not just your own.

Option B is *not* what most people want. It is simply repeated here often by loud, outspoken and entitled families. Option B leaves two area high schools over 100% full while WJ and Woodward are only 75-79% full. Not okay. And not popular.[/quote]

What are you talking about? All options have schools at above 100%

Option A has Blair, JFK and Wheaton above 100%.

Option B has JFK and Wheaton just a smidge above 100%.

Option C has Blair, JFK, and Wheaton above 100%

option D has Blair and Kennedy above 100%

JFK and Wheaton will be in same region as WJ and Woodward so maybe the magnets balance it under. Option B might be the best (my kids are not in that region)[/quote]

D is definitely the best option for utilization/avoiding overcrowding.  All the others have Kennedy about 175 kids over capacity and Wheaton about 600 kids over capacity.  D has Wheaton 300 kids over capacity and Kennedy and Blair right about at capacity (technically 7 kids over for Kennedy and 17 for Blair.)[/quote]

Wrong. You do not even consider the regions. These schools are appropriately sized. [/quote]

Don't all the schools have programs? Or is the goal to balance enrollment by having the most motivated and well resourced kids in the DCC schools drive themselves or take transportation that takes an hour + to get to west county schools? This is a terrible idea on so many levels. They grow a backbone and draw better boundaries.[/quote]

Yeah, my understanding is that they're planning to have roughly the same number of program seats at each high school (except maybe Poolesville, but that's not relevant here), so it's basically a wash for utilization calculations.

Either way, no school should be left over-capacity while they're hundreds of kids under capacity at WJ and Woodward (1000 combined under capacity in some scenarios.). And if they refuse to revise the scenarios further, we should at least unite to support option D, since it leaves Wheaton as the only HS over-capacity (and much less so than in other options) and brings the underutilization at WJ + Whitman down to "only" about 600 kids combined.[/quote]

You can't do math. Wheaton is fine. Go look at the data.

And go look at the maste development plan. [/quote]

No, they just try to make it look fine by adding in 500 imaginary seats at Wheaton.  Once you subtract those out you can see how hugely over-capacity it is in these options. [/quote]

There are no imaginary seats. Get over it[/quote]

Agree. The seats are there. Don't act like it doesn't include the Edison seats. MCPS is transparent about that in the Wheaton numbers. The guy/gal claiming "imaginary seats" is wrong. [/quote]

The Superintendent's just released proposed CIP lists a capacity of 2,220 for Wheaton HS. Current enrollment is 2,687. According the the MCPS school profiles, in 2023-24 Edison had an enrollment of 968 students.

However, the new boundary options give Wheaton HS a capacity of 2,720. Under the tables for the boundary options are two notes:
1. "Wheaton HS includes the capacity of Edison HS"
And
2. "Assumes 500 students attend Wheaton HS for CTE"

Edison HS and Wheaton HS are separate schools. However, there is something called the Wheaton Edison Partnership through which students from 17 high school clusters can choose to attend for 9-12 grade and take classes at both Wheaton and Edison to complete high school as well as a CTE program at Edison.

So I'm confused.

Why do the boundary study tables say that the capacity number includes Edison HS and Wheaton HS? Edison has 1000 students enrolled and they only added 500. Is this because Edison is part time so it actually only has 500 spots of capacity at any given time? If so, is it assumed that a full 1000 students zoned for Wheaton will attend Edison part time from Wheaton HS? Isn't that a ton of students? And they've said Edison will still be available to other clusters so that makes no sense.

Or is it "only" 500 students zoned for Wheaton attending Edison part time (still a ton)? If Edison is a part time program, and 500 students attend that program from Wheaton HS, won't they still be at Wheaton HS for some courses? If so, why do the boundary options assume that Edison relieves 500 seats of capacity at Wheaton HS?[/quote]

Call. Email MCPS. Ask them for clarification. This isn't the right forum. But this is getting old on here. Nobody cares

Edison and Wheaton are on the same property[/quote]

MCPS should offer an explanation in writing to the community, not some BS excuse that they can't be held accountable for[/quote]

They're essential the same school at the same place. They have some programmatic ideas to use it for capacity. Get over it already. [/quote]

Then why doesn't the new CIP show Wheaton's capacity as including Edison's?[/quote]

does the CIP show Edison's capacity?[/quote]

No, it doesn't.[/quote]

But the CIP wouldn't include it unless they were planning construction, etc.  [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics