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]Entitled GP folks actually saying “WJ is in GP DNA” - they are absolutely trying to be zoned to WJ despite the fact Einstein is a full *MILE* closer to them

Woodward will be inferior to WJ, Whitman, BCC, Chirchill, RM, Wootton and many more HS when it comes to higher level courses.

Current WJ > Future WJ >> Woodward[/quote]

+1, but if you have a shot at Future WJ, you go with WJ.  Looking at you Garrett Park.  Nice signs on Strathmore.[/quote]

The signs just say keep both sides of the street together. Don’t live there so I don’t know but it sounded like they were fine with either school. [/quote][/quote]

Einstein has no room for them so it’s a nonissue.   Boundaries are not made by what is closer.  [/quote]

Einstein could have room for them if they keep Woodlin and Flora together as has been heavily advocated by those communities.[/quote]

WJ Cluster elementary PTAs advocating for no split articulations (Garrett Park, Kensington Parkwood) are acting entitled. There will be split articulations just as there are today. Also the elementary boundary study may rectify some of this issue in a couple years.

Just like PTA says that MCPs should not do program analysis or regional thing. It makes perfect sense to consider together.[/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