Anonymous wrote:When is the construction supposed to take place? That would be our daughter's high school in a few years. We've already done a holding school for elementary for one year, apparently, her middle school will undergo construction while she's there, and now Northwood.

My brother spent his last year of ES, last year of MS and last year of HS in holding schools in the 90s. It sucks. Sorry you may be in that position now. If they use Woodward for Northwood I think Northwood would go there in fall of 2023 and the Northwood construction is supposed to last 2 school years. So this year’s 5th graders would be 9th and 10th graders during the renovation. I don’t know whether if they use a different building they could do it sooner.

When is the construction supposed to take place? That would be our daughter's high school in a few years. We've already done a holding school for elementary for one year, apparently, her middle school will undergo construction while she's there, and now Northwood.

Anonymous wrote:What do real Northwood parents think?

We are zoned for Northwood, but the overcrowding and uncertainty about location was one reason our child chose a different high school for next year. She didn’t want to deal with the possibility of spending senior year in an office building or four years in a crowded building sorely in need of renovation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It wasn’t all that long ago that MCPS reopened Northwood. Does this mean:
1. MCPS did a crappy job when they reopened it
2. MCPS hasn’t properly maintained it
3. MCPS did a crappy job with enrollment projections

Is it one of these or something else?

All of the above. They did it on the cheap, and did not plan ahead.

It's hard to make predictions, especially about the future.

Anonymous wrote:It wasn’t all that long ago that MCPS reopened Northwood. Does this mean:
1. MCPS did a crappy job when they reopened it
2. MCPS hasn’t properly maintained it
3. MCPS did a crappy job with enrollment projections

Is it one of these or something else?

All of the above. They did it on the cheap, and did not plan ahead.

Anonymous wrote:It wasn’t all that long ago that MCPS reopened Northwood. Does this mean:
1. MCPS did a crappy job when they reopened it
2. MCPS hasn’t properly maintained it
3. MCPS did a crappy job with enrollment projections

Is it one of these or something else?

It was 15 years ago (2004) that Northwood reopened. But #1 is true. They added on some new pieces around the edges of a 1956 building.

Anonymous wrote:It wasn’t all that long ago that MCPS reopened Northwood. Does this mean:
1. MCPS did a crappy job when they reopened it
2. MCPS hasn’t properly maintained it
3. MCPS did a crappy job with enrollment projections

Is it one of these or something else?

It's always this. It's an endemic problem and has been pointed out to MCPS by parents for YEARS in all areas of the County. More than 10 years. I have come to the conclusion that businesses are bribing them to reduce projections so they can continue to build without hitting the moratorium ceiling. MCPS cannot be this incompetent in their demographic calculations, it has to be undue influence.

Anonymous wrote:So here is a crazy question. Why didn't the county get started on Woodward sooner and then Woodward would be available for Northwood as a holding center with delaying WJ anymore?

It seems like a huge waste of money to invest in retrofitting a temporary building when with proper planning it could have been timed better to save money.

Because Woodward is currently occupied by Tilden Middle School, which is getting a new building of its own. They can't get started on Woodward's rebuild until Tilden has moved out.

It wasn’t all that long ago that MCPS reopened Northwood. Does this mean:
1. MCPS did a crappy job when they reopened it
2. MCPS hasn’t properly maintained it
3. MCPS did a crappy job with enrollment projections

Is it one of these or something else?

So here is a crazy question. Why didn't the county get started on Woodward sooner and then Woodward would be available for Northwood as a holding center with delaying WJ anymore?

It seems like a huge waste of money to invest in retrofitting a temporary building when with proper planning it could have been timed better to save money.

What do real Northwood parents think?

Holding center sounds like juvie.

Anonymous wrote:For two years, if I were a Northwood parent, I would push pretty hard for the Woodward solution. "Holding Schools" that are old buildings are not great - at least in my experience, which has been limited to the elementary level. There are dozens of portable classrooms; the main physical plant is too small for today's enrollments, so the core areas like the library and cafeteria are dysfunctional. The Woodward option gives them a full high school experience. For the bulk of those kids, it is half their high school experience. The distance will be a big pain, but I wouldn't settle for a retro-fitted holding school if I could get something brand new as a holding school. Of course, if they are talking about a knock-down build out of Broome as a new holding school, that is a different story.

I don't know that it would be financially prudent, or possible, to do a knock-down build out of Broome just so it could be a holding school into the future. I think if they spend some money on improvements there to make it more functional and modern (the fields are already in good shape), that would be the best way to spend the money.

For two years, if I were a Northwood parent, I would push pretty hard for the Woodward solution. "Holding Schools" that are old buildings are not great - at least in my experience, which has been limited to the elementary level. There are dozens of portable classrooms; the main physical plant is too small for today's enrollments, so the core areas like the library and cafeteria are dysfunctional. The Woodward option gives them a full high school experience. For the bulk of those kids, it is half their high school experience. The distance will be a big pain, but I wouldn't settle for a retro-fitted holding school if I could get something brand new as a holding school. Of course, if they are talking about a knock-down build out of Broome as a new holding school, that is a different story.

I watched last night's meeting where they gave the latest info on this. More updates to come on March 14th.

Here is the presentation: https://www.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/B9RJM54DCBAF/$file/FY%202020%20Cap%20Bdgt%20Amend%20CIP%20FY2019-2024%20190225%20PPT.pdf

My main takeaways were that the commercial sites they're exploring seem less likely now than before, as they won't get much bang for the significant bucks, since they'd only plan to use any retro-fitted building for 2 years. It sounds like they're leaning toward investing in MCPS-owned sites, the only ones mentioned being Woodward or Broome/Rocking Horse. O'Neill and Smondrowski sounded concerned about delaying overcrowding relief for WJ if Woodward is occupied by Northwood for 2 years.

Also, then they'd still be left with no holding school to use in the future. Maybe Broome/Rocking Horse will be the better way to go (presumably by splitting off 9th grade to Rocking Horse and having the upper grades at Broome--this wasn't discussed, just speculating).