Anonymous
02/06/2026 09:22
Subject: Taylor's Feb. Rec for Woodward Boundary Study
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What do you mean by different?Anonymous wrote:The issue is the demographics of the new WJ. Do the math.
It’s another Whitman (less diverse and richer than current WJ) while Woodward is just a mile away and will be a very different school.
Wealth. A lot less of it.
Don’t turn on the new Woodward families when MCPS divided the schools and even the WJ cluster in an unexpected way. The way they split KP and GP puts all the single family homes in WJ rather than Woodward.
That is actually false.
Is it? We have a Whitman 2.0 supporter here.
No, I share concerns. I just think facts matter and there are multifamily homes from GP zoned to WJ in the proposal.
But all single family homes from KP and GP are zoned WJ.
Yeah, but those islands they rezoned are in the walk zone to Woodward, without walking on OGR and crossing the beltway to WJ, and a large proportion of those neighbors requested Woodward for that reason. WJ has a lot of multifamily dwellings from the Ashburton zone.
Anonymous
02/06/2026 09:16
Subject: Taylor's Feb. Rec for Woodward Boundary Study
Anonymous wrote:In a class of 30 students, it is going from 25 non-FARM students to 20 non-FARM students. Not an earth shattering change. No need for hyperbole.
And remember most FARMS students just like the non FARMS students are good kids whose parents care about their education.
Anonymous
02/06/2026 09:12
Subject: Taylor's Feb. Rec for Woodward Boundary Study
Anonymous wrote:I have to admit that I find it a little funny that after all these WJ-area parents worked so hard over the last decade to argue against the idea of balancing demographics being an important factor in boundary changes and basically got what they wanted (very little focus on balancing demographics in these boundary maps), they're now freaking out and begging MCPS to balance demographics between Woodward and WJ.
Surprise surprise, it was never about "you shouldn't try to balance demographics in schools" and was always just "our kids shouldn't have to go to schools with anywhere near the county average number of poor kids."
I don’t know what they expected.
Anonymous
02/06/2026 08:54
Subject: Taylor's Feb. Rec for Woodward Boundary Study
I mean this takes the target off Whitman to an extent. Now they will have a sister school in being the richest, most exclusive HS in the county.
Anonymous
02/06/2026 08:54
Subject: Taylor's Feb. Rec for Woodward Boundary Study
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What do you mean by different?Anonymous wrote:The issue is the demographics of the new WJ. Do the math.
It’s another Whitman (less diverse and richer than current WJ) while Woodward is just a mile away and will be a very different school.
Wealth. A lot less of it.
Don’t turn on the new Woodward families when MCPS divided the schools and even the WJ cluster in an unexpected way. The way they split KP and GP puts all the single family homes in WJ rather than Woodward.
That is actually false.
Is it? We have a Whitman 2.0 supporter here.
No, I share concerns. I just think facts matter and there are multifamily homes from GP zoned to WJ in the proposal.
But all single family homes from KP and GP are zoned WJ.
Anonymous
02/06/2026 08:49
Subject: Taylor's Feb. Rec for Woodward Boundary Study
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What do you mean by different?Anonymous wrote:The issue is the demographics of the new WJ. Do the math.
It’s another Whitman (less diverse and richer than current WJ) while Woodward is just a mile away and will be a very different school.
Wealth. A lot less of it.
Don’t turn on the new Woodward families when MCPS divided the schools and even the WJ cluster in an unexpected way. The way they split KP and GP puts all the single family homes in WJ rather than Woodward.
That is actually false.
Is it? We have a Whitman 2.0 supporter here.
No, I share concerns. I just think facts matter and there are multifamily homes from GP zoned to WJ in the proposal.
Anonymous
02/06/2026 08:43
Subject: Taylor's Feb. Rec for Woodward Boundary Study
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What do you mean by different?Anonymous wrote:The issue is the demographics of the new WJ. Do the math.
It’s another Whitman (less diverse and richer than current WJ) while Woodward is just a mile away and will be a very different school.
Wealth. A lot less of it.
Don’t turn on the new Woodward families when MCPS divided the schools and even the WJ cluster in an unexpected way. The way they split KP and GP puts all the single family homes in WJ rather than Woodward.
That is actually false.
Is it? We have a Whitman 2.0 supporter here.
Idk maybe Whitman 2.0 is better for the county. I for one will miss the current mix at WJ. It’s a special place today.
Anonymous
02/06/2026 08:42
Subject: Taylor's Feb. Rec for Woodward Boundary Study
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What do you mean by different?Anonymous wrote:The issue is the demographics of the new WJ. Do the math.
It’s another Whitman (less diverse and richer than current WJ) while Woodward is just a mile away and will be a very different school.
Wealth. A lot less of it.
Don’t turn on the new Woodward families when MCPS divided the schools and even the WJ cluster in an unexpected way. The way they split KP and GP puts all the single family homes in WJ rather than Woodward.
That is actually false.
Is it? We have a Whitman 2.0 supporter here.
Anonymous
02/06/2026 08:41
Subject: Taylor's Feb. Rec for Woodward Boundary Study
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What do you mean by different?Anonymous wrote:The issue is the demographics of the new WJ. Do the math.
It’s another Whitman (less diverse and richer than current WJ) while Woodward is just a mile away and will be a very different school.
Wealth. A lot less of it.
Don’t turn on the new Woodward families when MCPS divided the schools and even the WJ cluster in an unexpected way. The way they split KP and GP puts all the single family homes in WJ rather than Woodward.
That is actually false.
Anonymous
02/06/2026 08:30
Subject: Taylor's Feb. Rec for Woodward Boundary Study
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What do you mean by different?Anonymous wrote:The issue is the demographics of the new WJ. Do the math.
It’s another Whitman (less diverse and richer than current WJ) while Woodward is just a mile away and will be a very different school.
Wealth. A lot less of it.
Don’t turn on the new Woodward families when MCPS divided the schools and even the WJ cluster in an unexpected way. The way they split KP and GP puts all the single family homes in WJ rather than Woodward.
Anonymous
02/06/2026 08:24
Subject: Taylor's Feb. Rec for Woodward Boundary Study
Anonymous wrote:What do you mean by different?Anonymous wrote:The issue is the demographics of the new WJ. Do the math.
It’s another Whitman (less diverse and richer than current WJ) while Woodward is just a mile away and will be a very different school.
Wealth. A lot less of it.
Anonymous
02/06/2026 08:21
Subject: Taylor's Feb. Rec for Woodward Boundary Study
In a class of 30 students, it is going from 25 non-FARM students to 20 non-FARM students. Not an earth shattering change. No need for hyperbole.
Anonymous
02/06/2026 07:56
Subject: Taylor's Feb. Rec for Woodward Boundary Study
I have to admit that I find it a little funny that after all these WJ-area parents worked so hard over the last decade to argue against the idea of balancing demographics being an important factor in boundary changes and basically got what they wanted (very little focus on balancing demographics in these boundary maps), they're now freaking out and begging MCPS to balance demographics between Woodward and WJ.
Surprise surprise, it was never about "you shouldn't try to balance demographics in schools" and was always just "our kids shouldn't have to go to schools with anywhere near the county average number of poor kids."
Surprise surprise, it was never about "you shouldn't try to balance demographics in schools" and was always just "our kids shouldn't have to go to schools with anywhere near the county average number of poor kids."
Anonymous
02/06/2026 07:47
Subject: Taylor's Feb. Rec for Woodward Boundary Study
now I know what white panic looks like
Anonymous
02/06/2026 07:17
Subject: Taylor's Feb. Rec for Woodward Boundary Study
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The Wheaton engineering and biomed programs are slated to stay, and be joined by the regional SMCS.
And it's not that people are being defensive, it's that there's some whiny parent from WJ in here acting like something uniquely terrible has happened to them and that no one else is really affected by the boundary study because the things that affect other kids somehow don't count.
Well, it is true that Tilden families suddenly find themselves going from 18% to 36% FARMS. It is a major shift. Is there any other school in a similar situation?
Huh? The data table shows Tilden's FARMS rate going from 22.1% to 21.6%.
When poeple say TIlden area, theya re not talking about Tilden MS. They are referring to Woodward compared to WJ.