Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Rough crowd. None of what you have to say matters anyway, the BOE and Co. Council will just do what they want to do that is in the name of equity, but really is just to cut costs, cost of buses, experienced teacher salaries, some curricular costs, as well as badly aging infrastructure costs, as best they can. They do not give one shit what any taxpayer and/or parent thinks and as long as the W schools, Wheaton not included, remain as they are and/or are no longer over capacity, the poor kids will take the brunt, and that's fine by the BOE.
+1
All the schools will be hit if they reduce capacity and lose teachers. The w schools will have to make cuts.
But they will still have a healthy high achieving cohort to offer classes like AP physics, AP chem, AP bio, and MVC which low income schools do not offer
WJ will be higher achieving than Woodward. Lower FARMS means better academics.
WJ will be losing a lot of teachers so they will be reducing course offerings. Higher achieving has nothing to do with it. They cannot offer what they do now with less teachers.
Not necessarily. Whitman has 1000 fewer students than WJ yet still offers a full range of courses.
WJ isn’t Whitman.
Obviousiy, but the point is many schools of that size, and even smaller ones, can still offer a broad spectrum of courses.
It many, only a select few and with that much loss of students, teachers and courses will be cut.
Yep, Taylor will come in cutting left and right. How do you think he will find the money to staff Woodward and ultimately Crown?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:LOL, at people worried about cuts in WJ.
Think for a minute what other half of current WJ is getting. Woodward will have low number with higher FARMS and some art program.
Thank your lucky stars that your are in WJ and not in Wooodward area.
Yes, WJ will lose some high level courses for sure, but if you are that worried then move to Whitman.
+1
Woodward will be inferior to WJ. Not gonna lie. Those you get to stay in WJ are fortunate. The Luxmanor/Farmland crew who have no choice but Woodward got the short end of the stick.
If you have a choice between Woodward and WJ, WJ should be your clear choice.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:LOL, at people worried about cuts in WJ.
Think for a minute what other half of current WJ is getting. Woodward will have low number with higher FARMS and some art program.
Thank your lucky stars that your are in WJ and not in Wooodward area.
Yes, WJ will lose some high level courses for sure, but if you are that worried then move to Whitman.
I'm not worried as we are not at WJ, but you have magical thinking to think the classes will stay the same.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:LOL, at people worried about cuts in WJ.
Think for a minute what other half of current WJ is getting. Woodward will have low number with higher FARMS and some art program.
Thank your lucky stars that your are in WJ and not in Wooodward area.
Yes, WJ will lose some high level courses for sure, but if you are that worried then move to Whitman.
I'm not worried as we are not at WJ, but you have magical thinking to think the classes will stay the same.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Rough crowd. None of what you have to say matters anyway, the BOE and Co. Council will just do what they want to do that is in the name of equity, but really is just to cut costs, cost of buses, experienced teacher salaries, some curricular costs, as well as badly aging infrastructure costs, as best they can. They do not give one shit what any taxpayer and/or parent thinks and as long as the W schools, Wheaton not included, remain as they are and/or are no longer over capacity, the poor kids will take the brunt, and that's fine by the BOE.
+1
All the schools will be hit if they reduce capacity and lose teachers. The w schools will have to make cuts.
But they will still have a healthy high achieving cohort to offer classes like AP physics, AP chem, AP bio, and MVC which low income schools do not offer
WJ will be higher achieving than Woodward. Lower FARMS means better academics.
WJ will be losing a lot of teachers so they will be reducing course offerings. Higher achieving has nothing to do with it. They cannot offer what they do now with less teachers.
Not necessarily. Whitman has 1000 fewer students than WJ yet still offers a full range of courses.
WJ isn’t Whitman.
Obviousiy, but the point is many schools of that size, and even smaller ones, can still offer a broad spectrum of courses.
It many, only a select few and with that much loss of students, teachers and courses will be cut.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:LOL, at people worried about cuts in WJ.
Think for a minute what other half of current WJ is getting. Woodward will have low number with higher FARMS and some art program.
Thank your lucky stars that your are in WJ and not in Wooodward area.
Yes, WJ will lose some high level courses for sure, but if you are that worried then move to Whitman.
+1
Woodward will be inferior to WJ. Not gonna lie. Those you get to stay in WJ are fortunate. The Luxmanor/Farmland crew who have no choice but Woodward got the short end of the stick.
If you have a choice between Woodward and WJ, WJ should be your clear choice.
Anonymous wrote:LOL, at people worried about cuts in WJ.
Think for a minute what other half of current WJ is getting. Woodward will have low number with higher FARMS and some art program.
Thank your lucky stars that your are in WJ and not in Wooodward area.
Yes, WJ will lose some high level courses for sure, but if you are that worried then move to Whitman.
Anonymous wrote:LOL, at people worried about cuts in WJ.
Think for a minute what other half of current WJ is getting. Woodward will have low number with higher FARMS and some art program.
Thank your lucky stars that your are in WJ and not in Wooodward area.
Yes, WJ will lose some high level courses for sure, but if you are that worried then move to Whitman.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Rough crowd. None of what you have to say matters anyway, the BOE and Co. Council will just do what they want to do that is in the name of equity, but really is just to cut costs, cost of buses, experienced teacher salaries, some curricular costs, as well as badly aging infrastructure costs, as best they can. They do not give one shit what any taxpayer and/or parent thinks and as long as the W schools, Wheaton not included, remain as they are and/or are no longer over capacity, the poor kids will take the brunt, and that's fine by the BOE.
+1
All the schools will be hit if they reduce capacity and lose teachers. The w schools will have to make cuts.
But they will still have a healthy high achieving cohort to offer classes like AP physics, AP chem, AP bio, and MVC which low income schools do not offer
WJ will be higher achieving than Woodward. Lower FARMS means better academics.
WJ will be losing a lot of teachers so they will be reducing course offerings. Higher achieving has nothing to do with it. They cannot offer what they do now with less teachers.
Not necessarily. Whitman has 1000 fewer students than WJ yet still offers a full range of courses.
WJ isn’t Whitman.
Obviousiy, but the point is many schools of that size, and even smaller ones, can still offer a broad spectrum of courses.
It many, only a select few and with that much loss of students, teachers and courses will be cut.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Rough crowd. None of what you have to say matters anyway, the BOE and Co. Council will just do what they want to do that is in the name of equity, but really is just to cut costs, cost of buses, experienced teacher salaries, some curricular costs, as well as badly aging infrastructure costs, as best they can. They do not give one shit what any taxpayer and/or parent thinks and as long as the W schools, Wheaton not included, remain as they are and/or are no longer over capacity, the poor kids will take the brunt, and that's fine by the BOE.
+1
All the schools will be hit if they reduce capacity and lose teachers. The w schools will have to make cuts.
But they will still have a healthy high achieving cohort to offer classes like AP physics, AP chem, AP bio, and MVC which low income schools do not offer
WJ will be higher achieving than Woodward. Lower FARMS means better academics.
WJ will be losing a lot of teachers so they will be reducing course offerings. Higher achieving has nothing to do with it. They cannot offer what they do now with less teachers.
Not necessarily. Whitman has 1000 fewer students than WJ yet still offers a full range of courses.
WJ isn’t Whitman.
Obviousiy, but the point is many schools of that size, and even smaller ones, can still offer a broad spectrum of courses.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Rough crowd. None of what you have to say matters anyway, the BOE and Co. Council will just do what they want to do that is in the name of equity, but really is just to cut costs, cost of buses, experienced teacher salaries, some curricular costs, as well as badly aging infrastructure costs, as best they can. They do not give one shit what any taxpayer and/or parent thinks and as long as the W schools, Wheaton not included, remain as they are and/or are no longer over capacity, the poor kids will take the brunt, and that's fine by the BOE.
+1
All the schools will be hit if they reduce capacity and lose teachers. The w schools will have to make cuts.
But they will still have a healthy high achieving cohort to offer classes like AP physics, AP chem, AP bio, and MVC which low income schools do not offer
WJ will be higher achieving than Woodward. Lower FARMS means better academics.
WJ will be losing a lot of teachers so they will be reducing course offerings. Higher achieving has nothing to do with it. They cannot offer what they do now with less teachers.
Not necessarily. Whitman has 1000 fewer students than WJ yet still offers a full range of courses.
WJ isn’t Whitman.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Rough crowd. None of what you have to say matters anyway, the BOE and Co. Council will just do what they want to do that is in the name of equity, but really is just to cut costs, cost of buses, experienced teacher salaries, some curricular costs, as well as badly aging infrastructure costs, as best they can. They do not give one shit what any taxpayer and/or parent thinks and as long as the W schools, Wheaton not included, remain as they are and/or are no longer over capacity, the poor kids will take the brunt, and that's fine by the BOE.
+1
All the schools will be hit if they reduce capacity and lose teachers. The w schools will have to make cuts.
But they will still have a healthy high achieving cohort to offer classes like AP physics, AP chem, AP bio, and MVC which low income schools do not offer
WJ will be higher achieving than Woodward. Lower FARMS means better academics.
WJ will be losing a lot of teachers so they will be reducing course offerings. Higher achieving has nothing to do with it. They cannot offer what they do now with less teachers.
Not necessarily. Whitman has 1000 fewer students than WJ yet still offers a full range of courses.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Rough crowd. None of what you have to say matters anyway, the BOE and Co. Council will just do what they want to do that is in the name of equity, but really is just to cut costs, cost of buses, experienced teacher salaries, some curricular costs, as well as badly aging infrastructure costs, as best they can. They do not give one shit what any taxpayer and/or parent thinks and as long as the W schools, Wheaton not included, remain as they are and/or are no longer over capacity, the poor kids will take the brunt, and that's fine by the BOE.
+1
All the schools will be hit if they reduce capacity and lose teachers. The w schools will have to make cuts.
But they will still have a healthy high achieving cohort to offer classes like AP physics, AP chem, AP bio, and MVC which low income schools do not offer
WJ will be higher achieving than Woodward. Lower FARMS means better academics.
WJ will be losing a lot of teachers so they will be reducing course offerings. Higher achieving has nothing to do with it. They cannot offer what they do now with less teachers.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Rough crowd. None of what you have to say matters anyway, the BOE and Co. Council will just do what they want to do that is in the name of equity, but really is just to cut costs, cost of buses, experienced teacher salaries, some curricular costs, as well as badly aging infrastructure costs, as best they can. They do not give one shit what any taxpayer and/or parent thinks and as long as the W schools, Wheaton not included, remain as they are and/or are no longer over capacity, the poor kids will take the brunt, and that's fine by the BOE.
+1
All the schools will be hit if they reduce capacity and lose teachers. The w schools will have to make cuts.
But they will still have a healthy high achieving cohort to offer classes like AP physics, AP chem, AP bio, and MVC which low income schools do not offer
WJ will be higher achieving than Woodward. Lower FARMS means better academics.
WJ will be losing a lot of teachers so they will be reducing course offerings. Higher achieving has nothing to do with it. They cannot offer what they do now with less teachers.
You'd rather remain overcrowded?