Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And despite assuming this extra capacity at Wheaton that doesn't yet exist, they still leave Wheaton overcrowded over that inflated number. Wow.

Yup and WJ is now at sub 80% capacity. Shows what they care about.

This makes sense there’s so much MFH development proposed in the current boundary near the mall for example. Need to leave capacity there vs filling it up.

Wouldn't it be nice if they documented how much housing is in the pipeline within each boundary? They could do that, but since I doubt they actually did that analysis my guess is this isn't the reason. Vague vibes that "there's so much MFH development" in a particular boundary is not a good enough reason to leave some schools overcrowded and others significantly under capacity.

Or just go look at the MCPS Capital Improvement Program and you’ll see the authorized number of new developments tied to each cluster. I did this in two minutes. WJ has 11,340 units approved but unbuilt and only 440 units are single family homes.

You're referring to a 400 page document. No, most people can't find this info if they don't know it's there and where it is. Certainly not in 2 minutes. Care to share?

There’s a pdf of each cluster. Try making an effort instead of being force-fed info and then complaining that you can’t be bothered to do the bare minimum of looking up what you want.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And despite assuming this extra capacity at Wheaton that doesn't yet exist, they still leave Wheaton overcrowded over that inflated number. Wow.

Yup and WJ is now at sub 80% capacity. Shows what they care about.

This makes sense there’s so much MFH development proposed in the current boundary near the mall for example. Need to leave capacity there vs filling it up.

Wouldn't it be nice if they documented how much housing is in the pipeline within each boundary? They could do that, but since I doubt they actually did that analysis my guess is this isn't the reason. Vague vibes that "there's so much MFH development" in a particular boundary is not a good enough reason to leave some schools overcrowded and others significantly under capacity.

Or just go look at the MCPS Capital Improvement Program and you’ll see the authorized number of new developments tied to each cluster. I did this in two minutes. WJ has 11,340 units approved but unbuilt and only 440 units are single family homes.

You're referring to a 400 page document. No, most people can't find this info if they don't know it's there and where it is. Certainly not in 2 minutes. Care to share?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And despite assuming this extra capacity at Wheaton that doesn't yet exist, they still leave Wheaton overcrowded over that inflated number. Wow.

Yup and WJ is now at sub 80% capacity. Shows what they care about.

This makes sense there’s so much MFH development proposed in the current boundary near the mall for example. Need to leave capacity there vs filling it up.

Wouldn't it be nice if they documented how much housing is in the pipeline within each boundary? They could do that, but since I doubt they actually did that analysis my guess is this isn't the reason. Vague vibes that "there's so much MFH development" in a particular boundary is not a good enough reason to leave some schools overcrowded and others significantly under capacity.

Or just go look at the MCPS Capital Improvement Program and you’ll see the authorized number of new developments tied to each cluster. I did this in two minutes. WJ has 11,340 units approved but unbuilt and only 440 units are single family homes.

You're referring to a 400 page document. No, most people can't find this info if they don't know it's there and where it is. Certainly not in 2 minutes. Care to share?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And despite assuming this extra capacity at Wheaton that doesn't yet exist, they still leave Wheaton overcrowded over that inflated number. Wow.

Yup and WJ is now at sub 80% capacity. Shows what they care about.

This makes sense there’s so much MFH development proposed in the current boundary near the mall for example. Need to leave capacity there vs filling it up.

Wouldn't it be nice if they documented how much housing is in the pipeline within each boundary? They could do that, but since I doubt they actually did that analysis my guess is this isn't the reason. Vague vibes that "there's so much MFH development" in a particular boundary is not a good enough reason to leave some schools overcrowded and others significantly under capacity.

Or just go look at the MCPS Capital Improvement Program and you’ll see the authorized number of new developments tied to each cluster. I did this in two minutes. WJ has 11,340 units approved but unbuilt and only 440 units are single family homes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And despite assuming this extra capacity at Wheaton that doesn't yet exist, they still leave Wheaton overcrowded over that inflated number. Wow.

Yup and WJ is now at sub 80% capacity. Shows what they care about.

This makes sense there’s so much MFH development proposed in the current boundary near the mall for example. Need to leave capacity there vs filling it up.

Wouldn't it be nice if they documented how much housing is in the pipeline within each boundary? They could do that, but since I doubt they actually did that analysis my guess is this isn't the reason. Vague vibes that "there's so much MFH development" in a particular boundary is not a good enough reason to leave some schools overcrowded and others significantly under capacity.

Anonymous wrote:I think we just need a better description of the programs and how that ties in. Which school is getting Medical? That might make a lot of sense for WJ, given proximity to Fernwood and all the medical offices. WJ students have interned over there for at least the last couple of years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And despite assuming this extra capacity at Wheaton that doesn't yet exist, they still leave Wheaton overcrowded over that inflated number. Wow.

Yup and WJ is now at sub 80% capacity. Shows what they care about.

This makes sense there’s so much MFH development proposed in the current boundary near the mall for example. Need to leave capacity there vs filling it up.

Wouldn't it be nice if they documented how much housing is in the pipeline within each boundary? They could do that, but since I doubt they actually did that analysis my guess is this isn't the reason. Vague vibes that "there's so much MFH development" in a particular boundary is not a good enough reason to leave some schools overcrowded and others significantly under capacity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And despite assuming this extra capacity at Wheaton that doesn't yet exist, they still leave Wheaton overcrowded over that inflated number. Wow.

Yup and WJ is now at sub 80% capacity. Shows what they care about.

This makes sense there’s so much MFH development proposed in the current boundary near the mall for example. Need to leave capacity there vs filling it up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And despite assuming this extra capacity at Wheaton that doesn't yet exist, they still leave Wheaton overcrowded over that inflated number. Wow.

Yup and WJ is now at sub 80% capacity. Shows what they care about.

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone provide a meaningful explanation of the differences between the 4 options? We have gone from 4 extremely different and bewildering options in round 1 to a set of 4 options that are so similar they are difficult to tell apart in round 2.

I found the consultants recitation of the same talking points over and over today completely unhelpful. I also felt it was a glaring omission to not summarize the feedback they heard in the last round and to not explain how they refined these options and why certain factors got priority over others (eg clearly proximity was what they were going for). It’s not a transparent process if they don’t share any context for how their thinking and decision making have evolved.

While I certainly think this round of options is much better, it makes you wonder why there is such a disconnect between the first set of options and this set of options, and if they planned to end up here all along. And I also wonder about the widespread split articulation in all of the new options, when a consistent piece of feedback in the Zoom feedback sessions across pretty much every school was that people wanted to avoid split articulation.

And yes, they will eventually do an elementary school boundary study. I’ve heard from parents who have heard Julie Yang say this. MCPS has significant overcrowding at some elementary schools (like Ashburton and Bethesda) and tons of open seats in others. It seems it would have been more effective for them to do the elementary, middle and high school boundary changes all together, but it seems they kicked the elementary can down the road for now.

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone provide a meaningful explanation of the differences between the 4 options? We have gone from 4 extremely different and bewildering options in round 1 to a set of 4 options that are so similar they are difficult to tell apart in round 2.

I found the consultants recitation of the same talking points over and over today completely unhelpful. I also felt it was a glaring omission to not summarize the feedback they heard in the last round and to not explain how they refined these options and why certain factors got priority over others (eg clearly proximity was what they were going for). It’s not a transparent process if they don’t share any context for how their thinking and decision making have evolved.

While I certainly think this round of options is much better, it makes you wonder why there is such a disconnect between the first set of options and this set of options, and if they planned to end up here all along. And I also wonder about the widespread split articulation in all of the new options, when a consistent piece of feedback in the Zoom feedback sessions across pretty much every school was that people wanted to avoid split articulation.

And yes, they will eventually do an elementary school boundary study. I’ve heard from parents who have heard Julie Yang say this. MCPS has significant overcrowding at some elementary schools (like Ashburton and Bethesda) and tons of open seats in others. It seems it would have been more effective for them to do the elementary, middle and high school boundary changes all together, but it seems they kicked the elementary can down the road for now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WJ is overcrowded because of all the new building in the area, which hasn't stopped. I think for once they did something in a good way, because otherwise WJ would be overcrowded again, quickly.

Why has no one mentioned the overcrowded planned for Kennedy, in all 4 options?

In the program analysis, WJ is not intended as a STEM school, its a humanities school, with rare foreign language (rare isn't the right word, but Im not taking the time to look up what is). And starting so under capacity, I dont think WJ will become the great STEM hub you all think it will.

It looks like this is due to load balancing between Kennedy and Wheaton, which are in the same region, as Wheaton was SEVERELY overutilized in the first set of options (some of them had Wheaton at 120% utilization).

But I have a feeling Wheaton families are not going to like losing access to Wheaton for Kennedy, whose building is not as new or nice as Wheaton.

Also, it's interesting the disparity for Kennedy in terms of actual '25-'26 enrollment and resident students within bounds. I think that means Kennedy is losing anywhere up to about 300 students to other DCC schools, and maybe some countywide programs. Is that read right?

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone provide a meaningful explanation of the differences between the 4 options? We have gone from 4 extremely different and bewildering options in round 1 to a set of 4 options that are so similar they are difficult to tell apart in round 2.

I found the consultants recitation of the same talking points over and over today completely unhelpful. I also felt it was a glaring omission to not summarize the feedback they heard in the last round and to not explain how they refined these options and why certain factors got priority over others (eg clearly proximity was what they were going for). It’s not a transparent process if they don’t share any context for how their thinking and decision making have evolved.

While I certainly think this round of options is much better, it makes you wonder why there is such a disconnect between the first set of options and this set of options, and if they planned to end up here all along. And I also wonder about the widespread split articulation in all of the new options, when a consistent piece of feedback in the Zoom feedback sessions across pretty much every school was that people wanted to avoid split articulation.

And yes, they will eventually do an elementary school boundary study. I’ve heard from parents who have heard Julie Yang say this. MCPS has significant overcrowding at some elementary schools (like Ashburton and Bethesda) and tons of open seats in others. It seems it would have been more effective for them to do the elementary, middle and high school boundary changes all together, but it seems they kicked the elementary can down the road for now.