Anonymous wrote:

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.

You sound really angry - are you okay?

Your previous post implied it is easy to identify the housing in the pipeline for each cluster. But it would take at least an hour or 2 to compile the info for each cluster and compare them. The consultants should have done this and presented it.

Btw I added up 35,000 housing units in land use plans in the DCC.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The main differences seem to be in the boundaries between WJ/Woodward/Wheaton, and between Einstein/Northwood/Blair. If you follow those lines you can see several changes from option to option.

This is what I saw and the boundaries made no sense and long commutes for some kids which is a problem with a lot of activity buses at night.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The main differences seem to be in the boundaries between WJ/Woodward/Wheaton, and between Einstein/Northwood/Blair. If you follow those lines you can see several changes from option to option.

Anonymous wrote:Nice word. Clearly you’re smart enough to google MCPS capital improvement plan. Then click through the link. Look down the page until you see FY 2026 Educational Facilities Master Plan and Amendments to the FY 2025-2030 Plan. Then select the applicable cluster in Chapter 4 by pdf. I assure you it’s not 400 pages if you download it by the individual pdf subsection. Then read the section in Consortium Planning Issues. If you feel ambitious, you can then read the individual plans. Or maybe just ask ChatGPT for help next time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You sound really angry - are you okay?

Your previous post implied it is easy to identify the housing in the pipeline for each cluster. But it would take at least an hour or 2 to compile the info for each cluster and compare them. The consultants should have done this and presented it.

Btw I added up 35,000 housing units in land use plans in the DCC.

Not particularly. I just find the lack of effort regarding basic research off putting, especially among parents who are raising the next generation. My advice? Do a little bit of work that shows you’ve tried to answer your own question - you know, what it takes to have an informed opinion and people are more likely to help you. But then maybe my standards are too high for an anonymous message board. Even among folks who are ostensibly interested in their children’s schooling.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny how I've seen several comments about entitled WJ parents. None of you seem to mention that WJ has been the most over capacity among the schools in the study for a long time.

Yes, and as a result, WJ parents got a whole new high school (Woodward) to alleviate that over capacity. What's the problem?

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:

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.

You sound really angry - are you okay?

Your previous post implied it is easy to identify the housing in the pipeline for each cluster. But it would take at least an hour or 2 to compile the info for each cluster and compare them. The consultants should have done this and presented it.

Btw I added up 35,000 housing units in land use plans in the DCC.

Anonymous wrote:Funny how I've seen several comments about entitled WJ parents. None of you seem to mention that WJ has been the most over capacity among the schools in the study for a long time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny how I've seen several comments about entitled WJ parents. None of you seem to mention that WJ has been the most over capacity among the schools in the study for a long time.

Who are you talking to? Maybe quote somebody instead of making vague accusations.

No, just read the last few pages.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny how I've seen several comments about entitled WJ parents. None of you seem to mention that WJ has been the most over capacity among the schools in the study for a long time.

Who are you talking to? Maybe quote somebody instead of making vague accusations.

Anonymous wrote:Funny how I've seen several comments about entitled WJ parents. None of you seem to mention that WJ has been the most over capacity among the schools in the study for a long time.