Anonymous
12/02/2025 22:57
Subject: Third round options on Woodward Boundary study
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Still doesn’t make sense. They say they are renovating Sligo to make space for displaced SSIMS students but no SSIMS students are going to Sligo?
They probably originally were thinking that, but then realized that when they moved all the current Sligo kids back to Sligo (half of us got sent to SSIMS in the original options) plus added Arcola, there wasn't really room to add in any more elementary schools.
I mean, if the part of Forest Knolls closest to Sligo would prefer split articulation to Sligo while the rest of their ES goes to Eastern, then they should definitely advocate for that and I think it would work fine. But it doesn't make sense to cram too many kids into Sligo just because they originally said they would and then realized that wasn't what worked best.
It also doesn't make sense to change Arcola's walkers to Odessa Shannon to be bus riders to Sligo.
Anonymous
12/02/2025 22:51
Subject: Third round options on Woodward Boundary study
Anonymous wrote:Still doesn’t make sense. They say they are renovating Sligo to make space for displaced SSIMS students but no SSIMS students are going to Sligo?
They probably originally were thinking that, but then realized that when they moved all the current Sligo kids back to Sligo (half of us got sent to SSIMS in the original options) plus added Arcola, there wasn't really room to add in any more elementary schools.
I mean, if the part of Forest Knolls closest to Sligo would prefer split articulation to Sligo while the rest of their ES goes to Eastern, then they should definitely advocate for that and I think it would work fine. But it doesn't make sense to cram too many kids into Sligo just because they originally said they would and then realized that wasn't what worked best.
Anonymous
12/02/2025 22:10
Subject: Third round options on Woodward Boundary study
Anonymous wrote:Still doesn’t make sense. They say they are renovating Sligo to make space for displaced SSIMS students but no SSIMS students are going to Sligo?
It doesn't make sense at all. Please sign the petition:
https://saveoursilverspringschools.com/
Anonymous
12/02/2025 22:06
Subject: Third round options on Woodward Boundary study
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Still doesn’t make sense. They say they are renovating Sligo to make space for displaced SSIMS students but no SSIMS students are going to Sligo?
+1. It's bizarre. Eastern literally doubles in population.
And many students zoned to Forest Knolls/SSIMS can walk to Sligo, but they're all rezoned to Eastern.
Anonymous
12/02/2025 22:03
Subject: Third round options on Woodward Boundary study
Anonymous wrote:Still doesn’t make sense. They say they are renovating Sligo to make space for displaced SSIMS students but no SSIMS students are going to Sligo?
+1. It's bizarre. Eastern literally doubles in population.
Anonymous
12/02/2025 22:02
Subject: Third round options on Woodward Boundary study
Still doesn’t make sense. They say they are renovating Sligo to make space for displaced SSIMS students but no SSIMS students are going to Sligo?
Anonymous
12/02/2025 21:56
Subject: Third round options on Woodward Boundary study
Anonymous wrote:Anyone else notice that none of the three new options send SSIMS students to Sligo? In all three, current SSIMS students go to either Eastern or TPMS. Begs the question of the size they are going to make eastern (presumably huge, which is terrible) and also puts in question the future of ms magnets. The only way they will have enough room to accommodate all those kids at eastern and TPMS is if they do away with the magnets. What a disaster this plan is. Why would they spend all that money to renovate Sligo if it won’t be taking on more kids? What will happen to language immersion if they close SSIMS? Did they come up with this entire plan —after— releasing the first two rounds of options? Taylor is ruining east county with this half baked idiotic plan.
They're moving Arcola kids to Sligo so they're already at like 960-1070 kids (depending on the option) on a current capacity of 926. I suppose they could take some more SSIMS kids when they expand to 1200, but not that many so it would mean split articulation (and make Sligo much higher utilization than most other middle schools.). Simpler to just send them to Eastern, which is at only about 1200-1300 kids in most of these options so not that much bigger.
Anonymous
12/02/2025 21:55
Subject: Third round options on Woodward Boundary study
For the freaking love of God, how do they expect families to keep tabs on this carnival show? I don't have a huge dog in this fight, my youngest is a HS junior and very achieving. So he'll be okay probably no matter what. But I'm kind of outraged as I flip through the various A through G maps (which I think follow on a bunch of options that were already revised and/or discarded)... this whole thing seems almost designed to confuse.
And I'm over educated and UMC. What does this process offer to parents and families who are more precarious or whose language skills are limited?
And I'm over educated and UMC. What does this process offer to parents and families who are more precarious or whose language skills are limited?
Anonymous
12/02/2025 21:42
Subject: Third round options on Woodward Boundary study
Anyone else notice that none of the three new options send SSIMS students to Sligo? In all three, current SSIMS students go to either Eastern or TPMS. Begs the question of the size they are going to make eastern (presumably huge, which is terrible) and also puts in question the future of ms magnets. The only way they will have enough room to accommodate all those kids at eastern and TPMS is if they do away with the magnets. What a disaster this plan is. Why would they spend all that money to renovate Sligo if it won’t be taking on more kids? What will happen to language immersion if they close SSIMS? Did they come up with this entire plan —after— releasing the first two rounds of options? Taylor is ruining east county with this half baked idiotic plan.
Anonymous
12/02/2025 21:36
Subject: Third round options on Woodward Boundary study
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Increasing FARMS at Whitman by 3% is funny though....it's like they had to try something...
Ridiculous to change two elementary school communities and move students out of walk zones for this very minimal increase that has no impact on the original focus of the boundary study. Option F does not make sense.
Option F won't happen.
They could easily do option F but switch the BCC and Whitman elementary schools back to where they are now, but still keep the east county benefits of option F. As someone from Silver Spring I'm fine with that if it's what the school communities involved want.
Agree. Would encourage west county folks to vote for F and if this is their sticking point to mention it. F is clearly the best option for east county with minimal negative impact on west county (IMO).
I’m sorry but MCPS has been so horrible about taking feedback that I would personally never vote for F with a footnote hoping they make that minor, common sense adjustment. After the fiasco of what’s been going on with the regional plan, I just don’t trust them. My gut is if the majority vote for F, they will go forward with F as it is presented. I am not from Wood Acres or Bethesda Elementary, so not directly affected. But I’ve been around long enough to predict their actions and it is ridiculous that they would bus kids in a walk zone for no significant reason especially since all 6 other options do not, and are perfectly viable.
All other 6 options are viable for you, but they leave the highest FARMS schools overcrowded.
The capacity for each high school for models a to g is:
BCC (89, 89, 89, 89, 90, 89, 89)
Blair (85, 78, 85, 85, 85, 85, 90)
Einstein (93, 93, 85, 93, 83, 82, 79)
WJ (72, 78, 70, 83, 71, 78, 71)
Kennedy (90, 90, 90, 83, 90, 90, 90)
Northwood (81, 91, 86, 81, 88, 89, 86)
Wheaton* (95, 95, 95, 95, 86, 95, 81, 95)
Whitman (83, 83, 83, 83, 83, 84, 83)
Woodward (80, 74, 81, 86, 81, 91, 81)
* added 500 seats to capacity
Wheaton has 8 in your chart but everyone else has 7 . Is there an option G for Wheaton? No
just a typo
The capacity for each high school for models a to g is:
BCC (89, 89, 89, 89, 90, 89, 89)
Blair (85, 78, 85, 85, 85, 85, 90)
Einstein (93, 93, 85, 93, 83, 82, 79)
WJ (72, 78, 70, 83, 71, 78, 71)
Kennedy (90, 90, 90, 83, 90, 90, 90)
Northwood (81, 91, 86, 81, 88, 89, 86)
Wheaton* (95, 95, 95, 86, 95, 81, 95)
Whitman (83, 83, 83, 83, 83, 84, 83)
Woodward (80, 74, 81, 86, 81, 91, 81)
* added 500 seats to capacity
Reminder that these numbers only include resident students, so any students from other clusters will add to the totals.
? what are you calling 'clusters'?
For example, anyone from the Blair, Einstein, Northwood, or Whitman clusters but attending BCC is not included in these numbers.
ok you mean regions. the numbers are supposed to balance those, such that those going equal those staying. In practice no one actually leave Whitman, but Whitman probably has enough capacity.
They expect families from less wealthy areas to deal with their shtty proposed transportation. System to balance enrollment. Gross
oh come on. If they said no one could go to Whitman, you'd think that was gross too.
I'm fine with Whitman having the less common languages there and letting people go there if they really want to take a less popular language. It's a good fit because they already offer more languages so will have no problem continuing to offer them no matter who comes or doesn't.
Not fine with them having a top-tier academic magnet like Humanities designed to draw a large share of the top academic achievers out of other schools in the region.
Same. Since MCPS is barreling ahead with this ill thought out program I think this is the most pertinent point to drive home to them + the board: academic magnets should be placed at the regional schools with the highest FARMS rates to help ensure sufficient number of academically advanced students to support full range of advanced classes.
How about they do a better job educating kids earlier on so that schools with high FARMS rates already have sufficient academically prepared students within the community population?
I mean, yes, they should do that too. But let's be real-- between having a lot more kids with college- educated parents, and a lot more kids whose parents supplement and pay for tutors and enrichment and whatever else it takes to get their kids through high-level courses, there's always going to be a lot more demand for those classes at richer schools, and a lot less at middling and poorer schools, especially smaller ones.
For example, if Einstein will now have only 350 or so kids per grade, and maybe 15% of them are interested in and prepared for high-level classes, that's only 50 kids. And if just 3% of Einstein kids leave for each of the SMCS, IB, and Humanities magnets, that''s 30 of those 50 kids gone and suddenly you've only got 20, which makes offering high-level courses really hairy. Northwood is a little better off just due to being bigger, but still, with the same math (15% of 500 kids which is 75, lose 3% to each of 3 academic magnets) you're down to 40 but then some of those kids might take college courses instead and now you've got the same problem. It'll be enough to give these schools the reputation of "places you don''t go if you want to take high-level courses because they don't offer enough of them."
Whereas if you put, say, a large IB or Humanities magnet into Einstein or Northwood, you bring in maybe 60 or 90 kids a grade interested in advanced classes to supplement the 20-40 local kids, and suddenly you can offer way more classes and local kids are way better off and they absolutely remain desirable schools which local students want to stay at.
(Meanwhile, a school like Whitman's got like 80-100 or more kids a year taking AP Bio, Chem, Physics, Calc BC, and a ton of other APs. They would be totally fine if they lost 30-40 kids per year to academic magnets at other schools (not that Whitman kids like to leave but you know what I mean), and unlike the benefits it would bring to less wealthy schools, having an additional 60ish advanced kids per grade come to Whitman for a Humanities magnet will likely have little positive impact on Whitman, it'll just cause harm to places like Einstein and Northwood and let some of the better off kids at those schools escape the damage by fleeing to Whitman. Hooray for equity!)
PP, you might want to go back to remedial math...
You don't have to be rude about it, but here, I'll spell it out for you. 3% of 350 kids per grade at Einstein equals about 10 kids. 10 kids per grade leaving for each of 3 academic magnets (SMCS, IB, and humanities) equals about 30 kids leaving. If you only had about 50 kids interested in high-level classes to start with, 50 minus 30 equals 20.
Anonymous
12/02/2025 21:35
Subject: Third round options on Woodward Boundary study
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Same. Since MCPS is barreling ahead with this ill thought out program I think this is the most pertinent point to drive home to them + the board: academic magnets should be placed at the regional schools with the highest FARMS rates to help ensure sufficient number of academically advanced students to support full range of advanced classes.
How about they do a better job educating kids earlier on so that schools with high FARMS rates already have sufficient academically prepared students within the community population?
Sure that too but doesn’t negate the above point. I encourage all parents to advocate for academic magnets being placed at the highest FARMS schools. In addition to the benefit cited by PP it will cause wealthier neighborhoods to have some skin in the game as to the overall success of those schools which is also important.
The idea of placing academic magnets at schools with the highest FARMS may sound noble but in practice will not work. Parents will simply not send their kids to schools with bad academic reputation. These magnets will become obsolete with only kids from host schools. That will not benefit anyone as students in the host schools will have the same peers and teachers they have now. New magnets will never come even remotely close in success to current magnets so the plan will have an overall negative effect as academically gifted students in the county will lose any access to good magnets.
Strategically best approach is to place most important magnets in schools with average FARMS numbers, e.g. Blair, RM, etc. This will give new magnets a chance to succeed, while not benefiting schools with low FARMS and already good academic offerings. As for the schools with high FARMS, the only way to help them is to give them resources and mandate they use those resources to hire teachers and offer advanced classes. Giving them magnets just ruins the magnet concept.
I agree with you that there’s probably a sweet spot for magnet placement, but Northwood and Einstein have similar or lower FARMS % to Blair in their resident student populations. It’s only after the DCC and magnet shuffling that Blair becomes significantly lower.
Yeah Blair is highest FARMS schools in region 1 under multiple boundary study options. So do STEM magnet there, Humanities magnet at Northwood, and IB magnet at Einstein. Let the squishier magnets go to BCC and Whitman.