Anonymous
05/28/2025 08:19
Subject: Initial boundary options for Woodward study area are up
*bussed
Anonymous
05/28/2025 08:18
Subject: Initial boundary options for Woodward study area are up
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Honestly, if I were Taylor and consultants produced option 3 for me, I would fire them. I am not sure why MCPS would think that it would be wise to present such a crazy plan to the public, unless they wanted to make the whole county angry.
It's so they can tell everyone about the ultimately chosen plan that inevitably some people dislike "at least it wasn't option 3"
Exactly. Option 3 is not going to happen. But it will, temporarily, hog all the attention.
https://montgomeryperspective.com/2025/05/28/mcpss-insane-boundary-maps/
Great article. But if you’ve been around for awhile you know that MCPS will indeed create islands to achieve diversity in schools they want to fix.
Recall Clarksburg and Neelesville redistricting.
I recall that study very well, and they also created a demographics-favoring extreme option which was ruled out because it wasn't feasible to bus so many students longer distances.
But I assure you there will be some who are biased to the east.
Anonymous
05/28/2025 08:18
Subject: Re:Initial boundary options for Woodward study area are up
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The data they provided is interesting. To me it makes Option 2 a very good one as it balances out Facility Utilization. If the goal of the boundary study is to solve overcrowding in some schools, a balanced school utilization is critical. The data is showing that Option 2 will not create overcrowding and middle or high school.
On the other hand Option 1 is horrible for a school like Wheaton HS, where it is left with 117% utilization where 5 other high schools are at 80% to 85%. Thye will need to do another boundary study in 5 years if they go with Option 1.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1erYX17GJAfJWhgro-0eLXujXxpiNdfU4/view
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_OLXKCe7_iNFN1ydbXZZgNurJabZhCwz/view
They said something in the meeting tonight about how Wheaton and Edison are right next to each other and that option 1 wasn't as bad as it looked because there was a way to absorb the extra students -- I really couldn't follow it.
They want money to expand Edison. But there are enough seats in the existing buildings if they use them efficiently. And it will take time to build that out, otherwise they would have already done it. Not just time to actually build it but also to approve it, if it is ever approved. In the meantime, Latinos at Wheaton endure more overcrowding unless we launch an opposition campaign (which the White communities do not have to do, since their schools will be protected from overcrowding).
WJ's "white communities" have been enduring overcrowding for many years.
SO HAS THE DCC
Yes. Which is why they just put an addition onto Kennedy and are building a greatly expanded new Northwood building.
Anonymous
05/28/2025 08:15
Subject: Initial boundary options for Woodward study area are up
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Honestly, if I were Taylor and consultants produced option 3 for me, I would fire them. I am not sure why MCPS would think that it would be wise to present such a crazy plan to the public, unless they wanted to make the whole county angry.
It's so they can tell everyone about the ultimately chosen plan that inevitably some people dislike "at least it wasn't option 3"
Exactly. Option 3 is not going to happen. But it will, temporarily, hog all the attention.
https://montgomeryperspective.com/2025/05/28/mcpss-insane-boundary-maps/
Great article. But if you’ve been around for awhile you know that MCPS will indeed create islands to achieve diversity in schools they want to fix.
Recall Clarksburg and Neelesville redistricting.
I recall that study very well, and they also created a demographics-favoring extreme option which was ruled out because it wasn't feasible to bus so many students longer distances.
Anonymous
05/28/2025 08:09
Subject: Initial boundary options for Woodward study area are up
Anonymous wrote:It is simply not enough to be middle class in this county. This makes me so sad.
Enough for what, though? To access a highly segregated education the way you had in Shaker Heights or Bloomfield Hills? No, it's not.
Anonymous
05/28/2025 08:04
Subject: Re:Initial boundary options for Woodward study area are up
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The data they provided is interesting. To me it makes Option 2 a very good one as it balances out Facility Utilization. If the goal of the boundary study is to solve overcrowding in some schools, a balanced school utilization is critical. The data is showing that Option 2 will not create overcrowding and middle or high school.
On the other hand Option 1 is horrible for a school like Wheaton HS, where it is left with 117% utilization where 5 other high schools are at 80% to 85%. Thye will need to do another boundary study in 5 years if they go with Option 1.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1erYX17GJAfJWhgro-0eLXujXxpiNdfU4/view
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_OLXKCe7_iNFN1ydbXZZgNurJabZhCwz/view
They said something in the meeting tonight about how Wheaton and Edison are right next to each other and that option 1 wasn't as bad as it looked because there was a way to absorb the extra students -- I really couldn't follow it.
They want money to expand Edison. But there are enough seats in the existing buildings if they use them efficiently. And it will take time to build that out, otherwise they would have already done it. Not just time to actually build it but also to approve it, if it is ever approved. In the meantime, Latinos at Wheaton endure more overcrowding unless we launch an opposition campaign (which the White communities do not have to do, since their schools will be protected from overcrowding).
WJ's "white communities" have been enduring overcrowding for many years.
SO HAS THE DCC
Anonymous
05/28/2025 08:00
Subject: Initial boundary options for Woodward study area are up
These 4 maps are clearly tied to the 4 priorities. I don't think any is going to stay the same. I think we will have some new maps that look different and are a combination of these. I don't understand what the purpose of having maps that are very clearly tied to one of the priorities are. They obviously will work to balance them -- this is not a helpful starting place.
Anonymous
05/28/2025 07:51
Subject: Initial boundary options for Woodward study area are up
Anonymous wrote:Here’s the irony. The wealthier kids will not move from WJ to Kennedy. MCPS surely knows that. These neighborhoods will become exclusively for families that go to private school (many already do). And that’s ok (a shame but it’s ok).
It will be our poorer and international students who go to Kennedy. Those will be the families on long bus rides to Kennedy. These are families who are struggling already due to federal cuts. I’m so sorry for them. We had a good thing here at WJ for so many years and thought we could keep that really special, diverse community going at Woodward, but it looks like the county has other ideas.
I mean if you’re going to drive to Kennedy you might as well drive to Good Counsel. No brainer.
Same thing with Chevy Chase families that can walk to BCC being rezoned to Blair in scenario 3. Many families would opt for private over that. Perhaps MCPS wants this so there are fewer students to educate.
Anonymous
05/28/2025 07:46
Subject: Initial boundary options for Woodward study area are up
MCPS is all about diversity and scores. They will do what they have to to get that. Option 3 is very much on the table..
Anonymous
05/28/2025 07:45
Subject: Initial boundary options for Woodward study area are up
Then go to private. It’s a public school it is not about you and no one needs you here anyway. There are plenty of smart UMC and MC successful families who just can’t pay $45,000 a year and won’t.
Anonymous
05/28/2025 07:43
Subject: Initial boundary options for Woodward study area are up
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Honestly, if I were Taylor and consultants produced option 3 for me, I would fire them. I am not sure why MCPS would think that it would be wise to present such a crazy plan to the public, unless they wanted to make the whole county angry.
It's so they can tell everyone about the ultimately chosen plan that inevitably some people dislike "at least it wasn't option 3"
Exactly. Option 3 is not going to happen. But it will, temporarily, hog all the attention.
https://montgomeryperspective.com/2025/05/28/mcpss-insane-boundary-maps/
Great article. But if you’ve been around for awhile you know that MCPS will indeed create islands to achieve diversity in schools they want to fix.
Recall Clarksburg and Neelesville redistricting.
Anonymous
05/28/2025 07:41
Subject: Initial boundary options for Woodward study area are up
Anonymous wrote:Option 3 is the only one that addressed diversity/demographics. Not perfect but with some tweaks they can make it work.
The only thing option 3 would do is drive every single parent from Chevy Chase to send their kids to private. That is not tge way to help MCPS. Quite the opposite.
Anonymous
05/28/2025 07:33
Subject: Initial boundary options for Woodward study area are up
It is simply not enough to be middle class in this county. This makes me so sad.
Anonymous
05/28/2025 07:32
Subject: Initial boundary options for Woodward study area are up
Anonymous wrote:The county knows what they need to do to fix Kennedy. It’s very simple. Move the magnets from Blair to Kennedy. All the sudden, you’ve got a really nice, attractive school.
Maybe even the wealthy/UMC folks who already live near Kennedy will start sending their kids there rather than private school.
But they’ll never do that. Takoma Park parents are too influential. So are the Whitman parents. This is why we’ll see option 3 put into effect, no matter what the public feedback is.
On the bright side, it will be good for the private schools.
Anonymous
05/28/2025 07:29
Subject: Initial boundary options for Woodward study area are up
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Honestly, if I were Taylor and consultants produced option 3 for me, I would fire them. I am not sure why MCPS would think that it would be wise to present such a crazy plan to the public, unless they wanted to make the whole county angry.
It's so they can tell everyone about the ultimately chosen plan that inevitably some people dislike "at least it wasn't option 3"
Exactly. Option 3 is not going to happen. But it will, temporarily, hog all the attention.
https://montgomeryperspective.com/2025/05/28/mcpss-insane-boundary-maps/
Of course option 3 (or a variation of it) will happen. I’m sure that’s been the plan all along.