Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They freaking contorted themselves to come up with four sets of options that all keep Whitman, BCC, and WJ families happy. Nevermind the utilization issues, split articulation, or anything else. It's really messed up.

Current WJ families staying in WJ wil be happy with all these options, but not if they are in Woodward. Both will be vastly different school.

Woodward will be another BCC basically. If that's not good enough for WJ parents, cry me a river. They can't possibly have expected relief from overcrowding without any demographic change/with Woodward being filled 100% by WJ kids. They got as close as can possibly be expected with these options.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like option A, but i don't like to see 107% in Kennedy. Perhaps taking some from here and moving to Einstein will work?

Einstein is not that close to Kennedy.

Surely some adjustment should be made with option A or other option to not have one HS over 107%.

They don’t care about Kennedy or Einstein or they would have done something more a long time ago.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like option A, but i don't like to see 107% in Kennedy. Perhaps taking some from here and moving to Einstein will work?

Einstein is not that close to Kennedy.

Surely some adjustment should be made with option A or other option to not have one HS over 107%.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like option A, but i don't like to see 107% in Kennedy. Perhaps taking some from here and moving to Einstein will work?

Einstein is not that close to Kennedy.

And they're not in the same program region. They need to send more of Wheaton to Woodward, and then more of Kennedy to Wheaton.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most growth will come in WJ/Woodward area so I am happy to see they are leaving some space. Having said that i don't want any school to be overcrowded when we have space in WJ and Woodward. Some adjustment can be made to change zones. May be 102--103% can fly if students population is not expected to go up but 107% is too much.

Every kid that's going to school in 2030 has been born already and is either in the county or will move there into existing housing. They can just agree to update boundaries again in 7-10 years based on what else happens population wise.

Most of the time MCPS has numbers vastly underestmating the growth.

For example, MCPS did not leave enough space in new elementary school in RM cluster despite that area was growing based on projected numbers.

Now new school has portables and other schools have empty space in same cluster without any plan to redraw boudary.

Anonymous wrote:I like option A, but i don't like to see 107% in Kennedy. Perhaps taking some from here and moving to Einstein will work?

Einstein is not that close to Kennedy.

Anonymous wrote:They freaking contorted themselves to come up with four sets of options that all keep Whitman, BCC, and WJ families happy. Nevermind the utilization issues, split articulation, or anything else. It's really messed up.

Current WJ families staying in WJ wil be happy with all these options, but not if they are in Woodward. Both will be vastly different school.

I like option A, but i don't like to see 107% in Kennedy. Perhaps taking some from here and moving to Einstein will work?

Anonymous wrote:Most growth will come in WJ/Woodward area so I am happy to see they are leaving some space. Having said that i don't want any school to be overcrowded when we have space in WJ and Woodward. Some adjustment can be made to change zones. May be 102--103% can fly if students population is not expected to go up but 107% is too much.

Every kid that's going to school in 2030 has been born already and is either in the county or will move there into existing housing. They can just agree to update boundaries again in 7-10 years based on what else happens population wise.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They freaking contorted themselves to come up with four sets of options that all keep Whitman, BCC, and WJ families happy. Nevermind the utilization issues, split articulation, or anything else. It's really messed up.

They aren’t making any real changes except dissolving the dcc and destroying some schools. They will not have many slots to bus kids to other schools and many kids will go without. It makes no sense.

Yes and add "kids not at WJ or Whitman or BCC will go without"

Most growth will come in WJ/Woodward area so I am happy to see they are leaving some space. Having said that i don't want any school to be overcrowded when we have space in WJ and Woodward. Some adjustment can be made to change zones. May be 102--103% can fly if students population is not expected to go up but 107% is too much.

Anonymous wrote:They freaking contorted themselves to come up with four sets of options that all keep Whitman, BCC, and WJ families happy. Nevermind the utilization issues, split articulation, or anything else. It's really messed up.

They aren’t making any real changes except dissolving the dcc and destroying some schools. They will not have many slots to bus kids to other schools and many kids will go without. It makes no sense.

They freaking contorted themselves to come up with four sets of options that all keep Whitman, BCC, and WJ families happy. Nevermind the utilization issues, split articulation, or anything else. It's really messed up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Option B should be the winner.

Option B has Kennedy at 107.6% and Woodward at 74.7% utilization. That's ridiculous.

It’s also the only one that doesn’t substantially increase Einstein’s FARMS rate - more than any other school.

Yes. Because it's keeping the current piece of Silver Spring that's more affluent in it. All other options, that piece goes to Northwood.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Option B should be the winner.

Option B has Kennedy at 107.6% and Woodward at 74.7% utilization. That's ridiculous.

It’s also the only one that doesn’t substantially increase Einstein’s FARMS rate - more than any other school.