Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like option B. Balances everyone needs. Just go with that one. option B = option best.

B and C are the wacky ones for us, but I get that this is super local.

We were untouched by the first boundary study.

DCC family here. C is best for us personally, B is worst, A and D are in the middle. But I don't want us DCC families to get stuck fighting against each other on which one is worst for our particular neighborhood, while the richer schools just get almost everything they want. These options are rigged.

We’re also a DCC family and I agree completely about not fighting against each other. That’s not the real issue and it’s not productive.

At the same time, some of these options significantly increase the FARMS rate at Einstein only. In the context of the planned “regions” nonsense, Einstein stands to lose a good deal of accelerated classes, potentially, and that’s really not okay.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like option B. Balances everyone needs. Just go with that one. option B = option best.

B and C are the wacky ones for us, but I get that this is super local.

We were untouched by the first boundary study.

DCC family here. C is best for us personally, B is worst, A and D are in the middle. But I don't want us DCC families to get stuck fighting against each other on which one is worst for our particular neighborhood, while the richer schools just get almost everything they want. These options are rigged.

Agree completely

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like option B. Balances everyone needs. Just go with that one. option B = option best.

B and C are the wacky ones for us, but I get that this is super local.

We were untouched by the first boundary study.

DCC family here. C is best for us personally, B is worst, A and D are in the middle. But I don't want us DCC families to get stuck fighting against each other on which one is worst for our particular neighborhood, while the richer schools just get almost everything they want. These options are rigged.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like option B. Balances everyone needs. Just go with that one. option B = option best.

B and C are the wacky ones for us, but I get that this is super local.

We were untouched by the first boundary study.

Set of options I mean, of course

Anonymous wrote:I like option B. Balances everyone needs. Just go with that one. option B = option best.

B and C are the wacky ones for us, but I get that this is super local.

We were untouched by the first boundary study.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

False. There a couple hundred townhouses and at least 400-500 apartments that will deliver in the current WJ zone well before 2030, in addition to recently completed apartments that haven’t leased out yet. WJ and Woodward will be plenty full by 2030 unless the county’s population collapses, but in that case, a lot of schools would have extra space.

Those new buildings won’t get filled with kids. Families are having less kids and moving out of the area when they do. I know this because our church uses a firm that has this data for the greater Kensington area. The population coming in is older and doesn’t have kids or just 1.

You cannot use church data.

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.

A lot of the capacity numbers are very arbitrary, for example, it takes into a certain number of kids per classroom and assumes a certain percentage of the day at classroom is being utilized, special ed classrooms often have ridiculously low numbers. All in all, I don’t think you can really look at the numbers and necessarily say at school is overcrowded significantly or not you really need to see the actual experience. For example, does a school have 10 portable classrooms if so, probably overcrowded. Conversely, does the school show 115% utilization but only have under five portables if so that’s probably exaggerated. Also things like class size, number of lunch periods etc. are all important indicators

I like option B. Balances everyone needs. Just go with that one. option B = option best.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

False. There a couple hundred townhouses and at least 400-500 apartments that will deliver in the current WJ zone well before 2030, in addition to recently completed apartments that haven’t leased out yet. WJ and Woodward will be plenty full by 2030 unless the county’s population collapses, but in that case, a lot of schools would have extra space.

There are also housing projects throughout the DCC

Thrive 2050 is all about adding dense housing in the already dense DCC

Anonymous wrote:

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.

False. There a couple hundred townhouses and at least 400-500 apartments that will deliver in the current WJ zone well before 2030, in addition to recently completed apartments that haven’t leased out yet. WJ and Woodward will be plenty full by 2030 unless the county’s population collapses, but in that case, a lot of schools would have extra space.

Those new buildings won’t get filled with kids. Families are having less kids and moving out of the area when they do. I know this because our church uses a firm that has this data for the greater Kensington area. The population coming in is older and doesn’t have kids or just 1.

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.

Split articulation doesn't matter. Your kid can meet other kids. They don't stay in their bubble forever.

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.

No it's not. All the housing is being put in WJ and Woodward. They'll be over crowded soon if they don't make in the cushion.

https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/COUNCIL/resources/Thrive2050/index.html

Option B is best.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

False. There a couple hundred townhouses and at least 400-500 apartments that will deliver in the current WJ zone well before 2030, in addition to recently completed apartments that haven’t leased out yet. WJ and Woodward will be plenty full by 2030 unless the county’s population collapses, but in that case, a lot of schools would have extra space.

There are also housing projects throughout the DCC

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.

False. There a couple hundred townhouses and at least 400-500 apartments that will deliver in the current WJ zone well before 2030, in addition to recently completed apartments that haven’t leased out yet. WJ and Woodward will be plenty full by 2030 unless the county’s population collapses, but in that case, a lot of schools would have extra space.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it safe to summarize as:
- option D tries to address overcrowding (while causing the most split articulation)
- option B tries to minimize split articulation
(while ignoring some obvious proximity issues)

Are options A and C the middle ground between those two forces? Or …?

I voted for options B and C because it has the least surprises for our neighborhood. Any split articulations makes sense geographically. All of the demographics in these options and messed up but I don’t think it’s the jobs of the school system to solve decades of societal problems. None of the options solve overcrowding at all DCC schools which is what they said the reopening of Woodward would solve. Why are my taxpayers going to this if it doesn’t solve anything?

Excellent question. MCPS has a long history of demanding more money for more space when they actually have enough space but don't want to use it efficiently.