Anonymous
10/09/2025 11:39
Subject: Second round options for Woodward boundary study
Anonymous wrote: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.
The townhouses will have kids, and the apartments will have more than zero kids. I know this because the Planning Board collects this data directly from MCPS and uses it to determine impact fees. Kids in apartments increased last cycle because the housing market isn’t producing enough homes for sale.
The planning board has been off in how they calculate the number of kids that come from apartments for a very long time. They need to accept that in a high cost of living area, more families are living in mult-family housing.
Anonymous
10/09/2025 09:55
Subject: Second round options for Woodward boundary study
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
They aready have everything. Instead of funding the schools who have less to have more they are shuffling everyone.
Schools get the same funding per student except for title 1 schools who get more.
Exactly and it should be based on need as the dcc schools have more kids struggling and the resources go to catch them up and help them and with one pot of money the principal’s have to make choices and the more academic kids lose out as the other kids have more needs to get them to graduate.
And yet even those extra resources don’t appear to be enough to move the needle on those kids who are struggling.
The problem is by the time you do catch up in MS or HS, its too late. They need to allocate far more resources in elementary schools to make sure every child who can be is on grade level. Do real evaluations, remediate any disabilities or SN with supports, therapies and reading teachers, have a better curriculum, and bring back the free online tutoring. By the time you get to high school, often its too late as these kids are struggling and have low self esteem and hate school.
Anonymous
10/09/2025 09:53
Subject: Second round options for Woodward boundary study
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Entire Garret park can be put in Woodward
Viers Mill ES can be put in WJ
Some area of Kenneddy can be added in Wooward.
It will take care of no school being over crowded. It will also insure WJ does not become another Whitman. It can keep Woodward and WJ FARMS closer.
VM should not have to drive by Woodward to go to WJ. That’s stupid!
Dah, both are on same road less than a mile. You are talking about as if driving 2-3 miles.
Some may not know the area. Nor do the consultants or Dr. Taylor. The county is very different from when he grew up here. Who knows if he and his family even live here?
Possibly true, but it's not hard for consultants to see that Woodward and WJ are right next to each other on the same road. It allows balancing without any negative impact on bus ride. It may be hard to do it when schools are farther way.
If you don't drive in that area, you may not know. Reality is they will both be strong schools. 1 mile in traffice can be a lot but the schools are very very close.
And, with all the continued building all the schools will be overcrowded soon enough.
Anonymous
10/09/2025 09:45
Subject: Second round options for Woodward boundary study
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Entire Garret park can be put in Woodward
Viers Mill ES can be put in WJ
Some area of Kenneddy can be added in Wooward.
It will take care of no school being over crowded. It will also insure WJ does not become another Whitman. It can keep Woodward and WJ FARMS closer.
VM should not have to drive by Woodward to go to WJ. That’s stupid!
Dah, both are on same road less than a mile. You are talking about as if driving 2-3 miles.
Some may not know the area. Nor do the consultants or Dr. Taylor. The county is very different from when he grew up here. Who knows if he and his family even live here?
Possibly true, but it's not hard for consultants to see that Woodward and WJ are right next to each other on the same road. It allows balancing without any negative impact on bus ride. It may be hard to do it when schools are farther way.
Anonymous
10/09/2025 09:20
Subject: Second round options for Woodward boundary study
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
They aready have everything. Instead of funding the schools who have less to have more they are shuffling everyone.
Schools get the same funding per student except for title 1 schools who get more.
Exactly and it should be based on need as the dcc schools have more kids struggling and the resources go to catch them up and help them and with one pot of money the principal’s have to make choices and the more academic kids lose out as the other kids have more needs to get them to graduate.
And yet even those extra resources don’t appear to be enough to move the needle on those kids who are struggling.
Anonymous
10/09/2025 09:16
Subject: Second round options for Woodward boundary study
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
I hear you but Einstein would still have a lower FARMS rate than Blair, Wheaton and Kennedy. I do not think it is a good idea to start splitting straws about which DCC schools are getting higher FARMS rates and who is worse off. That's just unproductive.
The reason Einstein is being impacted in this way is
1. The lower capacity and age of Einstein HS relative to Northwood and Blair; and
2. The unwillingness of MCPS to make more radical changes to boundaries that would more effectively relieve capacity in DCC schools, which might have allowed space for more programs at Einstein, and might have lowered instead of increased its FARMS rate. The choices MCPS have made wrt boundaries are primarily for the comfort and financial gain of wealthy families. It's disgusting.
I don’t disagree with you on any of this. I don’t particularly care about FARMS on its own, it’s in the context of Einstein losing programming and academic acceleration (as proposed in the regional program model) that’s the issue. The other DCC schools don’t stand to lose as much on that front, at least not based on current proposals.
Anonymous
10/09/2025 08:04
Subject: Second round options for Woodward boundary study
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Entire Garret park can be put in Woodward
Viers Mill ES can be put in WJ
Some area of Kenneddy can be added in Wooward.
It will take care of no school being over crowded. It will also insure WJ does not become another Whitman. It can keep Woodward and WJ FARMS closer.
VM should not have to drive by Woodward to go to WJ. That’s stupid!
Dah, both are on same road less than a mile. You are talking about as if driving 2-3 miles.
Some may not know the area. Nor do the consultants or Dr. Taylor. The county is very different from when he grew up here. Who knows if he and his family even live here?
Anonymous
10/09/2025 07:55
Subject: Second round options for Woodward boundary study
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Entire Garret park can be put in Woodward
Viers Mill ES can be put in WJ
Some area of Kenneddy can be added in Wooward.
It will take care of no school being over crowded. It will also insure WJ does not become another Whitman. It can keep Woodward and WJ FARMS closer.
VM should not have to drive by Woodward to go to WJ. That’s stupid!
VM is alreafdy going in WJ in some options. Instead of splitting VM , I will rather have entire VM going to WJ. WJ and Woodward are right next to each other so very little impact on bus ride time.
Anonymous
10/09/2025 07:47
Subject: Second round options for Woodward boundary study
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Entire Garret park can be put in Woodward
Viers Mill ES can be put in WJ
Some area of Kenneddy can be added in Wooward.
It will take care of no school being over crowded. It will also insure WJ does not become another Whitman. It can keep Woodward and WJ FARMS closer.
VM should not have to drive by Woodward to go to WJ. That’s stupid!
Dah, both are on same road less than a mile. You are talking about as if driving 2-3 miles.
Anonymous
10/09/2025 06:59
Subject: Second round options for Woodward boundary study
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
I hear you but Einstein would still have a lower FARMS rate than Blair, Wheaton and Kennedy. I do not think it is a good idea to start splitting straws about which DCC schools are getting higher FARMS rates and who is worse off. That's just unproductive.
The reason Einstein is being impacted in this way is
1. The lower capacity and age of Einstein HS relative to Northwood and Blair; and
2. The unwillingness of MCPS to make more radical changes to boundaries that would more effectively relieve capacity in DCC schools, which might have allowed space for more programs at Einstein, and might have lowered instead of increased its FARMS rate. The choices MCPS have made wrt boundaries are primarily for the comfort and financial gain of wealthy families. It's disgusting.
Einstein does not care about farms. Punishing Einstein for the age of the building is unfair. There are wealthy families at Einstein and they will flee. Sadly with less teachers more will be cut and it will not be the same school.
Anonymous
10/09/2025 06:57
Subject: Second round options for Woodward boundary study
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
They aready have everything. Instead of funding the schools who have less to have more they are shuffling everyone.
Schools get the same funding per student except for title 1 schools who get more.
Exactly and it should be based on need as the dcc schools have more kids struggling and the resources go to catch them up and help them and with one pot of money the principal’s have to make choices and the more academic kids lose out as the other kids have more needs to get them to graduate.
Anonymous
10/09/2025 06:18
Subject: Second round options for Woodward 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.
The townhouses will have kids, and the apartments will have more than zero kids. I know this because the Planning Board collects this data directly from MCPS and uses it to determine impact fees. Kids in apartments increased last cycle because the housing market isn’t producing enough homes for sale.
Anonymous
10/09/2025 06:09
Subject: Second round options for Woodward boundary study
Anonymous wrote: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.
They aready have everything. Instead of funding the schools who have less to have more they are shuffling everyone.
Schools get the same funding per student except for title 1 schools who get more.
Anonymous
10/08/2025 19:48
Subject: Second round options for Woodward boundary study
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.
They aready have everything. Instead of funding the schools who have less to have more they are shuffling everyone.
Anonymous
10/08/2025 19:46
Subject: Second round options for Woodward boundary study
Anonymous wrote: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.
I hear you but Einstein would still have a lower FARMS rate than Blair, Wheaton and Kennedy. I do not think it is a good idea to start splitting straws about which DCC schools are getting higher FARMS rates and who is worse off. That's just unproductive.
The reason Einstein is being impacted in this way is
1. The lower capacity and age of Einstein HS relative to Northwood and Blair; and
2. The unwillingness of MCPS to make more radical changes to boundaries that would more effectively relieve capacity in DCC schools, which might have allowed space for more programs at Einstein, and might have lowered instead of increased its FARMS rate. The choices MCPS have made wrt boundaries are primarily for the comfort and financial gain of wealthy families. It's disgusting.