Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I support original Option B and the Superintendent's Recommendation.

What does Wheaton cluster have to say? Wheaton Woods PTA allegedly not happy with Superintendent recommendation and prefers Wheaton High despite capacity issue. Option B did have most support in that cluster when you look at the raw data from survey and analyze.

Are there any communities that are in favor of being moved to a different school? Most families (including mine) want stability. I would not want to be rezoned. But given the fiscal constraints it's insane to leave to high schools so undercapacity while the next one over is overcapacity.

Anonymous wrote:I support original Option B and the Superintendent's Recommendation.

What does Wheaton cluster have to say? Wheaton Woods PTA allegedly not happy with Superintendent recommendation and prefers Wheaton High despite capacity issue. Option B did have most support in that cluster when you look at the raw data from survey and analyze.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WJ PTA cluster reps now support original Option B per message that went out. VM to stay at Woodward.

The only difference in the WJ/Woodward area between Option B and the Superintendent's recommendation is moving Wheaton Woods from Woodward back to Wheaton, right?

So why don't they just say that, rather than pushing for Option B which would require a whole bunch of other changes in Region 1 which they presumably don't care about?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WJ PTA cluster reps now support original Option B per message that went out. VM to stay at Woodward.

The only difference in the WJ/Woodward area between Option B and the Superintendent's recommendation is moving Wheaton Woods from Woodward back to Wheaton, right?

So why don't they just say that, rather than pushing for Option B which would require a whole bunch of other changes in Region 1 which they presumably don't care about?

Anonymous wrote:WJ PTA cluster reps now support original Option B per message that went out. VM to stay at Woodward.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems a proposal to shift back to the original option B may go further. That option was prepared and presented in detail and got positive feedback from the community.

Agree.

Luxmanor realtor is for it. She can say we need to send WW back to Wheaton because they increase FARMS too much at Woodward for her liking. But it fixes her utilization issue by making it underutilized even more than 9% to 27%. Clearly they have room for WW but don’t want them.

She outlines a number of points related to utilization. Which do you think are false/misstated?

She was ok with Option F that had 93% utilization, just was a little less ethnic.

I’m sure the motorcycle school at old White Flint mall will produce a ton of kids for Woodward. Superintendent recommendation has plenty of cushion for Woodward.

Option F excludes several of the developments she cites. Her position is consistent.

Wrong. 90% utilization+

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the realtor lobby at Luxmanor -Farmland and a person who will have no children impacted by this (based on the signatory email at the end). Lots of words and outrage, little substance. The recent testimony:

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DREJJ84D5DF9/$file/LCA%20Testimony.pdf

It says they are OK with original B, which had Woodward at 73% utilization and Wheaton at 96% utilization. The VM switch to Woodward ameliorated that and balanced that one ...talk about equity/parity : https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oArFYgC_oD8I798hzzyyo3JzwyJPyT4h/view

It also says they are OK with original option F, which had Woodward at 91% utilization and WJ at 78%. Nearly identical to what Taylor proposed.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ibX2JMWG2hzFUVO3kBcupsvN4SK45yOB/view

So it really boils down to having about an extra 5% poor kids at Woodward that causes the outrage. And the color of their skin.

Thank you for sharing. I just read the letter. I wonder if you think there is any validity to balancing FARMS rates and/or utilization between the schools? Like, if it did not offend you personally could you see the reason to support it. And if so, do you also agree that this particular lobby of people likely saw the need to point to existing options in the course of making their point? If not, I would love to hear why.

Different poster.

While not a panacea, reducing intense concentration of poverty in specific school is generally supported for improving educational opportunities. However, I would not describe Woodward as an intense concentration of poverty.

Research suggests that focusing on creating better resourced, high quality schools in all neighborhoods (Wheaton, Kennedy, Woodward, WJ, all MCPS), may be more effective than simply reassigning students to achieve specific demographic balance. Consider focus on the program analysis which the Woodward families are ignoring.

Shifting student populations (eg, VM parents say they like the Hispanic majority in their current schools like Wheaton and they wouldn’t get that at WJ, but do with Woodward) is complex but feel compelling.

All of this makes sense to me and I personally think the needs of Hispanic majority schools should be considered in this process. All kids in our county deserve a great education in a supportive community. I also think 1 in 3 FARMs is a significant amount of kids and I would not leap to a conclusion that this has *only* positive ramifications for Woodward. I think it is reasonable for communities to question whether a large shift in student body demographics (or programs) will impact their kids. Finally, if people participated in this comment process in good faith with an understanding that they will need to compromise with other communities, I can also understand being upset at an un-vetted change being made in the 11th hour.

1 in 3 FARMS is low for MCPS high schools. Only 9 of 25 high schools are under 30%, with 8 above 50%, and 8 between 30 and 50. 11/40 middle schools are under 30%, with 17 above 50%.

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/siteassets/district/departments/food-and-nutrition/meal-payments/mcpsofficialfarms2025-2026.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems a proposal to shift back to the original option B may go further. That option was prepared and presented in detail and got positive feedback from the community.

Going back to option B means sending WW back to overcrowded Wheaton, right? And reversing a bunch of un-related changes in Silver Spring? That doesn't make any sense. Why would they propose that rather than just switching the boundaries between WJ and Woodward?

Easiest is to simply swap ES area in WJ and Woodward.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the realtor lobby at Luxmanor -Farmland and a person who will have no children impacted by this (based on the signatory email at the end). Lots of words and outrage, little substance. The recent testimony:

https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DREJJ84D5DF9/$file/LCA%20Testimony.pdf

It says they are OK with original B, which had Woodward at 73% utilization and Wheaton at 96% utilization. The VM switch to Woodward ameliorated that and balanced that one ...talk about equity/parity : https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oArFYgC_oD8I798hzzyyo3JzwyJPyT4h/view

It also says they are OK with original option F, which had Woodward at 91% utilization and WJ at 78%. Nearly identical to what Taylor proposed.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ibX2JMWG2hzFUVO3kBcupsvN4SK45yOB/view

So it really boils down to having about an extra 5% poor kids at Woodward that causes the outrage. And the color of their skin.

Thank you for sharing. I just read the letter. I wonder if you think there is any validity to balancing FARMS rates and/or utilization between the schools? Like, if it did not offend you personally could you see the reason to support it. And if so, do you also agree that this particular lobby of people likely saw the need to point to existing options in the course of making their point? If not, I would love to hear why.

Different poster.

While not a panacea, reducing intense concentration of poverty in specific school is generally supported for improving educational opportunities. However, I would not describe Woodward as an intense concentration of poverty.

Research suggests that focusing on creating better resourced, high quality schools in all neighborhoods (Wheaton, Kennedy, Woodward, WJ, all MCPS), may be more effective than simply reassigning students to achieve specific demographic balance. Consider focus on the program analysis which the Woodward families are ignoring.

Shifting student populations (eg, VM parents say they like the Hispanic majority in their current schools like Wheaton and they wouldn’t get that at WJ, but do with Woodward) is complex but feel compelling.

All of this makes sense to me and I personally think the needs of Hispanic majority schools should be considered in this process. All kids in our county deserve a great education in a supportive community. I also think 1 in 3 FARMs is a significant amount of kids and I would not leap to a conclusion that this has *only* positive ramifications for Woodward. I think it is reasonable for communities to question whether a large shift in student body demographics (or programs) will impact their kids. Finally, if people participated in this comment process in good faith with an understanding that they will need to compromise with other communities, I can also understand being upset at an un-vetted change being made in the 11th hour.

1 in 3 FARMS is low for MCPS high schools. Only 9 of 25 high schools are under 30%, with 8 above 50%, and 8 between 30 and 50. 11/40 middle schools are under 30%, with 17 above 50%.

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/siteassets/district/departments/food-and-nutrition/meal-payments/mcpsofficialfarms2025-2026.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems a proposal to shift back to the original option B may go further. That option was prepared and presented in detail and got positive feedback from the community.

Agree.

Luxmanor realtor is for it. She can say we need to send WW back to Wheaton because they increase FARMS too much at Woodward for her liking. But it fixes her utilization issue by making it underutilized even more than 9% to 27%. Clearly they have room for WW but don’t want them.

And WJ realtor is against it as it will bump WJ FARMS by 1.6%.

WJ FARMS shold not increase even by 1-2 % at any cost.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems a proposal to shift back to the original option B may go further. That option was prepared and presented in detail and got positive feedback from the community.

Going back to option B means sending WW back to overcrowded Wheaton, right? And reversing a bunch of un-related changes in Silver Spring? That doesn't make any sense. Why would they propose that rather than just switching the boundaries between WJ and Woodward?