Has anyone been able to figure out some shorthand for understanding the goals of each option? I.e. are there some that minimize split articulation, some that balance building utilization more equally, etc?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And despite assuming this extra capacity at Wheaton that doesn't yet exist, they still leave Wheaton overcrowded over that inflated number. Wow.

Yup and WJ is now at sub 80% capacity. Shows what they care about.

Exactly. I am completely fine with all the options for my kid and how it affects my family (we're not zoned for Wheaton), but as a taxpayer this is absolutely maddening. Such a blatant disregard for fiscal responsibility in a time of massive fiscal uncertainty. MCPS administrators are like children who think money grows on trees. Then they will come crying to taxpayers begging them to pay more while thousands are out of work and have possibly left the region entirely.

Or maybe lots of WHJ-zoned families will return to the public school, once the out of control overcrowding is finally fixed. Many in my neighborhood go to private schools in order to avoid over-crowded WJ. Now they will once again have reasonable access to their tax-funded local school.

So in this scenario WJ is at capacity and Wheaton wildly overcrowded. Nice!

And BCC and Whitman are untouched.

If they're untouched why are their utilization percentages changing?

So? What’s your point? They’re basically unchanged from their current demographics. These options try to minimize the overall impact to areas not affected by the new school. That’s the point. Also, MCPS clearly saw these well funded, well organized parents push back on material changes to their clusters and the Board caved. Are you surprised?

There is nothing wrong about that. What’s really wrong is trying to social engineer and impact more people than necessary.

PP and I agree. I’m questioning the posters who are miffed that Whitman or BCC aren’t “affected” as if that was the entire point of this study rather than focusing the impact on the area where the new school operates. It reads like sour grapes.

It reads like sour grapes to you because you think the school system is supposed to serve your community and not mine, and dgaf about the continued overcrowding in East county they are proposing

So where’s the well organized and funded push back from the DCC? What do you want? Forced busing and non contiguous clusters? Elimination of clusters entirely and countywide lottery? Instead of complaining, try suggesting something feasible recognizing that when you pull on one string, you affect many others. Oh, and maybe this isn’t the study to do that since the focus is on Woodward, not the DCC. Trying to solve all of the county’s issues at once isn’t always possible.

People who used the term "forced busing" in this context are POSs

Bye

Not clear whether the data sets include new programs or not. They did not address that on the webinar.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They will never make everyone happy but these options make the most sense. Also there is supposed to be a demographic cliff at some point, with fewer children being born resulting of course in fewer students in our schools.

Except on facility utilization and demographics, two of the four factors and these options are terrible on these

Might as well give up on trying to equalize demographics unless you want super long bus rides for poor kids.

Or change housing policy.

No, they could have done better instead of making everything worse. There is zero excuse, by the way, for 2 schools within a mile of each other to have such vastly different FARMS rates

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They will never make everyone happy but these options make the most sense. Also there is supposed to be a demographic cliff at some point, with fewer children being born resulting of course in fewer students in our schools.

Except on facility utilization and demographics, two of the four factors and these options are terrible on these

Might as well give up on trying to equalize demographics unless you want super long bus rides for poor kids.

Or change housing policy.

And most poor kids and their families want to attend the local school. Just like the rich kids. Funny how that works.

Anonymous wrote:Einstein zoned family here. All of these options increase FARMS (Option C in particular) and as previously noted the programming changes will likely result in existing specialty programs wilting on the vine. Such a shame - the school in the past several years had been a success story but that seems unlikely to continue.

I noticed this as well.

Anonymous wrote:Is there an assumption that regional magnets program will have same number of seats in each school? How that is incoroporated in these numbers for utilization etc.

Yeah. MCPS is assuming all regional magnets will operate at capacity so those numbers will balance out.

That won’t happen, though. Some schools will lose more students than they gain. And some schools will max their magnet enrollment and retain home school students if the magnets mean better classes for the whole school. That’s what happens with Blair now. DCC kids don’t get in through the lottery because all the Blair-zoned choose it and home-school students get priority in the lottery. So you’ll see schools where no one leaves and the magnets are full. You'll see other schools where no one comes, and home-school students leave for other magnets.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They will never make everyone happy but these options make the most sense. Also there is supposed to be a demographic cliff at some point, with fewer children being born resulting of course in fewer students in our schools.

Except on facility utilization and demographics, two of the four factors and these options are terrible on these

Might as well give up on trying to equalize demographics unless you want super long bus rides for poor kids.

Or change housing policy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And despite assuming this extra capacity at Wheaton that doesn't yet exist, they still leave Wheaton overcrowded over that inflated number. Wow.

Yup and WJ is now at sub 80% capacity. Shows what they care about.

Exactly. I am completely fine with all the options for my kid and how it affects my family (we're not zoned for Wheaton), but as a taxpayer this is absolutely maddening. Such a blatant disregard for fiscal responsibility in a time of massive fiscal uncertainty. MCPS administrators are like children who think money grows on trees. Then they will come crying to taxpayers begging them to pay more while thousands are out of work and have possibly left the region entirely.

Or maybe lots of WHJ-zoned families will return to the public school, once the out of control overcrowding is finally fixed. Many in my neighborhood go to private schools in order to avoid over-crowded WJ. Now they will once again have reasonable access to their tax-funded local school.

So in this scenario WJ is at capacity and Wheaton wildly overcrowded. Nice!

And BCC and Whitman are untouched.

If they're untouched why are their utilization percentages changing?

So? What’s your point? They’re basically unchanged from their current demographics. These options try to minimize the overall impact to areas not affected by the new school. That’s the point. Also, MCPS clearly saw these well funded, well organized parents push back on material changes to their clusters and the Board caved. Are you surprised?

There is nothing wrong about that. What’s really wrong is trying to social engineer and impact more people than necessary.

PP and I agree. I’m questioning the posters who are miffed that Whitman or BCC aren’t “affected” as if that was the entire point of this study rather than focusing the impact on the area where the new school operates. It reads like sour grapes.

It reads like sour grapes to you because you think the school system is supposed to serve your community and not mine, and dgaf about the continued overcrowding in East county they are proposing

So where’s the well organized and funded push back from the DCC? What do you want? Forced busing and non contiguous clusters? Elimination of clusters entirely and countywide lottery? Instead of complaining, try suggesting something feasible recognizing that when you pull on one string, you affect many others. Oh, and maybe this isn’t the study to do that since the focus is on Woodward, not the DCC. Trying to solve all of the county’s issues at once isn’t always possible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And despite assuming this extra capacity at Wheaton that doesn't yet exist, they still leave Wheaton overcrowded over that inflated number. Wow.

Option D has Wheaton at 94.5%

So what percentage is that of the CURRENT capacity of Wheaton HS? WHAT IS THE COST OF EXPANDING WHEATON HS?

According to the data tables, current capacity is 2,720, including Edison.

That's not the current capacity. Wheaton HS is overcrowded right now and they are just pretending it isn't and being intentionally vague about Edison.

I checked MCPS data dashboards for Wheaton and Edison. This say capacity for Wheaton is 2251 and capacity for Edison is 1000. The enrollment numbers there are for 23-24. they say Wheaton was at 2747 and Edison is at 968. I don’t know how many Edison students are also Wheaton students.

Whatever the case, MCPS isn’t relieving crowding there.

https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiNzk1ODM4OTEtNTdmZS00ZWEwLThkZDctYzhiZmQyNDMxNmZiIiwidCI6ImRkZjc1NWU5LWJjZDYtNGE1ZS1hNDcyLTdjMzc4YTc4YzZjNyIsImMiOjF9

https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiNWY4ODhiMmUtNTcwNi00NjEwLTgxZjQtMDQ5MzA1NDQ4MDI3IiwidCI6ImRkZjc1NWU5LWJjZDYtNGE1ZS1hNDcyLTdjMzc4YTc4YzZjNyIsImMiOjF9

Is there an assumption that regional magnets program will have same number of seats in each school? How that is incoroporated in these numbers for utilization etc.

Anonymous wrote:They will never make everyone happy but these options make the most sense. Also there is supposed to be a demographic cliff at some point, with fewer children being born resulting of course in fewer students in our schools.

Except on facility utilization and demographics, two of the four factors and these options are terrible on these

They will never make everyone happy but these options make the most sense. Also there is supposed to be a demographic cliff at some point, with fewer children being born resulting of course in fewer students in our schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And despite assuming this extra capacity at Wheaton that doesn't yet exist, they still leave Wheaton overcrowded over that inflated number. Wow.

Yup and WJ is now at sub 80% capacity. Shows what they care about.

Exactly. I am completely fine with all the options for my kid and how it affects my family (we're not zoned for Wheaton), but as a taxpayer this is absolutely maddening. Such a blatant disregard for fiscal responsibility in a time of massive fiscal uncertainty. MCPS administrators are like children who think money grows on trees. Then they will come crying to taxpayers begging them to pay more while thousands are out of work and have possibly left the region entirely.

Or maybe lots of WHJ-zoned families will return to the public school, once the out of control overcrowding is finally fixed. Many in my neighborhood go to private schools in order to avoid over-crowded WJ. Now they will once again have reasonable access to their tax-funded local school.

So in this scenario WJ is at capacity and Wheaton wildly overcrowded. Nice!

And BCC and Whitman are untouched.

If they're untouched why are their utilization percentages changing?

So? What’s your point? They’re basically unchanged from their current demographics. These options try to minimize the overall impact to areas not affected by the new school. That’s the point. Also, MCPS clearly saw these well funded, well organized parents push back on material changes to their clusters and the Board caved. Are you surprised?

There is nothing wrong about that. What’s really wrong is trying to social engineer and impact more people than necessary.

PP and I agree. I’m questioning the posters who are miffed that Whitman or BCC aren’t “affected” as if that was the entire point of this study rather than focusing the impact on the area where the new school operates. It reads like sour grapes.

It reads like sour grapes to you because you think the school system is supposed to serve your community and not mine, and dgaf about the continued overcrowding in East county they are proposing

Blair will still be over capacity in 3 options.