Woodward is likely to be included in DCC. I will avoid it if house price is your concern.

Stop trying to make the “W” thing happen. Just because WJ starts with the same letter as Whitman, does not put it on par with Whitman.

Also, agree that diversity is about more than race and no, Hispanic is absolutely not a race. I assume the PP was talking about minority hispanics, not white hispanics.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also get skeptical when people say they picked a W school for the diversity like the poster above. As if the one or two points greater than Whitman makes a difference. If they wanted diversity I suspect they wouldn’t have picked a W

Majority Hispanic is as diverse as another school with majority white, but posters like you think former is diverse and later is not diverse.

You are confusing race with ethnicity. I know many who are both Hispanic and white (and also very wealthy and educated).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also get skeptical when people say they picked a W school for the diversity like the poster above. As if the one or two points greater than Whitman makes a difference. If they wanted diversity I suspect they wouldn’t have picked a W

Now on the other hand they were all about the discount over Whitman and the not being in a consortium, how would I say that and not make myself look cheap or scared....ah yes diversity

WJ is 54% white. Whitman is almost 67%. It's ok to want diversity and to also value other factors, which might lead to choosing a school like WJ.

Diversity is not just about skin color either. WJ seems to be less full of snobby, entitled kids than Whitman...white or otherwise. I don't want DD dating dude bros in critter shorts, sorry.

Anonymous wrote:I also get skeptical when people say they picked a W school for the diversity like the poster above. As if the one or two points greater than Whitman makes a difference. If they wanted diversity I suspect they wouldn’t have picked a W

Now on the other hand they were all about the discount over Whitman and the not being in a consortium, how would I say that and not make myself look cheap or scared....ah yes diversity

Well, I'm the immediate PP you're responding to, and I can't speak for other people, but we had a limited set of clusters that worked for us on all fronts -- housing cost (especially given when we moved here), commutes for two working parents going in two different directions, one driving and one taking Metro, neighborhoods/communities we were looking for, etc. But yes, given that there were several clusters that would have worked for us, and having lived in this area before so knowing something about the diversity or lack thereof in particular clusters, the diversity of WJ was one factor in making the choice of where to live. Not the only factor but one factor.

Anonymous wrote:I also get skeptical when people say they picked a W school for the diversity like the poster above. As if the one or two points greater than Whitman makes a difference. If they wanted diversity I suspect they wouldn’t have picked a W

Now on the other hand they were all about the discount over Whitman and the not being in a consortium, how would I say that and not make myself look cheap or scared....ah yes diversity

WJ is 54% white. Whitman is almost 67%. It's ok to want diversity and to also value other factors, which might lead to choosing a school like WJ.

Anonymous wrote:I also get skeptical when people say they picked a W school for the diversity like the poster above. As if the one or two points greater than Whitman makes a difference. If they wanted diversity I suspect they wouldn’t have picked a W

Majority Hispanic is as diverse as another school with majority white, but posters like you think former is diverse and later is not diverse.

I also get skeptical when people say they picked a W school for the diversity like the poster above. As if the one or two points greater than Whitman makes a difference. If they wanted diversity I suspect they wouldn’t have picked a W

Now on the other hand they were all about the discount over Whitman and the not being in a consortium, how would I say that and not make myself look cheap or scared....ah yes diversity

I think there are legitimate, non-racist concerns for those of us who are currently in-boundary for WJ but are likely to get rezoned to Woodward.

My biggest concerns are with the quality of the personnel -- the teachers and the administrators. We have been extremely pleased with both at WJ. There's going to be a learning curve and integration period for a new administration and new set of teachers, and my younger kids are going to be the guinea pigs for that period. And there's no guarantee that Woodward will get great teachers and great administrators. We've had some negative experiences with teachers and administrators at the elementary and middle school levels. WJ is a known quantity.

WJ also has classes, programs and sport/club opportunities that are not likely to be offered at Woodward. So our younger kids are not likely to have the same opportunities that our older kids did at WJ.

I'm not worried about test scores of the school, because my kids will do fine. I'm also not worried about housing values. But I am worried about whether Woodward will be a good high school. You certainly can't assume that it will be a strong high school because it will continue to pull from neighborhoods that currently go to WJ -- in my view it's all about the teachers, administrators, class offerings, and extracurriculars available that feed into the quality of the school, not just the student body (and their parents).

One of the reasons we picked the WJ cluster over somewhere like Whitman is that we would rather our kids be in better integrated schools. So whether or not some people have thinly veiled racist issues about rezoning -- to call all rezoning concerns thinly veiled racism is a straw man and far, far too simplistic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go with Churchill. It has a safe boundary.

Wouldn't that depend on where in the Churchill zone? Anytime you are near an existing border, there is a chance that things could shift and you would find yourself in a different zone. Or do you mean that, even if you got switched, the surrounding schools are also good so it wouldn't matter?

All of this assumes that MoCo won't adopt more radical rezoning, less tied to geography, something that strikes me as becoming more plausible given the substantial focus on "equity."

Well for now, Churchill is not included as part of Woodward boundary study. I mainly meant that. Focus on equity may change with new board members getting elected and anyway even among older board members, only 3 of them walk the talk and rest of them just talk about equity.

Anonymous wrote:Go with Churchill. It has a safe boundary.

Wouldn't that depend on where in the Churchill zone? Anytime you are near an existing border, there is a chance that things could shift and you would find yourself in a different zone. Or do you mean that, even if you got switched, the surrounding schools are also good so it wouldn't matter?

All of this assumes that MoCo won't adopt more radical rezoning, less tied to geography, something that strikes me as becoming more plausible given the substantial focus on "equity."

Go with Churchill. It has a safe boundary.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To all the people who believe they’re not racist but just “don’t want to lose money” on their home. Consider that the exact same thing could have been (and was) said by all the whites decades ago who left neighborhoods or started avoiding neighborhoods as soon as a black family moved in. There goes the neighborhood! They weren’t “racist” of course, they just saw that black people moving in meant the area would be decrease in value as a result so best to pack up and leave. Perhaps we all have to be willing to have our finances adversely affected a bit to change our society in ways we (liberals) claim to want?

Your solution is to have buyers overpay in WJ to not appear racist? Bravo for linking people not wanting to lose money in housing to being racist.

You’re not “overpaying.” That you think so is the problem. If your only gauge is your home value, then, yeah, you’re enabling racism and no different from the overt racist white flighters of the past.

Not the PP, but you are not making any sense here. Why anyone want to pay 800K knowingly that prices will be 700K after school is not in WJ? Also you think it's racism? Get a life.

+1

Some posters can't get a simple idea that not many families are rich enough to not care about losing 100K.

I don’t think that is it. I think with the avg black wealth so low that the majority of minorities don’t care about white people losing 100k. Taking the “serves them right” stance.

One would grow old waiting on poor minorities to feel bad about white people losing 100k

It may not be black or white issue. I think many posters wrongly assume that loosing 100K is a small issue for all families in WJ.

Conversely, the 100k will really come in handy when we're rezoned from Einstein to Woodward.

The people who got a seat on the life boats when the titanic sunk sure were lucky. But high fiving about it was in poor taste

True, but I don't think previous PP said it seriously.

Anonymous wrote:The situation for poor minorities will not be changed whether more white people end up at Woodward or stay at WJ. The way MCPS addresses "integration" is disgusting and only about improving MCPS numbers and external perception. MCPS does nothing to help the poor minorities in the schools once they can mask their lower scores by moving UMC white kids into the school. Its horrible that the performance of URM students has not only NOT improved but declined while MCPS only focuses on finding ways to lure white families into the area to prop up scores.

So sure give up 100K to help MCPS look better, great investment.

URM students in MCPS actually outperform URM students around the county. MCPS has numerous programs to support student performance (Saturday School, minority scholars program, mentorship programs, ELO Sail, ACES, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To all the people who believe they’re not racist but just “don’t want to lose money” on their home. Consider that the exact same thing could have been (and was) said by all the whites decades ago who left neighborhoods or started avoiding neighborhoods as soon as a black family moved in. There goes the neighborhood! They weren’t “racist” of course, they just saw that black people moving in meant the area would be decrease in value as a result so best to pack up and leave. Perhaps we all have to be willing to have our finances adversely affected a bit to change our society in ways we (liberals) claim to want?

Your solution is to have buyers overpay in WJ to not appear racist? Bravo for linking people not wanting to lose money in housing to being racist.

You’re not “overpaying.” That you think so is the problem. If your only gauge is your home value, then, yeah, you’re enabling racism and no different from the overt racist white flighters of the past.

Not the PP, but you are not making any sense here. Why anyone want to pay 800K knowingly that prices will be 700K after school is not in WJ? Also you think it's racism? Get a life.

+1

Some posters can't get a simple idea that not many families are rich enough to not care about losing 100K.

I don’t think that is it. I think with the avg black wealth so low that the majority of minorities don’t care about white people losing 100k. Taking the “serves them right” stance.

One would grow old waiting on poor minorities to feel bad about white people losing 100k

It may not be black or white issue. I think many posters wrongly assume that loosing 100K is a small issue for all families in WJ.

Conversely, the 100k will really come in handy when we're rezoned from Einstein to Woodward.

The people who got a seat on the life boats when the titanic sunk sure were lucky. But high fiving about it was in poor taste