Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does Wheaton woods want??

Woodward

I remember in the Wheaton cluster testimony they said Wheaton Woods wanted to stay at Wheaton.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does Wheaton woods want??

Woodward

I remember in the Wheaton cluster testimony they said Wheaton Woods wanted to stay at Wheaton.

Of course, nobody wants to be the ones that move to alleviate overcrowding for others, but it has to be done. Even with the Superintendent's recommendation Wheaton will still be over its capacity of 2200 which is listed in the CIP

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how the rich white neighborhood clamoring for 'equity' and local press buys that storyline. I guess that's why Taylor paused the slides for the 'media' but they neglected to report on the updates from the work session.

https://bethesdamagazine.com/2026/03/04/woodward-boundaries/

"Roughly 2,150 people in the Woodward community also signed a petition advocating for more “parity and equity” between the new school and Walter Johnson."


62% of supporters come from: 20852, 20850, 20814. See https://www.change.org/p/parity-and-equity-between-wj-and-woodward-hs. Who are the 38%? Just spambots?

They might be taken more seriously if they insisted that Kennedy, Blake, Magruder, Woodward...and every other school were given that parity and equity.

What makes you think they don’t feel that way?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a parent and a teacher, avoiding splitting elementary schools should be a huge priority. For that matter, this situation allows you to avoid splitting ES and MS. It seems obvious that GPES and KP should each go as an entire school to one of the HS. VM and WW should each go to one of HS.

Splitting elementary/middle school students has the potential for a negative social emotional impact.

Yes. And, I was on the committee that met prior to all of this nonsense being released. We repeatedly told Flo and the MCPS staff to avoid split articulation. They ignored us, they do not care

But that's what the upcoming elementary boundary study is for, in part, to fix split articulations.

Half of GPES will be going to Woodward. There is no way to avoid split articulation with Garrett Park and estates going to WJ. GP made its choice but it won’t be easy to fix articulation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how the rich white neighborhood clamoring for 'equity' and local press buys that storyline. I guess that's why Taylor paused the slides for the 'media' but they neglected to report on the updates from the work session.

https://bethesdamagazine.com/2026/03/04/woodward-boundaries/

"Roughly 2,150 people in the Woodward community also signed a petition advocating for more “parity and equity” between the new school and Walter Johnson."


62% of supporters come from: 20852, 20850, 20814. See https://www.change.org/p/parity-and-equity-between-wj-and-woodward-hs. Who are the 38%? Just spambots?

They might be taken more seriously if they insisted that Kennedy, Blake, Magruder, Woodward...and every other school were given that parity and equity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does Wheaton woods want??

Woodward

I remember in the Wheaton cluster testimony they said Wheaton Woods wanted to stay at Wheaton.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a parent and a teacher, avoiding splitting elementary schools should be a huge priority. For that matter, this situation allows you to avoid splitting ES and MS. It seems obvious that GPES and KP should each go as an entire school to one of the HS. VM and WW should each go to one of HS.

Splitting elementary/middle school students has the potential for a negative social emotional impact.

Yes. And, I was on the committee that met prior to all of this nonsense being released. We repeatedly told Flo and the MCPS staff to avoid split articulation. They ignored us, they do not care

But that's what the upcoming elementary boundary study is for, in part, to fix split articulations.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does Wheaton woods want??

Woodward

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a parent and a teacher, avoiding splitting elementary schools should be a huge priority. For that matter, this situation allows you to avoid splitting ES and MS. It seems obvious that GPES and KP should each go as an entire school to one of the HS. VM and WW should each go to one of HS.

Splitting elementary/middle school students has the potential for a negative social emotional impact.

Yes. And, I was on the committee that met prior to all of this nonsense being released. We repeatedly told Flo and the MCPS staff to avoid split articulation. They ignored us, they do not care

Anonymous wrote:As a parent and a teacher, avoiding splitting elementary schools should be a huge priority. For that matter, this situation allows you to avoid splitting ES and MS. It seems obvious that GPES and KP should each go as an entire school to one of the HS. VM and WW should each go to one of HS.

Splitting elementary/middle school students has the potential for a negative social emotional impact.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The board must recognize that the superintendent's proposal is deeply flawed and will have to modify it in some shape of form. This is not just because of FARMS divide but because WJ being less utilized than Woodward makes no sense. They just presented a slide that shows that there is more upcoming development in Woodward than WJ, significantly more.

So the only rationale to underutilize WJ is belief that everybody will be applying to magnets in WJ and very few to other magnets in that region. But that is the same as saying - hey, we know that most of our magnets will be terrible. Not to mention that it will further concentrate advanced students in just one school.

You ignore currently existing housing in both zones. It isn’t like the only kids come from possible new housing…. And the 100 new unit disparity accounts for about 14 high school kids at a given time according to those slides and multipliers.

You also ignore wear and tear on the older facility that has been above capacity for a decade+ where as we spent hundreds of millions on a brand new facility with a lower depreciation factor

Yea WJ could be the next Wootton with the way MCPS maintains buildings…only no new school will be built.

The new school is already here. Woodward was opened specifically to address overcrowding at WJ. But you are saying that is not enough and they should also go easy on old WJ building because of wear and tear and keep it significantly under capacity. You are pushing it. Even CO sees it and that is why they spent some time in the presentation talking about building number projections. WJ is not the only old school in the county.

Exactly. No reason for Woodward to be under capacity at 76.5%. The heat map of students didn’t illustrate Woodward would be over crowded. In fact the kids are at Wheaton so why make them crowded? Build a new school and don’t use it? The Superintendent stood by his original recommendation.

He also said that he will support the alternative if BOA selects it and mentioned its several positive features. It is all in the video (around 2:55).

“We still standby the recommendation that is in front of you….”-MCPS staff

“Just want to elevate one feature here, we absolutely standby the recommendation that has been made…”-Taylor

Selective editing. Again, if one wants to get a feel for where this is going they should watch the video and make their own judgment. The slide about the Alternative is titled "We ARE Listening". They wouldn't call it that if CO doesn't believe in it. It will be on BOE to endorse one of the two options or come up with the third one.

How can they come up with a third one at this point? No one proposed one at the work session, and the last two public hearings are next Monday and Tuesday. They can't introduce another option at next Thursday's work session without scheduling more public hearings to discuss them, can they? And wouldn't they gave introduced it yesterday if someone was going to?

Can they do so at the March 9 or 10 CIP hearings?

March 12 is just a work session.

Why would they do it at a public hearing? They barely talk during those, it's almost all public testimony. The work sessions are the actual meetings, so wouldn't those be the place where they'd vote to introduce an alternative if they were going to?

Anonymous wrote:What does Wheaton woods want??

Anonymous wrote:As a parent and a teacher, avoiding splitting elementary schools should be a huge priority. For that matter, this situation allows you to avoid splitting ES and MS. It seems obvious that GPES and KP should each go as an entire school to one of the HS. VM and WW should each go to one of HS.

Splitting elementary/middle school students has the potential for a negative social emotional impact.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The board must recognize that the superintendent's proposal is deeply flawed and will have to modify it in some shape of form. This is not just because of FARMS divide but because WJ being less utilized than Woodward makes no sense. They just presented a slide that shows that there is more upcoming development in Woodward than WJ, significantly more.

So the only rationale to underutilize WJ is belief that everybody will be applying to magnets in WJ and very few to other magnets in that region. But that is the same as saying - hey, we know that most of our magnets will be terrible. Not to mention that it will further concentrate advanced students in just one school.

You ignore currently existing housing in both zones. It isn’t like the only kids come from possible new housing…. And the 100 new unit disparity accounts for about 14 high school kids at a given time according to those slides and multipliers.

You also ignore wear and tear on the older facility that has been above capacity for a decade+ where as we spent hundreds of millions on a brand new facility with a lower depreciation factor

Yea WJ could be the next Wootton with the way MCPS maintains buildings…only no new school will be built.

The new school is already here. Woodward was opened specifically to address overcrowding at WJ. But you are saying that is not enough and they should also go easy on old WJ building because of wear and tear and keep it significantly under capacity. You are pushing it. Even CO sees it and that is why they spent some time in the presentation talking about building number projections. WJ is not the only old school in the county.

Exactly. No reason for Woodward to be under capacity at 76.5%. The heat map of students didn’t illustrate Woodward would be over crowded. In fact the kids are at Wheaton so why make them crowded? Build a new school and don’t use it? The Superintendent stood by his original recommendation.

He also said that he will support the alternative if BOA selects it and mentioned its several positive features. It is all in the video (around 2:55).

“We still standby the recommendation that is in front of you….”-MCPS staff

“Just want to elevate one feature here, we absolutely standby the recommendation that has been made…”-Taylor

Selective editing. Again, if one wants to get a feel for where this is going they should watch the video and make their own judgment. The slide about the Alternative is titled "We ARE Listening". They wouldn't call it that if CO doesn't believe in it. It will be on BOE to endorse one of the two options or come up with the third one.

How can they come up with a third one at this point? No one proposed one at the work session, and the last two public hearings are next Monday and Tuesday. They can't introduce another option at next Thursday's work session without scheduling more public hearings to discuss them, can they? And wouldn't they gave introduced it yesterday if someone was going to?

Can they do so at the March 9 or 10 CIP hearings?

March 12 is just a work session.