Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's very unfair to Whitman families.

More diversity should be added in Whitman. Leaving it untouched is a missed oppurtunity.

I think the vast majority of Whitman families disagree. Most just won’t publicly admit it.

Well, people buy in Whitman for certain reason. If they wanted diversity then they would have bought some where else.

But to that argument, no school boundaries should change. Any current homeowner who bought into an area that is now being changed has the same argument. And then nothing ever changes. So while I don’t disagree with the premise, it has to only apply to some and not others, so it’s an entirely circular argument. The Whitman families just seem to have extra interest in preserving their status.

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.

Because if you include a broader area in the study, it makes more sense to make more smaller changer than larger sledgehammer changes. if the “entire point” of the study was “where the new school operates” then why was it even in the study? I know heaven forbid Whitman became even slightly more diverse racially or socioeconomically, the horrors.

Because a countywide plan to socially reengineer each and every school was never realistic or feasible. It’s bad messaging and bad PR. And what’s with your preoccupation with Whitman? Seems like it’s tangential at best to managing the impact of Woodward. Should MCPS go out of its way to target Whitman because…reasons? Yeah, let’s stick it to the rich kids because we think they’re entitled and deserve to be knocked down a peg? That seems to be a good use of MCPS’s time and resources.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's very unfair to Whitman families.

More diversity should be added in Whitman. Leaving it untouched is a missed oppurtunity.

I think the vast majority of Whitman families disagree. Most just won’t publicly admit it.

Well, people buy in Whitman for certain reason. If they wanted diversity then they would have bought some where else.

But to that argument, no school boundaries should change. Any current homeowner who bought into an area that is now being changed has the same argument. And then nothing ever changes. So while I don’t disagree with the premise, it has to only apply to some and not others, so it’s an entirely circular argument. The Whitman families just seem to have extra interest in preserving their status.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can some one share the regional magnet programs in Woodward region?

Art, Design, Performing Arts, Communication.

So with 30% FARMS + these programs ---> Very little numbers left for higher level STEM classes. Woodward may not offer good STEM courses.

WJ with 15% FARMS rate should be able to offer good STEM courses despite school size going down.

Every school will offer STEM but Woodward will also be able to go to Wheaton for Engineering. Impressive program.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's very unfair to Whitman families.

More diversity should be added in Whitman. Leaving it untouched is a missed oppurtunity.

I think the vast majority of Whitman families disagree. Most just won’t publicly admit it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can some one share the regional magnet programs in Woodward region?

Art, Design, Performing Arts, Communication.

So with 30% FARMS + these programs ---> Very little numbers left for higher level STEM classes. Woodward may not offer good STEM courses.

WJ with 15% FARMS rate should be able to offer good STEM courses despite school size going down.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's very unfair to Whitman families.

More diversity should be added in Whitman. Leaving it untouched is a missed oppurtunity.

I think the vast majority of Whitman families disagree. Most just won’t publicly admit it.

Well, people buy in Whitman for certain reason. If they wanted diversity then they would have bought some where else.

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.

Because if you include a broader area in the study, it makes more sense to make more smaller changer than larger sledgehammer changes. if the “entire point” of the study was “where the new school operates” then why was it even in the study? I know heaven forbid Whitman became even slightly more diverse racially or socioeconomically, the horrors.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's very unfair to Whitman families.

More diversity should be added in Whitman. Leaving it untouched is a missed oppurtunity.

But do non-white, lower income folks even want to go to Whitman?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's very unfair to Whitman families.

More diversity should be added in Whitman. Leaving it untouched is a missed oppurtunity.

I think the vast majority of Whitman families disagree. Most just won’t publicly admit it.

Anonymous wrote:It's very unfair to Whitman families.

More diversity should be added in Whitman. Leaving it untouched is a missed oppurtunity.

Anonymous wrote:It's very unfair to Whitman families.

More diversity should be added in Whitman. Leaving it untouched is a missed oppurtunity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can some one share the regional magnet programs in Woodward region?

Art, Design, Performing Arts, Communication.

Anonymous wrote:It's very unfair to Whitman families.

More diversity should be added in Whitman. Leaving it untouched is a missed oppurtunity.