Taylor's Feb Rec for Crown Boundary Study

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If all of this is true, then why not go through the process of closing Wootton, following state law etc?

It's much more efficient to relocate one school than to close one old one and open one new one.

Then call it what it is. A school closure and follow process (whatever that may be). Let’s do this right.

Of course, that will mean more meetings and more work, but that’s not really the standard here.

Does that mean all the Parkway parents will be on board? Does that mean people won’t say nasty, even racist things?

No, but process still must be followed. Democracy at its best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me, seems more like this is less about they did do and more about what they didn’t do, especially relative to prior practice.

So what didn’t they do? Parent associations doing grassroots efforts doesn’t count.

Compare to Woodward/WJ and Silver Creek. So much feedback and collaboration.

I do not see any specific thing that is different in this scenario.

When did option h first come up? Reopening Woodward has been discussed for at least a decade (or close to it).

So you're assertion is that the process should simply take longer?

And Woodward is a lot different situation- what we have today is a nearly finished brand new building and a crumbling one. Not the same scenario.

The process needs to be collaborative and obtain feedback. That’s what makes MCPS great. I don’t know how long that takes but I can tell from these posts that Wootton families don’t think that is happening here.

The assertion that they are not obtaining feedback makes me chuckle. There have been multiple hearings with many many people sharing feedback, as well as websites, petitions, and email campaigns.

There is a difference between hearing feedback and acquiescing to a certain portion of that feedback.

DP. Obtaining feedback and addressing it are two different things. The latter doesn't need to mean acquiescence, but it should support some meaningful community agency. The former, which is what MCPS had done in pretty much all of those meetings (look at the milquetoast FAQ vs. the detail and nuance of questions asked to which they provided no effective explanation or rejoinder, if they deigned ), just checks a box.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me, seems more like this is less about they did do and more about what they didn’t do, especially relative to prior practice.

Prior BOE members never would have stood for this. You know who I’m talking about, Pat is not the only one, but she really understood how things work and are supposed to work. They were good at this type of pushback and holding MCPS to task.

They only stood up like that for communities on the right side of the tracks. See the aforementioned Woodward HS & Silver Creek MS, each of which could have served so much more equitably, but also Potomac ES and the like. Wootton to Crown is the first time in recent memory that a well heeled community has had it done to them instead of done for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me, seems more like this is less about they did do and more about what they didn’t do, especially relative to prior practice.

Prior BOE members never would have stood for this. You know who I’m talking about, Pat is not the only one, but she really understood how things work and are supposed to work. They were good at this type of pushback and holding MCPS to task.

They only stood up like that for communities on the right side of the tracks. See the aforementioned Woodward HS & Silver Creek MS, each of which could have served so much more equitably, but also Potomac ES and the like. Wootton to Crown is the first time in recent memory that a well heeled community has had it done to them instead of done for them.

Stick-it-to them is not an FAA policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me, seems more like this is less about they did do and more about what they didn’t do, especially relative to prior practice.

So what didn’t they do? Parent associations doing grassroots efforts doesn’t count.

Compare to Woodward/WJ and Silver Creek. So much feedback and collaboration.

I do not see any specific thing that is different in this scenario.

When did option h first come up? Reopening Woodward has been discussed for at least a decade (or close to it).

So you're assertion is that the process should simply take longer?

And Woodward is a lot different situation- what we have today is a nearly finished brand new building and a crumbling one. Not the same scenario.

The process needs to be collaborative and obtain feedback. That’s what makes MCPS great. I don’t know how long that takes but I can tell from these posts that Wootton families don’t think that is happening here.

Wootton parent here - the process has sucked and there are 100% things I’d like to see MCPS do above and beyond what they’ve done. But it’s equally clear at this point there’s a super vocal group who are never going to feel satisfied with it unless MCPS gives them what they want. And MCPS can’t give them what they want because there aren’t enough students or money.

Like what?

The initial work group sessions should have been community by community rather than just one (I think?) per study. Would love to see them replicate the board work sessions in communities so that communities members can ask their questions in real time rather than complaining about them on YouTube. They’d also definitely need to lean on family liaisons and other community advocates to do this to make sure they’re getting engagement from every community and not just Wootton. Would also be great to see them do some grassroots problem solving - I don’t think it would have reached everyone who feels mad about this, but how great would it be to have had them do some sessions structured around problems of practice such as: “We have to move Wootton. What are the non-negotiables you need to make sure it still feels like a community?” to give people space to bring up things like teacher, programming, etc. and give MCPS an opportunity to demonstrate responsiveness to reasonable needs.

Ideally, this would have happened up front because at this point, realistically, I think it would be hard to do most of these things without these devolving into just meetings where the MCPS data people get yelled at. But still hopeful they can do this around some of the implementation challenges ahead post-vote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If all of this is true, then why not go through the process of closing Wootton, following state law etc?

It's much more efficient to relocate one school than to close one old one and open one new one.

Then call it what it is. A school closure and follow process (whatever that may be). Let’s do this right.

Of course, that will mean more meetings and more work, but that’s not really the standard here.

Not a closure. No matter how many times you say it, still doesn’t make it true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If all of this is true, then why not go through the process of closing Wootton, following state law etc?

It's much more efficient to relocate one school than to close one old one and open one new one.

Then call it what it is. A school closure and follow process (whatever that may be). Let’s do this right.

Of course, that will mean more meetings and more work, but that’s not really the standard here.

It's a relocation, not a closure. The entire Wootton staff will stay intact and have their same jobs, just in a new building. In a school closure, everyone would need to be involuntarily transferred, and they would be dispersed all over the county.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If all of this is true, then why not go through the process of closing Wootton, following state law etc?

It's much more efficient to relocate one school than to close one old one and open one new one.

Then call it what it is. A school closure and follow process (whatever that may be). Let’s do this right.

Of course, that will mean more meetings and more work, but that’s not really the standard here.

I don’t understand what that gets for people who oppose the move. It doesn’t make sense to me that people complaining about changes to the 3rd best school in the state want this to be a closure rather than a relocation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Happy Saturday y’all. Dufief mom here. I heard my name was dropped last night. No hard feelings about whomever did that - I just want to say having read this very long thread that kids should be 1000000% off limits, period. We keep our heads held high and stick to facts and our various POV. Make our kids proud for advocating for what we think is best for them and our community. Reading these vitriolic petty attacks makes me feel like I’m in a mean girls movie. Yuck.
Anyway, regardless of what the vote is, I am looking forward to the next phase of building bridges with whomever will be at the new Wootton at either location. Even though I support the rec, this process could have been much more thoughtful and solicitous of affected communities. I respect others pursuing in good faith paths they think might give them clarity even if I don’t agree as to the legal merit. Anything we learn that can improve this process for the ES study will be helpful.

Just saying thanks for this post, that’s all!

Especially appreciate the “Even though I support the rec, this process could have been much more thoughtful and solicitous of affected communities. I respect others pursuing in good faith paths they think might give them clarity even if I don’t agree as to the legal merit. Anything we learn that can improve this process for the ES study will be helpful.”

I’ve long said, if this process was done the right way, starting first with the superintendent coming to the cluster before the option came out to explain it first to us OR coming to visit us within the first week or 2, perhaps we wouldn’t be feeling this frustrated. Personally, I could have been convinced to stay out of the way of it even if I don’t agree with it.

But not like this. This was a sham of a process. I do hope the lawsuit will make MCPS tighten up especially for the ES boundary coming up.

You were never guaranteed a specific school when you bought your house. We are all going through redistricting and changes. You make it sound like Wootton is the only one. The difference is we are dealing with it and if we don't like the changes will move or go private. You all brought this upon yourself by saying the building is immediately unsafe. MCPS is giving you a new school. Be grateful. Many of us would jump at the chance for a new school.

DP.

It’s true that nobody is “guaranteed” a specific school assignment. But people absolutely make major life decisions based on stable public infrastructure. When families buy homes near a high school that has been in the same place for decades, it’s reasonable to expect that the school itself isn’t going to be moved miles away. That’s not about entitlement—it’s about relying on long-standing public planning when making the biggest financial investment most people will ever make.

And while a new building sounds great in theory, a new building in a different location isn’t automatically an upgrade. A school isn’t just the physical structure; it’s the role it plays in the surrounding community. A brand-new building in a high-traffic urban area doesn’t replace the value of a neighborhood school that students can reach easily and that families feel connected to.

Finally, saying “just move or go private if you don’t like it” really isn’t a serious answer. Public schools are supposed to serve the communities that already exist around them. If there were planning mistakes, enrollment projection errors, or maintenance decisions that created this situation, those should be addressed directly rather than solved by asking one community to absorb the full impact of losing its neighborhood school.

Holy doppelgangers, Batman! I had to throw water on my face to make sure I hadn't sleep-written this (and all the sequellae), myself. That series of posts even resulted in the "Yawn! TLDR" troll stepping in.

That said, I'd add something about the decision having to be made such that all communities/families/students/teachers/staff within MoCo are reasonably equivalently served with whatever results. There has to be a better overall solution, and while Wootton @ Crown might or might not have been a part of that, there still is the (increasingly remote) possibility that the regional programs plan will be construed to that effect.

[Anonymous]

Our ES closed for renovations several years back and our kids went to a holding school. If we had no set return date to the building with active construction, we absolutely would have considered that a school closure and raised h-e-double hockey sticks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If all of this is true, then why not go through the process of closing Wootton, following state law etc?

It's much more efficient to relocate one school than to close one old one and open one new one.

Then call it what it is. A school closure and follow process (whatever that may be). Let’s do this right.

Of course, that will mean more meetings and more work, but that’s not really the standard here.

I don’t understand what that gets for people who oppose the move. It doesn’t make sense to me that people complaining about changes to the 3rd best school in the state want this to be a closure rather than a relocation.

3rd best means nothing. And, if its so good, why are there so many issues there?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me, seems more like this is less about they did do and more about what they didn’t do, especially relative to prior practice.

Prior BOE members never would have stood for this. You know who I’m talking about, Pat is not the only one, but she really understood how things work and are supposed to work. They were good at this type of pushback and holding MCPS to task.

They only stood up like that for communities on the right side of the tracks. See the aforementioned Woodward HS & Silver Creek MS, each of which could have served so much more equitably, but also Potomac ES and the like. Wootton to Crown is the first time in recent memory that a well heeled community has had it done to them instead of done for them.

Stick-it-to them is not an FAA policy.

It’s not about sticking it to communities, it’s simply what makes most sense given the current situation.

Brown Station and Darnestown are arguably being more screwed than any Wootton feeder by this boundary study. Brown Station in particular, but they’re lower income, their protests have been less vocal, and no one has paid attention to them.

Neither of these schools is having the board “stick-it-to-them.” The fact that you only know what’s happening to one of them says a lot…and a lot about how you’re trying to construe this as uniquely “against a W school” or whatever weird self-victimizing language you try to dress this up in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Happy Saturday y’all. Dufief mom here. I heard my name was dropped last night. No hard feelings about whomever did that - I just want to say having read this very long thread that kids should be 1000000% off limits, period. We keep our heads held high and stick to facts and our various POV. Make our kids proud for advocating for what we think is best for them and our community. Reading these vitriolic petty attacks makes me feel like I’m in a mean girls movie. Yuck.
Anyway, regardless of what the vote is, I am looking forward to the next phase of building bridges with whomever will be at the new Wootton at either location. Even though I support the rec, this process could have been much more thoughtful and solicitous of affected communities. I respect others pursuing in good faith paths they think might give them clarity even if I don’t agree as to the legal merit. Anything we learn that can improve this process for the ES study will be helpful.

Just saying thanks for this post, that’s all!

Especially appreciate the “Even though I support the rec, this process could have been much more thoughtful and solicitous of affected communities. I respect others pursuing in good faith paths they think might give them clarity even if I don’t agree as to the legal merit. Anything we learn that can improve this process for the ES study will be helpful.”

I’ve long said, if this process was done the right way, starting first with the superintendent coming to the cluster before the option came out to explain it first to us OR coming to visit us within the first week or 2, perhaps we wouldn’t be feeling this frustrated. Personally, I could have been convinced to stay out of the way of it even if I don’t agree with it.

But not like this. This was a sham of a process. I do hope the lawsuit will make MCPS tighten up especially for the ES boundary coming up.

You were never guaranteed a specific school when you bought your house. We are all going through redistricting and changes. You make it sound like Wootton is the only one. The difference is we are dealing with it and if we don't like the changes will move or go private. You all brought this upon yourself by saying the building is immediately unsafe. MCPS is giving you a new school. Be grateful. Many of us would jump at the chance for a new school.

DP.

It’s true that nobody is “guaranteed” a specific school assignment. But people absolutely make major life decisions based on stable public infrastructure. When families buy homes near a high school that has been in the same place for decades, it’s reasonable to expect that the school itself isn’t going to be moved miles away. That’s not about entitlement—it’s about relying on long-standing public planning when making the biggest financial investment most people will ever make.

And while a new building sounds great in theory, a new building in a different location isn’t automatically an upgrade. A school isn’t just the physical structure; it’s the role it plays in the surrounding community. A brand-new building in a high-traffic urban area doesn’t replace the value of a neighborhood school that students can reach easily and that families feel connected to.

Finally, saying “just move or go private if you don’t like it” really isn’t a serious answer. Public schools are supposed to serve the communities that already exist around them. If there were planning mistakes, enrollment projection errors, or maintenance decisions that created this situation, those should be addressed directly rather than solved by asking one community to absorb the full impact of losing its neighborhood school.

Holy doppelgangers, Batman! I had to throw water on my face to make sure I hadn't sleep-written this (and all the sequellae), myself. That series of posts even resulted in the "Yawn! TLDR" troll stepping in.

That said, I'd add something about the decision having to be made such that all communities/families/students/teachers/staff within MoCo are reasonably equivalently served with whatever results. There has to be a better overall solution, and while Wootton @ Crown might or might not have been a part of that, there still is the (increasingly remote) possibility that the regional programs plan will be construed to that effect.

That's what you all tell the rest of us, to move or go private if we don't like the situation at our schools, which, sadly, because of this, is our only option. You want families who get 1/4 of what your families get to figure it out and the only change you are getting is a brand new school building and that's not even good enough for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me, seems more like this is less about they did do and more about what they didn’t do, especially relative to prior practice.

Prior BOE members never would have stood for this. You know who I’m talking about, Pat is not the only one, but she really understood how things work and are supposed to work. They were good at this type of pushback and holding MCPS to task.

They only stood up like that for communities on the right side of the tracks. See the aforementioned Woodward HS & Silver Creek MS, each of which could have served so much more equitably, but also Potomac ES and the like. Wootton to Crown is the first time in recent memory that a well heeled community has had it done to them instead of done for them.

Stick-it-to them is not an FAA policy.

True, but diversity and proximity are, and both are better served (overall, not for those walking distance to Wootton) by this. Not sure about continuity or stability. And there's that darn budgetary constraint.

That is to say that "stick-it-to-them" (as in targeting) probably wasn't a factor. That the decision was done to them just means without allowing for their reasonable agency in the process, which is what has been (and continues to be) the case for many other areas of the county.

[Anonymous]

Also take care with the precedent they are setting here, knowing the ES boundary study will follow. Will they “not close” schools then, just leave them empty?