Taylor's Feb Rec for Crown Boundary Study

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, the more dilapidated Wootton feeders. Let's replace Rockville with Gaithersburg.

Tbf the most dilapidated Wootton feeders are DuFief and Stone Mill, which are not in Rockville, but rather “North Potomac” ie Gaithersburg.

Are you trying to troll the school or the people of those schools? Do better.

No. Not at all. Just stating fact. The facility rating for SMES is actually worse than it is for Wootton or Magruder. It needs a major capital investment ASAP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What should have been done that wasn’t done?

Direct, fulsome answers/responses to all of the pointed, nuanced questions asked/issues raised (not just the ones hand picked as easily addressable by gatekeeping moderators),

With all questions/issues and corresponding answers/responses made public for fully informed stakeholder consideration,

With public access to the data/map construction tools used by MCPS/the consultant such that any variation could be equivalently presented for BOE consideration (if they so chose),

With timing to allow for all of that.

If Taylor admitted the current Wootton building would be closed until MCPS finds the money, it would be game over as a school closure because MCPS has to move the boundaries to relocate Wootton’s students to Crown.

He has to move the boundary literally by a few meters and at the same time it accomplishes the goal of removing an attendance island for both Gaithersburg High (Crown) and Wootton (Washingtonian Center). Let’s not be ridiculous. The Washingtonian/Rio people who go to Fallsmead can literally see Crown from their houses.

And the boundary of every school in the study has changed. Even without the move to Crown thinking Wootton’s boundary wouldn’t have changed is silly. Given the express interest in eliminating islands and Wootton’s under capacity, moving Downtown Crown into Wootton even if it remained on the parkway would have been a no brainer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What should have been done that wasn’t done?

No matter what anyone tells you, you’ll assert that it was done, so you don’t really want to know. Wait for the lawsuit, then you’ll have your answer.

Why are you waiting to file the lawsuit? Shouldn't it have been done months ago? No one cares so you threatening it is silly. Just do it already. What about 20 families are involved out of 1600+ students...

Tell me you’re not a lawyer without telling me. Go look up “ripeness” in Blacks Law Dictionary.

How dare you enter this serious forum for serious lawyers without a legal degree. Begone! No helpful knowledge for you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What should have been done that wasn’t done?

Direct, fulsome answers/responses to all of the pointed, nuanced questions asked/issues raised (not just the ones hand picked as easily addressable by gatekeeping moderators),

With all questions/issues and corresponding answers/responses made public for fully informed stakeholder consideration,

With public access to the data/map construction tools used by MCPS/the consultant such that any variation could be equivalently presented for BOE consideration (if they so chose),

With timing to allow for all of that.

If Taylor admitted the current Wootton building would be closed until MCPS finds the money, it would be game over as a school closure because MCPS has to move the boundaries to relocate Wootton’s students to Crown.

The building is unsafe.

Did MCPS declare it so?

Wootton parents said so which is why they are closing the building.

So you believe Wootton parents when it suits you, but you don’t when it doesn’t. Got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What should have been done that wasn’t done?

Direct, fulsome answers/responses to all of the pointed, nuanced questions asked/issues raised (not just the ones hand picked as easily addressable by gatekeeping moderators),

With all questions/issues and corresponding answers/responses made public for fully informed stakeholder consideration,

With public access to the data/map construction tools used by MCPS/the consultant such that any variation could be equivalently presented for BOE consideration (if they so chose),

With timing to allow for all of that.

Thanks for answering. I’m not aware of every question/issue raised that has gone unanswered so I can’t really comment on that without knowing more about what answers the community needs still. I think this is what a lot of us are asking and trying to understand. I haven’t been all the posts asking so there seems to be multiple of us here wondering.

I doubt that there is any obligation or right to public access to those tools or information that you seek.

Timing… sure I guess, if the public really should have more access to this information.

MCPS has all the questions from the online survey, the online meetings and the live meetings (or should have -- they said they were taking down everything asked at the various meetings). I suppose you might go back through every related thread, here, to glean some of what was asked and determine if they were or were not addressed with nuance and clarity, but that would be only a subset (not everything is discussed on DCUM, of course). Maybe you could get an AI agent to do that for you.

Doing only that which is obligatory is box-checking. I was assuming that the question posed, "What should have been done that wasn’t done?" intended to evidence something more meaningful than that. The way they set things up, not even BOE members could play with the model to have any real sense if something would be feasible before proposing it.

This is despite repeated attestation by MCPS that BOE-proposed alternatives were the only way out of the Superintendent's recommendation (aside from flat rejection, which would be a disaster in and of itself). The back & forth of hearing stakeholder thoughts, a BOE member requesting MCPS investigate, having that come back not modeled with fidelity to the stakeholders' thoughts, the stakeholders pointing this out, a BOE member requesting an adjustment, etc., etc., necessary to produce something that might pass muster would have taken many, many months, months they and the BOE didn't have, months that were unnecessary if the underlying data (if not the planning tool) were made publicly available for independent construction of an option, and they knew that from the get-go last spring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What should have been done that wasn’t done?

Direct, fulsome answers/responses to all of the pointed, nuanced questions asked/issues raised (not just the ones hand picked as easily addressable by gatekeeping moderators),

With all questions/issues and corresponding answers/responses made public for fully informed stakeholder consideration,

With public access to the data/map construction tools used by MCPS/the consultant such that any variation could be equivalently presented for BOE consideration (if they so chose),

With timing to allow for all of that.

Thanks for answering. I’m not aware of every question/issue raised that has gone unanswered so I can’t really comment on that without knowing more about what answers the community needs still. I think this is what a lot of us are asking and trying to understand. I haven’t been all the posts asking so there seems to be multiple of us here wondering.

I doubt that there is any obligation or right to public access to those tools or information that you seek.

Timing… sure I guess, if the public really should have more access to this information.

MCPS has all the questions from the online survey, the online meetings and the live meetings (or should have -- they said they were taking down everything asked at the various meetings). I suppose you might go back through every related thread, here, to glean some of what was asked and determine if they were or were not addressed with nuance and clarity, but that would be only a subset (not everything is discussed on DCUM, of course). Maybe you could get an AI agent to do that for you.

Doing only that which is obligatory is box-checking. I was assuming that the question posed, "What should have been done that wasn’t done?" intended to evidence something more meaningful than that. The way they set things up, not even BOE members could play with the model to have any real sense if something would be feasible before proposing it.

This is despite repeated attestation by MCPS that BOE-proposed alternatives were the only way out of the Superintendent's recommendation (aside from flat rejection, which would be a disaster in and of itself). The back & forth of hearing stakeholder thoughts, a BOE member requesting MCPS investigate, having that come back not modeled with fidelity to the stakeholders' thoughts, the stakeholders pointing this out, a BOE member requesting an adjustment, etc., etc., necessary to produce something that might pass muster would have taken many, many months, months they and the BOE didn't have, months that were unnecessary if the underlying data (if not the planning tool) were made publicly available for independent construction of an option, and they knew that from the get-go last spring.

DP.

The issue many people are raising is that the analytical capability stayed entirely inside MCPS. The district controlled the data, the modeling tool, and the scenarios that were evaluated. As you pointed out, even members of the Board of Education apparently couldn’t interact directly with the model or test ideas themselves. That means the only alternatives that could realistically move forward were the ones MCPS chose to analyze. When the same entity that produced the recommendation also controls the modeling used to evaluate alternatives, it naturally creates skepticism about whether other options were fully explored.

So the criticism isn’t just that the process could have had “more meetings.” It’s that the structure of the process limited the ability of anyone outside MCPS to meaningfully test or develop alternatives, even though the district knew months ago that the BOE might want to consider options beyond the superintendent’s recommendation. When a decision reshapes the geography of multiple high schools for decades, people expect a process where the analysis is more transparent and the ability to evaluate alternatives isn’t confined to one institution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What should have been done that wasn’t done?

Direct, fulsome answers/responses to all of the pointed, nuanced questions asked/issues raised (not just the ones hand picked as easily addressable by gatekeeping moderators),

With all questions/issues and corresponding answers/responses made public for fully informed stakeholder consideration,

With public access to the data/map construction tools used by MCPS/the consultant such that any variation could be equivalently presented for BOE consideration (if they so chose),

With timing to allow for all of that.

If Taylor admitted the current Wootton building would be closed until MCPS finds the money, it would be game over as a school closure because MCPS has to move the boundaries to relocate Wootton’s students to Crown.

The building is unsafe.

Did MCPS declare it so?

Wootton parents said so which is why they are closing the building.

So you believe Wootton parents when it suits you, but you don’t when it doesn’t. Got it.

Yes, we believe them when they say the physical building is not safe. That's why they got so lucky to be given a new building.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What should have been done that wasn’t done?

Direct, fulsome answers/responses to all of the pointed, nuanced questions asked/issues raised (not just the ones hand picked as easily addressable by gatekeeping moderators),

With all questions/issues and corresponding answers/responses made public for fully informed stakeholder consideration,

With public access to the data/map construction tools used by MCPS/the consultant such that any variation could be equivalently presented for BOE consideration (if they so chose),

With timing to allow for all of that.

If Taylor admitted the current Wootton building would be closed until MCPS finds the money, it would be game over as a school closure because MCPS has to move the boundaries to relocate Wootton’s students to Crown.

The building is unsafe.

Did MCPS declare it so?

Wootton parents said so which is why they are closing the building.

So you believe Wootton parents when it suits you, but you don’t when it doesn’t. Got it.

Yes, we believe them when they say the physical building is not safe. That's why they got so lucky to be given a new building.

So you believe them when they say that they want remediation of the current building and don’t want the new building?

So you believe them when they say that if Wootton’s current building will be used as a holding school, they should be allowed to stay?

So you believe them when they say that Magruder kids deserve to use Crown as a holding school while their far more unsafe school is renovated?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What should have been done that wasn’t done?

Direct, fulsome answers/responses to all of the pointed, nuanced questions asked/issues raised (not just the ones hand picked as easily addressable by gatekeeping moderators),

With all questions/issues and corresponding answers/responses made public for fully informed stakeholder consideration,

With public access to the data/map construction tools used by MCPS/the consultant such that any variation could be equivalently presented for BOE consideration (if they so chose),

With timing to allow for all of that.

If Taylor admitted the current Wootton building would be closed until MCPS finds the money, it would be game over as a school closure because MCPS has to move the boundaries to relocate Wootton’s students to Crown.

The building is unsafe.

Did MCPS declare it so?

Wootton parents said so which is why they are closing the building.

So you believe Wootton parents when it suits you, but you don’t when it doesn’t. Got it.

Yes, we believe them when they say the physical building is not safe. That's why they got so lucky to be given a new building.

So you believe them when they say that they want remediation of the current building and don’t want the new building?

So you believe them when they say that if Wootton’s current building will be used as a holding school, they should be allowed to stay?

So you believe them when they say that Magruder kids deserve to use Crown as a holding school while their far more unsafe school is renovated?

The question of whether a school is safe or not is pretty matter of fact. Everything else you’ve mentioned (except for Magruder being unsafe) is, on the other hand, about what specific communities desire. We can believe you want that, sure, but we don’t have to have the same desire as you.

[Anonymous]

"What should have been done that wasn’t done?"

Maybe PPs are not part of the lawsuit posters on here but the question was meant to be asked in that context so my apologies. Did what occurred throughout this whole boundary study process follow the process it had to or not? Maybe I missed the answer - there are so many pages here and it was moving fast.

We could debate on what we believe should be different, though I'm not sure we would actually have different opinions on that. We can easily argue there should be more - but with the process in place, did there HAVE to be more? This is the checking the boxes referenced - well if it checks the boxes, what is the legal issue?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What should have been done that wasn’t done?

Direct, fulsome answers/responses to all of the pointed, nuanced questions asked/issues raised (not just the ones hand picked as easily addressable by gatekeeping moderators),

With all questions/issues and corresponding answers/responses made public for fully informed stakeholder consideration,

With public access to the data/map construction tools used by MCPS/the consultant such that any variation could be equivalently presented for BOE consideration (if they so chose),

With timing to allow for all of that.

Thanks for answering. I’m not aware of every question/issue raised that has gone unanswered so I can’t really comment on that without knowing more about what answers the community needs still. I think this is what a lot of us are asking and trying to understand. I haven’t been all the posts asking so there seems to be multiple of us here wondering.

I doubt that there is any obligation or right to public access to those tools or information that you seek.

Timing… sure I guess, if the public really should have more access to this information.

MCPS has all the questions from the online survey, the online meetings and the live meetings (or should have -- they said they were taking down everything asked at the various meetings). I suppose you might go back through every related thread, here, to glean some of what was asked and determine if they were or were not addressed with nuance and clarity, but that would be only a subset (not everything is discussed on DCUM, of course). Maybe you could get an AI agent to do that for you.

Doing only that which is obligatory is box-checking. I was assuming that the question posed, "What should have been done that wasn’t done?" intended to evidence something more meaningful than that. The way they set things up, not even BOE members could play with the model to have any real sense if something would be feasible before proposing it.

This is despite repeated attestation by MCPS that BOE-proposed alternatives were the only way out of the Superintendent's recommendation (aside from flat rejection, which would be a disaster in and of itself). The back & forth of hearing stakeholder thoughts, a BOE member requesting MCPS investigate, having that come back not modeled with fidelity to the stakeholders' thoughts, the stakeholders pointing this out, a BOE member requesting an adjustment, etc., etc., necessary to produce something that might pass muster would have taken many, many months, months they and the BOE didn't have, months that were unnecessary if the underlying data (if not the planning tool) were made publicly available for independent construction of an option, and they knew that from the get-go last spring.

DP.

The issue many people are raising is that the analytical capability stayed entirely inside MCPS. The district controlled the data, the modeling tool, and the scenarios that were evaluated. As you pointed out, even members of the Board of Education apparently couldn’t interact directly with the model or test ideas themselves. That means the only alternatives that could realistically move forward were the ones MCPS chose to analyze. When the same entity that produced the recommendation also controls the modeling used to evaluate alternatives, it naturally creates skepticism about whether other options were fully explored.

So the criticism isn’t just that the process could have had “more meetings.” It’s that the structure of the process limited the ability of anyone outside MCPS to meaningfully test or develop alternatives, even though the district knew months ago that the BOE might want to consider options beyond the superintendent’s recommendation. When a decision reshapes the geography of multiple high schools for decades, people expect a process where the analysis is more transparent and the ability to evaluate alternatives isn’t confined to one institution.

Is there a precedent of letting the outside test or develop alternatives? Real question. Wondering if there’s a process used elsewhere that models that kind of interaction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What should have been done that wasn’t done?

Direct, fulsome answers/responses to all of the pointed, nuanced questions asked/issues raised (not just the ones hand picked as easily addressable by gatekeeping moderators),

With all questions/issues and corresponding answers/responses made public for fully informed stakeholder consideration,

With public access to the data/map construction tools used by MCPS/the consultant such that any variation could be equivalently presented for BOE consideration (if they so chose),

With timing to allow for all of that.

Thanks for answering. I’m not aware of every question/issue raised that has gone unanswered so I can’t really comment on that without knowing more about what answers the community needs still. I think this is what a lot of us are asking and trying to understand. I haven’t been all the posts asking so there seems to be multiple of us here wondering.

I doubt that there is any obligation or right to public access to those tools or information that you seek.

Timing… sure I guess, if the public really should have more access to this information.

MCPS has all the questions from the online survey, the online meetings and the live meetings (or should have -- they said they were taking down everything asked at the various meetings). I suppose you might go back through every related thread, here, to glean some of what was asked and determine if they were or were not addressed with nuance and clarity, but that would be only a subset (not everything is discussed on DCUM, of course). Maybe you could get an AI agent to do that for you.

Doing only that which is obligatory is box-checking. I was assuming that the question posed, "What should have been done that wasn’t done?" intended to evidence something more meaningful than that. The way they set things up, not even BOE members could play with the model to have any real sense if something would be feasible before proposing it.

This is despite repeated attestation by MCPS that BOE-proposed alternatives were the only way out of the Superintendent's recommendation (aside from flat rejection, which would be a disaster in and of itself). The back & forth of hearing stakeholder thoughts, a BOE member requesting MCPS investigate, having that come back not modeled with fidelity to the stakeholders' thoughts, the stakeholders pointing this out, a BOE member requesting an adjustment, etc., etc., necessary to produce something that might pass muster would have taken many, many months, months they and the BOE didn't have, months that were unnecessary if the underlying data (if not the planning tool) were made publicly available for independent construction of an option, and they knew that from the get-go last spring.

DP.

The issue many people are raising is that the analytical capability stayed entirely inside MCPS. The district controlled the data, the modeling tool, and the scenarios that were evaluated. As you pointed out, even members of the Board of Education apparently couldn’t interact directly with the model or test ideas themselves. That means the only alternatives that could realistically move forward were the ones MCPS chose to analyze. When the same entity that produced the recommendation also controls the modeling used to evaluate alternatives, it naturally creates skepticism about whether other options were fully explored.

So the criticism isn’t just that the process could have had “more meetings.” It’s that the structure of the process limited the ability of anyone outside MCPS to meaningfully test or develop alternatives, even though the district knew months ago that the BOE might want to consider options beyond the superintendent’s recommendation. When a decision reshapes the geography of multiple high schools for decades, people expect a process where the analysis is more transparent and the ability to evaluate alternatives isn’t confined to one institution.

Is there a precedent of letting the outside test or develop alternatives? Real question. Wondering if there’s a process used elsewhere that models that kind of interaction.

Not the PP, so not sure there is to the extent they are thinking about, but MCPS did have an interactive tool that let people play around with the data more during the last boundary study:
https://mytest.mcpsmd.org/

It’s a surreal time capsule of the challenges they were trying to address back when this all started.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What should have been done that wasn’t done?

Direct, fulsome answers/responses to all of the pointed, nuanced questions asked/issues raised (not just the ones hand picked as easily addressable by gatekeeping moderators),

With all questions/issues and corresponding answers/responses made public for fully informed stakeholder consideration,

With public access to the data/map construction tools used by MCPS/the consultant such that any variation could be equivalently presented for BOE consideration (if they so chose),

With timing to allow for all of that.

Thanks for answering. I’m not aware of every question/issue raised that has gone unanswered so I can’t really comment on that without knowing more about what answers the community needs still. I think this is what a lot of us are asking and trying to understand. I haven’t been all the posts asking so there seems to be multiple of us here wondering.

I doubt that there is any obligation or right to public access to those tools or information that you seek.

Timing… sure I guess, if the public really should have more access to this information.

MCPS has all the questions from the online survey, the online meetings and the live meetings (or should have -- they said they were taking down everything asked at the various meetings). I suppose you might go back through every related thread, here, to glean some of what was asked and determine if they were or were not addressed with nuance and clarity, but that would be only a subset (not everything is discussed on DCUM, of course). Maybe you could get an AI agent to do that for you.

Doing only that which is obligatory is box-checking. I was assuming that the question posed, "What should have been done that wasn’t done?" intended to evidence something more meaningful than that. The way they set things up, not even BOE members could play with the model to have any real sense if something would be feasible before proposing it.

This is despite repeated attestation by MCPS that BOE-proposed alternatives were the only way out of the Superintendent's recommendation (aside from flat rejection, which would be a disaster in and of itself). The back & forth of hearing stakeholder thoughts, a BOE member requesting MCPS investigate, having that come back not modeled with fidelity to the stakeholders' thoughts, the stakeholders pointing this out, a BOE member requesting an adjustment, etc., etc., necessary to produce something that might pass muster would have taken many, many months, months they and the BOE didn't have, months that were unnecessary if the underlying data (if not the planning tool) were made publicly available for independent construction of an option, and they knew that from the get-go last spring.

DP.

The issue many people are raising is that the analytical capability stayed entirely inside MCPS. The district controlled the data, the modeling tool, and the scenarios that were evaluated. As you pointed out, even members of the Board of Education apparently couldn’t interact directly with the model or test ideas themselves. That means the only alternatives that could realistically move forward were the ones MCPS chose to analyze. When the same entity that produced the recommendation also controls the modeling used to evaluate alternatives, it naturally creates skepticism about whether other options were fully explored.

So the criticism isn’t just that the process could have had “more meetings.” It’s that the structure of the process limited the ability of anyone outside MCPS to meaningfully test or develop alternatives, even though the district knew months ago that the BOE might want to consider options beyond the superintendent’s recommendation. When a decision reshapes the geography of multiple high schools for decades, people expect a process where the analysis is more transparent and the ability to evaluate alternatives isn’t confined to one institution.

Is there a precedent of letting the outside test or develop alternatives? Real question. Wondering if there’s a process used elsewhere that models that kind of interaction.

Not the PP, so not sure there is to the extent they are thinking about, but MCPS did have an interactive tool that let people play around with the data more during the last boundary study:
https://mytest.mcpsmd.org/

It’s a surreal time capsule of the challenges they were trying to address back when this all started.

You would think such tools, in retrospect, would allow MCPS learn from its mistakes. Sadly, all it seems to want to do is continue to cover them up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What should have been done that wasn’t done?

Direct, fulsome answers/responses to all of the pointed, nuanced questions asked/issues raised (not just the ones hand picked as easily addressable by gatekeeping moderators),

With all questions/issues and corresponding answers/responses made public for fully informed stakeholder consideration,

With public access to the data/map construction tools used by MCPS/the consultant such that any variation could be equivalently presented for BOE consideration (if they so chose),

With timing to allow for all of that.

If Taylor admitted the current Wootton building would be closed until MCPS finds the money, it would be game over as a school closure because MCPS has to move the boundaries to relocate Wootton’s students to Crown.

The building is unsafe.

Did MCPS declare it so?

Wootton parents said so which is why they are closing the building.

So you believe Wootton parents when it suits you, but you don’t when it doesn’t. Got it.

Yes, we believe them when they say the physical building is not safe. That's why they got so lucky to be given a new building.

So you believe them when they say that they want remediation of the current building and don’t want the new building?

So you believe them when they say that if Wootton’s current building will be used as a holding school, they should be allowed to stay?

So you believe them when they say that Magruder kids deserve to use Crown as a holding school while their far more unsafe school is renovated?

The question of whether a school is safe or not is pretty matter of fact. Everything else you’ve mentioned (except for Magruder being unsafe) is, on the other hand, about what specific communities desire. We can believe you want that, sure, but we don’t have to have the same desire as you.

So if Wootton parents have claimed their school is unsafe for many years, and you believe that claim as a matter of indisputable fact, why was Wootton taken off the CIP three different times (even before MCPS broke ground on Crown)? Such dire conditions couldn’t have waited years for Crown to be built (for someone else). They also can’t wait for Crown to be finished and opened in fall 2027. Remediation must happen right now. Then again, that would remove the primary impetus for Taylor to close Wootton and move its kids to Crown in order to fill a school that shouldn’t have been built.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What should have been done that wasn’t done?

Direct, fulsome answers/responses to all of the pointed, nuanced questions asked/issues raised (not just the ones hand picked as easily addressable by gatekeeping moderators),

With all questions/issues and corresponding answers/responses made public for fully informed stakeholder consideration,

With public access to the data/map construction tools used by MCPS/the consultant such that any variation could be equivalently presented for BOE consideration (if they so chose),

With timing to allow for all of that.

If Taylor admitted the current Wootton building would be closed until MCPS finds the money, it would be game over as a school closure because MCPS has to move the boundaries to relocate Wootton’s students to Crown.

The building is unsafe.

Did MCPS declare it so?

Wootton parents said so which is why they are closing the building.

So you believe Wootton parents when it suits you, but you don’t when it doesn’t. Got it.

Yes, we believe them when they say the physical building is not safe. That's why they got so lucky to be given a new building.

So you believe them when they say that they want remediation of the current building and don’t want the new building?

So you believe them when they say that if Wootton’s current building will be used as a holding school, they should be allowed to stay?

So you believe them when they say that Magruder kids deserve to use Crown as a holding school while their far more unsafe school is renovated?

The question of whether a school is safe or not is pretty matter of fact. Everything else you’ve mentioned (except for Magruder being unsafe) is, on the other hand, about what specific communities desire. We can believe you want that, sure, but we don’t have to have the same desire as you.

So if Wootton parents have claimed their school is unsafe for many years, and you believe that claim as a matter of indisputable fact, why was Wootton taken off the CIP three different times (even before MCPS broke ground on Crown)? Such dire conditions couldn’t have waited years for Crown to be built (for someone else). They also can’t wait for Crown to be finished and opened in fall 2027. Remediation must happen right now. Then again, that would remove the primary impetus for Taylor to close Wootton and move its kids to Crown in order to fill a school that shouldn’t have been built.

Funds to build crown did not come from CIP. There’s these things called budget lines