Taylor's Feb Rec for Crown Boundary Study

[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

[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.

Have you ever read the annexation agreement with Crown and the history there? MCPS would be crazy to not do what was agreed upon to have the Crown site for a school. The cost to have that land and funds towards the school through impact taxes… no smart leaders wohkd have ever turned that down. There seem to be timelines against when the school needed to be built and opened as well.

All that to say, things change in 20 years and you gotta keep adjusting the strategy. So here we are! And then we do it again in 10, 20 years. Nothing is final in life.

[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.

Cool tool. If we went back in time to see the cost of building that, I am sure heads would roll. And yet people are freaking the F out over the money spent with the consulting firm who helped with the data on this latest study. The experts aren’t within MCPS. The experts outside of MCPS are too expensive and don’t know MoCo. Lose lose it seems.

[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.

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.

Cool tool. If we went back in time to see the cost of building that, I am sure heads would roll. And yet people are freaking the F out over the money spent with the consulting firm who helped with the data on this latest study. The experts aren’t within MCPS. The experts outside of MCPS are too expensive and don’t know MoCo. Lose lose it seems.

If they didn’t go with an objective firm to do the study, then everyone would cry foul and favoritism by people who “know moco” so yeah it’s lose lose but cya too

[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.

1) I wasn't the prior poster. While Wootton is in poor condition, the facility rating is not reflective of immediate danger. However it is true to say it’s nearing end of life.

2) It was most certainly NOT in dangerous conditions when it was previously on the CIP.

3) I have no answer to your question about why it was taken off the CIP. That’s something you should ask the county directly. People who have a neutral mindset on this like myself or even those who vehemently support H don’t have anything stake in that.


My two cents from a pure cost benefit analysis stand point? The Crown land was good for a HS and if that land was going to have to be given back, they should build something there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

1) I wasn't the prior poster. While Wootton is in poor condition, the facility rating is not reflective of immediate danger. However it is true to say it’s nearing end of life.

2) It was most certainly NOT in dangerous conditions when it was previously on the CIP.

3) I have no answer to your question about why it was taken off the CIP. That’s something you should ask the county directly. People who have a neutral mindset on this like myself or even those who vehemently support H don’t have anything stake in that.


My two cents from a pure cost benefit analysis stand point? The Crown land was good for a HS and if that land was going to have to be given back, they should build something there.

It would have been given back to the city for a park/recreational community space. Had MCPS decided not to build a school and the city not to build a community space, it would’ve been given back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

1) I wasn't the prior poster. While Wootton is in poor condition, the facility rating is not reflective of immediate danger. However it is true to say it’s nearing end of life.

2) It was most certainly NOT in dangerous conditions when it was previously on the CIP.

3) I have no answer to your question about why it was taken off the CIP. That’s something you should ask the county directly. People who have a neutral mindset on this like myself or even those who vehemently support H don’t have anything stake in that.


My two cents from a pure cost benefit analysis stand point? The Crown land was good for a HS and if that land was going to have to be given back, they should build something there.

It would have been given back to the city for a park/recreational community space. Had MCPS decided not to build a school and the city not to build a community space, it would’ve been given back.

Exactly and why would MCPS want to lose that valuable land for a school with that in mind?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

1) I wasn't the prior poster. While Wootton is in poor condition, the facility rating is not reflective of immediate danger. However it is true to say it’s nearing end of life.

2) It was most certainly NOT in dangerous conditions when it was previously on the CIP.

3) I have no answer to your question about why it was taken off the CIP. That’s something you should ask the county directly. People who have a neutral mindset on this like myself or even those who vehemently support H don’t have anything stake in that.


My two cents from a pure cost benefit analysis stand point? The Crown land was good for a HS and if that land was going to have to be given back, they should build something there.

Wootton parents have made it sound extremely dangerous and noone should be in that building. So, which is it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

1) I wasn't the prior poster. While Wootton is in poor condition, the facility rating is not reflective of immediate danger. However it is true to say it’s nearing end of life.

2) It was most certainly NOT in dangerous conditions when it was previously on the CIP.

3) I have no answer to your question about why it was taken off the CIP. That’s something you should ask the county directly. People who have a neutral mindset on this like myself or even those who vehemently support H don’t have anything stake in that.


My two cents from a pure cost benefit analysis stand point? The Crown land was good for a HS and if that land was going to have to be given back, they should build something there.

It would have been given back to the city for a park/recreational community space. Had MCPS decided not to build a school and the city not to build a community space, it would’ve been given back.

Exactly and why would MCPS want to lose that valuable land for a school with that in mind?

So it was the valuable land, not outdated, pre-Covid enrollment projections, that motivated MCPS to build a school it didn’t need? Makes the timing of pulling Wootton off the CIP ever more suspect.

I wonder what the reaction would have been if MCPS had disclosed back when it broke ground on Crown a few years ago that it was considering plugging Wootton kids into Crown?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

1) I wasn't the prior poster. While Wootton is in poor condition, the facility rating is not reflective of immediate danger. However it is true to say it’s nearing end of life.

2) It was most certainly NOT in dangerous conditions when it was previously on the CIP.

3) I have no answer to your question about why it was taken off the CIP. That’s something you should ask the county directly. People who have a neutral mindset on this like myself or even those who vehemently support H don’t have anything stake in that.


My two cents from a pure cost benefit analysis stand point? The Crown land was good for a HS and if that land was going to have to be given back, they should build something there.

Wootton parents have made it sound extremely dangerous and noone should be in that building. So, which is it?

Since when has MCPS listened to Wootton parents about the condition of the building? If they were believed, why was Wootton taken off the CIP three different times over the years? Why did MCPS intentionally allow the building to deteriorate? Sounds like MCPS didn’t want to lose the Crown land, and had a plan to close Wootton and move its kids to Crown when it broke ground a few years ago, but didn’t want to tell anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

1) I wasn't the prior poster. While Wootton is in poor condition, the facility rating is not reflective of immediate danger. However it is true to say it’s nearing end of life.

2) It was most certainly NOT in dangerous conditions when it was previously on the CIP.

3) I have no answer to your question about why it was taken off the CIP. That’s something you should ask the county directly. People who have a neutral mindset on this like myself or even those who vehemently support H don’t have anything stake in that.


My two cents from a pure cost benefit analysis stand point? The Crown land was good for a HS and if that land was going to have to be given back, they should build something there.

It would have been given back to the city for a park/recreational community space. Had MCPS decided not to build a school and the city not to build a community space, it would’ve been given back.

Well, I wonder if MCPS asked Gaithersburg for an extension (which could have been granted?) but was told no? If this happened, what would be the reason? One reason might have been that a high tech, modern high school was key to bringing in new families to Crown (who would pay city taxes, of course). A park built at city expense doesn’t generate any direct revenue, whereas a school does.

So was this a Field of Dreams scenario, but one where no one came to play, so MCPS had to move an entire team?