Option H is permanent and the old Wootton HS campus will be closed for good?

[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:I don't have any information about lawsuits but my guess is that they are arguing discrimination. That's how a huge # of lawsuits in the education space are framed. A few years ago, I think MCPS would have fought that type of case but given the current political climate, I'm guessing they don't want to take that on.

A "discrimination" case doesn't pass the laugh test. It wouldn't make it to a second hearing.

More likely, they'd say it is improperly closing a school. Though, if MCPS says they're just replacing the building, then school impact taxes may need to be refunded. Those wouldn't go to Crown homeowners- it would go back to the developer.

So careful what you wish for here.

But they're not just replacing the building if they are adding students who live in neighborhoods not zoned for Wootton. Any such argument would also be seriously undercut by MCPS' original intent in building Crown - which wasn't to replace the Wootton building. It would come across as MCPS trying to cover up its poor planning by closing a school and treating its students as pawns for its own benefit (i.e., import students from Wootton, instant academic foundation for Crown). It took decades for Wootton to become a high performing school, but apparently it only takes a few months for MCPS to destroy it.

I honestly do get all of the disappointment with the school move here, but I don't quite see the sky is falling aspect about adding 500 or whatever the number is of kids not from exWootton. I mean it's a Mont Co public school, not something exclusive to your neighborhood. Your families are supportive, kids are smart and on the right track, they'll continue to be fine. It is the school averages that will be lower that is bugging you all? Or dating someone from the other group? Or a prestige thing?

Wootton family are not supportive and neither are Gaithersburg families. And you now admit that this isn’t just moving Wootton to a new building. Took 90+ pages for this thread to get there. If MCPS wants to close Wootton, there is a formal process for this. MCPS isn’t following it.

What is that process? I spent a little time trying to find it. I did find a detailed process for deciding what to do with the facility when a school is closed, but nothing that governs when and how MCPS can close one.

They ARE following the process to close a school. Boundary studies and school closures are governed by the same policy.

https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/policy/pdf/faara.pdf

That is incorrect.

Which part is incorrect? Are you saying they're not following the policy? Or are you saying that another policy applies?

I read it in its entirety. Did you?

Have they even admitted this is school closure? They need to publicly announce it and go through the whole public engagement process. This cannot be disguised under a boundary study and needs full transparency for another process.

Right, so you didn't read it.

Let me help to clarify. The annual facility planning process is intended to address student capacity requirements and facility needs. The school system may address these needs via boundary changes, school closures, or other means identified in the policy.

As far as public engagement they are following all the steps in the process. The Superintendent has the right to make a recommendation for facility needs in February/March. The Board is required to have at least one work session and at least one public hearing before voting on a resolution. These steps are in compliance with the Code of Maryland Regulations 13A.02.09.01 - Closing of Schools.

The Superintendent hasn't even made a recommendation yet. So wait until February and read the policy and you'll see that they're following the policy...

BOE already admitted the public engagement time given to SSIMS isn’t sufficient and SSIMS got way more time than Wootton. If they treat Wootton differently, that’s subject to legal challenges.

Why you think they just can follow the procedure for the sake of formality only and take the shortest possible? That’s easily challenged in court and at least will take several years to go through the litigations

DP. That proposal was for SSIMS to be closed. This proposal is for Wootton to be kept open, but moved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do any of the proposals move Wootton kids to Gaithersburg HS? That's what I'd like to see.

You need to get a life. Fantasizing others suffer is just evil.

Going to Gaithersburg HS is "suffering"?

Sounds like we need more people with money to have a stake in the game.

Forcing students to be bused miles away from a high-performing, stable school to a lower-performing school is no harm? Longer commutes, disruption to their coursework and supporting peers are real impact on our children.

[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:I don't have any information about lawsuits but my guess is that they are arguing discrimination. That's how a huge # of lawsuits in the education space are framed. A few years ago, I think MCPS would have fought that type of case but given the current political climate, I'm guessing they don't want to take that on.

A "discrimination" case doesn't pass the laugh test. It wouldn't make it to a second hearing.

More likely, they'd say it is improperly closing a school. Though, if MCPS says they're just replacing the building, then school impact taxes may need to be refunded. Those wouldn't go to Crown homeowners- it would go back to the developer.

So careful what you wish for here.

But they're not just replacing the building if they are adding students who live in neighborhoods not zoned for Wootton. Any such argument would also be seriously undercut by MCPS' original intent in building Crown - which wasn't to replace the Wootton building. It would come across as MCPS trying to cover up its poor planning by closing a school and treating its students as pawns for its own benefit (i.e., import students from Wootton, instant academic foundation for Crown). It took decades for Wootton to become a high performing school, but apparently it only takes a few months for MCPS to destroy it.

I honestly do get all of the disappointment with the school move here, but I don't quite see the sky is falling aspect about adding 500 or whatever the number is of kids not from exWootton. I mean it's a Mont Co public school, not something exclusive to your neighborhood. Your families are supportive, kids are smart and on the right track, they'll continue to be fine. It is the school averages that will be lower that is bugging you all? Or dating someone from the other group? Or a prestige thing?

Wootton family are not supportive and neither are Gaithersburg families. And you now admit that this isn’t just moving Wootton to a new building. Took 90+ pages for this thread to get there. If MCPS wants to close Wootton, there is a formal process for this. MCPS isn’t following it.

What is that process? I spent a little time trying to find it. I did find a detailed process for deciding what to do with the facility when a school is closed, but nothing that governs when and how MCPS can close one.

They ARE following the process to close a school. Boundary studies and school closures are governed by the same policy.

https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/policy/pdf/faara.pdf

That is incorrect.

Which part is incorrect? Are you saying they're not following the policy? Or are you saying that another policy applies?

I read it in its entirety. Did you?

Have they even admitted this is school closure? They need to publicly announce it and go through the whole public engagement process. This cannot be disguised under a boundary study and needs full transparency for another process.

Right, so you didn't read it.

Let me help to clarify. The annual facility planning process is intended to address student capacity requirements and facility needs. The school system may address these needs via boundary changes, school closures, or other means identified in the policy.

As far as public engagement they are following all the steps in the process. The Superintendent has the right to make a recommendation for facility needs in February/March. The Board is required to have at least one work session and at least one public hearing before voting on a resolution. These steps are in compliance with the Code of Maryland Regulations 13A.02.09.01 - Closing of Schools.

The Superintendent hasn't even made a recommendation yet. So wait until February and read the policy and you'll see that they're following the policy...

BOE already admitted the public engagement time given to SSIMS isn’t sufficient and SSIMS got way more time than Wootton. If they treat Wootton differently, that’s subject to legal challenges.

Why you think they just can follow the procedure for the sake of formality only and take the shortest possible? That’s easily challenged in court and at least will take several years to go through the litigations

DP. That proposal was for SSIMS to be closed. This proposal is for Wootton to be kept open, but moved.

That argument may not stand in court. Ceasing to operate at the historic site is closing. Even relocating needs a new process rather than a boundary study

[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:I don't have any information about lawsuits but my guess is that they are arguing discrimination. That's how a huge # of lawsuits in the education space are framed. A few years ago, I think MCPS would have fought that type of case but given the current political climate, I'm guessing they don't want to take that on.

A "discrimination" case doesn't pass the laugh test. It wouldn't make it to a second hearing.

More likely, they'd say it is improperly closing a school. Though, if MCPS says they're just replacing the building, then school impact taxes may need to be refunded. Those wouldn't go to Crown homeowners- it would go back to the developer.

So careful what you wish for here.

But they're not just replacing the building if they are adding students who live in neighborhoods not zoned for Wootton. Any such argument would also be seriously undercut by MCPS' original intent in building Crown - which wasn't to replace the Wootton building. It would come across as MCPS trying to cover up its poor planning by closing a school and treating its students as pawns for its own benefit (i.e., import students from Wootton, instant academic foundation for Crown). It took decades for Wootton to become a high performing school, but apparently it only takes a few months for MCPS to destroy it.

I honestly do get all of the disappointment with the school move here, but I don't quite see the sky is falling aspect about adding 500 or whatever the number is of kids not from exWootton. I mean it's a Mont Co public school, not something exclusive to your neighborhood. Your families are supportive, kids are smart and on the right track, they'll continue to be fine. It is the school averages that will be lower that is bugging you all? Or dating someone from the other group? Or a prestige thing?

Wootton family are not supportive and neither are Gaithersburg families. And you now admit that this isn’t just moving Wootton to a new building. Took 90+ pages for this thread to get there. If MCPS wants to close Wootton, there is a formal process for this. MCPS isn’t following it.

What is that process? I spent a little time trying to find it. I did find a detailed process for deciding what to do with the facility when a school is closed, but nothing that governs when and how MCPS can close one.

They ARE following the process to close a school. Boundary studies and school closures are governed by the same policy.

https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/policy/pdf/faara.pdf

That is incorrect.

Which part is incorrect? Are you saying they're not following the policy? Or are you saying that another policy applies?

I read it in its entirety. Did you?

Have they even admitted this is school closure? They need to publicly announce it and go through the whole public engagement process. This cannot be disguised under a boundary study and needs full transparency for another process.

Right, so you didn't read it.

Let me help to clarify. The annual facility planning process is intended to address student capacity requirements and facility needs. The school system may address these needs via boundary changes, school closures, or other means identified in the policy.

As far as public engagement they are following all the steps in the process. The Superintendent has the right to make a recommendation for facility needs in February/March. The Board is required to have at least one work session and at least one public hearing before voting on a resolution. These steps are in compliance with the Code of Maryland Regulations 13A.02.09.01 - Closing of Schools.

The Superintendent hasn't even made a recommendation yet. So wait until February and read the policy and you'll see that they're following the policy...

BOE already admitted the public engagement time given to SSIMS isn’t sufficient and SSIMS got way more time than Wootton. If they treat Wootton differently, that’s subject to legal challenges.

Why you think they just can follow the procedure for the sake of formality only and take the shortest possible? That’s easily challenged in court and at least will take several years to go through the litigations

DP. That proposal was for SSIMS to be closed. This proposal is for Wootton to be kept open, but moved.

That argument may not stand in court. Ceasing to operate at the historic site is closing. Even relocating needs a new process rather than a boundary study

“Yeah, well, you know, that's just like, your opinion, man” -The Big Lebowski

[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:I don't have any information about lawsuits but my guess is that they are arguing discrimination. That's how a huge # of lawsuits in the education space are framed. A few years ago, I think MCPS would have fought that type of case but given the current political climate, I'm guessing they don't want to take that on.

A "discrimination" case doesn't pass the laugh test. It wouldn't make it to a second hearing.

More likely, they'd say it is improperly closing a school. Though, if MCPS says they're just replacing the building, then school impact taxes may need to be refunded. Those wouldn't go to Crown homeowners- it would go back to the developer.

So careful what you wish for here.

But they're not just replacing the building if they are adding students who live in neighborhoods not zoned for Wootton. Any such argument would also be seriously undercut by MCPS' original intent in building Crown - which wasn't to replace the Wootton building. It would come across as MCPS trying to cover up its poor planning by closing a school and treating its students as pawns for its own benefit (i.e., import students from Wootton, instant academic foundation for Crown). It took decades for Wootton to become a high performing school, but apparently it only takes a few months for MCPS to destroy it.

I honestly do get all of the disappointment with the school move here, but I don't quite see the sky is falling aspect about adding 500 or whatever the number is of kids not from exWootton. I mean it's a Mont Co public school, not something exclusive to your neighborhood. Your families are supportive, kids are smart and on the right track, they'll continue to be fine. It is the school averages that will be lower that is bugging you all? Or dating someone from the other group? Or a prestige thing?

Wootton family are not supportive and neither are Gaithersburg families. And you now admit that this isn’t just moving Wootton to a new building. Took 90+ pages for this thread to get there. If MCPS wants to close Wootton, there is a formal process for this. MCPS isn’t following it.

What is that process? I spent a little time trying to find it. I did find a detailed process for deciding what to do with the facility when a school is closed, but nothing that governs when and how MCPS can close one.

They ARE following the process to close a school. Boundary studies and school closures are governed by the same policy.

https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/policy/pdf/faara.pdf

That is incorrect.

Which part is incorrect? Are you saying they're not following the policy? Or are you saying that another policy applies?

I read it in its entirety. Did you?

Have they even admitted this is school closure? They need to publicly announce it and go through the whole public engagement process. This cannot be disguised under a boundary study and needs full transparency for another process.

Right, so you didn't read it.

Let me help to clarify. The annual facility planning process is intended to address student capacity requirements and facility needs. The school system may address these needs via boundary changes, school closures, or other means identified in the policy.

As far as public engagement they are following all the steps in the process. The Superintendent has the right to make a recommendation for facility needs in February/March. The Board is required to have at least one work session and at least one public hearing before voting on a resolution. These steps are in compliance with the Code of Maryland Regulations 13A.02.09.01 - Closing of Schools.

The Superintendent hasn't even made a recommendation yet. So wait until February and read the policy and you'll see that they're following the policy...

BOE already admitted the public engagement time given to SSIMS isn’t sufficient and SSIMS got way more time than Wootton. If they treat Wootton differently, that’s subject to legal challenges.

Why you think they just can follow the procedure for the sake of formality only and take the shortest possible? That’s easily challenged in court and at least will take several years to go through the litigations

My point is that they are only required to meet the minimum requirements as established by policy/law. But they actually are going beyond the minimum required since you're here talking about it and the Superintendent hasn't even formally released a recommendation. The BOE schedule has multiple work sessions and public hearings on the schedule for Feb/March. So even in the case of Wootton, they're not just doing the bare minimum required.

[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:I don't have any information about lawsuits but my guess is that they are arguing discrimination. That's how a huge # of lawsuits in the education space are framed. A few years ago, I think MCPS would have fought that type of case but given the current political climate, I'm guessing they don't want to take that on.

A "discrimination" case doesn't pass the laugh test. It wouldn't make it to a second hearing.

More likely, they'd say it is improperly closing a school. Though, if MCPS says they're just replacing the building, then school impact taxes may need to be refunded. Those wouldn't go to Crown homeowners- it would go back to the developer.

So careful what you wish for here.

But they're not just replacing the building if they are adding students who live in neighborhoods not zoned for Wootton. Any such argument would also be seriously undercut by MCPS' original intent in building Crown - which wasn't to replace the Wootton building. It would come across as MCPS trying to cover up its poor planning by closing a school and treating its students as pawns for its own benefit (i.e., import students from Wootton, instant academic foundation for Crown). It took decades for Wootton to become a high performing school, but apparently it only takes a few months for MCPS to destroy it.

I honestly do get all of the disappointment with the school move here, but I don't quite see the sky is falling aspect about adding 500 or whatever the number is of kids not from exWootton. I mean it's a Mont Co public school, not something exclusive to your neighborhood. Your families are supportive, kids are smart and on the right track, they'll continue to be fine. It is the school averages that will be lower that is bugging you all? Or dating someone from the other group? Or a prestige thing?

Wootton family are not supportive and neither are Gaithersburg families. And you now admit that this isn’t just moving Wootton to a new building. Took 90+ pages for this thread to get there. If MCPS wants to close Wootton, there is a formal process for this. MCPS isn’t following it.

What is that process? I spent a little time trying to find it. I did find a detailed process for deciding what to do with the facility when a school is closed, but nothing that governs when and how MCPS can close one.

They ARE following the process to close a school. Boundary studies and school closures are governed by the same policy.

https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/policy/pdf/faara.pdf

That is incorrect.

Which part is incorrect? Are you saying they're not following the policy? Or are you saying that another policy applies?

I read it in its entirety. Did you?

Have they even admitted this is school closure? They need to publicly announce it and go through the whole public engagement process. This cannot be disguised under a boundary study and needs full transparency for another process.

Right, so you didn't read it.

Let me help to clarify. The annual facility planning process is intended to address student capacity requirements and facility needs. The school system may address these needs via boundary changes, school closures, or other means identified in the policy.

As far as public engagement they are following all the steps in the process. The Superintendent has the right to make a recommendation for facility needs in February/March. The Board is required to have at least one work session and at least one public hearing before voting on a resolution. These steps are in compliance with the Code of Maryland Regulations 13A.02.09.01 - Closing of Schools.

The Superintendent hasn't even made a recommendation yet. So wait until February and read the policy and you'll see that they're following the policy...

BOE already admitted the public engagement time given to SSIMS isn’t sufficient and SSIMS got way more time than Wootton. If they treat Wootton differently, that’s subject to legal challenges.

Why you think they just can follow the procedure for the sake of formality only and take the shortest possible? That’s easily challenged in court and at least will take several years to go through the litigations

My point is that they are only required to meet the minimum requirements as established by policy/law. But they actually are going beyond the minimum required since you're here talking about it and the Superintendent hasn't even formally released a recommendation. The BOE schedule has multiple work sessions and public hearings on the schedule for Feb/March. So even in the case of Wootton, they're not just doing the bare minimum required.

If a lawsuit is filed, Option H is dead and Wootton stays put. It will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to even try and get it dismissed. If an injunction is granted, that’s as good as a win.

MCPS hasn’t handled the current situation well, and litigation will expose its mismanagement. It definitely doesn’t want that during an election year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have any information about lawsuits but my guess is that they are arguing discrimination. That's how a huge # of lawsuits in the education space are framed. A few years ago, I think MCPS would have fought that type of case but given the current political climate, I'm guessing they don't want to take that on.

A "discrimination" case doesn't pass the laugh test. It wouldn't make it to a second hearing.

More likely, they'd say it is improperly closing a school. Though, if MCPS says they're just replacing the building, then school impact taxes may need to be refunded. Those wouldn't go to Crown homeowners- it would go back to the developer.

So careful what you wish for here.

But they're not just replacing the building if they are adding students who live in neighborhoods not zoned for Wootton. Any such argument would also be seriously undercut by MCPS' original intent in building Crown - which wasn't to replace the Wootton building. It would come across as MCPS trying to cover up its poor planning by closing a school and treating its students as pawns for its own benefit (i.e., import students from Wootton, instant academic foundation for Crown). It took decades for Wootton to become a high performing school, but apparently it only takes a few months for MCPS to destroy it.

I honestly do get all of the disappointment with the school move here, but I don't quite see the sky is falling aspect about adding 500 or whatever the number is of kids not from exWootton. I mean it's a Mont Co public school, not something exclusive to your neighborhood. Your families are supportive, kids are smart and on the right track, they'll continue to be fine. It is the school averages that will be lower that is bugging you all? Or dating someone from the other group? Or a prestige thing?

Wootton family are not supportive and neither are Gaithersburg families. And you now admit that this isn’t just moving Wootton to a new building. Took 90+ pages for this thread to get there. If MCPS wants to close Wootton, there is a formal process for this. MCPS isn’t following it.

What is that process? I spent a little time trying to find it. I did find a detailed process for deciding what to do with the facility when a school is closed, but nothing that governs when and how MCPS can close one.

They ARE following the process to close a school. Boundary studies and school closures are governed by the same policy.

https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/policy/pdf/faara.pdf

That is incorrect.

Which part is incorrect? Are you saying they're not following the policy? Or are you saying that another policy applies?

I read it in its entirety. Did you?

Have they even admitted this is school closure? They need to publicly announce it and go through the whole public engagement process. This cannot be disguised under a boundary study and needs full transparency for another process.

Right, so you didn't read it.

Let me help to clarify. The annual facility planning process is intended to address student capacity requirements and facility needs. The school system may address these needs via boundary changes, school closures, or other means identified in the policy.

As far as public engagement they are following all the steps in the process. The Superintendent has the right to make a recommendation for facility needs in February/March. The Board is required to have at least one work session and at least one public hearing before voting on a resolution. These steps are in compliance with the Code of Maryland Regulations 13A.02.09.01 - Closing of Schools.

The Superintendent hasn't even made a recommendation yet. So wait until February and read the policy and you'll see that they're following the policy...

DP. No one is going to argue this case on an anonymous forum. Save it for the judge.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have any information about lawsuits but my guess is that they are arguing discrimination. That's how a huge # of lawsuits in the education space are framed. A few years ago, I think MCPS would have fought that type of case but given the current political climate, I'm guessing they don't want to take that on.

A "discrimination" case doesn't pass the laugh test. It wouldn't make it to a second hearing.

More likely, they'd say it is improperly closing a school. Though, if MCPS says they're just replacing the building, then school impact taxes may need to be refunded. Those wouldn't go to Crown homeowners- it would go back to the developer.

So careful what you wish for here.

But they're not just replacing the building if they are adding students who live in neighborhoods not zoned for Wootton. Any such argument would also be seriously undercut by MCPS' original intent in building Crown - which wasn't to replace the Wootton building. It would come across as MCPS trying to cover up its poor planning by closing a school and treating its students as pawns for its own benefit (i.e., import students from Wootton, instant academic foundation for Crown). It took decades for Wootton to become a high performing school, but apparently it only takes a few months for MCPS to destroy it.

I honestly do get all of the disappointment with the school move here, but I don't quite see the sky is falling aspect about adding 500 or whatever the number is of kids not from exWootton. I mean it's a Mont Co public school, not something exclusive to your neighborhood. Your families are supportive, kids are smart and on the right track, they'll continue to be fine. It is the school averages that will be lower that is bugging you all? Or dating someone from the other group? Or a prestige thing?

Wootton family are not supportive and neither are Gaithersburg families. And you now admit that this isn’t just moving Wootton to a new building. Took 90+ pages for this thread to get there. If MCPS wants to close Wootton, there is a formal process for this. MCPS isn’t following it.

What is that process? I spent a little time trying to find it. I did find a detailed process for deciding what to do with the facility when a school is closed, but nothing that governs when and how MCPS can close one.

They ARE following the process to close a school. Boundary studies and school closures are governed by the same policy.

https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/policy/pdf/faara.pdf

That is incorrect.

Which part is incorrect? Are you saying they're not following the policy? Or are you saying that another policy applies?

I read it in its entirety. Did you?

Have they even admitted this is school closure? They need to publicly announce it and go through the whole public engagement process. This cannot be disguised under a boundary study and needs full transparency for another process.

Right, so you didn't read it.

Let me help to clarify. The annual facility planning process is intended to address student capacity requirements and facility needs. The school system may address these needs via boundary changes, school closures, or other means identified in the policy.

As far as public engagement they are following all the steps in the process. The Superintendent has the right to make a recommendation for facility needs in February/March. The Board is required to have at least one work session and at least one public hearing before voting on a resolution. These steps are in compliance with the Code of Maryland Regulations 13A.02.09.01 - Closing of Schools.

The Superintendent hasn't even made a recommendation yet. So wait until February and read the policy and you'll see that they're following the policy...

BOE already admitted the public engagement time given to SSIMS isn’t sufficient and SSIMS got way more time than Wootton. If they treat Wootton differently, that’s subject to legal challenges.

Why you think they just can follow the procedure for the sake of formality only and take the shortest possible? That’s easily challenged in court and at least will take several years to go through the litigations

DP. That proposal was for SSIMS to be closed. This proposal is for Wootton to be kept open, but moved.

That argument may not stand in court. Ceasing to operate at the historic site is closing. Even relocating needs a new process rather than a boundary study

“Yeah, well, you know, that's just like, your opinion, man” -The Big Lebowski

Doesn’t matter. If they choose option H in Feb, there will be lawsuits and it could just take a while to settle before any decision can move forward

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do any of the proposals move Wootton kids to Gaithersburg HS? That's what I'd like to see.

You need to get a life. Fantasizing others suffer is just evil.

Going to Gaithersburg HS is "suffering"?

Sounds like we need more people with money to have a stake in the game.

Forcing students to be bused miles away from a high-performing, stable school to a lower-performing school is no harm? Longer commutes, disruption to their coursework and supporting peers are real impact on our children.

It will be good for them to get out of their country club bubble wrapped existence.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have any information about lawsuits but my guess is that they are arguing discrimination. That's how a huge # of lawsuits in the education space are framed. A few years ago, I think MCPS would have fought that type of case but given the current political climate, I'm guessing they don't want to take that on.

A "discrimination" case doesn't pass the laugh test. It wouldn't make it to a second hearing.

More likely, they'd say it is improperly closing a school. Though, if MCPS says they're just replacing the building, then school impact taxes may need to be refunded. Those wouldn't go to Crown homeowners- it would go back to the developer.

So careful what you wish for here.

But they're not just replacing the building if they are adding students who live in neighborhoods not zoned for Wootton. Any such argument would also be seriously undercut by MCPS' original intent in building Crown - which wasn't to replace the Wootton building. It would come across as MCPS trying to cover up its poor planning by closing a school and treating its students as pawns for its own benefit (i.e., import students from Wootton, instant academic foundation for Crown). It took decades for Wootton to become a high performing school, but apparently it only takes a few months for MCPS to destroy it.

I honestly do get all of the disappointment with the school move here, but I don't quite see the sky is falling aspect about adding 500 or whatever the number is of kids not from exWootton. I mean it's a Mont Co public school, not something exclusive to your neighborhood. Your families are supportive, kids are smart and on the right track, they'll continue to be fine. It is the school averages that will be lower that is bugging you all? Or dating someone from the other group? Or a prestige thing?

Wootton family are not supportive and neither are Gaithersburg families. And you now admit that this isn’t just moving Wootton to a new building. Took 90+ pages for this thread to get there. If MCPS wants to close Wootton, there is a formal process for this. MCPS isn’t following it.

What is that process? I spent a little time trying to find it. I did find a detailed process for deciding what to do with the facility when a school is closed, but nothing that governs when and how MCPS can close one.

They ARE following the process to close a school. Boundary studies and school closures are governed by the same policy.

https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/policy/pdf/faara.pdf

That is incorrect.

Which part is incorrect? Are you saying they're not following the policy? Or are you saying that another policy applies?

I read it in its entirety. Did you?

Have they even admitted this is school closure? They need to publicly announce it and go through the whole public engagement process. This cannot be disguised under a boundary study and needs full transparency for another process.

Right, so you didn't read it.

Let me help to clarify. The annual facility planning process is intended to address student capacity requirements and facility needs. The school system may address these needs via boundary changes, school closures, or other means identified in the policy.

As far as public engagement they are following all the steps in the process. The Superintendent has the right to make a recommendation for facility needs in February/March. The Board is required to have at least one work session and at least one public hearing before voting on a resolution. These steps are in compliance with the Code of Maryland Regulations 13A.02.09.01 - Closing of Schools.

The Superintendent hasn't even made a recommendation yet. So wait until February and read the policy and you'll see that they're following the policy...

BOE already admitted the public engagement time given to SSIMS isn’t sufficient and SSIMS got way more time than Wootton. If they treat Wootton differently, that’s subject to legal challenges.

Why you think they just can follow the procedure for the sake of formality only and take the shortest possible? That’s easily challenged in court and at least will take several years to go through the litigations

DP. That proposal was for SSIMS to be closed. This proposal is for Wootton to be kept open, but moved.

That argument may not stand in court. Ceasing to operate at the historic site is closing. Even relocating needs a new process rather than a boundary study

“Yeah, well, you know, that's just like, your opinion, man” -The Big Lebowski

Doesn’t matter. If they choose option H in Feb, there will be lawsuits and it could just take a while to settle before any decision can move forward

They're not going to simply "choose option H," or any other option. But they are entirely within their rights to redraw Wootton's boundaries to include the areas near Crown, if that's what they want to do. Then they can handle the relocation process as a separate matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do any of the proposals move Wootton kids to Gaithersburg HS? That's what I'd like to see.

You need to get a life. Fantasizing others suffer is just evil.

Going to Gaithersburg HS is "suffering"?

Sounds like we need more people with money to have a stake in the game.

Forcing students to be bused miles away from a high-performing, stable school to a lower-performing school is no harm? Longer commutes, disruption to their coursework and supporting peers are real impact on our children.

They'd be bused to Crown anyway.

What about the kids that currently go to Gaithersburg?

[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:I don't have any information about lawsuits but my guess is that they are arguing discrimination. That's how a huge # of lawsuits in the education space are framed. A few years ago, I think MCPS would have fought that type of case but given the current political climate, I'm guessing they don't want to take that on.

A "discrimination" case doesn't pass the laugh test. It wouldn't make it to a second hearing.

More likely, they'd say it is improperly closing a school. Though, if MCPS says they're just replacing the building, then school impact taxes may need to be refunded. Those wouldn't go to Crown homeowners- it would go back to the developer.

So careful what you wish for here.

But they're not just replacing the building if they are adding students who live in neighborhoods not zoned for Wootton. Any such argument would also be seriously undercut by MCPS' original intent in building Crown - which wasn't to replace the Wootton building. It would come across as MCPS trying to cover up its poor planning by closing a school and treating its students as pawns for its own benefit (i.e., import students from Wootton, instant academic foundation for Crown). It took decades for Wootton to become a high performing school, but apparently it only takes a few months for MCPS to destroy it.

I honestly do get all of the disappointment with the school move here, but I don't quite see the sky is falling aspect about adding 500 or whatever the number is of kids not from exWootton. I mean it's a Mont Co public school, not something exclusive to your neighborhood. Your families are supportive, kids are smart and on the right track, they'll continue to be fine. It is the school averages that will be lower that is bugging you all? Or dating someone from the other group? Or a prestige thing?

Wootton family are not supportive and neither are Gaithersburg families. And you now admit that this isn’t just moving Wootton to a new building. Took 90+ pages for this thread to get there. If MCPS wants to close Wootton, there is a formal process for this. MCPS isn’t following it.

What is that process? I spent a little time trying to find it. I did find a detailed process for deciding what to do with the facility when a school is closed, but nothing that governs when and how MCPS can close one.

They ARE following the process to close a school. Boundary studies and school closures are governed by the same policy.

https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/policy/pdf/faara.pdf

That is incorrect.

Which part is incorrect? Are you saying they're not following the policy? Or are you saying that another policy applies?

I read it in its entirety. Did you?

Have they even admitted this is school closure? They need to publicly announce it and go through the whole public engagement process. This cannot be disguised under a boundary study and needs full transparency for another process.

Right, so you didn't read it.

Let me help to clarify. The annual facility planning process is intended to address student capacity requirements and facility needs. The school system may address these needs via boundary changes, school closures, or other means identified in the policy.

As far as public engagement they are following all the steps in the process. The Superintendent has the right to make a recommendation for facility needs in February/March. The Board is required to have at least one work session and at least one public hearing before voting on a resolution. These steps are in compliance with the Code of Maryland Regulations 13A.02.09.01 - Closing of Schools.

The Superintendent hasn't even made a recommendation yet. So wait until February and read the policy and you'll see that they're following the policy...

BOE already admitted the public engagement time given to SSIMS isn’t sufficient and SSIMS got way more time than Wootton. If they treat Wootton differently, that’s subject to legal challenges.

Why you think they just can follow the procedure for the sake of formality only and take the shortest possible? That’s easily challenged in court and at least will take several years to go through the litigations

My point is that they are only required to meet the minimum requirements as established by policy/law. But they actually are going beyond the minimum required since you're here talking about it and the Superintendent hasn't even formally released a recommendation. The BOE schedule has multiple work sessions and public hearings on the schedule for Feb/March. So even in the case of Wootton, they're not just doing the bare minimum required.

If a lawsuit is filed, Option H is dead and Wootton stays put. It will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to even try and get it dismissed. If an injunction is granted, that’s as good as a win.

MCPS hasn’t handled the current situation well, and litigation will expose its mismanagement. It definitely doesn’t want that during an election year.

No plausible legal argument has been provided. You don't need one to file a lawsuit in the first place- that just takes a little bit of money. But surviving a couple hearings would require the bare minimum of a legal argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do any of the proposals move Wootton kids to Gaithersburg HS? That's what I'd like to see.

You need to get a life. Fantasizing others suffer is just evil.

Going to Gaithersburg HS is "suffering"?

Sounds like we need more people with money to have a stake in the game.

Forcing students to be bused miles away from a high-performing, stable school to a lower-performing school is no harm? Longer commutes, disruption to their coursework and supporting peers are real impact on our children.

It will be good for them to get out of their country club bubble wrapped existence.

Must be incredibly satisfying to pursue your ideals using someone else’s kids as the sacrifice

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do any of the proposals move Wootton kids to Gaithersburg HS? That's what I'd like to see.

You need to get a life. Fantasizing others suffer is just evil.

Going to Gaithersburg HS is "suffering"?

Sounds like we need more people with money to have a stake in the game.

Forcing students to be bused miles away from a high-performing, stable school to a lower-performing school is no harm? Longer commutes, disruption to their coursework and supporting peers are real impact on our children.

They'd be bused to Crown anyway.

What about the kids that currently go to Gaithersburg?

Wootton and Gaithersburg are not that close. Current kids going to Gaithersburg is closer and by choice

[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:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have any information about lawsuits but my guess is that they are arguing discrimination. That's how a huge # of lawsuits in the education space are framed. A few years ago, I think MCPS would have fought that type of case but given the current political climate, I'm guessing they don't want to take that on.

A "discrimination" case doesn't pass the laugh test. It wouldn't make it to a second hearing.

More likely, they'd say it is improperly closing a school. Though, if MCPS says they're just replacing the building, then school impact taxes may need to be refunded. Those wouldn't go to Crown homeowners- it would go back to the developer.

So careful what you wish for here.

But they're not just replacing the building if they are adding students who live in neighborhoods not zoned for Wootton. Any such argument would also be seriously undercut by MCPS' original intent in building Crown - which wasn't to replace the Wootton building. It would come across as MCPS trying to cover up its poor planning by closing a school and treating its students as pawns for its own benefit (i.e., import students from Wootton, instant academic foundation for Crown). It took decades for Wootton to become a high performing school, but apparently it only takes a few months for MCPS to destroy it.

I honestly do get all of the disappointment with the school move here, but I don't quite see the sky is falling aspect about adding 500 or whatever the number is of kids not from exWootton. I mean it's a Mont Co public school, not something exclusive to your neighborhood. Your families are supportive, kids are smart and on the right track, they'll continue to be fine. It is the school averages that will be lower that is bugging you all? Or dating someone from the other group? Or a prestige thing?

Wootton family are not supportive and neither are Gaithersburg families. And you now admit that this isn’t just moving Wootton to a new building. Took 90+ pages for this thread to get there. If MCPS wants to close Wootton, there is a formal process for this. MCPS isn’t following it.

What is that process? I spent a little time trying to find it. I did find a detailed process for deciding what to do with the facility when a school is closed, but nothing that governs when and how MCPS can close one.

They ARE following the process to close a school. Boundary studies and school closures are governed by the same policy.

https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/policy/pdf/faara.pdf

That is incorrect.

Which part is incorrect? Are you saying they're not following the policy? Or are you saying that another policy applies?

I read it in its entirety. Did you?

Have they even admitted this is school closure? They need to publicly announce it and go through the whole public engagement process. This cannot be disguised under a boundary study and needs full transparency for another process.

Right, so you didn't read it.

Let me help to clarify. The annual facility planning process is intended to address student capacity requirements and facility needs. The school system may address these needs via boundary changes, school closures, or other means identified in the policy.

As far as public engagement they are following all the steps in the process. The Superintendent has the right to make a recommendation for facility needs in February/March. The Board is required to have at least one work session and at least one public hearing before voting on a resolution. These steps are in compliance with the Code of Maryland Regulations 13A.02.09.01 - Closing of Schools.

The Superintendent hasn't even made a recommendation yet. So wait until February and read the policy and you'll see that they're following the policy...

BOE already admitted the public engagement time given to SSIMS isn’t sufficient and SSIMS got way more time than Wootton. If they treat Wootton differently, that’s subject to legal challenges.

Why you think they just can follow the procedure for the sake of formality only and take the shortest possible? That’s easily challenged in court and at least will take several years to go through the litigations

My point is that they are only required to meet the minimum requirements as established by policy/law. But they actually are going beyond the minimum required since you're here talking about it and the Superintendent hasn't even formally released a recommendation. The BOE schedule has multiple work sessions and public hearings on the schedule for Feb/March. So even in the case of Wootton, they're not just doing the bare minimum required.

If a lawsuit is filed, Option H is dead and Wootton stays put. It will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to even try and get it dismissed. If an injunction is granted, that’s as good as a win.

MCPS hasn’t handled the current situation well, and litigation will expose its mismanagement. It definitely doesn’t want that during an election year.

No plausible legal argument has been provided. You don't need one to file a lawsuit in the first place- that just takes a little bit of money. But surviving a couple hearings would require the bare minimum of a legal argument.

You sound like you’re the judge