3/9 and 3/10 public hearings

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of people from Magruder there testifying. Also a bunch from SSIMS.

I wonder why MCPS did not point to the additional out-of-bounds immersion students to explain that SSIMS will actually still be around average size for MCPS middle schools? It's a weird omission....

Because I think they are going to do away with Spanish Immersion at SSIMS but haven't said that yet. With the rezoning of RTES to TPMS, that is basically the entire Spanish immersion program. French may stay, but all of French is coming from SCES so I don't think that changes enrollment numbers.

SSIMS parents have been asking whether immersion will remain since October, and Taylor and MCPS have never given a straight answer....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of people from Magruder there testifying. Also a bunch from SSIMS.

I wonder why MCPS did not point to the additional out-of-bounds immersion students to explain that SSIMS will actually still be around average size for MCPS middle schools? It's a weird omission....

Because I think they are going to do away with Spanish Immersion at SSIMS but haven't said that yet. With the rezoning of RTES to TPMS, that is basically the entire Spanish immersion program. French may stay, but all of French is coming from SCES so I don't think that changes enrollment numbers.

SSIMS parents have been asking whether immersion will remain since October, and Taylor and MCPS have never given a straight answer....

So does that mean TPMS will host Spanish immersion or will that just go away except for Westland?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of people from Magruder there testifying. Also a bunch from SSIMS.

I wonder why MCPS did not point to the additional out-of-bounds immersion students to explain that SSIMS will actually still be around average size for MCPS middle schools? It's a weird omission....

Because I think they are going to do away with Spanish Immersion at SSIMS but haven't said that yet. With the rezoning of RTES to TPMS, that is basically the entire Spanish immersion program. French may stay, but all of French is coming from SCES so I don't think that changes enrollment numbers.

SSIMS parents have been asking whether immersion will remain since October, and Taylor and MCPS have never given a straight answer....

So does that mean TPMS will host Spanish immersion or will that just go away except for Westland?

I think it will go away period, but maybe they'll phase it out and let Westland hang on for a little bit. Same way how they phased out the ISY for Roscoe Nix and gave Arcola an additional year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I watched yesterday's video recording, and it was not a pleasant experience. BOE chose to let the CO staff to defend their projection, whereas Wootton parents insisted their data were flawed. So they ended up in stuck, and BOE apparently firmly believed in the former. It's a lost war to me from a spectator's perspective.

That sets up the BOE’s decision as being arbitrary and capricious. Disregarding clear data flaws is the very definition. If the BOE were smart (and honest) it would redo its numbers. But that would mean Wootton can’t move to Crown in the fall of 2027.

The data doesn’t seem flawed. I’ve watched all the presentations even the joint one with planning board. It all seems very defensible and would withstand legal challenge.

A court looks at everything - it’s not obligated to believe anyone.

Uh no.
No, they look at the record before it. And will defer to policy makers when reasoned. Seems reasoned here. I wouldn’t want to be the one wasting money on this suit. MCPS will win despite you not liking it.

So you just made my point. A court looks at everything. It also doesn’t have to defer to policy makers. There is insufficient evidence to indicate a process of reasoned elaboration here - indeed, there is a clear rush to a decision based on external factors.

The burden is on plaintiffs to show some kind of law violation. “Insufficient evidence to indicate a process of reasoned elaboration” is ridiculous. There was a scope, there were consultants, there were options, there was feedback. That’s all part of the process even if the option selected wasn’t always under consideration. Then there’s the CO recommendation and report, calculations, and cooperation with the Planning Dept.

It doesn’t mean MCPS is right about the numbers. But they don’t have to be right. Projections are inherently projecting an unknown. If you could see the future you wouldn’t need projections. For a court, they don’t have to be right, they have to be not arbitrary or discriminatory.

A lawsuit will not win unless the MAGA SC just wants to stick it to Montgomery County enough to do something without a basis in the law, which is of course a real possibility at this point.

You just made the case. You can’t have reasoned elaboration if you didn’t actually do it. Proposing and then recommending Option H in less than 2 months is ridiculous, especially when the BOE is now faced with evidence that their numbers are faulty. Also, you do need strong indická that MCPS is right, and the fact that MCPS used faulty projections to build Crown makes its current projections similarly suspect.

And it’s arbitrary and capricious, not discriminatory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I watched yesterday's video recording, and it was not a pleasant experience. BOE chose to let the CO staff to defend their projection, whereas Wootton parents insisted their data were flawed. So they ended up in stuck, and BOE apparently firmly believed in the former. It's a lost war to me from a spectator's perspective.

That sets up the BOE’s decision as being arbitrary and capricious. Disregarding clear data flaws is the very definition. If the BOE were smart (and honest) it would redo its numbers. But that would mean Wootton can’t move to Crown in the fall of 2027.

The data doesn’t seem flawed. I’ve watched all the presentations even the joint one with planning board. It all seems very defensible and would withstand legal challenge.

A court looks at everything - it’s not obligated to believe anyone.

Uh no.
No, they look at the record before it. And will defer to policy makers when reasoned. Seems reasoned here. I wouldn’t want to be the one wasting money on this suit. MCPS will win despite you not liking it.

So you just made my point. A court looks at everything. It also doesn’t have to defer to policy makers. There is insufficient evidence to indicate a process of reasoned elaboration here - indeed, there is a clear rush to a decision based on external factors.

The burden is on plaintiffs to show some kind of law violation. “Insufficient evidence to indicate a process of reasoned elaboration” is ridiculous. There was a scope, there were consultants, there were options, there was feedback. That’s all part of the process even if the option selected wasn’t always under consideration. Then there’s the CO recommendation and report, calculations, and cooperation with the Planning Dept.

It doesn’t mean MCPS is right about the numbers. But they don’t have to be right. Projections are inherently projecting an unknown. If you could see the future you wouldn’t need projections. For a court, they don’t have to be right, they have to be not arbitrary or discriminatory.

A lawsuit will not win unless the MAGA SC just wants to stick it to Montgomery County enough to do something without a basis in the law, which is of course a real possibility at this point.

You just made the case. You can’t have reasoned elaboration if you didn’t actually do it. Proposing and then recommending Option H in less than 2 months is ridiculous, especially when the BOE is now faced with evidence that their numbers are faulty. Also, you do need strong indická that MCPS is right, and the fact that MCPS used faulty projections to build Crown makes its current projections similarly suspect.

And it’s arbitrary and capricious, not discriminatory.

Wrong. Clearly you’re not an attorney.

The state Board of Education would review appeals and the argument from both sides. The state Board considers the actions of the local board as “prima facie correct,” and the state Board “may not substitute its judgment … unless the decision is arbitrary, unreasonable or illegal” under Maryland law.

In the instant case, there is little question that the public participated extensively in the boundary study and the local board was clearly presented with community feedback.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of people from Magruder there testifying. Also a bunch from SSIMS.

I wonder why MCPS did not point to the additional out-of-bounds immersion students to explain that SSIMS will actually still be around average size for MCPS middle schools? It's a weird omission....

Because I think they are going to do away with Spanish Immersion at SSIMS but haven't said that yet. With the rezoning of RTES to TPMS, that is basically the entire Spanish immersion program. French may stay, but all of French is coming from SCES so I don't think that changes enrollment numbers.

SSIMS parents have been asking whether immersion will remain since October, and Taylor and MCPS have never given a straight answer....

So does that mean TPMS will host Spanish immersion or will that just go away except for Westland?

I think that depends on how the state requirement of 60 minutes of math per day in MS gets implemented (unless people lobby to get it overturned, but so far no one seems to be paying attention and making an effort to do so, so we're probably screwed.)

If MCPS ends implementing it in a way where kids can only take one elective a year (or maybe one year-long elective plus one semester-long elective), which is what seems most likely, then probably a lot less kids are going to be interested in using an elective spot for a foreign language. In which case I suspect middle school immersion will be axed across the board... heck, we'll be lucky if middle school foreign language survives at all, outside of *maybe* Spanish 1A and Spanish 1B.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of people from Magruder there testifying. Also a bunch from SSIMS.

I wonder why MCPS did not point to the additional out-of-bounds immersion students to explain that SSIMS will actually still be around average size for MCPS middle schools? It's a weird omission....

Not a weird omission...just an inconvenient fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I watched yesterday's video recording, and it was not a pleasant experience. BOE chose to let the CO staff to defend their projection, whereas Wootton parents insisted their data were flawed. So they ended up in stuck, and BOE apparently firmly believed in the former. It's a lost war to me from a spectator's perspective.

That sets up the BOE’s decision as being arbitrary and capricious. Disregarding clear data flaws is the very definition. If the BOE were smart (and honest) it would redo its numbers. But that would mean Wootton can’t move to Crown in the fall of 2027.

The data doesn’t seem flawed. I’ve watched all the presentations even the joint one with planning board. It all seems very defensible and would withstand legal challenge.

A court looks at everything - it’s not obligated to believe anyone.

Uh no.
No, they look at the record before it. And will defer to policy makers when reasoned. Seems reasoned here. I wouldn’t want to be the one wasting money on this suit. MCPS will win despite you not liking it.

Suing because you didn’t get the outcome you wanted is such a waste of money…why won’t they learn that MCPS and the BOE can make these decisions? They choose to give communities a voice…it doesn’t mean they have to agree with what is said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I watched yesterday's video recording, and it was not a pleasant experience. BOE chose to let the CO staff to defend their projection, whereas Wootton parents insisted their data were flawed. So they ended up in stuck, and BOE apparently firmly believed in the former. It's a lost war to me from a spectator's perspective.

That sets up the BOE’s decision as being arbitrary and capricious. Disregarding clear data flaws is the very definition. If the BOE were smart (and honest) it would redo its numbers. But that would mean Wootton can’t move to Crown in the fall of 2027.

The data doesn’t seem flawed. I’ve watched all the presentations even the joint one with planning board. It all seems very defensible and would withstand legal challenge.

A court looks at everything - it’s not obligated to believe anyone.

Uh no.
No, they look at the record before it. And will defer to policy makers when reasoned. Seems reasoned here. I wouldn’t want to be the one wasting money on this suit. MCPS will win despite you not liking it.

Suing because you didn’t get the outcome you wanted is such a waste of money…why won’t they learn that MCPS and the BOE can make these decisions? They choose to give communities a voice…it doesn’t mean they have to agree with what is said.

Lawsuits will turn up corruption. This whole process has been bizarre and there is no logical argument as to why Wootton should close but Magruder remain open. Hold them to the fire and let’s see what turns up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I watched yesterday's video recording, and it was not a pleasant experience. BOE chose to let the CO staff to defend their projection, whereas Wootton parents insisted their data were flawed. So they ended up in stuck, and BOE apparently firmly believed in the former. It's a lost war to me from a spectator's perspective.

That sets up the BOE’s decision as being arbitrary and capricious. Disregarding clear data flaws is the very definition. If the BOE were smart (and honest) it would redo its numbers. But that would mean Wootton can’t move to Crown in the fall of 2027.

The data doesn’t seem flawed. I’ve watched all the presentations even the joint one with planning board. It all seems very defensible and would withstand legal challenge.

A court looks at everything - it’s not obligated to believe anyone.

Uh no.
No, they look at the record before it. And will defer to policy makers when reasoned. Seems reasoned here. I wouldn’t want to be the one wasting money on this suit. MCPS will win despite you not liking it.

Suing because you didn’t get the outcome you wanted is such a waste of money…why won’t they learn that MCPS and the BOE can make these decisions? They choose to give communities a voice…it doesn’t mean they have to agree with what is said.

Just like buying EV buses?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I watched yesterday's video recording, and it was not a pleasant experience. BOE chose to let the CO staff to defend their projection, whereas Wootton parents insisted their data were flawed. So they ended up in stuck, and BOE apparently firmly believed in the former. It's a lost war to me from a spectator's perspective.

That sets up the BOE’s decision as being arbitrary and capricious. Disregarding clear data flaws is the very definition. If the BOE were smart (and honest) it would redo its numbers. But that would mean Wootton can’t move to Crown in the fall of 2027.

The data doesn’t seem flawed. I’ve watched all the presentations even the joint one with planning board. It all seems very defensible and would withstand legal challenge.

A court looks at everything - it’s not obligated to believe anyone.

Uh no.
No, they look at the record before it. And will defer to policy makers when reasoned. Seems reasoned here. I wouldn’t want to be the one wasting money on this suit. MCPS will win despite you not liking it.

So you just made my point. A court looks at everything. It also doesn’t have to defer to policy makers. There is insufficient evidence to indicate a process of reasoned elaboration here - indeed, there is a clear rush to a decision based on external factors.

The burden is on plaintiffs to show some kind of law violation. “Insufficient evidence to indicate a process of reasoned elaboration” is ridiculous. There was a scope, there were consultants, there were options, there was feedback. That’s all part of the process even if the option selected wasn’t always under consideration. Then there’s the CO recommendation and report, calculations, and cooperation with the Planning Dept.

It doesn’t mean MCPS is right about the numbers. But they don’t have to be right. Projections are inherently projecting an unknown. If you could see the future you wouldn’t need projections. For a court, they don’t have to be right, they have to be not arbitrary or discriminatory.

A lawsuit will not win unless the MAGA SC just wants to stick it to Montgomery County enough to do something without a basis in the law, which is of course a real possibility at this point.

You just made the case. You can’t have reasoned elaboration if you didn’t actually do it. Proposing and then recommending Option H in less than 2 months is ridiculous, especially when the BOE is now faced with evidence that their numbers are faulty. Also, you do need strong indická that MCPS is right, and the fact that MCPS used faulty projections to build Crown makes its current projections similarly suspect.

And it’s arbitrary and capricious, not discriminatory.

Wrong. Clearly you’re not an attorney.

The state Board of Education would review appeals and the argument from both sides. The state Board considers the actions of the local board as “prima facie correct,” and the state Board “may not substitute its judgment … unless the decision is arbitrary, unreasonable or illegal” under Maryland law.

In the instant case, there is little question that the public participated extensively in the boundary study and the local board was clearly presented with community feedback.

And they have documented all the Fred back and meetings that took place. More than half the second survey responses came from Wootton.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I watched yesterday's video recording, and it was not a pleasant experience. BOE chose to let the CO staff to defend their projection, whereas Wootton parents insisted their data were flawed. So they ended up in stuck, and BOE apparently firmly believed in the former. It's a lost war to me from a spectator's perspective.

That sets up the BOE’s decision as being arbitrary and capricious. Disregarding clear data flaws is the very definition. If the BOE were smart (and honest) it would redo its numbers. But that would mean Wootton can’t move to Crown in the fall of 2027.

The data doesn’t seem flawed. I’ve watched all the presentations even the joint one with planning board. It all seems very defensible and would withstand legal challenge.

A court looks at everything - it’s not obligated to believe anyone.

Uh no.
No, they look at the record before it. And will defer to policy makers when reasoned. Seems reasoned here. I wouldn’t want to be the one wasting money on this suit. MCPS will win despite you not liking it.

Suing because you didn’t get the outcome you wanted is such a waste of money…why won’t they learn that MCPS and the BOE can make these decisions? They choose to give communities a voice…it doesn’t mean they have to agree with what is said.

Lawsuits will turn up corruption. This whole process has been bizarre and there is no logical argument as to why Wootton should close but Magruder remain open. Hold them to the fire and let’s see what turns up.

And then this board will light up complaining about all the money MCPS spent on lawsuits…it’s like a full circle, that we end up causing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I watched yesterday's video recording, and it was not a pleasant experience. BOE chose to let the CO staff to defend their projection, whereas Wootton parents insisted their data were flawed. So they ended up in stuck, and BOE apparently firmly believed in the former. It's a lost war to me from a spectator's perspective.

That sets up the BOE’s decision as being arbitrary and capricious. Disregarding clear data flaws is the very definition. If the BOE were smart (and honest) it would redo its numbers. But that would mean Wootton can’t move to Crown in the fall of 2027.

The data doesn’t seem flawed. I’ve watched all the presentations even the joint one with planning board. It all seems very defensible and would withstand legal challenge.

A court looks at everything - it’s not obligated to believe anyone.

Uh no.
No, they look at the record before it. And will defer to policy makers when reasoned. Seems reasoned here. I wouldn’t want to be the one wasting money on this suit. MCPS will win despite you not liking it.

Suing because you didn’t get the outcome you wanted is such a waste of money…why won’t they learn that MCPS and the BOE can make these decisions? They choose to give communities a voice…it doesn’t mean they have to agree with what is said.

Lawsuits will turn up corruption. This whole process has been bizarre and there is no logical argument as to why Wootton should close but Magruder remain open. Hold them to the fire and let’s see what turns up.

And then this board will light up complaining about all the money MCPS spent on lawsuits…it’s like a full circle, that we end up causing.

If everything is on the up and up, why is MCPS (and posters on DCUM) afraid of what it might uncover? If there’s such confidence, then the case should get dismissed quickly, so little to no legal expenses. Then again, MCPS blew millions on a case that went all the way to the Supreme Court when if had a very inexpensive alternative it could have taken (but flatly refused, even though it had done it before).

[Anonymous]

Did anyone watch the last hearing today? I was busy and missed it:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I watched yesterday's video recording, and it was not a pleasant experience. BOE chose to let the CO staff to defend their projection, whereas Wootton parents insisted their data were flawed. So they ended up in stuck, and BOE apparently firmly believed in the former. It's a lost war to me from a spectator's perspective.

That sets up the BOE’s decision as being arbitrary and capricious. Disregarding clear data flaws is the very definition. If the BOE were smart (and honest) it would redo its numbers. But that would mean Wootton can’t move to Crown in the fall of 2027.

The data doesn’t seem flawed. I’ve watched all the presentations even the joint one with planning board. It all seems very defensible and would withstand legal challenge.

A court looks at everything - it’s not obligated to believe anyone.

Uh no.
No, they look at the record before it. And will defer to policy makers when reasoned. Seems reasoned here. I wouldn’t want to be the one wasting money on this suit. MCPS will win despite you not liking it.

Suing because you didn’t get the outcome you wanted is such a waste of money…why won’t they learn that MCPS and the BOE can make these decisions? They choose to give communities a voice…it doesn’t mean they have to agree with what is said.

Just like buying EV buses?

And don’t forget the millions they spent on the Supreme Court loss