Wootton Announces They Have Formally Retained Silverman & Thompson

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not a part of the Wootton cluster so I’m not speaking w inside knowledge. But I think there is a major issue here at play that can absolutely get the Supreme Court involved, especially the current one. It would be an extension of a previous SCOTUS case (and no not the opt out case)

Do tell, what's the major issue or is it top secret?

Not sure what they are thinking but I wonder if it's the "Asian dispersal" argument that they have been trying to use. Which makes no sense since the Asian % of Wootton is currently 44% and at Crown it will be 39%, meaning that demographic continues to be a plurality at the new school...

In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled school districts could not use race to drive boundary decisions outside of school districts that are still under Brown-era desegregation orders. The decision famously contained the line: "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." That decision was authored by Chief Justice Roberts.

I get we're dealing with a very different Supreme Court today, but I cannot see them wanting to re-open anything that might erode that precedent. It's one of the key reasons so many of our school districts have returned to pre-Brown v. Board levels of segregation.

They are moving the entire school to a new building.

No they’re not.

Yes they are minus some changes for redistricting, like all of us are facing.

The lawsuit isn’t focused on that factor. It’s focused on the process and policy compliance. You may think things will end up the same as where we are today - and that might be the case - but violations of process and policy shouldn’t be ignored simply because you agree with the outcome. If that were the case, then you have no right to complain about any politician breaking the rules because someone else agrees with that outcome.

Process matters. Otherwise, what’s the point of having one? Why don’t we just let an authoritarian run things?

I agree that process and policy compliance matter. I am also curious what you think the outcome of this should be? We throw everything away and start fresh? Just certain parts? Ideally, what is the outcome you desire?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not a part of the Wootton cluster so I’m not speaking w inside knowledge. But I think there is a major issue here at play that can absolutely get the Supreme Court involved, especially the current one. It would be an extension of a previous SCOTUS case (and no not the opt out case)

Do tell, what's the major issue or is it top secret?

Not sure what they are thinking but I wonder if it's the "Asian dispersal" argument that they have been trying to use. Which makes no sense since the Asian % of Wootton is currently 44% and at Crown it will be 39%, meaning that demographic continues to be a plurality at the new school...

In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled school districts could not use race to drive boundary decisions outside of school districts that are still under Brown-era desegregation orders. The decision famously contained the line: "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." That decision was authored by Chief Justice Roberts.

I get we're dealing with a very different Supreme Court today, but I cannot see them wanting to re-open anything that might erode that precedent. It's one of the key reasons so many of our school districts have returned to pre-Brown v. Board levels of segregation.

They are moving the entire school to a new building.

No they’re not.

Yes they are minus some changes for redistricting, like all of us are facing.

The lawsuit isn’t focused on that factor. It’s focused on the process and policy compliance. You may think things will end up the same as where we are today - and that might be the case - but violations of process and policy shouldn’t be ignored simply because you agree with the outcome. If that were the case, then you have no right to complain about any politician breaking the rules because someone else agrees with that outcome.

Process matters. Otherwise, what’s the point of having one? Why don’t we just let an authoritarian run things?

I agree that process and policy compliance matter. I am also curious what you think the outcome of this should be? We throw everything away and start fresh? Just certain parts? Ideally, what is the outcome you desire?

They want a brand new school on the Wootton lot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not a part of the Wootton cluster so I’m not speaking w inside knowledge. But I think there is a major issue here at play that can absolutely get the Supreme Court involved, especially the current one. It would be an extension of a previous SCOTUS case (and no not the opt out case)

Do tell, what's the major issue or is it top secret?

Not sure what they are thinking but I wonder if it's the "Asian dispersal" argument that they have been trying to use. Which makes no sense since the Asian % of Wootton is currently 44% and at Crown it will be 39%, meaning that demographic continues to be a plurality at the new school...

In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled school districts could not use race to drive boundary decisions outside of school districts that are still under Brown-era desegregation orders. The decision famously contained the line: "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." That decision was authored by Chief Justice Roberts.

I get we're dealing with a very different Supreme Court today, but I cannot see them wanting to re-open anything that might erode that precedent. It's one of the key reasons so many of our school districts have returned to pre-Brown v. Board levels of segregation.

They are moving the entire school to a new building.

No they’re not.

Yes they are minus some changes for redistricting, like all of us are facing.

The lawsuit isn’t focused on that factor. It’s focused on the process and policy compliance. You may think things will end up the same as where we are today - and that might be the case - but violations of process and policy shouldn’t be ignored simply because you agree with the outcome. If that were the case, then you have no right to complain about any politician breaking the rules because someone else agrees with that outcome.

Process matters. Otherwise, what’s the point of having one? Why don’t we just let an authoritarian run things?

I agree that process and policy compliance matter. I am also curious what you think the outcome of this should be? We throw everything away and start fresh? Just certain parts? Ideally, what is the outcome you desire?

They want a brand new school on the Wootton lot.

They want dibs on the brand new Crown while waiting for the brand new Wootton

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not a part of the Wootton cluster so I’m not speaking w inside knowledge. But I think there is a major issue here at play that can absolutely get the Supreme Court involved, especially the current one. It would be an extension of a previous SCOTUS case (and no not the opt out case)

Do tell, what's the major issue or is it top secret?

Not sure what they are thinking but I wonder if it's the "Asian dispersal" argument that they have been trying to use. Which makes no sense since the Asian % of Wootton is currently 44% and at Crown it will be 39%, meaning that demographic continues to be a plurality at the new school...

In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled school districts could not use race to drive boundary decisions outside of school districts that are still under Brown-era desegregation orders. The decision famously contained the line: "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." That decision was authored by Chief Justice Roberts.

I get we're dealing with a very different Supreme Court today, but I cannot see them wanting to re-open anything that might erode that precedent. It's one of the key reasons so many of our school districts have returned to pre-Brown v. Board levels of segregation.

They are moving the entire school to a new building.

No they’re not.

Yes they are minus some changes for redistricting, like all of us are facing.

The lawsuit isn’t focused on that factor. It’s focused on the process and policy compliance. You may think things will end up the same as where we are today - and that might be the case - but violations of process and policy shouldn’t be ignored simply because you agree with the outcome. If that were the case, then you have no right to complain about any politician breaking the rules because someone else agrees with that outcome.

Process matters. Otherwise, what’s the point of having one? Why don’t we just let an authoritarian run things?

I agree that process and policy compliance matter. I am also curious what you think the outcome of this should be? We throw everything away and start fresh? Just certain parts? Ideally, what is the outcome you desire?

They want a brand new school on the Wootton lot.

They want dibs on the brand new Crown while waiting for the brand new Wootton

Didn’t they say they wanted MacGrunder to use it first?

[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’m not a part of the Wootton cluster so I’m not speaking w inside knowledge. But I think there is a major issue here at play that can absolutely get the Supreme Court involved, especially the current one. It would be an extension of a previous SCOTUS case (and no not the opt out case)

Do tell, what's the major issue or is it top secret?

Not sure what they are thinking but I wonder if it's the "Asian dispersal" argument that they have been trying to use. Which makes no sense since the Asian % of Wootton is currently 44% and at Crown it will be 39%, meaning that demographic continues to be a plurality at the new school...

In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled school districts could not use race to drive boundary decisions outside of school districts that are still under Brown-era desegregation orders. The decision famously contained the line: "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." That decision was authored by Chief Justice Roberts.

I get we're dealing with a very different Supreme Court today, but I cannot see them wanting to re-open anything that might erode that precedent. It's one of the key reasons so many of our school districts have returned to pre-Brown v. Board levels of segregation.

They are moving the entire school to a new building.

No they’re not.

Yes they are minus some changes for redistricting, like all of us are facing.

The lawsuit isn’t focused on that factor. It’s focused on the process and policy compliance. You may think things will end up the same as where we are today - and that might be the case - but violations of process and policy shouldn’t be ignored simply because you agree with the outcome. If that were the case, then you have no right to complain about any politician breaking the rules because someone else agrees with that outcome.

Process matters. Otherwise, what’s the point of having one? Why don’t we just let an authoritarian run things?

I agree that process and policy compliance matter. I am also curious what you think the outcome of this should be? We throw everything away and start fresh? Just certain parts? Ideally, what is the outcome you desire?

They want a brand new school on the Wootton lot.

They want dibs on the brand new Crown while waiting for the brand new Wootton

Didn’t they say they wanted MacGrunder to use it first?

They aren't being kind, they are trying to stall. They need to consider what others want and the majority of the students probably want a new school..

[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’m not a part of the Wootton cluster so I’m not speaking w inside knowledge. But I think there is a major issue here at play that can absolutely get the Supreme Court involved, especially the current one. It would be an extension of a previous SCOTUS case (and no not the opt out case)

Do tell, what's the major issue or is it top secret?

Not sure what they are thinking but I wonder if it's the "Asian dispersal" argument that they have been trying to use. Which makes no sense since the Asian % of Wootton is currently 44% and at Crown it will be 39%, meaning that demographic continues to be a plurality at the new school...

In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled school districts could not use race to drive boundary decisions outside of school districts that are still under Brown-era desegregation orders. The decision famously contained the line: "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." That decision was authored by Chief Justice Roberts.

I get we're dealing with a very different Supreme Court today, but I cannot see them wanting to re-open anything that might erode that precedent. It's one of the key reasons so many of our school districts have returned to pre-Brown v. Board levels of segregation.

They are moving the entire school to a new building.

No they’re not.

Yes they are minus some changes for redistricting, like all of us are facing.

The lawsuit isn’t focused on that factor. It’s focused on the process and policy compliance. You may think things will end up the same as where we are today - and that might be the case - but violations of process and policy shouldn’t be ignored simply because you agree with the outcome. If that were the case, then you have no right to complain about any politician breaking the rules because someone else agrees with that outcome.

Process matters. Otherwise, what’s the point of having one? Why don’t we just let an authoritarian run things?

I agree that process and policy compliance matter. I am also curious what you think the outcome of this should be? We throw everything away and start fresh? Just certain parts? Ideally, what is the outcome you desire?

They want a brand new school on the Wootton lot.

They want dibs on the brand new Crown while waiting for the brand new Wootton

Didn’t they say they wanted MacGrunder to use it first?

The Save Wotton website doesn’t say Magruder first, just “separate time” from when Wootton uses it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not a part of the Wootton cluster so I’m not speaking w inside knowledge. But I think there is a major issue here at play that can absolutely get the Supreme Court involved, especially the current one. It would be an extension of a previous SCOTUS case (and no not the opt out case)

Do tell, what's the major issue or is it top secret?

Not sure what they are thinking but I wonder if it's the "Asian dispersal" argument that they have been trying to use. Which makes no sense since the Asian % of Wootton is currently 44% and at Crown it will be 39%, meaning that demographic continues to be a plurality at the new school...

In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled school districts could not use race to drive boundary decisions outside of school districts that are still under Brown-era desegregation orders. The decision famously contained the line: "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." That decision was authored by Chief Justice Roberts.

I get we're dealing with a very different Supreme Court today, but I cannot see them wanting to re-open anything that might erode that precedent. It's one of the key reasons so many of our school districts have returned to pre-Brown v. Board levels of segregation.

They are moving the entire school to a new building.

No they’re not.

Yes they are minus some changes for redistricting, like all of us are facing.

The lawsuit isn’t focused on that factor. It’s focused on the process and policy compliance. You may think things will end up the same as where we are today - and that might be the case - but violations of process and policy shouldn’t be ignored simply because you agree with the outcome. If that were the case, then you have no right to complain about any politician breaking the rules because someone else agrees with that outcome.

Process matters. Otherwise, what’s the point of having one? Why don’t we just let an authoritarian run things?

I agree that process and policy compliance matter. I am also curious what you think the outcome of this should be? We throw everything away and start fresh? Just certain parts? Ideally, what is the outcome you desire?

Lets say they are not in compliance and didn't the process right. So, they redo it with the same outcome. Then what?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not a part of the Wootton cluster so I’m not speaking w inside knowledge. But I think there is a major issue here at play that can absolutely get the Supreme Court involved, especially the current one. It would be an extension of a previous SCOTUS case (and no not the opt out case)

Do tell, what's the major issue or is it top secret?

Not sure what they are thinking but I wonder if it's the "Asian dispersal" argument that they have been trying to use. Which makes no sense since the Asian % of Wootton is currently 44% and at Crown it will be 39%, meaning that demographic continues to be a plurality at the new school...

In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled school districts could not use race to drive boundary decisions outside of school districts that are still under Brown-era desegregation orders. The decision famously contained the line: "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." That decision was authored by Chief Justice Roberts.

I get we're dealing with a very different Supreme Court today, but I cannot see them wanting to re-open anything that might erode that precedent. It's one of the key reasons so many of our school districts have returned to pre-Brown v. Board levels of segregation.

They are moving the entire school to a new building.

No they’re not.

Yes they are minus some changes for redistricting, like all of us are facing.

The lawsuit isn’t focused on that factor. It’s focused on the process and policy compliance. You may think things will end up the same as where we are today - and that might be the case - but violations of process and policy shouldn’t be ignored simply because you agree with the outcome. If that were the case, then you have no right to complain about any politician breaking the rules because someone else agrees with that outcome.

Process matters. Otherwise, what’s the point of having one? Why don’t we just let an authoritarian run things?

I agree that process and policy compliance matter. I am also curious what you think the outcome of this should be? We throw everything away and start fresh? Just certain parts? Ideally, what is the outcome you desire?

I’m not involved in the lawsuit effort, but as a lawyer with decades of administrative law experience—and with the utmost respect for the law and the role of public institutions—it’s disappointing to see how this was rolled out. Process matters, especially for decisions of this scale, and it’s hard to ignore how compressed and late this was relative to the significance of what’s being proposed. This kind of rollout is often indicative of a predetermined outcome, with pro forma steps taken to check the compliance boxes. The right tribunal will ask hard questions and look past that.

I don’t believe the goal is to throw everything out and start over. But for something as significant as relocating Wootton, the process needs to be airtight. Ideally, that means taking a step back to make sure this option was fully vetted, clearly explained, and that real alternatives — including ones that keep Wootton where it is—were seriously considered.

If that can be addressed without a full reset, great. But if not, then some level of reconsideration makes sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not a part of the Wootton cluster so I’m not speaking w inside knowledge. But I think there is a major issue here at play that can absolutely get the Supreme Court involved, especially the current one. It would be an extension of a previous SCOTUS case (and no not the opt out case)

Do tell, what's the major issue or is it top secret?

Not sure what they are thinking but I wonder if it's the "Asian dispersal" argument that they have been trying to use. Which makes no sense since the Asian % of Wootton is currently 44% and at Crown it will be 39%, meaning that demographic continues to be a plurality at the new school...

In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled school districts could not use race to drive boundary decisions outside of school districts that are still under Brown-era desegregation orders. The decision famously contained the line: "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." That decision was authored by Chief Justice Roberts.

I get we're dealing with a very different Supreme Court today, but I cannot see them wanting to re-open anything that might erode that precedent. It's one of the key reasons so many of our school districts have returned to pre-Brown v. Board levels of segregation.

They are moving the entire school to a new building.

No they’re not.

Yes they are minus some changes for redistricting, like all of us are facing.

The lawsuit isn’t focused on that factor. It’s focused on the process and policy compliance. You may think things will end up the same as where we are today - and that might be the case - but violations of process and policy shouldn’t be ignored simply because you agree with the outcome. If that were the case, then you have no right to complain about any politician breaking the rules because someone else agrees with that outcome.

Process matters. Otherwise, what’s the point of having one? Why don’t we just let an authoritarian run things?

I agree that process and policy compliance matter. I am also curious what you think the outcome of this should be? We throw everything away and start fresh? Just certain parts? Ideally, what is the outcome you desire?

Lets say they are not in compliance and didn't the process right. So, they redo it with the same outcome. Then what?

If that happens, then MCPS will be in compliance. More importantly, it will have greater credibility moving forward. Community confidence in MCPS should be paramount—after all, we’re entrusting our children to it. Getting the process right isn’t just a legal box to check, it’s how you build trust in decisions like this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not a part of the Wootton cluster so I’m not speaking w inside knowledge. But I think there is a major issue here at play that can absolutely get the Supreme Court involved, especially the current one. It would be an extension of a previous SCOTUS case (and no not the opt out case)

Do tell, what's the major issue or is it top secret?

Not sure what they are thinking but I wonder if it's the "Asian dispersal" argument that they have been trying to use. Which makes no sense since the Asian % of Wootton is currently 44% and at Crown it will be 39%, meaning that demographic continues to be a plurality at the new school...

In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled school districts could not use race to drive boundary decisions outside of school districts that are still under Brown-era desegregation orders. The decision famously contained the line: "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." That decision was authored by Chief Justice Roberts.

I get we're dealing with a very different Supreme Court today, but I cannot see them wanting to re-open anything that might erode that precedent. It's one of the key reasons so many of our school districts have returned to pre-Brown v. Board levels of segregation.

They are moving the entire school to a new building.

No they’re not.

Yes they are minus some changes for redistricting, like all of us are facing.

The lawsuit isn’t focused on that factor. It’s focused on the process and policy compliance. You may think things will end up the same as where we are today - and that might be the case - but violations of process and policy shouldn’t be ignored simply because you agree with the outcome. If that were the case, then you have no right to complain about any politician breaking the rules because someone else agrees with that outcome.

Process matters. Otherwise, what’s the point of having one? Why don’t we just let an authoritarian run things?

I agree that process and policy compliance matter. I am also curious what you think the outcome of this should be? We throw everything away and start fresh? Just certain parts? Ideally, what is the outcome you desire?

Lets say they are not in compliance and didn't the process right. So, they redo it with the same outcome. Then what?

If that happens, then MCPS will be in compliance. More importantly, it will have greater credibility moving forward. Community confidence in MCPS should be paramount—after all, we’re entrusting our children to it. Getting the process right isn’t just a legal box to check, it’s how you build trust in decisions like this.

This is silly.

[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’m not a part of the Wootton cluster so I’m not speaking w inside knowledge. But I think there is a major issue here at play that can absolutely get the Supreme Court involved, especially the current one. It would be an extension of a previous SCOTUS case (and no not the opt out case)

Do tell, what's the major issue or is it top secret?

Not sure what they are thinking but I wonder if it's the "Asian dispersal" argument that they have been trying to use. Which makes no sense since the Asian % of Wootton is currently 44% and at Crown it will be 39%, meaning that demographic continues to be a plurality at the new school...

In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled school districts could not use race to drive boundary decisions outside of school districts that are still under Brown-era desegregation orders. The decision famously contained the line: "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." That decision was authored by Chief Justice Roberts.

I get we're dealing with a very different Supreme Court today, but I cannot see them wanting to re-open anything that might erode that precedent. It's one of the key reasons so many of our school districts have returned to pre-Brown v. Board levels of segregation.

They are moving the entire school to a new building.

No they’re not.

Yes they are minus some changes for redistricting, like all of us are facing.

The lawsuit isn’t focused on that factor. It’s focused on the process and policy compliance. You may think things will end up the same as where we are today - and that might be the case - but violations of process and policy shouldn’t be ignored simply because you agree with the outcome. If that were the case, then you have no right to complain about any politician breaking the rules because someone else agrees with that outcome.

Process matters. Otherwise, what’s the point of having one? Why don’t we just let an authoritarian run things?

I agree that process and policy compliance matter. I am also curious what you think the outcome of this should be? We throw everything away and start fresh? Just certain parts? Ideally, what is the outcome you desire?

Lets say they are not in compliance and didn't the process right. So, they redo it with the same outcome. Then what?

If that happens, then MCPS will be in compliance. More importantly, it will have greater credibility moving forward. Community confidence in MCPS should be paramount—after all, we’re entrusting our children to it. Getting the process right isn’t just a legal box to check, it’s how you build trust in decisions like this.

This is silly.

Why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not a part of the Wootton cluster so I’m not speaking w inside knowledge. But I think there is a major issue here at play that can absolutely get the Supreme Court involved, especially the current one. It would be an extension of a previous SCOTUS case (and no not the opt out case)

Do tell, what's the major issue or is it top secret?

Not sure what they are thinking but I wonder if it's the "Asian dispersal" argument that they have been trying to use. Which makes no sense since the Asian % of Wootton is currently 44% and at Crown it will be 39%, meaning that demographic continues to be a plurality at the new school...

In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled school districts could not use race to drive boundary decisions outside of school districts that are still under Brown-era desegregation orders. The decision famously contained the line: "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." That decision was authored by Chief Justice Roberts.

I get we're dealing with a very different Supreme Court today, but I cannot see them wanting to re-open anything that might erode that precedent. It's one of the key reasons so many of our school districts have returned to pre-Brown v. Board levels of segregation.

They are moving the entire school to a new building.

No they’re not.

Yes they are minus some changes for redistricting, like all of us are facing.

The lawsuit isn’t focused on that factor. It’s focused on the process and policy compliance. You may think things will end up the same as where we are today - and that might be the case - but violations of process and policy shouldn’t be ignored simply because you agree with the outcome. If that were the case, then you have no right to complain about any politician breaking the rules because someone else agrees with that outcome.

Process matters. Otherwise, what’s the point of having one? Why don’t we just let an authoritarian run things?

I agree that process and policy compliance matter. I am also curious what you think the outcome of this should be? We throw everything away and start fresh? Just certain parts? Ideally, what is the outcome you desire?

I’m not involved in the lawsuit effort, but as a lawyer with decades of administrative law experience—and with the utmost respect for the law and the role of public institutions—it’s disappointing to see how this was rolled out. Process matters, especially for decisions of this scale, and it’s hard to ignore how compressed and late this was relative to the significance of what’s being proposed. This kind of rollout is often indicative of a predetermined outcome, with pro forma steps taken to check the compliance boxes. The right tribunal will ask hard questions and look past that.

I don’t believe the goal is to throw everything out and start over. But for something as significant as relocating Wootton, the process needs to be airtight. Ideally, that means taking a step back to make sure this option was fully vetted, clearly explained, and that real alternatives — including ones that keep Wootton where it is—were seriously considered.

If that can be addressed without a full reset, great. But if not, then some level of reconsideration makes sense.

This was a more involved process than most districts would use to close a school. And certainly more involved than other school relocations. Don't be ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not a part of the Wootton cluster so I’m not speaking w inside knowledge. But I think there is a major issue here at play that can absolutely get the Supreme Court involved, especially the current one. It would be an extension of a previous SCOTUS case (and no not the opt out case)

Do tell, what's the major issue or is it top secret?

Not sure what they are thinking but I wonder if it's the "Asian dispersal" argument that they have been trying to use. Which makes no sense since the Asian % of Wootton is currently 44% and at Crown it will be 39%, meaning that demographic continues to be a plurality at the new school...

In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled school districts could not use race to drive boundary decisions outside of school districts that are still under Brown-era desegregation orders. The decision famously contained the line: "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." That decision was authored by Chief Justice Roberts.

I get we're dealing with a very different Supreme Court today, but I cannot see them wanting to re-open anything that might erode that precedent. It's one of the key reasons so many of our school districts have returned to pre-Brown v. Board levels of segregation.

They are moving the entire school to a new building.

No they’re not.

Yes they are minus some changes for redistricting, like all of us are facing.

The lawsuit isn’t focused on that factor. It’s focused on the process and policy compliance. You may think things will end up the same as where we are today - and that might be the case - but violations of process and policy shouldn’t be ignored simply because you agree with the outcome. If that were the case, then you have no right to complain about any politician breaking the rules because someone else agrees with that outcome.

Process matters. Otherwise, what’s the point of having one? Why don’t we just let an authoritarian run things?

I agree that process and policy compliance matter. I am also curious what you think the outcome of this should be? We throw everything away and start fresh? Just certain parts? Ideally, what is the outcome you desire?

I’m not involved in the lawsuit effort, but as a lawyer with decades of administrative law experience—and with the utmost respect for the law and the role of public institutions—it’s disappointing to see how this was rolled out. Process matters, especially for decisions of this scale, and it’s hard to ignore how compressed and late this was relative to the significance of what’s being proposed. This kind of rollout is often indicative of a predetermined outcome, with pro forma steps taken to check the compliance boxes. The right tribunal will ask hard questions and look past that.

I don’t believe the goal is to throw everything out and start over. But for something as significant as relocating Wootton, the process needs to be airtight. Ideally, that means taking a step back to make sure this option was fully vetted, clearly explained, and that real alternatives — including ones that keep Wootton where it is—were seriously considered.

If that can be addressed without a full reset, great. But if not, then some level of reconsideration makes sense.

This was a more involved process than most districts would use to close a school. And certainly more involved than other school relocations. Don't be ridiculous.

You provided no examples and ended with an insult. Hard to take your response seriously.

[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’m not a part of the Wootton cluster so I’m not speaking w inside knowledge. But I think there is a major issue here at play that can absolutely get the Supreme Court involved, especially the current one. It would be an extension of a previous SCOTUS case (and no not the opt out case)

Do tell, what's the major issue or is it top secret?

Not sure what they are thinking but I wonder if it's the "Asian dispersal" argument that they have been trying to use. Which makes no sense since the Asian % of Wootton is currently 44% and at Crown it will be 39%, meaning that demographic continues to be a plurality at the new school...

In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled school districts could not use race to drive boundary decisions outside of school districts that are still under Brown-era desegregation orders. The decision famously contained the line: "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." That decision was authored by Chief Justice Roberts.

I get we're dealing with a very different Supreme Court today, but I cannot see them wanting to re-open anything that might erode that precedent. It's one of the key reasons so many of our school districts have returned to pre-Brown v. Board levels of segregation.

They are moving the entire school to a new building.

No they’re not.

Yes they are minus some changes for redistricting, like all of us are facing.

The lawsuit isn’t focused on that factor. It’s focused on the process and policy compliance. You may think things will end up the same as where we are today - and that might be the case - but violations of process and policy shouldn’t be ignored simply because you agree with the outcome. If that were the case, then you have no right to complain about any politician breaking the rules because someone else agrees with that outcome.

Process matters. Otherwise, what’s the point of having one? Why don’t we just let an authoritarian run things?

I agree that process and policy compliance matter. I am also curious what you think the outcome of this should be? We throw everything away and start fresh? Just certain parts? Ideally, what is the outcome you desire?

I’m not involved in the lawsuit effort, but as a lawyer with decades of administrative law experience—and with the utmost respect for the law and the role of public institutions—it’s disappointing to see how this was rolled out. Process matters, especially for decisions of this scale, and it’s hard to ignore how compressed and late this was relative to the significance of what’s being proposed. This kind of rollout is often indicative of a predetermined outcome, with pro forma steps taken to check the compliance boxes. The right tribunal will ask hard questions and look past that.

I don’t believe the goal is to throw everything out and start over. But for something as significant as relocating Wootton, the process needs to be airtight. Ideally, that means taking a step back to make sure this option was fully vetted, clearly explained, and that real alternatives — including ones that keep Wootton where it is—were seriously considered.

If that can be addressed without a full reset, great. But if not, then some level of reconsideration makes sense.

This was a more involved process than most districts would use to close a school. And certainly more involved than other school relocations. Don't be ridiculous.

You provided no examples and ended with an insult. Hard to take your response seriously.

We've got another example going on in MCPS. Burtonsville ES is moving 2 miles away.

[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’m not a part of the Wootton cluster so I’m not speaking w inside knowledge. But I think there is a major issue here at play that can absolutely get the Supreme Court involved, especially the current one. It would be an extension of a previous SCOTUS case (and no not the opt out case)

Do tell, what's the major issue or is it top secret?

Not sure what they are thinking but I wonder if it's the "Asian dispersal" argument that they have been trying to use. Which makes no sense since the Asian % of Wootton is currently 44% and at Crown it will be 39%, meaning that demographic continues to be a plurality at the new school...

In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled school districts could not use race to drive boundary decisions outside of school districts that are still under Brown-era desegregation orders. The decision famously contained the line: "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." That decision was authored by Chief Justice Roberts.

I get we're dealing with a very different Supreme Court today, but I cannot see them wanting to re-open anything that might erode that precedent. It's one of the key reasons so many of our school districts have returned to pre-Brown v. Board levels of segregation.

They are moving the entire school to a new building.

No they’re not.

Yes they are minus some changes for redistricting, like all of us are facing.

The lawsuit isn’t focused on that factor. It’s focused on the process and policy compliance. You may think things will end up the same as where we are today - and that might be the case - but violations of process and policy shouldn’t be ignored simply because you agree with the outcome. If that were the case, then you have no right to complain about any politician breaking the rules because someone else agrees with that outcome.

Process matters. Otherwise, what’s the point of having one? Why don’t we just let an authoritarian run things?

I agree that process and policy compliance matter. I am also curious what you think the outcome of this should be? We throw everything away and start fresh? Just certain parts? Ideally, what is the outcome you desire?

I’m not involved in the lawsuit effort, but as a lawyer with decades of administrative law experience—and with the utmost respect for the law and the role of public institutions—it’s disappointing to see how this was rolled out. Process matters, especially for decisions of this scale, and it’s hard to ignore how compressed and late this was relative to the significance of what’s being proposed. This kind of rollout is often indicative of a predetermined outcome, with pro forma steps taken to check the compliance boxes. The right tribunal will ask hard questions and look past that.

I don’t believe the goal is to throw everything out and start over. But for something as significant as relocating Wootton, the process needs to be airtight. Ideally, that means taking a step back to make sure this option was fully vetted, clearly explained, and that real alternatives — including ones that keep Wootton where it is—were seriously considered.

If that can be addressed without a full reset, great. But if not, then some level of reconsideration makes sense.

This was a more involved process than most districts would use to close a school. And certainly more involved than other school relocations. Don't be ridiculous.

You provided no examples and ended with an insult. Hard to take your response seriously.

We've got another example going on in MCPS. Burtonsville ES is moving 2 miles away.

Please elaborate.