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:

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.

Your apparent lack of knowledge only demonstrates how much more MCPS did with Wootton move.

[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.

Isn’t the new school being built specifically for Burtonsville ES? Not built for someone else?

[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’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.

Your apparent lack of knowledge only demonstrates how much more MCPS did with Wootton move.

Please elaborate. How much more? Was Crown built for Wootton?

[Anonymous]

Question for the lawyers here from a non-legal person.

At what stage in the legal process would the implementation of the boundary study be frozen or nullified? Just An active case? Or only after a judge rules?

Also would this affect the entire study or just the Wootton result?

Just wondering bec if it’s after a judge rules, and assuming that would take a while, could we be in a situation where we go with the new boundary plans and then move back to the old school assignment?


Thanks

[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’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.

Isn’t the new school being built specifically for Burtonsville ES? Not built for someone else?

The high school in Crown is now being built for Wootton.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Question for the lawyers here from a non-legal person.

At what stage in the legal process would the implementation of the boundary study be frozen or nullified? Just An active case? Or only after a judge rules?

Also would this affect the entire study or just the Wootton result?

Just wondering bec if it’s after a judge rules, and assuming that would take a while, could we be in a situation where we go with the new boundary plans and then move back to the old school assignment?


Thanks

If a lawsuit is ever filed, they would have to convince a judge that they're likely to prevail, in which case the judge might issue an injunction.

No one has offered a plausible legal argument, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Wootton becomes a holding school, the traffic on Wootton Parkway will be a complete nightmare. Right now 1/3 of students walk/bike and only 2 buses come from the Falls Rd area. They have already lost all the student parking in the old lot across the street as they are building new housing. City of Rockville will remove the permit parking in Fallsmead because it’s no longer for their neighborhood. There will be one small lot for juniors/seniors to park and I guarantee every neighbor will report cars parking behind the baseball field, frost and other locations they kinda just let happen before because it was their community.

And you think the traffic was bad before? At least people were coming from Scott Dr, and both sides of Wootton. Now an entire school of students will be busing and driving in one way on a one way road. All while neighborhood kids are still walking to Frost in crosswalks and thru the school parking lot.

Thank the lord above they are moving this school! Forget the black mold and asbestos! I’m more concerned about my kids getting exposed to these “neighbors” who want to call the cops on the black and brown kids from Magruder for trying to go to school.

This has nothing to do with race so give it a rest. My kids go to Wootton and the majority are minority. I think the PP meant these cars parked were friends and neighbors. I know one family with a Wootton student that let 6 other students park their cars in their driveway while they were at work. Parking for juniors/seniors is extremely limited now that the Giant lot is closed. Less than half of parking passes requested were give this year. And that is with 1/3 walkers already and the neighbor parking I described.

Those extra parking spots won’t be happening and now 100% of the school will need busses or parking passes, or worse have parents drive them in. And now all those Wootton walkers will be getting into cars on Wootton parkway to travel to Crown too. It’s a one lane road. We currently live 1.8 miles away and it takes my daughter about 20-25min to go half a mile on Falls and half a mile on Wootton to school in the morning. I would think that would easily double for a holding school.

[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.

There were multiple options that kept wootton where it is before this final option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Wootton becomes a holding school, the traffic on Wootton Parkway will be a complete nightmare. Right now 1/3 of students walk/bike and only 2 buses come from the Falls Rd area. They have already lost all the student parking in the old lot across the street as they are building new housing. City of Rockville will remove the permit parking in Fallsmead because it’s no longer for their neighborhood. There will be one small lot for juniors/seniors to park and I guarantee every neighbor will report cars parking behind the baseball field, frost and other locations they kinda just let happen before because it was their community.

And you think the traffic was bad before? At least people were coming from Scott Dr, and both sides of Wootton. Now an entire school of students will be busing and driving in one way on a one way road. All while neighborhood kids are still walking to Frost in crosswalks and thru the school parking lot.

Thank the lord above they are moving this school! Forget the black mold and asbestos! I’m more concerned about my kids getting exposed to these “neighbors” who want to call the cops on the black and brown kids from Magruder for trying to go to school.

This has nothing to do with race so give it a rest. My kids go to Wootton and the majority are minority. I think the PP meant these cars parked were friends and neighbors. I know one family with a Wootton student that let 6 other students park their cars in their driveway while they were at work. Parking for juniors/seniors is extremely limited now that the Giant lot is closed. Less than half of parking passes requested were give this year. And that is with 1/3 walkers already and the neighbor parking I described.

Those extra parking spots won’t be happening and now 100% of the school will need busses or parking passes, or worse have parents drive them in. And now all those Wootton walkers will be getting into cars on Wootton parkway to travel to Crown too. It’s a one lane road. We currently live 1.8 miles away and it takes my daughter about 20-25min to go half a mile on Falls and half a mile on Wootton to school in the morning. I would think that would easily double for a holding school.

Dont some Wooton students live in the Crown Rio area who will be walkers?

[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.

There were multiple options that kept wootton where it is before this final option.

If it can be proven they weren’t seriously considered, that would be a problem for MCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Wootton becomes a holding school, the traffic on Wootton Parkway will be a complete nightmare. Right now 1/3 of students walk/bike and only 2 buses come from the Falls Rd area. They have already lost all the student parking in the old lot across the street as they are building new housing. City of Rockville will remove the permit parking in Fallsmead because it’s no longer for their neighborhood. There will be one small lot for juniors/seniors to park and I guarantee every neighbor will report cars parking behind the baseball field, frost and other locations they kinda just let happen before because it was their community.

And you think the traffic was bad before? At least people were coming from Scott Dr, and both sides of Wootton. Now an entire school of students will be busing and driving in one way on a one way road. All while neighborhood kids are still walking to Frost in crosswalks and thru the school parking lot.

Thank the lord above they are moving this school! Forget the black mold and asbestos! I’m more concerned about my kids getting exposed to these “neighbors” who want to call the cops on the black and brown kids from Magruder for trying to go to school.

This has nothing to do with race so give it a rest. My kids go to Wootton and the majority are minority. I think the PP meant these cars parked were friends and neighbors. I know one family with a Wootton student that let 6 other students park their cars in their driveway while they were at work. Parking for juniors/seniors is extremely limited now that the Giant lot is closed. Less than half of parking passes requested were give this year. And that is with 1/3 walkers already and the neighbor parking I described.

Those extra parking spots won’t be happening and now 100% of the school will need busses or parking passes, or worse have parents drive them in. And now all those Wootton walkers will be getting into cars on Wootton parkway to travel to Crown too. It’s a one lane road. We currently live 1.8 miles away and it takes my daughter about 20-25min to go half a mile on Falls and half a mile on Wootton to school in the morning. I would think that would easily double for a holding school.

Heaven forbid they get on the bus instead of a bunch of kids driving to school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Wootton becomes a holding school, the traffic on Wootton Parkway will be a complete nightmare. Right now 1/3 of students walk/bike and only 2 buses come from the Falls Rd area. They have already lost all the student parking in the old lot across the street as they are building new housing. City of Rockville will remove the permit parking in Fallsmead because it’s no longer for their neighborhood. There will be one small lot for juniors/seniors to park and I guarantee every neighbor will report cars parking behind the baseball field, frost and other locations they kinda just let happen before because it was their community.

And you think the traffic was bad before? At least people were coming from Scott Dr, and both sides of Wootton. Now an entire school of students will be busing and driving in one way on a one way road. All while neighborhood kids are still walking to Frost in crosswalks and thru the school parking lot.

Thank the lord above they are moving this school! Forget the black mold and asbestos! I’m more concerned about my kids getting exposed to these “neighbors” who want to call the cops on the black and brown kids from Magruder for trying to go to school.

This has nothing to do with race so give it a rest. My kids go to Wootton and the majority are minority. I think the PP meant these cars parked were friends and neighbors. I know one family with a Wootton student that let 6 other students park their cars in their driveway while they were at work. Parking for juniors/seniors is extremely limited now that the Giant lot is closed. Less than half of parking passes requested were give this year. And that is with 1/3 walkers already and the neighbor parking I described.

Those extra parking spots won’t be happening and now 100% of the school will need busses or parking passes, or worse have parents drive them in. And now all those Wootton walkers will be getting into cars on Wootton parkway to travel to Crown too. It’s a one lane road. We currently live 1.8 miles away and it takes my daughter about 20-25min to go half a mile on Falls and half a mile on Wootton to school in the morning. I would think that would easily double for a holding school.

It’s a two-lane road. There are lanes in both directions.

The Wootton walkers in that area will be bus riders. Car transport is optional and their own choice.

You won’t be traveling falls Rd to to to the new school in Crown.

The number of students traveling up from the fallsmead area is probably fewer than the number of students who before took buses down Wootton that now won’t because they go to crown.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

There were multiple options that kept wootton where it is before this final option.

If it can be proven they weren’t seriously considered, that would be a problem for MCPS.

How on earth could this be proven? They released all options, had people comment on what they liked or didn’t like about each (not vote, comment) and considered that feedback in conjunction with their own goals of fixing nasty buildings and very real financial constraints. Seriously wondering how one might prove they never thought the options they put out and asked for comment on were legitimate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Wootton becomes a holding school, the traffic on Wootton Parkway will be a complete nightmare. Right now 1/3 of students walk/bike and only 2 buses come from the Falls Rd area. They have already lost all the student parking in the old lot across the street as they are building new housing. City of Rockville will remove the permit parking in Fallsmead because it’s no longer for their neighborhood. There will be one small lot for juniors/seniors to park and I guarantee every neighbor will report cars parking behind the baseball field, frost and other locations they kinda just let happen before because it was their community.

And you think the traffic was bad before? At least people were coming from Scott Dr, and both sides of Wootton. Now an entire school of students will be busing and driving in one way on a one way road. All while neighborhood kids are still walking to Frost in crosswalks and thru the school parking lot.

Thank the lord above they are moving this school! Forget the black mold and asbestos! I’m more concerned about my kids getting exposed to these “neighbors” who want to call the cops on the black and brown kids from Magruder for trying to go to school.

This has nothing to do with race so give it a rest. My kids go to Wootton and the majority are minority. I think the PP meant these cars parked were friends and neighbors. I know one family with a Wootton student that let 6 other students park their cars in their driveway while they were at work. Parking for juniors/seniors is extremely limited now that the Giant lot is closed. Less than half of parking passes requested were give this year. And that is with 1/3 walkers already and the neighbor parking I described.

Those extra parking spots won’t be happening and now 100% of the school will need busses or parking passes, or worse have parents drive them in. And now all those Wootton walkers will be getting into cars on Wootton parkway to travel to Crown too. It’s a one lane road. We currently live 1.8 miles away and it takes my daughter about 20-25min to go half a mile on Falls and half a mile on Wootton to school in the morning. I would think that would easily double for a holding school.

At least half the kids get parking. That’s not common at most schools. They take the bus for the same distance walking away from the school since it’s a two mile walk or parents drive. We drive as the walk is unsafe with multiple major roads.

[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.

There were multiple options that kept wootton where it is before this final option.

If it can be proven they weren’t seriously considered, that would be a problem for MCPS.

How on earth could this be proven? They released all options, had people comment on what they liked or didn’t like about each (not vote, comment) and considered that feedback in conjunction with their own goals of fixing nasty buildings and very real financial constraints. Seriously wondering how one might prove they never thought the options they put out and asked for comment on were legitimate.

That’s exactly the challenge—proving ‘predetermination’ is hard, but that doesn’t mean the concerns here aren’t valid. When a major option like relocating Wootton shows up late and already fully formed, it raises real questions about whether alternatives were ever seriously on the table in a meaningful way.

Yes, MCPS can point to meetings and public comments, but courts don’t just count steps—they look at whether the process actually allowed for meaningful input on the real proposal. If the most significant option came late and the process mostly refined that one path, it’s fair to question how open the decision-making really was.