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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All you Wootton crazies - just shut up

I'm more concerned about the Regional magnets and looks like this thread keeps getting longer and longer and bumped so the rest of us will forget about that.

Actually I have questions about H and regional magnets. Under any other option A-F, Crown (with its state-of-the-art labs) is in region 5. Under H, Crown/Wootton (whatever you call it) is under region 4.

How do we feel about option H handing a brand new amazing STEM centric school to a region that is already well-resourced over the under-resourced Gaithersburg community that is also overcrowded.

Do we care that Option H completely screws over Gaithersburg?

For all the people who say they are pro H to diversify Wootton, please do tell—how can you support an option that “steals” a school meant for a community of lower income and less resourced and hands it over to the privileged folks of Rockville and Potomac?

The cognitive dissonance doesn't make sense. Either Wootton is rich and privileged - doesn't deserve a new building, or Wootton is being given a "gift" that it should be forced to take for the good of MCPS. Which is it?

It's really not that complicated once you stop being deliberately obtuse. While people might disagree on relative priority, most would agree Wootton is nearing the end of its functional lifespan and will soon need a major renovation or to be rebuilt.

The people opposed to H don't want to stick with current Wootton building. They instead want MCPS to build them a school that the district doesn't actually need because they think it will help their property values.

So let’s say we give Wootton this brand new school. Again for the countless time: do we care or don’t care that H moves Crown/Wootton to region 4? Do we care or don’t care that this would give all the brand new, state of art labs and resources to Rockville and Potomac residents (Wootton, Churchill, RM) when this was supposed to be for under-resourced yet over populated Gaithersburg?

PP, by your own logic, MCPS is giving H to “privileged” parents of Wootton. How do you feel about the entire Gaithersburg community losing access to Crown, when every other option A-G gives Crown to Region 5?

Longer-term, it isn't good for Region 5 to have MCPS paying for a high school that it doesn't need.

Even longer term, it isn’t good for anyone in the school system for MCPS to spend money breaking ground on a new school it doesn’t need, use faulty enrollment numbers, not renovate another school that they have neglected for decades, and then instead of fixing the neglected school, punishes it by closing it altogether.

If we’re talking about the long term, pretty sure setting an unlawful precedent is worse.

Actually it is. And, MCPS has closed schools over the years. Not unlawful. Reopened some.

I see we’re back to this.

Please go back in this thread.

It is lawful to close schools.
It is not lawful to close schools without going through the required processes and procedures to close a school.
MCPS has not started the procedures necessary to formally close Wootton—those procedures are completely separate and distinct from school boundaries.

Before you say something is legal, perhaps check the law first. Go read the state regulations. I’ll even cite you which one: COMAR 13A.02.09

Option H is de facto closure. It is a school closure disguised in a boundary study.

The required elements of that process are being done. And we're still just building up to a recommendation to the board. If moving Wootton is the recommendation, there's no reason MCPS couldn't provide notice and hold a subsequent hearing before making a final decision.

That being said, I suspect their lawyers know but the legal obligations truly are. This looks like moving a school, not closing a school.

Not PP—but suppose we do it your way. Suppose we decide on H and then do all the requirements like an impact analysis on transportation and safety (how efficient/safe it is to transport two whole high schools into Wootton Parkway that is one lane each in both directions while shipping Wootton kids out the opposite direction at peak hours):

1. What happens if the studies show we can’t do this for whatever reason? What if there is a safety defect? We would have to go back to the drawing board and redo the boundary study? I highly doubt MCPS would want to do that due to cost, timing, and the sheer embarrassment.
2. So how do you insure that the impact analysis and all requirements will be done in a completely unbiased manner if the decision and conclusion of those studies—to support why we should close Wootton—was made and tied to a district wide boundary study beforehand.

[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:All you Wootton crazies - just shut up

I'm more concerned about the Regional magnets and looks like this thread keeps getting longer and longer and bumped so the rest of us will forget about that.

Actually I have questions about H and regional magnets. Under any other option A-F, Crown (with its state-of-the-art labs) is in region 5. Under H, Crown/Wootton (whatever you call it) is under region 4.

How do we feel about option H handing a brand new amazing STEM centric school to a region that is already well-resourced over the under-resourced Gaithersburg community that is also overcrowded.

Do we care that Option H completely screws over Gaithersburg?

For all the people who say they are pro H to diversify Wootton, please do tell—how can you support an option that “steals” a school meant for a community of lower income and less resourced and hands it over to the privileged folks of Rockville and Potomac?

The cognitive dissonance doesn't make sense. Either Wootton is rich and privileged - doesn't deserve a new building, or Wootton is being given a "gift" that it should be forced to take for the good of MCPS. Which is it?

It's really not that complicated once you stop being deliberately obtuse. While people might disagree on relative priority, most would agree Wootton is nearing the end of its functional lifespan and will soon need a major renovation or to be rebuilt.

The people opposed to H don't want to stick with current Wootton building. They instead want MCPS to build them a school that the district doesn't actually need because they think it will help their property values.

So let’s say we give Wootton this brand new school. Again for the countless time: do we care or don’t care that H moves Crown/Wootton to region 4? Do we care or don’t care that this would give all the brand new, state of art labs and resources to Rockville and Potomac residents (Wootton, Churchill, RM) when this was supposed to be for under-resourced yet over populated Gaithersburg?

PP, by your own logic, MCPS is giving H to “privileged” parents of Wootton. How do you feel about the entire Gaithersburg community losing access to Crown, when every other option A-G gives Crown to Region 5?

Longer-term, it isn't good for Region 5 to have MCPS paying for a high school that it doesn't need.

Even longer term, it isn’t good for anyone in the school system for MCPS to spend money breaking ground on a new school it doesn’t need, use faulty enrollment numbers, not renovate another school that they have neglected for decades, and then instead of fixing the neglected school, punishes it by closing it altogether.

If we’re talking about the long term, pretty sure setting an unlawful precedent is worse.

Actually it is. And, MCPS has closed schools over the years. Not unlawful. Reopened some.

I see we’re back to this.

Please go back in this thread.

It is lawful to close schools.
It is not lawful to close schools without going through the required processes and procedures to close a school.
MCPS has not started the procedures necessary to formally close Wootton—those procedures are completely separate and distinct from school boundaries.

Before you say something is legal, perhaps check the law first. Go read the state regulations. I’ll even cite you which one: COMAR 13A.02.09

Option H is de facto closure. It is a school closure disguised in a boundary study.

Couple things here.
1. It is not clear that this qualifies as a closure. There is no definition in the code, but counties and municipalities have defined as "decision to permanently end use of a facility as a school." Don't think that is established here.
2. There is no full analysis of whether what is occurring right now meets those obligations under the code.
3. There is nothing that violates the code if those procedures occur subsequent to this process.

1 & 2 that’s why I said this is a de facto closure and that’s also exactly why Wootton parents will sue. Let the courts answer this. At a minimum this will cause a 2 year delay.
3. This is just factually wrong.

DP. All the board has to do in March is adjust Wootton's boundaries to include Crown. That is perfectly within their scope. Then, if desired, Taylor can proceed with plans to relocate the building.

O I wish they would, lol the Wootton lawyers would have a field day. If they did that, they would be literally proving our point. This isn’t a boundary study, this is a school closure pretending to be a boundary study.

Please stop discussing legality when you have zero idea what you are taking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It has become clear that many (not all) anti-H posters on this thread are concerned about this plan not because of walkability, or making the most fiscally prudent choice for ALL of MCPS at this moment..but rather the potential for a change in the population of students that their kids will go to school with.

In this instance, the population would shift because the geographic location of the building would shift...but really they are arguing for segregation. I notice that nobody responded earlier when I asked if there would be similar opposition if a large low-income housing project went in close to the current building. The "results" that some posters seem concerned about are the same. I wonder if people would be this vocal if the county's proposal was to build more housing.

Well, Scotland is low income housing and it’s in the heart of Potomac. Nobody has a problem with it.

PP here. Help me understand how this connects to my question please?

Look up Scotland (100 townhomes) in Potomac and where that low income neighborhood goes to school. There’s even a historic black church nearby that was recently rebuilt and expanded.

You’re saying that rich, privileged Wootton families in Potomac and North Potomac don’t want low income minorities going to their school, and that’s why they’re opposed to Crown. Scotland proves this isn’t the case.

Got it. But I don't know that it proves that. Of course there are existing low income areas now that impact the current population and demographics of Wootton. I'm positing a significant increase in the amount of that, on par with the increase that many think will result from Option H.

It isn’t a question of demographics. Rather one of projected academic performance based on past academic performance. GHS is not in the same league as Wootton based on academic performance. Some GHS students may be, but on average they are not.

It would be like a high-performing major sports team being forced to accept 30%+ more players from a much lower performing team in exchange for a new stadium. Would you expect the resulting team to perform at the same level as before? It might eventually, but the odds would be against that, especially if other high performing teams were not forced to do so. Also, a new stadium does guarantee championships.

Fair point on terminology. Let's sub in "population with historically low(er) academic performance" for demographics.

And as to your analogy, seems you are arguing that the average performance population of the institution should not change...regardless of the reason?

Not PP.

I’m ok with natural population change over time—that’s the only reasonable take.

I’m not okay with forced change jammed down my throat simply because MCPS messed up and opened a school without having the enrollment or funds to do so.

Low income housing does not bother me.

Thanks for this answer. So just to be clear, if Wootton stayed exactly where it is, with improvements, and the underenrollment were addressed by redistricting to add 15% population from current GHS feeders, that would be OK? Sincere question. I assume many would agree with this, and you may be one of them.

Oh there would undoubtedly be some loud voices complaining about that, but yes, the majority of Wootton would be fine with that, IMO.

I'm in Cold Spring. I won't deny that there are a few AHs I've encountered who are spun up over demographics and the Wootton name and other stupid shit because they think it will hurt their kid's chances of getting into medical school. And those people are probably the ones posting over and over on this thread and elsewhere. But genuinely, they are in the minority. I have had a LOT of conversations about all this, as you can imagine. Yes, there is almost unified opposition to H at Cold Spring, but 90-95% of those opposed are opposed for purely logistical, practical reasons. Crown is pretty far for us. Most families have 2 working parents and younger kids at home. Someone calculated that busses to Crown will need to be at like 6:15am. Teenagers aren't known for being morning people. If you have to drive your kid to or from school, that could be a 40 minute roundtrip given traffic. Not a lot of people have a spare 40 minutes in their morning or evening schedules. This is going to be a PITA.

We do not care about adding Rosemont or Fields or whoever - 100% fine. It may be hard to tell from anonymous threads like this but the majority of us are completely normal people who are not freaked out by the prospect of lower income kids. And of course having a fancy new building would be nice, although most people I've talked to do think it's kind of screwed up to yank the new building out from under Gaithersburg. But really, it's about location.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was it considered a closure back when Blair was moved?

Not the same analogy at all.
Blair kept its name.
Blair’s move was closer.
Blair’s feeder pattern didn’t change.

And Blair community was ok with this move. They didn’t express strong opposition

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was it considered a closure back when Blair was moved?

Not the same analogy at all.
Blair kept its name.
Blair’s move was closer.
Blair’s feeder pattern didn’t change.

We're not sure whether the Wootton name would change
Fair enough, the schools are 1.6 miles away, not 2.7mi
I think the feeders must have changed, since the new Blair building is MUCH bigger

We’re not sure of a lot of things. That’s part of the problem.
We’re not sure of the name.
We’re not sure of the region. If it’s 4, I guess Mcps doesn’t give a shit about Gaithersburg. If it’s a 5, school closure arguments are even more strengthened.
Hell we’re not even sure what happens to Wootton on Wootton Parkway in the long term. Does it get demolished after it’s been used as a holding school?

When it comes to Blair:
MCPS did not:
• Remove Blair from the CIP
• Strip it of students
• Use it temporarily
• Decide its fate later

Yes, Blair’s relocation involved a boundary study.
• But it was done after MCPS committed to Blair’s long-term existence.
• The boundary study implemented a rebuild — it did not function as a workaround to avoid school-closure law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was it considered a closure back when Blair was moved?

Not the same analogy at all.
Blair kept its name.
Blair’s move was closer.
Blair’s feeder pattern didn’t change.

Only the first of those is at all relevant to whether it was a closure. And was it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was it considered a closure back when Blair was moved?

Not the same analogy at all.
Blair kept its name.
Blair’s move was closer.
Blair’s feeder pattern didn’t change.

Only the first of those is at all relevant to whether it was a closure. And was it?

No the facts are all relevant.
In Blair’s case, MCPS was upfront. Blair needs a rebuild. We’re going to build a new campus for this sole purpose.

In this case, MCPS build a new school without any reason but for the fact that if they didn’t, the land would have to be given back to the developers. Now they realized due to COVID, crack down on immigration, and loss of federal workers, they don’t have the enrollment for a new school. They then created options like A-D to shift kids around.

They then get hit with Churchill lawsuits. Backed down, and created new options like E-H.

Unlike the Blair situation where it was a move that the community wanted and MCPS expressly told was for them, here this move is not welcomed by the community and only made not because MCPS cares about Wootton but because they royally messed up by breaking ground before they did their due diligence, but are too afraid to piss of Churchill folks so they are targeting Wootton.

The intended purposes are completely different here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was it considered a closure back when Blair was moved?

Not the same analogy at all.
Blair kept its name.
Blair’s move was closer.
Blair’s feeder pattern didn’t change.

Only the first of those is at all relevant to whether it was a closure. And was it?

No the facts are all relevant.
In Blair’s case, MCPS was upfront. Blair needs a rebuild. We’re going to build a new campus for this sole purpose.

In this case, MCPS build a new school without any reason but for the fact that if they didn’t, the land would have to be given back to the developers. Now they realized due to COVID, crack down on immigration, and loss of federal workers, they don’t have the enrollment for a new school. They then created options like A-D to shift kids around.

They then get hit with Churchill lawsuits. Backed down, and created new options like E-H.

Unlike the Blair situation where it was a move that the community wanted and MCPS expressly told was for them, here this move is not welcomed by the community and only made not because MCPS cares about Wootton but because they royally messed up by breaking ground before they did their due diligence, but are too afraid to piss of Churchill folks so they are targeting Wootton.

The intended purposes are completely different here.

How is it relevant to whether or not the action IS a closure?

All you points go to whether it was a well-justified and well-supported closure. Fine. But did it meet the definition of a closure?
The question isn't about whether the situations are identical. Clearly they aren't. But if we are trying to determine whether the current situation is a closure, it would help to know whether that was determined to be a closure and the rules applied.

[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:All you Wootton crazies - just shut up

I'm more concerned about the Regional magnets and looks like this thread keeps getting longer and longer and bumped so the rest of us will forget about that.

Actually I have questions about H and regional magnets. Under any other option A-F, Crown (with its state-of-the-art labs) is in region 5. Under H, Crown/Wootton (whatever you call it) is under region 4.

How do we feel about option H handing a brand new amazing STEM centric school to a region that is already well-resourced over the under-resourced Gaithersburg community that is also overcrowded.

Do we care that Option H completely screws over Gaithersburg?

For all the people who say they are pro H to diversify Wootton, please do tell—how can you support an option that “steals” a school meant for a community of lower income and less resourced and hands it over to the privileged folks of Rockville and Potomac?

The cognitive dissonance doesn't make sense. Either Wootton is rich and privileged - doesn't deserve a new building, or Wootton is being given a "gift" that it should be forced to take for the good of MCPS. Which is it?

It's really not that complicated once you stop being deliberately obtuse. While people might disagree on relative priority, most would agree Wootton is nearing the end of its functional lifespan and will soon need a major renovation or to be rebuilt.

The people opposed to H don't want to stick with current Wootton building. They instead want MCPS to build them a school that the district doesn't actually need because they think it will help their property values.

So let’s say we give Wootton this brand new school. Again for the countless time: do we care or don’t care that H moves Crown/Wootton to region 4? Do we care or don’t care that this would give all the brand new, state of art labs and resources to Rockville and Potomac residents (Wootton, Churchill, RM) when this was supposed to be for under-resourced yet over populated Gaithersburg?

PP, by your own logic, MCPS is giving H to “privileged” parents of Wootton. How do you feel about the entire Gaithersburg community losing access to Crown, when every other option A-G gives Crown to Region 5?

Longer-term, it isn't good for Region 5 to have MCPS paying for a high school that it doesn't need.

Even longer term, it isn’t good for anyone in the school system for MCPS to spend money breaking ground on a new school it doesn’t need, use faulty enrollment numbers, not renovate another school that they have neglected for decades, and then instead of fixing the neglected school, punishes it by closing it altogether.

If we’re talking about the long term, pretty sure setting an unlawful precedent is worse.

Actually it is. And, MCPS has closed schools over the years. Not unlawful. Reopened some.

I see we’re back to this.

Please go back in this thread.

It is lawful to close schools.
It is not lawful to close schools without going through the required processes and procedures to close a school.
MCPS has not started the procedures necessary to formally close Wootton—those procedures are completely separate and distinct from school boundaries.

Before you say something is legal, perhaps check the law first. Go read the state regulations. I’ll even cite you which one: COMAR 13A.02.09

Option H is de facto closure. It is a school closure disguised in a boundary study.

The required elements of that process are being done. And we're still just building up to a recommendation to the board. If moving Wootton is the recommendation, there's no reason MCPS couldn't provide notice and hold a subsequent hearing before making a final decision.

That being said, I suspect their lawyers know but the legal obligations truly are. This looks like moving a school, not closing a school.

Not PP—but suppose we do it your way. Suppose we decide on H and then do all the requirements like an impact analysis on transportation and safety (how efficient/safe it is to transport two whole high schools into Wootton Parkway that is one lane each in both directions while shipping Wootton kids out the opposite direction at peak hours):

1. What happens if the studies show we can’t do this for whatever reason? What if there is a safety defect? We would have to go back to the drawing board and redo the boundary study? I highly doubt MCPS would want to do that due to cost, timing, and the sheer embarrassment.
2. So how do you insure that the impact analysis and all requirements will be done in a completely unbiased manner if the decision and conclusion of those studies—to support why we should close Wootton—was made and tied to a district wide boundary study beforehand.

These concerns seem to be apply to any major decision.

Yes, decisions are hard with so many moving parts and so many processes. But we're not locked into any single path yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was it considered a closure back when Blair was moved?

Not the same analogy at all.
Blair kept its name.
Blair’s move was closer.
Blair’s feeder pattern didn’t change.

Only the first of those is at all relevant to whether it was a closure. And was it?

No the facts are all relevant.
In Blair’s case, MCPS was upfront. Blair needs a rebuild. We’re going to build a new campus for this sole purpose.

In this case, MCPS build a new school without any reason but for the fact that if they didn’t, the land would have to be given back to the developers. Now they realized due to COVID, crack down on immigration, and loss of federal workers, they don’t have the enrollment for a new school. They then created options like A-D to shift kids around.

They then get hit with Churchill lawsuits. Backed down, and created new options like E-H.

Unlike the Blair situation where it was a move that the community wanted and MCPS expressly told was for them, here this move is not welcomed by the community and only made not because MCPS cares about Wootton but because they royally messed up by breaking ground before they did their due diligence, but are too afraid to piss of Churchill folks so they are targeting Wootton.

The intended purposes are completely different here.

How is it relevant to whether or not the action IS a closure?

All you points go to whether it was a well-justified and well-supported closure. Fine. But did it meet the definition of a closure?
The question isn't about whether the situations are identical. Clearly they aren't. But if we are trying to determine whether the current situation is a closure, it would help to know whether that was determined to be a closure and the rules applied.

If you go back, there’s like pages and pages on this thread explaining why this is a closure.

The location is different
The building is different (again, we don’t even know what will happen to the existing building)
The student body is different
The teachers will be different
The feeder pattern (and thus the community) will be different
The name possibly will be different (logic would dictate that it would because why Wootton HS not be on Wootton Parkway. At best, maybe it’s Wootton HS at Crown or something like that)

Can you tell me what stays the same?
Students, teachers, community, and name make up the school.
Literally every aspect of the school changes.

This is a closure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It has become clear that many (not all) anti-H posters on this thread are concerned about this plan not because of walkability, or making the most fiscally prudent choice for ALL of MCPS at this moment..but rather the potential for a change in the population of students that their kids will go to school with.

In this instance, the population would shift because the geographic location of the building would shift...but really they are arguing for segregation. I notice that nobody responded earlier when I asked if there would be similar opposition if a large low-income housing project went in close to the current building. The "results" that some posters seem concerned about are the same. I wonder if people would be this vocal if the county's proposal was to build more housing.

Well, Scotland is low income housing and it’s in the heart of Potomac. Nobody has a problem with it.

PP here. Help me understand how this connects to my question please?

Look up Scotland (100 townhomes) in Potomac and where that low income neighborhood goes to school. There’s even a historic black church nearby that was recently rebuilt and expanded.

You’re saying that rich, privileged Wootton families in Potomac and North Potomac don’t want low income minorities going to their school, and that’s why they’re opposed to Crown. Scotland proves this isn’t the case.

Got it. But I don't know that it proves that. Of course there are existing low income areas now that impact the current population and demographics of Wootton. I'm positing a significant increase in the amount of that, on par with the increase that many think will result from Option H.

It isn’t a question of demographics. Rather one of projected academic performance based on past academic performance. GHS is not in the same league as Wootton based on academic performance. Some GHS students may be, but on average they are not.

It would be like a high-performing major sports team being forced to accept 30%+ more players from a much lower performing team in exchange for a new stadium. Would you expect the resulting team to perform at the same level as before? It might eventually, but the odds would be against that, especially if other high performing teams were not forced to do so. Also, a new stadium does guarantee championships.

Fair point on terminology. Let's sub in "population with historically low(er) academic performance" for demographics.

And as to your analogy, seems you are arguing that the average performance population of the institution should not change...regardless of the reason?

Not PP.

I’m ok with natural population change over time—that’s the only reasonable take.

I’m not okay with forced change jammed down my throat simply because MCPS messed up and opened a school without having the enrollment or funds to do so.

Low income housing does not bother me.

Thanks for this answer. So just to be clear, if Wootton stayed exactly where it is, with improvements, and the underenrollment were addressed by redistricting to add 15% population from current GHS feeders, that would be OK? Sincere question. I assume many would agree with this, and you may be one of them.

Oh there would undoubtedly be some loud voices complaining about that, but yes, the majority of Wootton would be fine with that, IMO.

I'm in Cold Spring. I won't deny that there are a few AHs I've encountered who are spun up over demographics and the Wootton name and other stupid shit because they think it will hurt their kid's chances of getting into medical school. And those people are probably the ones posting over and over on this thread and elsewhere. But genuinely, they are in the minority. I have had a LOT of conversations about all this, as you can imagine. Yes, there is almost unified opposition to H at Cold Spring, but 90-95% of those opposed are opposed for purely logistical, practical reasons. Crown is pretty far for us. Most families have 2 working parents and younger kids at home. Someone calculated that busses to Crown will need to be at like 6:15am. Teenagers aren't known for being morning people. If you have to drive your kid to or from school, that could be a 40 minute roundtrip given traffic. Not a lot of people have a spare 40 minutes in their morning or evening schedules. This is going to be a PITA.

We do not care about adding Rosemont or Fields or whoever - 100% fine. It may be hard to tell from anonymous threads like this but the majority of us are completely normal people who are not freaked out by the prospect of lower income kids. And of course having a fancy new building would be nice, although most people I've talked to do think it's kind of screwed up to yank the new building out from under Gaithersburg. But really, it's about location.

I am another Cold Spring, Cabin John, Wootton parent that has come and go from this thread. I am thankful to hear a reasonable well thought out message here. I understand the concern for sure and I hate to say it but we will just have to get used to it. The same way we drive by Hoover to get to Cabin John when our kid misses the bus we will drive by Wootton to get to Crown. Thankfully against traffic which cannot be said for teh STone Mill parents who have been doing the opposite already.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was it considered a closure back when Blair was moved?

Not the same analogy at all.
Blair kept its name.
Blair’s move was closer.
Blair’s feeder pattern didn’t change.

Only the first of those is at all relevant to whether it was a closure. And was it?

No the facts are all relevant.
In Blair’s case, MCPS was upfront. Blair needs a rebuild. We’re going to build a new campus for this sole purpose.

In this case, MCPS build a new school without any reason but for the fact that if they didn’t, the land would have to be given back to the developers. Now they realized due to COVID, crack down on immigration, and loss of federal workers, they don’t have the enrollment for a new school. They then created options like A-D to shift kids around.

They then get hit with Churchill lawsuits. Backed down, and created new options like E-H.

Unlike the Blair situation where it was a move that the community wanted and MCPS expressly told was for them, here this move is not welcomed by the community and only made not because MCPS cares about Wootton but because they royally messed up by breaking ground before they did their due diligence, but are too afraid to piss of Churchill folks so they are targeting Wootton.

The intended purposes are completely different here.

How is it relevant to whether or not the action IS a closure?

All you points go to whether it was a well-justified and well-supported closure. Fine. But did it meet the definition of a closure?
The question isn't about whether the situations are identical. Clearly they aren't. But if we are trying to determine whether the current situation is a closure, it would help to know whether that was determined to be a closure and the rules applied.

If you go back, there’s like pages and pages on this thread explaining why this is a closure.

The location is different
The building is different (again, we don’t even know what will happen to the existing building)
The student body is different
The teachers will be different
The feeder pattern (and thus the community) will be different
The name possibly will be different (logic would dictate that it would because why Wootton HS not be on Wootton Parkway. At best, maybe it’s Wootton HS at Crown or something like that)

Can you tell me what stays the same?
Students, teachers, community, and name make up the school.
Literally every aspect of the school changes.

This is a closure.

OK I think something got confused here. This thread is a response to whether the move to a new Blair building was considered a closure. If it was or was not, that would be illustrative as to whether the current proposal would be a closure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was it considered a closure back when Blair was moved?

Not the same analogy at all.
Blair kept its name.
Blair’s move was closer.
Blair’s feeder pattern didn’t change.

Only the first of those is at all relevant to whether it was a closure. And was it?

No the facts are all relevant.
In Blair’s case, MCPS was upfront. Blair needs a rebuild. We’re going to build a new campus for this sole purpose.

In this case, MCPS build a new school without any reason but for the fact that if they didn’t, the land would have to be given back to the developers. Now they realized due to COVID, crack down on immigration, and loss of federal workers, they don’t have the enrollment for a new school. They then created options like A-D to shift kids around.

They then get hit with Churchill lawsuits. Backed down, and created new options like E-H.

Unlike the Blair situation where it was a move that the community wanted and MCPS expressly told was for them, here this move is not welcomed by the community and only made not because MCPS cares about Wootton but because they royally messed up by breaking ground before they did their due diligence, but are too afraid to piss of Churchill folks so they are targeting Wootton.

The intended purposes are completely different here.

How is it relevant to whether or not the action IS a closure?

All you points go to whether it was a well-justified and well-supported closure. Fine. But did it meet the definition of a closure?
The question isn't about whether the situations are identical. Clearly they aren't. But if we are trying to determine whether the current situation is a closure, it would help to know whether that was determined to be a closure and the rules applied.

If you go back, there’s like pages and pages on this thread explaining why this is a closure.

The location is different
The building is different (again, we don’t even know what will happen to the existing building)
The student body is different
The teachers will be different
The feeder pattern (and thus the community) will be different
The name possibly will be different (logic would dictate that it would because why Wootton HS not be on Wootton Parkway. At best, maybe it’s Wootton HS at Crown or something like that)

Can you tell me what stays the same?
Students, teachers, community, and name make up the school.
Literally every aspect of the school changes.

This is a closure.

I know it looks impressive to have a long list, but really the only thing that is both relevant and fact-based from the above is: the location will be different and the student body will be different.

Could those two things amount to a closure? Maybe. But the rest is either redundant or irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone knows what the capacity for Crown is from all these studies?

2700 students

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was it considered a closure back when Blair was moved?

Not the same analogy at all.
Blair kept its name.
Blair’s move was closer.
Blair’s feeder pattern didn’t change.

Only the first of those is at all relevant to whether it was a closure. And was it?

No the facts are all relevant.
In Blair’s case, MCPS was upfront. Blair needs a rebuild. We’re going to build a new campus for this sole purpose.

In this case, MCPS build a new school without any reason but for the fact that if they didn’t, the land would have to be given back to the developers. Now they realized due to COVID, crack down on immigration, and loss of federal workers, they don’t have the enrollment for a new school. They then created options like A-D to shift kids around.

They then get hit with Churchill lawsuits. Backed down, and created new options like E-H.

Unlike the Blair situation where it was a move that the community wanted and MCPS expressly told was for them, here this move is not welcomed by the community and only made not because MCPS cares about Wootton but because they royally messed up by breaking ground before they did their due diligence, but are too afraid to piss of Churchill folks so they are targeting Wootton.

The intended purposes are completely different here.

+1. Cries of racism and elitism are red herrings intended to obfuscate this simple truth. Some of the BOE members are beginning to listen to Wootton and Gaithersburg families, and realize they can’t ram through Option H. Those families vote and are more likely to do so than the east county pro-Option H crowd on this thread. A person defending his or her home is far more dangerous than common agitators with nothing to lose. Those agitators are cowards.