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:

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.

Always fair to question and yet proving that all the input that they sought and received on multiple occasions was nothing more than a sham, seems impossible to prove or win. Especially when MCPS has provided the date that the new enrollment projections came out and said date was after 1-4 and A-D were released, meaning that this option could not have actually come out in an earlier round. I understand not liking it, I don't either, but I also think that the Save Wootton and CEPA folks are intentionally misleading our community by making it seem as though we have any real hope.

I get what you’re saying, but it’s not quite that simple.

MCPS pointing to the date the projections were released doesn’t really prove much beyond…that’s when they released them. It doesn’t tell you what they were talking about internally before that. And that’s usually where this stuff actually lives — emails, drafts, early modeling, etc. MCPS isn’t gonna just hand that over unless they’re forced to. They’re especially not going to want to do so if this entire mess was a result of MCPS not wanting to lose the Crown farm land and $100M in state money, despite dropping enrollment that couldn’t fill Crown once it was built.

Also the argument isn’t just “they didn’t show H earlier.” It’s more like…was the whole process kinda steering toward a result while pretending to be open? That’s a harder thing to prove, yeah, but not impossible. Especially if prople can show some options were never really on the table or feedback didn’t actually matter.

And saying Save Wootton / CEPA are “intentionally misleading” is a bit much tbh. You can think they’re overly optimistic, sure, but they’re reacting to something real — the process didn’t feel neutral to a lot of ppl.

You’re right that winning would be tough. Courts usually side w school systems unless there’s something pretty clear. But “tough” ≠ “no shot.”

I respect this answer although I don't agree. Perhaps the whole process was kinda steering toward this result because the lack of enrollment helped solve the not enough money for all repairs issue. If the county had raised the bond limit or P3s were established and this was the result I would agree that they were not open to exploring options and had premeditated this outcome. That was not the case.

As for the Save Wootton and CEPA folks, I will maintain they are misleading us intentionally. They posted a flyer on our chat advertising a fundraiser for the school and it took a member asking precisely where these funds were going, school or legal fund, to understand it was not actually for the school. Additionally, they have not shared with our community what their goals are in terms of accountability, how much they have collected or what amount they have spent on a retainer, or what they will do with remaining funds that may be leftover. This is asking for money without clarity of where it will go or an honest assessment of what the chances of success, measured however you like, ultimately are.

Even if did not predetermine a specific outcome like Option H, they may have been operating within constraints that naturally pointed in that direction. The concern from groups like Save Wootton and CEPA seems less about proving a deliberate plan and more about whether the process meaningfully explored alternatives outside those constraints.

So I think the distinction is this: you’re arguing there was no premeditated outcome, which may well be true. Others are questioning whether the process was as open-ended as it was presented to be, given the financial realities. Those positions aren’t entirely incompatible—they’re just emphasizing different parts of the same situation.

I don't know who you are but I really like your responses and willingness to engage in this back and forth chat, hehe. Here is the question: are they REQUIRED to "meaningly explore alternatives outside of those constraints"? While I certainly wish they would have and believe they must do so moving forward if we have any hope of renovating all these buildings within the next century, is that something that a better system would have done but is not a necessary part of the process? Meaning, they didn't do part of the process that should, but doesn't actually, exist?

There’s no rule that says they must explore every theoretical alternative outside the budget or political reality. But there is an expectation that they clearly explain what constraints are driving the process and that the publicly presented “options” aren’t just a narrow outcome presented as a broad choice set.

And we think they didn't do that? I think I heard and read Dr. Taylor say we needed both "money and a holding facility of which we have neither" on repeat for the last 4 months. In the end, it came down to which facility to use as that holding space and both Taylor and BOE seemed to want that space used by a consistent group since "anyone" can survive a couple of years in a crap holding school. I have no doubt that if Magruder had been geographically closer to the Crown site, they would happily have moved them there permanently and allowed us to stay on the Parkway site.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Always fair to question and yet proving that all the input that they sought and received on multiple occasions was nothing more than a sham, seems impossible to prove or win. Especially when MCPS has provided the date that the new enrollment projections came out and said date was after 1-4 and A-D were released, meaning that this option could not have actually come out in an earlier round. I understand not liking it, I don't either, but I also think that the Save Wootton and CEPA folks are intentionally misleading our community by making it seem as though we have any real hope.

I get what you’re saying, but it’s not quite that simple.

MCPS pointing to the date the projections were released doesn’t really prove much beyond…that’s when they released them. It doesn’t tell you what they were talking about internally before that. And that’s usually where this stuff actually lives — emails, drafts, early modeling, etc. MCPS isn’t gonna just hand that over unless they’re forced to. They’re especially not going to want to do so if this entire mess was a result of MCPS not wanting to lose the Crown farm land and $100M in state money, despite dropping enrollment that couldn’t fill Crown once it was built.

Also the argument isn’t just “they didn’t show H earlier.” It’s more like…was the whole process kinda steering toward a result while pretending to be open? That’s a harder thing to prove, yeah, but not impossible. Especially if prople can show some options were never really on the table or feedback didn’t actually matter.

And saying Save Wootton / CEPA are “intentionally misleading” is a bit much tbh. You can think they’re overly optimistic, sure, but they’re reacting to something real — the process didn’t feel neutral to a lot of ppl.

You’re right that winning would be tough. Courts usually side w school systems unless there’s something pretty clear. But “tough” ≠ “no shot.”

What would be wrong with the bolded?

It could strengthen any legal challenge, because courts generally give school systems wide deference in these kinds of decisions. However, that deference can weaken if there is evidence that key decisions were driven by considerations that were not disclosed or were inconsistent with the public rationale.

It would also create a major political problem. It becomes much harder to defend the process if it appears the outcome was effectively predetermined rather than the result of an open evaluation of options.

You're saying MCPS only proceeded with construction as part of a secret plan to move Wootton?

A secret plan implemented over the tenures of 3 permanent superintendents and an interim superintendent?

I’m saying that if internal emails show this or lend credence to this motive. That’s what narrow discovery might reveal. It’s an interesting thought that MCPS took Wootton off the CIP in May 2024, broke ground on Crown in July 2024, then started exploring (internally)the relocation of an existing school when it allegedly discovered the 2019 enrollment projections were wildly inaccurate. If true, that would be over a year before Option H appeared.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Always fair to question and yet proving that all the input that they sought and received on multiple occasions was nothing more than a sham, seems impossible to prove or win. Especially when MCPS has provided the date that the new enrollment projections came out and said date was after 1-4 and A-D were released, meaning that this option could not have actually come out in an earlier round. I understand not liking it, I don't either, but I also think that the Save Wootton and CEPA folks are intentionally misleading our community by making it seem as though we have any real hope.

I get what you’re saying, but it’s not quite that simple.

MCPS pointing to the date the projections were released doesn’t really prove much beyond…that’s when they released them. It doesn’t tell you what they were talking about internally before that. And that’s usually where this stuff actually lives — emails, drafts, early modeling, etc. MCPS isn’t gonna just hand that over unless they’re forced to. They’re especially not going to want to do so if this entire mess was a result of MCPS not wanting to lose the Crown farm land and $100M in state money, despite dropping enrollment that couldn’t fill Crown once it was built.

Also the argument isn’t just “they didn’t show H earlier.” It’s more like…was the whole process kinda steering toward a result while pretending to be open? That’s a harder thing to prove, yeah, but not impossible. Especially if prople can show some options were never really on the table or feedback didn’t actually matter.

And saying Save Wootton / CEPA are “intentionally misleading” is a bit much tbh. You can think they’re overly optimistic, sure, but they’re reacting to something real — the process didn’t feel neutral to a lot of ppl.

You’re right that winning would be tough. Courts usually side w school systems unless there’s something pretty clear. But “tough” ≠ “no shot.”

I respect this answer although I don't agree. Perhaps the whole process was kinda steering toward this result because the lack of enrollment helped solve the not enough money for all repairs issue. If the county had raised the bond limit or P3s were established and this was the result I would agree that they were not open to exploring options and had premeditated this outcome. That was not the case.

As for the Save Wootton and CEPA folks, I will maintain they are misleading us intentionally. They posted a flyer on our chat advertising a fundraiser for the school and it took a member asking precisely where these funds were going, school or legal fund, to understand it was not actually for the school. Additionally, they have not shared with our community what their goals are in terms of accountability, how much they have collected or what amount they have spent on a retainer, or what they will do with remaining funds that may be leftover. This is asking for money without clarity of where it will go or an honest assessment of what the chances of success, measured however you like, ultimately are.

Even if did not predetermine a specific outcome like Option H, they may have been operating within constraints that naturally pointed in that direction. The concern from groups like Save Wootton and CEPA seems less about proving a deliberate plan and more about whether the process meaningfully explored alternatives outside those constraints.

So I think the distinction is this: you’re arguing there was no premeditated outcome, which may well be true. Others are questioning whether the process was as open-ended as it was presented to be, given the financial realities. Those positions aren’t entirely incompatible—they’re just emphasizing different parts of the same situation.

I don't know who you are but I really like your responses and willingness to engage in this back and forth chat, hehe. Here is the question: are they REQUIRED to "meaningly explore alternatives outside of those constraints"? While I certainly wish they would have and believe they must do so moving forward if we have any hope of renovating all these buildings within the next century, is that something that a better system would have done but is not a necessary part of the process? Meaning, they didn't do part of the process that should, but doesn't actually, exist?

There’s no rule that says they must explore every theoretical alternative outside the budget or political reality. But there is an expectation that they clearly explain what constraints are driving the process and that the publicly presented “options” aren’t just a narrow outcome presented as a broad choice set.

Cost and utilization are obvious factors, and those were discussed. Other options could have been implemented if there was public support for increasing MCPS capital funding to significantly accelerate construction of other schools.

Funding isn't a hard constraint. But most Montgomery County taxpayers wouldn't want to pay higher taxes to prevent Wootton from moving to a new building.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Always fair to question and yet proving that all the input that they sought and received on multiple occasions was nothing more than a sham, seems impossible to prove or win. Especially when MCPS has provided the date that the new enrollment projections came out and said date was after 1-4 and A-D were released, meaning that this option could not have actually come out in an earlier round. I understand not liking it, I don't either, but I also think that the Save Wootton and CEPA folks are intentionally misleading our community by making it seem as though we have any real hope.

I get what you’re saying, but it’s not quite that simple.

MCPS pointing to the date the projections were released doesn’t really prove much beyond…that’s when they released them. It doesn’t tell you what they were talking about internally before that. And that’s usually where this stuff actually lives — emails, drafts, early modeling, etc. MCPS isn’t gonna just hand that over unless they’re forced to. They’re especially not going to want to do so if this entire mess was a result of MCPS not wanting to lose the Crown farm land and $100M in state money, despite dropping enrollment that couldn’t fill Crown once it was built.

Also the argument isn’t just “they didn’t show H earlier.” It’s more like…was the whole process kinda steering toward a result while pretending to be open? That’s a harder thing to prove, yeah, but not impossible. Especially if prople can show some options were never really on the table or feedback didn’t actually matter.

And saying Save Wootton / CEPA are “intentionally misleading” is a bit much tbh. You can think they’re overly optimistic, sure, but they’re reacting to something real — the process didn’t feel neutral to a lot of ppl.

You’re right that winning would be tough. Courts usually side w school systems unless there’s something pretty clear. But “tough” ≠ “no shot.”

What would be wrong with the bolded?

It could strengthen any legal challenge, because courts generally give school systems wide deference in these kinds of decisions. However, that deference can weaken if there is evidence that key decisions were driven by considerations that were not disclosed or were inconsistent with the public rationale.

It would also create a major political problem. It becomes much harder to defend the process if it appears the outcome was effectively predetermined rather than the result of an open evaluation of options.

You're saying MCPS only proceeded with construction as part of a secret plan to move Wootton?

A secret plan implemented over the tenures of 3 permanent superintendents and an interim superintendent?

I’m saying that if internal emails show this or lend credence to this motive. That’s what narrow discovery might reveal. It’s an interesting thought that MCPS took Wootton off the CIP in May 2024, broke ground on Crown in July 2024, then started exploring (internally)the relocation of an existing school when it allegedly discovered the 2019 enrollment projections were wildly inaccurate. If true, that would be over a year before Option H appeared.

Even if they realized at that point that Crown may alleviate the need to rebuild Wootton, the decision to build Crown wasn't made to secretly move Wootton. I'm sure you know that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Always fair to question and yet proving that all the input that they sought and received on multiple occasions was nothing more than a sham, seems impossible to prove or win. Especially when MCPS has provided the date that the new enrollment projections came out and said date was after 1-4 and A-D were released, meaning that this option could not have actually come out in an earlier round. I understand not liking it, I don't either, but I also think that the Save Wootton and CEPA folks are intentionally misleading our community by making it seem as though we have any real hope.

I get what you’re saying, but it’s not quite that simple.

MCPS pointing to the date the projections were released doesn’t really prove much beyond…that’s when they released them. It doesn’t tell you what they were talking about internally before that. And that’s usually where this stuff actually lives — emails, drafts, early modeling, etc. MCPS isn’t gonna just hand that over unless they’re forced to. They’re especially not going to want to do so if this entire mess was a result of MCPS not wanting to lose the Crown farm land and $100M in state money, despite dropping enrollment that couldn’t fill Crown once it was built.

Also the argument isn’t just “they didn’t show H earlier.” It’s more like…was the whole process kinda steering toward a result while pretending to be open? That’s a harder thing to prove, yeah, but not impossible. Especially if prople can show some options were never really on the table or feedback didn’t actually matter.

And saying Save Wootton / CEPA are “intentionally misleading” is a bit much tbh. You can think they’re overly optimistic, sure, but they’re reacting to something real — the process didn’t feel neutral to a lot of ppl.

You’re right that winning would be tough. Courts usually side w school systems unless there’s something pretty clear. But “tough” ≠ “no shot.”

What would be wrong with the bolded?

It could strengthen any legal challenge, because courts generally give school systems wide deference in these kinds of decisions. However, that deference can weaken if there is evidence that key decisions were driven by considerations that were not disclosed or were inconsistent with the public rationale.

It would also create a major political problem. It becomes much harder to defend the process if it appears the outcome was effectively predetermined rather than the result of an open evaluation of options.

You're saying MCPS only proceeded with construction as part of a secret plan to move Wootton?

A secret plan implemented over the tenures of 3 permanent superintendents and an interim superintendent?

I’m saying that if internal emails show this or lend credence to this motive. That’s what narrow discovery might reveal. It’s an interesting thought that MCPS took Wootton off the CIP in May 2024, broke ground on Crown in July 2024, then started exploring (internally)the relocation of an existing school when it allegedly discovered the 2019 enrollment projections were wildly inaccurate. If true, that would be over a year before Option H appeared.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

Them discovery files are going to be what gets MCPS.

Can’t wait 🍿

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Always fair to question and yet proving that all the input that they sought and received on multiple occasions was nothing more than a sham, seems impossible to prove or win. Especially when MCPS has provided the date that the new enrollment projections came out and said date was after 1-4 and A-D were released, meaning that this option could not have actually come out in an earlier round. I understand not liking it, I don't either, but I also think that the Save Wootton and CEPA folks are intentionally misleading our community by making it seem as though we have any real hope.

I get what you’re saying, but it’s not quite that simple.

MCPS pointing to the date the projections were released doesn’t really prove much beyond…that’s when they released them. It doesn’t tell you what they were talking about internally before that. And that’s usually where this stuff actually lives — emails, drafts, early modeling, etc. MCPS isn’t gonna just hand that over unless they’re forced to. They’re especially not going to want to do so if this entire mess was a result of MCPS not wanting to lose the Crown farm land and $100M in state money, despite dropping enrollment that couldn’t fill Crown once it was built.

Also the argument isn’t just “they didn’t show H earlier.” It’s more like…was the whole process kinda steering toward a result while pretending to be open? That’s a harder thing to prove, yeah, but not impossible. Especially if prople can show some options were never really on the table or feedback didn’t actually matter.

And saying Save Wootton / CEPA are “intentionally misleading” is a bit much tbh. You can think they’re overly optimistic, sure, but they’re reacting to something real — the process didn’t feel neutral to a lot of ppl.

You’re right that winning would be tough. Courts usually side w school systems unless there’s something pretty clear. But “tough” ≠ “no shot.”

I respect this answer although I don't agree. Perhaps the whole process was kinda steering toward this result because the lack of enrollment helped solve the not enough money for all repairs issue. If the county had raised the bond limit or P3s were established and this was the result I would agree that they were not open to exploring options and had premeditated this outcome. That was not the case.

As for the Save Wootton and CEPA folks, I will maintain they are misleading us intentionally. They posted a flyer on our chat advertising a fundraiser for the school and it took a member asking precisely where these funds were going, school or legal fund, to understand it was not actually for the school. Additionally, they have not shared with our community what their goals are in terms of accountability, how much they have collected or what amount they have spent on a retainer, or what they will do with remaining funds that may be leftover. This is asking for money without clarity of where it will go or an honest assessment of what the chances of success, measured however you like, ultimately are.

Even if did not predetermine a specific outcome like Option H, they may have been operating within constraints that naturally pointed in that direction. The concern from groups like Save Wootton and CEPA seems less about proving a deliberate plan and more about whether the process meaningfully explored alternatives outside those constraints.

So I think the distinction is this: you’re arguing there was no premeditated outcome, which may well be true. Others are questioning whether the process was as open-ended as it was presented to be, given the financial realities. Those positions aren’t entirely incompatible—they’re just emphasizing different parts of the same situation.

I don't know who you are but I really like your responses and willingness to engage in this back and forth chat, hehe. Here is the question: are they REQUIRED to "meaningly explore alternatives outside of those constraints"? While I certainly wish they would have and believe they must do so moving forward if we have any hope of renovating all these buildings within the next century, is that something that a better system would have done but is not a necessary part of the process? Meaning, they didn't do part of the process that should, but doesn't actually, exist?

There’s no rule that says they must explore every theoretical alternative outside the budget or political reality. But there is an expectation that they clearly explain what constraints are driving the process and that the publicly presented “options” aren’t just a narrow outcome presented as a broad choice set.

Cost and utilization are obvious factors, and those were discussed. Other options could have been implemented if there was public support for increasing MCPS capital funding to significantly accelerate construction of other schools.

Funding isn't a hard constraint. But most Montgomery County taxpayers wouldn't want to pay higher taxes to prevent Wootton from moving to a new building.

When did MCPS find out it didn’t have any money to renovate ANY high schools? Seems to me that it knew this years ago.

[Anonymous]

Good luck with your lawsuit. You're going to lose anyways. Instead of being happy that you get a new school, you want to fight a 7-1 decision.

As someone living in the North Potomac area, I am relieved that we will not be seeing anymore of your petitions. It has been annoying as h**.

You lost, so just suck it up and move on. But if you are intent on this, please don't flood nextdoor again with GoFundMe campaigns for your frivolous lawsuit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Always fair to question and yet proving that all the input that they sought and received on multiple occasions was nothing more than a sham, seems impossible to prove or win. Especially when MCPS has provided the date that the new enrollment projections came out and said date was after 1-4 and A-D were released, meaning that this option could not have actually come out in an earlier round. I understand not liking it, I don't either, but I also think that the Save Wootton and CEPA folks are intentionally misleading our community by making it seem as though we have any real hope.

I get what you’re saying, but it’s not quite that simple.

MCPS pointing to the date the projections were released doesn’t really prove much beyond…that’s when they released them. It doesn’t tell you what they were talking about internally before that. And that’s usually where this stuff actually lives — emails, drafts, early modeling, etc. MCPS isn’t gonna just hand that over unless they’re forced to. They’re especially not going to want to do so if this entire mess was a result of MCPS not wanting to lose the Crown farm land and $100M in state money, despite dropping enrollment that couldn’t fill Crown once it was built.

Also the argument isn’t just “they didn’t show H earlier.” It’s more like…was the whole process kinda steering toward a result while pretending to be open? That’s a harder thing to prove, yeah, but not impossible. Especially if prople can show some options were never really on the table or feedback didn’t actually matter.

And saying Save Wootton / CEPA are “intentionally misleading” is a bit much tbh. You can think they’re overly optimistic, sure, but they’re reacting to something real — the process didn’t feel neutral to a lot of ppl.

You’re right that winning would be tough. Courts usually side w school systems unless there’s something pretty clear. But “tough” ≠ “no shot.”

I respect this answer although I don't agree. Perhaps the whole process was kinda steering toward this result because the lack of enrollment helped solve the not enough money for all repairs issue. If the county had raised the bond limit or P3s were established and this was the result I would agree that they were not open to exploring options and had premeditated this outcome. That was not the case.

As for the Save Wootton and CEPA folks, I will maintain they are misleading us intentionally. They posted a flyer on our chat advertising a fundraiser for the school and it took a member asking precisely where these funds were going, school or legal fund, to understand it was not actually for the school. Additionally, they have not shared with our community what their goals are in terms of accountability, how much they have collected or what amount they have spent on a retainer, or what they will do with remaining funds that may be leftover. This is asking for money without clarity of where it will go or an honest assessment of what the chances of success, measured however you like, ultimately are.

Even if did not predetermine a specific outcome like Option H, they may have been operating within constraints that naturally pointed in that direction. The concern from groups like Save Wootton and CEPA seems less about proving a deliberate plan and more about whether the process meaningfully explored alternatives outside those constraints.

So I think the distinction is this: you’re arguing there was no premeditated outcome, which may well be true. Others are questioning whether the process was as open-ended as it was presented to be, given the financial realities. Those positions aren’t entirely incompatible—they’re just emphasizing different parts of the same situation.

I don't know who you are but I really like your responses and willingness to engage in this back and forth chat, hehe. Here is the question: are they REQUIRED to "meaningly explore alternatives outside of those constraints"? While I certainly wish they would have and believe they must do so moving forward if we have any hope of renovating all these buildings within the next century, is that something that a better system would have done but is not a necessary part of the process? Meaning, they didn't do part of the process that should, but doesn't actually, exist?

There’s no rule that says they must explore every theoretical alternative outside the budget or political reality. But there is an expectation that they clearly explain what constraints are driving the process and that the publicly presented “options” aren’t just a narrow outcome presented as a broad choice set.

Are these expectations required as part of Policy FAA or COMAR?

That's some of the frustration with these discussions in that because the process felt rushed that there must be something legally wrong with the process, but I'm pretty sure that's not the case. Even the people arguing about a process violation think that the school system is allowed to move Wootton if they checked the right boxes.

The remedy that the Save Wootton crowd wants can't be provided by a judge. They need to get a new board and county council to get the funds to re-open the Parkway location and that's just a big ask.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Always fair to question and yet proving that all the input that they sought and received on multiple occasions was nothing more than a sham, seems impossible to prove or win. Especially when MCPS has provided the date that the new enrollment projections came out and said date was after 1-4 and A-D were released, meaning that this option could not have actually come out in an earlier round. I understand not liking it, I don't either, but I also think that the Save Wootton and CEPA folks are intentionally misleading our community by making it seem as though we have any real hope.

I get what you’re saying, but it’s not quite that simple.

MCPS pointing to the date the projections were released doesn’t really prove much beyond…that’s when they released them. It doesn’t tell you what they were talking about internally before that. And that’s usually where this stuff actually lives — emails, drafts, early modeling, etc. MCPS isn’t gonna just hand that over unless they’re forced to. They’re especially not going to want to do so if this entire mess was a result of MCPS not wanting to lose the Crown farm land and $100M in state money, despite dropping enrollment that couldn’t fill Crown once it was built.

Also the argument isn’t just “they didn’t show H earlier.” It’s more like…was the whole process kinda steering toward a result while pretending to be open? That’s a harder thing to prove, yeah, but not impossible. Especially if prople can show some options were never really on the table or feedback didn’t actually matter.

And saying Save Wootton / CEPA are “intentionally misleading” is a bit much tbh. You can think they’re overly optimistic, sure, but they’re reacting to something real — the process didn’t feel neutral to a lot of ppl.

You’re right that winning would be tough. Courts usually side w school systems unless there’s something pretty clear. But “tough” ≠ “no shot.”

I respect this answer although I don't agree. Perhaps the whole process was kinda steering toward this result because the lack of enrollment helped solve the not enough money for all repairs issue. If the county had raised the bond limit or P3s were established and this was the result I would agree that they were not open to exploring options and had premeditated this outcome. That was not the case.

As for the Save Wootton and CEPA folks, I will maintain they are misleading us intentionally. They posted a flyer on our chat advertising a fundraiser for the school and it took a member asking precisely where these funds were going, school or legal fund, to understand it was not actually for the school. Additionally, they have not shared with our community what their goals are in terms of accountability, how much they have collected or what amount they have spent on a retainer, or what they will do with remaining funds that may be leftover. This is asking for money without clarity of where it will go or an honest assessment of what the chances of success, measured however you like, ultimately are.

Even if did not predetermine a specific outcome like Option H, they may have been operating within constraints that naturally pointed in that direction. The concern from groups like Save Wootton and CEPA seems less about proving a deliberate plan and more about whether the process meaningfully explored alternatives outside those constraints.

So I think the distinction is this: you’re arguing there was no premeditated outcome, which may well be true. Others are questioning whether the process was as open-ended as it was presented to be, given the financial realities. Those positions aren’t entirely incompatible—they’re just emphasizing different parts of the same situation.

I don't know who you are but I really like your responses and willingness to engage in this back and forth chat, hehe. Here is the question: are they REQUIRED to "meaningly explore alternatives outside of those constraints"? While I certainly wish they would have and believe they must do so moving forward if we have any hope of renovating all these buildings within the next century, is that something that a better system would have done but is not a necessary part of the process? Meaning, they didn't do part of the process that should, but doesn't actually, exist?

There’s no rule that says they must explore every theoretical alternative outside the budget or political reality. But there is an expectation that they clearly explain what constraints are driving the process and that the publicly presented “options” aren’t just a narrow outcome presented as a broad choice set.

Cost and utilization are obvious factors, and those were discussed. Other options could have been implemented if there was public support for increasing MCPS capital funding to significantly accelerate construction of other schools.

Funding isn't a hard constraint. But most Montgomery County taxpayers wouldn't want to pay higher taxes to prevent Wootton from moving to a new building.

When did MCPS find out it didn’t have any money to renovate ANY high schools? Seems to me that it knew this years ago.

There's a budget process every year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Always fair to question and yet proving that all the input that they sought and received on multiple occasions was nothing more than a sham, seems impossible to prove or win. Especially when MCPS has provided the date that the new enrollment projections came out and said date was after 1-4 and A-D were released, meaning that this option could not have actually come out in an earlier round. I understand not liking it, I don't either, but I also think that the Save Wootton and CEPA folks are intentionally misleading our community by making it seem as though we have any real hope.

I get what you’re saying, but it’s not quite that simple.

MCPS pointing to the date the projections were released doesn’t really prove much beyond…that’s when they released them. It doesn’t tell you what they were talking about internally before that. And that’s usually where this stuff actually lives — emails, drafts, early modeling, etc. MCPS isn’t gonna just hand that over unless they’re forced to. They’re especially not going to want to do so if this entire mess was a result of MCPS not wanting to lose the Crown farm land and $100M in state money, despite dropping enrollment that couldn’t fill Crown once it was built.

Also the argument isn’t just “they didn’t show H earlier.” It’s more like…was the whole process kinda steering toward a result while pretending to be open? That’s a harder thing to prove, yeah, but not impossible. Especially if prople can show some options were never really on the table or feedback didn’t actually matter.

And saying Save Wootton / CEPA are “intentionally misleading” is a bit much tbh. You can think they’re overly optimistic, sure, but they’re reacting to something real — the process didn’t feel neutral to a lot of ppl.

You’re right that winning would be tough. Courts usually side w school systems unless there’s something pretty clear. But “tough” ≠ “no shot.”

What would be wrong with the bolded?

It could strengthen any legal challenge, because courts generally give school systems wide deference in these kinds of decisions. However, that deference can weaken if there is evidence that key decisions were driven by considerations that were not disclosed or were inconsistent with the public rationale.

It would also create a major political problem. It becomes much harder to defend the process if it appears the outcome was effectively predetermined rather than the result of an open evaluation of options.

You're saying MCPS only proceeded with construction as part of a secret plan to move Wootton?

A secret plan implemented over the tenures of 3 permanent superintendents and an interim superintendent?

I’m saying that if internal emails show this or lend credence to this motive. That’s what narrow discovery might reveal. It’s an interesting thought that MCPS took Wootton off the CIP in May 2024, broke ground on Crown in July 2024, then started exploring (internally)the relocation of an existing school when it allegedly discovered the 2019 enrollment projections were wildly inaccurate. If true, that would be over a year before Option H appeared.

Trying to understand you here. The assertion is that in 2024 somebody at MCPS decided that Wootton would move to Crown? And the fact that somebody (who? couldn't have been Taylor) wanted that invalidates any process around the boundary studies?

Even if somebody did have that plan, it doesn't invalidate subsequent process. "Motive" is irrelevant here. Taylor could have come straight out in a statement a year ago and said he thinks that the Wootton students should move to Crown....and it wouldn't matter.

It is extremely rare for any public entity to go into a process without some idea of what they think the outcome should be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Always fair to question and yet proving that all the input that they sought and received on multiple occasions was nothing more than a sham, seems impossible to prove or win. Especially when MCPS has provided the date that the new enrollment projections came out and said date was after 1-4 and A-D were released, meaning that this option could not have actually come out in an earlier round. I understand not liking it, I don't either, but I also think that the Save Wootton and CEPA folks are intentionally misleading our community by making it seem as though we have any real hope.

I get what you’re saying, but it’s not quite that simple.

MCPS pointing to the date the projections were released doesn’t really prove much beyond…that’s when they released them. It doesn’t tell you what they were talking about internally before that. And that’s usually where this stuff actually lives — emails, drafts, early modeling, etc. MCPS isn’t gonna just hand that over unless they’re forced to. They’re especially not going to want to do so if this entire mess was a result of MCPS not wanting to lose the Crown farm land and $100M in state money, despite dropping enrollment that couldn’t fill Crown once it was built.

Also the argument isn’t just “they didn’t show H earlier.” It’s more like…was the whole process kinda steering toward a result while pretending to be open? That’s a harder thing to prove, yeah, but not impossible. Especially if prople can show some options were never really on the table or feedback didn’t actually matter.

And saying Save Wootton / CEPA are “intentionally misleading” is a bit much tbh. You can think they’re overly optimistic, sure, but they’re reacting to something real — the process didn’t feel neutral to a lot of ppl.

You’re right that winning would be tough. Courts usually side w school systems unless there’s something pretty clear. But “tough” ≠ “no shot.”

I respect this answer although I don't agree. Perhaps the whole process was kinda steering toward this result because the lack of enrollment helped solve the not enough money for all repairs issue. If the county had raised the bond limit or P3s were established and this was the result I would agree that they were not open to exploring options and had premeditated this outcome. That was not the case.

As for the Save Wootton and CEPA folks, I will maintain they are misleading us intentionally. They posted a flyer on our chat advertising a fundraiser for the school and it took a member asking precisely where these funds were going, school or legal fund, to understand it was not actually for the school. Additionally, they have not shared with our community what their goals are in terms of accountability, how much they have collected or what amount they have spent on a retainer, or what they will do with remaining funds that may be leftover. This is asking for money without clarity of where it will go or an honest assessment of what the chances of success, measured however you like, ultimately are.

Even if did not predetermine a specific outcome like Option H, they may have been operating within constraints that naturally pointed in that direction. The concern from groups like Save Wootton and CEPA seems less about proving a deliberate plan and more about whether the process meaningfully explored alternatives outside those constraints.

So I think the distinction is this: you’re arguing there was no premeditated outcome, which may well be true. Others are questioning whether the process was as open-ended as it was presented to be, given the financial realities. Those positions aren’t entirely incompatible—they’re just emphasizing different parts of the same situation.

I don't know who you are but I really like your responses and willingness to engage in this back and forth chat, hehe. Here is the question: are they REQUIRED to "meaningly explore alternatives outside of those constraints"? While I certainly wish they would have and believe they must do so moving forward if we have any hope of renovating all these buildings within the next century, is that something that a better system would have done but is not a necessary part of the process? Meaning, they didn't do part of the process that should, but doesn't actually, exist?

There’s no rule that says they must explore every theoretical alternative outside the budget or political reality. But there is an expectation that they clearly explain what constraints are driving the process and that the publicly presented “options” aren’t just a narrow outcome presented as a broad choice set.

Are these expectations required as part of Policy FAA or COMAR?

That's some of the frustration with these discussions in that because the process felt rushed that there must be something legally wrong with the process, but I'm pretty sure that's not the case. Even the people arguing about a process violation think that the school system is allowed to move Wootton if they checked the right boxes.

The remedy that the Save Wootton crowd wants can't be provided by a judge. They need to get a new board and county council to get the funds to re-open the Parkway location and that's just a big ask.

They want the process to be followed and regulations complied with. Earlier in this thread a PP explained what remedy a judge could grant. I suggest you re-read it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Always fair to question and yet proving that all the input that they sought and received on multiple occasions was nothing more than a sham, seems impossible to prove or win. Especially when MCPS has provided the date that the new enrollment projections came out and said date was after 1-4 and A-D were released, meaning that this option could not have actually come out in an earlier round. I understand not liking it, I don't either, but I also think that the Save Wootton and CEPA folks are intentionally misleading our community by making it seem as though we have any real hope.

I get what you’re saying, but it’s not quite that simple.

MCPS pointing to the date the projections were released doesn’t really prove much beyond…that’s when they released them. It doesn’t tell you what they were talking about internally before that. And that’s usually where this stuff actually lives — emails, drafts, early modeling, etc. MCPS isn’t gonna just hand that over unless they’re forced to. They’re especially not going to want to do so if this entire mess was a result of MCPS not wanting to lose the Crown farm land and $100M in state money, despite dropping enrollment that couldn’t fill Crown once it was built.

Also the argument isn’t just “they didn’t show H earlier.” It’s more like…was the whole process kinda steering toward a result while pretending to be open? That’s a harder thing to prove, yeah, but not impossible. Especially if prople can show some options were never really on the table or feedback didn’t actually matter.

And saying Save Wootton / CEPA are “intentionally misleading” is a bit much tbh. You can think they’re overly optimistic, sure, but they’re reacting to something real — the process didn’t feel neutral to a lot of ppl.

You’re right that winning would be tough. Courts usually side w school systems unless there’s something pretty clear. But “tough” ≠ “no shot.”

I respect this answer although I don't agree. Perhaps the whole process was kinda steering toward this result because the lack of enrollment helped solve the not enough money for all repairs issue. If the county had raised the bond limit or P3s were established and this was the result I would agree that they were not open to exploring options and had premeditated this outcome. That was not the case.

As for the Save Wootton and CEPA folks, I will maintain they are misleading us intentionally. They posted a flyer on our chat advertising a fundraiser for the school and it took a member asking precisely where these funds were going, school or legal fund, to understand it was not actually for the school. Additionally, they have not shared with our community what their goals are in terms of accountability, how much they have collected or what amount they have spent on a retainer, or what they will do with remaining funds that may be leftover. This is asking for money without clarity of where it will go or an honest assessment of what the chances of success, measured however you like, ultimately are.

Even if did not predetermine a specific outcome like Option H, they may have been operating within constraints that naturally pointed in that direction. The concern from groups like Save Wootton and CEPA seems less about proving a deliberate plan and more about whether the process meaningfully explored alternatives outside those constraints.

So I think the distinction is this: you’re arguing there was no premeditated outcome, which may well be true. Others are questioning whether the process was as open-ended as it was presented to be, given the financial realities. Those positions aren’t entirely incompatible—they’re just emphasizing different parts of the same situation.

I don't know who you are but I really like your responses and willingness to engage in this back and forth chat, hehe. Here is the question: are they REQUIRED to "meaningly explore alternatives outside of those constraints"? While I certainly wish they would have and believe they must do so moving forward if we have any hope of renovating all these buildings within the next century, is that something that a better system would have done but is not a necessary part of the process? Meaning, they didn't do part of the process that should, but doesn't actually, exist?

There’s no rule that says they must explore every theoretical alternative outside the budget or political reality. But there is an expectation that they clearly explain what constraints are driving the process and that the publicly presented “options” aren’t just a narrow outcome presented as a broad choice set.

Are these expectations required as part of Policy FAA or COMAR?

That's some of the frustration with these discussions in that because the process felt rushed that there must be something legally wrong with the process, but I'm pretty sure that's not the case. Even the people arguing about a process violation think that the school system is allowed to move Wootton if they checked the right boxes.

The remedy that the Save Wootton crowd wants can't be provided by a judge. They need to get a new board and county council to get the funds to re-open the Parkway location and that's just a big ask.

They want the process to be followed and regulations complied with. Earlier in this thread a PP explained what remedy a judge could grant. I suggest you re-read it.

Wootton asked for better, safer facilities. Most families would want this but a select few. How about considering others needs and health? A judge isn't going to give MCPS the money to fix Wootton and with all that mold you don't want a quick fix.

[Anonymous]

Don't you love how Wootton whiners are obsessing over Montoya's racism as a way of distancing themselves from their own? They're blowing up our chat with how terrible she is and making sure that the Montoya is Unfit thread is atop the SCUM list of threads as a way of deflecting their own defeat. YAWN.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Always fair to question and yet proving that all the input that they sought and received on multiple occasions was nothing more than a sham, seems impossible to prove or win. Especially when MCPS has provided the date that the new enrollment projections came out and said date was after 1-4 and A-D were released, meaning that this option could not have actually come out in an earlier round. I understand not liking it, I don't either, but I also think that the Save Wootton and CEPA folks are intentionally misleading our community by making it seem as though we have any real hope.

I get what you’re saying, but it’s not quite that simple.

MCPS pointing to the date the projections were released doesn’t really prove much beyond…that’s when they released them. It doesn’t tell you what they were talking about internally before that. And that’s usually where this stuff actually lives — emails, drafts, early modeling, etc. MCPS isn’t gonna just hand that over unless they’re forced to. They’re especially not going to want to do so if this entire mess was a result of MCPS not wanting to lose the Crown farm land and $100M in state money, despite dropping enrollment that couldn’t fill Crown once it was built.

Also the argument isn’t just “they didn’t show H earlier.” It’s more like…was the whole process kinda steering toward a result while pretending to be open? That’s a harder thing to prove, yeah, but not impossible. Especially if prople can show some options were never really on the table or feedback didn’t actually matter.

And saying Save Wootton / CEPA are “intentionally misleading” is a bit much tbh. You can think they’re overly optimistic, sure, but they’re reacting to something real — the process didn’t feel neutral to a lot of ppl.

You’re right that winning would be tough. Courts usually side w school systems unless there’s something pretty clear. But “tough” ≠ “no shot.”

I respect this answer although I don't agree. Perhaps the whole process was kinda steering toward this result because the lack of enrollment helped solve the not enough money for all repairs issue. If the county had raised the bond limit or P3s were established and this was the result I would agree that they were not open to exploring options and had premeditated this outcome. That was not the case.

As for the Save Wootton and CEPA folks, I will maintain they are misleading us intentionally. They posted a flyer on our chat advertising a fundraiser for the school and it took a member asking precisely where these funds were going, school or legal fund, to understand it was not actually for the school. Additionally, they have not shared with our community what their goals are in terms of accountability, how much they have collected or what amount they have spent on a retainer, or what they will do with remaining funds that may be leftover. This is asking for money without clarity of where it will go or an honest assessment of what the chances of success, measured however you like, ultimately are.

Even if did not predetermine a specific outcome like Option H, they may have been operating within constraints that naturally pointed in that direction. The concern from groups like Save Wootton and CEPA seems less about proving a deliberate plan and more about whether the process meaningfully explored alternatives outside those constraints.

So I think the distinction is this: you’re arguing there was no premeditated outcome, which may well be true. Others are questioning whether the process was as open-ended as it was presented to be, given the financial realities. Those positions aren’t entirely incompatible—they’re just emphasizing different parts of the same situation.

I don't know who you are but I really like your responses and willingness to engage in this back and forth chat, hehe. Here is the question: are they REQUIRED to "meaningly explore alternatives outside of those constraints"? While I certainly wish they would have and believe they must do so moving forward if we have any hope of renovating all these buildings within the next century, is that something that a better system would have done but is not a necessary part of the process? Meaning, they didn't do part of the process that should, but doesn't actually, exist?

There’s no rule that says they must explore every theoretical alternative outside the budget or political reality. But there is an expectation that they clearly explain what constraints are driving the process and that the publicly presented “options” aren’t just a narrow outcome presented as a broad choice set.

Are these expectations required as part of Policy FAA or COMAR?

That's some of the frustration with these discussions in that because the process felt rushed that there must be something legally wrong with the process, but I'm pretty sure that's not the case. Even the people arguing about a process violation think that the school system is allowed to move Wootton if they checked the right boxes.

The remedy that the Save Wootton crowd wants can't be provided by a judge. They need to get a new board and county council to get the funds to re-open the Parkway location and that's just a big ask.

They want the process to be followed and regulations complied with. Earlier in this thread a PP explained what remedy a judge could grant. I suggest you re-read it.

Wootton asked for better, safer facilities. Most families would want this but a select few. How about considering others needs and health? A judge isn't going to give MCPS the money to fix Wootton and with all that mold you don't want a quick fix.

But you want Magruder students in that mold?

[Anonymous]

Misleading the state government to grab $100M for the Crown building and then not using it for its stated purpose that seems worth investigating