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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Presumably they'd argue"

Sounds like a lot of billable hours to me. and more importantly, as you pointed out earlier, delays.

Which arguments end up being deemed plausible are unknown but the billable hours and the delay is almost a certainty.

The current status is not acceptable to many. Changing that status to delay and "do over" seems attractive.

As to whether this delay would be a good use of public money, is of course a valid point. When a question like that is asked in many instances, that would be a time to suggest negotiations or arbitration. Not sure if that step has been done here

My point is that you'd never get the temporary injunction. At least, not long enough to prevent Crown from opening.

In some magical case where you did, the expense of operating an extra school, combined with maintenance (and eventual replacement) costs of an aging school, mean the best use, long-term, of taxpayer funds would strongly argue in waiting out court case. Particularly since you seem to agree Wootton parents can't win on the merits.

Wootton families don’t care if Crown opens and wouldn’t ask a judge to block it from doing so. They will ask a judge to block Wootton from being closed and moved to Crown. They actually have a pretty good case for this.

That would mean ordering an extra school to be operated, at significant public expense. That isn't likely to happen.

But I'm sure a lawyer would be happy to take your money.

You’re obviously not a lawyer, or at least don’t understand litigation strategy.

You don't seem to understand what is required to get a temporary injunction.

Sigh. How many have you successfully obtained in your illustrious legal career? How many times have you briefed one and argued it in court?

It also doesn’t matter. Once a lawsuit is filed, MCPS will be under the microscope by even more parents and the media (national media because of how highly ranked Wootton is). Who knows, maybe even the Trump administration takes an interest. It might be a local decision, but it’s in his backyard, MD is a deep blue state, it’s Jamie Raskin’s turf, and some of his people could see it through his anti-DEI lens with a desire to curry favor with the boss.

This legitimately made me laugh.

There’s also the construction angle. Trump is a builder and would look at the assumptions and mismanagement in constructing Crown. Not a good look to build a $400M school and not have enough students to fill it, so you have to close a top school in a different neighborhood 3+ miles away and transplant its high performing Asian population to it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Legitimate vs Illegitimate

You have made a thoughtful list, but many of the items do not fit as neatly into those categories as you suggest.

You also left off one very obvious legitimate argument against H. Wootton is a top rated school and adds significantly to the overall reputation of the MCPS. Making Wootton disappear is not a good thing for that overall reputation. It would be like Major League Baseball making the Yankees or the Dodgers go away because their stadiums need repair.

Someone posted a similar analogy 10 pages back. You left out adding another 30% of players from a much lower performing team.

[Anonymous]

Lawyer here and an actual litigator who has moved for TROs & PIs on behalf of plaintiffs and defended against injunctive requests for defendants. Also a Wootton parent who doesn’t think the sky will fall if our kids go to Crown permanently or as a holding school.

Before I’m accused of being a troll, let me start out by saying that when my kids were babies I moved to MoCo and exclusively looked for a home in the Wootton school district because of its reputation and ranking. The education my kids have received thus far has been phenomenal, particularly the multiple pathways to take advanced classes on a pace faster than kids in other counties and states. Their teachers have been across the board dedicated and inspiring.

No snark intended, but I honestly do not understand the pervasive fear that simply moving our kids to a new building but being taught by these same incredible teachers with the same advanced classes will somehow make otherwise elite-college bound kids stuck going to No Name U. Our ranking isn’t going to suddenly drop just because a few hundred Crown kids are added. Admissions officers will know about the change.

Back to my legal point. I had to chime in because I deeply care about my community and I don’t want anyone to be misled by lawyers who see rich, angry & hysterical parents and a $$$$$ income stream. Please look at prior challenges to boundary changes. No one wins these cases. Even if the goal is simply to file a nuisance suit thinking this will cause years of delays and pressure, that only works when there is a ripe claim that can survive a motion to dismiss. If MCPS caved every time someone filed a frivolous lawsuit, we’d have no school system.

Injunctions 101: you can’t get injunctive relief unless you demonstrate you’re likely to succeed on the merits. And there is zero merit to the argument that this process is “illegal.”

Even if they announced today that they are going to ask the county council to support option H, and even if the county council met today and voted to approve that decision, MCPS still has plenty of time to then prepare its plans for the change and what happens to Wootton. Then they hold hearings.

Despite the musings in this thread, there are zero regulations or requirements that would require MCPS to hold school closure hearings before they’ve even decided whether to pursue option H. Because of course there isn’t. It’s a basic chicken/egg concept.

If a lawsuit is filed right after option H is announced, no judge is going to grant a TRO preventing MCPS from embarking on the process to move Wootton to Crown. It’s not ripe. It’ll be easily denied. The complaint will then be dismissed and typically there is no discovery until after motions to dismiss.

Why waste your money on lawyers who will happily have “field days” with it when you can instead be active & constructive participants in the public process and hearings about how best to make this transition? I find it odd that the parents most concerned about property values would want to ratchet up litigation and attacks on MCPS rather than being constructive participants in solutions as to how to best use the budget to perform necessary renovations and how to redraw boundaries so as to adjust to changing enrollment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Legitimate vs Illegitimate

You have made a thoughtful list, but many of the items do not fit as neatly into those categories as you suggest.

You also left off one very obvious legitimate argument against H. Wootton is a top rated school and adds significantly to the overall reputation of the MCPS. Making Wootton disappear is not a good thing for that overall reputation. It would be like Major League Baseball making the Yankees or the Dodgers go away because their stadiums need repair.

Someone posted a similar analogy 10 pages back. You left out adding another 30% of players from a much lower performing team.

I get the analogy, but there are some serious flaws. MCPS cares about the reputation and performance of the district AS A WHOLE, as it should. Preserving the "reputation" or "prestige" of one school (such as it is) out of hundreds is not, and should not be, their concern. The appropriate analogy would be adding poor performers to MLB in general. And even that isn't happening here because they are already in the league.

Not to mention this isn't a private for-profit enterprise... The mission is to provide a quality education to all students.

[Anonymous]

Wrong analogy. It’s simply moving the Yankees to a new stadium because it’s cheaper than repairing their current stadium while they try to play in it. Still the great Yankees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lawyer here and an actual litigator who has moved for TROs & PIs on behalf of plaintiffs and defended against injunctive requests for defendants. Also a Wootton parent who doesn’t think the sky will fall if our kids go to Crown permanently or as a holding school.

Before I’m accused of being a troll, let me start out by saying that when my kids were babies I moved to MoCo and exclusively looked for a home in the Wootton school district because of its reputation and ranking. The education my kids have received thus far has been phenomenal, particularly the multiple pathways to take advanced classes on a pace faster than kids in other counties and states. Their teachers have been across the board dedicated and inspiring.

No snark intended, but I honestly do not understand the pervasive fear that simply moving our kids to a new building but being taught by these same incredible teachers with the same advanced classes will somehow make otherwise elite-college bound kids stuck going to No Name U. Our ranking isn’t going to suddenly drop just because a few hundred Crown kids are added. Admissions officers will know about the change.

Back to my legal point. I had to chime in because I deeply care about my community and I don’t want anyone to be misled by lawyers who see rich, angry & hysterical parents and a $$$$$ income stream. Please look at prior challenges to boundary changes. No one wins these cases. Even if the goal is simply to file a nuisance suit thinking this will cause years of delays and pressure, that only works when there is a ripe claim that can survive a motion to dismiss. If MCPS caved every time someone filed a frivolous lawsuit, we’d have no school system.

Injunctions 101: you can’t get injunctive relief unless you demonstrate you’re likely to succeed on the merits. And there is zero merit to the argument that this process is “illegal.”

Even if they announced today that they are going to ask the county council to support option H, and even if the county council met today and voted to approve that decision, MCPS still has plenty of time to then prepare its plans for the change and what happens to Wootton. Then they hold hearings.

Despite the musings in this thread, there are zero regulations or requirements that would require MCPS to hold school closure hearings before they’ve even decided whether to pursue option H. Because of course there isn’t. It’s a basic chicken/egg concept.

If a lawsuit is filed right after option H is announced, no judge is going to grant a TRO preventing MCPS from embarking on the process to move Wootton to Crown. It’s not ripe. It’ll be easily denied. The complaint will then be dismissed and typically there is no discovery until after motions to dismiss.

Why waste your money on lawyers who will happily have “field days” with it when you can instead be active & constructive participants in the public process and hearings about how best to make this transition? I find it odd that the parents most concerned about property values would want to ratchet up litigation and attacks on MCPS rather than being constructive participants in solutions as to how to best use the budget to perform necessary renovations and how to redraw boundaries so as to adjust to changing enrollment.

You’re assuming Option H is in the best interest of Wootton families. The rest of your legal post (lawyer & litigator here) is biased from this perspective. Those opposed to Option H have a different story to tell (and they’re not just Wootton families concerned about property values). In the end, MCPS doesn’t want this in court during an election year. A lawsuit would force MCPS to keep Wootton open for several more years as it performs the very community engagement you espouse in your post. Option H popped out of nowhere in December, and a recommendation decision will be made in March. Less than 4 months of time for such a drastic move is in no world reasonable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wrong analogy. It’s simply moving the Yankees to a new stadium because it’s cheaper than repairing their current stadium while they try to play in it. Still the great Yankees.

You forgot about adding players to the Yankees from a lower performing team. Not so great Yankees after that.

[Anonymous]

" The sky will not fall'

No it will not, but the point is that if H goes through, a similar young attorney shopping for homes, will be looking to Churchill or other. That young attorney is not going to tell their real estate agent that they specifically want Crown as you did with Wootton.

Your comments about whether MCPS must hold closure hearings are interesting. If I understand what you are saying, the MCPS can relocate the students to a school with a different name, combine them with students from another cluster, and have no plans for what is going to happen to the existing building and Wootton school name. That will be TBD. If you are correct, then MCPS should never "close" a school. They should just backdoor close it via an option H type option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:" The sky will not fall'

No it will not, but the point is that if H goes through, a similar young attorney shopping for homes, will be looking to Churchill or other. That young attorney is not going to tell their real estate agent that they specifically want Crown as you did with Wootton.

Your comments about whether MCPS must hold closure hearings are interesting. If I understand what you are saying, the MCPS can relocate the students to a school with a different name, combine them with students from another cluster, and have no plans for what is going to happen to the existing building and Wootton school name. That will be TBD. If you are correct, then MCPS should never "close" a school. They should just backdoor close it via an option H type option.

If Wootton were just moving buildings, the lawyer PP above would have a point that this isn’t a closure. But MCPS is changing the boundaries at the same time, creating a new cluster out of the ashes of the old one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:" The sky will not fall'

No it will not, but the point is that if H goes through, a similar young attorney shopping for homes, will be looking to Churchill or other. That young attorney is not going to tell their real estate agent that they specifically want Crown as you did with Wootton.

Your comments about whether MCPS must hold closure hearings are interesting. If I understand what you are saying, the MCPS can relocate the students to a school with a different name, combine them with students from another cluster, and have no plans for what is going to happen to the existing building and Wootton school name. That will be TBD. If you are correct, then MCPS should never "close" a school. They should just backdoor close it via an option H type option.

Of course they should close a school in a lot of different scenarios. There is nothing inherently wrong with closing a school. IT can make sense from a fiscal, capital planning, enrollment, economic development perspective, ect. There is no reason to avoid it. All it does is require process- largely the exact same process that is followed for boundary studies.

[Anonymous]

"If Wootton were just moving buildings, the lawyer PP above would have a point that this isn’t a closure"

Agreed and to continue the baseball analogy, we are moving the Yankees to Pennsylvania, we are combining them with the Phillies, and we are naming the new team the Pennsylvania Crowns. However there is absolutely no evidence that we are closing the Yankees

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lawyer here and an actual litigator who has moved for TROs & PIs on behalf of plaintiffs and defended against injunctive requests for defendants. Also a Wootton parent who doesn’t think the sky will fall if our kids go to Crown permanently or as a holding school.

Before I’m accused of being a troll, let me start out by saying that when my kids were babies I moved to MoCo and exclusively looked for a home in the Wootton school district because of its reputation and ranking. The education my kids have received thus far has been phenomenal, particularly the multiple pathways to take advanced classes on a pace faster than kids in other counties and states. Their teachers have been across the board dedicated and inspiring.

No snark intended, but I honestly do not understand the pervasive fear that simply moving our kids to a new building but being taught by these same incredible teachers with the same advanced classes will somehow make otherwise elite-college bound kids stuck going to No Name U. Our ranking isn’t going to suddenly drop just because a few hundred Crown kids are added. Admissions officers will know about the change.

Back to my legal point. I had to chime in because I deeply care about my community and I don’t want anyone to be misled by lawyers who see rich, angry & hysterical parents and a $$$$$ income stream. Please look at prior challenges to boundary changes. No one wins these cases. Even if the goal is simply to file a nuisance suit thinking this will cause years of delays and pressure, that only works when there is a ripe claim that can survive a motion to dismiss. If MCPS caved every time someone filed a frivolous lawsuit, we’d have no school system.

Injunctions 101: you can’t get injunctive relief unless you demonstrate you’re likely to succeed on the merits. And there is zero merit to the argument that this process is “illegal.”

Even if they announced today that they are going to ask the county council to support option H, and even if the county council met today and voted to approve that decision, MCPS still has plenty of time to then prepare its plans for the change and what happens to Wootton. Then they hold hearings.

Despite the musings in this thread, there are zero regulations or requirements that would require MCPS to hold school closure hearings before they’ve even decided whether to pursue option H. Because of course there isn’t. It’s a basic chicken/egg concept.

If a lawsuit is filed right after option H is announced, no judge is going to grant a TRO preventing MCPS from embarking on the process to move Wootton to Crown. It’s not ripe. It’ll be easily denied. The complaint will then be dismissed and typically there is no discovery until after motions to dismiss.

Why waste your money on lawyers who will happily have “field days” with it when you can instead be active & constructive participants in the public process and hearings about how best to make this transition? I find it odd that the parents most concerned about property values would want to ratchet up litigation and attacks on MCPS rather than being constructive participants in solutions as to how to best use the budget to perform necessary renovations and how to redraw boundaries so as to adjust to changing enrollment.

You’re assuming Option H is in the best interest of Wootton families. The rest of your legal post (lawyer & litigator here) is biased from this perspective. Those opposed to Option H have a different story to tell (and they’re not just Wootton families concerned about property values). In the end, MCPS doesn’t want this in court during an election year. A lawsuit would force MCPS to keep Wootton open for several more years as it performs the very community engagement you espouse in your post. Option H popped out of nowhere in December, and a recommendation decision will be made in March. Less than 4 months of time for such a drastic move is in no world reasonable.

The fact that Option H does not specify long-term plans for the current Wootton building (which is a problem) is unfortunately the reason why the current situation likely does not qualify as a closure and why it is unlikely to cause significant delay. They can still move forward changing the feeders while the long-term outcome is determined- either through appropriate procedures or through litigation or both.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lawyer here and an actual litigator who has moved for TROs & PIs on behalf of plaintiffs and defended against injunctive requests for defendants. Also a Wootton parent who doesn’t think the sky will fall if our kids go to Crown permanently or as a holding school.

Before I’m accused of being a troll, let me start out by saying that when my kids were babies I moved to MoCo and exclusively looked for a home in the Wootton school district because of its reputation and ranking. The education my kids have received thus far has been phenomenal, particularly the multiple pathways to take advanced classes on a pace faster than kids in other counties and states. Their teachers have been across the board dedicated and inspiring.

No snark intended, but I honestly do not understand the pervasive fear that simply moving our kids to a new building but being taught by these same incredible teachers with the same advanced classes will somehow make otherwise elite-college bound kids stuck going to No Name U. Our ranking isn’t going to suddenly drop just because a few hundred Crown kids are added. Admissions officers will know about the change.

Back to my legal point. I had to chime in because I deeply care about my community and I don’t want anyone to be misled by lawyers who see rich, angry & hysterical parents and a $$$$$ income stream. Please look at prior challenges to boundary changes. No one wins these cases. Even if the goal is simply to file a nuisance suit thinking this will cause years of delays and pressure, that only works when there is a ripe claim that can survive a motion to dismiss. If MCPS caved every time someone filed a frivolous lawsuit, we’d have no school system.

Injunctions 101: you can’t get injunctive relief unless you demonstrate you’re likely to succeed on the merits. And there is zero merit to the argument that this process is “illegal.”

Even if they announced today that they are going to ask the county council to support option H, and even if the county council met today and voted to approve that decision, MCPS still has plenty of time to then prepare its plans for the change and what happens to Wootton. Then they hold hearings.

Despite the musings in this thread, there are zero regulations or requirements that would require MCPS to hold school closure hearings before they’ve even decided whether to pursue option H. Because of course there isn’t. It’s a basic chicken/egg concept.

If a lawsuit is filed right after option H is announced, no judge is going to grant a TRO preventing MCPS from embarking on the process to move Wootton to Crown. It’s not ripe. It’ll be easily denied. The complaint will then be dismissed and typically there is no discovery until after motions to dismiss.

Why waste your money on lawyers who will happily have “field days” with it when you can instead be active & constructive participants in the public process and hearings about how best to make this transition? I find it odd that the parents most concerned about property values would want to ratchet up litigation and attacks on MCPS rather than being constructive participants in solutions as to how to best use the budget to perform necessary renovations and how to redraw boundaries so as to adjust to changing enrollment.

You’re assuming Option H is in the best interest of Wootton families. The rest of your legal post (lawyer & litigator here) is biased from this perspective. Those opposed to Option H have a different story to tell (and they’re not just Wootton families concerned about property values). In the end, MCPS doesn’t want this in court during an election year. A lawsuit would force MCPS to keep Wootton open for several more years as it performs the very community engagement you espouse in your post. Option H popped out of nowhere in December, and a recommendation decision will be made in March. Less than 4 months of time for such a drastic move is in no world reasonable.

The fact that Option H does not specify long-term plans for the current Wootton building (which is a problem) is unfortunately the reason why the current situation likely does not qualify as a closure and why it is unlikely to cause significant delay. They can still move forward changing the feeders while the long-term outcome is determined- either through appropriate procedures or through litigation or both.

As was pointed out earlier in this thread, there is no clear definition of “closure” in the law. What you’re suggesting is they MCPS can preclude a court from addressing this question by keeping the old Wootton building open?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lawyer here and an actual litigator who has moved for TROs & PIs on behalf of plaintiffs and defended against injunctive requests for defendants. Also a Wootton parent who doesn’t think the sky will fall if our kids go to Crown permanently or as a holding school.

Before I’m accused of being a troll, let me start out by saying that when my kids were babies I moved to MoCo and exclusively looked for a home in the Wootton school district because of its reputation and ranking. The education my kids have received thus far has been phenomenal, particularly the multiple pathways to take advanced classes on a pace faster than kids in other counties and states. Their teachers have been across the board dedicated and inspiring.

No snark intended, but I honestly do not understand the pervasive fear that simply moving our kids to a new building but being taught by these same incredible teachers with the same advanced classes will somehow make otherwise elite-college bound kids stuck going to No Name U. Our ranking isn’t going to suddenly drop just because a few hundred Crown kids are added. Admissions officers will know about the change.

Back to my legal point. I had to chime in because I deeply care about my community and I don’t want anyone to be misled by lawyers who see rich, angry & hysterical parents and a $$$$$ income stream. Please look at prior challenges to boundary changes. No one wins these cases. Even if the goal is simply to file a nuisance suit thinking this will cause years of delays and pressure, that only works when there is a ripe claim that can survive a motion to dismiss. If MCPS caved every time someone filed a frivolous lawsuit, we’d have no school system.

Injunctions 101: you can’t get injunctive relief unless you demonstrate you’re likely to succeed on the merits. And there is zero merit to the argument that this process is “illegal.”

Even if they announced today that they are going to ask the county council to support option H, and even if the county council met today and voted to approve that decision, MCPS still has plenty of time to then prepare its plans for the change and what happens to Wootton. Then they hold hearings.

Despite the musings in this thread, there are zero regulations or requirements that would require MCPS to hold school closure hearings before they’ve even decided whether to pursue option H. Because of course there isn’t. It’s a basic chicken/egg concept.

If a lawsuit is filed right after option H is announced, no judge is going to grant a TRO preventing MCPS from embarking on the process to move Wootton to Crown. It’s not ripe. It’ll be easily denied. The complaint will then be dismissed and typically there is no discovery until after motions to dismiss.

Why waste your money on lawyers who will happily have “field days” with it when you can instead be active & constructive participants in the public process and hearings about how best to make this transition? I find it odd that the parents most concerned about property values would want to ratchet up litigation and attacks on MCPS rather than being constructive participants in solutions as to how to best use the budget to perform necessary renovations and how to redraw boundaries so as to adjust to changing enrollment.

You’re assuming Option H is in the best interest of Wootton families. The rest of your legal post (lawyer & litigator here) is biased from this perspective. Those opposed to Option H have a different story to tell (and they’re not just Wootton families concerned about property values). In the end, MCPS doesn’t want this in court during an election year. A lawsuit would force MCPS to keep Wootton open for several more years as it performs the very community engagement you espouse in your post. Option H popped out of nowhere in December, and a recommendation decision will be made in March. Less than 4 months of time for such a drastic move is in no world reasonable.

It's not a good look to cave to parents with the deepest pockets in an election year, either.

You're making a huge assumption that a TRO would be granted in this situation. As the pp said, that's unlikely.

[Anonymous]

"What you’re suggesting is they MCPS can preclude a court from addressing this question by keeping the old Wootton building open?'

Not even necessarily keeping it open. The suggestion is that they can remain completely vague as to the disposition of the old building, and this somehow provides them cover to not classify this as a school closure. Again if that were true, MCPS should never close a school, and they should just accomplish closures via vague plans like Option H.