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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I'm the one that pointed out the lack of definition. I'm not suggesting the court can't address the question, I'm suggesting that it likely won't prevent moving the students in the near term.

[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.

The facility is separate from the school. The long term plans for the facility or site don't matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"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.

Again, there is no reason for MCPS to avoid closing a school and following those procedures (which are largely the same as the boundary study). Indeed, if this is a closure, they likely will- whether pursuant to court order or simply in due course following the boundary study process and determine of final disposition of the Wootton building.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You don't think the Yankees can trade/sign/release players in the offseason between moving to a new stadium?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The facility is separate from the school. The long term plans for the facility or site don't matter.

How do you arrive at that conclusion? As I described in an earlier thread, while the definition is not spelled out in the law, all indications are that closure refers to the facility- not the student population.

[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.

I'm not an attorney, but I'd point out that there have been years and years of consultation and input on this. The process began with extensive in-person community meetings before Covid and this is part of the same process. All along, they were clear that they would take feedback from one stage and feed it into new options. Option H is the direct result of that process. So although it is a 'new' option that hasn't been around very long, it is built on feedback from years of consultation. You can argue that this was a pretty big change late in the game, but the process always anticipated *some* changes even in late stages.

That said, I agree with others that MCPS always aims to avoid conflict. I actually think Option H was intended to address the complaints of noisy Wootton parents who were concerned about the state of their building and they're likely very surprised that it raised the temperature rather than lowered it. So my guess is that they'll shelve Option H at the next decision point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"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.

Option H isn't vague. It is very clearly describing Crown as the new Wootton, likely under a new name. And yes, with an adjusted boundary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The facility is separate from the school. The long term plans for the facility or site don't matter.

How do you arrive at that conclusion? As I described in an earlier thread, while the definition is not spelled out in the law, all indications are that closure refers to the facility- not the student population.

Clearly not. When districts rebuild a school it isn't treated as a closure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"I literally said that the lawsuit would cause delay. Not sure why you are arguing that point."

I see the point you are making but given the way the BOE decides things, a delay in and if itself is a success. If this was delayed by a couple years, what are they going to do with Crown in the interim? Then after the delay as you stated, the whole situation will need to be reevaluated would it not? And that reevaluation will be with new facts and possibly new board members. So it is more than just a delay, it is a full "do over" as the kids would say. Given how this was handled, a 'Do over" is in order. Your concise synapsis of the legal situation has given me new hope.

To the extent Wootton parents complain about the state of the building, it will make it harder to plausibly argue for injunctive relief that requires the continued operation of that building.

You're digging yourselves into a hole.

100%. Delaying to stay in the old building and force my now elementary schooler to breathe in mold?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"I literally said that the lawsuit would cause delay. Not sure why you are arguing that point."

I see the point you are making but given the way the BOE decides things, a delay in and if itself is a success. If this was delayed by a couple years, what are they going to do with Crown in the interim? Then after the delay as you stated, the whole situation will need to be reevaluated would it not? And that reevaluation will be with new facts and possibly new board members. So it is more than just a delay, it is a full "do over" as the kids would say. Given how this was handled, a 'Do over" is in order. Your concise synapsis of the legal situation has given me new hope.

Correct. For now, use Crown for some of GHS and the remainder as holding school capacity. In a few years, MCPS will have a much better handle on enrollment numbers and projected growth around Crown. As expressed earlier in this thread, the fear is that closing Wootton and moving it to Crown will result in overcrowding at Crown in only a few short years. Any money saved my not remediating Wootton’s current plumbing and mold issues would have to be spent to reopen it - perhaps even more because it laid unused for that time. Even if Wootton were used as a holding school immediately, those same issues would have to be remediated. Yet Wootton will have ceased to exist, costing MoCo the #3 school in MD and #191 in the country.

What if the Wootton teachers then opt to go teach in the new school? That’s a real possibility. Then Wootton remains on the parkway but may still lose some academic luster.

[Anonymous]

So MCPS can move the students, eliminate the name, and change the cluster composition, without calling it a closure, all because they leave the plans for the existing building unclear? They can proceed with all their plans, and the court will argue whether or not it was a closure several years later? If that is all true, it is an ingenious blueprint for MCPS to follow for all future closures

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The facility is separate from the school. The long term plans for the facility or site don't matter.

How do you arrive at that conclusion? As I described in an earlier thread, while the definition is not spelled out in the law, all indications are that closure refers to the facility- not the student population.

When PG County closed moved a Fairmont Heights High School to a new building 2 miles away, and closed the original building, was that a school closure? No.

In MoCo, is Burtonsville elementary school being closed because a different building is being constructed 2 miles away? No.

School closures absolutely do not refer to the facility.

[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.

I'm not an attorney, but I'd point out that there have been years and years of consultation and input on this. The process began with extensive in-person community meetings before Covid and this is part of the same process. All along, they were clear that they would take feedback from one stage and feed it into new options. Option H is the direct result of that process. So although it is a 'new' option that hasn't been around very long, it is built on feedback from years of consultation. You can argue that this was a pretty big change late in the game, but the process always anticipated *some* changes even in late stages.

That said, I agree with others that MCPS always aims to avoid conflict. I actually think Option H was intended to address the complaints of noisy Wootton parents who were concerned about the state of their building and they're likely very surprised that it raised the temperature rather than lowered it. So my guess is that they'll shelve Option H at the next decision point.

How is option H a direct result of years of process? It popped out of nowhere after they did option 1-4 then A-D then Taylor just pivoted for holding school. It’s such a joke.

[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.

.

Didn’t someone say we are 191th in the country? I went to Wootton myself but if I saw something on the national news about the 190th ranked school in the country being closed I’d wonder why they were reporting on it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So MCPS can move the students, eliminate the name, and change the cluster composition, without calling it a closure, all because they leave the plans for the existing building unclear? They can proceed with all their plans, and the court will argue whether or not it was a closure several years later? If that is all true, it is an ingenious blueprint for MCPS to follow for all future closures

No. Districts can change facilities, feeder patterns, and school names. None of those things, taken individually or in combination, constitute a school closure. It isn't that complicated.

I'm also confused why you think MCPS needs to avoid the school closure process. They're already been following the major legally required elements of that process. The only thing that they may have missed in this case was advertising the process in two newspapers. Though, there have been articles about it.