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: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.

PP here and thanks for pointing out a nuance that needs clarification. By "the facility" I mean the physical geographic location.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well this brings up a nuance I pointed out a few pages back, but didn't re-raise given the technicality of it. All of the examples I can find, paired with what I see from local policies and procedures- closure actually refers to permanent discontinuation of a site for educational purposes that leads to a net reduction in total facilities within the district.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well this brings up a nuance I pointed out a few pages back, but didn't re-raise given the technicality of it. All of the examples I can find, paired with what I see from local policies and procedures- closure actually refers to permanent discontinuation of a site for educational purposes that leads to a net reduction in total facilities within the district.

Exactly.

We're not even getting into a grey area here, like when a single building gets used for two schools.

This is a pretty simple case because we happen to be in a situation where there's a new building that hasn't been used as a school yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

PP here and thanks for pointing out a nuance that needs clarification. By "the facility" I mean the physical geographic location.

There are plenty examples of schools moving facilities- even to different facilities miles away- without them being closures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

PP here and thanks for pointing out a nuance that needs clarification. By "the facility" I mean the physical geographic location.

There are plenty examples of schools moving facilities- even to different facilities miles away- without them being closures.

Please see above post for clarification on this point.

[Anonymous]

"that leads to a net reduction in total facilities within the district."

So as long as we do not reduce the number of schools we can relocate (no limit on how far?), we can rename, and we can change the cluster. As long as we replace the closing school, with another school somewhere, under any name, and any cluster composition, it is not a closure. Ingenious. This of course means that unless the county truly would go into contraction mode, there would never be a closure, because the MCPS could always claim that there was not a net reduction, so no closure. Ingenious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

PP here and thanks for pointing out a nuance that needs clarification. By "the facility" I mean the physical geographic location.

There are plenty examples of schools moving facilities- even to different facilities miles away- without them being closures.

Please see above post for clarification on this point.

Which post? As the other poster has been pointing out, there also isn't a net reduction in schools in this case. It isn't a closure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"that leads to a net reduction in total facilities within the district."

So as long as we do not reduce the number of schools we can relocate (no limit on how far?), we can rename, and we can change the cluster. As long as we replace the closing school, with another school somewhere, under any name, and any cluster composition, it is not a closure. Ingenious. This of course means that unless the county truly would go into contraction mode, there would never be a closure, because the MCPS could always claim that there was not a net reduction, so no closure. Ingenious.

I mean, yes? But I'm not sure what is ingenious about it. As said before, there is nothing inherently "wrong" with closing a school. There is simply a procedural requirement. That procedure is in place to determine that the district has appropriately considered the impact of that closure across several factors- primarily the impact of losing a facility to overall enrollment, traffic patterns, etc. There are similar procedural requirements for boundary changes, ect.

I still think people are getting twisted about this "closure" lawsuit idea. Yes, it is a reasonable tactic to use to continue to oppose, to potentially delay, and to potentially get the district to not move forward with Option H. But it is a procedural argument only. In essence, did/will the district follow the appropriate set of criteria? This lawsuit is a legal maneuver that isn't deciding whether or not Option H is a good or bad option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

PP here and thanks for pointing out a nuance that needs clarification. By "the facility" I mean the physical geographic location.

There are plenty examples of schools moving facilities- even to different facilities miles away- without them being closures.

Please see above post for clarification on this point.

Which post? As the other poster has been pointing out, there also isn't a net reduction in schools in this case. It isn't a closure.

Yes, that was me, and that clarification I provided is what I was referring to. This explains why the scenarios of moving a school a few miles away is not a closure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"that leads to a net reduction in total facilities within the district."

So as long as we do not reduce the number of schools we can relocate (no limit on how far?), we can rename, and we can change the cluster. As long as we replace the closing school, with another school somewhere, under any name, and any cluster composition, it is not a closure. Ingenious. This of course means that unless the county truly would go into contraction mode, there would never be a closure, because the MCPS could always claim that there was not a net reduction, so no closure. Ingenious.

Maybe the point you should taking from this is that we shouldn't be so fixated on the "closure" term and apply the same expectations for analysis, notice and public input for all significant facilities planning and boundary decisions.

Which we already do!

What major element of the school closure procedure hasn't been followed that you believe is so important to the integrity of the process?

[Anonymous]

Also, closing schools happens, whether or not Option H meets that definition.

MCPS will probably close at least a handful of elementary schools in the future, maybe 5-10 of them, because we have declining enrollment and therefore excess capacity. Keeping every school open would be fiscally irresponsible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"that leads to a net reduction in total facilities within the district."

So as long as we do not reduce the number of schools we can relocate (no limit on how far?), we can rename, and we can change the cluster. As long as we replace the closing school, with another school somewhere, under any name, and any cluster composition, it is not a closure. Ingenious. This of course means that unless the county truly would go into contraction mode, there would never be a closure, because the MCPS could always claim that there was not a net reduction, so no closure. Ingenious.

I mean, yes? But I'm not sure what is ingenious about it. As said before, there is nothing inherently "wrong" with closing a school. There is simply a procedural requirement. That procedure is in place to determine that the district has appropriately considered the impact of that closure across several factors- primarily the impact of losing a facility to overall enrollment, traffic patterns, etc. There are similar procedural requirements for boundary changes, ect.

I still think people are getting twisted about this "closure" lawsuit idea. Yes, it is a reasonable tactic to use to continue to oppose, to potentially delay, and to potentially get the district to not move forward with Option H. But it is a procedural argument only. In essence, did/will the district follow the appropriate set of criteria? This lawsuit is a legal maneuver that isn't deciding whether or not Option H is a good or bad option.

And their argument is an implicit acknowledgment that H is the best option on the merits.

[Anonymous]

"there is nothing inherently "wrong" with closing a school."

Agreed, but many on this thread posted pages denying that this is in fact a closure. It is. You seem to agree with that

Whether it is an appropriate closure can be debated. Many of us think it is not appropriate. There are arguments to be made either way but if H is implemented, it means that MCPS has effectively "closed" one of its top schools. That in and of itself is a huge minus and would require overwhelming evidence just to overcome that one item.

[Anonymous]

The fact that there is such ambiguity around the legality of Option H and strong community opposition, it is unlikely that MCPS will recommend it. MCPS has learned that significantly antagonizing the various communities isn’t in its nor local politicians’ best interests.

So many people want to be right on this thread that they’re blind to opposing viewpoints. Option H isn’t the only option and more community input and due diligence is warranted before any permanent changes are made. Dr. Taylor likely realizes this by now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"there is nothing inherently "wrong" with closing a school."

Agreed, but many on this thread posted pages denying that this is in fact a closure. It is. You seem to agree with that

Whether it is an appropriate closure can be debated. Many of us think it is not appropriate. There are arguments to be made either way but if H is implemented, it means that MCPS has effectively "closed" one of its top schools. That in and of itself is a huge minus and would require overwhelming evidence just to overcome that one item.

It isn't a closure. But some of the Wootton posters are suggesting closures are inherently bad, which is yet another absurd claim that they make.