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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm the PP you are responding to, and I disagree with your conclusion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Pretty sure the opposition is just from a small group of people that live next to the current Wootton. Option H is otherwise in the best interest of the rest of the county. And a lot of people here seem to acknowledge that, even some of the people that don't like Option H because they think it will affect their property values.

[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.

PP here, and no I don't. I have been arguing that based on everything that I can glean, given there is no explicit definition in law- it is not a closure under the current proposal as it stands today.

And to be clear, that has NOTHING to do with whether I think Option H is a good idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm the PP you are responding to, and I disagree with your conclusion.

If the merits were on their side, they'd be arguing the merits. Many aren't even saying they think the law is in their side. They just think they can delay and use political pressure with the financial resources available to the local community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

FWIW I agree with you. But I would clarify that think both sides are a bit overwrought and in some cases confused as to the real issues at play. I also think that the community opposition in and of itself is a meaningful factor. But I don't think there is much legal ambiguity. As stated, even if it is a closure all that is required is following process. The impact of the lawsuit is delay, not any vindication that Option H is bad, or that it won't eventually happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm the PP you are responding to, and I disagree with your conclusion.

If the merits were on their side, they'd be arguing the merits. Many aren't even saying they think the law is in their side. They just think they can delay and use political pressure with the financial resources available to the local community.

You must be new here. Welcome to the real world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm the PP you are responding to, and I disagree with your conclusion.

If the merits were on their side, they'd be arguing the merits. Many aren't even saying they think the law is in their side. They just think they can delay and use political pressure with the financial resources available to the local community.

PP here. Opponents to H are doing both things- arguing merits and identifying a plausible legal argument. There is no implicit acknowledgement of anything.

[Anonymous]

"- it is not a closure under the current proposal as it stands today."

Please address this.

If a school was to be closed, what would happen? Students would be reassigned to other schools, under new school names, the cluster would he blended with other clusters, the old school name would go away, and students would go to a new location for schooling.

How is that all not happening here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

There's no ambiguity. There are ample examples of schools moving without them being legally considered closures. The Wootton homeowners in this thread have not presented a credible claim.

If you want to argue against Option H, you'll need to do so on the merits. Which would mean justifying why Montgomery County taxpayers should be paying for a special school it doesn't need in order to segregate kids from white, UMC/UC families from less desirable demographic groups.

Perhaps Wootton homeowners should offer to buy the lot to create a private school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"- it is not a closure under the current proposal as it stands today."

Please address this.

If a school was to be closed, what would happen? Students would be reassigned to other schools, under new school names, the cluster would he blended with other clusters, the old school name would go away, and students would go to a new location for schooling.

How is that all not happening here?

There has been no decision about the school name.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"- it is not a closure under the current proposal as it stands today."

Please address this.

If a school was to be closed, what would happen? Students would be reassigned to other schools, under new school names, the cluster would he blended with other clusters, the old school name would go away, and students would go to a new location for schooling.

How is that all not happening here?

As discussed earlier in the thread- the issue of closure is relevant because state law requires that districts develop a set of procedures to follow when that happens. Closure is not defined. Based on review of the wording of policies and where they are placed in rule/regulation as well as looking at other instances of changes in boundaries, feeders, facilities, and geographic locations and if they were considered "closure" such as to require those procedures: Closure *in this context* most likely refers to the permanently ceasing to use a geographic location for educational purposes that results in a net reduction of total facilities.

And I do feel the need to clarify that the above analysis is entirely neutral as to: 1) whether Option H should be pursued; or 2) whether closure procedures are or will be followed in this situation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Pretty sure the opposition is just from a small group of people that live next to the current Wootton. Option H is otherwise in the best interest of the rest of the county. And a lot of people here seem to acknowledge that, even some of the people that don't like Option H because they think it will affect their property values.

Save Wootton and Crown High School – Say NO to option H. The petition already had over 5000 signatures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"- it is not a closure under the current proposal as it stands today."

Please address this.

If a school was to be closed, what would happen? Students would be reassigned to other schools, under new school names, the cluster would he blended with other clusters, the old school name would go away, and students would go to a new location for schooling.

How is that all not happening here?

Crown isn't a school yet. Under Option H, Wootton students aren't, as a whole, being reassigned to other schools. Instead, school facility is moving to Crown while also adjusting the boundary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"- it is not a closure under the current proposal as it stands today."

Please address this.

If a school was to be closed, what would happen? Students would be reassigned to other schools, under new school names, the cluster would he blended with other clusters, the old school name would go away, and students would go to a new location for schooling.

How is that all not happening here?

Sigh, I asked this exact question pages ago and the trolls just don’t answer because they know they are wrong.

Unserious people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Pretty sure the opposition is just from a small group of people that live next to the current Wootton. Option H is otherwise in the best interest of the rest of the county. And a lot of people here seem to acknowledge that, even some of the people that don't like Option H because they think it will affect their property values.

Save Wootton and Crown High School – Say NO to option H. The petition already had over 5000 signatures.

How many people live in Montgomery County? And how many want to pay extra taxes to operate a special school for a small number of wealthy families in Potomac/North Potomac/Rockville?