Wootton Announces They Have Formally Retained Silverman & Thompson

[Anonymous]

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

Its stated purpose was to be a high school for students coming from area clusters including Gaithersburg, Wootton, QO, etc., which is what it is being used for.

[Anonymous]

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

What was the alleged misleading of state government? The origin story of Crown from 20 years ago is all public record. There were huge growth projections. They're projections. Made sense at the time. Huge opportunity to get a ton of prime real estate for free to build a school to hold the projected capacity. An opportunity MCPS would have been derelict to pass up. The Crown building and design and plan meetings and documents are all public. Everyone knew it was going to be built, it was being built, and why. Then the boundary studies start, and one of them is literally called "Crown" because the purpose is to fill Crown in some way. State funding was based on Crown opening as a permanent school. MCPS comes up with various options as to how to fill Crown and how to rearrange some other schools. Enrollment data comes out in this process and shows changing trends due to very recent immigration crackdown and federal layoffs, on top of other trends. Taylor says maybe we should consider Crown as a holding school given changes in enrollment and study they did that showed having a holding school would expedite renovation timeline and save significant funds. They amend study to consider Crown as a holding school instead of a permanent school. To be safe, they go check with the state to ask if they can still get funding if Crown is instead a holding school. State says YES, explains why -- in writing - their funding is allowed regardless of whether Crown is a permanent or holding school. The state funding was not tied to the school serving a specific community, as boundaries are solely the province of the local board.

[Anonymous]

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

H aside—I’m only here for the drama—Montoya is an absolute train wreck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

What was the alleged misleading of state government? The origin story of Crown from 20 years ago is all public record. There were huge growth projections. They're projections. Made sense at the time. Huge opportunity to get a ton of prime real estate for free to build a school to hold the projected capacity. An opportunity MCPS would have been derelict to pass up. The Crown building and design and plan meetings and documents are all public. Everyone knew it was going to be built, it was being built, and why. Then the boundary studies start, and one of them is literally called "Crown" because the purpose is to fill Crown in some way. State funding was based on Crown opening as a permanent school. MCPS comes up with various options as to how to fill Crown and how to rearrange some other schools. Enrollment data comes out in this process and shows changing trends due to very recent immigration crackdown and federal layoffs, on top of other trends. Taylor says maybe we should consider Crown as a holding school given changes in enrollment and study they did that showed having a holding school would expedite renovation timeline and save significant funds. They amend study to consider Crown as a holding school instead of a permanent school. To be safe, they go check with the state to ask if they can still get funding if Crown is instead a holding school. State says YES, explains why -- in writing - their funding is allowed regardless of whether Crown is a permanent or holding school. The state funding was not tied to the school serving a specific community, as boundaries are solely the province of the local board.

It’s about capacity.
The original purpose of Crown was to add capacity.
The state was ok with Crown being used as a holding school only because Crown would in the long term become a holding school, which fulfills the original purpose of state funds (aka add capacity).

The problem with sending Wootton there is now there won’t be any meaningful added capacity.

We may not need capacity now, but mcps own submissions to the state said we know we won’t need capacity for another 6-8 years, we don’t know what happens after that. This is short term planning over long term planning.

TLDR: $100 million state funds was given originally to MCPS to build a new school to add seats, it was not to build a new high school for Wootton kids to move into.

You may think this is a small difference and it doesn’t matter. But considering state funds are limited and there are a whole bunch of other counties competing with mcps for state money, this is actually a big deal.

[Anonymous]

Wootton parent here, live walking distance to Wootton. Don’t care if the school
moves all I want is for Montoya to go .What a vile human being pile of garbage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not a part of the Wootton cluster so I’m not speaking w inside knowledge. But I think there is a major issue here at play that can absolutely get the Supreme Court involved, especially the current one. It would be an extension of a previous SCOTUS case (and no not the opt out case)

Do tell, what's the major issue or is it top secret?

Not sure what they are thinking but I wonder if it's the "Asian dispersal" argument that they have been trying to use. Which makes no sense since the Asian % of Wootton is currently 44% and at Crown it will be 39%, meaning that demographic continues to be a plurality at the new school...

In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled school districts could not use race to drive boundary decisions outside of school districts that are still under Brown-era desegregation orders. The decision famously contained the line: "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." That decision was authored by Chief Justice Roberts.

I get we're dealing with a very different Supreme Court today, but I cannot see them wanting to re-open anything that might erode that precedent. It's one of the key reasons so many of our school districts have returned to pre-Brown v. Board levels of segregation.

They are moving the entire school to a new building.

No they’re not.

Yes they are minus some changes for redistricting, like all of us are facing.

The lawsuit isn’t focused on that factor. It’s focused on the process and policy compliance. You may think things will end up the same as where we are today - and that might be the case - but violations of process and policy shouldn’t be ignored simply because you agree with the outcome. If that were the case, then you have no right to complain about any politician breaking the rules because someone else agrees with that outcome.

Process matters. Otherwise, what’s the point of having one? Why don’t we just let an authoritarian run things?

I agree that process and policy compliance matter. I am also curious what you think the outcome of this should be? We throw everything away and start fresh? Just certain parts? Ideally, what is the outcome you desire?

I’m not involved in the lawsuit effort, but as a lawyer with decades of administrative law experience—and with the utmost respect for the law and the role of public institutions—it’s disappointing to see how this was rolled out. Process matters, especially for decisions of this scale, and it’s hard to ignore how compressed and late this was relative to the significance of what’s being proposed. This kind of rollout is often indicative of a predetermined outcome, with pro forma steps taken to check the compliance boxes. The right tribunal will ask hard questions and look past that.

I don’t believe the goal is to throw everything out and start over. But for something as significant as relocating Wootton, the process needs to be airtight. Ideally, that means taking a step back to make sure this option was fully vetted, clearly explained, and that real alternatives — including ones that keep Wootton where it is—were seriously considered.

If that can be addressed without a full reset, great. But if not, then some level of reconsideration makes sense.

There were multiple options that kept wootton where it is before this final option.

If it can be proven they weren’t seriously considered, that would be a problem for MCPS.

How on earth could this be proven? They released all options, had people comment on what they liked or didn’t like about each (not vote, comment) and considered that feedback in conjunction with their own goals of fixing nasty buildings and very real financial constraints. Seriously wondering how one might prove they never thought the options they put out and asked for comment on were legitimate.

That’s exactly the challenge—proving ‘predetermination’ is hard, but that doesn’t mean the concerns here aren’t valid. When a major option like relocating Wootton shows up late and already fully formed, it raises real questions about whether alternatives were ever seriously on the table in a meaningful way.

Yes, MCPS can point to meetings and public comments, but courts don’t just count steps—they look at whether the process actually allowed for meaningful input on the real proposal. If the most significant option came late and the process mostly refined that one path, it’s fair to question how open the decision-making really was.

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

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

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

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

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

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

What would be wrong with the bolded?

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

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

There's no such this as "the deference can weaken." MCPS has deference to make boundaries, period. The only question is whether those boundary decisions were arbitrary/unlawful and wholly outside its boundary policies. Having read for many months the many objections the Save Wootton folks have articulated, my sense that the core perceived injustice/trigger that really enrages people the most is this - that the process didn't seem fair and transparent because the issues expressed by the Save Wootton crowd in the surveys and testimonies weren't validated and because the ultimate recommendation was a modification of one of the options. The motivation for the legal challenge seems to be based on this visceral reaction that the process must be illegal because of this. It wasn't. Save Wootton seems to believe that MCPS and BOE members are like a judge - that they are supposed to be neutral decisionmakers that weigh every survey and testimony and neutrally decide what is "best." This is completely wrong. MCPS and BOE are not a judicial body. Taylor isn't elected. He runs MCPS. MCPS has to make executive decisions and is considered by the courts in the boundary process as a "quasi-legislative" body. In other words, MCPS can use this iterative process to arrive at the outcome it deems the best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wootton parent here, live walking distance to Wootton. Don’t care if the school
moves all I want is for Montoya to go .What a vile human being pile of garbage.

+1 human 🗑️

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not a part of the Wootton cluster so I’m not speaking w inside knowledge. But I think there is a major issue here at play that can absolutely get the Supreme Court involved, especially the current one. It would be an extension of a previous SCOTUS case (and no not the opt out case)

Do tell, what's the major issue or is it top secret?

Not sure what they are thinking but I wonder if it's the "Asian dispersal" argument that they have been trying to use. Which makes no sense since the Asian % of Wootton is currently 44% and at Crown it will be 39%, meaning that demographic continues to be a plurality at the new school...

In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled school districts could not use race to drive boundary decisions outside of school districts that are still under Brown-era desegregation orders. The decision famously contained the line: "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." That decision was authored by Chief Justice Roberts.

I get we're dealing with a very different Supreme Court today, but I cannot see them wanting to re-open anything that might erode that precedent. It's one of the key reasons so many of our school districts have returned to pre-Brown v. Board levels of segregation.

They are moving the entire school to a new building.

No they’re not.

Yes they are minus some changes for redistricting, like all of us are facing.

The lawsuit isn’t focused on that factor. It’s focused on the process and policy compliance. You may think things will end up the same as where we are today - and that might be the case - but violations of process and policy shouldn’t be ignored simply because you agree with the outcome. If that were the case, then you have no right to complain about any politician breaking the rules because someone else agrees with that outcome.

Process matters. Otherwise, what’s the point of having one? Why don’t we just let an authoritarian run things?

I agree that process and policy compliance matter. I am also curious what you think the outcome of this should be? We throw everything away and start fresh? Just certain parts? Ideally, what is the outcome you desire?

I’m not involved in the lawsuit effort, but as a lawyer with decades of administrative law experience—and with the utmost respect for the law and the role of public institutions—it’s disappointing to see how this was rolled out. Process matters, especially for decisions of this scale, and it’s hard to ignore how compressed and late this was relative to the significance of what’s being proposed. This kind of rollout is often indicative of a predetermined outcome, with pro forma steps taken to check the compliance boxes. The right tribunal will ask hard questions and look past that.

I don’t believe the goal is to throw everything out and start over. But for something as significant as relocating Wootton, the process needs to be airtight. Ideally, that means taking a step back to make sure this option was fully vetted, clearly explained, and that real alternatives — including ones that keep Wootton where it is—were seriously considered.

If that can be addressed without a full reset, great. But if not, then some level of reconsideration makes sense.

There were multiple options that kept wootton where it is before this final option.

If it can be proven they weren’t seriously considered, that would be a problem for MCPS.

How on earth could this be proven? They released all options, had people comment on what they liked or didn’t like about each (not vote, comment) and considered that feedback in conjunction with their own goals of fixing nasty buildings and very real financial constraints. Seriously wondering how one might prove they never thought the options they put out and asked for comment on were legitimate.

That’s exactly the challenge—proving ‘predetermination’ is hard, but that doesn’t mean the concerns here aren’t valid. When a major option like relocating Wootton shows up late and already fully formed, it raises real questions about whether alternatives were ever seriously on the table in a meaningful way.

Yes, MCPS can point to meetings and public comments, but courts don’t just count steps—they look at whether the process actually allowed for meaningful input on the real proposal. If the most significant option came late and the process mostly refined that one path, it’s fair to question how open the decision-making really was.

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

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

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

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

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

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

What would be wrong with the bolded?

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

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

There's no such this as "the deference can weaken." MCPS has deference to make boundaries, period. The only question is whether those boundary decisions were arbitrary/unlawful and wholly outside its boundary policies. Having read for many months the many objections the Save Wootton folks have articulated, my sense that the core perceived injustice/trigger that really enrages people the most is this - that the process didn't seem fair and transparent because the issues expressed by the Save Wootton crowd in the surveys and testimonies weren't validated and because the ultimate recommendation was a modification of one of the options. The motivation for the legal challenge seems to be based on this visceral reaction that the process must be illegal because of this. It wasn't. Save Wootton seems to believe that MCPS and BOE members are like a judge - that they are supposed to be neutral decisionmakers that weigh every survey and testimony and neutrally decide what is "best." This is completely wrong. MCPS and BOE are not a judicial body. Taylor isn't elected. He runs MCPS. MCPS has to make executive decisions and is considered by the courts in the boundary process as a "quasi-legislative" body. In other words, MCPS can use this iterative process to arrive at the outcome it deems the best.

Cool story bruh, but your sense is completely off

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not a part of the Wootton cluster so I’m not speaking w inside knowledge. But I think there is a major issue here at play that can absolutely get the Supreme Court involved, especially the current one. It would be an extension of a previous SCOTUS case (and no not the opt out case)

Do tell, what's the major issue or is it top secret?

Not sure what they are thinking but I wonder if it's the "Asian dispersal" argument that they have been trying to use. Which makes no sense since the Asian % of Wootton is currently 44% and at Crown it will be 39%, meaning that demographic continues to be a plurality at the new school...

In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled school districts could not use race to drive boundary decisions outside of school districts that are still under Brown-era desegregation orders. The decision famously contained the line: "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." That decision was authored by Chief Justice Roberts.

I get we're dealing with a very different Supreme Court today, but I cannot see them wanting to re-open anything that might erode that precedent. It's one of the key reasons so many of our school districts have returned to pre-Brown v. Board levels of segregation.

They are moving the entire school to a new building.

No they’re not.

Yes they are minus some changes for redistricting, like all of us are facing.

The lawsuit isn’t focused on that factor. It’s focused on the process and policy compliance. You may think things will end up the same as where we are today - and that might be the case - but violations of process and policy shouldn’t be ignored simply because you agree with the outcome. If that were the case, then you have no right to complain about any politician breaking the rules because someone else agrees with that outcome.

Process matters. Otherwise, what’s the point of having one? Why don’t we just let an authoritarian run things?

I agree that process and policy compliance matter. I am also curious what you think the outcome of this should be? We throw everything away and start fresh? Just certain parts? Ideally, what is the outcome you desire?

I’m not involved in the lawsuit effort, but as a lawyer with decades of administrative law experience—and with the utmost respect for the law and the role of public institutions—it’s disappointing to see how this was rolled out. Process matters, especially for decisions of this scale, and it’s hard to ignore how compressed and late this was relative to the significance of what’s being proposed. This kind of rollout is often indicative of a predetermined outcome, with pro forma steps taken to check the compliance boxes. The right tribunal will ask hard questions and look past that.

I don’t believe the goal is to throw everything out and start over. But for something as significant as relocating Wootton, the process needs to be airtight. Ideally, that means taking a step back to make sure this option was fully vetted, clearly explained, and that real alternatives — including ones that keep Wootton where it is—were seriously considered.

If that can be addressed without a full reset, great. But if not, then some level of reconsideration makes sense.

There were multiple options that kept wootton where it is before this final option.

If it can be proven they weren’t seriously considered, that would be a problem for MCPS.

How on earth could this be proven? They released all options, had people comment on what they liked or didn’t like about each (not vote, comment) and considered that feedback in conjunction with their own goals of fixing nasty buildings and very real financial constraints. Seriously wondering how one might prove they never thought the options they put out and asked for comment on were legitimate.

That’s exactly the challenge—proving ‘predetermination’ is hard, but that doesn’t mean the concerns here aren’t valid. When a major option like relocating Wootton shows up late and already fully formed, it raises real questions about whether alternatives were ever seriously on the table in a meaningful way.

Yes, MCPS can point to meetings and public comments, but courts don’t just count steps—they look at whether the process actually allowed for meaningful input on the real proposal. If the most significant option came late and the process mostly refined that one path, it’s fair to question how open the decision-making really was.

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

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

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

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

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

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

What would be wrong with the bolded?

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

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

There's no such this as "the deference can weaken." MCPS has deference to make boundaries, period. The only question is whether those boundary decisions were arbitrary/unlawful and wholly outside its boundary policies. Having read for many months the many objections the Save Wootton folks have articulated, my sense that the core perceived injustice/trigger that really enrages people the most is this - that the process didn't seem fair and transparent because the issues expressed by the Save Wootton crowd in the surveys and testimonies weren't validated and because the ultimate recommendation was a modification of one of the options. The motivation for the legal challenge seems to be based on this visceral reaction that the process must be illegal because of this. It wasn't. Save Wootton seems to believe that MCPS and BOE members are like a judge - that they are supposed to be neutral decisionmakers that weigh every survey and testimony and neutrally decide what is "best." This is completely wrong. MCPS and BOE are not a judicial body. Taylor isn't elected. He runs MCPS. MCPS has to make executive decisions and is considered by the courts in the boundary process as a "quasi-legislative" body. In other words, MCPS can use this iterative process to arrive at the outcome it deems the best.

Also, people really need to stop referring to the survey. It was corrupted from a cyber breach. On top of the breach, there are thousands of duplicate responses and people boldly instructing others in what's app groups to submit multiple surveys from different browsers (discovery is a two way street by the way--it would be interesting to know the source of the breach and who was instructing the submission of duplicate responses). The survey was not a vote, MCPS is not a rubberstamp of a defunct survey, and MCPS is allowed to land at an option that is a modification of the various options presented. There's nothing illegal in this process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

What was the alleged misleading of state government? The origin story of Crown from 20 years ago is all public record. There were huge growth projections. They're projections. Made sense at the time. Huge opportunity to get a ton of prime real estate for free to build a school to hold the projected capacity. An opportunity MCPS would have been derelict to pass up. The Crown building and design and plan meetings and documents are all public. Everyone knew it was going to be built, it was being built, and why. Then the boundary studies start, and one of them is literally called "Crown" because the purpose is to fill Crown in some way. State funding was based on Crown opening as a permanent school. MCPS comes up with various options as to how to fill Crown and how to rearrange some other schools. Enrollment data comes out in this process and shows changing trends due to very recent immigration crackdown and federal layoffs, on top of other trends. Taylor says maybe we should consider Crown as a holding school given changes in enrollment and study they did that showed having a holding school would expedite renovation timeline and save significant funds. They amend study to consider Crown as a holding school instead of a permanent school. To be safe, they go check with the state to ask if they can still get funding if Crown is instead a holding school. State says YES, explains why -- in writing - their funding is allowed regardless of whether Crown is a permanent or holding school. The state funding was not tied to the school serving a specific community, as boundaries are solely the province of the local board.

It’s about capacity.
The original purpose of Crown was to add capacity.
The state was ok with Crown being used as a holding school only because Crown would in the long term become a holding school, which fulfills the original purpose of state funds (aka add capacity).

The problem with sending Wootton there is now there won’t be any meaningful added capacity.

We may not need capacity now, but mcps own submissions to the state said we know we won’t need capacity for another 6-8 years, we don’t know what happens after that. This is short term planning over long term planning.

TLDR: $100 million state funds was given originally to MCPS to build a new school to add seats, it was not to build a new high school for Wootton kids to move into.

You may think this is a small difference and it doesn’t matter. But considering state funds are limited and there are a whole bunch of other counties competing with mcps for state money, this is actually a big deal.

Even if you were right that it doesn't add capacity (it does), the state has broad authority to approve funding for ANY factors it deems appropriate. The broadest of all scopes. The state's written explanation to MCPS about why it could approve using Crown as a holding school instead of a permanent school refers to the declining enrollment projections and explains that the state has broad authority to approve funding for basically any reason. "The IAC had adopted a regulation for administration of the State capital improvement program that provides the IAC shall evaluate funding approval requests from local school systems based on, among a list of itemized factors, “other factors considered appropriate.” COMAR 14.39.02.04B(3)(o). Among the factors the IAC may and should consider is whether State support for a particular project will result in cost-savings to the local school system on other projects and therefore enable the local school system to use those cost savings to meet additional unmet capital needs throughout the district. The IAC’s core mission is to work with local school systems to maintain the educational sufficiency and fiscal sustainability of their entire school facility portfolio. In this case, MCPS has proposed a potential plan that will help MCPS meet the educational needs of current and future students in multiple Montgomery County school communities and stretch limited available capital dollars further against what MCPS has estimated to be a $5 billion need over the coming six years." In other words, the state did not make funding contingent on adding capacity, and said so itself, and explained that it has the power to approve funding for any reason it deems appropriate, and it deems appropriate saving money. Wootton to Crown and having a holding school on the Parkway save money. We now have the state saying in writing that a holding school in and of itself saves money within the county given MCPS budget needs, which Wootton does. This is airtight - a contemporaneous analysis by the state of its own broad power.

[Anonymous]

Thank you Wootton parents for wasting for tax dollars to fight this frivolous lawsuit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not a part of the Wootton cluster so I’m not speaking w inside knowledge. But I think there is a major issue here at play that can absolutely get the Supreme Court involved, especially the current one. It would be an extension of a previous SCOTUS case (and no not the opt out case)

Do tell, what's the major issue or is it top secret?

Not sure what they are thinking but I wonder if it's the "Asian dispersal" argument that they have been trying to use. Which makes no sense since the Asian % of Wootton is currently 44% and at Crown it will be 39%, meaning that demographic continues to be a plurality at the new school...

In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled school districts could not use race to drive boundary decisions outside of school districts that are still under Brown-era desegregation orders. The decision famously contained the line: "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." That decision was authored by Chief Justice Roberts.

I get we're dealing with a very different Supreme Court today, but I cannot see them wanting to re-open anything that might erode that precedent. It's one of the key reasons so many of our school districts have returned to pre-Brown v. Board levels of segregation.

They are moving the entire school to a new building.

No they’re not.

Yes they are minus some changes for redistricting, like all of us are facing.

The lawsuit isn’t focused on that factor. It’s focused on the process and policy compliance. You may think things will end up the same as where we are today - and that might be the case - but violations of process and policy shouldn’t be ignored simply because you agree with the outcome. If that were the case, then you have no right to complain about any politician breaking the rules because someone else agrees with that outcome.

Process matters. Otherwise, what’s the point of having one? Why don’t we just let an authoritarian run things?

I agree that process and policy compliance matter. I am also curious what you think the outcome of this should be? We throw everything away and start fresh? Just certain parts? Ideally, what is the outcome you desire?

I’m not involved in the lawsuit effort, but as a lawyer with decades of administrative law experience—and with the utmost respect for the law and the role of public institutions—it’s disappointing to see how this was rolled out. Process matters, especially for decisions of this scale, and it’s hard to ignore how compressed and late this was relative to the significance of what’s being proposed. This kind of rollout is often indicative of a predetermined outcome, with pro forma steps taken to check the compliance boxes. The right tribunal will ask hard questions and look past that.

I don’t believe the goal is to throw everything out and start over. But for something as significant as relocating Wootton, the process needs to be airtight. Ideally, that means taking a step back to make sure this option was fully vetted, clearly explained, and that real alternatives — including ones that keep Wootton where it is—were seriously considered.

If that can be addressed without a full reset, great. But if not, then some level of reconsideration makes sense.

There were multiple options that kept wootton where it is before this final option.

If it can be proven they weren’t seriously considered, that would be a problem for MCPS.

How on earth could this be proven? They released all options, had people comment on what they liked or didn’t like about each (not vote, comment) and considered that feedback in conjunction with their own goals of fixing nasty buildings and very real financial constraints. Seriously wondering how one might prove they never thought the options they put out and asked for comment on were legitimate.

That’s exactly the challenge—proving ‘predetermination’ is hard, but that doesn’t mean the concerns here aren’t valid. When a major option like relocating Wootton shows up late and already fully formed, it raises real questions about whether alternatives were ever seriously on the table in a meaningful way.

Yes, MCPS can point to meetings and public comments, but courts don’t just count steps—they look at whether the process actually allowed for meaningful input on the real proposal. If the most significant option came late and the process mostly refined that one path, it’s fair to question how open the decision-making really was.

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

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

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

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

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

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

What would be wrong with the bolded?

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

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

There's no such this as "the deference can weaken." MCPS has deference to make boundaries, period. The only question is whether those boundary decisions were arbitrary/unlawful and wholly outside its boundary policies. Having read for many months the many objections the Save Wootton folks have articulated, my sense that the core perceived injustice/trigger that really enrages people the most is this - that the process didn't seem fair and transparent because the issues expressed by the Save Wootton crowd in the surveys and testimonies weren't validated and because the ultimate recommendation was a modification of one of the options. The motivation for the legal challenge seems to be based on this visceral reaction that the process must be illegal because of this. It wasn't. Save Wootton seems to believe that MCPS and BOE members are like a judge - that they are supposed to be neutral decisionmakers that weigh every survey and testimony and neutrally decide what is "best." This is completely wrong. MCPS and BOE are not a judicial body. Taylor isn't elected. He runs MCPS. MCPS has to make executive decisions and is considered by the courts in the boundary process as a "quasi-legislative" body. In other words, MCPS can use this iterative process to arrive at the outcome it deems the best.

Very well explained...which is why I think it lacks any legal basis whatsoever. It is going to get thrown out of the court. Not getting a desired outcome is not a valid legal basis to sue

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thank you Wootton parents for wasting for tax dollars to fight this frivolous lawsuit.

You mean thank your mcps for wasting your money, just like how they wasted more than 6+ million on the Supreme Court case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you Wootton parents for wasting for tax dollars to fight this frivolous lawsuit.

You mean thank your mcps for wasting your money, just like how they wasted more than 6+ million on the Supreme Court case.

Here we go with the irrelevant Supreme Court case again. Not precedent by a mile.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you Wootton parents for wasting for tax dollars to fight this frivolous lawsuit.

You mean thank your mcps for wasting your money, just like how they wasted more than 6+ million on the Supreme Court case.

Here we go with the irrelevant Supreme Court case again. Not precedent by a mile.

Can you read? Where in the comment did anyone say the SCOTUS case was precedent? Are you ok?

Someone said this will waste taxpayer money.

Someone else responded saying that’s a weird response considering Taylor wasted $6 million dollars to lose in Supreme Court.