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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's been answered many times, with references to other examples demonstrating it isn't a closure. You've just been ignoring those posts when they're inconvenient.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What argument on the merits has been provided? At least, one that speaks to the public interest in maintaining the Wootton building as opposed to merely the interests of the small community surrounding the existing facility?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's been answered many times, with references to other examples demonstrating it isn't a closure. You've just been ignoring those posts when they're inconvenient.

And it’s been explained why those examples are not comparable but you seem to be ignoring those posts.

[Anonymous]

"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"

Fair enough.

There are many who feel H should Not be pursued and that one of the top schools in the county should Not disappear. Meaning it will no longer exist whether it is officially "closed" or not.

So MCPS may or may not not need to call this a closure under the vague definition, of such. Perhaps there should be a new category called "Disappearing a School"? This would allow MCPS avoid any "Closure" discussions and they could just make a school "Disappear"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"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"

Fair enough.

There are many who feel H should Not be pursued and that one of the top schools in the county should Not disappear. Meaning it will no longer exist whether it is officially "closed" or not.

So MCPS may or may not not need to call this a closure under the vague definition, of such. Perhaps there should be a new category called "Disappearing a School"? This would allow MCPS avoid any "Closure" discussions and they could just make a school "Disappear"

FTLOG it would be moving to a new site, not disappearing!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ae you missing or ignoring the multiple times I have given an unbiased answer to this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's been answered many times, with references to other examples demonstrating it isn't a closure. You've just been ignoring those posts when they're inconvenient.

And it’s been explained why those examples are not comparable but you seem to be ignoring those posts.

As has been discussed, you can move schools, replace facilities, rename schools, and change feeder patterns and boundaries without them being school closures. There are examples of these being done individually and in combination.

Your claim seems to be that if you do too many of them too close together in time, then it should be considered a closure. And while you can say that, you've offered no justification for that claim.

In all situations people have been able to identify, the distinguishing characteristic of a school closure is a net reduction in schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What argument on the merits has been provided? At least, one that speaks to the public interest in maintaining the Wootton building as opposed to merely the interests of the small community surrounding the existing facility?

PP, I provided a full assessment of what I see as the valid arguments on both sides earlier this morning. There are several, notably the loss of overall students within a walkable zone, the loss of a community hub, the real potential for longterm fiscal downside, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"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"

Fair enough.

There are many who feel H should Not be pursued and that one of the top schools in the county should Not disappear. Meaning it will no longer exist whether it is officially "closed" or not.

So MCPS may or may not not need to call this a closure under the vague definition, of such. Perhaps there should be a new category called "Disappearing a School"? This would allow MCPS avoid any "Closure" discussions and they could just make a school "Disappear"

PP here. I think the conversation that is happening now at the hearings and the community opposition is exactly as you describe. The debate about Option H is happening now. I take no issue with opponents saying that the school as they know it will disappear. That is 100% true. It is also separate from the legal "closure" argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"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"

Fair enough.

There are many who feel H should Not be pursued and that one of the top schools in the county should Not disappear. Meaning it will no longer exist whether it is officially "closed" or not.

So MCPS may or may not not need to call this a closure under the vague definition, of such. Perhaps there should be a new category called "Disappearing a School"? This would allow MCPS avoid any "Closure" discussions and they could just make a school "Disappear"

FTLOG it would be moving to a new site, not disappearing!

PP that the other poster responded to- the school as people now know it is in fact disappearing under Option H. It is disingenuous to claim it isn't. The debate should be around whether that fundamental change is nevertheless in the best interest of the district as a whole.

[Anonymous]

I know that this is an anti-H thread, but one major point missing from this discussion is that the anti-H crowd is also almost uniformly against using Crown as a holding school. I still don’t understand it, probably because it lacks any reasonable basis. Their strategy seems to eliminate option H, and then if they are successful and Taylor says “fine, you litigious mob win. No option H. Wootton will stay on the Parkway and we will renovate it just like you all originally demanded, BUT we will have Wootton kids go to Crown temporarily while it’s being renovated because it will save MCPS millions and allow the renovations to be done faster,” they’ll then object to that. Because they don’t care about saving taxpayer dollars. They don’t even care about renovations being done throughly. They’ll say “nope, just do some minor fixes over the summer.” They simply don’t want the inconvenience of having one of the tiniest walker communities in the area having to become “bussers” and share a building with “low performing” students even if their stats wouldn’t affect Wootton.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"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"

Fair enough.

There are many who feel H should Not be pursued and that one of the top schools in the county should Not disappear. Meaning it will no longer exist whether it is officially "closed" or not.

So MCPS may or may not not need to call this a closure under the vague definition, of such. Perhaps there should be a new category called "Disappearing a School"? This would allow MCPS avoid any "Closure" discussions and they could just make a school "Disappear"

It wouldn't disappear! It might exist under a different name. Maybe there's value to keeping the Wootton name. Personally, I'm skeptical, but I don't really care about the name.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know that this is an anti-H thread, but one major point missing from this discussion is that the anti-H crowd is also almost uniformly against using Crown as a holding school. I still don’t understand it, probably because it lacks any reasonable basis. Their strategy seems to eliminate option H, and then if they are successful and Taylor says “fine, you litigious mob win. No option H. Wootton will stay on the Parkway and we will renovate it just like you all originally demanded, BUT we will have Wootton kids go to Crown temporarily while it’s being renovated because it will save MCPS millions and allow the renovations to be done faster,” they’ll then object to that. Because they don’t care about saving taxpayer dollars. They don’t even care about renovations being done throughly. They’ll say “nope, just do some minor fixes over the summer.” They simply don’t want the inconvenience of having one of the tiniest walker communities in the area having to become “bussers” and share a building with “low performing” students even if their stats wouldn’t affect Wootton.

I think they know that a temporary move has a strong potential to be a permanent move. MCPS isn't going to spend $200 million on a Wootton rebuild if there aren't enough students to justify it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"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"

Fair enough.

There are many who feel H should Not be pursued and that one of the top schools in the county should Not disappear. Meaning it will no longer exist whether it is officially "closed" or not.

So MCPS may or may not not need to call this a closure under the vague definition, of such. Perhaps there should be a new category called "Disappearing a School"? This would allow MCPS avoid any "Closure" discussions and they could just make a school "Disappear"

FTLOG it would be moving to a new site, not disappearing!

PP that the other poster responded to- the school as people now know it is in fact disappearing under Option H. It is disingenuous to claim it isn't. The debate should be around whether that fundamental change is nevertheless in the best interest of the district as a whole.

They don't like the idea of undesirable demographic groups being zoned for the school. But rezoning isn't making a school disappear. Schools and boundaries change.

[Anonymous]

As a separate legal issue, I'm curious about the development taxes in Crown. While school impact taxes can be used across the county, the same isn't true for UPP taxes. Those are much, much smaller, but they need to be used in that area to increase capacity. Does Crown have enough more teaching stations than Wootton to spend that money? Or will it need to be refunded to the developers?

It would be a lot cheaper to refund that amount than renovate and operate another school, so that would probably still be the right move. I just don't know how that would work.