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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Who are “they”? Gaithersburg families don’t want Option H either.

[Anonymous]

What if we bypass the whole school closure issue by ultimately (after Damascus and Magruder renovations) Wootton on Wootton Parkway becomes a “regional hub” (inclusive of several of the newly proposed regions) for specialized programs not housed in traditional high schools? This would mean the school isn’t “closed” as a permanent school, ensure the building is renovated eventually, save the cost of operating an additional traditional high school, and would be a great thing for special education students who sometimes share resources/staff.

[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"

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.

Are they "disappearing" Burtonsville ES because some kids won't be able to walk to it anymore? There are probably some people that were fond of living across the street from the school, just like the poster here who thinks he's going to lose $400k in equity (without any reasonable basis, of course).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Who are “they”? Gaithersburg families don’t want Option H either.

That depends on which part of Gaithersburg and where the final boundaries land.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

By my read no refund is required regardless. The money was used to build Crown, which will under Option H given the addition of some population from GHS "that adds capacity designed to alleviate overutilization in the school service area from which the funds were collected." Alternatively, the Crown building itself constitutes "capital projects adding capacity at any school adjacent to the school for which the funds were collected."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

100% this. They know that if they move there as a “temporary holding school” after a year they will get notice that the change is actually permanent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What if we bypass the whole school closure issue by ultimately (after Damascus and Magruder renovations) Wootton on Wootton Parkway becomes a “regional hub” (inclusive of several of the newly proposed regions) for specialized programs not housed in traditional high schools? This would mean the school isn’t “closed” as a permanent school, ensure the building is renovated eventually, save the cost of operating an additional traditional high school, and would be a great thing for special education students who sometimes share resources/staff.

Turn Wootton into a school for kids with special needs? lol! Are you just trolling the Wootton posters now?

It's not a terrible idea, but it isn't going to happen. MCPS wants to push students with special needs out. They're certainly not going to rebuild a school to serve them. Look at how they've been dismantling special education programs across the district!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

By my read no refund is required regardless. The money was used to build Crown, which will under Option H given the addition of some population from GHS "that adds capacity designed to alleviate overutilization in the school service area from which the funds were collected." Alternatively, the Crown building itself constitutes "capital projects adding capacity at any school adjacent to the school for which the funds were collected."

It only adds capacity under option H to the extent it has more capacity than the current Wootton facility. The law is pretty clear it needs to be used to increase capacity, not merely for capital improvements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What if we bypass the whole school closure issue by ultimately (after Damascus and Magruder renovations) Wootton on Wootton Parkway becomes a “regional hub” (inclusive of several of the newly proposed regions) for specialized programs not housed in traditional high schools? This would mean the school isn’t “closed” as a permanent school, ensure the building is renovated eventually, save the cost of operating an additional traditional high school, and would be a great thing for special education students who sometimes share resources/staff.

When did you get your degree from delulu University? Taylor quite literally just cut a bunch of jobs and funding for special education and you are over here thinking he is going to use it as a whole new school for special education? ok then.

[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"

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.

Are they "disappearing" Burtonsville ES because some kids won't be able to walk to it anymore? There are probably some people that were fond of living across the street from the school, just like the poster here who thinks he's going to lose $400k in equity (without any reasonable basis, of course).

If we aren't talking legal terminology, sure significant changes result in a school as people know it disappearing. I live across the street from an established elementary school. If that school building was no longer used and my kid went to a different school, I would think that the school "disappeared" (or whatever word you want to use to indicate that the physical space planned for attendance is no longer available).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

100% this. They know that if they move there as a “temporary holding school” after a year they will get notice that the change is actually permanent.

Damascus and Magruder will move to Crown first for their renovation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

By my read no refund is required regardless. The money was used to build Crown, which will under Option H given the addition of some population from GHS "that adds capacity designed to alleviate overutilization in the school service area from which the funds were collected." Alternatively, the Crown building itself constitutes "capital projects adding capacity at any school adjacent to the school for which the funds were collected."

It only adds capacity under option H to the extent it has more capacity than the current Wootton facility. The law is pretty clear it needs to be used to increase capacity, not merely for capital improvements.

I'm not sure that is true? It just needs to add more capacity than was in the school service area where the taxes were collected. Excess capacity in other areas isn't relevant to that determination.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

100% this. They know that if they move there as a “temporary holding school” after a year they will get notice that the change is actually permanent.

Damascus and Magruder will move to Crown first for their renovation.

No relevant. They know they can’t move those schools permanently because of the ridiculous distance. But they will absolutely try when it’s Wootton’s turn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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"

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.

Are they "disappearing" Burtonsville ES because some kids won't be able to walk to it anymore? There are probably some people that were fond of living across the street from the school, just like the poster here who thinks he's going to lose $400k in equity (without any reasonable basis, of course).

If we aren't talking legal terminology, sure significant changes result in a school as people know it disappearing. I live across the street from an established elementary school. If that school building was no longer used and my kid went to a different school, I would think that the school "disappeared" (or whatever word you want to use to indicate that the physical space planned for attendance is no longer available).

Pp. Ok. I don't agree "disappear" accurately describes the totality of the situation, but I see your point.

Though, doesn't that just emphasize the "closure" and "disappearing" terms are silly to get hung up on? Yes, major facilities planning and boundary decisions can have significant impacts on students. And they all follow processes that include analysis, notice, and public input.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

By my read no refund is required regardless. The money was used to build Crown, which will under Option H given the addition of some population from GHS "that adds capacity designed to alleviate overutilization in the school service area from which the funds were collected." Alternatively, the Crown building itself constitutes "capital projects adding capacity at any school adjacent to the school for which the funds were collected."

It only adds capacity under option H to the extent it has more capacity than the current Wootton facility. The law is pretty clear it needs to be used to increase capacity, not merely for capital improvements.

I'm not sure that is true? It just needs to add more capacity than was in the school service area where the taxes were collected. Excess capacity in other areas isn't relevant to that determination.

It isn't adding capacity in that area if they're using it for students from a different area. Right?

And actually, Wootton is already in that area. UPP taxes need to go to increasing capacity within the collected or adjacent zones. Wootton is an adjacent zone.