Wootton Announces They Have Formally Retained Silverman & Thompson

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stop stretching. The reason for the move mainly is Wootton per you all is unsafe.

But it isn’t. Slide says it can be used tomorrow.

The advocates for Wootton said it is unsafe. MCPS wasn't saying that. They catered to those complaining about the building who are now pretending that's not true. They probably would never have done this if the advocates weren't so vocal about the building's safety.

That’s not really an accurate framing.

Advocating for renovations isn’t the same as saying the school is “unsafe”—and what people consistently asked for was renovation at Wootton’s current location, not relocation.

Wootton was in the CIP and then removed multiple times. The community wasn’t pushing for some drastic solution—they were asking MCPS to follow through on long-planned modernization.

If anything, this situation exists because MCPS deferred and reshuffled its own priorities over several cycles.

Now relocation is being presented as the solution, but that’s not because advocates demanded it—it’s because prior commitments weren’t carried out.

So the idea that: “advocates complained and forced this outcome” gets it backwards. Advocates asked for renovation. MCPS didn’t deliver, and is now proposing relocation to deal with the consequences of those decisions.

+1

Not a hard concept to grasp but for someone reason every time this distinction gets brought up, it is ignored.

Can someone point me to a single—just one—Wootton advocate who has ever advocated for closure of the school?

The trolls on this thread are aligned with MCPS with the ends justify the means so they’ll continue with the false narrative of Wootton asked for this.

May suit you now but when MCPS uses this same logic against you and closes your school…

No one thinks you’re advocating for that - but what you’re asking for, near-term renovations, isn’t possible because of the realities of the CIP budget and the massive county-wide repair and renovation needs (and please miss me with the “they could find the money if they really wanted to arguments.” State, county, district budgets are bleak everywhere right now)

So what we think is that there were two realistic choices: 1) move Wootton to Crown or 2) wait 10 years and hope that nothing catastrophic happens to any high schools outside of Wootton and Magruder so that Wootton can maybe get on the CIP. There are lots of different opinions on how bad Wootton is (I personally tend to believe the students and teachers and news reports about gas leaks, but that’s just me), but I do think there’s consensus that it’s bad enough that it cannot wait ten years.

We think option 1 is a much better approach to meet your needs for a safe school because the ONLY alternative is Option 2. There is no option 3 that sees the school getting fixed in the next 10 years. It’s not that we don’t get what you’re asking for - it’s that we are more emotionally ready to accept that MCPS is only dealing in the world of possible options.

I get the point about budget constraints, but that still feels too black-and-white.

It assumes the only two options are “move Wootton now” or “wait 10 years,” and that’s doing a lot of work.

Even within a tight CIP, there are usually middle-ground options: targeted capital repairs, phased modernization, fixing specific issues (HVAC, gas, etc.) in the near term, or reprioritizing projects, which MCPS does all the time. Saying “there is no option 3” is more of a choice than an absolute reality.

It’s also hard to ignore that Wootton was taken off the CIP multiple times. That’s part of how things got here. When something is deferred repeatedly and then the only “feasible” solution becomes relocation, it’s fair to question whether that’s just about budget—or also about earlier decisions.

And stepping back even further: MCPS moved forward building Crown at a time when enrollment projections were already shifting, in part to avoid losing the site. Now there’s a brand new school that needs to be filled, and suddenly relocation becomes the “only” solution. That context matters.

And on safety: If conditions are truly urgent, that usually points to targeted fixes now, not a multi-year relocation that doesn’t address immediate issues.

So this isn’t about ignoring financial reality. It’s about pushing back on the idea that:

“This is the only possible path.”

That’s not a fact—it’s a conclusion.

DP

Of course, County taxpayers can shift resources from other needs to renovate Wootton, but that would harm other kids purely for the vanity of Parkway families who are too snobby to send their kids to high school in Gaithersburg. Gmafb you selfish twat

+1. Most schools in the County that are in similar shape to Wootton are ONLY being given option 2 - wait 10 years. We get they’re not fixing your problem the way that you would like them to, but they ARE fixing your problem. This is why you keep getting called entitled and people keep asking you to stop sucking up all the oxygen in the room by demanding that MCPS fix things differently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stop stretching. The reason for the move mainly is Wootton per you all is unsafe.

But it isn’t. Slide says it can be used tomorrow.

The advocates for Wootton said it is unsafe. MCPS wasn't saying that. They catered to those complaining about the building who are now pretending that's not true. They probably would never have done this if the advocates weren't so vocal about the building's safety.

That’s not really an accurate framing.

Advocating for renovations isn’t the same as saying the school is “unsafe”—and what people consistently asked for was renovation at Wootton’s current location, not relocation.

Wootton was in the CIP and then removed multiple times. The community wasn’t pushing for some drastic solution—they were asking MCPS to follow through on long-planned modernization.

If anything, this situation exists because MCPS deferred and reshuffled its own priorities over several cycles.

Now relocation is being presented as the solution, but that’s not because advocates demanded it—it’s because prior commitments weren’t carried out.

So the idea that: “advocates complained and forced this outcome” gets it backwards. Advocates asked for renovation. MCPS didn’t deliver, and is now proposing relocation to deal with the consequences of those decisions.

+1

Not a hard concept to grasp but for someone reason every time this distinction gets brought up, it is ignored.

Can someone point me to a single—just one—Wootton advocate who has ever advocated for closure of the school?

The trolls on this thread are aligned with MCPS with the ends justify the means so they’ll continue with the false narrative of Wootton asked for this.

May suit you now but when MCPS uses this same logic against you and closes your school…

No one thinks you’re advocating for that - but what you’re asking for, near-term renovations, isn’t possible because of the realities of the CIP budget and the massive county-wide repair and renovation needs (and please miss me with the “they could find the money if they really wanted to arguments.” State, county, district budgets are bleak everywhere right now)

So what we think is that there were two realistic choices: 1) move Wootton to Crown or 2) wait 10 years and hope that nothing catastrophic happens to any high schools outside of Wootton and Magruder so that Wootton can maybe get on the CIP. There are lots of different opinions on how bad Wootton is (I personally tend to believe the students and teachers and news reports about gas leaks, but that’s just me), but I do think there’s consensus that it’s bad enough that it cannot wait ten years.

We think option 1 is a much better approach to meet your needs for a safe school because the ONLY alternative is Option 2. There is no option 3 that sees the school getting fixed in the next 10 years. It’s not that we don’t get what you’re asking for - it’s that we are more emotionally ready to accept that MCPS is only dealing in the world of possible options.

I get the point about budget constraints, but that still feels too black-and-white.

It assumes the only two options are “move Wootton now” or “wait 10 years,” and that’s doing a lot of work.

Even within a tight CIP, there are usually middle-ground options: targeted capital repairs, phased modernization, fixing specific issues (HVAC, gas, etc.) in the near term, or reprioritizing projects, which MCPS does all the time. Saying “there is no option 3” is more of a choice than an absolute reality.

It’s also hard to ignore that Wootton was taken off the CIP multiple times. That’s part of how things got here. When something is deferred repeatedly and then the only “feasible” solution becomes relocation, it’s fair to question whether that’s just about budget—or also about earlier decisions.

And stepping back even further: MCPS moved forward building Crown at a time when enrollment projections were already shifting, in part to avoid losing the site. Now there’s a brand new school that needs to be filled, and suddenly relocation becomes the “only” solution. That context matters.

And on safety: If conditions are truly urgent, that usually points to targeted fixes now, not a multi-year relocation that doesn’t address immediate issues.

So this isn’t about ignoring financial reality. It’s about pushing back on the idea that:

“This is the only possible path.”

That’s not a fact—it’s a conclusion.

DP

Of course, County taxpayers can shift resources from other needs to renovate Wootton, but that would harm other kids purely for the vanity of Parkway families who are too snobby to send their kids to high school in Gaithersburg. Gmafb you selfish twat

+1. Most schools in the County that are in similar shape to Wootton are ONLY being given option 2 - wait 10 years. We get they’re not fixing your problem the way that you would like them to, but they ARE fixing your problem. This is why you keep getting called entitled and people keep asking you to stop sucking up all the oxygen in the room by demanding that MCPS fix things differently.

Boarding up a high school fixes nothing. Taylor has the same plan for the old blair schools too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stop stretching. The reason for the move mainly is Wootton per you all is unsafe.

But it isn’t. Slide says it can be used tomorrow.

The advocates for Wootton said it is unsafe. MCPS wasn't saying that. They catered to those complaining about the building who are now pretending that's not true. They probably would never have done this if the advocates weren't so vocal about the building's safety.

That’s not really an accurate framing.

Advocating for renovations isn’t the same as saying the school is “unsafe”—and what people consistently asked for was renovation at Wootton’s current location, not relocation.

Wootton was in the CIP and then removed multiple times. The community wasn’t pushing for some drastic solution—they were asking MCPS to follow through on long-planned modernization.

If anything, this situation exists because MCPS deferred and reshuffled its own priorities over several cycles.

Now relocation is being presented as the solution, but that’s not because advocates demanded it—it’s because prior commitments weren’t carried out.

So the idea that: “advocates complained and forced this outcome” gets it backwards. Advocates asked for renovation. MCPS didn’t deliver, and is now proposing relocation to deal with the consequences of those decisions.

+1

Not a hard concept to grasp but for someone reason every time this distinction gets brought up, it is ignored.

Can someone point me to a single—just one—Wootton advocate who has ever advocated for closure of the school?

The trolls on this thread are aligned with MCPS with the ends justify the means so they’ll continue with the false narrative of Wootton asked for this.

May suit you now but when MCPS uses this same logic against you and closes your school…

No one thinks you’re advocating for that - but what you’re asking for, near-term renovations, isn’t possible because of the realities of the CIP budget and the massive county-wide repair and renovation needs (and please miss me with the “they could find the money if they really wanted to arguments.” State, county, district budgets are bleak everywhere right now)

So what we think is that there were two realistic choices: 1) move Wootton to Crown or 2) wait 10 years and hope that nothing catastrophic happens to any high schools outside of Wootton and Magruder so that Wootton can maybe get on the CIP. There are lots of different opinions on how bad Wootton is (I personally tend to believe the students and teachers and news reports about gas leaks, but that’s just me), but I do think there’s consensus that it’s bad enough that it cannot wait ten years.

We think option 1 is a much better approach to meet your needs for a safe school because the ONLY alternative is Option 2. There is no option 3 that sees the school getting fixed in the next 10 years. It’s not that we don’t get what you’re asking for - it’s that we are more emotionally ready to accept that MCPS is only dealing in the world of possible options.

I get the point about budget constraints, but that still feels too black-and-white.

It assumes the only two options are “move Wootton now” or “wait 10 years,” and that’s doing a lot of work.

Even within a tight CIP, there are usually middle-ground options: targeted capital repairs, phased modernization, fixing specific issues (HVAC, gas, etc.) in the near term, or reprioritizing projects, which MCPS does all the time. Saying “there is no option 3” is more of a choice than an absolute reality.

It’s also hard to ignore that Wootton was taken off the CIP multiple times. That’s part of how things got here. When something is deferred repeatedly and then the only “feasible” solution becomes relocation, it’s fair to question whether that’s just about budget—or also about earlier decisions.

And stepping back even further: MCPS moved forward building Crown at a time when enrollment projections were already shifting, in part to avoid losing the site. Now there’s a brand new school that needs to be filled, and suddenly relocation becomes the “only” solution. That context matters.

And on safety: If conditions are truly urgent, that usually points to targeted fixes now, not a multi-year relocation that doesn’t address immediate issues.

So this isn’t about ignoring financial reality. It’s about pushing back on the idea that:

“This is the only possible path.”

That’s not a fact—it’s a conclusion.

DP

Of course, County taxpayers can shift resources from other needs to renovate Wootton, but that would harm other kids purely for the vanity of Parkway families who are too snobby to send their kids to high school in Gaithersburg. Gmafb you selfish twat

+1. Most schools in the County that are in similar shape to Wootton are ONLY being given option 2 - wait 10 years. We get they’re not fixing your problem the way that you would like them to, but they ARE fixing your problem. This is why you keep getting called entitled and people keep asking you to stop sucking up all the oxygen in the room by demanding that MCPS fix things differently.

Boarding up a high school fixes nothing. Taylor has the same plan for the old blair schools too.

Lots of schools over the years have been open and closed, some reopened, some used for other things depending on the need. Even if you wait ten years, what about the students and staff health during those years?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am the person who asked on the previous page what is going on--what decision has been made and why people are upset. I am trying to piece it together from your answers, but am struggling. It sounds like wootton is a long-existing high school that is in serious disrepair. The community there asked for help. The county put off repairing it, and now, in the recent boundary study, decided to close that school building entirely and send the kids who would have gone there to an existing school in Gaithersburg. Is that correct?

You have the essential facts there. I think the deep feelings protesting the removal of Wootton to Crown HS speaks to the organic community attachment we have for our neighborhood schools. We see this in Silver Spring, with the likely closure of SSIMS and the likely moving of Sligo Creek ES. People don't want holding schools in their neighborhoods, they want their local community to have use of the schools.

I really can't blame anyone for feeling this way.

That’s precisely it. MCPS is doing very shady things with SSIMS. They didn’t succeed in closing SSIMS so now they are going the de facto closure route. Through the boundary study, they have artificially made SSIMS severely under utilized. During the next es/ms study, they will then use that underutilization and building condition (both of which issues they intentionally created themselves) to justify closing SSIMS.

Even if you have no dog in the Wootton fight, this should be a warning. MCPS will intentionally create problems and conditions to justify their intended goal. The ends always justify the means with them.

SSIMS families see this happening right in front of their eyes. A lot more other folks will be blindsided during es/ms closure. By the time they realize, it’ll be too late.

I don’t understand the conspiratorial tone - I too believe MCPS is about to close some es/ms sites but that’s mostly because…they keep saying they’re about to close some es/ms sites.

+1. This is a sensible initiative, given the continuing decline in overall enrollment. We just don't need to operate as many schools as we used to.

Why are 10,000 students still in portables?

Where did you get this statistic? I would believe that 10,000 out of the 156,000 kids in MCPS spend some part of the day (maybe as little as one period) in a portable, but not that 10,000 students are in portables all day.

Boundary revisions, a new high school, and expansion of other high schools -- all of these things should let most schools get rid of portable classrooms.

All the schools we’ve been at have heavily used portables. Some are really terrible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stop stretching. The reason for the move mainly is Wootton per you all is unsafe.

But it isn’t. Slide says it can be used tomorrow.

The advocates for Wootton said it is unsafe. MCPS wasn't saying that. They catered to those complaining about the building who are now pretending that's not true. They probably would never have done this if the advocates weren't so vocal about the building's safety.

That’s not really an accurate framing.

Advocating for renovations isn’t the same as saying the school is “unsafe”—and what people consistently asked for was renovation at Wootton’s current location, not relocation.

Wootton was in the CIP and then removed multiple times. The community wasn’t pushing for some drastic solution—they were asking MCPS to follow through on long-planned modernization.

If anything, this situation exists because MCPS deferred and reshuffled its own priorities over several cycles.

Now relocation is being presented as the solution, but that’s not because advocates demanded it—it’s because prior commitments weren’t carried out.

So the idea that: “advocates complained and forced this outcome” gets it backwards. Advocates asked for renovation. MCPS didn’t deliver, and is now proposing relocation to deal with the consequences of those decisions.

+1

Not a hard concept to grasp but for someone reason every time this distinction gets brought up, it is ignored.

Can someone point me to a single—just one—Wootton advocate who has ever advocated for closure of the school?

The trolls on this thread are aligned with MCPS with the ends justify the means so they’ll continue with the false narrative of Wootton asked for this.

May suit you now but when MCPS uses this same logic against you and closes your school…

No one thinks you’re advocating for that - but what you’re asking for, near-term renovations, isn’t possible because of the realities of the CIP budget and the massive county-wide repair and renovation needs (and please miss me with the “they could find the money if they really wanted to arguments.” State, county, district budgets are bleak everywhere right now)

So what we think is that there were two realistic choices: 1) move Wootton to Crown or 2) wait 10 years and hope that nothing catastrophic happens to any high schools outside of Wootton and Magruder so that Wootton can maybe get on the CIP. There are lots of different opinions on how bad Wootton is (I personally tend to believe the students and teachers and news reports about gas leaks, but that’s just me), but I do think there’s consensus that it’s bad enough that it cannot wait ten years.

We think option 1 is a much better approach to meet your needs for a safe school because the ONLY alternative is Option 2. There is no option 3 that sees the school getting fixed in the next 10 years. It’s not that we don’t get what you’re asking for - it’s that we are more emotionally ready to accept that MCPS is only dealing in the world of possible options.

I get the point about budget constraints, but that still feels too black-and-white.

It assumes the only two options are “move Wootton now” or “wait 10 years,” and that’s doing a lot of work.

Even within a tight CIP, there are usually middle-ground options: targeted capital repairs, phased modernization, fixing specific issues (HVAC, gas, etc.) in the near term, or reprioritizing projects, which MCPS does all the time. Saying “there is no option 3” is more of a choice than an absolute reality.

It’s also hard to ignore that Wootton was taken off the CIP multiple times. That’s part of how things got here. When something is deferred repeatedly and then the only “feasible” solution becomes relocation, it’s fair to question whether that’s just about budget—or also about earlier decisions.

And stepping back even further: MCPS moved forward building Crown at a time when enrollment projections were already shifting, in part to avoid losing the site. Now there’s a brand new school that needs to be filled, and suddenly relocation becomes the “only” solution. That context matters.

And on safety: If conditions are truly urgent, that usually points to targeted fixes now, not a multi-year relocation that doesn’t address immediate issues.

So this isn’t about ignoring financial reality. It’s about pushing back on the idea that:

“This is the only possible path.”

That’s not a fact—it’s a conclusion.

Mcps has to balance out all facility needs. Clearly Wootton was not as bad as other schools so you had to wait your turn. Instead of waiting you demanded an immediate fix and got one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am the person who asked on the previous page what is going on--what decision has been made and why people are upset. I am trying to piece it together from your answers, but am struggling. It sounds like wootton is a long-existing high school that is in serious disrepair. The community there asked for help. The county put off repairing it, and now, in the recent boundary study, decided to close that school building entirely and send the kids who would have gone there to an existing school in Gaithersburg. Is that correct?

You have the essential facts there. I think the deep feelings protesting the removal of Wootton to Crown HS speaks to the organic community attachment we have for our neighborhood schools. We see this in Silver Spring, with the likely closure of SSIMS and the likely moving of Sligo Creek ES. People don't want holding schools in their neighborhoods, they want their local community to have use of the schools.

I really can't blame anyone for feeling this way.

That’s precisely it. MCPS is doing very shady things with SSIMS. They didn’t succeed in closing SSIMS so now they are going the de facto closure route. Through the boundary study, they have artificially made SSIMS severely under utilized. During the next es/ms study, they will then use that underutilization and building condition (both of which issues they intentionally created themselves) to justify closing SSIMS.

Even if you have no dog in the Wootton fight, this should be a warning. MCPS will intentionally create problems and conditions to justify their intended goal. The ends always justify the means with them.

SSIMS families see this happening right in front of their eyes. A lot more other folks will be blindsided during es/ms closure. By the time they realize, it’ll be too late.

I don’t understand the conspiratorial tone - I too believe MCPS is about to close some es/ms sites but that’s mostly because…they keep saying they’re about to close some es/ms sites.

+1. This is a sensible initiative, given the continuing decline in overall enrollment. We just don't need to operate as many schools as we used to.

Why are 10,000 students still in portables?

Where did you get this statistic? I would believe that 10,000 out of the 156,000 kids in MCPS spend some part of the day (maybe as little as one period) in a portable, but not that 10,000 students are in portables all day.

Boundary revisions, a new high school, and expansion of other high schools -- all of these things should let most schools get rid of portable classrooms.

Never going to happen. MCPS planning stinks and has for 50 years. That’s how long portables have been in use.

What is "never going to happen?" The new high schools? They are already built or almost built. Your cynicism is tiring.

There are currently 120 portables at high schools all over the county. A new high school isn’t going to touch the countywide overcrowding.

What’s tiring is 50 years of portables in use with multiple boundary changes and new schools and additions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am the person who asked on the previous page what is going on--what decision has been made and why people are upset. I am trying to piece it together from your answers, but am struggling. It sounds like wootton is a long-existing high school that is in serious disrepair. The community there asked for help. The county put off repairing it, and now, in the recent boundary study, decided to close that school building entirely and send the kids who would have gone there to an existing school in Gaithersburg. Is that correct?

You have the essential facts there. I think the deep feelings protesting the removal of Wootton to Crown HS speaks to the organic community attachment we have for our neighborhood schools. We see this in Silver Spring, with the likely closure of SSIMS and the likely moving of Sligo Creek ES. People don't want holding schools in their neighborhoods, they want their local community to have use of the schools.

I really can't blame anyone for feeling this way.

That’s precisely it. MCPS is doing very shady things with SSIMS. They didn’t succeed in closing SSIMS so now they are going the de facto closure route. Through the boundary study, they have artificially made SSIMS severely under utilized. During the next es/ms study, they will then use that underutilization and building condition (both of which issues they intentionally created themselves) to justify closing SSIMS.

Even if you have no dog in the Wootton fight, this should be a warning. MCPS will intentionally create problems and conditions to justify their intended goal. The ends always justify the means with them.

SSIMS families see this happening right in front of their eyes. A lot more other folks will be blindsided during es/ms closure. By the time they realize, it’ll be too late.

I don’t understand the conspiratorial tone - I too believe MCPS is about to close some es/ms sites but that’s mostly because…they keep saying they’re about to close some es/ms sites.

+1. This is a sensible initiative, given the continuing decline in overall enrollment. We just don't need to operate as many schools as we used to.

Why are 10,000 students still in portables?

Where did you get this statistic? I would believe that 10,000 out of the 156,000 kids in MCPS spend some part of the day (maybe as little as one period) in a portable, but not that 10,000 students are in portables all day.

Boundary revisions, a new high school, and expansion of other high schools -- all of these things should let most schools get rid of portable classrooms.

Never going to happen. MCPS planning stinks and has for 50 years. That’s how long portables have been in use.

What is "never going to happen?" The new high schools? They are already built or almost built. Your cynicism is tiring.

There are currently 120 portables at high schools all over the county. A new high school isn’t going to touch the countywide overcrowding.

What’s tiring is 50 years of portables in use with multiple boundary changes and new schools and additions.

Two new high schools and reduction in students will.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stop stretching. The reason for the move mainly is Wootton per you all is unsafe.

But it isn’t. Slide says it can be used tomorrow.

The advocates for Wootton said it is unsafe. MCPS wasn't saying that. They catered to those complaining about the building who are now pretending that's not true. They probably would never have done this if the advocates weren't so vocal about the building's safety.

That’s not really an accurate framing.

Advocating for renovations isn’t the same as saying the school is “unsafe”—and what people consistently asked for was renovation at Wootton’s current location, not relocation.

Wootton was in the CIP and then removed multiple times. The community wasn’t pushing for some drastic solution—they were asking MCPS to follow through on long-planned modernization.

If anything, this situation exists because MCPS deferred and reshuffled its own priorities over several cycles.

Now relocation is being presented as the solution, but that’s not because advocates demanded it—it’s because prior commitments weren’t carried out.

So the idea that: “advocates complained and forced this outcome” gets it backwards. Advocates asked for renovation. MCPS didn’t deliver, and is now proposing relocation to deal with the consequences of those decisions.

+1

Not a hard concept to grasp but for someone reason every time this distinction gets brought up, it is ignored.

Can someone point me to a single—just one—Wootton advocate who has ever advocated for closure of the school?

The trolls on this thread are aligned with MCPS with the ends justify the means so they’ll continue with the false narrative of Wootton asked for this.

May suit you now but when MCPS uses this same logic against you and closes your school…

No one thinks you’re advocating for that - but what you’re asking for, near-term renovations, isn’t possible because of the realities of the CIP budget and the massive county-wide repair and renovation needs (and please miss me with the “they could find the money if they really wanted to arguments.” State, county, district budgets are bleak everywhere right now)

So what we think is that there were two realistic choices: 1) move Wootton to Crown or 2) wait 10 years and hope that nothing catastrophic happens to any high schools outside of Wootton and Magruder so that Wootton can maybe get on the CIP. There are lots of different opinions on how bad Wootton is (I personally tend to believe the students and teachers and news reports about gas leaks, but that’s just me), but I do think there’s consensus that it’s bad enough that it cannot wait ten years.

We think option 1 is a much better approach to meet your needs for a safe school because the ONLY alternative is Option 2. There is no option 3 that sees the school getting fixed in the next 10 years. It’s not that we don’t get what you’re asking for - it’s that we are more emotionally ready to accept that MCPS is only dealing in the world of possible options.

I get the point about budget constraints, but that still feels too black-and-white.

It assumes the only two options are “move Wootton now” or “wait 10 years,” and that’s doing a lot of work.

Even within a tight CIP, there are usually middle-ground options: targeted capital repairs, phased modernization, fixing specific issues (HVAC, gas, etc.) in the near term, or reprioritizing projects, which MCPS does all the time. Saying “there is no option 3” is more of a choice than an absolute reality.

It’s also hard to ignore that Wootton was taken off the CIP multiple times. That’s part of how things got here. When something is deferred repeatedly and then the only “feasible” solution becomes relocation, it’s fair to question whether that’s just about budget—or also about earlier decisions.

And stepping back even further: MCPS moved forward building Crown at a time when enrollment projections were already shifting, in part to avoid losing the site. Now there’s a brand new school that needs to be filled, and suddenly relocation becomes the “only” solution. That context matters.

And on safety: If conditions are truly urgent, that usually points to targeted fixes now, not a multi-year relocation that doesn’t address immediate issues.

So this isn’t about ignoring financial reality. It’s about pushing back on the idea that:

“This is the only possible path.”

That’s not a fact—it’s a conclusion.

DP

Of course, County taxpayers can shift resources from other needs to renovate Wootton, but that would harm other kids purely for the vanity of Parkway families who are too snobby to send their kids to high school in Gaithersburg. Gmafb you selfish twat

That’s not a fair characterization. And resorting to insults means I hit close to the mark and you’ve got nothing.

Wanting Wootton renovated isn’t “vanity”—it’s asking MCPS to do what it should have done years ago instead of deferring it repeatedly.

No one is saying take resources from other kids. MCPS created this situation through its own decisions, and now it’s presenting a Hobson’s choice—move the school or wait a decade or mire—as if those are the only options.

That conveniently solves MCPS’s political problem (filling a new school and avoiding past mistakes), but it doesn’t mean it’s the right or only solution for students or the community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stop stretching. The reason for the move mainly is Wootton per you all is unsafe.

But it isn’t. Slide says it can be used tomorrow.

The advocates for Wootton said it is unsafe. MCPS wasn't saying that. They catered to those complaining about the building who are now pretending that's not true. They probably would never have done this if the advocates weren't so vocal about the building's safety.

That’s not really an accurate framing.

Advocating for renovations isn’t the same as saying the school is “unsafe”—and what people consistently asked for was renovation at Wootton’s current location, not relocation.

Wootton was in the CIP and then removed multiple times. The community wasn’t pushing for some drastic solution—they were asking MCPS to follow through on long-planned modernization.

If anything, this situation exists because MCPS deferred and reshuffled its own priorities over several cycles.

Now relocation is being presented as the solution, but that’s not because advocates demanded it—it’s because prior commitments weren’t carried out.

So the idea that: “advocates complained and forced this outcome” gets it backwards. Advocates asked for renovation. MCPS didn’t deliver, and is now proposing relocation to deal with the consequences of those decisions.

+1

Not a hard concept to grasp but for someone reason every time this distinction gets brought up, it is ignored.

Can someone point me to a single—just one—Wootton advocate who has ever advocated for closure of the school?

The trolls on this thread are aligned with MCPS with the ends justify the means so they’ll continue with the false narrative of Wootton asked for this.

May suit you now but when MCPS uses this same logic against you and closes your school…

No one thinks you’re advocating for that - but what you’re asking for, near-term renovations, isn’t possible because of the realities of the CIP budget and the massive county-wide repair and renovation needs (and please miss me with the “they could find the money if they really wanted to arguments.” State, county, district budgets are bleak everywhere right now)

So what we think is that there were two realistic choices: 1) move Wootton to Crown or 2) wait 10 years and hope that nothing catastrophic happens to any high schools outside of Wootton and Magruder so that Wootton can maybe get on the CIP. There are lots of different opinions on how bad Wootton is (I personally tend to believe the students and teachers and news reports about gas leaks, but that’s just me), but I do think there’s consensus that it’s bad enough that it cannot wait ten years.

We think option 1 is a much better approach to meet your needs for a safe school because the ONLY alternative is Option 2. There is no option 3 that sees the school getting fixed in the next 10 years. It’s not that we don’t get what you’re asking for - it’s that we are more emotionally ready to accept that MCPS is only dealing in the world of possible options.

I get the point about budget constraints, but that still feels too black-and-white.

It assumes the only two options are “move Wootton now” or “wait 10 years,” and that’s doing a lot of work.

Even within a tight CIP, there are usually middle-ground options: targeted capital repairs, phased modernization, fixing specific issues (HVAC, gas, etc.) in the near term, or reprioritizing projects, which MCPS does all the time. Saying “there is no option 3” is more of a choice than an absolute reality.

It’s also hard to ignore that Wootton was taken off the CIP multiple times. That’s part of how things got here. When something is deferred repeatedly and then the only “feasible” solution becomes relocation, it’s fair to question whether that’s just about budget—or also about earlier decisions.

And stepping back even further: MCPS moved forward building Crown at a time when enrollment projections were already shifting, in part to avoid losing the site. Now there’s a brand new school that needs to be filled, and suddenly relocation becomes the “only” solution. That context matters.

And on safety: If conditions are truly urgent, that usually points to targeted fixes now, not a multi-year relocation that doesn’t address immediate issues.

So this isn’t about ignoring financial reality. It’s about pushing back on the idea that:

“This is the only possible path.”

That’s not a fact—it’s a conclusion.

Mcps has to balance out all facility needs. Clearly Wootton was not as bad as other schools so you had to wait your turn. Instead of waiting you demanded an immediate fix and got one.

So why wasn’t this Option A? Why wait until the holidays to announce it as Option H?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am the person who asked on the previous page what is going on--what decision has been made and why people are upset. I am trying to piece it together from your answers, but am struggling. It sounds like wootton is a long-existing high school that is in serious disrepair. The community there asked for help. The county put off repairing it, and now, in the recent boundary study, decided to close that school building entirely and send the kids who would have gone there to an existing school in Gaithersburg. Is that correct?

You have the essential facts there. I think the deep feelings protesting the removal of Wootton to Crown HS speaks to the organic community attachment we have for our neighborhood schools. We see this in Silver Spring, with the likely closure of SSIMS and the likely moving of Sligo Creek ES. People don't want holding schools in their neighborhoods, they want their local community to have use of the schools.

I really can't blame anyone for feeling this way.

That’s precisely it. MCPS is doing very shady things with SSIMS. They didn’t succeed in closing SSIMS so now they are going the de facto closure route. Through the boundary study, they have artificially made SSIMS severely under utilized. During the next es/ms study, they will then use that underutilization and building condition (both of which issues they intentionally created themselves) to justify closing SSIMS.

Even if you have no dog in the Wootton fight, this should be a warning. MCPS will intentionally create problems and conditions to justify their intended goal. The ends always justify the means with them.

SSIMS families see this happening right in front of their eyes. A lot more other folks will be blindsided during es/ms closure. By the time they realize, it’ll be too late.

I don’t understand the conspiratorial tone - I too believe MCPS is about to close some es/ms sites but that’s mostly because…they keep saying they’re about to close some es/ms sites.

+1. This is a sensible initiative, given the continuing decline in overall enrollment. We just don't need to operate as many schools as we used to.

Why are 10,000 students still in portables?

Where did you get this statistic? I would believe that 10,000 out of the 156,000 kids in MCPS spend some part of the day (maybe as little as one period) in a portable, but not that 10,000 students are in portables all day.

Boundary revisions, a new high school, and expansion of other high schools -- all of these things should let most schools get rid of portable classrooms.

Never going to happen. MCPS planning stinks and has for 50 years. That’s how long portables have been in use.

What is "never going to happen?" The new high schools? They are already built or almost built. Your cynicism is tiring.

There are currently 120 portables at high schools all over the county. A new high school isn’t going to touch the countywide overcrowding.

What’s tiring is 50 years of portables in use with multiple boundary changes and new schools and additions.

Two new high schools and reduction in students will.

Not even close.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stop stretching. The reason for the move mainly is Wootton per you all is unsafe.

But it isn’t. Slide says it can be used tomorrow.

The advocates for Wootton said it is unsafe. MCPS wasn't saying that. They catered to those complaining about the building who are now pretending that's not true. They probably would never have done this if the advocates weren't so vocal about the building's safety.

That’s not really an accurate framing.

Advocating for renovations isn’t the same as saying the school is “unsafe”—and what people consistently asked for was renovation at Wootton’s current location, not relocation.

Wootton was in the CIP and then removed multiple times. The community wasn’t pushing for some drastic solution—they were asking MCPS to follow through on long-planned modernization.

If anything, this situation exists because MCPS deferred and reshuffled its own priorities over several cycles.

Now relocation is being presented as the solution, but that’s not because advocates demanded it—it’s because prior commitments weren’t carried out.

So the idea that: “advocates complained and forced this outcome” gets it backwards. Advocates asked for renovation. MCPS didn’t deliver, and is now proposing relocation to deal with the consequences of those decisions.

+1

Not a hard concept to grasp but for someone reason every time this distinction gets brought up, it is ignored.

Can someone point me to a single—just one—Wootton advocate who has ever advocated for closure of the school?

The trolls on this thread are aligned with MCPS with the ends justify the means so they’ll continue with the false narrative of Wootton asked for this.

May suit you now but when MCPS uses this same logic against you and closes your school…

No one thinks you’re advocating for that - but what you’re asking for, near-term renovations, isn’t possible because of the realities of the CIP budget and the massive county-wide repair and renovation needs (and please miss me with the “they could find the money if they really wanted to arguments.” State, county, district budgets are bleak everywhere right now)

So what we think is that there were two realistic choices: 1) move Wootton to Crown or 2) wait 10 years and hope that nothing catastrophic happens to any high schools outside of Wootton and Magruder so that Wootton can maybe get on the CIP. There are lots of different opinions on how bad Wootton is (I personally tend to believe the students and teachers and news reports about gas leaks, but that’s just me), but I do think there’s consensus that it’s bad enough that it cannot wait ten years.

We think option 1 is a much better approach to meet your needs for a safe school because the ONLY alternative is Option 2. There is no option 3 that sees the school getting fixed in the next 10 years. It’s not that we don’t get what you’re asking for - it’s that we are more emotionally ready to accept that MCPS is only dealing in the world of possible options.

I get the point about budget constraints, but that still feels too black-and-white.

It assumes the only two options are “move Wootton now” or “wait 10 years,” and that’s doing a lot of work.

Even within a tight CIP, there are usually middle-ground options: targeted capital repairs, phased modernization, fixing specific issues (HVAC, gas, etc.) in the near term, or reprioritizing projects, which MCPS does all the time. Saying “there is no option 3” is more of a choice than an absolute reality.

It’s also hard to ignore that Wootton was taken off the CIP multiple times. That’s part of how things got here. When something is deferred repeatedly and then the only “feasible” solution becomes relocation, it’s fair to question whether that’s just about budget—or also about earlier decisions.

And stepping back even further: MCPS moved forward building Crown at a time when enrollment projections were already shifting, in part to avoid losing the site. Now there’s a brand new school that needs to be filled, and suddenly relocation becomes the “only” solution. That context matters.

And on safety: If conditions are truly urgent, that usually points to targeted fixes now, not a multi-year relocation that doesn’t address immediate issues.

So this isn’t about ignoring financial reality. It’s about pushing back on the idea that:

“This is the only possible path.”

That’s not a fact—it’s a conclusion.

DP

Of course, County taxpayers can shift resources from other needs to renovate Wootton, but that would harm other kids purely for the vanity of Parkway families who are too snobby to send their kids to high school in Gaithersburg. Gmafb you selfish twat

That’s not a fair characterization. And resorting to insults means I hit close to the mark and you’ve got nothing.

Wanting Wootton renovated isn’t “vanity”—it’s asking MCPS to do what it should have done years ago instead of deferring it repeatedly.

No one is saying take resources from other kids. MCPS created this situation through its own decisions, and now it’s presenting a Hobson’s choice—move the school or wait a decade or mire—as if those are the only options.

That conveniently solves MCPS’s political problem (filling a new school and avoiding past mistakes), but it doesn’t mean it’s the right or only solution for students or the community.

Ahhh yes, this old chestnut. We know you are asking for Wootton to be renovated. We hear you loud and clear. We even agree this is a nice idea! However...the county is broke. There is no money for renovation. Especially when there's a brand new space three miles away that surprise!- they can't fill otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stop stretching. The reason for the move mainly is Wootton per you all is unsafe.

But it isn’t. Slide says it can be used tomorrow.

The advocates for Wootton said it is unsafe. MCPS wasn't saying that. They catered to those complaining about the building who are now pretending that's not true. They probably would never have done this if the advocates weren't so vocal about the building's safety.

That’s not really an accurate framing.

Advocating for renovations isn’t the same as saying the school is “unsafe”—and what people consistently asked for was renovation at Wootton’s current location, not relocation.

Wootton was in the CIP and then removed multiple times. The community wasn’t pushing for some drastic solution—they were asking MCPS to follow through on long-planned modernization.

If anything, this situation exists because MCPS deferred and reshuffled its own priorities over several cycles.

Now relocation is being presented as the solution, but that’s not because advocates demanded it—it’s because prior commitments weren’t carried out.

So the idea that: “advocates complained and forced this outcome” gets it backwards. Advocates asked for renovation. MCPS didn’t deliver, and is now proposing relocation to deal with the consequences of those decisions.

+1

Not a hard concept to grasp but for someone reason every time this distinction gets brought up, it is ignored.

Can someone point me to a single—just one—Wootton advocate who has ever advocated for closure of the school?

The trolls on this thread are aligned with MCPS with the ends justify the means so they’ll continue with the false narrative of Wootton asked for this.

May suit you now but when MCPS uses this same logic against you and closes your school…

No one thinks you’re advocating for that - but what you’re asking for, near-term renovations, isn’t possible because of the realities of the CIP budget and the massive county-wide repair and renovation needs (and please miss me with the “they could find the money if they really wanted to arguments.” State, county, district budgets are bleak everywhere right now)

So what we think is that there were two realistic choices: 1) move Wootton to Crown or 2) wait 10 years and hope that nothing catastrophic happens to any high schools outside of Wootton and Magruder so that Wootton can maybe get on the CIP. There are lots of different opinions on how bad Wootton is (I personally tend to believe the students and teachers and news reports about gas leaks, but that’s just me), but I do think there’s consensus that it’s bad enough that it cannot wait ten years.

We think option 1 is a much better approach to meet your needs for a safe school because the ONLY alternative is Option 2. There is no option 3 that sees the school getting fixed in the next 10 years. It’s not that we don’t get what you’re asking for - it’s that we are more emotionally ready to accept that MCPS is only dealing in the world of possible options.

I get the point about budget constraints, but that still feels too black-and-white.

It assumes the only two options are “move Wootton now” or “wait 10 years,” and that’s doing a lot of work.

Even within a tight CIP, there are usually middle-ground options: targeted capital repairs, phased modernization, fixing specific issues (HVAC, gas, etc.) in the near term, or reprioritizing projects, which MCPS does all the time. Saying “there is no option 3” is more of a choice than an absolute reality.

It’s also hard to ignore that Wootton was taken off the CIP multiple times. That’s part of how things got here. When something is deferred repeatedly and then the only “feasible” solution becomes relocation, it’s fair to question whether that’s just about budget—or also about earlier decisions.

And stepping back even further: MCPS moved forward building Crown at a time when enrollment projections were already shifting, in part to avoid losing the site. Now there’s a brand new school that needs to be filled, and suddenly relocation becomes the “only” solution. That context matters.

And on safety: If conditions are truly urgent, that usually points to targeted fixes now, not a multi-year relocation that doesn’t address immediate issues.

So this isn’t about ignoring financial reality. It’s about pushing back on the idea that:

“This is the only possible path.”

That’s not a fact—it’s a conclusion.

DP

Of course, County taxpayers can shift resources from other needs to renovate Wootton, but that would harm other kids purely for the vanity of Parkway families who are too snobby to send their kids to high school in Gaithersburg. Gmafb you selfish twat

That’s not a fair characterization. And resorting to insults means I hit close to the mark and you’ve got nothing.

Wanting Wootton renovated isn’t “vanity”—it’s asking MCPS to do what it should have done years ago instead of deferring it repeatedly.

No one is saying take resources from other kids. MCPS created this situation through its own decisions, and now it’s presenting a Hobson’s choice—move the school or wait a decade or mire—as if those are the only options.

That conveniently solves MCPS’s political problem (filling a new school and avoiding past mistakes), but it doesn’t mean it’s the right or only solution for students or the community.

There was a parent who testified at the BOE a while back saying to remove a silver spring ES to fund wootton renovations. Wootton is a small school, one of many. This only impacts a select few and many want the move.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stop stretching. The reason for the move mainly is Wootton per you all is unsafe.

But it isn’t. Slide says it can be used tomorrow.

The advocates for Wootton said it is unsafe. MCPS wasn't saying that. They catered to those complaining about the building who are now pretending that's not true. They probably would never have done this if the advocates weren't so vocal about the building's safety.

That’s not really an accurate framing.

Advocating for renovations isn’t the same as saying the school is “unsafe”—and what people consistently asked for was renovation at Wootton’s current location, not relocation.

Wootton was in the CIP and then removed multiple times. The community wasn’t pushing for some drastic solution—they were asking MCPS to follow through on long-planned modernization.

If anything, this situation exists because MCPS deferred and reshuffled its own priorities over several cycles.

Now relocation is being presented as the solution, but that’s not because advocates demanded it—it’s because prior commitments weren’t carried out.

So the idea that: “advocates complained and forced this outcome” gets it backwards. Advocates asked for renovation. MCPS didn’t deliver, and is now proposing relocation to deal with the consequences of those decisions.

+1

Not a hard concept to grasp but for someone reason every time this distinction gets brought up, it is ignored.

Can someone point me to a single—just one—Wootton advocate who has ever advocated for closure of the school?

The trolls on this thread are aligned with MCPS with the ends justify the means so they’ll continue with the false narrative of Wootton asked for this.

May suit you now but when MCPS uses this same logic against you and closes your school…

No one thinks you’re advocating for that - but what you’re asking for, near-term renovations, isn’t possible because of the realities of the CIP budget and the massive county-wide repair and renovation needs (and please miss me with the “they could find the money if they really wanted to arguments.” State, county, district budgets are bleak everywhere right now)

So what we think is that there were two realistic choices: 1) move Wootton to Crown or 2) wait 10 years and hope that nothing catastrophic happens to any high schools outside of Wootton and Magruder so that Wootton can maybe get on the CIP. There are lots of different opinions on how bad Wootton is (I personally tend to believe the students and teachers and news reports about gas leaks, but that’s just me), but I do think there’s consensus that it’s bad enough that it cannot wait ten years.

We think option 1 is a much better approach to meet your needs for a safe school because the ONLY alternative is Option 2. There is no option 3 that sees the school getting fixed in the next 10 years. It’s not that we don’t get what you’re asking for - it’s that we are more emotionally ready to accept that MCPS is only dealing in the world of possible options.

I get the point about budget constraints, but that still feels too black-and-white.

It assumes the only two options are “move Wootton now” or “wait 10 years,” and that’s doing a lot of work.

Even within a tight CIP, there are usually middle-ground options: targeted capital repairs, phased modernization, fixing specific issues (HVAC, gas, etc.) in the near term, or reprioritizing projects, which MCPS does all the time. Saying “there is no option 3” is more of a choice than an absolute reality.

It’s also hard to ignore that Wootton was taken off the CIP multiple times. That’s part of how things got here. When something is deferred repeatedly and then the only “feasible” solution becomes relocation, it’s fair to question whether that’s just about budget—or also about earlier decisions.

And stepping back even further: MCPS moved forward building Crown at a time when enrollment projections were already shifting, in part to avoid losing the site. Now there’s a brand new school that needs to be filled, and suddenly relocation becomes the “only” solution. That context matters.

And on safety: If conditions are truly urgent, that usually points to targeted fixes now, not a multi-year relocation that doesn’t address immediate issues.

So this isn’t about ignoring financial reality. It’s about pushing back on the idea that:

“This is the only possible path.”

That’s not a fact—it’s a conclusion.

DP

Of course, County taxpayers can shift resources from other needs to renovate Wootton, but that would harm other kids purely for the vanity of Parkway families who are too snobby to send their kids to high school in Gaithersburg. Gmafb you selfish twat

That’s not a fair characterization. And resorting to insults means I hit close to the mark and you’ve got nothing.

Wanting Wootton renovated isn’t “vanity”—it’s asking MCPS to do what it should have done years ago instead of deferring it repeatedly.

No one is saying take resources from other kids. MCPS created this situation through its own decisions, and now it’s presenting a Hobson’s choice—move the school or wait a decade or mire—as if those are the only options.

That conveniently solves MCPS’s political problem (filling a new school and avoiding past mistakes), but it doesn’t mean it’s the right or only solution for students or the community.

Ahhh yes, this old chestnut. We know you are asking for Wootton to be renovated. We hear you loud and clear. We even agree this is a nice idea! However...the county is broke. There is no money for renovation. Especially when there's a brand new space three miles away that surprise!- they can't fill otherwise.

The county isn't broke, it has the money for whats important to the leadership. But, this would be a poor use of money. With better management, transparency and accountability more could be done with the money they do have.

[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:I am the person who asked on the previous page what is going on--what decision has been made and why people are upset. I am trying to piece it together from your answers, but am struggling. It sounds like wootton is a long-existing high school that is in serious disrepair. The community there asked for help. The county put off repairing it, and now, in the recent boundary study, decided to close that school building entirely and send the kids who would have gone there to an existing school in Gaithersburg. Is that correct?

You have the essential facts there. I think the deep feelings protesting the removal of Wootton to Crown HS speaks to the organic community attachment we have for our neighborhood schools. We see this in Silver Spring, with the likely closure of SSIMS and the likely moving of Sligo Creek ES. People don't want holding schools in their neighborhoods, they want their local community to have use of the schools.

I really can't blame anyone for feeling this way.

That’s precisely it. MCPS is doing very shady things with SSIMS. They didn’t succeed in closing SSIMS so now they are going the de facto closure route. Through the boundary study, they have artificially made SSIMS severely under utilized. During the next es/ms study, they will then use that underutilization and building condition (both of which issues they intentionally created themselves) to justify closing SSIMS.

Even if you have no dog in the Wootton fight, this should be a warning. MCPS will intentionally create problems and conditions to justify their intended goal. The ends always justify the means with them.

SSIMS families see this happening right in front of their eyes. A lot more other folks will be blindsided during es/ms closure. By the time they realize, it’ll be too late.

I don’t understand the conspiratorial tone - I too believe MCPS is about to close some es/ms sites but that’s mostly because…they keep saying they’re about to close some es/ms sites.

+1. This is a sensible initiative, given the continuing decline in overall enrollment. We just don't need to operate as many schools as we used to.

Why are 10,000 students still in portables?

Where did you get this statistic? I would believe that 10,000 out of the 156,000 kids in MCPS spend some part of the day (maybe as little as one period) in a portable, but not that 10,000 students are in portables all day.

Boundary revisions, a new high school, and expansion of other high schools -- all of these things should let most schools get rid of portable classrooms.

Never going to happen. MCPS planning stinks and has for 50 years. That’s how long portables have been in use.

What is "never going to happen?" The new high schools? They are already built or almost built. Your cynicism is tiring.

There are currently 120 portables at high schools all over the county. A new high school isn’t going to touch the countywide overcrowding.

What’s tiring is 50 years of portables in use with multiple boundary changes and new schools and additions.

Two new high schools and reduction in students will.

Not even close.

Look at the number trends.

[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:I am the person who asked on the previous page what is going on--what decision has been made and why people are upset. I am trying to piece it together from your answers, but am struggling. It sounds like wootton is a long-existing high school that is in serious disrepair. The community there asked for help. The county put off repairing it, and now, in the recent boundary study, decided to close that school building entirely and send the kids who would have gone there to an existing school in Gaithersburg. Is that correct?

You have the essential facts there. I think the deep feelings protesting the removal of Wootton to Crown HS speaks to the organic community attachment we have for our neighborhood schools. We see this in Silver Spring, with the likely closure of SSIMS and the likely moving of Sligo Creek ES. People don't want holding schools in their neighborhoods, they want their local community to have use of the schools.

I really can't blame anyone for feeling this way.

That’s precisely it. MCPS is doing very shady things with SSIMS. They didn’t succeed in closing SSIMS so now they are going the de facto closure route. Through the boundary study, they have artificially made SSIMS severely under utilized. During the next es/ms study, they will then use that underutilization and building condition (both of which issues they intentionally created themselves) to justify closing SSIMS.

Even if you have no dog in the Wootton fight, this should be a warning. MCPS will intentionally create problems and conditions to justify their intended goal. The ends always justify the means with them.

SSIMS families see this happening right in front of their eyes. A lot more other folks will be blindsided during es/ms closure. By the time they realize, it’ll be too late.

I don’t understand the conspiratorial tone - I too believe MCPS is about to close some es/ms sites but that’s mostly because…they keep saying they’re about to close some es/ms sites.

+1. This is a sensible initiative, given the continuing decline in overall enrollment. We just don't need to operate as many schools as we used to.

Why are 10,000 students still in portables?

Where did you get this statistic? I would believe that 10,000 out of the 156,000 kids in MCPS spend some part of the day (maybe as little as one period) in a portable, but not that 10,000 students are in portables all day.

Boundary revisions, a new high school, and expansion of other high schools -- all of these things should let most schools get rid of portable classrooms.

Never going to happen. MCPS planning stinks and has for 50 years. That’s how long portables have been in use.

What is "never going to happen?" The new high schools? They are already built or almost built. Your cynicism is tiring.

There are currently 120 portables at high schools all over the county. A new high school isn’t going to touch the countywide overcrowding.

What’s tiring is 50 years of portables in use with multiple boundary changes and new schools and additions.

Two new high schools and reduction in students will.

Not even close.

Look at the number trends.

Not PP. I’ve been looking at the ES enrollment numbers in the past few days to get an idea of what closures may come and they look BAD. So many declining ES populations.

Looking at RM was particularly shocking. College Gardens and Beall look not well off and Ritchie Park surely too once they eliminate that island of Fallgrove.

This next ES study is gonna be like the true dynamite if we thought the HS one was big…