3/9 and 3/10 public hearings

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, they have been pretty clear. They want to move Wootton to the Crown building. That means permanently. I would operate under that assumption.

They want to make the current building a holding school. There is NO PLAN RIGHT NOW to ever turn it back into Wootton.

Could that change if circumstances allow in the future like Woodward? Maybe. But in terms of the situation right now- the answer is that it is not going to become Wootton again.

Maybe there will be another boundary study in 10-15 years in which case everything is back on the drawing board in terms of where current Wootton feeders go. In fact, it's likely, and not only going to impact Wootton feeders.

But there is no CIP for Wootton to be turned into a holding school or for Magruder to use it (which is why Magruder is so upset).

Can anyone guarantee that Wootton will be turned into a holding school?

No. It's something Taylor has indicated he would like to do, pending budget. As of right now, there is no actual plan for Wootton building and they cannot give a timeline on holding school until they have CIP money.

[Anonymous]

There are no guarantees on what happens to Wootton on the Parkway - there never has been and won't be. Schools get kicked off the CIP all the time. People are expecting something to happen that does not historically happen. It's frustrating but that's reality.

They did say they won't sell it. So there's that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, they have been pretty clear. They want to move Wootton to the Crown building. That means permanently. I would operate under that assumption.

They want to make the current building a holding school. There is NO PLAN RIGHT NOW to ever turn it back into Wootton.

Could that change if circumstances allow in the future like Woodward? Maybe. But in terms of the situation right now- the answer is that it is not going to become Wootton again.

Maybe there will be another boundary study in 10-15 years in which case everything is back on the drawing board in terms of where current Wootton feeders go. In fact, it's likely, and not only going to impact Wootton feeders.

But there is no CIP for Wootton to be turned into a holding school or for Magruder to use it (which is why Magruder is so upset).

Can anyone guarantee that Wootton will be turned into a holding school?

No. It's something Taylor has indicated he would like to do, pending budget. As of right now, there is no actual plan for Wootton building and they cannot give a timeline on holding school until they have CIP money.

And why didn’t Taylor lay out all of this when he first proposed Option H last December? Because the outcry would be deafening.

This is exactly why there is so much skepticism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, they have been pretty clear. They want to move Wootton to the Crown building. That means permanently. I would operate under that assumption.

They want to make the current building a holding school. There is NO PLAN RIGHT NOW to ever turn it back into Wootton.

Could that change if circumstances allow in the future like Woodward? Maybe. But in terms of the situation right now- the answer is that it is not going to become Wootton again.

Maybe there will be another boundary study in 10-15 years in which case everything is back on the drawing board in terms of where current Wootton feeders go. In fact, it's likely, and not only going to impact Wootton feeders.

But there is no CIP for Wootton to be turned into a holding school or for Magruder to use it (which is why Magruder is so upset).

Can anyone guarantee that Wootton will be turned into a holding school?

No. It's something Taylor has indicated he would like to do, pending budget. As of right now, there is no actual plan for Wootton building and they cannot give a timeline on holding school until they have CIP money.

And why didn’t Taylor lay out all of this when he first proposed Option H last December? Because the outcry would be deafening.

This is exactly why there is so much skepticism.

Didn't he though? All of these hopes for the Wootton property were per the community. The board never indicated anything other than the fact Wootton would be moved. Moved means moved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, they have been pretty clear. They want to move Wootton to the Crown building. That means permanently. I would operate under that assumption.

They want to make the current building a holding school. There is NO PLAN RIGHT NOW to ever turn it back into Wootton.

Could that change if circumstances allow in the future like Woodward? Maybe. But in terms of the situation right now- the answer is that it is not going to become Wootton again.

Maybe there will be another boundary study in 10-15 years in which case everything is back on the drawing board in terms of where current Wootton feeders go. In fact, it's likely, and not only going to impact Wootton feeders.

But there is no CIP for Wootton to be turned into a holding school or for Magruder to use it (which is why Magruder is so upset).

Can anyone guarantee that Wootton will be turned into a holding school?

No. It's something Taylor has indicated he would like to do, pending budget. As of right now, there is no actual plan for Wootton building and they cannot give a timeline on holding school until they have CIP money.

And why didn’t Taylor lay out all of this when he first proposed Option H last December? Because the outcry would be deafening.

This is exactly why there is so much skepticism.

Didn't he though? All of these hopes for the Wootton property were per the community. The board never indicated anything other than the fact Wootton would be moved. Moved means moved.

Nope. Moved in this case means closed because there is no plan to keep the current building operating as a school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I watched yesterday's video recording, and it was not a pleasant experience. BOE chose to let the CO staff to defend their projection, whereas Wootton parents insisted their data were flawed. So they ended up in stuck, and BOE apparently firmly believed in the former. It's a lost war to me from a spectator's perspective.

That sets up the BOE’s decision as being arbitrary and capricious. Disregarding clear data flaws is the very definition. If the BOE were smart (and honest) it would redo its numbers. But that would mean Wootton can’t move to Crown in the fall of 2027.

The data doesn’t seem flawed. I’ve watched all the presentations even the joint one with planning board. It all seems very defensible and would withstand legal challenge.

A court looks at everything - it’s not obligated to believe anyone.

Uh no.
No, they look at the record before it. And will defer to policy makers when reasoned. Seems reasoned here. I wouldn’t want to be the one wasting money on this suit. MCPS will win despite you not liking it.

Suing because you didn’t get the outcome you wanted is such a waste of money…why won’t they learn that MCPS and the BOE can make these decisions? They choose to give communities a voice…it doesn’t mean they have to agree with what is said.

Lawsuits will turn up corruption. This whole process has been bizarre and there is no logical argument as to why Wootton should close but Magruder remain open. Hold them to the fire and let’s see what turns up.

And then this board will light up complaining about all the money MCPS spent on lawsuits…it’s like a full circle, that we end up causing.

If everything is on the up and up, why is MCPS (and posters on DCUM) afraid of what it might uncover? If there’s such confidence, then the case should get dismissed quickly, so little to no legal expenses. Then again, MCPS blew millions on a case that went all the way to the Supreme Court when if had a very inexpensive alternative it could have taken (but flatly refused, even though it had done it before).

This logic is so faulty. Filing lawsuits because you don’t like something and want to see what if “something sticks.”

Do you welcome any and all lawsuits that anybody could file against you in your personal and professional capacity because you are confident you have done nothing wrong?

Or maybe do you see it as a wasteful drain on time and resources?

Litigation is often the only way for the truth to come out. Maybe MCPS should have thought about the risk of litigation before it cooked up Option H and tried to sneak it past everyone over the holidays? Why do that if it was perfectly legal? Why fear litigation if MCPS is right? Indeed, the case should get dismissed quickly if MCPS is right.

Then again, MCPS thought it was right until the Supreme Court told it that it was dead wrong. Likewise, MCPS broke the rules when it bought EV buses. Seems like MCPS can get important matters very wrong.

People keep trying to make this point that they snuck it in before the holidays and no one had a chance to comment or respond to it. This is demonstrably false. There was a survey, which a lot of people in the Wootton cluster responded to, and there have been public meetings. They can’t make people engage.

Go ahead and tell us what the survey results were. And while you’re at it, what was the community’s response at the public meetings? They didn’t have to make anyone engage - sneaking in Option H in early December guaranteed community response would be delayed until after the 1st of the year. Then a snowstorm hit and meetings were canceled.

So yeah, MCPS gave little time for a response. But when that response came, it was loud and unequivocal but MCPS ignored it anyway.

Just because the opposition is loud, doesn't mean MCPS or the BOE needs to follow it.

MCPS has already incorporated feedback into the process (moving Cold Spring into Churchill, moved Fields Road to Wootton). They've held multiple meetings and took many survey results. There's been a robust debate between all the stakeholders.

This kind of decision isn't decided by whether a school population supports it or not; there's going to be various trade-offs of any decision, even maintaining the status quo.

MCPS and BOE need to make decisions based on the entire county holistically and not let the process to be hijacked by an outspoken minority.

The survey has come out overwhelmingly against the proposal. It has been dismissed as manipulated.

And yet it aligns with the meetings held have been filled with people who vehemently opposed to the proposal.

All because MCPS and BOE obviously decided the outcome on their own, outside the process, because they think they know better.

Subverting the will of the community is unacceptable. It's unacceptable at the national level and it's unacceptable at the local level. This was not done properly, full stop, and the community has shown it is not going to roll over on this. It's time to go back to the drawing board.

I mean, we have a representative form of governance. "The Community" (MoCo voters) chose the school board, who in turn chose the superintendent, who in turn chose his senior team.

Democracy doesn't mean that every micro-community gets its way all the time. It means that we are given the choice of decision-makers, who then make decisions and can be voted out if they don't represent the concerns and priorities of their voters. With that said, however, the concerns raised by Parkway parents have sounded pretty classist/racist to those outside the bubble, so I would not count on voters overturning the school board because one school community is Big Mad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, they have been pretty clear. They want to move Wootton to the Crown building. That means permanently. I would operate under that assumption.

They want to make the current building a holding school. There is NO PLAN RIGHT NOW to ever turn it back into Wootton.

Could that change if circumstances allow in the future like Woodward? Maybe. But in terms of the situation right now- the answer is that it is not going to become Wootton again.

Maybe there will be another boundary study in 10-15 years in which case everything is back on the drawing board in terms of where current Wootton feeders go. In fact, it's likely, and not only going to impact Wootton feeders.

But there is no CIP for Wootton to be turned into a holding school or for Magruder to use it (which is why Magruder is so upset).

Can anyone guarantee that Wootton will be turned into a holding school?

No. It's something Taylor has indicated he would like to do, pending budget. As of right now, there is no actual plan for Wootton building and they cannot give a timeline on holding school until they have CIP money.

And why didn’t Taylor lay out all of this when he first proposed Option H last December? Because the outcry would be deafening.

This is exactly why there is so much skepticism.

Didn't he though? All of these hopes for the Wootton property were per the community. The board never indicated anything other than the fact Wootton would be moved. Moved means moved.

Nope. Moved in this case means closed because there is no plan to keep the current building operating as a school.

Correct. The building is closed, the school is moved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, they have been pretty clear. They want to move Wootton to the Crown building. That means permanently. I would operate under that assumption.

They want to make the current building a holding school. There is NO PLAN RIGHT NOW to ever turn it back into Wootton.

Could that change if circumstances allow in the future like Woodward? Maybe. But in terms of the situation right now- the answer is that it is not going to become Wootton again.

Maybe there will be another boundary study in 10-15 years in which case everything is back on the drawing board in terms of where current Wootton feeders go. In fact, it's likely, and not only going to impact Wootton feeders.

But there is no CIP for Wootton to be turned into a holding school or for Magruder to use it (which is why Magruder is so upset).

Can anyone guarantee that Wootton will be turned into a holding school?

No. It's something Taylor has indicated he would like to do, pending budget. As of right now, there is no actual plan for Wootton building and they cannot give a timeline on holding school until they have CIP money.

And why didn’t Taylor lay out all of this when he first proposed Option H last December? Because the outcry would be deafening.

This is exactly why there is so much skepticism.

Didn't he though? All of these hopes for the Wootton property were per the community. The board never indicated anything other than the fact Wootton would be moved. Moved means moved.

Nope. Moved in this case means closed because there is no plan to keep the current building operating as a school.

Correct. The building is closed, the school is moved.

Nope. The school is being carved up AND its boundaries have to be moved in order to transplant its kids to Crown. You might have an argument if Wootton’s facility will be kept open as a holding school, but that’s not the plan right now.

[Anonymous]

Did anyone notice that the Board members seem to think attendance and engagement at these meetings is optional? Yang and Zimmerman sauntering in late, Wolff off camera most of the time, Montoya MIA.

They can't even show up to listen to testimony from people who take time out of their days to show up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, they have been pretty clear. They want to move Wootton to the Crown building. That means permanently. I would operate under that assumption.

They want to make the current building a holding school. There is NO PLAN RIGHT NOW to ever turn it back into Wootton.

Could that change if circumstances allow in the future like Woodward? Maybe. But in terms of the situation right now- the answer is that it is not going to become Wootton again.

Maybe there will be another boundary study in 10-15 years in which case everything is back on the drawing board in terms of where current Wootton feeders go. In fact, it's likely, and not only going to impact Wootton feeders.

But there is no CIP for Wootton to be turned into a holding school or for Magruder to use it (which is why Magruder is so upset).

Can anyone guarantee that Wootton will be turned into a holding school?

No. It's something Taylor has indicated he would like to do, pending budget. As of right now, there is no actual plan for Wootton building and they cannot give a timeline on holding school until they have CIP money.

And why didn’t Taylor lay out all of this when he first proposed Option H last December? Because the outcry would be deafening.

This is exactly why there is so much skepticism.

Didn't he though? All of these hopes for the Wootton property were per the community. The board never indicated anything other than the fact Wootton would be moved. Moved means moved.

Nope. Moved in this case means closed because there is no plan to keep the current building operating as a school.

See: Blair (no plan to keep it operating; later turned into SCES & SSIMS, but that was done on the cheap -- east county, after all -- and with poor results). Or Tilden. Or...

Certainly, there should be well considered use of the facility and investment toward that use (i.e., better than they did for SCES/SSIMS, but we're talking west county, so... ), but it's moved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone notice that the Board members seem to think attendance and engagement at these meetings is optional? Yang and Zimmerman sauntering in late, Wolff off camera most of the time, Montoya MIA.

They can't even show up to listen to testimony from people who take time out of their days to show up.

Did the SMOB resign?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, they have been pretty clear. They want to move Wootton to the Crown building. That means permanently. I would operate under that assumption.

They want to make the current building a holding school. There is NO PLAN RIGHT NOW to ever turn it back into Wootton.

Could that change if circumstances allow in the future like Woodward? Maybe. But in terms of the situation right now- the answer is that it is not going to become Wootton again.

Maybe there will be another boundary study in 10-15 years in which case everything is back on the drawing board in terms of where current Wootton feeders go. In fact, it's likely, and not only going to impact Wootton feeders.

But there is no CIP for Wootton to be turned into a holding school or for Magruder to use it (which is why Magruder is so upset).

Can anyone guarantee that Wootton will be turned into a holding school?

No. It's something Taylor has indicated he would like to do, pending budget. As of right now, there is no actual plan for Wootton building and they cannot give a timeline on holding school until they have CIP money.

And why didn’t Taylor lay out all of this when he first proposed Option H last December? Because the outcry would be deafening.

This is exactly why there is so much skepticism.

Didn't he though? All of these hopes for the Wootton property were per the community. The board never indicated anything other than the fact Wootton would be moved. Moved means moved.

Nope. Moved in this case means closed because there is no plan to keep the current building operating as a school.

Correct. The building is closed, the school is moved.

Nope. The school is being carved up AND its boundaries have to be moved in order to transplant its kids to Crown. You might have an argument if Wootton’s facility will be kept open as a holding school, but that’s not the plan right now.

Options E through H and the Superintendent's recommendation came out after the CIP request had been planned out. Part of the reason for E-H, if not the main one, was the population analysis that went into the CIP request. The realization that fewer HS seats were needed combined with the opportunity to use a holding school to accelerate project schedules and achieve savings vs. on-site/start-then-stop-then-start-again (as they would need to do for some components with students on campus) drove those additional options.

So expecting to have Wootton programmed with CIP funds is putting the cart before the horse. It was in the presentation, but with the funding window in the years after the CIP period, as it was envisioned as going after Magruder. Planning/approval/programming of funding for Wootton's remediation to serve as a holding school wouldn't be until the next CIP cycle, or, much more likely, as an out-of-cycle amendment after they knew whether it would be Crown or Wootton as the holding school, which won't happen until the BOE approves a boundaries plan.

Of course, despite the difficulty some on the board may have in grasping the particulars (based on their questions/discussion in BOE meetings), one has to think that there has been some inkling of this passed between Taylor (or his staff) and board members. It would have been better to lay it all out, but we know that isn't the MCPS (or Montgomery County) way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone notice that the Board members seem to think attendance and engagement at these meetings is optional? Yang and Zimmerman sauntering in late, Wolff off camera most of the time, Montoya MIA.

They can't even show up to listen to testimony from people who take time out of their days to show up.

Did the SMOB resign?

Special vacation, IIRC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of people from Magruder there testifying. Also a bunch from SSIMS.

I wonder why MCPS did not point to the additional out-of-bounds immersion students to explain that SSIMS will actually still be around average size for MCPS middle schools? It's a weird omission....

The concerns expressed about RM's numbers offer an analogy. The current attendance, overcapacity, reflects a relatively larger magnet population than the expected differential (small, with nearly as many leaving for other magnets as coming in) from home-catchment populations projected (themselves declining with the overall school-aged population trend) in the out year of the boundary study. Yet some RM stakeholders (and some of those from Wootton grasping at straws) can't wrap their heads around that.

On the other hand, as another poster noted, there might be only French Immersion (if that) continuing at SSIMS, and of the 100-120 across three grades, there, many would come from the proposed home catchment. They might get a bump of 30-50 students, at most, in that case.

But that "expected differential" is based on assumptions (MCPS 's word, not mine). They still have not surveyed families and just made up numbers that are not reflective of past trends. You know what happens when you assume...

Sure, but every model incorporates assumptions, and those stakeholders railing against the recommendation, instead of taking that model, and the resulting difference it explains, into account and then discussing where the assumptions might be wrong, are arguing numbers that don't take the difference between current attendance and model-based projected attendance into account at all.

That's fair. I'm more concerned that the regional model numbers need more research. Per MCPS, RM currently has 34 students leaving for regional/criterion referenced programs. Based on their recent slides, they are estimating 494 students will leave for other programs. RM is keeping the IB program. What makes them think they will suddenly have 14 times more students leaving for programs at other schools? The regional model is proposing high school to high school busing only and many RM communities are not walkable to RM. MCPS has provided zero justification for these estimates except "*predicted model that students will be evenly distributed from each of region schools (assumes that students will enroll in programs they applied for outside of school and that there will be an increase in application, and enrollment due to proximity and bustransportation services w/in regions)." If their prediction is wrong, and number of students opting to leave RM remains in line with the <2% that leave now, but RMIB continues to be popular, RM will indeed remain overcapacity.

That PP to whom you replied. Well stated, and disappointing (though completely expected) that MCPS would not have those considerations (along with many others about the regions/programs) fully addressed and made well known at this point, given that they have tied the boundary study approval to that plan.

[Anonymous]

Stupid question (I hope) - they can’t force students to leave the home school can they? For example, no one will want to leave Whitman. Can MCPS force kids to go to BCC or something or will they limit the number of kids who come into Whitman to keep capacity within reason?