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:

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…

Portables will still be in parking lots.

[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.

Ah yes, “the county is broke”—as if that ends the discussion.

Lack of money for a full renovation doesn’t automatically mean relocation is the only option.

MCPS makes capital choices all the time—phasing projects, prioritizing certain fixes, adjusting timelines. Saying there’s zero path to address Wootton other than moving it ignores the flexibility that exists within the CIP. Also, don’t forget about the hundreds of millions of dollars spent illegally on EV buses and litigating a case all the way to the Supreme Court based solely on ideological grounds. If MCPS were to stop these types of virtue signaling activities, the money would be there.

And the second point kind of proves the concern:

“There’s a brand new school they can’t fill” isn’t a neutral fact—it’s the result of prior decisions.

Now relocation conveniently solves that problem. That may be practical for MCPS, but it doesn’t mean it’s the only or best solution for the community.

[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 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…

Portables will still be in parking lots.

I'm sure all portables won't disappear, but places like WJ, with such a big enrollment drop coming after Woodward is fully populated, will surely see them go away within a few years.

[Anonymous]

The MCPS has $168 mil for electric buses (that will never be used), $40 million missing, $43 million lease on a new warehouse, and $465 some million on a new central office. But no money to renovate schools. Decentralize central office and then there is enough money to renovate both Wootton and Magruder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The MCPS has $168 mil for electric buses (that will never be used), $40 million missing, $43 million lease on a new warehouse, and $465 some million on a new central office. But no money to renovate schools. Decentralize central office and then there is enough money to renovate both Wootton and Magruder.

As a specialist in the county who routinely liaises between the schools and CO, I promise you don’t really want CO decentralized. I know it sounds like a good idea but in reality, these are the roles that allow us to more swiftly put resources into the schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The MCPS has $168 mil for electric buses (that will never be used), $40 million missing, $43 million lease on a new warehouse, and $465 some million on a new central office. But no money to renovate schools. Decentralize central office and then there is enough money to renovate both Wootton and Magruder.

As a specialist in the county who routinely liaises between the schools and CO, I promise you don’t really want CO decentralized. I know it sounds like a good idea but in reality, these are the roles that allow us to more swiftly put resources into the schools.

Where do you locate the disfunction in our school operations? I work at a title 1 school mired in mold and we can never get CO to be truly responsive. Lots of promises...either the action comes very late, after constant prompting, or there is no action. We'd all love just to be able to teach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ah yes, “the county is broke”—as if that ends the discussion.

Lack of money for a full renovation doesn’t automatically mean relocation is the only option.

MCPS makes capital choices all the time—phasing projects, prioritizing certain fixes, adjusting timelines. Saying there’s zero path to address Wootton other than moving it ignores the flexibility that exists within the CIP. Also, don’t forget about the hundreds of millions of dollars spent illegally on EV buses and litigating a case all the way to the Supreme Court based solely on ideological grounds. If MCPS were to stop these types of virtue signaling activities, the money would be there.

And the second point kind of proves the concern:

“There’s a brand new school they can’t fill” isn’t a neutral fact—it’s the result of prior decisions.

Now relocation conveniently solves that problem. That may be practical for MCPS, but it doesn’t mean it’s the only or best solution for the community.

What you are saying is the fact that as of today, relocating Wootton to Crown is the most cost efficient option should not matter. As a taxpayer, I emphatically disagree and find you deeply, deeply selfish. You got a new school..take the freaking win.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The MCPS has $168 mil for electric buses (that will never be used), $40 million missing, $43 million lease on a new warehouse, and $465 some million on a new central office. But no money to renovate schools. Decentralize central office and then there is enough money to renovate both Wootton and Magruder.

As a specialist in the county who routinely liaises between the schools and CO, I promise you don’t really want CO decentralized. I know it sounds like a good idea but in reality, these are the roles that allow us to more swiftly put resources into the schools.

Then fire central office staff. Principal’s have to much power already which is why there is no consistency between schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The MCPS has $168 mil for electric buses (that will never be used), $40 million missing, $43 million lease on a new warehouse, and $465 some million on a new central office. But no money to renovate schools. Decentralize central office and then there is enough money to renovate both Wootton and Magruder.

Then hold the BOE and Taylor accountable for their failed promises. Many of us have been harmed by their decisions. We spend a fortune on a private virtual school for on of our kids who cannot go in person and their replacement programs are a joke. Be grateful you don’t have our real struggles. A new building is far better than an old moldy one.

[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: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.

Ah yes, “the county is broke”—as if that ends the discussion.

Lack of money for a full renovation doesn’t automatically mean relocation is the only option.

MCPS makes capital choices all the time—phasing projects, prioritizing certain fixes, adjusting timelines. Saying there’s zero path to address Wootton other than moving it ignores the flexibility that exists within the CIP. Also, don’t forget about the hundreds of millions of dollars spent illegally on EV buses and litigating a case all the way to the Supreme Court based solely on ideological grounds. If MCPS were to stop these types of virtue signaling activities, the money would be there.

And the second point kind of proves the concern:

“There’s a brand new school they can’t fill” isn’t a neutral fact—it’s the result of prior decisions.

Now relocation conveniently solves that problem. That may be practical for MCPS, but it doesn’t mean it’s the only or best solution for the community.

What you are saying is the fact that as of today, relocating Wootton to Crown is the most cost efficient option should not matter. As a taxpayer, I emphatically disagree and find you deeply, deeply selfish. You got a new school..take the freaking win.

I think that’s a misread of what I’m saying.

Cost matters—but it’s not the only factor, and it shouldn’t automatically outweigh everything else.

A community isn’t just numbers on a spreadsheet. Relocating an entire school affects continuity, identity, and the stability families built their lives around. Those impacts don’t disappear just because one option is cheaper on paper.

And respectfully, asking MCPS to follow through on a long-planned renovation isn’t “selfish”—it’s asking them to honor commitments they made to the community.

And on the taxpayer point—it cuts both ways.

One group can say “as taxpayers we want the most cost-efficient option,” while another can say “as taxpayers we expect consistent planning and follow-through, not shifting plans that create disruption.”

Taxpayers don’t get to dictate decisions based on a single priority. These choices are supposed to balance cost with long-term planning, community impact, and educational outcomes.

You can weigh cost more heavily, that’s fair. But treating it as the only factor—and dismissing everything else—misses what’s actually at stake.

[Anonymous]

And here it is: (well, not a lawsuit, but an appeal to the State BoE).

Silverman Thompson has filed a formal request for a stay with the Maryland State Superintendent, asking the State to pause implementation of Modified Option H while the decision is reviewed. The filing raises serious concerns, including whether Modified Option H is effectively closing Wootton under the label of a “relocation,” and whether flawed enrollment projections were used to justify the decision.

This is just the beginning. If the stay is not granted, we will immediately appeal. We are prepared to continue through administrative court and ultimately pursue litigation in circuit court.

The filing challenges multiple aspects of the Board’s decision, including:
• Failure to follow legally required procedures for closing a school
• Use of flawed or potentially misleading data to justify the outcome
• Risk of immediate and irreversible harm to affected students and families

Seems like a weak case. I've already seen other lawsuits that tried to argue the "we think they used the wrong data", which never wins; State BoE defers to the local BoE.

Then there's the "actually this is a de-facto closure"; personally, I think this is a bogus argument, especially because if they know it's a school closure by the law's definition, they wouldn't use the weasel word "de-facto".

P.S. Again, I'd urge the "Save Wootton" parents to pursue the solution electorally. The solution you're trying to find is not going to be found in the courts, but can be done by our elected officials.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And here it is: (well, not a lawsuit, but an appeal to the State BoE).

Silverman Thompson has filed a formal request for a stay with the Maryland State Superintendent, asking the State to pause implementation of Modified Option H while the decision is reviewed. The filing raises serious concerns, including whether Modified Option H is effectively closing Wootton under the label of a “relocation,” and whether flawed enrollment projections were used to justify the decision.

This is just the beginning. If the stay is not granted, we will immediately appeal. We are prepared to continue through administrative court and ultimately pursue litigation in circuit court.

The filing challenges multiple aspects of the Board’s decision, including:
• Failure to follow legally required procedures for closing a school
• Use of flawed or potentially misleading data to justify the outcome
• Risk of immediate and irreversible harm to affected students and families

Seems like a weak case. I've already seen other lawsuits that tried to argue the "we think they used the wrong data", which never wins; State BoE defers to the local BoE.

Then there's the "actually this is a de-facto closure"; personally, I think this is a bogus argument, especially because if they know it's a school closure by the law's definition, they wouldn't use the weasel word "de-facto".

P.S. Again, I'd urge the "Save Wootton" parents to pursue the solution electorally. The solution you're trying to find is not going to be found in the courts, but can be done by our elected officials.

LOL what elected officials?

[Anonymous]

This thread is an argument between trolls and AI at this point. But carry onwards

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And here it is: (well, not a lawsuit, but an appeal to the State BoE).

Silverman Thompson has filed a formal request for a stay with the Maryland State Superintendent, asking the State to pause implementation of Modified Option H while the decision is reviewed. The filing raises serious concerns, including whether Modified Option H is effectively closing Wootton under the label of a “relocation,” and whether flawed enrollment projections were used to justify the decision.

This is just the beginning. If the stay is not granted, we will immediately appeal. We are prepared to continue through administrative court and ultimately pursue litigation in circuit court.

The filing challenges multiple aspects of the Board’s decision, including:
• Failure to follow legally required procedures for closing a school
• Use of flawed or potentially misleading data to justify the outcome
• Risk of immediate and irreversible harm to affected students and families

Seems like a weak case. I've already seen other lawsuits that tried to argue the "we think they used the wrong data", which never wins; State BoE defers to the local BoE.

Then there's the "actually this is a de-facto closure"; personally, I think this is a bogus argument, especially because if they know it's a school closure by the law's definition, they wouldn't use the weasel word "de-facto".

P.S. Again, I'd urge the "Save Wootton" parents to pursue the solution electorally. The solution you're trying to find is not going to be found in the courts, but can be done by our elected officials.

LOL what elected officials?

County Council and BoE. The ones who control the budget and make the final decisions regarding the schools.

There's a huge amount of turnover happening this year, a lot of open seats, so it seems like the perfect time for a dedicated group to get commitments to reverse the decision.

The amount of money they're spending on a law firm is better spent on lobbying and contributions to politicians rather than launching a doomed legal challenge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And here it is: (well, not a lawsuit, but an appeal to the State BoE).

Silverman Thompson has filed a formal request for a stay with the Maryland State Superintendent, asking the State to pause implementation of Modified Option H while the decision is reviewed. The filing raises serious concerns, including whether Modified Option H is effectively closing Wootton under the label of a “relocation,” and whether flawed enrollment projections were used to justify the decision.

This is just the beginning. If the stay is not granted, we will immediately appeal. We are prepared to continue through administrative court and ultimately pursue litigation in circuit court.

The filing challenges multiple aspects of the Board’s decision, including:
• Failure to follow legally required procedures for closing a school
• Use of flawed or potentially misleading data to justify the outcome
• Risk of immediate and irreversible harm to affected students and families

Seems like a weak case. I've already seen other lawsuits that tried to argue the "we think they used the wrong data", which never wins; State BoE defers to the local BoE.

Then there's the "actually this is a de-facto closure"; personally, I think this is a bogus argument, especially because if they know it's a school closure by the law's definition, they wouldn't use the weasel word "de-facto".

P.S. Again, I'd urge the "Save Wootton" parents to pursue the solution electorally. The solution you're trying to find is not going to be found in the courts, but can be done by our elected officials.

Cool.