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

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]"that leads to a net reduction in total facilities within the district."

So as long as we do not reduce the number of schools we can relocate (no limit on how far?), we can rename, and we can change the cluster.  As long as we replace the closing school, with another school somewhere, under any name, and any cluster composition, it is not a closure.   Ingenious.    This of course means that unless the county truly would go into contraction mode, there would never be a closure, because the MCPS could always claim that there was not a net reduction, so no closure.   Ingenious.  
[/quote]

I mean, yes?  But I'm not sure what is ingenious about it.  As said before, there is nothing inherently "wrong" with closing a school.  There is simply a procedural requirement.  That procedure is in place to determine that the district has appropriately considered the impact of that closure across several factors- primarily the impact of losing a facility to overall enrollment, traffic patterns, etc.  There are similar procedural requirements for boundary changes, ect.

I still think people are getting twisted about this "closure" lawsuit idea.  Yes, it is a reasonable tactic to use to continue to oppose, to potentially delay, and to potentially get the district to not move forward with Option H.  But it is a procedural argument only.  In essence, did/will the district follow the appropriate set of criteria?  This lawsuit is a legal maneuver that isn't deciding whether or not Option H is a good or bad option.[/quote]

And their argument is an implicit acknowledgment that  H is the best option on the merits.[/quote]

I'm the PP you are responding to, and I disagree with your conclusion.[/quote]

If the merits were on their side, they'd be arguing the merits. Many aren't even saying they think the law is in their side. They just think they can delay and use political pressure with the financial resources available to the local community.[/quote]

PP here.  Opponents to H are doing both things- arguing merits and identifying a plausible legal argument.  There is no implicit acknowledgement of anything.[/quote]

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

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics