Reply to Wootton Announces They Have Formally Retained Silverman & Thompson

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

Reply to "Wootton Announces They Have Formally Retained Silverman & Thompson"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Stop stretching.  The reason for the move mainly is Wootton per you all is unsafe.  [/quote]

But it isn’t. Slide says it can be used tomorrow.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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…[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/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