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][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=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.[/quote]

LOL what elected officials? [/quote]

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.[/quote]

I’m not a part of the cluster so maybe they know something I don’t. But I do think it’s interesting that it’s been almost two weeks since they’ve filed and the state hasn’t responded. That’s quite unusual…

I will say as a neighboring cluster, I am fairly certain they are in fact is lobbying (I know we are)[/quote]

I hardly think 2 weeks is "quite unusual" especially when those two weeks fell over holidays although I know that some in our chat used it as a hopeful hint since the lawyers said that the last time they received denial it came within 48 hours. [/quote]

There is no two weeks. MSDE answers to no one.  They respond when they want to.  The pp has no clue what will happen.  It’s just another attempt by TT’s huge PR machine.  How did TT’s fun run work out?  [/quote]

They don’t need to respond.  You file.  [/quote]

No one here has any lick of an idea as to how this actually works and it’s pretty funny. Like the other PP said, just trolls and AI fighting back and forth.[/quote]

We know what it takes to file a lawsuit.  You’ve had many months.  [/quote]

Huh? It wasn’t even ripe until 3/26? A month hasn’t even passed? You are proving the PP’s point. Wannabe DCUM attorneys have zero clue what is happening. [/quote]

It was obvious it was happening.  [/quote]

Of course it was obvious. We all know it was predetermined. Thanks for agreeing with us!

But also doesn’t matter in terms of ripeness. It can be 100% obvious, as it was in this case (because again predetermined), the issue isn’t ripe for a lawsuit until the vote happens.

So to suggest they had months to file a lawsuit just shows you don’t know anything about the law. A month hasn’t even passed. [/quote]

You clearly don’t know much about the law and why do you want to force others to risk their health staying in that building given how bad it is?   Most want to go to Crown.  [/quote]

Citation?

If Magruderw is worse than Wootton (which it is), by your logic its kids should go to Crown and Wootton get remediation. [/quote]

Crown is way closer to Wootton than it is to Magruder. As a long term plan it makes a lot more sense to move Wootton there than to move Magruder there. We aren't talking about a two year holding school timeline. This is for at least ten years I bet.  There isn't money for remediation at this point (at least not on the CIP- we can debate if the money exists elsewhere). [/quote]

Taylor actually proposed using Crown as a holding school (arguably for Magruder). It needs remediation far more immediately than Wootton. Even if there isnt any money today, its kids would be safe for a few years until it is. Under Option H, Magruder got screwed. [/quote]

Magruder IS screwed, no doubt, but this is not because of Option H. None of the options accelerated the long overdue Magruder renovation. The only thing option H did was not let these students use Crown until then.

Unless you are a Magruder family who would have had to put your children on a bus for 30 mins each way* FOR THE BETTER PART OF A DECADE if you have multiple kids I think you should keep Magruder’s name out ya mouth.

*For the love of Wootton and all her feeders please do not reply that your commute to Crown from the Lakewood or Fallsmead area will also be that length. Please and thank you.[/quote]

No one is dismissing the impact on Magruder families—long bus rides for years is a real concern—but if the justification for moving Wootton is truly student health and safety, then Magruder is arguably worse off, since its underlying issues remain unaddressed. Option H doesn’t fix that—it just shifts who absorbs the disruption. And in a countywide decision like this, it’s not realistic to say “keep Magruder out of it”—these tradeoffs are interconnected, and people are going to question whether the approach is consistent.[/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