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.

So you just made my point. A court looks at everything. It also doesn’t have to defer to policy makers. There is insufficient evidence to indicate a process of reasoned elaboration here - indeed, there is a clear rush to a decision based on external factors.

The burden is on plaintiffs to show some kind of law violation. “Insufficient evidence to indicate a process of reasoned elaboration” is ridiculous. There was a scope, there were consultants, there were options, there was feedback. That’s all part of the process even if the option selected wasn’t always under consideration. Then there’s the CO recommendation and report, calculations, and cooperation with the Planning Dept.

It doesn’t mean MCPS is right about the numbers. But they don’t have to be right. Projections are inherently projecting an unknown. If you could see the future you wouldn’t need projections. For a court, they don’t have to be right, they have to be not arbitrary or discriminatory.

A lawsuit will not win unless the MAGA SC just wants to stick it to Montgomery County enough to do something without a basis in the law, which is of course a real possibility at this point.

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.

So you just made my point. A court looks at everything. It also doesn’t have to defer to policy makers. There is insufficient evidence to indicate a process of reasoned elaboration here - indeed, there is a clear rush to a decision based on external factors.

DP. They look at the record before it. Meaning the data that county used appears justified to pass scrutiny. Courts defer on policy all the time. Also, boundary study litigation would not be successful. Take a look at precedence.

Better hope you can convince BOE here if you want change bc Court will not throw it out

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.

So you just made my point. A court looks at everything. It also doesn’t have to defer to policy makers. There is insufficient evidence to indicate a process of reasoned elaboration here - indeed, there is a clear rush to a decision based on external factors.

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....

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.

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.

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.

Also, belief isn’t enough, especially when the BOE believed pre-COVID enrollment projections in order to greenlight spending $400M to build Crown (which Taylor admitted was a mistake). Skepticism would be warranted, but politically the BOE can’t be if it wants to avoid voters’ wrath.

Anonymous wrote:So if MCPS data is credible as BOE believes, no need to overcrowd Wheaton High for the benefit of the Farmland/Luxmanor folks who want Woodward to be at 70% capacity. Right? In other words, in the Woodward Bohndary, they likely support the Superintendent recommendation and not the alternative that split articulates VMES.

If any amendments are to be proposed by BOE, shouldn’t there already be a motion to do so by now? Kind of late. Maybe the work session on Thursday is last possible time but that’s pushing it.

Crown Wootton taking the oxygen of the room from Woodward study. Makes it easier for Woodward recommendation to slide by.

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.

So if MCPS data is credible as BOE believes, no need to overcrowd Wheaton High for the benefit of the Farmland/Luxmanor folks who want Woodward to be at 70% capacity. Right? In other words, in the Woodward Bohndary, they likely support the Superintendent recommendation and not the alternative that split articulates VMES.

If any amendments are to be proposed by BOE, shouldn’t there already be a motion to do so by now? Kind of late. Maybe the work session on Thursday is last possible time but that’s pushing it.

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.

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.

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

They preferred to get in front of the decision makers instead of listening to Taylor bloviate. His job is done and he has no reason to withdraw his Option H recommendation.

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

Thread for news and takeaways from the Monday and Tuesday hearings. Anything notable from the one tonight?