Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If all of this is true, then why not go through the process of closing Wootton, following state law etc?

It's much more efficient to relocate one school than to close one old one and open one new one.

Anonymous wrote:If all of this is true, then why not go through the process of closing Wootton, following state law etc?

Anonymous wrote:If all of this is true, then why not go through the process of closing Wootton, following state law etc?

Anonymous wrote:If all of this is true, then why not go through the process of closing Wootton, following state law etc?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me, seems more like this is less about they did do and more about what they didn’t do, especially relative to prior practice.

So what didn’t they do? Parent associations doing grassroots efforts doesn’t count.

Compare to Woodward/WJ and Silver Creek. So much feedback and collaboration.

I do not see any specific thing that is different in this scenario.

When did option h first come up? Reopening Woodward has been discussed for at least a decade (or close to it).

So you're assertion is that the process should simply take longer?

And Woodward is a lot different situation- what we have today is a nearly finished brand new building and a crumbling one. Not the same scenario.

The process needs to be collaborative and obtain feedback. That’s what makes MCPS great. I don’t know how long that takes but I can tell from these posts that Wootton families don’t think that is happening here.

Wootton parent here - the process has sucked and there are 100% things I’d like to see MCPS do above and beyond what they’ve done. But it’s equally clear at this point there’s a super vocal group who are never going to feel satisfied with it unless MCPS gives them what they want. And MCPS can’t give them what they want because there aren’t enough students or money.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me, seems more like this is less about they did do and more about what they didn’t do, especially relative to prior practice.

So what didn’t they do? Parent associations doing grassroots efforts doesn’t count.

Compare to Woodward/WJ and Silver Creek. So much feedback and collaboration.

I do not see any specific thing that is different in this scenario.

When did option h first come up? Reopening Woodward has been discussed for at least a decade (or close to it).

So you're assertion is that the process should simply take longer?

And Woodward is a lot different situation- what we have today is a nearly finished brand new building and a crumbling one. Not the same scenario.

The process needs to be collaborative and obtain feedback. That’s what makes MCPS great. I don’t know how long that takes but I can tell from these posts that Wootton families don’t think that is happening here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me, seems more like this is less about they did do and more about what they didn’t do, especially relative to prior practice.

So what didn’t they do? Parent associations doing grassroots efforts doesn’t count.

Compare to Woodward/WJ and Silver Creek. So much feedback and collaboration.

I do not see any specific thing that is different in this scenario.

When did option h first come up? Reopening Woodward has been discussed for at least a decade (or close to it).

So you're assertion is that the process should simply take longer?

And Woodward is a lot different situation- what we have today is a nearly finished brand new building and a crumbling one. Not the same scenario.

The process needs to be collaborative and obtain feedback. That’s what makes MCPS great. I don’t know how long that takes but I can tell from these posts that Wootton families don’t think that is happening here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And process for closing a school is required by law.

I can agree or empathize with every single point Fallsmead parents have stated on this page except for this. It’s not closing a school. It’s relocating it. Yes it’s been rushed, no it hasn’t been transparent. But it’s not closing and mcps has been very careful to check all the boxes to ensure it can’t be framed as closing. When you insist on it being a closure you lose credibility.

I’m not so sure about that. It’s been so rushed, no transparency - that’s not good process. How do we know they checked all the boxes?

And I’m just another MoCo resident - not affected by this, but it doesn’t look great to me.

I agree that this process could have been MUCH better - so much of the engagement has been surface level - fill out this survey or come yell at us while we check our phones.

But the anti-H response has played a role here too. MCPS has put out a lot of data in direct response to all the concerns that people have been raising, and the response hasn’t been to consider the additional data and the very real trends they’re showing that got us to this difficult place and consider if maybe people need to rethink their stance. It’s been to pick apart minor things, like whether they used the best possible type of data visualization.

It’s upsetting to watch BOE members refuse to continue engaging meaningfully on this process, seemingly because they’re just sick of it. But anti-H has given them a lot of reasons to feel like, unless the BOE is prepared to tell Wootton they can keep things exactly how they are, added engagement or information isn’t going to be productive at this point.

The BOE isn’t engaging because Taylor did a vote headcount before even proposing Option H, and reconfirmed he had the votes before recommending it. It’s going to rubber stamp his recommendation, despite the flawed data on which it relies, undisputed chain of suspect events, and lack of meaningful community engagement. That fits the very definition of “arbitrary and unreasonable or illegal”.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me, seems more like this is less about they did do and more about what they didn’t do, especially relative to prior practice.

So what didn’t they do? Parent associations doing grassroots efforts doesn’t count.

Compare to Woodward/WJ and Silver Creek. So much feedback and collaboration.

I do not see any specific thing that is different in this scenario.

When did option h first come up? Reopening Woodward has been discussed for at least a decade (or close to it).

So you're assertion is that the process should simply take longer?

And Woodward is a lot different situation- what we have today is a nearly finished brand new building and a crumbling one. Not the same scenario.

The process needs to be collaborative and obtain feedback. That’s what makes MCPS great. I don’t know how long that takes but I can tell from these posts that Wootton families don’t think that is happening here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me, seems more like this is less about they did do and more about what they didn’t do, especially relative to prior practice.

So what didn’t they do? Parent associations doing grassroots efforts doesn’t count.

Compare to Woodward/WJ and Silver Creek. So much feedback and collaboration.

I do not see any specific thing that is different in this scenario.

When did option h first come up? Reopening Woodward has been discussed for at least a decade (or close to it).

So you're assertion is that the process should simply take longer?

And Woodward is a lot different situation- what we have today is a nearly finished brand new building and a crumbling one. Not the same scenario.

The process needs to be collaborative and obtain feedback. That’s what makes MCPS great. I don’t know how long that takes but I can tell from these posts that Wootton families don’t think that is happening here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me, seems more like this is less about they did do and more about what they didn’t do, especially relative to prior practice.

So what didn’t they do? Parent associations doing grassroots efforts doesn’t count.

Compare to Woodward/WJ and Silver Creek. So much feedback and collaboration.

I do not see any specific thing that is different in this scenario.

When did option h first come up? Reopening Woodward has been discussed for at least a decade (or close to it).

So you're assertion is that the process should simply take longer?

And Woodward is a lot different situation- what we have today is a nearly finished brand new building and a crumbling one. Not the same scenario.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me, seems more like this is less about they did do and more about what they didn’t do, especially relative to prior practice.

So what didn’t they do? Parent associations doing grassroots efforts doesn’t count.

Compare to Woodward/WJ and Silver Creek. So much feedback and collaboration.

I do not see any specific thing that is different in this scenario.

When did option h first come up? Reopening Woodward has been discussed for at least a decade (or close to it).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me, seems more like this is less about they did do and more about what they didn’t do, especially relative to prior practice.

So what didn’t they do? Parent associations doing grassroots efforts doesn’t count.

Compare to Woodward/WJ and Silver Creek. So much feedback and collaboration.

I do not see any specific thing that is different in this scenario.

When did option h first come up? Reopening Woodward has been discussed for at least a decade (or close to it).