Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It has become clear that many (not all) anti-H posters on this thread are concerned about this plan not because of walkability, or making the most fiscally prudent choice for ALL of MCPS at this moment..but rather the potential for a change in the population of students that their kids will go to school with.

In this instance, the population would shift because the geographic location of the building would shift...but really they are arguing for segregation. I notice that nobody responded earlier when I asked if there would be similar opposition if a large low-income housing project went in close to the current building. The "results" that some posters seem concerned about are the same. I wonder if people would be this vocal if the county's proposal was to build more housing.

Well, Scotland is low income housing and it’s in the heart of Potomac. Nobody has a problem with it.

PP here. Help me understand how this connects to my question please?

Look up Scotland (100 townhomes) in Potomac and where that low income neighborhood goes to school. There’s even a historic black church nearby that was recently rebuilt and expanded.

You’re saying that rich, privileged Wootton families in Potomac and North Potomac don’t want low income minorities going to their school, and that’s why they’re opposed to Crown. Scotland proves this isn’t the case.

Got it. But I don't know that it proves that. Of course there are existing low income areas now that impact the current population and demographics of Wootton. I'm positing a significant increase in the amount of that, on par with the increase that many think will result from Option H.

It isn’t a question of demographics. Rather one of projected academic performance based on past academic performance. GHS is not in the same league as Wootton based on academic performance. Some GHS students may be, but on average they are not.

It would be like a high-performing major sports team being forced to accept 30%+ more players from a much lower performing team in exchange for a new stadium. Would you expect the resulting team to perform at the same level as before? It might eventually, but the odds would be against that, especially if other high performing teams were not forced to do so. Also, a new stadium does guarantee championships.

Oh, and the new stadium is much further away than the old one in a high traffic, congested area that would make it difficult for the players and fans to travel there, an increased risk of athletes getting hit by cars because of much higher traffic, etc…

All of these pro H. Here’s what’s to happen under H:

The W schools benefit even more.
Let’s stop pretending the Rosemont kids that H has Wootton merging with are some low-income families. Have you people looked at the houses around Crown that go to Rosemont? It’s like 800-900k for a freaking townhome. H doesn’t send all of Rosemont to Crown/Wootton, it literally sends the richest Rosemont kids at both Rosemont and the entire Gaithersburg cluster, to Crown.


These people on this thread think the only people who are anti-H are Wootton parents. No—many Gaithersburg families are also anti H but for very different reasons.

Think of H impacts on Gaithersburg please.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It has become clear that many (not all) anti-H posters on this thread are concerned about this plan not because of walkability, or making the most fiscally prudent choice for ALL of MCPS at this moment..but rather the potential for a change in the population of students that their kids will go to school with.

In this instance, the population would shift because the geographic location of the building would shift...but really they are arguing for segregation. I notice that nobody responded earlier when I asked if there would be similar opposition if a large low-income housing project went in close to the current building. The "results" that some posters seem concerned about are the same. I wonder if people would be this vocal if the county's proposal was to build more housing.

Bruh…no one answered you because your question makes no sense and is irrelevant

Alterntively, when this argument complaint is distilled down to the essence and reflected back, people don't know how to respond because it reveals something distasteful.

Is the question what if there’s low-income housing being built in the Wootton cluster? There are actually multiple MPDU projects, which are all low-income, being actively built right now (that’s part of the problem with H—there are SO many new developments in the immediate area that H will lead to another boundary study in the future. Closing Wootton is not prudent long term. H is the most uncertain and unstable for the long term.)

As a Wootton parent, I would have zero problem of low income housing being built in my community. What I don’t want is nonsensical bussing where a whole high school gets bussed into a street that is one lane both ways, and my community gets bussed out. I don’t have a problem w Damascus or Magruder kid, but it seems horribly inefficient to bus ~2,000 kids into our community while bussing all of our kids out of our community.

Thanks for responding. Your bolded is a separate argument that has some merit. The argument I am addressing is the one against changing demographics. The question is whether there was intentional development to the extent that current population demographics/scores were likely to change, would people object? If not, than any argument about "test scores" is without merit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All you Wootton crazies - just shut up

I'm more concerned about the Regional magnets and looks like this thread keeps getting longer and longer and bumped so the rest of us will forget about that.

Actually I have questions about H and regional magnets. Under any other option A-F, Crown (with its state-of-the-art labs) is in region 5. Under H, Crown/Wootton (whatever you call it) is under region 4.

How do we feel about option H handing a brand new amazing STEM centric school to a region that is already well-resourced over the under-resourced Gaithersburg community that is also overcrowded.

Do we care that Option H completely screws over Gaithersburg?

For all the people who say they are pro H to diversify Wootton, please do tell—how can you support an option that “steals” a school meant for a community of lower income and less resourced and hands it over to the privileged folks of Rockville and Potomac?

The cognitive dissonance doesn't make sense. Either Wootton is rich and privileged - doesn't deserve a new building, or Wootton is being given a "gift" that it should be forced to take for the good of MCPS. Which is it?

It's really not that complicated once you stop being deliberately obtuse. While people might disagree on relative priority, most would agree Wootton is nearing the end of its functional lifespan and will soon need a major renovation or to be rebuilt.

The people opposed to H don't want to stick with current Wootton building. They instead want MCPS to build them a school that the district doesn't actually need because they think it will help their property values.

So let’s say we give Wootton this brand new school. Again for the countless time: do we care or don’t care that H moves Crown/Wootton to region 4? Do we care or don’t care that this would give all the brand new, state of art labs and resources to Rockville and Potomac residents (Wootton, Churchill, RM) when this was supposed to be for under-resourced yet over populated Gaithersburg?

PP, by your own logic, MCPS is giving H to “privileged” parents of Wootton. How do you feel about the entire Gaithersburg community losing access to Crown, when every other option A-G gives Crown to Region 5?

Longer-term, it isn't good for Region 5 to have MCPS paying for a high school that it doesn't need.

Even longer term, it isn’t good for anyone in the school system for MCPS to spend money breaking ground on a new school it doesn’t need, use faulty enrollment numbers, not renovate another school that they have neglected for decades, and then instead of fixing the neglected school, punishes it by closing it altogether.

If we’re talking about the long term, pretty sure setting an unlawful precedent is worse.

Actually it is. And, MCPS has closed schools over the years. Not unlawful. Reopened some.

I see we’re back to this.

Please go back in this thread.

It is lawful to close schools.
It is not lawful to close schools without going through the required processes and procedures to close a school.
MCPS has not started the procedures necessary to formally close Wootton—those procedures are completely separate and distinct from school boundaries.

Before you say something is legal, perhaps check the law first. Go read the state regulations. I’ll even cite you which one: COMAR 13A.02.09

Option H is de facto closure. It is a school closure disguised in a boundary study.

Couple things here.
1. It is not clear that this qualifies as a closure. There is no definition in the code, but counties and municipalities have defined as "decision to permanently end use of a facility as a school." Don't think that is established here.
2. There is no full analysis of whether what is occurring right now meets those obligations under the code.
3. There is nothing that violates the code if those procedures occur subsequent to this process.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It has become clear that many (not all) anti-H posters on this thread are concerned about this plan not because of walkability, or making the most fiscally prudent choice for ALL of MCPS at this moment..but rather the potential for a change in the population of students that their kids will go to school with.

In this instance, the population would shift because the geographic location of the building would shift...but really they are arguing for segregation. I notice that nobody responded earlier when I asked if there would be similar opposition if a large low-income housing project went in close to the current building. The "results" that some posters seem concerned about are the same. I wonder if people would be this vocal if the county's proposal was to build more housing.

Bruh…no one answered you because your question makes no sense and is irrelevant

Alterntively, when this argument complaint is distilled down to the essence and reflected back, people don't know how to respond because it reveals something distasteful.

Is the question what if there’s low-income housing being built in the Wootton cluster? There are actually multiple MPDU projects, which are all low-income, being actively built right now (that’s part of the problem with H—there are SO many new developments in the immediate area that H will lead to another boundary study in the future. Closing Wootton is not prudent long term. H is the most uncertain and unstable for the long term.)

As a Wootton parent, I would have zero problem of low income housing being built in my community. What I don’t want is nonsensical bussing where a whole high school gets bussed into a street that is one lane both ways, and my community gets bussed out. I don’t have a problem w Damascus or Magruder kid, but it seems horribly inefficient to bus ~2,000 kids into our community while bussing all of our kids out of our community.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It has become clear that many (not all) anti-H posters on this thread are concerned about this plan not because of walkability, or making the most fiscally prudent choice for ALL of MCPS at this moment..but rather the potential for a change in the population of students that their kids will go to school with.

In this instance, the population would shift because the geographic location of the building would shift...but really they are arguing for segregation. I notice that nobody responded earlier when I asked if there would be similar opposition if a large low-income housing project went in close to the current building. The "results" that some posters seem concerned about are the same. I wonder if people would be this vocal if the county's proposal was to build more housing.

Well, Scotland is low income housing and it’s in the heart of Potomac. Nobody has a problem with it.

PP here. Help me understand how this connects to my question please?

Look up Scotland (100 townhomes) in Potomac and where that low income neighborhood goes to school. There’s even a historic black church nearby that was recently rebuilt and expanded.

You’re saying that rich, privileged Wootton families in Potomac and North Potomac don’t want low income minorities going to their school, and that’s why they’re opposed to Crown. Scotland proves this isn’t the case.

Got it. But I don't know that it proves that. Of course there are existing low income areas now that impact the current population and demographics of Wootton. I'm positing a significant increase in the amount of that, on par with the increase that many think will result from Option H.

It isn’t a question of demographics. Rather one of projected academic performance based on past academic performance. GHS is not in the same league as Wootton based on academic performance. Some GHS students may be, but on average they are not.

It would be like a high-performing major sports team being forced to accept 30%+ more players from a much lower performing team in exchange for a new stadium. Would you expect the resulting team to perform at the same level as before? It might eventually, but the odds would be against that, especially if other high performing teams were not forced to do so. Also, a new stadium does guarantee championships.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All you Wootton crazies - just shut up

I'm more concerned about the Regional magnets and looks like this thread keeps getting longer and longer and bumped so the rest of us will forget about that.

Actually I have questions about H and regional magnets. Under any other option A-F, Crown (with its state-of-the-art labs) is in region 5. Under H, Crown/Wootton (whatever you call it) is under region 4.

How do we feel about option H handing a brand new amazing STEM centric school to a region that is already well-resourced over the under-resourced Gaithersburg community that is also overcrowded.

Do we care that Option H completely screws over Gaithersburg?

For all the people who say they are pro H to diversify Wootton, please do tell—how can you support an option that “steals” a school meant for a community of lower income and less resourced and hands it over to the privileged folks of Rockville and Potomac?

The cognitive dissonance doesn't make sense. Either Wootton is rich and privileged - doesn't deserve a new building, or Wootton is being given a "gift" that it should be forced to take for the good of MCPS. Which is it?

It's really not that complicated once you stop being deliberately obtuse. While people might disagree on relative priority, most would agree Wootton is nearing the end of its functional lifespan and will soon need a major renovation or to be rebuilt.

The people opposed to H don't want to stick with current Wootton building. They instead want MCPS to build them a school that the district doesn't actually need because they think it will help their property values.

A lot of schools are on a similar situation. They act like they have the worst school and they don’t.

Yes, we’ve established this: we are a privileged bunch. Again I ask, how do you folks feel about option H taking Crown from region 5 and giving it to us privileged elitists in region 4?

MCPS lurking here. Thanks for the feedback! We'll just move Crown to Region 5 in Option H and that should help address these concerns.

I’m out of this thread. Completely unproductive and full of trolls that are too dumb and ignorant to realize the actual issues at hand.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It has become clear that many (not all) anti-H posters on this thread are concerned about this plan not because of walkability, or making the most fiscally prudent choice for ALL of MCPS at this moment..but rather the potential for a change in the population of students that their kids will go to school with.

In this instance, the population would shift because the geographic location of the building would shift...but really they are arguing for segregation. I notice that nobody responded earlier when I asked if there would be similar opposition if a large low-income housing project went in close to the current building. The "results" that some posters seem concerned about are the same. I wonder if people would be this vocal if the county's proposal was to build more housing.

Bruh…no one answered you because your question makes no sense and is irrelevant

Alterntively, when this argument complaint is distilled down to the essence and reflected back, people don't know how to respond because it reveals something distasteful.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All you Wootton crazies - just shut up

I'm more concerned about the Regional magnets and looks like this thread keeps getting longer and longer and bumped so the rest of us will forget about that.

Actually I have questions about H and regional magnets. Under any other option A-F, Crown (with its state-of-the-art labs) is in region 5. Under H, Crown/Wootton (whatever you call it) is under region 4.

How do we feel about option H handing a brand new amazing STEM centric school to a region that is already well-resourced over the under-resourced Gaithersburg community that is also overcrowded.

Do we care that Option H completely screws over Gaithersburg?

For all the people who say they are pro H to diversify Wootton, please do tell—how can you support an option that “steals” a school meant for a community of lower income and less resourced and hands it over to the privileged folks of Rockville and Potomac?

The cognitive dissonance doesn't make sense. Either Wootton is rich and privileged - doesn't deserve a new building, or Wootton is being given a "gift" that it should be forced to take for the good of MCPS. Which is it?

It's really not that complicated once you stop being deliberately obtuse. While people might disagree on relative priority, most would agree Wootton is nearing the end of its functional lifespan and will soon need a major renovation or to be rebuilt.

The people opposed to H don't want to stick with current Wootton building. They instead want MCPS to build them a school that the district doesn't actually need because they think it will help their property values.

So let’s say we give Wootton this brand new school. Again for the countless time: do we care or don’t care that H moves Crown/Wootton to region 4? Do we care or don’t care that this would give all the brand new, state of art labs and resources to Rockville and Potomac residents (Wootton, Churchill, RM) when this was supposed to be for under-resourced yet over populated Gaithersburg?

PP, by your own logic, MCPS is giving H to “privileged” parents of Wootton. How do you feel about the entire Gaithersburg community losing access to Crown, when every other option A-G gives Crown to Region 5?

Longer-term, it isn't good for Region 5 to have MCPS paying for a high school that it doesn't need.

Even longer term, it isn’t good for anyone in the school system for MCPS to spend money breaking ground on a new school it doesn’t need, use faulty enrollment numbers, not renovate another school that they have neglected for decades, and then instead of fixing the neglected school, punishes it by closing it altogether.

If we’re talking about the long term, pretty sure setting an unlawful precedent is worse.

Actually it is. And, MCPS has closed schools over the years. Not unlawful. Reopened some.

I see we’re back to this.

Please go back in this thread.

It is lawful to close schools.
It is not lawful to close schools without going through the required processes and procedures to close a school.
MCPS has not started the procedures necessary to formally close Wootton—those procedures are completely separate and distinct from school boundaries.

Before you say something is legal, perhaps check the law first. Go read the state regulations. I’ll even cite you which one: COMAR 13A.02.09

Option H is de facto closure. It is a school closure disguised in a boundary study.

Anonymous wrote:It has become clear that many (not all) anti-H posters on this thread are concerned about this plan not because of walkability, or making the most fiscally prudent choice for ALL of MCPS at this moment..but rather the potential for a change in the population of students that their kids will go to school with.

In this instance, the population would shift because the geographic location of the building would shift...but really they are arguing for segregation. I notice that nobody responded earlier when I asked if there would be similar opposition if a large low-income housing project went in close to the current building. The "results" that some posters seem concerned about are the same. I wonder if people would be this vocal if the county's proposal was to build more housing.

Bruh…no one answered you because your question makes no sense and is irrelevant

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It has become clear that many (not all) anti-H posters on this thread are concerned about this plan not because of walkability, or making the most fiscally prudent choice for ALL of MCPS at this moment..but rather the potential for a change in the population of students that their kids will go to school with.

In this instance, the population would shift because the geographic location of the building would shift...but really they are arguing for segregation. I notice that nobody responded earlier when I asked if there would be similar opposition if a large low-income housing project went in close to the current building. The "results" that some posters seem concerned about are the same. I wonder if people would be this vocal if the county's proposal was to build more housing.

Well, Scotland is low income housing and it’s in the heart of Potomac. Nobody has a problem with it.

PP here. Help me understand how this connects to my question please?

Did you even look it up? You seem completely unaware about the makeup of the clusters that you have no problem criticizing the parents of. There is an entire set of low income housing that goes to Churchill and middle school with at least part of the Wootton cluster. Low income housing is what it is. I think it’s very different than shipping kids away from their home area to help diversify other areas. So to answer your question-I would care a lot less about building a low income housing area than I would about H.

Please see my prior response. I understand there is a variety of housing that affects the CURRENT population. I'm suggesting a scenario in which the housing changes to the extent that the population shifts to something more like that which people expect in Option H.

Additionally, your bolded makes an assumption that the intent of Option H is diversification. To my knowledge that is stated nowhere, and it is about fiscal management and enrollment planning. In any event, my question is about whether that "diversification" were to happen without "shipping kids" it appears that many would still object, based on the concerns/"harms" they are raising.

No it’s not the same. If someone moves to the cluster-they go to the schools within that cluster. As much as you are trying to make this sound the same it’s just not. We are being moved OUT of our community into someone else’s community. That will never be the same as people who legitimately move into a cluster whether through low income housing or not.

And as for your other point-they would never say they are doing it for the diversification. Even though it is exactly why. MCPS will come up with 10 other reasons why they are doing it to hide the real reason every time.

And again-the point still stands that you seem willfully uninformed of the area in question so i’m not even sure why you feel so interested in this discussion anyway.

Your last line personal attack is unnecessary and irrelevant.

People are asserting that Option H is bad BECAUSE it will lower the aggregate test scores of the school. That is the harm. I am addressing that particular assertion, not all.
If that is the harm, then people should object to any change in demographics that they think will also likely affect the aggregate test scores.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All you Wootton crazies - just shut up

I'm more concerned about the Regional magnets and looks like this thread keeps getting longer and longer and bumped so the rest of us will forget about that.

Actually I have questions about H and regional magnets. Under any other option A-F, Crown (with its state-of-the-art labs) is in region 5. Under H, Crown/Wootton (whatever you call it) is under region 4.

How do we feel about option H handing a brand new amazing STEM centric school to a region that is already well-resourced over the under-resourced Gaithersburg community that is also overcrowded.

Do we care that Option H completely screws over Gaithersburg?

For all the people who say they are pro H to diversify Wootton, please do tell—how can you support an option that “steals” a school meant for a community of lower income and less resourced and hands it over to the privileged folks of Rockville and Potomac?

The cognitive dissonance doesn't make sense. Either Wootton is rich and privileged - doesn't deserve a new building, or Wootton is being given a "gift" that it should be forced to take for the good of MCPS. Which is it?

It's really not that complicated once you stop being deliberately obtuse. While people might disagree on relative priority, most would agree Wootton is nearing the end of its functional lifespan and will soon need a major renovation or to be rebuilt.

The people opposed to H don't want to stick with current Wootton building. They instead want MCPS to build them a school that the district doesn't actually need because they think it will help their property values.

A lot of schools are on a similar situation. They act like they have the worst school and they don’t.

Yes, we’ve established this: we are a privileged bunch. Again I ask, how do you folks feel about option H taking Crown from region 5 and giving it to us privileged elitists in region 4?

They don’t care about equity or Gaithersburg. Gaithersburg kids literally made a music video about how the BOE doesn’t care about them. Trolls on this thread are no different.

It just comes down to being against anything W schools want and being for anything W schools don’t want.

Yeah Gaithersburg high school will lose the rich people and lose diversity. Crown is basically the Bethesda part of Gaithersburg

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It has become clear that many (not all) anti-H posters on this thread are concerned about this plan not because of walkability, or making the most fiscally prudent choice for ALL of MCPS at this moment..but rather the potential for a change in the population of students that their kids will go to school with.

In this instance, the population would shift because the geographic location of the building would shift...but really they are arguing for segregation. I notice that nobody responded earlier when I asked if there would be similar opposition if a large low-income housing project went in close to the current building. The "results" that some posters seem concerned about are the same. I wonder if people would be this vocal if the county's proposal was to build more housing.

Well, Scotland is low income housing and it’s in the heart of Potomac. Nobody has a problem with it.

PP here. Help me understand how this connects to my question please?

Did you even look it up? You seem completely unaware about the makeup of the clusters that you have no problem criticizing the parents of. There is an entire set of low income housing that goes to Churchill and middle school with at least part of the Wootton cluster. Low income housing is what it is. I think it’s very different than shipping kids away from their home area to help diversify other areas. So to answer your question-I would care a lot less about building a low income housing area than I would about H.

Please see my prior response. I understand there is a variety of housing that affects the CURRENT population. I'm suggesting a scenario in which the housing changes to the extent that the population shifts to something more like that which people expect in Option H.

Additionally, your bolded makes an assumption that the intent of Option H is diversification. To my knowledge that is stated nowhere, and it is about fiscal management and enrollment planning. In any event, my question is about whether that "diversification" were to happen without "shipping kids" it appears that many would still object, based on the concerns/"harms" they are raising.

No it’s not the same. If someone moves to the cluster-they go to the schools within that cluster. As much as you are trying to make this sound the same it’s just not. We are being moved OUT of our community into someone else’s community. That will never be the same as people who legitimately move into a cluster whether through low income housing or not.

And as for your other point-they would never say they are doing it for the diversification. Even though it is exactly why. MCPS will come up with 10 other reasons why they are doing it to hide the real reason every time.

And again-the point still stands that you seem willfully uninformed of the area in question so i’m not even sure why you feel so interested in this discussion anyway.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It has become clear that many (not all) anti-H posters on this thread are concerned about this plan not because of walkability, or making the most fiscally prudent choice for ALL of MCPS at this moment..but rather the potential for a change in the population of students that their kids will go to school with.

In this instance, the population would shift because the geographic location of the building would shift...but really they are arguing for segregation. I notice that nobody responded earlier when I asked if there would be similar opposition if a large low-income housing project went in close to the current building. The "results" that some posters seem concerned about are the same. I wonder if people would be this vocal if the county's proposal was to build more housing.

Well, Scotland is low income housing and it’s in the heart of Potomac. Nobody has a problem with it.

PP here. Help me understand how this connects to my question please?

Did you even look it up? You seem completely unaware about the makeup of the clusters that you have no problem criticizing the parents of. There is an entire set of low income housing that goes to Churchill and middle school with at least part of the Wootton cluster. Low income housing is what it is. I think it’s very different than shipping kids away from their home area to help diversify other areas. So to answer your question-I would care a lot less about building a low income housing area than I would about H.

Please see my prior response. I understand there is a variety of housing that affects the CURRENT population. I'm suggesting a scenario in which the housing changes to the extent that the population shifts to something more like that which people expect in Option H.

Additionally, your bolded makes an assumption that the intent of Option H is diversification. To my knowledge that is stated nowhere, and it is about fiscal management and enrollment planning. In any event, my question is about whether that "diversification" were to happen without "shipping kids" it appears that many would still object, based on the concerns/"harms" they are raising.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It has become clear that many (not all) anti-H posters on this thread are concerned about this plan not because of walkability, or making the most fiscally prudent choice for ALL of MCPS at this moment..but rather the potential for a change in the population of students that their kids will go to school with.

In this instance, the population would shift because the geographic location of the building would shift...but really they are arguing for segregation. I notice that nobody responded earlier when I asked if there would be similar opposition if a large low-income housing project went in close to the current building. The "results" that some posters seem concerned about are the same. I wonder if people would be this vocal if the county's proposal was to build more housing.

Well, Scotland is low income housing and it’s in the heart of Potomac. Nobody has a problem with it.

PP here. Help me understand how this connects to my question please?

Did you even look it up? You seem completely unaware about the makeup of the clusters that you have no problem criticizing the parents of. There is an entire set of low income housing that goes to Churchill and middle school with at least part of the Wootton cluster. Low income housing is what it is. I think it’s very different than shipping kids away from their home area to help diversify other areas. So to answer your question-I would care a lot less about building a low income housing area than I would about H.