Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was it considered a closure back when Blair was moved?

Not the same analogy at all.
Blair kept its name.
Blair’s move was closer.
Blair’s feeder pattern didn’t change.

Only the first of those is at all relevant to whether it was a closure. And was it?

No the facts are all relevant.
In Blair’s case, MCPS was upfront. Blair needs a rebuild. We’re going to build a new campus for this sole purpose.

In this case, MCPS build a new school without any reason but for the fact that if they didn’t, the land would have to be given back to the developers. Now they realized due to COVID, crack down on immigration, and loss of federal workers, they don’t have the enrollment for a new school. They then created options like A-D to shift kids around.

They then get hit with Churchill lawsuits. Backed down, and created new options like E-H.

Unlike the Blair situation where it was a move that the community wanted and MCPS expressly told was for them, here this move is not welcomed by the community and only made not because MCPS cares about Wootton but because they royally messed up by breaking ground before they did their due diligence, but are too afraid to piss of Churchill folks so they are targeting Wootton.

The intended purposes are completely different here.

How is it relevant to whether or not the action IS a closure?

All you points go to whether it was a well-justified and well-supported closure. Fine. But did it meet the definition of a closure?
The question isn't about whether the situations are identical. Clearly they aren't. But if we are trying to determine whether the current situation is a closure, it would help to know whether that was determined to be a closure and the rules applied.

If you go back, there’s like pages and pages on this thread explaining why this is a closure.

The location is different
The building is different (again, we don’t even know what will happen to the existing building)
The student body is different
The teachers will be different
The feeder pattern (and thus the community) will be different
The name possibly will be different (logic would dictate that it would because why Wootton HS not be on Wootton Parkway. At best, maybe it’s Wootton HS at Crown or something like that)

Can you tell me what stays the same?
Students, teachers, community, and name make up the school.
Literally every aspect of the school changes.

This is a closure.

I know it looks impressive to have a long list, but really the only thing that is both relevant and fact-based from the above is: the location will be different and the student body will be different.

Could those two things amount to a closure? Maybe. But the rest is either redundant or irrelevant.

What happens when you close a school?
If student X goes to school A and A is closed, then the student has to go to a different school with a different location and a different student body.

So yes, when the location is different and the student body is different, a school has been closed.

Nope. That's a relocation, not a closure.

What closing school isn’t a closure lol. What?

I asked if you close a school what are the impacts? Students have to go to a different school with different students.

Therefore when the student body and location change, a school has been closed.

So your view on the Blair move in 1998 is that was a closure?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

1 & 2 that’s why I said this is a de facto closure and that’s also exactly why Wootton parents will sue. Let the courts answer this. At a minimum this will cause a 2 year delay.
3. This is just factually wrong.

DP. All the board has to do in March is adjust Wootton's boundaries to include Crown. That is perfectly within their scope. Then, if desired, Taylor can proceed with plans to relocate the building.

O I wish they would, lol the Wootton lawyers would have a field day. If they did that, they would be literally proving our point. This isn’t a boundary study, this is a school closure pretending to be a boundary study.

Please stop discussing legality when you have zero idea what you are taking about.

You've missed the whole point.

Changing the boundaries to include the area around Crown is entirely the Board's decision, and is in fact what a boundary study is for. Doing that and only that in March would mean that any newly-assigned-to-Wootton students would attend Wootton on Wootton Parkway starting in 2027.

Separately, afterwards, Taylor could begin an official process to consider relocating Wootton to the new Crown building. That process would run its course and would then determine which building houses Wootton students in the future.

DP. He could have done that - but he isn’t. Doing it all at once proves the point that this is a closure. Taylor is stuck because he wants a full building by fall of 2027, filled with high performing Wootton kids whose parents will shut up about long delayed renovations he can’t pay for anymore because he spent the money building a new school based on faulty assumptions.

Why are you saying he's "doing it all at once"? There's nothing indicating that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was it considered a closure back when Blair was moved?

Not the same analogy at all.
Blair kept its name.
Blair’s move was closer.
Blair’s feeder pattern didn’t change.

Only the first of those is at all relevant to whether it was a closure. And was it?

No the facts are all relevant.
In Blair’s case, MCPS was upfront. Blair needs a rebuild. We’re going to build a new campus for this sole purpose.

In this case, MCPS build a new school without any reason but for the fact that if they didn’t, the land would have to be given back to the developers. Now they realized due to COVID, crack down on immigration, and loss of federal workers, they don’t have the enrollment for a new school. They then created options like A-D to shift kids around.

They then get hit with Churchill lawsuits. Backed down, and created new options like E-H.

Unlike the Blair situation where it was a move that the community wanted and MCPS expressly told was for them, here this move is not welcomed by the community and only made not because MCPS cares about Wootton but because they royally messed up by breaking ground before they did their due diligence, but are too afraid to piss of Churchill folks so they are targeting Wootton.

The intended purposes are completely different here.

How is it relevant to whether or not the action IS a closure?

All you points go to whether it was a well-justified and well-supported closure. Fine. But did it meet the definition of a closure?
The question isn't about whether the situations are identical. Clearly they aren't. But if we are trying to determine whether the current situation is a closure, it would help to know whether that was determined to be a closure and the rules applied.

If you go back, there’s like pages and pages on this thread explaining why this is a closure.

The location is different
The building is different (again, we don’t even know what will happen to the existing building)
The student body is different
The teachers will be different
The feeder pattern (and thus the community) will be different
The name possibly will be different (logic would dictate that it would because why Wootton HS not be on Wootton Parkway. At best, maybe it’s Wootton HS at Crown or something like that)

Can you tell me what stays the same?
Students, teachers, community, and name make up the school.
Literally every aspect of the school changes.

This is a closure.

I know it looks impressive to have a long list, but really the only thing that is both relevant and fact-based from the above is: the location will be different and the student body will be different.

Could those two things amount to a closure? Maybe. But the rest is either redundant or irrelevant.

What happens when you close a school?
If student X goes to school A and A is closed, then the student has to go to a different school with a different location and a different student body.

So yes, when the location is different and the student body is different, a school has been closed.

Nope. That's a relocation, not a closure.

What closing school isn’t a closure lol. What?

I asked if you close a school what are the impacts? Students have to go to a different school with different students.

Therefore when the student body and location change, a school has been closed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was it considered a closure back when Blair was moved?

Not the same analogy at all.
Blair kept its name.
Blair’s move was closer.
Blair’s feeder pattern didn’t change.

Only the first of those is at all relevant to whether it was a closure. And was it?

No the facts are all relevant.
In Blair’s case, MCPS was upfront. Blair needs a rebuild. We’re going to build a new campus for this sole purpose.

In this case, MCPS build a new school without any reason but for the fact that if they didn’t, the land would have to be given back to the developers. Now they realized due to COVID, crack down on immigration, and loss of federal workers, they don’t have the enrollment for a new school. They then created options like A-D to shift kids around.

They then get hit with Churchill lawsuits. Backed down, and created new options like E-H.

Unlike the Blair situation where it was a move that the community wanted and MCPS expressly told was for them, here this move is not welcomed by the community and only made not because MCPS cares about Wootton but because they royally messed up by breaking ground before they did their due diligence, but are too afraid to piss of Churchill folks so they are targeting Wootton.

The intended purposes are completely different here.

How is it relevant to whether or not the action IS a closure?

All you points go to whether it was a well-justified and well-supported closure. Fine. But did it meet the definition of a closure?
The question isn't about whether the situations are identical. Clearly they aren't. But if we are trying to determine whether the current situation is a closure, it would help to know whether that was determined to be a closure and the rules applied.

If you go back, there’s like pages and pages on this thread explaining why this is a closure.

The location is different
The building is different (again, we don’t even know what will happen to the existing building)
The student body is different
The teachers will be different
The feeder pattern (and thus the community) will be different
The name possibly will be different (logic would dictate that it would because why Wootton HS not be on Wootton Parkway. At best, maybe it’s Wootton HS at Crown or something like that)

Can you tell me what stays the same?
Students, teachers, community, and name make up the school.
Literally every aspect of the school changes.

This is a closure.

I know it looks impressive to have a long list, but really the only thing that is both relevant and fact-based from the above is: the location will be different and the student body will be different.

Could those two things amount to a closure? Maybe. But the rest is either redundant or irrelevant.

What happens when you close a school?
If student X goes to school A and A is closed, then the student has to go to a different school with a different location and a different student body.

So yes, when the location is different and the student body is different, a school has been closed.

Nope. That's a relocation, not a closure.

What closing school isn’t a closure lol. What?

I asked if you close a school what are the impacts? Students have to go to a different school with different students.

Therefore when the student body and location change, a school has been closed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

1 & 2 that’s why I said this is a de facto closure and that’s also exactly why Wootton parents will sue. Let the courts answer this. At a minimum this will cause a 2 year delay.
3. This is just factually wrong.

DP. All the board has to do in March is adjust Wootton's boundaries to include Crown. That is perfectly within their scope. Then, if desired, Taylor can proceed with plans to relocate the building.

O I wish they would, lol the Wootton lawyers would have a field day. If they did that, they would be literally proving our point. This isn’t a boundary study, this is a school closure pretending to be a boundary study.

Please stop discussing legality when you have zero idea what you are taking about.

You've missed the whole point.

Changing the boundaries to include the area around Crown is entirely the Board's decision, and is in fact what a boundary study is for. Doing that and only that in March would mean that any newly-assigned-to-Wootton students would attend Wootton on Wootton Parkway starting in 2027.

Separately, afterwards, Taylor could begin an official process to consider relocating Wootton to the new Crown building. That process would run its course and would then determine which building houses Wootton students in the future.

They didn’t miss the point at all. that pp is saying that if that’s what they do then it shows the intent that they planned to do that all along. It doesn’t matter if they then backtrack and go through the steps separately-it shows the intent from the beginning.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was it considered a closure back when Blair was moved?

Not the same analogy at all.
Blair kept its name.
Blair’s move was closer.
Blair’s feeder pattern didn’t change.

Only the first of those is at all relevant to whether it was a closure. And was it?

No the facts are all relevant.
In Blair’s case, MCPS was upfront. Blair needs a rebuild. We’re going to build a new campus for this sole purpose.

In this case, MCPS build a new school without any reason but for the fact that if they didn’t, the land would have to be given back to the developers. Now they realized due to COVID, crack down on immigration, and loss of federal workers, they don’t have the enrollment for a new school. They then created options like A-D to shift kids around.

They then get hit with Churchill lawsuits. Backed down, and created new options like E-H.

Unlike the Blair situation where it was a move that the community wanted and MCPS expressly told was for them, here this move is not welcomed by the community and only made not because MCPS cares about Wootton but because they royally messed up by breaking ground before they did their due diligence, but are too afraid to piss of Churchill folks so they are targeting Wootton.

The intended purposes are completely different here.

How is it relevant to whether or not the action IS a closure?

All you points go to whether it was a well-justified and well-supported closure. Fine. But did it meet the definition of a closure?
The question isn't about whether the situations are identical. Clearly they aren't. But if we are trying to determine whether the current situation is a closure, it would help to know whether that was determined to be a closure and the rules applied.

If you go back, there’s like pages and pages on this thread explaining why this is a closure.

The location is different
The building is different (again, we don’t even know what will happen to the existing building)
The student body is different
The teachers will be different
The feeder pattern (and thus the community) will be different
The name possibly will be different (logic would dictate that it would because why Wootton HS not be on Wootton Parkway. At best, maybe it’s Wootton HS at Crown or something like that)

Can you tell me what stays the same?
Students, teachers, community, and name make up the school.
Literally every aspect of the school changes.

This is a closure.

I know it looks impressive to have a long list, but really the only thing that is both relevant and fact-based from the above is: the location will be different and the student body will be different.

Could those two things amount to a closure? Maybe. But the rest is either redundant or irrelevant.

What happens when you close a school?
If student X goes to school A and A is closed, then the student has to go to a different school with a different location and a different student body.

So yes, when the location is different and the student body is different, a school has been closed.

Nope. That's a relocation, not a closure.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

1 & 2 that’s why I said this is a de facto closure and that’s also exactly why Wootton parents will sue. Let the courts answer this. At a minimum this will cause a 2 year delay.
3. This is just factually wrong.

DP. All the board has to do in March is adjust Wootton's boundaries to include Crown. That is perfectly within their scope. Then, if desired, Taylor can proceed with plans to relocate the building.

O I wish they would, lol the Wootton lawyers would have a field day. If they did that, they would be literally proving our point. This isn’t a boundary study, this is a school closure pretending to be a boundary study.

Please stop discussing legality when you have zero idea what you are taking about.

You've missed the whole point.

Changing the boundaries to include the area around Crown is entirely the Board's decision, and is in fact what a boundary study is for. Doing that and only that in March would mean that any newly-assigned-to-Wootton students would attend Wootton on Wootton Parkway starting in 2027.

Separately, afterwards, Taylor could begin an official process to consider relocating Wootton to the new Crown building. That process would run its course and would then determine which building houses Wootton students in the future.

DP. He could have done that - but he isn’t. Doing it all at once proves the point that this is a closure. Taylor is stuck because he wants a full building by fall of 2027, filled with high performing Wootton kids whose parents will shut up about long delayed renovations he can’t pay for anymore because he spent the money building a new school based on faulty assumptions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

1 & 2 that’s why I said this is a de facto closure and that’s also exactly why Wootton parents will sue. Let the courts answer this. At a minimum this will cause a 2 year delay.
3. This is just factually wrong.

DP. All the board has to do in March is adjust Wootton's boundaries to include Crown. That is perfectly within their scope. Then, if desired, Taylor can proceed with plans to relocate the building.

O I wish they would, lol the Wootton lawyers would have a field day. If they did that, they would be literally proving our point. This isn’t a boundary study, this is a school closure pretending to be a boundary study.

Please stop discussing legality when you have zero idea what you are taking about.

You've missed the whole point.

Changing the boundaries to include the area around Crown is entirely the Board's decision, and is in fact what a boundary study is for. Doing that and only that in March would mean that any newly-assigned-to-Wootton students would attend Wootton on Wootton Parkway starting in 2027.

Separately, afterwards, Taylor could begin an official process to consider relocating Wootton to the new Crown building. That process would run its course and would then determine which building houses Wootton students in the future.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

1 & 2 that’s why I said this is a de facto closure and that’s also exactly why Wootton parents will sue. Let the courts answer this. At a minimum this will cause a 2 year delay.
3. This is just factually wrong.

DP. All the board has to do in March is adjust Wootton's boundaries to include Crown. That is perfectly within their scope. Then, if desired, Taylor can proceed with plans to relocate the building.

O I wish they would, lol the Wootton lawyers would have a field day. If they did that, they would be literally proving our point. This isn’t a boundary study, this is a school closure pretending to be a boundary study.

Please stop discussing legality when you have zero idea what you are taking about.

You've missed the whole point.

Changing the boundaries to include the area around Crown is entirely the Board's decision, and is in fact what a boundary study is for. Doing that and only that in March would mean that any newly-assigned-to-Wootton students would attend Wootton on Wootton Parkway starting in 2027.

Separately, afterwards, Taylor could begin an official process to consider relocating Wootton to the new Crown building. That process would run its course and would then determine which building houses Wootton students in the future.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

1 & 2 that’s why I said this is a de facto closure and that’s also exactly why Wootton parents will sue. Let the courts answer this. At a minimum this will cause a 2 year delay.
3. This is just factually wrong.

DP. All the board has to do in March is adjust Wootton's boundaries to include Crown. That is perfectly within their scope. Then, if desired, Taylor can proceed with plans to relocate the building.

O I wish they would, lol the Wootton lawyers would have a field day. If they did that, they would be literally proving our point. This isn’t a boundary study, this is a school closure pretending to be a boundary study.

Please stop discussing legality when you have zero idea what you are taking about.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone knows what the capacity for Crown is from all these studies?

2700 students

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was it considered a closure back when Blair was moved?

Not the same analogy at all.
Blair kept its name.
Blair’s move was closer.
Blair’s feeder pattern didn’t change.

Only the first of those is at all relevant to whether it was a closure. And was it?

No the facts are all relevant.
In Blair’s case, MCPS was upfront. Blair needs a rebuild. We’re going to build a new campus for this sole purpose.

In this case, MCPS build a new school without any reason but for the fact that if they didn’t, the land would have to be given back to the developers. Now they realized due to COVID, crack down on immigration, and loss of federal workers, they don’t have the enrollment for a new school. They then created options like A-D to shift kids around.

They then get hit with Churchill lawsuits. Backed down, and created new options like E-H.

Unlike the Blair situation where it was a move that the community wanted and MCPS expressly told was for them, here this move is not welcomed by the community and only made not because MCPS cares about Wootton but because they royally messed up by breaking ground before they did their due diligence, but are too afraid to piss of Churchill folks so they are targeting Wootton.

The intended purposes are completely different here.

How is it relevant to whether or not the action IS a closure?

All you points go to whether it was a well-justified and well-supported closure. Fine. But did it meet the definition of a closure?
The question isn't about whether the situations are identical. Clearly they aren't. But if we are trying to determine whether the current situation is a closure, it would help to know whether that was determined to be a closure and the rules applied.

If you go back, there’s like pages and pages on this thread explaining why this is a closure.

The location is different
The building is different (again, we don’t even know what will happen to the existing building)
The student body is different
The teachers will be different
The feeder pattern (and thus the community) will be different
The name possibly will be different (logic would dictate that it would because why Wootton HS not be on Wootton Parkway. At best, maybe it’s Wootton HS at Crown or something like that)

Can you tell me what stays the same?
Students, teachers, community, and name make up the school.
Literally every aspect of the school changes.

This is a closure.

I know it looks impressive to have a long list, but really the only thing that is both relevant and fact-based from the above is: the location will be different and the student body will be different.

Could those two things amount to a closure? Maybe. But the rest is either redundant or irrelevant.

What happens when you close a school?
If student X goes to school A and A is closed, then the student has to go to a different school with a different location and a different student body.

So yes, when the location is different and the student body is different, a school has been closed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was it considered a closure back when Blair was moved?

Not the same analogy at all.
Blair kept its name.
Blair’s move was closer.
Blair’s feeder pattern didn’t change.

Only the first of those is at all relevant to whether it was a closure. And was it?

No the facts are all relevant.
In Blair’s case, MCPS was upfront. Blair needs a rebuild. We’re going to build a new campus for this sole purpose.

In this case, MCPS build a new school without any reason but for the fact that if they didn’t, the land would have to be given back to the developers. Now they realized due to COVID, crack down on immigration, and loss of federal workers, they don’t have the enrollment for a new school. They then created options like A-D to shift kids around.

They then get hit with Churchill lawsuits. Backed down, and created new options like E-H.

Unlike the Blair situation where it was a move that the community wanted and MCPS expressly told was for them, here this move is not welcomed by the community and only made not because MCPS cares about Wootton but because they royally messed up by breaking ground before they did their due diligence, but are too afraid to piss of Churchill folks so they are targeting Wootton.

The intended purposes are completely different here.

How is it relevant to whether or not the action IS a closure?

All you points go to whether it was a well-justified and well-supported closure. Fine. But did it meet the definition of a closure?
The question isn't about whether the situations are identical. Clearly they aren't. But if we are trying to determine whether the current situation is a closure, it would help to know whether that was determined to be a closure and the rules applied.

If you go back, there’s like pages and pages on this thread explaining why this is a closure.

The location is different
The building is different (again, we don’t even know what will happen to the existing building)
The student body is different
The teachers will be different
The feeder pattern (and thus the community) will be different
The name possibly will be different (logic would dictate that it would because why Wootton HS not be on Wootton Parkway. At best, maybe it’s Wootton HS at Crown or something like that)

Can you tell me what stays the same?
Students, teachers, community, and name make up the school.
Literally every aspect of the school changes.

This is a closure.

I know it looks impressive to have a long list, but really the only thing that is both relevant and fact-based from the above is: the location will be different and the student body will be different.

Could those two things amount to a closure? Maybe. But the rest is either redundant or irrelevant.