Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Copilot says:

Under Maryland state law, the process for closing a public school involves several steps to ensure that the decision is made fairly and transparently. The local board of education must consider various factors before making a decision to close a school. These factors include student enrollment trends, the age or condition of school buildings, transportation, educational programs, racial composition of the student body, financial considerations, student relocation, and the impact on the community in the geographic attendance area for the school proposed to be closed and the schools to which students will be relocating.

The process includes a public hearing to allow citizens to submit their views, adequate notice to parents and guardians of students in attendance at all schools being considered for closure, and a final decision announced at a public session. The final decision must include the rationale for the school closing and address the impact on the factors set forth in the regulation. Additionally, the decision must be announced to the community in the geographic attendance area of the school proposed to be closed and the schools to which students will be relocating.

It feels like they have done all this except they didn't use the word closure, which makes sense since they are opening the school in a different building.

The Save Wootton people are wasting their money but at least they are helping some lawyers make a nice living.

They haven’t done any of this, and certainly not with the intention of evaluating whether or not Wootton should close because MCPS won’t even call it a closure

Because it's not a closure, it's a relocation (student body staying mostly the same, school administration and teachers staying the same, the only change is a change in building), unless you have a specific definition in the law that says this is actually a closure.

Otherwise, the filing wouldn't have to argue that it's a "de-facto" closure.

1 ES removed and 2 ES added in a different building with a different name in a different city with many new teachers and staff. In other words, it's closing a school and opening a new one by any definition except the one used by people who desperately want to destroy the W schools.

That was part of the boundary study.

Unless you want to argue that Northwest was closed because they had 2 new ES added.

Also, are you also arguing that because admins and teachers leave, that's somehow a closure? My ES has had 3 principals, is each time a closure?

I'm saying it's a different student body in a different building with a different name in a different city with many new teachers and staff. Quite literally everything is changing. The only people pretending it's not a closure are east county W school haters.

I get that it makes your legal case stronger, but you don't actually believe this, do you?

Like, you are saying things here that are demonstrably false. Same teachers and staff, same name, extremely similar student body. The only difference is the location and a a shift of a small number of kids (just like everyone else is having their boundaries shift around a little.).

How could anyone call that a closure with a straight face?

Similarly, I can't see how anyone can argue that planning on moving Wootton from the Parkway site to the Crown site in a year poses a "Risk of Irreversible Harm" with a straight face.

I understand filings and lawsuits need to throw every bit of spaghetti against the wall to see what sticks, but come on.

They are making a legal argument and you are talking about your feelings. Please sit down.

Things can be ill-advised in more than one way at the same time. They can be both legally tenuous at politically unwise.

Legally tenuous because:

- Irreparable harm can be challenging to demonstrate in a process case because the remedy isn’t for the legal/administrative system to weigh in on the decision. It’s for the process to be implemented correctly. In this case, MCPS could easily implement the process for a school closure before the boundary study went into effect or before CEPA families credibly had to make”academic decisions” that affect their families.
- To prove MCPS is using flawed data, it won’t be sufficient to prove that they didn’t count all the housing developments in the Rockville plan or their enrollment numbers are slightly off for individual schools. The CEPA team will need to prove the larger trend of decreasing enrollment is wrong. This will be a challenge because MCPS trends mirror state (and nationwide) trends of precipitous declining enrollment.
Important to note these arguments come after conceding several points from the filing (this is a closure, this constitutes irreparable harm by legal definitions, MCPS is obligated to use development data in ways that differ from their current practice) that I think will also face significant uphill battles to demonstrate CEPA is likely to succeed on the merits.

Politically unwise because:
- Most people see “irreparable harm” and go immediately to assuming entitled Wootton families are complaining about getting a brand new building 3 miles up the street
- They also see the student population changes listed in the justification for the de facto closure and go immediately to assuming there is an element of class and/or race to which the CEPA families object - even if this is in no way what any of the parents behind the lawsuit intend
- As these perceptions grow across the county, it makes it much harder for any credible BOE or County Council candidates, all of whom have more constituents outside of Wootton than within it, to support Save Wootton’s secondary goal of working the system through political means

Sometimes sound legal strategy comes with a political price and vice versa. But this is a rare case where the strategy is dubious on both fronts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Copilot says:

Under Maryland state law, the process for closing a public school involves several steps to ensure that the decision is made fairly and transparently. The local board of education must consider various factors before making a decision to close a school. These factors include student enrollment trends, the age or condition of school buildings, transportation, educational programs, racial composition of the student body, financial considerations, student relocation, and the impact on the community in the geographic attendance area for the school proposed to be closed and the schools to which students will be relocating.

The process includes a public hearing to allow citizens to submit their views, adequate notice to parents and guardians of students in attendance at all schools being considered for closure, and a final decision announced at a public session. The final decision must include the rationale for the school closing and address the impact on the factors set forth in the regulation. Additionally, the decision must be announced to the community in the geographic attendance area of the school proposed to be closed and the schools to which students will be relocating.

It feels like they have done all this except they didn't use the word closure, which makes sense since they are opening the school in a different building.

The Save Wootton people are wasting their money but at least they are helping some lawyers make a nice living.

They haven’t done any of this, and certainly not with the intention of evaluating whether or not Wootton should close because MCPS won’t even call it a closure

Because it's not a closure, it's a relocation (student body staying mostly the same, school administration and teachers staying the same, the only change is a change in building), unless you have a specific definition in the law that says this is actually a closure.

Otherwise, the filing wouldn't have to argue that it's a "de-facto" closure.

1 ES removed and 2 ES added in a different building with a different name in a different city with many new teachers and staff. In other words, it's closing a school and opening a new one by any definition except the one used by people who desperately want to destroy the W schools.

That was part of the boundary study.

Unless you want to argue that Northwest was closed because they had 2 new ES added.

Also, are you also arguing that because admins and teachers leave, that's somehow a closure? My ES has had 3 principals, is each time a closure?

I'm saying it's a different student body in a different building with a different name in a different city with many new teachers and staff. Quite literally everything is changing. The only people pretending it's not a closure are east county W school haters.

I get that it makes your legal case stronger, but you don't actually believe this, do you?

Like, you are saying things here that are demonstrably false. Same teachers and staff, same name, extremely similar student body. The only difference is the location and a a shift of a small number of kids (just like everyone else is having their boundaries shift around a little.).

How could anyone call that a closure with a straight face?

Similarly, I can't see how anyone can argue that planning on moving Wootton from the Parkway site to the Crown site in a year poses a "Risk of Irreversible Harm" with a straight face.

I understand filings and lawsuits need to throw every bit of spaghetti against the wall to see what sticks, but come on.

They are making a legal argument and you are talking about your feelings. Please sit down.

Planning isn't irreversible, nor does it cause harm.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine paying all your high taxes for decades, only to have your local school closed down and your students bussed miles away to another community. Like putting away money for a new car, only to have it given to your neighbors on the next block over, who offer to let you come and use it instead of getting your own.
I hope they prevail.

Did you just figure out you live in a society? Taxes fund public schools, but they are not tuition payments. You pay them even if you don’t have kids. And kids who live in cheap apartments and pay very little taxes still get to go to the same school. You pay taxes to the county, and the county decides how to spend it based on who we all vote for. Just like you don’t get better postal service or trash collection or national defense based on how much you pay in taxes, you also don’t get better schools.

+1,000

Anonymous wrote:Imagine paying all your high taxes for decades, only to have your local school closed down and your students bussed miles away to another community. Like putting away money for a new car, only to have it given to your neighbors on the next block over, who offer to let you come and use it instead of getting your own.
I hope they prevail.

Imagine being in s building wirh mold for years and developing illness amd chronic disease. You people are so pathetic. Save your money for the medical bills. It’s all about property values Nmand everyone in the county knows it…

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Copilot says:

Under Maryland state law, the process for closing a public school involves several steps to ensure that the decision is made fairly and transparently. The local board of education must consider various factors before making a decision to close a school. These factors include student enrollment trends, the age or condition of school buildings, transportation, educational programs, racial composition of the student body, financial considerations, student relocation, and the impact on the community in the geographic attendance area for the school proposed to be closed and the schools to which students will be relocating.

The process includes a public hearing to allow citizens to submit their views, adequate notice to parents and guardians of students in attendance at all schools being considered for closure, and a final decision announced at a public session. The final decision must include the rationale for the school closing and address the impact on the factors set forth in the regulation. Additionally, the decision must be announced to the community in the geographic attendance area of the school proposed to be closed and the schools to which students will be relocating.

It feels like they have done all this except they didn't use the word closure, which makes sense since they are opening the school in a different building.

The Save Wootton people are wasting their money but at least they are helping some lawyers make a nice living.

They haven’t done any of this, and certainly not with the intention of evaluating whether or not Wootton should close because MCPS won’t even call it a closure

Because it's not a closure, it's a relocation (student body staying mostly the same, school administration and teachers staying the same, the only change is a change in building), unless you have a specific definition in the law that says this is actually a closure.

Otherwise, the filing wouldn't have to argue that it's a "de-facto" closure.

1 ES removed and 2 ES added in a different building with a different name in a different city with many new teachers and staff. In other words, it's closing a school and opening a new one by any definition except the one used by people who desperately want to destroy the W schools.

That was part of the boundary study.

Unless you want to argue that Northwest was closed because they had 2 new ES added.

Also, are you also arguing that because admins and teachers leave, that's somehow a closure? My ES has had 3 principals, is each time a closure?

I'm saying it's a different student body in a different building with a different name in a different city with many new teachers and staff. Quite literally everything is changing. The only people pretending it's not a closure are east county W school haters.

I get that it makes your legal case stronger, but you don't actually believe this, do you?

Like, you are saying things here that are demonstrably false. Same teachers and staff, same name, extremely similar student body. The only difference is the location and a a shift of a small number of kids (just like everyone else is having their boundaries shift around a little.).

How could anyone call that a closure with a straight face?

Similarly, I can't see how anyone can argue that planning on moving Wootton from the Parkway site to the Crown site in a year poses a "Risk of Irreversible Harm" with a straight face.

I understand filings and lawsuits need to throw every bit of spaghetti against the wall to see what sticks, but come on.

They are making a legal argument and you are talking about your feelings. Please sit down.

I checked the Save Wootton website and Moderately MoCo and have yet to see the actual complete filing, only the Save Wootton talking points.

Hopefully, someone will post the actual text of the filing or tell us where we can find them so we can see what the exact arguments are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Copilot says:

Under Maryland state law, the process for closing a public school involves several steps to ensure that the decision is made fairly and transparently. The local board of education must consider various factors before making a decision to close a school. These factors include student enrollment trends, the age or condition of school buildings, transportation, educational programs, racial composition of the student body, financial considerations, student relocation, and the impact on the community in the geographic attendance area for the school proposed to be closed and the schools to which students will be relocating.

The process includes a public hearing to allow citizens to submit their views, adequate notice to parents and guardians of students in attendance at all schools being considered for closure, and a final decision announced at a public session. The final decision must include the rationale for the school closing and address the impact on the factors set forth in the regulation. Additionally, the decision must be announced to the community in the geographic attendance area of the school proposed to be closed and the schools to which students will be relocating.

It feels like they have done all this except they didn't use the word closure, which makes sense since they are opening the school in a different building.

The Save Wootton people are wasting their money but at least they are helping some lawyers make a nice living.

They haven’t done any of this, and certainly not with the intention of evaluating whether or not Wootton should close because MCPS won’t even call it a closure

Because it's not a closure, it's a relocation (student body staying mostly the same, school administration and teachers staying the same, the only change is a change in building), unless you have a specific definition in the law that says this is actually a closure.

Otherwise, the filing wouldn't have to argue that it's a "de-facto" closure.

1 ES removed and 2 ES added in a different building with a different name in a different city with many new teachers and staff. In other words, it's closing a school and opening a new one by any definition except the one used by people who desperately want to destroy the W schools.

That was part of the boundary study.

Unless you want to argue that Northwest was closed because they had 2 new ES added.

Also, are you also arguing that because admins and teachers leave, that's somehow a closure? My ES has had 3 principals, is each time a closure?

I'm saying it's a different student body in a different building with a different name in a different city with many new teachers and staff. Quite literally everything is changing. The only people pretending it's not a closure are east county W school haters.

I get that it makes your legal case stronger, but you don't actually believe this, do you?

Like, you are saying things here that are demonstrably false. Same teachers and staff, same name, extremely similar student body. The only difference is the location and a a shift of a small number of kids (just like everyone else is having their boundaries shift around a little.).

How could anyone call that a closure with a straight face?

Similarly, I can't see how anyone can argue that planning on moving Wootton from the Parkway site to the Crown site in a year poses a "Risk of Irreversible Harm" with a straight face.

I understand filings and lawsuits need to throw every bit of spaghetti against the wall to see what sticks, but come on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s the thing: there is no money to rebuild Wootton, given declining enrollments. If these parents win, and Wootton is not moved, they win the right to inhabit their moldy old building again.

Would be kind of funny if MCPS decided to just to that to avoid the legal fees.

The legal fees are far less than fixing a building.

These same people are saying the building is unsafe. They don’t care about the health effects of that. Many do want to go to crown.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Copilot says:

Under Maryland state law, the process for closing a public school involves several steps to ensure that the decision is made fairly and transparently. The local board of education must consider various factors before making a decision to close a school. These factors include student enrollment trends, the age or condition of school buildings, transportation, educational programs, racial composition of the student body, financial considerations, student relocation, and the impact on the community in the geographic attendance area for the school proposed to be closed and the schools to which students will be relocating.

The process includes a public hearing to allow citizens to submit their views, adequate notice to parents and guardians of students in attendance at all schools being considered for closure, and a final decision announced at a public session. The final decision must include the rationale for the school closing and address the impact on the factors set forth in the regulation. Additionally, the decision must be announced to the community in the geographic attendance area of the school proposed to be closed and the schools to which students will be relocating.

It feels like they have done all this except they didn't use the word closure, which makes sense since they are opening the school in a different building.

The Save Wootton people are wasting their money but at least they are helping some lawyers make a nice living.

They haven’t done any of this, and certainly not with the intention of evaluating whether or not Wootton should close because MCPS won’t even call it a closure

Because it's not a closure, it's a relocation (student body staying mostly the same, school administration and teachers staying the same, the only change is a change in building), unless you have a specific definition in the law that says this is actually a closure.

Otherwise, the filing wouldn't have to argue that it's a "de-facto" closure.

1 ES removed and 2 ES added in a different building with a different name in a different city with many new teachers and staff. In other words, it's closing a school and opening a new one by any definition except the one used by people who desperately want to destroy the W schools.

That was part of the boundary study.

Unless you want to argue that Northwest was closed because they had 2 new ES added.

Also, are you also arguing that because admins and teachers leave, that's somehow a closure? My ES has had 3 principals, is each time a closure?

I'm saying it's a different student body in a different building with a different name in a different city with many new teachers and staff. Quite literally everything is changing. The only people pretending it's not a closure are east county W school haters.

I get that it makes your legal case stronger, but you don't actually believe this, do you?

Like, you are saying things here that are demonstrably false. Same teachers and staff, same name, extremely similar student body. The only difference is the location and a a shift of a small number of kids (just like everyone else is having their boundaries shift around a little.).

How could anyone call that a closure with a straight face?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Copilot says:

Under Maryland state law, the process for closing a public school involves several steps to ensure that the decision is made fairly and transparently. The local board of education must consider various factors before making a decision to close a school. These factors include student enrollment trends, the age or condition of school buildings, transportation, educational programs, racial composition of the student body, financial considerations, student relocation, and the impact on the community in the geographic attendance area for the school proposed to be closed and the schools to which students will be relocating.

The process includes a public hearing to allow citizens to submit their views, adequate notice to parents and guardians of students in attendance at all schools being considered for closure, and a final decision announced at a public session. The final decision must include the rationale for the school closing and address the impact on the factors set forth in the regulation. Additionally, the decision must be announced to the community in the geographic attendance area of the school proposed to be closed and the schools to which students will be relocating.

It feels like they have done all this except they didn't use the word closure, which makes sense since they are opening the school in a different building.

The Save Wootton people are wasting their money but at least they are helping some lawyers make a nice living.

No, they are wasting our tax dollars because MCPS will have to defend this frivolous law suit. I hope for a SLAP response (where lovers have to pay winners legal fees)

Were you equally upset when MCPS decided to go all the way to SCOTUS in Mahmoud v. Taylor?

Dad's.

Oh, not this irrelevant stuff again.

Also, SLAPP doesn't apply and it probably won't be too expensive to litigate because it goes to administrative judges.

Mahmoud was litigated by MCPS on ideological grounds. It had an easy off ramp, but it refused to take it.

Prime example of wasted litigation funds by MCPS.

And is the boundary study somehow ideological? They moved a high school because enrollment didn't support opening a new one and they even kept the majority of the boundary together.

The references to Mahmoud are irrelevant.

So it is ok to waste taxpayer money on trendy ideological cases but not on boring procedural cases. Is that your point?

Not PP but actually, yes. I am proud to be part of a system that fights to ensure that religious fanatics don't overtake our schools and that all humans are seen as equal and worthy of inclusion in our curriculum. Although it was a lot of money to spend, it was money spent on an important principle. This will be money spent (wasted) because Wootton parents are big mad about getting bad real estate advice which is not a principle or ethical issue to defend.

So you’re okay with violating people’s freedom of religion?

Sometimes kids born to conservative religious families are also gay. School can be a lifeline.

Anonymous wrote:Here’s the thing: there is no money to rebuild Wootton, given declining enrollments. If these parents win, and Wootton is not moved, they win the right to inhabit their moldy old building again.

Would be kind of funny if MCPS decided to just to that to avoid the legal fees.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Non-Wootton observer here for the drama. But I am confused.

How are Wootton parents too poor to be a W school but also affluent enough to bring lawsuit?

I’m getting whiplash with some posters saying it’s a fake budget W with poor small houses and others say these are just rich white folks throwing a tantrum and wasting taxpayers money.

Its simple, W was a slur for Wealthy and White used for a handful of Wealthy & White schools way back in the late 80s early 90s. The area leaned into it as that isn't the worst thing to be in a society built around wealthy and white norms. Once it was deemed desirable Wootton parents declared themselves as part of the pack around the time North Potomac popped up even though they were never the target when it is was used derogatorily. No one really cares so an ample and effective shaming campaign was never launched to get them to shut up and here we are with people who act confused about what it means to be wealthy and white as a side eye backhand compliment. You will never ever hear a MCPS official say anything about a W.

But Rockville isn't Potomac or Bethesda (rich is relative right) and Asians aren't white, both are close but no cigar. Their claim to being a W is as strong as Wheaton’s or Watkins Mill. I guess this is all moot now that they are an C school

Ha so much shade built into one post that is hard to poke holes in due to accuracy

Here’s the thing: there is no money to rebuild Wootton, given declining enrollments. If these parents win, and Wootton is not moved, they win the right to inhabit their moldy old building again.

Anonymous wrote:Imagine paying all your high taxes for decades, only to have your local school closed down and your students bussed miles away to another community. Like putting away money for a new car, only to have it given to your neighbors on the next block over, who offer to let you come and use it instead of getting your own.
I hope they prevail.

Did you just figure out you live in a society? Taxes fund public schools, but they are not tuition payments. You pay them even if you don’t have kids. And kids who live in cheap apartments and pay very little taxes still get to go to the same school. You pay taxes to the county, and the county decides how to spend it based on who we all vote for. Just like you don’t get better postal service or trash collection or national defense based on how much you pay in taxes, you also don’t get better schools.