Residents appeal MCPS boundary changes, challenge legality of diversity focus

[Anonymous]

I part of the keep boundaries the same group and I agree with some of the negative comments about this lawsuit.

It's kind of silly to argue that Neelsville is unsafe. I agree that's probably a true statement but since other kids attend that can't be a winning lawsuit.

The winning arguments IMHO:
* Middle Schools were not overcrowded.
* BOE only moved middle school kids to balance FARMS.
* For kids in CB (if that's where the folks live that filed)- the commutes were made longer when other options were available.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's a good article back from when the 2007 Supreme Court case ruled on using race for school assignments. https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Supreme-Court-Schools-can-t-use-race-to-assign-2584155.php

This ruling needs to be revisited IMO because in attempting to create a middle ground between promoting diversity and applying the equal protection clause to all races the court inadvertently threw school systems into an unsolvable legal conflict. School systems are expected to achieve desegregation while at the same time not using race as the factor to make changes that would desegregate. This had led school systems to try mechanisms that simply obfuscate their use of race which doesn't work because the school systems have to pull the racial data in order to evaluate whether their proxy mechanism to hide race worked to achieve their desired racial balancing. School systems like MCPS and others seem to have interrupted this as a wink wink situation where if they can find a slim thread to cover the use of race in the assignments then its OK -which does work in a court. Furthermore, school systems like MCPS that openly make statements such as focusing on groups of students defined by race do themselves no favor in later trying to claim that they did not use race. One thing that is consistent across liberal and conservative jurists is that any attempt to deceive the court is never accepted.

The court needs to either rule that in the pursuit of diversity it is not a violation of the equal protection act to determine school assignments (liberal/activist position) or that schools must be completely color blind in determining school assignments (conservative/strict constructivist).

Maybe. But since the recommendation would come out the same if it were based solely on FARMs status, this is not relevant to the upcounty boundary decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I part of the keep boundaries the same group and I agree with some of the negative comments about this lawsuit.

It's kind of silly to argue that Neelsville is unsafe. I agree that's probably a true statement but since other kids attend that can't be a winning lawsuit.

The winning arguments IMHO:
* Middle Schools were not overcrowded.
* BOE only moved middle school kids to balance FARMS.
* For kids in CB (if that's where the folks live that filed)- the commutes were made longer when other options were available.

Nope, the move also helps with articulation. Previously, Daly/Fox Chapel kids went to Neelsville MS and then Clarksburg HS. Now, they will go to Rocky Hill MS and then Clarksburg HS. Similarly, without middle-school reassignment, Cabin Branch and Gibbs ES would have gone to Rocky Hill MS and then Seneca Valley HS; but instead they will go to Neelsville MS and then Seneca Valley HS.

As for a longer trip to/from school as a winning argument? Nah. As we learned in the boundary analysis, lots and lots of MCPS students are not zoned for the closest schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I part of the keep boundaries the same group and I agree with some of the negative comments about this lawsuit.

It's kind of silly to argue that Neelsville is unsafe. I agree that's probably a true statement but since other kids attend that can't be a winning lawsuit.

The winning arguments IMHO:
* Middle Schools were not overcrowded.
* BOE only moved middle school kids to balance FARMS.
* For kids in CB (if that's where the folks live that filed)- the commutes were made longer when other options were available.

Nope, the move also helps with articulation. Previously, Daly/Fox Chapel kids went to Neelsville MS and then Clarksburg HS. Now, they will go to Rocky Hill MS and then Clarksburg HS. Similarly, without middle-school reassignment, Cabin Branch and Gibbs ES would have gone to Rocky Hill MS and then Seneca Valley HS; but instead they will go to Neelsville MS and then Seneca Valley HS.

As for a longer trip to/from school as a winning argument? Nah. As we learned in the boundary analysis, lots and lots of MCPS students are not zoned for the closest schools.

+1. I don't see why the state board would find any of those three points to be "arbitrary, unreasonable or illegal."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I part of the keep boundaries the same group and I agree with some of the negative comments about this lawsuit.

It's kind of silly to argue that Neelsville is unsafe. I agree that's probably a true statement but since other kids attend that can't be a winning lawsuit.

The winning arguments IMHO:
* Middle Schools were not overcrowded.
* BOE only moved middle school kids to balance FARMS.
* For kids in CB (if that's where the folks live that filed)- the commutes were made longer when other options were available.

Nope, the move also helps with articulation. Previously, Daly/Fox Chapel kids went to Neelsville MS and then Clarksburg HS. Now, they will go to Rocky Hill MS and then Clarksburg HS. Similarly, without middle-school reassignment, Cabin Branch and Gibbs ES would have gone to Rocky Hill MS and then Seneca Valley HS; but instead they will go to Neelsville MS and then Seneca Valley HS.

As for a longer trip to/from school as a winning argument? Nah. As we learned in the boundary analysis, lots and lots of MCPS students are not zoned for the closest schools.

Would it be correct to say that the middle school shift avoids split articulation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I part of the keep boundaries the same group and I agree with some of the negative comments about this lawsuit.

It's kind of silly to argue that Neelsville is unsafe. I agree that's probably a true statement but since other kids attend that can't be a winning lawsuit.

The winning arguments IMHO:
* Middle Schools were not overcrowded.
* BOE only moved middle school kids to balance FARMS.
* For kids in CB (if that's where the folks live that filed)- the commutes were made longer when other options were available.

Nope, the move also helps with articulation. Previously, Daly/Fox Chapel kids went to Neelsville MS and then Clarksburg HS. Now, they will go to Rocky Hill MS and then Clarksburg HS. Similarly, without middle-school reassignment, Cabin Branch and Gibbs ES would have gone to Rocky Hill MS and then Seneca Valley HS; but instead they will go to Neelsville MS and then Seneca Valley HS.

As for a longer trip to/from school as a winning argument? Nah. As we learned in the boundary analysis, lots and lots of MCPS students are not zoned for the closest schools.

Would it be correct to say that the middle school shift avoids split articulation?

Not really, because Neelsville MS will still have split articulation, just with Watkins Mills HS/Seneca Valley HS instead of Watkins Mill HS/Clarksburg HS.

Plus Clarksburg ES will have split articulation until the elementary school at Cabin Branch is built, and Gibbs ES will have split articulation because of the very small area that will be in the Rocky Hill/Clarksburg walk zone once the sidewalk on 355 is finished. That would be true without the middle-school reassignments, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Here's a good article back from when the 2007 Supreme Court case ruled on using race for school assignments. https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Supreme-Cou...use-race-to-assign-2584155.php

This ruling needs to be revisited IMO because in attempting to create a middle ground between promoting diversity and applying the equal protection clause to all races the court inadvertently threw school systems into an unsolvable legal conflict. School systems are expected to achieve desegregation while at the same time not using race as the factor to make changes that would desegregate. This had led school systems to try mechanisms that simply obfuscate their use of race which doesn't work because the school systems have to pull the racial data in order to evaluate whether their proxy mechanism to hide race worked to achieve their desired racial balancing. School systems like MCPS and others seem to have interrupted this as a wink wink situation where if they can find a slim thread to cover the use of race in the assignments then its OK -which does work in a court. Furthermore, school systems like MCPS that openly make statements such as focusing on groups of students defined by race do themselves no favor in later trying to claim that they did not use race. One thing that is consistent across liberal and conservative jurists is that any attempt to deceive the court is never accepted.

The court needs to either rule that in the pursuit of diversity it is not a violation of the equal protection act to determine school assignments (liberal/activist position) or that schools must be completely color blind in determining school assignments (conservative/strict constructivist).


Maybe. But since the recommendation would come out the same if it were based solely on FARMs status, this is not relevant to the upcounty boundary decision.

Is there some reason that you keep clinging to repeating a falsehood that the rezoning was only about FARMS? This is an anonymous board. MCPS PR people or boosters may try to push falsehoods here but I really doubt that MCPS staff would go as far as lie under oath if and when they end up in court.

Has the BOE, MCPS or any of its surrogate actors referred to race as being a factor in diversity initiatives? There are MANY examples of this.
Has the BOE, MCPS etc made statements referencing different priorities for different races of students? Yes.
Did the BOE/MCPS gather, track, or model the racial outcomes of the proposed and chosen school assignments? Of course.
Does MCPS collect and track racial demographics by school assignments? How is this information used? To whom was this information provided?
What was the rational for selected the plaintiff's neighborhood over other neighborhoods? What factors led to the selection of that area as the recommendation?
Did the outcomes align with any racial balancing goals previously mentioned by the BOE or MCPS staff?

You see where these questions go. Public institutions are not like corporations who keep things quiet or have people that may be enticed to lie under oath for big pay outs. Frankly many of the public statements and resolutions are enough to show that race was in fact the factor here. MCPS should own it and fight for it in court if they believe its right. The current BOE are such cowards that they will likely try to deceive and get nailed for it. A stronger school system with a more qualified board would be a far better case example for this issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Here's a good article back from when the 2007 Supreme Court case ruled on using race for school assignments. https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Supreme-Cou...use-race-to-assign-2584155.php

This ruling needs to be revisited IMO because in attempting to create a middle ground between promoting diversity and applying the equal protection clause to all races the court inadvertently threw school systems into an unsolvable legal conflict. School systems are expected to achieve desegregation while at the same time not using race as the factor to make changes that would desegregate. This had led school systems to try mechanisms that simply obfuscate their use of race which doesn't work because the school systems have to pull the racial data in order to evaluate whether their proxy mechanism to hide race worked to achieve their desired racial balancing. School systems like MCPS and others seem to have interrupted this as a wink wink situation where if they can find a slim thread to cover the use of race in the assignments then its OK -which does work in a court. Furthermore, school systems like MCPS that openly make statements such as focusing on groups of students defined by race do themselves no favor in later trying to claim that they did not use race. One thing that is consistent across liberal and conservative jurists is that any attempt to deceive the court is never accepted.

The court needs to either rule that in the pursuit of diversity it is not a violation of the equal protection act to determine school assignments (liberal/activist position) or that schools must be completely color blind in determining school assignments (conservative/strict constructivist).


Maybe. But since the recommendation would come out the same if it were based solely on FARMs status, this is not relevant to the upcounty boundary decision.

Is there some reason that you keep clinging to repeating a falsehood that the rezoning was only about FARMS? This is an anonymous board. MCPS PR people or boosters may try to push falsehoods here but I really doubt that MCPS staff would go as far as lie under oath if and when they end up in court.

Has the BOE, MCPS or any of its surrogate actors referred to race as being a factor in diversity initiatives? There are MANY examples of this.
Has the BOE, MCPS etc made statements referencing different priorities for different races of students? Yes.
Did the BOE/MCPS gather, track, or model the racial outcomes of the proposed and chosen school assignments? Of course.
Does MCPS collect and track racial demographics by school assignments? How is this information used? To whom was this information provided?
What was the rational for selected the plaintiff's neighborhood over other neighborhoods? What factors led to the selection of that area as the recommendation?
Did the outcomes align with any racial balancing goals previously mentioned by the BOE or MCPS staff?

You see where these questions go. Public institutions are not like corporations who keep things quiet or have people that may be enticed to lie under oath for big pay outs. Frankly many of the public statements and resolutions are enough to show that race was in fact the factor here. MCPS should own it and fight for it in court if they believe its right. The current BOE are such cowards that they will likely try to deceive and get nailed for it. A stronger school system with a more qualified board would be a far better case example for this issue.

You can call it a falsehood, but that doesn't mean it is a falsehood. The superintendent's recommendation specifically states that the demographic factor at issue is FARMS percentages.

"With regard to the demographic profiles of the schools, my goal was to reduce the disparity of the FARMS percentage at the high schools,as the three high schools are racially and ethnically diverse. The disparity in the FARMSpopulationrange amongthe three schools is 16.5 percent. It is important to note that although Option 4broughtthe disparity among the three schools closest together (5.9 percent),however, thisoption is not effective at advancing the geography factor. Option4would require busing walkers from Little Bennett Elementary School and busingthe Northwest High School students wholive furthest away in the Darnestown Elementary School service area to Seneca Valley High School. Both of these points contradictmy goal to maximize walkersand would have a negative impact on students and families,as well as requiring additional transportation resources and negativelyimpactingthe environment. Therefore, I examined options that could reduce the impact on the FARMS disparity while also advancingthe geography factor."

[Anonymous]

Honestly, the superintendent's statement looks pretty clear to me. There were options that we slightly better for diversity, but they cost in terms of proximity/geography was too high.

This seems to negate the argument that MCPS is pursuing diversity uber alles, right?

[Anonymous]

Not really, a later statement does not negate earlier statements. Its similar to Trump screaming on about banning Muslims and then when he gets in court tries to claim that he wasn't targeting Muslims. There are too many earlier statements using race as factor in defining diversity. The BOE resolution to prioritize particular racial and SES groups is a big problem for them too if they want to try to claim that they were not using race. There is no way around answering a question as to whether you saw or pulled the racial data too.

I think they should just be honest. They have all spoken publicly about wanting to achieve more racial balance and equity. The intent is not a bad thing so they shouldn't try to hide and frankly I don't see any way that can hide it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not really, a later statement does not negate earlier statements. Its similar to Trump screaming on about banning Muslims and then when he gets in court tries to claim that he wasn't targeting Muslims. There are too many earlier statements using race as factor in defining diversity. The BOE resolution to prioritize particular racial and SES groups is a big problem for them too if they want to try to claim that they were not using race. There is no way around answering a question as to whether you saw or pulled the racial data too.

I think they should just be honest. They have all spoken publicly about wanting to achieve more racial balance and equity. The intent is not a bad thing so they shouldn't try to hide and frankly I don't see any way that can hide it.

I think it is a bad thing but I also agree with you that they should have been honest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not really, a later statement does not negate earlier statements. Its similar to Trump screaming on about banning Muslims and then when he gets in court tries to claim that he wasn't targeting Muslims. There are too many earlier statements using race as factor in defining diversity. The BOE resolution to prioritize particular racial and SES groups is a big problem for them too if they want to try to claim that they were not using race. There is no way around answering a question as to whether you saw or pulled the racial data too.

I think they should just be honest. They have all spoken publicly about wanting to achieve more racial balance and equity. The intent is not a bad thing so they shouldn't try to hide and frankly I don't see any way that can hide it.

Could you please provide references to two earlier statements where MCPS, the superintendent, or the BoE said that they were going to base the decision for the upcounty boundary study on race?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, the superintendent's statement looks pretty clear to me. There were options that we slightly better for diversity, but they cost in terms of proximity/geography was too high.

This seems to negate the argument that MCPS is pursuing diversity uber alles, right?

+1 If they only looked at diversity, the boundaries would look way worse.

[Anonymous]

Board member Judy Docca said she felt the board did consider student demographics more heavily than in the past, in accordance with the policy.

From a recent Bethesda article ( https://bethesdamagazine.com/bethesda-beat/schools/upcounty-boundary-changes-are-first-test-of-policy-emphasizing-student-diversity/) about the SV/Clarksburg situation that I googled quickly. There are plenty of other statements surrounding race and demographics in both the addition of diversity as a factor in rezoning and the county wide boundary study. Just do some googling or watch/read through BOE meetings.

MCPS still gathers diversity profiles for school assignment areas/schools and tracks changes. Race and sorting by race is a core part of MCPS data collection and analysis.

In the 90s it lost a case (referenced in the Metis report) for using this data to make COSA decisions to ensure that COSA assignments did not move away from their racial goals. I would assume that MCPS is no longer using this data for COSA but the policy establishing back in the 90s it is still on their website . https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/policy/pdf/acdea.pdf.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Board member Judy Docca said she felt the board did consider student demographics more heavily than in the past, in accordance with the policy.

From a recent Bethesda article ( https://bethesdamagazine.com/bethesda-beat/schools/upcounty-boundary-changes-are-first-test-of-policy-emphasizing-student-diversity/) about the SV/Clarksburg situation that I googled quickly. There are plenty of other statements surrounding race and demographics in both the addition of diversity as a factor in rezoning and the county wide boundary study. Just do some googling or watch/read through BOE meetings.

MCPS still gathers diversity profiles for school assignment areas/schools and tracks changes. Race and sorting by race is a core part of MCPS data collection and analysis.

In the 90s it lost a case (referenced in the Metis report) for using this data to make COSA decisions to ensure that COSA assignments did not move away from their racial goals. I would assume that MCPS is no longer using this data for COSA but the policy establishing back in the 90s it is still on their website . https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/policy/pdf/acdea.pdf.

Federal law requires this.