Lawsuit challenging MCPS magnet admissions dismissed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In her memorandum dismissing the lawsuit, Xinis wrote: “… the Court cannot see how the Pandemic Plan visited a disproportionate burden on Asian American students when the percentage of admitted Asian American students so substantially outpaces the percentage representation among all applicants.”

So does this mean MCPS admitted more asians into the program compared to the percentage of asians applied? So it is fair and ok to not admit other equally qualified asian students? May be this is posted out of context?

Doesn't MCPS have a responsibility to meet the academic needs of ALL students?

The judge decided that there is no evidence that the non-COGAT lottery structure, which MCPS now says will be in place for the foreseeable future, has a disparate impact on Asian Americans because Asian American students are still being admitted to middle school magnets at a rate higher than their representation among the population of the County.

That is so ridiculous!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Dang. I was looking forward to hearing the discovery.

Yes, this is the real meat.

[Anonymous]

My kid won the lottery for CES and keeps telling me how surprised she was at the level of the other students. This is what the lottery gets you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My kid won the lottery for CES and keeps telling me how surprised she was at the level of the other students. This is what the lottery gets you.

Surprised by what, exactly? That using the lottery could still result in a cohort of advanced learners?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid won the lottery for CES and keeps telling me how surprised she was at the level of the other students. This is what the lottery gets you.

Surprised by what, exactly? That using the lottery could still result in a cohort of advanced learners?

Please don't feed the trolls.

The case 'twas weighted in the balances and found wanting.

It is done.

MCPS has plenty of real issues to debate. This never was, and has been adjudged as such.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In her memorandum dismissing the lawsuit, Xinis wrote: “… the Court cannot see how the Pandemic Plan visited a disproportionate burden on Asian American students when the percentage of admitted Asian American students so substantially outpaces the percentage representation among all applicants.”

So does this mean MCPS admitted more asians into the program compared to the percentage of asians applied? So it is fair and ok to not admit other equally qualified asian students? May be this is posted out of context?

Doesn't MCPS have a responsibility to meet the academic needs of ALL students?

The judge decided that there is no evidence that the non-COGAT lottery structure, which MCPS now says will be in place for the foreseeable future, has a disparate impact on Asian Americans because Asian American students are still being admitted to middle school magnets at a rate higher than their representation among the population of the County.

So Judge did not decide whether MCPS is providing equal opportunities for all students.
But rather If they provide opportunities 10 students and the ratio meets the population demographic ratio, then that is legally fine? What about all the students who are equally qualified but left out due to lottery system?
Just trying to understand the rationale

Seems reasonable to me.

Are you saying that it is reasonable for MCPS to only pick very few students randomly and provided them the resources and magnet opportunities while not providing the same opportunities to other equally or higher qualified students?

[Anonymous]

Lottery of top 15 percentile seems reasonable to me. It's not discriminatory (it's a quasi lottery), the top 15 percentile is capable of handling the more rigorous curriculum, and opens the eligible pool to more racial groups. While not perfect, it seems to be the best compromise.

AEF did not sufficiently prove there was discrimination, which is why the judge dismissed their lawsuit.

AEF and similar groups are also assuming that only the very top performers (top one or two percentile) should be granted the magnet seats. I'm not sure this has ever been the magnet programs' policy, nor do I think it should be.

Rather than focus on zero sum "hunger games" for the few magnet seats, groups like AEF would be better served working on expanding accelerated programs to all home schools.

[Anonymous]

You are still trying to work in the "racial groups" trope and that bucket isn't holding water the way it used to.

If there is any argument here it is that a greater than zero percentage of kids that did really well on the CoGAT had attended test prep classes. You can argue that some families choose to pay for them and some don't - and you can argue that some families can afford them and some cannot.

But you cannot argue that it didn't happen and or that it isn't relevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lottery of top 15 percentile seems reasonable to me. It's not discriminatory (it's a quasi lottery), the top 15 percentile is capable of handling the more rigorous curriculum, and opens the eligible pool to more racial groups. While not perfect, it seems to be the best compromise.

AEF did not sufficiently prove there was discrimination, which is why the judge dismissed their lawsuit.

AEF and similar groups are also assuming that only the very top performers (top one or two percentile) should be granted the magnet seats. I'm not sure this has ever been the magnet programs' policy, nor do I think it should be.

Rather than focus on zero sum "hunger games" for the few magnet seats, groups like AEF would be better served working on expanding accelerated programs to all home schools.

It’s not really the top 15 percent though. They put their thumb on the scale and in certain schools you need to be in the top 3-4 percent while in others you can have an even lower percentile score than top 15 percent. So they give a standardized test to the students and then manipulate the scores to get the outcome they want. This is not discrimination?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The attorneys for the Association for Education Fairness should have introduced the evidence from other complaints. I don't know why they turned down the other parents. It's their own fault they lost, imho.

Given the finite amount of slots available, this is would have been a conflict of interest for the litigating families.

[Anonymous]

What is written in this forum does not have to be true. What is presented in a court of law does have to be true.

The courts were presented with that and dismissed the lawsuit.

You can keep fussing here online forever and a day but this argument is moot

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is written in this forum does not have to be true. What is presented in a court of law does have to be true.

The courts were presented with that and dismissed the lawsuit.

You can keep fussing here online forever and a day but this argument is moot

Arguing that the new lottery system is unlawful and arguing that it is unfair/unwise/unreasonable are two different things. From what I see on here, many more are taking the latter view, which means that their arguments are not at all moot as a result of this judicial decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lottery of top 15 percentile seems reasonable to me. It's not discriminatory (it's a quasi lottery), the top 15 percentile is capable of handling the more rigorous curriculum, and opens the eligible pool to more racial groups. While not perfect, it seems to be the best compromise.

AEF did not sufficiently prove there was discrimination, which is why the judge dismissed their lawsuit.

AEF and similar groups are also assuming that only the very top performers (top one or two percentile) should be granted the magnet seats. I'm not sure this has ever been the magnet programs' policy, nor do I think it should be.

Rather than focus on zero sum "hunger games" for the few magnet seats, groups like AEF would be better served working on expanding accelerated programs to all home schools.

It’s not really the top 15 percent though. They put their thumb on the scale and in certain schools you need to be in the top 3-4 percent while in others you can have an even lower percentile score than top 15 percent. So they give a standardized test to the students and then manipulate the scores to get the outcome they want. This is not discrimination?

It is discrimination. It's just not unlawful discrimination.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is written in this forum does not have to be true. What is presented in a court of law does have to be true.

The courts were presented with that and dismissed the lawsuit.

You can keep fussing here online forever and a day but this argument is moot

Actually, MCPS hires very good lawyers that keeps the details out of the Public's eye.

I don't know why, but the attorney's in this case turned away other parents who had even more substantial evidence, and the Maryland IG was never asked to investigate.

If a Maryland IG went through all of the original evidence, my bet is that jail time would be involved and someone high up didn't want that kind of embarrassment?

Eventually it all comes out though. MCPS is on borrowed time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is written in this forum does not have to be true. What is presented in a court of law does have to be true.

The courts were presented with that and dismissed the lawsuit.

You can keep fussing here online forever and a day but this argument is moot

Actually, MCPS hires very good lawyers that keeps the details out of the Public's eye.

I don't know why, but the attorney's in this case turned away other parents who had even more substantial evidence, and the Maryland IG was never asked to investigate.

If a Maryland IG went through all of the original evidence, my bet is that jail time would be involved and someone high up didn't want that kind of embarrassment?

Eventually it all comes out though. MCPS is on borrowed time.

Ok, so you are alleging collision between the plaintiff's attorneys and MCPS? Wow, you have to be pretty unwilling to look at reality if that's your takeaway.