Residents appeal MCPS boundary changes, challenge legality of diversity focus

[Anonymous]

Any change to articulation patterns was going to change demographics. So the only "safe" choice was not to change them at all, except that ignores the capacity issues.

When new schools open, or schools expand (as happened here), there will be shifts in articulation patterns. Almost be definition, that will mean some demographic changes, given residential segregation in our county.

I don't see a judge (or any deliberative body) buying the plaintiffs' argument here. Someone had to move. It turned out to be these folks. It it wasn't them, it would have been some other neighborhood, which would also have lost their minds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Not really, it would have made more sense for proximity, continuity and articulation to keep Daly/Fox Chapel at Neelsville and then go to SV leaving CB and Gibbs at RH and Clarksburg. I can understand why from a racial diversity perspective MCPS did not want to do this. MCPS should be honest about it though and its a much stronger case to try to get the 2007 ruling overturned than to try to claim you didn't use race, especially when you published a racial impact table on your website as part of the announcement.

If MCPS admits racial balancing, the lower courts have to follow Supreme Court precedents and rule against it. In most cases, only the Supreme Court can overrule itself. Because the Supreme Court may not even take up this case, MCPS will have no choice but insists it is not about racial balancing.

The good thing is that it will be super-easy to say that it wasn't about racial balancing, because it wasn't about racial balancing.

To repeat: MCPS looks at FOUR factors:

1. geography
2. demographics
3. facility utilization
4. continuity

This is not a secret. It's explicitly stated in the policy. It's been explicitly stated in the policy for years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
What rational was given for swapping students between Neelsville and Rocky Hill?

If the purpose of the boundary rezoning was to relieve crowding at Clarksburg High and fill the under enrolled new SV school, then why move a bunch of kids out of Neelsville into Rocky and vive versa? Other than demographic balancing, there is no capacity gain or loss from swapping students.


An earlier poster explained it well: "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. "

Not really, it would have made more sense for proximity, continuity and articulation to keep Daly/Fox Chapel at Neelsville and then go to SV leaving CB and Gibbs at RH and Clarksburg. I can understand why from a racial diversity perspective MCPS did not want to do this. MCPS should be honest about it though and its a much stronger case to try to get the 2007 ruling overturned than to try to claim you didn't use race, especially when you published a racial impact table on your website as part of the announcement.

Except it was from a FARMS disparity perspective. Which is clearly explained in the superintendent's recommendation.

I think that would be true if the group of FARMS students in MoCo was as diverse as it is in other parts of the country. It’s not.

I hope the State BOE can make some sense of this and give some direction to school boards on how to encourage diversity without crossing over into unconstitutional racial balancing. It certainly should help reduce all the animosity, and I bet the BOE and MCPS would also like a clear answer before they start doing this all over the county. I think we can all get behind that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Any change to articulation patterns was going to change demographics. So the only "safe" choice was not to change them at all, except that ignores the capacity issues.

When new schools open, or schools expand (as happened here), there will be shifts in articulation patterns. Almost be definition, that will mean some demographic changes, given residential segregation in our county.

I don't see a judge (or any deliberative body) buying the plaintiffs' argument here. Someone had to move. It turned out to be these folks. It it wasn't them, it would have been some other neighborhood, which would also have lost their minds.

Except it would've made more sense if other schools were chosen such as Ron McNair. Moving the cabin branch and Rural Boyds neighborhoods made no sense. One thing for sure though is that there are a lot of Asian students in Cabin Branch and a lot of white students in Rural Boyds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
What rational was given for swapping students between Neelsville and Rocky Hill?

If the purpose of the boundary rezoning was to relieve crowding at Clarksburg High and fill the under enrolled new SV school, then why move a bunch of kids out of Neelsville into Rocky and vive versa? Other than demographic balancing, there is no capacity gain or loss from swapping students.


An earlier poster explained it well: "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. "

Not really, it would have made more sense for proximity, continuity and articulation to keep Daly/Fox Chapel at Neelsville and then go to SV leaving CB and Gibbs at RH and Clarksburg. I can understand why from a racial diversity perspective MCPS did not want to do this. MCPS should be honest about it though and its a much stronger case to try to get the 2007 ruling overturned than to try to claim you didn't use race, especially when you published a racial impact table on your website as part of the announcement.

Except it was from a FARMS disparity perspective. Which is clearly explained in the superintendent's recommendation.

I think that would be true if the group of FARMS students in MoCo was as diverse as it is in other parts of the country. It’s not.

I hope the State BOE can make some sense of this and give some direction to school boards on how to encourage diversity without crossing over into unconstitutional racial balancing. It certainly should help reduce all the animosity, and I bet the BOE and MCPS would also like a clear answer before they start doing this all over the county. I think we can all get behind that.

You keep saying it was based on race. It wasn't. As the people who live in the Milestone and Cabin Branch neighborhoods told us repeatedly, those neighborhoods are already racially diverse.

Here are the racial/ethnic percentages (African-American/Asian-American/Hispanic/white)

Clarksburg HS 28/20/27/20 to 29/20/29/18
Seneca Valley HS 35/11/36/15 to 35/14/30/17

Rocky Hill MS 24/29/18/22 to 32/19/30/14
Neelsville MS 34/9/50/4 to 26/17/42/10

Racially/ethnically diverse schools before the boundary change, racially/ethnically diverse schools after the boundary change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any change to articulation patterns was going to change demographics. So the only "safe" choice was not to change them at all, except that ignores the capacity issues.

When new schools open, or schools expand (as happened here), there will be shifts in articulation patterns. Almost be definition, that will mean some demographic changes, given residential segregation in our county.

I don't see a judge (or any deliberative body) buying the plaintiffs' argument here. Someone had to move. It turned out to be these folks. It it wasn't them, it would have been some other neighborhood, which would also have lost their minds.

Except it would've made more sense if other schools were chosen such as Ron McNair. Moving the cabin branch and Rural Boyds neighborhoods made no sense. One thing for sure though is that there are a lot of Asian students in Cabin Branch and a lot of white students in Rural Boyds.

Please believe me when I tell you that there is no such place as "Rural Boyds." It's just plain Boyds. And no, there are not a lot of white students in Boyds, because there are not a lot of people in Boyds, period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any change to articulation patterns was going to change demographics. So the only "safe" choice was not to change them at all, except that ignores the capacity issues.

When new schools open, or schools expand (as happened here), there will be shifts in articulation patterns. Almost be definition, that will mean some demographic changes, given residential segregation in our county.

I don't see a judge (or any deliberative body) buying the plaintiffs' argument here. Someone had to move. It turned out to be these folks. It it wasn't them, it would have been some other neighborhood, which would also have lost their minds.

Except it would've made more sense if other schools were chosen such as Ron McNair. Moving the cabin branch and Rural Boyds neighborhoods made no sense. One thing for sure though is that there are a lot of Asian students in Cabin Branch and a lot of white students in Rural Boyds.

This

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any change to articulation patterns was going to change demographics. So the only "safe" choice was not to change them at all, except that ignores the capacity issues.

When new schools open, or schools expand (as happened here), there will be shifts in articulation patterns. Almost be definition, that will mean some demographic changes, given residential segregation in our county.

I don't see a judge (or any deliberative body) buying the plaintiffs' argument here. Someone had to move. It turned out to be these folks. It it wasn't them, it would have been some other neighborhood, which would also have lost their minds.

Except it would've made more sense if other schools were chosen such as Ron McNair. Moving the cabin branch and Rural Boyds neighborhoods made no sense. One thing for sure though is that there are a lot of Asian students in Cabin Branch and a lot of white students in Rural Boyds.

Please believe me when I tell you that there is no such place as "Rural Boyds." It's just plain Boyds. And no, there are not a lot of white students in Boyds, because there are not a lot of people in Boyds, period.

^^^and most of the people that there are in Boyds are over 60.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
What rational was given for swapping students between Neelsville and Rocky Hill?

If the purpose of the boundary rezoning was to relieve crowding at Clarksburg High and fill the under enrolled new SV school, then why move a bunch of kids out of Neelsville into Rocky and vive versa? Other than demographic balancing, there is no capacity gain or loss from swapping students.


An earlier poster explained it well: "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. "

Not really, it would have made more sense for proximity, continuity and articulation to keep Daly/Fox Chapel at Neelsville and then go to SV leaving CB and Gibbs at RH and Clarksburg. I can understand why from a racial diversity perspective MCPS did not want to do this. MCPS should be honest about it though and its a much stronger case to try to get the 2007 ruling overturned than to try to claim you didn't use race, especially when you published a racial impact table on your website as part of the announcement.

Except it was from a FARMS disparity perspective. Which is clearly explained in the superintendent's recommendation.

I think that would be true if the group of FARMS students in MoCo was as diverse as it is in other parts of the country. It’s not.

I hope the State BOE can make some sense of this and give some direction to school boards on how to encourage diversity without crossing over into unconstitutional racial balancing. It certainly should help reduce all the animosity, and I bet the BOE and MCPS would also like a clear answer before they start doing this all over the county. I think we can all get behind that.

You keep saying it was based on race. It wasn't. As the people who live in the Milestone and Cabin Branch neighborhoods told us repeatedly, those neighborhoods are already racially diverse.

Here are the racial/ethnic percentages (African-American/Asian-American/Hispanic/white)

Clarksburg HS 28/20/27/20 to 29/20/29/18
Seneca Valley HS 35/11/36/15 to 35/14/30/17

Rocky Hill MS 24/29/18/22 to 32/19/30/14
Neelsville MS 34/9/50/4 to 26/17/42/10

Racially/ethnically diverse schools before the boundary change, racially/ethnically diverse schools after the boundary change.

Ok whatever you say Pap. I’ll still look forward to the ruling of the state BOE.

[Anonymous]

*PP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
What rational was given for swapping students between Neelsville and Rocky Hill?

If the purpose of the boundary rezoning was to relieve crowding at Clarksburg High and fill the under enrolled new SV school, then why move a bunch of kids out of Neelsville into Rocky and vive versa? Other than demographic balancing, there is no capacity gain or loss from swapping students.


An earlier poster explained it well: "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. "

Not really, it would have made more sense for proximity, continuity and articulation to keep Daly/Fox Chapel at Neelsville and then go to SV leaving CB and Gibbs at RH and Clarksburg. I can understand why from a racial diversity perspective MCPS did not want to do this. MCPS should be honest about it though and its a much stronger case to try to get the 2007 ruling overturned than to try to claim you didn't use race, especially when you published a racial impact table on your website as part of the announcement.

Except it was from a FARMS disparity perspective. Which is clearly explained in the superintendent's recommendation.

I think that would be true if the group of FARMS students in MoCo was as diverse as it is in other parts of the country. It’s not.

I hope the State BOE can make some sense of this and give some direction to school boards on how to encourage diversity without crossing over into unconstitutional racial balancing. It certainly should help reduce all the animosity, and I bet the BOE and MCPS would also like a clear answer before they start doing this all over the county. I think we can all get behind that.

You keep saying it was based on race. It wasn't. As the people who live in the Milestone and Cabin Branch neighborhoods told us repeatedly, those neighborhoods are already racially diverse.

Here are the racial/ethnic percentages (African-American/Asian-American/Hispanic/white)

Clarksburg HS 28/20/27/20 to 29/20/29/18
Seneca Valley HS 35/11/36/15 to 35/14/30/17

Rocky Hill MS 24/29/18/22 to 32/19/30/14
Neelsville MS 34/9/50/4 to 26/17/42/10

Racially/ethnically diverse schools before the boundary change, racially/ethnically diverse schools after the boundary change.

wow I can't believe people are all nutso about these paultry changes... seriously I doubt anyone would even notice

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any change to articulation patterns was going to change demographics. So the only "safe" choice was not to change them at all, except that ignores the capacity issues.

When new schools open, or schools expand (as happened here), there will be shifts in articulation patterns. Almost be definition, that will mean some demographic changes, given residential segregation in our county.

I don't see a judge (or any deliberative body) buying the plaintiffs' argument here. Someone had to move. It turned out to be these folks. It it wasn't them, it would have been some other neighborhood, which would also have lost their minds.

Except it would've made more sense if other schools were chosen such as Ron McNair. Moving the cabin branch and Rural Boyds neighborhoods made no sense. One thing for sure though is that there are a lot of Asian students in Cabin Branch and a lot of white students in Rural Boyds.

Let's compare option 5 (without Cabin Branch) to option 11 (with Cabin Branch).

Option 5, Seneca Valley HS: 34.6% African-American, 14.5% Asian-American, 30.4% Hispanic, 16.5% white, 1952 students in 2024-25
Option 11A, Seneca Valley HS: 34.6% African-American, 13.7% Asian-American, 30.4% Hispanic, 17.5% white, 2154 students in 2024-25

Turning that into absolute numbers -

Option 5, Seneca Valley HS: 675 African-American, 283 Asian-American, 593 Hispanic, 322 white students in 2024-25
Option 11, Seneca Valley HS: 745 African-American, 295 Asian-American, 655 Hispanic, 377 white students in 2024-25

So MCPS projects that adding Cabin Branch will add 70 African-American, 12 Asian-American, 62 Hispanic, and 55 white students (202 total, plus more than one plus rounding error) to the Seneca Valley HS student body in 2024-25: 35% African-American, 6% Asian-American, 31% Hispanic, 27% white.

Now, you may or may not believe these numbers - I have questions of my own - but those are MCPS's projections. Those are the numbers you would need to demonstrate that MCPS engaged in racial discrimination against white and Asian-American students.

Please feel free to check my numbers and tell me if I read the tables wrong or copied numbers over wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know this is the unpopular opinion but it isn’t on middle class kids to throw a life line to the disenfranchised. If the premise is that school A is artificially better due to a concentration of good kids and school B is not good because concentrated not good kids. I’ll sue too if you want to send me form A to B. It is so bad it needs to be broken up!!! so send billy there to make it better even though no matter what it will still be mostly group B? No thank you

If we had hard working fire department with great equipment and lazy fire department and poor management and they wanted to redraw their boundaries to pick up nicer houses so that those owners could lite a fire (no pun) under the Underperforming station. That would be wrong too. Thing is most poor people like their schools in silver spring and Germantown. What people don’t like is the whole world sees them as 2nd class to the nice side of town. This seem more like an attempt of the have nots grasping at the current climate to strike a blow to the ”other side” knowing full well that it won’t actually do much good for the kids.

It simply isn’t the schools job to redistribute society.

Also I get it people think that they got a bad hand so why not take the cards back and reshuffle and see if it gets better. Let me tell you poor people still lose and the rich will be ok. The middle class will get pinched and in a few years there will be good schools with the least amount of those kids and bad schools with too many of those kids. The names on those schools might shift a bit but as it always was it will always be.

As an example, you use another PUBLIC service like a fire department? That just shows the big picture of your misunderstanding. Montgomery county would not allow one fire department to be decrepit and old and another to thrive. These are public resources. They are funded by the county as a whole, not by the taxes just paid by your neighborhood. It’s the same with the schools. No matter how much you pay for your house, you aren’t entitled to better fire service, police service, mail delivery, schools, trash pickup... How are people not getting the different between public and private?

Fire stations have zones and all fire houses are not equal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any change to articulation patterns was going to change demographics. So the only "safe" choice was not to change them at all, except that ignores the capacity issues.

When new schools open, or schools expand (as happened here), there will be shifts in articulation patterns. Almost be definition, that will mean some demographic changes, given residential segregation in our county.

I don't see a judge (or any deliberative body) buying the plaintiffs' argument here. Someone had to move. It turned out to be these folks. It it wasn't them, it would have been some other neighborhood, which would also have lost their minds.

Except it would've made more sense if other schools were chosen such as Ron McNair. Moving the cabin branch and Rural Boyds neighborhoods made no sense. One thing for sure though is that there are a lot of Asian students in Cabin Branch and a lot of white students in Rural Boyds.

Let's compare option 5 (without Cabin Branch) to option 11 (with Cabin Branch).

Option 5, Seneca Valley HS: 34.6% African-American, 14.5% Asian-American, 30.4% Hispanic, 16.5% white, 1952 students in 2024-25
Option 11A, Seneca Valley HS: 34.6% African-American, 13.7% Asian-American, 30.4% Hispanic, 17.5% white, 2154 students in 2024-25

Turning that into absolute numbers -

Option 5, Seneca Valley HS: 675 African-American, 283 Asian-American, 593 Hispanic, 322 white students in 2024-25
Option 11, Seneca Valley HS: 745 African-American, 295 Asian-American, 655 Hispanic, 377 white students in 2024-25

So MCPS projects that adding Cabin Branch will add 70 African-American, 12 Asian-American, 62 Hispanic, and 55 white students (202 total, plus more than one plus rounding error) to the Seneca Valley HS student body in 2024-25: 35% African-American, 6% Asian-American, 31% Hispanic, 27% white.

Now, you may or may not believe these numbers - I have questions of my own - but those are MCPS's projections. Those are the numbers you would need to demonstrate that MCPS engaged in racial discrimination against white and Asian-American students.

Please feel free to check my numbers and tell me if I read the tables wrong or copied numbers over wrong.

This was never about Seneca Valley. This was about Neelsville.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any change to articulation patterns was going to change demographics. So the only "safe" choice was not to change them at all, except that ignores the capacity issues.

When new schools open, or schools expand (as happened here), there will be shifts in articulation patterns. Almost be definition, that will mean some demographic changes, given residential segregation in our county.

I don't see a judge (or any deliberative body) buying the plaintiffs' argument here. Someone had to move. It turned out to be these folks. It it wasn't them, it would have been some other neighborhood, which would also have lost their minds.

Except it would've made more sense if other schools were chosen such as Ron McNair. Moving the cabin branch and Rural Boyds neighborhoods made no sense. One thing for sure though is that there are a lot of Asian students in Cabin Branch and a lot of white students in Rural Boyds.

Let's compare option 5 (without Cabin Branch) to option 11 (with Cabin Branch).

Option 5, Seneca Valley HS: 34.6% African-American, 14.5% Asian-American, 30.4% Hispanic, 16.5% white, 1952 students in 2024-25
Option 11A, Seneca Valley HS: 34.6% African-American, 13.7% Asian-American, 30.4% Hispanic, 17.5% white, 2154 students in 2024-25

Turning that into absolute numbers -

Option 5, Seneca Valley HS: 675 African-American, 283 Asian-American, 593 Hispanic, 322 white students in 2024-25
Option 11, Seneca Valley HS: 745 African-American, 295 Asian-American, 655 Hispanic, 377 white students in 2024-25

So MCPS projects that adding Cabin Branch will add 70 African-American, 12 Asian-American, 62 Hispanic, and 55 white students (202 total, plus more than one plus rounding error) to the Seneca Valley HS student body in 2024-25: 35% African-American, 6% Asian-American, 31% Hispanic, 27% white.

Now, you may or may not believe these numbers - I have questions of my own - but those are MCPS's projections. Those are the numbers you would need to demonstrate that MCPS engaged in racial discrimination against white and Asian-American students.

Please feel free to check my numbers and tell me if I read the tables wrong or copied numbers over wrong.

This was never about Seneca Valley. This was about Neelsville.

Reread, PP. According to various people on this thread, MCPS's decision to send Cabin Branch to Neelsville MS/Seneca Valley HS is racial discrimination against Asian-American and white people. But according to MCPS, 2/3 of the kids who will go to Seneca Valley HS from Cabin Branch will be African-American or Hispanic. So, how's that work?