Residents appeal MCPS boundary changes, challenge legality of diversity focus

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

NP here. Please tell me how you got the racial make up of the students who live in Cabin Branch by those numbers. There is NO racial breakdown of kids from that neighborhood (yes I live there and yes Central Office confirmed they don't have that racial breakdown).

For Seneca Valley HS, Option 11 = Option 5 + Cabin Branch. Right? So if you subtract the Option 5 numbers from the Option 11 numbers, you get Cabin Branch.

NP. I like your approach to try to get these numbers, but are you sure that Option 11 = Option 5 + CB? It doesn't seem so from the description and map.

The summary for option 5 (high school section ) says:
Reassign Germantown ES from Northwest HS to Seneca Valley HS
Reassign William B. Gibbs ES from Clarksburg HS to Seneca Valley HS
Reassign Clopper Mill ES Island from Northwest HS to Seneca Valley HS
Reassign Spark M. Matsunaga ES Island from Northwest HS to Seneca Valley HS

For option 11:
Reassign the Cabin Branch Development and the area south of West Old Baltimore Road and west of I-270 from Clarksburg ES and William B. Gibbs ES (Except the area south of West Old Baltimore Rd, west of Route 355, north of Little Seneca Creek, and east of I-270) from Clarksburg HS to Seneca Valley HS
Reassign the Clopper Mill ES and Spark M. Matsunaga ES islands from Northwest HS to Seneca Valley HS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the standard of review.

http://www.dsd.state.md.us/comar/comarhtml/13a/13a.01.05.06.htm

It starts with "Decisions of a local board involving a local policy or a controversy and dispute regarding the rules and regulations of the local board shall be considered prima facie correct, and the State Board may not substitute its judgment for that of the local board unless the decision is arbitrary, unreasonable, or illegal."

The decision wasn't arbitrary or unreasonable. And it didn't exceed the board's statutory authority or jurisdiction, misconstrue the law, result from an unlawful procedure, or abuse the board's discretionary powers. So that leaves "unconstitutional". I am not a lawyer, but I find it very difficult to believe that the Maryland Board of Education, in the absence of any court decisions, is going to decide that it's unconstitutional to use school poverty rates as a factor in boundary studies.

If they did this in places where FARMS students are diverse racially, it is fine. But in Montgomery County 87% of FARMS students are Hispanic (55%) or African American (32%). FARMS rate is a good proxy for race in Montgomery County. MCPS did balance out FARMS rates but MCPS also balanced out racial compositions in Rocky Hill MS and Neelsville MS. It is up to the State Board or a court to decide whether this is constitutional.

The logical consequence of your argument is that school districts would only be allowed to look at school poverty rates if everybody were equally likely to be poor. In school districts where some groups are more likely to be poor than others, school districts would not be allowed to look at school poverty rates. That would be really dumb.

It’s pretty hard to ignore all the BOE statements about the intent of the policy PP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the standard of review.

http://www.dsd.state.md.us/comar/comarhtml/13a/13a.01.05.06.htm

It starts with "Decisions of a local board involving a local policy or a controversy and dispute regarding the rules and regulations of the local board shall be considered prima facie correct, and the State Board may not substitute its judgment for that of the local board unless the decision is arbitrary, unreasonable, or illegal."

The decision wasn't arbitrary or unreasonable. And it didn't exceed the board's statutory authority or jurisdiction, misconstrue the law, result from an unlawful procedure, or abuse the board's discretionary powers. So that leaves "unconstitutional". I am not a lawyer, but I find it very difficult to believe that the Maryland Board of Education, in the absence of any court decisions, is going to decide that it's unconstitutional to use school poverty rates as a factor in boundary studies.

If they did this in places where FARMS students are diverse racially, it is fine. But in Montgomery County 87% of FARMS students are Hispanic (55%) or African American (32%). FARMS rate is a good proxy for race in Montgomery County. MCPS did balance out FARMS rates but MCPS also balanced out racial compositions in Rocky Hill MS and Neelsville MS. It is up to the State Board or a court to decide whether this is constitutional.

The logical consequence of your argument is that school districts would only be allowed to look at school poverty rates if everybody were equally likely to be poor. In school districts where some groups are more likely to be poor than others, school districts would not be allowed to look at school poverty rates. That would be really dumb.

It’s pretty hard to ignore all the BOE statements about the intent of the policy PP.

Especially the exaggerated and fictional statements!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If they did this in places where FARMS students are diverse racially, it is fine. But in Montgomery County 87% of FARMS students are Hispanic (55%) or African American (32%). FARMS rate is a good proxy for race in Montgomery County. MCPS did balance out FARMS rates but MCPS also balanced out racial compositions in Rocky Hill MS and Neelsville MS. It is up to the State Board or a court to decide whether this is constitutional.

The logical consequence of your argument is that school districts would only be allowed to look at school poverty rates if everybody were equally likely to be poor. In school districts where some groups are more likely to be poor than others, school districts would not be allowed to look at school poverty rates. That would be really dumb.

The Supreme Court said that racial balancing is unconstitutional. Is racial balancing at the same time as economic balancing constitutional? You think it is. The State Board or a court will look at the totality of the circumstances to decide.

[Anonymous]

+1000

And then we’ll know and can move on from this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the standard of review.

http://www.dsd.state.md.us/comar/comarhtml/13a/13a.01.05.06.htm

It starts with "Decisions of a local board involving a local policy or a controversy and dispute regarding the rules and regulations of the local board shall be considered prima facie correct, and the State Board may not substitute its judgment for that of the local board unless the decision is arbitrary, unreasonable, or illegal."

The decision wasn't arbitrary or unreasonable. And it didn't exceed the board's statutory authority or jurisdiction, misconstrue the law, result from an unlawful procedure, or abuse the board's discretionary powers. So that leaves "unconstitutional". I am not a lawyer, but I find it very difficult to believe that the Maryland Board of Education, in the absence of any court decisions, is going to decide that it's unconstitutional to use school poverty rates as a factor in boundary studies.

If they did this in places where FARMS students are diverse racially, it is fine. But in Montgomery County 87% of FARMS students are Hispanic (55%) or African American (32%). FARMS rate is a good proxy for race in Montgomery County. MCPS did balance out FARMS rates but MCPS also balanced out racial compositions in Rocky Hill MS and Neelsville MS. It is up to the State Board or a court to decide whether this is constitutional.

The logical consequence of your argument is that school districts would only be allowed to look at school poverty rates if everybody were equally likely to be poor. In school districts where some groups are more likely to be poor than others, school districts would not be allowed to look at school poverty rates. That would be really dumb.

It’s pretty hard to ignore all the BOE statements about the intent of the policy PP.

Could you please cite three BOE statements where they say that the intent of the policy is to make boundary decisions based on race/ethnicity?

It's odd that the superintendent would make a recommendation where the demographic factor is based on poverty, when the BOE has made it clear in public that they want the boundary decisions based on race/ethnicity.

It's equally odd that the BOE then would adopt the superintendent's recommendation where the demographic factor is based on poverty, if they want the boundary decisions to be based on race/ethnicity.

[Anonymous]

Personally, I think if the BOE had just reassigned CB and rural Boyds to SV and left the middle schools virtually alone that there would be far less outcry.

Before Clarksburg was built rural Boyds kids attended SV. While I understand why folks don't want to leave Clarksburg for SV- it will be the largest HS in MC and there will be opportunities for high performers.

The middle school changes were ridiculous. Having a split articulation with a school half way down the county is crazy (as CB folks will).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the standard of review.

http://www.dsd.state.md.us/comar/comarhtml/13a/13a.01.05.06.htm

It starts with "Decisions of a local board involving a local policy or a controversy and dispute regarding the rules and regulations of the local board shall be considered prima facie correct, and the State Board may not substitute its judgment for that of the local board unless the decision is arbitrary, unreasonable, or illegal."

The decision wasn't arbitrary or unreasonable. And it didn't exceed the board's statutory authority or jurisdiction, misconstrue the law, result from an unlawful procedure, or abuse the board's discretionary powers. So that leaves "unconstitutional". I am not a lawyer, but I find it very difficult to believe that the Maryland Board of Education, in the absence of any court decisions, is going to decide that it's unconstitutional to use school poverty rates as a factor in boundary studies.

If they did this in places where FARMS students are diverse racially, it is fine. But in Montgomery County 87% of FARMS students are Hispanic (55%) or African American (32%). FARMS rate is a good proxy for race in Montgomery County. MCPS did balance out FARMS rates but MCPS also balanced out racial compositions in Rocky Hill MS and Neelsville MS. It is up to the State Board or a court to decide whether this is constitutional.

The logical consequence of your argument is that school districts would only be allowed to look at school poverty rates if everybody were equally likely to be poor. In school districts where some groups are more likely to be poor than others, school districts would not be allowed to look at school poverty rates. That would be really dumb.

It’s pretty hard to ignore all the BOE statements about the intent of the policy PP.

Could you please cite three BOE statements where they say that the intent of the policy is to make boundary decisions based on race/ethnicity?

It's odd that the superintendent would make a recommendation where the demographic factor is based on poverty, when the BOE has made it clear in public that they want the boundary decisions based on race/ethnicity.

It's equally odd that the BOE then would adopt the superintendent's recommendation where the demographic factor is based on poverty, if they want the boundary decisions to be based on race/ethnicity.

Again, this is what to watch for in the hearings. Checks and balances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Personally, I think if the BOE had just reassigned CB and rural Boyds to SV and left the middle schools virtually alone that there would be far less outcry.

Before Clarksburg was built rural Boyds kids attended SV. While I understand why folks don't want to leave Clarksburg for SV- it will be the largest HS in MC and there will be opportunities for high performers.

The middle school changes were ridiculous. Having a split articulation with a school half way down the county is crazy (as CB folks will).

The irony of course is that SV is going to be a fantastic schools with all the tech programs + IB. Very attractive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If they did this in places where FARMS students are diverse racially, it is fine. But in Montgomery County 87% of FARMS students are Hispanic (55%) or African American (32%). FARMS rate is a good proxy for race in Montgomery County. MCPS did balance out FARMS rates but MCPS also balanced out racial compositions in Rocky Hill MS and Neelsville MS. It is up to the State Board or a court to decide whether this is constitutional.

The logical consequence of your argument is that school districts would only be allowed to look at school poverty rates if everybody were equally likely to be poor. In school districts where some groups are more likely to be poor than others, school districts would not be allowed to look at school poverty rates. That would be really dumb.

The Supreme Court said that racial balancing is unconstitutional. Is racial balancing at the same time as economic balancing constitutional? You think it is. The State Board or a court will look at the totality of the circumstances to decide.

Rocky Hill MS
Currently: 25% black, 30% Asian-American, 17% Hispanic, 21% white, 7% more than one
With the boundary decision: 32% black, 21% Asian-American, 19% Hispanic, 14% white, 5% more than one

Neelsville MS
Currently: 30% black, 9% Asian-American, 53% Hispanic, 5% white, 3% more than one
With the boundary decision: 21% black, 17% Asian-American, 46% Hispanic, 11% white, 5% more than one

Those are the numbers you consider to be prima facie evidence that the boundary decision was unconstitutional racial discrimination.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If they did this in places where FARMS students are diverse racially, it is fine. But in Montgomery County 87% of FARMS students are Hispanic (55%) or African American (32%). FARMS rate is a good proxy for race in Montgomery County. MCPS did balance out FARMS rates but MCPS also balanced out racial compositions in Rocky Hill MS and Neelsville MS. It is up to the State Board or a court to decide whether this is constitutional.

The logical consequence of your argument is that school districts would only be allowed to look at school poverty rates if everybody were equally likely to be poor. In school districts where some groups are more likely to be poor than others, school districts would not be allowed to look at school poverty rates. That would be really dumb.

The Supreme Court said that racial balancing is unconstitutional. Is racial balancing at the same time as economic balancing constitutional? You think it is. The State Board or a court will look at the totality of the circumstances to decide.

Rocky Hill MS
Currently: 25% black, 30% Asian-American, 17% Hispanic, 21% white, 7% more than one
With the boundary decision: 32% black, 21% Asian-American, 19% Hispanic, 14% white, 5% more than one

Neelsville MS
Currently: 30% black, 9% Asian-American, 53% Hispanic, 5% white, 3% more than one
With the boundary decision: 21% black, 17% Asian-American, 46% Hispanic, 11% white, 5% more than one

Those are the numbers you consider to be prima facie evidence that the boundary decision was unconstitutional racial discrimination.

^^^I mean, what it really shows is that the appellants are correct: the schools are already racially/ethnically diverse. And if the schools are already racially/ethnically diverse, how can a boundary decision be "racial balancing"?

Now compare the FARMS percentages

Rocky Hill MS: currently 23%, with the boundary decision 38%
Neelsville MS: currently 67%, with the boundary decision 54%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Again, this is what to watch for in the hearings. Checks and balances.

How does "checks and balances" apply to a state board of education decision about a county board of education decision?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Personally, I think if the BOE had just reassigned CB and rural Boyds to SV and left the middle schools virtually alone that there would be far less outcry.

Before Clarksburg was built rural Boyds kids attended SV. While I understand why folks don't want to leave Clarksburg for SV- it will be the largest HS in MC and there will be opportunities for high performers.

The middle school changes were ridiculous. Having a split articulation with a school half way down the county is crazy (as CB folks will).

Nope. Kids from Boyds went to Damascus for high school. Which is actually a considerable distance, unlike the distance from Cabin Branch to Seneca Valley High School.

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/regulatoryaccountability/glance/fy2003/schools/04701map.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Again, this is what to watch for in the hearings. Checks and balances.

How does "checks and balances" apply to a state board of education decision about a county board of education decision?

C’mon now, you know the answer to that.

Now about Neelesville. Why doesn’t MCPS talk to the teachers and principal to figure out the needs. We have kids crying out for attention (if they don’t get positive, it will be negative) is my best guess as a parent. Social workers, school psychologists, volunteers, soccer teams, after school activities. A lot of elbow grease. Swapping out kids is a quick fix at best - if that’s the way the state board comes out on this. Those kids need help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Rocky Hill MS
Currently: 25% black, 30% Asian-American, 17% Hispanic, 21% white, 7% more than one
With the boundary decision: 32% black, 21% Asian-American, 19% Hispanic, 14% white, 5% more than one

Neelsville MS
Currently: 30% black, 9% Asian-American, 53% Hispanic, 5% white, 3% more than one
With the boundary decision: 21% black, 17% Asian-American, 46% Hispanic, 11% white, 5% more than one

Those are the numbers you consider to be prima facie evidence that the boundary decision was unconstitutional racial discrimination.

You have a typo:

Rocky Hill MS
Currently: 25% black, 30% Asian-American, 17% Hispanic, 21% white, 7% more than one
With the boundary decision: 32% black, 21% Asian-American, 29% Hispanic, 14% white, 5% more than one

Neelsville MS
Currently: 30% black, 9% Asian-American, 53% Hispanic, 5% white, 3% more than one
With the boundary decision: 21% black, 17% Asian-American, 46% Hispanic, 11% white, 5% more than one