What would a lawsuit over redistricting/school assignment look like?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is why ward three needs to give a damn about what happens to other kids in the city. At some point Charters will represent 75 percent of kids In dc. It will represent such a small part of the electorate that funding it in comparison to the charter system won't make sense. You can push out the oob kids complain about those kids that harm your child, your narrow view will so undermine the system that you will loose the political support. Thinking less parochial might help you in the long term.

Not sure I follow- that charters will become so big that DCPS will fold?

Not the previous poster. But if you focus only on pushing OOB out and don't support development of DCPS in other parts of the city we'll have a situation where the choice will charter or ward 3--and ward 3 (along with DCPS) will be in the political minority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who seriously considers this should familiarize herself with the following phrase - failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Wrong. In DC, there is a right to attend the neighborhood school. So, if DCPS decides to take that right away from some families, then the door opens to litigation as a consequence of that loss. The only way for DCPS to avoid this is to replace the old "neighborhood school" with a new "neighborhood school" that still looks like it is in the neighborhood. You can't force parents to cart their kids halfway across the city to a "neighborhood school," unless the parents are doing it by choice, like to a charter school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who seriously considers this should familiarize herself with the following phrase - failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Wrong. In DC, there is a right to attend the neighborhood school. So, if DCPS decides to take that right away from some families, then the door opens to litigation as a consequence of that loss. The only way for DCPS to avoid this is to replace the old "neighborhood school" with a new "neighborhood school" that still looks like it is in the neighborhood. You can't force parents to cart their kids halfway across the city to a "neighborhood school," unless the parents are doing it by choice, like to a charter school.

So you're basing this push for litigation on the threat that some families will lose right to their neighborhood school.

Yet all evidence (and rational thought) points toward an effort to keep families at their neighborhood schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who seriously considers this should familiarize herself with the following phrase - failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Wrong. In DC, there is a right to attend the neighborhood school. So, if DCPS decides to take that right away from some families, then the door opens to litigation as a consequence of that loss. The only way for DCPS to avoid this is to replace the old "neighborhood school" with a new "neighborhood school" that still looks like it is in the neighborhood. You can't force parents to cart their kids halfway across the city to a "neighborhood school," unless the parents are doing it by choice, like to a charter school.

So you're basing this push for litigation on the threat that some families will lose right to their neighborhood school.

Yet all evidence (and rational thought) points toward an effort to keep families at their neighborhood schools.

Yes, families want to KEEP their neighborhood schools. That's the concern behind the threat to sue -- what are you missing?

[Anonymous]

I saw this, and thought it was worth bumping the thread. It hadn't occurred to me that DC's incredibly broad non-discrimination laws may provide an interesting lawsuit:

Notice of Non-Discrimination: In accordance with the D.C. Human Rights Act of 1977, as amended, D.C. Official Code Section 2-1401.01
et seq.,(Act) the District of Columbia does not discriminate on the basis of actual or perceived: race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age,
marital status, personal appearance, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, familial status, family responsibilities, matriculation,
political affiliation, genetic information, disability, source of income, status as a victim of an intrafamily offense, or place of residence or
business. Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination which is prohibited by the Act. In addition, harassment based on any of the
above protected categories is prohibited by the Act. Discrimination in violation of the Act will not be tolerated. Violators will be subject to
disciplinary action.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I saw this, and thought it was worth bumping the thread. It hadn't occurred to me that DC's incredibly broad non-discrimination laws may provide an interesting lawsuit:

Notice of Non-Discrimination: In accordance with the D.C. Human Rights Act of 1977, as amended, D.C. Official Code Section 2-1401.01
et seq.,(Act) the District of Columbia does not discriminate on the basis of actual or perceived: race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age,
marital status, personal appearance, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, familial status, family responsibilities, matriculation,
political affiliation, genetic information, disability, source of income, status as a victim of an intrafamily offense, or place of residence or
business. Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination which is prohibited by the Act. In addition, harassment based on any of the
above protected categories is prohibited by the Act. Discrimination in violation of the Act will not be tolerated. Violators will be subject to
disciplinary action.

here's what I mean, in bold. providing bad schools or good schools based on place of residence is discrimination? so neighborhood schools are discriminatory or just bad ones? curious how this could go.

[Anonymous]

As some have pointed out, it is actually a type of equal protection (Fifth Amendment) argument, not a recognized cause of action for "discrimination.". You are barking up the wrong tree.

[Anonymous]

are all those blindly threatening to sue going to pay for it themselves? good luck with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I saw this, and thought it was worth bumping the thread. It hadn't occurred to me that DC's incredibly broad non-discrimination laws may provide an interesting lawsuit:

Notice of Non-Discrimination: In accordance with the D.C. Human Rights Act of 1977, as amended, D.C. Official Code Section 2-1401.01
et seq.,(Act) the District of Columbia does not discriminate on the basis of actual or perceived: race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age,
marital status, personal appearance, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, familial status, family responsibilities, matriculation,
political affiliation, genetic information, disability, source of income, status as a victim of an intrafamily offense, or place of residence or
business. Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination which is prohibited by the Act. In addition, harassment based on any of the
above protected categories is prohibited by the Act. Discrimination in violation of the Act will not be tolerated. Violators will be subject to
disciplinary action.

here's what I mean, in bold. providing bad schools or good schools based on place of residence is discrimination? so neighborhood schools are discriminatory or just bad ones? curious how this could go.

Let me satisfy your curiosity---it would go nowhere. You should also consider what you mean by "good" and "bad" schools. How would you define those terms in your complaint? How are you going to prove that a school is "bad"? Relative to what? And how would you prove state of mind? You would need to show that DC effectively targeted specific areas for disparate treatment.

[Anonymous]

Carving out Capitol Hill or another neighborhood for a controlled choice experiment would be ripe for an equal protection attack because property owners in the Maury district who would be sent to JO Wilson or Miner are being treated differently than families IB for Lafayette or Janney.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Carving out Capitol Hill or another neighborhood for a controlled choice experiment would be ripe for an equal protection attack because property owners in the Maury district who would be sent to JO Wilson or Miner are being treated differently than families IB for Lafayette or Janney.

But already schools have different feeder patterns, look at Oyster, are there any other schools with the combination of IB and OOB lottery that are fixed? So, why would there being different feeder patterns a problem?

I am not advocating for any of these crazy choice patterns, just wondering how this could really be a lawsuit. And I do wonder, who on earth would pay for this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Carving out Capitol Hill or another neighborhood for a controlled choice experiment would be ripe for an equal protection attack because property owners in the Maury district who would be sent to JO Wilson or Miner are being treated differently than families IB for Lafayette or Janney.

But already schools have different feeder patterns, look at Oyster, are there any other schools with the combination of IB and OOB lottery that are fixed? So, why would there being different feeder patterns a problem?

I am not advocating for any of these crazy choice patterns, just wondering how this could really be a lawsuit. And I do wonder, who on earth would pay for this?

A lawsuit based on change of boundary status for elementary schools would be a tougher row to hoe than one based on middle or high school boundaries, simply because there are so many elementary schools that it would be difficult for a plaintiff to convincingly argue that a family is losing close-in-distance access to a "neighborhood school." However, once you start tinkering with boundaries of middle or high schools, it would be very hard for DCPS to justify without replacing the lost access with another neighborhood school in similar proximity to the one that was lost. So, basically, the boundaries for middle and high schools are pretty dug in unless you're talking about moving the boundary over one street over here or there; or, if boundaries change more than that distance, DCPS could go about building a replacement school to compensate for losing access the historically expected neighborhood school. But then you have to ask yourself: why in the world tinker with boundaries in the first place if the price is spending many millions of dollars on a new "neighborhood school" that arguably wasn't necessary to begin with, absent the tinkering?

The more reasonable approach is to figure out what areas of the city are lacking a neighborhood school, and start building a new one where it's most needed. Or, as discussed in a million other posts, figure out how to make pre-existing schools better, so that discontented families aren't constantly trying to find an invitation to drive a long way to a better school than they've got in their neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Carving out Capitol Hill or another neighborhood for a controlled choice experiment would be ripe for an equal protection attack because property owners in the Maury district who would be sent to JO Wilson or Miner are being treated differently than families IB for Lafayette or Janney.

If you are a troll, then well done, you got me.

If you are for real, you have no legal training and are just using words you overheard on Metro. Let me help you. Equal protection has (virtually) nothing to do with treating someone differently. You have to show that someone is being treated differently BECAUSE of their race (or other classification, none of which are applicable here). Your hypo makes no sense. The white Maury parents cannot base their claim on being treated differently than the white Janney parents.

To the extent anyone thinks they have thought of an equal protection claim, it needs to begin with, "Black students are getting a raw deal because..."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Carving out Capitol Hill or another neighborhood for a controlled choice experiment would be ripe for an equal protection attack because property owners in the Maury district who would be sent to JO Wilson or Miner are being treated differently than families IB for Lafayette or Janney.

But already schools have different feeder patterns, look at Oyster, are there any other schools with the combination of IB and OOB lottery that are fixed? So, why would there being different feeder patterns a problem?

I am not advocating for any of these crazy choice patterns, just wondering how this could really be a lawsuit. And I do wonder, who on earth would pay for this?

A lawsuit based on change of boundary status for elementary schools would be a tougher row to hoe than one based on middle or high school boundaries, simply because there are so many elementary schools that it would be difficult for a plaintiff to convincingly argue that a family is losing close-in-distance access to a "neighborhood school." However, once you start tinkering with boundaries of middle or high schools, it would be very hard for DCPS to justify without replacing the lost access with another neighborhood school in similar proximity to the one that was lost. So, basically, the boundaries for middle and high schools are pretty dug in unless you're talking about moving the boundary over one street over here or there; or, if boundaries change more than that distance, DCPS could go about building a replacement school to compensate for losing access the historically expected neighborhood school. But then you have to ask yourself: why in the world tinker with boundaries in the first place if the price is spending many millions of dollars on a new "neighborhood school" that arguably wasn't necessary to begin with, absent the tinkering?

The more reasonable approach is to figure out what areas of the city are lacking a neighborhood school, and start building a new one where it's most needed. Or, as discussed in a million other posts, figure out how to make pre-existing schools better, so that discontented families aren't constantly trying to find an invitation to drive a long way to a better school than they've got in their neighborhood.

The problem with your analysis is that it is based on a flawed premise. You seem to be assuming some kind of "right" to attend a "neighborhood school." Where does that right come from? What DC statute would you cite in the complaint? DCPS does not have to justify changing HS boundaries. They could turn Wilson into all lottery tomorrow and there is absolutely nothing you could do to get the judiciary to stop it. Your recourse is through the ballot box.

[Anonymous]

Many of you are assuming an absence of evidence that DCPS' decision is based on a discriminatory reason (screw the white people, screw the Ward 3 people), as opposed to a legitimate reason. I've lived in D.C. long enough to know that there's a lot of bad decision making that goes on in D.C. agencies. So, as I said at the beginning of this thread, it all depends on what the government action is and why it occurred.