Reply to My gut feeling on 3/26 BOE vote

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

Reply to "My gut feeling on 3/26 BOE vote"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]The problem is that emptying out a middle school, significantly below 80%, while neighboring middle schools are much higher is counter to MCPS policy FAA factor stating that the goal is to conduct boundary studies to have schools between 80-100%. Zero effort towards balancing neighboring middle schools. The emptying out of is done with zero explanation as well, and only in the options in February 2026, restricting feedback. It would be an “improper relocation” it seems; especially if that fact is used against any/all of them in the fall in the next boundary study[/quote]

MCPS has a lot of latitude, since Policy FAA also has 3 other criteria and you can't satisfy them all.

Demographic Characteristics of Student Population
Geography
Stability of School Assignments Over Time
Facilities utilization

Some have trade-offs vs. others. As we found out with Option 3, trying to make an equally diverse student population completely undermined geography.

So, Lakelands Park and Ridgeview are below target, but none of the other middle schools are above target. Similarly, only Winston Churchill is above target.[/quote]

The logic of “we can’t satisfy all 4 factors, so we can do anything we want for low utilization to any degree” is still against policy FAA it seems. Having four different middle schools at 60% utilization or below while neighboring ones are all above 80% is a clear violation of their own policy that says the 80-100% range should occur “whenever possible.” The policy does not state it would be okay to be 60% or below, “as long as others are below 100%.” They make no effort to even explain the imbalanced development in Feb 2026 where utilization is significantly lower than neighboring middle schools. 
[/quote]

The entire Policy FAA is full of "shoulds" over the 4 different factors; MCPS has the leeway to figure out how best to accomplish all 4. Just because the recommendation doesn't meet one of the 4 that has an actual number attached to it for 2 middle schools, doesn't mean that the recommendation didn't follow Policy FAA.

Judge in the Clarksburg boundary lawsuit mentioned that a similar requirement for the first factor was "aspirational" and not "mandatory" and that the policy FAA direct consideration of "all 4 factors".

https://marylandpublicschools.org/stateboard/Documents/legalopinions/2020/122020/VanHerksen-et-al.Op.No.20-45.pdf[/quote]

Thank you for including this - a boundary appeal decision on MCPS FAA factors. It’s almost 56 pages. The facts in this appeal page 38-40 on the FAA factors include how the boundary option chosen 1) reduced overutilization at 2 schools; increased underutilization at the 3rd school; 2) reduced disparity in FARMS between the 3 schools in the study; 3) and decreased costs by increasing walkers. There was 12 community wide meetings for just the 3 schools; and 14 boundary options on the issue presented over the study (page 38-39).

Seems like quite different facts on the various middle schools here.
 While the opinion is full of “shoulds” for various FAA factors as you say, the question, based on what I skimmed, is “was MCPS following sound education policy and acting reasonable” (page 23) by ending with these utilization options? [/quote]

The other reply said it partially backwards. The lower utilization school moved from 46% to 99% in this appeal; the over utilized ones moved from 146 to 118 and 118 to 113. Every school moved closer to FAA factor desired range of 80-100. 
Each school moved towards less disparity relative to each other in demographics. States on pages 39-40 that FARMS disparity between schools reduced from 16 to 12%.

In contrast, a quick look at “effects table” in Mod. H and Mod B (Woodward) shows schools Ridgeview MS and SSIMS being not only moved away from the 80-100% ranges; but also being moved towards greater disparity in demographics. This does not appear to be a “trade off” of factors at all. 
[/quote]

I think what people are forgetting is that a lawsuit doesn't allow a judge to review the boundary options and make a new decision as if they were in MCPS's shoes. It's not like a judge is going to say that they should have picked a different choice. MCPS's decision is presumptively lawful. Parkway people have the high burden of showing that it was arbitrary and unlawful. Not being "the best" doesn't meet that standard, not meeting each of the four factors equally doesn't meet that standard. And no, of course MCPS didn't need to "score" the factors. This isn't some consulting firm. [/quote]

Courts defer to decisions, but not to flawed processes. And the bar isn’t “was this the best plan,” it’s:

Were policies followed?
Was there meaningful opportunity for input?
Was the decision supported by a rational, documented process?

So the question isn’t whether MCPS needed to “score” factors like a consultant—it’s whether the evaluation of options was clear, consistent, and actually documented, especially for something as significant as relocating a high school.

That’s where the challenge lives—not in second-guessing the outcome, but in whether the process holds up.[/quote]

The bar for that is high for overturning it at the state level or in the courts.  "This appeal involves a redistricting decision of a local board of education. Decisions of a local board involving a local policy or controversy or dispute regarding the rules and regulations of the local board shall be considered prima facie correct. The State Board may not substitute its judgement for that of the local board unless the decision is arbitrary, unreasonable, or illegal" (COMAR 13.A.01.05.05A)

https://marylandpublicschools.org/Documents/ARCHIVE/opinions/2003-2009/Opinion0638.pdf

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that the process was great, it had many flaws, but the key question for a lawsuit is [b]whether MCPS and the MoCo Board of Education followed their own policies and procedures sufficiently[/b] and that legal determination seems to be mostly whether the MoCo BoE decides that it did so unless there's a clear, objective breach in the policy.[/quote]

The MCPS BOE doesn’t get the final word on whether its own process was adequate—that’s exactly what the State BOE and courts are there to review. [b]And while courts defer to school boards on boundaries, relocating or effectively closing a long-standing school is a much bigger action with broader impact, so the expectation for a clear, well-documented process is higher.[/b]

Dropping Option H late in the process and then pointing to a fixed comment window doesn’t necessarily equal meaningful public input—especially if people didn’t have time to analyze data or propose alternatives. It’s even worse if MCPS didn’t offer Option H in the appropriate languages for the parents of the 40% Asian students at Wootton.

Even if everything was done in good faith, timing alone can still make the process inadequate—and that’s something a court is much more willing to look at.[/quote]

That sounds like wishful thinking of how the process "ought" to have been rather than how the process is legally required to go.
 
I agree that it would have been a better process to introduce Option H earlier and include more rounds of feedback, but as a legal matter, I'm unaware of any specific language in Policy FAA saying that the process has to change if it's "a bigger action".

MCPS and the BoE can point out that they did hold multiple open meetings afterward and incorporated public feedback into the Superintendent's Recommendation (moving Fields Road to Wootton, moving Cold Spring to Churchill) and investigated other options that were floated (changing some of the Wootton Middle Schools in the recommendation).[/quote]

I think you’re right that there’s no rule saying a bigger decision automatically needs a longer process—that’s not really the point. (Though a court will look at similar situations. In past major projects like Blair, there was long-term planning and clear communication. That raises the question of why this process looks so different).

The issue is whether the process that actually happened was meaningful given when Option H showed up. If something that big comes in late, you can’t just point to “we had X months and Y meetings” and call it a day. The question is whether people really had time to understand it, dig into the data, and compare real alternatives.

MCPS will say they held meetings and made changes—and they did. But those changes were mostly around the edges. The bigger question is whether there was a real, documented evaluation of different paths, including not relocating a high school, or if the process mostly ended up refining one direction.

So it’s not about what the process should’ve been—it’s whether, as it actually played out, it was enough to support a solid, well-reasoned decision.[/quote]

Oh yeah, I completely agreed. Some of this was baked in before Taylor came on-board, but he also injected a lot of chaos into the process with the idea of the holding school at Crown (out of left field) and then flipped it to Wootton moving to Crown.

I'm completely confused about why they limited the scope of this boundary study to two different limited boundary studies (instead of one bigger one county wide one) and required that elementary school boundaries remain the same.

Because they couldn't address elementary school boundaries, we're going to do this again for the next 2 years (although, this time with closures, which will not go over well).[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics