Anonymous
01/06/2020 19:32
Subject: Residents appeal MCPS boundary changes, challenge legality of diversity focus
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Good for them. It seems like a long shot, but I'm glad to hear they're being proactive about it.
It seems like a long shot because it is, because it's absurd. There is no right to attend a school in your zip code.
It’s absurd to advocate for your kids? You may not agree with their point of view, but I appreciate that they’re not going to just let it happen to them.
How much of this is really about their kids rather than their home prices?
Anonymous
01/06/2020 19:15
Subject: Residents appeal MCPS boundary changes, challenge legality of diversity focus
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Good for them. It seems like a long shot, but I'm glad to hear they're being proactive about it.
It seems like a long shot because it is, because it's absurd. There is no right to attend a school in your zip code.
It’s absurd to advocate for your kids? You may not agree with their point of view, but I appreciate that they’re not going to just let it happen to them.
Anonymous
01/06/2020 17:10
Subject: Residents appeal MCPS boundary changes, challenge legality of diversity focus
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Good for them. It seems like a long shot, but I'm glad to hear they're being proactive about it.
It seems like a long shot because it is, because it's absurd. There is no right to attend a school in your zip code.
+1. There are probably dozens of other examples of a student's school having a different zip code than their house. It's a line drawn by the post office to facilitate mail delivery. Not relevant here at all.
Anonymous
01/06/2020 17:06
Subject: Re:Residents appeal MCPS boundary changes, challenge legality of diversity focus
Anonymous wrote:They might have success if they can prove that there was intentional exclusion or discrimination against them from the MCPS BOE. Seems to me the phrase added & approved after the policy was submitted for is intentional exclusion. I wish the WasPo would do a more in depth follow up. Not sure if the Howard Co parents filed lawsuits in Howard Co when the boundaries process made national news!
Intentional exclusion of what or whom?
Have you read the superintendent's recommendation?
Anonymous
01/06/2020 16:58
Subject: Re:Residents appeal MCPS boundary changes, challenge legality of diversity focus
They might have success if they can prove that there was intentional exclusion or discrimination against them from the MCPS BOE. Seems to me the phrase added & approved after the policy was submitted for is intentional exclusion. I wish the WasPo would do a more in depth follow up. Not sure if the Howard Co parents filed lawsuits in Howard Co when the boundaries process made national news!
Anonymous
01/06/2020 16:45
Subject: Residents appeal MCPS boundary changes, challenge legality of diversity focus
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:How is that other lawsuit going against MCPS that a group of parents brought to BoE? The one about magnet admission. This will go in the way of that other lawsuit.
I don’t think that was a lawsuit. It was a complaint with the Federal government.
This one doesn't appear to be a lawsuit either. Just an appeal. So, it will go the same way.
Anonymous
01/06/2020 16:44
Subject: Residents appeal MCPS boundary changes, challenge legality of diversity focus
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:How is that other lawsuit going against MCPS that a group of parents brought to BoE? The one about magnet admission. This will go in the way of that other lawsuit.
I don’t think that was a lawsuit. It was a complaint with the Federal government.
That wasn't a lawsuit, and this isn't a lawsuit either.
Anonymous
01/06/2020 16:44
Subject: Residents appeal MCPS boundary changes, challenge legality of diversity focus
Anonymous wrote:How is that other lawsuit going against MCPS that a group of parents brought to BoE? The one about magnet admission. This will go in the way of that other lawsuit.
I don’t think that was a lawsuit. It was a complaint with the Federal government.
Anonymous
01/06/2020 16:42
Subject: Residents appeal MCPS boundary changes, challenge legality of diversity focus
Anonymous wrote:A group of Montgomery County residents is turning to the state Board of Education to overturn the county school board’s decision to redistrict students in Clarksburg and Germantown. Community members’ appeal, filed Dec. 26, alleges the school board “illegally reassigned school boundaries, resulting in unlawful and arbitrary redistricting … denying those students equitable access to the educational rigor, resources and supports designed to maximize their academic success.” They ask the state board to overturn the boundary changes.
MCPS has a policy that dictates how school district policies are developed and revised. It says the school board can choose to send amended policies for additional feedback “if substantial changes are made to the policy after the initial public comment period,” but does not define “substantial change.” The policy had been sent out for comment previously for five months. The policy outlined four factors the board is supposed to consider during boundary studies — student demographics, geography, school enrollment and stability of school assignments over time.
But, the policy was updated in 2018, adding language that says the school board “should especially strive” to create a diverse student body at each school. The updated phrasing, however, was introduced at a board meeting on Sept. 13, 2018, and was approved on Sept. 24, 2018.
Appellants allege the policy is illegal because it was not released for public comment after the phrasing elevating the importance of student body diversity was added.
The redacted appeal does not disclose appellants’ names or how many people are involved, but it says they have students in a prekindergarten program, at Clarksburg Elementary School, Rocky Hill Middle School and Clarksburg High School. They say the school board focused too heavily on achieving demographic diversity in schools that are “already racially diverse,” and not enough on ensuring that students attend the schools closest to their homes.
The appeal points specifically to changes involving Neelsville Middle School. Students reassigned to Neelsville from Rocky Hill will be less safe, according to appellants. According to a recent survey of staff, 24.1% of Neelsville respondents said they feel the school is safe for staff and students, compared to about 87% of staff respondents at Rocky Hill.
https://bethesdamagazine.com/bethesda-beat/schools/residents-appeal-mcps-boundary-changes-challenge-legality-of-diversity-focus/?utm_source=Bethesda+Magazine+Master+List&utm_campaign=78c188a499-Beat-01.06.20&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1bbe9df5d9-78c188a499-105213361&mc_cid=78c188a499&mc_eid=142b96f9a7
And what would releasing it for public comment have done? Every decision of the school board is not a public referendum.
It has never ended well when the rights of racial minorities are put to a public vote by the majority.
Anonymous
01/06/2020 16:41
Subject: Residents appeal MCPS boundary changes, challenge legality of diversity focus
How is that other lawsuit going against MCPS that a group of parents brought to BoE? The one about magnet admission. This will go in the way of that other lawsuit.
Anonymous
01/06/2020 16:38
Subject: Residents appeal MCPS boundary changes, challenge legality of diversity focus
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Good for them. It seems like a long shot, but I'm glad to hear they're being proactive about it.
It seems like a long shot because it is, because it's absurd. There is no right to attend a school in your zip code.
It blows my mind people are still advocating these tired arguments 50 years after desegregation.
Anonymous
01/06/2020 16:35
Subject: Residents appeal MCPS boundary changes, challenge legality of diversity focus
Anonymous wrote:Good for them. It seems like a long shot, but I'm glad to hear they're being proactive about it.
It seems like a long shot because it is, because it's absurd. There is no right to attend a school in your zip code.
Anonymous
01/06/2020 16:00
Subject: Residents appeal MCPS boundary changes, challenge legality of diversity focus
Anonymous wrote:Good for them. It seems like a long shot, but I'm glad to hear they're being proactive about it.
+1
Anonymous
01/06/2020 15:47
Subject: Residents appeal MCPS boundary changes, challenge legality of diversity focus
Good for them. It seems like a long shot, but I'm glad to hear they're being proactive about it.
Anonymous
01/06/2020 15:25
Subject: Residents appeal MCPS boundary changes, challenge legality of diversity focus
A group of Montgomery County residents is turning to the state Board of Education to overturn the county school board’s decision to redistrict students in Clarksburg and Germantown. Community members’ appeal, filed Dec. 26, alleges the school board “illegally reassigned school boundaries, resulting in unlawful and arbitrary redistricting … denying those students equitable access to the educational rigor, resources and supports designed to maximize their academic success.” They ask the state board to overturn the boundary changes.
MCPS has a policy that dictates how school district policies are developed and revised. It says the school board can choose to send amended policies for additional feedback “if substantial changes are made to the policy after the initial public comment period,” but does not define “substantial change.” The policy had been sent out for comment previously for five months. The policy outlined four factors the board is supposed to consider during boundary studies — student demographics, geography, school enrollment and stability of school assignments over time.
But, the policy was updated in 2018, adding language that says the school board “should especially strive” to create a diverse student body at each school. The updated phrasing, however, was introduced at a board meeting on Sept. 13, 2018, and was approved on Sept. 24, 2018.
Appellants allege the policy is illegal because it was not released for public comment after the phrasing elevating the importance of student body diversity was added.
The redacted appeal does not disclose appellants’ names or how many people are involved, but it says they have students in a prekindergarten program, at Clarksburg Elementary School, Rocky Hill Middle School and Clarksburg High School. They say the school board focused too heavily on achieving demographic diversity in schools that are “already racially diverse,” and not enough on ensuring that students attend the schools closest to their homes.
The appeal points specifically to changes involving Neelsville Middle School. Students reassigned to Neelsville from Rocky Hill will be less safe, according to appellants. According to a recent survey of staff, 24.1% of Neelsville respondents said they feel the school is safe for staff and students, compared to about 87% of staff respondents at Rocky Hill.
https://bethesdamagazine.com/bethesda-beat/schools/residents-appeal-mcps-boundary-changes-challenge-legality-of-diversity-focus/?utm_source=Bethesda+Magazine+Master+List&utm_campaign=78c188a499-Beat-01.06.20&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1bbe9df5d9-78c188a499-105213361&mc_cid=78c188a499&mc_eid=142b96f9a7
MCPS has a policy that dictates how school district policies are developed and revised. It says the school board can choose to send amended policies for additional feedback “if substantial changes are made to the policy after the initial public comment period,” but does not define “substantial change.” The policy had been sent out for comment previously for five months. The policy outlined four factors the board is supposed to consider during boundary studies — student demographics, geography, school enrollment and stability of school assignments over time.
But, the policy was updated in 2018, adding language that says the school board “should especially strive” to create a diverse student body at each school. The updated phrasing, however, was introduced at a board meeting on Sept. 13, 2018, and was approved on Sept. 24, 2018.
Appellants allege the policy is illegal because it was not released for public comment after the phrasing elevating the importance of student body diversity was added.
The redacted appeal does not disclose appellants’ names or how many people are involved, but it says they have students in a prekindergarten program, at Clarksburg Elementary School, Rocky Hill Middle School and Clarksburg High School. They say the school board focused too heavily on achieving demographic diversity in schools that are “already racially diverse,” and not enough on ensuring that students attend the schools closest to their homes.
The appeal points specifically to changes involving Neelsville Middle School. Students reassigned to Neelsville from Rocky Hill will be less safe, according to appellants. According to a recent survey of staff, 24.1% of Neelsville respondents said they feel the school is safe for staff and students, compared to about 87% of staff respondents at Rocky Hill.
https://bethesdamagazine.com/bethesda-beat/schools/residents-appeal-mcps-boundary-changes-challenge-legality-of-diversity-focus/?utm_source=Bethesda+Magazine+Master+List&utm_campaign=78c188a499-Beat-01.06.20&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1bbe9df5d9-78c188a499-105213361&mc_cid=78c188a499&mc_eid=142b96f9a7