A little bit of knowledge, Google, and a robust vocabulary do not actually make you a constitutional scholar -- yet. Call us when you have been litigating in federal courts for 15 years.


Look I am sorry if your experience as a 15th year associate specializing in doc review has not given you a good sense of the direction the law will take. I can tell you with certainty that disparate impact cases are going to be coming. Bobby Scott says as much in the WaPo piece! That's the whole point of the GAO study - to start setting up the disparate impact actions. Will this pan out in DC based on our facts here? I don't know. We'll see.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do agree that in PP's hypothetical the DC government would be sued through the nose (and lose) if it intentionally cut off electricity for citizens who live in Ward 8. Governments can't discriminate like that.

But as others are pointing out, DCPS policies are doing nothing to create the unfortunate, low scholastic aptitude for many students in the city.

well we don't know that do we? it's not about "scholadtic aptitude" but the quality and amount of resources distributed.

Now you can't be serious. That isn't happening in DC.

Gah. See. This is a problem. People have a really wacked lack of understanding of the facts.

That PP must assume that since white kids have higher scores, they must be getting something secret from DCPS that no one else is getting. Ugh.

Ok, show me your facts. The Washington Post article stated that poor/minority schools get disproportionately less or worse resources. How does DC measure up? You can't just say "nope not happening here."

LMGTFY

http://dcpsdatacenter.com/budget_process.html

"So How Do You Calculate My School’s Allocation?

Great question! One of the challenges in the budget development process is ensuring that the needs of individual schools are being met within the DCPS budget development process. No two schools serve the exact same population. Even if the schools have the same number of students, a variety of factors affects the allocation from which a school can build its budget. Those factors include the number of students receiving special education services or the number of early childhood programs it offers. If those numbers change, the budget allocation also changes. DCPS accounts for the following when calculating initial school budget allocations each year:

Projected student enrollment;
Special education student population;
English Language Learner (ELL) student population;
Free and Reduced-Price Meals (FARM)eligible students;
School configuration (Elementary School, K-8 or 6-12 Model School, Middle School, or High School);
Teacher-to-student ratios by grade configurations;
Specialty school status;
Non-Personnel Spending (NPS); and
Per-pupil funding minimum."

Read this: http://www.dcpsschoolbudgetguide.com/fy17_budget_guide.pdf It shows you all the items in a school budget and all of the resources geared solely to underperforming schools and students.

we'll see

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can always re-litigate an issue. Lawrence v Texas legalized sodomy about 20 years after a decision that did the opposite. You can always try to bring a case again to SCOTUS. But the current state of the law appears to be that if black people live in neighborhood X because it's what they can afford, and the schools in neighborhood X are poor performing, then the only constitutional requirement is that the govt not intentionally reduce the quality of schools in X. For example, the govt cannot underfund those schools. But in DC, schools in black neighborhoods are overfunded relative to schools in white neighborhoods. This satisfies the requirement of equal inputs. Sadly, and I am genuine when I say sadly, there doesn't appear to be a constitutional requirement of equal outcomes.

That is the constitutional law. There are federal and state statutes that would be the basis for a disparate impact claim.

Sometimes I wonder if you dcum lawyers actually went to law school??

NP here. We did. You write like a talented high school junior at a rigorous private or a magnet.

A little bit of knowledge, Google, and a robust vocabulary do not actually make you a constitutional scholar -- yet. Call us when you have been litigating in federal courts for 15 years.

Look I am sorry if your experience as a 15th year associate specializing in doc review has not given you a good sense of the direction the law will take. I can tell you with certainty that disparate impact cases are going to be coming. Bobby Scott says as much in the WaPo piece! That's the whole point of the GAO study - to start setting up the disparate impact actions. Will this pan out in DC based on our facts here? I don't know. We'll see.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can always re-litigate an issue. Lawrence v Texas legalized sodomy about 20 years after a decision that did the opposite. You can always try to bring a case again to SCOTUS. But the current state of the law appears to be that if black people live in neighborhood X because it's what they can afford, and the schools in neighborhood X are poor performing, then the only constitutional requirement is that the govt not intentionally reduce the quality of schools in X. For example, the govt cannot underfund those schools. But in DC, schools in black neighborhoods are overfunded relative to schools in white neighborhoods. This satisfies the requirement of equal inputs. Sadly, and I am genuine when I say sadly, there doesn't appear to be a constitutional requirement of equal outcomes.

That is the constitutional law. There are federal and state statutes that would be the basis for a disparate impact claim.

Sometimes I wonder if you dcum lawyers actually went to law school??

Thanks for the ad hominem.

I am aware of no federal or "state" statute that would give rise to a successful outcome against DC, or that would even create a cause of action. Look at the way Catania's at-risk funding magnifies Title I. In DC, the government already allocates disproportionate resources to majority-minority schools in an attempt to close the achievement gap. Despite this, poor black kids do worse on standardized tests and drop out in higher numbers. (Similar thing happens with impoverished whites in states that have impoverished whites, by the way; DC has too few to be statistically meaningful). There is no law at any level of government that I am aware of that gives rise to a cause of action against a DC government that is already providing all of this extra money, renovations, special ed support, not to mention chartering many charter schools in an effort to address this.

This notwithstanding the aspirational arguments in the article that are based not on federal or state statutes per se but rather on a novel application of international human rights law, most of it unratified and weak in this country, to interpret those statutes. That kind of legal reasoning does feature in the courts of other countries. Good luck with it here.

This is completely different from the situation in other states, like the one in Ferguson MO that was featured on NPr a while back. In those situations the schools in black neighborhoods are under-resourced *relative to majority white schools*, partly because of racist neglect and partly because of how local (real estate) taxes are used to fund education. None of that applies in DC.

The federal statute that best addresses the achievement gap is actually NCLB, in my opinion, and that's damning with faint praise. It's the only federal statute that creates real consequences for unequal outcomes (as opposed to inputs), but as we all know it is achieving some closed schools and not much else.

again, did you go to law school? the article discusses how the feds could enforce federal civil rights laws, as well as successful state law/state constitutional suit in colorado. as for your assertions of fact - well, we'll see.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can always re-litigate an issue. Lawrence v Texas legalized sodomy about 20 years after a decision that did the opposite. You can always try to bring a case again to SCOTUS. But the current state of the law appears to be that if black people live in neighborhood X because it's what they can afford, and the schools in neighborhood X are poor performing, then the only constitutional requirement is that the govt not intentionally reduce the quality of schools in X. For example, the govt cannot underfund those schools. But in DC, schools in black neighborhoods are overfunded relative to schools in white neighborhoods. This satisfies the requirement of equal inputs. Sadly, and I am genuine when I say sadly, there doesn't appear to be a constitutional requirement of equal outcomes.

That is the constitutional law. There are federal and state statutes that would be the basis for a disparate impact claim.

Sometimes I wonder if you dcum lawyers actually went to law school??

NP here. We did. You write like a talented high school junior at a rigorous private or a magnet.

A little bit of knowledge, Google, and a robust vocabulary do not actually make you a constitutional scholar -- yet. Call us when you have been litigating in federal courts for 15 years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do agree that in PP's hypothetical the DC government would be sued through the nose (and lose) if it intentionally cut off electricity for citizens who live in Ward 8. Governments can't discriminate like that.

But as others are pointing out, DCPS policies are doing nothing to create the unfortunate, low scholastic aptitude for many students in the city.

well we don't know that do we? it's not about "scholadtic aptitude" but the quality and amount of resources distributed.

Now you can't be serious. That isn't happening in DC.

Gah. See. This is a problem. People have a really wacked lack of understanding of the facts.

That PP must assume that since white kids have higher scores, they must be getting something secret from DCPS that no one else is getting. Ugh.

Ok, show me your facts. The Washington Post article stated that poor/minority schools get disproportionately less or worse resources. How does DC measure up? You can't just say "nope not happening here."

LMGTFY

http://dcpsdatacenter.com/budget_process.html

"So How Do You Calculate My School’s Allocation?

Great question! One of the challenges in the budget development process is ensuring that the needs of individual schools are being met within the DCPS budget development process. No two schools serve the exact same population. Even if the schools have the same number of students, a variety of factors affects the allocation from which a school can build its budget. Those factors include the number of students receiving special education services or the number of early childhood programs it offers. If those numbers change, the budget allocation also changes. DCPS accounts for the following when calculating initial school budget allocations each year:

Projected student enrollment;
Special education student population;
English Language Learner (ELL) student population;
Free and Reduced-Price Meals (FARM)eligible students;
School configuration (Elementary School, K-8 or 6-12 Model School, Middle School, or High School);
Teacher-to-student ratios by grade configurations;
Specialty school status;
Non-Personnel Spending (NPS); and
Per-pupil funding minimum."

Read this: http://www.dcpsschoolbudgetguide.com/fy17_budget_guide.pdf It shows you all the items in a school budget and all of the resources geared solely to underperforming schools and students.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do agree that in PP's hypothetical the DC government would be sued through the nose (and lose) if it intentionally cut off electricity for citizens who live in Ward 8. Governments can't discriminate like that.

But as others are pointing out, DCPS policies are doing nothing to create the unfortunate, low scholastic aptitude for many students in the city.

well we don't know that do we? it's not about "scholadtic aptitude" but the quality and amount of resources distributed.

Now you can't be serious. That isn't happening in DC.

Gah. See. This is a problem. People have a really wacked lack of understanding of the facts.

That PP must assume that since white kids have higher scores, they must be getting something secret from DCPS that no one else is getting. Ugh.

Ok, show me your facts. The Washington Post article stated that poor/minority schools get disproportionately less or worse resources. How does DC measure up? You can't just say "nope not happening here."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can always re-litigate an issue. Lawrence v Texas legalized sodomy about 20 years after a decision that did the opposite. You can always try to bring a case again to SCOTUS. But the current state of the law appears to be that if black people live in neighborhood X because it's what they can afford, and the schools in neighborhood X are poor performing, then the only constitutional requirement is that the govt not intentionally reduce the quality of schools in X. For example, the govt cannot underfund those schools. But in DC, schools in black neighborhoods are overfunded relative to schools in white neighborhoods. This satisfies the requirement of equal inputs. Sadly, and I am genuine when I say sadly, there doesn't appear to be a constitutional requirement of equal outcomes.

That is the constitutional law. There are federal and state statutes that would be the basis for a disparate impact claim.

Sometimes I wonder if you dcum lawyers actually went to law school??

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can always re-litigate an issue. Lawrence v Texas legalized sodomy about 20 years after a decision that did the opposite. You can always try to bring a case again to SCOTUS. But the current state of the law appears to be that if black people live in neighborhood X because it's what they can afford, and the schools in neighborhood X are poor performing, then the only constitutional requirement is that the govt not intentionally reduce the quality of schools in X. For example, the govt cannot underfund those schools. But in DC, schools in black neighborhoods are overfunded relative to schools in white neighborhoods. This satisfies the requirement of equal inputs. Sadly, and I am genuine when I say sadly, there doesn't appear to be a constitutional requirement of equal outcomes.

That is the constitutional law. There are federal and state statutes that would be the basis for a disparate impact claim.

Sometimes I wonder if you dcum lawyers actually went to law school??

Thanks for the ad hominem.

I am aware of no federal or "state" statute that would give rise to a successful outcome against DC, or that would even create a cause of action. Look at the way Catania's at-risk funding magnifies Title I. In DC, the government already allocates disproportionate resources to majority-minority schools in an attempt to close the achievement gap. Despite this, poor black kids do worse on standardized tests and drop out in higher numbers. (Similar thing happens with impoverished whites in states that have impoverished whites, by the way; DC has too few to be statistically meaningful). There is no law at any level of government that I am aware of that gives rise to a cause of action against a DC government that is already providing all of this extra money, renovations, special ed support, not to mention chartering many charter schools in an effort to address this.

This notwithstanding the aspirational arguments in the article that are based not on federal or state statutes per se but rather on a novel application of international human rights law, most of it unratified and weak in this country, to interpret those statutes. That kind of legal reasoning does feature in the courts of other countries. Good luck with it here.

This is completely different from the situation in other states, like the one in Ferguson MO that was featured on NPr a while back. In those situations the schools in black neighborhoods are under-resourced *relative to majority white schools*, partly because of racist neglect and partly because of how local (real estate) taxes are used to fund education. None of that applies in DC.

The federal statute that best addresses the achievement gap is actually NCLB, in my opinion, and that's damning with faint praise. It's the only federal statute that creates real consequences for unequal outcomes (as opposed to inputs), but as we all know it is achieving some closed schools and not much else.

Anonymous wrote:Is this surprising to anyone

Anyone with means is going to do what is best for their children aka living in the best school district possible away from the poors/ESOLS/blacks/hispanics

DC Charter system is white flight
Choice in Arlington is white flight
AAP in Fairfax is white flight
Magnets in MoCo is white flight

See a pattern

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can always re-litigate an issue. Lawrence v Texas legalized sodomy about 20 years after a decision that did the opposite. You can always try to bring a case again to SCOTUS. But the current state of the law appears to be that if black people live in neighborhood X because it's what they can afford, and the schools in neighborhood X are poor performing, then the only constitutional requirement is that the govt not intentionally reduce the quality of schools in X. For example, the govt cannot underfund those schools. But in DC, schools in black neighborhoods are overfunded relative to schools in white neighborhoods. This satisfies the requirement of equal inputs. Sadly, and I am genuine when I say sadly, there doesn't appear to be a constitutional requirement of equal outcomes.

That is the constitutional law. There are federal and state statutes that would be the basis for a disparate impact claim.

Sometimes I wonder if you dcum lawyers actually went to law school??

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is a link to the GAO report on which the article is based. http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/676745.pdf

As I read it, the report is saying something pretty similar to what OP suggested. Schools with students that are disproportionately black/Hispanic and low-income do worse on academic achievement measures. People who can afford to avoid schools with low academic achievement measures will avoid them. The people who can afford to avoid those schools are more often white. As a result, segregation increases because of income disparities. Various school districts have tried different tactics to encourage more racial diversity at schools, by giving extra money and better facilities to the schools that are low-income and black/Hispanic. But even those extra resources do not lead to much more diversity.

To me, it seems there are essentially two potential solutions:

1. Decide as a society that we value integration/diversity more highly than academic success. If maximizing integration is the goal, then schools and governments will essentially need to force students to integrate by race and income. This means upper and middle class students will somehow be forced into schools that are academically weaker, all in the name of increased diversity. The hope, of course, is that in more integrated/diverse schools, the academic success of wealthier/whiter students will somehow encourage the other students to academic improvement, but I have not seen much evidence that approach works.

2. Decide as a society that we value academic success for each student more highly than integration/diversity. This means we focus on lifting the academic achievement of each student, regardless of the impact on integration/diversity. That likely means we have fairly segregated schools in the short term, as we abandon efforts at diversity. It means lots of education money gets thrown at increasing the academic performance of black/Hispanic and low-income students. Hopefully, in the long term, it means we succeed in raising the academic performance of the black/Hispanic and low-income groups, so that integration naturally follows. (Speaking personally, I suspect that this approach would lead to more racial integration over time, but would never lead to much income integration because the wealthy will always have more money to spend on things that lead to improved academic performance.)

Meanwhile, the Chinese are laughing all the way. Our public schools are largely crap, with the exception of the select few who are put in magnet or G&T programs. Yes, we need socioeconomic diversity but it should not mean that the smarter kids are neglected while the teachers focus on bringing up the bottom of the class.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do agree that in PP's hypothetical the DC government would be sued through the nose (and lose) if it intentionally cut off electricity for citizens who live in Ward 8. Governments can't discriminate like that.

But as others are pointing out, DCPS policies are doing nothing to create the unfortunate, low scholastic aptitude for many students in the city.

well we don't know that do we? it's not about "scholadtic aptitude" but the quality and amount of resources distributed.

Now you can't be serious. That isn't happening in DC.

Gah. See. This is a problem. People have a really wacked lack of understanding of the facts.

That PP must assume that since white kids have higher scores, they must be getting something secret from DCPS that no one else is getting. Ugh.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fact is charter schools are KEEPING white students in public schools in DC which ALLOWS for integrated schools. Get it? Without charter and/or magnet schools there would be no white students outside of upper northwest. There would be no integrated schools. Charters are the solution, not the problem

So how do you explain the phenomenon of Brent, Maury and Tyler Spanish Immersion having become majority white when, a decade ago, there weren't white kids in the elementary grades at these schools/programs? If the DCPC Board had permitted charters to open in the heart of Cap Hill, we almost certainly wouldn't have several neighborhood schools/programs most in-boundary families are happy with.

Middle and high school completely different issue, and really where the problem is. Elementary is easy.