Vaughns v. BOARD OF EDUC OF PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY

980 F. Supp. 834, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16219, 1997 WL 641286
CourtDistrict Court, D. Maryland
DecidedOctober 6, 1997
DocketCivil PJM 72-325, PJM 81-2597
StatusPublished

This text of 980 F. Supp. 834 (Vaughns v. BOARD OF EDUC OF PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Maryland primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Vaughns v. BOARD OF EDUC OF PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, 980 F. Supp. 834, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16219, 1997 WL 641286 (D. Md. 1997).

Opinion

OPINION

MESSITTE, District Judge.

I.

On August 8,1997, the Board of Education of Prince George’s County filed a Motion Requesting Leave to Modify the Magnet Admission Guidelines for the 1997-98 school year, just as it did for the 1996-97 school year when the Court permitted modification. Without in the least specifying what they consisted of, the Board referred to “additional recruitment efforts undertaken ... to attract non-African American students to magnet schools” and the fact that such attempts were “without Success”. This bare assertion came despite the documentation, discovery, hearing, and court opinion that attended the Board’s request of last year that the Guidelines be modified. Although a telephone conference was held within a week of this year’s filing, given the lateness of the request plus Plaintiffs’ express objection pending further review plus the immediate unavailability of counsel and the Court, the Court denied the request. The Court, however, expressly left the matter open to be reconsidered after Labor Day.

On September 4, the Court received a supplemental memorandum from the Board in support of its motion, setting out in greater detail the magnet recruitment efforts that the Board has pursued since the Fall of 1996. The Board’s submission included affidavits from the Director of Magnet Schools for the County and the Director of Pupil Accounting and School Boundaries. In recent days, Plaintiffs have had the opportunity to engage in discovery regarding the Board’s most recent filing, including taking the deposition of the Director of Magnet Schools.

Plaintiffs and Defendant-Intervenor Prince George’s County now concur in the Board’s request that the Guidelines be waived for the 1997-98 school year to allow additional African-American students to attend certain identified schools.

On this more complete record, the Court has determined to modify the Guidelines for the 1997-98 school year and permit 347 qualified African-American students to fill slots designated for non-African-American students. Further comment is in order.

II.

The background of the Prince George’s County magnet school program was discussed in the Court’s Opinion pertaining to modification of the Guidelines for the last school year and needs no further elaboration at this time. See Vaughns v. Board of Education of Prince George’s County, et al, 941 F.Supp. 579 (D.Md.1996).

The recent developments are these:

Some enhanced efforts of recruitment have occurred since last year.

To begin, a Magnet Recruitment Plan (the Plan) was discussed and approved by the Community Advisory Council on Magnet and Compensatory programs (C.A.C.). Although never formally adopted by the Board, the Plan was apparently reviewed by it at least informally and was in fact implemented at *836 least in part during the 1996-97 school year. 1 Through the affidavit of its Director of Magnet Schools, Susan B. Miller, the Board contends that the following strategies contained in Section III of the Plan were implemented during the 1996-97 school year:

• For the first time since the 1990-91 school year, the school system mailed magnet brochures to every household in Prince George’s County.
• The school system increased television time on its cable channel relating to magnet program descriptions, registration procedures, and dates for open house visitations. The school system is currently working on establishing a Web site on the Internet for magnet programs.
• Education Fairs were held in the fall of 1996 and included at those fairs were descriptions of magnet school programs.
• Magnet flyers and other information about magnet schools will be provided to parents as part of upcoming back-to-school night activities.
• Magnet flyers, brochures, videotapes, and announcements of magnet open house visitation dates were provided to daycare centers, realtors offices, libraries, recreation centers, municipal government offices, chambers of commerce, businesses, and various corporations within the county. Although such information had been distributed in the past, the school system increased the distribution during the 1996-97 school year to include, for the first time, all day care centers, realtors offices and recreation centers.
• For the first time in several years, new posters for magnet school programs were distributed throughout the county.
• For the first time, information was provided to parents about obtaining videotapes describing the Magnet School Programs, and a “lending library” was established for the purpose of lending those materials to parents.
• Efforts to contact the media regarding public service announcements for magnet registration, open house dates, and education fairs were greatly expanded during the 1996-97 school year.
• Recruitment letters have been sent to families of students who reside in catchment areas for magnet schools in which enrollment of non-African-American students is most needed. Parents who are on waiting lists for other Magnet Schools have been contacted advising them of existing vacancies in schools, even if not in their catchment area.
• Magnet School display centers have been provided to schools for display in the OASIS Centers within the school system. 2
• A Magnet Recruitment Advisory Subcommittee was established as a part of the C.A.C., which has a meeting on a regular basis.

On the other hand, Plaintiffs point out that the Board’s recruitment efforts are not all that they might have been. For example, although a line item in the County budget for the Magnet School’s Office for Magnet Recruiting is new, most of the money included in that item was spent through other accounts in previous years. In other words, the magnet recruitment budget does not constitute new spending, but simply the consolidation of money from different accounts into a single line item with the Magnet Schools Office.

Additionally, although $70,000 to $80,000 was added in fiscal year 1997 to fund the evaluation of magnet recruitment efforts, none of that money has in fact been used.

Further, although the Magnet Recruitment Plan includes 11 specific strategies focusing primarily on promoting magnet school programs to the community at large, only four of these were new. One of these, the establishment of an Internet Web site inserting information about magnet schools, has yet to be completed. Another undertaking, to translate magnet materials into Spanish, has apparently been abandoned. The Board has, however, gone forward with inserting *837 information about magnet schools in baek-toschool materials for parents and in providing information to parents about obtaining video tapes describing the magnet programs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Vaughns v. Board of Educ. of Prince George's County
941 F. Supp. 579 (D. Maryland, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
980 F. Supp. 834, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16219, 1997 WL 641286, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vaughns-v-board-of-educ-of-prince-georges-county-mdd-1997.