Montgomery County’s unneeded Supreme Court fight

 

“What’s the big deal?” This was the very pertinent question posed by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. during Tuesday’s oral arguments in Mahmoud v. Taylor. Why has the defendant — the Montgomery County, Maryland, school district — come before the Supreme Court with what should have been a minor administrative issue?

In 2022, Montgomery County introduced into its language arts curriculum a set of books that affirm LGBTQ+ identities. As with other material that might conflict with families’ religious values, such as sex education, the district allowed parents an opt-out. Then, it abruptly rescinded that option and refused to reconsider, even after some parents sued.

This is how Alan Schoenfeld, the school district’s lawyer, ended up in court trying to explain to Alito why the district was unable to accommodate parents with religious objections. “The plaintiffs here are not asking the school to change its curriculum,” Alito pointed out. “They’re just saying, look, we want out. Why isn’t that feasible? What is the big deal about allowing them to opt out of this?”

Schoenfeld tried to argue that the administrative burden was too great but, when asked why it was so much greater than the opt-outs available for health class, he appeared to struggle, finally responding that those opt-outs were mandated by state law, whereas the reading opt-outs were not...

https://wapo.st/4lM34Ok

NYT Opinion: My School District Could Have Avoided This Supreme Court Case

...I begrudge the public money wasted on expensive lawyers. I can’t fathom that we squandered so much energy fighting over storybooks even as our kids’ test scores foundered, absenteeism soared and student mental health slumped in the wake of the pandemic.

I can’t decide which conceit is more delusional: The school district grandstanding about social tolerance while forcing a minority of religious families to engage with books they consider immoral or the religious parents claiming that they can’t properly rear their children in faith if the kids get exposed to a few picture books. Both positions, it seems to me, rest on a cartoonishly inflated sense of school’s influence on children. And both seek an ideologically purified classroom while underestimating the sweep of ideas and information kids absorb simply by existing in our world.

Most of all, I feel that our community’s failure to resolve a thoroughly predictable tension with the time-tested tools of straight talk, compromise and extending one another a little grace has made for a demoralizing spectacle. And I can’t help but notice that our district, in its clumsy efforts to force tolerance, might have given the Supreme Court an opening to repress L.G.B.T.Q.-related speech in the nation’s schools...

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/18/opinion/lgbtq-books-supreme-court.html?searchResultPosition=3

Elrich on MCPS Legal Settlement: ‘They Had Warning Signs For Years’

The Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) paid $300,000 to an unnamed teacher who claimed she was harassed by former Paint Branch High School Principal Joel Beidleman.

Beidleman no longer works at MCPS. He was accused of bullying and sexual harassment by multiple MCPS employees prior to being promoted from principal at Farquhar Middle School to Paint Branch High School. This was first reported in the Washington Post.

Besides the $300,000 settlement, MCPS paid $78,462.32 in legal fees to Karpinski, Cornbrooks and Karp of Baltimore and $68,369.64 in legal fees to Miller, Miller and Canby of Rockville. Another $1,188.80 was spent for transcripts of court recordings...

Elrich on MCPS Legal Settlement: 'They Had Warning Signs For Years' - Montgomery Community Media (mymcmedia.org)

Breaking: "Transparent" Board of Education Cited for Three Violations of Open Meetings Act in One Day @mocoboe @mcps

In September of 2023, the Montgomery County Board of Education put out a statement announcing their commitment to a transparent, thorough and expeditious process in the Beidleman matter.  

By January of 2024, it was clear that the Board of Education had dropped the transparent pledge and was solely focused on expediting whatever they could behind closed doors.  After observing multiple violations of the Maryland Open Meetings Act, we finally filed a complaint on January 22, 2024.  By then it was clear that the Board of Education had ditched the Maryland Open Meetings Act and they were slipping into closed meetings at every opportunity.  

The violations noted in our complaint were clear and the Board of Education members should have had no problem understanding how they were violating the law.  Afterall, the Maryland Open Meetings Act requires at least one person to have taken the Maryland Open Meetings Act training for each board that plans on meeting in closed sessions.  The Board of Education has at least one person that knows the law, plus they have their own in house lawyers that should be clear on what is required. 

Upon receiving the complaint, the Board of Education could have acknowledged their violations and committed once again to being transparent etc...  

But the Board of Education decided to hire outside legal counsel to respond to the complaint and allege that they had not violated the Maryland Open Meetings Act.  That was a decision to spend MCPS Operating funds on an outside lawyer instead of a) admitting the violation, or b) using an in house lawyer already on the payroll to respond to the complaint.  

On April 19, 2024, the Open Meetings Compliance Board issued an opinion finding multiple violations of the Maryland Open Meetings Act by the Montgomery County Board of Education at their January 22, 2024 meeting. 

Instead of the Board of Education actually following through on their commitment to be transparent, the Board of Education wasted precious MCPS Operating Budget funds trying to cover up their violation of Maryland law. 

The Board of Education broke their commitment to the public and then compounded that breach by wasting education funds that could have gone to classrooms. 

From the Maryland Open Meetings Compliance Board:  

7News takes a closer look at rising legal fees paid by Montgomery County Public Schools

Parents demanded the right to shield their children from books that went against their religious beliefs. The firm Wilmer Hale represented MCPS in a lawsuit about the issue and has received hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal payments from the school system.

"They're already significantly over budget and that is not the best use of taxpayer funds," said Esther Wells, President of Montgomery County Taxpayers League.

The MCPS Board of Education recently reviewed legal fees paid between July and December.

7News analyzed the numbers and found in Fiscal Year 2023 MCPS paid more than $462,000 in legal fees.

In FY24 that number skyrocketed to more than $1.3 million...

https://wjla.com/news/local/mcps-legal-fees-montgomery-county-public-schools-2023-lawsuit-law-firm-payments-taxpayer-funds-transparency-former-principal-joel-beidleman-parents-community#

MCPS spent half million on legal fees amid content, harassments suits

ROCKVILLE, Md. (CITC) — Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) in Maryland has spent 548% more on legal fees this fiscal year than last, according to a recent report from the district.

The MCPS school board detailed the expenses in a December report. The district spent $487,735 through August 2023, up from $75,191 the prior fiscal year.

In the report, MCPS states the spike occurred due to "substantial litigation on two separate matters pending in federal court." MCPS paid more than $195,000 each to law firms WilmerHale and Jackson Lewis, according to the report.

WilmerHale is representing MCPS in a lawsuit over its "inclusivity" curriculum. The lawsuit alleges MCPS parents are not notified when their children will be read books discussing gender identity or sexual orientation, nor are they able to opt their children out of such materials...

https://wjla.com/news/local/maryland-school-district-spent-half-million-on-legal-fees-amid-content-harassments-suits-montgomery-county-public-schools-wilmerhale-crisis-in-the-classroom-joel-beidleman#

Report: Baltimore County School Board broke state law, fudged purchasing rules [@mcps @mocoboe Could this be YOU too?]

A report by Maryland’s State Inspector General for Education finds that the Baltimore County School Board violated state law when it hired outside legal counsel. It also rang up tens of thousands of dollars in legal bills and did so by breaking the rules on how it’s to spend money.

State law requires that the board use the county attorney for legal counsel unless it’s in a dispute with county government. It can also ask the county attorney for permission to hire an outside firm.

In January 2019, the school board hired the Columbia-based law firm Carney, Kelehan, Bresler, Bennett & Scheer to help with the search for a new superintendent. Inspector General Richard Henry said the board received permission to do that. But once that search was over, the school board violated state law by keeping the firm on as its legal counsel and the billable hours started adding up.

“It exceeded over $100,000,” Henry said...

...Furthermore, Inspector General Henry said the board broke its own spending rules by dividing up the cost of the legal services. Anything that costs $50,000 or more must be put out for a competitive bid. Henry said the board skirted that by submitting a purchase order for $49,999...

https://www.wypr.org/wypr-news/2022-01-10/report-baltimore-county-school-board-broke-state-law-fudged-purchasing-rules?fbclid=IwAR1gpRmRHsP_LZ4NfeH9A_L4z6q32n5Nc2TTlJn4UqSpDLijUOCpYWJ1WH4

@mocoboe special education legal fees increasing. Why, @MCPS ?

@mocoboe special education legal fees increasing. Why, @MCPS? (And this chart doesn’t include the #MCPS fleet of in-house lawyers.) @MdPublicSchools how does this help students get #FAPE? pic.twitter.com/L5hRYxJfCP

— Lyda Astrove (@LydaAstrove) December 16, 2019

.@mocoboe spends $26,459 in July 2016 Fighting Families of Kids with Disabilities

Special Education Legal Expenses


Special education legal fees for outside counsel for July 2016 totaled $26,459, and the entire
amount was for services by Jeffrey A. Krew. The year-to-date total of $26,459 is $24,613 more
than the same period in the previous year.
******************

After spending 58% more in FY16 on special education legal fees for outside counsel than the Board of Education did the year before, the Montgomery County Board of Education is off to another high-spending start in FY2017.

WPost: The school system spent $716,917.25 defending the cases between July 2012 and December 2014...

...Between the jury award and legal expenses, the cases have cost the county schools more than $1 million. The school system spent $716,917.25 defending the cases between July 2012 and December 2014, according to information obtained through a Maryland Public Information Act request.
Late last summer, a jury awarded $350,000 to a former English teacher, who accused the school system of discriminating against him because he is white. Jon Everhart said he was forced out of his job by Simpson-Marcus, who is black, because of his race. Months later, the school system settled a second case, filed by a former employee, a black secretary, who sued because she said she was retaliated against for reporting Simpson-Marcus to supervisors...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/md-high-school-principal-accused-of-discrimination-has-left-her-job/2015/01/22/c4bc4e3e-9e72-11e4-bcfb-059ec7a93ddc_story.html

Special Education Advisory Committee Meeting. All welcome!

Thursday,  September 27th  7:00 - 9:00 p.m.

      Montgomery County Public Schools 

     Carver Building - Room 127

850 Hungerford Drive

Rockville, MD 

      

      Babysitting provided

     Agenda:

                 Discussion of the new 2.0 cirriculum.

                 Parents will be able to ask questions.

                 Public Testimony at the beginning of the meeting.

                 Any parent wishing to give public testimony please bring 5 copies

                    of your testimony. Parents have 5 minutes.

     

                 Updates from Gwen Mason, Director of Special Education in MCPS

and Chris Richardson, Associate Superintendent in MCPS.

 

        Everyone is welcome to attend.

Joan Sabaka

SEAC Co-chair

Valntine20@aol.com

Anne Turner

SEAC C0-chair

Adturn88@verizon.net

Amuthan Kannan

SEAC Co-chair

Kannan_Amuthan@hotmail.com

 

Open Letter to Starr, County Council ED Committee

Dear Dr. Starr and Ms. Ervin:

At the County Council hearing on the OLO Autism report the other day, the conversation veered off into special education dispute resolution. Dr. Starr stated, repeating an earlier theme, that he doesn't want to hear anecdotes, but that he wants Data and Facts.

Unfortunately, the special education hearing decisions that are posted on the MSDE website are so heavily redacted (even school names are redacted) that it is impossible for advocates to know which schools and programs are even the subject of dispute.

Nevertheless, the current superintendent has responsiblity for the actions that have occurred since
he arrived on the scene in July. Dr. Starr's statement that there were "only" 120 dispute resolution requests last year doesn't include the 27 state complaints from FY 2011, which is the "poor man's" method of dispute resolution since MCPS embarked on its "scorched earth" special education dispute resolution
policy during the Weast years.

I look forward to the Council's upcoming discussion on special education dispute resolution. You may not realize that a budget review committee specifically looked at this issue many years ago, and found that MCPS utilized special education dispute resolution as a "cost containment" method. In addition, I will be happy to provide the Council with a copy of their "outside counsel" contract for special education legal services, which provides that outside counsel be paid $6,000 a day per day of litigation. Even in the Washington DC area, with its stable of high-priced lawyers, I do not know any other litigators that command $6,000 a day for working for a public, governmental entity.

Sincerely,

Lyda Astrove