2resonate deeply, and quite a volatile brew emerges. It is thus hardly surprising that assorted constituencies may possess varied opinions on the wisdom and necessity of the Plan and SchoolsChancellor Kaya Henderson’s strategy. Yet every adverse policy decision does not yield aconstitutional claim. In this case, there is no evidence whatsoever of any intent to discriminateon the part of Defendants, who are actually transferring children out of weaker, more segregated,and under-enrolled schools. The remedy Plaintiffs seek –
, to remain in such schools – seemscurious, given that these are the conditions most people typically endeavor to escape. In anyevent, as Plaintiffs have no likelihood of ultimate success on the merits of their suit, they cannot prevail in this Motion here.
While the parties quarrel about the legal analysis, the underlying facts here are essentiallyuncontested.A.
Factual Background The District of Columbia Public Schools runs the District’s traditional, local public-school system. See D.C. Code §§ 38-171 to -172. As Chancellor, Kaya Henderson acts asDCPS’s chief executive officer. See D.C. Code § 38-174(a). Not all D.C. public schools fallwithin DCPS’s sphere, however. In 1996, Congress authorized the operation of charter schoolsin the District, which exist as public schools outside of DCPS control. See District of ColumbiaSchool Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321-107 (1996). Since then,children in many parts of the city have flocked to charters; indeed, more than half of public-school students in Wards 1, 5, and 7 and more than a third in Wards 4, 6, and 8 now attend public charter schools instead of DCPS schools. See Opp., Exh. B (Office of Chancellor, DCPS,DCPS Proposed Consolidations and Reorganization: Better Schools for All Students (“Proposed