Montgomery County school board approves U.S. Department of Education Title VI certification over objections

The Montgomery County School Board voted 5-1 to approve a U.S. Department of Education Title VI certification letter after a divided discussion about whether the document’s language about diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) could expose the division to legal risk.

Board members and staff said the certification is required to confirm compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act if the division wants to continue receiving federal financial assistance; one board member urged the board not to sign because the form, as written, adds language about DEI that she said could create a separate basis for a finding of a false certification.

The vote came after more than an hour of discussion. Doctor Guittrain argued that the certification, as drafted, “wraps in language about DEI” and could create legal exposure if the U.S. Department of Education later determined a local program or practice violated the terms of the certification. “If we want to send some assurance that we were going to comply with Title VI as we always do, I’m fine with that. But I have great concerns about this certification,” she said.

Other board members said the certification is largely consistent with assurances the division already provides and that refusing to sign could risk federal funding. Miss Roselle described the document as “political messaging” but said the district’s legal counsel had advised the board it was in compliance and urged signing to avoid jeopardizing resources for students. Doctor Bridal, the superintendent, and legal counsel also participated in the discussion and answered procedural questions.

Miss Osborne called the roll after the discussion. The recorded roll call showed five votes in favor and one opposed; the clerk announced, “5 in favor, 1 opposed. Motion carries.” The board gave staff direction to transmit the signed certification.

Why it matters: Title VI compliance is a condition of federal education funding. Board members differed on whether the particular certification form’s references to DEI extend beyond the statute and whether the board should await more legal clarity from ongoing court cases before signing.

Board discussion touched on local programs that some observers might characterize as DEI, including the proposed dual-language program and whether limited initial rollouts could expose the division to scrutiny under the certification. Superintendent Bridal and other speakers said the dual-language rollout would be open to all county students if the host school did not fill both classes with local students.

The board’s action was limited to approving the certification letter; no other policy changes were adopted during the vote.