program design team no longer meeting so there is truly no check on MCPS

[Anonymous]

I am a member of the "academic programs design team." I use that term loosely because we had no input into the design -- in fact, central office staff did all the designing. Members of the team pushed back hard on what we heard and the lack of rigor or analysis--to the point where meetings were very contentious because team members were frustrated that their input was not reflected in any way in what MCPS was doing.

At one point we were meeting weekly. But we have now gone well over a month without a word from MCPS. We had a single meeting focused on middle schools in early October, and it was pretty general -- no specifics about what MCPS is planning to put forward. The presumption was we would have meetings to talk about specifics, but there has been nothing since then. I guess they got sick of the team giving them negative feedback, but at this point, there is no one who is actually providing any feedback on the middle school model.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am a member of the "academic programs design team." I use that term loosely because we had no input into the design -- in fact, central office staff did all the designing. Members of the team pushed back hard on what we heard and the lack of rigor or analysis--to the point where meetings were very contentious because team members were frustrated that their input was not reflected in any way in what MCPS was doing.

At one point we were meeting weekly. But we have now gone well over a month without a word from MCPS. We had a single meeting focused on middle schools in early October, and it was pretty general -- no specifics about what MCPS is planning to put forward. The presumption was we would have meetings to talk about specifics, but there has been nothing since then. I guess they got sick of the team giving them negative feedback, but at this point, there is no one who is actually providing any feedback on the middle school model.

I mean, we weren't really a "check" on them in the first place? But yeah, I dunno if they're ever bringing us back.

[Anonymous]

Write your testimony to BOE? At least it’s not hurting for them to hear another testimony for “fake community involvement”?

I truly believe Karla is the BOE member behind the scene that gives green light all the way through to Taylor and CO. Other BOE members chose to knee, but with more and more emails, they might rethink or at least loosen on their attitudes toward bending.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Write your testimony to BOE? At least it’s not hurting for them to hear another testimony for “fake community involvement”?

I truly believe Karla is the BOE member behind the scene that gives green light all the way through to Taylor and CO. Other BOE members chose to knee, but with more and more emails, they might rethink or at least loosen on their attitudes toward bending.

2nd this!

[Anonymous]

They need a majority to move forward, you can't pin it on one BOE member.

And if either of the 2 ladies running for council thinks this will help them, they've got another thing coming. As a parent, I'd say put a stop for it, or I will help whoever your opponent for that council seat is ride to victory.

[Anonymous]

Thank you for speaking out. It’s so disrespectful of them to take up your time, unpaid, and then plus their ears whenever you said something they disagreed with. And the to abruptly stop meetings without communication.

Thirding the suggestion of a BoE testimony, especially if you can get several people to sign on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a member of the "academic programs design team." I use that term loosely because we had no input into the design -- in fact, central office staff did all the designing. Members of the team pushed back hard on what we heard and the lack of rigor or analysis--to the point where meetings were very contentious because team members were frustrated that their input was not reflected in any way in what MCPS was doing.

At one point we were meeting weekly. But we have now gone well over a month without a word from MCPS. We had a single meeting focused on middle schools in early October, and it was pretty general -- no specifics about what MCPS is planning to put forward. The presumption was we would have meetings to talk about specifics, but there has been nothing since then. I guess they got sick of the team giving them negative feedback, but at this point, there is no one who is actually providing any feedback on the middle school model.

I mean, we weren't really a "check" on them in the first place? But yeah, I dunno if they're ever bringing us back.

Correct. These advisory groups MCPS convenes are always a performative, box-checking exercise. Not a real partner and collaborator for decision making.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for speaking out. It’s so disrespectful of them to take up your time, unpaid, and then plus their ears whenever you said something they disagreed with. And the to abruptly stop meetings without communication.

Thirding the suggestion of a BoE testimony, especially if you can get several people to sign on.

+1

It’s a shame because it actually sounds like members of the design team were knowledgeable and thoughtful and had the best interests of students, staff and families in mind, in contrast to Thomas, Essie, etc. who clearly do not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for speaking out. It’s so disrespectful of them to take up your time, unpaid, and then plus their ears whenever you said something they disagreed with. And the to abruptly stop meetings without communication.

Thirding the suggestion of a BoE testimony, especially if you can get several people to sign on.

+1

It’s a shame because it actually sounds like members of the design team were knowledgeable and thoughtful and had the best interests of students, staff and families in mind, in contrast to Thomas, Essie, etc. who clearly do not.

+2 Thank you for letting us know what’s going on from your end. It’s consistent with what I’m seeing: they are dogmatically insisting their solution is the only and best solution, regardless of the manifold harms it will do to majority high-FARMS URM communities (breaking up DCC, blocking access to established and renown programs to be replaced with poor substitutes, siphoning the higher performing students away from their high-FARMS home schools, etc) and the astronomical cost to taxpayers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for speaking out. It’s so disrespectful of them to take up your time, unpaid, and then plus their ears whenever you said something they disagreed with. And the to abruptly stop meetings without communication.

Thirding the suggestion of a BoE testimony, especially if you can get several people to sign on.

+1

It’s a shame because it actually sounds like members of the design team were knowledgeable and thoughtful and had the best interests of students, staff and families in mind, in contrast to Thomas, Essie, etc. who clearly do not.

+2 Thank you for letting us know what’s going on from your end. It’s consistent with what I’m seeing: they are dogmatically insisting their solution is the only and best solution, regardless of the manifold harms it will do to majority high-FARMS URM communities (breaking up DCC, blocking access to established and renown programs to be replaced with poor substitutes, siphoning the higher performing students away from their high-FARMS home schools, etc) and the astronomical cost to taxpayers.

+3

[Anonymous]

So does this mean central office is getting no community input on the middle school regional model? Or are the just not doing it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So does this mean central office is getting no community input on the middle school regional model? Or are the just not doing it?

I think they are likely not going to touch MS programs this year as they are out of bandwidth. They will probably do it next year as the current MS programs do not line up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am a member of the "academic programs design team." I use that term loosely because we had no input into the design -- in fact, central office staff did all the designing. Members of the team pushed back hard on what we heard and the lack of rigor or analysis--to the point where meetings were very contentious because team members were frustrated that their input was not reflected in any way in what MCPS was doing.

At one point we were meeting weekly. But we have now gone well over a month without a word from MCPS. We had a single meeting focused on middle schools in early October, and it was pretty general -- no specifics about what MCPS is planning to put forward. The presumption was we would have meetings to talk about specifics, but there has been nothing since then. I guess they got sick of the team giving them negative feedback, but at this point, there is no one who is actually providing any feedback on the middle school model.

I'm also on that team (or was, status currently unclear). We met once in August and once in September. Both of those meetings were previews of the presentations MCPS later gave to the BoE. When team members objected to certain problems too emphatically, MCPS scolded them for interrupting and/or using harsh language. We were also told not to use the email chain for the group except to discuss meeting logistics.

[Anonymous]

Not a surprise. Wasn’t this the team MCPS made sign NDAs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not a surprise. Wasn’t this the team MCPS made sign NDAs?

Yeah.