2/22/24 BOE meeting

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I found it shocking how confused the BOE was about how Title I schools are designated and why some schools this year saw big shifts in their status (some losing Title I classification after having it for years). It was embarrassing how little they knew and how poorly staff explained it to them. It almost seems like MCPS staff was trying to hide something but the BOE was so ill equipped on the issue that they all just stammered around the issue and asked for follow up briefings. For an issue as big as this one, you’d think they’d have those briefings first and then be ready at the meeting.

I don’t even have a dog in the fight but it was honestly shocking how such an important issue just flies right over their heads

Well, it wasn't on the agenda. It only came up because several people raised it during their public comments.

They could have easily prepared by reading the pre-submitted public comments ahead of time!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I found it shocking how confused the BOE was about how Title I schools are designated and why some schools this year saw big shifts in their status (some losing Title I classification after having it for years). It was embarrassing how little they knew and how poorly staff explained it to them. It almost seems like MCPS staff was trying to hide something but the BOE was so ill equipped on the issue that they all just stammered around the issue and asked for follow up briefings. For an issue as big as this one, you’d think they’d have those briefings first and then be ready at the meeting.

I don’t even have a dog in the fight but it was honestly shocking how such an important issue just flies right over their heads

I thought the feds changed the demographics but I could be wrong. Or, with housing prices climbing and those schools are the only affordable housing left, maybe the demographics are changing in those areas.

The feds changed how certain extremely high-poverty schools qualify for free and reduced meals. Essentially, rather than having families fill out individual eligibility forms, it makes more sense to look at the school community as a whole and just offer free meals to every student in schools where a certain percentage of kids receive SNAP.

That's good. No complaints about that - it reduces paperwork, saves resources, and ensures that kids whose families are reluctant to engage with paperwork are able to eat two meals a day at school.

The problem is MCPS. Since those highest needs schools were no longer collecting individual FARMS forms, MCPS decided to *also* use the SNAP data to determine how they allocate Title I funds. Literally anyone who regularly engages with poor/working class communities could have told you why that was a bad idea. Not only is the process of applying for SNAP complicated, and not only does it require interaction with state authorities, but undocumented immigrants are not eligible.

So, in schools with a lot of mixed-status families (like Oak View), you are going to have many fewer families that receive SNAP than who would have received FARMS.

I don't want to get into a whole thing about undocumented immigrants and benefits, but this was absolutely predictable. A school like Oak View has large number of families with US citizen kids and undocumented parents. We want those kids to have access to services, because it helps them become more integrated members of our shared community. Stripping the school of those supports does nobody any good.

You just explained the issue 10x better than anyone could at the BOE meeting. Also confirms my suspicion that the staff knew that they made a decision that at least in part resulted in the changes the BOE was hearing complaints about but didn’t want to own up to that. I was clueless about this issue but even I could tell that staff was trying to BS their way around the issue and I just wish someone would call them out on it during meetings like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I found it shocking how confused the BOE was about how Title I schools are designated and why some schools this year saw big shifts in their status (some losing Title I classification after having it for years). It was embarrassing how little they knew and how poorly staff explained it to them. It almost seems like MCPS staff was trying to hide something but the BOE was so ill equipped on the issue that they all just stammered around the issue and asked for follow up briefings. For an issue as big as this one, you’d think they’d have those briefings first and then be ready at the meeting.

I don’t even have a dog in the fight but it was honestly shocking how such an important issue just flies right over their heads

I thought the feds changed the demographics but I could be wrong. Or, with housing prices climbing and those schools are the only affordable housing left, maybe the demographics are changing in those areas.

The feds changed how certain extremely high-poverty schools qualify for free and reduced meals. Essentially, rather than having families fill out individual eligibility forms, it makes more sense to look at the school community as a whole and just offer free meals to every student in schools where a certain percentage of kids receive SNAP.

That's good. No complaints about that - it reduces paperwork, saves resources, and ensures that kids whose families are reluctant to engage with paperwork are able to eat two meals a day at school.

The problem is MCPS. Since those highest needs schools were no longer collecting individual FARMS forms, MCPS decided to *also* use the SNAP data to determine how they allocate Title I funds. Literally anyone who regularly engages with poor/working class communities could have told you why that was a bad idea. Not only is the process of applying for SNAP complicated, and not only does it require interaction with state authorities, but undocumented immigrants are not eligible.

So, in schools with a lot of mixed-status families (like Oak View), you are going to have many fewer families that receive SNAP than who would have received FARMS.

I don't want to get into a whole thing about undocumented immigrants and benefits, but this was absolutely predictable. A school like Oak View has large number of families with US citizen kids and undocumented parents. We want those kids to have access to services, because it helps them become more integrated members of our shared community. Stripping the school of those supports does nobody any good.

You just explained the issue 10x better than anyone could at the BOE meeting. Also confirms my suspicion that the staff knew that they made a decision that at least in part resulted in the changes the BOE was hearing complaints about but didn’t want to own up to that. I was clueless about this issue but even I could tell that staff was trying to BS their way around the issue and I just wish someone would call them out on it during meetings like that.

I'm the PP and thanks. Honestly, this was not hard to figure out. I would kill for just one BoE member to ask simple questions like:

"How did you account for undocumented and mixed status families when you made this change?"

"How did you consider special programs such as language immersion or CES programs when determining Title I and Focus Schools for next year?

"Once you saw the new list, did anyone flag concerns given that the school paired with Oak View is the highest poverty school in MCPS?"

"If so, what was done to explain the dramatic shift?"

"What specific measures will the Division of Title I be taking next year to remediate the impact of this shift?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I found it shocking how confused the BOE was about how Title I schools are designated and why some schools this year saw big shifts in their status (some losing Title I classification after having it for years). It was embarrassing how little they knew and how poorly staff explained it to them. It almost seems like MCPS staff was trying to hide something but the BOE was so ill equipped on the issue that they all just stammered around the issue and asked for follow up briefings. For an issue as big as this one, you’d think they’d have those briefings first and then be ready at the meeting.

I don’t even have a dog in the fight but it was honestly shocking how such an important issue just flies right over their heads

I thought the feds changed the demographics but I could be wrong. Or, with housing prices climbing and those schools are the only affordable housing left, maybe the demographics are changing in those areas.

The feds changed how certain extremely high-poverty schools qualify for free and reduced meals. Essentially, rather than having families fill out individual eligibility forms, it makes more sense to look at the school community as a whole and just offer free meals to every student in schools where a certain percentage of kids receive SNAP.

That's good. No complaints about that - it reduces paperwork, saves resources, and ensures that kids whose families are reluctant to engage with paperwork are able to eat two meals a day at school.

The problem is MCPS. Since those highest needs schools were no longer collecting individual FARMS forms, MCPS decided to *also* use the SNAP data to determine how they allocate Title I funds. Literally anyone who regularly engages with poor/working class communities could have told you why that was a bad idea. Not only is the process of applying for SNAP complicated, and not only does it require interaction with state authorities, but undocumented immigrants are not eligible.

So, in schools with a lot of mixed-status families (like Oak View), you are going to have many fewer families that receive SNAP than who would have received FARMS.

I don't want to get into a whole thing about undocumented immigrants and benefits, but this was absolutely predictable. A school like Oak View has large number of families with US citizen kids and undocumented parents. We want those kids to have access to services, because it helps them become more integrated members of our shared community. Stripping the school of those supports does nobody any good.

You just explained the issue 10x better than anyone could at the BOE meeting. Also confirms my suspicion that the staff knew that they made a decision that at least in part resulted in the changes the BOE was hearing complaints about but didn’t want to own up to that. I was clueless about this issue but even I could tell that staff was trying to BS their way around the issue and I just wish someone would call them out on it during meetings like that.

I'm the PP and thanks. Honestly, this was not hard to figure out. I would kill for just one BoE member to ask simple questions like:

"How did you account for undocumented and mixed status families when you made this change?"

"How did you consider special programs such as language immersion or CES programs when determining Title I and Focus Schools for next year?

"Once you saw the new list, did anyone flag concerns given that the school paired with Oak View is the highest poverty school in MCPS?"

"If so, what was done to explain the dramatic shift?"

"What specific measures will the Division of Title I be taking next year to remediate the impact of this shift?"

Several members did ask about this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I found it shocking how confused the BOE was about how Title I schools are designated and why some schools this year saw big shifts in their status (some losing Title I classification after having it for years). It was embarrassing how little they knew and how poorly staff explained it to them. It almost seems like MCPS staff was trying to hide something but the BOE was so ill equipped on the issue that they all just stammered around the issue and asked for follow up briefings. For an issue as big as this one, you’d think they’d have those briefings first and then be ready at the meeting.

I don’t even have a dog in the fight but it was honestly shocking how such an important issue just flies right over their heads

I thought the feds changed the demographics but I could be wrong. Or, with housing prices climbing and those schools are the only affordable housing left, maybe the demographics are changing in those areas.

The feds changed how certain extremely high-poverty schools qualify for free and reduced meals. Essentially, rather than having families fill out individual eligibility forms, it makes more sense to look at the school community as a whole and just offer free meals to every student in schools where a certain percentage of kids receive SNAP.

That's good. No complaints about that - it reduces paperwork, saves resources, and ensures that kids whose families are reluctant to engage with paperwork are able to eat two meals a day at school.

The problem is MCPS. Since those highest needs schools were no longer collecting individual FARMS forms, MCPS decided to *also* use the SNAP data to determine how they allocate Title I funds. Literally anyone who regularly engages with poor/working class communities could have told you why that was a bad idea. Not only is the process of applying for SNAP complicated, and not only does it require interaction with state authorities, but undocumented immigrants are not eligible.

So, in schools with a lot of mixed-status families (like Oak View), you are going to have many fewer families that receive SNAP than who would have received FARMS.

I don't want to get into a whole thing about undocumented immigrants and benefits, but this was absolutely predictable. A school like Oak View has large number of families with US citizen kids and undocumented parents. We want those kids to have access to services, because it helps them become more integrated members of our shared community. Stripping the school of those supports does nobody any good.

Federal requirements for Title 1 allowable allocations: https://oese.ed.gov/files/2022/02/Within-district-allocations-FINAL.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I found it shocking how confused the BOE was about how Title I schools are designated and why some schools this year saw big shifts in their status (some losing Title I classification after having it for years). It was embarrassing how little they knew and how poorly staff explained it to them. It almost seems like MCPS staff was trying to hide something but the BOE was so ill equipped on the issue that they all just stammered around the issue and asked for follow up briefings. For an issue as big as this one, you’d think they’d have those briefings first and then be ready at the meeting.

I don’t even have a dog in the fight but it was honestly shocking how such an important issue just flies right over their heads

I thought the feds changed the demographics but I could be wrong. Or, with housing prices climbing and those schools are the only affordable housing left, maybe the demographics are changing in those areas.

The feds changed how certain extremely high-poverty schools qualify for free and reduced meals. Essentially, rather than having families fill out individual eligibility forms, it makes more sense to look at the school community as a whole and just offer free meals to every student in schools where a certain percentage of kids receive SNAP.

That's good. No complaints about that - it reduces paperwork, saves resources, and ensures that kids whose families are reluctant to engage with paperwork are able to eat two meals a day at school.

The problem is MCPS. Since those highest needs schools were no longer collecting individual FARMS forms, MCPS decided to *also* use the SNAP data to determine how they allocate Title I funds. Literally anyone who regularly engages with poor/working class communities could have told you why that was a bad idea. Not only is the process of applying for SNAP complicated, and not only does it require interaction with state authorities, but undocumented immigrants are not eligible.

So, in schools with a lot of mixed-status families (like Oak View), you are going to have many fewer families that receive SNAP than who would have received FARMS.

I don't want to get into a whole thing about undocumented immigrants and benefits, but this was absolutely predictable. A school like Oak View has large number of families with US citizen kids and undocumented parents. We want those kids to have access to services, because it helps them become more integrated members of our shared community. Stripping the school of those supports does nobody any good.

You just explained the issue 10x better than anyone could at the BOE meeting. Also confirms my suspicion that the staff knew that they made a decision that at least in part resulted in the changes the BOE was hearing complaints about but didn’t want to own up to that. I was clueless about this issue but even I could tell that staff was trying to BS their way around the issue and I just wish someone would call them out on it during meetings like that.

I'm the PP and thanks. Honestly, this was not hard to figure out. I would kill for just one BoE member to ask simple questions like:

"How did you account for undocumented and mixed status families when you made this change?"

"How did you consider special programs such as language immersion or CES programs when determining Title I and Focus Schools for next year?

"Once you saw the new list, did anyone flag concerns given that the school paired with Oak View is the highest poverty school in MCPS?"

"If so, what was done to explain the dramatic shift?"

"What specific measures will the Division of Title I be taking next year to remediate the impact of this shift?"

Several members did ask about this.

Well, kind of. One member asked, and she didn't follow up when Pugh hedged by talking about school nurses rather than the academic resources that are being lost. These schools are losing about $400K per year in support. So, it's GOOD that they will still have access to school nurses and the CEP, but that's not actually the question.

Also underwhelmed by Evans asking about "door knockers." I've taught in one of the schools losing funding, and the problem isn't that the principals didn't know how to collect FARMS information - it's that MCPS Central Office didn't communicate ahead of time the ramifications of focusing their resources elsewhere at the beginning of the school year. If the Division of Title I was going to make this shift in February, they owed it to administrators to communicate that decision in August/September.

Finally, Wolff asked about whether K-2 vs 3-5 disadvantages those split schools, but that doesn't make sense. The question she didn't ask was how a school like OVES was disadvantaged by hosting 125-ish predominantly MC/UMC kids who have no meaningful interaction with the broader student body.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Esther Wells always gives abit of a run down on twitter https://twitter.com/EstherLWells/status/1760793613632442379

Geez, Silvestre in the meeting asking for clarification on an acronym with which she should have been very familiar as a multi-year BOE member: CEP -Community Eligibility Provision, the non-pricing school meal service allocation mechanism for low-income area schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Esther Wells always gives abit of a run down on twitter https://twitter.com/EstherLWells/status/1760793613632442379

Geez, Silvestre in the meeting asking for clarification on an acronym with which she should have been very familiar as a multi-year BOE member: CEP -Community Eligibility Provision, the non-pricing school meal service allocation mechanism for low-income area schools.

Not that I think the BOE members did (or nearly ever do) a good job questioning MCPS to draw out important data/considerations/aims/etc. to help make decisions, but expecting familiarity with acronyms in this acronym-centric region would probably be more reasonable if we had a full-time BOE who were paid a reasonably professional salary to do so.

[Anonymous]

These members do not seem to do the homework! Much more reading and understanding of issues is required to get answers and staff know so they give us answers. Ugh.

[Anonymous]

^* BS answers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Esther Wells always gives abit of a run down on twitter https://twitter.com/EstherLWells/status/1760793613632442379

Geez, Silvestre in the meeting asking for clarification on an acronym with which she should have been very familiar as a multi-year BOE member: CEP -Community Eligibility Provision, the non-pricing school meal service allocation mechanism for low-income area schools.

Not that I think the BOE members did (or nearly ever do) a good job questioning MCPS to draw out important data/considerations/aims/etc. to help make decisions, but expecting familiarity with acronyms in this acronym-centric region would probably be more reasonable if we had a full-time BOE who were paid a reasonably professional salary to do so.

I believe that the BOE was likely informed on the changes to free meals, including CEP. Posted elsewhere:


MCPS sent out a back-to-school email in August that included this:

Your Student’s Meals at School

Fifty-eight MCPS schools will operate under the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) starting this school year. Students enrolled at these CEP schools may receive breakfast and lunch at no cost regardless of household income. A list of the participating schools can be found here.

We encourage all families with students enrolled at non-CEP schools to complete a Free and Reduced-price Meals Application. All meals are free for students who qualify for the program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I found it shocking how confused the BOE was about how Title I schools are designated and why some schools this year saw big shifts in their status (some losing Title I classification after having it for years). It was embarrassing how little they knew and how poorly staff explained it to them. It almost seems like MCPS staff was trying to hide something but the BOE was so ill equipped on the issue that they all just stammered around the issue and asked for follow up briefings. For an issue as big as this one, you’d think they’d have those briefings first and then be ready at the meeting.

I don’t even have a dog in the fight but it was honestly shocking how such an important issue just flies right over their heads

I thought the feds changed the demographics but I could be wrong. Or, with housing prices climbing and those schools are the only affordable housing left, maybe the demographics are changing in those areas.

The feds changed how certain extremely high-poverty schools qualify for free and reduced meals. Essentially, rather than having families fill out individual eligibility forms, it makes more sense to look at the school community as a whole and just offer free meals to every student in schools where a certain percentage of kids receive SNAP.

That's good. No complaints about that - it reduces paperwork, saves resources, and ensures that kids whose families are reluctant to engage with paperwork are able to eat two meals a day at school.

The problem is MCPS. Since those highest needs schools were no longer collecting individual FARMS forms, MCPS decided to *also* use the SNAP data to determine how they allocate Title I funds. Literally anyone who regularly engages with poor/working class communities could have told you why that was a bad idea. Not only is the process of applying for SNAP complicated, and not only does it require interaction with state authorities, but undocumented immigrants are not eligible.

So, in schools with a lot of mixed-status families (like Oak View), you are going to have many fewer families that receive SNAP than who would have received FARMS.

I don't want to get into a whole thing about undocumented immigrants and benefits, but this was absolutely predictable. A school like Oak View has large number of families with US citizen kids and undocumented parents. We want those kids to have access to services, because it helps them become more integrated members of our shared community. Stripping the school of those supports does nobody any good.

You just explained the issue 10x better than anyone could at the BOE meeting. Also confirms my suspicion that the staff knew that they made a decision that at least in part resulted in the changes the BOE was hearing complaints about but didn’t want to own up to that. I was clueless about this issue but even I could tell that staff was trying to BS their way around the issue and I just wish someone would call them out on it during meetings like that.

I'm the PP and thanks. Honestly, this was not hard to figure out. I would kill for just one BoE member to ask simple questions like:

"How did you account for undocumented and mixed status families when you made this change?"

"How did you consider special programs such as language immersion or CES programs when determining Title I and Focus Schools for next year?

"Once you saw the new list, did anyone flag concerns given that the school paired with Oak View is the highest poverty school in MCPS?"

"If so, what was done to explain the dramatic shift?"

"What specific measures will the Division of Title I be taking next year to remediate the impact of this shift?"

Several members did ask about this.

Well, kind of. One member asked, and she didn't follow up when Pugh hedged by talking about school nurses rather than the academic resources that are being lost. These schools are losing about $400K per year in support. So, it's GOOD that they will still have access to school nurses and the CEP, but that's not actually the question.

Also underwhelmed by Evans asking about "door knockers." I've taught in one of the schools losing funding, and the problem isn't that the principals didn't know how to collect FARMS information - it's that MCPS Central Office didn't communicate ahead of time the ramifications of focusing their resources elsewhere at the beginning of the school year. If the Division of Title I was going to make this shift in February, they owed it to administrators to communicate that decision in August/September.

Finally, Wolff asked about whether K-2 vs 3-5 disadvantages those split schools, but that doesn't make sense. The question she didn't ask was how a school like OVES was disadvantaged by hosting 125-ish predominantly MC/UMC kids who have no meaningful interaction with the broader student body.

All of Shebra's remarks were rambling, incoherent and absurd. Her emphasis on giving the principals "tools" to get forms filled out was childish and ridiculous. She has to go. She is not a serious school board member.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Esther Wells always gives abit of a run down on twitter https://twitter.com/EstherLWells/status/1760793613632442379

Geez, Silvestre in the meeting asking for clarification on an acronym with which she should have been very familiar as a multi-year BOE member: CEP -Community Eligibility Provision, the non-pricing school meal service allocation mechanism for low-income area schools.

Not that I think the BOE members did (or nearly ever do) a good job questioning MCPS to draw out important data/considerations/aims/etc. to help make decisions, but expecting familiarity with acronyms in this acronym-centric region would probably be more reasonable if we had a full-time BOE who were paid a reasonably professional salary to do so.

I believe that the BOE was likely informed on the changes to free meals, including CEP. Posted elsewhere:


MCPS sent out a back-to-school email in August that included this:

Your Student’s Meals at School

Fifty-eight MCPS schools will operate under the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) starting this school year. Students enrolled at these CEP schools may receive breakfast and lunch at no cost regardless of household income. A list of the participating schools can be found here.

We encourage all families with students enrolled at non-CEP schools to complete a Free and Reduced-price Meals Application. All meals are free for students who qualify for the program.

Sure. And families were informed, too, I'd guess. I wonder how many of those family members remembered that for which "CEP" stood. Or MCPS teachers. Maybe, just maybe, I'd give the average school administrator not directly involved in a CEP/Title I program a 50/50 shot of knowing the acronym.

The point was that it may not be reasonable to expect professional-level acumen across the entirety of an enterprise as large and complex as MCPS from folks whose compensation would only cover a couple of hours a week of professional-level work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Esther Wells always gives abit of a run down on twitter https://twitter.com/EstherLWells/status/1760793613632442379

Geez, Silvestre in the meeting asking for clarification on an acronym with which she should have been very familiar as a multi-year BOE member: CEP -Community Eligibility Provision, the non-pricing school meal service allocation mechanism for low-income area schools.

Not that I think the BOE members did (or nearly ever do) a good job questioning MCPS to draw out important data/considerations/aims/etc. to help make decisions, but expecting familiarity with acronyms in this acronym-centric region would probably be more reasonable if we had a full-time BOE who were paid a reasonably professional salary to do so.

I believe that the BOE was likely informed on the changes to free meals, including CEP. Posted elsewhere:


MCPS sent out a back-to-school email in August that included this:

Your Student’s Meals at School

Fifty-eight MCPS schools will operate under the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) starting this school year. Students enrolled at these CEP schools may receive breakfast and lunch at no cost regardless of household income. A list of the participating schools can be found here.

We encourage all families with students enrolled at non-CEP schools to complete a Free and Reduced-price Meals Application. All meals are free for students who qualify for the program.

Sure. And families were informed, too, I'd guess. I wonder how many of those family members remembered that for which "CEP" stood. Or MCPS teachers. Maybe, just maybe, I'd give the average school administrator not directly involved in a CEP/Title I program a 50/50 shot of knowing the acronym.

The point was that it may not be reasonable to expect professional-level acumen across the entirety of an enterprise as large and complex as MCPS from folks whose compensation would only cover a couple of hours a week of professional-level work.

Title 1 formula issues and terminology should be understood by BOE members. It's a big issue. If a board member doesn't have time to learn key issues, I understand that. I would support full-time pay for board members. But Silvestre, and others, knew what they were signing up for. Silvestre was so poorly prepared for the council hearing a couple of weeks back. Why did Silvestre run for board president if she cannot put in the time to carry this added responsibility?

She is a well-meaning person, and has capability, but I really hope she chooses not to run again.

[Anonymous]

Vote in new members. They are all very in over their heads.