Upcoming in-person boundary study & regional model "engagement session": how to engage?

[Anonymous]

They clearly do not want feedback. If they wanted feedback they would be asking for it. Instead they are offering to "answer questions" in small groups about a vaguely defined program model that staff are clearly not in a position to answer questions about. If they wanted to do small groups it should have been small group facilitated conversations about how folks feel about the model (e.g. concerns, what people like, risks people see) and then reporting back at the end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you plan to go, you need to check their link almost daily to make sure nothing has changed.

There's no longer a Rockville HS meeting that was planned for Nov. 12, for example, and Clarksburg was added.

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/curriculum/academic-programs-analysis/

As of Nov. 5, in Person Community Engagement Meetings from 7-8 p.m. at:

Nov. 10 – Montgomery Blair High School (Region 1)
Nov. 13 – Winston Churchill High School (Region 4)
Nov. 17 – Paint Branch High School (Region 2)
Nov. 18 – Clarksburg High School (Region 6)

Interesting why there's not been widespread texts or emails. They didn't seem to have a problem announcing webinars multiple times. Looks bad faith.

And wasn't Watkins Mill slated for November 6th? It now looks like they held it on Tuesday the 4th. Was there public notice of the shift, as there was in publicizing the original dates? It looks as though they changed that announcement without posting an update about it or even changing the date of the news item to reflect the edit (e.g., "Updated 10/31" or the like).

Did anyone show up? Is there a video like from Kennedy? There isn't one yet posted to the mcpstv youtube channel. Maybe someone took their own video...

SMH at what now appears to be an absolute retrenchment to perfomative engagement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you plan to go, you need to check their link almost daily to make sure nothing has changed.

There's no longer a Rockville HS meeting that was planned for Nov. 12, for example, and Clarksburg was added.

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/curriculum/academic-programs-analysis/

As of Nov. 5, in Person Community Engagement Meetings from 7-8 p.m. at:

Nov. 10 – Montgomery Blair High School (Region 1)
Nov. 13 – Winston Churchill High School (Region 4)
Nov. 17 – Paint Branch High School (Region 2)
Nov. 18 – Clarksburg High School (Region 6)

Interesting why there's not been widespread texts or emails. They didn't seem to have a problem announcing webinars multiple times. Looks bad faith.

And wasn't Watkins Mill slated for November 6th? It now looks like they held it on Tuesday the 4th. Was there public notice of the shift, as there was in publicizing the original dates? It looks as though they changed that announcement without posting an update about it or even changing the date of the news item to reflect the edit (e.g., "Updated 10/31" or the like).

Did anyone show up? Is there a video like from Kennedy? There isn't one yet posted to the mcpstv youtube channel. Maybe someone took their own video...

SMH at what now appears to be an absolute retrenchment to perfomative engagement.

This is absolutely astonishing. Do you mean the Watkins Mill one has been held yesterday with no one knowing that?

The Kennedy video was posted by someone previously: https://youtu.be/InnCtMCX2J0?si=zI2fMAdeExwPG86c (QA started at 28 mins or so into the session and it was a show!)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you plan to go, you need to check their link almost daily to make sure nothing has changed.

There's no longer a Rockville HS meeting that was planned for Nov. 12, for example, and Clarksburg was added.

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/curriculum/academic-programs-analysis/

As of Nov. 5, in Person Community Engagement Meetings from 7-8 p.m. at:

Nov. 10 – Montgomery Blair High School (Region 1)
Nov. 13 – Winston Churchill High School (Region 4)
Nov. 17 – Paint Branch High School (Region 2)
Nov. 18 – Clarksburg High School (Region 6)

Interesting why there's not been widespread texts or emails. They didn't seem to have a problem announcing webinars multiple times. Looks bad faith.

And wasn't Watkins Mill slated for November 6th? It now looks like they held it on Tuesday the 4th. Was there public notice of the shift, as there was in publicizing the original dates? It looks as though they changed that announcement without posting an update about it or even changing the date of the news item to reflect the edit (e.g., "Updated 10/31" or the like).

Did anyone show up? Is there a video like from Kennedy? There isn't one yet posted to the mcpstv youtube channel. Maybe someone took their own video...

SMH at what now appears to be an absolute retrenchment to perfomative engagement.

Wow! MCPS just can’t get it together or communicate transparently or competently.

[Anonymous]

Yes, you’re right. Watkins Mill was originally scheduled for Nov. 6 (tomorrow) but MCPS changed it to two days earlier with no notice to the community. I also wonder if anyone attended a meeting, the date of which there was no notice about.

I don’t see any video. And I would not be surprised if people showed up tomorrow to a nonexistent meeting. The original list posted on Oct 23 was sent to us by our school principal and I have not seen any updates from MCPS that dates have changed, cancelled, or dates have been added.

[Anonymous]

If it goes up it should show up here: https://youtube.com/@mcps-md?si=2Xatz3UIHwqBfdG3

The Kennedy one was posted next-day, I believe. But I would not be surprised if MCPS insisted that the other ones not be recorded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If it goes up it should show up here: https://youtube.com/@mcps-md?si=2Xatz3UIHwqBfdG3

The Kennedy one was posted next-day, I believe. But I would not be surprised if MCPS insisted that the other ones not be recorded.

This is why the press needs to be there

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If it goes up it should show up here: https://youtube.com/@mcps-md?si=2Xatz3UIHwqBfdG3

The Kennedy one was posted next-day, I believe. But I would not be surprised if MCPS insisted that the other ones not be recorded.

Honestly maybe someone should download the Kennedy one in case they try to disappear that too ..

[Anonymous]

There have been student BOE testimonies. Student newspapers should be invited.

[Anonymous]

Mcps says anyone from any of the proposed regions can attend any of the meetings. Changes or cancellations should be mentioned in their communications, but there has been no mention of this countywide.

[Anonymous]

The kind of engagement that resulted from the Kennedy meeting, where direct answers from decision-makers were provided to individual questions, is exactly what the community needs from MCPS. Taylor, himself, did this at some sessions in the past.

Now, some of those answers were incomplete, either because there wasn't yet a fully fledged plan or because there was too great a tendency to interpret the question as answerable by reference to the already provided FAQ, but there were some for which the answers provided us with something new, clarifying or meaningful.

Many questions remained unasked, at least there at Kennedy -- we know there are so many asked that were avoided by MCPS in the online meetings simply by their having a curated Q & A with no open chat. And many were asked at the tables with only a few able to hear answers and without publicly available record -- we don't know if those staffing the tables, not at the decision-making level of Jeannie or Essie, were able to answer what almost certainly were probing queries, meant to bring important nuance to light.

The messy part of the meeting lasted for maybe three minutes. Kudos to McGuire and Franklin for pivoting to address the clear desire of those in attendance to have that town hall-style Q & A, and for managing it reasonably, if not perfectly, from that point. It would be a terrible shame for MCPS to take from that experience that they should take measures to keep such engagement from happening in the future when the community need for reliable, detailed answers is so clear. Having such on some kind of record should not unduly constrain MCPS -- reversals can be made if absolutely necessary by fully explaining that need -- while the relative certainty provided absolutely can net popular support -- many, many are unwilling to give MCPS the benefit of the doubt without it, and with the enormous ask, MCPS needs as much support as it can get.

In the future, they should have at least three separated areas for such meetings, as they had had two areas in some prior events. One could be an explanation video for any who show up without having read the plan/FAQ or having seen the prior online presentations. At 20 minutes, it could be rolled 3 times in an hour or 4 in an hour and a half.

Eating up time for Q & A with such repeat information is, sadly, far too typical. A second area, then, should be the table-based, small Q & A, allowing the kind of interaction with those informed, but not necessarily decision-making, staff that some may need better to understand the plans. These should not be recorded to allow individuals to speak most freely, though those staffing them may not have all the answers (or be authorized to provide them).

That, of course, won't result in the kind of interaction so very necessary, and typically unavailable, from MCPS to allow us to drive to important, but not well understood (if public at all) facts/considerations. A third area should be that town hall, recorded for others who may not be able to make it in person and with the participation of those who are in decision-making roles with the power to answer questions independently: Adnan Mamoon, Nikki Porter and Essie McGuire, delegates for them (e.g., Andrea Swiatocha and Jeannie Franklin) who are knowledgeable & empowered (and directed!) to provide those answers during the sessions, or Dr. Taylor, himself.

Again, it would be a terrible shame for MCPS to reverse the engagement pivot we saw at Kennedy. I'd admonish those claiming some kind of MCPS-smashing victory, there, to reflect on the benefit that might be gained from celebrating it rather than gloating over it.

Of course, if we see a pivot which again sends MCPS towards a circle-the-wagons, unresponsive-to-community-concerns engagement approach, all bets are off...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The kind of engagement that resulted from the Kennedy meeting, where direct answers from decision-makers were provided to individual questions, is exactly what the community needs from MCPS. Taylor, himself, did this at some sessions in the past.

Now, some of those answers were incomplete, either because there wasn't yet a fully fledged plan or because there was too great a tendency to interpret the question as answerable by reference to the already provided FAQ, but there were some for which the answers provided us with something new, clarifying or meaningful.

Many questions remained unasked, at least there at Kennedy -- we know there are so many asked that were avoided by MCPS in the online meetings simply by their having a curated Q & A with no open chat. And many were asked at the tables with only a few able to hear answers and without publicly available record -- we don't know if those staffing the tables, not at the decision-making level of Jeannie or Essie, were able to answer what almost certainly were probing queries, meant to bring important nuance to light.

The messy part of the meeting lasted for maybe three minutes. Kudos to McGuire and Franklin for pivoting to address the clear desire of those in attendance to have that town hall-style Q & A, and for managing it reasonably, if not perfectly, from that point. It would be a terrible shame for MCPS to take from that experience that they should take measures to keep such engagement from happening in the future when the community need for reliable, detailed answers is so clear. Having such on some kind of record should not unduly constrain MCPS -- reversals can be made if absolutely necessary by fully explaining that need -- while the relative certainty provided absolutely can net popular support -- many, many are unwilling to give MCPS the benefit of the doubt without it, and with the enormous ask, MCPS needs as much support as it can get.

In the future, they should have at least three separated areas for such meetings, as they had had two areas in some prior events. One could be an explanation video for any who show up without having read the plan/FAQ or having seen the prior online presentations. At 20 minutes, it could be rolled 3 times in an hour or 4 in an hour and a half.

Eating up time for Q & A with such repeat information is, sadly, far too typical. A second area, then, should be the table-based, small Q & A, allowing the kind of interaction with those informed, but not necessarily decision-making, staff that some may need better to understand the plans. These should not be recorded to allow individuals to speak most freely, though those staffing them may not have all the answers (or be authorized to provide them).

That, of course, won't result in the kind of interaction so very necessary, and typically unavailable, from MCPS to allow us to drive to important, but not well understood (if public at all) facts/considerations. A third area should be that town hall, recorded for others who may not be able to make it in person and with the participation of those who are in decision-making roles with the power to answer questions independently: Adnan Mamoon, Nikki Porter and Essie McGuire, delegates for them (e.g., Andrea Swiatocha and Jeannie Franklin) who are knowledgeable & empowered (and directed!) to provide those answers during the sessions, or Dr. Taylor, himself.

Again, it would be a terrible shame for MCPS to reverse the engagement pivot we saw at Kennedy. I'd admonish those claiming some kind of MCPS-smashing victory, there, to reflect on the benefit that might be gained from celebrating it rather than gloating over it.

Of course, if we see a pivot which again sends MCPS towards a circle-the-wagons, unresponsive-to-community-concerns engagement approach, all bets are off...

I appreciate this balanced reaction. It is important to remember that Central Office staff are people trying to do as best a job as they can. I would offer though that the people who deserve the most credit are the people who took the UNPAID time to attend the meeting, effectively made a very fair demand, persisted when their demand was initially rejected, and then continued on to participate in a respectful discussion.

And I think the fundamental problem remains that MCPS is uninterested in feedback. Answering questions is not the same thing as soliciting feedback. They do not care what the community thinks. Furthermore, they are rushing this model through for reasons that nobody understands and their answers to questions about why it is so rushed are not convincing or clear.

Like you, I hope they are willing to continue to publicly answer questions about their proposal. However, them doing so doesn't change the numerous problems with this process or their current proposal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The kind of engagement that resulted from the Kennedy meeting, where direct answers from decision-makers were provided to individual questions, is exactly what the community needs from MCPS. Taylor, himself, did this at some sessions in the past.

Now, some of those answers were incomplete, either because there wasn't yet a fully fledged plan or because there was too great a tendency to interpret the question as answerable by reference to the already provided FAQ, but there were some for which the answers provided us with something new, clarifying or meaningful.

Many questions remained unasked, at least there at Kennedy -- we know there are so many asked that were avoided by MCPS in the online meetings simply by their having a curated Q & A with no open chat. And many were asked at the tables with only a few able to hear answers and without publicly available record -- we don't know if those staffing the tables, not at the decision-making level of Jeannie or Essie, were able to answer what almost certainly were probing queries, meant to bring important nuance to light.

The messy part of the meeting lasted for maybe three minutes. Kudos to McGuire and Franklin for pivoting to address the clear desire of those in attendance to have that town hall-style Q & A, and for managing it reasonably, if not perfectly, from that point. It would be a terrible shame for MCPS to take from that experience that they should take measures to keep such engagement from happening in the future when the community need for reliable, detailed answers is so clear. Having such on some kind of record should not unduly constrain MCPS -- reversals can be made if absolutely necessary by fully explaining that need -- while the relative certainty provided absolutely can net popular support -- many, many are unwilling to give MCPS the benefit of the doubt without it, and with the enormous ask, MCPS needs as much support as it can get.

In the future, they should have at least three separated areas for such meetings, as they had had two areas in some prior events. One could be an explanation video for any who show up without having read the plan/FAQ or having seen the prior online presentations. At 20 minutes, it could be rolled 3 times in an hour or 4 in an hour and a half.

Eating up time for Q & A with such repeat information is, sadly, far too typical. A second area, then, should be the table-based, small Q & A, allowing the kind of interaction with those informed, but not necessarily decision-making, staff that some may need better to understand the plans. These should not be recorded to allow individuals to speak most freely, though those staffing them may not have all the answers (or be authorized to provide them).

That, of course, won't result in the kind of interaction so very necessary, and typically unavailable, from MCPS to allow us to drive to important, but not well understood (if public at all) facts/considerations. A third area should be that town hall, recorded for others who may not be able to make it in person and with the participation of those who are in decision-making roles with the power to answer questions independently: Adnan Mamoon, Nikki Porter and Essie McGuire, delegates for them (e.g., Andrea Swiatocha and Jeannie Franklin) who are knowledgeable & empowered (and directed!) to provide those answers during the sessions, or Dr. Taylor, himself.

Again, it would be a terrible shame for MCPS to reverse the engagement pivot we saw at Kennedy. I'd admonish those claiming some kind of MCPS-smashing victory, there, to reflect on the benefit that might be gained from celebrating it rather than gloating over it.

Of course, if we see a pivot which again sends MCPS towards a circle-the-wagons, unresponsive-to-community-concerns engagement approach, all bets are off...

I appreciate this balanced reaction. It is important to remember that Central Office staff are people trying to do as best a job as they can. I would offer though that the people who deserve the most credit are the people who took the UNPAID time to attend the meeting, effectively made a very fair demand, persisted when their demand was initially rejected, and then continued on to participate in a respectful discussion.

And I think the fundamental problem remains that MCPS is uninterested in feedback. Answering questions is not the same thing as soliciting feedback. They do not care what the community thinks. Furthermore, they are rushing this model through for reasons that nobody understands and their answers to questions about why it is so rushed are not convincing or clear.

Like you, I hope they are willing to continue to publicly answer questions about their proposal. However, them doing so doesn't change the numerous problems with this process or their current proposal.

Well noted and generally agreed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The kind of engagement that resulted from the Kennedy meeting, where direct answers from decision-makers were provided to individual questions, is exactly what the community needs from MCPS. Taylor, himself, did this at some sessions in the past.

Now, some of those answers were incomplete, either because there wasn't yet a fully fledged plan or because there was too great a tendency to interpret the question as answerable by reference to the already provided FAQ, but there were some for which the answers provided us with something new, clarifying or meaningful.

Many questions remained unasked, at least there at Kennedy -- we know there are so many asked that were avoided by MCPS in the online meetings simply by their having a curated Q & A with no open chat. And many were asked at the tables with only a few able to hear answers and without publicly available record -- we don't know if those staffing the tables, not at the decision-making level of Jeannie or Essie, were able to answer what almost certainly were probing queries, meant to bring important nuance to light.

The messy part of the meeting lasted for maybe three minutes. Kudos to McGuire and Franklin for pivoting to address the clear desire of those in attendance to have that town hall-style Q & A, and for managing it reasonably, if not perfectly, from that point. It would be a terrible shame for MCPS to take from that experience that they should take measures to keep such engagement from happening in the future when the community need for reliable, detailed answers is so clear. Having such on some kind of record should not unduly constrain MCPS -- reversals can be made if absolutely necessary by fully explaining that need -- while the relative certainty provided absolutely can net popular support -- many, many are unwilling to give MCPS the benefit of the doubt without it, and with the enormous ask, MCPS needs as much support as it can get.

In the future, they should have at least three separated areas for such meetings, as they had had two areas in some prior events. One could be an explanation video for any who show up without having read the plan/FAQ or having seen the prior online presentations. At 20 minutes, it could be rolled 3 times in an hour or 4 in an hour and a half.

Eating up time for Q & A with such repeat information is, sadly, far too typical. A second area, then, should be the table-based, small Q & A, allowing the kind of interaction with those informed, but not necessarily decision-making, staff that some may need better to understand the plans. These should not be recorded to allow individuals to speak most freely, though those staffing them may not have all the answers (or be authorized to provide them).

That, of course, won't result in the kind of interaction so very necessary, and typically unavailable, from MCPS to allow us to drive to important, but not well understood (if public at all) facts/considerations. A third area should be that town hall, recorded for others who may not be able to make it in person and with the participation of those who are in decision-making roles with the power to answer questions independently: Adnan Mamoon, Nikki Porter and Essie McGuire, delegates for them (e.g., Andrea Swiatocha and Jeannie Franklin) who are knowledgeable & empowered (and directed!) to provide those answers during the sessions, or Dr. Taylor, himself.

Again, it would be a terrible shame for MCPS to reverse the engagement pivot we saw at Kennedy. I'd admonish those claiming some kind of MCPS-smashing victory, there, to reflect on the benefit that might be gained from celebrating it rather than gloating over it.

Of course, if we see a pivot which again sends MCPS towards a circle-the-wagons, unresponsive-to-community-concerns engagement approach, all bets are off...

Sure....so the question is, did MCPS take these lessons learned from Kennedy as you pointed out and do what you said at Watkins Mill, or did they revert to the status quo, which is engineered to silence dissent and quell community engagement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They clearly do not want feedback. If they wanted feedback they would be asking for it. Instead they are offering to "answer questions" in small groups about a vaguely defined program model that staff are clearly not in a position to answer questions about. If they wanted to do small groups it should have been small group facilitated conversations about how folks feel about the model (e.g. concerns, what people like, risks people see) and then reporting back at the end.

Exactly, they clearly stated that in appendix F, then appendix U, appendix C, appendix K and of course appendix Y and appendix O and just for clarity appendix U again.