Will mcps get better post-McKnight?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is such a strong culture in central office that it will take a complete shakeup with all of the leadership being fired to change it. McKnight was only part of the problem.

This is what they need to do. Frankly, they may need an interim for a year or two to do the firings etc before bringing in the change maker.

No need for an interim if they can find and hire a strong change agent. But, since this is MCPS in MoCo, the likelihood of that happening is next to nil.

I'm not the PP, but I am someone whose job includes change management. I actually think a long-term interim might be the right call here. It would be a bold move, and I'm not sure the BoE has the stomach for it, but here's the case:

In organizations where there are long-standing issues of trust, it can be hard for a new leader to both make the necessary changes and to build appropriate long-term relationships with staff and clients (in this case, families). In a toxic situation, people still have relationships. You might know that Sue in the next cubicle hasn't done an honest day of work in 15 years, but you also like her and she brings brownies on Fridays, and you are going to be mad at whomever takes action against her even if that action is deserved.

MCPS has massive trust issues. The reporting over the last year has revealed a culture of impunity, in which "favored" individuals were not only shielded from consequences, but rewarded and promoted while whistle-blowers were subject to retaliation.

In this case, where the toxic leadership reaches down so far, an interim superintendent might be the right choice. Let someone come in for 18 months and make all the hard decisions, without worrying about building the longer-term relationships. Then that person leaves a better-functioning, de-corrupted, leadership team for the next person to take over.

Your plan would make sense if we didn't know who the interim superintendent would be. But we do. And Dr. Felder is no change agent.

She is of the same ilk as Dr. McKnight. She parrots equity-focused soundbites and speaks in empty eduspeak. She is there to keep doing what was already in motion. Not change things.

I'm the PP and the thing about change management is that you can't do it all at once. I don't know enough about Dr. Felder to know whether she's the right person for the job, but what if she was able to "just" handle the pieces that relate to HR, bullying, harassment, and retaliation.

So, maybe you want her to also roll back lottery-based admissions to magnets, but the bigger priority is re-establishing trust between teachers, staff, administrators, families, and the Central Office regarding handling of serious HR actions.

That might be enough for one year, and then a new superintendent could look at the downstream issues once baseline trust is restored.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is such a strong culture in central office that it will take a complete shakeup with all of the leadership being fired to change it. McKnight was only part of the problem.

This is what they need to do. Frankly, they may need an interim for a year or two to do the firings etc before bringing in the change maker.

No need for an interim if they can find and hire a strong change agent. But, since this is MCPS in MoCo, the likelihood of that happening is next to nil.

I'm not the PP, but I am someone whose job includes change management. I actually think a long-term interim might be the right call here. It would be a bold move, and I'm not sure the BoE has the stomach for it, but here's the case:

In organizations where there are long-standing issues of trust, it can be hard for a new leader to both make the necessary changes and to build appropriate long-term relationships with staff and clients (in this case, families). In a toxic situation, people still have relationships. You might know that Sue in the next cubicle hasn't done an honest day of work in 15 years, but you also like her and she brings brownies on Fridays, and you are going to be mad at whomever takes action against her even if that action is deserved.

MCPS has massive trust issues. The reporting over the last year has revealed a culture of impunity, in which "favored" individuals were not only shielded from consequences, but rewarded and promoted while whistle-blowers were subject to retaliation.

In this case, where the toxic leadership reaches down so far, an interim superintendent might be the right choice. Let someone come in for 18 months and make all the hard decisions, without worrying about building the longer-term relationships. Then that person leaves a better-functioning, de-corrupted, leadership team for the next person to take over.

Your plan would make sense if we didn't know who the interim superintendent would be. But we do. And Dr. Felder is no change agent.

She is of the same ilk as Dr. McKnight. She parrots equity-focused soundbites and speaks in empty eduspeak. She is there to keep doing what was already in motion. Not change things.

I'm the PP and the thing about change management is that you can't do it all at once. I don't know enough about Dr. Felder to know whether she's the right person for the job, but what if she was able to "just" handle the pieces that relate to HR, bullying, harassment, and retaliation.

So, maybe you want her to also roll back lottery-based admissions to magnets, but the bigger priority is re-establishing trust between teachers, staff, administrators, families, and the Central Office regarding handling of serious HR actions.

That might be enough for one year, and then a new superintendent could look at the downstream issues once baseline trust is restored.

If we're lucky, your best case scenario is what could happen.

Again, having seen her speak a few times, I'm not confident. And given she was ejected from multiple school districts for issues related to transparency and accountability, I'm not confident she can lead the charge on cleaning up a toxic culture of lies, manipulation and gas lighting. But maybe she's turned over a new leaf and can make a difference?

Feels like wishful thinking to me but not much we can do but hope she does some good at this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is such a strong culture in central office that it will take a complete shakeup with all of the leadership being fired to change it. McKnight was only part of the problem.

This is what they need to do. Frankly, they may need an interim for a year or two to do the firings etc before bringing in the change maker.

No need for an interim if they can find and hire a strong change agent. But, since this is MCPS in MoCo, the likelihood of that happening is next to nil.

I'm not the PP, but I am someone whose job includes change management. I actually think a long-term interim might be the right call here. It would be a bold move, and I'm not sure the BoE has the stomach for it, but here's the case:

In organizations where there are long-standing issues of trust, it can be hard for a new leader to both make the necessary changes and to build appropriate long-term relationships with staff and clients (in this case, families). In a toxic situation, people still have relationships. You might know that Sue in the next cubicle hasn't done an honest day of work in 15 years, but you also like her and she brings brownies on Fridays, and you are going to be mad at whomever takes action against her even if that action is deserved.

MCPS has massive trust issues. The reporting over the last year has revealed a culture of impunity, in which "favored" individuals were not only shielded from consequences, but rewarded and promoted while whistle-blowers were subject to retaliation.

In this case, where the toxic leadership reaches down so far, an interim superintendent might be the right choice. Let someone come in for 18 months and make all the hard decisions, without worrying about building the longer-term relationships. Then that person leaves a better-functioning, de-corrupted, leadership team for the next person to take over.

Your plan would make sense if we didn't know who the interim superintendent would be. But we do. And Dr. Felder is no change agent.

She is of the same ilk as Dr. McKnight. She parrots equity-focused soundbites and speaks in empty eduspeak. She is there to keep doing what was already in motion. Not change things.

I'm the PP and the thing about change management is that you can't do it all at once. I don't know enough about Dr. Felder to know whether she's the right person for the job, but what if she was able to "just" handle the pieces that relate to HR, bullying, harassment, and retaliation.

So, maybe you want her to also roll back lottery-based admissions to magnets, but the bigger priority is re-establishing trust between teachers, staff, administrators, families, and the Central Office regarding handling of serious HR actions.

That might be enough for one year, and then a new superintendent could look at the downstream issues once baseline trust is restored.

Felder's interim appointment is only through July 1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think moving out of state will solve the problem. Schools are falling apart everywhere.

Schools are fine, even great when families value education. The problem isn't the schools as much as it is the parents.

So true! Lazy parents expect the state to raise their children for them.

Parents not parenting and giving their kids guns. Parent allowing their kids to be hoodlums and not placing importance on education. It all starts At home. Ask the Asians.

Agree and the county can't address this. It isn't realistic for the government to provide values or raise your children.

But they can ensure a safe learning environment by removing kids who introduce violence into the classroom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It should continue to improve by leaps and bounds if they continue her pro-equity legacy.

Many innovative techniques McKnight pioneered to help close the achievement gap from the top down will live on. For example, turning all the programs for advanced learners into lotteries, honors for all in HS, and eliminating reading groups for students at grade level or higher in ES have gone a long way to close that gap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is such a strong culture in central office that it will take a complete shakeup with all of the leadership being fired to change it. McKnight was only part of the problem.

This is what they need to do. Frankly, they may need an interim for a year or two to do the firings etc before bringing in the change maker.

No need for an interim if they can find and hire a strong change agent. But, since this is MCPS in MoCo, the likelihood of that happening is next to nil.

I'm not the PP, but I am someone whose job includes change management. I actually think a long-term interim might be the right call here. It would be a bold move, and I'm not sure the BoE has the stomach for it, but here's the case:

In organizations where there are long-standing issues of trust, it can be hard for a new leader to both make the necessary changes and to build appropriate long-term relationships with staff and clients (in this case, families). In a toxic situation, people still have relationships. You might know that Sue in the next cubicle hasn't done an honest day of work in 15 years, but you also like her and she brings brownies on Fridays, and you are going to be mad at whomever takes action against her even if that action is deserved.

MCPS has massive trust issues. The reporting over the last year has revealed a culture of impunity, in which "favored" individuals were not only shielded from consequences, but rewarded and promoted while whistle-blowers were subject to retaliation.

In this case, where the toxic leadership reaches down so far, an interim superintendent might be the right choice. Let someone come in for 18 months and make all the hard decisions, without worrying about building the longer-term relationships. Then that person leaves a better-functioning, de-corrupted, leadership team for the next person to take over.

Your plan would make sense if we didn't know who the interim superintendent would be. But we do. And Dr. Felder is no change agent.

She is of the same ilk as Dr. McKnight. She parrots equity-focused soundbites and speaks in empty eduspeak. She is there to keep doing what was already in motion. Not change things.

I'm the PP and the thing about change management is that you can't do it all at once. I don't know enough about Dr. Felder to know whether she's the right person for the job, but what if she was able to "just" handle the pieces that relate to HR, bullying, harassment, and retaliation.

So, maybe you want her to also roll back lottery-based admissions to magnets, but the bigger priority is re-establishing trust between teachers, staff, administrators, families, and the Central Office regarding handling of serious HR actions.

That might be enough for one year, and then a new superintendent could look at the downstream issues once baseline trust is restored.

Felder's interim appointment is only through July 1.

This can always be extended, and don’t forget, Felder has along history in MCPS with all the baggage and ties that go with it. It is time for a clean sweep.🧹

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It should continue to improve by leaps and bounds if they continue her pro-equity legacy.

Many innovative techniques McKnight pioneered to help close the achievement gap from the top down will live on. For example, turning all the programs for advanced learners into lotteries, honors for all in HS, and eliminating reading groups for students at grade level or higher in ES have gone a long way to close that gap.

But that didn't happen....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It should continue to improve by leaps and bounds if they continue her pro-equity legacy.

Many innovative techniques McKnight pioneered to help close the achievement gap from the top down will live on. For example, turning all the programs for advanced learners into lotteries, honors for all in HS, and eliminating reading groups for students at grade level or higher in ES have gone a long way to close that gap.

This level of gaslighting is disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It should continue to improve by leaps and bounds if they continue her pro-equity legacy.

Many innovative techniques McKnight pioneered to help close the achievement gap from the top down will live on. For example, turning all the programs for advanced learners into lotteries, honors for all in HS, and eliminating reading groups for students at grade level or higher in ES have gone a long way to close that gap.

+1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It should continue to improve by leaps and bounds if they continue her pro-equity legacy.

Many innovative techniques McKnight pioneered to help close the achievement gap from the top down will live on. For example, turning all the programs for advanced learners into lotteries, honors for all in HS, and eliminating reading groups for students at grade level or higher in ES have gone a long way to close that gap.

But that didn't happen....

You're saying all these programs like CES or MS magnets aren't lotteries?
That most HS honors classes aren't basically grade level classes with an honors label?
Or that they still offer reading groups to average students in ES?

These are all practices that started within the last 2-4 years and are now commonplace.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It should continue to improve by leaps and bounds if they continue her pro-equity legacy.

Many innovative techniques McKnight pioneered to help close the achievement gap from the top down will live on. For example, turning all the programs for advanced learners into lotteries, honors for all in HS, and eliminating reading groups for students at grade level or higher in ES have gone a long way to close that gap.

But that didn't happen....

You're saying all these programs like CES or MS magnets aren't lotteries?
That most HS honors classes aren't basically grade level classes with an honors label?
Or that they still offer reading groups to average students in ES?

These are all practices that started within the last 2-4 years and are now commonplace.

No, I was replying to the bolded text which said "turning all the programs for advanced learners into lotteries." The high school programs for advanced learners were not turned into lotteries, so that claim is false. You should have originally specified CES or MS magnets if that was your point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It should continue to improve by leaps and bounds if they continue her pro-equity legacy.

Many innovative techniques McKnight pioneered to help close the achievement gap from the top down will live on. For example, turning all the programs for advanced learners into lotteries, honors for all in HS, and eliminating reading groups for students at grade level or higher in ES have gone a long way to close that gap.

But that didn't happen....

You're saying all these programs like CES or MS magnets aren't lotteries?
That most HS honors classes aren't basically grade level classes with an honors label?
Or that they still offer reading groups to average students in ES?

These are all practices that started within the last 2-4 years and are now commonplace.

No, I was replying to the bolded text which said "turning all the programs for advanced learners into lotteries." The high school programs for advanced learners were not turned into lotteries, so that claim is false. You should have originally specified CES or MS magnets if that was your point.

Yes, she left one or two programs alone, but the vast majority are now lotteries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It should continue to improve by leaps and bounds if they continue her pro-equity legacy.

Many innovative techniques McKnight pioneered to help close the achievement gap from the top down will live on. For example, turning all the programs for advanced learners into lotteries, honors for all in HS, and eliminating reading groups for students at grade level or higher in ES have gone a long way to close that gap.

But that didn't happen....

You're saying all these programs like CES or MS magnets aren't lotteries?
That most HS honors classes aren't basically grade level classes with an honors label?
Or that they still offer reading groups to average students in ES?

These are all practices that started within the last 2-4 years and are now commonplace.

MCPS is focused on the bottom 20% and could care less about any one else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is such a strong culture in central office that it will take a complete shakeup with all of the leadership being fired to change it. McKnight was only part of the problem.

This is what they need to do. Frankly, they may need an interim for a year or two to do the firings etc before bringing in the change maker.

No need for an interim if they can find and hire a strong change agent. But, since this is MCPS in MoCo, the likelihood of that happening is next to nil.

I'm not the PP, but I am someone whose job includes change management. I actually think a long-term interim might be the right call here. It would be a bold move, and I'm not sure the BoE has the stomach for it, but here's the case:

In organizations where there are long-standing issues of trust, it can be hard for a new leader to both make the necessary changes and to build appropriate long-term relationships with staff and clients (in this case, families). In a toxic situation, people still have relationships. You might know that Sue in the next cubicle hasn't done an honest day of work in 15 years, but you also like her and she brings brownies on Fridays, and you are going to be mad at whomever takes action against her even if that action is deserved.

MCPS has massive trust issues. The reporting over the last year has revealed a culture of impunity, in which "favored" individuals were not only shielded from consequences, but rewarded and promoted while whistle-blowers were subject to retaliation.

In this case, where the toxic leadership reaches down so far, an interim superintendent might be the right choice. Let someone come in for 18 months and make all the hard decisions, without worrying about building the longer-term relationships. Then that person leaves a better-functioning, de-corrupted, leadership team for the next person to take over.

+1000. This is true. Particular if you want big changes quickly. Someone has to be the hammer, and few of those persons get to stay around for the long term. Once the glass is broken and all the dust kicked up and settled, someone else gets to come les to a new promise land.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It should continue to improve by leaps and bounds if they continue her pro-equity legacy.

Many innovative techniques McKnight pioneered to help close the achievement gap from the top down will live on. For example, turning all the programs for advanced learners into lotteries, honors for all in HS, and eliminating reading groups for students at grade level or higher in ES have gone a long way to close that gap.

But that didn't happen....

You're saying all these programs like CES or MS magnets aren't lotteries?
That most HS honors classes aren't basically grade level classes with an honors label?
Or that they still offer reading groups to average students in ES?

These are all practices that started within the last 2-4 years and are now commonplace.

CES and MS Magnets are lotteries of all the qualified students. Not sure why this is a problem. Its competition.

Most Honors classes are not basically grade level classes. There are specific English classes for which this is true, but there are other Honors classes

Yes, ES still offer reading groups for average and even above average students. They may not be as frequent per week as for below average students, but they do still occur. And no this is not a practice that started in the last two years.