Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hazel has been complicit in keeping many things opaque to the public and in the shading of information presented to the BOE, including speaking some outright untruths when asked questions, in her prior role. I'm disappointed, there.

Hazel is a mixed bag. I have received some direct outreach from her when I have asked a question, and that has been helpful. She generally seems underprepared for the BOE meetings - does not know her stuff at the appropriate level of detail to answer specific questions.

I've had such direct interaction with her, covering a topic discussed somewhat regularly in this forum and having established both her level of detailed understanding and the politically touchy (from an education perspective) resistance point at which she became less forthcoming during the conversation. I've then seen her, not a month later, sit in front of the BOE, with her direct report (having spoken with that person, as well) providing the typical glossed-over/less-than-they-actually-know report covering that subject. When asked one question to which a direct answer would at least shed light around the resistance point, she stepped in with a bald lie to try to shut things down -- she very much knew the correct answer.

Unfortunately, our BOE was, and likely still is, too slow or simply complicit -- instead of asking a follow-up question, they accepted that and moved on. Having asked the question in the first place would point to the former, unless the Q & A was set up as theater, and the nature of the interaction makes that seem rather unlikely. Even if curious or uncertain, none of them seem willing to rock the boat, though. To my awareness, which, granted, is limited, the subject remains one of the many lacking transparency around internal/non-public policy, details of system implementation and ultimate effect on students, teachers and school communities.

It seems clear that this approach inherited from Pugh, and from others before/above her (and not just from the last administration, before someone chimes in with a dog whistle about that). In choosing Hazel, Taylor either:

1) did not have awareness of how pervasive the problem was among MCPS leadership,

2) bowed to the need for retention of institutional knowlegde in selecting a replacement who, though representing a change in personnel, might not represent a change in culture,

3) came to an understanding with her to effect a change towards transparency with her assuming elevated leadership,

4) shows he is not the agent of change MCPS long has needed, or

5) a mix of these.

I can hope for 3, but I'm not holding my breath.

How would they know it was a lie, though? It's a bit of a high bar to ask Board members to assume MCPS staff could be lying at all times and interrogate them to make sure they're not or expose them if they are.

In the BOE member's asking the question, they indicated skepticism about the subject as presented. A competent board member would follow any such deflecting/pat answer with another question designed to challenge/to be more incisive. Unless they were complicit, of course, asking the initial question so that the impression left from the deflecting/pat answer could be that the subject had been addressed. Either way, pretty poor.

I don't understand what you mean by deflecting/pat answer. Can you just say what was said?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hazel has been complicit in keeping many things opaque to the public and in the shading of information presented to the BOE, including speaking some outright untruths when asked questions, in her prior role. I'm disappointed, there.

Hazel is a mixed bag. I have received some direct outreach from her when I have asked a question, and that has been helpful. She generally seems underprepared for the BOE meetings - does not know her stuff at the appropriate level of detail to answer specific questions.

I've had such direct interaction with her, covering a topic discussed somewhat regularly in this forum and having established both her level of detailed understanding and the politically touchy (from an education perspective) resistance point at which she became less forthcoming during the conversation. I've then seen her, not a month later, sit in front of the BOE, with her direct report (having spoken with that person, as well) providing the typical glossed-over/less-than-they-actually-know report covering that subject. When asked one question to which a direct answer would at least shed light around the resistance point, she stepped in with a bald lie to try to shut things down -- she very much knew the correct answer.

Unfortunately, our BOE was, and likely still is, too slow or simply complicit -- instead of asking a follow-up question, they accepted that and moved on. Having asked the question in the first place would point to the former, unless the Q & A was set up as theater, and the nature of the interaction makes that seem rather unlikely. Even if curious or uncertain, none of them seem willing to rock the boat, though. To my awareness, which, granted, is limited, the subject remains one of the many lacking transparency around internal/non-public policy, details of system implementation and ultimate effect on students, teachers and school communities.

It seems clear that this approach inherited from Pugh, and from others before/above her (and not just from the last administration, before someone chimes in with a dog whistle about that). In choosing Hazel, Taylor either:

1) did not have awareness of how pervasive the problem was among MCPS leadership,

2) bowed to the need for retention of institutional knowlegde in selecting a replacement who, though representing a change in personnel, might not represent a change in culture,

3) came to an understanding with her to effect a change towards transparency with her assuming elevated leadership,

4) shows he is not the agent of change MCPS long has needed, or

5) a mix of these.

I can hope for 3, but I'm not holding my breath.

How would they know it was a lie, though? It's a bit of a high bar to ask Board members to assume MCPS staff could be lying at all times and interrogate them to make sure they're not or expose them if they are.

In the BOE member's asking the question, they indicated skepticism about the subject as presented. A competent board member would follow any such deflecting/pat answer with another question designed to challenge/to be more incisive. Unless they were complicit, of course, asking the initial question so that the impression left from the deflecting/pat answer could be that the subject had been addressed. Either way, pretty poor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hazel has been complicit in keeping many things opaque to the public and in the shading of information presented to the BOE, including speaking some outright untruths when asked questions, in her prior role. I'm disappointed, there.

Hazel is a mixed bag. I have received some direct outreach from her when I have asked a question, and that has been helpful. She generally seems underprepared for the BOE meetings - does not know her stuff at the appropriate level of detail to answer specific questions.

I've had such direct interaction with her, covering a topic discussed somewhat regularly in this forum and having established both her level of detailed understanding and the politically touchy (from an education perspective) resistance point at which she became less forthcoming during the conversation. I've then seen her, not a month later, sit in front of the BOE, with her direct report (having spoken with that person, as well) providing the typical glossed-over/less-than-they-actually-know report covering that subject. When asked one question to which a direct answer would at least shed light around the resistance point, she stepped in with a bald lie to try to shut things down -- she very much knew the correct answer.

Unfortunately, our BOE was, and likely still is, too slow or simply complicit -- instead of asking a follow-up question, they accepted that and moved on. Having asked the question in the first place would point to the former, unless the Q & A was set up as theater, and the nature of the interaction makes that seem rather unlikely. Even if curious or uncertain, none of them seem willing to rock the boat, though. To my awareness, which, granted, is limited, the subject remains one of the many lacking transparency around internal/non-public policy, details of system implementation and ultimate effect on students, teachers and school communities.

It seems clear that this approach inherited from Pugh, and from others before/above her (and not just from the last administration, before someone chimes in with a dog whistle about that). In choosing Hazel, Taylor either:

1) did not have awareness of how pervasive the problem was among MCPS leadership,

2) bowed to the need for retention of institutional knowlegde in selecting a replacement who, though representing a change in personnel, might not represent a change in culture,

3) came to an understanding with her to effect a change towards transparency with her assuming elevated leadership,

4) shows he is not the agent of change MCPS long has needed, or

5) a mix of these.

I can hope for 3, but I'm not holding my breath.

How would they know it was a lie, though? It's a bit of a high bar to ask Board members to assume MCPS staff could be lying at all times and interrogate them to make sure they're not or expose them if they are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s honestly pretty disappointing that Hazel and Moran stick around for this simple fact. MCPS’s reputation, performance and impact have hit historic lows over the last 10 years. To think that anyone who was associated with the brutal demise of our once strong school system has a place in steering the future of our school system is gross.

Which part of MCPS is functioning at a high enough level where this level of decision makers should be retained?

Could it be because of a dearth of qualified folks? Need a living breathing human, for now anyways who knows robot takes over in the future.

You also has to recognize that when people use the phrasing "MCPS’s reputation, performance and impact have hit historic lows over the last 10 years." this is not really objective and the person is not viewing things from a holistic lens of the entire education landscape, where MCPS is still ranked very highly in its state and nationally and continues to be one of the largest school districts in the county that people in the DMV routinely move to.

Anonymous wrote:It’s honestly pretty disappointing that Hazel and Moran stick around for this simple fact. MCPS’s reputation, performance and impact have hit historic lows over the last 10 years. To think that anyone who was associated with the brutal demise of our once strong school system has a place in steering the future of our school system is gross.

Which part of MCPS is functioning at a high enough level where this level of decision makers should be retained?

Could it be because of a dearth of qualified folks? Need a living breathing human, for now anyways who knows robot takes over in the future.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, Moran stays in a comparable role, and Hazel and Mamoon move up a level to report directly to Taylor.

This would seem to leave the following current staff without a position:

Diana Wyles
April Key
Stephanie Sheron
Peggy Pugh
Dana Edwards
Stephanie Williams

So 75% of his cabinet replaced. Woah.

It's not quite that much. Taylor currently has nine direct reports. Four remain in the same or similar positions: McGuire, Moran, Alfonso-Windsor, and Jones.

Jones was appointed at the same time he was so he wasn't going anywhere. Alfonso-Windsor he appointed. McGuire he chose as Chief of Staff. So yes essentially he replaced almost everyone.

I honestly thought Stephanie Sheron was going to survive.

She's the new chief academic officer at KIPP DC.

It’s honestly pretty disappointing that Hazel and Moran stick around for this simple fact. MCPS’s reputation, performance and impact have hit historic lows over the last 10 years. To think that anyone who was associated with the brutal demise of our once strong school system has a place in steering the future of our school system is gross.

Which part of MCPS is functioning at a high enough level where this level of decision makers should be retained?

Anonymous wrote:I'm honestly surprised that he has a Chief Equity Officer and continue to put our funding at risk.

And good luck with her. My sister lives in Chapel Hill & says a lot of people won’t be sad if the door hits her on the way out.

Several new positions posted on Careers. Looks like the new cabinet picks will be hiring their deputies:

Associate Superintendent of Emergent Multilingual Learners
Associate Superintendent of School Leadership
Associate Superintendent of Special Education
Deputy Chief of Facilities Management (Mamoon's current position which he'll be vacating)
Deputy Chief of Financial Oversight
Deputy Chief of Staff for Communications
Deputy Chief of Staff for Family and Community Engagement
Deputy Chief of Transportation

Anonymous wrote:Hopefully the Academic Officer takes up the reigns on how teachers won't use the canvas and studentvue in a consistent manner. It's such low hanging fruit.

That wouldn't fall under the CAO. But the Chiefs of School Leadership & Improvement/Technology Services could do something about it.

Anonymous wrote:Hazel has been complicit in keeping many things opaque to the public and in the shading of information presented to the BOE, including speaking some outright untruths when asked questions, in her prior role. I'm disappointed, there.

Yeah, Hazel is a problem. Fooled Taylor.

Hopefully the Academic Officer takes up the reigns on how teachers won't use the canvas and studentvue in a consistent manner. It's such low hanging fruit.

Anonymous wrote:I am not well versed in each of these positions at all but would like to raise the question. I know the timing of said question may come across like I am something that I am not at all but .... do we really need this many high level positions? Why do we complain about not getting our budget 100% funded when is we eliminate just one of these positions we get a few new teachers?

Consider the size and mission of the enterprise. Centralizing functions can create efficiencies just as it can create bloat. Finding a strategy that gets to a relative optimum is difficult, but is among the things for which MoCo might consider Taylor's appointment & compensation to be worth it if he can deliver.

I am not well versed in each of these positions at all but would like to raise the question. I know the timing of said question may come across like I am something that I am not at all but .... do we really need this many high level positions? Why do we complain about not getting our budget 100% funded when is we eliminate just one of these positions we get a few new teachers?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hazel has been complicit in keeping many things opaque to the public and in the shading of information presented to the BOE, including speaking some outright untruths when asked questions, in her prior role. I'm disappointed, there.

Hazel is a mixed bag. I have received some direct outreach from her when I have asked a question, and that has been helpful. She generally seems underprepared for the BOE meetings - does not know her stuff at the appropriate level of detail to answer specific questions.

I've had such direct interaction with her, covering a topic discussed somewhat regularly in this forum and having established both her level of detailed understanding and the politically touchy (from an education perspective) resistance point at which she became less forthcoming during the conversation. I've then seen her, not a month later, sit in front of the BOE, with her direct report (having spoken with that person, as well) providing the typical glossed-over/less-than-they-actually-know report covering that subject. When asked one question to which a direct answer would at least shed light around the resistance point, she stepped in with a bald lie to try to shut things down -- she very much knew the correct answer.

Unfortunately, our BOE was, and likely still is, too slow or simply complicit -- instead of asking a follow-up question, they accepted that and moved on. Having asked the question in the first place would point to the former, unless the Q & A was set up as theater, and the nature of the interaction makes that seem rather unlikely. Even if curious or uncertain, none of them seem willing to rock the boat, though. To my awareness, which, granted, is limited, the subject remains one of the many lacking transparency around internal/non-public policy, details of system implementation and ultimate effect on students, teachers and school communities.

It seems clear that this approach inherited from Pugh, and from others before/above her (and not just from the last administration, before someone chimes in with a dog whistle about that). In choosing Hazel, Taylor either:

1) did not have awareness of how pervasive the problem was among MCPS leadership,

2) bowed to the need for retention of institutional knowlegde in selecting a replacement who, though representing a change in personnel, might not represent a change in culture,

3) came to an understanding with her to effect a change towards transparency with her assuming elevated leadership,

4) shows he is not the agent of change MCPS long has needed, or

5) a mix of these.

I can hope for 3, but I'm not holding my breath.