Does MCPS want two-way communication?

Shall we talk? Yep/Maybe/Naw
Commentary
by Frederick Stitchnoth

The jarring coincidence of the "Closing the Gap" report of the Deputy's Minority Achievement Advisory Council (being considered today by the BOE) with the last AEI Advisory Committee meeting got me thinking about MCPS' indecision on talking.

Yeah: let's talk.
The Deputy's Minority Achievement Advisory Council says that, at the core of addressing the achievement gap is "a two-way communication paradigm, where MCPS is fully engaged in genuine conversation and partnership with students, parents/guardians and community members;" it calls this "a real back and forth."

Likewise, MCPS' guru Glenn Singleton says "We believe that the primary and essential way of addressing these gaps is to create a culture that encourages educators, both Whites and people of color, to discuss race safely and honestly in the school environment."

Tentative Policy ABC, being considered today by the BOE, follows the DMAAC through a policy of "Communicating effectively--families and school staff engage in regular, meaningful two-way communication about student learning."

Policy AEB on strategic planning, revised by the BOE in 2009, says that a broad range of stakeholders will participate on the schools' school improvement teams, and the SIT will be available to parents.

There's the excellently titled "continuing dialogue about race."

Wait: let's think about it

The BOE, at its May 8, 2009 retreat, discussed "How can 'reframing the terms of engagement' with out community, including both our vocal critics and our 'silent' constituents, help us to move from where we are now, to where we want to be, in a way that is aligned with ('stays true to') our core values."? (Doesn't the faith in "our silent constituents"--as opposed to the vocal critics--remind you of the bad old "silent majority?" And doesn't "vocal" = talk?)

Nope: let's don't
Thinking about it resulted in an astounding circling of the wagons. In the 2009 Our Call to Action, the new central "Framework for Equity and Excellence," the BOE and MCPS say "This organizational culture also will serve to protect the ongoing work to promote equity and excellence from external factors that could possibly disrupt the work or distract staff from their focus. These external factors include political factors, legal considerations and economic realities." (Doesn't the BOE's single-minded determination bask in the glow of our recent president's rejection of the "reality-based community?" But then, why should an elected Board be influenced by political factors? Why let legal considerations influence our direction? And doesn't our budget situation prove the wisdom of just saying no to economic realities?) Why talk?--we know where we're headed.

The Board (really just its officers) has deployed its OCA no-talk policy by deriding parents requesting further openness in the strategic planning policy as "pain-in-the-ass parents;" saying that the parents are "not agreeable" and "don't know how to agree to disagree;" and should disagree in a "respectful" and "professional" way. (Yet, there was no real back and forth regarding the parents' respectfully written AEB comments.)

One pretty high level MCPS official asked me rhetorically "Do you expect the system to talk to you?" (this after I had been probing "accountability" in MCPS). Actually, without going into the counter-intuitive reasoning here, I do expect the system to talk to me.

Then there's the school improvement plan addressed by the let's talk a little bit Policy AEB. My school--Springbrook High--has not posted on the website. I've gotten the formulaic linkages chart, but it's not generally available. I can't get the whole SIP despite my repeated request--apparently the Community Super hasn't finally blessed it. Broad-based parent participation?--one parent, the PTSA president, sits on the SIT. I can't find out even who the school staffers are. And this is the end of the first half of the school year. Maybe next year.

The AEI Advisory Committee: just because the agenda schedules a talk about equity doesn't mean that we should break the overriding don't talk policy.

I'm ambivalent

Mostly I'm for talk. But I differ from the DMAAC, Singleton and the BOE: I really don't think talk therapy can cure the achievement gap. I harp on making green zone opportunities available in the red zone. Finally, I agree with Dr. Weast's old, talk-eclipsed "differentiation" approach: top management responsibility and just send money.

Let's hope Dr. Lacey and DMAAC co-chairs Crystal De Vance-Wilson and Enrique Zaldivar can clear things up in their talk with the Board today.

Reprinted from the GTA listserv with permission of the author.