Tuesday  •  July 6, 2021

On the Hijacking of the Term “Color-Blind” by Proponents of “Anti-Racism” and “Critical Race Theory”-Inspired Ideologies and Their Impact on Mixed Ethnicity Families

 

It’s clear that there is a fundamental divide in our school system, county, and country as a whole regarding the concepts, teachings, language, movements, and K-12 curriculums that have evolved from Critical Race Theory and the “Anti-Racist /Racist Dichotomy” championed by authors & academics like Robin DiAngelo and Ibram X. Kendi. This division is hitting many mixed ethnicity families particularly hard — mine included.

 

Both the history of racism and especially its present-day effects are deeply important to me and my core & extended family. Yet just like the family in the article linked to at the bottom of this post, our family and some ( potentially many) other mixed ethnicity families view this “Antiracism”/”Critical Race Theory”-inspired ideology and the unnecessary & misguided divisiveness that they sow as an existential threat to our families and the world as a whole. You may disagree or label this as hyperbole, but that is how we feel. There are much more constructive and unifying ways to achieve the teaching goals that “antiracist” curriculums claim to have and solve the overarching societal problems that “antiracist” proponents claim to strive to solve. I look forward to the day that the we all reach a point of mutual understanding and agreement on better way to proceed.

 

A first step towards a brighter, more unified future is to confront the way that proponents of “Antiracism” such as Kendi have invented and foisted onto society their own skewed definition of the term “color-blind”. The original, well-known definition of “color-blind” is: “not influenced by racial prejudice.” That is the definition that both my wife’s family and mine grew up with, how we lived our entire lives to the very best of our ability, and is what helped to bring us together as a family. However, to the detriment of all, “Antiracism” and “Critical Race Theory” activists have recently cast aside this definition and invented their own, twisted one.

 

In the article here, “How to Be an Antiracist” author Ibram X. Kendi states that “…when “a person says that they are colorblind, to me that means they are blind to racism, and they’re blind to differences. People who say they don’t see race are, “not seeing the diversity of humanity, whether that diversity is about skin color, or hair texture, or culture.”” In this way, Kendi and his peers & followers have hijacked and bastardized the definition of “color-blind” to suit their own world viewpoint and personal (extreme) social theories & historical analyses. Due to the “Antiracism” movement sweeping through our society in recent years, Merriam Webster even was recently pressured to change the longstanding definition of “color-blind” to include Kendi and company’s twisted perspective on the term.

 

Sorry Kendi, but to be “color-blind” doesn’t mean that one is “blind to racism and blind to diversity of humanity such as skin color, hair texture or culture” and it never will mean that to those of us who aim to stay true to its original definition and intent. When people say “I don’t see color”, 99.9% of them don’t mean that they aren’t seeing racism or ethnic differences like skin color, historic racial disparities etc. Instead, they mean that they strive to not be influenced by racial prejudice to the very best of their ability, just as the original, true definition of “color-blind” intended.

 

One can strive to not be influenced by racial prejudice and also recognize individual & ethnic differences (diversity) in physical features & cultures, impacts historic & present-day racism etc. These are two separate things. “Color-blind” means to not being racially prejudiced (at least by its original, correct definition). “Racial awareness” means being able to recognize individual & ethnic differences (diversity) in physical features & cultures, impacts historic & present-day racism. One should strive to be both “color-blind” AND “racially aware”.

 

This was exactly what Dr. King and many others so strongly fought for during the Civil Rights Movement — a “color-blind” AND a “racially aware” society. “A color blind society, in sociology, is one in which racial classification does not affect a person’s socially created opportunities.”

 

There is indeed still much work to be done towards reaching that Promised Land that Dr. King spoke of, and it can only be achieved by fostering a “color-blind” society, free of racial prejudice AND fostering a “racially aware” society, aware of individual & ethnic differences (diversity) in physical features & cultures and the impacts of historic & present-day racism on specific ethnic groups. The “freedom from racial prejudice” (“color-blindness”) is a necessary prerequisite for a society to be able to adequately recognize (be “racially aware”) and work towards eliminating existing systemic racism & inequities that have carried over from historic racial injustices.

 

To be “color-blind”, by the original meaning of the term, is something that every single person in this world should strive for, and is something that we as a society, both nationally and globally, should strive for.

 

The fact that “Antiracists” and “Critical Race Theorists” call for color-blindness to be “confronted” and to be cast aside as a societal goal shows just how fundamentally flawed, misguided and poisonous their ideology is.

As supplement to this post, here is a post from October 2020 entitled “On the Anti-Racist / Racist Dichotomy and its Impact on HCPSS”.

 

Friday  •  June 25, 2021

HCPSS Administrators Describe the Value of School Resources Officer for Student Safety

 

With the new “annual reauthorization” requirement added to the School Resource Officer (SRO) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that passed last night, there is the very real risk that a future HCPSS Board of Education will decide to leverage this annual renewal requirement and vote to end the SRO program.

 

Just in case a future Board ever tries that, here is a section from last night’s Board meeting during which three distinct HCPSS school administrators shared their insight on the value of SROs and just how detrimental it would be to their students and staff if the program was ever ended without an equal or better replacement

 

Friday  •  June 25, 2021

Student Member of the Board Invokes Rarely Used Parliamentary Procedure to Object to Vote on School Resource Officer MOU

 

There’s a first time for everything? Last night, the Student Member of the Board (SMOB) invoked a parliamentary procedure from Robert’s Rules of Order to object to the consideration of a motion made to pass the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the HCPSS School Resource Officer (SRO) program. This may be the first time in HCPSS history that this procedure has been invoked.

The objection requires 2/3 of the Board (6 members) to pass. Since at least 4 Board members were known to be in support of the SRO program, this action by the SMOB was clearly just a symbolic protest.

The SRO MOU passed 5-3, so the SRO program will be active for the 2021-2022 school year.

 

Per the changes made in this MOU, the HCPSS SRO program is no longer a 5-year authorized program and will instead need annual reauthorization by the Board of Education (via motion & vote).

 

Wednesday  •  June 23, 2021

New HCPSS School Resource Officer MOU Draft Reduces Term Length from Five Years Down to Just One Year

 

The proposed new HCPSS School Resource Officer (SRO) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) changes the SRO program term from 5 years to 1 year, requiring annual renewal of the MOU (on page 11).

 

This change may seem benign, but when examined carefully, it is a deceptively strategic modification that will make the topic of SROs in schools a political battle every year, particularly during election years.

 

Those who wish to see SROs completely removed from HCPSS schools are patient and willing to incrementally “move the needle” with subtle but important changes like this one that inch them closer to their goal. As early as 2023, if/when another anti-SRO BOE candidate is elected in 2022 to support the current three anti-SRO board members (Mallo, Mosley, Watts), the MOU will fail to be renewed and SROs will be again be kept out of HCPSS schools indefinitely. Another likely possibility in the meantime is that anti-SRO activists & board members will exploit this annual renewal to hold the SRO MOU hostage each year and call for ever increasingly significant policy changes that all but destroy the program.

 

Longer MOU timeframes offer stability for all parties involved and decrease the frequent, unconstructive politicization of the services/agreements that they cover.

 

The term length for the HCPSS SRO MOU should be at least 3-5 years and should not be an annual requirement.

 

The full proposed new HCPSS SRO MOU can be read here.

 

Sunday  •  April 25, 2021

Intrusive Letters From Nebulous New Non-Profit Organization About Columbia Association Elections

 

Many Columbia residents who didn’t vote in past Columbia Association (CA) elections have been receiving an intrusive letter from a nebulous organization entitled the National Voting Behavior Institute. An example of the letter, sent to a District 4 Wilde Lake resident four days before this year’s CA election, is shown below.

The letter states that the recipient has been identified as a “super voter” who voted in the 2018 & 2020 primary/general elections, but had not regularly voted in prior CA elections. The letter then proceeds to subtly shame the recipient by stating “your neighbors have a higher-than-average level of participation in hyper local elections” , informs the recipient of the exact number of “proximate neighbors” who have regularly voted in CA elections, and states that the recipient that they and their neighbors will be contacted later to explain why they did or did not vote in this year’s CA election.

 

The letter contains an @NVBI.org email address, however the website www.nvbi.org is still “under construction”.

 

There has been a little discussion about this already on Reddit here, and some important questions have been raised (quotes included below): https://www.reddit.com/…/anyone_get_a_letter_from_the…/

 

“Who is reporting on village elections results and whether I voted in my village elections? Clearly someone has been passing on this information to whatever “non-profit” this might be.”

 

“The way these mailings can work is to target who gets them and only mail to households you think will vote the way you want, that way they have an extra push while households who may not align with you aren’t reminded and stay home.”

More digging needs to be done to discover as much as possible about this “National Voting Behavior Institute” organization — particularly its leadership, its funding sources and its true motives for initiating this invasive letter campaign.

 

Wednesday  •  April 14, 2021

The Rouse Project Breadcrumbs

 

Summary:

 

• The Rouse Project may be leveraging the public affairs firm Adeo Advocacy for its website (and potentially for Columbia Association election advertising).

   

• The founder and president of Adeo Advocacy was previously a Managing Partner at KOFA Public Affairs (now KO Public Affairs).

   

• KO Public Affairs is led by two present-day registered Howard County lobbyists for The Howard Hughes Corporation, Howard County’s largest developer.

   

• The Howard Hughes Corporation has been actively boasting to worldwide investors about their “ability to control cities” and how they strive for “ownership and monopoly control” of Columbia, MD as they “control [Master Plan development] rights through Rouse legacy”.

   

• The Rouse Project has been using a tree logo that is extremely similar to an image that is trademarked/owned by “Howard Research and Development Corp“, which is a business proxy of The Howard Hughes Corporation.

   

Details:

 

1) A google search of “Rouse Project” and “Adeo Advocacy” brings up this website (which no longer exists in live, non-cached format)

The original site of “trp.adeoadvocacy.com” indicates that “The Rouse Project“‘s website was originally hosted (and potentially created) by the company Adeo Advocacy, a “Strategic communication and public affairs” firm based in Baltimore. Other recent advertising work published by Adeo Advocacy bears a striking resemblance to ads that The Rouse Project and its slate of Columbia Association (CA) election candidates have published (mailers, social media ads etc.).

 

The early CA election candidates identified by The Rouse Project were leaked here.

 

Since then, only three of their five initially-identified candidates made it onto the final election ballots and each of their campaigns have shared very similar styles of unprecedented, expensive, and sometimes coordinated advertising.

 

2) The President & Founder of Adeo Advocacy was a former Managing Partner of KOFA Public Affairs up until 2018.  KOFA Public Affairs is now known as KO Public Affairs.

 

KO Public Affairs is a very politically connected and politically active PR firm that has attempted to covertly influence a variety of local issues here in Howard County.

 

The involvement of KO Public Affairs behind the scenes in the 2019 HCPSS school redistricting (through their leaderships’ sister company, Center Maryland) is detailed in this previous post.

 

In this Baltimore Sun op-ed, KO Public Affairs was described as “the vampire squid of Maryland politics”.

 

3) Two leaders of KO Public Affairs are registered Howard County lobbyists for The Howard Hughes Corporation.  A Founding Partner and a former KOFA Public Affairs Partner have been Howard Hughes Corporation lobbyists since (at least) 2019:

 

2019 Howard County Registered Lobbyists (#16 and #26 here)

2020 Howard County Registered Lobbyists (#7 and #13 here)

2021 Howard County Registered Lobbyists (#2 and #7 here)

4) The Howard Hughes Corporation is actively boasting about their “ability to control cities” and “ownership and monopoly control” of Columbia, MD. In investor briefings, the company highlights Howard County’s 2010 Master Plan and how it gave Howard Hughes the ability to “control [Master Plan development] rights through Rouse legacy”

 

5) The Tree image used in some of The Rouse Project’s advertising bears a striking similarity (almost exact match) to a tree symbol that is trademarked and owned by Howard Research and Development Corporation (which is owned by The Howard Hughes Corporation)

 

Monday  •  April 12, 2021

HCPSS Superintendent Martirano Met with Local Developer Leaders Immediately After Being Hired

 

Back in early June 2017, within a month of becoming the new HCPSS Superintendent, Michael Martirano apparently attended (hosted?) a breakfast meeting with a few prominent local business leaders, particularly developers and their local support staff.

 

Going by the names of the recipients of this “Connecting the Dots” email exchange regarding the meeting, notable attendees may have included the local Howard Hughes Corporation regional president and a few of his loyal land use business partners.

 

At the meeting, Dr. Martirano urged them to “Give me input”.

 

Why should an HCPSS superintendent seek the advice of a local president of a national corporation that is actively boasting about “ownership and monopoly control” of Columbia and Howard County?

 

The emails shown below are from pages 58-62 of MPIA 2020-172.

See this previous post for details on how one of Howard County’s largest developers, The Howard Hughes Corporation, is boasting to investors about their ability to “take ownership and monopoly control” of Columbia, MD.

 

Tuesday  •  March 16, 2021

Policy 6010 (Redistricting) Committee Recommendations

 

Policy 6010 “defines the conditions and process by which school attendance area adjustments [i.e. redistricting] will be developed and adopted.” A public committee was formed in Fall 2020 to recommend changes to this policy.

 

Summarized in this post are the major recommended changes to this policy that were sent to Superintendent Martirano by this committee in January 2021. Also included are the Meeting Summary Notes for the Policy 6010 committee meetings held on December 15, 22, and 29 (2020), as well as the complete final proposed Policy 6010 “Policy Statement” and “Implementation Procedure” drafts that were sent by the committee to Superintendent Martirano, for recommendation to the Board.

 

The current (old) Policy 6010 can be found here.

 

The full pdf archive of materials presented in this post, as well as additional meeting-specific working drafts of Policy 6010 can be found here.

 

It is strongly encouraged for all HCPSS stakeholders to read the summary of changes in this post and to review all of the provided meeting notes from the December 15, 22, and 29 meetings (screenshots provided).  Examine the committee commentary and how consensus was achieved on policy changes, note when specific policy changes were made and examine which committee members were in attendance or absent during the meetings when each major policy change was made. Doing so will give a complete picture of how this final draft policy recommendation was developed.

 

Important Upfront Caveat: These are only *recommended* policy changes sent by the public committee to Superintendent Martirano. The new policy is still a work in progress and will not be “law of the land” until officially proposed to the Board by Superintendent Martirano in April/May 2021 and then formally approved by the Board in May/June 2021.

 

UPFRONT SUMMARY OF MAJOR PROPOSED POLICY CHANGES:

1. Socioeconomic-based redistricting (Free and Reduce Meal (FARM) student percentage re-balancing via ‘bussing’) is established as an “Essential Factor” that must be addressed and included as 3rd most important weighted factor during area attendance adjustments

    

2. New 30-day cyclic/iterative Board redistricting plan development process is proposed

    

3. Redistricting must be considered by the Board “when school attendance area projections are outside the target 80-100% capacity utilization range” (i.e. every year for the foreseeable future)

    

4. 3rd Party Feasibility Study is eliminated, replaced by HCPSS-developed “Early projection report”

    

5. The Board may consider [but is not required to provide] exemptions for “students who have been reassigned once already at their school level or once within the last five years” and “students who are on an IEP or 504 plan.”

    

Upfront observation/concern: Inclusion of socioeconomic-based redistricting (“bussing”) as an “Essential Factor” that ” must be addressed and carry a majority of the overall weight” first appeared in the very last Policy 6010 draft developed during the final committee meeting over the holiday break, when schools were closed, on December 29, 2020, when only 11 out of 21 committee members (52%) were in attendance. This requirement that “school attendance areas should attempt to bring school FARMS participation rates closer to the county average” is ranked #3 in importance, ahead of Feed optimization (“avoiding feeds of less than 15% at the receiving school.”) and just behind capacity utilization (#1), and long-range enrollment, capital plans, and infrastructure needs (#2).

 

This proposed change institutionalizes the controversial “bussing” approach that Superintendent Martirano took towards redistricting during Fall 2019, which many thousands of HCPSS stakeholders strongly opposed. There were thousands of hours of testimony given & letters and reports written that detailed why this socioeconomic based redistricting approach was harmful to ALL HCPSS students and should never be used as a major factor again.

 

Below are the major proposed changes to Policy 6010, as provided by the Policy 6010 committee:

 

IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES

The following are the major proposed changes to the 6010 Implementation Procedures:

• Elimination of 3rd party Feasibility Study. Replace with internally-developed “Early projection report” presented to the Superintendent in March/April by the HCPSS Office of School Planning

• Start plan development process earlier (Superintendent’s plan presented to the Board in July versus August)

• Board of Education redistricting plan revision/development process has been changed.

   

Old Process:

1. Superintendent presents redistricting plan to the Board

2. Public hearings are held by the Board until all interested community members have shared their thoughts and concerns

3. The Board then conducts work sessions to refine and finalize the plan

4. The Board approves final plan with vote

    

New Proposed Process:

1. Superintendent presents redistricting plan to the Board.

[New 30-day Cyclic Process between July and September]

2. Single public hearing is held on current state of the plan

3. The BoE conducts single work session to instruct staff on potential plan alterations

4. Staff implements alterations, if necessary

[30-day cycle repeats steps 2-4 if any plan alterations have been made]

5. After completion of iterative cycle, Board approves final plan with vote.

 

POLICY STATEMENT (REDISTRICTING CONDITIONS, FACTORS ETC.)

 

The following are the major proposed changes to the 6010 Policy Statement:

• The conditions for considering a redistricting have been changed. New definition effectively requires redistricting to be considered every year.

   

Old Policy 6010 Section IV. A.: “The Board will consider school attendance area adjustments whenever….school attendance area adjustments are outside the target utilization.”

(“target utilization” left undefined.)

 

New Proposed Policy 6010 Section IV. A.: “The Board will consider school attendance area adjustments whenever…school attendance area projections are outside the target 80-100% capacity utilization range and available capacity exists.”

(unless/until many new schools are built, there will *always* be many schools above 80-100% capacity utilization)

 

• The consideration of factors during the redistricting process have been significantly changed. “Attendance area adjustment plans are to be developed and evaluated with an analytical approach such as a weighted decision matrix based on the factors identified”.

• New “Essential Factors” are established that ” must be addressed and carry a majority of the overall weight“. The “Essential Factors” are listed in priority order, which will impact the weight assigned to that factor.

   

Old Policy 6010 Section IV. B.: “The Board, Superintendent/Designee and the AAC will consider the impact of the following factors in the review or development of any school attendance area adjustment plan. While each of these factors will be considered, it may not be feasible to reconcile each and every school attendance area adjustment with each and every factor.

 

1) Facility Utilization. Where reasonable, school attendance area utilization should stay within the target utilization for as long a period of time as possible through the consideration of:

a. Efficient use of available space. For example, maintain a building’s program capacity utilization between 90% and 100%.

b. Long-range enrollment, capital plans and capacity needs of school infrastructures (e.g., cafeterias, restrooms and other shared core facilities).

c. Fiscal responsibility by minimizing capital and operating costs.

d. The number of students that walk or receive bus service and the distance and time bused students travel.

e. Location of regional programs, maintaining an equitable distribution of programs across the county.

 

2) Community Stability. Where reasonable, school attendance areas should promote a sense of community in both the geographic place (e.g., neighborhood or place in which a student lives) and the promotion of a student from each school level through the consideration of:

a. Feeds that encourage keeping students together from one school to the next. For example, avoiding feeds of less than 15% at the receiving school.

b. Areas that are made up of contiguous communities or neighborhoods.

c. Frequency with which any one student is reassigned, making every attempt to not move a student more than once at any school level or the same student more frequently than once every five years.

 

3) Demographic Characteristics of Student Population. Where reasonable, school attendance areas should promote the creation of a diverse and inclusive student body at both the sending and receiving schools through the consideration of:

a. The racial/ethnic composition of the student population.

b. The socioeconomic composition of the school population as measured by participation in the federal FARMS program.

c. Academic performance of students in both the sending and receiving schools as measured by current standardized testing results.

d. The level of English learners as measured by enrollment in the English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) program.

e. Number of students moved, taking into account the correlation between the number of students moved, the outcomes of other standards achieved in Section IV.B. and the length of time those results are expected to be maintained.

f. Other reliable demographic and diversity indicators, where feasible.”

 

New Proposed Policy 6010 Section IV. B.: “The Board, Superintendent/designee and the AAC will consider the impact of the following factors during the review or development of any school attendance area adjustment plan. Capacity utilization will be considered, in addition to these other weighted factors to the greatest extent possible. It may not be feasible to reconcile each and every school attendance area adjustment with each and every factor.

 

Attendance area adjustment plans are to be developed and evaluated with an analytical approach such as a weighted decision matrix based on the factors identified below.

 

The four essential factors included in Standard B1 must be addressed and carry a majority of the overall weight. The additional factors listed in Standard B2 should also be considered.

I. Essential Factors, listed in priority order

a. Efficient use of available space. For example, by maintaining a building’s program capacity utilization between 90% and 100% .

b. Long-range enrollment projections, capital plans and capacity needs of school infrastructures (e.g., cafeterias, restrooms and other shared core facilities).

c. Equitable distribution of the socioeconomic composition of the school population as measured by participation in the federal FARMS program. School attendance areas should attempt to bring school FARMS participation rates closer to the county average.

d. Feeds that encourage keeping students together from one school to the next avoiding feeds of less than 15% at the receiving school.

 

II. Additional Factors for consideration

a. The diversity of the student population as defined in Policy 1080.

b. Academic performance of students in both the sending and receiving schools as measured by current standardized testing results.

c. The number of students that walk or receive bus service and the distance and time bused students travel.

d. Fiscal responsibility through the most optimized use of capital and operating costs to meet educational standards.

e. The level of English learners as measured by enrollment in the English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) program.

f. Location and utilization of regional programs, maintaining an equitable distribution of programs across the county.

g. Number of students moved, taking into account the correlation between the number of students moved, the outcomes of other standards achieved in Section IV.B. and the length of time those results are expected to be maintained.

h. The condition of school facilities based on state maintenance assessment.

i. Maintain contiguous communities or neighborhoods to the greatest extent possible

j. Limit the frequency with which any one geographic area is reassigned, with

attempts not to reassign cohorts more than once within a school level.

k. Other reliable demographic and diversity indicators, where feasible”

 

Old Policy 6010 Section IV. C.6.: “The Board may consider exemptions for rising fifth, eighth, and eleventh grade students to continue attending schools in an area that is proposed for attendance area adjustments. Attendance area adjustments will not affect rising twelfth grade students.”

 

New Proposed Policy 6010 Section IV. C.6.: “Attendance area adjustments will not affect rising twelfth grade students. The Board may consider exemptions for students to continue attending schools in an area that is proposed for attendance area adjustments if they are:

a. rising fifth, eighth, and eleventh grade students to continue attending schools in an area that is proposed for attendance area adjustments. Attendance area adjustments will not affect rising twelfth grade students.

b. students who have been reassigned once already at their school level or once within the last five years provided that they remained registered at the same address during that time.

c. students who are on an IEP or 504 plan.”

 

Old Policy 6010 Section V. C.: “All AAC meetings are subject to the Maryland Open Meetings Act. Staff will take summary notes of the AAC meeting and make these summary notes available to the public.”

 

New Proposed Policy 6010 Section V. C.: “The Superintendent/Designee will at the minimum take summary notes of the AAC meeting(s) and make these summary notes available to the public to align with requirements of the Maryland Open Meetings Act.”

Screenshots of significant meeting minutes & drafts from this committee are shown below:

 

Tuesday  •  February 9, 2021

Upcoming Vote on HCPSS/Horizon Foundation Student BMI Data Collection Program

 

This Thursday (February 11), the HCPSS Board of Education will vote on approval of a new Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for “Student Health Data Sharing Agreement between HCPSS and Horizon Foundation” to support Body Mass Index (BMI) screening in Kindergarten and 8th grade. The proposed MOU can be found here.

 

The program will require all students whose parents do not explicitly opt-out their child to have their Body Mass Index measured by either an HCPSS nurse or a Horizon Foundation-provided nurse and have their data shared & analyzed with the Horizon Foundation, with the stated goal of facilitating student health policy decision making based on the trends of the aggregated HCPSS student body BMI data.

 

Here are some video clips from the September 19, 2019 HCPSS Board of Education meeting, where the Board discussed this issue:

 

The Board directed the HCPSS staff to create this MOU back in 2019, in a 5-2-1 vote, which broke down as:

 

YES: Kirsten Coombs, Mavis Ellis, Jen Mallo, Sabina Taj, Student Member of the Board

NO: Vicky Cutroneo, Christina Delmont-Small

ABSENT: Chao Wu

 

Note that only one current member of the Board approved of this program, Jen Mallo, who championed the “opt-out” version of the program that would make it required for students to participate unless their parent explicitly opted them out of the program.

 

Two current Board members, Vicky Cutroneo and Christina Delmont-Small, had significant concerns about the program, particularly regarding data privacy, mental health issues related to body shaming, and how the “opt-out” version of the program undermines parents’ rights regarding health initiatives with their child.

 

Sunday  •  February 7, 2021

HCPSS Board of Education Policy: “Votes Should Not Be Traded”

 

Here’s a valuable nugget on page 33 of the HCPSS Board of Education handbook: “A Board member’s personal integrity and core values play a significant part in how that person votes on key issues. ***Votes should not be traded***“

 

It’s good to see these guidelines for ethical behavior spelled out clearly.

 

In recent years, most Board members have adhered to this guideline. Vicky Cutroneo & Christina Delmont-Small, as well as Mavis Ellis, Sabina Taj, and Kirsten Coombs have consistently voted based on their principles and core values. Two veteran members, however, appear comfortable straying from these ethical guidelines, oftentimes with each other and during important and controversial Board decisions. These two members are now Chair and Vice Chair of the Board. Some notable examples where this likely occurred are:

 

• During the late stages of the Fall 2019 redistricting, behind the scenes “deals” (polygon trades) were likely made between Chao Wu and Jen Mallo. Polygon moves appeared that seemed to betray Wu’s sensibilities, principles and his own proposed redistricting plan, but which Mallo likely demanded and threatened to force through with her 4-3 “majority support” from Ellis, Taj and Coombs. After voting against such moves for the majority of November, Wu ultimately caved to enable 5-2 support for the redistricting plan, likely trading his support either for specific polygon moves or for future votes.

   

• This past December, during the vote for 2020-2021 Board leadership, Chao Wu voted for Jen Mallo as Vice Chair over Vicky Cutroneo, despite the fact that Cutroneo had just served as Vice Chair of the Board and was clearly a strong candidate to either step up as Chair or continue to serve as Vice Chair. Mallo had just been narrowly re-elected after committing a variety of ethics violations and Open Meetings Act violations over the past year. She was certainly not the strongest candidate for Chair or Vice Chair to any objective Board member or outside observer. Despite this, one of two things likely happened to cause Wu to vote for Mallo as Vice Chair.

   

Either:

 

1) Wu actually thought Mallo, with all of her controversies and ethics & OMA violations, was the better candidate for Vice Chair than current Vice Chair Cutroneo (again betraying all apparent sensibilities and core values),

 

OR (more likely, particularly based on reports from community members & leaders in-the-know)

 

2) Mosley, Watts and the SMOB wanted Mallo as Chair (or Vice Chair) and had made clear to Wu behind the scenes that they would refuse to vote in favor of Vicky Cutroneo as Chair or Vice Chair (unless Mallo was Chair), and would refuse to vote for Wu as Chair or Vice Chair unless he supported Mallo. Wu then may have proceeded to “trade votes” and promise that he would vote for Mallo as Vice Chair if Mallo, Mosley and Watts would nominate him and vote for him as Chair.

 

From the way decisions have been made since this new Board began operating in December, it’s becoming clearer with each passing meeting & decision that we now likely have four Board members willing to buck this Board Handbook guideline, threaten stalemates with the addition of the Student member vote and “trade votes” when the situation suits them: Wu on one side of the trade and Mallo, Mosley and Watts on the other side.

 

This unfortunate dynamic does not lead to consistency or healthy Board dynamics. It flies in the face of open and principled collaboration, undermines the cohesion of the Board as a body, and leads to damaging public mistrust.

 

With all of the upcoming future decisions that this Board will need to make, including revisions to (or removal of) the School Resource Officer (SRO) program, school reopening plans, modifications to the redistricting Policy 6010, and future redistrictings in 2022 and beyond, it is critical that *all* Board members, particularly the Chair and Vice Chair, display consistent, ethical, principled leadership by adhering to these guidelines and voting in good faith based on their principles and core values. There should be minimal, if any backroom dealing or “horse trading”, particularly when important, controversial decisions are made.

 

Thursday•  January 28, 2021

HCPSS Board of Education Votes to Remove School Resource Officers from Schools Until New Memorandum of Understanding is Approved

 

This seems to have flown under the radar with all of the recent buzz about school reopening: On the same day of Governor Hogan’s reopening order (January 21), the HCPSS BOE voted to remove School Resource Officers (SROs) from schools until a new Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is approved, without any alternative safety plan in place.

Even with Hogan’s March 1 school reopening deadline known, the Board voted to not require a new proposed plan from the Superintendent to vote on until April 29, and didn’t set a firm date for a new proposed MOU to consider, leaving all schools “SRO-free” for potentially (at least) two months.

 

Even if a new MOU is presented to the Board before March 1, the political voting bloc of Mallo, Watts and Mosley (the “Political Three”) + the Student member can still keep SROs out indefinitely by voting NO to motions for approval of a new MOU and having them fail in 4-4 decisions.

 

In the meantime, schools will still reopen as planned in March, now without any SROs, and Superintendent Martirano and staff will do whatever they need to do to stay in compliance with the Maryland Safe to Learn act by trying to provide some other form of law enforcement coverage. This also will play into the strategy of the “Political Three”, and is likely why they pushed for this motion in the first place — thinking not just about their move in the moment but three moves ahead.

 

The MOU will be reworked and may then come up for a vote in April (again, if a version in February or March is rejected), along with the overarching question that the Board must decide: do they revise the SRO plan or do they remove SROs from HCPSS schools permanently? The “Political Three” can then have their “Gotcha!” moment and say “See? You satisfied the Safe to Learn Act without SROs in schools for the months of March & April after schools reopened…..therefore, why should we vote to bring them back into schools now, or ever again?”

 

And at that point, we may see complete removal of SROs from schools, either in a 5-3 or 5-2-1 controversial decision or with indefinite 4-4 decisions that continue to fail motions for a new MOU (which is now a requirement to *return* SROs to schools).

 

There may be ways to avoid this outcome, but with the motion that passed last Thursday, this is the trajectory that this issue could be headed on unless there’s enough public pushback and other Board members bring some countering ideas & strategies to the table.

 

Why was the SRO MOU left to expire anyway? Who dropped the ball and why?

 

UPDATE: Here is a good, comprehensive article from a few days ago regarding these vote.

 

It seems that Christina Delmont-Small did anticipate the possible political strategy mentioned above. Here’s a quote from her during the meeting (from the Baltimore Sun article):

 

“I like the idea that [approval of the agreement] comes from the board,” Delmont-Small said. “Although I am concerned that this is just a tactic — that there will be a second bite of the apple to not approve the [memorandum of understanding] and we will be back with not having SROs in schools while we’re working on the plan.”

 

The discussion on SROs starts at the 4 hours 37 minute mark of the January 21 meeting here.  Click on the item in the meeting agenda to skip directly to this section in the video. It’s almost 90 minutes long, but is a very valuable listen.

 

Thursday  •  January 21, 2021

Transparency, Collaborative Process and Trust Abandoned by HCPSS Board of Education During Black Lives Matters at School Vote

 

Process matters. Transparency matters. Integrity matters.

During the Black Lives Matter at School Week of Action resolution part of tonight’s Board meeting, something very concerning happened:

Here’s a summary of the events:

 

First, Antonia Watts read an *old* version of the resolution instead of the final version which had been posted to Board Docs for public access earlier this week and which the Board had collaboratively worked on behind the scenes for the past few weeks to reach a point of consensus. It’s unclear whether this was a mistake or intentional action by Ms. Watts, but if it was an honest mistake, then it would have been very easy to make an honest correction by rescinding the motion & reading the correction version.

 

Next, certain Board members (Cutroneo, Wu, Delmont-Small and Lu) brought up concerns that the resolution that Ms. Watts had read was an old draft and not the agreed-upon and publicly accessible resolution. The final BoardDocs-available resolution differed significantly enough from the older version that Ms. Watts had read and represented deliberate collaborative behind-the-scenes work to reach a final revised form of the resolution that all parties and the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion department were satisfied with.  A comparison of the old draft resolution that was wrongfully read & passed versus the previously publicly available “final” version that should have been read & passed is shown here:

Yun Lu proceeded to describe a variety of concerns with the motion itself that had been shared with her by constituents.

 

Christina Delmont-Small requested that the motion be amended to contain only the language of the correct version off of Board Docs — Ms. Watts denied this request.

 

Despite being the wrong resolution (possibly the original draft written and sent in by community activist groups), the motion was called to a vote and ultimately passed 6-1-1, with Wu, Cutroneo, Watts, Mallo, Mosley, and the Student Member voting YES, Yun Lu abstaining, and Christina Delmont-Small voting NO.

 

Ms. Cutroneo stated that she didn’t want to see the resolution fail (given the nature of the resolution’s topic), and that’s why she voted YES, despite it being the wrong resolution.

 

Chair Wu didn’t give any clarification as to why he voted YES to the wrong version of the resolution.

 

Ms. Watts, Ms. Mallo, Ms. Mosley & the Student Member were likely locked-in to vote YES to any version of the resolution, regardless of whether or not it was the final or any older version.

 

The motion could have (and should have) either been rescinded or voted down. After being voted down or withdrawn, a new motion could have been made by reading the correct, final, publicly shared resolution, and that version would have likely passed 8-0. It was stunning to see Board members vote to allow this significant error (bait-and-switch?) be allowed to stand and to see them approve the wrong version of this important resolution.

 

What occurred tonight transcends any controversies or concerns related to this specific resolution and sets an extremely dangerous precedent for the Board, regarding both procedure and trust.

 

With this precedent set, after any resolution has been collaboratively refined & publicly shared prior to a BOE meeting, a Board member, if so inclined, can choose to read whatever old or modified version of the resolution they prefer during the BOE meeting, and if there is social pressure & expectations to pass some version, ANY version of the resolution due to the nature of its topic, then that version can pass, to the complete surprise & breach of trust of both the public and other fellow Board members.

 

With this is mind, it begs the following questions questions:

 

Why should any Board members ever collaborate again to shape and refine a resolution or statement from the Board when another Board member can just decide on a whim to throw out all collaborative efforts and pick whatever old draft that they prefer to bring forward, as long as the chair ultimately allows the vote and supports the breached process?

 

Why even post resolutions publicly 3 days before Board meetings if they can be just be changed in the 11th hour, right before the public vote at the whims of a particular Board member?

 

Many current HCPSS Board of Education members have emphasized transparency and integrity as core values and had them as integral parts of their election campaigns.

 

What good is transparency if honesty & accountability are thrown out the window?

 

Friday  •  January 15, 2021

Concerning HCPSS-Related Recommendations from the Howard County Housing Opportunities Master Plan Task Force

 

Shown on page 18-19 of this recently-released Howard County “Housing Opportunities Master Plan” report are some of the HCPSS school metric-linked recommendations by County Executive Ball’s Housing Opportunities Master Plan Task Force.

Let’s translate that this into clearer terms:

 

• If a Howard County neighborhood’s assigned elementary school is deemed to be “low-poverty”, defined as a school whose Free-and-Reduced-Meal student population percentage is lower than 50% of the county average, then APFO restrictions on new housing starts can be thrown out the window and developers can build, build build, new affordable housing developments regardless of whether or not the local Elementary, Middle or High school is significantly overcrowded.
• If a Howard County neighborhood’s assigned elementary school is deemed to be “high-poverty”, defined as a school whose Free-and-Reduced-Meal student population percentage is higher than 150% of the county average, then APFO restrictions on new housing starts can again be thrown out the window and developers can build, build, build new market-rate (expensive) housing developments regardless of whether or not the local Elementary, Middle or High school is significantly overcrowded.

There are currently 17 “low-poverty” and 15 “high-poverty” elementary schools in Howard County. How many neighborhoods this policy may impact will be eye-opening, once it’s shown on a map.

 

Don’t students perform worse in overcrowded schools? What about health & safety concerns? Equity concerns?  No worries, we’ll just order another “comprehensive redistricting” and in the blink of an eye, everyone will be in-fighting, yelling at their Board of Education members and forget for awhile about who really has doomed their kids to an unstable, lower quality educational experience in ever-increasingly overcrowded schools.

 

“Leading with Equity” the Howard County way.

 

1. Lower education quality for all students, particularly those most in need
2. More frequent and larger scale school redistricting, which cause terrible disruptions, both socially & academically, yield an overall sense of perpetual instability to students & families, and most significantly affect the neediest students

3. Lower overall physical & mental health & safety , resulting from crowded hallways & classrooms as well as stretched-thin resources & supports.