Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
MCPS strategic plan moves from diagnosis to systems change, board presses for clear measures
Loading...
Summary
Montgomery County Public Schools staff presented phase 2 findings and draft goals for a system‑level strategic plan grounded in the district's anti‑racist audit. Board members welcomed the locus on systems and structures but demanded concrete rubrics, near‑term actions and clearer ways families will see change.
Montgomery County Public Schools staff on Jan. 28 described Phase 2 work and draft goals for a multi‑year strategic plan they said is grounded in the district's anti‑racist audit and designed to change systems and structures that block consistent implementation of best practices.
Stephanie Sharon, chief of strategic initiatives, told the committee the planning process emphasizes two differences from past efforts: a participatory "how" that centers community input and an outcome focused on redesigning systems and structures so good practices are implemented consistently. Staff said Phase 1 engaged more than 200 community members, Phase 2 convened about 180 stakeholders in a full‑day work session, and Phase 3 is producing measurable objectives aligned to state accountability requirements. Staff proposed committees in February, community feedback sessions in April and a board adoption target in May.
The draft goals presented highlight reimagining service delivery to reduce disparities, ensuring strategies are explicitly anti‑racist, investing in recruitment and retention of a diverse workforce, strengthening family partnerships and reducing bureaucratic barriers to operational coherence. John Lanzeman, executive director for strategic initiatives, and Keisha Addison, who led the Phase 2 synthesis, described use of a root‑cause "systems iceberg" method to move from surface patterns to underlying policies, organizational structures and mental models.
Board members said the framing reflected long‑standing priorities but pressed staff for specifics. Chair Brenda Wolf and others asked how the plan would measure progress on systemic bias and inequitable resource allocation, demanded rubrics for evaluation, and sought clarity about what parents would notice differently in classrooms and schools. Natalie Zimmerman and Rita Montoya warned against treating demographic groups as monoliths and urged the plan to reflect subgroup differences and local school contexts.
Staff responded that the strategic plan is intended as a five‑ to seven‑year roadmap and that Phase 3 will yield measurable objectives tied to the root causes identified in Phase 2. They said measures will be developed with stakeholder input and tied to state expectations, and that the district will prioritize communicating near‑term, tangible actions so families can see changes as implementation begins.
The committee asked staff to return with more concrete objectives, evaluation rubrics and plans for communicating outcomes to parents and school communities. The board scheduled deeper follow‑up ahead of the proposed May adoption vote.
