By Adam Pagnucco.
Last month, I wrote about MCPS’s practice of requiring that participants in some of its stakeholder groups sign non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) establishing confidentiality over information discussed in those settings. Those NDAs are enforceable by injunctions, damages, costs and attorney’s fees assessed against violators. In response to my questions, MCPS sent me this statement:
*****
Confidentiality agreements are a natural action for any organization involved in complex and impactful decision-making. Some circumstances when we use a confidentiality agreement to safeguard proprietary information, such as during a procurement process, and to encourage open dialogue and feedback while ensuring the confidentiality of information shared during the deliberative process.
Any confidentiality agreement is governed by Maryland law and does not prohibit the release of information that would be disclosable under the MPIA.
*****
Now the president of the Montgomery County Council of PTAs (MCCPTA) is pushing back. In testimony given to the school board yesterday, MCCPTA President Brigid Howe revealed that participants in MCPS committees associated with its boundaries studies and academic program analysis – both controversial subjects of significant interest to the community – were required to sign NDAs. That’s a bad look for MCPS. What are stakeholders going to think when they learn that MCPS attempted to restrict transparency on two huge structural initiatives that could resonate through future generations?
Howe had other complaints related to release of data, saying, “While some was shared, it was often delayed, and some has never been shared… without explanation.” She then admonished MCPS to “SHOW YOUR WORK,” employing the motto of many math teachers. (I don’t know about you, but when I was in school, I heard that phrase almost as often as “stop talking in class!”)
There may be some instances when MCPS is justified in using NDAs, such as protecting student information, personnel information and other materials protected from disclosure under the Maryland Public Information Act. But NDAs should be the exception and not the rule. MCPS needs to set a policy for their use, obtain public input and get it approved by the school board to ensure that NDAs are not abused.
Howe’s testimony to the board is reprinted below.
*****
Brigid Howe
Testimony to BOE, June 24, 2025
I’m Brigid Howe and I’m here today about the program analysis and boundary study updates.
These are enormous projects launched in a time crunch during a tumultuous time for MCPS. They require skilled change management because they really matter to students, teachers, families and communities.
I believe that the community project team for boundaries and the opportunity design team for programs were formed with good intentions. This was something new–you deserve credit for trying.
However, the execution has been challenging and the parameters of these groups were so tightly constrained that findings attributed to them can’t reliably reflect community support.
First, both committees required participants to sign NDAs. These projects are taxpayer-funded based on data that shouldn’t be secret. Threatening volunteers with penalties created a power imbalance and constrained participants to sharing individual feedback vs. accurately reflecting their communities.
Second, in both groups, members constantly suggested how to do outreach well. Over and over: “Use trusted messengers like principals, hold info sessions in other languages, gather location/cluster data and address gaps as they are seen.”
This hasn’t happened and the survey results reflect that. For example, boundary and program options have been shared that significantly alter the DCC while survey feedback from those clusters is limited..
Third, in both groups, participants wanted accurate data–survey results, program outcomes, enrollment, demographics, application numbers, etc. While some was shared, it was often delayed, and some has never been shared… without explanation.
In short, when MCPS suggests significant changes, you must SHOW YOUR WORK. We need to trust that recommendations are grounded in data, benchmarking, and best practice, not vibes.
What families want is access to rigorous academics across the system, including opportunities for special programs for some learners. The regional model could be a great way to deliver that access, but committee members report feeling rushed, that they are missing data to support these models, and are concerned that the challenges of implementation are being glossed over in a rush for approval.
Thank you.