Why does the Board want to give up their power over open lunch?
I don’t think it’s really about open lunch – but I don’t know what it is about, and I don't know if the Board does either.
Open lunch means students can leave school during the lunch period. Some MCPS high schools choose to have it — through a process with student government, the principal, and an advisory committee — and some don’t. At some schools, open lunch is for everyone. Others have it just for juniors and seniors, or make it conditional on student conduct in some way. On Thursday May 21, the Board will vote about whether to rescind Policy JEF, which would, in practice, allow the superintendent to eliminate open lunch at all high schools.
As always, I’m writing here in my personal capacity. I’ll be posting my statement as the Bethesda-Chevy Chase HS cluster representative in my public testimony for the May 21 Board business meeting over on BoardDocs.
Why are we even talking about open lunch? Isn’t the district on fire?
The Board and Dr. Taylor are facing extremely difficult and urgent budget decisions. Nonetheless, MCPS has chosen this month to prompt the Board to introduce last-minute policy changes around open lunch.
Open lunch is highly valued at the schools that have it, for substantive reasons that aren’t obvious, like facilitating academic support and robust clubs. I’m not opposed to an informed discussion of any tradeoffs associated with open lunch. But the process by which MCPS and the Board are going about this change is a clear illustration of a problem far bigger than whatever happens with open lunch: things aren’t set up for the Board to make considered decisions, leaving them to govern on vibes.
What happened at the May 13 Policy Management Committee meeting?
On May 13, MCPS senior staff presented to the Board’s Policy Management Committee about open lunch. Open lunch was not in the committee’s work plan for the year established in the fall. According to committee chair Brenda Wolff, it was a special addition, single-agenda-item meeting because “it became apparent that we had an item that we needed to address sooner rather than later.” Why they needed to address it at all, much less quickly, was never explained.
It was such a strange meeting that I recommend you watch it (only 40 minutes), as it’s hard to fully convey the “what’s really going on here?” vibe. I watch a lot of these meetings, and often the stated topic isn’t the real issue. When there are references to state law or guidance or union contracts, you can look those up and they can help you figure it out. But this meeting was different. They were talking about undoing something already in place, with no precipitating event. It seems that Dr. Taylor feels strongly that no MCPS high schools should have open lunch — otherwise he could handle things through revising the regulation, without needing the Board to change the policy — but it was completely unclear from the discussion why he wants that.
At the meeting, MCPS framed a question for the Board: do you want to weigh in on the merits of the open lunch policy, or do you think open lunch is not within your purview and wish to cede this authority to the superintendent?
For the discussion of the Board’s role, MCPS staff and committee members leaned into the characterization of open lunch as “operational.” No one explained or questioned why open lunch is operational, nor did anyone explain or question why the Board should not be involved in operational things. But as the committee batted around possible “considerations” around the policy, the thing that seemed to stick was that the Board should let the superintendent take care of operations.
The content of the Board’s policy under discussion is literally one sentence long:
“Students are required to remain on campus at lunch time unless a high school has already implemented an open lunch at the date of adoption of this policy or adopts an open lunch policy in accordance with Montgomery County Public Schools regulation.”
This is not micro-managing. The details are handled in the MCPS regulation describing how schools can switch their open or closed lunch programs.
Should the Board involve itself with open lunch?
Maryland law says boards set educational policies. I don’t see Maryland law making any distinction about “operational” matters. The MCPS Board of Education Handbook lists “formulating and interpreting policies” as one of the Board’s “primary responsibilities.” It doesn’t qualify the types of policies. Nonetheless, from the May 13 meeting it’s clear that MCPS and the Board have some understanding about the Board staying out of operational policies.
Even so, in this case, operations matter for education. B-CC and higher-enrollment high schools with open lunch often have small cafeterias and limited capacity to serve meals relative to enrollment. Some of these schools, including B-CC, have a single common hour-long lunch period. Lunch hour is a time for students to get extra help from teachers, for students with legally required accommodations to receive extended time on assessments, and for clubs to meet. All of these things can happen because all students and teachers have the same lunch period; after school is not an easy substitute for lunch for students who have jobs or caregiving responsibilities after school, student athletes, or those who ride the school bus. And the benefits of the common lunch period are possible because lunch is open, reducing crowding in the school’s limited physical space and time spent waiting in line for school meals.
All this means that if schools have to set up multiple periods of lunch to accommodate demand on a closed campus, they lose important educational benefits. Lunch isn’t just “operational.”
We’re then left with the question of whether the Board wishes to cede their authority to the superintendent on education policy. The Board does not have a ton of power, given many constraints beyond their control. Much of the power they do have involves setting educational policy. If they aren’t going to use it, why are they there?
Should the County Council involve itself with open lunch?
The Council’s role with MCPS is budgetary, not policy. But there are financial costs associated with closing lunch – for example, MCPS loses money on each lunch they sell – and such costs have not been included in the MCPS budget request. Costs to student well-being, school climate, and academic progress are probably more important, but the only costs that County Council can weigh in on are the budgetary ones.
What about the merits of closing lunch?
Let’s say the Board wants to retain its authority over this educational issue. What should they consider as they research any possible amendments? Here are some “considerations” presented by MCPS.
This single slide was the entirety of MCPS’ presentation to the Board on the substance of the open lunch policy. No data. There was a discussion of the intuition of how open lunch might relate to these issues, with no reference to data or research, or the practical details and costs of changing the policy. The Board should want answers, with dollar amounts where relevant, before they vote.
My concern here isn’t just the missing evidence. If closing lunch becomes a claimed win on important issues like safety or equity, it relieves pressure to address those problems through more targeted approaches.
What’s next for open lunch?
At the conclusion of their presentation on May 13, MCPS staff framed the following options to the committee members: modify, suspend, rescind, or other. Maintaining the status quo would fall under other.
The Policy Management Committee voted 3-1 to rescind the policy, with members Brenda Wolff, Natalie Zimmerman, and student member of the Board Anuva Maloo in the majority. Member Julie Yang asked basic questions about the motivation and how it would work, got no answers, and absent such fundamental information, cast the lone dissenting vote. The full Board will discuss and potentially vote on rescission—meaning, eliminating the policy, and transferring discretion over open lunch from principals and student governments to the superintendent—on Thursday May 21.
If the Board chooses not to rescind the policy but still wants to think about modifying it, they could ask next year’s Policy Management Committee to include it in their work plan. If they rescind the policy, they will have permanently ceded their authority on this issue–and sent a signal to Dr. Taylor that they may be willing to willingly silence themselves on other issues.
Does it matter that the policy is old?
It wasn’t one of the “considerations” on the slide, but MCPS staff and committee members pointed to the age of the policy, which was established in 1978 and amended in 1995, as a reason for its review. I support thoughtfully reviewing old rules and policies. It all builds up and leads to a bunch of restrictions that may no longer have a good reason to exist but limit how MCPS can best serve kids anyway.
The argument for urgency is completely at odds with the notion of thoughtful review. If the policy is old enough to deserve scrutiny, it’s old enough to deserve a real process — one that includes the public, examines costs and benefits, and considers modification rather than elimination.
Just because something is old doesn’t make it bad, and I’m not just saying this because I’m older than this policy. Our country and our county are both turning 250. Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School is preparing to celebrate its 100th anniversary. And the Maryland law establishing county school boards dates back to 1916.
Pop quiz
If you are showing up in the audience at a Board meeting on an issue you care about, you should bring:
a. snacks and water
b. your friends
c. a handle-free sign, no larger than 8.5 x 11”
d. all of the above
Answer key
d. Board meetings are long. For this one, public testimony is from 4:15-5:15, and the open lunch policy (JEF) is scheduled for Board tentative action from 7:05-7:25. You’ll want snacks and water to carry you through. It is useful for the Board to see their constituents watching them take action, so bring your friends. If you want the Board to know what you want, make a sign and sit in the front row for the cameras.
Extra credit
Read Robert Pondiscio’s Why is Education So Damn Fad-Prone? Here’s one of his four explanations:
“Leadership legitimacy requires visible change. School systems churn through leaders with striking regularity. Superintendents, principals, and state chiefs shouldn’t buy green bananas. The onus is on each new leader to demonstrate that he or she is, in fact, leading. Many will come to the unfortunate conclusion that leadership is signaled not through stewardship, but through action: launching initiatives, unveiling strategic plans, introducing new frameworks, reorganizing priorities.”
Exit ticket
Share your frequent, low-stakes feedback with me, either by replying to this email or submitting anonymously. I always welcome your story ideas, questions, suggestions, and corrections. And if you enjoyed this post, I’d be grateful if you share it (social media, listserv, group chat, etc.).