Showing posts sorted by relevance for query testimonials. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query testimonials. Sort by date Show all posts

Monday, April 13, 2009

Weast testimonial for tech vendor


"All of our technology partners know they are not permitted to use MCPS testimonials in advertising." Superintendent Jerry Weast, January 7, 2009 in answer to Board of Education Question #9.
As reported here and here the MCPS Logo and testimonials have, in fact, been used by vendors in advertisements readily available on the Internet.

And below is a third example of a private company using the MCPS Logo to advertise their product. In addition, this advertisement includes a testimonial from Supertintendent Weast (see page 2, right hand column).


~~~
"Nothing builds trust like transparency."
Jerry Weast, from the foreword to Getting it Right-
Why Good School Communication Matters
, 2008
True North Logic True North Logic subscriptions07774

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

MCPS endorsement used in milk advertising - students too!

"All of our technology partners know they are not permitted to use MCPS testimonials in advertising. Superintendent Jerry Weast, January 7, 2009 in answer to Board of Education Question #9.
But, apparently the Mid-Atlantic Dairy Association is free to use MCPS testimonials and MCPS students in their advertising campaigns! Here is the mission statement of the Mid-Atlantic Dairy Association:

Mission Statement: Mid-Atlantic Dairy Association builds demand for milk and dairy products and enhances the image of the dairy industry on behalf of dairy farmers.
Sure enough! Just take a look at the video that the Mid-Atlantic Dairy Association has produced in conjunction with MCPS' Nutrition Director Kathy Lazor, MCPS administrators, and made available on YouTube. Makes you want to run out and buy milk in a plastic container, doesn't it?

Once again we see MCPS being used to endorse a product. This blog has reported on previous incidents of MCPS being used to endorse products here, here, and here; and an incident where MCCPTA was used to endorse a product here.

In addition, in this commercial video we see rooms and rooms of MCPS students being used as well. Do you think MCPS got releases from all of the students shown in this commercial? Take a look at the video, maybe you will spot your child in it.



MCPS' Ethics Policy says that its purpose is:

To promote the highest level of ethical conduct on the part of all persons associated with MCPS; to ensure the highest public confidence in the impartiality and independent judgment of Board of Education members and school employees.

* * * * *
UPDATE: As of 2:30 PM August 19, 2009, the Mid-Atlantic Dairy Association YouTube video (shown above) has been removed from YouTube. However, the video can still be seen here on the Mid-Atlantic Dairy Association website.

2012 UPDATE:  The video has now been removed from the Mid-Atlantic Dairy Association website too!

Saturday, February 14, 2009

Jerry Weast spins and the Board of Education sleeps

On January 7, 2009, Superintendent Jerry Weast told the MCPS Board of Education:

"All of our technology partners know they are not permitted to use MCPS testimonials in advertising.
" Superintendent Jerry Weast, January 7, 2009 answer to Question #9.

That quote sounds great, but doesn't reflect reality.

Below is an example of a MCPS technology "partner" using not only MCPS testimonials, but also the MCPS logo. The September 9, 2008, two page document below is not a MCPS document, but a testimonial put out by the company IQinVision. Don't be fooled by the prominent MCPS logo!

Board of Education minutes do not reflect this procurement and so it is unknown how much this technology "partnership" cost Montgomery County taxpayers, but rumors have this procurement in the $9 million range. An April 2008 press release from the company puts this procurement as occurring when the Board of Education President was Nancy Navarro.

UPDATE 2/17/09 IQinVision Removes MCPS Logo from Advertisement.
Mcps Case Study

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

IQinVision removes MCPS logo from advertisement

On February 14, 2009, the Parents' Coalition of Montgomery County, Maryland blog reported that one of Montgomery County Public Schools' technology partners, IQinVision was using MCPS employee testimonials and the MCPS logo in its Internet advertisements.

On February 16, 2009, IQinVision's online advertisement was modified and the MCPS logo was removed. See the original advertisement here and the revised advertisement without the MCPS logo below. However, the advertisement still contains a testimonial from a MCPS employee despite MCPS Policy BBB and the statement (Q&A #9) of Superintendent Weast that such testimonials are not permitted.

mcpscasestudywologo

Saturday, April 5, 2008

Montgomery principal shuts down consulting side business


Montgomery principal shuts down consulting side business, Leah Fabel, The Examiner, 2008_04_05, http://www.examiner .com/a_1322126~ Montgomery_ principal_ shuts_down_ consulting_ side_business. html
A Montgomery County principal who was running pricey private seminars, including one scheduled at his school on a weekday, shut down his consulting company Friday after The Examiner discovered that his side business may violate the Board of Education's code of ethics. Since incorporating the business in 2006, Moreno "Mo" Carrasco, principal of Rockville's Richard Montgomery High School and Maryland's 2007 High School Principal of the Year, has held several "Breakthrough Principal" seminars at schools around the region, often scheduled during the week. Minutes after an interview with The Examiner, the company Web site, savetheprincipal. com, was taken down and all future events were canceled. Earlier versions of the site listed a "One Day Refresher Institute" open to members of his $399 "Principals' Network" to be held Monday at Richard Montgomery between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m. Though a day off for students, Monday is a professional day for staff.
District spokesman Brian Edwards said Superintendent Jerry Weast knew nothing of Carrasco's business activities. "We will investigate the matter and take appropriate action as warranted," Edwards said. Carrasco's two_day institutes cost $469 for each administrator and a secretary, with a minimum of 20 "teams." The site advertised outcomes such as "Do the principal's job in 8 hours a day." "If it's during the school day, this would be highly inappropriate, " said Pat O'Neill, a member of the school board. "Being a principal is a rather time_consuming job, and I'd be surprised if he had the time to be doing this."
Board ethics code forbids school officials from "any employment that would affect their usefulness as employees" or "would make time and/or energy demands upon the individuals that could interfere with their effectiveness. " Carrasco said he wasn't able to say how much he had made with his venture. Three glowing testimonials on the site included two from principals at Montgomery County's Beall Elementary and Roberto Clemente Middle School, and one from Carrasco himself, whose role in the company is apparent only on incorporating documents registered with the state. In an interview with The Examiner, Carrasco said seminars within the county were free of charge, and he was no longer pursuing the business. "I want to clarify for the record that this is not a conflict of interest, and I have looked at the ethics policies," Carrasco said. "The story that should be written is how innovative my practices are."

Tuesday, March 3, 2009

Tight budget? Travel to Texas! Tout Products!

Did you know that MCPS had entered into a 6 year initiative to purchase 13,000 security cameras? See the press release below. Please note this is not a MCPS Press Release.
Check the Board of Education minutes and look for this procurement! Please post a comment if you can find it!
What happened to the tight budget? Teaching positions cut, but MCPS staff continue to travel? What happened to the freeze on travel? What do students get out of a marketing trip to Texas to endorse a product?
What about Superintendent Weast's statement to the Board of Education:
"All of our technology partners know they are not permitted to use MCPS testimonials in advertising." Superintendent Jerry Weast, January 7, 2009 answer to Question #9.


NEWSWIRE

MCPS implements six-year initiative to upgrade to IP-based system

DALLAS--At TechSec Solutions here on Feb. 25, Bob Hellmuth, director, department of school safety and security for Montgomery County Public Schools, discussed his experience overhauling the video surveillance and visitor management systems at the 16th largest school district in the country.

Hellmuth, who is charged with protecting 138,000 students, 21,000 employees and 200 schools, said that while the district hasn't had a large-scale incident, there have been several smaller incidents that have propelled the district to upgrade its technology. After a gun went off in a student bathroom, Hellmuth said it took security a significant amount of time to review the tape. "When we were looking down a hall full of students, we saw figures on the video but we couldn't identify them. It was worthless for us," he said. Fortunately, officers were able to identify the offending student by the backpack he was carrying.

Currently, Montgomery County is in the second year of its six-year strategic initiative to upgrade its surveillance system from analog to digital. He expects to have more than 3,000 digital cameras installed in the school district by the end of the year and a total of 12,000 to 13,000 cameras by the end of the initiative. But, such an upgrade hasn't been easy. "We've learned lessons over the years and thrown money away because we didn't know what we were doing," he said. The district enlisted the help of a security consultant to design the initiative. "We needed to find somebody who could give us advice and who knew how to do this on a large scale."

Paul Bodell, chief marking officer, iQinVision, whose cameras were used in the installation, said it was critical for organizations to clearly understand what quality of video they need in certain locations within their facilties. For example, when school authorities at MCPS were trying to identify a student in a crowded hallway, Bodell said the school could use what he called "general surveillance" to monitor the movement of students, but then install "forensic-quality" video at the end of hallways which could easily identify faces of students. Mix and matching different video needs can not only improve surveillance quality, but also reduce the cost of the overall installation.

An important factor for making this transition was involving the district's IT department. "Originally they were standoffish - people don't like change - but once we had a meeting and explained what we wanted to do, IT was onboard. It was important that we brought them in right away," he said.

And while the transition to a digital system has largely improved the department's efficiency and investigatative capabilities, it has also reduced costs, Hellmuth said. "More cameras mean less security people. We don't need as many security people and we can employ the people we do have better," he said. "We monitor cameras and look for patterns and if all of a sudden we see a group of people going toward an area, we know there's a problem and we can put someone there quickly."

In addition to improving video surveillance, Hellmuth said it was imperative the district improve its visitor management system as well. "People took it as a joke because nobody was checking," he said. The district replaced its paper log system with an ID scan card system, which not only tracks student and visitor movement, it also captures volunteer work hours making it easier to recognize people who contribute to the school, Hellmuth said. The school will also use the system to track maintenance staff's work to ensure they are staying within their budget.

To learn more about how Montgomery County Public Schools is improving its technology, register for our Webcast on March 19 at www.securitysystemsnews.com/webcast.

Look for more on this story in the April edition of Security Director News.

(Red highlighting added.)

Monday, June 1, 2009

MCCPTA memo linked in EasyLobby Ad

EasyLobby is a visitor management product that is now being used in some MCPS buildings. According to the Superintendent:
"All of our technology partners know they are not permitted to use MCPS testimonials in advertising." Superintendent Jerry Weast, January 7, 2009(Click on link and see answer to Question #9)
However, EasyLobby has found a way to include a statement about its product from Montgomery County by linking their website to a memo on the Montgomery County Council of PTA's (MCCPTA) website. The MCCPTA memo in turn, links back to the EasyLobby home page. Included in the MCCPTA memo is the following statement:
"Searching for the right software was a challenge since most security systems are designed for office buildings, but MCPS found “Easy Lobby” which allows them to download data at no additional charge compared to a rival, Raptor which charged a fee for the same service."
According to this memo on National PTA and it's ability to endorse products:
"It’s important to note that National PTA does not endorse these companies or their products and services. Due to IRS regulations, an endorsement by a non-profit organization would jeopardize its tax-exempt status. Endorsement of a company is when you make qualitative statements about a company or its products. For example, if PTA stated that our members should go shop at Office Depot because they have the “best office supplies” or they are “better” than Staples. These statements would be endorsements, which PTA does not practice with any companies we work with. It is perfectly legal for non-profits and under PTA’s privacy policy to make our members aware of special offers, discount opportunities or benefits without providing an endorsement."
UPDATE 6/4/09: EasyLobby removes link to MCCPTA memo.

Monday, April 6, 2009

Missing Royalties

As reported here, in January, Superintendent Jerry Weast told the MCPS Board of Education:

"All of our technology partners know they are not permitted to use MCPS testimonials in advertising." Superintendent Jerry Weast, January 7, 2009 answer to Question #9.
In response to the report on this blog, the MCPS logo was removed from the IQinVision advertisement. The testimonial remained, but the logo disappeared.

But this isn't the first time that the MCPS logo has been used in the advertising of a technology partner. Below is the Wireless Generation press release from 2005. Note the prominent MCPS logo. And note this sentence:
In addition, MCPS also will receive royalties on all sales of the software to other school districts nationwide.
Royalties? How much has MCPS received in royalties since 2005?

Multiple inquiries by national education activist Peyton Wolcott to Superintendent Weast as to the details of this royalty agreement have gone unanswered.

Have these funds been brought to the County Council for appropriation?

Anyone at the County Council, Inspector General's office, or State Attorney General's office paying attention?
Montgomery County Schools Partnership Rls 6.3.05

Saturday, April 5, 2008

MCPS Principals Endorse RMHS Principal's Consulting Business

April, 5, 2008

A Montgomery County principal who was running pricey private seminars, including one scheduled at his school on a weekday, shut down his consulting company Friday after The Examiner discovered that his side business may violate the Board of Education's code of ethics.
Since incorporating the business in 2006, Moreno "Mo" Carrasco, principal of Rockville's Richard Montgomery High School and Maryland's 2007 High School Principal of the Year, has held several "Breakthrough Principal" seminars at schools around the region, often scheduled during the week.
Minutes after an interview with The Examiner, the company Web site, savetheprincipal.com, was taken down and all future events were canceled. Earlier versions of the site listed a "One Day Refresher Institute" open to members of his $399 "Principals' Network" to be held Monday at Richard Montgomery between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m. Though a day off for students, Monday is a professional day for staff...

...Three glowing testimonials on the site included two from principals at Montgomery County's Beall Elementary and Roberto Clemente Middle School, and one from Carrasco himself, whose role in the company is apparent only on incorporating documents registered with the state...

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/montgomery-principal-shuts-down-consulting-side-business/article/70835




Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Vendors LOVE MCPS!!!

Because despite MCPS' ethics rules prohibiting testimonials, MCPS staff, administrators and even the Superintendent are more than happy to endorse a vendor's product and have the endorsement used in product descriptions!

Here is today's endorsement:
From our customers:
“Learning.com has been great to work with in measuring the technology literacy of students in Maryland. Learning.com customized its support and training to meet the needs of the various school systems in Maryland. Its communication practices are excellent,” says Kalani Smith, Project Manager for Montgomery County Public Schools. “After implementing Technology Literacy Assessment during the 2008-2009 school year, systems in Maryland reported that the implementation was easy and wished other online vendors had products that ran as smoothly.”

Wednesday, January 28, 2015

Council to Demolish 600 Seat School without Review of Facts

Ewing School
On Thursday, January 29, 2015, the Montgomery County Council's Education committee will vote on whether or not to rob the Ewing School Center building of it's renovation funding. The Ewing School building has the capacity to hold up to 600 MCPS students.  If the building loses it's renovation funding the building will deteriorate and be demolished. Once demolished, those 600 seats will be lost to MCPS students forever.

Here is an open letter to the Montgomery County Council in response to the Memorandum from Council staff on this issueCouncilmembers will use the staff Memorandum to cast their votes.  Shouldn't Councilmembers have all of the facts before they decide to demolish a usable, paid for, 600 seat public school building?

~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

January 28, 2015
 
councilmember.Leventhal@montgomerycountymd.gov 
councilmember.berliner@montgomerycountymd.gov 
councilmember.elrich@montgomerycountymd.gov 
councilmember.floreen@montgomerycountymd.gov councilmember.hucker@montgomerycountymd.gov
councilmember.katz@montgomerycountymd.gov

councilmember.Navarro@montgomerycountymd.gov councilmember.Rice@montgomerycountymd.gov
councilmember.Riemer@montgomerycountymd.gov


Esteemed Council Members,

I am providing this email to refute much of what [County Council Staff member] Ms. McGuire has provided within her recommendation to the County Council regarding the relocation of the AEP [Alternate Education Program] program to the former English Manor School.

Here are a couple of links for reference:

The COMPLETED Ewing Center Renovations feasibility study (see Option #3) - http://www.saveblairewing.org/uploads/4/2/7/3/42739627/bgewingctrmodfeasibilitystudy.pdf

Please take these items into account during your work session. At minimum, please ask for concrete proof for what she states.

1) MCPS Attendees for the [January 29, 2015, Education Committee] work session. Only representatives from the Facilities Dept are attending. While they may have some ideas regarding structural issues, they are not the ones who have designed the AEP program and cannot reliably state that their construction plans for English Manor will truly serve the program better. MCPS Administration staff presence is vital for this session.

2) There are no developed construction plans for English Manor, this vote is really around defunding the Ewing School Center. No feasibility studies have been conducted, so any discussion of how much an English Manor renovation would cost is purely speculation. The memo states (on page circled 14) "With the revised AEP, if the architects were to compare the current facility with English Manor, the study would show that English Manor is better suited to support the AEP and would be more cost effective." This is speculation. No concrete documentation has been provided to support this statement.

The memo states that "the approved $16.6 million should be sufficient to make the systematic renovations to English Manor..." "Should be sufficient" is not enough. These funds are proposed for a relatively small number of students, while a much larger number are being put in portable classrooms. In this fiscal climate, "should be sufficient" is irresponsible and should not be allowed.

She repeats Superintendent Starr's assertion that if additional funds are needed, they will be requested in the next CIP. MCPS cannot support their assertions that $16.6 million will be enough for an English Manor renovation as they have not completed any feasibility studies.

3) The proposed approval of funds for an English Manor renovation is for a building that MCPS does not currently own. Ms. McGuire references state law and county regulations in regards to transferring the property back to MCPS, but she does not provide any specific citations. These laws cannot be considered until citations are provided to prove their existence. To the contrary, COMCOR clearly states at section 11B.45.02.03 that the County Executive must activate the schools reuse and must include the community's input.   Also in COMCOR 11B.45.02.04, the Planning Board also must be involved before any action is taken. None of this is included in her memo.

4) No site selection process. Ms. McGuire claims that MCPS looked at other sites for the programs, but a site selection process was NOT conducted. Based on Board Meeting minutes, there does not seem to be any discussion amongst the Board of Education regarding any alternative sites. She needs to provide documentation showing that these other locations were considered as well as what concrete evidence directed them to English Manor (other than the perceived convenience of moving a Bus Depot to the current Ewing location).

5) Ms. McGuire has not included the second Resolution from the Board of Education.  This Resolution was a request to transfer $100,000 of the approved Ewing renovation money to the bus depot Feasibility Study. This needs to be included as those funds are part of what was approved for the Ewing renovations.
Resolved, That the Board of Education requests an amendment to the adopted Fiscal Years     2015–2020 Capital Improvements Program to transfer $100,000 from the approved Blair G. Ewing Center Improvements project to the Facility Planning project to conduct a feasibility study for the redevelopment of the current Blair G. Ewing Center site for the Shady Grove Transportation Depot; and be it further

So in essence, the Council cannot vote on moving $16.6 million to English Manor as $100,000 of that total is being requested to move to the bus depot.

6) The memo is wrongly comparing the potential solutions of English Manor with the EXISTING structure of the Ewing Center. This document needs to compare these solutions with those presented in the completed Ewing renovation feasibility study (link provided above). That study solves all of issues that this memo asserts can only be solved by English Manor. Here are some examples -
  •  A) The memo states that in the current Blair Ewing facility (circled page 15), "the specialty classrooms (Le. art, music, science, drama, and PEl are located in different parts of the facility, which would create more interaction between middle and high school students than desired." Page 41 of the Ewing renovation feasibility study shows that option #3 puts all of these classrooms in the same location, thus eliminating the issue being cited.
  • B) The memo states that (on circled page 14) "In addition, due to the current building layout and multi-levels [of the Ewing Center], it would be difficult to create a clear circulation path or improved supervision .." yet, the plan for English Manor is to locate the students on multiple levels as well. The completed feasibility study for the Ewing renovation states (page 44) "The corridors are able to widen create locker commons. These moves remove the institutional feel of the current building and provide students with 21st Century Learning Environments on par with their home school."
  • C) From a footprint standpoint, this memo states twice that the facility size of English Manor is much smaller than what is required of the AEP program.On circled page 14, "The current Blair Ewing site is approximately 22.5 acres compared to English Manor which is approximately 8.25 acres. The Blair Ewing facility is over 85,000 GSF compared to English Manor which is approximately 50,000 GSF. Based on the student population and program needs for the revised alternative education programs (AEP), approximately 70,000-75,000 GSF is required to support the programs." Also on circled page 15, "Although the current English Manor facility was a former elementary school and the square footage is smaller than what is required for the AEP, the proposed addition would allow MCPS to provide the specialty and career technology education (CTE) classrooms needed to support the program." Considering that the site acreage is significantly smaller than the Ewing property, how is there space to add enough square footage as the memo states is needed? Again, no feasibility study so any statements around English Manor are speculation.
  • D) The memo states (on circled page 15) that each Ewing Center classroom has their own bathrooms. Staff would like these removed. Page 47 of the Ewing renovation feasibility study shows that individual bathrooms have been removed as requested.
6) Ms. McGuire mentions nine testimonials, but does not include them in her memo. Three of the four who testified in support of the plan were MCPS employees under Mr. Starr, and not members of the public. Second, a number of people submitted written testimony against the plan, and this should have been counted as well.
A large number of questions have been raised by the community and virtually none of these have been answered or even addressed in any forum. Hundreds of separate communications, including phone calls, emails and testimony have poured in to the BOE and the County Council.
    1 - No responses have come.
    2 - The 'recommendation' doesn't even acknowledge the numerous questions raised, completely ignoring the overwhelming rejection of this plan by the public.
In reality, the response from the public was overwhelmingly negative and not balanced as the document suggests.

7) No community involvement before the School Board Vote. The memo states (on circled page 15) "The addition would provide a new building elevation to the neighborhood. For all school design projects that MCPS conducts, if the feasibility study is approved, the adjacent neighbors and neighborhood associations would be invited to participate in the feasibility study and subsequent schematic design process to share their concerns and input into the design of the project." Involving the community after the fact, is the equivalent of asking forgiveness rather than permission. That is too little too late for the community.
"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" (Declaration of Independence). Despite efforts by the BOE to paint another picture, the public is almost uniformly opposed to this plan. In this case, there is no way that it should go forward.

I implore you to push for facts and not the fiction included in that memo. The residents in and around Aspen Hill are vehemently opposed to this plan and you owe it to us to be as thorough as possible when making your decision.

Thank you for your time and consideration.
-David K. Rowden