Pearson could be out if MCPS wins Grant?

Remember when Superintendent Jerry Weast surprised the Board of Education, teachers and the public with his June 8, 2010, announcement that he had cut a deal with Pearson Education, Inc.? 


Tucked away in the memorandum that Superintendent Weast wrote to the Board of Education was this paragraph:

MCPS has applied for a federal Investing in Innovation Fund grant to facilitate the development of the program with Pearson providing the required private matching contribution. The Agreement requires MCPS and Pearson each to contribute pre-existing materials and collaboratively developed materials to the joint project and, consistent with industry practice, vests copyright ownership in the joint project to Pearson.

But according to the Education Week article below, if MCPS is awarded an Investing in Innovation Fund i3 Grant from the Department of Education, MCPS would have to initiate a competitive procurement process and Pearson Education, Inc. would have to bid for the project along with all other interested vendors. 


The example used in the article even uses Pearson to describe the Department of Education policy that would require MCPS to use competitive bidding if an i3 Grant is awarded. 


Looks like someone may have skipped over the fine print in this grant application. (Maybe 48 hours wasn't enough time to review this deal?)


Education Week: No Room for For-Profits in i3

April 6, 2010

...The Department's policy creates several seemingly unnecessary headaches. For instance, consider two broadly similar assessment firms, like ETS and Pearson, where one is non-profit and the other for-profit. Both pay handsome salaries, spend lots on corporate travel and marketing, have their boosters and detractors, and are in similar lines of business. Yet, because ETS is a non-profit, a grantee can choose to include them as a partner. If that same grantee wanted to work with Pearson, though, the district would have to win the grant on its own and then initiate a competitive procurement. The logic for this distinction escapes me...