The Precipitous Rubber Stamp

Board of Education's 48-hour Pearson sign off

by Frederick Stichnoth

In the June 23, 2010 Gazette, Board of Education President Patricia O'Neill and Vice President Christopher Barclay said:

All of the board members received the contract electronically 48 hours in advance of the meeting and staff was available around the clock to answer any questions board members had. The superintendent and our legal counsel negotiated a strong contract for the system and delivered an agreement that is a win-win for this community. 

This refers to the Agreement with Pearson Education, Inc., approved at the Board of Education's June 8th meeting, pursuant to which MCPS and Pearson will "collaborate with each other on the development of a fully-developed integrated curriculum program for Grades K-5...."

Was 48 hours enough time for the Board of Education to do its job?

Regarding the mere review of the contract, I could be persuaded that it was. 

But regarding consideration of likely consequences--no way. 

Ms. O'Neill and Mr. Barclay do not indicate for how long they had been aware that this arrangement was pending;  or what discussions they, as the officers of the Board of Education, had with staff (outside their final, harried, "around the clock" discussions) and with Pearson representatives;  or what Committee hearings the Board of Education had conducted (I'm not aware of any);  or what consultations they had with MCPS' tablemates--MCCPTA's Curriculum Committee, for example.

MCPS used to assert the advantages of in-house curriculum development;  now MCPS has, to a degree that will only be determined through the future development of the project, outsourced it.  This is a big change.  Is 48 hours enough?

I am concerned that this arrangement will affect adversely the possibility of Gifted and Talented education. 

First, Ms. O'Neill and Mr. Barclay indicate that the MCPS/Pearson curriculum will be arranged around the Common Core Standards (national curriculum).  Won't this tend to cast in concrete MCPS' existing practice of "aligning" all programming toward the one-size-fits-all, mid-level, college-without-remediation readiness, Seven Keys, national monomania?  Furthermore, Pearson's interest will be to develop a single, standardized, mid-level curriculum that can be marketed to everybody, everywhere;  not to a small subset determined by State law to have special needs and abilities.  Furthermore, Ms. O'Neill and Mr. Barclay indicate that the MCPS/Pearson curriculum will "integrate" science and social studies into math and reading.  When I see "integrate," I read "collapse."  What about kids who don't require all reading and math all the time in order to achieve the system's Annual Yearly Progress purposes?  Couldn't those kids have some science and social studies that are not "integrated?"

MCPS' Gifted and Talented education, as the Board formally conceived it in Policy IOA, is based on a separate, higher level scope and sequence (curriculum) for every grade and subject.  The incentives in the Pearson Agreement, as Ms. O'Neill and Mr. Barclay testify, are in the opposite direction.

Second, while many parents believe that homogeneous ability-grouping is essential to Gifted and Talented education (especially in the red zone), MCPS is driving toward heterogeneous classrooms, with instructional differentiation.  Differentiation is a difficult art.  MCPS admits that it is not done well, and training in differentiation is inadequate.  Yet MCPS feels it's a worthwhile investment that successive classes of Gifted and Talented students (especially in the red zone) mark time while the system doubles down on differentiation.  How did Board due diligence justify the O'Neill/Barclay assertion that "Pearson's expertise is only going to make...professional development [regarding differentiation] stronger?"  Won't the incentive toward mid-level standardization detract from development of the differentiation art? 

Did the Committee on Special Populations (Brandman, Berthiaume, Kauffman) meet to consider the effect of the Pearson Agreement on the Gifted and Talented students for which the Committee is responsible?

I'm not reassured by Ms. O'Neill's and Mr. Barclay's belief that "there is almost no risk for MCPS."  (Isn't this what BP told us?)  This statement suggests that the time to read the contract was not sufficient to consider its consequences.

Is the Agreement a "win-win for this community?"  Does it "ensure success for all our children?"  That depends both on what "all" means and on likely consequences which the Board had little time to consider with its precipitous rubber stamp.