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. 

"The don't-look-back-and-don't-ask-questions rubber stamp process"

The Center for Education Reform

June 8, 2010

AS IT EVER WAS IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY. Rather than admit there are things even the vaunted Montgomery County, MD school system could improve upon, Superintendent Jerry Weast began the don't-look-back-and-don't-ask-questions rubber stamp process for denying the first two charter school applications for the county in a decade. At least 12 percent of high schoolers there don't graduate on time or at all and of those that do, barely a majority finish four-year colleges. Think their families would like an alternative option? Montgomery County Public Schools (and Jerry Weast in particular) seem to take the notion of charter schools as a personal attack. But when MCPS isn't working for all kids, real options could reach those lost into a system suffering from a self-perpetuated myth of perfection. Weast, a stickler for data, should be the first to recognize that the numbers don't lie.

Read article HERE.

Bitter MontCo school board passes budget | Washington Examiner

Bitter MontCo school board passes budget | Washington Examiner

Only one of the eight members – Laura Berthiaume (District 2) – voted to oppose the budget on the grounds that the board served merely as a rubber stamp to the executive decisions of Superintendent Jerry Weast and the financial authority of the County Council.

“Are we merely window dressing?” Berthiaume asked. “Once we vote for and pass this budget, it will be our budget. But not because the board did anything.”

In Education Vote, Politics Wins; Kids Lose.

From the Special Needs Truth '08 blog:

...Parents vocally expressed their opposition to this plan. Many pointed out that Superintendent Jerry Weast blatantly violated a Board of Education policy that new programs must be presented in time to be reviewed -- before showing up in a budget.

Today, the members of the Board of Education unanimously approved that budget.

Unanimously, they voted against a proven program that parents have relied on to give their children a chance to succeed.

Unanimously, they told parents of special-needs children that they do not value their opinions and experiences when making major changes to the services the county offers.

Unanimously, they told Dr. Weast that he can unilaterally create, change, or shut down any program he chooses -- and they will rubber stamp his decisions.

Unanimously, they threatened the future well-being of our county's youngest and most at-risk children.

------

The Parents' Coalition learned that even before today's vote at least one teacher had been hired to teach in the new MCPS pre-school program and at least one child had already been assigned to the new pre-school program, even before it had been approved by the Board of Education.

It doesn't appear that the Board of Education vote today had any meaning whatsoever as the new MCPS pre-school program was already being set up and assigned students. The MPAC program's fate was sealed before today.

The Board of Education is not in charge of Montgomery County Public Schools.

The AEI Advisory Committee Saga

AEI Appointment Email and MPIA Response

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Essays Academic Work accountability advisory committee

Recently, the super sleuths at Parents’ Coalition “outed” another one of those secret “advisory” committees chosen by MCPS—the Mathematics Joint Work Group.

Dedicated to changing the educational policies that irrevocably alter the futures of our children for a decade or more, these committee members sell their souls to the devil by agreeing to a vow of secrecy. Don’t you forget that standard operating procedure (“SOP”) at the Kremlin is to ensure that there are no bona fide experts in the field sitting on these committees.

The fact that these committees are perfunctory rubber stamps to a predetermined course of action is no longer an ethereal construct of the misinformed of the disenfranchised. These committees apparently formed under, and acting at, the direction of the BOE, routinely flaunt applicable laws and regulations.

Here is an example of MCPS SOP.

On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 21:41:57 -0500, Martin Creel, Director, Enriched and Innovative Programs, wrote “[w]e will review the parent nominations … in the next few weeks, … and expect to have a decision in time for the March AEI Advisory meeting” (the email is attached on the second page).

Common sense will dictate that if the “we” was the AEI Advisory Committee, the minutes of meetings will reflect this important decision making.

Of course, you ask the powers-that-be, with suitable genuflecting and penance, for a copy of such minutes that may be disclosed under the law.

Okay, okay, you can go “hee, hee,” like a Tickle-me-Elmo doll.

In response, MCPS, in a letter dated March 25, copied to Marty Creel, Dr. Lacey, and Edwards, asserts “… Mr. Creel has never claimed that the Accelerated and Enriched Instruction Advisory Committee reviewed nominations for the committee.”

Aw shucks, maybe it was all a misinterpretation.

Wait, wait, take a look at the letter.

It asserts, I asked for “… copies of any and all documents pertaining to the meetings held by the AEI Advisory Committee.” The letter does not deny that these letters must be provided under the law. Yet, none were provided.

MCPS ethics for you.

Next step for MCPS: use all means to threaten and destroy the requester who caused so much embarrassment.

Gotta go hide.

Remember data driven change with transparency and accountability is the only defensible change.