We learn from the Washington Post article that Superintendent Jerry Weast went on a trip to Colorado Springs, to the Panasonic Foundation conference.
Click Here to see the list of the travels that Jerry Weast reported to the Washington Post.
Why did Jerry Weast's trip to the Panasonic Foundation conference only cost $4 ?
Who paid for the Airfare, hotel, and meals?
Saturday, February 21, 2009
The Sopranos Meets the PTA
The "More" Child blog reports on the activities of the Montgomery County Council of PTAs (MCCPTA) this week in an article entitled: The Sopranos Meets the PTA.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Two Questions
To: Members of the Montgomery County Council and staff:
In preparation for Monday's Montgomery County Council Education Committee (8:30 AM) meeting I am submitting the following questions. I hope that someone, either on the Council or Council staff, will be able to ascertain answers to these questions.
1. Why does the Council packet for the 8:30 AM February 23rd Education Committee meeting, submitted by staff contain a different version of the November 26th letter and attachments from Superintendent Weast to Councilmember Ervin, than were originally received by the Council and stamped in as #039369? Attachment B as shown in the Council packet is not the same Attachment B (June 9, 2008 memorandum from Superintendent Weast to Board of Education) as was originally received by the Council. When was the switch made and why?
2. Where is procurement information/documentation for the 700 Promethean Boards that are unaccounted for? A lease for 2,600 Promethean Boards has been made accessible to the public because of a Maryland Public Information Act request that I filed. However, there are also approximately 700 Promethean Boards that are unaccounted for in Board of Education minutes, as MCPS has revealed there are about 3,300 Promethean Boards in place in MCPS. 700 Promethean Boards would represent a procurement of approximately $3,500,000.
Thank you for your assistance in answering these questions.
Janis Sartucci
In preparation for Monday's Montgomery County Council Education Committee (8:30 AM) meeting I am submitting the following questions. I hope that someone, either on the Council or Council staff, will be able to ascertain answers to these questions.
1. Why does the Council packet for the 8:30 AM February 23rd Education Committee meeting, submitted by staff contain a different version of the November 26th letter and attachments from Superintendent Weast to Councilmember Ervin, than were originally received by the Council and stamped in as #039369? Attachment B as shown in the Council packet is not the same Attachment B (June 9, 2008 memorandum from Superintendent Weast to Board of Education) as was originally received by the Council. When was the switch made and why?
2. Where is procurement information/documentation for the 700 Promethean Boards that are unaccounted for? A lease for 2,600 Promethean Boards has been made accessible to the public because of a Maryland Public Information Act request that I filed. However, there are also approximately 700 Promethean Boards that are unaccounted for in Board of Education minutes, as MCPS has revealed there are about 3,300 Promethean Boards in place in MCPS. 700 Promethean Boards would represent a procurement of approximately $3,500,000.
Thank you for your assistance in answering these questions.
Janis Sartucci
Centro Familia: Show Me The Money
The Washington Post reports HERE on the Inspector General's findings about Centro Familia, the $900,000 in taxpayer grant money, and the Montgomery County Department of Health and Human Services.
Board member walks out to avoid Open Meetings Violation
Board member Jennifer Abell walked out of a Charles County Board of Education meeting on February 6th rather than risk being found in violation of the Maryland Open Meetings Act.
On January 30, 2009, the Maryland Open Meetings Compliance Board found the Montgomery County Public School Board of Education to be in violation of the Act. As of yet, no MCPS Board of Education member has spoken publicly about this violation and the MCPS Board of Education has not discussed this issue in Open session.
In sharp contrast to the demeanor of members of the MCPS Board of Education, Charles County Board member Jennifer Abell publishes a blog that details her activities to her constituents, including her refusal to participate in a meeting that should have been open to the public.
On January 30, 2009, the Maryland Open Meetings Compliance Board found the Montgomery County Public School Board of Education to be in violation of the Act. As of yet, no MCPS Board of Education member has spoken publicly about this violation and the MCPS Board of Education has not discussed this issue in Open session.
In sharp contrast to the demeanor of members of the MCPS Board of Education, Charles County Board member Jennifer Abell publishes a blog that details her activities to her constituents, including her refusal to participate in a meeting that should have been open to the public.
WPost: Superintendents Out of Town
The Washington Post is reporting on D.C. Area School Chief's Perk that Refreshes: Travel. The Parents' Coalition website chronicles the travels of MCPS Administrators on the Weast Watch page of its website.
What the article doesn't go into is what the Superintendents were missing when they were out of town. For example, Superintendent Weast has missed Board meetings and events such as graduations and the Superintendent's Performing Arts Award Ceremony when students would actually have had contact with their school system's chief. Last year Superintendent Weast traveled out of town to receive a "Tech-Savvy" Award sponsored in part by Promethean. Later in the year thousands of Promethean Boards arrived in MCPS classrooms.
As a follow up to this article, how about an article on how much time Superintendent's spend in schools with actual students? How many Superintendents have ridden a school bus with students, eaten lunch on the floor in a high school (no room in cafeterias), used a student restroom, attended a P.E. class on a field, or gone back stage for a performance? How many public school students have ever laid eyes on their school superintendent?
What the article doesn't go into is what the Superintendents were missing when they were out of town. For example, Superintendent Weast has missed Board meetings and events such as graduations and the Superintendent's Performing Arts Award Ceremony when students would actually have had contact with their school system's chief. Last year Superintendent Weast traveled out of town to receive a "Tech-Savvy" Award sponsored in part by Promethean. Later in the year thousands of Promethean Boards arrived in MCPS classrooms.
As a follow up to this article, how about an article on how much time Superintendent's spend in schools with actual students? How many Superintendents have ridden a school bus with students, eaten lunch on the floor in a high school (no room in cafeterias), used a student restroom, attended a P.E. class on a field, or gone back stage for a performance? How many public school students have ever laid eyes on their school superintendent?
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Examiner: Mont. Co. can't account for $900,000
The Examiner is reporting that Montgomery County can't account for $900,000 to child care center.
2/19/09
2/19/09
Read the full report from the Inspector General here.Montgomery County's Department of Health and Human Services can't account for more than $900,000 it paid to a child-care center for Latino immigrants founded by a local school board member, according to the county's inspector general.
WPost: Board Told to Open Up About Closed Sessions
As first reported here, the Montgomery County Board of Education has been found to be in violation of the Maryland Open Meetings Act. At the time of the violation the President of the MCPS Board of Education was Nancy Navarro. No elected Board of Education members are quoted in the February 19th Washington Post article on this violation.
At the meeting that was the subject of the Complaint, the Board of Education went behind closed doors, without proper disclosure of the topic, to discuss the illegal curricular fees that are being charged MCPS students. The topic of that meeting was disclosed after the fact by President Navarro in a prepared statement later that day.
Note that to date, the Board of Education has not put the issue of illegal Curricular Fees as an agenda item at an Open Meeting. Yet, the Superintendent has gone forward with "new" curricular fee rules to be implemented for the 2009-10 school year, without any public discussion by the elected Board of Education.
What was the Board discussing at the September 9th meeting? When did the Board decide to remain silent on this issue of major importance to public school families? When did the Board delegate this issue to the Superintendent?
The Board's silence on the issue of Curricular Fees means that MCPS parents will continue to be charged to attend public school classes in MCPS for years to come. The Maryland State Constitution, the opinion of the Maryland Attorney General and the opinion of the Maryland State Board of Education are to be ignored in Montgomery County.
Our elected Board of Education will not stand up for a child's right to a free public education in Maryland and they will not take up this issue in public.
At the meeting that was the subject of the Complaint, the Board of Education went behind closed doors, without proper disclosure of the topic, to discuss the illegal curricular fees that are being charged MCPS students. The topic of that meeting was disclosed after the fact by President Navarro in a prepared statement later that day.
Note that to date, the Board of Education has not put the issue of illegal Curricular Fees as an agenda item at an Open Meeting. Yet, the Superintendent has gone forward with "new" curricular fee rules to be implemented for the 2009-10 school year, without any public discussion by the elected Board of Education.
What was the Board discussing at the September 9th meeting? When did the Board decide to remain silent on this issue of major importance to public school families? When did the Board delegate this issue to the Superintendent?
The Board's silence on the issue of Curricular Fees means that MCPS parents will continue to be charged to attend public school classes in MCPS for years to come. The Maryland State Constitution, the opinion of the Maryland Attorney General and the opinion of the Maryland State Board of Education are to be ignored in Montgomery County.
Our elected Board of Education will not stand up for a child's right to a free public education in Maryland and they will not take up this issue in public.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Congratulations and a note of caution to this year's recipients of the Tech Savvy Superintendent award
Congratulations to this year's winners of the Tech Savvy Superintendent's awards.
What an honor - but as yourself, how much of the Tech Savvy Superintendent award is really an honor and how much of this is a marketing opportunity for sponsor/vendors?
For those lucky ten school systems with honorees who will receive this award on Friday, February 20, you may want to reconsider.
Just last year, Dr. Weast, Montgomery County Maryland's Superintendent of Schools, was named as one of the 2008 Tech Savvy Superintendents. Not only did Montgomery County taxpayers send him to receive this award, but the schools wound up purchasing over 3,300 fancy whiteboards from Promethean, the sponsor of last year's awards. The Montgomery County Council is holding a hearing February 23, at 9:30 am to figure out who picked up the tab for these wonderful tech toys. Curious taxpayers want to know, especially since the four unions serving the school system gave up their negotiated pay increases to make up for public funding shortfalls as a result of the downturn in the economy.
Think carefully before your school system and taxpayers find themselves in the same situation - or at least hide the checkbook before your superintendent gets on the plane for San Francisco.
***********************************************
Here is the invitation to become a sponsor of the recently announced Tech Savvy Sup awards.
From the invitation to become one of the three sponsors:
What an honor - but as yourself, how much of the Tech Savvy Superintendent award is really an honor and how much of this is a marketing opportunity for sponsor/vendors?
For those lucky ten school systems with honorees who will receive this award on Friday, February 20, you may want to reconsider.
Just last year, Dr. Weast, Montgomery County Maryland's Superintendent of Schools, was named as one of the 2008 Tech Savvy Superintendents. Not only did Montgomery County taxpayers send him to receive this award, but the schools wound up purchasing over 3,300 fancy whiteboards from Promethean, the sponsor of last year's awards. The Montgomery County Council is holding a hearing February 23, at 9:30 am to figure out who picked up the tab for these wonderful tech toys. Curious taxpayers want to know, especially since the four unions serving the school system gave up their negotiated pay increases to make up for public funding shortfalls as a result of the downturn in the economy.
Think carefully before your school system and taxpayers find themselves in the same situation - or at least hide the checkbook before your superintendent gets on the plane for San Francisco.
***********************************************
Here is the invitation to become a sponsor of the recently announced Tech Savvy Sup awards.
From the invitation to become one of the three sponsors:
Leadership Support Is
Essential to Your K-12 Sales
Be an integral part of the most venerable gathering
of superintendents in North America.Top educators believe in supporting those who support them. The
Ninth Annual Tech-Savvy Superintendent Awards (TSSA),
produced by the eSchool News Network, is the ultimate sign of
support not only for the year’s 10 winning superintendents, but for
chief school executives from coast to coast who are fighting to
ensure the effective use of technology in our schools.Sponsor eSN’s 2009 Tech-Savvy Superintendent Awards.
Establish an up-close-and-personal encounter with well over 100
key superintendents.If you’ve ever tried to set up a meeting with the Chief Executive
Officer of a public school system, you know it can be devilishly
difficult. But as one of just three sponsors of the eSchool News
Tech-Savvy Superintendent Awards program, you’ll get the
undivided attention of more than 100 superintendents at the
high-prestige event of the year!In addition—through the print, online, eMail, and video channels
of the eSchool News Network—you’ll get electronic marketing
opportunities via eSchool News Online, video exposure via
eSchoolNews.TV, and display advertising in the national print
newspaper eSchool News. Altogether, you’ll get an effective,
sustained marketing reach to nearly one million executive educators.
And your marketing exposure hits in multiple media formats from
October 2008 through April 2009.In February, the eSchool News Network and the Century Club
100* are teaming up while the American Association of School
Administrators (AASA) conference is under way.The Ninth Annual Tech-Savvy Superintendent Awards ceremony
itself is scheduled for from 10 a.m. until 2 p.m. at an AASA
headquarters hotel in San Francisco on Friday, Feb. 20, 2009.
But the benefits of sponsoring the 2009 TSSA program begin
months earlier, in October, with a call for nominations issued
throughout the eSchool News Network. Hundreds of superintendents
are nominated by their colleagues and peers. Then, past years’
TSSA laureates join with the editors of eSchool News to select the
2009 winners. Each of those 10 winners are profiled in the print
newspaper, the February “AASA Show” issue of eSchool News.
The 2009 winners, along with past years’ laureates, program
sponsors, eSN editors, and the full membership of the Century
Club 100 are invited to the luncheon ceremony at one of San
Francisco’s finest hotels.As part of the Century Club 100 annual meeting—a by-invitation only
affair customarily attended by well over 100 superintendents—
the eSN Awards ceremony brings together the 10 new superintendent
winners and the sponsors’ chief representatives. Each sits
for an on-camera interview with eSN.TV. At the start of the awards
ceremony, each sponsor’s chief representative brings greetings to
the gathering. Several members of the sponsors’ sales teams are also
invited to the luncheon to solidify relations with the full assembly of
superintendents. eSchool News records the event as a video feature,
issues press releases to all local news media of the winning
superintendents, and covers the proceedings for publication in the
April issue of the print eSchool News newspaper.Only three companies can be sponsors of this high-profile, high prestige
program. Please speak with your account executive today to
learn more about this multi-month, multimedia marketing program.
If it is curriculum related a school system cannot charge a fee
These words come from the Maryland Attorney General's office in response to questions about hundreds of course fees charged students who attend Montgomery County Public Schools.
If it is curriculum related a school system cannot charge a fee.
Yet, we see Superintendent Weast continuing to put out contradictory information to MCPS staff via the February 17th edition of the MCPS publication "The Bulletin". In this edition of the MCPS Bulletin, MCPS staff are told:
According to the Maryland Attorney General, there are no "allowable course-related fees". Why are MCPS staff being given bad information?
On August 18, 2008, Superintendent Weast was sent a letter (see below) from the Maryland Attorney General's office. The letter outlined current Maryland law with regard to curricular fees and quoted the opinion of the Attorney General that, "we are safe in saying that anything directly related to a school's curriculum must be available to all without charge."
Why are MCPS students being denied their Maryland Constitutional right to a free public education under Superintendent Weast's leadership? Why has the Board of Education been silent on this fundamental issue of equal access to education for all?
For a complete overview of the Curricular Fees issue in Montgomery County Public Schools, please see the Parents' Coalition of Montgomery County, Maryland's Guide to Fees, including MCPS' own attorney's explanation of the difference between Curricular Fees and Extra-Curricular Fees in Maryland. MCPS' own attorney knows that Extra-Curricular fees can be charged under Maryland law, and Curricular Fees can not be charged.
KameenOAGLetter
If it is curriculum related a school system cannot charge a fee.
Yet, we see Superintendent Weast continuing to put out contradictory information to MCPS staff via the February 17th edition of the MCPS publication "The Bulletin". In this edition of the MCPS Bulletin, MCPS staff are told:
Generally, allowable course-related fees are limited to:
- Materials that become a product that belongs to the student, such as a student art project.
- Personal items that become the student’s property, such as auto technology uniforms.
- Food consumed by the student as part of a course.
According to the Maryland Attorney General, there are no "allowable course-related fees". Why are MCPS staff being given bad information?
On August 18, 2008, Superintendent Weast was sent a letter (see below) from the Maryland Attorney General's office. The letter outlined current Maryland law with regard to curricular fees and quoted the opinion of the Attorney General that, "we are safe in saying that anything directly related to a school's curriculum must be available to all without charge."
Why are MCPS students being denied their Maryland Constitutional right to a free public education under Superintendent Weast's leadership? Why has the Board of Education been silent on this fundamental issue of equal access to education for all?
For a complete overview of the Curricular Fees issue in Montgomery County Public Schools, please see the Parents' Coalition of Montgomery County, Maryland's Guide to Fees, including MCPS' own attorney's explanation of the difference between Curricular Fees and Extra-Curricular Fees in Maryland. MCPS' own attorney knows that Extra-Curricular fees can be charged under Maryland law, and Curricular Fees can not be charged.
KameenOAGLetter
Math Forum: The Experts' Top Ten Recommendations for the New Superintendent
Tuesday evening, February 17, 2009, a group of twenty parents, students, teachers, and community activists gathered at the Somerset Town Hall to hear Parents Coalition math education experts Julie Greenberg, Jerry Dancis, and John Hoven discuss "The Top Ten Math Initiatives for the Next MCPS Superintendent." Also present in the audience was Phil Kaufmann, one of the newly elected Board of Education members, who stated that he was very interested to hear the community's concerns on this topic.
John Hoven led off the discussion with the proposition that there is too much "fluff" currently in the MCPS math curriculum. He gave the example of students spending several days learning the difference between "acute" and "obtuse" angles by plotting cities they would like to visit on a map and drawing lines between them, and measuring the "angles." Mr. Hoven also urged for a true class in statistics, and decried so many of the math activities that purport to teach statistics by having the class survey their friends on their favorite foods and making a bar chart about it.
Jerry Dancis spoke about the fact that at the college level, kids are coming in knowing less math than they did ten or even twenty years ago. Calculators are being used as a shortcut. He presented a chart showing the percentages of MCPS graduates by race and ethnicity who are minimally ready for college math when they entered a college in Maryland.
Julie Greenberg talked about the importance of professional development in the specific content area. She showed a quiz taken by one of her neighbors, which was graded as an "A", and showed why it really deserved a "D". She suggested "immersion institutes" for professional development, and said there are certainly plenty of content experts in math in this area who could do that.
Topics for discussion from the audience included: lack of textbooks, Singapore math, what to do for students peforming below grade level, placement directives from the central office, principal pressure to place students in higher level classes even though the kids aren't ready, "BCRs" for math, etc. Board Member Phil Kauffman suggested that those people concerned about math curriculum and education should figure out how their concerns can best be reflected through the strategic plan, since everything always comes back to the strategic plan.
The Parents' Coalition certainly should thank Julie Greenberg, Jerry Dancis, and John Hoven for hosting this informative event.
John Hoven led off the discussion with the proposition that there is too much "fluff" currently in the MCPS math curriculum. He gave the example of students spending several days learning the difference between "acute" and "obtuse" angles by plotting cities they would like to visit on a map and drawing lines between them, and measuring the "angles." Mr. Hoven also urged for a true class in statistics, and decried so many of the math activities that purport to teach statistics by having the class survey their friends on their favorite foods and making a bar chart about it.
Jerry Dancis spoke about the fact that at the college level, kids are coming in knowing less math than they did ten or even twenty years ago. Calculators are being used as a shortcut. He presented a chart showing the percentages of MCPS graduates by race and ethnicity who are minimally ready for college math when they entered a college in Maryland.
Julie Greenberg talked about the importance of professional development in the specific content area. She showed a quiz taken by one of her neighbors, which was graded as an "A", and showed why it really deserved a "D". She suggested "immersion institutes" for professional development, and said there are certainly plenty of content experts in math in this area who could do that.
Topics for discussion from the audience included: lack of textbooks, Singapore math, what to do for students peforming below grade level, placement directives from the central office, principal pressure to place students in higher level classes even though the kids aren't ready, "BCRs" for math, etc. Board Member Phil Kauffman suggested that those people concerned about math curriculum and education should figure out how their concerns can best be reflected through the strategic plan, since everything always comes back to the strategic plan.
The Parents' Coalition certainly should thank Julie Greenberg, Jerry Dancis, and John Hoven for hosting this informative event.
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
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
BusRadio Rides Again!
Did you think BusRadio was removed from Montgomery County Public School buses in December?
Think again.
Did you believe Superintendent Weast when he told WTOP's Kate Ryan that BusRadio was turned off for good? He was quoted on air as saying that "not everything they were listening to was appropriate?"
Did you believe the Gazette article that reported, "... Weast confirmed the cancellation of the radio service."
Did you believe the Washington Post article that said, "School officials said yesterday they have abandoned a trial of the radio service..."
Did you believe MCPS Chief Operating Officer Larry Bowers when he wrote to former Rockville Mayor Larry Giammo and said, "...a decision has been made to terminate the use of BusRadio."
If you believed the above statements, then you might like to listen to the Friday, February 13th BusRadio broadcast when the driver of MCPS Bus 5115 called in to the BusRadio on air show and gave a "shout out" to the kids that ride his bus from Richard Montgomery, Julius West, Ritchie Park and College Gardens schools. The driver of MCPS bus 5115 was entering a BusRadio "Love the Bus" contest to win a $200 gift card.
If you read the entire Washington Post article you will see that the BusRadio devices were NOT going to be removed from MCPS buses. In fact, the devices were going to be left on the buses and with just a flip of a switch....BusRadio can ride another day!
So now that we know BusRadio is still in use in MCPS, where are the proceeds from this commercial "partnership" going? BusRadio pays school systems a portion of the advertising profits to keep their system in use. Just like the E-Rate Rebate funds, these outside funds are a source of revenue to Montgomery County. When have these funds been brought to the Board of Education and County Council for appropriation?
Think again.
Did you believe Superintendent Weast when he told WTOP's Kate Ryan that BusRadio was turned off for good? He was quoted on air as saying that "not everything they were listening to was appropriate?"
Did you believe the Gazette article that reported, "... Weast confirmed the cancellation of the radio service."
Did you believe the Washington Post article that said, "School officials said yesterday they have abandoned a trial of the radio service..."
Did you believe MCPS Chief Operating Officer Larry Bowers when he wrote to former Rockville Mayor Larry Giammo and said, "...a decision has been made to terminate the use of BusRadio."
If you believed the above statements, then you might like to listen to the Friday, February 13th BusRadio broadcast when the driver of MCPS Bus 5115 called in to the BusRadio on air show and gave a "shout out" to the kids that ride his bus from Richard Montgomery, Julius West, Ritchie Park and College Gardens schools. The driver of MCPS bus 5115 was entering a BusRadio "Love the Bus" contest to win a $200 gift card.
If you read the entire Washington Post article you will see that the BusRadio devices were NOT going to be removed from MCPS buses. In fact, the devices were going to be left on the buses and with just a flip of a switch....BusRadio can ride another day!
So now that we know BusRadio is still in use in MCPS, where are the proceeds from this commercial "partnership" going? BusRadio pays school systems a portion of the advertising profits to keep their system in use. Just like the E-Rate Rebate funds, these outside funds are a source of revenue to Montgomery County. When have these funds been brought to the Board of Education and County Council for appropriation?
Monday, February 16, 2009
What came first . . . the chicken or the (Promethean) egg?
For those of you who are still curious about those wonderful tech-savvy white boards populating classrooms throughout Montgomery County Public Schools, and how, in these dire economic times, did our school system come up with the money, consider this.
Back in February 2008, when the Promethean Boards were a mere dream to many classrooms, Dr. Weast received a Tech Savvy Superintendent Award.
Note that at the time of the award, MCPS efforts included the installation of 18 Active Classrooms in 14 schools, with 22 more to be installed over the next two years.
So how did MCPS manage to install 2600+ of these boards in classrooms across the county by September 2008?
Could it be that the Tech Savvy Sup Award was sponsored by Promethean? Or is that just another amazing coincidence from Montgomery County, Maryland. Where is the "data driven decision making" to support this simplified acquisition that escaped the normal procurement bidding process?
Hear Dr. Weast in his own words or read the article (excerpts below)
************************************************
From the award write-up Eighth Annual Tech Savvy Superintendent Awards (Feb. 7, 2008)(http://www.eschoolnews.com/2008/02/07/eighth-annual-tech-savvy-superintendent-awards/) :
Back in February 2008, when the Promethean Boards were a mere dream to many classrooms, Dr. Weast received a Tech Savvy Superintendent Award.
Note that at the time of the award, MCPS efforts included the installation of 18 Active Classrooms in 14 schools, with 22 more to be installed over the next two years.
So how did MCPS manage to install 2600+ of these boards in classrooms across the county by September 2008?
Could it be that the Tech Savvy Sup Award was sponsored by Promethean? Or is that just another amazing coincidence from Montgomery County, Maryland. Where is the "data driven decision making" to support this simplified acquisition that escaped the normal procurement bidding process?
Hear Dr. Weast in his own words or read the article (excerpts below)
************************************************
From the award write-up Eighth Annual Tech Savvy Superintendent Awards (Feb. 7, 2008)(http://www.eschoolnews.com/2008/02/07/eighth-annual-tech-savvy-superintendent-awards/) :
In our eighth annual Tech-Savvy Superintendent Awards, sponsored by Promethean and eCollege, eSchool News recognizes 10 of the nation's top K-12 executives for their outstanding ed-tech leadership and vision. Chosen by the editors of eSchool News with help from last year's winners, these 10 exemplary leaders will be honored in a private ceremony held at the same time as the American Association of School Administrators' annual conference in Tampa, Fla., Feb. 15.
. . .
Jerry D. Weast, Montgomery County Public Schools, Maryland
When Weast became superintendent of Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)--a large, culturally diverse school system of 21,000 professionals and 138,000 students--more than eight years ago, he set new priorities aimed at providing a high-quality teacher in every classroom, raising staff expectations of high academic achievement for all students, and giving educators the technology tools and support they needed to improve students' performance. He has rallied the support of stakeholders to provide funding to refresh the district's 40,000 computers, educational software, and network infrastructure every four years through a Technology Modernization program.
One of Weast's key technology initiatives to support teaching and learning focuses on data-driven decision making. By urging the creation of an integrated quality management system, he has simplified access to relevant student achievement data.
As a result, teachers now have immediate access to student performance data, so they can assess students' knowledge and abilities and tailor their instruction accordingly. Under Weast's direction, MCPS has integrated technology into professional development for all staff. Staff members register for professional development opportunities through the Professional Development Online (PDO) web-based program, which has been tailored to meet the specific training needs of each staff member. Professional development is provided in a new, state-of-the-art Center for Technology Innovation containing four computer labs and a video conferencing room.
Weast also has led the effort to develop online formative assessments that provide immediate access to results. Teachers now use handheld computers to streamline the process and improve the accuracy of diagnostic information. The district's most recent initiative is the installation of 18 Promethean ActivClassroom systems in 14 schools, with more than 22 additional schools to be added over the next two years [emphasis added].
Sunday, February 15, 2009
E-Rate - too good to be true?
Is the e-rate rebate program truly "found" money? If you think this program is too good to be true, you may be correct. Before we thank Superintendent Jerry Weast for tapping into this great resource, check out what has happened to some other school systems who have found the same pot of gold.
E-rate participants have been the focus of criminal and civil investigations at the US Department of Justice and other federal agencies for several years.
Is this "old law" that doesn't apply to Montgomery County Public Schools? Think again.
E-rate participants have been the focus of criminal and civil investigations at the US Department of Justice and other federal agencies for several years.
Is this "old law" that doesn't apply to Montgomery County Public Schools? Think again.
In December, 2008, a businessman in Atlanta received a prison sentence of 5 years because he bribed an Atlanta school official in connection with the E-rate program.
Just last week, Federal agents requested records from the school boards in Atlantic City and Pleasantville as part of a bid-rigging investigation. Philadelphia and Camden schools are also under investigation.
Recently, a Illinois contractor was fined $3.3 million for bid rigging and procurement fraud in connection with E-rate.
Its not just the feds who are looking into this practice. Earlier this year, the Arizona Attorney General found pervasive problems with the procurement process at the Tucson Unified School District.
Want more case studies? Run your own google search.
Is the great e-rate funded Promethean promise one that will likely find our own MCPS school system under investigation? Stay tuned, but remember, unlike their friends in Arizona who settled the case and put the three individuals involved in the scandal on leave - MCPS would rather litigate than admit mistakes.
But then again, MCPS may hit the jackpot a second time, since no one, including the County Council or the MCPS Ethics Panel, has yet to demonstrate any willingness to provide meaningful oversight over the MCPS budget.
Berthiaume: "I'm sorry...had I known...I would have sat stone faced."
Statement of MCPS Board of Education member Laura Berthiaume on February 9, 2009, during Board of Education discussion of resolution to vote on MCPS FY10 Operating Budget
(transcribed from webcast at 1:25:57)
Once I pass my vote on this proposed budget, the budget will move forward and I will support it as it will be the decision of the whole board, which I will be obliged to support. To be on the team means to support the team position, and I will. But I do not believe that to be a team player means to sit mute when the play is being called, or to fail to vote in good conscience yea or nay, or to fail to explain my vote on how the play should be executed and so I am going to do that now.
First, I want to say that I am disappointed that the Board was unable to have the benefit of the evaluation of the Learning Center transition before acting today. The resolution before us specifically approves the 2010 Special Education staff plan as proposed. I don't know how the Board can effectively provide oversight on, or input into, a special education staffing plan when it is missing vital information on whether or not one of the major moves in how we provide special education services over the last two years has in fact worked for the special education students receiving those services. This is the equivalent of buying a "pig in a poke".
Second, I do not agree with the Board's current approach to the budget. As this stands, it does appear that a majority of the Board is committed to passing the Superintendent's budget without change. Apparently on the theory that the federal, state and county numbers at this time are uncertain and furthermore that to change anything at all is to somehow invite the County Council to change the numbers in the eleven categories as set forth in the resolution. The uncertainty as to the federal and state numbers can be rectified, as I believe we are going to entertain a motion to amend, to take up those considerations in April, rather than in June. At that time those state and federal numbers will be certain. I hope and encourage the Board to support that motion.
The uncertainty as to the county number is present every single year. To take the position that the Board will always support the Superintendent's Budget in February, without change or until it comes back from the County Council, lest the Council interfere with the budget, effectively means that every February the Board will always accept the Superintendent's recommended funding. By taking this position the Board is agreeing to basically limit its role to behind the scenes advocacy for priorities that may, or may not ever receive public exposure. And furthermore, is largely agreeing to limit its role to that of cheerleader for the budget. What is left to be decided in June is solely whether anything will be restored, not whether anything that perhaps should have been cut was not in fact cut.
Keep in mind that our inaction now does in my opinion effectively doom the Middle School Magnet Consortium and the Reading and Staff development positions, because teachers will need to commit to positions for the next school year and many will chose to take new positions or leave the system, rather than bet on an uncertain restoration of the cuts.
It seems to me moreover that a failure by the Board to actually evaluate and make appropriate changes to the proposed budget now is in fact itself an invitation to the County Council to meddle. If the Board will not do its own business as a body that is supposed to oversee the school system budget, and do so in a representative fashion for the best interests of the students, taking into account public testimony, then I see no reason why the County Council should hesitate to do our business for us. Beyond this it seems to me that to take this approach to the Budget wastes an awful lot of time and effort, both by the Board and by the community at large.
If it is the Board's intent to always support the proposed Budget in February, as is, with no changes, and then to make changes around the edges only in June after the County Council has adopted its budget, then perhaps we should just have the Superintendent present the budget to the County Council directly in February. Let our PTA's and parent's advocate directly to the Council. For it is clear we'll take no action right now as a result of the public's advocacy. And perhaps not very much action at a later time. After all, it will always be true that the school system as a whole will have moved ahead by June on the assumption that 99% of the Budget is a done deal. It seems to me to be inefficient and unseemly to sit in front of a crowded room in January full of people who think that their pleas will result in action now, if we know that no changes will be made. To raise hopes and expectations when the reality is that there is no hope is unfair.
As I left one Budget hearing I heard one parent say to another that the Board seemed to be moved by the stories that we heard of the children in the MPAC program. And there was real excitement in that parent's voice. I was the Board member who responded so enthusiastically. To that parent, I'm sorry. Sorry I responded so positively to your story. Had I known how misleading my reaction was, I would have sat stone faced.
In sum, if the Board will not do its job, then I will cast my vote against the budget because I believe we have a job to do. After I cast my vote, as I said, I will support it once it passes. But I encourage the Board to take this up again in April and to do its job now. Thank you.
(transcribed from webcast at 1:25:57)
Once I pass my vote on this proposed budget, the budget will move forward and I will support it as it will be the decision of the whole board, which I will be obliged to support. To be on the team means to support the team position, and I will. But I do not believe that to be a team player means to sit mute when the play is being called, or to fail to vote in good conscience yea or nay, or to fail to explain my vote on how the play should be executed and so I am going to do that now.
First, I want to say that I am disappointed that the Board was unable to have the benefit of the evaluation of the Learning Center transition before acting today. The resolution before us specifically approves the 2010 Special Education staff plan as proposed. I don't know how the Board can effectively provide oversight on, or input into, a special education staffing plan when it is missing vital information on whether or not one of the major moves in how we provide special education services over the last two years has in fact worked for the special education students receiving those services. This is the equivalent of buying a "pig in a poke".
Second, I do not agree with the Board's current approach to the budget. As this stands, it does appear that a majority of the Board is committed to passing the Superintendent's budget without change. Apparently on the theory that the federal, state and county numbers at this time are uncertain and furthermore that to change anything at all is to somehow invite the County Council to change the numbers in the eleven categories as set forth in the resolution. The uncertainty as to the federal and state numbers can be rectified, as I believe we are going to entertain a motion to amend, to take up those considerations in April, rather than in June. At that time those state and federal numbers will be certain. I hope and encourage the Board to support that motion.
The uncertainty as to the county number is present every single year. To take the position that the Board will always support the Superintendent's Budget in February, without change or until it comes back from the County Council, lest the Council interfere with the budget, effectively means that every February the Board will always accept the Superintendent's recommended funding. By taking this position the Board is agreeing to basically limit its role to behind the scenes advocacy for priorities that may, or may not ever receive public exposure. And furthermore, is largely agreeing to limit its role to that of cheerleader for the budget. What is left to be decided in June is solely whether anything will be restored, not whether anything that perhaps should have been cut was not in fact cut.
Keep in mind that our inaction now does in my opinion effectively doom the Middle School Magnet Consortium and the Reading and Staff development positions, because teachers will need to commit to positions for the next school year and many will chose to take new positions or leave the system, rather than bet on an uncertain restoration of the cuts.
It seems to me moreover that a failure by the Board to actually evaluate and make appropriate changes to the proposed budget now is in fact itself an invitation to the County Council to meddle. If the Board will not do its own business as a body that is supposed to oversee the school system budget, and do so in a representative fashion for the best interests of the students, taking into account public testimony, then I see no reason why the County Council should hesitate to do our business for us. Beyond this it seems to me that to take this approach to the Budget wastes an awful lot of time and effort, both by the Board and by the community at large.
If it is the Board's intent to always support the proposed Budget in February, as is, with no changes, and then to make changes around the edges only in June after the County Council has adopted its budget, then perhaps we should just have the Superintendent present the budget to the County Council directly in February. Let our PTA's and parent's advocate directly to the Council. For it is clear we'll take no action right now as a result of the public's advocacy. And perhaps not very much action at a later time. After all, it will always be true that the school system as a whole will have moved ahead by June on the assumption that 99% of the Budget is a done deal. It seems to me to be inefficient and unseemly to sit in front of a crowded room in January full of people who think that their pleas will result in action now, if we know that no changes will be made. To raise hopes and expectations when the reality is that there is no hope is unfair.
As I left one Budget hearing I heard one parent say to another that the Board seemed to be moved by the stories that we heard of the children in the MPAC program. And there was real excitement in that parent's voice. I was the Board member who responded so enthusiastically. To that parent, I'm sorry. Sorry I responded so positively to your story. Had I known how misleading my reaction was, I would have sat stone faced.
In sum, if the Board will not do its job, then I will cast my vote against the budget because I believe we have a job to do. After I cast my vote, as I said, I will support it once it passes. But I encourage the Board to take this up again in April and to do its job now. Thank you.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
DC Examiner: Berthiaume stands out on MontCo school board
Leah Fabel has a story in today's DC Examiner about the independence exhibited by newly elected MCPS BOE member Laura Berthiaume.
From the article:
From the article:
The Montgomery County school board has been criticized in recent years by some education advocates for rubber-stamping plans of Superintendent Jerry Weast, but the newest voice at the table seems intent on avoiding that charge.
Laura Berthiaume was elected to the board in November on a platform of a more transparent budget process with more parental input. Last week, she was the sole member to vote against adoption of the schools’ $2.1 billion budget in part because it didn’t jibe with those ideals.
Highland View ES Action Alert
Working copiers or Promethean Boards: the Highland View ES PTA notes the irony:
Families at Highland View Elementary School, in Montgomery County, Maryland, were urged in an Action Alert dated February 3, 2009, to contact the members of the Board of Education concerning certain budget recommendations. The Action Alert included Talking Points so that families could advocate effectively for resources for their school. Talking Point number 3 is reproduced here in its entirety:
*********************
Millions of dollars for Promethean Boards, or a working copier for all schools? Did the public have a chance to weigh in on this choice before the thousands of Promethean Boards were "leased" and installed?
Families at Highland View Elementary School, in Montgomery County, Maryland, were urged in an Action Alert dated February 3, 2009, to contact the members of the Board of Education concerning certain budget recommendations. The Action Alert included Talking Points so that families could advocate effectively for resources for their school. Talking Point number 3 is reproduced here in its entirety:
The recommendation to replace old copiers with refurbished copiers that will be maintained in-house by MCPS while at the same time cutting the budget for the maintenance department and operations will impact performance, morale and efficiency. This cut is unacceptable and will directly impact homework, instruction and operational efficiency of teachers and staff within our school.(end of quote)
Background: In an effort to cut outside contract costs, the budget proposes replacing old copy machines with refurbished equipment which is more likely to breakdown. Moreover, the recommendation seeks to terminate outside repair contractors instead making copy machine equipment repairs part of the maintenance department’s responsibilities. This is all the while simultaneously cutting funding for the maintenance and operations.
The irony is that while we are struggling to keep functioning copiers that are essential to the business of our school and classrooms, MCPS has invested millions in high-tech Promethean Boards.
Bottom line, our teachers and kids depend on a functioning copier that can be fixed in a timely manner. Outsourcing repair and replacing copiers with high quality equipment is a priority. At HVES our copier machine has been a problem for years. This has already impacted our children’s access to teaching materials and resources – our staff and front office spend countless hours trying to keep our copier functioning.
*********************
Millions of dollars for Promethean Boards, or a working copier for all schools? Did the public have a chance to weigh in on this choice before the thousands of Promethean Boards were "leased" and installed?
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
"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
Friday, February 13, 2009
Rotating Promethean Boards
On January 8, 2008 (a little over a year ago), the Montgomery County Board of Education received a presentation on Technology.
Board of Education member Chris Barclay asked MCPS staff the question about how to transfer knowledge to those classes, since not all classes will have Promethean Boards.
According to page 7 of the Board of Education minutes:
http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/boe/meetings/minutes/2008/010808.min.pdf
"Staff explained that the Promethean Boards will be rotated so that all students will have exposure to this technology."
A question, therefore, for Nancy Navarro and Shirley Brandman:
1. When did the plan change from "rotating" the Promethean Boards to buying thousands of them?
Can we look forward to receiving the answer to this question when the County Council Education committee takes up the issue of the Promethean Boards lease/purchase on February 23, 2009?
Board of Education member Chris Barclay asked MCPS staff the question about how to transfer knowledge to those classes, since not all classes will have Promethean Boards.
According to page 7 of the Board of Education minutes:
http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/boe/meetings/minutes/2008/010808.min.pdf
"Staff explained that the Promethean Boards will be rotated so that all students will have exposure to this technology."
A question, therefore, for Nancy Navarro and Shirley Brandman:
1. When did the plan change from "rotating" the Promethean Boards to buying thousands of them?
Can we look forward to receiving the answer to this question when the County Council Education committee takes up the issue of the Promethean Boards lease/purchase on February 23, 2009?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)