New curriculum selection process delayed— new RFP must be issues now

[Anonymous]

Doesn’t sound like an update at all.

Just a rehash of their Monday confession to stop the process and delay everything in the classroom until fall 2019. What a joke.

Have a leisurely summer doing nothing folks. Or should I say dolts.

[Anonymous]

Now MCPS central office can snooze for free summer vacations to butter them up by the Big Tech companies, I mean curricula providers...

[Anonymous]

Snooze or smooze! Or both simultaneously!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Staff just got this email:
This e-mail message is being sent on behalf of Dr. Maria V. Navarro, chief academic officer.

Dear Staff:

I am writing to provide an update on the curriculum selection process and responses to Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) we have heard from school staff. As you know, earlier this week we decided to postpone the curriculum selection in order to address unanticipated issues in the selection process. However, we are moving ahead with plans to evaluate and select new curricula in K–8 English language arts and mathematics at the beginning of the new school year, and transition to full implementation over a multiple year period. During this delay, we will not only ensure transparency and trust in this process, but also address the feedback we have heard from stakeholders thus far. Below, please find responses to FAQs about the updated Request for Proposal (RFP) process, timelines, and plans for implementation.

In addition, although the curriculum acquisition is delayed, professional learning remains a priority in order to ensure the successful transition to new curricula in the years ahead. Regardless of the actual curricular products selected, instructional strategies that meet the needs of every learner, aligned to grade level standards, remain at the core of teaching and learning. As a result, professional learning will continue to focus on these areas and will serve as a foundation for implementation of new curricula. The FAQs below also contain information about professional learning this summer and provides instructions for staff in schools originally selected for implementation.

FAQs for Staff

1. Rather than buy a new curriculum why can’t MCPS write their own?


There were many lessons learned from Montgomery County Public Schools’ (MCPS) writing of Curriculum 2.0. In 2008, when MCPS began the development of Curriculum 2.0, quality curriculum aligned with the Common Core State Standards were not available. Using teachers and central office MCPS wrote Curriculum 2.0. In the intervening years, not only have quality curricular products become available on the market, but MCPS has a deeper understanding of the infrastructure needed to support a curriculum once it is implemented. For example, it takes a tremendous amount of labor to continuously update curriculum and assessments so that the curriculum does not become stale or static. Using teachers as primary developers of curriculum limits the amount of resources MCPS has to update, maintain, and support the curriculum. It also limits teachers having time to work with their peers on perfecting their craft. A purchased curriculum will come with an infrastructure designed primarily to update and support the curriculum, allowing MCPS content specialist and teachers to focus on supporting teachers as they implement the curriculum. However, even with a purchased curriculum, MCPS teachers will still be needed for curriculum and assessment projects, supplemental curriculum development, and designing and co-leading professional learning.

2. When will a new Request for Proposals (RFP) be issued?


A new RFP process will begin in the fall. This will avoid asking for participation from the greater MCPS community during the summer months when many people have set obligations, and vacation plans.

3. If MCPS is delaying the RFP process when will MCPS begin implementing a new curriculum?


Building on the feedback from process participants, MCPS will launch the new process in the fall with initial implementation no later than the 2019–2020 school year.

4. Will currently selected schools be the ones to participate in the initial implementation, or will the entire process restart?


Schools that were selected will be in the first cohort to implement a new curriculum. Additional opportunities may be available for additional schools.

5. What will MCPS do with the community feedback it has already received?


MCPS will use the feedback already received in both crafting a new RFP and in considering any new proposals.

6. Will there still be an opportunity for community input?


Yes, there will continue to be opportunities for the community to provide input.

7. Will it be the exact same RFP?


No. During the initial process, MCPS received great feedback from stakeholders and the review team about the specific criteria contained in the RFP. This feedback and learning will be used to make revisions to and reissue the RFP.

8. What does this mean for summer professional development?

Most teachers in schools originally selected for implementation already had registered for other professional development opportunities in Professional Development Online. In these cases, teachers should remain enrolled in those other training sessions.

9. What if I withdrew from another professional development session and it is now full?


If a school was originally selected for implementation and a teacher withdrew on or after
May 18, every effort will be made to accommodate those who withdrew. In some cases, additional sections will be added. In other cases, if still unable to register, please contact:

o Elementary School: Mrs. Siobhan M. Alexander, director, Elementary Integrated Curriculum Team
o Secondary: Mr. Scott W. Murphy, director, Department of Secondary Curriculum and Districtwide Programs

In addition, in lieu of the training for new curriculum this summer, optional training opportunities in mathematics and literacy will still be offered for selected schools during the original dates identified. Selected schools will be contacted individually.

10. What about other professional development?


All other professional development remains as planned, as listed here:

Elementary School:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/164uzZYsxyB_bTW8Qwja5puFftJT-M0q3xiDxJkxR2VY/edit?pli=1#gid=2118346457

Middle School:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1O91ar6FyAcsnYyzL9Kc-Z2bLZ8NMgL_jv05ghgHwx4I/edit?pli=1#gid=882846325

High School: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rQrDi7idM7oMTh1i3xDFudYys4xuYMgmoUYIUFRCHX8/edit?pli=1#gid=882846325

11. If our school was identified as an Enriched Literacy Center, what does that mean?

No change.

We will remain in regular communication with you in the coming weeks and months to provide updates about our continued efforts regarding the RFP process, professional development, and plans for implementation. Updates also will be posted periodically on the following link: http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/curriculum/curriculum-review.aspx.

Thank you for your continued commitment to students and for all you do every day.

Maria V. Navarro, Ed.D.
Chief Academic Officer
Office of the Chief Academic Officer

Maria Navarro sounds delusional. No one has been asking MCPS to “just write the new curriculum.” Except maybe for the people in the curriculum office trying to justify their jobs who probably wrote those FAQs for her.

[Anonymous]

Yeah of all the top Q&As for dysfunctional MCPS on C2.0 or C3.0, asking "are you going to re-write your in-house failed curriculum yourself again" is not even on the top 1000 list.

Delusional indeed.

This was a red herring email. They still look and are idiots for delaying this and running an RFP process with a small team who was simultaneously interviewing with the applicants. YOU RAISE YOUR HAND SOON ERICK LANG, NOT AFTER YOU TAKE CARE OF YOURS. 100,000 kids now have your sucky lack of a math and english curriculum for another 1-3 years due to your selfish unethical behavior. Have the balls the just quit and finish the interviews, not screw over 100,000 kids and 200+ teachers.

[Anonymous]

I thought they were sort of aiming for an early 2019 launch of the chosen curriculum in some pilot schools. sounds like they dropped that completely just a week after saying it was a possibility. What a lazy attitude of MCPS central office people.

[Anonymous]

Before Erick Lane tricks, the plan was: Fall 2018 after summer training for the 30-40 pilot schools plus release of all materials to all schools to begin prep/reading/questions.

Now nothing. Push the whole thing to fall 2019 and slow roll rfp to restart fall 2018 and take sweet time wining and dining w the corrupt vendors.

My strong vote is math in action singapore math

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cant they just exclude that organization?

That would seem more expedient. It’s not as if Erick Lang doesn’t know the processes for vendor selection.

Oh he does, he does indeed. This time he really used it for his own personal advantage to the great disadvantage of all the students and teachers and admin who were ready to select this month, train this summer and pilot this September. Now none of that can happen.

I’ll be speaking to DJ Deb at Francisco Partners about this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah of all the top Q&As for dysfunctional MCPS on C2.0 or C3.0, asking "are you going to re-write your in-house failed curriculum yourself again" is not even on the top 1000 list.

Delusional indeed.

This was a red herring email. They still look and are idiots for delaying this and running an RFP process with a small team who was simultaneously interviewing with the applicants. YOU RAISE YOUR HAND SOON ERICK LANG, NOT AFTER YOU TAKE CARE OF YOURS. 100,000 kids now have your sucky lack of a math and english curriculum for another 1-3 years due to your selfish unethical behavior. Have the balls the just quit and finish the interviews, not screw over 100,000 kids and 200+ teachers.

Yep, that question was asked with frequency zero, but lets get it out of the way first.

So is part of their delay that they now have to put new people in these vacated positions (or soon to be vacated) in order to have a review panel? There's still something about this time frame they're sweeping under the rug.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah of all the top Q&As for dysfunctional MCPS on C2.0 or C3.0, asking "are you going to re-write your in-house failed curriculum yourself again" is not even on the top 1000 list.

Delusional indeed.

This was a red herring email. They still look and are idiots for delaying this and running an RFP process with a small team who was simultaneously interviewing with the applicants. YOU RAISE YOUR HAND SOON ERICK LANG, NOT AFTER YOU TAKE CARE OF YOURS. 100,000 kids now have your sucky lack of a math and english curriculum for another 1-3 years due to your selfish unethical behavior. Have the balls the just quit and finish the interviews, not screw over 100,000 kids and 200+ teachers.

Yep, that question was asked with frequency zero, but lets get it out of the way first.

So is part of their delay that they now have to put new people in these vacated positions (or soon to be vacated) in order to have a review panel? There's still something about this time frame they're sweeping under the rug.

Those FAQs are terrible. If they were being honest, one of the FAQs would have answered the question: why isn’t Erick Lang and his colleague in a heap of trouble for participating in a bid while interviewing with a firm who is bidding. Why isn’t Discovery sanctioned for their role in this process?

[Anonymous]

The more this or any Gov’t rFP gets staged out the more ripe it is for corruption. MCPS needs a well-known and tested, solid math and ELA curriculum that gets great reviews for ALL constituents - parents, teachers, kids. Not admin who get kickbacks and snazzy presentations and weekend trips in order to land the multimillion sale.

What a mess.

[Anonymous]

What is the best way to provide feedback to MCPS about the process and priorities moving forward, like making sure Discovery doesn’t get selected? We moved from DC in part because of the corruption within DCPS/charters, and it doesn’t seem that much better here in MCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is the best way to provide feedback to MCPS about the process and priorities moving forward, like making sure Discovery doesn’t get selected? We moved from DC in part because of the corruption within DCPS/charters, and it doesn’t seem that much better here in MCPS.

Would also like to know.

Does emailing the BOE help?

It’s such a large school system that it feels impossible to make a change. Our old district was a town district so it felt much easier to make your voice heard in situations like this.

[Anonymous]

What are the RFP "rules?"

What if these employees did come clean early on - as soon as they allowed Discovery to "court them," for example?

Couldn't they still do their job while removing themselves from the RFP process?

If this is the case, let's say - coming clean - whose responsibility was it to temporarily replace them as decision-makers during the RFP process?

I know that Discovery poaches from MCPS; that's common knowledge. So there are ties.

But ties aside, if an attempt was made to be transparent, shouldn't the two men be cleared of any wrongdoing?

[Anonymous]

You mean shouldn’t the rfp process continue as achedul s back in March.
That’s the priority and that’s what hurts.
The two idiots interviewing and not reclusion’s themselves earlier f’d up everything for the whole huge district. And the other kicker is they are the ones who built the terrible ES curriculum that needs ASAP replacing! Now they’ve delayed the replacement process, apparently for the whole year since this is public school slow Gov’t.