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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least Erick Lang won’t be the one in charge of choosing the new curriculum anymore. I think that is good news.

He should have his pension taken away for him for corrupting the process.

No shit. Like he didn’t know he was CONFLICTeD while he both INtERVIEWED for months/weeks at external curricula providers and simultaneously led a new curricula purchase at his current gubment job. Lemme guess, had he and his work buddy not been hired they would have never said a word. Creeps.

What a f up MCPS. What’s stopping this from happening and happening and happening. Just look at all the ppl who quit or retired early this year, and maybe next year and next. Will anything get done?

Who quit/retired early?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Surprising that Discovery would hire two people closely associated with a curriculum that was just condemned.

Discovery wasn’t buying their expertise. Discovery was buying their access.

[Anonymous]

You know, I'd love to hear from someone on DCUM with actual experience in procurement and government contracts, because I genuinely don't know if what Lang et al did was shady.

It certainly feels like interviewing with a vendor who you are also assessing for a large contract is ethically marginal, but I also know the private sector works in ways that don't always make sense to me.

I'm sure there's a government contracts attorney in DCUM land. Tell us what to think about this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You know, I'd love to hear from someone on DCUM with actual experience in procurement and government contracts, because I genuinely don't know if what Lang et al did was shady.

It certainly feels like interviewing with a vendor who you are also assessing for a large contract is ethically marginal, but I also know the private sector works in ways that don't always make sense to me.

I'm sure there's a government contracts attorney in DCUM land. Tell us what to think about this.

I have experience in govt proposals and procurement. This could be deemed as bribery. You can't be in the selection committee if one of the vendors bidding is a future employee or potential future employee. If Discovery wins,.then it's possible to assume that one of the evaluators was biased or was influenced by their future employer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know, I'd love to hear from someone on DCUM with actual experience in procurement and government contracts, because I genuinely don't know if what Lang et al did was shady.

It certainly feels like interviewing with a vendor who you are also assessing for a large contract is ethically marginal, but I also know the private sector works in ways that don't always make sense to me.

I'm sure there's a government contracts attorney in DCUM land. Tell us what to think about this.

I have experience in govt proposals and procurement. This could be deemed as bribery. You can't be in the selection committee if one of the vendors bidding is a future employee or potential future employee. If Discovery wins,.then it's possible to assume that one of the evaluators was biased or was influenced by their future employer.

So, in your opinion, did MCPS do the right thing by retooling the RFP? That's one piece that is interesting to me. While I don't have a lot of experience with government contracts, I do have experience responding to RFPs from the nonprofit side and have never seen one reissued. I've seen potential vendors/implementers taken out of the pool, but never seen the whole RFP rewritten.

[Anonymous]

Other worst case scenario is Lang stacked the deck w weak overly costly proposals to make Discovery look better.

But if you’re going to go cash in your early public servant pension and retire to go private sector you should not have been on the committee in the first place.

This is embarrassing. I took work with RFPs and “bake offs” all the time and this should absolutely not cause a big delay. Only if central office prioritizes its 10 week’s off of summer over fixing this ineffective curriculum debacle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know, I'd love to hear from someone on DCUM with actual experience in procurement and government contracts, because I genuinely don't know if what Lang et al did was shady.

It certainly feels like interviewing with a vendor who you are also assessing for a large contract is ethically marginal, but I also know the private sector works in ways that don't always make sense to me.

I'm sure there's a government contracts attorney in DCUM land. Tell us what to think about this.

I have experience in govt proposals and procurement. This could be deemed as bribery. You can't be in the selection committee if one of the vendors bidding is a future employee or potential future employee. If Discovery wins,.then it's possible to assume that one of the evaluators was biased or was influenced by their future employer.

So, in your opinion, did MCPS do the right thing by retooling the RFP? That's one piece that is interesting to me. While I don't have a lot of experience with government contracts, I do have experience responding to RFPs from the nonprofit side and have never seen one reissued. I've seen potential vendors/implementers taken out of the pool, but never seen the whole RFP rewritten.

I've seen RFPs thrown out because one of the bidders has protested due to something they felt was unfair. My guess is Discovery was already downselected and someone protested that they have an unfair advantage. Or it could be that mcps decided to stop it before someone protests.

[Anonymous]

Is Discovery Education even a viable source of a K-8 curriculum? It just sounds awful, lets buy the curriculum from the TV station down the street we happen to be familiar with. How many former MCPS employees have already taken jobs there. It also sounds like the drumbeat for a tech heavy solution is still driving things. Even if this wasn't a corrupt process, it seems like leaving the old team in place was going to lead to more of the same. Very discouraging.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is Discovery Education even a viable source of a K-8 curriculum? It just sounds awful, lets buy the curriculum from the TV station down the street we happen to be familiar with. How many former MCPS employees have already taken jobs there. It also sounds like the drumbeat for a tech heavy solution is still driving things. Even if this wasn't a corrupt process, it seems like leaving the old team in place was going to lead to more of the same. Very discouraging.

MCPS needs an independent ethics board.

[Anonymous]

I am not a procurement expert but my partner is and I asked her. She said MCPS did the right thing, as this would have been grounds for a bid protest no matter which way the decision went.

Whether Lang acted ethically to be seeking a new job with a curriculum development company WHILE serving on the selection committee is a different issues, but MCPS probably made the right choice.

[Anonymous]

On the bright side, Lang is gone. Let’s hope his replacement is knowledgeable, humble and honest.

[Anonymous]

This is MCPS in a nutshell. I’m a teacher and our chains are yanked every which way constantly, so none of this surprises me. My Outlook still freezes constantly and a single email can take me 10 minutes to write. That’s a great use of my time. It still hasn’t been fixed and our tech guy has just shrugged his shoulders and acts perplexed. The network in general either is incredibly slow or is flat out down multiple times per week.

MCPS didn’t actually expect thousands of teachers to actually sign up for summer training like we were told to at the time the window opened and the process took hours of our personal time (the window opened at 4:30pm) and it was blamed on an outside vendor and Central Office took absolutely no responsibility. If I’m responsible for test scores for children who don’t have enough to eat, share a house with 2 other families and have very little parental support, then MCPS can take responsibility for not planning correctly and having crappy infrastructure.

Teachers have been providing feedback on Curriculum 2.0 for years and it’s fallen on deaf ears. It took spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to help Central Office arrive at that conclusion. Teachers have spent hundreds and even thousands of their own money on supplemental materials because the 2.0 materials were worthless.

Are there any consequences for the people in charge of these blunders? Of course not. They sit in their offices and collect their paychecks whether they actually do their jobs or not. Meanwhile, the burden is completely put on teachers if the data isn’t as wonderful as Central Office and administration would like for it to be. We’re constantly asked what we could be doing more of or what we can be doing better. I’m so tired of this double standard. Central Office (and the ridiculous Code of Conduct) is making it actively HARDER to do our jobs, but the hammer only comes down on teachers. What a crock.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is MCPS in a nutshell. I’m a teacher and our chains are yanked every which way constantly, so none of this surprises me. My Outlook still freezes constantly and a single email can take me 10 minutes to write. That’s a great use of my time. It still hasn’t been fixed and our tech guy has just shrugged his shoulders and acts perplexed. The network in general either is incredibly slow or is flat out down multiple times per week.

MCPS didn’t actually expect thousands of teachers to actually sign up for summer training like we were told to at the time the window opened and the process took hours of our personal time (the window opened at 4:30pm) and it was blamed on an outside vendor and Central Office took absolutely no responsibility. If I’m responsible for test scores for children who don’t have enough to eat, share a house with 2 other families and have very little parental support, then MCPS can take responsibility for not planning correctly and having crappy infrastructure.

Teachers have been providing feedback on Curriculum 2.0 for years and it’s fallen on deaf ears. It took spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to help Central Office arrive at that conclusion. Teachers have spent hundreds and even thousands of their own money on supplemental materials because the 2.0 materials were worthless.

Are there any consequences for the people in charge of these blunders? Of course not. They sit in their offices and collect their paychecks whether they actually do their jobs or not. Meanwhile, the burden is completely put on teachers if the data isn’t as wonderful as Central Office and administration would like for it to be. We’re constantly asked what we could be doing more of or what we can be doing better. I’m so tired of this double standard. Central Office (and the ridiculous Code of Conduct) is making it actively HARDER to do our jobs, but the hammer only comes down on teachers. What a crock.

I am so sorry. As a MCPS parent, I really feel for the teachers, since you are squeezed between the parents and administration and it does, indeed, all fall on you. You have my respect and sympathy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is Discovery Education even a viable source of a K-8 curriculum? It just sounds awful, lets buy the curriculum from the TV station down the street we happen to be familiar with. How many former MCPS employees have already taken jobs there. It also sounds like the drumbeat for a tech heavy solution is still driving things. Even if this wasn't a corrupt process, it seems like leaving the old team in place was going to lead to more of the same. Very discouraging.

MCPS needs an independent ethics board.

Here's your chance, PP.

http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/boe/community/ethics.aspx

The Montgomery County Board of Education is seeking to fill three vacancies on its five-member Ethics Panel. The vacancy is for a three-year term beginning on July 1, 2018. Members serve without compensation.

Panel members may not be incumbent members of the Board of Education, school officials, employees, or persons employed by a business entity subject to the authority of the Board of Education, or spouses of such persons. The Panel meets once a year to review financial disclosure forms and as needed to review complaints and requests for advisory opinions

Applicants must submit a letter of interest along with a resumé or other documentation to support the application by 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 29, 2018

[Anonymous]

So when Discovery Education wins this bid the kids will watch reruns of Discovery shows on TV all day instead of using textbooks?