Any rumors on new curriculum vendor finalists?

[Anonymous]

I'm sure most of the companies bidding have hired at least 1 former MCPS staffer to help "guide" them through this process. That could be said is good due diligence. What is worrisome is if there are folks they're paying who are currently on MCPS staff - that would be something else entirely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's going to end in a dead heat between HBO and Discovery.

Disney Kids also has a strong curriculum that's subsidized by in-app purchases!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm sure most of the companies bidding have hired at least 1 former MCPS staffer to help "guide" them through this process. That could be said is good due diligence. What is worrisome is if there are folks they're paying who are currently on MCPS staff - that would be something else entirely.

Discovery education has multiple ex mcPS staff on its team and the reason the mcPS curriculum purchase wasn’t done last year was because they were in the middle of hiring the head of curriculum (Erick Lang) while bidding on the curriculum. The whole situation had such a stink that the RFP was postponed and our kids had to suffer with an extra year of 2.0 curriculum. I think Discovery should have been banned on that basis of not being honest about hiring mcPS staff while bidding. Who knows what privileged information they were able to get out of Erick Lang.

[Anonymous]

If this is awarded to discovery I predict the next boe meeting will be in the presence of an angry mob with torches and pitchforks. Seriously voters will demand mass firings

[Anonymous]

Peersun.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If this is awarded to discovery I predict the next boe meeting will be in the presence of an angry mob with torches and pitchforks. Seriously voters will demand mass firings

Man, I hope so

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm sure most of the companies bidding have hired at least 1 former MCPS staffer to help "guide" them through this process. That could be said is good due diligence. What is worrisome is if there are folks they're paying who are currently on MCPS staff - that would be something else entirely.

Yes, they can turn it around and say that having a previous MCPS staffer on their team that has first hand insights and knowledge of MCPS, is an actual value add for MCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sure most of the companies bidding have hired at least 1 former MCPS staffer to help "guide" them through this process. That could be said is good due diligence. What is worrisome is if there are folks they're paying who are currently on MCPS staff - that would be something else entirely.

Yes, they can turn it around and say that having a previous MCPS staffer on their team that has first hand insights and knowledge of MCPS, is an actual value add for MCPS.

Yes, but sometimes it crosses the line into full on conflict of interest. Like Discovery Education which was bidding on the first attempt at the RFP at the same time they were hiring Erick Lang and that other guy from the MCPS curriculum office. Our kids are suffering through an extra year of worthless 2.0 because of their misdeeds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sure most of the companies bidding have hired at least 1 former MCPS staffer to help "guide" them through this process. That could be said is good due diligence. What is worrisome is if there are folks they're paying who are currently on MCPS staff - that would be something else entirely.

Yes, they can turn it around and say that having a previous MCPS staffer on their team that has first hand insights and knowledge of MCPS, is an actual value add for MCPS.

Yes, but sometimes it crosses the line into full on conflict of interest. Like Discovery Education which was bidding on the first attempt at the RFP at the same time they were hiring Erick Lang and that other guy from the MCPS curriculum office. Our kids are suffering through an extra year of worthless 2.0 because of their misdeeds.

Oh I agree, but I'd be pretty surprised if they don't use that as a benefit in their proposition to MCPS, regardless of how it would be viewed.

[Anonymous]

Yes, they can turn it around and say that having a previous MCPS staffer on their team that has first hand insights and knowledge of MCPS, is an actual value add for MCPS.

Except that the experience that these individuals have is creating the problem that the RFP is trying to correct in the first place. Good grief its like hiring the arsonist to put out the fire. All the arsonist will do is burn it down again!

[Anonymous]

Aren't the finalists supposed to be presenting this month?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Aren't the finalists supposed to be presenting this month?

Yup. Anyone heard anything?

October-November 2018

Evaluation and Selection of Finalists

November 2018

Vendor finalist presentation to stakeholder and community groups

December 2018

Finalize recommendations

January 2019

Proposal for adoption by the Board of Education

[Anonymous]

Holiday lull folks, move along. Maybe by spring break. No rush, govt work.

[Anonymous]

No more teachers, all mass online video teaching and chrome book games and tests.
It’ll be great! So innovative!

[Anonymous]

Doesn’t mcPS have all these staff for communications? You would think they would be a bit more eager to actually provide information given that the last RFP was such a cluster****.