Anonymous
09/09/2025 12:39
Subject: Secondary literacy honors audit?
How do we find out if this is actually happening or not? It seems super-important, and the BOE will be voting on the OSA evaluation plan in two weeks so if Central Office is trying to delay or skip this, I would want to advocate with the Board to make sure it is prioritized and finished this year at the latest...
Anonymous
09/05/2025 13:02
Subject: Secondary literacy honors audit?
A wild guess: Remove Honors from Honors Japanese 3 and Honors Spanish 4. That is, why on Level 3 and Level 4 world language would be an Honors?
Anonymous
09/05/2025 10:59
Subject: Secondary literacy honors audit?
Well it’s pretty silly to have accountability departments that are neither holding programs accountable nor exhibiting any accountability wrt their own projects and schedules.
Anonymous
09/05/2025 10:15
Subject: Secondary literacy honors audit?
The Department (used to be Office) of Shared Accountability is woefully behind. They only have a few staff, and projects routinely are delayed by years, sometimes falling off as the specifics become less relevant. It seems that the combination of major events (e.g., the pandemic) and under-resourcing/staff vacancies are at play, but that supposition might belie an additional cause -- institutionalized ineffectiveness.
The need to involve/consult Shared Accountability regularly is cited by other branches of MCPS as a reason that particular actions cannot be taken or particular information cannot be made available in any timely fashion. Even many items on which it would be important for the BOE to act languish in a hypothetical DSA queue.
In addition, many DSA/OSA projects appear to be poorly defined in relation to their titular or perceived purpose. More rigorous and pointed examination of MCPS regulations and operations likely would evidence uncomfortable truths, requiring policy or other change not in alignment with the aims of MCPS high-level stakeholders.
In this case, one might posit that the oft-derided "honors for all" secondary ELA model would be at risk. Given the many anecdotes, it is unlikely that DSA, with a properly defined and executed review, would find that, as currently implemented, the Honors English curriculum is delivering Honors-appropriate learning with fidelity across the system. That may put the model, important to several high-level stakeholders and stakeholder groups, at risk across a number of subjects.
As Dr. Taylor noted when asked about DSA project prioritization, if the BOE wanted different items addressed from the 8 listed for FY26, they would need either to identify some listed to eliminate or fund additional DSA review capacity in the MCPS budget. Per the presentation, the secondary literacy honors audit was added last year (FY25) as others were canceled. While one would expect that it continues, the presentation listed the ongoing/completed status only of FY24 projects. Hopefully, an updated presentation to the BOE later this month, where a Board vote is expected, will elucidate.
What might be required is a change to Shared Accountability policy, itself. On the one hand, that would be to ensure that its necessary functions are well defined and appropriately resourced to provide timely information in support of the BOE and other stakeholders. As part of that, requiring better definition of projects, clearly specifying the questions that must be addressed by the analyses, would help.
On the other hand, it should be to keep the rest of MCPS from utilizing the spectre of some unnecessary, if possibly beneficial, DSA involvement when withholding information/dragging their feet on action.
The need to involve/consult Shared Accountability regularly is cited by other branches of MCPS as a reason that particular actions cannot be taken or particular information cannot be made available in any timely fashion. Even many items on which it would be important for the BOE to act languish in a hypothetical DSA queue.
In addition, many DSA/OSA projects appear to be poorly defined in relation to their titular or perceived purpose. More rigorous and pointed examination of MCPS regulations and operations likely would evidence uncomfortable truths, requiring policy or other change not in alignment with the aims of MCPS high-level stakeholders.
In this case, one might posit that the oft-derided "honors for all" secondary ELA model would be at risk. Given the many anecdotes, it is unlikely that DSA, with a properly defined and executed review, would find that, as currently implemented, the Honors English curriculum is delivering Honors-appropriate learning with fidelity across the system. That may put the model, important to several high-level stakeholders and stakeholder groups, at risk across a number of subjects.
As Dr. Taylor noted when asked about DSA project prioritization, if the BOE wanted different items addressed from the 8 listed for FY26, they would need either to identify some listed to eliminate or fund additional DSA review capacity in the MCPS budget. Per the presentation, the secondary literacy honors audit was added last year (FY25) as others were canceled. While one would expect that it continues, the presentation listed the ongoing/completed status only of FY24 projects. Hopefully, an updated presentation to the BOE later this month, where a Board vote is expected, will elucidate.
What might be required is a change to Shared Accountability policy, itself. On the one hand, that would be to ensure that its necessary functions are well defined and appropriately resourced to provide timely information in support of the BOE and other stakeholders. As part of that, requiring better definition of projects, clearly specifying the questions that must be addressed by the analyses, would help.
On the other hand, it should be to keep the rest of MCPS from utilizing the spectre of some unnecessary, if possibly beneficial, DSA involvement when withholding information/dragging their feet on action.
Anonymous
09/05/2025 08:22
Subject: Secondary literacy honors audit?
It was supposed to be done last year or across multiple years beginning last year. And yes, the current data should absolutely be complied and some insights drawn and included as part of the Program Analysis.
Anonymous
09/04/2025 22:22
Subject: Secondary literacy honors audit?
Not sure if the answer, but seems like something that should be figured out BEFORE the program study.
Anonymous
09/04/2025 21:06
Subject: Secondary literacy honors audit?
Does anyone know what this is? I saw it briefly mentioned at the Board meeting today in the Office of Shared Accountability's presentation on their program evaluation work for this year but they didn't really say much about it: https://go.boarddocs.com/mabe/mcpsmd/Board.nsf/files/DKZTN6781F79/$file/FY2026%20Program%20Evaluation%20Plan%20250904%20PPT.pdf
The description is "Examine the implementation
of middle and high school
literacy honors courses to
assess alignment with
district standards for rigor and consistency of honors
designation", and it's listed as a multi-year project added last year but then doesn't show up on the list of FY26 projects. (The Board is voting at their next meeting on what the projects should be and talked about potentially changing the list, FYI.)
Does anyone know anything more about this?
The description is "Examine the implementation
of middle and high school
literacy honors courses to
assess alignment with
district standards for rigor and consistency of honors
designation", and it's listed as a multi-year project added last year but then doesn't show up on the list of FY26 projects. (The Board is voting at their next meeting on what the projects should be and talked about potentially changing the list, FYI.)
Does anyone know anything more about this?