Anonymous
05/22/2018 14:45
Subject: Re:New curriculum selection process delayed— new RFP must be issues now
Although MCPS is a crap show. I heard my, my admin, that our school is purchasing curriculum for the fall. We are purchasing Jacob's Ladders (reading enrichment). They are still deciding on math curriculum. Many schools may do their own individual thing to ensure their students are being pushed. I would provide my school but we are already overcrowded, I'm so sorry DCUM. Our PTA is also generating a letter to be sent to cluster superintendents, BOE and the state of MD.
Anonymous
05/22/2018 14:42
Subject: Re:New curriculum selection process delayed— new RFP must be issues now
Anonymous wrote:I wonder why Maria Navarro went out of her way to defend Discovery Education's actions? It's not like they hired Erik Lang for his amazing intellect. They hired him for his access.
It is important to note that Discovery Education’s leadership acted proactively, diligently and collaboratively throughout this process. As soon as it was brought to the attention of Discovery Education’s leadership that these individuals were connected to the RFP process, the company, citing an abundance of caution, took the initiative and immediately withdrew from consideration.
not sure how it all went down - And we'll never really know.
However, it would have been a sweet gig for both men in many ways: retirement, new money/new prestigious positions (that suddenly popped up around their retirement time), easy access to those in the know in MCPS.
It takes one person, with a large network both w/in and outside of an organization, to bring others in -however "secretive" these measures are. Eventually, however, news leaks.
People really need to brush up on Greek tragedies. Hubris is a killer!
Anonymous
05/22/2018 14:38
Subject: Re:New curriculum selection process delayed— new RFP must be issues now
Anonymous wrote:I wonder why Maria Navarro went out of her way to defend Discovery Education's actions? It's not like they hired Erik Lang for his amazing intellect. They hired him for his access.
It is important to note that Discovery Education’s leadership acted proactively, diligently and collaboratively throughout this process. As soon as it was brought to the attention of Discovery Education’s leadership that these individuals were connected to the RFP process, the company, citing an abundance of caution, took the initiative and immediately withdrew from consideration.
I was wondering about that, too. How could they NOT know that he was heavily involved in the RFP and all the central office curriculum issues of the day? It doesn’t make sense. And why would she be so sweet about them? Either they were complicit in unethical behavior or weirdly clueless.
Anonymous
05/22/2018 14:27
Subject: Re:New curriculum selection process delayed— new RFP must be issues now
I wonder why Maria Navarro went out of her way to defend Discovery Education's actions? It's not like they hired Erik Lang for his amazing intellect. They hired him for his access.
It is important to note that Discovery Education’s leadership acted proactively, diligently and collaboratively throughout this process. As soon as it was brought to the attention of Discovery Education’s leadership that these individuals were connected to the RFP process, the company, citing an abundance of caution, took the initiative and immediately withdrew from consideration.
Anonymous
05/22/2018 14:25
Subject: Re:New curriculum selection process delayed— new RFP must be issues now
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Looks like MCPS allowed 4 weeks for vendors to respond to the RFP (April 13 to May 11). Why don't they re-issue the RFP now? What are they waiting for?
They're probably reissuing it soon. We don't know and I'm sure they won't tell us. I'd like to know who wrote the RFP and who are all the evaluators. I think the public needs to know at this point.
It would be nice if they could hustle and try to get this done in time for the new school year. Another year of 2.0 would suck. Erik Lang has had his revenge on MCPS .
Anonymous
05/22/2018 14:24
Subject: New curriculum selection process delayed— new RFP must be issues now
Anonymous
05/22/2018 14:22
Subject: Re:New curriculum selection process delayed— new RFP must be issues now
Anonymous wrote:Looks like MCPS allowed 4 weeks for vendors to respond to the RFP (April 13 to May 11). Why don't they re-issue the RFP now? What are they waiting for?
They're probably reissuing it soon. We don't know and I'm sure they won't tell us. I'd like to know who wrote the RFP and who are all the evaluators. I think the public needs to know at this point.
Anonymous
05/22/2018 14:19
Subject: New curriculum selection process delayed— new RFP must be issues now
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
Either way, MCPS made the right decision. It sucks, however I think the tools at Central OFfice who accepted the position while working this RFP (if proven), should be held accountable. Also, Discovery should have known better.
In the ethics orientation where I work (not MCPS), this was actually one of the examples given of conflicts of interest that must be disclosed (ex: interviewing for a position with a vendor where your job offers the possibility to benefit them in some way). Doesn't MCPS have an ethics policy?
I think so. . .
An ethics question was one of the thousands to which we had to respond during our compliance training. I believe the question centered on being invited to attend some affair - flight/hotel included - sponsored by an organization seeking to partner with MCPS. I purposely answered incorrectly as a test.
Anonymous
05/22/2018 14:18
Subject: Re:New curriculum selection process delayed— new RFP must be issues now
Looks like MCPS allowed 4 weeks for vendors to respond to the RFP (April 13 to May 11). Why don't they re-issue the RFP now? What are they waiting for?
Anonymous
05/22/2018 14:14
Subject: Re:New curriculum selection process delayed— new RFP must be issues now
They haven't bothered to update the website yet with any new information/dates.
http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/curriculum/curriculum-review.aspx
http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/curriculum/curriculum-review.aspx
Anonymous
05/22/2018 14:13
Subject: New curriculum selection process delayed— new RFP must be issues now
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
Either way, MCPS made the right decision. It sucks, however I think the tools at Central OFfice who accepted the position while working this RFP (if proven), should be held accountable. Also, Discovery should have known better.
In the ethics orientation where I work (not MCPS), this was actually one of the examples given of conflicts of interest that must be disclosed (ex: interviewing for a position with a vendor where your job offers the possibility to benefit them in some way). Doesn't MCPS have an ethics policy?[/quote]
I am sure they have an ethics policy. NOt sure if MCPS follows the State of MD procurement/proposal processes but in my experience working on proposals for the STate, they are a pain in a butt to deal with as they are a major stickler when it comes to following the rules.
Anonymous
05/22/2018 14:12
Subject: New curriculum selection process delayed— new RFP must be issues now
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
[b]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.[/b]
I am sure they have an ethics policy. NOt sure if MCPS follows the State of MD procurement/proposal processes but in my experience working on proposals for the STate, they are a pain in a butt to deal with as they are a major stickler when it comes to following the rules.
Either way, MCPS made the right decision. It sucks, however I think the tools at Central OFfice who accepted the position while working this RFP (if proven), should be held accountable. Also, Discovery should have known better.
In the ethics orientation where I work (not MCPS), this was actually one of the examples given of conflicts of interest that must be disclosed (ex: interviewing for a position with a vendor where your job offers the possibility to benefit them in some way). Doesn't MCPS have an ethics policy?
Anonymous
05/22/2018 14:07
Subject: New curriculum selection process delayed— new RFP must be issues now
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
Either way, MCPS made the right decision. It sucks, however I think the tools at Central OFfice who accepted the position while working this RFP (if proven), should be held accountable. Also, Discovery should have known better.
In the ethics orientation where I work (not MCPS), this was actually one of the examples given of conflicts of interest that must be disclosed (ex: interviewing for a position with a vendor where your job offers the possibility to benefit them in some way). Doesn't MCPS have an ethics policy?
Anonymous
05/22/2018 13:58
Subject: New curriculum selection process delayed— new RFP must be issues now
Anonymous wrote: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.
Either way, MCPS made the right decision. It sucks, however I think the tools at Central OFfice who accepted the position while working this RFP (if proven), should be held accountable. Also, Discovery should have known better.
Anonymous
05/22/2018 12:39
Subject: New curriculum selection process delayed— new RFP must be issues now
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Well-established vendors have their own issues, including but not limited to heavy influence from states like Texas, where curricula are heavily influenced by right-wing politics.
I agree with the PP who said MCPS should select JHU to choose the new curriculum. Choose one of the many options in the public domain that has been through a university level evidence based peer review assessment and that is used by high ranking school systems in other states.
~Parent of a senior who is glad to leave this shit show behind
Could you please list three of these many options in the public domain that has been through a university level evidence based peer review assessment and that is used by high ranking school systems in other states?
Eureka Math
Go Math
Singapore Math
Writers Workshop
McGraw Hill has good grammar workbooks
Lucy Calkins
William and Mary
Those are all copyrighted materials, aren't they?
Of course they are. Why would that matter?
+1 Who cares if they're copyrighted? That's why MCPS is choosing vendors. They are going to pay to use materials. Is that not clear somehow to everyone?