It is one thing if there is actual evidence that someone pandered to a bidder in order to secure a job opportunity and rigged the bidding process; it is another if everyone is acting out of "an abundance of caution" and to "avoid the appearance of impropriety." If there was ACTUAL impropriety, fine restart the process. But if they are concerned about appearances, I encourage them to keep their eyes on the prize - obtaining a solid curriculum.

Anonymous wrote:I think MCPS's high priced lawyers could give them solutions on how to fix this procurement issue properly. A conflict of interest isn't great, but can be repaired with proper steps, and not affect the substance. But delaying the roll out of a better curriculum on account of a conflict of interest in contracting is HORRIBLE for our kids.

It’s not clear what happened in this case, but it can be hard to fix a tainted procurement process. Maybe they could accelerate a replacement process (shorter turnaround times), but I don’t know whether MCPS bylaws would permi that.

I think MCPS's high priced lawyers could give them solutions on how to fix this procurement issue properly. A conflict of interest isn't great, but can be repaired with proper steps, and not affect the substance. But delaying the roll out of a better curriculum on account of a conflict of interest in contracting is HORRIBLE for our kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Total BS. Lang was one of the few sane people left in MCPS. Current upper leadership is clueless as to what schools need.

Same does not equal competent or honest . In most organizations you have to disclose when you’re in advanced talks with a potential vendor about a job and recuse yourself. What he’s done is corrupt.

Fair enough, but I thought the letter said they recused themselves. Would be curious to see some clear reporting on this, as the reason to stop an entire process all seems a bit flimsy.

Even if Discovery recused themselves, the procurement is still potentially flawed. For example, if the people wrote the RFP so that Discovery would score highest, then the other bidders' scores would be affected too.

interesting connections . . .

Discovery = "MCPS 2.0"

What connections?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Total BS. Lang was one of the few sane people left in MCPS. Current upper leadership is clueless as to what schools need.

Same does not equal competent or honest . In most organizations you have to disclose when you’re in advanced talks with a potential vendor about a job and recuse yourself. What he’s done is corrupt.

Fair enough, but I thought the letter said they recused themselves. Would be curious to see some clear reporting on this, as the reason to stop an entire process all seems a bit flimsy.

Even if Discovery recused themselves, the procurement is still potentially flawed. For example, if the people wrote the RFP so that Discovery would score highest, then the other bidders' scores would be affected too.

+1. Plus they were at the stage of having presentations by the vendor finalists. If they rejected strong proposals to make it easier for Discovery, that would be problematic. I wish there were some strong local reporting being done on these issues, but sadly Bethedsa Magazine seems only to report on press releases.

Anonymous wrote:What they’re saying is you’re never seeing this implemented in the coming school year.

Terrible.

Erick Lang is definitely the Associate Superintendent of the Office of Curriculum and Instructional Planning. Too bad Jack Smith couldn't just fire him before the whole RFP process. Coincidence that he has a job offer from a company submitting a bid? How ridiculous, he screws us over with 2.0, now he is screwing over the schools and teachers who will be piloting the new curriculum. I think they should just drop Discovery from the running. If they want him, they can have him- but not our money too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How stupid are these people????

Good grief just let JHU select 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.

Why on earth is MCPS looking to buy anything from Discovery Education?? Why does everything in MCPDS need to be a corrupt shit show.

Ahh so Hopkins writes an "independent" report then submits a proposal in the RFP that came from that report. How is that not conflict of interest?

Couldn’t agree more. I suspect there are more conflicts of interest looming, including some involving the team JHU assembled to do the curriculum audit. More to come. What a mess.

David Steinberg - Did I read that name in the 2.0 report? Can someone refresh my memory?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Total BS. Lang was one of the few sane people left in MCPS. Current upper leadership is clueless as to what schools need.

Same does not equal competent or honest . In most organizations you have to disclose when you’re in advanced talks with a potential vendor about a job and recuse yourself. What he’s done is corrupt.

Fair enough, but I thought the letter said they recused themselves. Would be curious to see some clear reporting on this, as the reason to stop an entire process all seems a bit flimsy.

Even if Discovery recused themselves, the procurement is still potentially flawed. For example, if the people wrote the RFP so that Discovery would score highest, then the other bidders' scores would be affected too.

interesting connections . . .

Discovery = "MCPS 2.0"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How stupid are these people????

Good grief just let JHU select 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.

Why on earth is MCPS looking to buy anything from Discovery Education?? Why does everything in MCPDS need to be a corrupt shit show.

Ahh so Hopkins writes an "independent" report then submits a proposal in the RFP that came from that report. How is that not conflict of interest?

Couldn’t agree more. I suspect there are more conflicts of interest looming, including some involving the team JHU assembled to do the curriculum audit. More to come. What a mess.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Total BS. Lang was one of the few sane people left in MCPS. Current upper leadership is clueless as to what schools need.

Same does not equal competent or honest . In most organizations you have to disclose when you’re in advanced talks with a potential vendor about a job and recuse yourself. What he’s done is corrupt.

Fair enough, but I thought the letter said they recused themselves. Would be curious to see some clear reporting on this, as the reason to stop an entire process all seems a bit flimsy.

Even if Discovery recused themselves, the procurement is still potentially flawed. For example, if the people wrote the RFP so that Discovery would score highest, then the other bidders' scores would be affected too.

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.

I served on a committee once with him and found him to be pretty much a boy scout and actually knew instruction.

NO ONE at that level is ever a boy scout.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Total BS. Lang was one of the few sane people left in MCPS. Current upper leadership is clueless as to what schools need.

Same does not equal competent or honest . In most organizations you have to disclose when you’re in advanced talks with a potential vendor about a job and recuse yourself. What he’s done is corrupt.

Fair enough, but I thought the letter said they recused themselves. Would be curious to see some clear reporting on this, as the reason to stop an entire process all seems a bit flimsy.

Guys - write to the Board of Education. This sounds like a recommendation from the system to them to rescind the RFP. Perhaps you can make your point about throwing out Discovery's bid and carrying on to the Board to speed things along.

The delay is unfortunate, but I think it's good that they withdrew a potentially iffy procurement.