Anonymous wrote:Sorry folks, summer break coming up. We’ll have to try again next Spring.
Meanwhile, please keep paying your property taxes and educating your children with MCPS. You’re in good hands.
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?
Presumably JHU just used the findings of the report to develop technical specifications for the RFP. They’re not going to benefit financially from the Vendor selection.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:So now everyone is supposed to just continue with a curriculum known to be crappy? What the fk?!
There’s no way we’re ever going back to MCPS. What a shitstorm. We are starting at a private in the fall and am so happy we bailed from this monstrosity.
Then why are you wasting time on this forum? Go talk about your $40k tuition in the private schools forum.
Anonymous wrote:
Thanks, OP.
I suppose we need to be thankful for small mercies - that someone actually found out and halted a potentially tainted process. At least that's honest.
Imagine if they had gone ahead with a back-doored, second-rate, curriculum...
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.
Anonymous wrote:What they’re saying is you’re never seeing this implemented in the coming school year.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
It's also nearly impossible to fix the perception that the process is tainted.
Given there are 4+ pages of comments on this in about 3 hours, clearly there is distrust is already there. No matter what happened or happens DCUM won't be happy.. and there will be a "cloud" over the process.
I hope this process is thought out. With the speed things were moving it seemed likely we'd jump out of the frying pan of 2.0 and into the "fire" of whatever was new. Although we all know change is needed, if the change is implemented too quickly it won't be implemented well... teaching is about more than the curriculum. Training and becoming familiar with materials takes time for teachers and the groups reviewing the materials need time to consider how the materials/curriculum meets the needs of all learners across the spectrum.
Anonymous wrote:So now everyone is supposed to just continue with a curriculum known to be crappy? What the fk?!
There’s no way we’re ever going back to MCPS. What a shitstorm. We are starting at a private in the fall and am so happy we bailed from this monstrosity.
Anonymous wrote: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.