By Adam Pagnucco.
Last month, I reported that MCPS was planning a massive school boundary review that will affect roughly three quarters of the district’s high schools and middle schools. The county PTA association has expressed concerns about that review. Let’s see what the candidates think.
Question: MCPS has recently issued an RFP for a boundary review that would affect 19 of its 25 high schools and a similar proportion of middle schools. Do you support the RFP as written? If not, what would you do differently?
Lynne Harris, At-Large (Incumbent): I share the concerns that were highlighted by MCCPTA president Brigid Nuta Howe during her BOE public comment at the September 26th BOE meeting. The need for more authentic and intentional community engagement before options are developed, concerns about an overly ambitious timeline, the need to be comprehensive in the program evaluation portion (I have been very public in stating my belief that MCPS needs a Strategic Plan for Programs), and the need for comprehensive and accessible transparency in all aspects of this work.
In response to those concerns, MCPS has redesigned the RFP review process so that teams of both internal and external reviewers will work together to review proposals, and the BOE will receive that feedback, and the ratings/rankings of all reviewers, prior to being asked to approve the vendor recommendation.
Rita Montoya, At-Large: I would have held the joint Board of Education/Planning Dept. meeting prior to issuing the RFP rather than after (see 10/1/24 meeting) as the Planning Dept provided a lot of good information about school utilization patterns. I would also have welcomed conversations with my colleagues and the MCPS community about including at least some elementary schools as it seems there is a lot of overcrowding in some spaces and whether the review should include all high schools given only 6 are excluded from this RFP. I would add “home address” to “outcomes should not be predictable by…”; include the full word before the acronym “CIP” prior to using it; include the Montgomery County Planning Department School Utilization Report under “Project Orientation and Data Collection”; define “underrepresented communities” under “Task 2”; change “justify” to “support” in Task 3; add “list any prior business names your entity has operated under and the dates of operation” under “Additional Qualifications” number one; add “provide the name(s) of any personnel who previously worked on a MCPS boundary study of any sort” to “Additional Qualifications” for numbers 2, 3, and 4; change “the offeror’s record providing online digital curriculum services” under section 3.5 to “the offeror’s record providing boundary analysis services”; and add “or any other criminal wrongdoing in connection with obtaining contracts” to Article 16.C.
Brenda Diaz, District 2: The Board of Education must rewrite the RFP for boundary review in order to prioritize community engagement and parental involvement at every stage. As MCCPTA President, Ms. Brigid Howe, emphasized in her testimony before the Board of Education, the boundary review and its implementation is a “once-in-a-generation” project that will impact the majority, if not all, of Montgomery County. As such, the boundary study length should be extended so that students’, families’, and MCPS faculty and staff’s voices are included in each of the eight phases.
To rebuild then maintain trust with the community, transparency and accountability must be prioritized. Families should know which specific MCPS departments and staff members will be directly responsible for managing data and planning aspects of the review. Internal clarity will help the community partner with MCPS to ensure the project runs smoothly and effectively.
The project timeline must also include regular benchmarks reported to the Board of Education and families, allowing for real-time feedback. Additionally, MCPS should create a dedicated, multilingual resource page to provide up-to-date information, data, and opportunities for input. Ongoing communication is key to building and sustaining trust between MCPS and the community.
Natalie Zimmerman, District 2: I do support reviewing our boundaries regularly in MCPS. I think this is essential to understanding the needs in the community and where we need more resources – especially when we look at overcrowded schools. As a teacher, I know how students and families take great pride in their school. Because of this, I believe we need to make the community engagement portion of the timeline in our boundary review longer and more thorough. The Board should be publicly updated on progress and findings frequently. There must be many public engagement sessions as well so the community can stay informed. Our community is passionate about their schools and engagement should be a priority in this process.
Shebra Evans, District 4 (Incumbent): As written, the current RFP doesn’t account for the level of community engagement necessary to ensure full transparency of the process. The school system has never conducted a boundary analysis of this magnitude and it will require extensive engagement with impacted school clusters, the Planning Department, County officials, municipalities and other partners. It will be important to conduct this boundary study understanding and valuing the interests, expectations and concerns of community members.
Laura Stewart, District 4: I do not support the timeline included in the RFP. I am especially concerned with the timing and order of steps 4 – 7. The boundary study report is to be released by January 15th, with the Superintendent’s recommendation due just 2 weeks later on February 1st. There must be more community engagement after the study is released. The Superintendent and staff need time to process the community comments or concerns. A rush to recommendations after the report is released will be a disservice to all.
I also ask that community partners be consulted with every step. In my opinion, this timeline should have been shared with diverse trusted community partners before it was released. It is a shame that MCCPTA had to submit comments after the RFP went out. This boundary study is a huge endeavor and it must be done with all hands on deck, every step of the way. Nothing should be a surprise, especially timelines.
Next: grading policy.