Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/36935121/Maryland-State-Board-of-Education-on-MCPS-Pearson-Contract
Timestamp: 2018-01-24 12:42:22
Document Index: 787263649

Matched Legal Cases: ['§4', '§4', '§4', '§2', '§2', '§2', '§2']

Maryland State Board of Education on MCPS - Pearson Contract
Description: Conflict With State's Education Reform Efforts
Conflict With State's Education Reform Efforts
﻿(2) Conflict with the State's Education Reform Efforts
Under the contract, MCPS and Pearson will produce a K-5 Integrated Curriculum based on the Common Core Standards and K -5 assessments that are aligned to the Common Core Standards. MCPS and Pearson have agreed that the work they will do together on the K-5 Curriculum and on the assessments is proprietary and will be confidential during the development process. (Appeal, Ex. B, Agreement §E).
That aspect of the Agreement is troubling to us. The State of Maryland, under the leadership of the Governor, State Board, and State Superintendent, has begun a statewide education reform effort, in part, to align the K -12 Maryland State Curriculum to the Common Core Standa,rds and to adopt assessments that ate also aligned. All school systems in Maryland must align their curriculum to the Maryland State Curriculum. See COMAR 13A.04.08-18. All school systems in Maryland will ultimately be required to assess their students using the new assessments.
To accomplish this work, twenty-two of the twenty-four school systems in Maryland have signed on to participate in Maryland's Race to the Top (RTTT) efforts. Among other things, they have agreed to collaborate with MSDE and with one another to develop the curriculum, assessments, 'and learning tools that will align to the Common Core Standards. The assessments are intricately and inherently intertwined with the curriculum development process.
Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) has not signed on to the RTTT application.
But, we never viewed that as a definitive roadblock to collaboration and cooperation on the statewide reform efforts, including statewide curriculum and assessment development. The Agreement, however, with its requirement of confidentiality and the proprietary nature of the work that MCPS and Pearson will do, could negatively impact the collaborative statewide process. That possibility causes us significant concern.
We recognize that our concern does not provide the Appellant With standing to present this issue for review. Given the statewide implications presented here, however, we exercise our broad visitatorial authority to review whether the decision of the Montgomery County Board of Educationto approve the contract with Pearson is an arbitrary decision because it does not represent "sound education policy."?
This Board has reversed several decisions oflocal board's after finding, in the context of sound educational policy, that the decision was arbitrary and unreasonable. See, e.g. Abbott v. ' Montgomery County Board of Education, 2 Opinions of MSBE 582 (1982) (school closing case); Armour v. Board of Education Montgomery County, 2 Opinions of MSBE 123 (1979) (enrollment and tuition case); Hall v. Somerset County Board of Education, 4 Opinions 628 (1986) (redistricting); Concerned Citizens of Seven Oaks v. Anne Arundel County Board of Education,'] Opinions of MSBE 654 (1997)(redistricting).
As recently as May 2007, the Court of Appeals in Patterson Park Public Charter School v. Baltimore Teachers Union, 399 Md. 174 (2007), reiterated a long established principle - - that the authority of the State Board is "unique in the annals of administrative agencies." The appellate courts have long made clear that the State Board has broad statutory authority over the administration of the public school system in this State. The State Board has "the last word on any matter concerning educational policy or the administration of the system of public education." Id. at 195-96. That power, referred to as the visitatorial power of the State Board, is '''of the most comprehensive character' one that is 'in its nature, summary and exclusive." Chesapeake Charter, Inc, v, Anne Arundel County Board of Education, 358 Md. 129, 137-138 (2000). As the Maryland courts have recognized, the State Board is the final arbiter of what constitutes "sound educational policy" in Maryland.
Of course, whether a decision represents sound educational policy is often in the eye of the beholder. Local boards have control over the educational matters that affect the county, Md. Educ. Code Ann. §4-101(a). Local boards have the authority determine the educational policies of the county school system. Id. §4-108(3). A local board can take a parochial view when it acts, It need only consider its own local education policy goals. It is not difficult to conclude that for MCPS the contract with Pearson represents a sound local education policy decision. It brings $4.5 million to the school system to provide the resources to expedite the integrated curriculum development MCPS had already started a year or so ago." It allows MCPS to tailor. the curriculum to its own vision and needs. In some respect, the MCPS/Pearson project could be viewed as an incubator for innovative education reform. That is a valid local view.
Our view of what constitutes sound educational policy is necessarily a more universal one. We are mandated by law to consider the statewide implications even of local board decisions. Specifically, local control and autonomy, by law, is subject to State education law and the rules and regulations of the State Board. Id. §4-108(3), State law gives this Board the authority to "exercise general control and supervision over the public schools and educational interests of this State." Id §2-205(g). State law provides this Board with the power to "establish basic policy guidelines for the program of instruction for public schools." Id. §2- 205(h). State law directs the Board to "coordinate the overall growth and development of elementary and secondary education in this State." Id. §2-205(g). Finally, we reiterate, State education law gives this Board the authority to determine the "education policies of this State." Id. §2-205(b).
We have been given all those powers, we believe, in order to lead Maryland public education in one coordinated, collaborative direction. In this era of education reform, that
4 MCPS and Pearson has also collaborated on and received a $5 million grant from the federal government to develop K-5 curriculum and assessments aligned to the Common Core Standards.
direction is toward a world-class education system in which all Maryland public school students
graduate' college and career ready. '
We consider it sound educational policy when all 24 school systems pull in the same direction to reform Maryland's public education system. In the K-5 curriculum and assessment arena, however, MCPS and Pearson have drawn a cloak of confidentiality over their work. It will be difficult, if not impossible, for them to come to the table with MSDE and the other school systems to discuss creative, innovative ideas for the K-5 Maryland State Curriculum and assessments. It will be difficult, if not impossible, for MSDE and the other school systems to . share ideas with MCPS and Pearson who may, wittingly or not, appropriate them as their own for their K-5 project.
We view the Agreement as essentially separating Pearson and MCPS from the collaborative education reform effort triggered by Maryland's education reform initiative. We believe the Agreement represents an educational policy decision that further balkanizes MCPS from the collaborative process of developing statewide curriculum and assessments.
Moreover, we view the MCPSlPearson project as essentially duplicative of the State's efforts. MSDE and twenty-two school systems will be spending significant time and money to develop a K -12 curriculum and assessments that will be applicable statewide to all Maryland school systems, including MCPS. Montgomery County/Pearson will be spending almost $10 million ($5 million through a recent federal grant and $4.5 million under the Agreement) to produce a K-5 curriculum and assessments that will not have statewide applicability, but will apparently be marketed nationwide. It appears to us that this duplicative and proprietary effort represents a waste of valuable resources. As we see it, the better course would be for MCPSlPearson to find a way to collaborate with MSDE on the K-5 curriculum and assessment development so that scarce resources are maximized within the State.
While we question the soundness of the local board's policy decision to approve an Agreement that appears duplicative of State efforts, wasteful of resources, and further balkanizes MCPS from the statewide reform initiative, after considerable deliberation, we have concluded that the effect on Maryland's statewide reform initiative will ultimately be minimal. Twentytwo school systems will work with MSDE to align the K-12 Maryland State Curriculum to the Common Core Standards. Twenty-two school systems will help to design assessments that are aligned with the State Curriculum, We regret that Montgomery County, by agreeing to the confidential, proprietary nature of its K-5 project with Pearson, will have to absent itself from the statewide K-5 curriculum and assessment discussion, but we encourage Montgomery County educators and the local board to be at the table for other aspects of the, Maryland education reform initiative.
We note that we do not have the full details of the process and product that MCPSlPearson will develop. We explain, however, that this Board continues to have a role to
play in curriculum aligrunent and curriculum implementation in local school systems. We reserve the right to exercise our visitatorial power, if necessary, as the development process goes forward.
In any event, all school systems in Maryland will be subject to the reform agenda as this Board adopts regulations effectuating the reforms, including the adoption of a Maryland State Curriculum and Maryland Assessments aligned to the Common Core Standards.
For an the reasons stated, this appeal is dismissed.
Charlene M. Dukes Vice President
Luisa MonterorJDiaz
, e M. Smith, Jr.
JI~.J,W~
DMi'na Hili Statou/.Jt'
... ~C~I'~CA'~VA
I ~{V I