Montgomery County 2008 Final Update - Master Plan - MSDE

Montgomery County Public Schools
Clarifications for Final Submission

November 19, 2008
MSA/HSA Reading
Describe where progress is evident. In your response, identify progress in terms of grade
band(s) and subgroups.
The final data and analysis are reflected in I.D.i
MSA/HSA Mathematics
Describe where progress is evident. In your response, identify progress in terms of grade
The final data and analysis are reflected in I.D.i
Graduation Rates and Dropout Rates

It is stated in number four that the dropout rate in MCPS has been positively impacted by the
numerous strategies and programs implemented. Please clarify the correlation between this
statement and data table 5.7, page 129.
The data tables 5.6 and 5.7 have been corrected and the response to number four in section I.D.v
reflects the corrected data
Table 6.6 Attrition 2008-2009 (projected)

Attrition data are not reported for the 2008-2009 (projected year).
Attrition data has now been reported for 2008-2009 (projected year) in Table 6.6.
Attrition table Data does not indicate with an X if it represents the entire teaching staff or the
Core Academic Subject area teachers.
An indicator has been added to reflect that the Attrition table represents the entire teaching staff.
Gifted and Talented Programs

Describe the progress that was made in 2007-2008 toward meeting Gifted and Talented
Program goals, objectives, and strategies for student identification and services.
Identify the strategies, including resource allocations that appear related to the progress.
Include supporting data as needed.
Questions number one through four have been rewritten in order to reflect the requested
revisions in the Gifted and Talented Programs section.
Finance Section
1.3: Attachment 3 – Total Full-Time Equivalent Staff Statement
This section has been corrected to reflect changes.

Local Planning Team Members
Use this page to identify the members of the school system’s Bridge to Excellence Master
Planning Team. Where applicable, include their affiliation or title within the local school
system.
Name Affiliation/Title with Local School System

Larry A. Bowers Chief Operating Officer
Frieda Lacey Deputy Superintendent of Schools
Stephen Bedford Chief School Performance Officer
Michael Perich Acting Director, Systemwide Continuous Improvement
Carey Wright Associate Superintendent for Special Education and Student Services
Susan Marks Associate Superintendent for Human Resources
Jody Leleck Chief Academic Officer
James Virga Associate Superintendent for Organizational Development
Carol Mathews Budget Specialist, Department of Management, Budget, and Planning
Marshall Spatz Director, Department of Management, Budget, and Planning
Brian Edwards Chief of Staff
Jody Silvio Executive Assistant to the Chief Academic Officer
Holli Swann Assistant to the Associate Superintendent for Special Education and
Student Services
Karen Woodson Director, Division of ESOL/Bilingual Programs
Diane Mohr Executive Assistant, Office of School Performance
Mary Ebert Assistant for Assessment and Data Collection, Office of School
Performance
Nicola Diamond Assistant to the Chief Operating Officer
Marianne Erickson Reports Specialist, Department of Reporting and Regulatory
Accountability
Stephanie Williams Director, Department of Reporting and Regulatory Accountability
Shelley Johnson Director, Division of Career and Technology Education
Bruce Crispell Director, Division of Long-range Planning
Marty Creel Director, Department of Enriched and Innovative Programs
Melissa Woods Director, Department of Technology Innovation
Betsy Brown Director, Department of Curriculum and Instruction
Linda Adams Supervisor, Fine Arts
Donna Hollingshead Executive Director, Office of the Deputy superintendent of Schools
Rebecca Amani-Dove Acting Assistant to the Associate Superintendent, Office of Shared
Accountability
The Board of Education reviewed and approved the Master Plan update.
Executive Summary to the 2008 Annual Update
The development of this fifth update to the Comprehensive Master Plan for the Montgomery
County Public Schools (MCPS) reflects the ongoing use of key academic and organizational
performance data in strategic planning and budgetary decision making, substantial participation
of stakeholders, and the targeted deployment of resources to address specific areas of identified
concern.
In the five years since the initial submission of the Five-Year Comprehensive Master Plan,
MCPS has expanded strategic planning efforts among all offices and schools, based on the
organizational improvement principles of the Malcolm Baldrige Criteria for Performance
Excellence. These efforts have contributed to greater internal and external collaboration among
key stakeholders—particularly among employee associations and parent organizations. In turn,
the system has gained greater organizational capacity to implement improvements that are
transforming the school district and creating an environment where all students can achieve.
The emphasis on professional development of teachers and other staff to improve instruction and
student achievement has resulted in significant organizational changes and successes. MCPS
continues to be a national leader in student performance, with the exceptional recognition of its
schools in numerous national measures. MCPS is the only school district in America to have six
of its high schools ranked in the top 100 in America, according to Newsweek magazine. In fact,
all 23 of our eligible high schools are in the top 3 percent in the nation, according to the
magazine. This is the fifth consecutive year that MCPS earned this distinctive honor.
In an analysis conducted by Education Week, MCPS had the third highest graduation rate in the
nation among the 50 largest school districts. The only two districts ahead of MCPS on the list are
significantly smaller and do not have a student population nearly as diverse as that of MCPS. In
addition, MCPS’ success has been studied and published by a variety of research organizations
and foundations including Harvard University and the Panasonic Foundation. MCPS is also one
of the leading organizations involved in setting national standards for school districts through the
American Productivity and Quality Center in Houston. MCPS also continues to participate in an
innovative program with the School of Business and Graduate School of Education at Harvard
University to improve public education leadership.
The effectiveness of the school system’s strategic planning, budget allocations, and performance
assessment is evident in improved student achievement. In 2007, for example, the average
combined SAT score of MCPS seniors was 1624, 113 and 126 points above national and state
averages, respectively. The participation rate in 2007 increased to 79 percent (7,660 students).
MCPS far exceeds the national and state average for participation and success on rigorous
Advanced Placement (AP) exams. In fact, 60 percent of the Class of 2007 took at least one AP
exam during high school, more than double the national average of 25 percent. As for results, 46
percent of the Class of 2006 scored a 3 or higher on at least one AP exam— triple the national
average and double the Maryland average.
Performance gains have been made also on the Maryland School Assessments (MSA), consistent
with the standards of the state’s compliance with the Bridge to Excellence in Public Education
Act and the federal No Child Left Behind Act. Nonetheless, significant challenges remain.
Disparities in student performance by race and ethnicity continue to occur, despite gains in
student achievement by African American and Hispanic students. The enrollment—already the
largest in the state, with more than 137,000 students—has continued to grow in a pattern that
reflects greater student racial and ethnic, cultural, and economic diversity, as well as greater
academic needs. Recent enrollment increases have been entirely among African American,
Asian American, and Hispanic students, with more students challenged by limited English
proficiency, economic impoverishment, and disabilities requiring special education. White
student enrollment has continued to decline, representing about 40 percent of students in 2007–
2008. The system has nearly half of Maryland’s entire enrollment of English language learners.
About 26 percent of students in MCPS receive federal meal assistance, and more than one third
have received federal meal assistance at some point in their education. The concentration of
racial and ethnic diversity and poverty is located in schools within the county’s most urbanized
areas, a geographic zone from Takoma Park to Germantown that includes more than 67,000
students—nearly half of the entire school district and larger than the District of Columbia school
system.
The school system’s strategic planning and budgetary initiatives are directing resources to
address these key challenges. As detailed in the strategic plan, Our Call to Action: Pursuit of
Excellence, an update of which was approved by the Board of Education in July 2007, the school
system is continuing to target improvement and intervention efforts in key areas, including early
childhood education, class-size reductions, rigorous and accelerated course work, high school
literacy, professional development of staff, student support, and formative assessments of student
performance. These efforts reflect greater input from the community, which reflects an initiative
to more closely align operating budget allocations with strategic planning decisions. While
budgetary challenges will greatly limit new initiatives for the 2008–2009 school year, the system
will continue to focus on expanding its efforts to improve the student performance at the middle
school level. The system continues to focus with laser-like precision to enhance student
achievement, particularly among African American and Hispanic students, by improving the
structure and support for teaching and learning. MCPS continues to invest in equity training to
assist staff address historical issues of bias that may be obstacles to improved student
performance.
In this fifth update of the Comprehensive Master Plan, the links between the strategic plan and
the operating budget continue to be more clearly defined. In addition, specific progress toward
meeting federal, state, and local goals are identified, along with details about specific resource
allocations for initiatives designed to support continued improvements. Consistent throughout
the update is the specificity of any program changes based on the most recent assessments of
student performance. This reflects the inherent strength of the strategic planning process in
MCPS.
Publicly addressing difficult issues is a key strength of MCPS strategic planning. The system
strives for unified and consistent implementation of improvements across the school system.
The alignment reflects not only the structural improvements but also the collaboration among
key stakeholders. MCPS is one of the few school systems nationally in which the leaders of all
employee unions actively participate in the leadership of the school system. Parent
organizations, too, have an increasingly effective role as well. Along with the employee
associations, the Montgomery County Council of PTA’s actually is involved in the development
of the operating and capital budgets from inception to final passage. Their involvement gives
voice to critical stakeholders in one of the most important discussions that takes place in the
district.
The district also continues to implement organizational changes designed to build a culture of
respect for all participants and to increase parent and community involvement from the school
level up to the district level. MCPS recognizes the importance of stakeholder involvement in
creating a master plan to guide the system’s continued success.
I.D.i
Maryland School Assessment/High School Assessment

Reading

Based on the Examination of MSA AYP Proficiency Data in Reading (Tables 2.1 through 2.3):

1. Describe where progress is evident. In your response, identify progress in terms of grade

MSA Proficiency Rates
Increases in MSA proficiency rates in reading for all students and for all NCLB subgroups
have been observed yearly since 2005 (Tables 2.1, 2.2). Gaps in proficiency rates have
narrowed every year, even as performance for all student groups continues to climb.
Although gaps in proficiency rates continue to be large between students receiving special
services and those not receiving special services, these gaps are narrowing as well.

Reading. Since 2005, the percentage of elementary and middle school students earning a
proficient or advanced score in reading has increased steadily. Gains were seen in all NCLB
subgroups, with gains of 15 percentage points or more noted among Hispanic, FARMS,
special education, and LEP subgroups, as well as middle school African American students:

• In elementary school, reading proficiency rates overall grew 7.9 percentage points
(from 82.2 percent in 2005 to 90.1 percent in 2008), with the largest gains observed
for Hispanic students (15.0 percentage point increase from 67.9 percent in 2005 to
82.9 percent in 2008) and for African American students (12.3 percentage point
increase from 69.9 percent in 2005 to 82.2 percent in 2008).

• For the LEP subgroup in elementary school, overall proficiency rates increased 15.9
percentage points (from 61.8 percent in 2005 to 77.7 percent in 2008.

• In elementary school, for those students receiving special education services, overall
proficiency rates grew 15.5 percentage points (from 59.4 percent in 2005 to 74.9
percent in 2008.

• For the elementary school Free and Reduced‐price Meals System (FARMS) services
subgroup, proficiency rates overall increased 15.2 percentage points from 64.1
percent in 2005 to 79.3 percent in 2008.

• In middle school, reading proficiency rates overall grew 10.6 percentage points
(from 76.1 percent in 2005 to 86.7 percent in 2008), with the largest gains observed
for African American students (18.5 percentage point increase from 59.4 percent in
2005 to 77.9 percent in 2008) and for Hispanic students (18.1 percentage point
increase from 55.8 percent in 2005 to 73.9 percent in 2008).

• In middle school, for those students receiving special education services, overall
percent in 2008.

• For the middle school Free and Reduced‐price Meals System (FARMS) services
subgroup, proficiency rates overall increased 20 percentage points from 50.7
percent in 2005 to 70.7 percent in 2008.

• For the LEP subgroup in middle school, overall proficiency rates increased 15.1

2. Identify the practices, programs, or strategies and the corresponding resource allocations
to which you attribute the progress.

• Framework for Improving Teaching and Learning. The Framework for Improving
Teaching and Learning is a major initiative to develop a research‐based tool for
continuous improvement of the teaching and learning process. The Framework is being
used by schools to deepen their understanding of the following six elements of
improving teaching and learning: curriculum, instruction, evidence of student learning,
planning, expectations, and building a professional learning community.
• The Early Success Performance Plan. This comprehensive plan provided a four‐year
sequence or pathway for all students and focuses on addressing the opportunity gap
facing the district’s most highly impacted students. The plan is built around the
following five guiding principles of education reform:
o Focused and challenging curriculum.
o Ongoing assessment of student progress.
o Expanded instructional time (full‐day kindergarten and reduced class size).
o Targeted professional development.
o Meaningful family involvement.

• Development and Implementation of Standard‐Based Curriculum and Assessments.
Over the past seven years, the district has revised the reading, English/language arts,
mathematics, science, and social studies curricula to align with state, national, and
international standards and make explicit what students need to know and be able to
do at each grade level. Additionally, formative assessments are integrated into all
instructional guides.

• Curriculum Training and Development. To support the development and
implementation of the curriculum and new initiatives to improve teaching and learning,
staff development is provided to staff members as new or revised curriculum,
assessment, and grading and reporting tools are implemented. The focus of the training
and development is on increasing teachers’ knowledge base of the content and/or
effective practices related to curriculum, instruction, assessment, and grading and
reporting. Emphasis is placed on providing strategies to work with English Language
Learners (ELL), students with disabilities, and highly able and/or motivated students.

• Reading Specialist. Each elementary school and 33 middle schools have reading
specialists who provides leadership for the implementation of the reading/language arts
curricula under the direction of the principal. In 2007–2008, five middle schools had
Accelerated and Enriched Instruction Literacy Coaches, nonteaching positions provided
to help teachers develop literacy and critical thinking in all content areas. In 2008–2009,
this position will be expanded to 11 middle schools. These roles reflect a balance of
responsibilities in leadership, staff development, instructional expertise, and
assessments.

• Staff Development Teacher. The district allocates a staff development teacher to every
school to support teachers to increase their knowledge, skills, and capacity to
implement new strategies for teaching and learning.

• Extended Time. This initiative includes both extended‐day and extended‐year programs
for Title I schools and for all middle schools.

• Ruth Rales Comcast Kids Reading Network. This joint community partnership provides
proven and effective supplemental reading support in those elementary schools that
have the highest levels of student poverty and ELL.

• Monitoring Student Instructional Data. Currently there are two Web‐based monitoring
systems. Instructional Management System and Performance Matters are specifically
designed for teachers, schools, and central office administrators to monitor student
performance on formative and summative assessments. Performance Matters has the
capability of predicting a student’s MSA achievement level based on lagging indicators.

• Formative Assessment and Data Monitoring. Grades 6–8 reading and English formative
assessments are required and monitored. Assessments were developed and
professional development provided to all teachers and principals.

• English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) Curriculum Development and
Alignment. Curriculum for instruction on English language proficiency for all students
continues to be revised to align with the new Maryland State Department of Education
(MSDE) ESOL content standards.

• ESOL Proficiency Teachers. Class size in Title I schools continues to be reduced for ESOL
students at the lowest level of English language proficiency. This model continues to be
studied to determine the extent to which it promotes improvement in English language
proficiency and student learning outcomes.

• Classroom and Testing Accommodations for ESOL Students. The No Child Left Behind
Act of 2001 requires that ESOL students take state assessments and meet the same
proficiency standards set for all students. Therefore, it is necessary for ESOL and
content teachers to identify and provide instructional and assessment accommodations
for ESOL students by completing the state‐mandated ELL plans. School‐based
interdisciplinary teams, known as ELL teams, complete the ELL plan annually. ELL teams
also determine the scope of content and how ESOL students will be assessed in the
content areas.

• ESOL Achievement Specialist. The achievement specialist ensures accurate reporting of
ESOL student proficiency levels and ESOL program participation, monitors ELL team
data, and analyzes data collected through the online elementary ESOL services log to
assist in identifying elementary ESOL instructional program models that best promote
English language acquisition and student achievement.

• ESOL Counseling Team. ESOL counselors continue to provide itinerant bilingual and
cross‐cultural counseling services to ESOL students to enable them to achieve
academically and adjust to a new social and cultural environment. The counseling team
works countywide to provide counseling services to ESOL students that center on
acculturation, conflict resolution, decision making, career/college planning, study skills,
school rules and regulations, social skills, and school life.

• ESOL Parent Outreach Services. The ESOL parent outreach team consists of parent
specialists and parent community coordinators who use their bilingual and multicultural
skills to minimize linguistic and cultural barriers and to encourage ESOL parents to
participate in their children’s educational experiences. The parent outreach services
team provides information concerning school programs and student progress;
information to parents on ways they can support student learning and English language
acquisition outside of school; assistance in involving parents of ESOL students in
decision‐making processes at school; and referrals to community services for parents
and students.

• Translation Unit. The translation unit provides professional, multilingual translation
services in multiple languages using various media to address the need to communicate
essential information to a rapidly growing, linguistically diverse community. This unit
enables MCPS to meet the Strategic Plan Goal 3: Strengthening Productive Partnerships
for Education by meeting the objective of communicating information to parents and
community members about curriculum, educational programs and services,
assessments, and instruction with the same level of quality that is afforded to English‐
speaking members of the community.

• Improving the Academic Performance of Students with Disabilities. Montgomery
County Public Schools (MCPS) continues to make progress helping students with
disabilities become proficient in reading as evidenced by the increase in the percentage
of these students meeting proficiency levels in each grade level of the Maryland School
Assessment (MSA). The system continues to explore and implement initiatives that
ensure academic achievement of students with disabilities in reading. Expanding the
implementation of research‐based reading interventions; hours‐based staffing; and
Middle School Reform continues to improve student achievement in reading.

• Reading Interventions. MCPS is committed to expanding and supporting the
implementation of research‐based reading interventions that compliment the
curriculum and address students’ needs by purchasing materials, providing professional
development, coaching school‐based staff, and monitoring student progress. During the
2007–2008 school year, provision of reading interventions was expanded to additional
elementary, middle, and high schools. Through a Maryland State Department of
Education (MSDE)‐awarded Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) grant, additional reading
interventions and professional development for general and special educators were
provided to five middle schools. MCPS has implemented and provides ongoing, job‐
embedded support for the following interventions:

• Read Well at nine elementary schools. Read Well targets phonemic awareness and
phonics instruction using systematic and explicit instruction for nonfluent readers in
Grades 1–3.
• Horizons at 20 elementary schools. Horizons is a direct instruction reading
intervention to develop phonemic awareness, decoding skills, advanced word
recognition, vocabulary, fluency, and basic comprehension strategies for struggling
readers in Grades K–3.
• Corrective Reading at 24 elementary schools, 30 middle schools, and five high
schools. Corrective Reading is a direct instruction intervention to improve decoding
skills for struggling readers in Grade 4 through age 21.
• Read Naturally at three elementary schools, 15 middle schools, and four high
schools. Read Naturally improves reading fluency for struggling readers. The
program includes modeled reading of passages, repeated student readings, and
progress monitoring of fluency and comprehension.
• Lexia—Reading Strategies for Older Students at four elementary schools, eight
middle schools, and four high schools. This software program provides
supplemental support for the development of an effective decoding system using
activity‐based instruction.
• Edmark Reading at one elementary school, one middle school, and three high
schools. This program develops sight vocabulary for students needing more
functional reading development.
• Read 180 at all secondary schools. Read 180 is a computer‐based intervention for
middle and high school students. After the initial whole group lesson, students
rotate in small groups to different stations that include individualized instructional
software, audio books for modeled reading, and paperback books for independent
reading. The DSES and DSEO contributed to the funding of this intervention in 16
middle schools and four high schools, and general education initiatives funded the
other licenses and professional development so that all secondary schools could
provide this intervention.
• Soliloquy Reading Assistant at six middle schools. This software program allows
students to practice independent oral reading. The program combines speech
recognition and verification technology to help students develop fluency,
vocabulary, and comprehension.
• Wilson Reading System at four middle schools and one high school. The Wilson
Reading System uses a multi sensory instructional sequence that teaches students
Grade 3 to age 21 to decode and spell through increased understanding of language
structure.
• Rewards at one middle school and 14 high schools. Rewards is a scripted decoding
intervention that teaches students reading strategies beginning with multi syllabic
words.

• Academic Intervention Instructional Specialists. Two academic intervention
instructional specialists, a special education supervisor of academic interventions, and
two itinerant resource teachers coordinate the distribution of resources, provide the
professional development and coaching, and monitor student progress with the
interventions. Many schools have purchased and are implementing the reading
interventions listed above and are able to access professional development and support
from the DSES and DSEO.

• Ensure Access to the General Education Curriculum for Students with Disabilities.
During the 2007–2008 school year, Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)
expanded the Home School Model (HSM) to five elementary schools. This service
delivery model provides students with disabilities greater access to the general
education curriculum at their home school in the least restrictive environment which, in
turn, improves academic outcomes for these students.

• Action Plan for Students with Disabilities. During the 2007–2008 school year, the
Department of Special Education Services (DSES) and Department of Special Education
Operations (DSEO) forged ahead in their plan of action to foster student achievement in
reading and mathematics, with a particular focus on middle school students. This plan
of action addresses four areas: ensuring access to the general education curriculum and
rigorous instruction, collecting and monitoring data to ensure academic progress,
increasing the collaboration between general and special educators, and providing
focused professional development to teachers, related service providers, and
paraeducators.

• Hours‐Based Staffing. The hours‐based staffing model was implemented in an
additional 11 middle schools during the 2007–2008 school year. This model provides an
equitable staffing solution that allows schools to provide a continuum of special
education services to support the diverse needs of students with disabilities within their
home schools.

• Transition from Secondary Learning Centers. MCPS began the phase out of the
secondary learning centers during the 2007–2008 school year. Seventy‐one students
returned to their home and/or consortia middle or high schools. Each student was
provided with a central office case manager who facilitated the student’s transition back
to the home or consortia school, supported the school in developing a master schedule
that provided a continuum of special education services and access to instruction in the
general education curriculum, and provided ongoing professional development and
consultation to ensure student success.

• Data Collection and Monitoring Student Achievement for Students with Disabilities.
DSES and DSEO monitor the following data: individual student performance, group
academic achievement, attendance, suspensions, and disproportionality.

• Collaboration between General and Special Education Staff. The 2007–2008 MSDE‐
awarded AYP grant provided general and special educators at five middle schools with
professional development on topics including inclusive teaching practices, analysis of
academic achievement data of students with disabilities, differentiation, assistive
technology, instructional and assessment accommodations, and reading interventions.

Over the course of the 2007–2008 school year, DSES and DSEO, the Office of Curriculum
and Instructional Programs (OCIP), and the Office of Organizational Development (OOD)
collaborated to develop professional development activities that focus on increasing the
capacity of general and special educators to instruct students with disabilities in the
general education classroom. In addition, all mandatory curriculum training included
special education staff and provided further opportunities for collaboration between
general and special educators. The FY 2009 budget added funds for mandatory
professional development on best practices for co‐teaching for Grades 6, 7, and 9
general and special education teachers of students with disabilities.

In collaboration with OCIP, Office of School Performance (OSP), and OOD, the Office of
Special Education and Student Services (OSESS) works to ensure that service delivery
models are uniform and the use of inclusive practices are consistent throughout county
schools.
• Focused Professional Development for Teachers of Students with Disabilities. DSES
and DSEO supervisors, instructional specialists, and Itinerant Resource Teachers (IRTs)
supported school teams in the improvement of service delivery models to address the
diverse needs of students through participation in Achievement Steering Committees,
school–based leadership team meetings, school improvement team meetings, and by
developing and facilitating focused professional development activities for staff
members who support students with disabilities.

During the 2007–2008 school year, staff members from the DSES and DSEO provided
high‐quality professional development for over 5,000 participants at various levels and
on a variety of topics that included the following:

ο Co‐teaching and inclusion best practices
ο Reading interventions
ο Mathematics interventions
ο Individualized Education Program (IEP) goals and objectives
ο Mod‐MSA/HSA eligibility
ο Discipline policies for students with disabilities
ο Encore Web‐based IEP System
ο Accessibility planning
ο Instructional and assessment accommodations
ο Differentiation
ο Behavior management
ο Assistive technology
ο Alt‐MSA
ο Universal Design for Learning (UDL)

3. Describe where challenges are evident. In your response, identify challenges in terms of
grade band(s) and subgroups.

• The greatest challenge is reducing the achievement gap among subgroups while
continuing to show progress in each subgroup for all grade level bands.

• For Grades 3 and 4, the Special Education subgroup continues to be the lowest
performing.

• Challenges increase at Grade 5 with LEP, Special Education, and Free/Reduced Meals
subgroups needing the greatest support.

• At Grades 6–8, the following subgroups provide the greatest challenge:

o LEP
o Special Education
o Free/Reduced Meals
o Hispanic.

Central office special education staff members face the challenge of improving the
MSA/HSA passing rate of students with disabilities at the elementary, middle, and high
school levels to meet the pass rate of their non‐disabled peers, particularly in Grades 4,
5, 7, 8, English II, and Algebra/Data Analysis. Schools need guidance and support in
providing a continuum of special education services to meet the unique needs of
students with disabilities. More students with disabilities are being instructed in general
education classes and are provided access to the curriculum as taught by highly qualified
teachers with support from special educators. However, co‐teaching teams need
assistance in planning for accessibility, incorporating assistive technology, utilizing
diverse co‐teaching models, and differentiating formative assessments.

The national critical shortage of special education teachers and related service providers
continues to be a challenge for MCPS. Staff members in the Office of Human Resources
(OHR) work closely with universities to recruit teachers who are certified special
educators. According to the OHR, there is great difficulty in staffing self‐contained
special education classes. In addition, most graduates who are dually certified in
general and special education request a general education assignment, thereby
exacerbating the critical shortage of special education teachers.

4. Describe the changes or adjustments that will be made along with the corresponding
resource allocations to ensure sufficient progress. Include timelines where appropriate.

• Continue to implement and monitor the strategies cited in #2. During the 2008–2009
school year, three additional elementary schools will implement the Home School
Model; three additional middle schools will implement hours‐based staffing; and nine
middle schools have been proposed to participate in the MSDE‐awarded AYP grant
that focuses on the implementation of reading and mathematics interventions,
provides professional development and coaching and collaboration between general
and special educators.

MCPS will continue the second year of phasing out the secondary learning centers and
support the former Mark Twain day program students in their transition to their
special education programs; provide enhanced instructional support and mental
health services to high school programs for students with emotional disabilities; 11
high schools will implement reading and mathematics interventions to support
students in English II and Algebra/Data Analysis; special education central office staff
will continue to provide job‐embedded coaching and professional development to
general and special educators to improve the academic performance of students with
disabilities.

Critical Shortage of Special Educators. The critical shortage of special educators is
typically covered by long‐term substitutes. DSES and DSEO supervisors, instructional
specialists, and IRTs provide assistance to schools and to substitute teachers to ensure
that the mandated functions related to the education of students with disabilities are
completed.

Based on the Examination of the HSA English II Pass Rate Data (Table 2.4):

1. Provide information on interventions that are in place to support students required to
pass this high school assessment in order to graduate. In your response, and where
applicable, include:
• How students in danger of not passing are identified.

o Data Warehouse HSA Reports—These data reports are sent to district offices
and all high schools each month. Student performance and attendance data
can be filtered to identify students who are underperforming or who are in
danger of underperforming.
o 9th and 10th Grade Verbal Reports—These data reports are accessed through
the Instructional Management System (IMS) and include student performance
data on the most recent MSA, PSAT, and Measures of Academic Progress‐
Reading (MAP‐R) scores, and grades and exam scores for English 9 and English
10. Teachers and administrators use these reports to identify students who are
underperforming and who may benefit from an intervention.
o Achievement Series. This scoring and data reporting tool contains student
performance data on English exams and HSA practice tests. Student data can
be disaggregated and analyzed to determine specific areas of need and to
make instructional decisions, including matching appropriate interventions to
address student needs.
o READ 180 Scholastic Reading Inventory (SRI). This report indicates student
growth in reading and also provides information that can be used to determine
if other interventions are needed.

• Include plans for students with special needs (i.e., students receiving special
education services, Limited English Proficient students, and students with 504
plans) and plans for students who have taken, but not passed, the English II
HSA

o HSA Prep Workshop—Offered at all high schools, this course is designed to
help prepare students to retake the HSA. The course includes materials to
help students develop effective study skills and habits in reading, note‐
taking, and analyzing documents. The course also provides practice in taking
the HSA.
o HSA Prep Online—This is a collection of released MSDE and commercially
developed HSA items that students can work through at their own pace to
prepare for the HSA. The items include annotated explanations to help
students understand the reasoning behind each question and each correct
and incorrect answer.
o High School Literacy Coaches—In 2007–2008, all high schools had Literacy
Coaches, non‐teaching positions provided to help teachers develop literacy
and critical thinking in all content areas, including intervention practices to
support students who may be in danger of not passing the HSA. In 2008–
2009, this position will become a part‐time teaching position, due to budget
cuts.
o READ 180—This commercially developed reading intervention program is
available in all high schools and helps students develop their literacy skills.
o Interventions —During the 2007–2008 school year, reading interventions
were implemented and monitored in high schools.
o Achievement Steering Committees—Central office special education
supervisors, instructional specialists, and IRTs supported school teams in the
improvement of service delivery models to address the diverse needs of
students through participation in Achievement Steering Committees, school‐
based leadership team meetings, school improvement team meetings and by
developing and facilitating focused professional development activities for
staff members who support students with disabilities.

I.D. i
Maryland School Assessment/High School Assessment (continued)

Mathematics

Based on the Examination of MSA AYP Proficiency Data in Mathematics (Tables 2.5 through
2.7):


Mathematics. The percentage of elementary and middle school students earning a
proficient or advanced score in mathematics increased for all groups since 2006. Gains of
more than five percentage points were seen among African American, Hispanic, FARMS,
special education, and LEP subgroups at the elementary level and gains of more than 11
points were seen among African American, Hispanic, FARMS, special education, and LEP
subgroups at the middle school level.

• In elementary school, mathematics proficiency rates overall grew 5.7 percentage points,
(from 82.0 percent in 2005 to 87.7 percent in 2008), with the largest gains observed for
African American students (10.6 percentage point increase from 65.5 percent in 2005 to
76.1 percent in 2008) and for Hispanic students (9.6 percentage point increase from
69.9 percent in 2005 to 79.5 percent in 2008).

• In elementary school, for those students receiving special education services, overall
percent in 2008.

• For the elementary school Free and Reduced‐price Meals System (FARMS) services
subgroup, proficiency rates overall increased 10.6 percentage points from 63.6 percent
in 2005 to 74.2 percent in 2008.

• For the LEP subgroup in elementary school, overall proficiency rates increased 9.9

• In middle school, mathematics proficiency rates overall grew 10.6 percentage points
(from 67.2 percent in 2005 to 77.8 percent in 2008), with the largest gains observed for
Hispanic students (17.3 percentage point increase from 44.7 percent in 2005 to 62.0
percent in 2008) and for African American students (16.4 percentage point increase
from 42.9 percent in 2005 to 59.3 percent in 2008).

• In middle school, for those students receiving special education services, overall
percent in 2008.

• For the middle school Free and Reduced‐price Meals System (FARMS) services
subgroup, proficiency rates overall increased 18 percentage points from 38.0 percent in
2005 to 56.0 percent in 2008.

• For the LEP subgroup in middle school, overall proficiency rates increased 11.3

to which you attribute the progress.
• Framework for Improving Teaching and Learning—The Framework for Improving
Teaching and Learning is a major initiative to develop a research‐based tool for
continuous improvement of the teaching and learning process. The Framework is being
used by schools to deepen their understanding of the following six elements of
improving teaching and learning: curriculum, instruction, evidence of student learning,
planning, expectations, and building a professional learning community.
• The Early Success Performance Plan—This comprehensive plan provided a four‐year
sequence or pathway for all students and focuses on addressing the opportunity gap
facing the district’s most highly impacted students. The plan is built around the
following five guiding principles of education reform:
o Focused and challenging curriculum
o Ongoing assessment of student progress
o Expanded instructional time (full‐day kindergarten and reduced class size)
o Targeted professional development
o Meaningful family involvement

• Support for Most Highly Impacted Schools—A comprehensive model for funding,
staffing, and programming was implemented at the 63 most highly impacted
elementary schools in the county. In FY 2009, these schools include federally funded
Title I schools and locally funded high‐needs schools. This model includes specific
guidelines for the use of allocated positions; enhanced professional development;
funding for family‐involvement programs and activities in federally funded Title I
schools; alignment of the comprehensive school improvement process with the
Baldrige‐Guided School Improvement Process; and implementation of an extended‐year
and extended‐day program in the federally funded Title I schools.

• Math Content Coach (MCC)—To increase the content knowledge and instructional
strategies of teachers of mathematics, MCC have been placed in Title I schools and
additional high needs elementary schools. The MCC provides direct classroom support
to teachers and paraprofessionals to effectively implement the mathematics curriculum
and assessments; builds the content knowledge and teaching expertise of teachers of
mathematics; and, as an instructional leader, facilitates the analysis of mathematics
assessment data to ensure that all students are appropriately challenged and the school
improvement goals are achieved.

• Development and Implementation of Standard‐Based Curriculum and Assessments—

Over the past seven years, the district has revised the reading, English/language arts,
mathematics, science, and social studies curricula to align with state, national, and
international standards and make explicit what students need to know and be able to
do at each grade level. Additionally, formative assessments are integrated into all
instructional guides. In Grades 6–8 mathematics formative assessments are required
and monitored as part of the Middle School Reform Initiative.

• Curriculum Training and Development—To support development, implementation, and
continuous improvement of teaching and learning, professional development is
provided to staff members as new or revised curriculum, assessment, and grading and
reporting tools are implemented. The focus of the training and development is
increasing teachers’ knowledge base of the content and/or effective practices related to
curriculum, instruction, assessment, and grading and reporting. Emphasis is placed on
providing strategies to work with English Language Learners (ELL), students with
disabilities, and highly able and/or motivated students.

• Staff Development Teacher—The district allocates a staff development teacher to every
school to support teachers as they increase their knowledge, skills, and capacity to
implement new strategies for teaching and learning.

• Extended Time—This initiative includes both extended‐day and extended‐year
programs for Title I schools and for all middle schools.

• Monitoring Student Instructional Data—Currently, there are two Web‐based
monitoring systems. Instructional Management System and Performance Matters are
specifically designed for teachers, schools, and central office administrators to monitor
student performance on formative and summative assessments. Performance Matters
has the capability of predicting a student’s MSA achievement level based on lagging
indicators.

• English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) Curriculum Development and
Alignment—Curriculum for instruction on English language proficiency for all students
continues to be revised to align with the new Maryland State Department of Education
(MSDE) ESOL content standards. All efforts to support the teaching and learning of ESOL
students positively impact ESOL students learning of mathematics.

• ESOL Proficiency Teachers—Class size in Title I schools continues to be reduced for ESOL
students at the lowest level of English language proficiency. This model continues to be
studied to determine the extent to which it promotes improvement in English language
proficiency and student learning outcomes.

• Classroom and Testing Accommodations for ESOL Students—The No Child Left Behind
Act of 2001 requires that ESOL students take state assessments and meet the same
proficiency standards set for all students. Therefore, it is necessary for ESOL and
content teachers to identify and provide instructional and assessment accommodations
for ESOL students by completing the state‐mandated ELL plans. School‐based
interdisciplinary teams, known as ELL teams, complete the ELL plan annually. ELL teams
also determine the scope of content and how ESOL students will be assessed in the
content areas.

• ESOL Achievement Specialist—The achievement specialist ensures accurate reporting of
ESOL student proficiency levels and ESOL program participation, monitors ELL team
data, and analyzes data collected through the online elementary ESOL services log to
assist in identifying elementary ESOL instructional program models that best promote
English language acquisition and student achievement.

• ESOL Counseling Team—ESOL counselors continue to provide itinerant bilingual and
cross‐cultural counseling services to ESOL students to enable them to achieve
academically and adjust to a new social and cultural environment. The counseling team
works countywide to provide counseling services to ESOL students that center on
acculturation, conflict resolution, decision making, career/college planning, study skills,
school rules and regulations, social skills, and school life.

• ESOL Parent Outreach Services—The ESOL parent outreach team consists of parent
specialists and parent community coordinators who use their bilingual and multicultural
skills to minimize linguistic and cultural barriers to encourage ESOL parents to
participate in their children’s educational experiences. The parent outreach services
team provides information concerning school programs and student progress;
information to parents on ways they can support student learning and English language
acquisition outside of school; assistance in involving parents of ESOL students in
decision‐making processes at school; and referrals to community services for parents
and students.

• Translation Unit—The Translation Unit provides professional, multilingual translation
services in multiple languages using various media to address the need to communicate
essential information to a rapidly growing, linguistically diverse community. This unit
enables MCPS to meet the Strategic Plan Goal 3: Strengthening Productive Partnerships
for Education, by meeting the objective of communicating information to parents and
community members about curriculum; educational programs and services;
assessments; and instruction with the same level of quality that is afforded to English‐
speaking members of the community.

• Action Plan for Students with Disabilities —During the 2007–2008 school year, the
Department of Special Education Services (DSES) and the Department of Special
Education Operations (DSEO) forged ahead in their plan of action to foster student
achievement in reading and mathematics, with a particular focus on middle school
students. This plan of action addresses four areas: ensuring access to the general
education curriculum and rigorous instruction, collecting and monitoring data to ensure
academic progress, increasing the collaboration between general and special educators,
and providing focused professional development to teachers, related service providers,
and paraeducators.

• Interventions — During the 2007–2008 school year, to support access to the general
education curriculum for students with disabilities, mathematics interventions were
implemented in 19 elementary schools, 38 middle schools, and 11 high schools.

• Ensure Access to the General Education Curriculum for Students with Disabilities—
During the 2007–2008 school year, Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)
expanded the Home School Model (HSM) to five elementary schools. This service
delivery model provides students with disabilities greater access to the general
education curriculum at their home school in the least restrictive environment which, in
turn, improves academic outcomes for these students.

• Hours‐based Staffing Model —The hours‐based staffing model was implemented in an
additional 11 middle schools during the 2007–2008 school year. This model provides an
equitable staffing solution to that allows schools to provide a continuum of special
education services to support the diverse needs of students with disabilities within their
home schools.

• Phase‐out of Secondary Learning Centers—MCPS began the phase out of the secondary
learning centers during the 2007–2008 school year. Seventy‐one students returned to
their home and/or consortia middle or high schools. Each student was provided with a
central office case manager who facilitated the student’s transition to back to the home
or consortia school, supported the school in developing a master schedule that provided
a continuum of special education services and access to instruction in the general
education curriculum, and provided ongoing professional development and consultation
to ensure student success.

• Data Collection and Monitoring Student Achievement for Students with Disabilities—
MCPS monitors the following data: individual student performance, group academic
achievement, attendance, suspensions, and disproportionality.

• Collaboration Between General and Special Education Staff—The 2007–2008 Maryland
State Department of Education (MSDE)‐awarded AYP grant provided general and special
educators at five middle schools with professional development on topics including
inclusive teaching practices, analysis of academic achievement data of students with
disabilities, differentiation, assistive technology, instructional and assessment
accommodations, and reading interventions.

• Increasing the Capacity of General and Special Educators to Instruct Students with
Disabilities in the General Education Classroom—Over the course of the 2007–2008
school year, professional development activities were developed that focused on
increasing the capacity of general and special educators to instruct students with
disabilities in the general education classroom. In addition, all mandatory curriculum
training included special education staff and provided further opportunities for
collaboration between general and special educators. The FY 2009 budget added funds
for mandatory professional development on best practices for co‐teaching. This
professional development includes general and special education teachers of students
with disabilities for Grades 6–9. All MCPS offices collaborate to ensure that service
delivery models are uniform and the use of inclusive practices is consistent throughout
county schools.

Focused Professional Development for Teachers of Students with Disabilities—
special education supervisors, instructional specialists, and itinerant resource teachers
(IRTs) supported school teams in the improvement of service delivery models to
address the diverse needs of students through participation in Achievement Steering
Committees, school based leadership team meetings, school improvement team
meetings, and by developing and facilitating focused professional development
activities for staff members who support students with disabilities.
During the 2007–2008 school year, special education staff provided high‐quality
professional development for over 5,000 participants at various levels and on a variety
of topics that included the following:
Co‐teaching and inclusion best practices
Reading interventions
Mathematics interventions
Individualized Education Program (IEP) goals and objectives
Mod‐MSA/HSA eligibility
Discipline policies for students with disabilities
Encore Web‐based IEP System
Accessibility planning
Instructional and assessment accommodations
Differentiation
Behavior management
Assistive technology
Alt‐MSA
Universal Design for Learning (UDL)

grade band(s) and subgroups.

The following challenges are evident:
• Developing and retaining highly qualified teachers of mathematics at all grade levels.
• Developing and retaining special educators who can work effectively in mathematics
inclusion classrooms.
• Developing a systemwide culture of high expectations for all students that recognizes
and overcomes individual and institutional beliefs, attitudes, and assumptions that
are barriers to student achievement.

The DSES and DSEO faces the challenge of improving the MSA/HSA passing rate of
students with disabilities at the elementary, middle, and high school levels to meet the
pass rate of their non‐disabled peers, particularly in Grades 4, 5, 7, 8, English II, and
Algebra/Data Analysis. Schools need guidance and support in providing a continuum of
special education services to meet the unique needs of students with disabilities. More
students with disabilities are being instructed in general education classes and are
provided access to the curriculum as taught by highly qualified teachers with support
from special educators. However, co‐teaching teams need assistance in planning for
accessibility, incorporating assistive technology, utilizing diverse co‐teaching models,
and differentiating formative assessments.

The national critical shortage of special education teachers and related service providers
continues to be a challenge for MCPS. Staff members in the Office of Human Resources
(OHR) work closely with universities to recruit teachers who are certified special
educators. According to the OHR, there is great difficulty in staffing self‐contained
special education classes. In addition, most graduates who are dually certified in
general and special education request a general education assignment, thereby
exacerbating the critical shortage of special education teachers.


• See the strategies cited above.

• Professional Development—The district maintains ongoing professional
development for teachers through job‐embedded staff development, Continuing
Professional Development (CPD) courses, and university partnerships that focus on
strengthening teacher knowledge of mathematics content and pedagogy.

• Strategic Monitoring Plan—The district has implemented a Strategic Monitoring Plan
to support schools to engage in ongoing student monitoring. It is the expectation
that all teachers, grade‐level teams, and course teams will use this data to make
instructional decisions to drive student achievement and improve teaching and
learning.

• Monitoring Student Instructional Data—Currently, there are two Web‐based
monitoring systems. Instructional Management System and Performance Matters
are specifically designed for teachers, schools, and central office administrators to
monitor student performance on formative and summative assessments.
Performance Matters has the capability of predicting a student’s MSA achievement
level based on lagging indicators.

• Adjustments Made for 2008–2009—During the 2008–2009 school year, three
additional elementary schools will implement the Home School Model; three
additional middle schools will implement hours‐based staffing; nine middle schools
have been proposed to participate in the MSDE‐awarded AYP grant that focuses on
the implementation of reading and mathematics interventions, provides professional
development and coaching, and collaboration between general and special
educators; MCPS will continue the second year of phasing out the secondary learning
centers and support the former Mark Twain day program students in their transition
to their special education programs; provide enhanced instructional support and
mental health services to high school programs for students with emotional
disabilities; 11 high schools will implement reading and mathematics interventions to
support students in English II and Algebra/Data Analysis; staff members from DSES
and DSEO will continue to provide job‐embedded coaching and professional
development to general and special educators to improve the academic performance
of students with disabilities.

• The critical shortage of special educators is typically covered by long‐term
substitutes. DSES and DSEO supervisors, instructional specialist, and IRTs provide
assistance to schools and to substitute teachers to ensure that the mandated
functions related to the education of students with disabilities are completed.

o Infuse diversity into curriculum, programs, and projects.

o Design, implement, and evaluate diversity training and development that:
Raises awareness of individual and institutional beliefs, attitudes, and
assumptions that are barriers to student achievement.
Ensures that staff members demonstrate the behaviors and practices
that communicate high expectations to students.
Ensures that staff members can structure culturally sensitive learning
environments and implement culturally responsive instruction.

Based on the Examination of the HSA Algebra/Data Analysis Pass Rate Data (Table 2.8):

• Include plans for students with special needs (i.e., students receiving special
plans) and plans for students who have taken, but not passed, the English II HSA

o Previous Performance—Some students are identified for support as they enter
the Algebra 1 course based on performance on prior course work and MSA
data. Others are identified during the first semester as a result of performance
in the course.

o Data Warehouse HSA Reports—These data reports are sent to district offices
and all high schools each month. Student performance and attendance data
can be filtered to identify students who are underperforming or who are in
danger of underperforming.

• Interventions that are in place to support students required to pass this high
school assessment in order to graduate.
o Double Period Algebra—Double period Algebra 1 provides students with
additional time and instruction to master course content.
o Co‐taught Classes—Co‐taught Classes by general and special education
teachers.
o ESOL Support —Classes that are supported by ESOL teachers.
o HSA Prep Workshop—HSA Prep Workshop is offered at all high schools; this
course is designed to help prepare students to retake the HSA. The course
includes materials to help students develop effective study skills and habits
in reading, notetaking, and analyzing documents. The course also provides
practice in taking the HSA.
o HSA Prep Online—HSA Prep Online is a Web‐based collection of released
MSDE and commercially developed HSA items that students can work
through at their own pace to prepare for the HSA. The items include
annotated explanations to help students understand the reasoning behind
each question and each correct and incorrect answer.
o Algebra Online (MSDE)—Online course developed by MSDE.
o After School Interventions —After school intervention programs, including
the use of:
- George B. Thomas Learning Academy After School Program
- Understanding Math Resource
- Finish Line Resource
- George B. Thomas Learning Academy Saturday School

o High School Plus—An extended‐day program at all local high schools where
students can retake a course, participate in classes for credit‐recovery, or
take a class that will allow them to work on a Bridge Plan project.

o Math Interventions—During the 2007–2008 school year, mathematics
interventions were implemented and monitored in 11 high schools.

o Achievement Steering Committees—Central office special education
supervisors, instructional specialists, and IRTs supported school teams in the
improvement of service delivery models to address the diverse needs of
students through participation in Achievement Steering Committees, school‐
based leadership team meetings, school improvement team meetings and by
developing and facilitating focused professional development activities for
staff members who support students with disabilities.

I.D.i

Science

Based on the Examination of Grade 5 and Grade 8 MSA Data in Science (Tables 2.9 through
2.11):

designed to ensure progress.

grade levels and subgroups.

Curriculum and Assessment
• MCPS is in the process of revising its elementary and middle school science curriculum
so that there is clear alignment to state standards. The MCPS revised curriculum is
being developed through collaboration with special education and English for Speakers
of Other Languages (ESOL) staff members to ensure appropriate strategies for
differentiation to meet all students’ needs are provided. Additionally, revised curriculum
is being designed to better support students’ ability to make connections and synthesize
ideas across science content so that learning can be applied to new experiences.
• Resources to support science instruction, as well as integration of science with other
content areas, were purchased. Schools received a textbook aligned to Maryland
standards, leveled readers aligned to science concepts, and ancillary materials to
provide further support to English Language Learners (ELL) students, to reinforce the
connections among reading, writing, and science and to provide additional instructional
strategies to teach specific science concepts.
• Development and use of formative and unit assessments for elementary and middle
school science units continues. These assessments allow for the monitoring of student
progress against established learning goals.

Professional Development
Several opportunities for professional development were provided during 2007–2008.
• Grade 5 Curriculum Training. Grade 5 teachers received training for two new science
instructional units. Training focused on understanding of the learning goals,
instructional methods, and resources.
• Grade 4 Chemistry Workshop. Grade 4 teachers attended a workshop as a follow‐up to
2006–2007 training. The workshop focused on building chemistry background and
making connections to the learning goals established for Grade 4 instruction.
• Science Liaison Workshops. Elementary teachers serving in the role of science liaison at
their schools attended workshops focusing primarily on understanding science learning
goals and building literacy through science.
• Elementary Science Leadership Project. Two cohorts of elementary teachers
participated in a two‐week summer academy as well as ongoing professional
development throughout the school year that focused on understanding science
content, learning goals, and leadership skills.
• Middle School Science Resource Teacher Meetings. The central office program
supervisor and specialists held monthly meetings with science resource teachers to
focus on instructional practices for student success. Topics included analysis and use of
data, integration of technology in instruction, and understanding of specific learning
goals.
• Alt‐MSA. MCPS central office science team collaborated with central office special
education staff to design and deliver professional development workshops for special
education teachers responsible for administering the Alt‐MSA. Focus of these
workshops included science content and assessment of mastery of concepts.
• Co‐teaching. MCPS central office science team collaborated with central office special
education and science teachers who co‐teach middle school science. Focus of these
workshops included science content and Universal Design for Learning.
• Differentiation. Presentation and discussion of instructional strategies and
differentiation was an element of professional development opportunities. Specifically,
Universal Design for Learning and use of technology to support concept mastery were
ongoing topics for professional development during middle school resource teacher
meetings.

As is evidenced by the data, challenges exist in ensuring that all subgroups perform at the same
levels of success on state tests. Disaggregated data show a significant gap when the
performance of White and Asian students is compared to that of other subgroups. Examination
of instructional practices at the district and school levels has begun; however, professional
development during the 2008–2009 school year will continue to address this gap. Instructional
practices, scheduling, and instructional resources will be focus topics.

Based on the Examination of the HSA Biology Pass Rate Data (Table 2.12):


How students in danger of not passing are identified.
Include plans for students with special needs (i.e., students receiving special
plans) and plans for students who have taken, but not passed, the Biology HSA.

A variety of interventions are in place to support student success on the Biology HSA.
Interventions exist that support students who have already taken, but failed the HSA and
students who are academically struggling prior to entering the Biology course. In addition to
interventions for students, MCPS also has developed plans for supporting teacher use of data,
building teacher content knowledge in biology, and increasing awareness of useful online
resources.

Curriculum and Courses
The MCPS high school courses’ curriculum is being developed through collaboration with
special education and English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) staff to ensure
appropriate strategies for differentiation to meet all students’ needs are provided. MCPS has
created courses and flexible course structures so that schools may develop appropriate
interventions both before and after students take the Biology HSA.
• High School Plus. Many schools offer additional courses, including Biology, after the
traditional school day in the High School Plus program. Students who have failed this
course and have not been successful on the HSA are encouraged to retake the course
through High School Plus when it is available at their school.
• High School Assessment Workshop. This high school course was created as an
intervention for students needing support prior to retaking any of the four HSAs,
including Biology. This course is intended for students who have passed the associated
HSA course, but have not passed the HSA.
• Course Sequence. MCPS has a flexible course sequence to allow students to take
Biology and other science courses when it is best for individual students. Matter and
Energy is designed to provide a strong foundation prior to most students’ entry into
Biology; however, with the flexible course sequence, students may opt to take another
science course like Environmental Science or Chemistry to further their background in
scientific concepts and processes prior to taking Biology.

Data Analysis
MCPS provides schools with several tools for identifying students in danger of not passing the
HSA.
• Matter and Energy Unit Assessments and Final Exams. The majority of students take
Matter and Energy the year before taking the Biology course. Matter and Energy
provides a strong foundation for content and skills. Monitoring of performance against
learning goals in Matter and Energy through unit assessments and semester exams
support early identification of students who may need support during or prior to taking
the Biology course.
• Achievement Series Biology Unit Assessments and Final Exams. In 2007–2008 all high
schools began using Achievement Series, a data analysis system, for scoring Biology
semester exams and end of unit assessments. Teachers use the instant analysis
provided by Achievement Series reports to identify students who do not show
understanding of key concepts assessed on the Biology HSA. Teachers can then provide
reteaching and reassessment opportunities to students prior to taking the HSA.
• HSA Monitoring Reports. Every month, MCPS provides schools with a monitoring
report, detailing individual student progress toward successful completion of the HSA
requirements for graduation. Schools use the reports to identify which students need
interventions. The reports also are disaggregated by the No Child Left Behind Act of
2001 subgroups so that schools can quickly identify students in special populations that
may need additional supports or interventions.

• High School Science Resource Teacher Training. Resource teachers received training on
how to use Achievement Series to analyze student performance in order to provide
targeted interventions. Additionally, resource teachers received professional
development on how to support their school teams in making connections between the
Matter and Energy and Biology courses to support student achievement. Resource
teachers received data analysis tools to support professional development at their
schools.
• Governor’s Academy for Biology. Biology teachers are encouraged to attend the
Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) Governor’s Academy for Biology to
deepen their understanding of the Biology HSA, utilize offering of MSDE Biology
resources, and develop effective teaching strategies for students.
• Alt‐HSA. MCPS central office science team collaborated with central office special
education teachers responsible for administering the Alt‐HSA. Focus of these
workshops included science content and assessment of mastery of concepts.

Resources
Although there are many resources for teaching Biology content and concepts to students, the
following online resource is available to students and teachers through the Internet and may be
accessed from home or from school.
• HSA Prep Online. This MCPS created website generates short quizzes using MSDE public
release items from the Biology HSA. Students can practice answering questions similar
to what may be expected on the HSA. Feedback on student performance informs
students and their parents of the content or concepts they may need to relearn.
• Differentiation. The resources purchased to support science included two different
textbooks to further support special education and ELL students; to reinforce the
connections among reading, writing, and science; and to provide additional instructional
strategies to teach specific science concepts.

I.D.i

Government

Based on the Examination of the HSA Government Pass Rate Data (Table 3.1):


How students in danger of not passing are identified.
Include plans for students with special needs (i.e., students receiving special
plans) and plans for students who have taken, but not passed, the Government
HSA.

A variety of interventions are in place to support student success on the Government HSA.
Interventions exist that support students who have already taken, but failed the HSA and
students who are academically struggling prior to entering the National, State, and Local
Government course (NSL). In addition to interventions for students, the Montgomery County
Public Schools (MCPS) also has implemented plans for supporting teacher use of data, building
teacher content knowledge in government, and increasing awareness of useful online
resources.

Curriculum and Courses
• Curriculum Development. As curriculum is revised and developed, the social studies
team collaborates with Special Education and English as a Second Language staff to
ensure appropriate strategies for differentiation to meet all students’ needs are
provided. MCPS has created courses and flexible course structures so that schools may
develop appropriate interventions both before and after students take the Government
HSA.
• High School Plus. Many schools offer additional courses after the traditional school day
in the High School Plus program, including the social studies course NSL Government.
Students who have failed this course and have not been successful on the HSA are
encouraged to retake the course through High School Plus when it is available at their
school.
• High School Assessment Workshop. This high school course was created as an
intervention for students during the school day needing support prior to retaking any of
the four HSAs, including Government. This course is intended for students who have
passed the associated HSA course, but have not passed the HSA exam.

Data Analysis
MCPS provides schools with several tools for identifying students in danger of not passing the
HSA.
• United States History Final Exams. Students take U.S. History the year before taking the
NSL Government course. The countywide semester exam is matched to indicators and
allows schools to identify students that may show early signs of a poorly constructed
understanding of government. School staff members use data from these semester
exams to plan for needed interventions the following year.
• Achievement Series NSL Final Exams. In 2007–2008, all high schools began using
Achievement Series, a data analysis system, for scoring NSL semester exams and end of
unit assessments. Teachers use the instant analysis provided by Achievement Series
reports to identify students who are not showing understanding of key concepts
assessed on the Government HSA. Teachers can then provide reteaching and
reassessment opportunities to students prior to taking the HSA exam.
• HSA Monitoring Reports. Every month, MCPS provides schools with a monitoring
report, detailing by student, progress being made toward successful completion of the
HSA requirements for graduation. Schools use the reports to identify which students
need interventions. The reports also are disaggregated by the No Child Left Behind Act
of 2001 subgroups so that schools can quickly identify students in special populations
that may need additional supports or interventions.

Support for Special Education and English Language Learner (ELL) Students
• ESOL United States History. A strong foundation in U.S. History, particularly the
Constitution, is an essential component of success on the Government HSA. Many ESOL
students lack this foundational knowledge, particularly if they did not complete the U.S.
History course taught in Grade 8 social studies. The ESOL U.S. History course provides
students with this foundational knowledge, building and strengthening their content
knowledge, vocabulary, and conceptual understanding of democratic principles and
practices.
• Social Studies Course Sequence for ESOL. Many schools delay the NSL course until the
junior year for ESOL students. Implementing this new sequence enables ESOL students
to build essential vocabulary prior to taking the HSA exam.

• New to NSL. Teachers who had not previously taught NSL were invited to attend three
trainings throughout the school year. The trainings focused on content knowledge, data
analysis, and access to resources for teaching and reteaching.
• Resource Teacher Training. Social Studies resource teachers received training on how
to use Achievement Series to analyze student performance in order to provided
targeted interventions.
• Governor’s Academy for Government. NSL teachers are encouraged to attend the
Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) Governor’s Academy for Government
to deepen their understanding of the Government HSA and effective teaching strategies
and to learn to use the MSDE Government online course. Although MSDE limits
participation by county, 12 MCPS teachers were invited to attend.
• Focused Professional Development. Presentation and discussion of instructional
strategies and differentiation was an element of professional development
opportunities and were ongoing topics for professional development during high school
and middle school resource teacher meetings.

Resources
Although there are many resources for teaching government content and concepts to students,
the following online resources are available to students and teachers through the Internet and
may be accessed from home or from school:
• HSA Prep Online. This MCPS created web site generates short quizzes using MSDE
public release items from the Government HSA. Students can practice answering
questions similar to what may be expected on the HSA. Feedback on student
performance informs students and their parents of the content or concepts they may
need to relearn.
• MSDE Online Government Course. This online resource may be accessed by students
and teachers. It provides lessons, explanations, vocabulary support, visual and auditory
resources, and assessment opportunities. The resource has been shared frequently
with social studies resource teachers and is highlighted at the New to NSL trainings.

I.D.ii
Limited English Proficient Students

No Child Left Behind Goal 2: All limited English proficient students will become proficient in
English and reach high academic standards, at a minimum attaining proficiency or better in
reading/language arts and mathematics.

No Child Left Behind Indicator 2.1: The percentage of limited English proficient students,
determined by cohort, who have attained English proficiency by the end of the school year.

This section reports the progress of Limited English Proficient students in developing and
attaining English language proficiency and making adequate yearly progress. School systems
are asked to provide information on Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs):

AMAO I is used to demonstrate the percentages of Limited English Proficient students
progressing toward English proficiency.
AMAO II is used to demonstrate the percentages of Limited English Proficient students
attaining English proficiency by end of each school year.
AMAO III represents Adequate Yearly Progress of LSSs for the Limited English Proficient
student subgroup. Although progress of Limited English Proficient students in attaining
proficiency or better in reading and mathematics is included in Section I.D.i, Maryland
School Assessments/High School Assessments, and in Title III, Part A, school systems not
making AMAO III will be required to provide additional discussion of progress toward
attaining reading and math proficiency here.

Note: Where responses in this section are similar or linked to those provided under Section I.D.i,
local school systems may reference with page numbers or copy and paste as appropriate.

A. Based on the Examination of Untested Students (Table 4.1):

1. Please explain the reasons students still enrolled as of March 31, 2008 (first day of
testing window) did not complete the summative LAS test.

Of the 2,782 students in Worksheet 4.1.B, Column 3, 1,359 students were enrolled in
prekindergarten and took the preLAS summative test. LAS Links is administered only to English
for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) students enrolled in Grades K–12. In addition, there
were 625 students who withdrew from Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) and 691
students who exited the ESOL program. The remaining 107 students, less than 1% of the
students enrolled in ESOL on the first day of the testing window, were missing LAS Links scores
due to absences.

B. Based on the Examination of AMAO I and AMAO II Data (Table 4.1 and 4.2):


In Grades K–5, 7,572 students met or exceeded the AMAO I target, representing 74 percent of
the students reported to Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) as enrolled in the
ESOL program on October 31, 2007. In Grades 6–8, 1,158 students met the AMAO I target,
representing 64 percent of the students reported. In Grades 9–12, 1,360 students met the
target, representing 51 percent of the students reported. These data reveal that while all
students in elementary, middle, and high schools are exceeding the state target for AMAO I,
elementary students are making the most progress in learning English, with secondary students
making progress at a slightly slower rate than their elementary counterparts.

A different trend is observed in the AMAO II data. In Grades K–5, 5,480 students met or
exceeded the AMAO II target, representing 54 percent of the students reported to MSDE as
enrolled in the ESOL program on October 31, 2007. In Grades 6–8, 967 students met the target,
also representing 54 percent of the students reported. In Grades 9–12, 1,114 students met the
target, representing 51 percent of the students reported. These data reveal that elementary
and secondary ESOL students attain proficiency in English at relatively the same rate.

Since AMAO I and II data are not presently reported by racial and participation subgroups, an
analysis by subgroups is not available at this time.

2. Identify the practices, programs, or strategies to which you attribute the progress of
Limited English Proficient students towards attaining English proficiency.

• Students Engaged in Pathways to Achievement (SEPA)—A program that helps Wheaton High
School and Albert Einstein High School students ages 17–18 or older with limited or no
formal education learn English and job and career skills. An innovative curriculum includes
native language literacy, English language acquisition infused into entry level job skill and
mathematics instruction, and support for acculturation and family reunification. A family
involvement component will focus on the issues facing these students and their families.
Outreach efforts include collaboration and partnerships with community agencies and
organizations to build a safety net around families with students enrolled in the SEPA
program. Cultural competence training will be provided to staff involved with SEPA program
students and their families.
• Language Assistance Services Unit—Multilingual translation and interpretation services are
provided in multiple languages using various media to address the need to communicate
essential information to our rapidly growing, linguistically diverse community. Information is
communicated to parents and community members about curriculum, educational programs
and services, assessment, and instruction with the same level of quality that is afforded
English‐speaking community members. A new translation management system is being
rolled out presently to schools to facilitate translations for central office and schools by
creating a Web‐based bank of commonly translated words and phrases.
• Curriculum and Instruction—Pre‐K–12 ESOL curricula continue to be revised to align with the
new Maryland ESOL Content Standards. Currently, MCPS has ESOL curriculum resources that
are aligned for beginning, intermediate, and advanced ESOL students in pre‐K–5, as well as
for advanced ESOL students in middle and high schools. Extensive training on ESOL
curriculum implementation is provided to ESOL teachers at the elementary, middle, and high
school levels on a quarterly basis.
• Bilingual Support Programs for ESOL Students and Families—To assist ESOL students and
families in minimizing the linguistic and cultural barriers to academic achievement, the ESOL
parent outreach and counseling teams provide bilingual, multicultural parent support and
student counseling services to facilitate adjustment to a new academic, social, and cultural
environment.

3. Describe where challenges are evident in the progress of Limited English Proficient
students towards attaining English proficiency by each domain in Listening, Speaking,
Reading and Writing.

Since the progress MCPS ESOL students made in attaining English proficiency exceeded the
state AMAO I target of 48 percent by 29.2 percent, challenges in the domains of listening,
speaking, reading, and writing are not evident at this time. Efforts will continue to develop and
refine a standards‐based ESOL curriculum to ensure students continue to demonstrate progress
in attaining English proficiency.

4. Describe the changes or adjustments that will be made to ensure sufficient progress of
Limited English Proficient students towards attaining English proficiency. Include
timelines where appropriate.

Efforts to develop and implement standards‐based ESOL curricula will continue at all grade
levels. Since MCPS ESOL curricula are aligned to the ESOL VSC, progress in listening, speaking,
reading, and writing is expected to continue.

C. Based on the Examination of AMAO III Data (Table 4.3):

1. Describe where challenges are evident in the progress of Limited English Proficient
students.

At the county level, the Limited English Proficiency (LEP) subgroup made Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP) in reading and mathematics at the elementary level, indicating that present
practices in place in elementary schools are achieving targeted results. At the middle school
level, the LEP subgroup made AYP in reading, but did not make AYP in mathematics. At the high
school level, the LEP subgroup did not make AYP in reading, but did make AYP in mathematics.

2. Describe the changes or adjustments that will be made to ensure sufficient progress of
Limited English Proficient students in reading and math. Include resource allocations
and timelines where appropriate.

According to MSDE, AMAO III in reading is not made if the LEP subgroup at the county level
misses AYP in all three reading cells (elementary, middle, and high school reading). AMAO III in
mathematics is not made if the LEP subgroup at the county level misses AYP all three
mathematics cells (elementary, middle, and high school mathematics). Since Table 4.3 shows
that the LEP subgroup missed AYP in only one of the three reading cells (high school reading)
and one of the three mathematics cells (middle school mathematics), MCPS has met AMAO III.
However, efforts will continue, particularly at the secondary level, to ensure that reading and
mathematics teachers are trained to provide differentiated instruction to ESOL students and
reclassified English language learners to ensure that their linguistic and academic content needs
are addressed fully.

English Language Learners Tables (4.1 – 4.3) pp 45+46

This section reports the progress of Limited English Proficient learners in developing and
attaining English language proficiency and making adequate yearly progress. School systems
are asked to provide information on Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAO).

1. Table 4.1 – AMAO I – Progress towards English Proficiency (see attached tables)

Refer to Worksheets #4.1.A and #4.1.C to determine which students are to be included
Provide the number of these students who met their target. Refer to Worksheet #4.1.C
for the target
If applicable, complete Worksheet #4.1.B to account for untested students
Using Worksheet #4.1.C, calculate the percentage of students who met their grade‐
specific target
Is the result at least 48%? In order for each local school system to meet the AMAO I for
school year 2006‐2007, at least 48% of students must meet grade‐specific targets for
English Language Proficiency
The total of Columns 2‐4 must equal Column 1

a. Accounting for Untested Students

Local school systems must assess all English Language Learners.1 In Worksheet #4.1.A. If
Column 1 did not equal Column 2, then complete Worksheet 4.1.B, Accounting for
Untested Students
1
Title III of the No Child Left Behind Act, Section 3116 (c)(2).

2. Table 4.2 – AMAO II – Attaining English Language Proficiency (see attached tables)

Refer to Worksheet #4.2.A to determine which students are to be included
Provide the number of these students who met their grade‐specific target. Refer to
Worksheet #4.2.B for the targets for each grade
Calculate the percentage of students who met their grade‐specific target
Is the result at least 30%? In order for each local school system to meet the AMAO
II, at least 30% of students must meet grade‐specific targets for English Language
Proficiency
Note: These tables represent system‐level accountability. A student must be
withdrawn from the school system in order to be considered not continuously
enrolled

3. Table 4.3 – AMAO III – Adequate Yearly Progress of Limited English Proficient Students (see
attached tables)

Indicate whether or not the LSS made AYP in reading and math for the Limited
English Proficient student subgroup at the elementary, middle and high school levels
for 2007‐2008.
I.D.iii
Adequate Yearly Progress

This section requires that school systems in any phase of school system improvement update progress in
specific areas. Additionally, all school systems must report the percentages of all schools making
Adequate Yearly Progress, the percentages of Title I schools making Adequate Yearly Progress, Schools
in Improvement and Title I Schools in Improvement.

School System Improvement

This section must be completed ONLY by local school systems in improvement or corrective action.1

Instructions:

1. Local school systems in corrective action must provide an update on how the school system has
revised the applicable components of the Master Plan to execute the corrective actions taken by
the State Board of Education. In the report, school systems should describe what challenges are
evident and what changes or adjustments will be made so that the school system will exit
corrective action status. You may refer to other sections of this update as appropriate.

This section is not applicable to Montgomery County Pubic Schools (MCPS).

School Improvement

No Child Left Behind Indicator 1.3: The percentage of Title I schools that make Adequate Yearly
Progress.

Under No Child Left Behind, local school systems must review the progress of Title I schools primarily to
determine (1) if each school has made adequate progress toward all students meeting or exceeding the
standards by 2013‐2014, and (2) if a school has narrowed the achievement gap. In conjunction with the
local school system, the State also reviews the effectiveness of each school’s actions and activities that
are supported by Title I, Part A funds,2 including parental involvement and professional development.

A. Based on the Examination of School‐level AYP Data (Tables 5.1 and 5.2):

1. Identify the challenges, including those specific to Title I schools, in ensuring schools make
Adequate Yearly Progress. Describe the changes or adjustments and the corresponding
resource allocations that will be made to ensure sufficient progress. Include timelines where
appropriate.

It is important to note that no Title I schools in MCPS are identified for any level of school improvement,
and only one school was identified for Local Attention. Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) data for other
schools shows that only one elementary school and nine middle schools are identified for Year 1 or
Year 2 of school improvement, or Corrective Action, and five elementary and two middle schools require
Local Attention. In fact, seven middle schools and one elementary school exited school improvement in
1
Section 13A.01.04.08 of the Code of Maryland Regulations.
2
This information is included in Attachment 7 of this document.
the 2007–2008 school year. Six of the nine middle schools in school improvement achieved AYP.
(NOTE: Final high school and kindergarten through Grade 12 special education school data is not yet
available.)
The most difficult challenge faced by Title I and other highly diverse schools relates to meeting the
needs of the Limited English Proficiency (LEP) students who must take the state assessments, regardless
of their English proficiency. Given that research shows that it takes from five to seven years to develop
academic language, schools provide strategic support for our most vulnerable learners to ensure that
each subgroup meets or exceeds the Annual Measurable Objective and the school achieves AYP.

The Baldrige‐guided School Improvement Process (SIP), an ongoing and in‐depth analysis of student
performance data and the strategic use of interventions based on data, are key factors in ensuring that
all students meet state standards. MCPS provides formative course‐embedded assessments, as well as
summative assessments, to monitor student progress and develops prediction models that are used to
match the instructional needs of students.

The Office of School Performance (OSP) works in collaboration with other offices to ensure that schools
receive the training, technical support, and human and material resources necessary to improve student
performance and meet AYP goals. For schools in local attention, improvement, or corrective action, the
Enhanced School Improvement Team (ESIT) and the Achievement Steering Committee (ASC) are used to
assist schools in achieving AYP. ASCs and ESITs are explained in B.1 and B.2 below. In addition,
community superintendents and directors of school performance review and provide feedback on all
school improvement plans.

B. Based on the Examination of Schools in Improvement Data (Tables 5.3 and 5.4):

1. Describe the actions that the school system is taking to ensure that the No Child Left Behind and
Title I requirements for schools identified for Improvement (Year 1), Improvement (Year 2),
Corrective Action, Restructuring (Planning), and Restructuring (Implementation) are being
addressed.

Describe actions that the school system took during the 2007‐2008 school year.

During the 2007–2008 school year, MCPS coordinated school improvement assistance through a new
position based in OSP. The director of Academic Support Initiatives was responsible for oversight of the
Division of Title I Programs, including 21st Century Community Learning Center grants, the State School
Improvement Grant (SSIG), and coordination of Baldrige‐guided School Improvement training for school
teams and ASCs. In addition, technical assistance and direct school support were provided for schools as
they worked to achieve AYP and meet NCLB requirements through a two‐tiered approach—an ESIT or an
ASC.

ESITs are deployed to address performance concerns of schools identified for Local Attention or those in
Year 1 of School Improvement. School administrators, leadership team members, and staff from OSP,
including academic achievement specialists funded through the SSIG, were included on the teams. The
goals of an ESIT are to strengthen the local school’s ability to examine and analyze data, develop a
comprehensive school improvement plan and action plans using Baldrige processes, and use the
information to drive changes in instructional practices that will result in increased student performance.
ESITs met on a monthly basis.

The purpose of an ASC is to provide consistent support for schools identified for Year 2 of School
Improvement or Corrective Action to achieve AYP. (NOTE: MCPS does not have any schools at the
Restructuring Planning or Restructuring stages of school improvement.) ASCs are a collaborative effort
between OSP, various MCPS offices, and identified schools. Through regularly scheduled meetings,
school and central office staff members work strategically together with the goal of implementing an
effective instructional program which addresses performance concerns on the Maryland School
Assessment (MSA) and High School Assessment (HSA). ASCs provide the forum for a structured monthly
review of the school improvement action plans and provide focused support in the following four key
areas:

• Identification of root causes
• Identification of possible solutions
• Implementation of solutions
• Monitoring and evaluation of implemented solutions

As noted above, the Baldrige‐guided school improvement planning process was critical to the
identification of those strategic actions that will enable schools to achieve AYP and exit school
improvement. The ASC process is consistent with the recommended pathways of the Baldrige‐guided
School Improvement Process:

• Student, stakeholder, faculty, and staff focus
• Leadership
• Strategic planning and process management

Managing the measurement and analysis of the data on performance targets were both Baldrige and
ASC focus areas. Central office staff participated in ASCs to listen, learn, and provide strategic support
for identified needs such as enhanced professional development, assistance with data analysis, or
instructional resources. ASC meetings mirrored the “Plan‐Do‐Study‐Act” cycle of Baldrige‐guided school
improvement planning and implementation.

Describe the actions that the school system will take once school improvement status is
determined for the 2008–2009 school year.

OSP will use the ASC and ESIT process as a way to implement and coordinate the system of supports
required for schools to achieve success. Under the direction of the chief school performance officer, the
director of Academic Support Initiatives will collaborate with community superintendents and offices in
MCPS to assign central office staff to ASCs in relationship to the needs of the schools. Community
superintendents will work directly with school administrators to identify school‐based members. We
believe that the spirit of collaboration and shared responsibility is a vital component of successful school
improvement. ASC and ESIT school improvement structures used in MCPS are flexible enough to meet
the needs of schools in the various stages of school improvement as the work of the respective teams is
aligned with identified school needs.

The ASC focuses on the following processes:
1. Establishing the Purpose of an ASC and Sustaining a Positive Climate

ASCs are first and foremost based on a spirit of collaboration with all stakeholders making a
commitment to be accountable for student achievement. The climate of the meetings is one of
collective inquiry with all participants bringing their particular expertise to the table. When analyzing
student achievement data, data from classroom visits, or examining school processes, all ASC members
are encouraged to actively engage in the discussions, to offer additional goal‐focused support, to
identify resources, and to respectfully share ideas and suggestions that contribute to a climate of
respect.

2. Expectations

An ASC provides strategic support to enhance the school’s ability to achieve AYP by meeting the annual
measurable objective in each subgroup, as measured by the MSA or the HSA. In order to achieve this
outcome, the ASC:

• Meets regularly, usually monthly, to examine student performance data, drilling down to the
individual student level with all stakeholders.
• Aligns to the BGSIP which is based on a thorough root cause analysis.
• Reviews the BGSIP action plans regularly based on the established monitoring schedule.
• Analyzes subgroup performance data to identify needs, recommend interventions, and review
their effectiveness on a systematic basis. Discusses instructional implications based on
systematic reviews of relevant student data.
• Evaluates and discusses the effectiveness of the instructional program in order to guide teacher
leaders and subject area teachers to strategically match day‐to‐day instruction and classroom
interventions with individual student needs.
• Identifies areas of professional development that will enhance and support effective
implementation of the instructional program and supports student achievement.

3. School and Central Office ASC Membership

Community superintendents and directors of school performance have a key leadership role and are
responsible for the facilitation and coordination of ASCs. Several factors are considered when
determining the specific offices and individuals who will participate on an ASC. These factors include
review of the subgroup(s) and content area(s) in which the school did not achieve AYP, identified needs
of the school, and focused goals or objectives included in the BGSIP. The OSP staff works in
collaboration with central office administrators to request and select the specific individuals who will
serve on an ASC.

When determining the membership of an ASC, planners are encouraged to base decisions on the
consideration that smaller groups foster more focused discussion than larger groups and provide an
opportunity to build trusting relationships and the sense of collaboration that will lead to success. We
recommend that the group size be limited to 15 people, with modifications depending on the level and
size of the school. ASC memberships are approved by the appropriate community superintendent, the
chief school performance officer, and the associate superintendent for each of the respective offices.

Central office representatives may include the following offices, divisions, or departments but are not
limited to this listing:

• Department of Communication
o Division of Family and Community Partnerships (DFCP)
• Office of the Chief Academic Officer
• Office of Curriculum and Instructional Programs (OCIP)
o Department of Curriculum and Instruction
o Department of Instructional Programs
Division of ESOL/Bilingual Programs
• Office of Organizational Development (OOD)
o Diversity Training Unit
o Staff Development Teacher Project
• Office of School Performance (OSP)
o Department of Academic Support Initiatives
Division of Title 1 Programs
State School Improvement Grant
• Office of Special Education and Student Services (OSESS)
o Department of Special Education Services and Operations
o Department of Student Services

School‐based ASC membership is determined in collaboration with the school administrative team, the
community superintendent, and director of school performance and includes the following standing
members:

o Principal
o Assistant principal(s)
o Staff development teacher

Additional school‐based ASC participants may include the following:

o Teacher leaders/resource teachers, reading specialists, mathematics content coaches or
specialist, etc.
o Grade/subject area teachers
o English for Speakers of Other Languages and special education teachers
o Guidance counselor(s)
o Supporting service staff members

It is recommended that parents are included as participants on ASCs. Employee organizations, including
the Montgomery County Education Association, Montgomery County Association of Administrative and
Supervisory Personnel, or the Service Employees International Union Local 500, may also be represented
as ASC members.
4. Meeting Content and Procedures

Roles and Responsibilities
School improvement status is identified during the summer by determining if the school achieved AYP.
At this point, any subgroup in which the students did not achieve established state standards is
identified. A root cause analysis is conducted in order to determine the areas of focus and the key
components of the BGSIP. This in‐depth analysis is essential to effective school improvement planning,
is a Maryland State Department of Education requirement, and is a required component of the peer
review process. Central office staff members are available to assist with completing a root cause
analysis.

Other roles and responsibilities of ASC participants include:

School‐based Staff Central Office‐based Staff
Principal selects participants in collaboration After collaborating with school staff members,
with school leadership, community the community superintendent and director of
superintendent, and director of school school performance submit requests for
performance. representation to the director of Academic
Support Initiatives (ASI), who coordinates the
requests with respective associate
superintendents.

The director of ASI coordinates requests and
forwards to the respective associate
superintendent(s).
Attend and participate fully in ASC meetings. Attend and participate fully in ASC meetings.
Conduct root cause analysis to guide Support school in collecting and analyzing data
development of BGSIP. for root cause analysis.
Collect, analyze, and present data at ASC Support school with collection, analysis, and
meetings. presentation of data at ASC meetings.
Collaborate with central‐based staff members
in response to offers of support. Provide expertise and offers of assistance.
Follow‐up on action items. Follow up on action items.
Set up meeting space, light refreshments. Not applicable.
Prepare any materials required for the
meeting; provide agendas. Not applicable.
Participate in collaborative discussions with
Share problems the school is having. staff members to problem solve.
Collaborate to determine when a Collaborate to determine when a
recommendation becomes an action item. recommendation becomes an action item.

5. Meeting Frequency

ASCs meet on a regular basis, usually once a month. Dates are established for the school year in August
in collaboration with OSP, the school, and other central office staff members.

6. Relationship of Peer Reviews to the BGSIP

Both the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act—No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) and
the Code of Maryland (COMAR) require that a two‐year BGSIP be developed by schools as they enter
school improvement, that the BGSIP include eight specified components, and that a peer review be
conducted. One ASC meeting is scheduled as a peer review of the BGSIP early in the school year in
compliance with these federal and state mandates. The peer review is repeated if there are significant
changes to the BGSIP in the following year, or in any year when a school enters corrective action,
restructuring planning, or restructuring. The purpose of the review is to assist schools as they establish
a roadmap for all students to be proficient in reading and in mathematics by the 2013–2014 school year.

Before the Meeting
Meeting Agenda
1. Agendas are set two weeks prior to the ASC in a meeting with the director of school
performance, the principal, and any school‐based staff members the principal selects.
• At this meeting, the agenda is generated and sent to the community superintendent.
Action items from the previous months and their current status are included along with
future meeting dates.
• A review of relevant school improvement plan action plans should be included.
• The community superintendent reviews the agenda and then electronically forwards the
agenda and a reminder to all members of the ASC.
• The MCPS agenda format is used for ASC meetings.
2. Specific responsibilities noted in the agenda are:
• Facilitator (generally the community superintendent)
• Notetaker
• Recorder for Action Items
• Discussion leaders for the various components of the agenda
3. An ASC meeting is typically scheduled for two hours.

Preparation of Materials/Logistics
1. ASC meetings are held at the school, typically in the media center or in another space large
enough to comfortably accommodate meeting participants and limit interruptions.
2. At the first ASC meeting, all participants are provided with a binder in which all ASC documents
can be maintained. Handouts are hole‐punched prior to the meeting.
3. The school generally provides light refreshments for ASC members.

During the Meeting
1. Ground rules—established at first ASC and included on subsequent meeting agendas
2. Consider using the following meeting structures that support collaboration:
• A room arrangement that is conducive to both whole and small group discussions as
appropriate to the agenda.
• Ensure that seating is mixed among stakeholders (avoid one side of the table having all
the school team and the other having all central office staff members).
• Include time and processes on the agenda for pairs or small groups to discuss what is
being shared prior to the whole group discussion as this increases engagement from all
participants.
• When appropriate, use strategies to promote equitable engagement/participation such
as triads, being additive, not repetitive.
• Use visuals to increase engagement and ideas generated, such as small groups charting
ideas, and posting for all to review.
3. Core meeting components—agenda items
• Welcome and introductions.
• Review of Action Items (action items always have due dates and identify the person
responsible).
• Discussion of available data, with emphasis on subgroups of concern, in alignment with
BGSIP Action Plans with completed “Results” section. Specific results and conclusions
are summarized according to the identified monitoring tools, data points, and/or
strategic plan improvement targets, noting progress toward the action step or AYP goal.
How do we know this action made a difference? Note if progress is or is not being made
and the steps necessary to sustain the momentum or next steps to drill down and
complete a root cause analysis, which is necessary to revise the action plan.
• Predictions for success on MSA/HSA using available data points.
• Discussion built around instructional implications, professional development, and
connection to the BGSIP for each data point.
• Focused classroom visits to briefly observe implementation of instructional strategies
recommended by the ASC and to enhance the connection between central office ASC
members and the work of the school.
o Visits are followed by a discussion of general impressions.
• Meeting evaluation.

After the Meeting
In order for the work of the ASC to be integrated into the life of the school, a summary of the meeting
and action items should be part of the next school leadership team/instructional council agenda.
Leadership team/instructional council members will share information with instructional staff and
gather updates to be presented at their next meeting. A progress update will then be shared at a
subsequent ASC meeting. Thus a cycle of communication is established.

Meeting notes, action items, and a summary of the meeting evaluation are sent out by the community
superintendent within a few days of the ASC meeting.

Information about the status of action items is sent to the principal and the director of school
performance. This information is included when the next meeting agenda is sent to all ASC members.
I.D.iv
Attendance Rates

Attendance rates are an additional measure used in Maryland’s Adequate Yearly Progress calculations.

Based on the Examination of the Attendance Data (Table 5.5):

1. Describe where progress in increasing attendance rates is evident. In your response, identify
progress in terms of grade band(s) and subgroups.

Countywide, since 2003‐2004, MCPS has met the MSDE satisfactory standard of 94
percent attendance rate for all students, as well as for African American, Asian/Pacific
Islander, White, and Limited English Proficient, at all levels.

The 2006–2007 school year was the first year that the American Indian/Alaskan Native
student subgroup met the attendance standards for all levels. In 2007–2008, the
attendance rate for this sub‐group was 0 .4 percent short of the standard at the middle
school level while the standard was met for students at the elementary and high school
levels.

Since 2004–2005, the Hispanic student subgroup has met the attendance standard rate
for all levels but high school. Since that time, the attendance rate has been over 93
percent and was just 0.7 percent below standard in 2007–2008.

Since 2004–2005, when the FARMS subgroup met the attendance standard at all levels,
this subgroup continues to meet the standard at both the elementary and middle school
levels. During this time, high school attendance levels remained at or above 93 percent.

Beginning in 2004–2005, elementary level special education students have continued to
meet the attendance standard. In 2007–2008, students at the middle school level were
just 0.3 percent below the standard and 1.1 percent below the standard at the high
school level.

2. Identify the practices, programs, or strategies and the corresponding resource allocations to
which you attribute the progress.

Since attendance is used at the elementary and middle levels to calculate AYP, schools
actively monitor student attendance. Of particular concern are cases in which students
are absent for 10–19 percent (attendance rates of 81–90 percent) of the school year.
These students are in danger of being considered truant, which is a 20 percent or
greater absence rate (attendance rate of 80 percent or less). Plans are in place to
provide this information on the monthly attendance list currently sent to each school.

Each month, schools receive a list of all student attendance. Students whose absences
have reached 20 percent or more are considered truant. School staff are to develop
procedures to examine each case in order to verify if the absences are excused or
unexcused and to implement interventions to improve school attendance. If school‐level
interventions are not successful in improving the student’s attendance, the case is
referred to the pupil personnel worker who is a member of the school’s student services
team.

If no improvement is achieved and the student absences are greater than 20 percent of
the school year, the school administrator refers the case to the Interagency Truancy
Review Board (TRB). The TRB is comprised of staff from offices within MCPS, the
Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Juvenile Justice, the
Department of Police, the Housing Opportunities Commission, and the State’s
Attorney’s Office. The purpose of the TRB is to motivate parents of habitually truant
students to send their children to school and to develop a contract to ensure this
happens or to recommend the case be referred directly to the State’s Attorney’s Office.

3. Describe where challenges are evident. In your response, identify challenges in terms of grade

Schools monitor the attendance of all students and all subgroups. Because truancy is
often related to other problems in a student’s life, families who are referred to the TRB
often have many needs. For this reason, the TRB includes staff from the Pupil Personnel
Services Unit and Court Liaison Unit of MCPS; the Child Welfare Services, School Health
Services, and Adolescent Mental Health Units of the Department of Health and Human
Services; a case worker from the Department of Juvenile Justice, an officer from the
Department of Police, a case worker from the Housing Opportunities Commission, and
an Assistant State’s Attorney from the State’s Attorney’s Office. This allows the TRB
members to not only problem solve with the student/family but also to offer services
and resources.

4. Describe the changes or adjustments that will be made along with the corresponding resource
allocations to ensure sufficient progress. Include timelines where appropriate.

Beginning with the 2007–2008 school year, the TRB has adjusted its schedule so that
every case referred is scheduled that same month. This has required the TRB to
meet for an extended day or to schedule an additional half‐day meeting each month.
The TRB also considers completing a “Children with Intensive Needs” referral
to the Montgomery County Collaboration Council for Children, Youth, and Families.
If the referral is accepted, it brings mental health services and family support services to
the student and family.
I.D.v
Graduation Rates and Dropout Rates

No Child Left Behind Goal 5: All students will graduate from high school.

No Child Left Behind Indicator 5.1: The percentage of students who graduate each year with a regular
diploma.

No Child Left Behind Indicator 5.2: The percentage of students who drop out of school.

Graduation rate is an additional measure used in Maryland’s Adequate Yearly Progress calculations.

Based on the Examination of Graduation and Dropout Rate Data (Tables 5.6 and 5.7):

1. Describe where progress in moving toward the graduation/dropout target is evident.
In your response, identify progress in terms of subgroups.

In 2008, MCPS continues to meet the state satisfactory dropout standard for all
students. Areas of challenge continue for the following subgroups: African America,
American Indian/Alaskan Native, Hispanic, FARMS, LEP, Special Education and Males.
However, the rates of increase have slowed for these subgroups.
2. Identify the practices, programs, or strategies and the corresponding resource
allocations to which you attribute the progress.

The Montgomery County Public Schools utilizes a variety of instructional and
intervention strategies to assist students in having positive and successful experiences in
school.
Judy Centers, prekindergarten programs, and full‐day kindergarten are examples of
programs that are in place to help students have a strong start in their educational
programs.

Collaborative problem–solving strategies—All schools implement collaborative
problem–solving strategies to address academic and behavioral issues that impact
student learning. Through this process, staff members develop, implement, and
evaluate interventions and monitor student progress.

Gateway to College (GTC)—The Gateway to College© program at Montgomery
College serves at‐risk youth, 16‐to‐20 years old, who have stopped attending
Montgomery County Public Schools and for whom high school completion is at risk.
The program gives students the opportunity to earn a high school diploma while
transitioning to a college campus. Students accumulate high school and college
credits simultaneously, earning their high school diploma while progressing toward
an associate degree or certificate. Gateway to College students learn how to
succeed in an educational setting under the guidance of a caring team of instructors
and student support specialists with experience and commitment to at‐risk youth.
In their first term, students learn in a cohort (groups of students who take classes
together). The cohort experience builds their academic and personal skills,
preparing them for college courses on the comprehensive college campus. In
addition to reading, writing, and math, cohort students take a career development
class to help focus their academic goals, and a college survival and success class to
learn how to take effective notes, study for tests, and juggle school, work, and family
life.

Student Services Support— All students have the benefit of a school counselor who
monitors student progress in course completion and credit completion. Pupil
personnel workers and psychologists provide consultation, support, resources, and
direct services to students and their families. When appropriate, these staff
members are instrumental in the completion of functional behavioral assessments
and behavioral interventions plans. Student services staff members work to ensure
a positive and successful school experience for every student.

Data Monitoring—MCPS monitors academic, attendance, and behavioral data to
identify students in need of support. In addition to the monitoring done by
classroom teachers on a daily basis, the Honors Advanced Placement Identification
Tool (HAPIT) is an example of a tool developed by MCPS to examine a variety of data
points for each student to determine/verify the appropriateness of course levels.
Not only does this tool assist staff members in determining when more rigorous
coursework is appropriate, it can also be used to reveal areas of need so that
struggling students receive interventions and supports.

Extended Time and Extended Day Programs—These programs provide additional
instructional time to students who are struggling with academic performance in
order to accelerate students’ mastery of reading, language arts, and mathematics
skills.

Alternative Programs—MCPS operates a continuum of intervention services for
middle and high school students who are unsuccessful in their home/comprehensive
schools.

Level 1 programs are provided in every secondary school. These programs
provide intervention strategies and supports to students in their home
schools.
Level 2 programs are available for students who are not successful in their
home schools, even with the support of a Level 1 program. These programs
provide academic instruction as well as behavioral and social skills
instruction. The goal of Level 2 programs is to provide students with the
skills needed to successfully return to their home school.
Level 3 programs are available to students in lieu of expulsion.

High School Plus. High School Plus is a program that allows students who have
failed a course required for graduation to retake that course for credit in their home
school.

Truancy Review Board—The Truancy Review Board is an interagency group that
works with students and their families to address truancy.
MCPS Student Withdrawal Interview—During the interview, school staff present
instructional interventions and alternatives available to encourage the student to
remain in school.

3. Describe where challenges are evident. In your response, identify challenges in terms
of subgroups.

2008 Drop Out Rate (Percentage)
African American 3.88
American Indian/Alaskan Native 3.40
Hispanic 5.77
FARMS 3.99
Limited English Proficient (LEP) 5.31
Special Education 3.17
Males 3.36

While the increase in dropout rates from 2006 to 2007 (0.71 percent) was greater than
the increase from 2005 to 2006 (0.24 percent), the increase in dropout rates from 2007
to 2008 (0.15 percent) was less than that from 2006 to 2007 (0.71 percent). This
slowing of increase in dropout rates was evident in all racial/ethnic subgroups and for
special education students. The subgroups for which there was acceleration in the
increase in dropout rates were FARMS and LEP students. For Hispanic students, the
increase from 2006 to 2007 was 0.95 percent. From 2007 to 2008 the increase dropped
to 0.43 percent. For African American students, the increase from 2006 to 2007 was
0.87 percent. From 2007 to 2008 the increase dropped to 0.30 percent. For White
students, the increase from 2006 to 2007 was 0.54 percent. From 2007 to 2008 there
was a drop of 0.11 percent. For Asian/Pacific Islander students, the increase from 2006
to 2007 was 0.29 percent. From 2007 to 2008 the increase dropped to 0.10%.

The largest increases in dropout rates from 2007 to 2008 are clustered in a number of
related subgroups. These subgroups are Hispanic, LEP, and Farms. The increases in
dropout rates for these three groups from 2007 to 2008 were 0.43, 4.82, and 0.96
percent respectively. Hispanic students represent the largest subgroup within both LEP
and FARMS students. The other area of interrelationship is between Hispanic, African
American, and Special Education students. The increases in dropout rates for these
three groups from 2007 to 2008 were 0.43, 0.30, and 0.46 percent respectively.
However, these increases were less than those for 2006 to 2007.

These data show that continued efforts at drop out prevention targeted at specific
student groups are required in order to have a greater impact on reducing the dropout
rate.

resource allocations to ensure sufficient progress. Include timelines where
appropriate.
The dropout rate in MCPS has been positively impacted by the numerous strategies and
programs implemented. The programs listed above in #2 provide a continuum of
services that range from programs for all students to targeted programs for identified
groups. MCPS will continue to support and enhance these programs in our effort to
further reduce the number of students who drop out of school.
I.D.vi
Highly Qualified Staff

No Child Left Behind GOAL 3: By 2005–2006, all students will be taught by highly qualified
teachers.

No Child Left Behind Indicator 3.1: The percentage of classes being taught by “highly qualified”
teachers, and in the aggregate and in “high poverty” schools.

No Child Left Behind Indicator 3.3: The percentage of paraprofessionals working in Title I
schools (excluding those whose sole duties are translators and parental involvement
assistants) who are qualified.

Under NCLB, LSSs are required to report the percentages of core academic subject (CAS) classes
being taught by highly qualified teachers in high poverty schools compared to low‐poverty
schools. High poverty schools are defined as schools in the top quartile of poverty in the State
and low poverty schools as schools in the bottom quartile of poverty in the State. The Act also
requires that school systems ensure that economically disadvantaged and minority students are
not taught at higher rates than other students by inexperienced, unqualified, or out‐of‐field
teachers.

Plans for Reaching the 100% Highly Qualified Teacher Goal

A. Based on the Examination of Core Academic Subject Classes Taught by Highly Qualified
Teacher Data (Tables 6.1 – 6.3):

1. Describe where progress is evident.

Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) continues to increase the percentage of core
academic subject classes taught by HQ teachers annually and will continue to strive towards
the goal of 100 percent compliance. As of December 1, 2007, 92.5 percent of MCPS core
academic classes were being taught by teachers who are designated “highly qualified.” This
is an increase from 90.5 percent of the classes taught by highly qualified teachers on
December 1, 2006. MSDE has been able to compile more accurate information through the
Educator Information System (EIS). Therefore, MCPS has fewer educators with expired
certification or missing certificate information. As all remaining documentation is updated,
the number of classes taught by HQ teachers will increase.

By making principals aware of appropriate CAS assignments, and with the use of the MCPS
data warehouse report which reflects each educator’s credentials, MCPS has fewer invalid
grade assignments and out‐of‐field (invalid subject certification) assignments.

MCPS continues to decrease the number of conditionally certified teachers each year. Since
2005, the number of NHQ classes taught by conditionally certified teachers has been
reduced by 55 percent. However, due to critical shortages in math, science, special
education and foreign language conditionally certified staff are often teaching in these
fields.

2. Identify practices, programs, or strategies and the corresponding resource allocation to
which you attribute the progress.

a. MCPS provided notification of requirements to all core academic subject teachers in
March 2004. As the Maryland State Department of Education informed local school
systems of updates or changes to NCLB allowances, this information was posted to
teachers through local school system notices via the weekly Bulletin, the
Montgomery County Education Association, the MCPS certification Web site, and
specific individual notices and memoranda addressing targeted individuals and
groups.
b. Workshops were held with special educators and ESOL teachers who are using the
High, Objective, Uniform State Standard of Evaluation (HOUSSE) rubric to meet
requirements. Each audience group was formulated based on the grade level of
students being taught, ensuring that relevant information was being provided for
elementary, middle, and high school teachers.
c. Reminder notices about the testing option were provided to teachers. In addition,
when the new content allowance was adopted in December 2005, teachers were
provided with this information. The Office of Human Resources (OHR) Certification
Unit also reviewed individual teacher records to determine if this option was
suitable for those not yet HQ, thereby increasing the number of HQ designations.
Many teachers have taken advantage of the testing and content allowance to
become highly qualified.
d. The Office of Organizational Development (OOD) continues to offer an assortment
of content/education continuing professional development (CPD) course offerings
that are applicable toward the special education and ESOL HOUSSE rubrics.
e. In November 2006, an HQ work group was established to develop a plan/approach
to assure that all teachers of core academic subjects become highly qualified. The
work group analyzed circumstances of teachers who had not yet met the highly
qualified requirements and identified ways to assist them in being designated HQ.
The work group also addressed ways to help principals achieve the required goal of
100 percent HQ.
Recommendations included the following:
i. training school leaders to support individual teachers by assigning teachers
to subjects for which they are HQ.
ii. enhancing technology to assist principals and master schedulers making
well informed decisions about the assignment of teacher of teachers to core
academic subjects.
iii. meeting with teachers, principals, schedulers, and resource counselors to
clarify HQ requirements and to fully inform them of the steps needed to
ensure that all teachers of CAS are HQ. This includes providing principals with
pertinent information related to their specific schools that include a list of
teachers who are not yet HQ, but continue to teach CAS. In addition, they are
provided with copies of “fact sheets” that relate specifically to elementary,
middle, high school, and special schools/alternative programs.
iv. increasing partnerships with higher education institutions to expand the
candidate pool in critical shortage areas.
f. MCPS continues to offer reimbursement for PRAXIS II content tests and for graduate
course work that result in the HQ designation.
g. Conditionally certified teachers who fail to meet certification requirements as
defined by MSDE are terminated.
h. Special education staff implemented more inclusion models, which result in shared
teaching assignments with a special education teacher and regular educator who is
HQ in the CAS.
i. ESOL staff developed strategies to ensure that only ESOL teachers with HQ
designations in the appropriate CAS are teaching the CAS.
j. On a yearly basis, after the class membership report results are prepared and
submitted to MSDE, the Office of Human Resources staff notifies and reminds each
individual core academic subject teacher who is not yet designated HQ. When
notified, each teacher is provided with the means by which they can become HQ.
k. A data warehouse report, created to assist the principals in assigning staff to the
core academic subject in which they are certified and HQ, was created and is in use
on a regular basis. With this information, teachers are being reassigned to
appropriate areas wherever possible.
l. Currently, OHR continues to use various strategies to ensure that the number of
highly qualified teachers teaching CASs increases yearly.
i. Principals are provided data, updated weekly, showing each teacher’s
certification status and HQ designations, which assists them in making
informed decisions about teacher assignments.
ii. The certification/highly qualified status of voluntary, involuntary, return‐from‐
leave employees is shared with principals who work with OHR for appropriate
placements.
iii. Conditionally certified teachers are no longer contracted unless the director of
staffing grants approval, and only for critical shortage areas.
iv. Special educators who are not yet HQ are reviewed for compliance and
encouraged to complete the necessary coursework or testing to be designated
HQ.
v. Educators who are teaching out‐of‐area are informed of the necessary testing
or coursework to become HQ.
vi. OHR scheduled targeted recruitment trips to colleges/universities whose
graduates have completed programs that meet NCLB HQ requirements.
vii. OHR and OOD have developed and implemented university partnership
programs to produce more HQ teachers in critical shortage areas.
3. Describe where challenges are evident

a. Special education teachers are teaching core academic subjects to special education
students without the necessary content expertise. Although the special education
staff continues to address these issues through inclusion models, this continues to
be a concern since special education is a critical shortage area. It is difficult to hire
enough special education teachers as well as find those who also have content
certification because few special education teachers are dually certified. Therefore,
most special education teachers are being expected to add one or more core
academic subject areas through testing, content expertise or the HOUSSE rubric.
Although the HOUSSE rubric is accommodating to experienced teachers, those
newer to the local school system are unlikely to qualify. In addition, because most
special education programs include course work related to assessment and
strategies for teaching special education students rather than content expertise, it is
difficult for special educators to pass content tests or to have already completed
enough content course work to qualify under these options. MCPS continues to
encourage the college partnerships applicants to obtain certification in both special
education and at least one core academic subject.
b. The ESOL department strives to assign ESOL teachers to only those assignments for
which the teacher is HQ; however, it may be necessary to assign an ESOL teacher to
a subject for which he/she is not highly qualified due to the large ESOL population in
MCPS. ESOL has made significant strides in avoiding these non‐HQ assignments.
c. Overall shortage in critical areas often creates the need for teachers to teach one or
more core academic subjects out‐of‐field.
i. Due to a shortage of teachers in foreign languages, teachers are assigned
to teach a foreign language class for which they are not certified or HQ.
A certified and HQ Spanish teacher may be required to teach one or two
periods of French, due to a shortage of French teachers. Although this
teacher may have the proficiency to teach another language, he or she
might not be able to pass the content test for the second language nor
would they have the required content credits. However, due to the
teacher shortage, principals make these informed decisions based on the
Spanish teacher’s language background.
ii. Due to shortage in specific sciences such as physics and chemistry,
teachers of one science area are sometimes expected to teach one or
two periods of another science area. For example, a certified and HQ
biology teacher may be required to teach one or two periods of
chemistry, due to a shortage of chemistry teachers. Although this
teacher may have the proficiency to teach another science, he or she
might not be able to pass the content test for the second science nor
have the required content credits. However, due to the teacher shortage
in such areas, the principal makes this decision based on the science
teacher’s background and with the knowledge that most science teachers
concentrate in one area of science, but often take additional science
courses in other areas.
d. Overall teacher shortage in areas such as special education, foreign languages, some
sciences, and math often results in the employing of substitute teachers who are not
certified teachers. In these cases, the substitute is rarely HQ or certified to teach
CAS to our students.
e. Since 2004, when MSDE established expectations for highly qualified (HQ) teachers
as mandated by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, it continues to be a challenge
in MCPS to persuade veteran teachers that they must meet HQ requirements. Of
those who have yet to comply, each has received multiple reminders through phone
calls, emails, and “paper” notifications. At this time, there are no sanctions for
failure to meet HQ requirements.
e. Local school system reporting sometimes conflicts with the MSDE class membership
information. Due to the manner in which our school system reports class
assignments, changes, and updates, procedures are being established to
accommodate these needs. For example, when a student attends a class at a site
other than his or her home school, it is difficult to capture this information in the
appropriate format. By using data collection, staff has developed a system to handle
this discrepancy.
f. MSDE has resolved most of the crosswalk issues addressed by MCPS; however, the
district is still unable to capture information related to an assignment in which a
teacher could be certified in more than one area to comply. For example, if a
teacher is teaching a course in biochemistry, a teacher certified in either chemistry
or biology should be able to teach the course. However, MSDE can only apply one
core academic subject area to each class.
g. Effective July 1, 2007, the HOUSSE rubric was discontinued/abolished by MSDE for
inexperienced educators hired after that date (as mandated by the federal
government) for educators hired after that date. In the past, any experienced new
employee who qualified for the advanced professional certificate could be
designated highly qualified with this option, and many were. This will impact any
experienced educator who comes to our county and has not taken tests in the past
to become certified in another state. Most secondary teachers will be able to use
the content option, which is acceptable to be designated highly qualified, but most
experienced elementary and early childhood teachers will be required to take
additional testing in Maryland to become highly qualified. MCPS already experiences
a shortage of early childhood teachers; therefore, this negatively impacts the highly
qualified statistics.
h. Specific criteria that must be satisfied to achieve HQ designation varies from state to
state. Therefore, a teacher coming to MCPS from outside the state of Maryland who
was designated HQ in that non‐Maryland jurisdiction may or may not be designated
HQ by Maryland standards.

4. Describe the changes or adjustments and the corresponding resource allocations that were
made to ensure sufficient progress. Include timelines where appropriate.

The Office of Human Resources (OHR) will continue to encourage all teachers not yet
designated HQ in the CAS they are teaching to become HQ as soon as possible; however, it
is unlikely that we will meet the 100 percent highly qualified designation by July 1, 2009.
The largest numbers of teachers not yet HQ are in out‐of‐field assignments and in the fields
of special education. OHR will meet with principals about the out‐of‐field assignment and
with special education supervisors to identify strategies for class configuration, inclusion
models, and other initiatives to support compliance.

During the past three years, the student teacher program was adjusted so that it would
yield a more diverse pool of student teachers and graduate interns from approved
teacher/intern‐training programs to teach in critical shortage areas. Student teachers are
placed in professional development schools. MCPS compensates supervising teachers of
student teachers. Criteria have been specified for selecting of supervising teachers. For
example, a high school teacher who serves as a supervisor of a student teacher must be
certified in the secondary content area taught by the student teacher. These changes have
been introduced with the intent of attracting, recruiting, and supporting highly qualified
teachers in areas of critical need. OHR and the Office of Organizational Development
continue to collaborate in implementing these revised procedures.

MCPS partnerships are used to expand the pool of teacher candidates representing critical
fields and to increase the percentage of classes taught by HQ teachers in all schools. During
the last two years, terms for participation in existing partnerships were agreed upon to
guarantee that future participants will be informed of the HQ requirements and the
expectations to meet the requirements prior to entering the partnership program.
Candidates who need to pass a test to complete the NCLB HQ requirements will be
informed that they are expected to meet the testing requirement before they complete the
first year of the two‐year Teachers 2000 partnership program. If a candidate does not pass
the test during the first year, he or she will need to take the test again and pass it during the
final year. If he or she does not pass the test during either year, they may not be offered a
teaching position with MCPS.
Montgomery College and MCPS continues to offer an Alternative Certification for Effective
Teachers (ACET) program. This Maryland Approved Alternative Preparation Program
(MAAPP) offers resident teacher certification to a select group of candidates, specializing in
the critical shortage areas of mathematics, chemistry, physics, Spanish, French, and
technology education. Although MCPS continues to need computer science teachers, the
area is no longer allowed because a content test is not offer for this field making it ineligible
for inclusion.
B. Based on the Examination of the Equitable Distribution of Highly Qualified Teacher Data
(Tables 6.4 – 6.5):

MCPS is committed to ensuring that there is a high‐quality teacher in every MCPS classroom.
The MCPS strategic plan, Our Call to Action, Pursuit of Excellence Goal 4 and Board Policy GAA
focus on Creating a Positive Work Environment in a Self‐renewing Organization. As a result of
the system commitment to high quality teaching for all students, and on‐going communication
between the offices of Human Resources and School Performance and principals, there
continues to be little disparity between HQT educators teaching in high versus low poverty
schools. In addition, MCPS continues to develop and foster relationships with institutes of
higher education though professional development schools (PDS) particularly in highly
impacted schools. The additional resources and support provided to schools though the PDS
partnership further assists with training, developing, and maintaining high quality teacher in
high poverty schools.

2. Identify the practices, programs, or strategies and the corresponding resource allocations to
which your attribute the progress. Your response must include examples of incentives for
voluntary transfers, the provision of professional development, recruitment programs, or
other effective strategies that low‐income and minority students are not taught at higher
rates that other students by unqualified, out‐of‐field, or inexperienced teachers. What
evidence does the school system have that the strategies in place are having the intended
effect?

The system commitments emphasize the importance of having structures and processes in
place to attract, recruit, hire, mentor, develop, evaluate, recognize, and retain high‐performing
teachers. As a result, MCPS in collaboration with the MCEA has developed a career lattice. The
goals of the career lattice are to do the following:
• Promote leadership skills among teachers both in the classroom and in the larger
community of school, cluster, or district to the benefit of the instructional program.
• Attract and retain high‐performing teachers, especially in high‐need schools.
• Promote teacher leadership for measurable educational improvements.
• Promote and support collaborative and reflective practices that influence school culture
and student achievement.

Within the proposed career lattice structure, lead teachers and lead teacher status can also be
a gateway to the selection of certain opportunities in high‐need schools. The Career Lattice
Joint Panel shall have the responsibility for approving guidelines for project leadership
opportunities. Project leadership opportunities are to be approved and evaluated on an annual
basis by the school’s leadership team. In order to involve more lead teachers in school
improvement efforts, Project Leadership opportunities are available to lead teachers who have
not already assumed the responsibilities of teacher leadership positions.

High‐poverty schools are defined as those schools with the highest proportion of students in
poverty (as measured by “now or ever in FARMS”). The cut‐off for what constitutes a high‐
poverty school will be determined based on the capacity of the district to support these
projects. Lead teachers in a high‐need school can be allocated a designated level of funding to
support locally designed school improvement projects. For each lead teacher in a high‐need
school, the school could receive a certain amount of money for projects. The purpose of this
funding structure is to provide an incentive for high‐need schools to cultivate, retain, and
attract lead teachers.

Supported school improvement projects must be aligned with the school improvement plan.
Proposals for projects are developed by the school leadership team, in conjunction with the
lead teacher. These project plans will be reviewed by the Career Lattice Joint Panel and the
Office of School Performance. The projects will be monitored by the school’s leadership team.
In order to take advantage of the enhanced skills and leadership of lead teachers, such school
improvement projects should be implemented by lead teachers. However, lead teachers are
not required to take on such additional responsibilities.

3. Describe what challenges are evident.
Montgomery County Public Schools continues to be challenged by the national shortage of
highly qualified special education teachers and related service providers such as speech
pathologists. The system has established several partnerships with local colleges and
universities to “grow our own” special education teachers. In addition to producing highly
qualified staff in critical shortage areas, these partnerships have also increased the diversity of
the teaching staff.

According to the Office of Human Resources, MCPS experiences the greatest difficulty in
staffing self‐contained special education classes, particularly autism, school community‐based
classes, severe and profoundly handicapped and severely emotionally disabled. The MCPS Web
site posts a list of critical shortage areas so that staff members who are considering working in a
critical shortage field can take additional coursework in that field.

During the spring involuntary transfer season, efforts are made to reduce the number of
placements in the most highly impacted schools.

C. Based on the Examination of Highly Qualified Teacher Retention Data (Tables 6.6):

For the past seven years, the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) has been building a
pathway to ensure success for every student. Comprehensive reforms have cultivated an
environment where students and staff can thrive, where everyone expects the best—of
themselves and each other. The results have been exceptional and solidify MCPS as one of the
preeminent school systems in America.

Each year newly hired teachers are contacted by the Office of Human Resources and asked to
complete a customer feedback survey. Newly hired teachers report that the following factors
positively influenced their decision to work in MCPS:

• School system reputation
• Starting salary as high or higher than other school districts
• Salary scale that provides annual step increases
• Salary scale that provides increased pay for credits beyond bachelor of arts
degree

Recruitment and retention of highly qualified teachers is influenced by excellent salaries and
benefits. Effective July 1, 2007, MCPS and the Montgomery County Education Association
negotiated a salary increase over the next three years, which includes 4.8 percent the first year,
5 percent the second year, and 5.3 percent the third year. During this period, teacher salaries
will range from $44,200 to $96,528 (FY 2008) to $48,870 to $106,726 (FY 2010).

Retention is supported by improved retirement benefits for employees. In May 2006, the Board
of Education improved the supplemental benefit multiplier for all MCPS Employees Pension
Plan participants from the current two‐tiered formula to a 0.2 percent of average final earning
for each year of credited service after July 1, 1998. The net effect of changes is that the
retirement benefit for an employee hired after July 1, 1998, who completes a 30‐year career
with MCPS will equal 60 percent of average final earnings instead of the 45 percent benefit
provided by the old formula. Employees hired prior to July 1, 1998, will see the improved
benefit for service from July 1, 1998, forward. Employees are being asked to help support the
higher cost of the benefit improvement by paying a higher contribution. By improving the
supplemental benefit for pension plan participants, the Board of Education is providing MCPS
employees with better overall pension benefits than school system employees elsewhere in the
state of Maryland. The better pension benefits will attract and retain highly qualified teachers.

A unique partnership with the three employee unions (Montgomery County Education
Association, Montgomery County Association of Administrative and Supervisory Personnel, and
SEIU Local 500) makes it possible for the school system to attract and retain a high‐caliber
workforce, including highly qualified teachers. Working side by side with school leadership, the
unions have played a critical role in developing the school system’s strategic plan and operating
budget, as well as designing initiatives to support all staff in their professional development.

The school system, as well as individual schools in MCPS, has established partnerships with
many business and community organizations. These partnerships with businesses and
community organizations provide support for teachers. For example, the Montgomery County
Business Roundtable for Education (MCBRE) has played an important role in encouraging
involvement by the business community. MCBRE supports the work of MCPS by providing
teachers with professional development and links to real‐world applications. MCBRE, with the
support of numerous community organizations, sponsors the annual Champions for Children
Awards Gala. This event recognizes and honors outstanding educators.

National Board Certified teachers exemplify excellence in the teaching profession. Certification
by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) is recognition of high levels
of knowledge and skills, the ability for self‐reflection, and continuous improvement. During
2007, 74 Montgomery County teachers (out of 229 statewide) earned certification from the
National Board, bringing the total number in MCPS to 363 out of 1,056 teachers in Maryland.
MCPS provides support in a variety of ways to teachers in the process of becoming National
Board Certified. MCPS and MSDE reimburse candidates for the $2,500 assessment fee. MCPS
and MSDE contribute equally to a $4,000 yearly salary supplement for each National Board
Certified teacher. MCPS has a National Board instructional specialist who provides standards‐
based professional development and candidate support sessions as the candidates work
through the process of National Board Certification. Two days of professional leave are granted
for all candidates to provide time for these teachers to prepare for their certification. NBPTS
has recognized the National Board instructional specialists for their work in focusing
recruitment on minority teachers, and asked that MCPS apply to become an NBPTS DREAM
Team (Direct Recruitment Efforts to Attract Minorities) site. MCPS currently has two NBCTs on
the DREAM Team.

MCPS boasts 21 university partnerships and more than 50 professional development schools
that support staff. By providing opportunities for growth and building skills of teachers we are
able to maintain a high‐quality workforce, especially in critical shortage areas. Support through
partnerships is one of the factors that teachers indicate as a reason for remaining in MCPS.

These university partnerships, along with the many other professional growth opportunities
offered by MCPS, provide a sound system of supports for teachers. It is these supports that
many teachers attribute to their decisions to come to and stay in MCPS.

2. Describe where challenges are evident.
Retaining highly qualified, experienced teachers, particularly in critical fields continues to be a
challenge across the State and for MCPS.

MCPS recognizes teacher quality as a fundamental element of a successful school system.
Teacher quality is driven by the system’s ability to retain quality teachers. One of the
contributing factors to retention is a comprehensive plan for professional development and
support. By aligning the numerous professional growth efforts, MCPS has created a systems
approach to the development and support of staff. As a result, teachers have aligned and
comprehensive support throughout their tenure in MCPS. Support and professional
development programs which lead to higher retention include but are not limited to a
professional growth system for teachers, university partnerships, and tuition reimbursement.

Professional growth systems, specifically the teacher professional growth system (PGS), serve
as the cornerstone of our teacher quality efforts. These professional growth systems provide
structures, supports, and processes to ensure that staff has the skills, knowledge, strategies,
and beliefs to meet the needs of our diverse student populations. As a result, teachers are
given the confidence and support they need to make them feel capable of meeting the needs of
students. The PGS for teachers has numerous components, including staff development
teachers, consulting teachers, and skillful teaching course work.

• The staff development teacher project places a position in every school that focuses on the
professional development of staff. This position, which is sometimes shared among several
individuals at secondary schools, works with the school’s instructional staff to keep
teachers informed and involved in effective teaching skills and practices and other efforts
to improve student achievement. The staff development teacher (SDT) provides a
consistent focus on instructional strategies and objectives for student achievement.
Through collaboration and team development, the staff development teacher helps to
guide staff in focusing on school needs, using data to improve instruction and establishing a
collegial culture in support of high‐quality teaching. They also help teachers create
individual professional development plans that link improved teaching to improved student
learning.

• The consulting teacher program is an intensive approach to provide support and guidance
to novice and underperforming teachers in order to ensure that they meet standards of
performance imbedded in the PGS. Consulting teachers, selected for their skills and ability
to work well with other teachers, provide intensive, individualized instructional support
and resources to teachers. Support includes the following:
• Observing teachers followed by coaching and support based on the observed needs
• Assistance with lesson planning
• Co‐teaching or lesson demonstration
• Formal feedback on observations

• Research‐based skills for using and analyzing skillful teachers are provided through course
work offered to teachers and required of administrators. These courses, based on the
work of Research for Better Teaching, Inc, are an essential component of the PGS.
Studying Skillful Teaching is a 36‐hour teacher‐level course that examines the knowledge
base of teaching. All teachers are encouraged to participate in the course and new
teachers are asked to complete the course within five years of their hire date. Through the
course, teachers expand their repertoire of instructional strategies, learn skills for peer
reflection and analysis, and identify skills and strategies that support effective effort.
Administrators, resource teachers, and other staff involved in the evaluation of teachers
are required to complete Observing and Analyzing Teaching (OAT) course work. This 39‐
hour course provides an overview of the knowledge base of teachers and builds skills in
writing and presenting observations.

Tuition reimbursement is also a factor that impacts retention. As part of the agreement
between the Board of Education of Montgomery County and the Montgomery County
Education Association, teachers are provided tuition reimbursement for courses they complete.
The teacher tuition reimbursement program provides reimbursement to unit members, which
enables them to continue their professional development and to maintain or increase their
skills as education professionals in their employment with Montgomery County Public Schools
and to help them move to the next salary lane. Tuition reimbursement is available to full‐time
and part‐time members who complete graduate courses. Reimbursement is for 50 percent of
the current cost of in‐state tuition at the University of Maryland, College Park, up to a
maximum of nine hours credit per fiscal year for graduate courses not currently offered by the
in‐service program. Last year, MCPS reimbursed approximately $1.8 million to teachers.

D. Describe how the school system identifies hard‐to‐staff schools and critical subject areas.
Critical subject areas are determined annually by MSDE. MCPS uses staffing projection and
hiring trend data to further drill down to identify the most critical subject areas. MCPS utilizes
strategies identified in B. 1 to address the equitable distribution of Highly Qualified teachers,
however, MCPS does not have identified “hard‐to‐staff” schools.
Areas Most Difficult to Fill
FY 2008–2009 School Year
HIGHEST NEED
Speech Pathologist
Special Education
*Autism
*Learning Disabled
*School Community Based
*Secondary Special Education
*Seriously Emotionally Disturbed
*Severely & Profoundly Disabled
*Transition
Chemistry
Computer Science
Early Childhood Education
Foreign Language
*Spanish
*French
French/Spanish/Chinese Immersion (Elementary)
Mathematics
Media Specialist
Occupational Therapist
Physical Therapist
Physics
Reading Specialist (Elementary and Middle School)
Technology Education
SECOND HIGHEST NEED
Family and Consumer Sciences
Music, General
THIRD HIGHEST NEED
Physical Education/Health
School Psychologist
Vision

E. Based on the Examination of Qualified Paraprofessional Data (Table 6.7):

1. Describe the strategies that the local school system will use to ensure that all
paraprofessionals working in Title I schools continue to be qualified.

New candidates or current employees who are applying for positions at Title I schools must
meet the NCLB requirements.

As Title I schools are identified, data is collected on existing paraeducators in those
designated schools. Those who are not in compliance with NCLB will be moved to a non‐
Title I location the following school year.

I.D. vi
High Quality Professional Development

NCLB Goal 3: By 2005‐2006, all students will be taught by highly qualified teachers; Indicator
3.2 The percentage of teachers receiving high quality professional development (as defined in
Section 9101(34) of ESEA and the Maryland Teacher Professional Development Standards).

For purposes of this update, a professional development initiative is defined as a set of
integrated professional development activities that (1) extend over a relatively long period of
time, (2) include direct follow up in schools or classrooms, (3) provide opportunities for practice
and feedback, and (4) require a substantial investment of resources.

Consulting Teacher Team

A discussion of the need for the initiative based on a review of student data and teacher
needs:
Because teacher performance is one of the most significant factors in student learning, the
Consulting Teacher Team addresses student performance in all grade levels and subject areas
by supporting novice and identified underperforming teachers in meeting the school system’s
six teacher evaluation performance standards. By supporting the teachers in meeting standard
and by documenting these teachers’ performance to inform the Peer Assistance and Review
(PAR) Panel’s recommendations regarding continued employment, the Consulting Teacher
Team helps ensure students receive high‐quality instruction in all classes.

Description of which teachers will be targeted for participation in the initiative:
Novice teachers and teachers identified as underperforming through evaluations by school‐
based administrators receive consulting teacher (CT) support within the PAR Program. During
the 2007–2008 school year, 603 teachers were included in the Consulting Teacher Team’s
caseload for support. Based upon hiring projections and professional growth system data, 383
teachers are expected to receive program support in 2008‐2009.

Specification of the intended learning outcomes and related indicators:
The Consulting Teacher Team’s primary goal is to help each teacher meet standard in order to
increase student learning by ensuring a highly effective teacher in every classroom. When a
teacher is unable to meet standard, the team’s work informs decisions regarding continuation
of Peer Assistance and Review (PAR) Program support or removal of the teacher from the
classroom. As a result, the team works to ensure that students receive effective instruction
that reflects the system’s teacher performance standards, approved MCPS curriculum, and the
pedagogical philosophy of Saphier and Gower’s The Skillful Teacher.

Description of the planned professional learning activities, including follow‐up, the role of
principals and other leaders, and the relationship to other professional development:
The Consulting Teacher Team’s work conforms to the established processes for the PAR
Program, as described in the Teacher‐Level Professional Growth System Handbook. The CTs
provided differentiated support to the teachers on their caseload, including such activities as
formal and informal classroom observations with feedback, development and implementation
of structured growth plans, planning assistance, peer visits with reflection, planning and co‐
teaching of individual lessons, review of student performance data, and facilitation of evening
workshops on best practices. In addition, the CTs provide data on the teachers’ performance to
inform recommendations by the PAR Panel regarding release from the program, continuation
of support for an additional year, or termination of employment. Principals and other school‐
based staff collaborate with the CTs supporting teachers in their building to ensure support
matches individual teachers’ needs. Principals review all formal documentation by the CT and
convey to the PAR Panel their agreement with the CT’s final recommendation of whether a
teacher meets standard.

Plan for evaluating the initiative to determine whether the activities took place as planned
and whether the intended outcomes were achieved:
Data regarding teachers’ success in meeting standard, as reflected by the PAR Panel
recommendations and case outcomes will continue to be reviewed by the Teacher Professional
Growth System Implementation Team. In addition, all client‐teachers and their principals are
surveyed regarding Consulting Teacher support twice per school year; this data is reviewed by
members of the PAR Panel and the co‐Leads of the Consulting Teacher Team. The aggregate
survey data is shared with the Teacher Professional Growth System Implementation Team.

Budget
For the 2007–2008 school year, there were 36 full‐time consulting teachers (CTs), including 2
co‐Leads who coordinate the work of the team, and one full‐time administrative secretary. For
2008–2009, 28 CTs have been approved. Each CT receives the same salary he or she would
receive in a 10‐month classroom position, plus an additional stipend of $4,425 and an
additional 160 hours during the summer paid at the individual’s hourly rate. Also, the CTs
receive mileage reimbursement. In addition, this team receives funds for materials and supplies
of approximately $20,000 to provide specific support for their clients as appropriate. Each CT is
provided with a laptop computer and cubicle space in the Office of Organizational Development
at the Upcounty Regional Services Center.

I.D.vii
Safe Schools

No Child Left Behind Goal 4: All students will be educated in learning environments that are safe, drug‐free,
and conducive to learning.

No Child Left Behind Indicator 4.1: The number of persistently dangerous schools, as defined by the state.

NCLB requires states to identify persistently dangerous schools. In Maryland, a “persistently dangerous” school
means a school in which each year for a period of three consecutive school years the total number of student
suspensions for more than 10 days or expulsions equals two and one‐half percent (2½%) or more of the total
number of students enrolled in the school, for any of the following offenses: arson or fire; drugs; explosives;
firearms; other guns; other weapons; physical attack on a student; physical attack on a school system employee
or other adult; and sexual assault. Schools are placed into “persistently dangerous” status in a given school year
based on their suspension data in the prior year.

Note: Information associated with Safe Schools is also included in Part II, Additional Federal and State Reporting
Requirements and Attachment 11: Title IV Part A, Safe and Drug‐Free Schools and Communities.

A. Based on the Examination of Persistently Dangerous Schools Data (Table 7.1 – 7.3):
• Where first‐time schools are identified, what steps are being taken by the school system to reverse
this trend and prevent the identified school(s) from moving into probationary status?

No first‐time schools are identified. Montgomery County Public Schools has no schools that meet the criteria for
Persistently Dangerous Schools.

B. Based on the Examination of Suspension and Expulsion Data (Tables 7.4 and 7.5):
• Identify the actions implemented by the local school system to prevent/reduce incidents of sexual
harassment, harassment, and bullying.

Individual schools continue to have primary responsibility for creating a positive learning environment. Action
coordinated by central services to support schools included the following:

a. Executed a communication plan for the school community and the school system staff members on
implementation of the Safe Schools Act.
b. Implemented the Positive Behavior Intervention System (PBIS).
c. Included strategies to recognize and address sexual harassment in the new counselor training.
d. Provided counselors with in‐service training on issues related to bullying.
e. Facilitated assistance from The Conflict Resolution Center to selected schools on peer mediation and
community conferencing.
f. Maintained a countywide bullying resources page to assist communities and schools.
(www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org /info/bullying/)

C. Based on an Examination of In‐ and Out‐of‐School Suspensions Data (Tables 7.6 – 7.8):
• Identify the system‐wide strategies that are being used to prevent/reduce suspensions. If
applicable, include the strategies that are being used to address the disproportionate suspensions
among the race/ethnicity subgroups.
Staff members from Montgomery County Public Schools continue to monitor and analyze data on suspensions
and practices at schools that have been successful in preventing and reducing suspensions. These practices
include:

• Monthly monitoring and analysis of in‐school and out‐of‐school suspensions data.
• Use of data analysis to identify and share preventive strategies.
• Use of data analysis to identify preventive strategies
• Identifying alternatives to out‐of‐school suspensions appropriate to elementary, middle, and high school
students.
• Use of Functional Behavior Assessments (FBA) and Behavior Intervention Plans (BIPS) for students who
are considered at‐risk for suspension because of patterns of behavior that may lead to suspension.
• Equity targets and action plans for reducing suspensions that are integrated into school improvement
plans and monitored at the central office level.
• Parents and community stakeholders that are engaged to create partnerships and establish shared
ownership for student success.
• Comprehensive professional development focusing on building positive relationships with students.
• Revised administrative decision‐making process.

D. Based on the Examination of Progress Toward Establishing and Maintaining a Safe Learning
Environment:

1. Describe the progress that the school system has made toward establishing and maintaining safe
learning environments.

Montgomery County Public Schools has no schools that meet the criteria for Persistently Dangerous Schools.

2. Identify the practices, programs, or strategies and the corresponding resource allocations to which
you attribute the progress.

Not applicable—see above.

3. Describe the challenges that exist and the school system’s plans for overcoming those challenges
along with corresponding resource allocations.


4. Describe the changes or adjustments that will be made along with the related resource allocations
to ensure sufficient progress. Include timelines where appropriate.


I. E
Addressing Specific Student Groups
Career and Technology Education

1. Describe the school system’s progress on the implementation and expansion of Career
and Technology Education (CTE) Programs of Study within Career Clusters as a strategy
to prepare more students who graduate ready for entry into college and careers.

The mission of the MCPS Division of CTE is to “build a competitive and inspired future
workforce.” Efforts are continuing in MCPS to increase the academic rigor of the 38
Career Pathway Programs (CPPs) that are organized within the 11 MCPS Career Clusters.
CPPs and inquiry‐based curricula are designed to include not only rigor, but relevance
and relationships as well. Students learn difficult academic content more easily as they
apply their knowledge and skills to solving problems in project management teams.
CPPs are continuously monitored and updated to ensure that students have seamless
transitions to postsecondary education and careers.

Staff members from the MCPS Division of CTE continue to focus on increasing the
number of exemplary 2+2+2 programs that are specifically designed to encourage
students to be prepared for both college and careers. Opportunities for students to
obtain certifications that prepare them for employment or advanced placement in
postsecondary institutions are a major focus of instruction.

Research indicates that when students are ensured access to rigorous and relevant
CPPs, the likelihood of future success improves, providing more and better options for
all students to be successful. To help students progress in the world of work, MCPS
pairs members from each of the 11 Career Cluster Advisory Boards with students who
are completing their internship and mentoring experiences. These relationships
encourage students to prepare for their futures, while enhancing their capacities to
understand the requirements of their chosen career fields.

2. What strategies are in place to ensure access to CTE programs and success for every
student in CTE Program of Study, including students who are members of special
populations?

To support progress toward success for every student, CTE staff studied strategic plans
in several systems and reviewed past performance in MCPS. Two instructional goals
resulted from this extensive strategic planning process focusing on achievement for all
MCPS students.

By 2014:
• Thirty percent of all MCPS graduates will complete a CPP.
• Eighty percent of all CPP graduates will be prepared for college and careers.

To address the instructional goals, CTE staff and multiple stakeholders developed,
implemented, and are monitoring the following two primary strategies.

• Redesign CPPs based on national models that are aligned with college and
workplace readiness requirements. This strategy involves using the best
practices and elements of research‐based national models to redesign MCPS
CPPs. This redesign process includes related state and national credentials that
prepare students for college and careers. In addition, coursework is being
updated in middle school to ensure the seamless transition from middle to high
school and from high school to college and careers. Program design is focused on
value‐added components such as students interacting directly with business
partners, completing a capstone experience, and earning college credit and
industry/professional credentials while still in high school.
.
• Dispel the “Vo‐Tech Myth”—Communicate How CPPs Benefit Students. This
strategy focuses on communicating and marketing the successes, benefits, and
value‐added components of all career clusters and CPPs. Rebranding from the
old CTE to the new CPP provides a way to demonstrate that instruction focuses
on relevant 21st Century pathways for all students. Many parents still believe
that career‐related programs are not rigorous and are not focused on preparing
all students for college and careers. Outreach to the community regarding
specific, value‐added benefits related to CPPs will dispel antiquated perceptions
of CTE. Emphasis is placed on improving communication to middle school
students, parents/guardians, and staff about the CPP opportunities available in
high school and the related high‐wage, high‐demand college and career
experiences available beyond secondary school.

Early Learning (continued)

Based on the Examination of the Performance Data:

1. Describe the school system’s plans for ensuring the progress of students who begin
kindergarten either not ready or approaching readiness as determined by the
Maryland Model for School Readiness Work Sampling system.

At both the prekindergarten and kindergarten levels, MCPS utilizes the MCPS Assessment
Program (MCPS AP), a local assessment, to benchmark and monitor student progress in
literacy and mathematics. MCPS AP Prekindergarten Reading and Mathematics is
administered three times annually, in addition to the Early Childhood Observation Record.
All kindergarten teachers participate in professional development prior to the
administration procedures. The kindergarten assessment has a progress monitoring
component that allows teachers to assess student performance between assessment
windows to ensure targeted instruction. The MCPS AP Mathematics Kindergarten
Performance Assessments are administered at the completion of each mathematics unit.
Data gathered through these assessments is used to develop and implement an
instructional program of both whole‐group and small‐group lessons to meet the specific
needs of those students who enter kindergarten either not ready or approaching readiness,
as well as for all other kindergarten students. In addition, schools may choose to refer a
child to the school’s Educational Management Team if the teacher feels that the child’s
readiness profile may be impacted by a suspected disability and/or poor progress.

Furthermore, school‐based technical and instructional support is provided to
prekindergarten, Head Start, and kindergarten teachers by reading specialists, math content
coaches, ESOL teachers, special education teachers, staff development teachers, and early
childhood instructional specialists. These additional school system supports assist teachers
in meeting the needs of those identified as not fully ready for kindergarten. Further,
training on the revised protocols of the Maryland Model for School Readiness (MMSR) will
be provided for all new kindergarten teachers and kindergarten team leader
representatives from each school, as well as all preschool special education teachers and
related staff that are responsible for entry data collection, using the preschool version of
the MMSR, Work Sampling System.

2. Describe the changes or adjustments that will be made to address those challenges,
along with the corresponding resource allocations. Include timelines where
appropriate.

MCPS continues to provide a 10‐month prekindergarten/Head Start half‐day, high‐quality
educational program for 2,293 children highly impacted by poverty, mobility, and limited
English proficiency. This locally‐ and federally‐funded program reflects a diverse student
population and includes a full complement of family support services. This program is
designed to help the most highly impacted children who traditionally may not have other
learning opportunities.

In FY 2008, full‐day Head Start programs were implemented in 13 classes at 10 Title I
schools, serving 260 students. MCPS anticipates that providing students with a full‐day
program that increases the time, intensity, and frequency of educational services will result
in significant increases in the school‐readiness profiles. Participating students are highly
impacted, with household income levels at or below the federal poverty level.

MCPS implements a comprehensive prekindergarten and Head Start recruitment and
registration plan to ensure educational services are provided to all eligible children. The
recruitment and registration efforts are advertised on radio and television, and included in
community outreach efforts with social service agencies, community forums, organizations,
and ethnic communities. MCPS schedules prekindergarten/Head Start registrations during
evenings and on Saturdays to accommodate the schedules of working parents. This current
year, 30 percent of all children were not fully ready according to the composite readiness
profile.

Literacy and mathematics activity nights are scheduled throughout the school year for
parents and children. At these events, parents learn ways they can support and enhance
their children’s skills in these domains. Parents also receive materials to use at home with
their children. Both domains, Language and Literacy and Mathematical Thinking, continue
to show increases over the past two years—Literacy from 49 percent fully ready in 2005 to
61 percent fully ready in 2008, and mathematics from 59 percent fully ready in 2005 to 65
percent fully ready in 2008.

MCPS Early Learning documents for parents, such as Getting Ready for Kindergarten, Parent
Tips, and the Kindergarten Parent Handbook are translated in multiple languages and
disseminated throughout the school year. These languages include English, Vietnamese,
Amharic, Spanish, French, Korean, and Chinese to ensure that all parents have access to
vital information to support their children’s learning and preparation for kindergarten.

Existing and expanding community partnerships continue to increase provision of
comprehensive early childhood services to highly impacted families with children from birth
through age three at the Gaithersburg and Silver Spring Judy Centers. Targeted services
include weekly play and learn literacy‐based and parent‐child activity sessions. Both
provide developmental screenings clinics for infants and toddlers, as well as multiple series
of literacy learning parties for parents and child care providers. Judy Center educators also
help families with 4‐year‐old children access full‐year prekindergarten and/or MSDE
accredited child care programs. Training also is provided for parents and child care
providers in all MMSR domains. Training will continue to help ensure that providers are
implementing a program that is aligned with MSDE standards and will support children’s
development in all domains. Readiness data from the Judy Centers shows that these
interventions are having a positive impact on the MMSR scores of Judy Center participants.

MCPS collaboration with community child care providers will continue to ensure that highly
impacted children attending child care programs have access to a high‐quality curriculum
that is aligned with the Voluntary State Curriculum. Participating child care providers
attend MCPS training that supports implementation of the MCPS Prekindergarten
Reading/Language Arts and Mathematics curriculum and resource materials. We anticipate
that this will support gains in the language and literacy, and mathematical thinking domains
on the MMSR. Additional child care providers are guided by MCPS staff through the MSDE
accreditation/revalidation process. Providing more children with access to high‐quality
child care programs that are aligned with the MMSR domains should have a positive impact
on the overall readiness profiles of incoming MCPS kindergarten students. We have seen an
increase in the composite readiness scores of our students since we have implemented
these supports and anticipate further increases.

MCPS participated in the Leadership in Action Process, sponsored by the Montgomery
County Collaboration Council for Children, Youth and Families and funded by the Annie E.
Casey Foundation. As part of this process, MCPS collaborated with other county agencies,
both public and private, to strengthen programs and resources to support young children’s
development in all domains. As part of this group, the county’s Early Childhood Countywide
Strategic Plan will be updated to reflect the most current activities and resources available
to children and families and to ensure that future planning and efforts are aligned. The goal
of this action‐oriented group is that “All of Montgomery County Children Will Enter School
Ready to Learn.” The first Montgomery County Early Care and Education Congress was held
on April 18, 2008, to gather community input on a developing action agenda that supports
school readiness goals for Montgomery County’s children. The next session of the Congress
is scheduled for October 14, 2008.

I.F.
Gifted and Talented Programs

1. Describe the progress that was made in 2007‐2008 toward meeting Gifted and Talented
Program goals, objectives, and strategies for student identification and services.

The MCPS strategic plan, Our Call to Action: Pursuit of Excellence, includes a key goal critical
for accelerating the achievement of gifted and talented students, Goal 2 Provide an
Effective Instructional Program. In Goal 2, the milestone related to gifted and talented
students is “All schools will increase enrollment and performance of all students in gifted,
Honors, Advanced Placement, and other advanced programs.” Data points to measure the
success of this milestone include the number of students identified as gifted and talented,
the number of students enrolled in above‐grade‐level mathematics in Grade 5, the number
of students enrolled in Honors and AP courses, and student performance in Honors and AP
courses.

In addition, MCPS has developed a strategic plan for the Division of Accelerated and
Enriched Instruction to address the challenges identified by system priorities as well as
priorities identified in the recent report of the Deputy Superintendent’s Advisory
Committee on Gifted and Talented Education (DSAC). The plan includes the following four
goals:

• Strengthen Accountability Measures
• Improve and Expand Programs
• Implement Systematic Collection and Analysis of Data
• Provide all Students with Equal Access to GT Programs and Services

While MCPS begins identifying students who can work at advanced levels as early as
kindergarten, a screening of every child in Grade 2 and the opportunity for rescreening and
screening new students in Grades 3–5 allows the system to—

• Recognize those students whose performance, motivation, or potential ability
indicate the need for accelerated and enriched instruction.
• Match student strengths with instruction and programs that will support and extend
these strengths.

The global screening process is conducted by local elementary schools with support and
review from central office staff. The process consists of collecting multiple points of data on
every student, review of the data by the school Accelerated and Enriched Instruction
Committee, planning for instruction for each child, and a decision regarding identification.
Students who show potential but are not identified as “gifted and talented” may also
receive accelerated and enriched instruction.

A total of 3,688 Grade 2 students (39.4%) were identified as gifted and talented in
2006–2007, compared with 3,866 (39.5%) in 2005–2006. Analysis of the data disaggregated
by student race and ethnicity shows that in 2006–2007 African American and Hispanic
students continue to be underrepresented. While African American students represent
22.5% of all students screened, they account for 12.7% of students identified in 2006–2007,
a decrease from 13.1% in 2005–2006. While Hispanic students represent 21.1% of all
students screened, they represent 11.9% of students identified, an increase from 11.4% in
2005–2006.

Middle schools use the elementary GT identification to help plan for instruction. In
addition, students are re‐assessed locally for appropriate placement in challenging courses.
At the beginning of the second semester in 2007–2008, students in one or more GT courses
in middle school represent about 60.3% of the Grade 6 student population. In Grade 8,
about 76.7% of students are enrolled in 1 or more GT course. In high schools, student
profiles are reviewed for placement in Honors, International Baccalaureate (IB), or
Advanced Placement (AP) courses by each school. MCPS also has created a data tool to
search for students who may have potential but are not enrolled in courses that challenge
them. A total of 5,820 students—60.0% of the class of 2007— took one or more AP exams,
with 4,465 or 46.0% earning a score of 3 or better.

In 2007‐2008 MCPS continued to make progress towards system Strategic Plan goals regarding the
Gifted and Talented program services outlined in the response to Question 2 of section I.F. of the
Master Plan. Specifically progress was made in the following areas using a number of strategies:

• Staff from the Division of Accelerated and Enriched Instruction (AEI) worked with
community superintendents in the Office of School Performance (OSP) to monitor annual
data points for accelerated and enriched instruction implementation, report individual
school progress regarding provision of GT services, and to provide direct support to
schools. The monitoring process is reviewed twice a year to provide timely data to OSP
and schools, as well as targeted support.
• AEI began collecting stakeholder feedback in preparation for MCPS BOE review of Policy
IOA Gifted and Talented Education.
• AEI staff supported development of the AEI Literacy Coach and the AEI Math Content
Coach and Middle School Reform professional development sessions to establish
expectations for schools on delivery of rigorous, advanced level instruction.
• AEI staff provided individual school support, consultation, and direct professional
development on content and strategies that support advanced level instruction to 149
schools.
• System‐wide professional development was provided in rigorous course preparation for
Middle School Reform, the William and Mary Reading/Language Arts program, Junior
Great Books, Jacob’s Ladder, and continuing education courses RD40: Strategies for
Advanced Level Reading Language Arts Instruction and MA 68: Strategies for Advanced
Level Mathematics Instruction.
• AEI developed a partnership with Towson University to offer a Master’s concentration in
Gifted and Talented instruction. A cohort of MCPS teachers began the program in the fall
of 2008.
• Office of Curriculum and Instructional Program (OCIP) staff worked with school principals
to establish the Junior Great Books reading language arts program and the William and
Mary Reading Language Arts program as a requirement as an additional expectation for
students who have the ability, potential, or motivation to work at advanced levels in all
elementary schools.
• The third unit of the Highly Gifted Centers integrated curriculum was piloted in eight
centers and Unit One was piloted at a non‐Center elementary school and at the GT/LD
Centers.
• The GT/LD WINGS Mentor Program supported GT/LD students at risk of failure by
providing one‐to‐one support.
• The Center Program for the Highly Gifted opened Grade 5 at Oak View elementary this
year, expanding the Blair, Einstein, Kennedy, and Northwood cluster Center an additional
25 seats.
• Local funds were allocated in the FY 09 budget to continue implementation of the
successful Middle School Magnet Consortium after the federal Magnet Schools Assistance
Program grant ended.
• Preparations began to expand the advanced courses from the Middle School Magnet
Consortium to schools participating in Phase I and Phase II of Middle School Reform as
well as three other schools.
• The whole‐school magnet programs at Poolesville High School, including an expansion of
the Montgomery Blair Science, Mathematics, and Computer Science Magnet Program and
a new Humanities magnet program were expanded to Grade 10, with completion of the
four‐year sequence projected for 2010.
• International Baccalaureate programs were expanded to John F. Kennedy and Seneca
Valley high schools. The applications process and professional development were begun in
preparation for hosting the Diploma Programs. If approved MCPS will host a total of eight
Diploma Programs.
• Staff completed the final application and site visits for the Francis Scott Key Middle
School/Springbrook High School Middle Years Program. Upon authorization, MCPS will
have expanded the number of MYP programs to five middle schools and two high schools.
• MCPS expanded partnerships with higher education institutions to provide students with
university courses and experiences while still in high school. 22 of 25 high schools now
have college or university partnerships.
• Staff streamlined application processes, increased parental outreach, and maintained
program development for secondary magnets, including developing, collecting and
analyzing parent impressions of the programs through a survey.
• The Department of Shared Accountability conducted an analysis of the Grade 2 gifted
identification process and published a report of the process, including recommendations
for improving the process, the development of primary talent development, and
communication to parents.
• The Office of School Performance conducted several action‐research reviews of
acceleration in elementary mathematics and Advanced Placement participation and
performance through the M‐STAT process.
• OCIP, including AEI staff, developed Grade 5 Literacy Benchmark, including an advanced
level assessment. Preparations were made to pilot these new data points with 32
elementary schools in the 2008‐2009 school year.
• OCIP developed a Kindergarten Integrated Curriculum with a Primary Talent Development
component for implementation in 2009‐2010. Work in 2008‐2009 will focus on pilot
testing aspects of the curriculum and developing the online curriculum delivery model.
• AEI developed and delivered a new annual data report to all schools indicating students
identified as GT/LD.
• AEI partnered with the Division of Family and Community Partnerships to help parents
navigate the multiple acceleration and enrichment opportunities at local schools and
throughout MCPS.
• A .5 bilingual parental outreach specialist staff helped raise parent awareness of programs
for the highly gifted, specifically targeting traditionally underserved populations.
• Multiple information sessions, with translators on site, and two application workshops for
were hosted for parents interested in special programs.
• MCPS published Options, an introductory guide to special programs on the MCPS web site.
Approximately 60,000 copies will be mailed to parents of students in Grades K, 3, 5, and 8
in school year 2008‐2009.
• AEI staff met with all principals in quad‐clusters meetings to inform them of
changes in application procedures and to share results of the Grade 2
identification process.

2. Identify the strategies, including resource allocations that appear related to the progress.
Include supporting data as needed.

MCPS offers a continuum of programs and services, including accelerated and enriched
instruction at every school and center and magnet programs for the highly gifted and GT/LD
students. At the elementary level, students are served primarily through opportunities for
accelerated and enriched instruction in the MCPS curriculum. In the MCPS mathematics
and reading/language arts programs, students can access work one to several years above
grade level. Enrichment opportunities are included in programs during the school day such
as William and Mary, Junior Great Books, and through after‐school enrichment such as
Destination Imagination. Several specialty programs serve a limited number of students
such as the early recognition of potential, the Program for Assessment, Diagnosis, and
Instruction (PADI) in 16 schools, the .5 GT Title I program in 22 schools, the Wings Mentor
Program for GT/LD students, three GT/LD centers, the Takoma Park Primary Magnet, the
International Baccalaureate Primary Years Programme, and seven centers for the highly
gifted.

At the middle school level, students are encouraged to enroll in above grade‐level
mathematics courses and GT courses or cluster groups in English, science, and social
studies. Additionally, students may enroll in high school level foreign language courses, also
considered advanced level courses. The curriculum for GT courses includes appropriate
adaptations for accelerated and enriched learning for pursuing in‐depth studies that require
abstract and higher‐order thinking skills. GT courses provide expectations and
opportunities for students to work independently at an accelerated pace, to engage in more
rigorous and complex content and processes, and to develop authentic products that reflect
students' understanding of key concepts. Students who are highly capable and potentially
high‐achieving students who are motivated to pursue rigorous, challenging instruction may
enroll in GT courses.

Special programs for the middle school level include three centers for GT/LD students,
centers for the highly gifted in humanities and mathematics, science, and computer science,
the International Baccalaureate Middle Years Programme, and student choice magnets in
technology, aerospace, and the creative and performing arts. Students at every level in
MCPS high school may choose from a broad range of core and elective courses at the
Honors and AP levels. Special programs are focused on serving students at two GT/LD
centers, three application programs for the highly gifted, six International Baccalaureate
programs, and a Visual Arts Center. Students may also choose from a variety of local and
regional signature and academy programs.

As indicated in the list for question #1, MCPS employed a number of strategies to continue progress
towards system Strategic Plan goals regarding Gifted and Talented program services. The most
frequently used strategies were system‐wide professional development, project management and
expansion of initiatives, clarification of instructional expectations, communication with
stakeholders, and direct support to schools in the form of consultation, curriculum planning, and
professional development.

For FY 2009 MCPS allocated a budget of $1,884,669 to the Division of Accelerated and Enriched
Instruction to help meet system goals in this area. This does not include the resources dedicated in
other offices, special programs housed at schools, or school programs focused on accelerated and
enriched instruction.

3. Describe where challenges are evident in meeting Gifted and Talented Program goals,
objectives, and strategies.
MCPS continues its work to achieve the goals of the strategic plan, Our Call to Action:
Pursuit of Excellence, and specifically the goal critical for accelerating the achievement of
gifted and talented students, Goal 2 Provide an Effective Instructional Program. The
challenges for meeting these goals are articulated in the strategic plan for the Division of
Accelerated and Enriched Programs, along with the following 18 strategies to address the
challenges:

I. Strengthen Accountability Measures
A. Improve GT policy monitoring through alignment with the efforts of Office of School
Performance to monitor schools.
B. Work with the Office of School Performance to develop key school data to publish
regarding GT implementation, such as participation in professional development and
number of students in advanced courses.
C. Develop performance criteria to evaluate key school‐based staff responsible for service
delivery.

II. Improve and Expand Programs
A. Review the Global Screening process to focus on levels of service provided to students.
B. Develop clear guidelines to differentiated levels of service in reading/language
arts/English, mathematics, science, and social studies.
C. Refocus Title I, PADI, and Wings Mentor program into a primary talent development
initiative serving a maximum number of schools in need.
D. Complete, implement, and disseminate highly gifted center curriculum.
E. Complete and implement the Middle School Magnet Consortium programs curriculum.
F. Develop a whole‐school magnet model for the Poolesville High School magnet
programs.
G. Review middle school humanities and math/science programs and make
recommendations for improvement.
H. Develop a strategic plan for expansion and implementation of IB programs.

III. Implement Systematic Collection and Analysis of Data
A. Integrate data collected regarding accelerated and enriched instruction into individual
student profiles provided in student data systems.
B. Include data on student accelerated and enriched instruction in parent‐reporting
methods.

IV. Provide all Students with Equal Access to GT Programs and Services
A. Review instructional practices and articulation procedures to ensure that institutional
barriers to access are identified and removed at all levels.
B. Review impact of Title I .5 position and report recommendations.
C. Review access for GT/LD students through a program review.
D. Develop consistent methods for parent outreach to ensure that all families are
knowledgeable about accelerated and enriched programs.
E. Review the application procedures for all test‐in programs to ensure equitable access.

4. Describe the changes or adjustments that will be made, along with the corresponding

Progress continues on meeting the MCPS goal of providing an effective instructional
program for all students, and in particular for students requiring acceleration and
enrichment. Many measures in the MCPS strategic plan are being put into effect and
funding is being provided to support implementation.

The effort to strengthen accountability measures continues through collaboration with the
Office of School Performance. Meetings for FY 2009 with community superintendents to
discuss key data points related to GT implementation will occur on a regular basis. Based on
analysis of data, schools in particular need of professional development and support in
providing effective accelerated and enriched programming will be identified and support
provided. The Division of Accelerated and Enriched Instruction will support evaluation of
effective implementation of advanced‐level programming in identified schools using
previously created performance criteria. Additional K–12 benchmarks for reading language
arts will be identified that will allow schools to monitor progress, similar to the current
mathematics structure.

Program expansion and improvement efforts include a continuation of the work to review,
in collaboration with the Board of Education Policy Committee, the global screening
process, as articulated in Policy IAO: Gifted and Talented Education, to focus on identifying
advanced level services provided to students. Recommendations from the Deputy
Superintendent’s Committee studying disproportionality will provide additional guidance in
this effort. Primary talent development opportunities are being embedded in the new
integrated digital kindergarten curriculum and staff members from the highly gifted centers
are receiving professional development to accompany the newly created curriculum for
students at the centers. Feedback from the teachers will result in further refinement of the
curriculum. The whole school magnet at Poolesville High School continues to expand the
course offerings, allowing the school to challenge both the students who applied and were
selected countywide for advanced‐ programming opportunities and all students who
normally attend this school. Two additional high schools will apply to institute International
Baccalaureate programs in 2008–2009.

As a part of the Middle School Reform initiative, MCPS is building on the success of the
whole school magnet programs at three MCPS middle schools: Argyle, A. Mario
Loiederman, and Parkland. The availability of highly engaging advanced‐level courses
previously offered only to the three magnet consortium schools will be extended to
additional middle schools, allowing students in more schools access to even more rigorous
coursework, some of which will offer high school credit. Funding is included to expand this
initiative to 18 schools in 2008–2009. In addition, the Board of Education assumed funding
of the highly successful MSMC as the federal grant ended on July 30, 2008.

A review of middle school humanities and math/science courses will continue, with
teachers from the various sites collaborating to develop or refine curriculum documents.
The recent hiring of an instructional specialist with enable the development of a strategic
plan for expansion and implementation of IB programs to occur.

Work to implement systematic collection and analysis of data continues in collaboration
with the Office of the Chief Technology Officer. Data collected regarding accelerated and
enriched instruction are now integrated into individual student profiles provided in student
data systems at all grade levels. MCPS is working to make the data more easily accessible
for teachers and administrators and available to parents.

An important challenge that remains is that of providing all students with equal access to GT
programs and services. MCPS is working to build the capacity of staff to establish culturally
sensitive learning environments and to develop culturally sensitive instruction. An outcome
of the Middle School Reform initiative is that common articulation procedures be
established to ensure that institutional barriers to access rigorous instruction are identified
and removed at all levels. The Division of Family and Community Partnerships is
collaborating with the Department of Enriched and Innovative Programs to develop
consistent methods for parent outreach to ensure that all families are knowledgeable about
accelerated and enriched programs. On‐going review of the application procedures for all
test‐in programs to ensure equitable access continues. The Division of Accelerated and
Enriched Instruction supports the Program for Assessment, Diagnosis, and Instruction
(PADI) in 16 elementary schools to identify and nurture the talents and skills of traditionally
underrepresented populations. The division also supports the professional development of
elementary GT Title 1 teachers in 22 schools and middle school Accelerated and Enriched
Instruction Support Teachers who work to provide access to accelerated and enriched
instruction in their schools to all students.

Central office support is provided through the Division of Accelerated and Enriched
Instruction, including systemwide instructional specialists, administrators, and additional
staffing allocations to schools with special programs. Funding support also includes
additional materials, textbooks, and professional development.
MCPS allocated additional funds to support the following initiatives in FY 2009:
• The Middle School Magnet Consortium, $1,222,934
• Expansion of Advanced Courses from MSMC to Other Middle Schools, $744,871
• Expansion of International Baccalaureate Programs, $79,310
• Expansion of the Poolesville Magnet Programs, $120,960

I.E.
Addressing Specific Student Groups, Special Education

Improving the Academic Performance of Students with Disabilities

Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) continues to make progress helping students with
disabilities become proficient in reading as evidenced by the increase in the percentage of
these students meeting proficiency levels in each grade level of the Maryland School
Assessment (MSA). The system continues to explore and implement initiatives that ensure
academic achievement of students with disabilities in reading. Expanding the implementation
of research‐based reading interventions; hours‐based staffing; and Middle School Reform
continues to improve student achievement in reading.

The Department of Special Education Services (DSES) and the Department of Special Education
Operations (DSEO) are committed to expanding and supporting the implementation of
research‐based reading interventions that compliment the curriculum and address students’
needs by purchasing materials, providing professional development, coaching school‐based
staff, and monitoring student progress. MCPS has implemented and provides ongoing, job‐
embedded support for the following interventions:

• Read Well at nine elementary schools. Read Well targets phonemic awareness and
phonics instruction using systematic and explicit instruction for nonfluent readers in
Grades 1–3.
• Horizons at 20 elementary schools. Horizons is a direct instruction reading intervention
to develop phonemic awareness, decoding skills, advanced word recognition,
vocabulary, fluency, and basic comprehension strategies for struggling readers in
Grades K–3.
• Corrective Reading at 24 elementary schools, 30 middle schools, and five high schools.
Corrective Reading is a direct instruction intervention to improve decoding skills for
struggling readers in Grade 4 through age 21.
• Read Naturally at three elementary schools, 15 middle schools, and four high schools.
Read Naturally improves reading fluency for struggling readers. The program includes
modeled reading of passages, repeated student readings, and progress monitoring of
fluency and comprehension.
• Lexia—Reading Strategies for Older Students at four elementary schools, eight middle
schools, and four high schools. This software program provides supplemental support
for the development of an effective decoding system using activity‐based instruction.
• Edmark Reading at one elementary school, one middle school, and three high schools.
This program develops sight vocabulary for students needing more functional reading
development.
• Read 180 at all secondary schools. Read 180 is a computer‐based intervention for
middle and high school students. After the initial whole group lesson, students rotate
in small groups to different stations that include individualized instructional software,
audio books for modeled reading, and paperback books for independent reading. The
DSES and DSEO contributed to the funding of this intervention in 16 middle schools and
four high schools, and general education initiatives funded the other licenses and
professional development so that all secondary schools could provide this intervention.
• Soliloquy Reading Assistant at six middle schools. This software program allows
students to practice independent oral reading. The program combines speech
recognition and verification technology to help students develop fluency, vocabulary,
and comprehension.
• Wilson Reading System at four middle schools and one high school. The Wilson
Reading System uses a multi sensory instructional sequence that teaches students
Grade 3 to age 21 to decode and spell through increased understanding of language
structure.
• Rewards at one middle school and 14 high schools. Rewards is a scripted decoding
intervention that teaches students reading strategies beginning with multi syllabic
words.

Academic Intervention Specialist. Two academic intervention instructional specialists—a
special education supervisor of academic interventions and two itinerant resource
teachers—coordinate the distribution of resources, provide the professional development
and coaching, and monitor student progress with the interventions. Many schools have
purchased and are implementing the reading interventions listed above and are able to
access professional development and support from central office special education
leadership staff.

Focus on Mathematics. MCPS continues to make progress helping students become
proficient in mathematics as evidenced by the increase in the percentage of students with
disabilities meeting proficiency levels in each grade level of the MSA, other than a slight
decrease in Grade 3. MCPS has initiated the following efforts to ensure mathematics
proficiency including the implementation of research‐based mathematics interventions;
systemwide professional development focused on making mathematics instruction
accessible for students with disabilities for elementary special educators, middle school
mathematics, and high school algebra for general and special educators. Hours‐based
staffing and Middle School Reform also are initiatives that MCPS is implementing to
continue to improve student achievement in mathematics.

The following scientifically research‐based mathematics interventions have been
implemented systemwide:

• FASTT Math for 18 elementary schools and 36 middle schools. FASTT Math is a
software program that helps struggling students develop fluency with basic
mathematics facts in the four operations. It automatically differentiates instruction and
practice based on each student’s individual fluency levels in customized, 10‐minute daily
sessions for students in Grades 3–8.
• Above and Beyond with Digi Blocks for 11 middle schools, three high schools, and one
special school with programs for students with significant cognitive impairments. Above
and Beyond with Digi Blocks is a mathematics manipulative designed to support student
understanding of number concepts. Its five strands address counting, place value, the
four operations, and money concepts.
• Understanding Math Plus for 11 high schools. Understanding Math Plus is a computer‐
assisted program used with students in Grades 4–10. The program’s nine topics can be
used to introduce concepts to a whole class, reteach concepts in a different way to a
small group, or remediate individual students on specific skills. Each topic has
interactive concept sections with step‐by‐step explanations, practice sessions, and off‐
computer activities with lesson outlines/worksheets.

Professional Development and Collaboration with General Educators

AYP Grant for Middle School Improvement. Through a state‐funded Adequate Yearly Progress
(AYP) grant, MCPS has focused resources on professional development and ongoing support to
nine middle schools that have failed to make AYP in reading or met AYP through Safe Harbor.
The AYP project focuses on implementing a direct‐instruction, tiered reading intervention
program to complement the existing interventions within the schools. MCPS also continues to
provide additional staffing allocations for Intensive Reading Needs Programs at 16 middle
schools and one high school.

Hours‐based Staffing. MCPS has implemented hours‐based staffing in 13 middle schools and
plans to expand this in three more middle schools for FY 2009. Hours‐based staffing is a service
delivery model that provides equitable and appropriate staffing of special education teachers
and paraeducators based on the total number of direct instructional service hours on student
Individualized Education Programs (IEPs). Hours‐based staffing provides resources for more
flexible programming options such as co‐teaching.

Co‐teaching. Professional development in December 2008 for elementary special educators,
middle school math coteachers, Grade 6 reading teachers, high school algebra co‐teachers, and
English 10 coteachers focused on strategies to make the curriculum more accessible to students
with disabilities in a general education environment. Plans for summer 2008 include
mandatory systemwide professional development for Grades 7 and 9 co‐teachers and
paraeducators on best practices for co‐teaching.

Middle School Reform Efforts Aligned with Special Education. Middle School Reform efforts
are aligned with the DSES and DSEO’s goal of improving student outcomes in mathematics.
Based on national research and extensive work of project teams, Middle School Reform
addresses four key areas to meet the academic and developmental needs of middle school
students in MCPS including collaborative and high quality leadership, teachers with strong
content knowledge and teaching expertise; rigorous and challenging curriculum; instruction and
assessments that require students to make connections across disciplines and apply
information to real life; and strong parent and community engagement. Expectations for
academic excellence at the highest level with appropriate supports are the common thread that
is woven through the goals and actions of Middle School Reform. Students with disabilities
benefit from all of the goals and actions outlined in Middle School Reform including providing
staffing allocations to support the inclusion of special education students in general education
classes and implementing a comprehensive professional development plan for middle school
instructional staff on topics such as differentiation, rigor, technology, and using data to drive
instruction. Phase 1 of Middle School Reform was implemented in five middle schools who
struggled with making AYP for the 2007–2008 school year. As these schools continue their
efforts, pending budget approval, 10 additional schools will begin Middle School Reform for the
2008–2009 school year.

Improving Access to the General Education Curriculum

Home School Model. In FY 2008, the elementary Home School Model (HSM) provided special
education services to students in general education classrooms in their home schools. In FY
2009, this model will be implemented in 60 elementary schools. By providing professional
development and the required staff, home schools are able to provide a continuum of services
so students do not have to access services in regional self‐contained classes.

MCPS is committed to providing students with disabilities access to the general education
environment to the maximum extent appropriate. MCPS has continued to make progress in
increasing the number of students receiving special education services in general education
(LRE A) as evidenced by increased percentages each year since 2004.

Preschool Special Education. Providing preschool special education services in regular early
childhood settings has been challenging due to the limited number of regular preschool
programs and services available in MCPS. The Division of Preschool Special Education and
Related Services (DPSERS) and the Division of Early Childhood Education Programs and Services
are collaborating to colocate general and special education preschool classes to facilitate LRE
options for preschool students. In FY 2008, MCPS continued to implement a preschool
Collaboration Class Project in which general and special education teachers use a collaborative
teaching model to instruct four‐year‐old students with and without disabilities together using
flexible groupings. Currently, 12 locations are using this model and also have been expanded
for three‐year olds at six locations. This program enables children with disabilities to attend
school with their neighborhood nondisabled peers. As a result, children with disabilities are
provided with greater access to the preschool curriculum and better preparation for general
education kindergarten settings.

Eight Itinerant Resource Teachers (IRTs) with a wide range of expertise in autism, behavioral
and emotional support strategies, elementary and secondary instructional strategies, and
reading and mathematics instruction, provide professional development and job‐embedded
coaching to school staff to improve students’ success in the LRE, increase attendance, decrease
suspension rates, and improve overall student outcomes.

MCPS has continued to make progress in reducing the number of students receiving special
education services in self‐contained classrooms (LRE C) as evidenced by a decrease of
approximately one percent each year since 2004. Comprehensive initiatives have been
implemented throughout the county including the phasing out of secondary learning centers,
systemwide mandatory professional development for Grade 6 co‐teachers, the expansion of
home school model to additional elementary schools, and the continued effort of eight IRTs for
support of LRE.

Phase‐out of Secondary Learning Centers. MCPS continues to implement its plan to phase out
secondary learning centers. Currently, 70 students in Grades 6–12 who would have been
recommended for secondary learning centers have transitioned to their home or consortia
schools and are receiving a continuum of special education services. Currently, there are no
Grade 6 learning center classes and for the FY 2009 there will be no Grades 6 or 7 learning
center classes. In addition, since January 2007, students are no longer being referred to
secondary learning centers. This initiative has contributed to the decrease in students being
served in self‐contained settings and more students with disabilities being served in general
education.

Access to Rigorous Curriculum. In another initiative designed to increase opportunities for
students with disabilities to access rigorous instruction provided by highly qualified teachers,
the Mark Twain program was identified for closure in June 2008. Mark Twain, a separate
special education day program, had failed to make AYP for several consecutive years and was
placed in the Corrective Action phase of school improvement during the 2006–2007 school
year. The school failed to make AYP in Corrective Action and was identified for the
restructuring phase of school improvement for the 2007–2008 school year. Through the
Individualized Education Program decision‐making process, Mark Twain students will first be
considered to receive academic, behavioral, and mental health supports within comprehensive
high schools before more restrictive options are considered. This closing is considered to be in
the best interest of the students and in alignment with all other LRE initiatives.
I.F
CROSS-CUTTING THEMES
Educational Technology and Education That Is Multicultural
Educational Technology
In addition to including technology strategies across the Master Plan aligned to state and local
technology plans, the local school system Master Plan Update should outline specifically how it
will use all sources of funding in meeting No Child Left Behind Statutory Goals:
¾ Improve student academic achievement through the use of technology in elementary schools
and secondary schools
A program of technology-based formative assessments is helping teachers assess student

learning and adjust their teaching practices accordingly. Specifically, they can re-teach
concepts not learned by their students and can differentiate instruction as needed by
individual students.
¾ To assist every student in crossing the digital divide by ensuring that every student is
technologically literate by the time the student finishes the eighth grade, regardless of the
student’s race, ethnicity, gender, family income, geographic location, or disability.
Prior to the start of the 2008–2009 school year, a group of selected teachers are reviewing
Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) curriculum and mapping the current MCPS
curriculum and curriculum resources to the Maryland Technology Literacy Standards for
Students. The next step, planned to begin the summer of 2009, is to add curriculum and
resources where gaps are identified. Central office staff also will review the results of the
2008–2009 administration of the Student Technology Literacy assessment and create
strategies to respond to results, both through changes in the curriculum and teacher staff
development. The central office staff collaboratively leading this project includes the
directors of curriculum, library and media services, and technology innovations.
¾ To encourage the effective integration of technology resources and systems with teacher
training and curriculum development to establish research-based instructional methods that
can be widely implemented as best practices by State educational agencies and local
educational agencies.
Central office staff will review the results of 2008–2009 administration of the student,
teacher, and administrator technology literacy assessments (see above). Based on the
findings of these reviews, MCPS will create strategies to respond to results through changes
in the student curriculum and curriculum resources, and changes in teacher and
administrator staff development. These strategies will incorporate methods of instruction
that are based on valid research and are proven to increase student and teacher technology
literacy.
Based on data from the Maryland Technology Inventory, local data and data from any other
relevant sources, address the following questions:
1. Describe the progress that was made in 2007–2008 toward meeting educational
technology goals.
This description of the progress made toward meeting the district’s educational technology
goals is based on a review of goals in the Montgomery County Public Schools Strategic
Technology Plan: 2005–2008. Data includes MCPS trends and comparisons with statewide
averages and other Maryland school districts.
Plan Goals:
• Computers will be accessible to all children on an equitable basis.
• Technology will be fully integrated into instruction.
• Information systems will be used for measuring performance and improving results.
• Technology will be used to overcome location and distance, as barriers to learning.
Unexpected Outcomes
During the implementation of the strategic technology plan, a number of unexpected
outcomes and benefits were achieved. Also, a number of targets were not achieved because
of a lack of staff resources, lack of time, lack of funding, or lack of interest by schools. A
summary of these unexpected outcomes follow.
Benefits
• Use of donated computers by nonpublic schools
• Use of school and program funds to acquire additional funds when a 5:1 computer
replacement policy was adopted by the Montgomery County Council
• Use of technology to support formative student assessment
• Use of technology to track teacher participation in required training
Targets Not Yet Achieved

• A 3:1 students to computers ratio
• Adoption of distance learning and video conferencing by high schools
• Partnerships around technology-related initiatives with communities and businesses
• The measurement of student technology literacy
¾ Objective 1: Access to high performance technology and its rich resources is universal
Goal 1: Computers will be accessible to all children on an equitable basis
Goal 1, Objective 1
MCPS will establish a ratio of students to computers of 3:1 and increase the number of
computers; computer-related technologies; and handheld, portable, and assistive devices used
in schools to meet this ratio and the instructional needs of students by 2008.
Performance Measure 1.1.A: Student to computer ratio

Performance Measure 1.1.B: Computer projection devices per school
Performance Measure 1.1.C: Use of assistive technologies for students with disabilities
Performance Measure 1.1.D: Technical support staff to computer ratios
Data from the 2007 Maryland Technology Inventory indicates the following progress:
Universal Access to High Performance Technology

Indicator of Progress Montgomery Maryland Average Target
Student to computer ratio 3.8:1 3.4:1 5:1
Classrooms with Internet access 100% 98% 100%
Classrooms with 1+ student computers 91% 82% 100%
Is assistive technology used by teachers
for students with disabilities or with
learning difficulties?
• disabilities and learning difficulties 45% 26% n/a
• primarily disabilities 52% 28% n/a
• teachers lack awareness, have not 3% 46% n/a
been trained, or have no clear way
to obtain assistive technologies
Data from the 2007 Maryland Technology Inventory indicates the following progress toward
meeting this objective (see both the graph and the table).
Number of Students per Computer
7.0
6.0 6.0
Better
6.0
5.2 5.2
5.0
2005 State Target 4.2
3.9
4.0
3.8
3.0
2.0
1.0
-
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
SOURCE: Maryland Online Technology Surveys completed in 2000 through 2006
Table 2. Students to Computer Comparisons
MD District Rankings on Students per Computer

1 Talbot County 2.2
2 Garrett County 2.4
3 Worcester County 2.8
4 Caroline County 2.9
5 Prince George’s County 2.9
6 Howard County 3.1
7 Somerset County 3.1
8 Frederick County 3.2
9 St. Mary’s County 3.2
10 Wicomico County 3.2
11 Baltimore County 3.3
12 Cecil County 3.4
13 Charles County 3.4
14 Allegany County 3.5
15 Anne Arundel County 3.5
16 Carroll County 3.6
17 Kent County 3.7
18 Queen Anne’s County 3.7
19 Dorchester County 3.773
20 Montgomery County 3.775
21 Washington County 3.837
22 Harford County 3.9
23 Calvert County 4.2
24 Baltimore City 4.5
State Total 3.4
Data from the 2007 Maryland Technology Inventory indicates the progress toward meeting
this objective, as shown on the two tables that follow.
Table 3. Equitable Access to Technology
Indicator of Progress Montgomery Maryland Target

Average number of projection devices per school 18.1 19.3 1 per classroom
Table 4. Maryland School District Comparisons
Average # of Projection Devices per School

10 Howard County 19.3
12 Kent County 14.1
17 Cecil County 9.9
23 Talbot County 5.9
State Total 19.0
meeting this objective (graph).
Percentage of Schools Using Assistive Technologies

100%
90%
80%
70%
60% Better
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Assistive Technology—MCPS is compliant with the Maryland State Department of Education

(MSDE) regulation (COMAR 13A.05.02.13H) governing the acquisition of accessible
technology-based instructional products and with Education Article § 7-910: Equivalent
Access for Students with Disabilities that requires teacher-made instructional materials also
are accessible. As part of the Bridge to Excellence Master Planning process, MCPS reports
its accessibility compliance annually, including the process, implementation, and monitoring
of these guidelines.
The MCPS Web site is accessible to all users, including those with disabilities. In addition,
school Web developers are trained in how to make their own sites accessible and give free
tools to support this effort via http://aprompt.snow.utoronto.ca/index.html. The following is
an excerpt from this Web page:
A-Prompt Helps People with Disabilities Use the Internet
Web authors can use A-Prompt to make their Web pages accessible to people with
disabilities. The A-Prompt software tool examines Web pages for barriers to accessibility,
performs automatic repairs when possible, and assists the author in manual repairs when
necessary. These enhanced Web pages are available to a larger Internet audience.
People who are blind can use the Internet by listening to synthesized speech from their
computer. They do this by using a Screen Reader, software that vocalizes text by converting
it to speech.
Those with physical disabilities who have difficulty typing or using a mouse can browse the
Internet by manipulating switches or wireless pointing devices attached to their heads.
People who are deaf can understand sound on the Internet by reading visible text and image
captions.
These are examples of technologies, known as Assistive Technologies, which improve the
accessibility of the Internet to people with disabilities. Unfortunately, smooth operation of
these technologies is often prevented by how a Web page is designed and created.
Accessibility also can be improved directly by applying universal design techniques. For
example, people who are deaf can understand sound on the Internet by reading text captions
and viewing supplemental illustrations. The ability to zoom and enlarge text allows those
with low vision to read.
Assistive Technologies and universal design make the Internet more accessible to everybody
by providing convenient alternatives for small screens in mobile devices, text alternatives for
low bandwidth connections, and other atypical situations.
There are 74 secondary Information Technology System Specialists (ITSS)—one in each

middle and high school—and 36 ITSSs support 131 elementary schools and 5 special
schools. With a total of 42,378 computers in the schools, this represents an average of 415
computers per ITSS. This average is 115 more than the 300:1 ratio recommended by the
MSDE and adopted by MCPS.
Goal 1, Objective 2
MCPS will facilitate the donation of 800 previously owned computers to community
partnerships to help close the digital divide by 2008.
Performance Measure: The total number of computers donated through MCPS to identified
community groups.
From July 2005 through December 2007, a total of 5,480 previously owned computers were
donated to local community centers and nonpublic schools.
Goal 1, Objective 3
MCPS computers and portable devices will continue to access online services and resources
from any location with Internet access through 2008.
Performance Measures: Percentage of schools and classrooms with Internet connectivity,

comparison of school access to students with access to the Internet at home, and percentage
of schools with medium/high Internet capacity.
meeting this objective.
Table 5. Student Home Access to Technology

Classrooms with Internet access 100% 98% 100%
Students with Internet access at home 83% 73% 100%
Schools with medium/high Internet capacity 100% Not Available 100%
Goal 2. Technology will be fully integrated into instruction
Goal 2, Objective 1
School-based and central services staff members will demonstrate competence relevant to
their job function in using productivity software, instructional software, online services, the
Internet, administrative applications, and decision support tools by 2007.
Performance Measures: Technology use by staff to perform required job skills as measured
by assessments identified through this planning process.
Table 6. Teacher Knowledge and Skills

Teacher knowledge and skills at
least intermediate in:
- computer use 80% 78% 100%
- Internet use 74% 72% 100%
- technology integration 80% 74% 100%
Goal 2, Objective 2
Ongoing staff development for technology will continue to be provided using a variety of
formats and delivery methods through 2008.
Performance Measures: Customer satisfaction with the variety of formats and delivery
methods for technology staff development and increased staff knowledge and skills as
measured by the evaluation standards and measures to be developed in the activities below.
[This objective was not fulfilled.]

Goal 2, Objective 3
All MCPS students will demonstrate the skills, knowledge, and attitudes to use technology
appropriately to support their learning by 2007.
Performance Measure: Technology is used by students to perform skills emphasized by the

state
Table 7. Student Use of Technology

(Percentages are answers of “a few times a month” and “every day or almost every day”)
Indicators of Progress Montgomery Maryland

1. Gather information and data from a variety of sources 93% 89%
2. Organize and store information 58% 50%
3. Perform measurements and collect data in investigations or lab 26% 30%
experiments
4. Manipulate/analyze/interpret information or data to discover 45% 39%
relationships, generate questions, and/or reach conclusions
5. Communicate/report information, conclusions, or results of 82% 64%
investigations
6. Display data/information 68% 54%
7. Communicate/interact with others in the classroom/ school/outside 38% 38%
of school
8. Plan, draft, proofread, revise, and publish written text 91% 78%
9. Create graphics or visuals 84% 63%
10. Plan, refine, produce multimedia presentations 53% 40%
11. Generate original pieces of visual art and/or musical composition 28% 23%
12. Perform calculations 41% 42%
13. Develop a more complete understanding of complex material or 28% 29%
abstract concepts
14. Connect auditory language to the written word and/ or graphic 82% 61%
representations
15. Design and produce a product 19% 15%
16. Control other devices 7% 7%
17. Support individualized learning or tutoring 57% 60%
18. Remediate for basic skills 84% 79%
19. Accommodate for a disability or limitation 88% 69%
Goal 2, Objective 4
Partnerships are established with schools, communities, and businesses to enhance the
effectiveness of technology-related initiatives in support of success for every child by 2007.
Performance Measure: User and community satisfaction survey results.

Goal 2, Objective 5
The MCPS curriculum reflects the appropriate use of technology to support teaching and
learning, and resources to support this curriculum are developed and made available
electronically by 2008.
Performance Measure: The percentage of newly designed and updated curricula that include
integrated instructional technology support, alignment, and appropriateness.
All new curricula integrate technology. In addition, assessments are being posted online in
support of one of the district’s master plan strategies, which is Optimization of technology to
support student achievement through analysis of formative assessment data, diagnosis of
student learning needs, and analysis of reading and math achievement data.
Goal 2, Objective 6
The implementation plans for MCPS instructional initiatives continue to include technology
as one of the tools that is used to support increased student achievement through 2008.
Performance Measure: The percentage of new instructional initiatives that includes

technology as a support for increased student achievement in their implementation plans.
Major instructional initiatives include technology as a support. Two examples are—
• magnet schools—the 2:1 student to computer ratios in the Argyle Middle School
magnets and the 3 student computers per classroom in the Pine Crest and North
Chevy Chase elementary magnets, and
• Middle School Reform Initiative—the ACTIVClassroom focus for student

engagement.
Goal 3. Information systems will be used for measuring performance and improving
results
Goal 3, Objective 1
Use multiple measures to assess the impact of technology on enhancing instruction and
student learning by 2008.
Performance Measure: A balanced technology evaluation plan has been created,

implemented, and used to improve the use of technology to support instruction and student
learning.
Goal 3, Objective 2
Implement an enterprise-wide Integrated Quality Management System that is comprised of a
data warehouse system and a Web-based instructional management system by 2008.
Performance Measure: Percentage of teachers and administrators who use technology to

maintain data on students.
Data from the 2007 Maryland Technology Inventory indicate that progress was made toward
meeting this objective. This progress is displayed on the table that follows.
Table 8. Administrator Use of Technology

1. Communicating with staff members and other colleagues 100% 99%
2. Communicating with parents/guardians of students 98% 88%
3. Posting/viewing/accessing school/district announcements or 99% 94%

information
4. Participating in online discussion groups or collaborative 66% 41%

projects
5. Diagnosing and placing students 84% 72%
6. Analyzing attendance and/or grades 91% 91%
7. Analyzing tests 83% 75%
8. Analyzing grades and progress reports 80% 74%
9. Maintaining data on students 96% 93%
10. Analyzing and/or reporting students/school improvement 80% 77%

data
11. Creating instructional materials/visuals/presentations 84% 78%
12. Accessing curriculum/school improvement material from the 92% 87%

Internet or school system Intranet
13. Researching educational topics of interest 92% 91%
14. Handling inventory, lockers, field trips or bus schedules 69% 64%
Table 9. Teacher and Administrator Use of Technology
Indicator of Progress Montgomery Maryland
9. Teachers: Maintaining data on students 91% 79%
9. Administrators: Maintaining data on students 96% 93%
Goal 3, Objective 3
Develop and maintain high-quality information systems to help manage information,
improve work efficiencies, and support instruction by 2003 and beyond.
Performance Measure: Percentage of prioritized system requirements that are implemented

in enterprise system development, upgrade, and maintenance projects. Customer satisfaction.
Data from the FY 2009 Operating Budget indicate that progress was made toward meeting
this objective. This progress is displayed on the table that follows.
Table 10. Quality of Information System
Indicator of Progress FY 2007 Data

Percentage of high priority enterprise system requirements implemented 88%
on- time
Level of customer satisfaction with implemented enterprise technology 80%
solution (business systems)
Percentage of users satisfied with the customer service provided (student 75%
systems)
Goal 4. Technology will be used to overcome location and distance as barriers to

learning
Goal 4, Objective 1
MCPS students and teachers will continue to have access to online instructional resources to
support teaching and learning through 2008.
Performance Measure: The percentage growth in online teaching and instructional resources
available to all MCPS students and teachers.
The content on the MCPS Web page for students interested in online courses (January 11,
2008) follows. The information on this Web page indicates the number and variety of online
course offerings now available for high school students in Montgomery County Public
Schools (MCPS).
http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/onlinelearning/
Student Online Learning—21st Century Learning for 21st Century Learners
Student Online Learning, through the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS), is a way for
high school students to take courses outside of the traditional classroom setting. For more
information or to register for an online class, please see your school guidance counselor.
Are You Ready for Online Learning?

• This is Student Online Learning
Information about process and eligibility for online students.
• Success as an Online Student
Rules of the road for success as an online student.
2008 Spring Courses - Registration OPEN for Spring FOT (click here)
• Foundations of Technology (FOT)
This 1.0 credit course will be offered this spring in a 10 week format and will include 3
required face-to-face lab sessions. The course runs from March 31 - June 7. A half credit
option is available for seniors only, running from March 31 - April 25 and will include 2
face-to-face sessions.
Maryland Virtual Learning Opportunity (MVLO) AP Courses
• AP Art History • AP Physics B
• AP Calculus AB • AP Statistics
• AP English Lit and Comp • AP US Gov't and Politics
• AP Macroeconomics • AP Computer Sci A
• AP Microeconomics
Summer Course Highlights 2008 - Registration Opens Jan. 17
This 1.0 credit course will be offered this spring in a 10 week format and will include
three required face-to-face lab sessions.
• Comprehensive Health and Wellness
This .5 credit course runs in a 3 week format. This course
requires attendance at two face-to-face sessions.
Goal 4, Objective 2
MCPS students will continue to have access to online courses for high school credit by 2004
and ongoing.
Performance Measure: The availability of credit-bearing high school online courses.
[See above]
Goal 4, Objective 3
MCPS students and staff will have access to interactive video conferencing to enable real-
time interaction with subject matter experts from around the block and around the world by
2008.
Performance Measure: Access to interactive video conferencing in alternative centers, high

schools, and middle school magnet programs.
This objective was not fulfilled. Interactive video conferencing was placed in alternative
centers. When the federal grant allocation that funded the project coordinator was cut; no
further progress was made.
Goal 4, Objective 4
Continue the ability to communicate and educate by enhancing Web applications and by
improving e-mail through 2008.
Performance Measure: Percent of classrooms with high-capability computers that can run
up-to-date Web and e-mail software, as reported in the MSDEs annual technology inventory
of resources in Maryland schools.
Table 11. Classroom with High Capability Student Computers

Classrooms with 5+ student computers 6% 10% n/a
2. Please identify the key practices, programs, or strategies that appear related to the
progress. Include supporting data and evaluation results as appropriate.
The key programs that appear related to the progress of our school system are as follows:
• Technology for Curriculum Mastery—This program supports the No Child Left

Behind statutory goal to encourage the effective integration of technology resources
and systems into curriculum development. Evaluation results of this program, which
provide teachers with electronic versions of formative tests, show that electronic tests
take less time away from instruction, results are received on a more timely basis so
that instruction can be differentiated based on individual student progress, test taking
is faster, and teachers and students are highly satisfied with the technology.
• Technology Modernization—This program supports both state and local technology

plan goals and objectives by ensuring students have access to high-performance
technology. Supporting data on the results of this program, which refreshes
technology in schools and provides professional development, can be found in the
progress reports for Goal 1 above.
• Digital Divide—This program supports the goal of ensuring all students have access
to technology. The program is focused on addressing the gap between students and
families who have access to technology at home and those who do not have access.
During FY 20082008, a total of 4,835 computers were donated to local community
programs.
• Integrated Quality Management System, Data Warehouse, Instructional Management

System, and Performance Matters—These technology applications support both state
and local technology plan goals and objectives by using technology to improve school
administrative functions and operational processes. The Integrated Quality
Management System provides simplified access to relevant applications and the
information from multiple sources that is needed by teachers, administrators, parents,
and the community to improve the quality of education. The Data Warehouse
organizes longitudinal data from multiple sources, providing reporting and data
extracts to support data analysis and strategic decision-making across the school
system. The Instructional Management System and Performance Matters are tools
specifically designed for sharing curricula and curricular resources electronically and
monitor student performance on formative and summative assessments.
• Student Technology Literacy Consortium—This grant-funded statewide consortium,

lead by MCPS, supports the No Child Left Behind Statutory Goal to ensure every
student is technologically literate by the time he or she finishes eighth grade.
Consortium members consistently report that the absence of a mandate to ensure
students are technologically literate impacts the resources that are provided for
educational technology. Results of the program are evidenced by the fact that the
Maryland State Board of Education accepted the Maryland Technology Literacy
Standards for Students, and MSDE will be measuring student achievement of these
standards in FY 2009
3. Describe where challenges in making progress toward meeting educational technology

goals are evident.
MCPS is faced with several challenges in meeting the educational technology goals. The key
challenge is obtaining funding for technology programs. The importance of student
technology literacy and the need for high performance technology is are just beginning to be
understood by the community.
4. Describe the plans for addressing those challenges and include a description of the
adjustments that will be made to the Master Plan and local Technology Plan. Please
include timelines where appropriate.
Plans for addressing the funding challenge are included in Educational Technology for 21st
Century Learning, the MCPS strategic technology plan for fiscal years 2009–2011. The
plans for funding educational technology goals are described as follows:
Because the administration of technology-supported initiatives is the responsibility of
several offices, the implementation and funding for this strategic technology plan
represents a highly collaborative effort. Likewise, the funding needed to support this
strategic technology plan is spread throughout the school system and funding
appears in both the operating and capital budgets. The plan also depends on receipt
of federal program allocations passed through the state and rebates provided by
telecommunication vendors through E-Rate.
I.F.
Cross‐Cutting Themes

Education That Is Multicultural

The Bridge to Excellence in Public Schools Act requires that each school system’s Master Plan
and Master Plan Annual Update include goals and strategies for the cross‐cutting theme
Education That Is Multicultural (ETM). The ETM Regulation1 defines Education That Is
Multicultural as a “continuous, integrated, multiethnic multidisciplinary process for educating
all students about commonality and diversity. It prepares students to live, learn, interact, and
work creatively in an interdependent global society.” Education That is Multicultural supports
academic achievement and positive interpersonal and intergroup relations and encompasses
five areas—curriculum, instruction, staff development, instructional resources, and school
climate. ETM initiatives rely on parent involvement and community support.

Instructions:
Discuss the progress toward meeting Education That is Multicultural goals by responding to the
following questions:

1. Please identify the major ETM goals that were addressed by the school system during the
2007–2008 academic year. In your response, be sure to address the following areas:
• Curriculum
• Instruction
• Instructional Resources
• Professional Development
• Climate

Dramatic changes in the school system’s demographics and persistent disparities in student
achievement based on race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and language require changes in
educational practices. Although MCPS has made considerable progress toward closing
achievement gaps, significant work remains to be done. The following goals were addressed
during the 2007–2008 academic year:

• To infuse diversity into curriculum, programs, and projects.

• To design, implement, and evaluate diversity training and development that does the
following:
o Increases understanding of individual and institutional beliefs, values, attitudes,
expectations, and assumptions that are barriers to student achievement.
o Build capacity of staff members to demonstrate the behaviors and practices that
communicate high expectations to students.
o Build capacity of staff members to structure culturally sensitive learning
environments and implement culturally responsive instruction.
1
Code of Maryland Regulations13A.04.05.
o Engage, sustain, and deepen courageous conversations about race and equity to
eliminate educational racial disparities in student achievement.

2. Describe the progress that was made toward meeting these goals and the programs,
practices, strategies, or initiatives that appear related to the progress.

Curriculum, Instruction, and Instructional Resources

Social Studies
The Pre‐K–12 Standards‐based social studies curriculum is explicitly designed to meet the
following five tenets of multiculturalism.

• Within each unit of study, many perspectives are consistently included.
• History is presented from multiple perspectives with no single “correct”
interpretation.
• Students are asked to compare and contrast viewpoints respectfully.
• Every effort is made to eliminate stereotypes. I from different races and ethnic
backgrounds are portrayed in a variety of settings, education, and professions.
• The curriculum makes every effort to seek a balance between understanding the
similarities and differences of others with that of maintaining and broadening respect
for specific cultures.

Multicultural materials are provided together with guidance and suggestions for aligning these
resources to the curriculum. For example, in 2007–2008, materials to support understanding
the Japanese‐American experience during World War II (WWII) were distributed to all high
schools, Japanese‐American veterans were invited to speak at several high schools, and a DVD
highlighting the experiences of this and other minority groups during WWII is being created for
distribution to all schools in the 2008–2009 school year.

Instructional guides provide clear direction to teachers for planning and facilitating structured
discussions in a respectful and open manner. Students are required to think in advance and
research the topic so they have facts available to them before they begin discussion.
Disrespect, personalization, and verbal abuse are never considered acceptable.

Reading/English Language Arts
The MCPS reading/language arts curriculum provides teachers with detailed lesson sequences
to teach students the skills, strategies, and concepts they need to listen, speak, read, and write
with proficiency. In elementary grades, multicultural literature is represented in genre and
author studies and recommended during the study of biographies. Read aloud selections
acknowledge cultural diversity and a variety of perspectives. Texts are selected to present a
variety of cultures accurately and realistically.

At the secondary level, effective readers are able to realize that universal human experiences
often serve as sources of literary themes. Readers are helped to understand that authors make
conscious decisions to affect an audience. Students read, listen to, and view traditional and
contemporary works representing different times and cultures to examine how authors,
speakers, and film directors use language, literary elements, and genres to provide their
audiences with new insights and perspectives. The secondary curriculum promotes instruction
that nurtures appreciation and understanding of diverse individuals, groups, and cultures.
Selected texts and films represent a wide range of cultures, regions, and eras.

Science
Beginning in elementary schools, the MCPS science curriculum provides teachers with detailed
lesson sequences to teach students the skills and concepts they need to listen, speak, read,
write, and think critically. Discussion skills are not left to chance. Students are taught, given
practice and feedback on their performance, and assessed on the skills. Respect, active
listening, and acknowledgment of different perspectives are considered key skills.

In addition, science has the following Goal 1 indicators that support diversity:
• Identify that individuals are free to reach different conclusions provided that
supporting evidence is used (1.3.12).
• Modify ideas based on new information from developmentally appropriate readings,
data, and the ideas of others (1.3.16).
• Demonstrate that everyone can do science and invent things (1.2.27).
• Explain how people from different cultures and times have made important
contributions to the advancement of science, mathematics, and technology in
different cultures at different times (1.8.27).
• Explain that scientists are employed in various fields that are located in diverse
places—ranging from laboratories to natural field settings—and their findings
become available to everyone in the world (1.8.28).

Foreign Language
Beginning in elementary grades, the Foreign Language Immersion Programs engage students in
learning the MCPS curriculum through the medium of a language different from their own. This
curriculum contains detailed lesson sequences to teach students the skills and concepts they
need to listen, speak, read, write, and think critically. Discussion skills are not left to chance.
Students are taught, given practice and feedback on their performance, and assessed on the
skills. Respect, active listening, and acknowledgment of different perspectives are considered
key skills. The culture, which is an integral part of any Foreign Language Immersion Program,
provides students with multiple perspectives and an in‐depth understanding of cultural
differences.

The MCPS 6–12 foreign language program is a standards‐based curriculum aligned with the
National Standards for Foreign Language Learning. These standards integrate communication,
cultures, connections, comparisons, and communities. Students learn about the products,
practices, and perspectives of the people whose languages they are studying and compare the
target cultures with their own. In addition, students learn that there is no single culture that
can be ascribed to any one language or group, but rather that cultures comprise many
subcultures and points of view, all of which have their own distinctive products, practices, and
perspectives.
Health Education
Through the health education curriculum, students develop personal and social skills and
practices that reflect attitudes respectful of diversity. Content objectives in mental health and
family life and human sexuality units contain the following objectives:

• Recognize uniqueness and individual abilities.
• Show respect for people and recognition of differences.
• Describe how culture influences family practices.
• Demonstrate how interpersonal behaviors help people feel comfortable with one
another.
In spring 2007, two lessons on respect for differences in human sexuality were field‐tested in
Grades 8 and 10. Based on the results of the field test, the Board of Education approved the
lessons for full implementation in school year 2007–2008. The enduring understanding of the
Grade 8 lesson is: “Respecting differences in each other can promote positive interactions,
which can lead to tolerance, understanding, and empathy,” and in Grade 10 is, “Learning about
differences in human sexuality promotes understanding, tolerance, and respect.”
Physical Education
The goal of Pre‐K–12 physical education is to help students become responsible citizens who
are both health literate and physically educated. Students learn to set and achieve personally
challenging goals in physical activity, apply higher order thinking skills to human movement and
design personal movement and fitness plans. Students are actively involved in physical
education, learning tasks that emphasize application of knowledge, procedures, strategies,
tactics, and concepts.
The physical education curriculum promotes instruction that values all learners as individuals
and is differentiated for strengths, interests, and learning styles. Physical education is
concerned with creating an educational environment in which students from a variety of micro
cultural groups experience educational equality through the enjoyment of movement, sport,
and dance. In the gymnasium, flexible and varied groupings are emphasized to encourage full
inclusion and equal opportunities to learn movement skills and concepts. The MCPS physical
education curriculum provides the learner with real world, authentic, interdisciplinary
experiences that motivate students to engage in a lifelong, healthy, active lifestyle.

Visual Art
The MCPS Visual Art Frameworks are aligned with state of Maryland content standards. MSDE
Content Standard II states that students will demonstrate an understanding of visual art as a
basic aspect of history and human experience. Beginning in kindergarten, students are
provided opportunities to explore and connect their lives to those of other cultures. In the
middle school years, their exploration deepens with an enduring understanding that one gains
insight into a culture by studying its art forms. Finally, in high school, students propose ways
that visual art reflect significant historical, cultural, and social issues. Students will study art
from many historical periods, cultural periods, and styles in order to determine how works of
art provide social commentary, document historical events, and reflect the values and beliefs of
the society in which they are created.

The objectives of the art curriculum are met by infusing art from many cultures in the units of
study. Elementary art instruction requires students to determine ways in which works of art
express ideas about oneself, other people, places, and events. Artifacts, art prints and
reproductions, visual aids, and background information that represent peoples and cultures
from around the world are an integral part of each unit of instruction.

The objectives of the art curriculum are met by infusing art from many cultures in the units of
study.

Middle School
Grade 6
• Art of African Kingdoms
• Native North American Art
• The Art of India
• The Art of China and Korea
• The Art of Latin America
• The Art of Japan
• The Art of Southeast Asia

Grade 7
• A Community Connection
• Telling
o Memorials (e.g., Maya Lin, “The Wall” {Vietnam Memorial})
o Early North American Art
• Community Messages
o Communicating Beliefs and Values
o African Art
o Aztec Codices
o Art of Mexico—Luis Jimenez
o Anasazi Pottery
• Communicating with Symbols
o The Art of Mesoamerica and South America
• Living
o The Art of Colonial America
• Belonging
o Art and Independence
o Art shows community values and beliefs
o Art honors heroes and leaders: Richmond Barthe—African American portrait
sculptor
• Connecting to Place
o Hudson River School
o Japanese Places in Art—Hokusai, Hiroshige
• Responding to Nature
o Scandinavian Art
• Changing
o Art of Naim June Paik
o Artwork reflects scientific advances
o Russian artist—Vera Mukhina
o Lewis Hine
• Celebrating Diversity
o “My Proud Culture”

General, Choral, and Instrumental Music
Age‐appropriate music literature is taught and performed in bands, orchestras, choruses, and
choirs. A varied repertoire representing many genres and cultures is presented and performed.
In Grades 4 and 5, popular American and European tunes are used to link to social studies. In
Grades 6–12, music literature written by composers representing American, European, Eastern,
and Latin cultures are used.

The Diversity Training and Development Team plans, designs, delivers, and evaluates
diversity/equity training and development that builds capacity to eliminate educational racial
disparities. The team works with school staff members, central office departments and
divisions, and job‐alike groups of teachers and administrators. The following are examples of
the work of the team:

• Conducted monthly training of Office of Organizational Development (OOD) staff
members on understanding institutional racism and whiteness/white privilege as
they impact teaching and learning. Feedback indicates that 94 percent of staff
members have used content and processes from OOD meetings in their work with
clients.
• Provided training to all principals and central office administrative staff at the
Superintendent’s A&S meetings throughout the FY 2008 school year. The outcomes
for the meetings were to:
o Build knowledge and understanding of the complexity of the
institutionalized racism and whiteness/white privilege on student
achievement.
o Build capacity to implement research‐based equitable practices in schools.

Participant feedback indicates that more than 95 percent of A&S staff has increased
knowledge about institutionalized racism and have gained ideas about how to
address racial disparities in schools. Plans are to continue this year‐long training in FY
2009.

• Conducted for principals and central office staff at A&S meetings was also
implemented for all staff development teachers at their systems initiative trainings
throughout the year. In addition, all staff development teachers are required to
complete the two‐day Developing Culturally Competent Schools module. This
requirement continues for all new staff development teachers.

• Provided training for the leadership team in the Office of Special Education and
Student Services over the course of the school year. Outcomes focused on building
capacity to lead for equity by increasing knowledge and understanding of racial
identity and racial consciousness and by exploring the research of John Ogbu, Claude
Steele, and other prominent anti‐racist scholars.

• Collaborated with the elementary and secondary leadership development programs
to provide training focused on building the capacity of assistant principals to lead and
coach for equity in their buildings. Participants studied racial consciousness and
ways to build academic success through relationships.

• Revised the content and processes used in both human relations in‐services courses,
HR17, Ethnic Groups in American Society, and HR21, Education That Is Multicultural.
Now included in the courses are specific content and learning activities that examine
institutional racism and bias as it impacts teaching and learning. All professional staff
without a multicultural course in their teacher preparation program is mandated to
complete one of these courses.

• Provided training designed to raise awareness of racial bias in the identification of
students of color for rigorous course instruction for elementary and middle school
staff members responsible for promoting gifted and talented education in schools.
• Provided training designed to examine institutionalized racism from a historical and
scientific perspective and to explore the impact of whiteness and white privilege as it
impacts students’ educational experiences for middle school counselors.

• Conducted multiple‐skill‐development workshops for administrators and school‐
based staff. Offerings included the following:
o Developing Culturally Competent Schools
o Rigor for All
o Culturally Responsive Instruction
o Communicating High Expectations to Students
o Courageous Conversations About Race
o Working with African Immigrants
o Understanding Islam
o The Color of Disproportionality
o The Impact of Race on the Achievement of Latino Students

• Provided professional development support in 30 schools since July 2007. Support
includes presentation, assistance in planning equity/diversity staff development
activities, and locating and providing resources and materials.

• Continued to post new resources and materials on the Diversity Team Web page to
support staff members working to eliminate the disparities in student achievement
by race and ethnicity. In FY 2008, the monthly tips for improving student
achievement on the ListServ focused on equitable classroom practices.

3. Describe where challenges in meeting ETM goals are evident.

• The greatest challenge that MCPS faces in achieving the ETM goals is one of capacity.
With a district of 200 schools and more than 21,000 employees, MCPS will continue
to train cadres of staff at schools and in offices to ensure that all employees have the
knowledge, understanding, and skills to demonstrate cultural competence and
eliminate educational racial disparities in student achievement.

4. Describe the changes, adjustments, or revisions that will be made to programs or
strategies for 2008–2009 to address identified challenges and ensure progress.

• Plans to develop a systemic framework for professional development to eliminate
racial predictability and disproportionality have been drafted in collaboration with a
nationally known anti‐racist educator. Implementation will begin in
FY 2009.

• As part of the comprehensive professional development plan for the eleven schools
selected for Phase 1 and 2 of Middle School Reform Initiative, the district will include
training to raise awareness of racial identity development in adolescents.

• The Diversity Team has preliminary plans to develop a pilot for establishing and
supporting equity teams in identified schools.

• The existing 3‐hour training on African immigrants will be expanded to two days and
content on African Caribbean immigrants will be added. A series of modules on
working effectively with African American males will be developed and offered to
school staffs next year.
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Strategic Technology Plan FY 2009–2011
Educational Technology for 21st Century Learning

January 31, 2008
(Revised)
Office of the Chief Technology Officer

Suite 147, 850 Hungerford Drive
Rockville, Maryland 20850
For further information, contact:

melissa_woods@mcpsmd.org
Executive Summary
This document, Educational Technology for 21st Century Learning, was developed to guide
technology-related decisions, priorities, resource allocations, and organization-wide
management. It is a strategic, future-oriented document that describes the ways that Montgomery
County Public Schools (MCPS) will support educational program needs and provide an engaging
learning environment for students.
A process was established to engage stakeholders in helping to formulate a strategic technology

plan that aligns the school system’s technology efforts with its academic priorities. This version
of the MCPS technology plan will be shared with key stakeholders, including the student
government association, the principal’s advisory committee, district executive staff, central
office teams, employee associations, parent organizations, business representatives, and the
Board of Education. These key stakeholders will continue to be involved in reviewing and
updating this plan as necessary over time.
Summary of Vision and Goals
This strategic technology plan is focused on the school system’s vision. It outlines four goals
that summarize how technology will be used to support the educational program and improve
teaching and learning.
Vision
A high-quality education is the fundamental right of every child.

All children will receive the respect, encouragement, and opportunities they need
to build the knowledge, skills, and attitudes
to be successful, contributing members of a global society.
Goals
Goal 1: Students will use technology to become actively engaged in learning

Goal 2: Schools will address the digital divide through equitable access to technology
Goal 3: Staff will improve technology skills through professional development
Goal 4: Staff will use technology to improve productivity and results
This technology plan is intended to serve all children, including those with special needs.
Therefore, when we refer to children or students we mean all students in all programs, including
special education, English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL), and Home and Hospital
Teaching. It is the intent to improve learning for all students by improving the integration of
technology into every aspect of our instructional program.
Table of Contents
I. Introduction …………………………………………………………………………page 1
II. Technology Overview ………………………………………………..….…………page 4
III. Envisioning the Future ………………………………………………..….………page 11
IV. Vision, Goals and Objectives …………………………………………….....……page 15
V. Assessing Progress ……………………………..…………………………….……page 23
VI. Funding the Plan ……………………….……….…………..……………..…..…page 25
Appendices ……………………………….…………….………..……………………page 29
I. Introduction
Educational Technology for 21st Century Learning provides information on the innovative 21st
century classroom technologies being planned for implementation in the MCPS. This plan is the
product of extensive collaboration with key stakeholders to identify technology solutions that
will support educational program needs and provide an engaging learning environment for
students.
The strategic plan is based on the school system’s belief that technology is an essential tool for
the future of teaching and learning in this county. In an information-rich, technology-driven
society, school staff must be prepared to use the same types of 21st century tools in the
classrooms that students are using in their everyday lives. Our school system remains committed
and will continue to provide an outstanding education for every student—an education that will
allow students to succeed in a global economy. An outstanding public education includes
leveling the playing field for students without home access to technology tools that are essential
in today’s world.
What skills do business leaders say students will need in today’s world? Students must be able
to work in teams, solve complex problems, interpret information, communicate effectively,
connect learning across disciplines, think critically, and apply knowledge to real-life situations.
The role of technology in supporting these needed skills is clear. Collaboration sites enhance
team work. Complex problem-solving depends on the analysis of information. Interpretation of
information requires quick access to online data. Effective business communication involves
e-mail and collaboration sites. Digital simulation helps student connect learning, think critically,
and apply knowledge.
The goals and objectives contained in this plan support the district’s ongoing efforts to improve
teaching and learning; and interactive technology tools will be integrated into instruction to more
effectively engage students in the learning process. Student-centered classroom environments
will use technology, both to deliver curriculum and instruction and to assess understanding. The
interactive nature of technology tools help activate problem-solving and critical thinking skills.
As a result, students are better prepared for success in the Information Age.
The Technology Planning Process
The process for developing the plan Educational Technology for 21st Century Learning is
founded on engaging stakeholders and soliciting their input and feedback. To create this plan, an
initiative was undertaken to involve internal stakeholders. This involved a five-month effort to
interview members of the superintendent’s leadership team and to meet with key internal
stakeholders, individually, in scheduled focus groups, or as part of a regularly scheduled
meeting.
The individuals and groups who were involved in the development of this plan are summarized
in Table 1. Internal Stakeholder Input. The ideas resulting from this process of stakeholder
engagement are included in Section II, Technology Overview.
1
Table 1. Internal Stakeholder Input
Stakeholder Individual or Group Organization/Office

Category
Students Student Government Association
Teachers Teachers/Media Specialists, Technology
Modernization Schools
School Library Media Curriculum and Instructional Programs
(OCIP)
Instructional Specialists OCIP
Support Staff Information Technology Systems Specialists (ITSSs)
Media Services Technicians
President, SEIU 500 SEIU 500 (Employee Association)
Principals School Technology Core Team
Office of the Chief Technology (OCTO) Principal’s Montgomery County Association of
Advisory Committee Administrative and Supervisory
Personnel (MCAASP)
Technology Modernization Schools
Superintendent Associate Superintendent OCIP
Leadership
Associate Superintendent Special Education and Student Services
(OSESS)
District Assistant to the Associate Superintendent, Director of Organizational Development (OOD)
Administrators Staff Development Initiatives, Director of Technology /Professional Development
Consulting and Communication Systems
Performance Directors School Accountability/Community
Superintendents.
School-Based Instruction and Achievement OCIP
Enriched and Innovative Programs OCIP
Career and Technology Education OCIP
Director/Staff, Curriculum and Instruction OCIP
Directors/Staff, Staff meetings agenda item OCIP
Director/Staff, Special Education Services OSESS
Director/Staff, Student Services OSESS
Directors/Staff, special large-group meetings OSESS
Facilities Planning Chief Operating Officer (OCOO)
School Plant Operations OCOO
Food and Nutrition Services OCOO
Directors/OCTO Leadership OCOO
This version of the MCPS technology plan will be shared with key stakeholders, including the
student government association, the principal’s advisory committee, district executive staff,
central office teams, employee associations, parent organizations, business representatives, and
the Board of Education. These key stakeholders will continue to be involved in reviewing and
updating this plan as necessary over time.
Prior to including this plan in the Bridge to Excellence Master Plan, there also is a more
immediate process for further consultation. One activity is to go back to the individuals and
groups who provided input into the plan to review this version of the plan and solicit additional
feedback. A second activity includes soliciting input from external stakeholders, including—
•
Montgomery County Public Schools 2 Strategic Technology Plan: 2009–2011
Parents—Montgomery County Council of Parent Teacher Associations (MCCPTA)
• Business—Montgomery County Business Roundtable
• Community—via the Board of Education and formal requests for public comment
To ensure stakeholders are aware of the plan and its objectives and activities, a stakeholder
communication plan is being developed. This plan will include, at a minimum, communication
via advisory committees, meetings with key stakeholders, and the documentation and
dissemination of plan results.
Stakeholders will continue to be involved through evaluating and revising the plan. As these
efforts move forward, it is essential that the plans for technology integration are reevaluated to
remain aligned with the curriculum and instructional program and to keep abreast of the latest
technological advancements.
Evaluation of plan results will be part of the focus of OCTO stakeholder advisory committees
and will occur in other key stakeholder meetings. After results are evaluated, feedback will be
solicited on how to improve the objectives and activities and to update the plan.
Solicitation of input will include the creation of a Web-based learning community and
collaboration site. This uses technology as an appropriate tool for communication with key
stakeholders such as parents, business, and community members.
Overview of Plan Contents
The sections that follow provide the details of the MCPS Strategic Technology Plan. The
remaining sections are as follows:
Section II. Technology Overview—the needs assessment
Section III. Envisioning the Future—a summary of stakeholder input
Section IV. Vision, Goals and Objectives—the strategic plan narrative
Section V. Assessing Progress—the process for assessing plan results
Section VI. Funding the Plan—the costs and sources of funding for plan implementation

II. Technology Overview
Educational technology in MCPS has changed dramatically since the first system-wide
technology program was implemented in 1994. The district has moved from providing three or
four computers in the media center to creating collaborative, interactive classroom environments
where technology has become an integral part of instruction.
As technology has increased, there also has been a change in teaching and learning. When
technology is available in the classroom, teachers become better facilitators of knowledge
acquisition—giving student the skills they need to find information on their own and become
life-long learners. The role of teaching has changed from teachers as providers of knowledge to
teachers who facilitate students’ knowledge acquisition through print and digital media.
MCPS has made considerable progress toward meeting its technology goals and objects. A
report on the district’s progress toward meeting its educational technology goals is contained in
Appendix A. This report gives a more thorough analysis of the current state of what has been
accomplished to achieve the goals and objectives included in past strategic technology plans.
The highlights of this report and benchmarks with other school districts in Maryland are
presented here to provide the context for the stakeholder input.
Needs Assessment: Current Hardware
Computers Student computers 36,523 (3.8 per student)

School offices 5,855
School Total 42,378
7.0
6.0 6.0
Better
6.0
5.2 5.2
5.0
3.9
4.0
3.8
3.0
2.0
1.0
-
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Table 2

1 Talbot County 2.2
6 Howard County 3.1
12 Cecil County 3.4
17 Kent County 3.7
State Total 3.4
Source: Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) Online Technology Inventory, 2007
Assessment of the current state of computers: While MCPS has made significant progress in
improving its student to computer ratio, it has yet to achieve the 3:1 student to computer target
set in the current strategic technology plan. Further, a comparison to other school districts in the
state indicates the district’s student to computer ratio ranks 20 of 24 districts. Expanded access
to computers currently is not supported in the budget.

Servers Two rack-mounted file servers—Elementary and Middle Schools
Three rack-mounted file servers—High Schools
School servers—equipment is refreshed every four years
Data Center—continue to collaborate with Facilities Management to resolve issues of air

conditioning and power upgrades to meet industry standards in a location with aging
infrastructure. Server consolidation continues in FY 2008 to reduce disparate hardware,
including the implementation of a virtual server testing environment to lower the number of test
servers. Several major systems were migrated from the legacy mainframe equipment, and
migration is scheduled for the remaining printing and batch programs. Current plans are to be
totally off the legacy mainframe by June 30, 2008.
Assessment of the current state of servers: Server equipment in schools is satisfactory; but the
data center facility issues continue to be a concern.
Projection Devices: 3,611 projection devices in schools

18 projection devices (average) per school Educational Technology for
21st Century Learning
(Note: Projection devices include projectors and large television monitors connected to a
computer and used to display what is on the computer screen.)
Assessment of the current state of projection devices: Much of the equipment reported in the
inventory is aging televisions (ten years old or older). Schools prefer to have televisions
replaced with an appropriately configured computer and modern Liquid Crystal Display (LCD)
projectors that serve more than one projection function. Expanded access to projection devices
currently is not supported in the budget.
Phones: 6,779 telephones in schools

1,926 telephones in classrooms (21 percent of classrooms have telephones)
Emergency cellular phones are located in each principal’s office and in all portable classrooms.
Wireless voice/data devices are assigned to the superintendent’s executive staff, principals, and
directors approved by an executive staff member.
Telephone equipment for land lines is obsolete and, because parts have not been available for a
number of years, it continues to require replacement. However, the school system is moving to a
converged voice, video, and data system in place of standard land-line telephony; and Voice-
over Internet Protocol (VoIP) communications is being field tested in new and modernized
schools and offices.
Assessment of the current state of telephones: With the increasing use of e-mail for
communications, classroom telephones are less essential, except for the continuing need for
emergency phones in portable classrooms. The availability of emergency cell phones and
voice/data devices are satisfactory.

Needs Assessment: Connectivity
Data circuits are primarily utilized to connect schools to the school systems Wide Area Network
(WAN) and Internet services. These data circuits are on a replacement schedule under the
county’s FiberNet initiative; however, the schedule of schools to be converted from data circuits
to FiberNet has been delayed. The result is that 15 schools currently utilize the maximum
capacity.
In addition, new and modernized schools and selected office sites are on the schedule to adopt
VoIP in place of traditional land lines for voice services. VoIP requires the use of additional data
circuits to provide voice services to the site.
Table 3. Connectivity Overview
Services Explanation
Data Circuits (Frame Relay, Circuits for the WAN that carry data on the Intranet (data
Transparent Local Area sharing among schools and offices) and provides access to
Network (LAN Service, and Internet services via a central server.
DS-1)
Data Lines (Private Rate Data lines to support VoIP sites.

Interface)
Internet services Internet service connecting our data lines to the World Wide
Web.
Assessment of the current state of telecommunications: Data circuit capacity needs to be

expanded for schools and offices that regularly use the full T-1 circuit capacity (1.5 megabytes)
and are not yet scheduled to be transferred to the county’s FiberNet system. Also, additional
Private Rate Interface circuits are needed for new and modernized schools and selected office
sites that are converting to VoIP. These needs are supported in the budget.
Needs Assessment: Applications and Software
MCPS provides and supports a wide variety of enterprise-level, image and program applications
and software. A list of enterprise applications appears in Appendix B. and educational software
and online services appear in Appendix C. These applications include enterprise-level student
and business information applications, productivity software (e.g., Microsoft Office Suite,
Outlook, Filemaker), educational software applied to elementary/middle/high school computer
images (e.g., Inspiration, Mighty Math, Macromedia Studio), content-specific software (e.g.,
Read 180, Fitnessgram, FASTT Math) and special education software (e.g., Kurzweil,
Co:Writer), and district-wide online resources (e.g., SIRS Knowledge Source). Funds also are
available for schools to buy software to meet their school community’s student-specific needs.

Regarding assistive technologies, MCPS complies with state requirements for acquisition and
teacher development of accessible technology for all products and materials used in the district.
The Department of Special Education also has its own technology staff, who works closely with
schools and the CTOs staff to ensure there are appropriate technology supports for special needs
students. The Accessible Technology Steering Committee focuses on continual identification of
assistive technology needs and any new hardware and software products that could be used to
support special needs students. This steering committee meets regularly and has expert
representation from the offices responsible for special education, curriculum content,
professional development, and technology.
Assessment of the current state of software: As the ability to track software usage improves,
instructional staff has been able to better assess the actual need to include instructional software
on every desktop computer. This narrowing of system-wide support for instructional software
titles has helped focus the school system’s development of curriculum resources, instructional
technology training, and expenditure of funding for software. Software support in the budget is
sufficient.
Needs Assessment: Technology Access and Supports
Technology Access
The current practice in schools is to depend on computer labs to provide students with access to
technology. Schools receive one computer specifically designated for each classroom. However,
feedback from schools indicates that unless there are enough computers to work in groups (three
to four computers), one or two additional classroom computers are largely ineffective. The result
is that few classrooms have more than one computer.
This single classroom computer is typically used solely by the teacher. The reason is that a
classroom computer must be used increasingly for duties such as analyzing student data,
reporting grades, and taking attendance. There is little opportunity for student use.
The availability of computer labs also limits student access to computers for instructional uses,
especially in elementary schools. Many elementary schools have one computer lab that serves
from 25 to 40 classrooms. This means students are likely to be in the lab only once a week or, in
larger elementary schools, only twice a month. Moreover, with the increasing use of computer
labs for online assessment, even this assumed level of student access to computer labs for
instructional use is not sustainable.
Table 4. Classrooms with High Capability Student Computers

Source: MSDE Online Technology Inventory, 2007

Assessment of the current state of technology access: Because student access to computers for
instructional uses is primarily achieved through the use of computer labs, this access is not a part
of a student’s daily instruction. In addition, the increasing use of the classroom computer for
confidential administrative purposes further limits student access to technology on a regular
basis. Expanded access to computers currently is not supported in the budget.
Technology Support
Professional development is a critical support for ensuring effective use of technology to support
instruction. Teachers need to feel comfortable using technology before they incorporate it
regularly into student lessons. Table 5 shows the current state of teachers’ technology knowledge
and skills across the school system.

Teacher knowledge and skills at least
intermediate in—
• computer use 80% 78% 100%
• Internet use 74% 72% 100%
• technology integration 80% 74% 100%
Source: MSDE Online Technology Inventory, 2007
As shown on the previous table, the proficiency of the district’s teachers in performing basic
functions is better that the state average. However, if the teachers who are not proficient in
technology are not using it to teach, then we can assume that in 20 to 26 percent of our
classrooms students are not seeing technology used as a part of their day-to-day instruction.
Unfortunately, there is limited professional development support for teachers to help improve
their computer proficiency. MCPS has only 19 instructional technology specialists and 9,171
classroom teachers (classroom, ESOL, and special education), or a ratio of 483 teachers per
instructional technology specialist. MSDE recommends a ratio of 200 instructional staff
(including all teachers and administrators) per staff developer for instructional technology.
Likewise, there is also insufficient technical support staff. IT system specialists (ITSS) assist
teachers in loading software and using equipment, and they support the equipment to ensure it is
working properly. There are 66 secondary ITSSs—1 in each middle and high school—and 38
ITSSs support 131 elementary schools and 5 special schools (or an average of 3.6 schools per
employee).
The accepted industry measure of technical support is the number of staff per workstation. The
MSDE target for technical support is 300 computers per technical support staff. In MCPS, each
ITSS supports an average 415 computers. This level of support has our technical staff
supporting 115 more computers than recommended by the state.

Assessment of the current state of technology support: There is insufficient professional
development support for technology (483 teachers on average per instructional technology
specialist) and insufficient technical support (415 computers on average per technology support
specialist). Expanded support for technology currently is not supported in future budgets.
Conclusions
Based on this assessment of the current state of technology in MCPS, the key barriers to the use
of technology to support teaching and learning are—
1) Access to computer technology, both in terms of student to computer ratios and the
regularity with which students have technology infused into classroom learning, and
2) Technology support, including the lack of professional development opportunities that

support the use of technology in student learning and the lack of technical support as
teachers use technology in their instruction.

III. Envisioning the Future
This section, Envisioning the Future, presents the results of stakeholder input. In the previous
section, the process for obtaining stakeholder input was outlined. In each interview or meeting
stakeholders were asked to envision what technology would look like in classrooms, schools,
offices, and school communities. To ensure strategic thinking, participants were told to think of
how things might look ten years in the future—the year 2017.
What follows is a high-level summary of input and feedback that was received. These
descriptions of the future are the ideal, presented without consideration of the school district’s
ability to fund or support this vision.
To be clear, this is not the district’s strategic plan. It is a future direction envisioned by our
stakeholders—a direction that is helpful to keep in mind as the technology components are being
built to ensure we move toward the desired future state.
A Shared Vision of the Future
Many ideas were repeated across all groups. These ideas have been combined into a shared
vision of the future, which follows. Most ideas are focused on having the ability to provide every
student with engagement and the opportunity to bring the world into the classroom. In addition,
administrators focused on the need for technology to help them improve productivity and results.
A Vision for Classrooms

What would classroom and school technology look like in the future?
• More student computers, ideally one per student
• Teacher laptops
• Interactive whiteboard and student response systems
• Projection devices in every classroom
• Wireless access throughout every school
• Mobile computer labs
• Electronic textbooks
What would support and administrative systems look like in the future?
• Online curriculum, resources, lessons
• Online course options and distance learning
• Enhanced professional development
• On-site instructional and technical assistance
• Easy access, “one-stop shopping,” for needed information and data
• Data analysis menu options for data to retrieve and compare
• Staff access to files from any location
What would the school community look like?

• Enhanced communication, interaction with parents
• More parent information (beyond grade)
• Ability to collaborate with experts for more in-depth student learning diagnostics
Technology Enabled Learning Community

A Vision by Stakeholder Group
This section provides a summary of the future desired by selected stakeholder groups. While
theirs might have been the only voice speaking to an issue, each group selected represents an
important constituency. This “role-based” view provides insights into some of the other interests
that were expressed related to expanding technology and technology supports.
Students (as the key customer of technology, all input was summarized)
• Every student needs to have a computer.
• LCD projectors in every classroom.
• Interactive boards in most classrooms—exciting, students can participate, easier to take
notes.
• Consider student owned computers having access to school networks.
• Mandatory computer programming skills classes.
• Classroom sets of ultra-portable computing devices for word processing.
• Graphing calculators for all students who need them.
• Ability for students to store data/files on jump drives or iPods.
• Updated science microscopes and probes.
• Scanners and/or free copying of student assignments.
• Update television studio equipment.
• Video cameras for student use on presentations.
• Podcasts, including videotaped classes for missed classes.
• Access to Facebook.
• Ability for school to unblock sites for a limited time related to instruction (e.g., “drugs”).
• In ten years: every student would have a “laptop” (Blackberry/Sidekick-type device), the
school would be wireless, and there would be an electrical hookup at each student desk.
Exploring Future Technologies
Wireless
Mobile Cart
Internet Appliance E-Book

Document Camera

Principals
• Consolidate technologies (resulting in fewer devices to save classroom space).
• Technology will need to enhance (not interfere with) interpersonal skills.
• Research on how students are using social networking, including inappropriate uses and
educating students about dangers and consequences.
Media Centers
• Minimum of 30 computers in media center.
• Interactive whiteboard in media center.
• Student equipment to loan (e.g., laptops).
• Inexpensive headphones.
• Cameras, camcorders for multimedia presentations.
Special Education and Student Services

• As learning centers close, parents want intervention in every classroom—technology is ideal
for supporting inclusion of special education students into classroom instruction.
• Access to at least three computers in every classroom for intervention (e.g., FASTT Math)
and unlimited software licenses so resources are on every school computer.
• Increased collaboration on evaluation and selection of technologies, including Web 2.0 tools.
• Online textbook access and accessible materials build into the curriculum.
• A broad array of technology training options, especially around universal design for learning.
• Technology-based interventions for all students, not just those with an Individualized
Education Program (IEP).
• For students in self-contained classrooms, provide mobile laptops and Promethean boards.
• Ensure accessibility, including classroom materials like teacher worksheets.
• Laptops for pupil personnel workers and psychologists.
Curriculum and Instruction

• Curriculum to support technologies, especially Promethean boards in middle schools
• Space/equipment for students taking online college courses
• Technology appropriate to the subject area, for example, camcorders for multimedia,
accelerometers for energy expenditure in physical education, high capacity computers for art
projects, tutorial software for individual music performance
• Access to distance learning and virtual tours, for example, museum tours
• Need four computers per classroom for gifted and talented centers
Community Superintendents
• Mobile labs—testing takes all the lab time.
• Interactive whiteboards in high schools for students exposed in middle schools.
• The educational program is impacted when schools lose old equipment that cannot be
replaced by Technology Modernization program funding.
• Differentiation of technology for schools that are in the “needs improvement” category and
require additional student interventions which are technology dependent.
• Ability to deliver training in alternate ways, for example, podcasts.
• Adequate learning management system.
• Implement text messaging (students think e-mail is outdated technology).

IV. Vision, Goals, and Objectives
The Plan—Educational Technology in the 21st Century
In MCPS, technology is viewed as a resource that supports the entire organization and its
instructional programs. Technology initiatives are integral to the district’s strategic plan, Our
Call To Action: Pursuit of Excellence, 2007–2012, and there are technology initiatives that
support each of its goals. Because of this close relationship between district planning and
technology planning, the district’s vision for this technology plan is the same as the vision for the
school system.
Vision
A high-quality education is the fundamental right of every child.

All children will receive the respect, encouragement, and opportunities they need
to build the knowledge, skills, and attitudes
to be successful, contributing members of a global society.
Review and analysis of stakeholder input provided the district with a clearer picture of the
direction educational technology school take in the future. With this input in mind, the goals in
our current strategic technology plan were reviewed and the following goals were developed.
Goals

Goals 2 and 4 are continuing goals using slightly modified language. Goals 1 and 3 were
formerly strategies under one goal (technology will be fully integrated into instruction) that were
separated to provide a clearer focus.
These goals are aligned with Our Call to Action: Pursuit of Excellence, 2007–2012 (the
district’s Bridge to Excellence Master Plan) and support The Maryland Educational Technology
Plan for the New Millennium: 2007–2012 (the Maryland Plan for Technology in Education).
Once the goals were established, realistic objectives and activities were considered. Because
everything could not be done at once, further input was sought from key stakeholders on what
technologies should be prioritized over the next three years. The objectives and activities that
follow build on the school system’s educational priorities and set the stage for continued growth.

Student Learning
Measures: Percentage of students demonstrating they are technologically literate by eighth

grade and the increase in the number of online high school courses
Objective 1: To integrate technology into the curriculum and instruction
Activity 1 Online curriculum for a collaborative learning community

Description Develop a curriculum management system—including curriculum, standards,
resources, and lesson plans—to enhance the sharing of ideas and classroom
strategies
Responsibility OCIP, OCTO
Timelines 2009—implement online curriculum, standards, and resources
By 2011—expand online curriculum resources and lesson plans
Activity 2 Infuse technology into the curriculum and student learning
Description Make technology an integral part of the MCPS curriculum and curriculum
resources and ensure student learning connects students to their local and
global communities. Explore electronic textbooks, distance and virtual
learning, multi-media equipment, and other content appropriate software and
devices.
Timelines Ongoing*
Activity 3 Online student assessments
Description Expand and improve online formative assessments and develop assessments
for use with student response systems in middle schools
Responsibility Office of the Chief Academic Officer (CAO), OCIP, and OCTO
Timelines Ongoing—expand/improve online formative assessments
By 2011—implement middle school assessments that utilize student response
systems
Activity 4 Online information resources
Description Expand access to online information resources through collaborative
purchasing, transitioning from the Maryland K-12 Digital Content grant
Timelines 2009
Activity 5 Student Technology Literacy
Description Administer the student technology literacy measures adopted by MSDE by
infusing the Maryland Technology Literacy Standards for Students into the
curriculum, administering any related student measures, and teaching the
dangers and consequences of social networking (cyber-security, cyber-safety
and cyber-ethics).
Responsibility OCAO, OCIP, OCTO
Timelines 2009 (baseline measurement)
*See Attachment B for timelines, per the FY 2002–FY 2012 Curriculum Revision Delivery Plan

Goal 1: Students will use technology to become actively engaged in learning (continued)
Objective 2: To use technology to improve student academic achievement
Activity 1 Universal design for learning (accessible and assistive technologies)

Description Improve educators understanding and use of universal design for learning,
which includes accessible and assistive technologies, by developing
curriculum content that supports and addresses the needs of all students
Responsibility OSESS, OCIP, OCTO
Timelines Ongoing
Activity 2 Online courses
Description Expand online courses and resources, including High School Assessment
(HSA) online
Timelines Ongoing
Activity 3 Middle school reform
Description Expand curriculum supports for new technologies being installed in middle
schools that provide an engaging classroom learning environment
Timelines Ongoing
Activity 4 Elementary technology model
Description Implement an elementary school learning model for increased access to
technology to individualize instruction and provide learning interventions
Timelines 2009
Activity 5 High School technology model
Description Implement a high school model for increased access to technology that
simulates how technology is used in college and employment and that enables
equitable participation in secondary and college online courses by all students
Responsibility Schools, OCIP, OCTO
Timelines By 2010
KEY to the acronyms used in this section:

OCIP – Office of Curriculum and Instructional Programs
OCOO – Office of the Chief Operating Officer
OCTO – Office of the Chief Technology Officer
OHR – Office of Human Resources
OOD – Office of Organizational Development
OSESS – Office of Special Education and Student Services

School Technology
Measures: student to computer ratio, average number of projection devices per school,
computer to technical support staff
Objective 1: To improve student access to technology
Activity 1 Student access to computers

Description Target a 3:1 student to high capacity computer ratio in every school by
continuing the Technology Modernization program and implementing a
project to upgrade and support older computers needed for learning programs
Responsibility OCTO
Timelines By 2011, implement in 20 percent of schools
Activity 2 Model increased classroom access to computers
Description Provide four workstations per classroom in elementary school technology
magnets using thin client technologies; maintain 2:1/3:1 ratios when
refreshing middle school magnets
Timelines By 2011, implement in five elementary technology magnets and two middle
school magnets
Activity 3 Model increased student access to computers
Description Expand use of mobile computer labs and initiate field tests of low-cost
computing options, e.g., thin client devices in secondary school computer labs
and ultra-mobile PC learning sets in high poverty elementary schools
Responsibility Schools, OCIP, OCTO
Timelines By 2011, expand mobile labs to at least 15 percent of schools; implement thin
client labs in at least five secondary schools; implement ultra-mobile PC
learning sets in at least five high poverty elementary schools
Activity 4 Classroom access to projection devices
Description Double the computer projection devices available for classrooms (currently
18 per school average)
Responsibility OCTO
Timelines By 2011, implement in 28 percent of schools
Activity 5 School access to interactive whiteboards
Description Provide 18 interactive whiteboards per middle school, introduce interactive
whiteboards into feeder high schools
Responsibility OCIP, OOD, OCTO
Timelines By 2011, implement in all middle schools and 70 percent of high schools
Activity 6 School access to wireless connectivity
Description Provide wireless in middle and new and modernized schools
Responsibility Facilities Management, OCTO
Timelines By 2011, implement in all middle schools and new and modernized schools

(continued)
Objective 2: To improve school staff access to technology
Activity 1 Computers for classroom teachers

Description Provide one computer per classroom capable of audio visual support
Responsibility OCTO
Timelines By 2009
Activity 2 Laptops/tablets for principals
Description Provide one laptop/tablet to principals completing student data analysis
professional development to analyze data, perform school “look fors,” and
complete teacher observations
Responsibility OOD, OCTO
Timelines By 2009
Activity 3 Laptops for staff assigned to multiple schools
Description Provide one laptop per pupil personnel workers, psychologists, instructional
technology specialists, and elementary IT systems specialist
Responsibility OSESS, OOD, OCTO
Timelines By 2011
Objective 3: To improve technical support for technology in schools and offices
Activity 1 Technical support for computers

Description Provide at least one full-time technical support person per 300 computers
(currently 1:415)
Responsibility Schools, OCTO
Timelines By 2011, reduce ratio to 1 per 400 computers
Activity 2 Technical support for LAN/WAN
Description Target at least 1 full-time LAN administrator per 40 servers (currently 1:69)
and 1 full-time WAN administrator per 25 sites ( currently 1:35)
Timelines By 2011, one LAN administrator per 60 servers and one WAN per 30 sites
Activity 3 Help Desk services
Description Continue to train Help Desk staff to respond to a wide range of technical
issues; improve systems to support accepting, assigning, resolving, tracking
and reporting technology issues within established service response times
Responsibility OCTO
Timelines Ongoing
Activity 4 Technical support for IT safety and security
Description Ensure the continuation of safe access through a secure computing
environment as technologies change and access expands
Responsibility OCTO
Timelines Ongoing

Measures: Percent of principals and teachers who meet Maryland technology skill standards
and percentage of school technology support employees participating in skill training
Objective 1: To adopt Maryland teacher and administrator technology standards
Activity 1 Communicate standards

Description Communicate the knowledge and skills needed to meet the Maryland
technology standards for teachers and administrators
Timelines 2009
Activity 2 Provide professional development
Description Infuse technology concepts into all professional development for
educators, including curriculum development, universal design for
learning, and digital citizenship (students’ safe and responsible use)
Timelines 2010
Activity 3 Improve professional development resources
Description Create and disseminate online learning resources to support self-
improvement (e.g., podcasts, online courses, electronic materials)
Timelines By 2011
Activity 4 Develop assessment tools
Description Develop online assessment tools for pre- and post-assessment of
knowledge, skills, and attitudes on instructional technology
Timelines 2011
Objective 2: To increase professional development and training for support staff
Activity 1 Train school technology support staff

Description Provide training to maintain and update technology skills
Timelines Ongoing
Activity 2 Implement job banding
Description Expand self-directed career advancement within identified IT job bands
Responsibility OHR, OCTO
Timelines 2009
Activity 3 Train support staff on enterprise systems
Description Provide more staff with training during rollout of enterprise systems
Timelines By 2011

Administrative Productivity
Measures – percentage of customer satisfaction with administrative systems and percentage

of key requirements implemented for major enterprise systems
Objective 1: To enhance collaboration and communication tools
Activity 1 Web portal

Description Use Web 2.0 tools to create an environment for enhanced electronic
collaboration and communication
Responsibility OCTO
Timelines 2009
Activity 2 Parent outreach
Description Expand parent access to student grades and other resources, data, and
information via the Classroom to Home Communication system
Timelines 2010, expand to elementary schools
Activity 3 Improve ease of access to information
Description Upgrade user access and interfaces such as single sign-on; password
self-service; and Web access to resources, data, and information
Responsibility OCTO
Timelines By 2011
Objective 2: To continuously improve student systems
Activity 1 Student data input

Description Continue and improve system-wide implementation of online
attendance and online grading and reporting
Timelines 2010
Activity 2 Data access and analysis
Description Enhance student data management and data warehouse systems by
continuing to expand student achievement data and simplify how it is
accessed
Responsibility OCTO
Timelines By 2011
Activity 3 Upgrade learning management systems
Description Assess, procure, and upgrade a learning management system and other
course tools to better support delivery of online student courses, student
resources, and professional development
Timelines By 2011

Goal 4: Staff will use technology to improve productivity and results (continued)
Objective 3: To continuously improve business systems
Activity 1 Staff information – electronic identification

Description Implement the use of electronic identification for system security (e.g.,
secure computer log-in) and staff attendance (beginning with
professional development and transportation)
Responsibility Department of Transportation, OOD, OCTO
Timelines 2011
Activity 2 Applicant tracking
Description Upgrade the system for online access to applicant information, which
allows principals and directors to view candidates application files
without leaving their offices
Responsibility OHR, OCTO
Timelines 2009
Activity 3 Professional Development Online
Description Enhance the system for online management of professional
development services, moving from enrollment (“Did they enroll in
required sessions?”), to attendance (“Did they actually attend the
session?”), and to follow-up evaluation of the impact on performance
(“Did it make a difference?”)
Timelines By 2011
Activity 4 Improving business processes
Description Enhance support for improving business systems by modernizing legacy
information systems and selecting multiuse application systems that
integrate user needs. Functional areas supported include the departments
responsible for association relations; facilities management; financial
services; human resources; management, budget, and planning;
materials management; reporting and regulatory accountability; school
safety and security; and transportation
Responsibility OCOO, Department/Division Directors, OCTO
Timelines Ongoing

V. Assessing Progress
MCPS will regularly assess progress toward implementing the plan. The performance measures,
metrics for calculation, sources of information, and frequency of review and reporting are shown
for each of the four plan goals on the charts below. The report process and formats will conform
to the guidelines established for the OCTO (e.g., the Project Management Report).
Measure Metric Source Frequency

Student technology literacy Passing as percent of taking MSDE Annual
Online high school courses Number available Career Tech Ed Annual

Student to computer ratio # of computers/# of students MSDE Annual
Projectors per school County-wide average MSDE Annual
Staff to computer ratio # of staff/# of computers MCPS data Annual

Principals assessing skills Taken as percent of staff MCPS data Annual
Teachers assessing skills Taken as percent of staff MCPS data Annual
ITSS skill training # of staff enrolled in 1+ course MCPS data Annual

Customer satisfaction satisfied as percent of total MCPS data Annual
Requirements implemented Implemented as percent of Annual
MCPS data
total

Impact of Technology on Student Learning
The district also will evaluate how the use of technology is impacting student learning. This
aspect of the assessment of progress will look at use of technology and whether its presence is
related to progress on achieving targets in the Maryland Content Standards, including the
Voluntary State Curriculum, High School Core Learning Goals, Maryland School Assessment,
and High School Assessment. These measures will be accessed and reported in schools where
new technologies are introduced.
Assurances of Alignment with Technology Related Laws, Regulations, and Guidance
MCPS procurement and purchasing processes require that equipment, software, and online
resources are centrally evaluated and that are requests for purchased are reviewed by staff in the
Office of the Chief Technology Officer. These processes ensure that all technology purchases are
accessible for all students per COMAR 13A.05.02.13.H: Accessibility of Technology-Based
Instructional Products; Education Article § 7-910: Equivalent Access for Students with
Disabilities.
MCPS professional development is aligned with the Maryland Teacher Professional

Development Standards and the Maryland Instructional Leadership Framework. To measure the
outcomes of the professional development to support this plan, the technology skills of teachers
and principals will be measured against the Maryland Teacher Technology Standards and the
Maryland Technology Standards for School Administrators.
MCPS governs the acceptable use of computers and Internet safety, as specified under the
Children’s Internet Protection Act, through MCPS Regulation IGT-RA, User Responsibilities for
Computer Systems and Network Security. The stated description and purposes for this regulation
are as follows:
• To ensure the security of all elements of MCPS computer systems, related technology,
and electronic information
• To delineate appropriate uses for all users of MCPS computer systems
• To promote intellectual development through the use of computer systems, related
technology, and electronic information in a safe environment
• To ensure compliance with relevant state, local, and federal laws
The complete text of Regulation IGT-RA, User Responsibilities for Computer Systems and
Network Security, appears in Appendix I or can be accessed via the following Web page:
http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/policy/sect-i.shtm

VI. Funding the Plan
This strategic technology plan describes technology initiatives that are administered and funded
throughout the school system. For example, technical support for secondary schools is
administered and funded by individual schools, assistive technologies by the Department of
Special Education, and technology professional development by OOD. OCTO administers and
funds development and operation of enterprise student and business applications; systems
architecture and central server support; planning and implementation of telecommunications and
network infrastructure; planning and installation for the refreshment of obsolete technology; and
research, development, piloting, and dissemination of new technologies that support teaching and
learning.
Because the administration of technology-supported initiatives is the responsibility of several

offices, the implementation and funding for this strategic technology plan represents a highly
collaborative effort. Likewise, the funding needed to support this strategic technology plan is
spread throughout the school system and funding appears in both the operating and capital
budgets. The plan also depends on receipt of federal program allocations passed through the
state and rebates provided by telecommunication vendors through E-Rate.
This section of the plan outlines the costs and estimated funding for equipment, software, and
connectivity (e.g., wiring and telecommunications) that are needed to implement the goals and
objectives. Costs are based on current pricing estimates and funding is based on the school
system’s capital and budget requests for fiscal year 2009 and beyond.
Overall costs and funding follow. In addition, the documents in Appendices C to H provide more
detail on the three-year projection of technology replacement and enhancement in MCPS.
Appendix C Software and Online Services
Appendix D Telecommunication and Internal Connection Services
Appendix E Equipment and Infrastructure Model for Technology Modernization
Appendix F Equipment, Infrastructure, and Software for Middle School Reform
Appendix G Other New Equipment and Infrastructure Initiatives Contemplated
Appendix H Schedule of Schools to Be Served

Costs to Implement the Plan
The chart below provides an estimate of the costs of funding this plan. It includes both the
acquisition of equipment and materials (hardware, infrastructure, and software) and support
(planning, installation, and support).
Summary of Estimated Costs: Acquiring and Supporting Technology

(Dollars in 000’s)
Category Projected Costs
Replacement equipment $ 15,511
Replacement wiring/electronics 805
Replacement software 648
New wiring/electronics 172
New equipment 336
New software 1,322
Supplies and materials 5,486
Full-time, part-time, and contractual staff support 21,498
Online resources 1,297
Telecommunications 3,248
Contractual and maintenance 8,396
Professional development (30.1 percent of equipment costs) 5,364
Cost Totals: $ 64,083

Adequate Funding
The charts below provide an estimate of requested funding that, if approved, would be available
to fund this plan. As shown in the subsequent information, these funding sources represent a
combination of local, state/federal, and E-Rate funding.
Operating Budget—FY 2009 Request and FY 2010–2011 Projections of Total (000’s)
Cost Category FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011
Online Resources $1,297
Telecommunications 3,248
Technology Administration 2,750
Technology Project Management 742
Technology Planning 467
System Architecture and Operations 5,264
Student Systems 7,936
Business Systems 3,699
Technology Support 6,027
Field Operations 2,791
Professional Development 5,664
Total $39,885 $41,879 $43,973
Federal Funds/State Pass-Through—FY 2009–2011 Projections (000’s)
Cost Category FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011
Title II-D Educational Technology $213 $200 $200
Title V-A Innovative Programs 225 0 0
Professional Development 18 15 15
Total $456 $215 $215

Capital Improvement Program – Technology Modernization Request (000’s)
FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014
$19,643 $20,807 $20,862 $21,830 $21,911 $22,213
E-Rate Rebates – Based on past receipts from vendors (000’s)
FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011
$1,900 $1,995 $2,095
Total Estimated Funding – (000’s)
FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011
$59,884 $63,175 $65,740
Accessibility of Technology-Based Product Purchases
MCPS is compliant with the MSDE regulation (COMAR 13A.05.02.13H) governing the
acquisition of accessible technology-based instructional products and with Education Article
§7-910: Equivalent Access for Students with Disabilities that require teacher-made instructional
materials also are accessible. As part of the Bridge to Excellence Master Planning process,
MCPS reports its accessibility compliance annually to the MSDE, including the process,
implementation, and monitoring of these guidelines.

Appendices
Appendix A: Progress in Achieving Previous Technology Plan Goals and Objectives
Appendix B: FY 200–-FY 2012 Curriculum Revision Delivery Plan
Appendix C: Software and Online Services
Appendix D: Telecommunication and Internal Connection Services
Appendix E: Equipment and Infrastructure Model for Technology Modernization
Appendix F: Equipment, Infrastructure, and Software for Middle School Reform
Appendix G: Other New Equipment and Infrastructure Initiatives Contemplated
Appendix H: Schedule of Schools to Be Served
Appendix I: User Responsibilities for Computer Systems and Network Security (IGT-RA)
29
Progress in Achieving Previous Technology Plan Goals and Objectives
Montgomery County Public Schools Strategic Technology Plan: 2005–2008
This report summarizes the progress that has been made toward meeting the district’s
educational technology goals. Data includes Montgomery County Public Schools trends and
comparisons with statewide averages and other Maryland school districts.
Plan Goals:
1. Computers will be accessible to all children on an equitable basis
2. Technology will be fully integrated into instruction
3. Information systems will be used for measuring performance and improving results
4. Technology will be used to overcome location and distance as barriers to learning
Unexpected Outcomes
During the implementation of the strategic technology plan, a number of unexpected outcome
and benefits were achieved. Also, a number of targets were not achieved because of a lack of
staff resources, lack of time, lack of funding, or lack of interest by schools. A summary of these
unexpected outcomes follow.
Benefits
• Use of donated computers by nonpublic schools
• Use of school and program funds to acquire additional funds when a 5:1 computer
replacement policy was adopted by the Montgomery County Council
• Use of technology to support formative student assessment
• Use of technology to track teacher participation in required training
Targets Not Yet Achieved

• A 3:1 students to computers ratio
• Adoption of distance learning and video conferencing by high schools
• Partnerships around technology-related initiatives with communities and businesses
• The measurement of student technology literacy
Goal 1: Computers will be accessible to all children on an equitable basis
Goal 1, Objective 1
MCPS will establish a ratio of students to computers of 3:1 and increase the number of
computers; computer-related technologies; and handheld, portable, and assistive devices used in
schools to meet this ratio and the instructional needs of students by 2008.

Data from the 2007 Maryland Technology Inventory indicates the following progress.
30
Appendix A

Student to Computer Ratio 3.8:1 3.4:1 5:1
Classrooms with Internet Access 100% 98% 100%
Is assistive technology used by teachers for

students with disabilities or with learning
difficulties?
• disabilities and learning difficulties 45% 26% n/a
• primarily disabilities 52% 28% n/a
• teachers lack awareness, have not been 3% 46% n/a
trained, or have no clear way to obtain
assistive technologies
meeting this objective (see both the graph and the table).

7.0
6.0 6.0
Better
6.0
5.2 5.2
5.0
3.9
4.0
3.8
3.0
2.0
1.0
-
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
31
Appendix A
Table 2. Students to Computer Comparisons

1 Talbot County 2.2
6 Howard County 3.1
12 Cecil County 3.4
17 Kent County 3.7
State Total 3.4
Data from the 2007 Maryland Technology Inventory indicates the progress toward meeting this
objective, as shown on the two tables that follow.
Indicator of Progress Montgomery Maryland Target

Average number of projection devices per school 18.1 19.3 1 per Classroom
32
Appendix A
Table 4. Maryland School District Comparisons
Average # of Projection Devices per School

10 Howard County 19.3
12 Kent County 14.1
17 Cecil County 9.9
23 Talbot County 5.9
State Total 19.0
33
Appendix A
meeting this objective (graph).
Percentage of Schools Using Assistive Technologies

100%
90%
80%
70%
60% Better
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Assistive Technology—MCPS is compliant with the MSDE regulation (COMAR

13A.05.02.13H) governing the acquisition of accessible technology-based instructional products
and with Education Article § 7-910: Equivalent Access for Students with Disabilities that
requires teacher-made instructional materials also are accessible. As part of the Bridge to
Excellence Master Planning process, MCPS reports its accessibility compliance annually,
including the process, implementation, and monitoring of these guidelines.
The MCPS Web site is accessible to all users, including those with disabilities. In addition,
school Web developers are trained in how to make their own sites accessible and give free tools
to support this effort via http://aprompt.snow.utoronto.ca/index.html. The following is an excerpt
from this Web page:
A-Prompt Helps People with Disabilities use the Internet
Web authors can use A-Prompt to make their Web pages accessible to people with disabilities.
The A-Prompt software tool examines Web pages for barriers to accessibility, performs
automatic repairs when possible, and assists the author in manual repairs when necessary.
These enhanced Web pages are available to a larger Internet audience.
34
Appendix A
People who are blind can use the Internet by listening to synthesized speech from their computer.
They do this by using a Screen Reader, software that vocalizes text by converting it to speech.
Those with physical disabilities who have difficulty typing or using a mouse can browse the
Internet by manipulating switches or wireless pointing devices attached to their heads.
People who are deaf can understand sound on the Internet by reading visible text and image
captions.
These are examples of technologies, known as Assistive Technologies, which improve the
accessibility of the Internet to people with disabilities. Unfortunately, smooth operation of these
technologies is often prevented by how a Web page is designed and created.
Accessibility can also be improved directly by applying universal design techniques. For
example, people who are deaf can understand sound on the Internet by reading text captions and
viewing supplemental illustrations. The ability to zoom and enlarge text allows those with low
vision to read.
Assistive Technologies and universal design make the Internet more accessible to everybody by
providing convenient alternatives for small screens in mobile devices, text alternatives for low
bandwidth connections and other atypical situations.
There are 74 secondary ITSSs—one in each middle and high school—and 36 ITSSs support 131
elementary schools and 5 special schools. With a total of 42,378 computers in the schools, this
represents an average of 415 computers per ITSS. This average is 115 more than the 300:1 ratio
recommended by the MSDE and adopted by MCPS.
Goal 1, Objective 2
MCPS will facilitate the donation of 800 previously owned computers to community
partnerships to help close the digital divide by 2008.
Performance Measure: The total number of computers donated through MCPS to identified
community groups.
From July 2005 through December 2007, a total of 5,480 previously owned computers were
donated to local community centers and non-public schools.
Goal 1, Objective 3
MCPS computers and portable devices will continue to access online services and resources
from any location with Internet access through 2008.
Performance Measures: Percentage of schools and classrooms with Internet connectivity,

comparison of school access to students with access to the Internet at home, and percentage of
schools with medium/high Internet capacity.
35
Appendix A
Table 5. Student Home Access to Technology

Classrooms with Internet Access 100% 98% 100%
Students with Internet Access at Home 83% 73% 100%
Schools with medium/high Internet capacity 100% Not Available 100%
Goal 2. Technology will be fully integrated into instruction
Goal 2, Objective 1
School-based and central services staff members will demonstrate competence relevant to their
job function in using productivity software, instructional software online services, the Internet,
administrative applications, and decision support tools by 2007.
Performance Measures: Technology use by staff to perform required job skills as measured by
assessments identified through this planning process.
Indicator of Progress Montgomery Maryland Avg. Target

Teacher knowledge and skills at least
intermediate in:
- computer use 80% 78% 100%
- Internet use 74% 72% 100%
- technology integration 80% 74% 100%
Goal 2, Objective 2
Ongoing staff development for technology will continue to be provided using a variety of
formats and delivery methods through 2008.
Performance Measures: Customer satisfaction with the variety of formats and delivery methods
for technology staff development and increased staff knowledge and skills as measured by the
evaluation standards and measures to be developed in the activities below.
36
Appendix A
Goal 2, Objective 3
All MCPS students will demonstrate the skills, knowledge, and attitudes to use technology
appropriately to support their learning by 2007.
Performance Measure: Technology is used by students to perform skills emphasized by the state
Table 7. Student Use of Technology


1. Gather information and data from a variety of sources 93% 89%
2. Organize and store information 58% 50%
3. Perform measurements and collect data in investigations or lab 26% 30%
experiments
4. Manipulate/analyze/interpret information or data to discover 45% 39%
relationships, generate questions, and/or reach conclusions
5. Communicate/report information, conclusions, or results of 82% 64%
investigations
6. Display data/information 68% 54%
7. Communicate/interact with others in the classroom/ 38% 38%
school/outside of school
8. Plan, draft, proofread, revise and publish written text 91% 78%
9. Create graphics or visuals 84% 63%
10. Plan, refine, produce multimedia presentations 53% 40%
11. Generate original pieces of visual art and/or musical composition 28% 23%
12. Perform calculations 41% 42%
13. Develop a more complete understanding of complex material or 28% 29%
abstract concepts
14. Connect auditory language to the written word and/ or graphic 82% 61%
representations
15. Design and produce a product 19% 15%
16. Control other devices 7% 7%
17. Support individualized learning or tutoring 57% 60%
18. Remediate for basic skills 84% 79%
19. Accommodate for a disability or limitation 88% 69%
Goal 2, Objective 4
Partnerships are established with schools, communities, and businesses to enhance the
effectiveness of technology-related initiatives in support of success for every child by 2007.
Performance Measure: User and community satisfaction survey results.
37
Appendix A
Goal 2, Objective 5
The MCPS curriculum reflects the appropriate use of technology to support teaching and
learning, and resources to support this curriculum are developed and made available
electronically 2008.
Performance Measure: The percentage newly designed and updated curricula that include
integrated instructional technology support, alignment, and appropriateness.
All new curricula integrate technology. In addition, assessments are being put online in support
of one the district’s master plan strategies, which is Optimization of technology to support
student achievement through analysis of formative assessment data, diagnosis of student
learning needs, and analysis of reading and math achievement data.
Goal 2, Objective 6
The implementation plans for MCPS instructional initiatives continue to include technology as
one of the tools that is used to support increased student achievement through 2008.
Performance Measure: The percentage of new instructional initiatives that includes technology
as a support for increased student achievement in their implementation plans.
Major instructional initiatives include technology as a support. Two examples are—
• Magnet schools—the 2:1 student to computer ratios in the Argyle Middle School
Magnets and the 3 student computers per classroom in the Pine Crest and North Chevy
Chase elementary magnets, and
• Middle School Reform Initiative—the ACTIVClassroom focus for student engagement.
Goal 3. Information systems will be used for measuring performance and improving
results
Goal 3, Objective 1
Use multiple measures to assess the impact of technology on enhancing instruction and student
learning by 2008.
Performance Measure: A balanced technology evaluation plan has been created, implemented,
and used to improve the use of technology to support instruction and student learning.
Goal 3, Objective 2
Implement an enterprise-wide Integrated Quality Management System that is comprised of a data
warehouse system and a Web-based instructional management system by 2008.
Performance Measure: Percentage teachers and administrators who use technology to maintain
data on students.
38
Appendix A
Table 8. Administrator Use of Technology

1. Communicating with staff members and other colleagues 100% 99%
2. Communicating with parents/guardians of students 98% 88%
3. Posting/viewing/accessing school/district announcements 99% 94%

or information
4. Participating in online discussion groups or collaborative 66% 41%

projects
5. Diagnosing and placing students 84% 72%
6. Analyzing attendance and/or grades 91% 91%
7. Analyzing tests 83% 75%
8. Analyzing grades and progress reports 80% 74%
9. Maintaining data on students 96% 93%
10. Analyzing and/or reporting students/school improvement 80% 77%

data
11. Creating instructional materials/visuals/presentations 84% 78%
12. Accessing curriculum/school improvement material from 92% 87%

the Internet or school system Intranet
13. Researching educational topics of interest 92% 91%
14. Handling inventory, lockers, field trips or bus schedules 69% 64%
Table 9. Teacher and Administrator Use of Technology

Indicator of Progress Montgomery Maryland
9. Teachers: Maintaining data on students 91% 79%
9. Administrators: Maintaining data on students 96% 93%
39
Appendix A
Goal 3, Objective 3
Develop and maintain high-quality information systems to help manage information, improve
work efficiencies, and support instruction by 2003 and beyond.
Performance Measure: Percentage of prioritized system requirements that are implemented in

enterprise system development, upgrade, and maintenance projects. Customer satisfaction.
Data from the FY 2009 Operating Budget indicate that progress was made toward meeting this
objective. This progress is displayed on the table that follows.
Table 10. Quality of Information System
Indicator of Progress FY 2007 Data

Percentage of high priority enterprise system requirements implemented 88%
on-time
Level of customer satisfaction with implemented enterprise technology 80%
solution (business systems)
Percentage of users satisfied with the customer service provided (student 75%
systems)
Goal 4. Technology will be used to overcome location and distance as barriers to learning
Goal 4, Objective 1
MCPS students and teachers will continue to have access to online instructional resources to
support teaching and learning through 2008.
Performance Measure: The percentage growth in online teaching and instructional resources
available to all MCPS students and teachers.
The content on the MCPS Web page for students interested in online courses (January 11, 2008)
follows. The information on this Web page indicates the number and variety of online course
offerings now available for high school students in Montgomery County Public Schools.
http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/onlinelearning/
Student Online Learning—21st Century Learning for 21st Century Learners
Student Online Learning, through the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS), is a way for high
school students to take courses outside of the traditional classroom setting. For more information or to
register for an online class, please see your school guidance counselor.
40
Appendix A
Are You Ready for Online Learning?

• This is Student Online Learning
Information about process and eligibility for online students.
• Success as an Online Student
Rules of the road for success as an online student.
2008 Spring Courses - Registration OPEN for Spring FOT (click here)
This 1.0 credit course will be offered this spring in a 10 week format and will include 3
required face-to-face lab sessions. The course runs from March 31 - June 7. A half credit
option is available for seniors only, running from March 31 - April 25 and will include 2 face-
to-face sessions.
Maryland Virtual Learning Opportunity (MVLO) AP Courses
• AP Art History • AP Physics B
• AP Calculus AB • AP Statistics
• AP English Lit and Comp • AP US Gov't and Politics
• AP Macroeconomics • AP Computer Sci A
• AP Microeconomics
Summer Course Highlights 2008 - Registration Opens Jan. 17
This 1.0 credit course will be offered this spring in a 10 week format and will include three
required face-to-face lab sessions.
• Comprehensive Health and Wellness
This .5 credit course runs in a 3 week format. This course
requires attendance at two face-to-face sessions.
Goal 4, Objective 2
MCPS students will continue to have access to online courses for high school credit by 2004 and
ongoing.
Performance Measure: The availability of credit-bearing high school online courses.
[See above]
Goal 4, Objective 3
MCPS students and staff will have access to interactive video conferencing to enable real-time
interaction with subject matter experts from around the block and around the world by 2008.
Performance Measure: Access to interactive video conferencing in alternative centers, high

schools, and middle school magnet programs.
41
Appendix A
This objective was not fulfilled. Interactive video conferencing was placed in alternative centers.
When the federal grant allocation that funded the project coordinator was cut; no further progress
was made.
Goal 4, Objective 4
Continue the ability to communicate and educate by enhancing Web applications and by
improving e-mail through 2008.
Performance Measure: Percent of classrooms with high-capability computers that can run up-to-
date Web and e-mail software, as reported in the MSDEs annual technology inventory of
resources in Maryland schools.
Table 11. Classroom with High Capability Student Computers
Indicator of Progress Montgomery Maryland Avg. Target

42
Appendix B
FY 2002–FY 2012 Curriculum Revision Delivery Plan
43
Appendix B
English/Language Arts
School Year FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12
Pre-K
Kindergarten U R
Grade 1 UR
Grade 2 UR
Grade 3 U R
Grade 4 U
Grade 5 U
English 6 R U
English 7 UR
English 8 UR
Reading 6 R
Reading 7 R
Reading 8 R
English 9 U
English 10 R U
English 11
English 12
Curriculum Framework Blueprint (K-8)/Outline (HS) Guides (distrib. to all schools, all quarters) Integrated Curriculum
Text/Instr. Res. Prof. Development Tier 1 ███ Classroom Use UFormative Assess
R Revision
44
Appendix B
Mathematics
Pre-K R
Kindergarten R
Grade 1 U R
Grade 2 U R
Grade 3 U R
Grade 4 U R
Grade 5 U R
Math 6 U U R
Math 7 U R
Algebra Prep U R
IM R
Algebra I U U U R
Geometry U R
Algebra II R
Pre-Calculus R
Quantitative Literacy
Bridge to Algebra 2
R Revision
45
Appendix B
Social Studies
Pre-K
Kindergarten
Grade 1
Grade 2 R ¡
Grade 3 R ¡
Grade 4 R ¡
Grade 5 R ¡
Grade 6 R
Grade 7 R
Grade 8 R
NSL R
US History (2000) R ¡ R¡
Modern World
R Revision
46
Appendix B
Science
Kindergarten
Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
Matter & Energy
Biology
Chemistry
Physics
Earth & Space
R Revision
47
Appendix B
Physical Education
Kindergarten
Grades 1-3
Grades 4-5
Grades 6-8
Grades 9-12
Health Education
Kindergarten
Grades K-2
Grades 3-5
Grades 6-8
Grades 9-12
R Revision
48
Appendix C
Software and Online Services
All Workstations Productivity Software:

Windows XP
Accessibility Wizard:
Magnifier
Narrator
On-Screen Keyboard
Acrobat Reader
Adobe Acrobat
Calculator
Citrix
Explorer
Active X Ipix
Authorware
Flash
Journal Viewer
QuickTime
Real One Player
Rss Reader
Shockwave
eWebEditPro +XML
Windows Media Player
Host Explorer (mainframe)
McAfee Virus Software
Microsoft Office
Access
Excel
Outlook
PowerPoint
Publisher
Word
Movie Maker
MS Paint
Notepad
Patron's catalog
Pinnacle studio (limited machines)
Roxio
Smart FTP
Sound Recorder
Spectrum circ/cat
Volume Control
Word Pad
Elementary Only Productivity Software:

MClass
Quicken (1 copy)
Zen for handhelds
49
Appendix C
On Elementary Palm Pilots:

Palm OS
All Workstations Instructional Software:

Filemaker
Inspiration
IrfanView
Elementary Only Instructional Software

Bailey’s Book House
Clicker 5
Graph Club
Imagination Suite
Pixie
Image Blender
Web Blender
Kidspiration
Mighty Math Calculating Crew (1)
Mighty Math Carnival Countdown (3)
Mighty Math Number Heroes (4)
Mighty Math Zoo Zillions (2)
Pair-It Books Stage 1
Type to Learn 3
Standalone CDs:
Instant Reader
My First Amazing and Incredible Dictionary
Middle Only Instructional Software

Graph Master
Studio MX.
Contribute
Dreamweaver
Fireworks
Flash
Flash Paper
Flash 8 Video Encoder
Home Site+
Turbo Typing
High Only Instructional Software

Studio MX.
Contribute
Dreamweaver
Fireworks
Flash
Flash Paper
Flash 8 Video Encoder
50
Appendix C
Home Site+
Turbo Typing
Eclipse
Special Ed Software
Boardmaker
IntelliTools Suite
Solo / co-writer
Writing with Symbols
IntelliTools Overlay Maker
Intellikeys USB drivers
Kurzweil 3000 client
Online Services
Product Level(s) Purchased For Company

America's Historical Newspapers MS NewsBank
Annals of American History ES, MS, HS Encyclopedia Britannica
Culture Grams ES, MS, HS ProQuest
Enciclopedia Universal en Espanol ES, MS, HS Encyclopedia Britannica
Encyclopedia Britannica ES, MS, HS Encyclopedia Britannica
Facts for Learning ES (grades 1-5) Facts on File News Service
Issues and Controversies MS, HS Facts on File News Service
KidsPage ES, MS NewsBank
Merriam Webster Dictionary ES, MS, HS Encyclopedia Britannica
NetTrekker ES, MS, HS Thinkronize
NoodleTools ES,MS,HS NoodleTools, Inc.
Opposing Viewpoints HS Thomson Gale
Professional Education Journals Staff ProQuest
ProQuest Historical Newspapers HS ProQuest
ProQuest Platinum HS ProQuest
Science Resource Center MS, HS Thomson Gale
SIRS ES, MS, HS ProQuest
Student Resource Center: Gold HS Thomson Gale
Student Resource Center: Junior MS Thomson Gale
Teaching Books ES, MS, HS Teaching Books, LLC
US History Resource Center Grades 8-9 Thomson Gale
World Book Web School and Library ES (grades 3-5), MS, HS World Book
World Data Annals ES, MS, HS Encyclopedia Britannica
51
Appendix D
Telecommunication and Internal Connection Services
Telecommunications
• Local voice and data services, including POTS, Centrex, ISDN, DID, BRI, PRI, point to
point T-1, frame relay T-1's & T-3's and DS1, trunk lines, and custom calling features
(e.g., voicemail and toll free service)
• Basic cellular phone services
• Cellular phone services with enhanced features including, but not limited to, pooled
minutes, nationwide roaming, push to talk, unlimited data/email/Internet, text messaging,
caller ID, call forward, voicemail, and long distance
• Cellular services with two-way radio and group call and including, but not limited to,
pooled minutes, nationwide roaming, push to talk, unlimited data/email/internet, text
messaging, caller ID, call forward, voicemail, and long distance
• Long distance phone services
• VoIP, including self-maintained and hosted
• Alarm circuits (point to point voice grade data lines for alarm circuits)
• Paging service with custom features including numeric, text, and two-way text pager
services
• Transparent LAN Service/Tie lines/Trunks Tie Lines, including tie (FX-or foreign
exchange) lines to the Baltimore metro calling area accessible from MCPS lines in the
Rockville CO via coded input and tie (FX or foreign exchange) lines from the Rockville
metro calling area directly
• Radio loop circuits (point to point, voice grade radio circuits)
• Circuits, including door/gate announce circuits
• High speed data circuits district wide
• Internet access, district-wide for all instructional and administrative areas
Internal Connections
• Network equipment for internal connections, including Cisco routers and switches
• Wireless Access Points and controllers
• Cisco security devices and software
• Installation of equipment and related circuit/wiring connections
52
Appendix E
Equipment and Infrastructure Model for Technology Modernization
53
Appendix E
Technology Modernization: Allocation of Hardware, Infrastructure, and Software for Each School
Item Description Tech Mod Service Model
Student and Computers used by students and teachers, Five students per computer based on school enrollment (rounded up) using the March 1
Teacher calculated at a 5:1 student to computer projections for the following September. Unit price includes installation and four-year
Computers replacement ratio warranty. One AV computer per classroom/learning cottage is included. In addition,
schools receive computers for head start, special education, and other special programs
that are not part of the 5:1 ratio. Head start computers not funded by CIP.
Admin Computers in non-teaching locations Formula is ES = 13(includes 1 cafeteria); secondary schools formula is 1 per 47
Computers students (minimum of 16) plus 1 for cafeteria. Principals: 1 tablet. NSBO: 450 total.
School LAN & School Local Area Network (LAN) routers Upgrade switches by adding Gig ports and powered ports for future technology capacity
Rack Surge and switches in wiring closets (e.g., wireless remote access and VoIP). One rack-mounted UPS per wire closet for
switches and router
Projection Computer projection display for classrooms Two in ES; Secondary budgeted at 1 per 20 classrooms.
Devices
Printers Printers for administrative and instructional ES = 2 networked color laser (1 smaller capacity for data analysis), 2 networked
areas workgroup B&W laser printers, 2 “personal” laser B&W printers, and 1 color inkjet per
classroom. (Current departmental printers stay.)
MS = 2 networked color laser (1 smaller capacity for data analysis), 1 per 250 students
networked B&W laser (3 minimum) 1per 600 students networked workgroup B&W
laser printer + 1, 5 “personal” laser B&W printer, and 3 color inkjets for teacher use.
(Current departmental printers stay.)
HS = 1 networked color laser, 1 per 300 students networked B&W laser (3 minimum),
1 per 500 students networked workgroup B&W laser printer +2, 10 “personal” laser
B&W printer, 4 color inkjets for teacher use.
Servers File servers, integration, and licenses ES = Rack-mounted: 2 fileservers, 1 with back-up tape +1Domain Controller and 2
UPS surge protection devices. MS = Rack-mounted: 2 fileservers, 1 with back-up
tape+1Domain Controller and 2 UPS surge protection devices. HS = Rack-mounted: 3
2 fileservers, 1 with back-up tape + 1Domain Controller and 2 UPS surge protection
devices.
Image Software Instructional software per computer $100 per CPU in elementary and $60 per CPU in middle and high.
Library Handheld scanner and Spectrum One replacement handheld scanner for each school and Spectrum software for new
Circulation schools
Peripherals Peripherals for instructional use Conversion Patch cables at $7 per computer. S-video cables, 1 per AV computer
Surge Electrical surge protection 1 power strip surge protector for every 2 computers.
Protection
54
Appendix E
ALLOCATION DETAILS
Special education schools computer allocations are as follows:

(allocations are based on the official March 1 projections for student enrollment for the following September)
• Student computers—Five students per computer based on school enrollment (rounded up)
• Computer labs—In addition to the 5:1 ratio computers, special education schools receive one computer per every ten students
(rounded up) for computer lab(s)
• Teacher computers—One computer per Special Ed teacher
• Administrative computers—Elementary special education schools receive 13 administrative computers (including 1 cafeteria)
and secondary special education schools receive 1 administrative computer per 47 students (or a minimum of 16) plus 1 for
cafeteria.
Technology Modernization: Additional Information on Allocation of Printers for Each School
High Schools Middle Schools Elementary Schools

Existing printers Existing printers with Existing printers with
New with life expectancy New life expectancy of 4 life expectancy of 4
printers of 4 additional years printers additional years New printers additional years
Large format network color laser 0 1 0 1 0 1
Network color laser 1 1.5 2 0 2 0
Large format network B&W laser 0 1 0 1 0 1
Network B&W laser 6 10.5 3 6 0 3
Network workgroup B&W laser 5.5 2 2.5 2 2 0
"Personal" B&W laser 10 4 5 3 2 0
Color inkjet (teacher use) 4 3 3 0 1 per classroom 0
NOTE: Network laser printers have life expectancy of eight years
55
Appendix F
Equipment, Infrastructure, and Software for Middle School Reform
Summary of School Hardware, Infrastructure, and Software in

Technology Modernization Middle Schools
Item Description Tech Mod Service Model

Interactive White Promethian ACTIVClassroom model includes 18 classrooms per school
Boards the following for each classroom: 1
ACTIVboard, 2 ACTIVtablets, 32 ACTIVotes,
1 ACTIVslate XR, bracket, video splitter,
display extender, projector and USB A-A cable
School LAN School LAN enhancements include wireless One wireless controller and 35
controller, wireless access points, and wiring access points per school plus needed
to connect access points wiring
Software ACTIVStudio Installed building-wide
Audio Classroom set includes wireless microphones, 18 classrooms per school

Enhancement speakers, and amplifiers
.
Summary of Added School Hardware, Infrastructure, and Software in

Selected Middle School Reform Pilot Schools
(10 Schools in FY09)
Item Description Pilot Service Model

Teacher Laptops Laptop computers for core content area 4 teachers per school
teachers
Mobile Labs Mobile laptop cart with sixteen laptops, one Two carts (16 computers/one printer
color printer per cart, three surge each) per school
protectors/power strips, and a wireless access
point
Document Camera Elmo manipulative and document camera with 4 classrooms per school
cart and spare bulb
Software SynchronEyes for classroom management Installed building-wide
Audio Classroom set includes wireless microphones, 18 classrooms per school

Enhancement speakers, and amplifiers
56
Appendix G
Other New Equipment and Infrastructure Initiatives Contemplated
Item Description
Classroom LCD projectors One LCD projector per classroom
Promethean boards and ACTIVclassrooms Additional ACTIVboards in designated classrooms

with audio enhancements
Additional designated ACTIVclassrooms, including
ACTIVboard , 2 ACTIVtablet, 32 ACTIVote, 1
ACTIVslate, 2 wireless microphones, speakers, and
amplifiers
Install ACTIVclassroom in Media Centers, with

ACTIVboard, 2 ACTIVtablet, 32 ACTIVote, 1
ACTIVslate, 2 wireless microphones, speakers, and
amplifiers
Thin client Use of several end-user workstations (screens, mice,

and keyboards) driven by a single computer
processor, in order to provide student computers at a
lower cost
Ultra Mobile PCs Use of low-cost ultra-mobile PCs in low-income

schools, focusing first on elementary schools
TV tuners Installed TV tuner cards in each classroom

computer to receive cable TV signal. Projection
would be through classroom LCD projectors. (This
would replace existing, outdated televisions.)
“Elmo” document cameras One document camera per classroom for full class
document and manipulative viewing. . Projection
would be through classroom LCD projectors.
Full wireless capability Wireless access points installed building-wide
Mobil Carts Mobil cart containing 8–10 wireless laptop

computers, access points, and a printer
Teacher Laptops One laptop per teacher to facilitate mobility and

collaboration
57
Appendix H
Schedule of Schools to Be Served
Secondary Schools
FY 09 FY 10 FY 11
Walter Johnson - 2 yrs
Blair Kennedy Bethesda - Chevy Chase
Blake Churchill
Einstein Clarksburg
Northwest Gaithersburg
Northwood
Quince Orchard
Rockville
Sherwood
Watkins Mill
Whitman
Edison
10 2.5 4
FY 09 FY 10 FY 11
Key - 5 yrs
Argyle Lakelands Park Newport Mll
Baker Loiderman
Banneker North Bethesda
Briggs Chaney Pyle
Cabin John Redland
Farquhar Ridgeview
Gaithersburg Rosa Parks
Hoover Shady Grove
Neelsville Sligo
Robert Frost Silver Spring International
Rocky Hill Takoma Park
Tilden
White Oak
Wood
11 15 1
Note: schools listed in boldface type above the double line are new or modernized
58
Appendix H
Elementary and Special Schools
FY 09 FY 10 FY 11
Galway - 2.5 yrs Clarksburg/Damascus #8 Carderock Springs - 2 yrs
Bells Mill - 5 yrs Cresthaven - 2 yrs
Cashell - 3 yrs Takoma Park - 5 yrs
Barnsley Brown Station Asburton Luxmanor
Bethesda Chevy Chase Bannockburn Marshall
Canon Road Clopper Mill Belmont Matsunaga
Carderock Springs Daly Beverly Farms McAuliffe
Cresthaven East Silver Spring Bradly Hills McNair
Gaithersburg Flower Hill Brooke Grove Monocacy
Glen Haven Fox Chapel Burning Tree Okland Terrace
Harmony Hills Garret Park Burtonsville Olney
Highland Glenallan Candlewood Poolesville
New Hampshire Estates Greencastle Cedar Grove Potomac
Ritchie Park Highland View Clearspring Rachel Carson
Rock View Kensington Parkwood Cloverly Rock Creek Forest
Seven Locks Maryvale Clarksburg Rock Creek Valley
Sligo Creek Meadow Hall Cold Spring Rockwell
Summit Hall Mill Creek Town Darnestown Roscoe Nix
Twinbrook Montgomery Knolls Diamond Rosmary Hills
Westover Piney Branch Drew Sequoyah
Wheaton Woods Resnik DuFief Sherwood
Wyngate Ride Fairland Shriver
Rolling Terrace Fallsmead Steadwick
Somerset Fields Road Stonegate
Strathmore Forest Knolls Stone Mill
Strawberry Knolls Goshen Travilah
Watkins Mill Great Seneca Wayside
Weller Road Greenwood Wood Acres
Whetstone Jones Lane Woodfield
Washington Grove Laytonsville Woodlin
Little Bennett Waters Landing
Lake Seneca
20 30 60
FY 09 FY 10 FY 11
Rock Terrace Longview
Stephen Knolls
Sandberg
3 0 1
Note: schools listed in boldface type above the double line are new or modernized
59
Appendix I
Regulation IGT-RA
User Responsibilities for Computer Systems and Network Security
60
ATTACHMENT 4-A and B
SCHOOL LEVEL BUDGET SUMMARY
Local School System: Montgomery County Public Schools
Fiscal Year 2009
Enter the Amount of Funds Budgeted for Each School by ESEA Programs and Other Sources of Funding. Expand Table as
needed.
SCHOOL NAME School Percent Title I-A Title I-D Title II, Title II-D Title III-A Title IV-A Title V-A Other Other Total ESEA
Rank Order All Schools by ID Poverty Grants to Delinquent Part A Ed Tech English Safe and Funding by
Percentage of Poverty – Based on Local and Youth Teacher Formula Language Drug Free Innovative Fine Arts
Programs School
High to Low Poverty Free and School At Risk of and Grants Acquisition Schools and
After School Name Reduced Systems Dropping Principal Communities
Indicate as appropriate: Price Out Training
• (SW) for T-I Meals and
Schoolwide Schools Recruiting
• (TAS) for Targeted Fund
Assistance T-I
Schools
• (CH) for Charter
Schools
Broad Acres ES (SW)

0304 88.59% $504,499
Harmony Hills ES (SW) 0797
76.77% $471,800
Highland ES (SW) 0774

75.61% $471,133
Oak View ES (SW) 0766

73.14% $236,234
Wheaton Woods ES (SW) 0788

71.79% $383,713
New Hampshire Estate ES 0791

(SW) 71.50% $355,685
Summit Hall ES (SW) 0563

70.48% $398,394
Sargent Shriver ES (SW) 0779

70.23% $567,896
Programs School
Assistance T-I
Schools
Schools
Arcola ES (SW) 0533

70.03% $324,321
Viers Mill ES (SW) 0772

67.46% $390,386
Kemp Mill ES (SW) 0805

67.13% $366,363
Weller Road ES (SW) 0777

66.74% $391,054
South Lake ES (SW) 0564

66.48% $451,781
Georgian Forest ES (SW) 0786

61.49% $355,685
East Silver Spring ES (SW) 0756

61.23% $166,164
Gaithersburg ES (SW) 0553

60.91% $368,365
Roscoe Nix ES (SW) 0307

60.64% $316,980
Clopper Mill ES (SW) 0100

60.18% $319,650
Montgomery Knolls ES 0776

(SW) 59.59% $276,273
Glen Haven ES (SW) 0767

59.57% $425,087
Programs School
Assistance T-I
Schools
Schools
Cresthaven ES (SW) 0808

57.94% $262,927
Burnt Mills ES (SW) 0309

57.59% $242,240
Brookhaven ES (SW) 0807

57.40% $281,612
Washington Grove ES (SW) 0552

57.26% $251,582
Jackson Road ES (SW) 0305

56.03% $372,369
Twinbrook ES (SW) 0206

55.88% $371,701
Rolling Terrace ES (SW) 0771

55.02% $423,753
Watkins Mill ES
52.36%
Capt. James E. Daly ES

51.53%
Bel Pre ES
51.46
Strathmore ES
51.41%
Greencastle ES
51.33%
Programs School
Assistance T-I
Schools
Schools
Glenallen ES
50.81%
Brown Station ES
50.66%
Rosemont ES (SW)
Grandfathered 50.00% $295,626
Whetstone ES
47.61%
Flower Hill ES
47.29%
Cannon Road ES
47.19%
Stedwick ES
46.88%
Galway ES
46.10%
Pine Crest ES
45.09%
Sequoyah ES
44.68%
Fox Chapel ES
44.63%
Highland View ES
44.38%
Programs School
Assistance T-I
Schools
Schools
Judith A. Resnik ES
41.91%
Fairland ES
41.89%
Rock View ES
41.18%
Strawberry Knoll ES
40.98%
Maryvale ES
37.82%
S. Christa McAuliffe ES
37.81%
Meadow Hall ES
36.99%
Piney Branch ES
35.33%
Oakland Terrace ES
34.63%
William Tyler Page ES

34.51%
Dr. Charles R. Drew ES

33.64%
Forest Knolls ES
32.02%
Programs School
Assistance T-I
Schools
Schools
Lake Seneca ES
31.87%
Waters Landing ES
31.32%
Dr. Sally K. Ride ES

30.94%
Beall ES
30.17%
Goshen ES
29.55%
Mill Creek Towne ES

29.52%
Rock Creek Valley ES

28.76%
Burtonsville ES
28.75%
Germantown ES
27.78%
Sligo Creek ES
23.99%
Great Seneca Creek ES

23.02%
Lucy V. Barnsley ES
22.24%
Programs School
Assistance T-I
Schools
Schools
Woodlin ES
21.65%
Takoma Park ES
21.21%
Clarksburg ES
20.68%
Jones Lane ES
20.43%
Fields Road ES
20.15%
Ronald A. McNair ES
19.89%
Rock Creek Forest ES

19.80%
Clearspring ES
19.33%
Thurgood Marshall ES
18.11%
Westover ES
17.84%
Garrett Park ES
17.71%
Brooke Grove ES
16.63%
Programs School
Assistance T-I
Schools
Schools
Cashell ES
16.56%
Damascus ES
16.38%
Little Bennett ES
15.60%
College Gardens ES
14.98%
Rosemary Hills ES
14.81%
Flower Valley ES
14.45%
Lois P. Rockwell ES
14.29%
Cedar Grove ES
13.84%
Poolesville ES
13.83%
Monocacy ES
13.73%
Diamond ES
13.47%
Ritchie Park ES
13.32%
Programs School
Assistance T-I
Schools
Schools
Stonegate ES
13.25%
Spark M. Matsunaga ES
12.77%
Olney ES
12.29%
Candlewood ES
12.21%
Luxmanor ES
12.00%
Rachel Carson ES
11.51%
Sherwood ES
11.43%
Ashburton ES
11.32%
Laytonsville ES
11.06%
Chevy Chase ES
10.93%
Cloverly ES
9.94%
North Chevy Chase ES

9.49%
Programs School
Assistance T-I
Schools
Schools
Bells Mill ES
8.62%
Bethesda ES
7.38%
Fallsmead ES
7.25%
Travilah ES
7.02%
Belmont ES
6.62%
Woodfield ES
6.47%
DuFief ES
6.44%
Greenwood ES
6.22%
Kensington-Parkwood ES
5.81%
Somerset ES
5.54%
Stone Mill ES
5.30%
Burning Tree ES
3.69%
Programs School
Assistance T-I
Schools
Schools
Beverly Farms ES
3.59%
Farmland ES
3.34%
Darnestown ES
3.14%
Potomac ES
2.59%
Westbrook ES
2.38%
Lakewood ES
2.34%
Wayside ES
2.16%
Bannockburn ES
2.04%
Wyngate ES
1.97%
Seven Locks ES
1.93%
Bradley Hills ES
1.42%
Carderock Springs ES
1.34%
Programs School
Assistance T-I
Schools
Schools
Wood Acres ES
1.14%
Cold Springs
0.49%
Total Elementary
Newport Mill MS
50.31%
Col. E. Brooke Lee MS

49.89%
Francis Scott Key MS

49.59%
Loiederman MS
48.27%
Silver Spring International

MS 47.90%
White Oak MS
44.77%
Parkland MS
44.60%
Sligo MS
44.26%
Argyle MS
44.03%
Programs School
Assistance T-I
Schools
Schools
Neelsville MS
43.97%
Montgomery Village MS
42.84%
Eastern MS
41.92%
Forest Oak MS
40.05%
Benjamin Banneker MS
37.43%
Gaithersburg MS
33.61%
Martin Luther King Jr. MS

32.28%
Shady Grove MS
31.19%
Briggs Chaney MS
31.07%
Earle B. Wood MS
28.82%
Redland MS
28.49%
Roberto W. Clemente MS
28.36%
Programs School
Assistance T-I
Schools
Schools
Julius West MS
27.90%
Takoma Park MS
25.61%
Ridgeview MS
18.89%
Rocky Hill MS
16.27%
Lakelands Park MS
15.84%
Kingsview MS
14.75%
Westland MS
11.79%
John T. Baker MS
11.61%
William H. Farquhar MS
11.31%
Tilden MS
11.17%
John H. Poole MS
8.79%
Rosa M. Parks Ms
7.27%
Programs School
Assistance T-I
Schools
Schools
North Bethesda MS
5.56%
Robert Frost MS
4.62%
Cabin John MS
4.41%
Herbert Hoover MS
2.11%
Thomas W. Pyle MS
1.53%
Total Middle
Wheaton HS
47.71%
John F. Kennedy HS
36.49%
Albert Einstein HS
36.01%
Watkins Mill HS
33.10%
Montgomery Bair HS
31.37%
Springbrook HS
30.89%
Programs School
Assistance T-I
Schools
Schools
Northwood HS
30.33%
Gaithersburg HS
27.33%
Seneca Valley HS
23.87%
Clarksburg HS
22.36%
Paint Branch HS
20.91%
Col. Zadok A. Magruder HS

19.20%
Rockville HS
19.10%
James Hubert Blake HS

16.51%
Northwest HS
16.37%
Richard Montgomery HS
16.34%
Quince Orchard HS
16.01%
Sherwood HS
11.57%
Programs School
Assistance T-I
Schools
Schools
Damascus HS
9.45%
Bethesda-Chevy Chase HS
8.48%
Walter Johnson HS
6.37%
Thomas S. Wootton HS
4.65%
Poolesville HS
3.85%
Winston Churchill HS
2.81%
Walt Whitman HS
1.88%
Total High
Mark Twain School

58.06%
Alternative Programs
47.17%
Rock Terrace
38.20%
Carl Sandburg Center

33.64%
Percentage of Poverty – Based on Local School and Youth Teacher Formula Language Drug Free Innovative Fine Arts
Programs School
High to Low Poverty Free and Systems At Risk of and Grants Acquisition Schools and
After School Name Reduced Dropping Principal Communities
Assistance T-I
Schools
Schools
Stephen Knolls School

30.43%
Regional Inst. for Children

& Adolescents (RICA) 22.32%
Longview School
20.83%
MCPS Transitions School

16.67%
Gateway to college Program

8.07%
Total Alternative and

Special
Total Public school

allocations (For Title I,
Should add up to the total
$10,043,272 $10,043,272
number from Title I
Allocation Excel Worksheet
Column I.)
School System $2,964

$2,212,217 $2,231,469
Administration (For Title I, $5,774 $1,042 $9,472
Use # on Table 7-8 LINE 5)
System-wide Programs and

School System Support to
Schools $7,637,128 $170,076 $15,845,773
$114,051 $4,149,085 $166,593 $3,169,528 $439,312
(For Title I, Use # on Table
7-8 LINE 13)
Percentage of Poverty – Based on Local School and Youth Teacher Formula Language Drug Free Innovative Fine Arts
Programs School
High to Low Poverty Free and Systems At Risk of and Grants Acquisition Schools and
After School Name Reduced Dropping Principal Communities
Assistance T-I
Schools
Schools
156,306
Nonpublic Costs (Column J)
(For Title I, Use # on Table $128,436 $10,905 $37,284 $24,831 $357,762
7-10 LINE 5)
TOTAL LSS Title I

Allocation (Should match # $20,048,923 $473,615 $173,040 $28,478,276
presented on $114,051 $4,277,521 $183,272 $3,207,854
C-1-25)
ATTACHMENT 5-A
TRANSFERABILITY OF ESEA FUNDS [Section 6123(b)]
Fiscal Year 2009
Local school systems may transfer ESEA funds by completing this page as part of the Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Annual
Update submission, or at a later date by completing and submitting a separate Attachment 5-A form. Receipt of this Attachment
as part of the Annual Update will serve as the required 30 day notice to MSDE. A local school system may transfer up to 50
percent of the funds allocated to it by formula under four major ESEA programs to any one of the programs, or to Title I (Up to
30 percent if the school system is in school improvement)1. The school system must consult with nonpublic school officials
regarding the transfer of funds. In transferring funds, the school system must: (1) deposit funds in the original fund; (2) show as
expenditure – line item transfer from one fund to another, and (3) reflect amounts transferred on expenditure reports.
50% limitation for local school systems not identified for school improvement or corrective action. 30% limitation for districts
identified for school improvement. A school system identified for corrective action may not use the fund transfer option.
Funds Available for Total FY 2008 $ Amount to be $ Amount to be transferred into each of the following programs
Transfer Allocation transferred out of
each program
Title I-A Title II-A Title II-D Title IV-A Title V-A
None
Title II-A
Teacher Quality
None
Title II-D
Ed Tech
None
Title IV-D
Safe and Drug Free
Schools &Communities
None
Title V-A
Innovative Programs
1
A school system that is in school improvement may only use funds for school improvement activities under sections 1003 and 1116 (c) of ESEA.
ATTACHMENT 5-B
CONSOLIDATION OF ESEA FUNDS FOR LOCAL
ADMINISTRATION [Section 9203]
Fiscal Year 2009
Section 9203 of ESEA allows a local school system, with approval of MSDE, to consolidate ESEA administrative funds. In
consolidating administrative funds, a school system may not (a) designate more than the percentage established in each ESEA
program, and (b) use any other funds under the program included in the consolidation for administrative purposes. A school
system may use the consolidated administrative funds for the administration of the ESEA programs and for uses at the school
district and school levels for such activities as –
• The coordination of the ESEA programs with other federal and non-federal programs;
• The establishment and operation of peer-review activities under No Child Left Behind;
• The dissemination of information regarding model programs and practices;
• Technical assistance under any ESEA program;
• Training personnel engaged in audit and other monitoring activities;
• Consultation with parents, teachers, administrative personnel, and nonpublic school officials; and
• Local activities to administer and carry out the consolidation of administrative funds.
A school system that consolidates administrative funds shall not be required to keep separate records, by individual program, to
account for costs relating to the administration of the programs included in the consolidation.
If the school system plans to consolidate ESEA administrative funds, indicate below the ESEA programs and
amounts that the school system will consolidate for local administration. Provide a detailed description of how the
consolidated funds will be used.
Title I-A Title II-A Title II-D Title III-A Title IV-A Title V Total ESEA
(Reasonable and (Reasonable and (Reasonable and (Limit: 2 Percent) (Limit: 2 Percent) (Reasonable and Consolidation
Necessary) Necessary) Necessary) Necessary) (Reasonable and
Necessary)
$ None $ None $ None $ None $ None $ None $ None

ATTACHMENT 6-A
NONPUBLIC SCHOOL INFORMATION Local School System: Montgomery County Public Schools
FOR ESEA PROGRAMS
Fiscal Year 2009
Enter the complete information for each participating nonpublic school, including mailing address. Use the optional “Comments” area to
provide additional information about ESEA services to nonpublic school students, teachers, and other school personnel. For example, if
Title I services are provided through home tutoring services or by a third party contractor, please indicate that information under
“Comments.” NOTE: Complete Attachment 6-A for Title I-A, Title II-A, Title II-Ed Tech, and Title III services. Complete Attachment
6-B for Title IV-A and Title V-A services. Use separate pages as necessary.
Number of Nonpublic School Participants (Students, Teachers, and Other School Personnel)
NONPUBLIC SCHOOL
NAME AND ADDRESS Title I-A Title II-A Title II-D Ed Title III-A
Tech**
Number nonpublic Students Students Staff Students Staff Students Staff

T-I students to be Reading/Lang. Mathematics
served at the Arts (Can be a
following locations: (Can be a duplicated
duplicated count)
count)
Academy Child Development Private 5

Center @ Academy Hills of School
Rockville Public
School
10107 Darnestown Road Neutral
Site
Rockville, MD 20850
Academy of the Child Private
School
19711 Waters Road Public
School
Germantown, MD 20874
Neutral
Site
** In process of identifying participants for FY 2009

NONPUBLIC SCHOOL
NAME AND ADDRESS Title I-A Title II-A Title II-D Ed Tech Title III-A

duplicated count)
count)
Academy of the Holy Cross Private 50

School
4920 Strathmore Avenue Public
School
Kensington, MD 20895
Neutral
Site
Butler School Private 1
School
15951 Germantown Road Public
School
Darnestown, MD 20874
Neutral
Site
Calvary Lutheran School Private
School
9545 Georgia Avenue Public
School
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Neutral
Site
Charles E. Smith Jewish Day Private 20
School—Lower School School
Public
1901 East Jefferson Street School
Neutral
Rockville, MD 20852
Site
Charles E. Smith Jewish Day Private 12
Care School
Public
11710 Hunters Lane School
Rockville, MD 20871 Neutral
Site
Children’s Learning Center, Private 1
The School
Public
4511 Bestor Drive School
Neutral
Rockville, MD 20853
Site
NONPUBLIC SCHOOL

duplicated count)
count)
Childway Private
School
4058 Blackburn Lane Public
School
Burtonsville, MD 20866
Neutral
Site
Christ Episcopal Day School Private 1
School
109 South Washington Street Public
School
Rockville, MD 20850
Neutral
Site
Concord Hill School, Inc. Private 1
School
6050 Wisconsin Avenue Public
School
Chevy Chase, MD 20815
Neutral
Site
Connelly School of the Holy Private 3
Child School
Public
9029 Bradley Boulevard School
Neutral
Potomac, MD 20854
Site
Damascus Community Private 1
Preschool School
Public
23425 Spire Street School
Neutral
Clarksburg, MD 20871
Site
Ets Chaiyim Private
School
20301 Pleasant Ridge Drive Public
Montgomery Village, MD School
20886 Neutral
Site
NONPUBLIC SCHOOL

duplicated count)
count)
Forcey Christian School Private

School
2130 East Randolph Road Public
School
Neutral
Site
Forcey Christian School Private 14
School
10625 Galway Drive Public
School
Neutral
Site
Foundation School of Private 45
Montgomery County School
Public
220 Girard Street, Suite 300 School
Neutral
Gaithersburg, MD 20877
Site
Fourth Presbyterian School, Private 2
The School
Public
10701 South Glen Road School
Neutral
Potomac, MD 20854
Site
Geneva Day School, the Private 50
School
11931 Seven Locks Road Public
School
Potomac, MD 20854
Neutral
Site
Georgetown Preparatory Private 150
School School
Public
10900 Rockville Pike School
Neutral
Rockville, MD 20852
Site
NONPUBLIC SCHOOL

duplicated count)
count)
German School Washington, Private 50

D.C. School
Public
8617 Chateau Drive School
Neutral
Potomac, MD 20854
Site
Hebrew Day Institute, Inc. Private 2
School
1840 University Boulevard Public
West School
Neutral
Site
Hebrew Day School of Private 1
Montgomery County, Inc. School
Public 1
1401 Arcola Avenue School
Neutral
Site
The Heights School Private 150
School
School
Potomac, MD 20854
Neutral
Site
Holton Arms School, Inc., The Private 3
School
7303 River Road Public
School
Bethesda, MD 20817
Neutral
Site
Holy Cross School Private 10
School
4900 Strathmore Avenue Public
School
Garrett Park, MD 20766
Neutral
Site
NONPUBLIC SCHOOL

duplicated count)
count)
Holy Redeemer School Private 2

School
9715 summit Avenue Public
School
Kensington, MD 20895
Neutral
Site
Ivymount School, The Private 1
School
School
Rockville, MD 20854
Neutral
Site
Jamon Montessori School Private 1
School
52 Randolph Road Public
School
Neutral
Site
Jefferson Montessori School Private
School
8507 Emory Grove Road Public
School
Neutral
Site
John Nevins Andrews School Private 1
School
117 Elm Avenue Public
School
Takoma Park, MD 20912
Neutral
Site
Lone Oak Montessori School Private 1
School
10100 Old Georgetown Road Public
School
Bethesda, MD 20814
Neutral
Site
NONPUBLIC SCHOOL

duplicated count)
count)
Lycee Rochambeau (French Private 4

International School) School
Public
9600 Forest Road School
Neutral
Bethesda, MD 20814
Site
Mary of Nazareth Roman Private 9
Catholic School School
Public
14131 Seneca Road School
Neutral
Site
Mater Amoris School, The Private
School
18501 Mink Hollow Road – Public
P.O. Box 97 School
Neutral
Ashton, MD 20861
Site
Mater Dei School Private 1
School
School
Bethesda, MD 20817
Neutral
Site
Melvin J. Berman Hebrew Private 11
Academy School
Public
13300 Arctic Avenue School
Neutral
Rockville, MD 20853
Site
Mother of God School Private 2
School
20501 Goshen road Public
School 18
Neutral
Site
NONPUBLIC SCHOOL

duplicated count)
count)
Muslim Community School, Private 2

The School
Public
7917 Montrose Road School
Neutral
Potomac, MD 20854
Site
NIH Preschool and Private 1
Kindergarten School
Public
9000 Rockville Pike Bldg. 64 School
Neutral
Bethesda, MD 20892
Site
Norwood School, Inc., The Private
School
School
Bethesda, MD 20817
Neutral
Site
Our Lady of Good Counsel Private 93 1
High School School
Public
17301 Old Vic Boulevard School
Neutral
Olney, MD 20832
Site
Our Lady of Lourdes School Private 2
School
7500 Pearl Street Public
School
Bethesda, MD 20814
Neutral
Site
Our Lady of Mercy School Private 6
School
9222 Kentsdale Drive Public
School
Potomac, MD 20854
Neutral
Site
NONPUBLIC SCHOOL

duplicated count)
count)
Pathways School—Edgewood, Private 1

The School
Public
801 University Boulevard West School
Neutral
Site
The Ridge School Private 1
School
14915 Broschart Road Public
School
Rockville, MD 20850
Neutral
Site
Seneca Academy Private 16
School
15601 Germantown road Public
School
Neutral
Site
Silver Spring Day School Private
School
801 University Boulevard West Public
School
Neutral
Site
Sligo Adventist School Private 13
School
8300 Carroll Avenue Public
School
Takoma Park, MD 20912-
Neutral
7344
Site
Spencerville Adventist Private
Academy School
Public
15930 Good Hope Road School
Neutral
Site
NONPUBLIC SCHOOL

duplicated count)
count)
St. Andrew Apostle School Private 2

School
11602 Kemp Mill Road Public
School
Neutral
Site
St. Bartholomew’s School Private 18
School
School
Bethesda, MD 20817
Neutral
Site
St. Bernadette School Private 9 17
School
80 University Boulevard East Public
School
Neutral
Site
St. Camillus School Private 13 30 51
School
1500 St. Camillus Drive Public
School 8 5
Neutral
Site
St. Catherine Laboure School Private 12 5 38
School
11811 Claridge Road Public
School 12
Wheaton, MD 20902
Neutral
Site
St. Elizabeth School Private 10
School
917 Montrose Road Public
School
Rockville, MD 20852
Neutral
Site
NONPUBLIC SCHOOL

duplicated count)
count)
St. Francis Episcopal Day Private

School School
Public
10033 River Road School
Neutral
Potomac, MD 20854
Site
St. Jane de Chantal School Private 7
School
9525 Old Georgetown Road Public
School
Bethesda, MD 20814
Neutral
Site
St. John the Baptist School Private 3 7
School
12319 New Hampshire Avenue Public
School 3
Neutral
Site
St. John the Evangelist School Private 2
School
10201 Woodland Drive Public
School
Neutral
Site
St. John’s Episcopal Private 1
School
3427 Olney-Laytonsville Road Public
School
Olney, MD 20832
Neutral
Site
St. Jude School Private 3 36
School
4820 Walbridge Street Public
School 3 3
Rockville, MD 20853
Neutral
Site
NONPUBLIC SCHOOL

duplicated count)
count)
St. Martin’s School Private 5 34

School
115 South Frederick Avenue Public
School
Neutral
Site
St. Mary’s School Private 5
School
600 Veirs Mill Road Public
School
Rockville, MD 20852
Neutral
Site
St. Michael’s School Private 16 13 30
School
824 Wayne Avenue Public
School 12 4
Neutral
Site
St. Peter’s School Private 45
School
2900 Sandy Spring Road Public
School
Olney, MD 20832
Neutral
Site
St. Raphael School Private 1
School
1590 Kimblewick Road Public
School
Rockville, MD 20854
Neutral
Site
Stone Ridge School of the Private 8
Sacred Heart School
Public
9101 Rockville Pike School
Neutral
Bethesda, MD 20814
Site
NONPUBLIC SCHOOL

duplicated count)
count)
Takoma Academy Private 18

School
8120 Carroll Avenue Public
School
Takoma Park, MD 20912
Neutral
Site
Thornton Friends Middle Private 25
School School
Public
13925 New Hampshire Avenue School
Neutral
Site
Torah School of Greater Private 25 26
Washington School
Public
2010 Linden Lane School 20 10
Neutral
Site
Washington Christian Private 5

Academy School
Public
P.O. Box 9847 School
Neutral
Site
Washington Episcopal School Private 36
School
5600 Little Falls Parkway Public
School
Bethesda, MD 20816
Neutral
Site
Washington Hebrew Private 18
Congregational ECC/PS School
Public
11810 Falls Road School
Neutral
Potomac, MD 20854
Site
NONPUBLIC SCHOOL

duplicated count)
count)
Washington Waldorf School Private

School
4800 Sangamore Road Public
School
Bethesda, MD 20816
Neutral
Site
Woods Academy Private 15
School
6801 Greentree Road Public
School
Bethesda, MD 20817
Neutral
Site
Yeshiva of Greater Private 3
Washington School
Public
2010 Linden Lane School
Neutral
Site
Yeshiva of Greater Private
Washington School
Public
1216 Arcola Avenue School
Neutral
Site
ATTACHMENT 6-B
NONPUBLIC SCHOOL Local School System : Montgomery County Public Schools
INFORMATION FOR ESEA
PROGRAMS
Fiscal Year 2009
Enter the complete information for each participating nonpublic school, including mailing address. Use separate pages as
necessary.
NONPUBLIC SCHOOL
NAME AND ADDRESS Title IV-A Title V-A
Comments (Optional)
Students Staff Students Staff
Charles E. Smith Jewish 793 11

Day School—Lower
School
1901 East Jefferson
Street
Rockville, MD 20852
Holy Cross School 217 14
4900 Strathmore Avenue
Garrett Park, MD
20766
Lycee Rochambeau 1,009 40
(French International
School)
9600 Forest
Bethesda, MD 20814
Melvin J. Berman 594 24
Hebrew Academy
13300 Arctic Avenue
Rockville, MD 20853
ATTACHMENT 6-B
NONPUBLIC SCHOOL Local School System : Montgomery County Public Schools
INFORMATION FOR ESEA
PROGRAMS
Fiscal Year 2009
Enter the complete information for each participating nonpublic school, including mailing address. Use separate pages as
necessary.
NONPUBLIC SCHOOL
NAME AND ADDRESS Title IV-A Title V-A
Comments (Optional)
Our Lady of Good 1,160 85
Counsel High School
17301 Old Vic
Boulevard
Olney, MD 20832
Pathways School— 135 54
Edgewood, The
801 University
Boulevard West
Silver Spring, MD
20902
Yeshiva of Greater 424 37
Washington
1216 Arcola Avenue
Silver Spring, MD
20902
ATTACHMENT 7 TITLE I, PART A – IMPROVING BASIC PROGRAMS OPERATED BY
LOCAL SCHOOL SYSTEMS
Local School System: Montgomery Fiscal Year 2009

Title I-A Coordinator: Dr. Felicia Lanham Tarason
Telephone: 301-230-0660 E-mail: Felicia_E_LanhamTarason@mcpsmd.org
I. TITLE I THEMES IN THE BRIDGE TO EXCELLENCE MASTER PLAN - –Describe the school
system's strategies to provide high quality sustained support to all Title I elementary, middle, and secondary schools.
Label each question and answer. Be sure to address each lettered and/or bulleted item separately. ALL
REQUESTED DOCUMENTATION SHOULD BE LABELED AND PROVIDED AS AN APPENDIX AFTER
THE BUDGET PAGES IN ATTACHMENT 7.
A. SCHOOLS IN IMPROVEMENT:
1. DESCRIPTION of the process the school or school system follows to inform parents of each student enrolled in
a Title I school identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that the school is in improvement.
Sec. 1116 (b)(6)(A-E)
Throughout the school improvement process, the appropriate entity-the SEA, LSS, or school—must communicate with
the parents of each child attending a school identified for school improvement, corrective action, or restructuring.
The information must be provided to parents directly, by such means as regular mail or e-mail. If the SEA does not
have access to individual student addresses, it may provide the information to the LSSs or schools for distribution to
parents.
The SEA, LSS, or school must also provide information to parents during the school improvement process by broader
means of dissemination such as the Internet, media, or public agencies that serve the student population and their
families. All communications must respect the privacy of students and their families. [Section 200.36 of the Title I
Regulations and Section 1116, ESEA.]
a. Based on the 2008 administration of the Maryland School Assessment, does the LSS have any Title I schools
identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring?
______ Yes X No
If “No”, proceed to Highly Qualified.
b. Describe the methods used to inform parents about the status of their child’s school if it is in improvement,
corrective action, or restructuring. Include in this description the timeline and the
names/positions/departments/schools responsible.
c. Describe how parents who enroll their child/children later in the school year are notified.
2. DOCUMENTATION: Include sample copies of letters that will be used for school year 2008-2009
documentation to support that items a-f below have been included in the parent notification letter(s).
a) what the identification means;
b) the reasons for the identification;
c) what the school is doing to address the problem of low achievement;
d) how the LSS and MSDE are helping the school address the achievement problem;
e) how parents can become involved in addressing the academic issues that caused the school to be identified
for school improvement; and,
f) how the school compares to others. (Academic achievement data must be included to ensure parents are
fully informed)
3. DESCRIPTION of the process including specific timelines/dates that the local school system will use to
inform parents of students attending a Title I school in school improvement about student transfer and
supplemental educational services options. Sec. 1116 (b)(6)(F)
a. What date(s) were parents notified about their choice options? Not Applicable
b. Will the LSS be offering SES this year? ______Yes X No
c. What date(s) were parents notified about the SES option? Not applicable, no Title I MCPS schools in Year 2
of School Improvement, Corrective Action or Restructuring
d. What is the projected start-up date for these services? Not applicable.
e. Describe how parents who enroll their child/children later in the school year are notified of their School
Choice and SES options.
4. DOCUMENTATION: Include sample of the letters of English and translated notification letters and their
attachments for School Choice and Supplemental Educational Services options the local school system will use
for the 2008–2009 school year. Attachment should include supporting information for parents, i.e. profiles of test
scores for the home school and receiving schools, provider profiles, etc.
ALL REQUESTED DOCUMENTATION SHOULD BE LABELED AND PROVIDED AS AN APPENDIX

AFTER THE BUDGET PAGES IN ATTACHMENT 7.
5. Describe the process to ensure that the 10 Requirements for School Improvement are part of the development,
implementation, and monitoring of School Improvement Plans.
6. If any of the 10 Requirements are not adequately addressed, what steps does the LSS take to ensure that
modifications to the school improvement plans occur in a timely manner?
B. HIGHLY QUALIFIED:
Section 1119(c) NEW PARAPROFESSIONALS
1. DESCRIBE the process including specific timelines/dates used to notify parents whose children attend Title I
schools about the qualifications of their teachers by addressing each lettered item separately. Sec. 1111
(h)(6)(A)
a. Describe how and when (date) the school or school system notified the parents of each student attending any
Title I schools that they may request information regarding the professional qualifications of their student’s
classroom teacher (known as “Parent’s Right to Know”).
The MCPS Office of Human Resources (OHR) and the Office of School Performance (OSP) distribute a
memorandum to principals of Title I schools in August informing them about the parental notification process.
Each Title I school includes this information in the school newsletter at the start of the school year. In MCPS,
OHR responds to parental requests for information regarding their child’s teacher or paraprofessional in writing.
A draft newsletter item is included (Attachment A).
b. Describe the process of providing timely notice (letter) to parents when their child has been assigned or
taught for 4 consecutive weeks by a teacher or substitute teacher who is not highly qualified.
Title I school administrators are responsible for informing parents if their child’s teacher does not meet the highly
qualified (HQ) standard set by MSDE. A letter is sent home to families within the prescribed time period of four
consecutive weeks. Title I instructional specialists work with the school to meet the requirement and provide the
Division of Title Programs (DTP) with copies of letters sent home and a list of families who received the
notification (Attachment A).
c. Identify by name, title and department the person(s) responsible for ensuring compliance with Section
1111(h)(6)(A)?
Office of Human Resources
Mrs. Susan F. Marks, associate superintendent
Department of Recruitment and Staffing Elementary
Mrs. Jane L. Woodburn, director
Ms. Linda S. Adams, elementary specialist
Mrs. Pearl M. Drain, elementary specialist
Mr. Duane A. Merson, Support Services Team, staffing analyst
Mrs. Sandra E. Sengstack, certification specialist
Office of School Performance

Community Superintendents
Dr. Ursula A. Hermann
Dr. Laverne G. Kimball
Dr. Sherry Liebes
Dr. Heath E. Morrison
Dr. Frank H. Stetson
Mr. Adrian B. Talley
Directors of School Performance

Mr. Pat D. Abrunzo
Mr. Sean W. Bulson
Dr. Kathy L. Brake
Dr. Renee A. Foose
Ms. Denise C. Greene
Ms. Bronda L. Mills
Dr. Edward Newsome
Ms. Myra J. Smith
Ms. Elizabeth B. Strubel
Division of Title I Programs

Dr. Felicia Lanham Tarason, director
Ms. Joyce H. Colbert, supervisor
Title I instructional specialists
Ms. Rosemary E. Garr
Ms. Eunice M. Gerring
Ms. Susan J. Ginsberg
Ms. Carol L. Hylton
Ms. Kathleen A. MacGillivray
Ms. Nichelle Owens-Jones
Ms. Anita C. Shapiro
Ms. Natalie S. Thomas
d. Describe how the LSS coordinates Highly Qualified notification between Human Resources, the Title I
Office, and school administration.
DTP and OHR staff members will meet twice yearly to review the HQ notification to school staff. The Title I
Allocation Grid, which lists all Title I funded staff members, requires principals to check on a monthly basis the
HQ status (Attachment B). Principals are required to sign the Allocation Grid monthly. A copy of the signed
allocation grids are sent to OHR by DTP.
e. How does the LSS ensure the Highly Qualified status of teachers assigned to Title I schools is maintained?
DTP instructional specialists check the Allocation Grid monthly to verify that all Title I funded teachers are HQ.
In addition, the OHR Department of Staffing checks the HQ status of all core academic area teachers in Title I
schools. OHR Department of Staffing communicates directly with principals when a HQ issue arises in the
school. It is the responsibility of the OHR Department of Staffing to notify DTP when the HQ status of a teacher
in a core academic area in a Title I school changes.
2. DOCUMENTATION: Include sample copies of English and translated letters that will be used to accomplish
item a and item b for school year 2008–2009.
3. Are all paraprofessionals in Title I schoolwide schools qualified?
Yes X No ____ Not Applicable
The MCPS OHR is in the process of identifying which paraeducators in the five new Title I schools and the
school that changed from a targeted assistance to schoolwide program do not meet qualifying standards.
Paraeducators not meeting qualifying standards will be moved from the school before the 2008–2009 school year
begins.
4. Are all paraprofessionals paid with Title I funds in targeted assistance schools qualified?
__Yes __ No X Not Applicable;
No MCPS Title I schools will operate a targeted assistance program during the 2008–2009 school year.
C. SCHOOLWIDE PROGRAMS:
If the LSS does not have any Title I Schoolwide programs, proceed to Section D - Targeted Assistance.
1. For LSSs with Title I schoolwide programs, DESCRIBE the steps taken to help the Title I schools make effective
use of schoolwide programs by addressing each lettered item separately.
Reg. 200.25-28 and Sec. 1114
a. Describe how the system will assist schools consolidate funds for schoolwide programs. If the system is
not consolidating funds, describe how the system coordinates financial resources to develop programs.
Staff members from DTP and the Department of Management, Budget, and Planning (DMBP) met with Title I
principals in July 2008 to review the option to consolidate funds. Principals were informed that there are no existing
district fiscal or accounting barriers to consolidation of funds. They were provided with the names of the DMBP and
DTP staff members to contact if additional information was needed or they wished to consolidate funds. No Title I
schools are consolidating funds for the 2008–2009 school year.
The MCPS coordinates resources from a variety of programs to support academic progress in Title I schools in
alignment with the district’s strategic plan. Local funds are used to reduce class size in Grades K–3. Reading First
funding is used to provide supplemental training, materials, and a reading coach in four Title I schools. A 21st
Century Community Learning Center (21st CCLC) grant provides an afternoon component to the Extended Learning
Opportunities Summer Adventures in Learning (ELO SAIL) morning academic program in 10 Title I schools. The
MCPS Head Start and local prekindergarten classes are located in Title I schools. Title I funds support 13 full-day
Head Start classes in 10 Title I schools. Linkages to Learning and Judy Center programs also support selected Title I
schools.
b. Describe the process to ensure that the 10 Components of a Schoolwide Program are part of the
development, implementation, and monitoring of Schoolwide/School Improvement Plans.
DTP is organized to assist Title I schools with the development of a comprehensive School Improvement Plan (SIP)
which include the 10 Components of a Schoolwide Program. Title I schools in MCPS use the Baldrige-guided School
Improvement Process to ensure that input from stakeholders is included in the development and continuous review of
the SIP. Training on the 10 schoolwide components is offered to school administrators and leadership teams. DTP
also provides templates, definitions, samples, and checklists to ensure the inclusion of all components. Plans are
developed in coordination with system initiatives related to staff development, curriculum implementation, and district
assessments so that Title I schoolwide components are aligned with the district’s comprehensive strategic plan. Title I
instructional specialists are active members of the school-based teams that develop and monitor improvement plans
All SIPs are peer reviewed by Title I instructional specialists to ensure that the 10 components are included. Each SIP
has a table of contents which specifically identifies the location of the 10 components in the plan. Title I instructional
specialists use a checklist to help evaluate the information pertaining to the 10 components.
OSP reviews plans and provides feedback on at least a periodic basis.
c. If any of the 10 components are not adequately addressed, what steps does the LSS take to ensure that
modifications to schoolwide plans occur in a timely manner?
Title I instructional specialists are primarily responsible for ensuring that schools revise sections of the SIP if any of
the 10 components are not adequately addressed. SIPs must receive written final approval from the DTP director or
supervisor before school plans are accepted.
d. Describe specific steps to be taken by the LSS to review and analyze the effectiveness of schoolwide
programs.
Analysis of the effectiveness of schoolwide programs is an ongoing process. Appropriate changes are made to the
design of the schoolwide program as student data is reviewed. School improvement teams meet in the summer to
review summative data and use their analysis to develop plans for the following school year. Data points include, but
are not limited to Maryland School Assessment, staff members and parent surveys, Terra Nova Second Edition (TN-2)
test results, MAP-R, mClass primary reading assessments, and end-of-unit math assessments as samples of
information that can be obtained from the MCPS Instructional Management System and data warehouse. This
information can be disaggregated and analyzed at the school, grade, and classroom levels.
School improvement teams meet throughout the year to assess the effectiveness and progress toward goals and
objectives identified in SIPs. School improvement teams provide periodic updates to OSP on the effectiveness and
progress toward meeting goals and objectives. If school improvement teams determine that mid-course corrections
need to be made, plans are adjusted to reflect such changes. As members of the school improvement teams, Title I
instructional specialists can monitor changes and are responsible for updating plans in Title I documentation
notebooks.
e. Describe how the system and/or schools provide extended learning time, such as an extended school
year, before- and after-school, and summer program opportunities.
A comprehensive ELO SAIL extended-year model is in place for rising kindergarten through Grade 5 students. All
students enrolled in Title I schools, eligible private school students, and elementary school level homeless students are
invited to attend ELO SAIL, which offers a preview of the upcoming school year as well as a review of those skills
essential to academic success. Title I schools have the option of implementing its own research-based before-school,
after-school, or Saturday academic program during the school year using Title I and/or local funds.
In addition, during the summer 10 schools participate in a 21st CCLC grant program that is offered in the afternoon
following ELO SAIL. This program aligns academics with cultural arts and enrichment classes for students.
f. In addition to the Title I coordinator, identify other central office staff by name, title, and department
responsible for monitoring the ten components in schoolwide plans, the effectiveness of schoolwide
program implementation, fiduciary issues, and program effectiveness.
Administrators who supervise staff who are responsible for monitoring of the 10 components in schoolwide plans
Dr. Felicia Lanham Tarason, director
Mrs. Joyce H. Colbert, supervisor
Mrs. Chrisandra A. Richardson, director, Department of Academic Initiatives
Title I instructional specialists who provide technical assistance:

Ms. Carol L. Hylton
Coordinating federal, state, and local funds for schoolwide programs:

Mr. Larry A. Bowers, Chief Operating Officer
Mr. Stephen L. Bedford, Chief School Performance Officer
Mrs. Chrisandra A. Richardson, director, Academic Support Initiatives
Dr. Marshall C. Spatz, director, Department of Management. Budget, and Planning
Dr. Felicia Lanham Tarason, director, DTP
Ms. Patricia A. Callahan, accountant, DTP
Ms. Carol J. Mathews, budget specialist, Division of Management, Budget, and Planning
Mr. Li Qi, budget specialist, Division of Management, Budget, and Planning
D. TARGETED ASSISTANCE SCHOOLS:

If the LSS does not have any Title I Targeted Assistance programs, proceed to Section E - Parent Involvement.
1. DESCRIBE the step-by-step process including timelines/dates used to identify eligible children most in need
of services.
There are no targeted assistance programs in the MCPS for the 2008–2009 school year.
2. Describe the step-by-step process used to rank students using multiple selection (academic) criteria to identify
eligible children most in need of services. (NOTE: Children from preschool through grade 2 must be selected
solely on the basis of such criteria as teacher judgment, parent interviews, and developmentally appropriate
measures.) Section 1115(b)(1)(B)
3. DESCRIBE how the school system helps targeted assistance schools identify, implement and monitor effective
methods and supplemental instructional strategies for small groups of identified students. These strategies
must be based on best practices and scientific research to strengthen the core academic program of the school.
Describe how the system/school will address the following: Section 1115(c)(1)(C).
a) Giving primary consideration to providing extended learning time, such as an extended school year, before-
and after-school, and summer program opportunities.
b) Helping provide an accelerated, high-quality curriculum, including applied learning; and
c) Minimizing the removal of children from regular classroom instruction for additional services.
4. Describe how the system/school provides additional opportunities for professional development with Title I
resources, and, to the extent practicable, from other sources, for teachers, principals, and paraprofessionals,
including, if appropriate other staff.
5. Describe the process for developing (with peer review), implementing, and monitoring Targeted Assistance
Requirements in Targeted Assistance/School Improvement Plans.
6. Describe specific steps to be taken to review and analyze the effectiveness of Targeted Assistance programs.
7. In addition to the LSS Title I coordinator, identify by name, title, and department the person/s responsible for
monitoring activities a-e.
8. DOCUMENTATION: Attach weighted criteria used to select and rank children for Targeted Assistance
Services.
9. Identify the school(s) by name and MSDE school ID number that are implementing a Targeted Assistance
program in 2008–2009 and are planning to become Schoolwide programs for the 2009–2010 next school year.
E. PARENT INVOLVEMENT:
To encourage parent involvement, school systems and schools need to communicate frequently, clearly, and meaningfully
with families, and ask for parents’ input in decisions that affect their children. [Section 1118(a)(2)] Parent involvement
strategies should be woven throughout each system’s Master Plan.
1. Local School System Parent Involvement Policy Review
a. Date of current LSS Parent Involvement Policy adoption: July 21, 2003
b. Date of last review: July 21, 2003
The LSS parent involvement policy is currently being reviewed by school system staff and parents.
c. Describe how parents from Title I schools were involved in the annual review process.
DTP will solicit parent feedback regarding the LSS Parent Involvement Policy during back-to-school meetings from
parents in Title I schools and report feedback to the district’s Parent Involvement Policy committee.
2. DOCUMENTATION: Attach a copy of the school system’s most current distributed Parent Involvement Policy.
Discuss and explain any changes that have been made since the last Master Plan submission (Attachment C)
No changes were made in the school system’s Parent Involvement Policy since the last Master Plan submission.
However, MCPS is currently in the process of revising their Parent Involvement Policy. Stakeholder input will be
gathered during the 2008–2009 school year. The attached LSS policy revision timeline details the process being used
to update the policy, specifically identifying when stakeholder feedback will be obtained (Attachment D).
3. School Level Parent Involvement Policy and Plan Review
a. How does the LSS ensure that each Title I school has adopted (as is or with additions) the system-level
Parent Involvement Policy?
Each Title I school in MCPS has a school-level parent involvement plan, which includes the following statement to
ensure that the school policy/plan is aligned with the LSS parent involvement policy, “__________________
Elementary School accepts the Montgomery County Public Schools family involvement policy and has aligned its
school level parent involvement plan accordingly” (Attachment E).
b. How are Title I parents involved in the joint development, implementation, and annual review of the school
level parent involvement plans?
The MCPS parental involvement policies require that parents be included as members of the SIP Team. This process
is in full alignment with Section 1112 and 1116. All schools use the Baldrige-guided School Improvement Process to
develop and continuously monitor the SIP. At least one parent from each school was required to attend Baldrige
training which focused on implementation of the process. It also is the expectation that parents attend SIP planning
and review meetings.
Schools establish parent involvement committees to assist with the development and review of the parent involvement
components. Each Title I school develops a parent involvement budget and parent involvement activities as a part of
the development of the SIP and the school’s Title I parent involvement policy/plan and budget. These plans are
developed with input from parents and staff members.
Title I instructional specialists assigned to each Title I school use a tool to evaluate the effectiveness of the school’s
parent involvement program. This tool is based on Epstein’s (1995) framework used by the National Network of
Partnership Schools.
c. How does the LSS verify that Title I parents are involved in the development of the plans?
Title I schools are required to have a sign-in sheet, agenda, notes, and evaluation for every parent involvement
meeting. This process serves to document parental participation in the development and review of the school level
parent involvement policy/plan. Title I instructional specialists are members of the parent involvement committees.
They, in turn, ensure that all documentation is collected and archived for auditing purposes. A sample copy of a
school level parent involvement policy/plan is included in Attachment F.
4. School/Parent Compact
a. How does the LSS ensure that each Title I school has a School/Parent Compact that meets statutory
requirements?
All MCPS schools that participated in the Title I program during the 2007–2008 school year have School/Parent
Compacts that meet requirements set forth by MSDE. Each year these schools review and update their School/Parent
Compacts by soliciting stakeholder feedback.
Schools new to Title I develop School/Parent Compacts with input from stakeholder groups. Newly formed parent
involvement committees at each school facilitate the process of developing the compacts. DTP provides technical
assistance to the family involvement committees to ensure that the compacts meet the guidelines set forth by the
MSDE. A sample copy of a School/Parent Compact is provided in Attachment G.
b. How were Title I parents involved in the joint development and implementation of the School/Parent
Compact?
Parent involvement committees at the school level also assist with the development of the School/Parent Compact as a
part of their responsibilities. The implementation plan for use and distribution of the School/Parent Compact is
prepared in compliance with Title I guidance and regulations. Parents have opportunities at Parent Teacher
Association meetings and parent conferences to review, discuss, and revise the compact. Schools use various Baldrige
tools such as consensograms at school-sponsored events that are aligned with the MCPS publication, My Job, Your
Job, Our Job, to gather suggestions from parents regarding responsibilities of schools, students, and parents.
5. Monitoring Parent Involvement
a. Describe LSS process for monitoring parent involvement requirements in Title I schools.
The Title I instructional specialists work in collaboration with the parent involvement committee to support and
monitor school-level parent involvement programs. A checklist of requirements and supporting data for completion
of each requirement is maintained in a notebook in the DTP office. The community superintendent approves the
parent involvement budget, and the DTP director ensures that all expenses are in alignment with the NCLB Act. Mid-
and end-of-year family involvement surveys are completed to gather feedback and make changes in the plan as
appropriate.
Title I schools develop parent involvement action plans as part of the school improvement planning process. These
action plans detail information pertaining to the requirements of the parent involvement including dates of required
meetings and activities is described in the plan. A sample of a school action plan is provided in Attachment H.
b. In addition to the LSS Title I coordinator, identify by name the person(s), title, or department responsible for
monitoring parent involvement.
Office of School Performance

Community superintendents
Dr. Ursula A. Hermann
Dr. Laverne G. Kimball
Dr. Sherry Liebes
Dr. Heath E. Morrison
Dr. Frank H. Stetson
Mr. Adrian B. Talley
Directors of School Performance

Mr. Pat D. Abrunzo
Dr. Kathy L. Brake
Mr. Sean W. Bulson
Dr. Renee A. Foose
Ms. Denise C. Greene
Ms. Bronda L. Mills
Dr. Edward Newsome
Ms. Myra J. Smith
Ms. Elizabeth B. Strubel
Division of Family and Community Partnerships

Mr. Eric A. Davis, director
Mrs. Gina C. Anazco, instructional specialist
Mrs. Kimberly A. Bloch Rincan, partnership manager
Mrs. Lynn M. De Groff, instructional specialist
Mrs. Nan P. Iuculano, parent community coordinator
Mr. Trevor A. Liburd, instructional specialist
Ms. Sylvia C. Jarquin, parent community coordinator
Mrs. Beatriz E. Mendoza, parent community coordinator
Mrs. Denise B. Stultz, supervisor
Mrs. Laurene S. Thomas, parent community coordinator
Mrs. Marcia S. Vogel, partnership manager
Mrs. Gail S. Woolf, partnership manager

Mrs. Joyce H. Colbert, supervisor
Title I instructional specialists
Ms. Carol L. Hylton
6. Distribution Of Parent Involvement Funds
a. Describe how the LSS distributes 95% of the 1% reservation to its Title I schools for family involvement
activities.
The total amount of the 95 percent of one percent is distributed to each school and the private school program based
on a per pupil allocation. Distribution is based on the number of students who qualify Free and Reduced-price Meals
System (FARMS).
b. Does the LSS reserve more than 1% of its total allocation for parent involvement?
X YES ___ No
c. How does the LSS verify that Title I parents have input in the use of funds at the school level?
Title I school parent involvement committees are responsible for ensuring that parents have input regarding the use of
how school-based parent involvement funds are spent. Title I instructional specialists are members of the parent
involvement committees. Sign-in sheets, agendas, notes, and evaluations are required documentation that shows how
parents are involved in the process.
F. EQUITABLE SERVICES TO STUDENTS IN PRIVATE SCHOOLS

[SECTION 1120]:
1. Participating private schools and services: COMPLETE INFORMATION IN ATTACHMENT 6 A regarding
the names of participating private schools and the number of private school students and/or staff that will benefit
from the Title I-A services. Refer to the Title I Services to Eligible Private School Children Non-Regulatory
Guidance, October 17, 2003.
2. DESCRIBE the school system's process of ongoing consultation to provide equitable participation to students in
private schools and attach the timeline for consultation.
The MCPS hosted a meeting of eligible private schools in the district to explain Title I and the process for
participation in the program.
Individual letters were sent to each interested private school and the assistant superintendent of the Archdiocese of
Washington Schools representing Catholic schools. The purpose of the letter was to invite the principals or other
school administrators to participate in Title I services. Administrators are invited to a series of meetings to discuss the
proposed allocation process and to review the design, delivery, and evaluation of services provided to Title I students.
At the initial meeting, all participants agreed on the frequency and schedule of meetings for the remainder of the
school year (Attachment I).
3. DOCUMENTATION: Attach a timeline for consultation with private schools.

Attachment J
4. Delivery of Service
a. Will LSS staff be providing the services directly to the students?
X YES __ NO If yes, when will services begin?
Services will begin on the first day of school in each participating private school. Services are provided to students
who did not exit the Title I program at the end of the year until new assessments are administered.
b. Will the LSS enter into a formal agreement with other LSSs to provide services to students who attend private
schools beyond the district’s boundary lines?
X YES ___ NO If yes, when will services will begin? (If applicable, attach a copy of the agreement.)
As soon as information is available, MCPS will enter into a formal agreement with any school district that provides
services to eligible MCPS residents who attend private school in their district.
c. Will the LSS enter into a third party contract to provide services to participating private school children?
______ YES X NO If yes, when will services begin? __________________
5. DOCUMENTATION: Attach copies of written affirmation and, if applicable, letters of agreement between school
districts
Attachment K
II. DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBLE SCHOOL ATTENDANCE AREAS
[Section 1113]:
Table 7-1 SOURCE(S) OF DOCUMENTED LOW-INCOME DATA FOR DETERMINING
THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN FROM LOW-INCOME FAMILIES
A local school system must use the same measure of poverty for:
1. Identifying eligible Title I schools;
2. Determining the ranking of each school;
3. Determining the Title I allocation for each school.
PUBLIC SCHOOLS:
CHECK the data source(s) listed below that the school system is using to determine eligible Title I schools. The data
source(s) must be applied uniformly to all schools across the school system. A child who might be included in more
than one data source may be counted only once in arriving at a total count. The data source(s) must be maintained in
the applicant's Title I records for a period of three years after the end of the grant period and/or 3 years after
the resolution of an audit – if there was one. Public School Systems must only check one.
Free Lunch
X Free and Reduced Lunch

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
Census Poor (Children ages 5-17 based on 2000 Census Data)
Children eligible to receive medical assistance under the Medicaid program
A composite of any of the above measures (explain):
_____ A weighted process has been used as follows:
_____ An unduplicated count has been verified.
PRIVATE SCHOOLS:
A local educational agency shall have the final authority to calculate the number of children who are from low-income
families and attend private schools. According to Title I Guidance B-4, if available, an LSS should use the same
measure of poverty used to count public school children, e.g., free and reduced price lunch data. CHECK (all
that apply) the data source(s) listed below that the school system is using to identify private school participants: (Reg.
Sec. 200.78) More than one may be checked.
X A. Use FARMS to identify low-income students;

B. Use the same poverty data the LSS uses to count public school children;
C. Use comparable poverty data from a survey of families of private school students that, to the extent
possible, protects the families’ identify;
D. Extrapolate data from the survey based on a representative sample if complete actual data are
unavailable
E. Use comparable poverty data from a different source, such as scholarship applications;
F. Apply the low-income percentage of each participating public school attendance area to the number of
private school children who reside in that school attendance area; (proportionality)or
G. Use an equated measure of low-income correlated with the measure of low-income used to count public
school children.
Table 7-2 METHOD OF QUALIFYING ELIGIBLE ATTENDANCE AREAS (TITLE I SCHOOLS)
Section 1113 of Title I contains the requirements for identifying and selecting eligible schools that will participate in
the Title I-A. The following points summarize these requirements:
1. The school system must first rank all of its schools by poverty based on the percentage of low-income
children.
2. After schools have been ranked by poverty, the school system must serve in rank order of poverty, schools
above 75% poverty, including middle and high schools.
3. Only after the school system has served all schools above 75% poverty, may lower-ranked schools be
served. The school system has the option to (a) continue on with the district-wide ranking or (b) rank
remaining schools by grade span groupings.
4. If the school system has no schools above 75% poverty, the system may rank district-wide or by grade
span groupings. For ranking by grade span groupings, the school system may use (a) the district-wide
grade span poverty average noted in Table 7-4, or (b) the district-wide grade span poverty averages for the
respective grade span groupings.
CHECK the appropriate box below to indicate which method the school system is using to qualify attendance areas.
The school system must qualify Title I schools by using percentages or other listed eligible methods.
X Percentages -- schools at or above the district-wide average noted in Table 7-2 above. Schools must be served
in rank order of poverty. Title I-A funds may run out before serving all schools above the district-wide
average. Schools below the district-wide average cannot be served. Complete Table 7-3.
 Grade span grouping/district-wide percentage -- schools with similar grade spans grouped together, and
any school at or above the district-wide percentage in each group is eligible for services. Schools must be
served in rank order of poverty within each grade-span grouping. Complete Tables 7-3 and 7-4.
 35% rule -- all schools at or above 35% are eligible for services. Schools must be served in rank order of
poverty. Title I –A funds may run out before serving all schools above 35%. Complete Tables 7-3.
 Grade-span grouping/35% rule -- schools with similar grade spans grouped together, and any school at o`r
above 35% in each group is eligible for services. Schools must be served in rank order of poverty within each
grade-span grouping. Complete Tables 7-3 and 4.
 Special Rule: Feeder pattern for middle and high schools. Using this method, a school system may project
the number of low-income children in a middle school or high school based on the average poverty rate of the
elementary school attendance areas that feed into the school. Complete Tables 7-3 and 7-4.
NOTE REGARDING GRADE-SPAN GROUPING: The same rule must be used for all groups if grade-span grouping
is selected. If there are three grade-span groups, the school system must use the 35% rule for all three or the district-
wide average for all three. The district may not have three groups with one group using the 35% rule and one group
using the district-wide average. Schools above 75% poverty must be served before lower ranked schools.
Table 7-3 DISTRICT-WIDE PERCENTAGE OF LOW-INCOME CHILDREN
The local school system may rank schools using the district-wide poverty average or the district-wide grade span
poverty averages for the respective grade span groupings. Based on the data source(s) noted in Table 7-1,
CALCULATE the district-wide average of low-income children below. Use the official number of students
approved for FARM as of October 31, 2007 to complete this table along with the September 30, 2007 enrollment
data. Pre-k must be included in these numbers and counted as one child.
35,580 137,717 25.83

Total Number of ÷ Total Local School System = District-Wide Average
Low-Income Children Student Enrollment (percentage)
Attending ALL Public Schools (September 30, 2007) of Low-Income Children
(October 31, 2007)
Table 7-4 DISTRICT-WIDE GRADE SPAN POVERTY AVERAGES OF LOW-INCOME

CHILDREN BY GRADE SPAN GROUPINGS (Complete only if using grade span averaging.)
A school system’s organization of its schools defines its grade span groupings. For example, if the district has
elementary schools serving grades Pre-K-5, middle schools serving grades 6-8, and high schools serving grades 9-12,
the grade span groupings would be the same. To the extent a school system has schools that overlap grade spans
(e.g. Pre-K-6, K-8, 6-9) the school system may include a school in the grade span in which it is most appropriate.
Based on the data source(s) noted in Table 7-1 and the district-wide average in Table 7-3, INDICATE below the
district-wide grade span poverty averages for each grade span groupings.
DISTRICT-WIDE GRADE SPAN POVERTY AVERAGE CALCULATIONS

District-wide grade span
Grade Span Total Grade Span ÷ Total Grade Span
poverty average
Enrollment of Low Enrollment
Write Grade Spans in
Income Students.
Spaces Below.
Elementary (_________) NA ÷
Middle (_________) ÷
High (_________) ÷
Table 7-5 CALCULATING THE MINIMUM ALLOCATION -- FOR SCHOOL SYSTEMS WHERE
THE PERCENT OF THE DISTRICT POVERTY IS BELOW 35% AND THAT SERVE SCHOOLS
BELOW 35% POVERTY (125% RULE)
__________________ ____________________
Local School System Total Number Of Low-Income $________________
Title I-A Allocation ÷ Public and Private Students = Per Pupil Amount
(Taken from Table 7-10)
(Add the total public students presented
(Should match # on C-1-25) above and the private student number
presented on Table 7-9.)
Per-Pupil Amount $__________X 1.25 = Minimum Per Pupil Allocation $_________________

MULTIPLY the minimum per pupil allocation by the number of low-income students in each school to calculate
the school's minimum Title I allocation.
Table 7-6 CONTINUED ELIGIBILITY
Section 1113(b)(1)(C) includes a provision that permits the school system to designate and serve for ONLY ONE
additional year a school that is not eligible, but was eligible and served during the preceding fiscal year. LIST
below any school(s) that the school system will grandfather for one additional year. Schools must be served in
rank order.
Name of School(s) Preceding Fiscal Year Current Fiscal Year

Percent Poverty Percent Poverty
Rosemont Elementary School 57.58 50.00
Table 7-7 TITLE I SKIPPED SCHOOLS
This table should only be completed if the LSS has received prior written approval from MSDE.
Section 1113(b)(1)(D) of ESEA includes a "skipping provision" that permits the school system not to serve an
eligible Title I school that has a higher percentage of low-income students if the school meets all three of the
following conditions:
The school meets the comparability requirements of section 1120(A)(c).
The school is receiving compensatory funds from other state and local sources that are spent in accordance with
the requirements of Sections 1114 and 1115. (Services must be Title I-like.)
The funds expended from these other sources equal or exceed the amount that would be provided by Title I.
Name of School(s) Percent Title I Allocation Amount and Source of

Fill in the name of the schools not Poverty Compensatory Funding
being served even though they may Fill in the amount of Title I
fall within rank order. (Refer to funding the school would Funds must be earmarked for skipped schools
Attachment 4 A) have received if it continued and evident in the district budget.
to be served.
Complete the Skipped School
Allocation Worksheet.
No Skipped Schools
III. BUDGET INFORMATION
Table 7-8 LOCAL SCHOOL SYSTEM RESERVATIONS FROM TITLE I ALLOCATION1

Before allocating funds to schools, a school system MUST reserve funds for certain services. Reservations (set asides) should
be made for reasonable and necessary expenditures to provide services to children in participating Title I schools. Because the
reservation of funds will reduce the amount of funds available for distribution to public schools as well as the program for
private school students, consultation with teachers, principals, parents, and private school officials must include discussion on
why the reservations are necessary.
Equitable share for private schools must be identified in lines 1 and 2.

LIST (calculate) the amount of reservations the district will set-aside from the Title I allocation for
activities authorized by ESEA. Provide a bulleted, budget description that explains how the reserved Title
I funds will be used to support each activity. All fixed charges and fringe benefits must accompany the
salaries and wages on whatever line they might appear in Table 7-8.
Total Title I 2008-2009 Allocation $20,048,923 (Taken from the C-1-25)

RESERVATION DETAILED BUDGET DESCRIPTION
ACTIVITY (including how, where, and for what
purpose these funds were reserved)
1 District-wide Title I $7,272,162 Extended Learning Opportunities: Extended
Instructional Program(s) Year and Day Programs Salaries:
Reservation Federal Register • Professional Part Time $1,005,042
Reservations Requiring Equitable Services for
(Reg). Sec. 200.64. • Substitutes $16,404

(See Attachment 7 Guidance • Instructional Materials $56,312
Document for examples.) • Transportation $128,800
Reading Recovery Leader (.5 FTE) $53,421

Use these numbers in Table 7-9.
Supplemental Head Start Program

Non-Public Schools
• Head Start teachers (5.2 FTEs) $409,958

• Head Start paraeducators (3.575 FTEs)
$128,671
• Head Start substitutes (teachers and
paraeducators) $9,897
• Head Start paraeducators – Temporary
Part-time $122,200
• Head Start Professional Part time
Curriculum Development Training
$9,000
Gifted and Talented (GT) and Math Content

Coach (MCC) teachers training $7,425
Districtwide teacher program (Attachment L)

• GT Teachers (13.0 FTE) $1,072,331
• MCC Teachers (15.0 FTE) $1,237,305
• Supplemental ESOL/ESOL Support
Teachers (18.0 FTEs) $1,364,886
Benefits $1,650,510
1
References for all of these reservations may be found in the NCLB law, the Federal Register, and Non-Regulatory
Guidance as presented on each line in Table 7-8 and in the Non-Regulatory Guidance, Local Educational Agency
Identification and Selection of School Attendance Areas and Schools and Allocation of Title I Funds to Those Areas and
Schools, August 2003. Question 5, Pages 9-11.
2 Parent Involvement (not less $307,766 • Instructional Specialist to support Family
than 1%) Sec. 1118 (a)(3)(A) Involvement (.0657 FTE) $7,326
• Parent Community Coordinator (2.725
FTEs) $104,643
• Parent Outreach paraeducator (.125 FTE)
$4,570
• Stipends $80,395
• Instructional Materials $59,762
• Consultant $2,098
• Transportation $4,196
• Benefits $44,776
3 Professional Development to
train teachers to become highly
qualified (not less than 5%) No Longer Applicable, due to NCLB Highly Qualified
Sec. 1119 (1) If a lesser Deadline.
amount or no monies are
needed, a description as to
why should be provided. Reg.
Sec. 200.60 (a) 2 and
Non-Regulatory Guidance on
Improving Teacher Quality
State Grants, C-6 and
Appendix A.
4 TOTAL reservations requiring $7,579,928
equitable services. (Present
this number in Table 7-10
LINE 2.)
5 Administration (including mid- $2,212,217 • Administrative Fees $1,570,380

level) for services to public and • Audit $17,082
private school students and non- • Contractual Maintenance $5,520
instructional capital expenses for • Office Materials $20,000
private school participants • Local Travel $15,000
Reg. Sec. 200.77 (f) (Present this • Equipment $3,000
number in Table 4-A School • Out-of-State Travel $5,900
System Administration.)
• Dues, Fees, and Registration $2,875
Reservations Not Requiring
• Facilities $500
• Benefits $571,960
Equitable Services
6 School Improvement Initiatives N/A

under NCLB (not less than 20%-
of which 5% is for Choice and 5%
for SES) Sec. 1116 (b)(10)(A) and
Sec. 1116 (e)(6)
7 Support to Low Performing Title I N/A
Schools
Sec. 1116 (b)(4) A-B Local
discretion. This reference
describes required technical
assistance.
8 Services to Neglected Children $27,200 National Center for Children and Families
Sec. 1113(c)(3) (B)(C) • Instructional Materials $6,400
MCPS Alternative Programs
• Salaries $7,560
Must reserve funds if N & D • Benefits $605
programs exist in the LSS. • Consultant $12,619
• Instructional Materials $16
9 Services for Homeless Children in $30,000 Provide tutoring for after school academic
Title I and Non-Title I Schools support and ELO SAIL
(must) • Salaries $23,148
Sec. 1113(c)(3)(A) and Non- • Benefits $1,852
Regulatory Guidance, • Transportation for summer school
Education for Homeless program $5,000
Children and Youth Program,
July 2004, M-3.
Note: Please include a description
of how the funds and service plan is
coordinated with the McKinney-
Vento Homeless Education Act
funds.
10 Professional Development for a N/A
LOCAL SCHOOL SYSTEM in
Improvement (not less than 10%)
(must)
Sec. 1116 (c) (7)(A)(iii)
Note: 1. If there are no Title I schools identified for improvement in a system identified for improvement,
the LSS must still set aside 10% for professional development for any Title I school to help them remain out
of improvement status. Please provide an explanation.
2. School level PD funds can be included when factoring the 10%.
11 Incentives for Title I Teachers N/A
(Local Discretion) (not more than
5%) for schools in improvement,
corrective action, and
restructuring. Sec. 1113(c)4
12 Total Reservations Not requiring $2,269,417
Equitable Services (Use this
number in Table 7-10 LINE 3.)
13 Total of Equitable and Non-
Equitable Reservations minus Total Non-Equitable LINE 12 $2,269,417
Administration. (Present this
Plus
number in Table 4-A System-
wide Program and School Equitable Reservations LINE 4 $7,579,928
System Support to Schools.)
Equals $9,849,345
Minus
Administration – LINE 5 $2,212,217
Equals: $7,637,128
Table 7-9
COMPLETE the following formulas to identify monies allocated for equitable services to private school participants, their
families, and their teachers (see Section 1120(a) of NCLB and Sec 200.64 & 200.65 of Regs.) Monies calculated for equitable
services to private school participants, their families, and their teachers.
District-wide Instructional Program(s) Reservation
69 ÷ 7,986 = 0.009
Total # of private school children Total # of children Proportion of reservation
from low-income families from low-income families
including those going to schools in in Title I Public Schools
other LSSs Use figure in Column I of the
Title I Allocation Excel
Use figure in Column K of the Worksheet.
Title I Allocation Excel
Worksheet.
0.009 $7,272,162 $65,449

Proportion of reservation x reservation = Total Proportional monies available for
(Use the amount from Table equitable services to private school
7-8, Line 1) participants
Parental Involvement Reservation
69 7,986 0.009
Total # of private school children Total # of children Proportion of reservation
÷ =
from low-income families from low-income families
including those going to schools in in Title I Public Schools
other LSSs
Use figure in Column I of the
Use figure in Column K of the Title I Allocation Excel
Title I Allocation Excel Worksheet.
Worksheet.
0.009 $307,766 $2,770

reservation7 Total Proportional monies for equitable
Proportion of reservation x (Use the amount from Table = services to parents of private school
7-8, Line 2) participants
Total proportional monies for equitable instructional services and parent involvement activities for private school
children. (Place this amount in Table 7-10, Line 3.) $68,219
Table 7-10 BUDGET SUMMARY – CALCULATION OF PER PUPIL ALLOCATION (PPA)
1 Total Title I Allocation (Use the amount shown on the C-1-25) ----- $20,048,923
2 Total reservations requiring equitable services. (Present final figure in minus $7,579,928
Table 7-8, LINE 4)
3 Private School Equitable Share (Total from Table 7-9) minus $68,219
4 Total Reservations not requiring Equitable Services (Use number $2,269,417
presented in Table 7-8 LINE 12.) minus
Total Title I LSS allocation minus all reservations: Title I allocation $10,131,359
(LINE 1 above) minus all Reservations (LINES 2, 3 and 4 above). (All equals
LSSs, except for those serving schools below the 35% poverty line, should
use this number to determine the per pupil allocation.) This number should
equal the total of columns N and O on the Title I Allocation Excel
Worksheet.
5 Total PPA Allocation (set aside for instructional services) for private ---- $88,087
eligible school children. This total comes from the Title I Allocation Excel
Worksheet Column 0. (Present this number in Table 4-A Nonpublic
Cost.)
Use the attached Title I Allocation Excel Worksheet to determine public and private school Title I allocations. If the
LSS applies different PPA amounts to schools, the amounts must always be applied in descending order.
THE TITLE I ALLOCATION EXCEL WORKSHEET MUST BE SUBMITTED TO MSDE AS PART OF THE LSS
MASTER PLAN.
If APPLICABLE, THE TITLE I SKIPPED SCHOOL ALLOCATION EXCEL WORKSHEET MUST BE

SUBMITTEDTO MSDE AS PART OF THE LSS MASTER PLAN.
Table 7-11 ESTIMATE OF TITLE I CARRYOVER
Section 1127(a) of ESEA permits a school system to carryover not more than 15% of Title I funds from one fiscal
year to the next. The amount of carryover is calculated based on the initial 15-month expenditure period (e.g., July
1, 2006 - September 30, 2007). LSSs have two options for the use of carryover funds: 1) add carryover funds
to the LSS’s subsequent year’s allocation and distribute them to participating areas and schools in
accordance with allocation procedures that ensure equitable participation of non-public school children; 2)
designate carryover funds for particular activities that could best benefit from additional funding. (Non-
Regulatory Guidance, LEA Identification and Selection of School Attendance Areas and Schools and
Allocation of Title I Funds to those Areas and Schools, August 2003, Question 3, page 8.)
1. Total amount of Title I 2007-2008 allocation: $ 22,922,953
2. The estimated amount of Title I funds the school system will carryover as of September 30, 2008:
$ 513,509 (includes family involvement $16,205)
3. The estimated percentage of carryover Title I funds as of September 30, 2008 .022%
4. Explain why this Carryover may occur.
This carryover may occur because school-based and administrative salary and fringe costs were less than
estimated.
5. Within the past 3 years, has the system been granted a waiver? _____Yes X No _______Year
School systems with more than 15% projected carryover should contact their
MSDE point of contact for further instructions.
NOTE: FINAL CARRYOVER REPORT SHOULD BE SUBMITTED WITH THE OCTOBER MASTER
PLAN UPDATE SUBMISSION. IF APPROPRIATE, THE CARRYOVER BUDGET, ANY
AMENDMENTS AND REVISED NARRATIVE SHOULD BE SUBMITTED WITH THE FINAL MASTER
PLAN UPDATE SUBMISSION.
PROPOSED BUDGET FORM AND NARRATIVE FOR FY08

1. Complete a detailed budget on the MSDE Title I, Part A proposed budget form (C-1-25). The proposed budget
must reflect how the funds will be spent and organized according to the budget objectives. MSDE budget forms
are available through the local finance officer or at the MSDE Bridge to Excellence Master Plan web site at
www.marylandpublicschools.org.
2. Provide a detailed budget narrative using the “Guidance for Completion of the Budget Narrative for Individual
Grants.” (pp. 10-12 of this guidance document). The accompanying budget narrative should:
a) detail how the school system will use Title I-A funds to pay only reasonable and necessary direct
administrative costs associated with the operation of the Title I-A program, and
b) demonstrate the extent to which the budget is both reasonable and cost-effective.
.
ATTACHMENTS 4-A & B, 5-A &B, and 6-A & B
Be certain to complete all appropriate templates in Part II:
Attachment 4 & B: School Level “Spreadsheet” Budget Summary
Attachment 5 & B: Transferability of ESEA Funds & Consolidation of ESEA Funds for Local
Administration
Attachment 6 & B: Nonpublic School Information for ESEA Programs FY ‘09

Attachment 7: Title I A
FY 2009 Budget Narrative
Object 01 - Salaries & Wages

Category/Program Item description Calculation Amount
Administration - Business 01 Budget Specialist .500 FTE x $87,654 $ 43,827

Support Dept. of Management, Budget, and Planning
Sub Total $ 43,827
Mid-Level Administration - 02 Director-Division of Title I Programs 1.000 FTE x $139,696 $ 139,696
Inst. Admin. & Supv.
02 Supervisor - Division of Title I Programs 1.000 FTE x $130,680 $ 130,680
02 Instructional Specialist (Program Evaluation) 1.000 FTE x $88,384 $ 88,384
02 Instructional Specialist - Division of Title I Programs 7.9343 FTEs x $111,510 $ 884,754
02 Instructional Specialist - to support family .0657 FTE x $111,510 $ 7,326

involvement
02 Administrative Secretary 1.000 FTE x $58,104 $ 58,104
02 Fiscal Assistant II 1.000 FTE x $59,743 $ 59,743
02 Data Systems Operator II 1.000 FTE x $48,391 $ 48,391
02 Secretary II 1.000 FTE x $45,792 $ 45,792
02 Accountant 1.000 FTE x $71,009 $ 71,009
Sub Total $ 1,533,879
Instruction Categories - 03 Private school allocation 1.400 FTEs x $85,546 $ 119,764
Regular Prog. Private School Teachers - provide instruction to
eligible private school students in reading and
mathematics
03 Reading Recovery Teacher Leader - provide training .500 FTE x $106,843 $ 53,421
and consultation for Reading Recovery teachers and
programs
03 School-based allocation 2.500 FTEs x $85,546 $ 213,865
Reading Recovery Teachers - school-based teachers
providing direct support to students
03 Math Content Coaches (MCC) - provide coaching to 15.000 FTEs x $82,487 $ 1,237,305
teachers in instructional practices
03 Gifted and Talented Teacher - provide services for 13.000 FTEs x $82,487 $ 1,072,331
gifted and talented students and to support classroom
teachers
03 Supplemental ESOL/ESOL Support Teachers - 18.000 FTEs x $75,827 $ 1,364,886
provide services for reclassified English Language
Learners and ESOL students
- 18.0 FTEs centrally allocated for districtwide
teacher program
03 School-based allocation .800 FTE x 75,827 $ 60,662
Supplemental ESOL/ESOL Support Teachers -
provide services for reclassified English Language
Learners and ESOL students (0.8 FTEs)
03 School-based allocation 62.800 FTEs x $85,546 $ 5,372,289
Teacher allocations for mathematics and reading,
mentor teachers, and to reduce class size in the upper
grades
Reading Specialist - additional reading specialist to
support intervention model in Reading First schools
03 Head Start Teachers - supplemental allocation to 5.200 FTEs x $78,838 $ 409,958
support 13 full-day classes
Parent Community Coordinators - promote family
and community involvement
03 Parent Community Coordinators - promote family 2.725 FTEs x $38,401 $ 104,643
and community involvement
Instruction Categories - 03 School-based allocation 24.401 FTEs x $36,559 $ 892,076

Regular Prog. (continued) Paraeducators to support reading and mathematics
instruction
03 Paraeducator - promote family and community .125 FTE x $36,559 $ 4,570
involvement
03 Paraeducators Head Start - supplemental allocation to 3.575 FTEs x $35,992 $ 128,671
support 13 full-day classes
03 Substitutes Head Start - staff development activities 13 teachers x 4.5 days x 117.17/day $ 6,854
for teachers
03 Substitutes Head Start - staff development activities 13 paraeducators x $14.63/hour x 4 hours $ 3,043
for paraeducators x 4 days
03 School-based allocation 13 schools x 71.458 days x $117.17/day $ 108,846
Substitutes - schoolwide initiatives to support
planning and curriculum implementation
03 School-based allocation 1 school x 63.99 days x $117.17/day $ 7,498
Substitutes - professional development activities to
support the implementation of reading and
mathematics curriculum
03 Substitutes - ELO SAIL program 28 school x 7.11 substitutes x $16.48 per $ 16,404
hour x 5 hours
03 Professional P/T - after school instruction for 5 tutors x 10.22 weeks x 2 hours/week x $ 4,599
homeless students $45/hour
03 Professional P/T - ELO SAIL salaries for instruction 4.122 teachers x 5 hours x 20 days x $45 $ 18,549
for homeless students per hour
03 Professional P/T ELO SAIL - salaries for summer 5 hours x 20 days x 223.3426 teachers x $ 1,005,042
school teachers $45 per hour
03 Professional P/T - professional development training 28 teachers x $20/hour x 13.259 hours $ 7,425
for Title I Gifted and Talented, Math Content Coach
teachers
03 Professional P/T Head Start - curriculum 6 teachers x $25/hour x 6 hours x 10 days $ 9,000
development for full-day program
03 Professional P/T Private School Family Involvement 2 teachers x 28 hours x $20/hour $ 1,120
- to conduct required family involvement activities
03 Professional P/T Alternative Programs - provide 1 teachers x 7 hours x 54 hours x $20/hour $ 7,560
tutoring for neglected students
03 Professional P/T School Family Involvement 24 schools x 12 teachers x 13.763 hours x $ 79,275
Activities - to conduct activities such as family $20/hours
literacy and parent ESOL classes
03 School-based allocation 2 schools x 52 teachers x 5.269 hours x $ 10,960
Professional P/T Professional Development - training $20/hours
for teachers to support the implementation of reading
d th
03 School-based tiallocation
i l 8 schools x 35 teachers x 8.6765 hours x $ 48,588
Professional P/T Schoolwide Initiatives - school- $20/hour
based team and data analysis meetings
03 Supporting Services P/T - provide additional support 13 paraeducators x $25 per hour x 188 $ 122,200
for full-day Head Start to meet program requirements days x 2 hours
03 School-based allocation 6 schools x 8 teachers x 2 hours x 19.1492 $ 25,737

Stipend ELO Extended Day - provide academic after weeks x $14/hour
school student instructional programs
Sub Total $ 12,941,679
Total of Object 01 - Salaries and Wages $ 14,519,385
Object 02 - Contract Services

Administration - Business 01 General Accounting Audit 1 audit at $17,082 $ 17,082

Support
Sub Total $ 17,082
Instruction Categories - 05 Consultants - family involvement activities to 7 schools x $299.72 $ 2,098
Regular Prog. support students in reading/mathematics
05 School-based allocation 1 school x $12,500 $ 12,500
Consultants for professional development activities
to support the implementation of the
reading/mathematics curriculum
05 School-based allocation 2 schools x $4,250 $ 8,500
Consultant - schoolwide initiatives to support the
implementation of the reading/mathematics
05 Consultant - Alternative Programs and National 1 x $12,619 $ 12,619
Center for Children & Families - provide tutoring for
neglected students
05 Contractual Maintenance - Service on office 3 x 1,840 $ 5,520
equipment (fax machine, 2 copiers)
Sub Total $ 41,237
Total of Object 02 - Contract Services $ 58,319
Object 03 - Supplies & Materials

Instruction Categories - 04 Instructional Materials - ELO SAIL 28 schools x $2,011.14 $ 56,312

Regular Prog.
04 School-based allocation 4 schools x $620.75 $ 2,483
Instructional Materials - ELO Extended Day after
school programs
04 Instructional Materials - school-based family 26 schools x $2,132.04 $ 55,433
involvement that supports the required NCLB
activities, including family literacy
04 Instructional Materials - private school family 7 schools x $618.43 $ 4,329
involvement activities that support parent training
workshops in reading and mathematics
04 School-based allocation 27 schools x $4,081.04 $ 110,188
Instructional Materials to support reading and
mathematics curriculum
04 Private school allocation $11,564 $ 11,564
Instructional Materials for use in private schools
04 Instructional Materials Neglected Program - support 2 x $3,208 $ 6,416
services for neglected students in reading/language
arts (Alternative Programs & National Center for
Children and Families)
Instructional Materials for professional development
programs that support teachers and administrators
(Professional Growth System for Teachers and
Administrators)
Instructional Materials for schoolwide initiatives
04 School-based allocation 4 schools x $620.75 $ 2,483
Instructional Materials for Extended Day
04 Office supplies for mailing to support office 1 office @ $20,000 $ 20,000
operations
Sub Total $ 280,754
Total of Object 3 - Supplies & Materials $ 280,754
Object 04 - Other Charges

Instruction Categories - 05 Local Travel - provide technical assistance to Title I Mileage for Title I staff $ 15,000
Regular Prog. schools
05 Travel Out - professional development activities for National Title I conference $ 5,900
national and state conferences, including Reading (3 staff x $1,200 = $3,600)
Recovery and National Title I conferences MSDE Spring conference
(3 staff x $250= $750)
National Reading Recovery Conference
(1 staff x $900= $900)
Reading Recovery Teacher Institute
(1 staff x $650= $650)
05 Dues, Fees, and Registration - professional National Title I conference $ 2,875

development activities for national and state (3 staff x $595 = $1,785)
conferences including National Title I and Reading National Reading Recovery Conference
Recovery conferences (1 staff x $565= $565)
Reading Recovery Teacher Institute
(1 staff x $525= $525)
05 Facility Rental Title I administrator training (Professional $ 500
Growth System for Administrators)
Sub Total $ 24,275

209 - Student 09 School-based allocation 5 schools x $1,709.40 $ 8,547
Transportation Student Transportation - provide after school
09 Student Transportation ELO SAIL - provide student 28 schools x $4,600 $ 128,800
transportation for the summer program
09 Student Transportation - provide transportation for 9 schools x $466.22 $ 4,196
families to attend evening and Saturday school-based
family involvement activities
09 Student Transportation to ELO SAIL program for 25 students x $200 $ 5,000
homeless students
Sub Total $ 146,543
212 - Fixed Charges 12 Employee Benefits Full-time @ 0.375558% $ 4,896,031
Full-time employees ($13,036,685 x .375558
12 Employee Benefits Part-time @ 8% $ 118,616
Part-time employees ($1,482,700 x 8%)
Sub Total $ 5,014,647
Total of Object 04 - Other Charges $ 5,185,465
Object 05 - Equipment
Instruction Categories - 05 Equipment 2 computers for Title I office staff to $ 3,000

Regular Prog. support Title I schools @ $1,500
05 School-based allocation 1 school x $2,000 for Promethean boards $ 2,000
Equipment - purchased to support instruction
Sub Total $ 5,000
Total of Object 05 - Equipment $ 5,000
TOTAL $ 20,048,923
Title I FY 09 Allocation Worksheet
School Year 2008-2009
Local School System Note: 1/2 day Pre-K equals .5 FTE
Notations: D E F G H I J K L M N O
FTE
Number of Low Income
Number of Low- Income Private
N Low FTE Private School
or Public School Name Income- Low School Children
C (Rank order by % highest Specific Public Public Income Children Residing in Allocation for
or to lowest) Numeric School School Public Residing in this Private
R SW Grade Percent of Enrollment Children School this School's School's Per Pupil Public School School
or or MSDE Charter school(s) place * after Span Poverty (as of (as of Children Attendance Attendance Allocation Allocation Children
S TAS Sch ID # school name (public) (I/H=G) 9/30/07) 10/31/07) (10/31/07) Area. Area. (PPA) (J x M =N) (L x M =O)
1 SW 0304 Broad Acres PreK-5 88.59% 447 396 378.0 2 2.0 $1,334.65 $504,499 $2,669
2 SW 0797 Harmony Hills PreK-5 76.77% 495 380 353.5 0 0.0 $1,334.65 $471,800 $0
3 SW 0774 Highland PreK-5 75.61% 488 369 353.0 0 0.0 $1,334.65 $471,133 $0
4 SW 0766 Oak View 3-5 73.14% 242 177 177.0 5 5.0 $1,334.65 $236,234 $6,673
5 SW 0788 Wheaton Woods PreK-5 71.79% 436 313 287.5 2 2.0 $1,334.65 $383,713 $2,669
6 SW 0791 New Hampshire Estates PreK-2 71.50% 386 276 266.5 2 1.5 $1,334.65 $355,685 $2,002
7 SW 0563 Summit Hall PreK-5 70.48% 454 320 298.5 1 1.0 $1,334.65 $398,394 $1,335
8 SW 0779 R. Sargent Shriver PreK-4 70.23% 618 434 425.5 7 6.5 $1,334.65 $567,895 $8,675
9 SW 0790 Arcola 70.03% 347 243 243.0 2 1.5 $1,334.65 $324,321 $2,002
10 SW 0772 Viers Mill PreK-5 67.46% 464 313 292.5 2 2.0 $1,334.65 $390,386 $2,669
11 SW 0805 Kemp Mill PreK-5 67.13% 435 292 274.5 19 19.0 $1,334.65 $366,363 $25,358
12 SW 0777 Weller Road PreK-5 66.74% 466 311 293.0 1 0.5 $1,334.65 $391,054 $667
13 SW 0564 South Lake PreK-5 66.48% 549 365 338.5 0 0.0 $1,334.65 $451,781 $0
14 SW 0786 Georgian Forest 61.49% 457 281 266.5 4 3.5 $1,334.65 $355,685 $4,671
15 SW 0756 East Silver Spring PreK-2 61.23% 227 139 124.5 3 2.5 $1,334.65 $166,164 $3,337
16 SW 0553 Gaithersburg PreK-5 60.91% 481 293 276.0 0 0.0 $1,334.65 $368,365 $0
17 SW 0553 Roscoe Nix 60.64% 404 245 237.5 3 3.0 $1,334.65 $316,980 $4,004
18 N SW 0100 Clopper Mill 60.18% 442 266 239.5 0 0.0 $1,334.65 $319,650 $0
19 SW 0776 Montgomery Knolls PreK-2 59.59% 386 230 207.0 0 0.0 $1,334.65 $276,273 $0
20 N SW 0767 Glen Haven 59.57% 564 336 318.5 3 3.0 $1,334.65 $425,087 $4,004
21 N SW 0808 Cresthaven 57.94% 340 197 197.0 0 0.0 $1,334.65 $262,927 $0
22 SW 0309 Burnt Mills PreK-5 57.59% 349 201 181.5 4 4.0 $1,334.65 $242,240 $5,339
23 N SW 0807 Brookhaven 57.40% 392 225 211.0 1 1.0 $1,334.65 $281,612 $1,335
24 SW 0552 Washington Grove PreK-5 57.26% 372 213 188.5 0 0.0 $1,334.65 $251,582 $0
25 N SW 0305 Jackson Road 56.03% 539 302 279.0 3 3.0 $1,334.65 $372,369 $4,004
26 SW 0206 Twinbrook PreK-5 55.88% 519 290 278.5 1 1.0 $1,334.65 $371,701 $1,335
27 SW 0771 Rolling Terrace PreK-5 55.02% 618 340 317.5 1 1.0 $1,334.65 $423,753 $1,335
28 SW 0555 Rosemont PreK-5 50.00% 478 239 221.5 3 3.0 $1,334.65 $295,626 $4,004
Total 7986 7525.0 69 66.0 $10,043,272 $88,087
Table 7-9 Table 7-9 Table 4 A & B Table 4 A & B
Table 7-10 /5
4/16/08 SY 08-09
Division of Title I Programs Attachment B
Title I Allocations for Fiscal Year 2009
Elementary School: Principal:

School # Community Superintendent:
Budgeted Authorized (List all FTEs using the authorized allocation column only)
Professional Teaching Positions-FTE
Subject or **Highly Qualified
Position Class FTE FTE Project *Central Assigned Employee ID Grade (HQ) / Certified
Reading Recovery 1010 TRDNG
TRDNG
Pos Class Code 1010 Sub Total 0.000 0.000
Gifted and Talented Teacher 1031 0.500 X
Math Content Coach 1031 0.500 X
ESOL Support 1031 0.500 X
Focus Teacher 1031 #REF!
1031
1031
1031
1031
Pos Class Code 1031 Sub Total #REF! 0.000
ESOL Teacher 1032 TESOL

Reading Specialist 1033 TRDNG
Head Start Teacher 1101 0.400 X TRDNG

TOTAL PROFESSIONAL TEACHING POSITIONS #REF! 0.000
Budgeted Authorized (List all FTEs using the authorized allocation column only)
Clerical/Other Support Staff-FTE
Subject or
Position Class FTE FTE Project *Central Assigned Employee ID Grade **Qualified
Parent Community Coordinator 6500 #REF! INSTS NA
Educational Assistant-FTE
Subject or
Position Class FTE FTE Project *Central Assigned Employee ID Grade ***Qualified
Focus Paraeducator 6600 #REF! INSTS
INSTS
INSTS
*Head Start Paraeducator 6700 0.525 X INSTS
INSTS
TOTAL CLERICAL/OTHER SUPPORT STAFF #REF! 0.000
SUBMITTED BY
Principal Signature DTP, Director Signature OSP, Community Superintendent Signature
Date Date Date
Notes:
*Head Start Paraeducators extra hours (.250 FTE) for each position is temporary part-time.
□ Change
Position Change- date sent to the Department of Personnel Change- date sent to the Monthly Changes:
Management, Budget & Planning : Office of Human Resources: □ No Change
* Central vs School based allocation

**Refer to Certified Employee List (Data Warehouse) to confirm highly qualified
***Please verify with staffing specialist
Please return by ____________________ to ____________________ at ____________________

Attachment C
ABC
POLICY BOARD OF EDUCATION

OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY
Related Entries: ABA, ABA-RA, ACG, BMA, FAA, IEA, IEB, IED, IFB, IGP-RA, IRB-RA
Responsible Office: Deputy Superintendent
Parental Involvement
A. PURPOSE
1. To reaffirm the Montgomery County public school system’s strong commitment to the role
of parents as valued partners in their children’s education and to promote and increase
effective, comprehensive parental involvement
2. To ensure that parental involvement efforts reflect the rich cultural and linguistic diversity of
local school communities
B. ISSUE
Family involvement in a child’s learning is a critical link to achieve academic success and to ensure a
safe and disciplined learning environment.
C. POSITION
1. Definition
In this policy, “parent” is intended to include parents, guardians, and other family members
involved in supervising the child’s schooling.
In this policy, “comprehensive parental involvement” is intended to include the research-

based, Six National Standards for Parent/Family Involvement Programs as follows:
a) Communicating
b) Parenting
c) Student Learning
1 of 4
Attachment C
ABC
d) Volunteering
e) School Decision-Making and Advocacy
f) Collaborating with Community
2. Achievement of the purpose will be sought through a variety of efforts including:
a) Effective two-way communication between all parents and schools regarding

school system policies, practices and regulations, local school policies, and an
individual child’s progress
b) Activities to encourage parental volunteer opportunities in schools both in the

classroom and in other areas of the school including attendance at local school
programs and events
c) Information and programs for parents on how to establish a home environment to

support learning and appropriate behavior
d) Information and programs for parents about how they can assist their own children
to learn
e) Assistance to develop parental involvement in educational advocacy through PTAs

and other organizations, including school system task forces and advisory
committees
3. While each division, office, and school must assess its role and plan of action to meet these
goals, all MCPS employees are expected to convey a commitment to parental involvement.
a) Consistent with this commitment, local schools are expected to:
1) Provide an inviting and welcoming environment where parent involvement

is respected and valued
2) Develop activities and materials that provide for effective two-way

communication between parents and the school on local school policies
and practices and individual student progress
3) Support and encourage parental volunteer opportunities including

participation in the development of school improvement plans
2 of 4
Attachment C
ABC
4) Provide programs that assist parents in learning how they can help children
learn, including activities that are connected to what children are learning in
the classroom
5) Work with PTA, other parent organizations, and parent outreach

personnel to ensure parental input from a broad range of culturally and
linguistically diverse groups
b) Consistent with this commitment, local schools are encouraged, in collaboration

with their parent community, to develop a local school statement which articulates a
shared responsibility and strategies to support: student learning and high
achievement; effective, frequent, two-way communication between school and
home; and family, school, community partnerships aligned with school
improvement plan goals
4. In addition, appropriate staff in central offices are expected to support local school efforts
and, where relevant:
a) Communicate with parents on school system policies and regulations
b) Provide for the development of parenting programs and materials, including the use
of cable television, pamphlets, adult education courses, parent resource centers,
and programs designed to orient new parents to MCPS
c) Support and encourage the use of interpretation and translation services whenever
feasible
d) Maintain and support parental volunteer opportunities with appropriate information

and training
e) Assist in the development of parental leadership through PTAs and other

recognized groups
f) Work with businesses, organizations, and other government agencies which by

their policies and activities can provide support and assistance for parental
involvement efforts
3 of 4
Attachment C
ABC
g) Provide appropriate teacher and staff training to support effective parental

involvement; conduct staff and parent training in ways to communicate and work
together including problem solving, conflict resolution skills, and outreach strategies
h) Identify and publicize promising programs and practices related to parental

involvement
i) Work with colleges and universities that prepare teachers and administrators to
support the inclusion of school and family connections in their training programs
j) Develop methods to accommodate and support parental involvement for all

parents, including those with special needs, limited English proficiency, limited
financial resources and individuals with disabilities
k) Develop mechanisms for local schools to use in order to assess the effectiveness of
their parental involvement efforts
D. DESIRED OUTCOME
Schools and families will work together to ensure that the educational process includes quality
learning at home, in school, and in the community.
E. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
1. The superintendent will assess the status of parental involvement, review existing policies
and procedures, and develop necessary regulations and procedures to support this policy,
including a review of staff and budget support.
2. The Board of Education will seek parental input on school system policies, including
curriculum, facilities, and funding issues from a broad spectrum of our culturally and
linguistically diverse community.
F. REVIEW AND REPORTING
This policy will be reviewed on an ongoing basis in accordance with the Board of Education policy
review process.
Policy History: Adopted by Resolution No. 669-90, November 13, 1990; reformatted September 1996; amended by Resolution
489-02, October 28, 2002.
4 of 4
Attachment D
Policy ABC, Parental Involvement

Revision Timeline
June 11, 2008
Date Event Purpose

Establish workgroup / Put together the core workgroup and
May and June 2008
point people establish meeting dates
Receive feedback on new drafts

September–November 2008 Workgroup meetings Charge members to share policy with their
constituencies
September–November 2008 Writing group meeting Incorporate feedback to create a new draft
Open invitation to all parents to share

September and October 2008 Parent Academy Groups
feedback and thoughts on the policy
December 2008 Board Policy Committee Share new draft of policy
Incorporate feedback of Board Policy

December 2008 Small workgroup meeting
Committee and create new draft
January 2009 Board Policy Committee Share new draft of policy
February 2009 Board of Education Tentative Action
The writing group will consist of MCPS staff from the Department of Reporting and Regulatory
Accountability, Department of Communications, and Title I Programs.
Attachment E
__________________ Elementary School accepts the Montgomery County Public Schools family
involvement policy and has aligned its school level parent involvement plan accordingly.
POLICY
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY
Related Entries: ABA, ABA-RA, ACG, BMA, FAA, IEA, IEB, IED, IFB, IGP-RA, IRB-RA
A. PURPOSE
1. To reaffirm the Montgomery County public school system’s strong commitment to the role
of parents as valued partners in their children’s education and to promote and increase effective,
comprehensive parental involvement
2. To ensure that parental involvement efforts reflect the rich cultural and linguistic diversity of local
school communities
B. ISSUE
Family involvement in a child’s learning is a critical link to achieve academic success and to ensure a safe
and disciplined learning environment.
C. POSITION
1. Definition
In this policy, “parent” is intended to include parents, guardians, and other family members involved
in supervising the child’s schooling. In this policy, “comprehensive parental involvement” is
intended to include the research based, Six National Standards for Parent/Family Involvement
Programs as follows:
a) Communicating
b) Parenting
c) Student Learning
d) Volunteering
e) School Decision-Making and Advocacy
f) Collaborating with Community
2. Achievement of the purpose will be sought through a variety of efforts including:
a) Effective two-way communication between all parents and schools regarding school system
policies, practices and regulations, local school policies, and an individual child’s progress
b) Activities to encourage parental volunteer opportunities in schools both in the classroom and in
other areas of the school including attendance at local school programs and events
c) Information and programs for parents on how to establish a home environment to support
learning and appropriate behavior
d) Information and programs for parents about how they can assist their own children to learn
e) Assistance to develop parental involvement in educational advocacy through PTAs and other
organizations, including school system task forces and advisory committees
3. While each division, office, and school must assess its role and plan of action to meet these goals, all
MCPS employees are expected to convey a commitment to parental involvement.
a) Consistent with this commitment, local schools are expected to:
1) Provide an inviting and welcoming environment where parent involvement is respected and
valued
2) Develop activities and materials that provide for effective two-way communication between
parents and the school on local school policies and practices and individual student progress
3) Support and encourage parental volunteer opportunities including participation in the
development of school improvement plans
Attachment E
4) Provide programs that assist parents in learning how they can help children learn, including
activities that are connected to what children are learning in the classroom
5) Work with PTA, other parent organizations, and parent outreach personnel to ensure
parental input from a broad range of culturally and linguistically diverse groups
b) Consistent with this commitment, local schools are encouraged, in collaboration with their
parent community, to develop a local school statement which articulates a shared responsibility
and strategies to support: student learning and high achievement; effective, frequent, two-way
communication between school and home; and family, school, community partnerships aligned
with school improvement plan goals
4. In addition, appropriate staff in central offices are expected to support local school efforts and,
where relevant:
a) Communicate with parents on school system policies and regulations
b) Provide for the development of parenting programs and materials, including the use of cable
television, pamphlets, adult education courses, parent resource centers, and programs designed to
orient new parents to MCPS
c) Support and encourage the use of interpretation and translation services whenever feasible
d) Maintain and support parental volunteer opportunities with appropriate information and
training
e) Assist in the development of parental leadership through PTAs and other recognized groups
f) Work with businesses, organizations, and other government agencies which by their policies
and activities can provide support and assistance for parental involvement efforts
g) Provide appropriate teacher and staff training to support effective parental involvement;
conduct staff and parent training in ways to communicate and work together including problem
solving, conflict resolution skills, and outreach strategies
h) Identify and publicize promising programs and practices related to parental involvement
i) Work with colleges and universities that prepare teachers and administrators to support the
inclusion of school and family connections in their training programs
j) Develop methods to accommodate and support parental involvement for all parents, including
those with special needs, limited English proficiency, limited financial resources and individuals
with disabilities
k) Develop mechanisms for local schools to use in order to assess the effectiveness of their
parental involvement efforts
D. DESIRED OUTCOME
Schools and families will work together to ensure that the educational process includes quality learning at
home, in school, and in the community.
E. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
1. The superintendent will assess the status of parental involvement, review existing policies and
procedures, and develop necessary regulations and procedures to support this policy, including a
review of staff and budget support.
2. The Board of Education will seek parental input on school system policies, including curriculum,
facilities, and funding issues from a broad spectrum of our culturally and linguistically diverse
community.
F. REVIEW AND REPORTING

This policy will be reviewed on an ongoing basis in accordance with the Board of Education policy
review process.
Policy History: Adopted by Resolution No. 669-90, November 13, 1990; reformatted September 1996; amended by
Resolution489-02, October 28, 2002.
Attachment E
__________________ Elementary School accepts the Montgomery County Public Schools family
involvement regulation and has aligned its school level parent involvement plan accordingly.
REGULATION
Related Entries: ABA, ABA-RA, ABC, BMA, FAA, IEA, IEB, IED, IFB, IGP-RA, IRB-RA
Parent Involvement
I. PURPOSE
To ensure a strong home-school partnership, promote and increase effective, well structured, and comprehensive
parental involvement practices, and ensure that parental involvement efforts reflect the cultural and linguistic
diversity of local school communities.
II. RATIONALE
Involving parents in their children’s education results in mutually supportive relationships among students,
parents, and staff that will guide and enhance the intellectual and social development of students.
III. DEFINITION
The term “parent” is intended to include parents, guardians, and other family members involved in supervising
the child’s schooling. In this regulation, “comprehensive parental involvement” is intended to include research
based, Six National Standards for Parent/Family Involvement Programs as follows:
A. Communicating
B. Parenting
C. Student Learning
D. Volunteering
E. School Decision-making and Advocacy
F. Collaborating with Community
IV. PROCEDURES FOR SCHOOLS

All MCPS employees are expected to convey a commitment to parent involvement. School staff are expected to
take the initiative to reach out to parents in a variety of ways to encourage parent participation. In addition, local
schools are encouraged, in collaboration with their parent community, to develop a local school statement which
articulates a shared responsibility and strategies to support: student learning and high achievement; effective,
frequent two-way communication between school and home; and family, school, community partnerships aligned
with school improvement plan goals.
A. Each local school will include on its school improvement team: school staff, parents, and students
(when appropriate) who reflect the rich linguistic and cultural diversity of the local school community.
B. The school improvement team should consider how parental involvement is incorporated into its
School Improvement Plan.
C. Each local school should work in cooperation with parents, parent groups and PTAs, to develop and
maintain a clear, regular two-way communication system that:
i. Provides information on issues such as: local school and school system policies, practices
and regulations, including discipline procedures, instructional programs, opportunities for
collaboration, school or system initiatives, regular student progress reports, assessments,
and parent-teacher conferences, through a variety of traditional and non-traditional means
such as, but not limited to, newsletters, school-parent orientation programs, checklists, web
sites, and list serves
ii. Solicits and considers parent comments and concerns, and makes use of parent talents
iii. Strives to ensure that staff are accessible for parent-teacher communications
iv. Uses the resources of the community and central offices
D. Work in cooperation with the PTA and other parent groups to support programs for parents to learn
how to create and sustain a home learning environment by:
i. Sharing information, materials, and programs about how parents can:
Attachment E
a) Recognize that they have an essential role to play in their children’s education by
supporting, encouraging, and assisting their children to learn
b) Get information on “parenting” topics such as nutrition, health, self esteem,
parent/child communication, motivation, discipline, child development, and other
topics relevant to the specific population
ii. Providing space for parent training and parent materials, as feasible
iii. Ensuring that parenting information is provided to parents on a regular, systematic basis by
using such forums as parenting sections in newsletters, discussion groups, conferences,
workshops, web sites, and list serves, etc.
iv. Parenting information should be translated, as appropriate and feasible.
E. Assist parents in playing an integral role in student learning by:
i. Providing appropriate information for staff to work effectively with parents in order to
support the concept of learning at home, including such topics as:
a) How to support academic and behavioral expectations
b) How to share curriculum content with parents
c) How to facilitate parent participation in children’s learning at home
ii. Providing materials on what their child is learning and how to expand on school learning at
home, as well as suggestions about available resources
iii. Suggesting ways that parents can enrich and support the curriculum
F. In accordance with regulation IRB-RA Use of Volunteer Services, encourage parents to volunteer in
the classroom, in other areas of the school, and/or at home by:
i. Providing information for staff use in the development of jobs for volunteers
ii. Maximizing opportunities for parent volunteer participation, including the participation of
parents with special needs or limited English proficiency, and parents of students with
special needs or limited English proficiency
iii. Providing orientation and training for parent volunteers, seeking support from central office
personnel when appropriate
iv. Identifying a member of the school staff to work cooperatively with the PTA, and other
parent groups to encourage parent participation
G. Respect the right of parents to serve as advocates and support this advocacy by:
i. Recognizing that advocacy requires that people understand issues, and have information
about the processes for addressing these issues, including due process rights
ii. Encouraging parents to participate in the development, monitoring, and evaluation of the
school improvement plan
iii. Providing leadership/advocacy information for parents
iv. Encouraging the growth and development of parent groups, PTAs, and other community
groups that reach out within the school community, as well as participating in county, state
and national efforts for children and for education
H. Collaborate with local community resources and informing families about those resources by:
i. Identifying resources that serve families within the community
ii. Informing school staff of the resources for families available in the community
iii. Involving community members in school volunteer and mentor programs
iv. Providing information about community agencies that provide family support services and
adult learning opportunities
v. Developing partnerships with local business and service groups to advance student learning
and to assist schools and families
V. PROCEDURES FOR CENTRAL OFFICES
All MCPS employees are expected to convey a commitment to parent involvement and demonstrate respect for
parent involvement. To support this commitment and to ensure implementation of the parent involvement policy and
regulation, appropriate staff in central offices will encourage and assist:
A. Local schools in their comprehensive parent involvement efforts and in the use of interpreter and
translation services whenever feasible
B. Communication with parents about school system policies, practices, regulations, and other general
information
C. Development of parenting programs and materials for all parents including those who are English
language learners or have special needs. This may include the use of cable television, pamphlets, adult
Attachment E
education courses, parent resource areas, parent information centers, and programs designed to orient
new parents to MCPS by:
i. Providing materials and resources to inform staff and parents
ii. Helping parents with school-related issues, resolving problems, and finding resources
iii. Informing parents about the organization and function of the MCPS system
iv. Disseminating information about school and community resources to parents and staff
v. Identifying and sharing successful parent involvement programs, plans, and activities for
use by local schools
D. Countywide volunteer opportunities by providing appropriate information
E. The development of parent leadership through PTAs and other recognized groups
F. Collaboration with businesses, organizations, and other government agencies to gain support and
assistance for parent involvement efforts
G. Information and training by:
i. Providing information for staff and parents to enable them to understand and support
effective parent involvement
ii. Providing training for parents and staff to develop positive communication skills, including
cultural competence and collaboration skills, and parent outreach strategies
iii. Including rationale for parent involvement in A & S training, as well as new principal and
new staff training
H. Work with colleges and universities that prepare teachers and administrators to support the inclusion of
school and family involvement practices in their training programs
I. Development of methods to accommodate and support parent involvement for all parents with special
circumstances, including those who are English language learners, those with disabilities, and those
living in poverty
J. Local schools to use the data obtained from a variety of sources, including such things as the MCPS
parent surveys to develop their school improvement plans
Regulation History: New Regulation, August 21, 1991; revised July 21, 2003.
Attachment E
Policy ABC, Parental Involvement

Revision Timeline
May 8, 2008
Date Event Purpose

Parent Involvement Cross
May 20, 2008 Review the revision process
Functional Team
June 11, 2008 Board Policy Committee Review draft of the revision timeline
Establish workgroup / point Put together the core workgroup and establish
May and June 2008
people meeting dates
Explain the revision process, get initial
feedback on the policy, charge members to
September 2008 Workgroup meeting
share policy with their constituencies and
bring feedback to next meeting
September 2008 Small workgroup meeting Incorporate feedback into new draft of policy
Share new draft of policy and receive
October 2008 Workgroup meeting
additional feedback
October 2008 Small workgroup meeting Incorporate feedback into new draft of policy
September and Open invitation to all parents to share
Parent Academy Groups
October 2008 feedback and thoughts on the policy
Share new draft of policy and receive
November 2008 Workgroup meeting
additional feedback
November 2008 Small workgroup meeting Incorporate feedback into new draft of policy
December 2008 Board Policy Committee Share new draft of policy
Incorporate feedback of Board Policy
December 2008 Small workgroup meeting
Committee and create new draft
January 2009 Board Policy Committee Share new draft of policy
February 2009 Board of Education Tentative Action
February and March
Public Comments
2009
April 2009 Small workgroup meeting Review public comments and create new draft
May 2009 Board Policy Committee Share new draft
June 2009 Board of Education Final Action
Constituencies to be represented on the workgroup include:

Early Childhood MCPS Staff
MCCPTA Elementary
Secondary OSP
MCAASP MCEA
Special Education SEIU
ESOL Linkages to Learning
GT Title I
NCAAP
The small workgroup will consist of MCPS staff from the Department of Reporting and
Regulatory Accountability, Department of Communications, and Title I Programs.
Attachment F
(School Name)
Parent Involvement Policy
_________________________ supports the involvement of all parents/families. We believe

that when parents are involved, students will be more successful. (In this policy, “parent” is
intended to include parents, guardians, and other family members involved in supervising the
child’s schooling.)
I. Parent Information
Once a year, our school will hold a Title I meeting that will provide information about the Title I
program, parental rights, and the important role you play in your child’s education. In
additional, the school will:
• schedule annual conferences at convenient times
• hold meetings that review the curriculum and state and local assessments
• provide opportunities for you to suggest ideas and be a part of the decisions that
relate to school success
• explain the grade level curriculum
• review and explain the district and State academic assessments
• provide opportunities for you to suggest ideas that relate to student success
• involve you in the planning and review of our schoolwide School Improvement
Plan (SIP) including this Parent Involvement Policy (PIP)
• invite you to share comments that you want added to the School Improvement
Plan
II. Parent Outreach

We support a strong, positive partnership with you and the community. We believe our
parent outreach program will improve student achievement by providing:
• assistance to parents to help improve understanding of the MCPS curriculum and
its relationship to the Voluntary State Curriculum (VSC) and assessments
• training and materials for parents to improve student achievement
• information and training for staff on the important role of parents as equal
partners in teaching and learning
• parent programs that strengthen connections between home and school
opportunities to attend programs and activities with Head Start, Judy Centers,
Pre-Kindergarten Programs, Linkages to Learning, etc.
• support, training, and information from the Montgomery County Public Schools
(MCPS) Division of Family and Community Partnerships and the parent
activities, programs, and services they provide
Revised 8/22/2008
Attachment F
III. Communication
Ongoing communication will occur through:

• annual parent conferences and follow-up conferences as needed
• a variety of school events, classes, and meetings held at times that are convenient for
parents
• meetings that focus on how parent can help their child succeed in school
• frequent reporting of student progress
• opportunities to volunteer, observe, and talk with staff
• interpreters for conferences and meetings
• translation of the principal’s newsletter and other important notices
To further enhance our successful partnership, we will provide additional support for parents
who speak English as a second language, parents with disabilities, or parents who are in
homeless situations. This support will include providing translations, written documents, and
ensuring that we meet the need of individuals with disabilities.
IV. Staff Training

Staff training will be held at our school to:
• provide training for staff about how to work with parents as equal partners
• to show how to start and maintain parent outreach and involvement programs
• communicate the value of reaching out to and working with parents
****See Lesson Plan #3 (“My Job, Your Job, Our Job”: Establishing Responsibilities) from My
Job, Your Job, Our Job (Baldrige)
Revised 8/22/2008
Attachment G
(School Name) Elementary School – Parent Compact
Effective schools are a result of families and school staff working together to ensure that children are successful in school. A compact
is a voluntary agreement between these groups that firmly unites them. You are invited to be involved in this partnership.
Shared Responsibilities for: School Staff Parent Student

As a school, we expect all students to As a parent, I will support education As a student, I will do my best. I will:
Having high achievement meet or exceed the MCPS grade level and believe that my child can reach • work hard
expectations standards and the Maryland Voluntary high goals. • come to school on time
State Curriculum (VCS). We will: I will: • have books and materials that I
• review assessment results to • talk to my child about what is need
determine strengths and needs of happening in school and about • pay attention in class
students the importance of working hard • make sure I understand my
• plan instruction that helps to in school assignments
improve students’ academic • make sure my child goes to • complete my class work and my
success school every day homework
• give students many opportunities • make sure my child does • follow the rules of the school
to show what they know homework and schoolwork
• give students timely feedback regularly
• help students succeed in all • make sure my child gets to
academic areas school on time
∇ As a school, we will: As a parent, I will: As a student, I will:
Good Instruction that Works for • teach the Montgomery County • attend meetings about what my • know what is expected of me in
Children Public Schools curriculum child is learning all of my subjects
• support each student’s learning • know what my child learning • ask questions
(Providing and supporting sound • assist parents in learning about • check homework and look at
instruction) ways they can help their children schoolwork
with homework and learning • ask questions about how I can
help my child at home
~ As a school, we will: As a parent, I will: As a student, I will:

Communicating • communicate with families about • attend Back-to-School events, • talk to my family about things I
high academic standards, student parent-teacher conferences and like about school
progress and the school’s overall other school-sponsored programs • talk to my family about things I
performance • tell the school about anything that am learning in school
• communicate with families in a might effect my child’s learning • ask my teacher for help when I
language that they can • tell the teacher or school when I have problems with my
understand, when possible do not understand something that schoolwork/homework
• make the school a friendly place is sent home
for parents to meet, talk, and learn
about their child’s education
National PTA Standards for Parent/Family Involvement Programs: Standard I: Communicating; Standard II: Parenting;
Standard III: Student Learning; Standard IV: Volunteering; Standard V: School Decision Making and Advocacy; Standard VI:
Collaborating with Community revised: 8/22/2008
Attachment G
(School Name) Elementary School – Parent Compact
Effective schools are a result of families and school staff working together to ensure that children are successful in school. A compact
is a voluntary agreement between these groups that firmly unites them. You are invited to be involved in this partnership.
♦ As a school, we will: As a parent, I will: As a student, I will:

Learning New Skills through • encourage all families to • volunteer for at least one activity • help other students
Volunteering and Training volunteer and be involved in the during the school year (helping in • get involved in projects that will
school the classroom, supporting special help my school and community
(Building capacity through • show parents ways they can help activities at school, chaperoning a
volunteering and training) their children with homework and field trip)
learning at home • attend PTA meetings, parent
trainings, and other special
activities
• join school committees, such as
the Parent Involvement
Committee or the School
Improvement Plan Committee.
Note to Schools: See Lesson Plan #3 (“My Job, Your Job, Our Job”: Establishing Responsibilities) from My Job, Your Job, Our Job (Baldrige)
National PTA Standards for Parent/Family Involvement Programs: Standard I: Communicating; Standard II: Parenting;
Standard III: Student Learning; Standard IV: Volunteering; Standard V: School Decision Making and Advocacy; Standard VI:
Collaborating with Community revised: 8/22/2008
Attachment H
2007-2008 Parent Involvement Action Plan
Action steps/objectives/ processes Person(s) Resources Monitoring tools or Monitoring: Date Results
Timeline Responsible Needed data points and by whom (include evaluation of processes for
(formative & effectiveness and efficiency)
summative)
Conduct parent meeting to Title I Training Plan Sign in October/November
disseminate information about the Instructional Agenda Division of Title I
school’s Title I schoolwide Specialist Notes Programs
program/targeted assistance program Evaluation
status and parents’ parental rights. (SANE documents)
(Times and locations may vary to
better accommodate parents.)
Communicate information to parents
about school programs, meetings,
and other activities in multiple
languages as appropriate. (i.e., school
newsletters, flyers, meeting notices,
etc.)
Develop/revise school-parent
compact which identifies actions in
which the parents, school staff, and
students will engage to share the
responsibility for improved student
improvement.
Disseminate school-parent compact
Involve parents as active participants

in the planning, review, and revision
of the School Improvement Plan.
Update family involvement

policy/plan periodically to meet the
changing needs of the parents in the
school.
Review and/or revise the parent
involvement program annually.
The term “parent” is intended to include parents, guardians, and other family members involved in supervising the child’s schooling.
Attachment H
2007-2008 Parent Involvement Action Plan
Action steps/objectives/ processes Person(s) Resources Monitoring tools or Monitoring: Date Results
Timeline Responsible Needed data points and by whom (include evaluation of processes for
(formative & effectiveness and efficiency)
summative)
Provide training to staff on effective
practices in conducting parent-
teacher conferences
Provide training to staff on
importance of family involvement
Involve parents in the decision
making process regarding how funds
reserved for family involvement are
being spent.
Plan and implement parent
information meetings on the
following topics:
• Maryland School
Assessment Program
• Maryland and MCPS
Standards and Curriculum
• How to Support Reading
and Math at Home
The term “parent” is intended to include parents, guardians, and other family members involved in supervising the child’s schooling.
Attachment I
Title I Private School Partners Meeting
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Title I Conference Room
1:00 p.m.–3:30 p.m.
Outcomes
By the end of the meeting, we will have:

o Reviewed the outcomes and the agenda
o Received a summary of 2006–2007 Title I services
o Discussed the results of the Private School Title I Program Evaluation
o Discussed the program model for Title I services
o Received information about the Complaint Process
o Received an overview of the assessment process and criteria for services
o Reviewed the 2007–2008 budget
o Discussed plans for Family Involvement training for 2007–2008
o Heard administrative updates
o Identified next steps
Time What How Who

(Minutes) (Content) (Process) (Leader)
1:00–1:10 Welcome and Introductions Present Felicia Lanham
10 minutes Outcomes and Agenda Discuss Tarason
Overview of the Title I Program—2006–2007 Joyce Colbert
1:10–1:30 Title I Program Evaluation Present
20 minutes • Share results from 2006–2007 Discuss Joyce Colbert
Felicia Lanham
1:30–1:45 Title I Program Model Present Tarason
15 minutes Decide Joyce Colbert
1:45-2:00 Joyce Colbert
15 minutes Complaint Process Present Eunice Gerring
Discuss
2:00–2:30 Assessment Information
30 minutes • Assessment Process Present Joyce Colbert
• Criteria for receiving service Discuss
Present Felicia Lanham
2:30–3:00 Budget Items Discuss Tarason
30 minutes • PG County funds Clarify Patricia Callahan
• Family Involvement Training Decide Joyce Colbert
3:00–3:15 Administrative Updates Present
15 minutes • Meeting Dates Discuss
• When (day and time)? How often? Clarify All
3:15–3:30 Questions/Answers
15 minutes Next steps Present All
Evaluation meeting Discuss
10-5-07
Attachment I
• Division of Title I Programs

Rockville, Maryland
October 9, 2007
Rabbi David Serkin

Hebrew Day School
1401 Arcola Avenue
Silver Spring, Maryland 20902
Dear Rabbi Serkin:
The first nonpublic administrators' meeting for the 2007-2008 school year has been rescheduled
from Tuesday, October 9, 2007, to Wednesday, October 17, 2007, at Rocking Horse Road
Center, Room 206, from 1:00-3:30 p.m. An e-mail message was sent to you last week with this
information. We have also scheduled an alternate date for the meeting on Tuesday,
October 23, 2007, from 9:30 a.m.-12:00 p.m. to accommodate anyone who cannot attend on
October 17,2007.
An agenda for each meeting is enclosed for your review. As indicated, we will be discussing
• critical components of the Title I services provided at your school. Your input on decisions that
need to be made for this year is critical, especially those regarding the program and budget. We
will also establish the meeting schedule for the remainder of the year. If you cannot attend, we
respectfully request that you designate a representative to come in you place.
Please confirm your attendance with Mrs. Ana Gudiel, secretary, Division of Title I Programs
(DTP), via e-mail to Ana _M_Garcia@mcpsmd.org, or by telephone at 301-230-0660. Again, we
must stress the importance of coming to this initial meeting so that we can identify the ways to
best support the needs of your Title I students. Thank you to those of you who have already
replied to the e-mail message.
We appreciate your understanding and patience in working through the several schedules
changes. If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Mary Rapp, coordinator, or
Mrs. Joyce Colbert, instructional specialist, DTP at 301-230-0660.
• FLT:ag
Enclosures
Copy to:
Mrs. Colbert
Mrs. Gudiel
Ms. Rapp
Mrs. Richardson
Attachment J
Private Schools Timeline
2007-2008
Month Task Person Responsible Completed

July 2007
Obtain list of private schools—church-exempt and State approved (Check Mrs. Joyce Colbert
MSDE website) Mrs. Ana Gudiel
State income guidelines for Free and Reduced Lunch meals Mrs. Ana Gudiel
Prepare labels for all of the private schools serving grades PreK-5 students Mrs. Ana Gudiel
Update poverty survey letter and all of the forms for final approval Mrs. Joyce Colbert
Review and approve the survey letter and forms Ms. Mary Rapp
Develop a grid for monitoring the receipt of the Title I Participation Form from Mrs. Ana Gudiel
each private school
Create a filing system for Title I Participation Forms Mrs. Ana Gudiel
Planning meeting--review all private school requirements and plan Ms. Mary Rapp
administrators’ meeting Mrs. Joyce Colbert
Update and maintain the Private Schools documentation notebook Mrs. Joyce Colbert
August 2007
Send poverty survey information by certified mail—all church exempt and state Mrs. Ana Gudiel
approved private schools in Mont. Co
Maintain a notebook of the Classroom Summary Form from each private school Mrs. Ana Gudiel
Develop Title I teachers’ schedules Mrs. Colbert
Mrs. Lori Duke
Mrs. Jan Gutman
Ms. Diane Frommer
Planning meeting--review all private school requirements and plan Ms. Mary Rapp
administrators’ meeting Mrs. Joyce Colbert
Record data on monitoring grid to indicate return of survey information Mrs. Ana Gudiel
September 2007
Begin providing Title I services for eligible students identified during the Mrs. Lori Duke
previous spring Mrs. Jan Gutman
Ms. Diane Frommer
10-5-07
Attachment J
2007-2008

Plan parent involvement trainings for Session 1 (Nov. and Dec.) Mrs. Joyce Colbert
Mrs. Lori Duke
Mrs. Jan Gutman
Ms. Diane Frommer
Share the complaint process with the private school administrators Dr. Lanham Tarason
Ms. Mary Rapp
Mrs. Joyce Colbert
Share the results of the end-of-the-year evaluation from the previous year Dr. Lanham Tarason
Ms. Mary Rapp
Mrs. Joyce Colbert
Review new referrals for potential students needing reading and/or math Mrs. Lori Duke
support Mrs. Jan Gutman
Ms. Diane Frommer
Assess eligible students to determine need for reading and/or math support Mrs. Lori Duke
Mrs. Jan Gutman
Ms. Diane Frommer
Planning meeting--review all private school requirements and plan monthly Ms. Mary Rapp
administrators’ meetings Mrs. Joyce Colbert
Monthly consultation meeting with private school administrators Dr. Lanham Tarason
Ms. Mary Rapp
Mrs. Joyce Colbert
October 2007
Send a reminder notice to all schools that have not responded to the survey Mrs. Ana Gudiel
information (early October)—indicate
October 31st deadline
Deadline for submitting survey information—October 31st All Mont. Co.
church- exempt or
State approved
private schools
10-5-07
Attachment J
2007-2008

Ms. Diane Frommer
Mrs. Jan Gutman
Ms. Diane Frommer
Ms. Mary Rapp
Mrs. Joyce Colbert
November 2007
Verify addresses from the notebook of the Classroom Summary Form from Mrs. Joyce Colbert
each private school Mrs. Ana Gudiel
Count the number of address eligible students from all of the private schools Mrs. Joyce Colbert
Mrs. Ana Gudiel
Title I Parent Information Meeting Mrs. Joyce Colbert
Mrs. Lori Duke
Mrs. Jan Gutman
Ms. Diane Frommer
Parent interest survey for parent training topics Dr. Lanham Tarason
Ms. Mary Rapp
Mrs. Joyce Colbert
Parent involvement training Mrs. Joyce Colbert
Mrs. Lori Duke
Mrs. Jan Gutman
Ms. Diane Frommer
10-5-07
Attachment J
2007-2008

Consult with the administrators about the service model for the upcoming Mrs. Joyce Colbert
school year Mrs. Lori Duke
Mrs. Jan Gutman
Ms. Diane Frommer
Ms. Diane Frommer
Mrs. Jan Gutman
Ms. Diane Frommer
Ms. Mary Rapp
Mrs. Joyce Colbert
December 2007
Verify addresses from the notebook of the Classroom Summary Form from Mrs. Joyce Colbert
each private school Mrs. Ana Gudiel
Count the number of address eligible students from all of the private schools— Mrs. Joyce Colbert
for budget purposes Mrs. Ana Gudiel
Ms. Diane Frommer
Mrs. Jan Gutman
Ms. Diane Frommer
Planning meeting--review all private school requirements and plan monthly Mrs. Joyce Colbert
administrators’ meetings Mrs. Ana Gudiel
10-5-07
Attachment J
2007-2008

Ms. Mary Rapp
Mrs. Joyce Colbert
January 2008
Share information about Title I schools for the upcoming school year Dr. Lanham Tarason
Ms. Mary Rapp
Mrs. Joyce Colbert
Winter Assessment—student progress monitoring Mrs. Lori Duke
Mrs. Jan Gutman
Ms. Diane Frommer
Mid-year evaluation of the Title I program—parents and school staff Mrs. Joyce Colbert
Mrs. Lori Duke
Mrs. Jan Gutman
Ms. Diane Frommer
Plan parent involvement trainings for Session 2 (March and April) Mrs. Joyce Colbert
Mrs. Lori Duke
Mrs. Jan Gutman
Ms. Diane Frommer
Ms. Diane Frommer
Mrs. Jan Gutman
Ms. Diane Frommer
10-5-07
Attachment J
2007-2008

Ms. Mary Rapp
Mrs. Joyce Colbert
February 2008
Share with the administrators the results of the mid-year Title I Program Dr. Lanham Tarason
evaluation Ms. Mary Rapp
Mrs. Joyce Colbert
Share information about the upcoming ELO summer program--administrators Dr. Lanham Tarason
Ms. Mary Rapp
Mrs. Joyce Colbert
Share information about the upcoming ELO summer program--parents Mrs. Joyce Colbert
Mrs. Lori Duke
Mrs. Jan Gutman
Ms. Diane Frommer
Ms. Diane Frommer
Mrs. Jan Gutman
Ms. Diane Frommer
10-5-07
Attachment J
2007-2008

Ms. Mary Rapp
Mrs. Joyce Colbert
March 2008
Continue to share information about the upcoming ELO summer program-- Mrs. Joyce Colbert
parents Mrs. Lori Duke
Mrs. Jan Gutman
Ms. Diane Frommer
Notify private schools that they will be receiving Title I services and the Dr. Lanham Tarason
number of students generating funds Ms. Mary Rapp
Mrs. Joyce Colbert
Mrs. Lori Duke
Mrs. Jan Gutman
Ms. Diane Frommer
Ms. Diane Frommer
Mrs. Jan Gutman
Ms. Diane Frommer
10-5-07
Attachment J
2007-2008

Ms. Mary Rapp
Mrs. Joyce Colbert
April 2008
Mrs. Lori Duke
Mrs. Jan Gutman
Ms. Diane Frommer
Send invitation letters to students eligible to attend ELO Mrs. Joyce Colbert
Plan parent involvement trainings for summer activities session Mrs. Joyce Colbert
Mrs. Lori Duke
Mrs. Jan Gutman
Ms. Diane Frommer
Ms. Diane Frommer
Mrs. Jan Gutman
Ms. Diane Frommer
10-5-07
Attachment J
2007-2008

Ms. Mary Rapp
Mrs. Joyce Colbert
May 2008
Spring Assessment—student progress monitoring Mrs. Lori Duke
Mrs. Jan Gutman
Ms. Diane Frommer
Discuss assessment materials for the upcoming school year Dr. Lanham Tarason
Ms. Mary Rapp
Mrs. Joyce Colbert
Discuss the purchase of instructional materials for the upcoming school year Dr. Lanham Tarason
Ms. Mary Rapp
Mrs. Joyce Colbert
Parent involvement training—summer activities Mrs. Joyce Colbert

Mrs. Lori Duke
Mrs. Jan Gutman
Ms. Diane Frommer
End-of-the-year Title I Program evaluation—parents and school staff Dr. Lanham Tarason
Ms. Mary Rapp
Mrs. Joyce Colbert
10-5-07
Attachment J
2007-2008

Schedule the first administrators’ meeting for the upcoming school year Dr. Lanham Tarason
Ms. Mary Rapp
Mrs. Joyce Colbert
Ms. Diane Frommer
Mrs. Jan Gutman
Ms. Diane Frommer
Ms. Mary Rapp
Mrs. Joyce Colbert
June 2008
Update all assessment data and file student folders Mrs. Lori Duke
Mrs. Jan Gutman
Ms. Diane Frommer
Compile end-of-the-year Title I Program evaluation data Mrs. Joyce Colbert
Meet with administrators and Title I teachers to identify students who will Mrs. Joyce Colbert
receive Title I support at the beginning of the upcoming school year Mrs. Lori Duke
Mrs. Jan Gutman
Ms. Diane Frommer
10-5-07
Attachment K
• I am an administrator
buuudaries QfTitic I schools

1\ FFlI{i\) ,\'I10i\' OF C Oi\Sl' LTATION
I'/\nTICIPATING TITLE II'RI\'r\ I I':SCIIOOLS
of The Torah School,
of Montgomery
Ii
County
privale school willI qualified
Public Schools (MCf'S).

students living within
I hereby affinn
attendance
that in a series of
meetings, MCPS and The Ton1h School engaged in meaningful consultation about Till~ I, Parr A oftbe No Child
Left Behind Act uf2001 (NCl..B Act) For the 2008-2009 school year;
TOPICS DISClISSLD Row, where, and by whom MCPS will pruvide

5crvicC5, iucluding whether. third party will provide
them:
How MCPS will detetmin" the number or private
• Highly qualified MCPS teachcrs will provide
school children who will receive 5crvice,:
scrvicc:s 10 iucnuficd sludc:nlS throusJI direct
• Every year, parent income surveys will be
instruction, individually or in :;mall groups
mailed to all private schools in Montgomery
• Services will be provided l\1 the private school
County
site
• Schools will return income data and attendance
• Schedules will be developed wilb tbe individual
area informalion by the deadline established by
schools to determine thc amount of time ror
the Maryland State Department of Bducalion.
services at me schools based on the process
October 31, 2008
d<:scribe in thiS document
• The nmount of services to be provided [0 the
• Tbe llse of third·party providers to d;eliver
schools is based on the number of student'l from
SCI'\Iiccs wag dilicUSlled by MCPS and private
low. income fornilie.~ who live within the
schools and both parties agreed by consensus
boundaries of MCPS Tirle I llChools
•
not to pursue this option at this time
• Services will be provided to students who
demonstrate ::Lcademie need and live within the
hound:uics of MCfS Tille 1 schools -
How MCrS will academically usess the services, and

how M(;P~ will use the results of tbat IS5e8Sment to
improve Title I services:
How MCPS wlllidentiry student 1l~lldeml~need:
• Assessments for ReadinglLanguage Arts
Selection of students will be based on multiple criteria:
Grades K
• Classroom 1eacher recommendation with
Foundational Skills
principal sign-off
"'Letter identification
• Report card dl\tn "'Conccpls About Print
• Agreed upon 88scssmenlS to detennine *High Frequency Word!'l
academic needs as defined in this document
'"Phonemic Awareness
• Rcview of aSScSliment data and other criteria ·Dictation/Writing Vocabulary
>It ilh a team comprised of principal, Title r "Rulming Records
teacher, and Division of Title I Programs
instructional specialist Grades I-S
Harcourt Benchmark AssessmenlS
"'Oral Reading Fluency
Huw alld when MCPS will make decision. about the *Reading Comprehension
delivery uf 5ervlces: "'Vocabulary 8nd Word Analysis
• School lluminislralOrS will be invited to attend "Writing Conventions
regularly scheduled rnecliu¥li (minimum of S) to ·Writing to a Prompt
discuss the types and amount of' sc:rvices to their
schools will be Uillcusscd • Assessments for Mathematics
• Collaborative effort by MCPS and Grades K Math Achiellers
administrators of private schools to finl1li:£c "'Number Sense>-to demonstrate an
decisions about Title I scrvic~ fur the next understanding of" general number
•
school year know ledge
"Basic Operations-understanding of
mathematiool operations·addition,
I
l"d 1759121I21E21I21E:0.1 SSL52951121E ~3~~ ~O lOOHJS H~~Ol:WO~~ E2:21 i 81211212-9-Nnr

•
subtraction, multiplication, and The senic:es MCPS will give families of participating
division students;
Gradl: 1-5 Mlllhlclicli PrcIPost Assessments • Regular parent meetings including Title I
'"Number Sense information and strategies on how to help their
lilBasicOperations children at home with general study habitS in
• Frequency of Assessments re.1.dinglll1nguagearts and mathematics
Reading: twice per year (fall and spring); winter • Regular parent meetings will begin with the
llSscssments given when needed parents of currently identified Title J students
Mathematics: two times per year (fall and
spring)
(001'1- le\ riOI' In SCIIOOL
• Maintain portfolio for each identi lied student
By choosing to p;J.rtieiplIlein Title J. Pan A of the NCLB
and collect work samples to show progress over
time
Act, thc private school a,,"'ee~to provide all imormation
necessary to comply wilh program requirements
• Dab reviewed by Title I teachers, classroom
including, but not limited to, the names and (iddresses of'
teachers and administrators at regularly
the eligible srudentll enrolled in the school who reside
scheduled meetings
within the MCPS boundarie~. J also agree to develop
• Work with classroom teachers to alio'TITitle I such plans and give s\lch other reports lIS Inandated by
support with classroom instruction at regularly the program in which we will participate.
scheduled meerings
~1t;~A Il RE (W Al IIIOIHZFI) 01-1It 1.\1
The size aDd scope of the sllnices that MCPS will

provlde, :lRd the proportioD of funds that MCPS will
allocate for those services:
• The services provided to the private schools will
be based on the amount of available funds
generated by eligible studenL~, based on
residency in a Title I public school attendance
• •
•
area and income eligibiliry
Assessments will be wed to determine the
academic: need of recommended students who
must still meet the residency requirement
The MCPS teacher(s) will provide in~l:ruetionto
the identified Title J students as individual!; or
in small groups
Dill:
Tor.,/...~~,(
NlIm~ or:S~lIool
~I:) 1-
(J
'1' r7Jt?
~ 6"",~~(j,J'~
p~
Tcillphone Number
• Students who receive Title J services will be
eligible to ntrend an Extended Learning
Opportunities Program Summer Adventures in
Lc;J.ming(HLO-SAIL) in July of2009
What inlilrudional maferlals will MCPS utilize;

• Reading-Grndes 1(·3: Phonemic
Awareness/Phonics (Phonic.<;/Wo1'd Study)
• Readins.........<Jrades
1-5 Vocabulary/
Fluency/Comprohension (Eal'/Y Suct.:ess and
Soar To Succe.\·.\~
• Mntherrultics-Gradell K.5: Number Sense,
Basic Operations, Algebrn, Geomctry, Mental
Milth. Meosurcmcnt, Problem Solving
(Math/cries an4 Houghton Mifflin)
The .Yervic:es MCPS will give teachcrs or participating

students:
• Title I tcachers will share in:ltructional strategies
with the privatc lSCboolclassroom teachers
•
2"d 176900E210E:01 ££L629610E ~3~8 ~O lOOHJS H~~Ol:WO~~ 172:21 8002-9-Nnr
subtraction, multiplication, and The services MCPS will give families of participating
•
division students:
Grade 1-5 Mathletics Pre/Post Assessments • Regular parent meetings including Title I
*Number Sense information and strategies on how to help their
*Basic Operations children at home with general study habits in
• Frequency of Assessments reading/language arts and mathematics
assessments given when needed parents of currently identified Title I students
spring) COOPERATION BY SCHOOL
• Maintain portfolio for each identified student By choosing to participate in Title L Part A of the NCLB
and collect work samples to show progress over Act, the private school agrees to provide all information
time necessary to comply with program requirements
• Data reviewed by Title I teachers, classroom including, but not limited to, the names and addresses of
teachers and administrators at regularly the eligible students enrolled in the school who reside
scheduled meetings within the MCPS boundaries. I also agree to develop
• Work with classroom teachers to align Title I such plans and give such other reports as mandated by
scheduled meetings
SIG:\'xrURE OF ALTHORIZEI> OFFICIAL
The size and scope of the services that MCPS will

provide, and the proportion of funds that MCPS will
generated by eligible students, based on
eM Ca(L(I
Name of Private School Official
•
area and income eligibility {p/qJ....=:...-c:D'6 _
• Assessments will be used to determine the Date t
academic need of recommended students who
must still meet the residency requirement S2r. MirheA.
Name of School
I
f
~ '/feY Spdna_
'--J--
• The MCPS teacher(s) will provide instruction to
the identified Title I students as individuals or COI- 5'6~-(pg 73
in small groups Telephone Number
• Students who receive Title I services will be
eligible to attend an Extended Learning
Learning (ELO-SAIL) in July of 2009
What instructional materials will MCPS utilize:

• Reading-Grades K-3: Phonemic
Awareness/Phonics (Phonics/Word Study)
• Reading-Grades 1-5 Vocabulary/
Fluency/Comprehension (Early Success and
Soar To Success)
• Mathematics-Grades K-5: Number Sense,
Basic Operations, Algebra, Geometry, Mental
Math, Measurement, Problem Solving
(Mathletics and Houghton Mifflin)
The services MCPS will give teachers of participating

students:
• Title I teachers will share instructional strategies
• with the private school classroom teachers

•• •
division
Grade 1-5 Mathletics Pre/Post Assessments
*Number Sense
*Basic Operations
Frequency of Assessments
Reading: twice per year (fall and spring); winter
students:
• Regular parent meetings including Title I
information and strategies on how to help their
children at home with general study habits in
reading/language arts and mathematics
• Regular parent meetings will begin with the
spring) COOPERATlO:\ BY SCHOOL
scheduled meetings
SICl\A1TRE OF AllTHORIZED OFFICIAL

allocate for those services: e of Authorized Private School Official
~J,~ ts.)~,-h
•
area and income eligibility ::1---1}" 1
• Assessments will be used to determine the Date
must still meet the residency requirement ~T C041 ,) / "'..(
Name of School
the identified Title I students as individuals or

Soar To Success)

students:

•
division students:
spring) COOPER,\TlON BY SCIIOOL
• Maintain portfolio for each identified student By choosing to participate in Title !, Part A of the NCLB
scheduled meetings
SIG:\XITRE OF ALTIIORIZED OFFICIAL

generated by eligible students, based on MR-~V f..t..l,f tJ \J6'< D A A1
•
area and income eligibility -!Uf\e q I ZOOc:&
must still meet the residency requirement 5-1. \Jude <School
Name of School
in small groups
3c>\" qy~"195g
Telephone Number
)t q
Learning (ELO-SAIL) in July of2009

Soar To Success)

students:

•
division students:
spring) COOPEIUTIO\ BY SCHOOL
scheduled meetings
SIG\,\Tl'RE OF Al;THORIZED OFFICIAL

provide, and the proportion of funds that MCPS will f~~O A J tJ 1)11'y1~,P?YJ1:t~-VL,
allocate for those services: Signatu e of Authorized Private School Official
M It 12./Ii N r0'f, H00 f.,£
•
area and income eligibility roff/lf) B
must still meet the residency requirement Sf. J0 h}ll
Name of School
---rhL BccetL-ct
the identified Title I students as individuals or 3:J/~ 1022- ,~n7(o

Soar To Success)

students:
__I
•
•
division students:
spring) COOPERATIO:\' BY SCHOOL
scheduled meetings
SIG:\'ATURE OF AUTHORIZED OFFICIAL

L ()
•
area and income eligibility t,/<t!Of('
must still meet the residency requirement st. C a. t h.e..
Name of School
t"" ~ '" e.., L c...b OUre (
in small groups
( 3D t)
Telephone Number
~ t/-tc - ('7, 7

Soar To Success)

students:

,
•
division students:
spring) COOPERATION BY SCHOOL
scheduled meetings
SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED OFFICIAL

'~~~5> 5e"~,,J
• •
•
area and income eligibility
Assessments will be used to determine the
must still meet the residency requirement
The MCPS teacher(s) will provide instruction to
~,,~
Date
Na~~~
'-t I ~9
30 t--b ~ q-)1{OQ
S-~.l
Learning (ELO-?AIL) in July of2009

Soar To Success)

students:
•
with the private school classroom teachers
Attachment L
Districtwide Title I Programs

Math Content Coach, Gifted and Talented Teacher, and Supplemental English Speakers of
Other Languages/English Speakers of Other Languages Support Teacher Projects
2008–2009 School Year
Districtwide teacher position application process and memorandum of understanding

• Title I principals participated in an information meeting on Friday, May 30, 2008, to
review updated guidance regarding the Math Content Coach (MCC), Gifted and Talented
Teacher (GT), supplemental English Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL)/ESOL
support teacher project and options available through the districtwide program.
• Title I principals will meet with their school improvement plan (SIP) team to
develop/review the school’s needs assessment based on an analysis of school data to
determine if the school wishes to participate and which combination of districtwide MCC
and GT teacher positions best meet the needs of their students
• Districtwide program–principals were asked to select one of the following options based
on data and input from SIP team:
o 0.5 full time equivalent (FTE) MCC and 0.5 FTE GT teacher
o 1.0 FTE MCC
o 1.0 FTE GT teacher
o Elect not to participate in the districtwide teacher program
Principals will complete the letter of agreement which will be used to notify the Division of Title
I Programs (DTP) of their decision. Districtwide Title I positions will be allocated to schools
based on the information in the agreement. A memorandum of understanding (MOU) detailing
roles and responsibilities will be prepared by DTP and signed by the principals, MCC, GT
teacher, supplemental ESOL/ESOL support teacher and Dr. Felicia Lanham Tarason, director,
DTP.
If schools choose not to participate in the program, the reserved funds will be redistributed to all
schools on a per Free and Reduced-Price Meals Systems pupil basis.
MCPS Districtwide Program
The MCPS Title I districtwide teacher program supports schools with very high poverty rates,
from 55.02 percent to 88.59 percent, along with one maintenance of effort school at 50.0 percent.
In order to meet the significant needs of our highly diverse student population, including record
numbers of English language learners, the model focuses on the impact of poverty, language
barriers, and high mobility rates. The Title I districtwide teacher program is a key factor in the
sustained success of our Title I schools and, most importantly, of our students, as demonstrated
by achievement data. There have been no Title I schools in improvement for the past three
years.
Attachment L
For the 2008-2009 school year only, districtwide Title I staffing is allocated as follows:
• Base allocation of 1.5 full-time equivalent (FTE) positions

• Differentiated allocation of an additional 0.5 position aligned with ESOL student
enrollment
DTP uses a proficiency based formula to allocate supplemental ESOL or ESOL support teachers
as a component of the districtwide teacher program.
• Each beginning ESOL student (Level 1) is counted twice.

• Each intermediate ESOL student (Level 2) and advanced ESOL student (Level 3) is
counted once.
• All three levels are totaled to achieve the ESOL proficiency number.
• The ESOL proficiency total is divided by 52 to achieve a ratio of 52:1.
• The base supplemental ESOL/ESOL support teacher allocation is 0.5 FTEs.
• Schools with a total of more than 52 receive an additional 0.5 FTE.
The Title I ESOL/ESOL support teacher allocation is provided in addition to the district's ESOL
teacher allocation. The district allocation is also formula based, but counts only the actual
number of ESOL students and is not linked to proficiency levels.
Districtwide allocations are used as math content coaches, gifted and talented teachers, ESOL, or
ESOL support teachers. Schools review data and determine how to allocate positions, with a
minimum of a 0.5 FTE assigned to support English language learners. Professional development,
mentoring, and supplemental support are provided for individual teachers as well as for cohort
groups.
Supplemental ESOL/ESOL Support teachers provide additional small group English language
instruction for students included in the limited English proficient subgroup on the Maryland
State Assessment.
DTP uses a proficiency based formula to allocate supplemental ESOL or ESOL support teachers
as a component of the districtwide teacher program.
• Each beginning ESOL student (Level 1) is counted twice.

• Each intermediate ESOL student (Level 2) and advanced ESOL student (Level 3) is
counted once.
• All three levels are totaled to achieve the ESOL proficiency number.
• The ESOL proficiency total is divided by 52 to achieve a ratio of 52:1.
• The base supplemental ESOL/ESOL support teacher allocation is 0.5 FTEs.
• Schools with a total of more than 52 receive an additional 0.5 FTE.
The Title I ESOL/ESOL support teacher allocation is provided in addition to the district's ESOL
teacher allocation. The district allocation is also formula based, but counts only the actual
number of ESOL students and is not linked to proficiency levels.
Attachment L
Staffing
• Principals will notify DTP of MCC, GT teacher, and supplemental ESOL/ESOL support
teacher vacancies
• DTP administrator will post vacancies on the Montgomery County Public Schools
(MCPS) Vacancy Database
• Applicant resumes will be reviewed by DTP, principal, and appropriate administrators
from the Office of Curriculum and Instructional Programs (OCIP)
• An interview panel consisting of representatives from DTP, OCIP and school based
administrators and teachers will be convened
• Interview panel members will rank candidates
• DTP director will assign staff in collaboration with school administrators
• If there are not enough highly qualified candidates to fill vacancies in districtwide
positions, the highly qualified candidates will be assigned to the highest poverty schools
in rank order
Processing of payroll for districtwide MCC, GT teacher, and supplemental ESOL/ESOL
support teacher positions
• Ms. Ana Gudiel, DTP secretary, will send timesheets for all districtwide teacher positions
to principal or designee at the beginning of the pay period via pony.
• Principal or designee will distribute the timesheets to the MCC, GT teacher, and/or
supplemental ESOL/ESOL support teacher.
• Principals are responsible for ensuring that timesheets are completed accurately. The
principal will initial the completed timesheets. All timesheets for districtwide positions
must be faxed to the Title I office by Thursday noon prior to the end of the pay
period.
• Principal or designee will send an email to Ms. Gudiel and Mr. Tung Do, data systems
operator, indicating that the timesheets were faxed. An acknowledgement reply email
will be sent when fax is received.
• Principal or designee is responsible for sending the original timesheets to Ms. Gudiel via
pony following the end of the pay period, preferably on the Monday following the end of
the pay period. Upon receipt, Ms. Gudiel will send a confirmation email.
Distribution of pay vouchers for districtwide Title I staff members who do not participate in
direct payroll deposit will be distributed at the DTP office at Rocking Horse Road Center.
Leave slips
• MCC, GT teachers, and supplemental ESOL/ESOL support teachers submit leave slips to
the principal or designee for initial approval
• Principal or designee will initial all leave slips and return to the teacher
• MCC, GT teachers, and supplemental ESOL/ESOL support teachers will fax leave slips
to the attention of Ms. Gudiel
• Dr. Lanham Tarason, or designee, will sign the leave slip
• Ms. Gudiel will send an email to the teacher when the leave is approved
• Original hard copies of leave slips signed by the MCC, GT teacher, and supplemental
ESOL/ESOL support teachers and initialed by the principal, must accompany the
original timesheets sent in the pony
Attachment L
Observations/Evaluations
Central office representatives, including staff in the Division of Accelerated and Enriched
Instruction, OCIP, and DTP, will work in collaboration with school administrators to conduct
observations and complete evaluations of Title I MCCs, GT teachers, and supplemental
ESOL/ESOL support teachers. The MCPS Professional Growth System will serve as the basis
for teacher observations and evaluation.
Documentation
School based training and coaching sessions for the MCC, GT and supplemental ESOL/ESOL
support teachers must be documented.
• MCC and GT teachers will collect and maintain documentation for training conducted at
the school
• Documentation needed for group school based training sessions includes a Sign-in sheet,
Agenda, Notes or handouts, and Evaluation (SANE)
• Ongoing coaching sessions must be documented in plan books or on logs and be
available for audits by MSDE or United States Department of Education
• MCC or GT teachers will regularly provide required documentation to the Title I
instructional specialists
• School documentation notebooks maintained in the DTP office will include
documentation related to the work of the MCC or GT teacher
• Title I instructional specialists will be responsible for placing documentation in the
documentation notebooks maintained in DTP
• A calendar for observations and evaluations by DTP administrators and content area
supervisors will be developed in order to monitor the districtwide positions in the schools
School Improvement Plan

Schools participating in the districtwide program will include information regarding the focused
use of the positions in relationship to the needs of students, staff, and parents in the school
improvement plan. Information regarding training, duties, and/or activities of staff in these
positions may be included in the action plans, the professional development plan, in the family
involvement plan, or in other appropriate areas.
Attachment L
ACTION DUE: June 2, 2008
Principal Intent to Participate in the Districtwide Title I Optional Program

2008–2009 School Year
School: ________________________________
Principal: ________________________________
The Montgomery County Public Schools Division of Title I Programs (DTP) will implement an
optional districtwide program for the 2008–2009 school year. This program is funded through a
Title I central reservation and is available to all schoolwide Title I schools. In order to
participate in the districtwide Title I program, schools must agree to the roles and responsibilities
and processes described in the attached job specific Memoranda of Understanding. Participation
in the program is voluntary.
Please check one box below indicating which districtwide teacher position(s) your school is
requesting. School requests should be based on an analysis of school data, and a school
improvement team decision.
0.5 FTE math content coach and

0.5 FTE gifted and talented teacher
1.0 FTE gifted and talented teacher
1.0 FTE math content coach
I do not wish to participate.
If you request a MCC or GT teacher, the attached job specific Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) needs to be completed and submitted to Dr. Felicia Lanham Tarason, director, DTP prior
to the position being allocated to the school.
_______________________________ _________________________
Signature of School Principal Signature Date
ATTACHMENT 8 TITLE II, PART A
PREPARING, TRAINING AND RECRUITING
HIGH-QUALITY TEACHERS AND PRINCIPALS
Local School System: Montgomery County Fiscal Year 2009

Title II-A Coordinator James J Virga
Telephone: : 301-601-0300 E-mail: James_J_Virga@mcpsmd.org
A. PERFORMANCE GOALS, INDICATORS, AND TARGETS. In the October 1, 2003 submission of the
five-year comprehensive master plan, school systems provided an analysis of the teacher quality
performance indicators detailed in Table 8-1. MSDE has established performance targets as part of the
September 2003 Consolidated State Application submission to the United States Department of
Education (USDE). Although local school systems do not need to respond to this section as part of the
Master Plan Annual Update, local planning teams should review the teacher quality information to
determine progress in meeting State and local performance targets. School systems should use the
annual review of the teacher quality data to determine allowable Title II, Part A activities as well as to
revise goals, objectives, and/or strategies in the Master Plan that relate to improving teacher quality.
Table 8-1 IMPROVING TEACHER CAPACITY AND QUALITY

PERFORMANCE GOALS, INDICATORS, AND TARGETS
Performance Goal Performance Indicators Performance Targets
Performance Goal 3: By 3.1 The percentage of classes being taught by Percentage of Classes Taught by Highly
2005-2006, all students will "highly qualified" teachers (as the term is Qualified Teachers State Aggregate*
be taught by highly defined in section 9101(23) of the 2002-2003 Baseline: 64.5
qualified teachers. ESEA), in the aggregate and in "high 2003-2004 Target: 65
poverty" schools (as the term is defined 2004-2005 Target: 75
in section 1111(h)(1)(C)(viii) of the 2005-2006 Target: 100
ESEA.
Percentage of Classes Taught by Highly
Qualified Teachers in High Poverty Schools*
2002-2003 Baseline: 46.6
2003-2004 Target: 48
2004-2005 Target: 65
2005-2006 Target: 100
3.2 The percentage of teachers receiving Percentage of Teachers Receiving High-

"high-quality professional development” Quality Professional Development*
(as the term "professional development" 2002-2003 Baseline: 33
is defined in section 9101(34). 2003-2004 Target: 40
2004-2005 Target: 65
2005-2006 Target: 90
3.3 The percentage of paraprofessionals Percentage of Qualified Title I

who are qualified (See criteria in section Paraprofessionals*
1119(c) and (d). 2002-2003 Baseline: 21
2003-2004 Target: 30
2004-2005 Target: 65
2005-2006 Target: 100
*Note: MSDE will collect data. The local school system does not have to respond.
B. ALLOWABLE ACTIVITIES [Section 2123]. For all allowable activities that will be implemented,
(a) provide a brief description of services, (b) timelines or target dates, (c) the specific goals, objectives,
and/or strategies detailed in the 5-year comprehensive Bridge to Excellence Master Plan, and (d) the
amount of funding for services to public and nonpublic students and teachers. Use separate pages as
necessary for descriptions.
1. Strategies and Activities to Recruit and Hire Highly Qualified Teachers and Principals
Allowable Activities Brief Description of Specific Public Nonpublic

Services, Timelines or Target Dates, and School Costs
Specific Goals, Objectives, and Strategies Costs
Detailed in the 5-year Comprehensive
Bridge to Excellence Master Plan, and
Any Revisions to the Plan As Part of This
Annual Update, Including Page Numbers
1.1 Developing and implementing mechanisms to assist

schools to effectively recruit and retain highly qualified
teachers, principals, and specialists in core academic
areas (and other pupil services personnel in special
circumstances) [section 2123(a)(1)].
1.2 Developing and implementing strategies and

activities to recruit, hire, and retain highly qualified
teachers and principals. These strategies may include (a)
providing monetary incentives such as scholarships,
signing bonuses, or differential pay for teachers in
academic subjects or schools in which the LEA has
shortages*; (b) reducing class size; (c) recruiting
teachers to teach special needs children, and (d)
recruiting qualified paraprofessionals and teachers from
populations underrepresented in the teaching profession,
and providing those paraprofessionals with alternative
routes to obtaining teacher certification [section
2123(a)(2)].
*Note: Because the purpose of Title II-A is to increase
student achievement, programs that provide teachers and
principals with merit pay, pay differential, and/or
monetary bonuses should be linked to measurable
increases in student academic achievement produced by
the efforts of the teacher or principal [section 2101(1)].
1.3 Hiring highly qualified teachers, including teachers who

become highly qualified through State and local
alternative routes to certification, and special education
teachers, in order to reduce class size, particularly in the
early grades [section 2123(a)(7)].
B. ALLOWABLE ACTIVITIES [Section 2123], Continued.
2. Strategies and Activities to Improve the Quality of the Teaching Force

Services, Timelines or Target Dates, School Costs
and Specific Goals, Objectives, and Costs
Strategies Detailed in the 5-year
Comprehensive Bridge to Excellence
Master Plan, and Any Revisions to
the Plan As Part of This Annual
Update, Including Page Numbers
In an effort to meet the needs of our $476,487 $128,436
2.1 Providing professional development activities that teachers, MCPS has committed to
improve the knowledge of teachers and principals and, improve the quality of teaching by
in appropriate cases, paraprofessionals, in: implementing a professional growth
(a) Content knowledge. Providing training in one or system. One of the key components of
more of the core academic subjects that the teachers the system is the Skillful Teacher
teach; Coursework, a thirty-six hour course
(b) Classroom practices. Providing training to improve offered to all of our teachers. The
teaching practices and student academic achievement coursework focuses on research-based
through (a) effective instructional strategies, methods, strategies that address both the science
and skills; (b) the use of challenging State academic and the art of the teaching practice and
content standards and student academic achievement on meeting the goal of a quality
standards in preparing students for the State teacher in each and every classroom.
assessments. [section 2123(a)(3)(A)]. Specifically, the Skillful Teaching
Course focuses on:
• Providing participants with the
time to examine and understand
the knowledge base of teaching
• Provide opportunities to cultivate
collegiality and experimentation
in the areas of motivation,
personal relationship building,
beliefs, and expectations.
• Expanding the repertoire of
instructional strategies and skills
for effective peer support to
support student learning.

2.2 Provide professional development activities that

improve the knowledge of teachers and principals, and,
in appropriate cases, paraprofessionals, regarding
effective instructional practices that –
• Involve collaborative groups of teachers and
administrators;
• Address the needs of students with different
learning styles, particularly students with
disabilities, students with special needs (including
students who are gifted and talented), and students
with limited English proficiency;
• Provide training in improving student behavior in
the classroom and identifying early and appropriate
interventions to help students with special needs;
• Provide training to enable teachers and principals to
involve parents in their children’s education,
especially parents of limited English proficient and
immigrant children; and
• Provide training on how to use data and
assessments to improve classroom practice and
student learning [section 2123(a)(3)(B)].

2.3 Carrying out professional development programs that

are designed to improve the quality of principals and
superintendents, including the development and
support of academies to help them become
outstanding managers and educational leaders [section
2123(a)(6)].
3. Strategies and Activities to Retain and Provide Support to Highly Qualified Teachers and Principals
As outlined under section 2.1 above, $3,672,598
3.1 Developing and implementing initiatives to promote the professional growth system in
retention of highly qualified teachers and principals, MCPS utilizes a number of strategies 28 FTE
particularly in schools with a high percentage of low- to improve teaching and learning. The teachers
achieving students, including programs that provide Consulting Teacher Program seeks to including
teacher mentoring, induction, and support for new support teachers as follows: The benefits
teachers and principals during their first three years; Consulting Teacher Team works as
and financial incentives for teachers and principals part of the Peer Assistance and Review
with a record of helping students to achieve (PAR) Program within the Teacher
academic success [section 2123(a)(4)]. Professional Growth System.
Consulting Teachers are assigned to
support novice and underperforming
teachers in meeting the system’s six
Teacher Evaluation Performance
Standards. The normal period of
support is one school year, but the
PAR Panel has the option of
authorizing a second year when
appropriate. The Consulting Teachers’
primary responsibilities are:
• Providing intensive,
individualized instructional
support and resources to
teachers.
• Documenting teachers’
performance relative to the
performance standards.
• Presenting data to inform the
PAR Panel’s employment
recommendations.
3.2 Carrying out programs and activities that are designed

to improve the quality of the teaching force, such as
innovative professional development programs that
focus on technology literacy, tenure reform, testing
teachers in the academic subject in which teachers
teach, and merit pay programs. [section 2123(a)(5)].
3.3 Carrying out teacher advancement initiatives that

promote professional growth and emphasize multiple
career paths (such as paths to becoming a mentor
teacher, career teacher, or exemplary teacher) and pay
differentiation [section 2123(a)(8)].
$4,149,085
TOTAL TITLE II-A FUNDING AMOUNTS $128,436
C. HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHERS

1. Given your school system’s analysis of data on highly qualified teachers in core
academic subjects, describe how these strategies and activities will directly contribute
to attracting and retaining highly qualified teachers in the core academic subjects at
the elementary and secondary level.
See Attachment A
2. If applicable, describe how these strategies and activities will contribute to

reducing the gap between high poverty and low poverty schools with respect to
the percentage of core academic classes taught by highly qualified teachers.
See Attachment B
D. ANNUAL CERTIFICATION OF EQUITABLE SERVICES TO STUDENTS IN PRIVATE

(NONPUBLIC) SCHOOLS [ESEA, SECTION 9501]:
1. Participating Private Schools and Services: Complete information in Attachment 6 regarding the
names of participating private schools and the number of private school staff that will benefit from
the Title II-A services.
Services are made available to all non-public schools in Montgomery County. See Attachment 6A
for a listing of participating schools.
2. Describe the school system's process for providing equitable participation to students in private
schools:
a) The manner and extent of consultation with the officials of interested private schools during
all phases of the development and design of the Title II-A services;
Consultations include the following activities:
• Orientation meeting for all non-public schools

• Distribution of survey of interests and needs to all non-public schools
• Mailing of informational and administrative materials for participation in the program to all
non-public schools
• Telephone and written contacts for follow-up with interested schools
b) The basis for determining the professional development needs of private school teachers and
other staff;
Each private school determines their staff development activities based on their student and staff
needs. We provide all schools with a survey to assist in the identification of their needs. MCPS
uses the survey to plan for the Title II-A services to schools.
c) How services, location of services, and grade levels or areas of services were decided and
agreed upon; and
Services for private schools are provided based on the request(s) of each school.
d) The differences, if any, between the Title II-A services that will be provided to public and
private school students and teachers, and the reasons for any differences. (Note: The school
system provides services on an equitable basis to private school children whether or not the
services are the same Title II-A services the district provides to the public school children.
The expenditures for such services, however, must be equal -- consistent with the number of
children served -- to Title II-A services provided to public school children.)
Each private school determines its own needs as does each of the public schools through school
improvement planning. Title II-A funds are determined by the number of students served by the
school. Therefore, no differences exist between services offered by public and non-public schools.
D. BUDGET INFORMATION AND NARRATIVE
E. ATTACHMENTS 4-A and B, 5-A and B, and 6-A and B
Please see Attachment 5 for the transfer of funds from Title IV to Title II A
Bridge To Excellence - Attachment 8 Attachment A
Title II A
1. In Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS), Title II A grant activities focus on two
primary areas, the Consulting Teacher Project and professional development provided through
the Center for Skillful Teaching, both of which are projects under the umbrella of the Office of
Organizational Development (OOD). OOD works to pursue the goals of the MCPS Strategic
Plan through building the capacity of all staff. Primary among these efforts are projects that are
designed to support excellent instruction delivered by highly-qualified teachers.
The Consulting Teacher Team works as part of the MCPS Peer Assistance and Review (PAR)
Program within the Teacher Professional Growth System. Consulting Teachers are assigned to
support novice and underperforming teachers throughout the district in meeting the system’s six
Teacher Evaluation Performance Standards. The normal period of support is one school year,
but the PAR Panel has the option of authorizing a second year when appropriate. The
Consulting Teachers’ primary responsibilities are:
• Providing intensive, individualized instructional support and resources to teachers.

• Documenting teachers’ performance relative to the performance standards.
The consulting teachers present data to inform the PAR Panel’s employment recommendations.
The annual client satisfaction feedback from teachers is highly favorable.
Goal 4 of the Call to Action Plan includes strategies to “create a positive work environment in a
self-renewing organization.” One element under this goal is the implementation of three
professional growth systems, one of which is the Teacher Professional Growth System.
MCPS believes that providing support is a key strategy for attracting and retaining highly-
qualified teachers. Offering a comprehensive new educator induction program entices teachers
to work in MCPS and encourages them to remain in the district. In addition to the Consulting
Teacher project described previously, new MCPS teachers are eligible for other types of support,
new educator orientation, mentoring support, continuing professional development courses, and
tuition reimbursement. MCPS invests funds in these programs outside of the grant because the
programs support our strategic plan and contribute to the goal of attracting and retaining a
quality workforce.
The efforts of the Consulting Teacher Project and the Center for Skillful Teaching are clearly
having a positive impact on teacher retention. Table 8.3 shows the retention data for new
teachers in MCPS. The percentage of new teachers leaving the system has steadily declined
since FY 2001. The decline in the turnover rate coincides with the MCPS implementation of the
consulting teacher and skillful teaching projects in FY 2001. Since the inception of the
consulting teacher program, every novice teacher in MCPS has received consulting teacher
support and data shows that the program is helping teachers to be successful.
Since the consulting teacher program was instituted:
4051 new teachers received PAR support from September 2000-June 2008.
Title II A
3385 of these teachers were successfully released to the Professional Growth Cycle at the end of
their first year.
These data indicate that more than 83% of new teachers are successfully meeting standard, with
consulting teacher support, after the first year. The teachers that are not meeting standard after
year one are provided with additional support.
The skillful teacher project has provided Studying Skillful Teaching 1 (SST1) to 5,278 teachers
and Studying Skillful Teaching 2 (SST2) to 1174 teachers. The data on course effectiveness
shows that the course and the participants are meeting the objectives.
• Consistently, more than 90 percent of participants are satisfied with the course.
• Summarizers indicate that participants are mastering the objectives of the course. In order
to successfully complete each course, participants must demonstrate job-embedded
application of the content.
The grant activities mentioned above are further supplemented and strengthened through inter-
project collaboration under the Office of Organizational Development umbrella. For example,
there is extensive collaboration between the Consulting Teacher and the New Educator
Orientation projects. The CPD Project provides a variety of opportunities for continuing
professional development. Tuition Reimbursement provides financial support for personal
professional development and the Skillful Teacher Project supports a standards-based
professional growth system for teachers and administrators. Further details on the Skillful
Teacher Project can be obtained at the following link:
http://www.mcps.k12.md.us/departments/development/teams/skillful/skillful.shtm
As a whole, the comprehensive strategies in the MCPS Call to Action Plan continue to show
results. The number of classes taught by highly qualified teachers continues to increase year by
year as shown in Tables 8.1 and 8.2. In FY 2009 we will continue to refine and expand our
strategies. We will further seek to foster and expand our alliance with our university partners,
showing preference to programs that will produce candidates with dual certification in high
priority areas.
Title II A
Table 8.1: Highly Qualified Teachers

School Year % of Core Academic Subject Classes % of Core Academic Subject Classes
Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers Taught by Teachers Not Highly
Qualified
2003-2004 74.5 25.5
2004-2005 80.3 19.7
2005-2006 85.5 14.5
2006-2007 90.5 9.5
2007-2008 92.5 7.5
Table 8.2: Number of CLASSES not Taught by Highly Qualified (NHQ) Teachers by Reason
School Expired Invalid Testing Invalid Missing Conditional Total

Year Certificate Grade Requirement Subject for Certification Certificate
Level(s) for Not Met Certification Information
Certification
# % # % # % # % # % # % NHQ All
Classes Classes
2005- 156 .6 65 .2 341 1.3 1344 5.2 1218 4.7 589 2.3 3713 25569
2006
2006- 97 .3 40 .1 140 .5 559 2.1 1233 4.8 338 1.3 2407 25455
2007
2007- 63 .3 23 .1 79 .4 461 2.3 592 2.9 324 1.6 1542 20444
2008
Title II A
Table 8.3 Retention of Teachers
10
n=115
n=112
9
8
n=89
7
n=80
% of new staff terminations
n=72
6
n=44
4
n=20
2
0
FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007
Fiscal Year
Attachment 8, Title II, Part A Attachment B
C. Highly Qualified Teachers
MCPS does not have a significant gap between high poverty and low poverty schools in terms of
highly qualified teachers. As a result, our grant activities are not specifically targeted to reduce
the gap described. However, our activities are differentiated in a way that does offer strong
support to high poverty schools.
The high poverty schools often have numerous beginning teachers. Even though most of the
new teachers are highly qualified, they receive a tremendous about of support from our
comprehensive teacher induction program described in the previous question. Specifically, those
new teachers are coached by consulting teachers who differentiate support based on the needs of
the school and the students.
The skillful teacher course is often taught in locations convenient for teachers teaching in high
poverty schools. Making the course more readily available encourages teachers to participate in
a course that supports the pedagogy of instruction. There have been past examples of all
teachers in a high poverty school being required to take the Studying Skillful Teacher
coursework.
The supports provided to the teachers will contribute to their success in the classroom and
therefore encourage them to remain in those classrooms. Teacher turnover is typically higher in
high poverty schools. Creating programs and processes that support highly qualified teachers
staying in the classrooms of high poverty schools is clearly aligned with the MCPS strategic
plan.
FY 2009 Bridge to Excellence Comprehensive Plan
Budget Narrative: Title II-A
Activity 2.1
Salaries and Wages (include fixed charges here)

Cat. Item description Calculation Amount
3 Skillful Teacher Stipend 144 participants x $120 x 6 days 103,680
3 Skillful Teacher Professional Part-time 1 coordinator x 508.6 hours x $40 20,344
3 Substitutes 359 suns @ 120 per day = $43,006 43,006
SUBTOTAL OBJECT 01 167,030
Contracted Services
5 Research for Better Teaching licenscing 1336 participants x $143.90 each 192,250
and contractual services
Supplies and Materials

4 Skillful Teacher Books and materials 1336 participants x $92.91 each 124,129
Other Instructional Costs (show fixed charges with salaries and wages)
5 Non-Public allocations 23,088 students x $4.73 each 109,205
12 Benefits 7.4 % of $167,030 = $12,309 12,309
Equipment
SUBTOTAL OBJECT 05 0
TOTAL for Activity 604,923

Budget Narrative: Title II-A
Activity 3.1

3 Consulting Teachers Salary 28 participants x $93,996.25 each $2,631,895
SUBTOTAL OBJECT 01 2,631,895
Contracted Services

Salary amount of $2,631,895 times the average budgeted
12 Benefits benefits rate of 39.5% $1,040,703
SUBTOTAL OBJECT 04 1,040,703
Equipment
TOTAL for Activity 3,672,598

ATTACHMENT 9 TITLE II, PART D, SUBPART 1 -- FORMULA FUNDING
EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY STATES GRANTS PROGRAM
Local School System: Montgomery County Public Schools Fiscal Year 2009
Title II-D Technology Coordinator: Melissa J. Woods
Telephone: 240-632-6980 E-mail: melissa_woods@mcpsmd.org
A. ALLOWABLE ACTIVITIES [Section 2416]. For all allowable activities that will be implemented,
and/or strategies detailed in the 5-year comprehensive Bridge to Excellence Master Plan or Update, and (d) the
Allowable Activities Brief Description of Specific Public Nonpublic Costs

Services, Timelines or Target Dates, School
Master Plan, and Any Revisions to the
Plan As Part of This Annual Update,
Including Page Numbers
1. Strategies and Activities to Provide Ongoing, Sustained, and Intensive High-Quality Professional Development. Note:
Each Ed Tech recipient must use at least 25% of its funds to provide ongoing, sustained, and intensive high-quality
professional development OR, through an Ed Flex waiver request to MSDE, satisfactorily demonstrate that it already
provides, to all teachers in core academic subjects, such professional development, which is based on a review of relevant
research.
1.1 Providing professional development in the To provide teachers and instructional $151,859
integration of advanced technologies, including specialists with professional development
emerging technologies, into curricula and in using technology and student data to
instruction and in using those technologies to improve classroom instruction in core
create new learning environments, such as academic subjects, with a focus on
professional development in the use of technology integration of critical thinking framework
to: a) access data and resources to develop into classroom instruction and building
curricula and instructional materials, b) enable the capacity of school instructional teams
teachers to use the Internet and other technology in interpreting achievement data using
to communicate with parents, other teachers, technology systems.
principals, and administrators and to retrieve Provide professional development,
Internet-based learning resources, and c) lead to including classes and job-skill coaches,
improvements in classroom instruction in the core for public school IT system support staff
academic subjects [section 2416(a)(1)]. in using advanced technologies to create
new learning environments in schools.
Alignment to Master Plan and Local
Tech Plan (Educational Technology for
21st Century Learning, Pg. 20)
2. Strategies and Activities to Integrate Technology into the Educational Process
2.1 Developing and adapting or expanding

applications of technology to enable teachers to
increase student academic achievement,
including technology literacy, through teaching
practices that are based on the review of relevant Alignment to Master Plan (Pg. #s.):
research and through use of innovative distance Alignment to Local Tech Plan (Pg. #s):
learning strategies [section 2416(b)(2)].
2.2 Acquiring proven and effective courses and

curricula that include integrated technology and
are designed to help students meet challenging
state academic content and student achievement Alignment to Master Plan (Pg. #s.):
standards [section 2416(b)(3)]. Alignment to Local Tech Plan (Pg. #s):
A. ALLOWABLE ACTIVITIES [Section 2416], Continued.

2.3 Utilizing technology to develop or expand

efforts to connect schools and teachers with
parents and students to promote meaningful
parental involvement, to foster increased
communication about curricula, assignments,
and assessments between students, parents, and
teachers, and to assist parents to understand the
technology being applied in their child's
education, so that parents are able to reinforce
at home the instruction their child receives at Alignment to Master Plan (Pg. #s.):
school [section 2416(b)(4)]. Alignment to Local Tech Plan (Pg. #s):
2.4 Preparing one or more teachers in schools as

technology leaders who will assist other
teachers, and providing bonus payments to the
technology leaders [section 2416(b)(5)]. Alignment to Master Plan (Pg. #s.):
Alignment to Local Tech Plan (Pg. #s):
3. Strategies and Activities to Improve Access to Technology
3.1 Establishing or expanding initiatives, particularly Provide public and nonpublic schools $15,000 $10,905
initiatives involving public-private partnerships, with increased access to technology.
designed to increase awareness to technology for Selected public schools will field test the
students and teachers, with special emphasis on use of innovative technologies, such as
the access of high-need schools to technology “thin client” solutions and ultra-mobile
[section 2416(b)(1)]. computers. Nonpublic schools receive
technology materials that support the
educational programs of each school.

3.2 Acquiring, adapting, expanding, implementing,

repairing, and maintaining existing and new
applications of technology to support the school
reform effort and to improve student academic Alignment to Master Plan (Pg. #s.):
achievement, including technology literacy Alignment to Local Tech Plan (Pg. #s):
[section 2416(b)(6)].

3.3 Acquiring connectivity linkages, resources, and

services (including the acquisition of hardware
and software and other electronically delivered
learning materials) for use by teachers, students,
academic counselors, and school library media
centers, in order to improve student academic Alignment to Master Plan (Pg. #s.):
achievement [section 2416(b)(7))]. Alignment to Local Tech Plan (Pg. #s):
3.4 Developing, enhancing, or implementing
information technology courses [section Alignment to Master Plan (Pg. #s.):
2416(b)(10)]. Alignment to Local Tech Plan (Pg. #s):
4. Strategies and Activities to Assess/Evaluate Effectiveness of Technology (At least 3 percent of Ed tech funds must be
used to assess/evaluate effectiveness of technology)
4.1 Using technology to collect, manage, and

analyze data to inform and enhance teaching and
school improvement efforts [section 2416(b)(8)]. Alignment to Master Plan (Pg. #s.):
4.2 Implementing performance measurement Provide an independent evaluation of $5,508
systems to determine the effectiveness of grant strategies and activities.
education technology programs funded under
Title II-D Ed Tech, particularly in determining Timeline – written reports to be
the extent to which Ed Tech activities are submitted with grant progress reports
effective in integrating technology into curricula and the final report
and instruction, increasing the ability of teachers
to teach, and enabling students to meet Alignment to Master Plan and Local
challenging state academic content and student Tech Plan (Educational Technology for
academic achievement standards [section 21st Century Learning, Pg. 23)
2416(b)(9)].
TOTAL TITLE II-D ED TECH FUNDING AMOUNTS $172,367 $10,905

B. ANNUAL CERTIFICATION OF EQUITABLE SERVICES TO STUDENTS IN PRIVATE

(NONPUBLIC) SCHOOLS [ESEA, SECTION 9501].
1. Participating Private Schools and Services: Complete information in Attachment 6-A on page 30 regarding
the names of participating private schools and the number of private school students and/or staff that will
benefit from the Title II-D Ed Tech services.
2. Describe the school system's process for providing equitable participation to students in private schools (or
reference the page numbers if this information has been included elsewhere in the Master Plan Update)
a) The manner and extent of consultation with the officials of interested private schools during all phases
of the development and design of the Title II-D Ed Tech services;
Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) holds regular meetings with nonpublic school representatives
where this program and the use of funds are discussed. For nonpublic schools that cannot attend all of
these meetings, nonpublic school support information can be accessed through the community page of the
MCPS Web site. Meetings also are held to specifically consult with nonpublic schools on participation in
Title II-D programs. Invitations to these meetings are mailed to the director of each nonpublic school. As
a follow-up step, meeting materials (including a description of Title II-D programs) are sent to all
nonpublic schools that do not send a representative to this consultation meeting. This year’s meeting was
held on March 6, 2008.
b) The basis for determining the needs of private school children and teachers;
As follow-up to the consultation and planning meeting, nonpublic schools wishing to participate in any of
the No Child Left Behind federally funded programs, including Title II-D, are asked to complete a form
provided at the meeting or included in their mailing that indicates their interest. These forms are collected,
distributed to program coordinators and used to determine the level of services to be provided to nonpublic
schools.
c) How services, location of services, and grade levels or areas of services were decided and agreed upon;
and
Services are based on input from nonpublic school representatives. Locations of service and grade levels
or areas of service are determined through applications submitted by nonpublic schools that are interested
in participating in the Title II-D program.
d) The differences, if any, between the Title II-D Ed Tech services that will be provided to public and
private school students and teachers, and the reasons for any differences. (Note: The school system
provides services on an equitable basis to private school children whether or not the services are the
same Title II-D Ed Tech services the district provides to the public school children. The expenditures
for such services, however, must be equal -- consistent with the number of children served -- to Title
II-D Ed Tech services provided to public school children.)
Nonpublic school services involve the purchase of needed educational technology materials that will
provide students with improved access to technology. These same services also are provided to public
schools. The only difference in public and nonpublic school services is the professional development
provided to IT system support staff that serve public schools and support the school system’s infrastructure.
The reason for this difference in services is that due to size and funding, nonpublic schools do not have a
comparable staff position.
C. ACCESSIBILITY COMPLIANCE
On December 4, 2001, the Maryland State Board of Education approved a regulation (COMAR
13A.05.02.13H) concerning accessible technology-based instructional products. This regulation requires that
accessibility standards be incorporated into the evaluation, selection, and purchasing policies and procedures of
public agencies. Subsequently, Education Article § 7-910: Equivalent Access for Students with Disabilities was
passed during the 2002 General Assembly session and further requires that all teacher-made instructional
materials be accessible also. MSDE is charged with monitoring local school systems’ compliance with the
regulation and the law. For more information on the regulation and the law, visit the following Web sites:
http://cte.jhu.edu/accessibility/Regulations.cfm; http://198.187.128.12/maryland/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=fs-
main.htm&2.0
Please review the information submitted with the October 16, 2007 Annual Update and
use the chart on the following page to address additional progress on or changes to the
items below related to accessibility compliance. If you choose to use last year’s chart
with this Update, please bold or underline any changes.
1. Process:
a) Describe your policy and/or procedures for addressing the requirement that invitations to bids, requests
for proposals, procurement contracts, grants, or modifications to contracts or grants shall include the
notice of equivalent access requirements consistent with Subpart B Technical Standards, Section 508
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended.
b) Describe your policy and/or procedures for addressing the requirement that the equivalent access
standards (Subpart B Technical Standards, Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended)
are included in guidelines for design specifications and guidelines for the selection and evaluation of
technology-based instructional products.
c) Describe how you are addressing the requirement that any teacher-developed materials (web sites, etc.)
are accessible.
2. Implementation:
a) Describe how you are ensuring that all educators are being provided information and training about
Education Article 7-910 of the Public Schools - Technology for Education Act (Equivalent Access for
Students with Disabilities). Include who, to date, has received information and/or training (e.g. all
teachers, teachers at select schools, special education teachers only, building level administrators, etc.)
and any future plans for full compliance.
3. Monitoring:
a) Describe how you are monitoring the results of the evaluation and selection of technology-based
instructional products set forth in COMAR 13A.05.02.13.H, including a description of the accessible
and non-accessible features and possible applicable alternative methods of instruction correlated with
the non-accessible features.
b) Describe how you are ensuring that teachers and administrators have a full understanding of the
regulation and law and how you are monitoring their adherence to the process and/or procedures
governing accessibility.
PROCESS IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING
Key technology purchases include MCPS does central evaluation and selection The directors that were trained (see
desktop and portable computers and of technology software, materials, and implementation column) monitor the
software applications and operating equipment approved for use in schools. To results of evaluation and selection of
systems. These purchases are made be accepted, school purchases must come technology-based instructional products.
under the state bid contract and MEEC from the list of approved products. Where appropriate, descriptions of
agreement, both of which ensure accessible and non-accessible features
Staff training was provided to staff with
accessibility compliance. are reviewed and alternative methods of
central responsibility for technology
instruction are determined.
The procedures for addressing selection, evaluation and purchasing
accessibility compliance for other approval. To date, those trained include Information on accessibility is shared
technology products in invitations to bid, directors, supervisors, and specialists, with school-based staff as part of the
requests for proposals, and procurement including special education representatives, Online Technology Inventory process.
contracts are set forth in the MCPS involved in material and equipment Initial responses and questions help to
Procurement Manual. This manual evaluation and selection. monitor the extent to which teachers and
includes notice of equivalent access administrators are aware of equivalent
MCPS provides educators with online
requirements for technology-based access requirements. Even though the
information on equivalent access and MCPS
instructional products. responsibility for compliance rests
compliance. Future plans for full
mainly with central office administrators,
Staff responsible for selection, compliance include training teachers in how
the inventory and its questions on
evaluation, and purchase approval of to ensure that the electronic curriculum
accessibility compliance p an
technology-based instructional products resources and teaching aids are accessible; or
opportunity to educate school staff on the
attended MSDE/Center for Technology where this is not feasible, that alternative
regulation and law.
in Education training; and the evaluation resources are available to students who need
and selection procedures used by MCPS this assistance.
address equivalent access in the purchase
Accessible curriculum resources have been
of technology-based instructional
developed using grant funding from the
products.
Maryland Consortium for Student
To be approved curriculum resources, Technology Literacy by Grade 8. These
teacher-developed materials must be accessible curriculum resources will be
reviewed; and staff that approves these available for use by all Maryland school
materials participated in the workshop systems.
sponsored by MSDE and Center for
Technology Education.
D. Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) Certification Form
NOTE: Complete only if there have been changes to your last certification submitted to MSDE.
X Check here if there are no changes to your CIPA certification status.
Any Local Education Agency seeking Ed Tech funds must certify to its State Education Agency that
schools have adopted and are enforcing Internet safety policies. It is the intent of the legislation that any
school (or district) using federal money (ESEA or E-rate) to pay for computers that access the Internet or to
pay for Internet access directly should be in compliance with CIPA and should certify to that compliance
EITHER through E-rate or the Ed Tech program. Please check one of the following:
Our local school system is certified compliant, through the E-rate program, with the
Children’s Internet Protection Act requirements.
Every school in our local school system benefiting from Ed Tech funds has complied with the
CIPA requirements in subpart 4 of Part D of Title II of the ESEA.
The CIPA requirements in the ESEA do not apply because no funds made available under the
program are being used to purchase computers to access the Internet, or to pay for direct costs
associated with accessing the Internet.
Not all schools have yet complied with the requirements in subpart 4 of Part D of Title II of the
ESEA. However, our local school system has received a one-year waiver from the U.S.
Secretary of Education under section 2441(b)(2)(C) of the ESEA for those applicable schools
not yet in compliance.
______________________________ _________________________ _______________

School System Authorizing Signature Date
F. BUDGET INFORMATION AND NARRATIVE

1. Provide a detailed budget on the MSDE Proposed Title II-D Ed Tech Budget Form. The Proposed
Budget must reflect how the funds will be spent, organized according to the budget objectives, and
correlated to the activities and costs detailed in Part C, Allowable Activities. MSDE budget forms
are available in Excel format through the local finance officer or at the MSDE Bridge to
Excellence Master Plan Web Site at www.marylandpublicschools.org.
2. Provide a detailed budget narrative using the “Guidance for Completion of the Budget Narrative
for Individual Grants.” (pp. 11-13 of this guidance document). The accompanying budget
narrative should: (a) detail how the school system will use Title II-D funds to pay only reasonable
and necessary direct administrative costs associated with the operation of the Title II-D program;
and (b) demonstrate the extent to which the budget is both reasonable and cost-effective.
[Included on the pages that follow]
G. ATTACHMENTS 4-A & B, 5-A &B, and 6-A & B
Attachment 4: School Level Budget Summary
Attachment 5: Transfer of ESEA Funds
Attachment 6: Consolidation of ESEA Funds for Local Administration

Budget Narrative: Title II-D
In-
Category and Object Line Item Calculation Amount Total
Kind
Activity 1.1 - Staff Development, Goal 1, Activity 1.1
Instructional Staff Instructional specialist salary Salary of $6,950 per month x 12 $83,400 $83,400
Development, Salaries and to provide staff development months, assumes July 1, 2008 hire
Wages on integrating critical thinking date
framework in classroom
instruction and interpreting
achievement data using
technology systems
Instructional Staff Fringe benefits for 37% of total salary $30,858 $30,858
Development, Fixed Charges instructional specialist
Instructional Staff Wages for IT system support 8 coaches at $600 each (12 hours x $4,800 $4,800
Development, Part-Time staff coaches $25 per hour)
Instructional Staff Fringe benefits for IT system 8% of total wages $ 384 $384
Development, Fixed Charges support staff coaches
Instructional Staff Travel costs for instructional Includes local travel and professional $2,460 $2,460
Development, Travel specialist and Title II-D development, including MICCA and
technology coordinator national conference
Instructional Staff Agreements to provide $2,000 per seat x 12 seats for $ 24,000 $24,000
Development, Contracted technology training for IT participants
Services system support staff that serve
changing user needs and
support infrastructure
Activity 3.1 - Technology Access, Goal 1, Access of High Needs Schools to Technology
Regular Programs, Supplies and Instructional technologies Funds for innovative instructional $15,000 $15,000
Materials technologies in public schools.
Selected public schools will field test
the use of innovative technologies,
such as ultra-mobile computers.
Regular Programs, Transfers Instructional technologies $183,272 divided by total enrollment $10,905 $10,905
of 162,753 public and non-public
students = $1.13 per student x 9,650
students in nonpublics interested in
Title II-D
Activity 4.2 - Performance Measurement Systems, Goal 2, Evaluation
Regular Programs, Salaries & Temporary part-time funds Evaluation specialist - 150 hours x $ 5,100 $5,100
Wages used to provide independent $34 per hour (3% of total funding)
evaluation of grant activities
Fixed Charges FICA at 8% 8% of total wages $408 $408
Overall grant administration
Administration, Business Contribution to audit of 0.1% of total grant $183 $183
Support Services, Contractual federal funds
Administration, Business Indirect Costs 3.47% of direct costs ($183,272 - $5,774 $5,774
Support Services, Transfers $10,905 for nonpublics = $172,367)
TOTAL $ 183,272 $ 183,272
Title II-D Technology Coordinator: Melissa J. Woods
Telephone: 240-632-6980 E-mail: melissa_woods@mcpsmd.org
A. ALLOWABLE ACTIVITIES [Section 2416]. For all allowable activities that will be implemented,
and/or strategies detailed in the 5-year comprehensive Bridge to Excellence Master Plan or Update, and (d) the
Allowable Activities Brief Description of Specific Public Nonpublic Costs

Services, Timelines or Target Dates, School
1. Strategies and Activities to Provide Ongoing, Sustained, and Intensive High-Quality Professional Development. Note:
Each Ed Tech recipient must use at least 25% of its funds to provide ongoing, sustained, and intensive high-quality
professional development OR, through an Ed Flex waiver request to MSDE, satisfactorily demonstrate that it already
provides, to all teachers in core academic subjects, such professional development, which is based on a review of relevant
research.
1.1 Providing professional development in the To provide teachers and instructional $151,859
integration of advanced technologies, including specialists with professional development
emerging technologies, into curricula and in using technology and student data to
instruction and in using those technologies to improve classroom instruction in core
create new learning environments, such as academic subjects, with a focus on
professional development in the use of technology integration of critical thinking framework
to: a) access data and resources to develop into classroom instruction and building
curricula and instructional materials, b) enable the capacity of school instructional teams
teachers to use the Internet and other technology in interpreting achievement data using
to communicate with parents, other teachers, technology systems.
principals, and administrators and to retrieve Provide professional development,
Internet-based learning resources, and c) lead to including classes and job-skill coaches,
improvements in classroom instruction in the core for public school IT system support staff
academic subjects [section 2416(a)(1)]. in using advanced technologies to create
new learning environments in schools.
Multiple sessions and ongoing support at
seven (7) schools by the specialist.
Participation in each school is
voluntary. It is open to all grades. MCPS
will provide sub time; sessions will be
both in-service and after schools.
2.1 Developing and adapting or expanding

applications of technology to enable teachers to
increase student academic achievement,
including technology literacy, through teaching
practices that are based on the review of relevant Alignment to Master Plan (Pg. #s.):
research and through use of innovative distance Alignment to Local Tech Plan (Pg. #s):
learning strategies [section 2416(b)(2)].
2.2 Acquiring proven and effective courses and
curricula that include integrated technology and
are designed to help students meet challenging
state academic content and student achievement Alignment to Master Plan (Pg. #s.):
standards [section 2416(b)(3)]. Alignment to Local Tech Plan (Pg. #s):

2.3 Utilizing technology to develop or expand

efforts to connect schools and teachers with
parents and students to promote meaningful
parental involvement, to foster increased
communication about curricula, assignments,
and assessments between students, parents, and
teachers, and to assist parents to understand the
technology being applied in their child's
education, so that parents are able to reinforce
at home the instruction their child receives at Alignment to Master Plan (Pg. #s.):
school [section 2416(b)(4)]. Alignment to Local Tech Plan (Pg. #s):
2.4 Preparing one or more teachers in schools as

technology leaders who will assist other
teachers, and providing bonus payments to the
technology leaders [section 2416(b)(5)]. Alignment to Master Plan (Pg. #s.):
3.1 Establishing or expanding initiatives, particularly Provide public and nonpublic schools $15,000 $10,905
initiatives involving public-private partnerships, with increased access to technology.
designed to increase awareness to technology for Selected public schools will field test the
students and teachers, with special emphasis on use of innovative technologies, such as
the access of high-need schools to technology “thin client” solutions and ultra-mobile
[section 2416(b)(1)]. computers. Nonpublic schools receive
technology materials that support the
educational programs of each school.

3.2 Acquiring, adapting, expanding, implementing,

repairing, and maintaining existing and new
applications of technology to support the school
reform effort and to improve student academic Alignment to Master Plan (Pg. #s.):
achievement, including technology literacy Alignment to Local Tech Plan (Pg. #s):
[section 2416(b)(6)].

3.3 Acquiring connectivity linkages, resources, and

services (including the acquisition of hardware
and software and other electronically delivered
learning materials) for use by teachers, students,
academic counselors, and school library media
centers, in order to improve student academic Alignment to Master Plan (Pg. #s.):
achievement [section 2416(b)(7))]. Alignment to Local Tech Plan (Pg. #s):
3.4 Developing, enhancing, or implementing
information technology courses [section Alignment to Master Plan (Pg. #s.):
2416(b)(10)]. Alignment to Local Tech Plan (Pg. #s):
4. Strategies and Activities to Assess/Evaluate Effectiveness of Technology (At least 3 percent of Ed tech funds must be
used to assess/evaluate effectiveness of technology)
4.1 Using technology to collect, manage, and

analyze data to inform and enhance teaching and
school improvement efforts [section 2416(b)(8)]. Alignment to Master Plan (Pg. #s.):
4.2 Implementing performance measurement Provide an independent evaluation of $5,508
systems to determine the effectiveness of grant strategies and activities.
education technology programs funded under
Title II-D Ed Tech, particularly in determining Timeline – written reports to be
the extent to which Ed Tech activities are submitted with grant progress reports
effective in integrating technology into curricula and the final report
and instruction, increasing the ability of teachers
to teach, and enabling students to meet Alignment to Master Plan and Local
challenging state academic content and student Tech Plan (Educational Technology for
academic achievement standards [section 21st Century Learning, Pg. 23)
2416(b)(9)].
TOTAL TITLE II-D ED TECH FUNDING AMOUNTS $172,367 $10,905


benefit from the Title II-D Ed Tech services.
2. Describe the school system's process for providing equitable participation to students in private schools (or
reference the page numbers if this information has been included elsewhere in the Master Plan Update)
a) The manner and extent of consultation with the officials of interested private schools during all phases
of the development and design of the Title II-D Ed Tech services;
Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) holds regular meetings with nonpublic school representatives
where this program and the use of funds are discussed. For nonpublic schools that cannot attend all of
these meetings, nonpublic school support information can be accessed through the community page of the
MCPS Web site. Meetings also are held to specifically consult with nonpublic schools on participation in
Title II-D programs. Invitations to these meetings are mailed to the director of each nonpublic school. As
a follow-up step, meeting materials (including a description of Title II-D programs) are sent to all
nonpublic schools that do not send a representative to this consultation meeting. This year’s meeting was
held on March 6, 2008.
As follow-up to the consultation and planning meeting, nonpublic schools wishing to participate in any of
the No Child Left Behind federally funded programs, including Title II-D, are asked to complete a form
provided at the meeting or included in their mailing that indicates their interest. These forms are collected,
distributed to program coordinators and used to determine the level of services to be provided to nonpublic
schools.
and
Services are based on input from nonpublic school representatives. Locations of service and grade levels
or areas of service are determined through applications submitted by nonpublic schools that are interested
in participating in the Title II-D program.
d) The differences, if any, between the Title II-D Ed Tech services that will be provided to public and
private school students and teachers, and the reasons for any differences. (Note: The school system
provides services on an equitable basis to private school children whether or not the services are the
same Title II-D Ed Tech services the district provides to the public school children. The expenditures
for such services, however, must be equal -- consistent with the number of children served -- to Title
II-D Ed Tech services provided to public school children.)
Nonpublic school services involve the purchase of needed educational technology materials that will
provide students with improved access to technology. These same services also are provided to public
schools. The only difference in public and nonpublic school services is the professional development
provided to IT system support staff that serve public schools and support the school system’s infrastructure.
The reason for this difference in services is that due to size and funding, nonpublic schools do not have a
comparable staff position.
C. ACCESSIBILITY COMPLIANCE
On December 4, 2001, the Maryland State Board of Education approved a regulation (COMAR
13A.05.02.13H) concerning accessible technology-based instructional products. This regulation requires that
accessibility standards be incorporated into the evaluation, selection, and purchasing policies and procedures of
public agencies. Subsequently, Education Article § 7-910: Equivalent Access for Students with Disabilities was
passed during the 2002 General Assembly session and further requires that all teacher-made instructional
materials be accessible also. MSDE is charged with monitoring local school systems’ compliance with the
regulation and the law. For more information on the regulation and the law, visit the following Web sites:
http://cte.jhu.edu/accessibility/Regulations.cfm; http://198.187.128.12/maryland/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=fs-
main.htm&2.0
Please review the information submitted with the October 16, 2007 Annual Update and
use the chart on the following page to address additional progress on or changes to the
items below related to accessibility compliance. If you choose to use last year’s chart
with this Update, please bold or underline any changes.
1. Process:
a) Describe your policy and/or procedures for addressing the requirement that invitations to bids, requests
for proposals, procurement contracts, grants, or modifications to contracts or grants shall include the
notice of equivalent access requirements consistent with Subpart B Technical Standards, Section 508
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended.
b) Describe your policy and/or procedures for addressing the requirement that the equivalent access
standards (Subpart B Technical Standards, Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended)
are included in guidelines for design specifications and guidelines for the selection and evaluation of
technology-based instructional products.
c) Describe how you are addressing the requirement that any teacher-developed materials (web sites, etc.)
are accessible.
2. Implementation:
a) Describe how you are ensuring that all educators are being provided information and training about
Education Article 7-910 of the Public Schools - Technology for Education Act (Equivalent Access for
Students with Disabilities). Include who, to date, has received information and/or training (e.g. all
teachers, teachers at select schools, special education teachers only, building level administrators, etc.)
and any future plans for full compliance.
3. Monitoring:
a) Describe how you are monitoring the results of the evaluation and selection of technology-based
instructional products set forth in COMAR 13A.05.02.13.H, including a description of the accessible
and non-accessible features and possible applicable alternative methods of instruction correlated with
the non-accessible features.
b) Describe how you are ensuring that teachers and administrators have a full understanding of the
regulation and law and how you are monitoring their adherence to the process and/or procedures
governing accessibility.
PROCESS IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING
Key technology purchases include MCPS does central evaluation and selection The directors that were trained (see
desktop and portable computers and of technology software, materials, and implementation column) monitor the
software applications and operating equipment approved for use in schools. To results of evaluation and selection of
systems. These purchases are made be accepted, school purchases must come technology-based instructional products.
under the state bid contract and MEEC from the list of approved products. Where appropriate, descriptions of
agreement, both of which ensure accessible and non-accessible features
Staff training was provided to staff with
accessibility compliance. are reviewed and alternative methods of
central responsibility for technology
instruction are determined.
The procedures for addressing selection, evaluation and purchasing
accessibility compliance for other approval. To date, those trained include Information on accessibility is shared
technology products in invitations to bid, directors, supervisors, and specialists, with school-based staff as part of the
requests for proposals, and procurement including special education representatives, Online Technology Inventory process.
contracts are set forth in the MCPS involved in material and equipment Initial responses and questions help to
Procurement Manual. This manual evaluation and selection. monitor the extent to which teachers and
includes notice of equivalent access administrators are aware of equivalent
MCPS provides educators with online
requirements for technology-based access requirements. Even though the
information on equivalent access and MCPS
instructional products. responsibility for compliance rests
compliance. Future plans for full
mainly with central office administrators,
Staff responsible for selection, compliance include training teachers in how
the inventory and its questions on
evaluation, and purchase approval of to ensure that the electronic curriculum
accessibility compliance are an
technology-based instructional products resources and teaching aids are accessible; or
opportunity to educate school staff on the
attended MSDE/Center for Technology where this is not feasible, that alternative
regulation and law.
in Education training; and the evaluation resources are available to students who need
and selection procedures used by MCPS this assistance.
address equivalent access in the purchase
Accessible curriculum resources have been
of technology-based instructional
developed using grant funding from the
products.
Maryland Consortium for Student
To be approved curriculum resources, Technology Literacy by Grade 8. These
teacher-developed materials must be accessible curriculum resources will be
reviewed; and staff that approves these available for use by all Maryland school
materials participated in the workshop systems.
sponsored by MSDE and Center for
Technology Education.

1. Provide a detailed budget on the MSDE Proposed Title II-D Ed Tech Budget Form. The Proposed
Budget must reflect how the funds will be spent, organized according to the budget objectives, and
2. Provide a detailed budget narrative using the “Guidance for Completion of the Budget Narrative
for Individual Grants.” (pp. 11-13 of this guidance document). The accompanying budget
narrative should: (a) detail how the school system will use Title II-D funds to pay only reasonable
and necessary direct administrative costs associated with the operation of the Title II-D program;
and (b) demonstrate the extent to which the budget is both reasonable and cost-effective.
[Included on the pages that follow]
G. ATTACHMENTS 4-A & B, 5-A &B, and 6-A & B

Budget Narrative: Title II-D
In-
Category and Object Line Item Calculation Amount Total
Kind
Activity 1.1 - Staff Development, Goal 1, Activity 1.1
Instructional Staff Instructional specialist salary Salary of $6,950 per month x 12 $83,400 $83,400
Development, Salaries and to provide staff development months, assumes July 1, 2008 hire
Wages on integrating critical thinking date
framework in classroom
instruction and interpreting
achievement data using
technology systems
Instructional Staff Fringe benefits for 37% of total salary $30,858 $30,858
Development, Fixed Charges instructional specialist
Instructional Staff Wages for IT system support 16 coaches at $300 each (12 hours x $4,800 $4,800
Development, Part-Time staff coaches $25 per hour)
Instructional Staff Fringe benefits for IT system 8% of total wages $ 384 $384
Development, Fixed Charges support staff coaches
Instructional Staff Travel costs for instructional Includes local travel and professional $2,460 $2,460
Development, Travel specialist and Title II-D development, including MICCA and
technology coordinator national conference
Instructional Staff Agreements to provide $2,000 per seat x 12 seats for $ 24,000 $24,000
Development, Contracted technology training for IT participants
Services system support staff that serve
changing user needs and
support infrastructure
Activity 3.1 - Technology Access, Goal 1, Access of High Needs Schools to Technology
Regular Programs, Supplies and Instructional technologies Funds for innovative instructional $15,000 $15,000
Materials technologies in public schools.
Selected public schools will field test
the use of innovative technologies,
such as ultra-mobile computers.
Regular Programs, Transfers Instructional technologies $183,272 divided by total enrollment $10,905 $10,905
of 162,753 public and non-public
students = $1.13 per student x 9,650
students in nonpublics interested in
Title II-D
Activity 4.2 - Performance Measurement Systems, Goal 2, Evaluation
Regular Programs, Salaries & Temporary part-time funds Evaluation specialist - 150 hours x $ 5,100 $5,100
Wages used to provide independent $34 per hour (3% of total funding)
evaluation of grant activities
Fixed Charges FICA at 8% 8% of total wages $408 $408
Overall grant administration
Administration, Business Contribution to audit of 0.1% of total grant $183 $183
Support Services, Contractual federal funds
Administration, Business Indirect Costs 3.47% of direct costs ($183,272 - $5,774 $5,774
Support Services, Transfers $10,905 for nonpublics = $172,367)
TOTAL $ 183,272 $ 183,272
ATTACHMENT 10 TITLE III, PART A
ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACQUISITION, LANGUAGE
ENHANCEMENT, AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
Local School System: __Montgomery County Public Schools ___________ Fiscal Year 2009
A. REQUIRED ACTIVITIES [Section 3115 (c)]: For all required activities that will be implemented,
(a) provide a brief description of services, (b) timelines or target dates, (c) the specific goals, objectives, and/or
strategies detailed in the 5-year comprehensive Bridge to Excellence Master Plan, (d) the amount of funding for
services to public and nonpublic students and teachers, and e) any revision to the plan as part of this annual
update (including page numbers). Use separate pages as necessary for descriptions.
1. To increase the English proficiency of ELL children by providing high-quality language instruction educational
programs that are based on scientifically based research demonstrating effectiveness of the programs in increasing
English proficiency and student academic achievement in the core academic subjects. [section 3115 (c)(1)]
Authorized Activities Descriptions Public Nonpublic

School Costs
a) brief description of the services Costs
b) timelines or target dates
c) specific goals, objectives, and/or
strategies detailed in the 5-year
comprehensive Bridge to Excellence
Master Plan
d) services to non public schools
e) any revision to the plan as part of
this annual update (including page
numbers).
1.1 Upgrading program objectives and effective

instructional strategies [section 3115(d)(1)].
Provide an early childhood English for $108,778

1.2 Improving the instruction program for ELL children by Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL)
identifying, acquiring, and upgrading curricula, instructional specialist to develop and revise
instructional materials, educational software, and MCPS pre-K–2 ESOL curriculum
assessment procedures [section 3115(d)(2)]. (ongoing).
Improve instruction for newcomer ESOL $108,778
Item Description for students by providing a pre-K–12
Salaries (FTEs) and newcomer ESOL instructional specialist to
Wages (non-FTEs) on develop curricula and instructional
Activity 1.2 Calculation Amount materials to address the unique linguistic
Early childhood ESOL 1.0 FTE x $108,778 $108,778 and academic needs of newcomer ESOL
instructional specialist students (ongoing).
Pre-K–12 newcomer ESOL 1.0 FTE x $108,778 $108,778 Continue to align all MCPS pre-K–12 $25,000
instructional specialist ESOL curricula to the state ESOL voluntary
state curriculum (ongoing).
Professional part-time for 8 curriculum writing $25,000
curriculum development teams totaling 1,000
(stipend) hours x $25 per hour
Supporting services part time to 1,857 hours x $14 per $25,998 Administer the Language Assessment $25,998
provide temporary assistance to hour System (LAS) Links placement test for
support the administration of newly enrolling international students
the LAS Links Placement Test during peak enrollment periods (ongoing).
during peak enrollment periods
Employee benefits FTEs = $217,556 x .37 $84,576 Employee benefits $84,576
= $80,496.
Non-FTEs = $50,998 x
.08 = $4,080.
Total Salaries and Wages $353,130
including Fixed Charges: Purchase ESOL instructional, LAS Links $88,990 $13,567
testing materials, and educational software
to identify and provide services to ESOL
students (ongoing).
Totals: $442,120 $13,567
1.3 Providing intensified instruction for ELL children

[section 3115(d)(3)(B)].
Provide opportunities to accelerate ELL into $157,588
1.4 Improving the English proficiency and academic honors, AP, and other upper level courses
achievement of ELL children [section 3115(d)(5)]. by providing transition services at two high
schools (August 2008–June 2009).
Item Description for
Salaries (FTEs) and
Wages (non-FTEs)
on Activity 1.4 Calculation Amount Provide continuing English language $140,436
ESOL transition teachers 2.0 FTEs x $78,794 $157,588 instruction for ESOL students through the
summer months by providing ESOL
SSE (ESOL summer 12 elementary teachers x $140,436 summer school (July 2008–August 2008).
school) teachers $211.50 per 5 hour day x 20
days = $50,760.
13 high school teachers x
$211.50 per 5 hour day x 28 Employee benefits $69,542
days = $76,986.
3 SEPA teachers x $211.50
per 5 hour day x 20 days =
$12,690.
Employee benefits FTEs = $157,588 x .37 = $69,542
$58,307.
Non-FTEs = $140,436 x .08 = Contract with a consultant to develop a $12,440
$11,235. Spanish language literacy curriculum to
Total Salaries and Wages $367,566 help ESOL students with interrupted formal
including Fixed Charges: education develop literacy skills in Spanish
to support the acquisition of literacy skills
in English (July 2008–August 2008).
Provide transportation for ESOL students $2,500
with interrupted formal education enrolled
in the ESOL Students Engaged in Pathways
to Achievement (SEPA) Program
(ongoing).
Totals: $382,506 $0
A. REQUIRED ACTIVITIES [Section 3115(c)], Continued.
2. To provide high-quality professional development to classroom teachers (including teachers in classroom settings that
are not the setting of language instruction educational programs), principals, administrators, and other school or
community-based organizational personnel. [section 3115(c)(2)]
Authorized Activities Descriptions Public Nonpublic Costs

School
Note: High quality professional development a) brief description of the services Costs
shall not include activities such as one-day or b) timelines or target dates
short-term workshops and conferences. Also, c) specific goals, objectives, and/or
high quality professional development shall strategies detailed in the 5-year
not apply to an activity that is one component comprehensive Bridge to Excellence
of a long-term, comprehensive professional Master Plan
development plan established by a teacher or d) services to non public schools
the teacher's supervisor based on an e) any revision to the plan as part of
assessment of needs of the teacher, this annual update (including page
supervisor, the students of the teacher, and numbers).
any school system employing the teacher
[section 3115(c)(2)(D)]
Provide substitutes to enable ESOL teachers to $19,919
2.1 Providing for professional development designed attend training (September 2008–May 2009).
to improve the instruction and assessment of Employee benefits $1,593
ELL children [section 3115(c)(2)(A)].
Professional development for teachers: $1,842

Item Description for Calculation Amount training, books, and training video (ongoing).
Salaries (FTEs) and
Wages (non-FTEs) on
Activity 2.1
Substitutes for ESOL 170 x $117.17 $19,919 Totals: $21,512 $1,842
teachers per day
Employee benefits Non-FTEs = $1,593
$19,919 x .08
including Fixed Charges:
Contracted services for training non-ESOL $6,700
2.2 Providing for professional development designed teachers to work with ELL in the content areas
to enhance the ability of teachers to understand (ongoing).
and use curricula, assessment measures, and
instruction strategies for ELL children [section Totals: $0 $6,700
3115(c)(2)(B)].
2.3 Providing for professional development to

substantially increase the subject matter
knowledge, teaching knowledge, and teaching
skills of teachers [section 3115(c)(2)(C)].
B. ALLOWABLE ACTIVITIES [Section 3115(d)]: An eligible entity receiving funds under section 3114
(a) may use the funds to achieve one or more of the following activities:
3. To provide community participation programs, family literacy services, and parent outreach and training activities to ELL
children and their families. [section 3115(d)(6)]
Authorized Activities Descriptions Public Nonpublic

a) brief description of the services School Costs
b) timelines or target dates Costs
comprehensive Bridge to
Excellence Master Plan
e) any revision to the plan as part
of this annual update (including
page numbers).
Provide after-school tutoring and $11,607
3.1 Providing programs to improve the English educational software to improve English
language skills of ELL children [section language skills (ongoing).
3115(d)(6)(A)].
Totals: $0 $11,607
Provide parent community coordinators $935,153

3.2 Providing programs to assist parents in helping to provide outreach and training
their children to improve their academic opportunities for parents to support
achievement and becoming active participants in navigating the school system and the
the education of their children [section academic achievement of ELL (ongoing).
3115(d)(6)(B)].
Hire a communication specialist to $59,236
Item Description provide translation services in Korean to
for Salaries (FTEs) ESOL families (ongoing).
and Wages (non-
FTEs) on Activity
3.2 Calculation Amount
Parent community 14.8 FTEs x $63,186 $935,153 Provide interpretation and translation $36,000
coordinators services to involve non-English-speaking
parents in school activities (ongoing).
Communication 1.0 FTE x $59,236 $59,236

specialist
Employee benefits $370,804
Professional part-time 1,440 hours x $25 per $36,000

to provide hour
interpretation and
translation services
Employee benefits FTEs = $994,389 x $370,804 Provide access to a translation memory $15,005
.37 = $367,924. system to enable schools and offices to
Non-FTEs = $36,000 produce multilingual translations for
x .08 = $2,880. frequently used parental communication,
Total Salaries and Wages $1,401,193 such as newsletters, fliers, and notes
including Fixed Charges: (ongoing).
Provide pagers to enable itinerant parent $8,772
outreach and counseling staff to enhance
the provision of urgent services to ELL
and their families. The plan is for
itinerant staff to use these pagers during
specific events to serve ESOL students
and families in crisis on an as-needed or
ongoing basis (ongoing).
Provide professional development for $400
parents (ongoing).
Totals: $1,424,970 $400
4. Improving the instruction of limited English Proficient children by providing the following: [section 3115(d)(2)(3)]
4.1 Providing tutorials and academic and vocational

education for ELL children [section 3115(d) (3)
(A)].
4.2 Acquisition or development of educational Purchase computers and/or related $3,168
technology or instructional materials [section technology hardware to improve
3115(d)(7)(A)]. instruction for Limited English
Proficiency (LEP) children (August
2008).
Totals: $0 $3,168
4.3 Providing for access to, and participation in

electronic networks for materials, training and
communication [section 3115(d)(7)(B)].
4.4 Incorporation of educational technology and
electronic networks into curricula and programs
[section 3115(d)(7)(C)].
4.5 Developing and implementing elementary or Develop and implement extended school $122,307
secondary school language instruction educational day and extended school year programs
programs that are coordinated with other relevant to support ESOL students by working
programs and services [section 3115(d)(4)]. with established and relevant community-
based organizations and the ESOL parent
Item description outreach and counseling teams (ongoing).
for Salaries (FTEs)
Employee benefits $45,254
and Wages (non-
FTEs) on Activity
4.5 Calculation Amount
Coordinator of 1.0 FTE x $122,307 $122,307
bilingual student
support programs
Totals: $167,561 $0
Employee benefits FTEs = $122,307 x $45,254
.37

C. OTHER ACTIVITIES [section 3115(b)]: Each eligible entity receiving funds under section 3114(a) for a fiscal
year may not use more than 2% for the cost of administering this subpart.
5. To carry out other activities that are consistent with the purpose of Title III, Part A, No Child Left Behind. (Specify and describe
below.) [section 3115(b)]:
Other Activities Descriptions Public Nonpublic Costs

School Costs
a) brief description of the services
b) timelines or target dates
comprehensive Bridge to
Excellence Master Plan
e) any revision to the plan as part
of this annual update (including
page numbers).
5.1 Administrative expenses may not use more than Allowable administrative costs:
2% for the cost of administering this subpart
[section 3115(b)].
Item description for Fiscal assistant to conduct all financial $45,452
Salaries (FTEs) and transactions and prepare budget
Wages (non-FTEs) (ongoing).
on Activity 5.1 Calculation Amount Employee benefits $16,817
Fiscal Assistant 0.7 FTE x $64,932 $45,452
Audit (ongoing) $1,042
Employee benefits FTEs = $45,452 x .37 $16,817
Totals: $63,311 $0
5.2 Providing programs to assist ESOL Use bilingual therapeutic counselors to $477,073
students in addressing the social, cultural and provide itinerant counseling to ESOL
environmental factors that may present barriers to students, including those with limited
academic achievement. formal education, at the elementary,
middle, and high school levels
Item description Calculation Amount (ongoing).
for Salaries Employee benefits $176,517
(FTEs) and
Wages (non-
FTEs) on Activity
5.2
Bilingual therapeutic 7.9 FTEs x $477,073 Totals: $653,590 $0
counselors $60,389
Employee benefits FTEs = $477,073 $176,517

x .37
Purchase maintenance agreements on all $15,000
5.3 Provide office machines that facilitate provision copiers, faxes, and printers that support
of services to ESOL students and families. services to ESOL students and their
families (ongoing).
Totals: $15,000 $0
TOTAL ELL TITLE III-A (FUNDING) AMOUNT $3,170,570 $37,284

D. IMMIGRANT ACTIVITIES [section 3115(e)]: Activities by agencies experiencing substantial
increases in immigrant children and youth
1. An eligible entity receiving funds under section 3114 (d) (1) shall use the funds to pay for activities that provide enhanced
instructional opportunities for immigrant children and youth. [section (e)(1)]
Descriptions
Authorized Activities Public Nonpublic
a) brief description of the services School Costs
b) timelines or target dates Costs
comprehensive Bridge to Excellence Master
Plan
e) any revision to the plan as part of this
annual update (including page numbers).
1.1 Providing for family literacy, parent outreach,

and training activities designed to assist parents
to become active participants in the education of
their children [section 3115(e) (1) (A)].
1.2 Supporting personnel including teacher aides

who have been specifically trained or are being
trained to provide services to immigrant children
and youth [section 3115(e) (1) (B)].
1.3 Providing tutorials mentoring and academic or

career counseling for immigrant children and
youth [section 3115(e) (1) (C)].
1.4 Identifying and acquiring curricular materials,

educational software, and technologies to be
used carried out with these funds [section
3115(e) (1) (D)].
1.5 Providing basic instructional services that are

directly attributable to the presence in the school
district of immigrant children and youth,
including the payment of costs of providing
additional classroom supplies, cost of
transportation or such other costs [section
3115(e) (1) (E)].
1.6 Providing other instructional services that are

designed to assist immigrant children and youth
to achieve in elementary schools and secondary
schools in the USA, such as programs of
introduction to the educational system and civics
education [section 3115(e) (1) (F)].
1.7 Providing activities, coordinated with
community based organizations, institutions of
higher education, private sector entities, or other
entities with expertise in working with
immigrants, to assist parents of immigrant
children and youth by offering comprehensive
community services [section 3115(e) (1) (G)].
1.8 Other activities (that provide enhanced

instructional opportunities for immigrant
children and youth).
1.9 Administrative expenses may not use more than

2% for the cost of administering this subpart
[section 3115(b)].
TOTAL IMMIGRANT TITLE III-A (FUNDING) AMOUNT

(NONPUBLIC) SCHOOLS [ESEA, Section 9501]:
benefit from the Title III-A services.
Name of School Number of LEP

Students
Good Counsel High School 1
Mother of God 18
St. Bernadette School 17
St. Camillus 51
St. Catherine Laboure 38
St. Martin’s School 34
St. Michael’s School 30
Total 189
2. Describe the school system's process for providing equitable participation to students in private schools:
a) The manner and extent of consultation with the officials of interested private schools during all
phases of the development and design of the Title III-A services;
All private schools in Montgomery County were invited to a nonpublic schools meaningful consultation
meeting convened by the budget office in April 2008 to learn about available resources. During this meeting,
an invitation to consult on Title III was distributed to all nonpublic schools in attendance and mailed to all
nonpublic schools not in attendance by the budget office. The invitation to consult on Title III invited all
nonpublic schools to a May 13th meeting convened by the ESOL office specifically for those schools interested
in consulting on Title III. The ESOL office met with all interested nonpublic schools during the May 13th
meeting to review and have input into the FY 09 Title III grant. For those schools unable to attend the May 13th
meeting, an additional meeting was held on May 29th to provide the same information that was provided during
the May 13th meeting. Subsequent communication via e-mails and telephone assisted nonpublic schools in fully
understanding the allowable activities under Title III that were discussed during the May meetings and to lead
them through the budgeting process.
All interested nonpublics were trained on administering a test of English language proficiency to determine the
number of LEP students enrolled. The number of eligible LEP students in nonpublic schools was added to the
number of LEP students in MCPS. The total number was divided into the grant award, yielding a per pupil
amount for all private and MCPS LEP students. Based on this amount, nonpublic schools were trained on
submitting a budget narrative to request funds at nonpublic participation meetings convened by the Division of
ESOL/Bilingual Programs.
and
The agendas, e-mails, and materials used at each meaningful consultation meeting are on file in the Division of
ESOL/Bilingual Programs. These meetings were held to assist nonpublic schools in deciding which services
they would access under Title III.
d) The differences, if any, between the Title III-A services that will be provided to public and private
school students and teachers, and the reasons for any differences. (Note: The school system provides
services on an equitable basis to private school children whether or not the services are the same Title
III-A services the district provides to the public school children.)
The nonpublic schools participating in Title III have decided to use their allotment for training and instructional
materials at this time. All nonpublic schools are informed fully that they are eligible to participate in the same
activities in which MCPS participates at the meaningful consultation meetings.
3. ATTACH WRITTEN AFFIRMATION (meeting dates, agenda, sign-in sheets, letters/ forms,) for the
school year 2008-2009 signed by officials at each participating nonpublic school and/or their designee that
consultation regarding Title III services has occurred. DOCUMENTATION SHOULD BE LABELED
AND PROVIDED AS AN ATTACHMENT AFTER THE BUDGET PAGES IN ATTACHMENT 10.
Local School System: __________________________________ Fiscal Year 2009
B. BUDGET INFORMATION AND NARRATIVE
1. Provide a detailed budget on the MSDE Proposed Title III-A Budget Form. The Proposed Budget
must reflect how the funds will be spent, organized according to the budget objectives, and
2. Provide a detailed budget narrative using the attached “Guidance for Completion of the Budget
Narrative for Individual Grants.” (pp. 11-13 of this guidance document). The accompanying
budget narrative should (a) detail how the school system will use Title III-A funds to pay only
reasonable and necessary direct administrative costs associated with the operation of the Title III-
A program and (b) demonstrate the extent to which the budget is both reasonable and cost-
effective.
C. ATTACHMENTS 4-A & B, 5-A &B, and 6-A & B
Attachment 7: Affirmation of Consultation (with nonpublic schools) documentation

Budget Narrative: Title III-A LEP Portion

Special Programs Provide an early childhood instructional 1.0 FTE instructional specialist x $108,778 $108,778
specialist to develop MCPS pre-K–2 English
for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL)
curriculum (ongoing). Activity 1.2
Special Programs Improve instruction for newcomer ESOL 1.0 FTE instructional specialist x $108,778 $108,778
students by providing a pre-K-12 newcomer
instructional specialist to develop curricula
and instructional materials to address the
unique linguistic and academic needs of
newcomer ESOL students (ongoing). Activity
1.2
Special Programs Hire teachers to develop ESOL curriculum 8 curriculum writing teams totaling 1,000 hours x $25 per $25,000
(ongoing). Activity 1.2 hour
Special Programs Temporary assistance to support the 1,857 hours x $14 per hour $25,998
administration of the Language Assessmennt
System (LAS) Links Placement Test during
peak enrollment periods (ongoing). Activity
1.2
Special Programs Provide transition teachers to accelerate 2.0 FTE ESOL transition teachers x $78,794 $157,588
English language learners (ELL) into honors,
advanced placement, and other upper level
courses by providing transition services at two
high schools (August 2008–June 2009).
Activity 1.4
Special Programs Provide supplemental summer employment 12 elementary teachers x $211.50 per 5 hour day x 20 days = $140,436
for ESOL teachers to continue English $50,760.
language instruction for ESOL and Students 13 high school teachers x $211.50 per 5 hour day x 28 days =
Engaged in Pathways to Achievement (SEPA) $76,986.
students through the summer months (July 3 SEPA teachers x $211.50 per 5 hour day x 20 days =
2008–August 2008). Activity 1.4 $12,690.
Special Programs Provide substitutes to enable teachers to 170 substitutes x $117.17 per day $19,919
attend training during countywide ESOL
teachers’ meetings on the instruction and
assessment of ESOL students (September
2008–May 2009). Activity 2.1
Special Programs Provide parent community coordinators 14.8 FTE PCC x $63,186. (0.3 FTE PCC will be moved from $935,153
(PCC) to assist with parent outreach and the local budget to the grant to offset the 0.3 FTE fiscal
training opportunities to help ESOL parents assistant position (funded by Title III in FY 08) that must be
navigate the school system and to support the moved to the local budget for FY 09, since the FY 09 fiscal
academic achievement of ESOL students assistant salary and benefits exceeds the allowable 2%
(ongoing). Activity 3.2 administrative cost under Title III.)
Special Programs Hire a communication specialist to provide 1.0 FTE communication specialist x $59,236 $59,236
translation services in Korean to ESOL
families (ongoing). Activity 3.2
Special Programs Provide interpretation and translation services 1,440 hours x $25 per hour $36,000
to involve non-English-speaking parents in
school activities (ongoing). Activity 3.2
Special Programs Hire a coordinator of ESOL/Bilingual 1.0 FTE coordinator x $122,307 $122,307
support programs to develop and implement
extended school day and extended school year
programs to support ESOL students by
working with established and relevant
community-based organizations and the
ESOL parent outreach and counseling teams
(ongoing). Activity 4.5.
Business Support Fiscal assistant to conduct the financial 0.7 FTE fiscal assistant x $64,932 $45,452
transactions and prepare budget (ongoing).
Activity 5.1
Special Programs Use bilingual therapeutic counselors to 7.9 FTE bilingual therapeutic counselors x $60,389 $477,073
provide itinerant counseling to ESOL
students, including those with limited formal
education, at the elementary, middle, and high
school levels (ongoing). Activity 5.2
Fixed Charges Employee Benefits FTEs = $2,014,365 x .37 = $745,315. $765,103

Other Charges non-FTEs = $247,353 x .08 = $19,788.
SUBTOTAL OBJECT 01 $3,026,821

Contracted Services
Special Programs Hire a consultant to develop a Spanish Two payments will be made for invoices due $12,440
language literacy curriculum to help ESOL July 1, 2008 for $6,220 and August 1, 2008, for $6,220
students with interrupted formal education
develop literacy skills in Spanish to support
the acquisition of literacy skills in English (July
2008–August 2008). Activity 1.4
Special Programs Quarterly training for teachers 2 teachers x 4 trainings x $129 $1,032
Transfer (St. Camillus) (ongoing). Activity 2.1
Special Programs Professional development 1 session $200
Transfer (Mother of God) (ongoing). Activity 2.2
Special Programs Professional development for teachers. Six 6 x $283.40 $1,700
Transfer Traits Writing Workshop (St. Bernadette)
(ongoing). Activity 2.2
Special Programs Professional development for teachers 10 teachers x $390 $3,900
Transfer (St. Catherine Laboure) (ongoing).
Activity 2.2
Special Programs Professional development for teachers to 1 session $900
Transfer enhance their ability to work with ELL
students. (St. Michael the Archangel)
Special Programs After-school tutoring. (St. Camillus) (ongoing). $25 per hour x 1 hour per day x 117 days for PK-5. $5,850
Transfer Activity 3.1 $25 per hour x 1 hour per day x 117 days for 6-8.
Special Programs Provide access to a translation memory system WorldServer annual maintenance and support for 1 server, $15,005
to enable schools and offices to produce and up to 2 CPUs. Includes 1 non-production server and 1
multilingual translations for frequently used SQL db connector. Licenses for 300 named users, unlimited
parental communication, such as newsletters, licenses for Desk Workbench and Desk Users. For the
fliers, and notes (ongoing). Activity 3.2 period of April 1, 2009, through March 31, 2010.
Special Programs Provide pagers to enable itinerant parent 43 pagers x $17 per month x 12 months $8,772
outreach and counseling staff to enhance the
provision of urgent services to ESOL students
and their families (ongoing).
Activity 3.2
Special Programs Professional development for parents 10 sessions x $40 $400
Activity 3.2
Business Support Audit fees (ongoing). Activity 5.1 $1,042
Special Programs Purchase maintenance agreements on all 12 machines x $1,250 each $15,000
copiers, faxes, and printers that support
services to ESOL students and their families
SUBTOTAL OBJECT 02 $66,241

Special Programs Purchase ESOL instructional and testing 11,865.33 students x $7.50 per student $88,990
materials to identify and provide services to (Remaining students paid for by MCPS)
ESOL students (ongoing). Activity 1.2
Special Programs IPT testing materials (Good Counsel HS) $197
Transfer (ongoing). Activity 1.2
Special Programs IPT testing materials (St. Catherine Laboure) 39.4 students x $5.00 $197
Transfer (ongoing). Activity 1.2 (Remaining students paid for by school)
Special Programs IPT testing materials (St. Martin's) (ongoing). 28 students x $5.00 $140
Transfer Activity 1.2 (Remaining students paid for by school)
Special Programs IPT testing materials $350
Transfer (St. Michael the Archangel) (ongoing).
Activity 1.2
Special Programs Instructional materials and educational TBD $3,351
Transfer software to support the instructional program
for ELL students (Mother of God) (ongoing).
Activity 1.2
Special Programs Instructional materials and Read Naturally Educational software = $1,498 $1,653
Transfer Master Edition educational software to Testing materials: 31 x $5.00 = $155
support the instructional program for ELL
students (St. Bernadette) (ongoing).
Activity 1.2
Special Programs Books for ESOL levels 2-5 (St. Camillus) 80 books x $27.51 $2,201
Special Programs Educational software to support ELL students Contracted price $3,000
Transfer (St. Catherine Laboure) (ongoing). Activity
1.2
Special Programs Educational software to support ELL students Contracted price $1,500
Transfer (St. Michael the Archangel) (ongoing).
Activity 1.2
Special ProgramsBooks for teachers 20 books x $33 $660
Transfer ASCD: Summarization in Any Subject: 50
Techniques to Improve Student Learning by
Rick Wormeli (St. Martin's) (ongoing).
Activity 2.1
Special Programs ASCD: Strategies for Success for English 1 video program $150
Transfer Language Learners-Action Tool (St. Martin's)
Special Programs Leapfrog Schoolhouse educational software Contracted price $5,757
Transfer (St. Martin's) (ongoing). Activity 3.1
SUBTOTAL OBJECT 03
$108,146
Special Programs Provide transportation for ESOL students 4 hours per day x $20.70 per hour x 20 days = $1,656 $2,500
with interrupted formal education enrolled in 49.65 miles per day x $0.85 per mile x 20 days = $844
the ESOL SEPA Program (ongoing). Activity
1.4
SUBTOTAL OBJECT 04
$2,500
Equipment
Special Programs Two Dell computers (St. Camillus) (August 2 x $489 $978
Transfer 2008). Activity 1.2
Special Programs Computers and/or other related technology 4 x $792 $3,168

Transfer hardware (St. Michael the Archangel)
TOTAL $3,207,854
Activity 1.2
Special Programs Provide an early childhood instructional 1.0 FTE instructional specialist x $108,778 $108,778
specialist to develop MCPS pre-K–2 English
for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL)
curriculum (ongoing). Activity 1.2
Special Programs Improve instruction for newcomer ESOL 1.0 FTE instructional specialist x $108,778 $108,778
students by providing a pre-K-12 newcomer
instructional specialist to develop curricula
and instructional materials to address the
unique linguistic and academic needs of
newcomer ESOL students (ongoing).
Activity 1.2
Special Programs Hire teachers to develop ESOL curriculum 8 curriculum writing teams totaling 1,000 hours x $25 per $25,000
(ongoing). Activity 1.2 hour
Special Programs Temporary assistance to support the 1,857 hours x $14 per hour $25,998
administration of the Language Assessmennt
System (LAS) Links Placement Test during
peak enrollment periods (ongoing). Activity
1.2
Fixed Charges Employee Benefits FTEs = $217,556 x .37 = $80,496. $84,576
Contracted Services
SUBTOTAL OBJECT 02 $0

Special Programs Purchase ESOL instructional and testing 11,865.33 students x $7.50 per student $88,990
materials to identify and provide services to (Remaining students paid for by MCPS)
ESOL students (ongoing). Activity 1.2
Special ProgramsIPT testing materials (Good Counsel HS) $197
Special ProgramsIPT testing materials (St. Catherine Laboure) 39.4 students x $5.00 $197
Transfer (ongoing). Activity 1.2 (Remaining students paid for by school)
Special ProgramsIPT testing materials (St. Martin's) (ongoing). 28 students x $5.00 $140
Transfer Activity 1.2 (Remaining students paid for by school)
Special ProgramsELL testing materials (St. Michael the $350
Transfer Archangel) (ongoing). Activity 1.2
Special ProgramsInstructional materials and educational TBD $3,351
Transfer software to support the instructional
program for ELL students (Mother of God)
Special Programs Instructional materials and Read Naturally Educational software = $1,498 $1,653
Transfer Master Edition educational software to Testing materials: 31 x $5.00 = $155
support the instructional program for ELL
students (St. Bernadette) (ongoing).
Activity 1.2
Special Programs Books for ESOL levels 2-5 (St. Camillus) 80 books x $27.51 $2,201
Special Programs Educational software to support ELL Contracted price $3,000
Transfer students (St. Catherine Laboure) (ongoing).
Activity 1.2
Special Programs Educational software to support ELL Contracted price $1,500
Transfer students (St. Michael the Archangel)
SUBTOTAL OBJECT 03
$101,579
SUBTOTAL OBJECT 04
$0
Equipment
Special Programs Two Dell computers (St. Camillus) (ongoing). 2 x $489 $978
Transfer Activity 1.2
TOTAL for Activity $455,687

Activity 1.4

Special Programs Provide ESOL transition teachers to 2.0 FTE ESOL transition teachers x $78,794 $157,588
accelerate ELL into honors, advanced
placement, and other upper level courses by
providing transition services at two high
schools (August 2008–June 2009). Activity
1.4
Special Programs Provide supplemental summer employment 12 elementary teachers x $211.50 per 5 hour day x 20 days = $140,436
for ESOL teachers to continue English $50,760.
language instruction for ESOL students 13 high school teachers x $211.50 per 5 hour day x 28 days =
through the summer months (July $76,986.
2008–August 2008). Activity 1.4 3 SEPA teachers x $211.50 per 5 hour day x 20 days =
$12,690.
Fixed Charges Employee Benefits FTEs = $157,588 x .37 = $58,307; $69,542
Other Charges non-FTEs = $140,436 x .08 = $11,235
Contracted Services
Special Programs Hire a consultant to develop a Spanish Two payments will be made for invoices due $12,440
language literacy curriculum to help ESOL July 1, 2008, for $6,220 and August 1, 2008, for $6,220
students with interrupted formal education
develop literacy skills in Spanish to support
the acquisition of literacy skills in English (July
2008–August 2008). Activity 1.4

SUBTOTAL OBJECT 03
$0
Special Programs Provide transportation for ESOL students 4 hours per day x $20.70 per hour x 20 days = $1,656 $2,500
with interrupted formal education enrolled in 49.65 miles per day x $0.85 per mile x 20 days = $844
the ESOL SEPA Program (ongoing). Activity
1.4
SUBTOTAL OBJECT 04
$2,500
Equipment

Activity 2.1
Special Programs Provide substitutes to enable teachers to 170 substitutes x $117.17 per day $19,919
attend training during countywide ESOL
teachers’ meetings on the instruction and
assessment of ESOL students (September
2008–May 2009). Activity 2.1
Fixed Charges Employee Benefits non-FTEs = $19,919 x .08 = $1,593. $1,593
Other Charges
Contracted Services
Special Programs Quarterly training for teachers 2 teachers x 4 trainings x $129 $1,032
Transfer (St. Camillus) (ongoing). Activity 2.1

Special Programs Books for teachers 20 books x $33 $660
Transfer ASCD: Summarization in Any Subject: 50
Techniques to Improve Student Learning by
Rick Wormeli (St. Martin's) (ongoing).
Activity 2.1
Special Programs ASCD: Strategies for Success for English 1 video program $150
Transfer Language Learners-Action Tool (St. Martin's)
Equipment

Activity 2.2
Contracted Services
Special Programs Professional development 1 session $200
Transfer (Mother of God) (ongoing). Activity 2.2
Special Programs Professional development for teachers. Six 6 x $283.40 $1,700
Transfer Traits Writing Workshop (St. Bernadette)
Special Programs Professional development for teachers 10 teachers x $390 $3,900
Activity 2.2
Special Programs Professional development for teachers to 1 session $900
Transfer enhance their ability to work with ELL
students. (St. Michael the Archangel)

Equipment

Activity 3.1
Contracted Services
Special Programs After-school tutoring. (St. Camillus) (ongoing). $25 per hour x 1 hour per day x 117 days for PK-5. $5,850
Transfer Activity 3.1 $25 per hour x 1 hour per day x 117 days for 6-8.

Special Programs Leapfrog Schoolhouse educational software Contracted price $5,757
Transfer (St. Martin's) (ongoing). Activity 3.1
Equipment

Activity 3.2
Special Programs Provide parent community coordinators 14.8 FTE PCC x $63,186. (0.3 FTE PCC will be moved from $935,153
(PCC) to assist with parent outreach and the local budget to the grant to offset the 0.3 FTE fiscal
training opportunities to help ESOL parents assistant position (funded by Title III in FY 08) that must be
navigate the school system and to support the moved to the local budget for FY 09, since the FY 09 fiscal
academic achievement of ESOL students assistant salary and benefits exceeds the allowable 2%
(ongoing). Activity 3.2 administrative cost under Title III.)
Special Programs Hire a communication specialist to provide 1.0 FTE communication specialist x $59,236 $59,236
translation services in Korean to ESOL
families (ongoing). Activity 3.2
Special Programs Provide interpretation and translation services 1,440 hours x $25 per hour $36,000
to involve non-English-speaking parents in
school activities (ongoing). Activity 3.2
Fixed Charges Employee Benefits FTEs = $994,389 x .37 = $367,924. $370,804

SUBTOTAL OBJECT 01 $1,401,193
Contracted Services
Special Programs Professional development for parents 10 sessions x $40 $400
Activity 3.2
Special Programs Provide access to a translation memory system WorldServer annual maintenance and support for 1 server, $15,005
to enable schools and offices to produce and up to 2 CPUs. Includes 1 non-production server and 1
multilingual translations for frequently used SQL db connector. Licenses for 300 named users, unlimited
parental communication, such as newsletters, licenses for Desk Workbench and Desk Users. For the
fliers, and notes (ongoing). Activity 3.2 period of April 1, 2009, through March 31, 2010.
Special Programs Provide pagers to enable itinerant parent 43 pagers x $17 per month x 12 months $8,772
outreach and counseling staff to enhance the
provision of urgent services to ESOL students
and their families (ongoing).
Activity 3.2

Equipment
TOTAL for Activity $1,425,370

Activity 4.2
Contracted Services

Equipment
Special Programs Computers and/or other related technology 4 x $792 $3,168
Transfer hardware (St. Michael the Archangel)

Activity 4.5

Special Programs Hire a coordinator of ESOL/Bilingual 1.0 FTE coordinator x $122,307 $122,307
support programs to develop and implement
extended school day and extended school year
programs to support ESOL students by
working with established and relevant
community-based organizations and the
ESOL parent outreach and counseling teams
(ongoing). Activity 4.5.
Fixed Charges Employee Benefits FTEs = $122,307 x .37 $45,254

Other Charges
Contracted Services

SUBTOTAL OBJECT 03
$0
SUBTOTAL OBJECT 04
$0
Equipment

Activity 5.1
Business Support Fiscal assistant to conduct the financial 0.7 FTE fiscal assistant x $64,932 $45,452
transactions and prepare budget (ongoing).
Activity 5.1

Other Charges
Contracted Services
Business Support Audit fees (ongoing). Activity 5.1 $1,042

Equipment

Activity 5.2

Special Programs Use bilingual therapeutic counselors to 7.9 FTE bilingual therapeutic counselors x $60,389 $477,073
provide itinerant counseling to ESOL
students, including those with limited formal
education, at the elementary, middle, and high
school levels (ongoing). Activity 5.2

Other Charges
Contracted Services

SUBTOTAL OBJECT 03
$0
SUBTOTAL OBJECT 04
$0
Equipment

Activity 5.3

Contracted Services
Special Programs Purchase maintenance agreements on all 12 machines x $1,250 $15,000
copiers, faxes, and printers that support
services to ESOL students and their families

SUBTOTAL OBJECT 03
$0
SUBTOTAL OBJECT 04
$0
Equipment

ATTACHMENT 11 TITLE IV, PART A
SAFE AND DRUG-FREE SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITIES
Local School System: _Montgomery County Public Schools______ __ Fiscal Year 2009
Title IV, Part A, SDFSCA Coordinator: Rita Rumbaugh_________________________
Telephone: _301-279-3041________ Email: _Rita_B_Rumbaugh@mcpsmd.org_____
A-1 PERFORMANCE GOAL, INDICATORS, and TARGETS. At a minimum, each local school
system (LSS) must adopt the performance goal, indicators, and targets outlined in Table A-1.
Table A-1 Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Performance Goal,
Indicators, and Targets
Performance Goal Performance Indicators Performance Targets
Performance Goal 4: All 4.1 The number of persistently dangerous NOTE: Indicator 4.1 has been moved to
schools will be safe, drug schools. the Safe Schools section of the Annual
free, and conducive to Update.
learning.
4.2 The level of substance abuse in middle By the end of SY 2009-2010, reduce
and high schools as measured by the “cigarettes,” “any form of alcohol,” and “any
Maryland Adolescent Survey. drug other than alcohol or tobacco” use (Last
30 Days) in grades 6, 8, 10, and 12 by 10%.
4.3 The number of suspensions and By the end of SY 2009-2010, reduce

expulsions by offense. suspensions and expulsions for classroom
disruptions, insubordination, and refusal to
obey school policies/regulations by 10%.
NOTE: SY 2002-03 is the baseline year.

Local School System: _Montgomery County Public Schools______ _______________________________ Fiscal Year 2009
A-2 PROGRESS TOWARD PERFORMANCE TARGETS:

Table A-2 Baseline (2002 MAS) & Actual Performance Actual Performance Actual Performance
SY 2009-10 Performance (2004 MAS) (2007 MAS) (2009 MAS)
Performance Targets
Indicator
4.2 By the end of SY 2009-10:
The level of Reduce cigarette use in: Cigarette use in: Cigarette use in:
substance abuse 6th grade (from 0.2 % to 0.18 %) 6th grade: 0.6_% 6th grade: 1.3%
in middle and 8th grade (from _2.4 to 1.16 %) 8th grade: 2.6_% 8th grade: 2.9%
high schools as 10th grade (from 9.1_% to 8.19 %) 10th grade: 5.4_% 10th grade: 4.9% *
measured by the 12th grade (from 16.6_% to 15.9 %) 12th grade: 18.9 % 12th grade: 12.4% *
Maryland
Adolescent Reduce any form of alcohol use in: Any form of alcohol use in: Any form of alcohol use in:
Survey 6th grade (from 2.0_% to 1.8_%) 6th grade: 3.8_% 6th grade: 2.9%
(Last 30 Days). 8th grade (from 8.6_% to 7.7_%) 8th grade: 12.0_% 8th grade: 10.3%
10th grade (from 30.9 % to 27.8_%) 10th grade: 25.9_% 10th grade: 22.3% *
12th grade (from 39.1_% to 35.2_%) 12th grade: 43.9_% 12th grade: 40.9%
Reduce any drug other than Any drug other than alcohol or Any drug other than alcohol or
alcohol or tobacco use in: tobacco use in: tobacco use in:
6th grade (from 2.9_% to 2.6_%) 6th grade: 3.4_% 6th grade: 3.8%
8th grade (from 7.8_% to 7.0_%) 8th grade: 7.0_% 8th grade: 7.0% *
Provide an analysis of the LSS’s progress toward meeting each substance abuse Performance Target and identify the actions that will be
taken if adequate progress is not being made.
The 2007 Maryland Adolescent Survey shows progress in meeting or exceeding substance abuse performance targets in six categories-- cigarette use in grades
10 and 12, alcohol use in grade 10 and any other drug than alcohol or tobacco use in grades 8, 10 and 12. Other categories show consistent reductions in use,
with the notable exception of 12th grade alcohol use. Since the performance target from baseline 2002 MAS to the present was unrealistic, a better performance
target should be 37% for 12th grade students, rather than the 25% percent noted in the 2008 report. While an unacceptable level of use, the 37% target is within
the scope of the SDFS program and CMCA countywide prevention and intervention efforts targeted to grade 12 students.
Small increments in 6th and 8th grade students’ reports of alcohol use will need to be carefully monitored in future iterations of the MAS.
Table A-2
(Continued) Baseline (SY 2002-03) & SY 2005-06 Performance (%) SY 2006-07 Performance (%) SY 2007-08 Performance (%)
SY 2009-10 Performance
Performance Targets
Indicator
4.3 Reduce the percentage of
suspensions and expulsions for:
Classroom disruptions Actual Performance: .0026% Actual Performance: .0020% Actual Performance: .00145%
(from .0018% to .0015%)
The percentage of
out-of-school Insubordination Actual Performance: .0051%
Actual Performance: .0045%
school (from .0046% to .0040%) Actual Performance: .0054 %
suspensions and
expulsions by
Refusal to obey school
offense. policies/regulations Actual Performance: .0059%
(from .0053% to .0047%)
Provide an analysis of the LSS’s progress toward meeting each suspension Performance Target and identify the actions that will be taken
if adequate progress is not being made. (Use additional space as needed).
The MCPS suspension performance target was met in the area of classroom disruption while suspensions for insubordination and refusal to obey
school policies have increased. In this school district of over 138,000 students, these increases may be statistically insignificant. However,
increases are of major concern. Careful monitoring and further attention to suspension data in targeted schools will be a priority of the Safe and
Drug-Free Schools project.
What actions the LSS will take to assure the SY 2008-09 Performance Target is met:
For SY 2008-09, Montgomery County Public Schools Safe and Drug-Free Schools will better allocate services, support schools and implements
activities and programs based on need.
To achieve reductions in insubordination and refusal to obey school policies and regulations, MCPS Safe and Drug-Free Schools will partner with
the local management board, the Collaboration Council, to create and expand a United States Department of Education Drug and Violence
Prevention Web Courses for Schools” research-based program for building “School Connectedness” among students in three high risk areas of
Montgomery County.
Specific schools and neighborhoods will be targeted based on the Collaboration Council’s “Children’s Agenda” Neighborhood Index of Risk and
factors as the impact of extreme economic deprivation and linguistic and cultural isolation in areas of Montgomery County.
MCPS Safe and Drug-Free Schools will dedicate Title IV, Part A. Safe and Drug-Free Schools resources for programs and activities in the schools
associated with those neighborhoods, especially the Silver Spring, Germantown and Wheaton area schools.
Moreover, these targeted schools and neighborhoods will be coordinated through collaborative partnerships with the School Community Action
team coordinators, the schools’ Violence and Drug Prevention staff,, the Montgomery County Police Department Gang Investigators, HHS Gang
Prevention Initiative (GPI) outreach workers. Maryland CHOICES for wrap around services, Montgomery County Recreation Department and
other partners and agencies.
Local School System: Montgomery County Public Schools___________ Fiscal Year 2009
B. ALLOWABLE ACTIVITIES [Section 4115(b)(2)] - Provide the following for all Title IV, Part A
activities that will be implemented: (a) A brief description of the services (b) How the services will be
targeted to schools and students with the greatest need, and (c) Timelines for when the services will be
completed; (d) Cost of services for public schools; and (e) Cost of services to nonpublic schools.
B-1 Programs and Activities to Promote Drug and Violence Prevention
Allowable Activities Brief description of specific Public Nonpublic

services, Targeting of services to School School Costs
schools and students with the Costs
greatest need, and Timelines
1.1 Age appropriate and developmentally based *School wide Discipline Policies: In-kind In-kind
activities that – Policies are developed in accordance
• Address the consequences of violence and the with the Montgomery County Public
illegal use of drugs, as appropriate; Schools (MCPS) policy to set clear
behavioral standards and
• Promote a sense of individual responsibility; consequences. The local school
• Teach students that most people do not disciplinary policy addresses the
illegally use drugs; consequences of alcohol and other
• Teach students to recognize social and peer drug use are developed, revised and
pressure to use drugs illegally and the skills for disseminated on a continuing cycle
resisting illegal drug use; with the assistance of the School
Community Action Coordinators and
• Teach students about the dangers of emerging
school-based drug and violence staff
drugs; in each secondary school.
• Engage students in the learning process; and
• Incorporate activities in secondary schools that Target Population: Universal
prevention.
reinforce prevention activities implemented in
elementary schools [section 4115(b)(2)(A)]. Implemented by: Administrators,
teachers, and counselors.
Timeline: September 2008 through
July 2009.
*Communities Mobilizing for

Change on Alcohol (CMCA):
$4,135. 50 $4,135.50
CMCA is a Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services
Administration (SAMHSA) model
program, science-based proved to
be effective. CMCA is implemented
in Montgomery County by a
coalition of community, school and
agency partners.
The CMCA curriculum provides

three hours of instruction to selected
high risk high school students
regarding the law and consequences
of drug use and underage drinking.
Held ten times yearly for a total of
350 students, the program is
coordinated and funded through
SDFS with the assistance of The
Montgomery County Police
Department (MCPD), the Phoenix
Schools, and CMCA. Funds are
used to provide bus transportation
for students and substitute coverage
and mileage for staff.
Target Population: Data show that
1250 alcohol citations are issued to
Montgomery County youth each
year. The CMCA program helps
prevent youth access to alcohol.
Implemented by: Montgomery
County Circuit Court Judiciary,
SDFS, CMCA coordinator.
June 2009.
Outcomes: This program supports
MSDE Performance Target 4.2, “By
2009-2010, reduce any form of
alcohol use ( last 30 days) in grades
6, 8, 10 and 12 by 10%.
By the end of the year, 2008–2009,
315 students will have correctly
identified the risks and laws related
to underage alcohol use and drug
use in Montgomery County, as
documented by the CMCA student
evaluations.
1.2 Activities that involve families, community CMCA: *School Community $19, 414 $4072
sectors (which may include appropriately trained Action Groups:
seniors), and a variety of drug and violence
prevention providers in setting clear expectations Communities Mobilizing for
against violence and illegal use of drugs and Change on Alcohol (CMCA), a
appropriate consequences for violence and illegal research-based SAMHSA model
use of drugs [section 4115(b)(2)(B)]. program, is designed to reduce youth
access to alcohol by changing
community policies and practices.
The CMCA curriculum provides
parent-targeted programs and
monthly training meetings on how to
assist School Community Action
Groups lead alcohol and other drug
prevention and violence prevention
through parent education and citizen
advocacy. Funds are used to provide
stipend* salaries and travel
reimbursement to coordinators who
are MCPS employees to attend
training meetings which are held
outside of the duty day and to
provide salaries and fringe benefits
for professional part time MCPS
employees to train and support the
coordinators.
*Stipends are used to pay MCPS
employees for work beyond the
regular duty day. This activity is
limited to MCPS employees since
they are fingerprinted and undergo
FBI clearance prior to employment.
Target Population: In Montgomery
County, the Board of Liquor Control
estimates 55% of youth who use
alcohol have access to alcohol from
their homes. The 2007 Maryland
Adolescent Survey (MAS) data
show 1.3% of 6th graders, 10.3% of
8th graders, 22.3% of 10th graders
and 40.9% of 12th graders have used
alcohol in the last 30 days.
Implemented by: Parent
representatives trained by SDFS.
July 2009
MSDE’s Performance Target 4.2
“By the end of SY2009-10, reduce
any form of alcohol use ( Last 30
Days) in grades 6, 8, 10 and 12 by
10%”.
By June 30, 2009, 90% of the
parents attending a parent education
community event will report
increased knowledge of
consequences for the providing of
and the illegal use of alcohol and
other drugs and violence among SDFS staff in
youth, as measured by the CMCA cooperation
parent education surveys. with CMCA
“Drawing the
*Post-Prom Activities: Line” on
Post-Prom committee chairs work Underage
annually on a Post-Prom event, as Alcohol Use
part of the drug-free alternatives
developed in each high school.
Target Population: Universal
Prevention: High school—juniors
and seniors.
Implemented by: Post-Prom
Committee and SDFS.
June 2009.
*Montgomery County Council of

Parent Teacher Association
(MCCPTA) and Local Parent
Teacher Association (PTA):
SDFS maintains a liaison with
MCCPTA for parent education.
Prevention.
Implemented by: Parents.
July 2009.
*Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)
Comprehensive Community-Wide
Approach to Gang Prevention,
Intervention, and Suppression:
The OJJDP model for Gang

prevention is a research-based,
model program developed through
the Department of Justice. The
curriculum provides parent $1200 $400
education and outreach through
School Community Action groups
and the local PTAs, including parent
seminars, newsletters, and
community prevention fairs and
activities, sponsored by parents and
partially funded through SDFS.
Funds are used to reproduce and
disseminate materials on gang
awareness.
Target Population: Montgomery

County Police Department ( MCPD)
Gang Investigators report juvenile
arrests for gang related criminal
behavior has markedly increased,
from 35% of the 2004 arrests to
nearly 56% of the arrests in high risk
areas of Montgomery County.
According to the investigators, most
of these arrests are as a result of
conflict in schools carried into the
communities.
Implemented by: Counselors,
Collaborative Supervision &
Focused Enforcement leaders
(CSAFE) administrators, teachers,
community, and SDFS.
July 2009.
MSDE Performance Target 4.3 By
the end of SY 2009-2010, reduce
suspensions and expulsions for
classroom disruptions,
insubordination and refusal to obey
school policies/ regulations by 10%. SDFS staff Same service
through metro
By June 30, 2009, school staff, area parents’
parents and community members council.
will report an increased awareness of
gang signs and behavior. They will
be able to recognize and name at
least three community resources for
gang intervention and assistance, as
measured by the OJJDP Gang
Awareness Comprehensive survey.
Communities Mobilizing for

Change on Alcohol (CMCA ) is
a science-based program
designated by SAMHSA as a
model program.
Implement Drawing the Line on

Under 21 Alcohol Use which is
staffed and funded through a
governor’s grant to the Family
Support Center. School Community
Action Coordinators take a lead role
in the convening and facilitating of
the Drawing the Line initiatives in
county schools, through SDFS
stipends for coordinators’ leadership
and participation.
prevention.
Implemented by: Department of
Health and Human Services
(DHHS).
August 2009.
*Communities Mobilizing for

Change on Alcohol
(CMCA) a science-based
SAMHSA model program, is
implemented to provide Student
Seminars at targeted schools and
provides two day alcohol and other
drug prevention programs in high
schools to include parents, police, Nonpublic
hospitals, fire department, elected schools have
officials, and the entire student body not yet
of the high schools for a mock $11,298 responded to
automobile crash due to a drinking the invitation
student driver. An overnight student to participate.
seminar and parent eulogies are
components of this school and
community led program. CMCA
pre- and post-assessments are
administered for evaluation of this
program. Funds are used to support
the cost of materials and the retreat
center for the overnight student
seminar.
Target Population: The 2007 MAS
Montgomery County data show that
high school students in grades 10
and 12 report 30 day use of alcohol
at 22.3% for grade 10 and 40.9% at
grade 12.students. Montgomery
County Police Department alcohol
citation data indicate youth access to
alcohol is from parents’ homes. This
programs will help to reduce youth
access to alcohol from homes.
All high schools are eligible for this
program but priority targeted schools
are determined by the 2006-2007
MCPS Survey of School
Environment school climate data.
Implemented by: Police, parents,
and school staff.
June 2009.
MSDE Performance Target 4.2, “By
the end of 2009-2010 SY, reduce
any form of alcohol use in grades 6,
8, 10 and 12 by 10%.
1.3 Disseminating information about drug and *Parent Education/Outreach: SDFS staff SDFS staff
violence prevention to schools and the Community forums, PTA meetings support in with Parents
community [section 4115(b)(2)(C)]. and seminars, held in collaboration partnership Council
with the MCCPTA and local PTAs, with the local
and the assistance of the MCCPTA PTAs and
liaison to the SDFS Advisory other parents’
Council, assure a comprehensive, groups.
energetic and cohesive approach to
the alcohol and other drug and
violence issues and programs in the
school community. Parent materials
are procured and disseminated
through the National Clearinghouse
for Alcohol and Other Drug
Information in Rockville and the
local CSAFE police districts.
Prevention and targeted high risk
areas.
Implemented by: Administrators,
counselors, teachers, polices, and
community.
July 2009.
1.4 Communitywide planning and organizing *The Local Management Board: SDFS staff SDFS staff
activities to reduce violence and illegal drug use, support in support
The Collaboration Council and partnership
which may include gang activity prevention
SDFS have provided parent with the
[Section 4115(b)(2)(E)(i)]. education and community advocacy Local
for prevention in Montgomery Management
County. Working with legislators Board and
and private nonprofit advocacy the
groups, alcohol and other drug Montgomery
legislation is conveyed to local County
partners through School Community Community
Action Coordinators. Additionally, Partnership
violence prevention materials are (MCCP)
disbursed to the local PTAs, parents
at back-to-school nights, and to
school-based drug and violence
prevention staff for inclusion in PTA
newsletters. Further, community
seminars such as the forums for
violence/gang prevention, have
resulted in discussion and action
groups in private and public schools.
Target Population: Indicated
prevention: Schools at highest need
are selected based on demographics
on crime and violence in the
community including increased gang
crime and gang related violence.
High risk neighborhoods are defined
by Collaboration Council data.
Implemented by: Regional
representatives trained by SDFS,
SDFS and Community, and partners.
July 2009.
Staff support SDFS staff
* Red Ribbon Campaign: and in-kind support,
Red Ribbon Campaign is held funding celebrations
annually as a reminder of the and mailings
dangers of alcohol and other drug Pledge cards to nonpublic
use and violence. All elementary and printed by schools
middle schools sponsor a drug-free MCPS
and safe pledge signing activity.
Red Ribbon ceremonies and pledge
signing have taken on a celebratory
air, as students realize others are not
using drugs and subscribe to the
social norm that “most kids don’t”
(use). The lead person at the school
for the Red Ribbon campaign may
be a parent or school staff person.

prevention: Pre-K through Grade 8.
Implemented by: SDFS, school
staff, and Educational Facility
Officers (EFOs).
Timeline: October and November
2008.
SDFS staff
*The Collaboration Council support only
“Gang Subcommittee”: SDFS staff
support as
mandated
partner to the
The SDFS staff works with the
local
MCPD District Gang Coordinators
management
to provide school staff with updated
board
and accurate information on gang
activity in Montgomery County,
particularly as the activity impacts
schools and school neighborhoods.
The MCPD Gang Coordinators
conduct school staff training through
the SDFS Symposium. The officers
also provide staff in-service at
selected schools through the SDFS
Student Assistance team at the
school. Staff is represented on the
MCPS Gang Awareness Task Force.
prevention targeted to schools in
“high risk” neighborhoods or
greatest need as defined by the
police arrest data and the
Department of Juvenile Justice
juvenile arrest data.
Implemented by: Police Gang
Coordinators, State’s Attorneys
Office, SDFS, Collaboration
Council, CSAFE, and community
leaders.
August 2009.
1.5 Providing professional development and training *Workshops and Trainings:

$17,680 $6,224 for
for, and involvement of, school personnel, pupil participating
The United States Department of
services personnel, parents, and interested private school
Education Safe and Drug- Free
community members in prevention, education, Schools Drug and Violence staff
early identification and intervention, mentoring, Prevention Web Courses for Schools
or rehabilitation referral, as related to drug and is a series of science-based
violence prevention [section 4115(b)(2)(D)]. continuing education courses for
staff development.
Safe and Drug-Free Schools uses

this science-based curriculum to
conduct annual SDFS drug and
violence prevention and intervention
Symposium and workshops for
school personnel, including
counselors, psychologists, security,
and Pupil Personnel Workers
(PPWs), on topics identified through
year-end data collection and other
needs assessments. Funds are used
to provide stipends*, travel
reimbursement, and fringe benefits
for counselors, PPWs, psychologists,
and other staff to participate in the
SDFS Symposium which is held
outside of the duty day and to
support the cost of the facility and
consultants for the symposium and
workshops.
* Stipends are used to pay MCPS
regular duty day.
Target Population: MCPS School
climate data show that nearly 60%
middle and high school staff
respondents report “drug use is a
problem in this school” and “alcohol
use is a problem in this school”.
Implemented by: Department of
Student Services (DSS) and SDFS
and community partners including
the Local Management Board, the
Collaboration Council.
Timeline: June 2009.
MSDE Performance Goal 4: All
schools will be safe, drug free and
conducive to learning, MSDE
Performance Target 4.2 and
Performance Target 4.3.
By July, 2009, 100% of MCPS
participating staff will use the
Principles of Effectiveness to
measure the efficacy of the
Symposium. Further, the
participants will be able to define
how each will apply the prevention
and intervention information to their
job roles in schools.
*National Safe and Drug Free

Conference: No nonpublic
$1,175 school staff
registration presently
and travel for participate
Provide funds for SDFS staff attend
staff
and present at U.S. Department of
Education (USDOE) and National
Student Assistance Association
(NSAA) conferences annually.
Target Population: Safe and Drug-
Free Schools national evaluation
data show the successful outcomes
of the federal financing for Safe and
Drug-Free Schools projects in each
school system depend on a well-
trained, full time coordinator
dedicated to this effort.
Implemented by: SDFS.
Timeline: July 2009
Outcomes: This supports MSDE’s
Performance Goal 4: All schools
will be safe, drug free and conducive
to learning.
By August 2009, SDFS staff will
have been recognized as national
prevention leaders through
presentations at this national
conference.
*Drug and Violence Prevention

and Intervention Training for
Public and Non-Public School
Staff: $5,000 for
training for six
The United States Department of $35,291 nonpublic
Education Safe and Drug- Free schools
Schools Drug and Violence participating
Prevention Web Courses for Schools
is a series of science-based Same services
continuing education courses for for nonpublic
staff development in violence and including each
drug prevention and intervention. school’s
prevention
representative
Staff representing each secondary for stipends,
school will be trained on drug and training
violence prevention and materials and
intervention. support
Using this curriculum, mental health

professionals will provide training
for school-based staff in drug and
violence identification, intervention
and referral. for both private and
public secondary schools. Violence
and drug prevention staff,
representing each secondary school,
will attend a training session for two
hours each month to collect data on
drug and violence in schools,
develop and update drug and
violence community activity, and
identify community and school
resources for prevention. All
trainings are held outside of the duty
day.
SDFS will provide the training fee

for 100 school representatives to
attend the state-sponsored
conference for Maryland Student
Assistance Program Professional
Association (MSAPPA) in February.
Funds are used to provide school

staff with a stipends *for the
monthly trainings and to provide the
training fee for the state-sponsored
Maryland Student Assistance
Program Professional Association
(MSAPPA).
* Stipends are used to pay MCPS

regular duty day.
Target Population: The MCPS
2006-2007 Survey of School
Environment school climate data
indicate 40% to 60% school staff
report drugs, safety and students’
behaviors a problem in middle and
high schools.
School staff will assist high risk
students at each school.
June 2009.
MSDE Performance Goal 4: “All
schools will be safe, drug free and
conducive to learning” and
Performance Targets 4.2 and 4.3:
“By the end of SY 2009-2010,
reduce any form of alcohol use by
10% in grade 12 and any drug other
than alcohol and tobacco” use (Last
30 Days) in grades 6, 8, 10 and 12
by 10% and “By the end of SY
2009-2010, reduce suspensions and
expulsions for classroom
disruptions, insubordination and
refusal to obey school
policies/regulations by 10%.”
Moreover, MCPS Survey of School
Environment 2008-2009 school
climate data will reflect a decrease in
grade 6, 8, 10 and 12 students
reporting concerns on drug use in
school, alcohol use in schools and
teasing other students in a hurtful
way in school.
Continuing Professional
Development (CPD) Courses:
The USDOE Web Base Courses for

Schools science-based drug and $1,278
violence staff development Non-public
curriculum is used for staff CPD school staff
courses. MSDE has approved these participate
CPD courses for school staff. The with the public
courses includes information on how schools.
drug use and violence by school age
youth affects students’ school
performance and how to prevent
student drug use and violence. Five
CPD courses are offered annually
including Juvenile Justice and the
Schools, Intervention through
Student Assistance, Support for
Resilient Children, Summer
Symposium, and Drug and Violence
Prevention Staff Symposium. A
USDOE Web based course (ed.gov)
on school-related violence, is
pending review by Maryland State
Department of Education and will be
offered when approved.
Funds are used to pay stipends for

MCPS instructors of CPD courses
and to pay the registration fee for the
International Association for
Continuing Education and Training
(IACET) in order to award support
service personnel, social workers,
and school psychologists with
accreditation for their course
completion.
*Stipends are used to pay MCPS
regular duty day.
Target Population: According to
the MCPS 2006-2007 Survey of
School Environment, as few as 34%
of school staff agree that “students
teasing other students in a hurtful
way is a not a problem”, “student
drug use is a not a problem” and
“student drug use is not a problem” .
June 2009.
MSDE Performance Goal 4: All
schools will be safe, drug-free and
conducive to learning and
Performance Targets 4.2 and 4.3.
By June 30, 2009, 90 school-based

staff will have completed all course
requirements to earn 1 or 2 MSDE
approved continuing professional
development credits in drug and
violence prevention in schools. All
participating school staff will have
been able to apply course objectives
and learnings to school roles, using
the Principles of Effectiveness.
1.6 Evaluating any of the allowable activities and *SDFS biennially participates in SDFS staff No nonpublic
collecting objective data to assess program the MAS: support schools
needs, program implementation, or program Data on student responses are used participate
success in achieving program goals and for program priorities.
objectives [section 4115(b)(2)(F)].
*Process data:
Data is collected annually from each
SDFS Student Assistant team and
compiled to assess ongoing program
effectiveness.
*SDFS school climate data:

Data is collected annually through
student’s reports.
Target Population: Schools
participating in the MAS are selected
by MSDE using a cluster stratified
model with criteria such as Free and
Reduced-Price Meals System
(FARMS), minority population, and
school size.
December 2009.
1.7 Expanded and improved school based mental *Comprehensive School MCPS SDFS staff
health services related to illegal drug use and Counseling Program: Student support
violence, including early identification of K–12 school counseling program is a Service staff
violence and illegal drug use, assessment, and developmental program providing and SDFS
direct or group counseling services provided to skills in the areas of academic, staff support
interpersonal, personal, career, and
students, parents, and school personnel by
healthy development for all students
qualified school based mental health service as well as responsive counseling,
providers [section 4115(b)(2)(E)(vii)]. individual planning, and school
support.
*Co-occurring Disorder Steering

Committee:
This agency and nonprofit staff are SDFS staff
dedicated to integrating substance support SDFS staff
abuse and mental health services. support
*Assessment Services:
Assessments for mental health and
drug use are now provided to all
schools through county government
and several private treatment
agencies.
Target Population: School staff and
agency staff are selected through
DSS. Students at highest need are
identified according to students
Emotionally Disturbed (ED) code
and manifestation of both substance
and mental health problems.
Implemented by: DSS and SDFS
staff with county’s DHHS.
August 2009.
1.8 Conflict resolution programs, including peer

mediation programs that educate and train peer
mediators and a designated faculty supervisor,
and youth anti-crime and anti-drug councils and
activities [section 4115(b)(2)(E)(viii)].
1.9 Alternative education programs or services for *Alternative Education: $20,678 Training
violent or drug abusing students that reduce the materials and available to
SDFS implements the science-based training nonpublic
need for suspension or expulsion or that serve
curriculums, “Get Real About schools as
students who have been suspended or expelled Violence” and the model program
from the regular educational settings, including requested
from the Office of Juvenile Justice
programs or services to assist students to make and Delinquency Prevention No nonpublic
continued progress toward meeting the State (OJJDP) Comprehensive alternative
Academic Achievement Standards and to reenter Community-Wide Approach to school has
the regular education setting [section Gang Prevention, Intervention, and requested
4115(b)(2)(E)(ix)]. Suppression to provide a training services
model for alternative school staff in
alcohol and other drug prevention
and intervention and violence
prevention and intervention These
science based programs are proved
to reduce violence in targeted
communities and schools.
Funds are used to provide salary,
fringe benefits, and local travel for
professional part time staff to
support training, to provide
contractual money for national
consultants, and to provide
contractual money for updating
prevention and recovery materials.
Target Population: Montgomery
County Department of Juvenile
Services (DJS) reports most
adjudicate youth are assigned to
alternative schools. Students
identified as “greatest need” are
referred to alternative schools
through the referral process at field
office level. Alternative schools
selected are identified using
appropriate instruments at school
site.
Implemented by: Alternative schools
and DHHS
August 2009
the MSDE Performance Goal 4 and
the Performance Target 4.3 “by the
end of 2009-2010, reduce
classroom disruption,
insubordination and refusal to obey
school policies and regulations by
10%”.
Additionally, by July, 2009, 8

alternative programs will have
participated in drug and violence
training at each of the alternative
school sites. Staff will be able to
correctly identify local resources for
family support, mental health
services and wrap around services
for alternative school students and
their families.
*Collaboration Council Youth

Strategies:
$9, 022 Private
materials schools
The UDSDOE Drug and Violence receive same
Prevention Web Courses for Schools materials as
is a science-based curriculum for requested
staff development. The “School
Connectedness and Meaningful
Student Participation” science-based
course is a prevention course based
on the longitudinal Adolescent
Health Research conducted by Dr.
Robert Blum. Montgomery County’s
local management board, the
Collaboration Council, has dedicated
Youth Strategies and prevention
funds to partner with SDFS to
develop “School Connectedness” at
schools to help students connect
positively to school. Funds are used
to provide materials for 14 middle
schools to implement the program.
Environment indicates about 20% of
students do not feel safe at school.
The 2004 MAS validates this data
and includes students’ feelings of
safety to and from school and in
neighborhoods.
School communities are identified
by the Collaboration Council as
“greatest need” through a
compilation of local data including
arrests, citations, linguistic isolation
and FARMS data. A referral process
and nonattendance criteria has been
developed by DSS. Students and
families are evaluated and provided
case management through DSS and
the Truancy Review Board.
Implemented by: State’s Attorney
Office, Police, Collaboration
Council Local Management Board,
Department of Juvenile Justice
(DJJ), and DSS.
August 2009.
MSDE Performance Goal 4 and
Performance Target 4.2 “By the end
of 2009-2010, reduce “cigarettes,”
“any form of alcohol” and “drug
other than alcohol or tobacco” use
(last 30 days) in grades 6, 8, 10 and
12 by 10% and Performance Target
4.3 “By the end of 2009-2010,
reduce suspensions and expulsions
for classroom disruptions,
insubordination, and refusal to obey
school policies/ regulations by 10%.
By July, 2009, 14 identified schools

in high risk areas of the county will
show an increase in feelings of
safety and “School Connectedness”
as measured through student reports
in “Youth Speak-Outs” forums at
each of the schools. Youth Speak-
Out reports will be compiled and
disseminated to the MCPS BOE, the
County Council and others through
the local management board in
partnership with SDFS.
1.10 Drug and violence prevention activities designed SDFS staff SDFS staff
to reduce truancy [section 4115(b)(2)(E)(xii)]. *SHARP Suspension Programs: support for support
The SHARP Suspension Program training
coordinators are trained annually. provided
SDFS resources, training, and through
assistance have been made available SDFS, CPD
through the project to support the and
suspension program. Symposium
Prevention: Students identified as
“greatest need” through a referral
process which includes suspension
or expulsion from secondary
schools. Family and school supports
are necessary for student’s
placements.
Implemented by: Training for
community volunteers provided by
SDFS staff.
August 2009
1.11 Programs that encourage students to seek advice *Confidential and Anonymous MCPS SDFS staff
from, and to confide in, a trusted adult regarding “Concern Cards” are provided in in-kind and support
concerns about violence and illegal drug use schools with school-base violence SDFS
[section 4115(b)(2)(E)(xi)]. and drug prevention support
representative staff: through
This referral process is used by school-based
students. training for
violence and
Target Population: Universal drug
prevention. prevention
Implemented by: School staff staff
trained in violence and drug
prevention and intervention.
June 2009.
1.12 Counseling, mentoring, referral services, and *Referral services, practices and $43, 381 SDFS staff
other student assistance practices and programs, programs and school staff training support
including assistance provided by qualified school by mental health providers in
based mental health services providers and the identification and intervention $5000 for
techniques: participating
training of teachers by school based mental
non-public
health services providers in appropriate school staff
The USDOE Drug and Violence
identification and intervention techniques for Web Courses for Schools is a
students at risk of violent behavior and illegal science-based staff development
use of drugs [section 4115(b)(2)(E)(x)]. series of continuing education issue
related courses, effective strategies
and data driven decision-making
courses to reduce violence and drug
use in schools.
SDFS with mental health providers

use this curriculum with secondary
school staff to help identify and refer
students at high risk of violent
behavior and illegal use of drugs.
Funds are used to provide stipends,

substitutes, fringe benefits, and
contractual for training conducted
during the school day and after
school for non-public and public
school staff.
Target Population: The 2006-2007
MCPS Survey of School
Environment staff survey indicates
areas of concern among school staff,
namely student drug and alcohol use,
particularly in high school, and
students’ behavior inside and outside
the classroom. Students at highest
need are identified using behavioral
indicators. Appropriate referrals are
made which may include mental
health and drug assessments,
*********
counseling, school-based alt level 1
support or access to community
supports and resources.
Implemented by: School based
mental health providers, SDFS staff,
DSS staff and consultants.
August 2009
the MSDE Performance Goal 4 and
Performance Targets 4.2 “By the end
of SY 2009-2010, reduce any form
of alcohol” and “any form of drug
other than alcohol or tobacco” use
(Last 30 Days) in grades 6, 8, 10 and
12 by 10%, and Performance Target
4.3, “By the end of SY 2009-2010,
reduce suspensions and expulsions
for classroom disruptions,
school policies/ regulations by
10%”.
1.13 Age appropriate, developmentally based violence *MCPS Safety and Security MCPS SDFS staff
prevention and education programs that address Steering Committee: in-kind and support
victimization associated with prejudice and This committee develops strategies to partnership
intolerance, and that include activities designed achieve “Safe Schools”. in-kind no
to help students develop a sense of individual SDFS
funding
responsibility and respect for the rights of others, Prevention: All schools.
and to resolve conflicts without violence [section
Implemented by: DSS, Office of
4115(b)(2)(E)(xiii)]. Curriculum and Instructional
Programs, Office of School
Performance, School Safety and
Security Steering Committee.
Timeline: Dates scheduled as needed
2008–2009 school year.
1.14 Emergency intervention services following *Crisis Response: School Safety Same services
traumatic crisis events, such as a shooting, major This service addresses physical and Security as requested
accident, or a drug-related incident that have safety and mental health needs with SDFS
disrupted the learning environment [section during and after a crisis. support
4115(b)(2)(E)(xv)].
*Distribution of Safe Schools
Materials:
“Safe and Sound” and appropriate
and approved resources.
Prevention: all public and private
schools.
Implemented by: DSS, School
Safety and Security.
June 2009.
1.15 Establishing or implementing a system for

transferring suspension and expulsion records,
consistent with section 444 of the General
Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g), by
a local school system to any public or private
elementary school or secondary school [section
4115(b)(2)(E)(xvi)].
1.16 Community service, including community

service performed by expelled students, and
service learning projects [section
4115(b)(2)(E)(xix].
1.17 Developing and implementing character *Second Step, a research-based $21,779 No nonpublic
education programs, as a component of drug and program for character education materials and schools have
violence prevention programs, that consider the and violence prevention: training accepted
views of students and parents of the students for invitation to
whom the program is intended, e.g., a program participate
SDFS has provided Second Step
described in subpart 3 of part D of Title V training and materials for middle
[section 4115(b)(2)(E)(xvii)]. schools, 63 elementary schools, and
the students with severely emotional
disabilities (SED) in middle and
elementary schools. School based
staff training will be implemented in
six schools.
Second Step is an evidence and

research based violence prevention
and social skills pre-K through
Grade 8 curriculum, proven to be
effective in reducing violence in
schools. The student learnings are
anger management, impulse control,
and problem solving. A
family/parent component is designed
for parent group use. Funds are used
to provide salary, fringe benefits,
and local travel for professional part
time staff to support training and to
purchase materials for use in
schools.
Environment shows students’
concerns for their belongings, their
personal safety, classroom behavior,
teasing and drug and alcohol use.
The students’ perceptions range
from a composite factor score of
67% at elementary schools to 47 %
at high schools.
Schools with greatest need are
selected through analysis of quality
index data on school climate. Staff
for the SED coded students in six
elementary schools will be provided
materials and trainings for Second
Step implementation. (Note change).
Implemented by: DSS, teachers,
counselors, and SDFS.
August 2009.
the MSDE Performance Target 4.3
“By the end of 2009-2010, reduce
classroom disruptions,
school policies and procedures by
10%.
By July 2009, newly trained staff
will complete the Second Step
Evaluation Data. School staff will
report a 25% decrease in school
disruption and a 20% increase in
behaviors which indicate good
character. School climate data will
indicate “I feel safe here” and “My
things are safe here” on climate
survey responses.
The SED schools measure the
success of the Second Step program
implementation through school staff
reports and staff accountability for
program implementation at
designated grade levels.
1.18 Conducting a nationwide background check of

each local school system employee regardless of
when hired, and prospective employees for the
purpose of determining whether the employee or
prospective employee has been convicted of a
crime that bears upon the employee's fitness
[section 4115(b)(2)(E)(xx)].
1.19 Programs to train school personnel to identify *Revised Suicide Guidelines and Student SDFS staff
warning signs of youth suicide and to create an On-going Training: Services with support
action plan to help youth at risk of suicide The Suicide Risk Reporting Form is SDFS staff
[section 4115(b)(2)(E)(xxi)]. distributed and training takes place support
at regularly scheduled meetings.
The Red Flag program is in five
middle schools.
prevention: Students with the
greatest need identified by DHHS
nurses and guidance staff.
Implemented by: DSS and SDFS.
August 2098.
1.20 Programs to meet the needs of students faced *Mandatory Reporting of Child Student No SDFS
with domestic violence or child abuse [section Abuse and Appropriate Training: Services with funding
4115(b)(2)(E)(xxii)]. Code of Maryland Administrative SDFS staff
Regulations (COMAR) and MCPS support
requires reporting.
Target Population: Students with
the greatest need identified by school
staff and DHHS nurses.
Implemented by: DSS, Office of
School Performance, and school
staff.
August 2008.
1.21 Establishing and maintaining a school safety * School Safety Hotline: School Safety Same services
hotline [section 4115(b)(2)(E)(xviii)]. The school safety hotline is an and Security for Maryland
anonymous reporting hotline for use with SDFS Hotline
by students, parents, and community. staff support
prevention.
Implemented by: School Safety and
Security.
August 2009.
SUBTOTAL -- TITLE IV-A FUNDING AMOUNTS
$186,331.50 $24, 831.50
FOR PROGRAMS/ACTIVITIES
Local School System: Montgomery County Public Schools__________ Fiscal Year 2009
B. ALLOWABLE ACTIVITIES [Section 4115(b)(2)], Continued.
B-2 Specific Programs to Promote and Implement Security Measures. Note: No more than 40 percent of
the Title IV, Part A funds may be used to carry out activities identified with an asterisk (*). Of this 40
percent, not more than 50 percent (i.e., no more than 20 percent of the total Title IV-A distribution) may
be used for security measures or activities identified with a plus (+), only if funding for these activities is
not received from other federal agencies.
Allowable Activities Brief description of specific Public Nonpublic

services, Targeting of services to School Costs School Costs
schools and students with the
greatest need, and Timelines
2.1 *+Acquiring and installing metal detectors, N/A

electronic locks, surveillance cameras, or other
related equipment and technologies. [section
4115(b)(2)(E)(ii)].
2.2 *+Reporting criminal offences committed on N/A

school property [section 4115(b)(2)(E)(iii)].
2.3 *+Developing and implementing comprehensive N/A

school security plans or obtaining technical
assistance concerning such plans, which may
include obtaining a security assessment or
assistance from the School Security and
Technology Resource Center at the Sandia
National Laboratory located in Albuquerque,
New Mexico [section 4115(b)(2)(E)(iv)].
2.4 *+Supporting safe zones of passage activities N/A

that ensure that students travel safely to and from
school, which may include bicycle and
pedestrian safety programs [section
4115(b)(2)(E)(v)].
2.5 *The hiring and mandatory training, based on N/A

scientific research, of school security personnel
(including school resource officers) who interact
with students in support of youth drug and
violence prevention activities under this part that
are implemented in the school [section
4115(b)(2)(E)(vi)].
TOTAL FOR SECURITY MEASURES

Local School System: Montgomery County Public Schools__________ Fiscal Year 2009
C. DRUG AND VIOLENCE PREVENTION PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES: Provide the information
requested below for the Drug & Violence Prevention Programs/Activities that will be used during
SY 2007–2008. Complete Table D-1 to request a waiver for programs/activities funded by Title IV, Part
A that do not meet the scientifically based research criteria.
TABLE C-1 Drug & Violence Prevention Programs/Activities
Grade Programs/Activities Scientifically Based SDFSCA Funds Used to

(i.e., Life Skills, Here’s Looking At
You, Second Step, etc.)
Researched Support Program/Activity
(Yes/No) (Yes/No)
K Second Step Yes Yes
1 Second Step Yes Yes
Communities Mobilizing for Change Yes Yes
Office of Juvenile Justice and Yes Yes

Delinquency Prevention
Intervention, and Suppression
Yes Yes
Get Real About Violence
7 Project TNT Yes Yes

Yes Yes
8 Project ALERT Yes Yes


Yes Yes
9 Local Curriculum No No

Yes Yes
10 Choosing Health High School and No No

Personal and Social Skills
Yes Yes
Communities Mobilizing for Change
Yes Yes
Office of Juvenile Justice and
Intervention, and Suppression Yes Yes
11 Local curriculum No No

Yes Yes
12 Local curriculum No No

Yes Yes
Percentage of schools using scientifically based researched programs (SBRPs) to reduce disruption. 100 %
All schools trained through Title IV funding use SBRP to reduce disruption.
Percentage of schools using SBRPs to reduce disruption in which the staff is trained to implement the SBRP.
100 %.
All Title IV Part A Safe and Drug-Free Schools’ funded training is directed towards implementation of SBRP programs.
Does the LSS conduct school climate surveys? YES NO. If YES, what percentage of students reports a
positive connection to school? ____% See chart below
Students rate their schools in the following broad areas:

Mean Percentage of Positive Perceptions of Students by Broad Area
Broad Area Elementary School Students Middle School Students High School Students
Student Leaning 94.5 87.3 84.4
School Climate 87.5 72.1 64.7
Safe and Drug-Free Schools 90.2 77.8 75.0
Physical Setting 74.1 75.0 77.3
Satisfaction 85.3 70.0 74.0

Local School System: Montgomery County Public Schools________ Fiscal Year 2009
E. ANNUAL CERTIFICATION OF EQUITABLE SERVICES TO STUDENTS IN PRIVATE

1. Participating Private Schools and Services: Complete information in Attachment 6-B on page 31
regarding the names of participating private schools and the number of private school students
and/or staff that will benefit from the services.
Secondary school staff representing the Academy of the Holy Cross, Our Lady of Good Counsel High School,
Charles E. Smith Jewish Day School, Thornton Friends School, The Pathways Schools (4 sites), Melvin J. Berman
Hebrew Academy, Sandy Spring Friends School, the Yeshiva of Greater Washington, and the Berman Jewish Academy
participate in secondary school training for violence and drug reduction, prevention education and early intervention
and referral, drug and violence prevention and intervention activities and programs. School staff is compensated for
drug and violence activities scheduled after school hours on a contractual basis, to maintain the staff development and
mental health focus. These schools are also invited to network at the Safe and Drug-Free Schools monthly staff
meetings for violence and drug prevention. Non-public school staff receives stipends at the same rate as public school
staff.
Most county private schools regularly receive same service in terms of mailings and distribution of material from Safe
and Drug-Free Schools.
Following a March, 2008, non-public school meeting with the MCPS Budget office, the following non-public schools
have requested staff support for other Safe and Drug-Free Schools programs and activities:
Montessori Crossway Community Mary of Nazareth Catholic Elementary

NIST Child Care Center Our Lady of Mercy
Forcey Christian School Grace Episcopal Day School
St Catherine Laboure Georgetown Hill Early Childhood
St John the Baptist Ivymont School
Pending a meeting with each of these schools to determine program supports needed, data will be forthcoming
regarding the number of students to be served
2. Describe the school system's process for providing equitable participation to students in private
schools:
a) The manner and extent of consultation with the officials of interested private schools during all
phases of the development and design of the Title IV-A services;
The private schools within our county are annually notified of their eligibility to receive services. The MCPS
budget office and the Safe and Drug-Free Schools director send a letter annually. Services provided to
participating private schools are comparable to public schools; there are no appreciable differences.
Montgomery County has over 150 private schools serving 40,000 private school students. Thus, representation
from the Parents Councils of these schools helps determine the needs of the schools’ children and teachers.
The Safe and Drug-Free Schools Advisory Council representative of the Parent Council of Washington for private
school networking and support meets monthly with the Safe and Drug-Free Schools staff to identify interested
schools.
To comply with the MSDE’s suggested “Local Implementation Guidance” for improvement recently distributed to
the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Coordinators, additional representatives from non-public schools will be invited
to participate on the SDFS Advisory Council.
c) How services, location of services, and grade levels or areas of services were decided and agreed
upon; and
A letter of preference is sent to the private school’s chief from the MCPS budget office. The reply indicates the
area of concentration. Grade levels of services and the location of the services are decided with the consultation of
the school’s contact person.
d) The differences, if any, between the Title IV-A services that will be provided to public and private
school students and teachers, and the reasons for any differences. (Note: The school system
provides services on an equitable basis to private school children whether or not the services are
the same Title IV-A services the district provides to the public school children. The expenditures
for such services, however, must be equal -- consistent with the number of children served -- to
Title IV-A services provided to public school children.)
The same services are provided to public and private schools alike.
DRAFT LETTER TO PRIVATE SCHOOLS

Safe and Drug-Free Schools
families, communities and schools working together to promote
EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE THROUGH PREVENTION
PRIVATE SCHOOL PROGRAM RESPONSE FORM
2008–2009
1. ___________________________ will participate in the alcohol and other drug use

(Name of School) and violence prevention program activities with
MCPS Safe and Drug-Free Schools
______________________________ __________________________________________
(Date) (Chief School Administrator)
Contact Person for Program Support _______________________________________________

Number of Students_________________
Number of School Staff______________
2. ________________________________ will NOT participate in the alcohol and other

drug
(Name of School) use and violence prevention activities with MCPS
Safe and Drug-Free Schools
________________________________ __________________________________________
(Date) (Chief School Administrator)
I request that the school’s contact person, named above, be notified and given the opportunity to
participate in the following MCPS Safe and Drug-Free Schools training and program
implementation activities:
1._____ Alcohol and Other Drug Policy Development and /or Review
2._____ Alcohol and Other Drug and Violence Prevention Curriculum
3._____ Student Leadership, such as Students Against Destructive Decisions (SADD)
4._____ Drug and Violence Prevention/ Reduction Training for School Staff
5._____ Mental Health Conducted Training for Early Intervention and Referral
6._____ Parent and Community Education
7._____ Special Events, such as Red Ribbon, Post-Prom, and Communities Mobilizing
Against Alcohol Use ( CMCA) Student Seminars
Please sign and return this form in the accompanying addressed envelope to:
Rita Rumbaugh, Substance Abuse Prevention Specialist

MCPS Safe and Drug-Free Schools
14501 Avery Road
Rockville, Maryland 20853
E-mail: rita_b_rumbaugh@mcpsmd.org, phone 301-279-3041.
1. Complete a detailed budget on the MSDE Title IV-A Proposed Budget Form. The Proposed Budget must
reflect how the funds will be spent, organized according to the budget objectives, and correlated to the
activities and costs detailed in Part C, Allowable Activities. MSDE budget forms are available in Excel
format through the local finance officer or at the MSDE Bridge to Excellence Master Plan Web Site at
www.marylandpublicschools.org.
2. Provide a detailed budget narrative using the attached “Guidance for Completion of the Budget Narrative
for Individual Grants”. (pp. 11–13 of this guidance document). The accompanying budget narrative
should (a) detail how the school system will use no more than 2% of the funds for administrative costs, and
(b) demonstrate the extent to which the budget is both reasonable and cost-effective.
G. ATTACHMENTS 4-A & B, 5-A and B, and 6-A and B
Attachment 4: School Level Budget Summary.
Attachment 5: Transfer of Elementary and Secondary Education Act Funds

Local School System: Montgomery County Public Schools________ Fiscal Year 2009
TRANSFER OF TITLE IV, PART A ESEA FUNDS [Section 6123(b)]
A local school system (LSS) may transfer up to 50 percent of the funds allocated to it by formula under four
major ESEA programs to any one of the programs, or to Title I (Up to 30 percent if the LSS is in school
improvement). The LSS must consult with nonpublic school officials regarding the transfer of funds. In
transferring funds, the LSS must: (1) deposit funds in the original fund; (2) show as expenditure – line item
transfer from one fund to another, and (3) reflect amounts transferred on expenditure reports.
Total FY Amount ($) Amount ($) to be transferred into each of the following programs
2008 transferred
Allocation from Title IV,
Part A Title Title Title Title
I-A II-A II-D V-A
$545,845 $87,820 $________ $87,820 $_________ $_________
Briefly describe how the transfer of funds most effectively addresses the unique needs of the LSS.
The transfer supports consulting teachers in the schools who, in turn, supports each school in their
mission and activities that include the objectives as noted in this attachment.
NOTE: 50% limitation for local school systems not identified for school improvement or corrective action. 30%
limitation for districts identified for school improvement. A school system identified for corrective action may not use the
fund transfer option.
Budget Summary Public Private Total

$ 186,331.50 $ 24,831.50 $ 211,163
Programs and Activities
$ None $ None $ None
Security Measures
Salaries (for full and part-time SDFSCA – include all $ 252,980
benefits)
$ 9,472
2% Administrative Cost
$ None
Carryover to FY 2009 (See NOTE 1 below)
$
Transfers under Section 6123(b)
$ 473,615
Total FY 2008 Title IV, Part A Expenditures
NOTE 1: 75% of the FY 2008 allocation must be spent by June 30, 2009. A LSS may not carryover more than 25% of its
allocation into the next fiscal year unless it can demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the SEA, that it has “good cause” for
such a carryover. [Section 4114(a)(3) of the SDFSCA].
Category/Object Line Item Calculation Amount
Activity 1.1 Address the Consequences and Illegal Use
of Drugs
Contractual Bus transportation for 35 students and staff $524 x 10 trips
for 10 non-public and public schools $5,240
Substitutes Phoenix teachers and participating school 20 days @ $117.17
staff substitutes for CMCA $2343
Fringe Benefits Cost of FICA and other fringe benefits 8% of substitute costs $187
Local Travel for Reimbursement for mileage mileage reimbursed
$500
Staff @ $.505 per mile
Total Activity 1.1 $8,271
Activity 1.2 Family and Community Prevention

Programs
Professional Part Staff support for School Community Action $25 per hour x 185
Time training and support for family and hours
$4,625
community prevention programs at
designated public and private schools
Fringe Benefits Cost of FICA and other fringe benefits 8% of professional
$370
part time salaries
Stipends School Community Action MCPS 654 hours @ $25 per
$16,350
coordinators’ stipends hour
Fringe Benefits Cost of FICA and other fringe benefits 8% of stipend salaries $1,308
$833
MCPS Coordinators @ $.505 per mile
Materials Gang Reproduction and dissemination of locally 10 middle school
Awareness produced materials on gang awareness communities at $160 $1,600
per school
Materials CMCA Materials for CMCA Student Seminar for 7 $664. per school
$4,648
Student Seminar schools
Contractual Facility Cost for retreat center for overnights for $950 per night x 7
Support for CMCA students in seven schools nights $6,650
Student Seminar
Activity 1.5 Professional Development

Facility Use Safe and Drug-Free Schools annual $4,024 per day x 3
Symposium /cost of training facility at Univ. days auditorium and $12,072
of MD, Shady Grove classrooms
Consultants Cost for national drug and violence $750/ day x 8 days
$6,000
consultant
Stipends Stipends for MCPS staff to attend Drug/ 45 leaders @ $120
$5,400
Violence Prevention Symposium per day
Fringe Benefits Cost of FICA and other fringe benefits 8% of stipend salaries $432
Travel National Safe and Drug-Free Schools 1 meeting for Project
Conference Specialist and 1
$1,175
meeting for part-time
professional
Stipends Cost of stipends for MCPS school-based 1233 hours @ $25
staff to attend drug and violence prevention $30,825
training in after-school hours
Fringe Benefits Cost of FICA and other fringe benefits 8% of stipends $2,466
MSAPPA Registration fees for MSAPPA Conference Registration Fee
Registration @ $70 per person x 100 non-public and $7,000
public school staff
Registration IACET Registration for CEU Certification Registration Fee $500
Stipends Stipends for MCPS CPD Instructors 24 hours @ $30 $720
Fringe Benefits Cost of FICA and other fringe benefits 8% of $720 $58
Total for Activity
$66, 648
1.5
Activity 1.9 Alternative Education Programs and

Services
Professional Part Staff Support for Alternative Education 185 x $25 /hour
Time school staff training and support at $4,625
designated alternative schools

part time salaries $370
Contractual Cost of consultants for Get Real About 12 programs x 7 days
Violence and Office of Juvenile Justice and x 100 per day
Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)
Comprehensive Community-Wide Approach $8,400
to Gang Prevention, Intervention, and
Suppression programs

Staff @ $.505 per mile $833
Contractual Cost of graphics and updated designs for 107.5 hours @ $60
prevention and recovery materials per hour for graphics $6,450
design
Materials Cost of "School Connectedness", violence "School
and drug prevention materials for school and Connectedness"
community use and distribution in areas materials @ $595 per
$9,022
designated as high risk 14 middle schools +
$692 shipping
Total Activity 1.9 $29, 700

Activity 1.12 Mental Health Referral, Identification,
and Intervention Techniques
Stipends Cost for training of staff by mental health 85 professional staff
providers in appropriate identification and x $20 X 11 hours
intervention techniques for drugs and $18,700
violence
Fringe Benefits Cost of FICA and other fringe benefits 8% of stipends for
school staff training $1,496
Substitutes Cost of substitutes training at identified 20 days @ $117.17
schools in high risk areas $2,343
Fringe Benefits Cost of FICA and other fringe benefits 8% of substitute costs $187
Stipends Cost of stipends for 4 resource staff to mental health
provide mental health training for early providers resource
identification and referral with Staff staff $25 x 765 hours
$19,125
Development and School Safety and
Security
Fringe Benefits Cost of FICA and other fringe benefits 8% of stipend salaries $1,530
Contractual Private school staff training for early $25 per hour x 200
identification and referral hours $5,000
Activity 1.17 Character Education and Activities

Professional Part Support for Second Step training and support 100 hours x $25.00/hr
Time at designated public and private schools $2,500

part time salaries $200
Materials Cost of "Second Step" kits and "Get Real" 22 x $795 + shipping
bullying prevention materials for 20 schools $756 $18,246
kits
Staff @ $.505 per mile $833
TOTAL Activities $211, 163

Administrative Audit fees & Indirect Costs at the rate of
Costs 2.0% $9,472
Salary/Benefits
Specialist Salary for Program Specialist $118,786.00 $118,786
Secretary Salary for full time secretary for clerical $48,386.00
support of program $48,386
Part Time Tobacco .2 FTE to manage Project TNT and Project $17,485.00
Prevention ALERT for middle school tobacco $17,485
Specialist prevention
Fringe Benefits 37% of position salaries ($184,657) $68,323.00 $68,323
Total Salary/Benefits $252,980
Total Safe and Drug Free Schools $473,615

ATTACHMENT 12 TITLE I, PART D
PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAMS FOR
CHILDREN AND YOUTH WHO ARE NEGLECTED,
DELINQUENT, OR AT-RISK

TITLE I-D COORDINATOR: Martha Young
Telephone: 301-230-5404 E-mail: martha_young@mcpsmd.org
A. ALLOWABLE ACTIVITIES [Section 1424]: For all allowable activities that will be implemented under
Title I-D, (a) provide a brief description of services, (b) how the services will be coordinated with local
institutions for neglected and delinquent youth and/or correctional institutions, and (c) timelines or target
dates. Provide the amount of funding for the Title I-D services. Use separate pages as necessary for
descriptions.
Allowable Activities Brief Description of Specific Public School Costs

Services, Timelines or Target Dates,
and Specific Goals, Objectives, and
1.1 Programs that serve children and youth returning to

local schools from correctional facilities, to assist in
the transition of such children and youth to the
school environment and help them remain in school
in order to complete their education [section
1424(1)].
Provide social work support at seven $101,171
1.2 Dropout prevention programs which serve at-risk alternative school programs.
children and youth, including pregnant and Approximately 40 percent of these
parenting teens, children and youth who have come students are in contact with the juvenile
in contact with the juvenile justice system, children justice system. Services will be available
and youth at least one year behind their expected for all students enrolled in these
grade level, migrant youth, immigrant youth, programs, approximately 486 students.
students with limited English proficiency, and gang
members [section 1424(2)].
Provide instructional support, including
transportation for educational field trips
and student incentives for increased
attendance and academic achievement.
1.3 The coordination of health and social services for
such individuals if there is likelihood that the
provision of such services, including day care, drug
and alcohol counseling, and mental health services,
will improve the likelihood such individuals will
complete their education [section 1424(3)].

TITLE I-D COORDINATOR: Martha Young
Telephone: 301-230-5404 E-mail: martha_young@mcpsmd.org
A. ALLOWABLE ACTIVITIES [Section 1424]: For all allowable activities that will be implemented under
Title I-D, (a) provide a brief description of services, (b) how the services will be coordinated with local
institutions for neglected and delinquent youth and/or correctional institutions, and (c) timelines or target
dates. Provide the amount of funding for the Title I-D services. Use separate pages as necessary for
descriptions.
Brief Description of Specific Public School Costs

Allowable Activities Services, Timelines or Target Dates,
and Specific Goals, Objectives, and
Provide textbooks and/or instructional $12,880
1.4 Special programs to meet the unique academic materials as well as to support special
needs of participating children and youth, including education related services at the
vocational and technical education, special Montgomery County Correctional
education, career counseling, curriculum-based Facility. To provide educational support
youth entrepreneurship education, and assistance in services at the National Center for
securing student loans or grants for postsecondary Children and Families.
education [section 1424(4)].
1.5 Programs providing mentoring and peer mediation
[section 1424(5)].
B. LOCAL AGENCY PROGRAMS
1. Provide a description of the characteristics (including learning difficulties,

substance abuse problems, and other special needs) of the children and youth
who will be returning from correctional facilities, and an accounting of these
individuals. Also include the number of individuals returning to the system.
Describe what services are provided.
Characteristics of students enrolled in Alternative Programs include the following:

• students at least one year behind expected reading and math levels
• students in high school at least one year behind in credits
• students involved in the juvenile justice system
• students involved in gang activities
• students placed through the expulsion process
• students with substance abuse issues
• students with a history of truancy
• students with history of multiple suspensions
When a student returns from a correctional facility, the Montgomery County Public
Schools (MCPS) Interagency Student Transition Team, which includes MCPS staff as
well as Department of Juvenile Services (DJS) staff, reviews that student’s case to
determine what services are needed. The student may be placed back at the home
school or referred to an alternative program. In addition, connections are made to
interagency supports such as family counseling, anger management class, and
substance abuse outpatient programs. Last school year 64 students returned from
long-term incarceration.
Students placed by DJS at the National Center for Children and Families group home
receive educational support services to supplement the formal MCPS educational
program that the students are enrolled in.
Students under 21 who are inmates at the Montgomery County Correctional Facility
(MCCF) and who want to continue coursework toward a high school diploma receive
instruction by MCPS staff as part of the Model Learning Center at MCCF.
2. Provide a description of how the programs will involve the parents in efforts to
improve the education achievement of their children.
The social workers involve the parents in their children’s education by periodically
reporting progress to the parents, both by telephone and in written form. In addition,
parent meetings and trainings are held during the school year, including intake and
transition meetings as well as problem-solving meetings. The social workers are a
part of the problem-solving team (Educational Management Team), and they also do
home visits with the pupil personnel worker.
3. Provide a description of how the Neglected or Delinquent Program will be

coordinated with other federal, state, and local programs.
The social workers work in the alternative programs and thus team with Alternative
Programs teaching staff to provide services for all students enrolled. For students
involved in the juvenile justice system, the social workers contact the appropriate
probation officers, family counselors, and other outside agencies involved with the
family. They work together to provide coordinated services to the family.
4. Provide a description of the steps the local school system will take to find
alternative placement for children and youth interested in continuing their
education, but unable to participate in the regular public school program.
The alternative placements served through this grant are for students enrolled in
Montgomery County Public Schools. Placement in and transition out of these
programs are coordinated with the comprehensive middle and high schools in
Montgomery County through an established referral process involving parents,
students, home school staff, and alternative programs staff. Students who are unable
to participate in the comprehensive public school program are referred to and placed
in one of the alternative programs until they meet the criteria to return to their
schools. Students are referred by their home schools or through a serious incident
that involves placement through the expulsion process. Students who have been
expelled are sometimes re-entered into the school system through an alternative
program.
5. Report by charting the last three years the progress the local school system is
making in dropout prevention. [Section 1426]
The MCPS dropout rate has been under the state’s target of 3 percent for the past
several years:
a. 2008 2.71% (estimate)

b. 2007 2.71%
c. 2006 2.01%
d. 2005 1.76%
6. Provide annually the number served during the period of the grant. The
“period” is described as the school year or period of funding from July 1 to
September 30 the following year. [Section 1412 – Eligibility]
The number of students served under this grant: 486 in 2008, 378 in 2007, and 490 in
2006.
C. EVALUATION OF TITLE I-D PROGRAM ACTIVITIES: The local school system

must evaluate the program at least once every three years, disaggregating data on
participation by gender, race, ethnicity, and age to determine the program's impact
on the ability of participants —
Student Progress will be collected and analyzed at the end of each semester.
• To maintain and improve educational achievement;

All high school students will improve their grade point average after enrollment in
alternative programs for at least one semester.
• To accrue school credits that meet State requirements for grade promotion and
secondary school graduation;
After enrollment in alternative programs for two semesters, all middle school
students will earn promotion to the next grade level.
For each semester enrolled, all high school students will accrue at least 2 credits
that meet state requirements for secondary school graduation.
• To make the transition to a regular program or other education program operated by

the school system;
After enrollment in alternative programs for two semesters, 80 percent of the
students will graduate from high school, transition to a regular school program, or
enroll in a GED program.
• To complete secondary school (or secondary school equivalency requirements) and

obtain employment after leaving the correctional facility or institution for neglected
or delinquent children and youth; and
N/A
• As appropriate, to participate in postsecondary education and job training programs.

N/A
At a minimum, the evaluation must include information and data on the use of funds, the
types of services provided, and the students served by the programs. However, the
evaluation should contain sufficient information for the services that were provided and
the effect on academic achievement.
In conducting each evaluation, the school system must use multiple and appropriate
measures of student progress. Because the new requirements under No Child Left
Behind began in 2002, the first evaluation will be due to MSDE on October 1, 2005, as
part of the annual update to the Bridge to Excellence Master Plan. The school system
will use the results of the evaluation to plan and improve subsequent programs for
participating children and youth.
Title I, Part D Prevention and Intervention Programs for Children and Youth
Who Are Neglected, Delinquent, Or At -Risk
Activity 1.2
Category/Object Line Item Calculation Amount In-Kind Total
Salaries & Wages instructional and 30,418 30,418

transition support in
alternative programs
special education 4,000 4,000

support at Mont. Co.
Correctional Facility
(MCCF)
Fixed Charges FICA 8% x $34,418 2,753 2,753
Contract Services Social Work Support 60,000 60,000

2.0 SW, 6 on-site
SW interns
Educational support by 8,880 8,880

National Center for
Children and Families
(NCCF)
Supplies & Materials instructional materials 4,000 4,000

for diploma-bound
students at MCCF;
student incentives for
increased attendance
and academic achieve-
ment in alternative
programs
Other Charges transportation for 4,000 4,000

educational field trips
TOTAL $114,051 $114,051

Bridge to Excellence Update - Fine Arts
Question 1:
Describe the progress that was made in 2007–2008 toward meeting Programs in Fine Arts
goals, strategies, and objectives articulated in the system’s Bridge to Excellence (BTE)
Master Plan.
The funding of the following services and products listed under the goals and objectives of the
Fine Arts Grant permitted teachers to design and implement curriculum and assessments in fine
arts with appropriate instructional support, to ensure success for every student.
Goal 1: Ensure “Success for Every Student.”
1.1 To provide services and an environment that each student needs for intellectual
challenge as well as social and emotional development.
• The development and implementation of curriculum and assessments for art,
general/choral music, and instrumental music ensured that all students were provided an
equal opportunity for a challenging and rigorous fine arts education.
• The purchase of the curricular resources for all secondary schools provided teaching
strategies for culturally responsive instruction.
Goal 2: Provide an effective instructional program
2.1 To revise and implement revisions to the MCPS Program of Studies and Curricula,
to meet state standards outlined in the Voluntary State Curriculum to promote
student achievement.
• Stipends were provided to teachers who wrote curriculum for the following instructional
guides: Elementary Art Instructional Guide for Grade 3; Elementary Art Instructional
Guide Identified Assessments in Grades 1, 2, 3; Elementary General Music Instructional
Guide for Grades 1 and 2; Middle School Art Instructional Guide for Grade 6;
Foundations of Art A and B Instructional Guide for high school art; Digital Art A and B,
and Ceramics IA and 1B Instructional Guides have been completed and will be published
in 2008–2009.
• Stipends will be provided to curriculum writers for the following work that will be
initiated during the summer of 2008: 2-D and 3-D Design Blueprints; Dance as a Fine
Art 1, 2; and Theatre 1.
2.2 Explore new arts initiatives, implement changes to the curricula, and provide
information to teachers regarding these revisions.
• The three Arts Integration model elementary schools (AIMS) are continuing to pursue
staff development in arts integration through professional learning communities.
• The AIMS schools have provided curriculum maps, teaching strategies, and curriculum
documents to other interested schools in the county during six training workshops.
• Four Arts Integration training workshops were presented to school leaders and teachers
interested in pursuing an arts integration program enhancement. Approximately 39
participants attended each session.
• Stipends were provided to art teachers who provided the arts integration training.
• Stipends were used to allow teachers to participate in the development of standards-based
assessments, grading and reporting rubrics, and curriculum documents.
• Travel funds and substitute teacher stipends were provided to classroom and arts teachers
to conduct workshops in arts integration at local and national conferences.
• Stipends were provided to teachers in the Grading and Reporting pilot schools to review
new instructional resources supporting the administration of the countywide assessments.
2.3 To identify and purchase major equipment and instructional materials for fine arts
programs that support implementation of the revisions to the curriculum.
• Equipment and instructional materials were purchased to support implementation of the

art curriculum, K–12 (e.g., kilns, visual art prints, and textbooks).
• Adobe Creative Suite software was purchased for one high school and one middle school
to support the infusion of technology into the curriculum.
• Instructional materials were purchased to support implementation of the general/choral
music curriculum (sheet music, recordings, and instruments).
• Band and orchestra instruments were purchased to provide instruments to financially
disadvantaged students participating in the instrumental music program.
• Software was purchased for general music teachers to support assessment design and
digitization of student work (Sound Forge 8).
• Keyboards and World Music drums were purchased to support the implementation of the
elementary general music curriculum in three schools.
Goal 3: Strengthen Community Partnerships and Commitments to Arts Education.
3.1. To promote partnerships that will increase student involvement and participation in
the arts and provide access to fine arts programs and activities for students in low
socio-economic groups.
• The Fine Arts Grant provided substitutes for elementary school music teachers who
attended the symphony at Strathmore Hall with all Grade 2 and Grade 5 students.
• The Fine Arts Grant provided support to the Superintendent’s Performing Arts Awards
program that is an ongoing collaboration with Montgomery College, to recognize school
and individual student accomplishments in the performing arts, and to promote
participation in theatre and dance countywide.
Goal 4: Workforce Excellence
4.1 To implement a comprehensive staff development plan that addresses the professional
learning needs of teachers and administrators in the arts.
• Training was provided to teachers on music and art standards-based assessment practices
at the elementary and secondary level to support the implementation of the new MCPS
grading and reporting policy.
• Information was provided to elementary and middle school fine arts teachers on the use
of the curriculum frameworks and outlines for the purpose of planning standards-based
instructional activities and using standards-based assessments.
• Technology training was provided to elementary school art teachers as part of best
instructional practices.
• Arts coordinators attended State and National conferences to research best practices in
curriculum development, assessments, arts integration practices and the use of new
technology in the fine arts classroom (MAEA, NAEA, ASCD, USDE, CAFE, MMEA,
MENC).
• Participation by teachers in a collaborative project with MSDE, for the development and
pilot of Portfolio Plus, a series of on-demand assessment items and tasks in each of the
fine arts content areas.
Question 2:
Identify the programs, practices or strategies and related resource allocations that are
related to the progress reported in prompt #1.
Elementary art and music teachers attended six “Arts-Integration Professional Development”
training sessions.
• Consultants provided training on “Assessment in the Fine Arts.”
• Funds were used to support “arts-integration programming” through allocations to local
arts-related organizations for professional development of teachers.
• Software was purchased to support assessment design and digitization of students’ work
in general music.
• Student learning in the elementary general music classroom was supported by the
purchase of technical equipment.
Question 3:
Describe which goals, objectives, and strategies included in the BTE Master Plan were not
attained and where challenges in making progress toward meeting Programs in Fine Arts
goals and objectives are evident.
• Voluntary meetings are attended sparsely by art, music, theatre, and dance teachers. This
impacts the dissemination process and does not ensure even implementation of new
curriculum and assessment practices in all schools.
• There is limited funding for co-curricular music programs that give students opportunities
to perform (e.g., honors chorus, orchestra, and band, programs, festivals, etc.).
Maryland’s Fine Arts goal for 100% of the student population to participate in fine arts programs
yearly has been impacted by No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 as schools address scheduling
challenges to offer reading and math interventions.
• Some art and chorus programs for sixth Grade students have been reduced, eliminated, or
replaced in schools that are part of the MCPS Middle School Reform Initiative. The new
elective offering, Arts Investigations, does not address what all students should know or be
able to do by the end of Grade 6 in either art, music, theatre, or dance, as defined by the
Voluntary State Curriculum. This elective supplants the appropriate curriculum that meets
the indicators and objectives established in the Voluntary State Curriculum for art, music,
theatre, and dance.
Question 4:
Describe the goals, objectives, and strategies that will be implemented during 2008–2009
and plans for addressing the challenges identified in prompt #3. Include a description of
the adjustments what will be made along with related resources to ensure progress toward
meeting identified goals, objectives, and strategies. Where appropriate, include timelines.
• Increase the number of opportunities for professional development for teachers of fine arts by
maintaining the budget in the stipend category (FY09) and increasing the budget in the
substitute category (FY09).
• Increase the allocation in the stipend category to include co-curricular music programs for all
students (FY09).
• Allocate stipend and substitute funds to support emerging arts integration programs in middle
and elementary schools, and provide consultant fees for professionals in the theatre and
dance to work with students and teachers in the classroom.
• Allocate funds to support artist in residencies in the schools.
• Work with the stakeholders who are coordinating Middle School Reform Initiative to ensure
that all middle school students are enrolled yearly in a fine arts program that is aligned with
the Voluntary State Curriculum to meet the Requirements for Fine Arts Instructional
Programs for Grades K–12 as provided by COMAR—§13A.04.16.01.
Fine Arts Grant FY09
Bridge to Excellence Budget Narrative
Category/object Line item Calculation Amount In kind Total

Administration Business Indirect Costs 2% x $148,200 $2,964 $2,964
Support Services/Transfers
Indirect Costs $4,081
Substitutes/ Substitutes for 28 substitutes $3,281 $3,281
Instructional Staff instructional staff to x $117.17 per
attend curriculum day
training in arts
integration
Strategy # 4.1

Instructional Staff instructional staff to x $117.17 per
attend workshops on day
Creating Original
Opera
Strategy # 4.1

Instructional Staff professional staff to x $117.17 per
attend Strathmore day
Hall Concert with all
Grade 2 students
Strategy # 3.1
Substitutes $7,030
Stipends/ Instructional Stipends for teacher 2 teachers x $750 $750
Staff facilitators of the $25 per hour x
theatre and dance arts 15 hours
showcase in
partnership with
Montgomery College
Strategy # 3.1
Stipends/ Instructional Stipends for art 6 teachers x 2 $1,200 $1,200

Staff teachers trainers on hours x $25
arts integration per hour x 4
curriculum and best workshops
practices
Strategy # 4.1
Stipends/ Instructional Staff Stipends for art 34 teachers x $5,440 $5,440
teachers to participate 2 hours x $20
in professional per hour x 4
development workshops
workshops on arts
integration curriculum
and best practices
Strategy # 4.1
Stipends/ Instructional Staff Stipends for art 4 trainers x 2 $800 $800

teacher trainers on hours x $20
Explorations in Art per hour x 5
(e-books) workshops
Strategy # 4.1
Stipends/ Instructional Staff Stipends for Design: $8,000 $8,000

secondary art teachers 2 teachers x 80
working on hours x
curriculum $25 per hour =
development: Design $4,000
Instructional Guide +
Grade 7 Art Grade 7 Art:
Instructional Guide 2 teachers x 80
Strategy # 2.2 hours x
$25 per hour =
$4,000
Stipends/ Instructional Staff Stipends for 3 teachers x 80 $6,000 $6,000

elementary art hours x $25
teachers working on per hour
curriculum
development for
Pre-K and K art
Strategy # 2.2
Stipends/ Instructional Staff Stipends for teachers: 4 teachers x 21 $2,100 $2,100

instrumental music hours x $25
curriculum per hour
development
Strategy # 2.2
Stipends/ Instructional Staff Stipends for teachers: 7 teachers x 8 $1,120 $1,120
instrumental festivals hours x $20
Strategy # 1.1 per hour
Stipends/ Instructional Stipends for teachers: 4 teachers x 20 $1,600 $1,600
Staff instrumental hours x $20
honors activities per hour
Strategy # 1.1
Stipends/ Instructional Stipends for teachers: 2 teachers x 40 $2,000 $2,000

Staff instrumental Web site hours x $25
development per hour
Strategy # 2.1
Stipends/ Instructional Stipends for Honors 20 teachers x 5 $3,200 $3,200

Staff Chorus adjudicators hours x $20
and festival managers per hour =
Strategy # 2.3 $2,000
6 teachers x 10
hours x $20
per hour =
$1,200
Stipends/ Instructional Stipends for middle 4 teachers x 72 $7,200 $7,200
Staff school general music hours x $25
curriculum per hour
development by
instructional staff
Strategy # 2.1
Stipends/ Instructional Stipends for 5 teachers x 72 $9,000 $9,000

Staff elementary general hours x $25
music curriculum per hour
development
Strategy # 2.1
Stipends/ Instructional Stipend for 1 teacher x 40 $1,000 $1,000

Staff webmaster to create hours x $25
and maintain Web per hour
site for choral general
music and
disseminate program
information
countywide
Strategy # 2.2
Stipends/ Instructional Stipend for teacher/ 1 teacher x 50 $1,000 $1,000

Staff program manager: hours x $20
Creating Original per hour
Opera
Strategy # 2.1
Stipends Instructional Staff Stipends for teachers 25 teachers x 3 $1,500 $1,500
to attend training: hours x $20
Creating Original per hour
Opera
Strategy # 4.1
Strategy # 2.1
Stipends $51,910
Instructional Materials/ Replacement of 12 drying $1,860 $1,860
Instructional Program drying racks in 12 racks x $155
schools each
Strategy # 2.3
Instructional Materials/ Replacement flat file 2 flat files x $1,165 $1,165
Instructional Program cabinet for artist $582.35 each
prints and student
artwork storage
Strategy # 2.3
Instructional Materials/ Replacement of 10 10 paper $5,174 $5,174
Instructional Program paper cutters in 10 cutters x
schools $496.83 each
Strategy # 2.3 = $4,968 +
2 paper cutters
x $103 each =
$206
Instructional Materials/ Purchase inkjet 1 printer x $135 $135
Instructional Program printer for elementary $135 each
art program at 1
school
Strategy # 2.3
Instructional Materials/ Purchase 1 x $284.78 $285 $285
Instructional Program scanner/copier/ each
printer for 1 high
school program
Strategy # 2.3
Instructional Materials/ Purchase scanner for 1 x $253 each $253 $253
Instructional Program elementary art
program at 1 school
Strategy # 2.3
Instructional Materials/ Purchase small 1 x $419 each $419 $419
Instructional Program printing press for 1
middle school art
program
Strategy # 2.3
Instructional Materials/ Purchase Adobe 35 schools x $5,365 $5,365
Instructional Program PhotoShop software $152 each +
for 1 middle school media $45
digital art lab to
support new initiative
in art
Strategy # 2.3
Instructional Materials/ Purchase pottery 3 x $824.61 $2,474 $2,474

Instructional Program wheels for 1 middle each
school and 2 high
school art programs
Strategy # 2.3
Instructional Materials/ Purchase rotary 1 x $495 each $495 $495

Instructional Program trimmer for 1 high
school art program
Strategy # 2.3
Instructional Materials/ Purchase clay 1 x $405.27 $405 $405

Instructional Program extruder for 1 high each
school ceramics art
program
Strategy # 2.3
Instructional Materials/ Purchase 2 large 2 x $400 each $800 $800

Instructional Program format inkjet printers
for 2 high school
digital art programs
Strategy # 2.3
Instructional Materials/ Books, prints, posters 135 schools x $12,825 $12,825

Instructional Program for art departments in $95 each
135 elementary
schools
Strategy # 2.3
Instructional Materials/ Supplies for art Supplies $578 $578

Instructional Program exhibits, professional
staff trainings,
curriculum
development
Strategy # 2.2
Instructional Materials/ Materials for 10 x $9.75 $98 $98
Instructional Supplies countywide art each
displays and program
dissemination to the
public
Strategy # 2.2
Instructional Materials/ CDs used to provide 3 packs x $12 $36 $36
Instructional Supplies curriculum resources each
to all high school art
teachers
Strategy # 2.2
Instructional Bb Soprano Clarinet 24 x $309 each $7,417 $7,417
Materials/Instrumental Elementary
Music Program Equipment instrumental music
Under $1000 program–school TBD
based on need
Strategy # 2.3
Instructional Violin ½ size 12 x $200 each $2,400 $2,400

based on need
Strategy # 2.3
Instructional Violin ¾ size 8 x $200 each $1,600 $1,600

based on need
Strategy # 2.3
Instructional Cello ½ size 4 x $699 each $2,796 $2,796

based on need
Strategy # 2.3
Instructional Cornet 4 x $431 each $1,724 $1,724

Under $1000 program–school
TBD based on need
Strategy # 2.3
Instructional Honors Medals 200 x $7 each $1,400 $1,400
Materials/Instrumental (awards)
Music Program Equipment Strategy # 2.3
Under $1000
Instructional Materials/ Big Band Festival 16 x $22 each $352 $352

Instructional Program CDs for 16 schools to
support instructional
program
Strategy # 2.3
Instructional Materials/ District Band and 65 x $22 each $1,430 $1,430

Instructional Program Orchestra Festival
CDs for 65 schools to
support instructional
program
Strategy # 2.3
Instructional Materials $51,486

Instructional Equipment / Tuba, 4 valve, Conn 1 x $3,432 $3,432 $3,432
Musical Instruments 5JW each
Strategy # 2.3
Instructional Equipment / Tuba, 3 valve, King 2 x $2,505 $5,010 $5,010

Musical Instruments 1140W each
Strategy # 2.3
Equipment/ LCD projector for 2 x $1,000 $2,000 $2,000

Instructional Program use with the e-books each
in 2 elementary
schools
Strategy # 2.3
Equipment Print dryer for 1 x $1,185 $1,185 $1,185

Whitman HS each
Equipment/ Instructional Pugmill at Quince Pugmill $4,970 $4,970
Program Orchard HS $4,796 each
Strategy # 2.3 + stand $174
each
Equipment/ Instructional Kiln replacement at 2 2 x $2,146.58 $4,293 $4,293
Program high schools each
Strategy # 2.3
Equipment/ Instructional Film Drying Cabinet 1 x $986 each $986 $986

Program for 1 high school
Equipment $21,876
Contractual and Consultant Music technology 2 days x $750 $2,500 $2,500
Services/Program Support consultant, working per day +
with the development expenses
of countywide
assessments for the
high school Music
Technology Course
Strategy # 2.2
Contracted Clinician- Secondary 1 day x $750 $1,000 $1,000

Services/Program guitar methods per day +
Strategy # 1.1 expenses
Contracted ICB: Facility rentals 5 days x $400 $2,000 $2,000

Services/Program Support for student music per day
concerts
Strategy # 2.3
Contracted Production costs for 70 CDs x $20 $2,000 $2,000

Services/Program Support CD recordings each = $1,400
Strategy # 2.3 +
6 days x $100
per day = $600
Contracted Interact Theatre 3 schools x 50 $3,000 $3,000
Services/Program Support Artist residency x 3 hours x $20
schools per hour
Contracted Services/ Meeting room for 5 days x $50 $250 $250
Facilities Rental curriculum writers at per day
MCAASP for 5 days
Contracted Services/ Curriculum editor for 200 hours x $8,000 $8,000

Program Support Pre-K , K, and $40 per hour
Grades 4–5 guides
Contracted Services/ Curriculum editor for 80 hours x $40 $3,200 $3,200

Program Support Grade 7 curriculum per hour
guide, design
curriculum guide
Contracted Services $21,950
Registration/Dues Arts Integration 8 professional $4,500 $4,500
Professional Development Network Conference staff x 4 nights
for Art Teachers Strategy # 4.1 x $168 per
night + air
transportation
x 8 x $490 +
conference
registration
$350 x 3
schools
Grant will
support
maximum of
$4,500
Registration/Dues NAEA conference x Registration 2 $2,732 $2,732
Professional Development 2 arts administrators x $183 = $366
Arts Administrators Strategy # 4.1 5 nights x
$250 = $1,250
+ airfare 2 x
$558 = $1,116
Registration/Dues NAEA conference x Registration 4 $3,877 $3,877
Professional Development 4 teacher/presenters x $183 = $732
Instructional Staff Strategy # 4.1 + 5 nights x
$182.60 night
(quad room) =
$913 + airfare
4 x $558 =
$2,232
Travel, Registration, Dues $11,109
Employee Benefits Substitutes $7,030 x 8% = $4,715 $4,715

Stipends $562
$51,910 x 8%
= $4,153
Employee Benefits $4,715
Total $173,040
Victims of Violent Criminal Offenses in Schools (VVCO)
Report for School Year 2007-08
Number of VVCOs Transfers Granted
Violent VVCOs Requesting Prior to Final Case
Criminal Offenses (Note 1) Transfers Disposition
(Note 2) (Note 3)
Abduction & attempted abduction
Arson & attempted arson in the first degree
Kidnapping & attempted kidnapping
Manslaughter & attempted manslaughter, except

involuntary manslaughter
Mayhem & attempted mayhem
Murder & attempted murder
Rape & attempted rape
Robbery & attempted robbery 2 1
Carjacking & attempted carjacking
Armed carjacking & attempted armed carjacking
Sexual offense & attempted sexual offense in the

first degree
Sexual offense & attempted sexual offense in the
second degree
Use of a handgun in the commission or attempted
commission of a felony or other crime of violence
Assault in the first degree 1
Assault with intent to murder
Assault with intent to rape
Assault with intent to rob
Assault with intent to commit a sexual offense in the

first degree
Assault with intent to commit a sexual offense in the
second degree
TOTAL 3 1
NOTE: See attached guidance for completing the VVCO in Schools Report.
Attachment
Gun-Free Schools Act Report

School Year 2007-08
Status as of August 29, 2008
Student 0000742454 was expelled for the remainder of the current school year and the first
semester of the next school year, rather than for a full calendar year. This decision was made
based upon the information regarding the individual student and his participation in the incident.
Student 0000763418 has been incarcerated since the incident and has not yet had the opportunity
for a hearing to be held.
Student 0000769894 has been hospitalized in a mental institution since the incident and has not
yet had the opportunity for a hearing to be held.
Student 0000933294 was tried as an adult and received a two year prison sentence. There has
not been an opportunity for a hearing to be held.
Additional Federal and State Reporting Requirements
Facilities to Support Master Plan Strategies

A. Overall Facilities Plan
There are no changes to the school system’s overall plan to provide facilities in
support of Bridge to Excellence Master Plan strategies.
B. Full-day Kindergarten for All Students and Full or Half-Day Prekindergarten

Programs: New kindergarten classrooms are provided at all schools that have capital
projects including additions, new school projects, and modernizations. Additions at
elementary schools are considered when a school has at least a 92 seat deficit (four
classrooms) projected for the 2012–2013 school year. At schools without a planned
capital project, the kindergarten program is accommodated within the existing
building and relocatable classrooms are utilized as needed.
Prekindergarten programs are located at elementary schools based on the need of the
community and transportation travel times on a yearly basis.

Montgomery County 2008 Final Update - Master Plan - MSDE

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Montgomery County 2008 Final Update - Master Plan - MSDE

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Montgomery County Public Schools

Clarifications for Final Submission

The final data and analysis are reflected in I.D.i

The final data and analysis are reflected in I.D.i

Graduation Rates and Dropout Rates

Table 6.6 Attrition 2008-2009 (projected)

Gifted and Talented Programs

This section has been corrected to reflect changes.

Name Affiliation/Title with Local School System

• Development and Implementation of Standard‐Based Curriculum and Assessments—

A program of technology-based formative assessments is helping teachers assess student

Targets Not Yet Achieved

Goal 1: Computers will be accessible to all children on an equitable basis

Performance Measure 1.1.A: Student to computer ratio

Universal Access to High Performance Technology

Performance Measure 1.1.A: Student to computer ratio

MD District Rankings on Students per Computer

Performance Measure 1.1.B: Computer projection devices per school

Table 3. Equitable Access to Technology

Indicator of Progress Montgomery Maryland Target

Average # of Projection Devices per School

Percentage of Schools Using Assistive Technologies

Assistive Technology—MCPS is compliant with the Maryland State Department of Education

A-Prompt Helps People with Disabilities Use the Internet

Performance Measure 1.1.D: Technical support staff to computer ratios

There are 74 secondary Information Technology System Specialists (ITSS)—one in each

Performance Measures: Percentage of schools and classrooms with Internet connectivity,

Table 5. Student Home Access to Technology

Indicator of Progress Montgomery Maryland Average Target

Goal 2. Technology will be fully integrated into instruction

Table 6. Teacher Knowledge and Skills

Indicator of Progress Montgomery Maryland Average Target

[This objective was not fulfilled.]

Performance Measure: Technology is used by students to perform skills emphasized by the

Table 7. Student Use of Technology

Indicators of Progress Montgomery Maryland

Performance Measure: User and community satisfaction survey results.

[This objective was not fulfilled.]

Performance Measure: The percentage of new instructional initiatives that includes

Major instructional initiatives include technology as a support. Two examples are—

• Middle School Reform Initiative—the ACTIVClassroom focus for student

Performance Measure: A balanced technology evaluation plan has been created,

[This objective was not fulfilled.]

Performance Measure: Percentage of teachers and administrators who use technology to

Table 8. Administrator Use of Technology

Indicators of Progress Montgomery Maryland

1. Communicating with staff members and other colleagues 100% 99%

2. Communicating with parents/guardians of students 98% 88%

3. Posting/viewing/accessing school/district announcements or 99% 94%

4. Participating in online discussion groups or collaborative 66% 41%

5. Diagnosing and placing students 84% 72%

6. Analyzing attendance and/or grades 91% 91%

7. Analyzing tests 83% 75%

8. Analyzing grades and progress reports 80% 74%

9. Maintaining data on students 96% 93%

10. Analyzing and/or reporting students/school improvement 80% 77%

11. Creating instructional materials/visuals/presentations 84% 78%

12. Accessing curriculum/school improvement material from the 92% 87%

13. Researching educational topics of interest 92% 91%

Indicator of Progress Montgomery Maryland

9. Teachers: Maintaining data on students 91% 79%

9. Administrators: Maintaining data on students 96% 93%

Performance Measure: Percentage of prioritized system requirements that are implemented

Table 10. Quality of Information System