Keisha Addison, director of shared accountability, told the Fiscal Management Committee on Sept. 17 that Montgomery County Public Schools should adopt an "academic return on investment" (ROI) framework to evaluate whether programs, services and initiatives produce meaningful student outcomes relative to their cost. "Academic return on investment allows us to ask: for every dollar we invest in a program, service, or initiative, what improvement in student learning are we seeing?" she said.

Framework and rationale: Addison described academic ROI as a way to reframe decisions from inputs (what is spent) to outcomes (student learning, attendance, behavior or well‑being). The proposed approach measures program costs (dollars, staff time and training), outcomes, and then recommends whether to continue, scale, adjust or discontinue a program. She advised a phased start: review completed program‑evaluation reports first for immediate insights, then examine in‑progress evaluations to align methodology and budget choices.

Examples and board concerns: Committee members discussed specific evaluations that could inform budget tradeoffs. Addison pointed to a completed evaluation of two‑way immersion that had a “yellow” (caution) rating and recommended revisiting implementation consistency before making expansion decisions. Members asked for priority on completed, high‑cost or high‑reach programs — not only niche programs — and urged that evaluation findings and recommended resource changes be visible to budget teams when building the FY27 operating budget. Addison said MCPS posts program evaluation reports and the program managers’ responses and recommended adding a step that shares evaluation recommendations directly with finance and budget staff during the budget cycle.

Why it matters: Committee members expressed interest in ensuring that program recommendations — such as implementation supports called for in restorative practices evaluations — are reflected in budget requests so the district does not expand or continue programs without the supports needed to achieve expected outcomes.

Next steps: Addison proposed starting with completed evaluations, then moving to ongoing studies, and eventually embedding academic ROI reporting regularly to the committee and the board. She also noted the possibility of including ROI language in a program‑evaluation policy under development.