Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

MCPS to draft program-evaluation policy to guide oversight, return with language in December

September 17, 2025 | Montgomery County Public Schools, School Boards, Maryland


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

MCPS to draft program-evaluation policy to guide oversight, return with language in December
Montgomery County Public Schools staff presented a proposal Sept. 16 to create a new program-evaluation policy to guide systematic reviews of district programs and initiatives. Dr. Keisha Addison, director, Department of Shared Accountability, said the proposal would formalize the program evaluation framework first launched publicly in 2023 and provide more consistent guidance on what to evaluate, how to evaluate it, and when to revisit programs after evaluations.
Addison told the committee she reviewed other districts' policies and plans and identified one (Chapel Hill-Carrboro) that explicitly references academic "return on investment," a concept the committee asked staff to consider. The proposed policy would not replace existing regulations for external research requests; instead staff said it would supplement the district's toolkit for internal program review and oversight. Committee members asked that any policy ensure evaluations cover programs that affect the majority of students and that pilot-selection practices be representative across the county; members expressed concern that pilot programs historically have used volunteer sites that under-represent East County and other communities.
Staff said they will marry the new policy with the existing program-evaluation framework and return a draft policy for committee review at the Dec. 3 meeting. The committee discussed whether the policy should specify scoring matrices or prioritization criteria for choosing which programs to evaluate; staff said the existing framework describes "how" work is done and that the policy would define "what" the board expects. Board members suggested that prioritization guidance (e.g., scale of budget or student impact) could be developed in practice rather than embedded as prescriptive language in policy.
No formal committee vote was required; staff received direction to draft language that incorporates the committee's oversight expectations and to return with a policy draft in December.

View the Full Meeting & All Its Details

This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.

Watch full, unedited meeting videos
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
Permanent access to expanding government content
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee

Sponsors

Proudly supported by sponsors who keep Maryland articles free in 2025

Scribe from Workplace AI
Scribe from Workplace AI