MCPS unveils condensed 2026–2030 strategic plan scorecard; board asks for clearer measures and inclusion of special‑education outcomes

Montgomery County Public Schools presented a condensed version of its 2026–2030 strategic plan and an accountability ‘‘scorecard’’ to the strategic planning committee on May 13, 2025, outlining goals, objectives, performance metrics and reporting frequency ahead of a June 10 board adoption date.

Keisha Addison, director of shared accountability, walked the committee through the four focus areas — academic excellence, postsecondary preparation, climate and operations, and staff support — and described linked objectives and measures. Addison said the district will use the Maryland School Report Card and state assessments such as the Maryland Comprehensive Assessment Program (MCAP) along with local measures like DIBELS and district climate surveys to track progress. "We will know we are successful when all of our schools are earning 4 or more stars as measured by the Maryland school report card," Addison said.

The scorecard pairs objectives with specific performance metrics and reporting cadence. Examples presented to the board included: - Academic proficiency metrics measured by MCAP and DIBELS, with disaggregation for multilingual learners using ACCESS for ELLs; - High school postsecondary metrics including completion of FAFSA or the Maryland State financial aid application (MIFSA) and documented postsecondary plans; - Climate metrics measured by district climate surveys, ParentSquare/Remind usage and reported bullying/hate‑bias incidents; - Workforce metrics including percent of students taught by certified teachers, percent of national board‑certified teachers and percent of educators identifying as Black, Latino or other underrepresented groups.

Board members generally praised the draft but asked for greater clarity on several points. Members asked whether using district‑created internal measures as primary metrics could limit comparability and urged the district to develop those measures with partners. They asked the staff to provide baseline values where available (some state measures are already available; others are "not yet available" until this school year’s data are compiled) and to include disaggregation for student groups, especially students receiving special education services. "Who will we miss? Who are we missing?" Addison said the district had asked that question and confirmed many metrics will be reported with subgroup disaggregation.

Members also requested a glossary of technical terms (for example, how "economically disadvantaged" is defined versus the district’s FARMS designation), clearer indicators of access versus performance (participation versus attainment), and measures that capture student and family perceptions of safety and inclusion rather than relying solely on documented incidents. Board members suggested tying certain workforce metrics — such as the share of national board‑certified teachers — to classroom access indicators so the district reports how those educators are distributed across school types.

Addison and the team committed to reporting available baselines, marking items that are not yet available, and including a glossary and rubrics for measures where the district plans to develop implementation checks. No formal action was taken during the committee update; the presentation was informational and designed to finalize objectives and prepare for the board adoption process.

Ending: District staff will return with baseline data where available, a glossary of terms, and additional detail on measure development and disaggregation ahead of the planned June 10, 2025, adoption vote.