MCPS outlines 2026–2030 scorecard: targets to be set after 2024–25 baselines; board presses for disaggregation and implementation measures

Montgomery County Public Schools staff presented a condensed scorecard view of the 2026–2030 strategic plan to the Strategic Planning Committee on May 13 and said the district will use 2024–25 baseline data to set targets before the board’s scheduled adoption of the final plan on June 10, 2025.

Keisha Addison, Director of Shared Accountability, summarized the plan’s vision (“Future Ready”) and mission (“Unleashing potential”) and described four focus areas with associated goals, objectives and measures. Addison said the district will report many measures annually or biannually and will disaggregate results by student groups.

For academic proficiency and growth, Addison identified performance metrics such as percent of students scoring proficient or above on the Maryland Comprehensive Assessment Program (MCAP) in English language arts and mathematics, MAP reading performance and the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) for primary grades, and ACCESS for ELLs for multilingual learners. She said one of the three central success criteria is that “all of our schools are earning four or more stars as measured by the Maryland School Report Card.” The district also retained a goal to graduate 95% of students annually in reporting categories.

On college and career readiness, Addison said the district will measure whether high school students have documented postsecondary plans and whether graduates complete FAFSA or the Maryland Financial Aid application (MIFSA). For middle and elementary students the plan calls for individualized exploration plans and exposure to Maryland’s 16 career clusters.

Addison said the district will administer the districtwide climate survey twice a year beginning next school year; the survey launched May 12 and is open through June 16. She said metrics for hate‑bias and bullying incidents will include the number of documented incidents, disaggregated by type and location, and the percent of staff completing training on hate‑bias prevention and inclusive practices.

Board members pressed for several clarifications. Board Member Rita Montoya and others urged that internal or district‑created metrics be developed with external partners and continuous feedback, and asked that the district provide current baseline values so the board can see where targets would be set. Montoya also asked that performance metrics capture “access” as well as completion — for example, differentiating participation from performance for career- and credential-related objectives.

Several members asked how the plan will reflect the needs of students receiving special education services; Addison said data will be disaggregated by student groups and pointed to Goal 2, Objective 6, which calls for postsecondary options including diploma endorsements or certificates of program completion for students for whom that is appropriate. Board members also sought student‑perception measures for safety and inclusion and urged that a rubric be developed to measure whether educators are implementing culturally responsive practices, not merely attending training.

Addison said the rubric to assess classroom implementation is under development; the district is reviewing existing frameworks and plans a collaborative process to build a locally appropriate instrument that will be used along with professional learning participation data.

No formal action was taken. Staff said baselines drawn from 2024–25 data will be used to set incremental targets through 2030 and that the district will provide requested disaggregations and clarifications before the June 10 adoption vote.