MCPS presents FY26–30 draft strategic plan emphasizing systems, accountability and equity

Sharon, staff member leading the strategic‑plan process, and John Landsman, executive director in the Office of Strategic Initiatives, presented a draft FY26–30 strategic plan to the Montgomery County Public Schools Strategic Planning Committee on March 25 that centers on changing systems and structures, increasing accountability and aligning central services with school needs.

"What we're not trying to achieve with this strategic plan is we're not trying to fix our kids," Sharon said. "What we do need to do is reevaluate how we are functioning in support of the children so that we're effectively meeting their needs." John Landsman described a multi‑phase, iterative engagement process that informed the draft and emphasized building structures to produce consistent implementation across schools.

Landsman said the planning effort included multiple phases of stakeholder engagement. He summarized early outreach: about 200 stakeholders participated in initial focus groups, a later work session convened roughly 80 stakeholders, and subsequent work groups refined priorities and actions; the planning team said it has engaged more than 500 participants across phases. Landsman quoted an external critique the team used to reshape its approach: many traditional plans are "beautifully designed" but fail to produce implementation; the draft plan attempts to remedy that by embedding systems, pipelines and measurable goals.

The draft plan sets three overarching district goals: "at least 90% of MCPS schools earn 4 stars or higher on the Maryland State Report Card," to "reduce proficiency disparities by at least 50% on the Maryland School Report Card for students receiving farm services, multilingual learners, students in special education, HispanicLatino students, and Black and African American students," and a graduation target the draft expresses as "MCPS annually graduates 90% 95% of grade 12 students in all reporting categories equipped with the knowledge, skills, and experiences needed to thrive in an ever changing world." Dr. Addison, staff member, said the plan will be followed by baseline data and interim metrics to measure progress and inform annual benchmarks.

Presenters described five priority areas in the draft: transform structures to remove barriers and expand opportunities; strengthen family and community engagement; support educators with culturally responsive, standards‑aligned instruction and professional learning; develop and diversify school leadership; and strengthen central services to better support schools. Examples of proposed actions include redesigning the school day to expand non‑traditional pathways, creating plain‑language communication guidelines for families, developing a districtwide professional‑learning framework and documenting standard operating procedures in central services.

Board members pressed for specificity. Committee Chair Brenda Wolf asked "what is going to be different?" and requested clearer timelines, baseline numbers and interim metrics. Landsman and Sharon responded that the March 25 presentation is a framework; the team will add baseline data, annual targets and clearer implementation timelines after this round of committee feedback and additional stakeholder input. Landsman said the team will return to the committee on May 13 with updates and aims to present a final plan to the full board in June (staff also mentioned an internal target date of June 10 for a final draft to the board).

Board members raised operational concerns: how the district will measure and report interim progress versus lagging state metrics (Dr. Addison said the district will use measures such as MAP assessments as predictive, interim indicators), how to avoid overburdening staff with additional requirements, and how the plan will distinguish actions already underway from new or expanded efforts. Several board members asked that communications to the full board clearly label what remains draft and what elements will be completed after June. Presenters said they will collect more feedback — including a separate session with students who participated earlier in the engagement process — and revise the draft before the May committee meeting.