Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Procurement topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Committee reviews procurement items: multi‑year Coppin State graduation agreement and Family League after‑school providers

Teaching and Learning Committee, Baltimore City Public Schools · February 13, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Teaching and Learning Committee reviewed two procurement items — renewed use of Coppin State facilities for district graduations and recommended community‑school/out‑of‑school‑time provider contracts (many funded by Family League grants). No vote was taken; both items will be considered at the February board meeting.

Two procurement items were presented near the close of the Feb. 4 Teaching and Learning Committee meeting and will be forwarded to the full board for consideration.

Coppin State graduation venues: The committee reviewed a proposed multi‑year arrangement to use Coppin State University facilities for district high school graduations for the next three academic years. Commissioners who spoke praised Coppin State’s accommodations and said prior graduation events there have been successful.

Community‑school and out‑of‑school time providers: The committee reviewed a set of vendor relationships that operate after‑school and community‑school services, many funded through Family League grants. Holly Gonzalez, Community Schools manager, explained the Family League typically funds 80% of operating costs and that the board letter lists zero district match for many subawards because the match is covered by external philanthropic or city funds. Gonzalez said the district piggybacks on Family League’s RFP and vetting process for those providers.

Next steps: No formal votes were taken in the committee meeting; the items will be brought to the February board meeting for possible approval. Commissioners asked about matching criteria and whether matches might later become district obligations; staff replied that matches are typically borne by the grantee, the school or philanthropic partners and that procurement followed Family League procedures.

No public comments or votes were recorded on these procurement items during the committee meeting.