JANIS ZINK SARTUCCI, BEFORE THE

Petitioner MARYLAND
STATE BOARD
v. OF EDUCATION

MONTGOMERY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION,

Respondent (County Board)

REQUEST FOR STAY

Petitioner, Janis Zink Sartucci (hereinafter Petitioner), petitions the Maryland State Board
of Education, through its State Superintendent of Schools, Dr. Nancy S. Grasmick; or, the
State Superintendent of Schools, Dr. Nancy S. Grasmick on her own motion, pursuant to
Code of Maryland Administrative Regulation s (COMAR) 13A.01.02.01, to issue
immediately a stay of the action of the Montgomery County Board of Education (County
Board) on June 8, 2010 in approving Board of Education meeting Agenda Item 4.4.1:
Partnership Agreement, Approval of Contract with Pearson Education, Inc.

DATED this 14th day of June, 2010.

Respectfully submitted,

Janis Zink Sartucci

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR STAY

Petitioner Janis Zink Sartucci (hereinafter P etitioner), petitions the Maryland State
Board of Education, through its State Superintendent of Schools, Dr. Nancy S. Grasmick;
or, the State Superintendent of Schools, Dr. Nancy S. Grasmick on her own motion,
pursuant to Code of Maryland Administrative Regulations (COMAR) 13A.01.02.01, to
issue immediately a stay of the action of the Montgomery County Board of Education
(County Board) on June 8, 2010 in approving Board of Education meeting Agenda Item
4.4.1: Partnership Agreement, Approval of Contract with Pearson Education, Inc.
(hereinafter Agenda Item 4.4.1)

1. Agenda Item 4.4.1 was added to the County Boards Consent Agenda for the June 8,
2010, County Board meeting at 2:37 PM on the afternoon of June 7, 2010.
2. Agenda Item 4.4.1 was a new item and had not previously been discussed by the
County Board. Agenda Item 4.4.1 is the creation of a joint venture to create curriculum
for the County Board and to sell the curriculum to other jurisdictions in return for
possible royalties.

3. The County Boards Operations Handbook states that:

Except for policy matters, items that are time sensitive may be voted upon during
the same meeting as introduced if the Board members by majority vote so
concur. [Emphasis added] Board member proposals to establish special programs
where a substantial amount of staff time is needed to develop the programs must
be approved in accordance with Board procedure for establishing and evaluating
special programs.

4. At the June 8, 2010, County Board meeting Agenda Item 4.4.1 was introduced and a
vote was taken. The County Board did not take a vote to decide if this New Business item
could be voted on immediately , as required by their Operations Handbook. The failure of
the County Board to approve the expediting of this agenda item constituted a violation of
the Operations Handbook procedure if this matter is deemed to be not a policy matter.

5. The County Boards Operations Handbook states that:

The Board of Education has adopted Policy BFA, Policysetting , which includes a
definition of policy and a uniform format for policy development and
implementation, including publication, monitoring of implementation, and
review. Discussion of a new policy usually takes place over four meetingsone
for the Boards Policy Committee to discuss the superintendents policy analysis,
the second for the Board to take tentative action on the Policy Committees
recommendations, the third for the Policy Committee to review public comments
on the policy and any additional staff recommen dations, and the fourth for the
Board to take final action on the policy.

6. Agenda Item 4.4.1 involved a contract with an outside vendor to produce new
curriculum for Montgomery County Public Sch ools. The establishment of curriculum is a
policy decision of the County Board and as such Agenda Item 4. 4.1 should have been
acted on in accordance with the County Boards Policy BFA, Policysetting .

7. County Board Policy BFA, Policysetting, defines a Policy as

Policy is defined as the principles specifically set forth in the MCPS Policies and
Regulations Handbook and identified as a policy. These policies, all of which
have a three-letter identifier and are indexed in lettered sections of the MCPS
Policies and Regulations Handbook , are adopted by resolution of the Board of
Education to set forth the vision and goals of the school system, specify the rights
 and responsibilities of the school community, and guide the development and
implementation of educational programs and/or for management of the school
system. For purposes of Policy BFA, Policyetting, and Regulation BFA-RA,
Policysetting , the term policy refers to only those principles identified as policy
in the Policies and Regulations Handbook .

8. County Board Policy IEA Framework and Structure of Early Childhood and
Elementary Education , and County Board Policy IFA Curriculum are both contained in
the Policies and Regulations Handbook and both have a three letter identifier. Agenda
Item 4.4.1 creates a new elementary curriculum for Montgomery County Public Schools
and impacts both Policy IEA and Policy IFA.

9. County Boards introduction and final vote on Agenda Item 4.4.1 on the same day
constituted a violation of County Boards Polic y on Policysetting if this matter is deemed
to be a policy issue.

10. Montgomery County parents and citizens are not permitted an opportunity to
participate in the creation of the public school curriculum that will be written and
marketed under the County Board name and logo pursuant to Agenda Item 4.4.1.
County Board Policy IFB states:

Parent and citizen involvement is essential to fulfillment of the goals of the

Montgomery County Public Schools. Since curricular and instructional materials
are vital to the teaching and learning of all students, it is appropriate to include
citizens, including parents, in the review process of these materials.

Agenda Item 4.4.1s contract does not include any reference to parent or citizen
curriculum review.

11. Agenda Item 4.4.1s contract does not refer to theFamily Educational Rights and
Privacy Act, , 20 USC 1232g, 34 CFR pt 99. This is a crucial piece that is missing from
this document as Agenda Item 4.4.1 allows an outside vendor and their clients
unrestricted access to County Board classrooms, students and student performance data
without parental permission.

12. Agenda Item 4.4.1 was a procurement contract for the creation of the County Boards
elementary curriculum that was not put out for public competitive bidding via a Request
for Proposal or Invitation for Bid. No other vendors were solicited, invited or otherwise
permitted to submit bids on this proposal.

13. Agenda Item 4.4.1s contract permits employees of the vendor, and clients of the
vendor access to County Board classrooms and students. Agenda Item 4.4.1 makes no
reference as to how the safety, security and privacy of students will be safeguarded.

14. Agenda Item 4.4.1 contract is inconsistent wit h the Maryland State proposal
submitted to the Department of Education under the Race to the Top program that is
intended to revise the PreK-12 Maryland State Curriculum, assessments, and
accountability system based on the Common Core Standards to assure t hat all graduates
are college- and career-ready. To the extent the State receives and implement s the Race
to the Top funding , the County contract will be inconsiste nt with and/or redundant to the
state mandated changes in curricular materials.

15. The contract approved as Agenda Item 4.4.1 calls for the immediate development of
the Program Development Plan to be completed within fourteen (14) days after the
signing of the agreement. Assuming that the contract was signed on June 8, 2010,
fourteen (14) days could be as soon as June 22, 2010.

16. The contract approved as Agenda Item 4.4.1 cedes all copyright and intellectual
property to the commercial vendor without reservation of an unrestricted or use license
by the County, requiring the County to pay the vendor additional sums to obtain materials
developed under the contract.

Petitioner requests that a stay be granted with regard to the County Boards
approval of Agenda Item 4.4.1, pending review of this action by the State Board of
Education based on the points thus far enumerated and states, that;

The County Boards approval of Agenda Item 4.4.1 violated their Operations
Handbook procedures on new business. This violation of County Board s Policy on new
business has permanently deprived parents and citizens from participating in the
discussion and review of this proposal that would have been available if the County
Board had followed their policy.

In the alternative, if Agenda Item 4.4.1 is found to have been a policy change,
County Board violated their Policy on Policysetting. This violation of County Boards
Policy on Policysetting has permanently deprived parents and citizens from participating
in the discussion and review of this proposal that would have been available if the County
Board had followed their policy.

In passing Agenda Item 4.4.1, County Board abdicated their exclusive right to
control the curriculum of the Local Education Agency and eliminated the ability of
parents and citizens to participate in the decision to appro ve the Agenda Item 4.4.1
contract.

County Board has also failed to evaluate the alternative proposals that may exist,
thus depriving the public of a thorough review of potential competing offers.

County Board has entered into an agreement that places students in the precarious
position of having the vendor and the vendors clients in their classrooms without any
discussion of sa feguards to students identity, likeness, or personal information.
 Granting of a stay would allow the State Board ample time to review Agenda Item
4.4.1 prior to the implementation of the terms of the contract. Granting a stay would
provide immediate protection to students pending a review of this matter by the State
Board of Education.

Granting a stay would not impair educational opportunities and would be in the
best interest of the students, teachers, citizens of Montgomery County, and the school
system as a whole.

WHEREFORE, Petitioner asks that the State Board of Education, through its
State Superintendent of Schools; or, the State Superintendent of Schools grant this
request for stay of the County Boards approval of the June 8, 2010, Agenda Item 4.4.1.

_______________________________ ___
Janis Zink Sartucci

Attachments: A. Montgomery County Board of Education Agenda for June 8, 2010

B. June 8, 2010 Agenda Item 4.4.1 packet
C. County Board Operations Handbook applicable sections
D. Board of Education Policy BFA
Board of Education Policy IEA
Board of Education Policy IFA
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY, that on this _14th_ day of June, 2010 a copy of the foregoing was
mailed first class, postage prepaid , Return Receipt Requested to:

Dr. Nancy S. Grasmick

Superintendent of Schools
Maryland State Department of Education
200 West Baltimore Street
Baltimore MD 21201

Maryland State Board of Education

Maryland State Department of Education
200 West Baltimore Street
Baltimore MD 21202

Patricia ONeill
President
Montgomery County Board of Education
Carver Educational Services Center
Montgomery County Public Schools
850 Hungerford Drive
Rockville MD 20850

________________________________
Janis Zink Sartucci