Previously covered in an article written by Jessica Chasmar for Fox News, as well as touched upon in an article on CleanSlateMoCo, three books submitted to MCPS for assessment under their required policy for library and instructional materials received eye-opening reviews in November of 2022. The books, published by Heroes of Liberty, provided an account of the lives of three historic figures in America’s history: Thomas Sowell, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, and Alexander Hamilton. MCPS provided a “marginal” approval of the books, and provided the following commentary on each:
Thomas Sowell: A Self-Made Man
Weakness: The publisher has a stated mission of creating books with “the American values that made this country great.”
Amy Coney Barret: A Justice and a Mother
Weakness: the publisher seems to have an agenda – publishing books about people with “American values.” Weakness – glosses over a lot of her life. The book is more about a message than an informative biography.
Alexander Hamilton: From Immigrant Boy to Father
Weakness: leaves out too much factual information about Hamilton’s life. The book is more about a message than an informative biography.
These records can be viewed utilizing MCPS’s Database of Accountable Evaluations (DEA), which stores evaluations of library and instructional materials in an online searchable database.
CleanSlateMoCo now has additional information, submitted directly to us from an individual in the community who conducted additional research, related to MCPS’s review of these three books.
MCPS, under their School Media Library program, has a section that coordinates the evaluation and selection of all materials used in Montgomery County Schools. This includes books that will be shelved in libraries for free reading, as well as instructional materials that may be used in the classroom. The process of evaluation and selection is guided by Regulation IIB-RA, Evaluation and Selection of Instructional Materials and Library Books. You can read the regulation in full, but here is a summary of the important part as it pertains to this situation:
- All instructional materials and library books (given as gifts or purchased by the school) must be reviewed and evaluated.
- All library books require review and signature of more than one professional staff member using MCPS form 365-25: Record of Evaluation for Instructional Materials
Using the Maryland Public Information Act (MPIA) a request was made for MCPS to provide the Form 365-25 for each of the three books. This is not a unique request, and in fact the individual that filed the MPIA provided copies of Form 365-25 that MCPS has previously shared under a separately filed MPIA (example 1, example 2, example 3). However, this MPIA request was handled much differently.
On November 21st, MCPS responded to the MPIA by providing the already publicly available DEA records for each of the three books. After receiving pushback that this did not fulfill the MPIA, MCPS provided a response on December 21st stating that all information requested by the MPIA was provided and that the DEA information is exactly the same as what is provided in Form 365-25. It also directed the submitter to resubmit an MPIA if they seek additional information. An additional MPIA was filed, requesting the Form 365-25 for each of the three books. MCPS provided a response that the Form 365-25 is not available because it is not used, and instead of using the form, entries are made directly into the DEA database.
So the question becomes: why does MCPS’s own regulation guiding the evaluation of instructional and library material not reflect this? In looking at the regulation it clearly states that a Form 365-25 should be used in the evaluation of library books (page 6).
And in looking at the DEA database portal it clearly states that a Form 365-25 should be completed:
MCPS in their response also claimed that the DEA record is the exact same as the Form 365-25. This is not accurate. In fact, if you look at the Form 365-25, there is not even a recommendation option titled “Marginal” (the recommendation recorded in the DEA record for the 3 books). There is also not a corresponding field in DEA records for “Direct support of content standards”, “Authenticity of the material”, “Impact on instructional time”, “Clarity or ease of understanding”.
What is going on? In public statements, MCPS brags about their oversight of the media assessment process. And yet, when it comes down to it, they are not even following their own written regulations. Additionally, in looking at the DEA record for the three books published by Heros of Liberty, they were all reviewed by the same individual. What criteria was this individual using? What objective basis was applied? Was it just their opinion? And if so, what oversight is MCPS applying in the review process to ensure that bias is not introduced into the review process?
