MOCO BOE update: Beidleman Report summary

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the redacted report, page 6 third paragraph.

"Prior to the promotion, [REDACTED] was generally aware that there were concerns about [REDACTED] conduct "swirling around" but [REDACTED] was apparently not specifically aware of the pending investigation. [REDACTED] did not specifically remember if [REDACTED] informed [REDACTED] about the investigation prior to the promotion. [REDACTED] did not take any action to inquire about details regarding what concerns were "swirling around" [REDACTED] prior to [REDACTED] [REDACTED] to promote [REDACTED]."
https://www2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/siteassets/district/boe/boe-news/230908-jackson-lewis-report.pdf

Her defense is her own incompetence? As a leader of you hear about something important “swirling around”, your job is to follow up. Not exercising due care is not a defense.

So she's using the Reagan defense?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone who knows MCPS give us a quick breakdown of what those leaves actually mean? Who were these folks in relation to the matter at hand?

Jones is the associate superintendent over Paint Branch, responsible for filling the principal vacancy there.
Dawson is the director over Farquhar, was Beidleman's direct supervisor.
Both Jones and Dawson report up to Morris, acting chief, who reports to Murphy, deputy superintendent, who reports to McKnight.

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/globalContent/MCPS-Organization-FY2020.pdf

Thank you. This is helpful. Sounds like Monifa really cleaned house. GOOD ON HER.

See, pro-MCPS troll, I do give Monifa credit where it is due. This kind of decisive, significant action is what is needed. It sets the tone that failure at this level of leadership is not ok. They've been made an example of.

Cleaned house the day the report was getting released? How convenient

Anyone calling Dr. McKnight Monifa has an agenda and clearly is not objective.

What about the people who continue to insist that all of Beidleman's sins happened before her tenure, repeatedly, despite the Jackson Lewis report documenting infractions that happened in 2021 and 2022 when she was in charge? Do those folks have an agenda?

[Anonymous]

In reality, McKnight was a terrible teacher and still promoted. I estimate half of central office are former teachers and principals that took those jobs because they were terrible at what they did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's no way she didn't know.

There's no way she knew because she'd have never allowed that promotion to go through.

Then she is grossly incompetent because she promoted someone whose staff consistently rated him very poorly. Those survey results are publicly available and therefore available to McKnight at the time of his promotion.

We'll probably never know for sure who knew what at the time JB was promoted. Sure, it's very likely she was one of the leaders that was aware of his rumored behavior and/or the history of formal and anonymous complaints but without knowing this for a fact, we can't determine what degree of incompetence and negligence she herself exhibited. This being said; I think there should be a pathway for her to retain her position and for her to regain some of the community's trust if and only if someone else in the chain of MCPS leadership is held accountable. In other words, someone has to be held personally accountable for this level of operational dysfunction before the community trust can be restored and that person doesn't necessarily have to be the superintendent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In reality, McKnight was a terrible teacher and still promoted. I estimate half of central office are former teachers and principals that took those jobs because they were terrible at what they did.

Oop! Tell us more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's no way she didn't know.

There's no way she knew because she'd have never allowed that promotion to go through.

Then she is grossly incompetent because she promoted someone whose staff consistently rated him very poorly. Those survey results are publicly available and therefore available to McKnight at the time of his promotion.

We'll probably never know for sure who knew what at the time JB was promoted. Sure, it's very likely she was one of the leaders that was aware of his rumored behavior and/or the history of formal and anonymous complaints but without knowing this for a fact, we can't determine what degree of incompetence and negligence she herself exhibited. This being said; I think there should be a pathway for her to retain her position and for her to regain some of the community's trust if and only if someone else in the chain of MCPS leadership is held accountable. In other words, someone has to be held personally accountable for this level of operational dysfunction before the community trust can be restored and that person doesn't necessarily have to be the superintendent.

The survey results were available to her. If she saw them and still promoted him no questions asked even about the issues that were "swirling" that is terrible. If she didn't see them and didn't ask questions about the issues that were "swirling" that is terrible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's no way she didn't know.

There's no way she knew because she'd have never allowed that promotion to go through.

Then she is grossly incompetent because she promoted someone whose staff consistently rated him very poorly. Those survey results are publicly available and therefore available to McKnight at the time of his promotion.

We'll probably never know for sure who knew what at the time JB was promoted. Sure, it's very likely she was one of the leaders that was aware of his rumored behavior and/or the history of formal and anonymous complaints but without knowing this for a fact, we can't determine what degree of incompetence and negligence she herself exhibited. This being said; I think there should be a pathway for her to retain her position and for her to regain some of the community's trust if and only if someone else in the chain of MCPS leadership is held accountable. In other words, someone has to be held personally accountable for this level of operational dysfunction before the community trust can be restored and that person doesn't necessarily have to be the superintendent.

I dont see any "pathway" at all. How could you want someone who has shown time and again to have such terrible decision making and leadership, to head up such an important post? There is no amount of "training" or anything that can fix that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone who knows MCPS give us a quick breakdown of what those leaves actually mean? Who were these folks in relation to the matter at hand?

Jones is the associate superintendent over Paint Branch, responsible for filling the principal vacancy there.
Dawson is the director over Farquhar, was Beidleman's direct supervisor.
Both Jones and Dawson report up to Morris, acting chief, who reports to Murphy, deputy superintendent, who reports to McKnight.

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/globalContent/MCPS-Organization-FY2020.pdf

Thank you. This is helpful. Sounds like Monifa really cleaned house. GOOD ON HER.

See, pro-MCPS troll, I do give Monifa credit where it is due. This kind of decisive, significant action is what is needed. It sets the tone that failure at this level of leadership is not ok. They've been made an example of.

Cleaned house the day the report was getting released? How convenient

Anyone calling Dr. McKnight Monifa has an agenda and clearly is not objective.

????

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's no way she didn't know.

There's no way she knew because she'd have never allowed that promotion to go through.

Then she is grossly incompetent because she promoted someone whose staff consistently rated him very poorly. Those survey results are publicly available and therefore available to McKnight at the time of his promotion.

Or a good manager who delegates to her subordinates.

There are no bad teams, only bad leaders. She sucks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's no way she didn't know.

There's no way she knew because she'd have never allowed that promotion to go through.

Then she is grossly incompetent because she promoted someone whose staff consistently rated him very poorly. Those survey results are publicly available and therefore available to McKnight at the time of his promotion.

We'll probably never know for sure who knew what at the time JB was promoted. Sure, it's very likely she was one of the leaders that was aware of his rumored behavior and/or the history of formal and anonymous complaints but without knowing this for a fact, we can't determine what degree of incompetence and negligence she herself exhibited. This being said; I think there should be a pathway for her to retain her position and for her to regain some of the community's trust if and only if someone else in the chain of MCPS leadership is held accountable. In other words, someone has to be held personally accountable for this level of operational dysfunction before the community trust can be restored and that person doesn't necessarily have to be the superintendent.

I dont see any "pathway" at all. How could you want someone who has shown time and again to have such terrible decision making and leadership, to head up such an important post? There is no amount of "training" or anything that can fix that.

The only way for trust to be rebuilt is if she was capable of saying and doing things that are completely out of character for her. So the truth is that rebuilding trust will require new leadership.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's no way she didn't know.

There's no way she knew because she'd have never allowed that promotion to go through.

Then she is grossly incompetent because she promoted someone whose staff consistently rated him very poorly. Those survey results are publicly available and therefore available to McKnight at the time of his promotion.

We'll probably never know for sure who knew what at the time JB was promoted. Sure, it's very likely she was one of the leaders that was aware of his rumored behavior and/or the history of formal and anonymous complaints but without knowing this for a fact, we can't determine what degree of incompetence and negligence she herself exhibited. This being said; I think there should be a pathway for her to retain her position and for her to regain some of the community's trust if and only if someone else in the chain of MCPS leadership is held accountable. In other words, someone has to be held personally accountable for this level of operational dysfunction before the community trust can be restored and that person doesn't necessarily have to be the superintendent.

I dont see any "pathway" at all. How could you want someone who has shown time and again to have such terrible decision making and leadership, to head up such an important post? There is no amount of "training" or anything that can fix that.

I'm 100% McKnight is responsible for the negligence and lack of diligence to some degree and I'm 90% certain that she is personally responsible to a degree that warrants her being removed from her position. The folks with access to this full report have enough info at hand to determine McKnight's level of negligence in this matter and can fairly say with certainty whether or not she should retain her position. I don't have that info

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the redacted report, page 6 third paragraph.

"Prior to the promotion, [REDACTED] was generally aware that there were concerns about [REDACTED] conduct "swirling around" but [REDACTED] was apparently not specifically aware of the pending investigation. [REDACTED] did not specifically remember if [REDACTED] informed [REDACTED] about the investigation prior to the promotion. [REDACTED] did not take any action to inquire about details regarding what concerns were "swirling around" [REDACTED] prior to [REDACTED] [REDACTED] to promote [REDACTED]."
https://www2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/siteassets/district/boe/boe-news/230908-jackson-lewis-report.pdf

Her defense is her own incompetence? As a leader of you hear about something important “swirling around”, your job is to follow up. Not exercising due care is not a defense.

So she's using the Reagan defense?

She’s using both the Clinton defense and the Reagan defense. Her first line of defense is Clintonian, parsing what “active investigation” means in the context of promoting someone that she admits she knew there were concerns “swirling around”. The second line of defense is Reagan, claiming that she is absolved because of plausible deniability because she did not follow up about the things she heard “swirling around”.

[Anonymous]

She admitted that she is not a good leader in the report. This alone should be enough cause to get rid of her.
And what is the status on Beidelman and his cronies and supervisors who ignored what was happening? Are we still paying him?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From the redacted report, page 6 third paragraph.

"Prior to the promotion, [REDACTED] was generally aware that there were concerns about [REDACTED] conduct "swirling around" but [REDACTED] was apparently not specifically aware of the pending investigation. [REDACTED] did not specifically remember if [REDACTED] informed [REDACTED] about the investigation prior to the promotion. [REDACTED] did not take any action to inquire about details regarding what concerns were "swirling around" [REDACTED] prior to [REDACTED] [REDACTED] to promote [REDACTED]."
https://www2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/siteassets/district/boe/boe-news/230908-jackson-lewis-report.pdf

“apparently not specifically aware” is how I describe McKnight on any given topic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the redacted report, page 6 third paragraph.

"Prior to the promotion, [REDACTED] was generally aware that there were concerns about [REDACTED] conduct "swirling around" but [REDACTED] was apparently not specifically aware of the pending investigation. [REDACTED] did not specifically remember if [REDACTED] informed [REDACTED] about the investigation prior to the promotion. [REDACTED] did not take any action to inquire about details regarding what concerns were "swirling around" [REDACTED] prior to [REDACTED] [REDACTED] to promote [REDACTED]."
https://www2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/siteassets/district/boe/boe-news/230908-jackson-lewis-report.pdf

“apparently not specifically aware” is how I describe McKnight on any given topic.

All this swirling around nonsense sounds like a tween group chat.