Thursday 5/21 Board of Education Meeting

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Montoya has her flaws, but I’m super glad she mentioned all the unpopular things MCPS is doing and how it’s affecting enrollment.

She’s also the only one that seems to understand board members have a role in this and can break the cycle by intervening where needed.

Some people said on this board said she has a kid in compacted math. She has skin in the game, and can see how frustrating some MCPS decisions are first hand.

She voted to destroy high school magnets. I wonder if her kid was in HS at the time of the vote, what would have been her vote? Do board members care only about their kids?

If her kids are at some schools, its not really a big deal as they will have the opportunities. The bigger issue is the DCC and NEC.

+1 And some of us don't think the changes to the magnets are bad. It's bad for the 100 ultra-talented kids who won't get their gold-plated STEM opportunities in quite the same way at Blair, but it's better for many other kids are also smart but whose schools had no advanced offerings.

Do you think the new regional model will provide those opportunities? No, they will not. It will create super borders.
You talk about the super talented 100 kids like they are nothing. I will say that I do not care about the kids who don't want to be educated. Why spend millions on unmotivated kids? On families who do not value education? We have very definite resources. Let's spend them on those who will take full advantage of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Open Lunch policy discussion was absolutely insane.

Karla, Rita, Laura and Julie all agreeing that the policy needed to be revised and that they should have data and a discussion before voting to rescind was logical.

But Brenda, Grace and Natalie instead doubling down on voting to rescind the policy, gathering public comments, and then deciding once again whether to proceed with the rescission of the policy was absolutely bonkers.

And then, Brenda taking her ball and going home because there weren't enough votes to rescind the policy and declining to revise the policy was just sour grapes.

So we bum rushed a change for no reason and now the outdated, vague Open Lunch policy gets to stand indefinitely because Brenda didn't have her way.

The BOE is a joke.

That conversation was shameful. Can we impeach Board members? They should be embarrassed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Montoya has her flaws, but I’m super glad she mentioned all the unpopular things MCPS is doing and how it’s affecting enrollment.

She’s also the only one that seems to understand board members have a role in this and can break the cycle by intervening where needed.

Some people said on this board said she has a kid in compacted math. She has skin in the game, and can see how frustrating some MCPS decisions are first hand.

She voted to destroy high school magnets. I wonder if her kid was in HS at the time of the vote, what would have been her vote? Do board members care only about their kids?

If her kids are at some schools, its not really a big deal as they will have the opportunities. The bigger issue is the DCC and NEC.

+1 And some of us don't think the changes to the magnets are bad. It's bad for the 100 ultra-talented kids who won't get their gold-plated STEM opportunities in quite the same way at Blair, but it's better for many other kids are also smart but whose schools had no advanced offerings.

It is also bad for thousands of kids in the DCC and NEC who previously had transportation from their neighborhoods to attend schools with offerings that rich kids have at their home schools because that transportation is being taken away. In many cases DCC kids also no longer have access to established programs near their homes and have to travel to a further school to access half baked programs. All because MCPS and the BOE subscribe to a bizarre definition of "equity" that apparently is about bussing highly motivated and well resourced kids from lower income schools to higher income schools.

[Anonymous]

I have often thought that BOE stipends should be increased, and I think they should be. But I am also realizing now that the fact that the BOE has no responsibilities on the revenue side of the equation removes an important oversight incentive for them. When you have to be responsible for people's tax dollars, it changes how you look at how the money is being spent. Right now the BOE is like the Council's child and they demand an ever increasing allowance that they don't pay much attention to in terms of how it is spent. Why would they? All they have to do is demand it and the Council will give it to them. Nobody is yelling at them about raising taxes for worse results. If people had cause to yell at the BOE for raising their taxes I bet the BOE members would suddenly develop spines. They would by no means be perfect but I really think they would care more.

[Anonymous]

They recognized and applauded PPWs in the same meeting that they said they were cutting the positions. Did that really happen…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Montoya has her flaws, but I’m super glad she mentioned all the unpopular things MCPS is doing and how it’s affecting enrollment.

She’s also the only one that seems to understand board members have a role in this and can break the cycle by intervening where needed.

Some people said on this board said she has a kid in compacted math. She has skin in the game, and can see how frustrating some MCPS decisions are first hand.

That sounds about right for Montoya - fighting for accelerated learning in which her own child participates, but claiming that the accelerated programs in secondary schools are racist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have often thought that BOE stipends should be increased, and I think they should be. But I am also realizing now that the fact that the BOE has no responsibilities on the revenue side of the equation removes an important oversight incentive for them. When you have to be responsible for people's tax dollars, it changes how you look at how the money is being spent. Right now the BOE is like the Council's child and they demand an ever increasing allowance that they don't pay much attention to in terms of how it is spent. Why would they? All they have to do is demand it and the Council will give it to them. Nobody is yelling at them about raising taxes for worse results. If people had cause to yell at the BOE for raising their taxes I bet the BOE members would suddenly develop spines. They would by no means be perfect but I really think they would care more.

Talk to the state about BOE stipends. That is where the decision for that is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Open Lunch policy discussion was absolutely insane.

Karla, Rita, Laura and Julie all agreeing that the policy needed to be revised and that they should have data and a discussion before voting to rescind was logical.

But Brenda, Grace and Natalie instead doubling down on voting to rescind the policy, gathering public comments, and then deciding once again whether to proceed with the rescission of the policy was absolutely bonkers.

And then, Brenda taking her ball and going home because there weren't enough votes to rescind the policy and declining to revise the policy was just sour grapes.

So we bum rushed a change for no reason and now the outdated, vague Open Lunch policy gets to stand indefinitely because Brenda didn't have her way.

The BOE is a joke.

They have way more important things to work on than open lunch. I’m still not clear why they were trying to rush this through and why their approach was to just hand more power to the superintendent. Glad this was the outcome. They can take revising the policy later but not until they fix their budget, restore real supports for gifted students, and stop the destruction TT has in mind for the district

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Open Lunch policy discussion was absolutely insane.

Karla, Rita, Laura and Julie all agreeing that the policy needed to be revised and that they should have data and a discussion before voting to rescind was logical.

But Brenda, Grace and Natalie instead doubling down on voting to rescind the policy, gathering public comments, and then deciding once again whether to proceed with the rescission of the policy was absolutely bonkers.

And then, Brenda taking her ball and going home because there weren't enough votes to rescind the policy and declining to revise the policy was just sour grapes.

So we bum rushed a change for no reason and now the outdated, vague Open Lunch policy gets to stand indefinitely because Brenda didn't have her way.

The BOE is a joke.

They have way more important things to work on than open lunch. I’m still not clear why they were trying to rush this through and why their approach was to just hand more power to the superintendent. Glad this was the outcome. They can take revising the policy later but not until they fix their budget, restore real supports for gifted students, and stop the destruction TT has in mind for the district

+1,000

The board have bungled their way around on this side issue, while Taylor is deconstructing special ed supports, doing away with accelerated learning at all levels of schooling, implementing an ill-conceived regional education system with no information on transportation costs and no understanding of whether the logistical systems that are necessary will succeed. I am tired of Taylor tearing everything up without a real plan.

But hey, let's use up all the oxygen in the room talking about open lunch. It's just another deflection by Team Taylor on far more important issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have often thought that BOE stipends should be increased, and I think they should be. But I am also realizing now that the fact that the BOE has no responsibilities on the revenue side of the equation removes an important oversight incentive for them. When you have to be responsible for people's tax dollars, it changes how you look at how the money is being spent. Right now the BOE is like the Council's child and they demand an ever increasing allowance that they don't pay much attention to in terms of how it is spent. Why would they? All they have to do is demand it and the Council will give it to them. Nobody is yelling at them about raising taxes for worse results. If people had cause to yell at the BOE for raising their taxes I bet the BOE members would suddenly develop spines. They would by no means be perfect but I really think they would care more.

Talk to the state about BOE stipends. That is where the decision for that is.

I should clarify. I don't think they should receive higher stipends until their responsibilities increase. Currently, they have no incentive to ensure the Superintendent is using funds efficiently or effectively, and so they don't do that. Until they are held responsible for the tax increases they demand, I say keep their stipends just as they are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have often thought that BOE stipends should be increased, and I think they should be. But I am also realizing now that the fact that the BOE has no responsibilities on the revenue side of the equation removes an important oversight incentive for them. When you have to be responsible for people's tax dollars, it changes how you look at how the money is being spent. Right now the BOE is like the Council's child and they demand an ever increasing allowance that they don't pay much attention to in terms of how it is spent. Why would they? All they have to do is demand it and the Council will give it to them. Nobody is yelling at them about raising taxes for worse results. If people had cause to yell at the BOE for raising their taxes I bet the BOE members would suddenly develop spines. They would by no means be perfect but I really think they would care more.

Talk to the state about BOE stipends. That is where the decision for that is.

I should clarify. I don't think they should receive higher stipends until their responsibilities increase. Currently, they have no incentive to ensure the Superintendent is using funds efficiently or effectively, and so they don't do that. Until they are held responsible for the tax increases they demand, I say keep their stipends just as they are.

We can hold them responsible at the ballot box. Unfortunately, even in a community this size, we are getting poorly informed candidates who, for some reason, think it would be fun to win an elected office with not much to recommend themselves by way of pertinent knowledge or experience. I would say the same about county council candidates this year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have often thought that BOE stipends should be increased, and I think they should be. But I am also realizing now that the fact that the BOE has no responsibilities on the revenue side of the equation removes an important oversight incentive for them. When you have to be responsible for people's tax dollars, it changes how you look at how the money is being spent. Right now the BOE is like the Council's child and they demand an ever increasing allowance that they don't pay much attention to in terms of how it is spent. Why would they? All they have to do is demand it and the Council will give it to them. Nobody is yelling at them about raising taxes for worse results. If people had cause to yell at the BOE for raising their taxes I bet the BOE members would suddenly develop spines. They would by no means be perfect but I really think they would care more.

Talk to the state about BOE stipends. That is where the decision for that is.

I should clarify. I don't think they should receive higher stipends until their responsibilities increase. Currently, they have no incentive to ensure the Superintendent is using funds efficiently or effectively, and so they don't do that. Until they are held responsible for the tax increases they demand, I say keep their stipends just as they are.

We can hold them responsible at the ballot box. Unfortunately, even in a community this size, we are getting poorly informed candidates who, for some reason, think it would be fun to win an elected office with not much to recommend themselves by way of pertinent knowledge or experience. I would say the same about county council candidates this year.

I actually think most of the councilmembers with the exception of Sayles have pertinent knowledge and experience. They have to balance revenues and expenditures and they often ask good questions. Try watching a council session at some point. The BOE members sometimes ask good questions but generally don't question the Superintendent too much. They do not care about how the Superintendent spends the money because they don't get yelled at about taxes. Once they start getting yelled at about taxes they will suddenly start caring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have often thought that BOE stipends should be increased, and I think they should be. But I am also realizing now that the fact that the BOE has no responsibilities on the revenue side of the equation removes an important oversight incentive for them. When you have to be responsible for people's tax dollars, it changes how you look at how the money is being spent. Right now the BOE is like the Council's child and they demand an ever increasing allowance that they don't pay much attention to in terms of how it is spent. Why would they? All they have to do is demand it and the Council will give it to them. Nobody is yelling at them about raising taxes for worse results. If people had cause to yell at the BOE for raising their taxes I bet the BOE members would suddenly develop spines. They would by no means be perfect but I really think they would care more.

Talk to the state about BOE stipends. That is where the decision for that is.

I should clarify. I don't think they should receive higher stipends until their responsibilities increase. Currently, they have no incentive to ensure the Superintendent is using funds efficiently or effectively, and so they don't do that. Until they are held responsible for the tax increases they demand, I say keep their stipends just as they are.

Maybe they could take on an adequate load of responsibilities if they have adequate compensation for the time needed to do so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have often thought that BOE stipends should be increased, and I think they should be. But I am also realizing now that the fact that the BOE has no responsibilities on the revenue side of the equation removes an important oversight incentive for them. When you have to be responsible for people's tax dollars, it changes how you look at how the money is being spent. Right now the BOE is like the Council's child and they demand an ever increasing allowance that they don't pay much attention to in terms of how it is spent. Why would they? All they have to do is demand it and the Council will give it to them. Nobody is yelling at them about raising taxes for worse results. If people had cause to yell at the BOE for raising their taxes I bet the BOE members would suddenly develop spines. They would by no means be perfect but I really think they would care more.

Talk to the state about BOE stipends. That is where the decision for that is.

I should clarify. I don't think they should receive higher stipends until their responsibilities increase. Currently, they have no incentive to ensure the Superintendent is using funds efficiently or effectively, and so they don't do that. Until they are held responsible for the tax increases they demand, I say keep their stipends just as they are.

Maybe they could take on an adequate load of responsibilities if they have adequate compensation for the time needed to do so.

So we agree that if they are given more responsibility, they should be in compensated more

[Anonymous]

I don't think they are going to start exercising their oversight duties just because they get more money though. I think they will start doing so if voters are calling and emailing them about tax increases though.