BOE - who are people voting for?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I voted for Stewart in part because she has a depth of CIP knowledge and advocacy no one else does, and I think that would be a big benefit during the next four years with Woodward and Crown coming and all the associated studies.

I was leaning this way too but after i watched a lot of the candidate forums I decided to switch back to Shebra Evans. Laura Stewart just didn't impress me with the way she presented her ideas and issues. She was underwhelming in convincing me that she has the chops to be effective on the board. Good ideas and seems nice, but there doesn't appear to be a lot of "there" there.

...says the Evans supporter who hopes folks don't look back through the 80-plus pages of this thread to see nearly the same thing said over and over again, trying to piant the challenger as soft-headed, when Evans has done almost nothing substantive besides make sure her base got theirs early on and that MCPS leadership was put in place to keep it that way. That's basically the reason Evans supported MCPS upper admin, including McKnight, with both reticence and assent, neglecting the broad needs of the community.

Meanwhile, Stewart's advocacy, despite not having the privilege of meeting time/authority afforded to a BOE member like Evans, has been far clearer, though her deep understanding of issues like capital improvements can lead to nuanced responses. Some folks not paying attention might see that as wishy-washy from her "nice" presentation, when it's actually the kind of fine tuning that presents the opportunity for better results.

I agree with you there, since her "advocacy" has most often been in the form of reading her written testimony out loud to the BOE. Points for being able to read very clearly, I guess. Outside of that format, like in the candidate forums where she needed to speak extemporaneously and on her feet, she struggled quite a bit.

More attempts at misrepresenting Stewart, here. Or you are very unfamiliar with the subject.

Mosy giving testimony do so with preparation, reading from a script, if needed. This is to be sure to cover as much as they can in the very limited time afforded for the public. Especially in comparison to the presentations to the BOE on which they are providing testimony.

Advocates in this paradigm have to research from limited (often withheld) MCPS information, doing their best to guess at the items MCPS might put forward afterwards, where MCPS not only has much more time, but also has the luxury of deciding whether or not to rebut public testimony, with only the BOE available for follow-up questions. Evans, on the board, tends to give them a free pass, there.

Anyone who has interacted with Stewart outside of those confines (say, at an MCCPTA CIP-oriented meeting) knows she can be more extemperaneous. She tends to emgage in related side stories, sure, but that is almost always to provide a better, nuanced understanding, especially in relation to a question posed by a participant. The candidate forums followed suit, both for her, where you could see her taking the time to consider what she might say to prpvide that nuance when there was not a properly pat answer to a question, and for Evans, where you could see her dodging many questions like a seasoned politician.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I voted for Stewart in part because she has a depth of CIP knowledge and advocacy no one else does, and I think that would be a big benefit during the next four years with Woodward and Crown coming and all the associated studies.

I was leaning this way too but after i watched a lot of the candidate forums I decided to switch back to Shebra Evans. Laura Stewart just didn't impress me with the way she presented her ideas and issues. She was underwhelming in convincing me that she has the chops to be effective on the board. Good ideas and seems nice, but there doesn't appear to be a lot of "there" there.

...says the Evans supporter who hopes folks don't look back through the 80-plus pages of this thread to see nearly the same thing said over and over again, trying to piant the challenger as soft-headed, when Evans has done almost nothing substantive besides make sure her base got theirs early on and that MCPS leadership was put in place to keep it that way. That's basically the reason Evans supported MCPS upper admin, including McKnight, with both reticence and assent, neglecting the broad needs of the community.

Meanwhile, Stewart's advocacy, despite not having the privilege of meeting time/authority afforded to a BOE member like Evans, has been far clearer, though her deep understanding of issues like capital improvements can lead to nuanced responses. Some folks not paying attention might see that as wishy-washy from her "nice" presentation, when it's actually the kind of fine tuning that presents the opportunity for better results.

I agree with you there, since her "advocacy" has most often been in the form of reading her written testimony out loud to the BOE. Points for being able to read very clearly, I guess. Outside of that format, like in the candidate forums where she needed to speak extemporaneously and on her feet, she struggled quite a bit.

More attempts at misrepresenting Stewart, here. Or you are very unfamiliar with the subject.

Mosy giving testimony do so with preparation, reading from a script, if needed. This is to be sure to cover as much as they can in the very limited time afforded for the public. Especially in comparison to the presentations to the BOE on which they are providing testimony.

Advocates in this paradigm have to research from limited (often withheld) MCPS information, doing their best to guess at the items MCPS might put forward afterwards, where MCPS not only has much more time, but also has the luxury of deciding whether or not to rebut public testimony, with only the BOE available for follow-up questions. Evans, on the board, tends to give them a free pass, there.

Anyone who has interacted with Stewart outside of those confines (say, at an MCCPTA CIP-oriented meeting) knows she can be more extemperaneous. She tends to emgage in related side stories, sure, but that is almost always to provide a better, nuanced understanding, especially in relation to a question posed by a participant. The candidate forums followed suit, both for her, where you could see her taking the time to consider what she might say to prpvide that nuance when there was not a properly pat answer to a question, and for Evans, where you could see her dodging many questions like a seasoned politician.

Several posters here repeatedly try to twist and spin things to marginalize strong candidates like Stewart in an effort to help theirs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sort of boils down to 3 groups of choices (District 2,4, at-large):
1. Incumbents - Smondrowski, Evans, Harris
2. Apple ballot (teacher's union endorsed) - Zimerman, Stewart, Montoya
3. Rebels: Diaz, Mandel, Mofor

Sorry, couldn't come up with a better name for group 3, but they are all sort of consistent in wanting big change, SROs back in schools, and stuff like that.

So if you like how things are going, vote group 1.

If you like the teacher's union (keep in mind their 2022 apple ballot picks currently sit on the board, but aren't up for election this cycle), vote group 2.

If you think big changes are needed, vote group 3.

Mandel is not an acceptable candidate.

She is Moms4Liberty

In the video, Mandel says she wants to be the voice of homeschooling and private school parents on the board.

As I said, which is ridiculous. Regardless of her politics and endorsements, this is a non-starter for a Board of Education member of the public school system. This immediately disqualifies her.

That is not a disqualification measure. Cite where this disqualifies a candidate.

DP. It can certainly disqualify her from consideration by many voters. Indeed, I expect MOST voters would disqualify her from consideration on the basis of her wanting to be the voice of homeschooling and private school parents on the Board of Education - if not on the basis of a great number of her other statements and actions.

Just because Laura Stewart has no kids currently in MCPS, that doesn't mean she'd necessarily be the voice of homeschooling and private school parents, so that's going too far in my view. Agreed that a great number of her other statements and actions might disqualify her in the minds of some voters, but that's why she made her twitter page private when she decided to run for office and block her historical public statements and views from scrutiny during the campaign.

Aren’t we all paying the same taxes regardless of where we send our kids to school? Or whether we even have kids? BOE doesn’t serve just public school parents. They serve taxpayers in ensuring the future generation of this county are prepared to be productive members of society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I voted for Stewart in part because she has a depth of CIP knowledge and advocacy no one else does, and I think that would be a big benefit during the next four years with Woodward and Crown coming and all the associated studies.

I was leaning this way too but after i watched a lot of the candidate forums I decided to switch back to Shebra Evans. Laura Stewart just didn't impress me with the way she presented her ideas and issues. She was underwhelming in convincing me that she has the chops to be effective on the board. Good ideas and seems nice, but there doesn't appear to be a lot of "there" there.

Oddly enough, this was exactly my opinion of Shebra Evans the first time she ran for BoE, and nothing she has done since then has changed my opinion.

That’s really interesting that your opinion of Evans was so polar opposite to that of the Apple Ballot, which endorsed her. I’m sure you’ve learned your lesson and are avoiding Apple Ballot candidates this time around like I’ve heard so many are doing!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I voted for Stewart in part because she has a depth of CIP knowledge and advocacy no one else does, and I think that would be a big benefit during the next four years with Woodward and Crown coming and all the associated studies.

I was leaning this way too but after i watched a lot of the candidate forums I decided to switch back to Shebra Evans. Laura Stewart just didn't impress me with the way she presented her ideas and issues. She was underwhelming in convincing me that she has the chops to be effective on the board. Good ideas and seems nice, but there doesn't appear to be a lot of "there" there.

Oddly enough, this was exactly my opinion of Shebra Evans the first time she ran for BoE, and nothing she has done since then has changed my opinion.

That’s really interesting that your opinion of Evans was so polar opposite to that of the Apple Ballot, which endorsed her. I’m sure you’ve learned your lesson and are avoiding Apple Ballot candidates this time around like I’ve heard so many are doing!

No to the apple ballot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I voted for Stewart in part because she has a depth of CIP knowledge and advocacy no one else does, and I think that would be a big benefit during the next four years with Woodward and Crown coming and all the associated studies.

I was leaning this way too but after i watched a lot of the candidate forums I decided to switch back to Shebra Evans. Laura Stewart just didn't impress me with the way she presented her ideas and issues. She was underwhelming in convincing me that she has the chops to be effective on the board. Good ideas and seems nice, but there doesn't appear to be a lot of "there" there.

Oddly enough, this was exactly my opinion of Shebra Evans the first time she ran for BoE, and nothing she has done since then has changed my opinion.

That’s really interesting that your opinion of Evans was so polar opposite to that of the Apple Ballot, which endorsed her. I’m sure you’ve learned your lesson and are avoiding Apple Ballot candidates this time around like I’ve heard so many are doing!

Are you posting from 2016? I'm posting from 2024. I'm also voting from 2024. Zimmerman, Stewart, Montoya.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Smondrowski seems to have missed several of the forums. Is she still campaigning?

She’s seemed generally uninterested in performing the job for a while now.

[Anonymous]

D4: I voted for Shebra Evans not because she is good but because the other two candidates are too extreme and bought by special interest money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Smondrowski seems to have missed several of the forums. Is she still campaigning?

She’s seemed generally uninterested in performing the job for a while now.

Since the scandal news?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Smondrowski seems to have missed several of the forums. Is she still campaigning?

She’s seemed generally uninterested in performing the job for a while now.

Then why run again?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I voted for Stewart in part because she has a depth of CIP knowledge and advocacy no one else does, and I think that would be a big benefit during the next four years with Woodward and Crown coming and all the associated studies.

+1 Crown and Woodward school construction has faced delay after delay despite Laura Stewart’s advocacy to finish these projects asap. The BOE decided to build Woodward high school without an auditorium due to budget constraints, depriving those kids of resources that everyone else gets in MCPS, despite Laura Stewart’s advocacy to do the opposite. But I don’t worry too much about her track record of failed advocacy here. I’m sure once she’s on the BOE, she will start to be able to sway votes and persuade people to follow her ideas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I voted for Stewart in part because she has a depth of CIP knowledge and advocacy no one else does, and I think that would be a big benefit during the next four years with Woodward and Crown coming and all the associated studies.

I was leaning this way too but after i watched a lot of the candidate forums I decided to switch back to Shebra Evans. Laura Stewart just didn't impress me with the way she presented her ideas and issues. She was underwhelming in convincing me that she has the chops to be effective on the board. Good ideas and seems nice, but there doesn't appear to be a lot of "there" there.

Oddly enough, this was exactly my opinion of Shebra Evans the first time she ran for BoE, and nothing she has done since then has changed my opinion.

That’s really interesting that your opinion of Evans was so polar opposite to that of the Apple Ballot, which endorsed her. I’m sure you’ve learned your lesson and are avoiding Apple Ballot candidates this time around like I’ve heard so many are doing!

Are you posting from 2016? I'm posting from 2024. I'm also voting from 2024. Zimmerman, Stewart, Montoya.

Let’s put a pot smoking advocate in a position overseeing our schools. Great idea!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I voted for Stewart in part because she has a depth of CIP knowledge and advocacy no one else does, and I think that would be a big benefit during the next four years with Woodward and Crown coming and all the associated studies.

+1 Crown and Woodward school construction has faced delay after delay despite Laura Stewart’s advocacy to finish these projects asap. The BOE decided to build Woodward high school without an auditorium due to budget constraints, depriving those kids of resources that everyone else gets in MCPS, despite Laura Stewart’s advocacy to do the opposite. But I don’t worry too much about her track record of failed advocacy here. I’m sure once she’s on the BOE, she will start to be able to sway votes and persuade people to follow her ideas.

Given the choice between blaming

(a) the person who is NOT on the school board, or
(b) the person who IS on the school board

for a decision made by the school board, I'm going with choice (b). I'm going to blame the person who IS on the school board for the decision made by the school board.

It's also funny how the contingent that believes in two things - incumbents are bad, and the Apple Ballot is bad - is reconciling these two conflicting beliefs. Why conflicting? Because the Apple Ballot endorsed 3 out of 3 non-incumbents this year.

Points for creativity, though, I guess.

[Anonymous]

To answer the question directly, I am going to vote for Kim, Zimmerman, and Stewart.

My "split" vote (breaking from the progressive slate) is because I genuinely think the BoE has done a shockingly bad job at its oversight function, and that too many of them are more interested in protecting the reputation of MCPS than in representing the views of their constituents.

However, I'm not going to give the far right a foothold in Montgomery County, and I want folks who have the knowledge base to ask hard questions.

To me, a former public school administrator, a current teacher, and a long-time parent advocate are a team that could maybe get us some answers on questions of academics, discipline, and infrastructure, respectively.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To answer the question directly, I am going to vote for Kim, Zimmerman, and Stewart.

My "split" vote (breaking from the progressive slate) is because I genuinely think the BoE has done a shockingly bad job at its oversight function, and that too many of them are more interested in protecting the reputation of MCPS than in representing the views of their constituents.

However, I'm not going to give the far right a foothold in Montgomery County, and I want folks who have the knowledge base to ask hard questions.

To me, a former public school administrator, a current teacher, and a long-time parent advocate are a team that could maybe get us some answers on questions of academics, discipline, and infrastructure, respectively.

But Kim has been pretty much invisible this campaign season. She has no shot at winning.