8/20 2024 BOE meeting

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably will hear from many many heartbroken and disappointed mva families.

MVA will be at each and every BOE meeting until the MVA is restored. But, otherwise nothing will come of the BOE meeting. The BOE is a joke.

I don't know why the BOE is still allowing MVA testimonies when they clearly have the ability to screen and filter out testimonies based on topics that aren't on the BOE's agenda for that meeting.

Why screen it? MVA famlies have a right to speak and will continue.

They've already spoken. Now they're just wasting everyone's time.

They are working on funding for next school year. They can easily reopen it. Its not a waste of time if its important to them. Why are you so hateful and bitter to the MVA? What experience do you have with it?

They're not. The BoE and council had opportunities to fund it, and they chose not to. The budget situation is likely to get worse before it gets better. If Courtney and Sterling were serious about finding a long-term solution to virtual school, they'd be lobbying the state to create a program, rather than continuing to whine to the people that already told them no.

Even if the state created a program, MCPS would have to pay for it. Are you really that clueless? All the state can do is approve a private program, which will cost more than the MVA. Why the obsession with the state doing it? States only approve programs, they do not run programs.

But two BOE members are virtual because they want that option.

That's intereting isn't it. They also are known to work virtually regularly. But, some are working two jobs, not sure how they can work full time, lets say at MC and the BOE. More interesting given they are working full-time at another job, they are asking for a pay raise.

If you don't effectively compensate elected representatives for their time, you get one of these as candidates:

1) Wealthy socialites who don't need compensation
2) Folks whose alternate employment opportunities are limited to at or near minimum wage
3) Ideologues willing to sacrifice financially to push their agenda
4) Folks that will spend the absolute minimum time on the job

If you want highly capable representatives spending the more-than-full-time needed to do this job well (it covers 200+ schools and a multi-billion-dollar budget), then you need to offer commensurate compensation, say the equivalent of a GS-14 step 6 or so with the locality adjustment for this area -- somewhere north of $160k. Then you can expect them not to have other jobs.

Its a huge conflict of interest when one works for MC, and clearly cannot be working 40 hours with all her duties. It would be ok paying them a salary if that was their only job but its not ok they are double dipping. Most board jobs are volunteer. Paying them $160K would not be ok when thats way more than an average teacher. Most don't have any educational background or training specific to this job. And, we don't need to pay them that much to muck things up.

The idea isn't to pay them on top of a primary job, it's to expect that being on the BOE would be their primary, if not only, job. The idea of having competent oversight of a multi-billion-dollar enterprise on a part-time or volunteer basis is a joke. They'd all come from one of the 4 categories mentioned. Why do you think it's such a mess?

That would only work if they quit their other jobs, which is doubtful. I think its a mess as they aren't financial folks and they allow their personal bias and friends/employers to take advantage of them.

I think you might mistake the suggestion that BOE members be paid a salary commensurate with our expectation of their compentency and of their time commitment as a suggestion that these BOE members be paid that much. Some of them might, if they won an election against the array of competent (likely much more so, from a financial/managerial perspective) opponents who threw their hat in the ring once a realistic compensation was offered (and understanding the expectation of professional levels of effort -- full time or more, as likely would be needed).

Anyone who is truely tallented wlll want $200-600K, and the point of boards is not to have paid positions.

The point of boards is to provide oversight & guidance. If you want good oversight & guidance, why do you not expect to pay for it?

Because we have central office who are paid oversight. The board is supposed to be a check and balances and they get a stipend, its not a paid job.

The duties and expectations for the positions are not in line with your characterization of them. Maybe those duties and expectations should change, shifting more oversight to central office staff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably will hear from many many heartbroken and disappointed mva families.

MVA will be at each and every BOE meeting until the MVA is restored. But, otherwise nothing will come of the BOE meeting. The BOE is a joke.

I don't know why the BOE is still allowing MVA testimonies when they clearly have the ability to screen and filter out testimonies based on topics that aren't on the BOE's agenda for that meeting.

Why screen it? MVA famlies have a right to speak and will continue.

They've already spoken. Now they're just wasting everyone's time.

They are working on funding for next school year. They can easily reopen it. Its not a waste of time if its important to them. Why are you so hateful and bitter to the MVA? What experience do you have with it?

They're not. The BoE and council had opportunities to fund it, and they chose not to. The budget situation is likely to get worse before it gets better. If Courtney and Sterling were serious about finding a long-term solution to virtual school, they'd be lobbying the state to create a program, rather than continuing to whine to the people that already told them no.

Even if the state created a program, MCPS would have to pay for it. Are you really that clueless? All the state can do is approve a private program, which will cost more than the MVA. Why the obsession with the state doing it? States only approve programs, they do not run programs.

But two BOE members are virtual because they want that option.

That's intereting isn't it. They also are known to work virtually regularly. But, some are working two jobs, not sure how they can work full time, lets say at MC and the BOE. More interesting given they are working full-time at another job, they are asking for a pay raise.

If you don't effectively compensate elected representatives for their time, you get one of these as candidates:

1) Wealthy socialites who don't need compensation
2) Folks whose alternate employment opportunities are limited to at or near minimum wage
3) Ideologues willing to sacrifice financially to push their agenda
4) Folks that will spend the absolute minimum time on the job

If you want highly capable representatives spending the more-than-full-time needed to do this job well (it covers 200+ schools and a multi-billion-dollar budget), then you need to offer commensurate compensation, say the equivalent of a GS-14 step 6 or so with the locality adjustment for this area -- somewhere north of $160k. Then you can expect them not to have other jobs.

Its a huge conflict of interest when one works for MC, and clearly cannot be working 40 hours with all her duties. It would be ok paying them a salary if that was their only job but its not ok they are double dipping. Most board jobs are volunteer. Paying them $160K would not be ok when thats way more than an average teacher. Most don't have any educational background or training specific to this job. And, we don't need to pay them that much to muck things up.

Most nonprofit boards are volunteers, but most corporate boards are not.

The reason most nonprofit boards are run by volunteers is because they're run by wealthy, privileged people who can afford to give their time for free.

And those aren't the people you want representing working families.

There is a huge disconnect between the BOE and the students/families/staff they represent.

That's the ideologue BOE contingent in action, there. Maybe with some time constraint from needing alternate income limiting constiuent interaction thrown in for good measure.

Somehow I don't think this is an income issue, but it certainly is a greed issue. They have a 3 billion dollar budget and somehow cannot meet the needs of all students. So, lets be real, where is all this money going and they need to make real and serious cuts if its that much of an issue, not just programs that directly hurt kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the BOE managed the money properly there would be enough to fund all the things MCPS cut and pay the lower paid workers a more reasonable salary and be fully staffed. Paying the BOE more isn't going to fix the problem and have them do a better job. Nice thought though. And, $100 for someone on minimum wage can be a lot.

You presume that better BOE members attracted by reasonable compensation and working on the matter full time would not result in more effective management. I disagree.

While I agree that $100 is not nothing, I would expect more than that to be available as a result of the more effective management.

The Superintendent is the one who manages it and he got a huge raise over the former Superintendent. Board Members are a volunteer position that come with a stipend. Central office is doing the spending and primary mismanagement, but ultimately they approve it all... so, they all need to be replaced. Central office staff generally get paid very well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably will hear from many many heartbroken and disappointed mva families.

MVA will be at each and every BOE meeting until the MVA is restored. But, otherwise nothing will come of the BOE meeting. The BOE is a joke.

I don't know why the BOE is still allowing MVA testimonies when they clearly have the ability to screen and filter out testimonies based on topics that aren't on the BOE's agenda for that meeting.

Why screen it? MVA famlies have a right to speak and will continue.

They've already spoken. Now they're just wasting everyone's time.

They are working on funding for next school year. They can easily reopen it. Its not a waste of time if its important to them. Why are you so hateful and bitter to the MVA? What experience do you have with it?

They're not. The BoE and council had opportunities to fund it, and they chose not to. The budget situation is likely to get worse before it gets better. If Courtney and Sterling were serious about finding a long-term solution to virtual school, they'd be lobbying the state to create a program, rather than continuing to whine to the people that already told them no.

Even if the state created a program, MCPS would have to pay for it. Are you really that clueless? All the state can do is approve a private program, which will cost more than the MVA. Why the obsession with the state doing it? States only approve programs, they do not run programs.

But two BOE members are virtual because they want that option.

That's intereting isn't it. They also are known to work virtually regularly. But, some are working two jobs, not sure how they can work full time, lets say at MC and the BOE. More interesting given they are working full-time at another job, they are asking for a pay raise.

If you don't effectively compensate elected representatives for their time, you get one of these as candidates:

1) Wealthy socialites who don't need compensation
2) Folks whose alternate employment opportunities are limited to at or near minimum wage
3) Ideologues willing to sacrifice financially to push their agenda
4) Folks that will spend the absolute minimum time on the job

If you want highly capable representatives spending the more-than-full-time needed to do this job well (it covers 200+ schools and a multi-billion-dollar budget), then you need to offer commensurate compensation, say the equivalent of a GS-14 step 6 or so with the locality adjustment for this area -- somewhere north of $160k. Then you can expect them not to have other jobs.

Its a huge conflict of interest when one works for MC, and clearly cannot be working 40 hours with all her duties. It would be ok paying them a salary if that was their only job but its not ok they are double dipping. Most board jobs are volunteer. Paying them $160K would not be ok when thats way more than an average teacher. Most don't have any educational background or training specific to this job. And, we don't need to pay them that much to muck things up.

The idea isn't to pay them on top of a primary job, it's to expect that being on the BOE would be their primary, if not only, job. The idea of having competent oversight of a multi-billion-dollar enterprise on a part-time or volunteer basis is a joke. They'd all come from one of the 4 categories mentioned. Why do you think it's such a mess?

That would only work if they quit their other jobs, which is doubtful. I think its a mess as they aren't financial folks and they allow their personal bias and friends/employers to take advantage of them.

I think you might mistake the suggestion that BOE members be paid a salary commensurate with our expectation of their compentency and of their time commitment as a suggestion that these BOE members be paid that much. Some of them might, if they won an election against the array of competent (likely much more so, from a financial/managerial perspective) opponents who threw their hat in the ring once a realistic compensation was offered (and understanding the expectation of professional levels of effort -- full time or more, as likely would be needed).

Anyone who is truely tallented wlll want $200-600K, and the point of boards is not to have paid positions.

The point of boards is to provide oversight & guidance. If you want good oversight & guidance, why do you not expect to pay for it?

Because we have central office who are paid oversight. The board is supposed to be a check and balances and they get a stipend, its not a paid job.

Do you not know how MCPS is organized? The central office works for the Superintendent. The half of the office that perform duties we think would be related to oversight -- getting individual schools to do things a particular way -- has almost no power to do more than provide guidelines/make recommendations. The other half are those needing oversight of their own. The Office of Shared Accountability is anemic (as well as any others that might provide a modicum of oversight-type function other than, perhaps, strict legal compliance).

All of them report up the ranks to the single point of the superintendent. There are no effective checks at the BOE in part because of who runs/gets elected given the current compensation vs. expectation scheme, in part because of the related time constraint (given the need of some to make a living) and in part because of the organization's ability to limit information going to the board. (There have been presentations with deliberately misleading data/omissions and outright lies from central office executives when questioned -- with no way for the board to test those).

For all of our sakes, but especially for the sake of the students, it needs to be a paid job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the BOE managed the money properly there would be enough to fund all the things MCPS cut and pay the lower paid workers a more reasonable salary and be fully staffed. Paying the BOE more isn't going to fix the problem and have them do a better job. Nice thought though. And, $100 for someone on minimum wage can be a lot.

You presume that better BOE members attracted by reasonable compensation and working on the matter full time would not result in more effective management. I disagree.

While I agree that $100 is not nothing, I would expect more than that to be available as a result of the more effective management.

The Superintendent is the one who manages it and he got a huge raise over the former Superintendent. Board Members are a volunteer position that come with a stipend. Central office is doing the spending and primary mismanagement, but ultimately they approve it all... so, they all need to be replaced. Central office staff generally get paid very well.

Are you agreeing with me? Nothing you mention, here, is a support for an argument to oppose attracting more competent BOE candidates and the expectation of full-time/professional levels of effort with commemsurate compensation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the BOE managed the money properly there would be enough to fund all the things MCPS cut and pay the lower paid workers a more reasonable salary and be fully staffed. Paying the BOE more isn't going to fix the problem and have them do a better job. Nice thought though. And, $100 for someone on minimum wage can be a lot.

You presume that better BOE members attracted by reasonable compensation and working on the matter full time would not result in more effective management. I disagree.

While I agree that $100 is not nothing, I would expect more than that to be available as a result of the more effective management.

The Superintendent is the one who manages it and he got a huge raise over the former Superintendent. Board Members are a volunteer position that come with a stipend. Central office is doing the spending and primary mismanagement, but ultimately they approve it all... so, they all need to be replaced. Central office staff generally get paid very well.

Are you agreeing with me? Nothing you mention, here, is a support for an argument to oppose attracting more competent BOE candidates and the expectation of full-time/professional levels of effort with commemsurate compensation.

I agree with you we need to replace all the current board members BUT I don't agree that they should get anything more than the stipend as its a volunteer job. Most boards are volunteer jobs, as is this one. If they cannot afford it on the stipend, don't run for the position. Until we get a new board and a superintendent who ca do whats best for our kids, its only going to continue to decline.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably will hear from many many heartbroken and disappointed mva families.

MVA will be at each and every BOE meeting until the MVA is restored. But, otherwise nothing will come of the BOE meeting. The BOE is a joke.

I don't know why the BOE is still allowing MVA testimonies when they clearly have the ability to screen and filter out testimonies based on topics that aren't on the BOE's agenda for that meeting.

Why screen it? MVA famlies have a right to speak and will continue.

They've already spoken. Now they're just wasting everyone's time.

They are working on funding for next school year. They can easily reopen it. Its not a waste of time if its important to them. Why are you so hateful and bitter to the MVA? What experience do you have with it?

They're not. The BoE and council had opportunities to fund it, and they chose not to. The budget situation is likely to get worse before it gets better. If Courtney and Sterling were serious about finding a long-term solution to virtual school, they'd be lobbying the state to create a program, rather than continuing to whine to the people that already told them no.

Even if the state created a program, MCPS would have to pay for it. Are you really that clueless? All the state can do is approve a private program, which will cost more than the MVA. Why the obsession with the state doing it? States only approve programs, they do not run programs.

But two BOE members are virtual because they want that option.

That's intereting isn't it. They also are known to work virtually regularly. But, some are working two jobs, not sure how they can work full time, lets say at MC and the BOE. More interesting given they are working full-time at another job, they are asking for a pay raise.

If you don't effectively compensate elected representatives for their time, you get one of these as candidates:

1) Wealthy socialites who don't need compensation
2) Folks whose alternate employment opportunities are limited to at or near minimum wage
3) Ideologues willing to sacrifice financially to push their agenda
4) Folks that will spend the absolute minimum time on the job

If you want highly capable representatives spending the more-than-full-time needed to do this job well (it covers 200+ schools and a multi-billion-dollar budget), then you need to offer commensurate compensation, say the equivalent of a GS-14 step 6 or so with the locality adjustment for this area -- somewhere north of $160k. Then you can expect them not to have other jobs.

Its a huge conflict of interest when one works for MC, and clearly cannot be working 40 hours with all her duties. It would be ok paying them a salary if that was their only job but its not ok they are double dipping. Most board jobs are volunteer. Paying them $160K would not be ok when thats way more than an average teacher. Most don't have any educational background or training specific to this job. And, we don't need to pay them that much to muck things up.

The idea isn't to pay them on top of a primary job, it's to expect that being on the BOE would be their primary, if not only, job. The idea of having competent oversight of a multi-billion-dollar enterprise on a part-time or volunteer basis is a joke. They'd all come from one of the 4 categories mentioned. Why do you think it's such a mess?

That would only work if they quit their other jobs, which is doubtful. I think its a mess as they aren't financial folks and they allow their personal bias and friends/employers to take advantage of them.

I think you might mistake the suggestion that BOE members be paid a salary commensurate with our expectation of their compentency and of their time commitment as a suggestion that these BOE members be paid that much. Some of them might, if they won an election against the array of competent (likely much more so, from a financial/managerial perspective) opponents who threw their hat in the ring once a realistic compensation was offered (and understanding the expectation of professional levels of effort -- full time or more, as likely would be needed).

Anyone who is truely tallented wlll want $200-600K, and the point of boards is not to have paid positions.

The point of boards is to provide oversight & guidance. If you want good oversight & guidance, why do you not expect to pay for it?

Because we have central office who are paid oversight. The board is supposed to be a check and balances and they get a stipend, its not a paid job.

Do you not know how MCPS is organized? The central office works for the Superintendent. The half of the office that perform duties we think would be related to oversight -- getting individual schools to do things a particular way -- has almost no power to do more than provide guidelines/make recommendations. The other half are those needing oversight of their own. The Office of Shared Accountability is anemic (as well as any others that might provide a modicum of oversight-type function other than, perhaps, strict legal compliance).

All of them report up the ranks to the single point of the superintendent. There are no effective checks at the BOE in part because of who runs/gets elected given the current compensation vs. expectation scheme, in part because of the related time constraint (given the need of some to make a living) and in part because of the organization's ability to limit information going to the board. (There have been presentations with deliberately misleading data/omissions and outright lies from central office executives when questioned -- with no way for the board to test those).

For all of our sakes, but especially for the sake of the students, it needs to be a paid job.

You don't get compensated nor is it a paid job... let me guess, you are on the board? You really think some of these folks would quit their job to be on the board? Doubtful. They will just double dip. The point of a board is unbias oversite... if they are paid by MCPS, they will be bias, although they aready are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably will hear from many many heartbroken and disappointed mva families.

MVA will be at each and every BOE meeting until the MVA is restored. But, otherwise nothing will come of the BOE meeting. The BOE is a joke.

I don't know why the BOE is still allowing MVA testimonies when they clearly have the ability to screen and filter out testimonies based on topics that aren't on the BOE's agenda for that meeting.

Why screen it? MVA famlies have a right to speak and will continue.

They've already spoken. Now they're just wasting everyone's time.

They are working on funding for next school year. They can easily reopen it. Its not a waste of time if its important to them. Why are you so hateful and bitter to the MVA? What experience do you have with it?

They're not. The BoE and council had opportunities to fund it, and they chose not to. The budget situation is likely to get worse before it gets better. If Courtney and Sterling were serious about finding a long-term solution to virtual school, they'd be lobbying the state to create a program, rather than continuing to whine to the people that already told them no.

Even if the state created a program, MCPS would have to pay for it. Are you really that clueless? All the state can do is approve a private program, which will cost more than the MVA. Why the obsession with the state doing it? States only approve programs, they do not run programs.

But two BOE members are virtual because they want that option.

That's intereting isn't it. They also are known to work virtually regularly. But, some are working two jobs, not sure how they can work full time, lets say at MC and the BOE. More interesting given they are working full-time at another job, they are asking for a pay raise.

If you don't effectively compensate elected representatives for their time, you get one of these as candidates:

1) Wealthy socialites who don't need compensation
2) Folks whose alternate employment opportunities are limited to at or near minimum wage
3) Ideologues willing to sacrifice financially to push their agenda
4) Folks that will spend the absolute minimum time on the job

If you want highly capable representatives spending the more-than-full-time needed to do this job well (it covers 200+ schools and a multi-billion-dollar budget), then you need to offer commensurate compensation, say the equivalent of a GS-14 step 6 or so with the locality adjustment for this area -- somewhere north of $160k. Then you can expect them not to have other jobs.

Its a huge conflict of interest when one works for MC, and clearly cannot be working 40 hours with all her duties. It would be ok paying them a salary if that was their only job but its not ok they are double dipping. Most board jobs are volunteer. Paying them $160K would not be ok when thats way more than an average teacher. Most don't have any educational background or training specific to this job. And, we don't need to pay them that much to muck things up.

The idea isn't to pay them on top of a primary job, it's to expect that being on the BOE would be their primary, if not only, job. The idea of having competent oversight of a multi-billion-dollar enterprise on a part-time or volunteer basis is a joke. They'd all come from one of the 4 categories mentioned. Why do you think it's such a mess?

That would only work if they quit their other jobs, which is doubtful. I think its a mess as they aren't financial folks and they allow their personal bias and friends/employers to take advantage of them.

I think you might mistake the suggestion that BOE members be paid a salary commensurate with our expectation of their compentency and of their time commitment as a suggestion that these BOE members be paid that much. Some of them might, if they won an election against the array of competent (likely much more so, from a financial/managerial perspective) opponents who threw their hat in the ring once a realistic compensation was offered (and understanding the expectation of professional levels of effort -- full time or more, as likely would be needed).

Anyone who is truely tallented wlll want $200-600K, and the point of boards is not to have paid positions.

The point of boards is to provide oversight & guidance. If you want good oversight & guidance, why do you not expect to pay for it?

Because we have central office who are paid oversight. The board is supposed to be a check and balances and they get a stipend, its not a paid job.

Do you not know how MCPS is organized? The central office works for the Superintendent. The half of the office that perform duties we think would be related to oversight -- getting individual schools to do things a particular way -- has almost no power to do more than provide guidelines/make recommendations. The other half are those needing oversight of their own. The Office of Shared Accountability is anemic (as well as any others that might provide a modicum of oversight-type function other than, perhaps, strict legal compliance).

All of them report up the ranks to the single point of the superintendent. There are no effective checks at the BOE in part because of who runs/gets elected given the current compensation vs. expectation scheme, in part because of the related time constraint (given the need of some to make a living) and in part because of the organization's ability to limit information going to the board. (There have been presentations with deliberately misleading data/omissions and outright lies from central office executives when questioned -- with no way for the board to test those).

For all of our sakes, but especially for the sake of the students, it needs to be a paid job.

You don't get compensated nor is it a paid job... let me guess, you are on the board? You really think some of these folks would quit their job to be on the board? Doubtful. They will just double dip. The point of a board is unbias oversite... if they are paid by MCPS, they will be bias, although they aready are.

So you think reasonably competent people are going to spend time money and effort to run for an office that requires full time hours, little to no perks, and often puts them odds with people in the public?

Part of the challenge is people have never done the math of how much things cost. For example, MCPS has about 25K employees. If on average they all were paid $50k that would be over a billion dollars already. That’s before we paid for things like benefits, maintenance of 220+ school buildings, supplies, food, transportation, technology, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably will hear from many many heartbroken and disappointed mva families.

MVA will be at each and every BOE meeting until the MVA is restored. But, otherwise nothing will come of the BOE meeting. The BOE is a joke.

I don't know why the BOE is still allowing MVA testimonies when they clearly have the ability to screen and filter out testimonies based on topics that aren't on the BOE's agenda for that meeting.

Why screen it? MVA famlies have a right to speak and will continue.

They've already spoken. Now they're just wasting everyone's time.

They are working on funding for next school year. They can easily reopen it. Its not a waste of time if its important to them. Why are you so hateful and bitter to the MVA? What experience do you have with it?

They're not. The BoE and council had opportunities to fund it, and they chose not to. The budget situation is likely to get worse before it gets better. If Courtney and Sterling were serious about finding a long-term solution to virtual school, they'd be lobbying the state to create a program, rather than continuing to whine to the people that already told them no.

Even if the state created a program, MCPS would have to pay for it. Are you really that clueless? All the state can do is approve a private program, which will cost more than the MVA. Why the obsession with the state doing it? States only approve programs, they do not run programs.

But two BOE members are virtual because they want that option.

That's intereting isn't it. They also are known to work virtually regularly. But, some are working two jobs, not sure how they can work full time, lets say at MC and the BOE. More interesting given they are working full-time at another job, they are asking for a pay raise.

If you don't effectively compensate elected representatives for their time, you get one of these as candidates:

1) Wealthy socialites who don't need compensation
2) Folks whose alternate employment opportunities are limited to at or near minimum wage
3) Ideologues willing to sacrifice financially to push their agenda
4) Folks that will spend the absolute minimum time on the job

If you want highly capable representatives spending the more-than-full-time needed to do this job well (it covers 200+ schools and a multi-billion-dollar budget), then you need to offer commensurate compensation, say the equivalent of a GS-14 step 6 or so with the locality adjustment for this area -- somewhere north of $160k. Then you can expect them not to have other jobs.

Its a huge conflict of interest when one works for MC, and clearly cannot be working 40 hours with all her duties. It would be ok paying them a salary if that was their only job but its not ok they are double dipping. Most board jobs are volunteer. Paying them $160K would not be ok when thats way more than an average teacher. Most don't have any educational background or training specific to this job. And, we don't need to pay them that much to muck things up.

The idea isn't to pay them on top of a primary job, it's to expect that being on the BOE would be their primary, if not only, job. The idea of having competent oversight of a multi-billion-dollar enterprise on a part-time or volunteer basis is a joke. They'd all come from one of the 4 categories mentioned. Why do you think it's such a mess?

That would only work if they quit their other jobs, which is doubtful. I think its a mess as they aren't financial folks and they allow their personal bias and friends/employers to take advantage of them.

I think you might mistake the suggestion that BOE members be paid a salary commensurate with our expectation of their compentency and of their time commitment as a suggestion that these BOE members be paid that much. Some of them might, if they won an election against the array of competent (likely much more so, from a financial/managerial perspective) opponents who threw their hat in the ring once a realistic compensation was offered (and understanding the expectation of professional levels of effort -- full time or more, as likely would be needed).

Anyone who is truely tallented wlll want $200-600K, and the point of boards is not to have paid positions.

The point of boards is to provide oversight & guidance. If you want good oversight & guidance, why do you not expect to pay for it?

Because we have central office who are paid oversight. The board is supposed to be a check and balances and they get a stipend, its not a paid job.

Do you not know how MCPS is organized? The central office works for the Superintendent. The half of the office that perform duties we think would be related to oversight -- getting individual schools to do things a particular way -- has almost no power to do more than provide guidelines/make recommendations. The other half are those needing oversight of their own. The Office of Shared Accountability is anemic (as well as any others that might provide a modicum of oversight-type function other than, perhaps, strict legal compliance).

All of them report up the ranks to the single point of the superintendent. There are no effective checks at the BOE in part because of who runs/gets elected given the current compensation vs. expectation scheme, in part because of the related time constraint (given the need of some to make a living) and in part because of the organization's ability to limit information going to the board. (There have been presentations with deliberately misleading data/omissions and outright lies from central office executives when questioned -- with no way for the board to test those).

For all of our sakes, but especially for the sake of the students, it needs to be a paid job.

You don't get compensated nor is it a paid job... let me guess, you are on the board? You really think some of these folks would quit their job to be on the board? Doubtful. They will just double dip. The point of a board is unbias oversite... if they are paid by MCPS, they will be bias, although they aready are.

So you think reasonably competent people are going to spend time money and effort to run for an office that requires full time hours, little to no perks, and often puts them odds with people in the public?

Part of the challenge is people have never done the math of how much things cost. For example, MCPS has about 25K employees. If on average they all were paid $50k that would be over a billion dollars already. That’s before we paid for things like benefits, maintenance of 220+ school buildings, supplies, food, transportation, technology, etc.

They are not MCPS employees. They are volunteer board members. MCPS is screaming broke and just made major cuts to autism programs, early education, and MVA... so, why on earth do you think they, if it isn't you are entitled to a pay check. That would no longer be an independent oversight board.

This is how it works: "Board Member Compensation and Expense Standards
The compensation that members of the Board of Education receive is set in
the Annotated Code of Maryland, Education Article, Section 3-902. Elected adult members receive an annual compensation of $25,000 and the president receives an additional $4,000. The student member receives a scholarship in lieu of a salary. In addition to their annual compensation, Board members may be reimbursed for expenses directly related to official Board business. Board members conducting official business must exercise due care and prudence in incurring expenses, which shall not be lavish or extravagant."

The state decides the compensation.

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/siteassets/district/boe/about/0162.22_2021_boe_handbook.pdf
Page 33

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the BOE managed the money properly there would be enough to fund all the things MCPS cut and pay the lower paid workers a more reasonable salary and be fully staffed. Paying the BOE more isn't going to fix the problem and have them do a better job. Nice thought though. And, $100 for someone on minimum wage can be a lot.

You presume that better BOE members attracted by reasonable compensation and working on the matter full time would not result in more effective management. I disagree.

While I agree that $100 is not nothing, I would expect more than that to be available as a result of the more effective management.

The Superintendent is the one who manages it and he got a huge raise over the former Superintendent. Board Members are a volunteer position that come with a stipend. Central office is doing the spending and primary mismanagement, but ultimately they approve it all... so, they all need to be replaced. Central office staff generally get paid very well.

Are you agreeing with me? Nothing you mention, here, is a support for an argument to oppose attracting more competent BOE candidates and the expectation of full-time/professional levels of effort with commemsurate compensation.

I agree with you we need to replace all the current board members BUT I don't agree that they should get anything more than the stipend as its a volunteer job. Most boards are volunteer jobs, as is this one. If they cannot afford it on the stipend, don't run for the position. Until we get a new board and a superintendent who ca do whats best for our kids, its only going to continue to decline.

So the current board should be replaced...by a bunch of folks who likely won't bring anything better to the table or have any more time to address the need than the current board because there isn't adequate compensation. Sure seems like a logically sound approach to getting folks who can do what is best for our kids

And if you're hoping that it would be all independently wealthy socialite types instead of the other three options, eapecially ideologues, please look at the results of the past several elections. Those candidates typically don't work any longer with the county's voting population. There aren't even district-voted seats -- only requirements to live in a district -- the whole county votes on each seat.

You state that most boards are volunteer jobs as though that is some immutable characteristic of a BOE and there's just nothing to be done about it. This not quite correct, as a county BOE member is a MD state employee, and the fatalism, there, ignores that which can be done, which is to have the county council resurrect the compensation commission to make the appropriate recommendation to the state legislature for enactment of increased compensation for the MoCo BOE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the BOE managed the money properly there would be enough to fund all the things MCPS cut and pay the lower paid workers a more reasonable salary and be fully staffed. Paying the BOE more isn't going to fix the problem and have them do a better job. Nice thought though. And, $100 for someone on minimum wage can be a lot.

You presume that better BOE members attracted by reasonable compensation and working on the matter full time would not result in more effective management. I disagree.

While I agree that $100 is not nothing, I would expect more than that to be available as a result of the more effective management.

The Superintendent is the one who manages it and he got a huge raise over the former Superintendent. Board Members are a volunteer position that come with a stipend. Central office is doing the spending and primary mismanagement, but ultimately they approve it all... so, they all need to be replaced. Central office staff generally get paid very well.

Are you agreeing with me? Nothing you mention, here, is a support for an argument to oppose attracting more competent BOE candidates and the expectation of full-time/professional levels of effort with commemsurate compensation.

I agree with you we need to replace all the current board members BUT I don't agree that they should get anything more than the stipend as its a volunteer job. Most boards are volunteer jobs, as is this one. If they cannot afford it on the stipend, don't run for the position. Until we get a new board and a superintendent who ca do whats best for our kids, its only going to continue to decline.

So the current board should be replaced...by a bunch of folks who likely won't bring anything better to the table or have any more time to address the need than the current board because there isn't adequate compensation. Sure seems like a logically sound approach to getting folks who can do what is best for our kids

And if you're hoping that it would be all independently wealthy socialite types instead of the other three options, eapecially ideologues, please look at the results of the past several elections. Those candidates typically don't work any longer with the county's voting population. There aren't even district-voted seats -- only requirements to live in a district -- the whole county votes on each seat.

You state that most boards are volunteer jobs as though that is some immutable characteristic of a BOE and there's just nothing to be done about it. This not quite correct, as a county BOE member is a MD state employee, and the fatalism, there, ignores that which can be done, which is to have the county council resurrect the compensation commission to make the appropriate recommendation to the state legislature for enactment of increased compensation for the MoCo BOE.

A new board cannot be any worse than what we have now and the state clearly has guidelines in terms of compensation. THey choose to do this. No one is forcing them to. If you have a paid board, it would be a conflict of interest as they would be employees of MCPS. Even if we paid the current board $500K each, they still would do a lousy job and continue to make poor choices. Its basically a popularity contest for BOE members and 100% political. And, its not a full time position if you look at the handbook.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By the time someone gets to the bathroom where the vape detector went off, the culprit will be long gone. And there aren't enough staff to hang out at all bathrooms.

Blocking SM on the MCPS network only punishes those who don't have cellular data. Am guessing but don't know, that is the poor kids? Seems like not a great idea

Brenda pointed out the glaring hole in relying on blocking social sites by Wi-Fi only. There wasn't a great response from Stephanie Sheron.

No solution is full proof, but the point is to make progress in limiting distractions as well as the sharing of fights. This paired with an Away All Day model that is enforced is a start in the right direction.

I think we can all agree it is most important to keep the poors off social media.

Some folks are always looking for an excuse to not implement solutions. Poor people also have cell plans, you all know that. This is not a ploy to only target poor children. It’s not a perfect strategy but it is a step in the right direction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably will hear from many many heartbroken and disappointed mva families.

MVA will be at each and every BOE meeting until the MVA is restored. But, otherwise nothing will come of the BOE meeting. The BOE is a joke.

I don't know why the BOE is still allowing MVA testimonies when they clearly have the ability to screen and filter out testimonies based on topics that aren't on the BOE's agenda for that meeting.

Why screen it? MVA famlies have a right to speak and will continue.

They've already spoken. Now they're just wasting everyone's time.

They are working on funding for next school year. They can easily reopen it. Its not a waste of time if its important to them. Why are you so hateful and bitter to the MVA? What experience do you have with it?

They're not. The BoE and council had opportunities to fund it, and they chose not to. The budget situation is likely to get worse before it gets better. If Courtney and Sterling were serious about finding a long-term solution to virtual school, they'd be lobbying the state to create a program, rather than continuing to whine to the people that already told them no.

Even if the state created a program, MCPS would have to pay for it. Are you really that clueless? All the state can do is approve a private program, which will cost more than the MVA. Why the obsession with the state doing it? States only approve programs, they do not run programs.

But two BOE members are virtual because they want that option.

That's intereting isn't it. They also are known to work virtually regularly. But, some are working two jobs, not sure how they can work full time, lets say at MC and the BOE. More interesting given they are working full-time at another job, they are asking for a pay raise.

If you don't effectively compensate elected representatives for their time, you get one of these as candidates:

1) Wealthy socialites who don't need compensation
2) Folks whose alternate employment opportunities are limited to at or near minimum wage
3) Ideologues willing to sacrifice financially to push their agenda
4) Folks that will spend the absolute minimum time on the job

If you want highly capable representatives spending the more-than-full-time needed to do this job well (it covers 200+ schools and a multi-billion-dollar budget), then you need to offer commensurate compensation, say the equivalent of a GS-14 step 6 or so with the locality adjustment for this area -- somewhere north of $160k. Then you can expect them not to have other jobs.

Its a huge conflict of interest when one works for MC, and clearly cannot be working 40 hours with all her duties. It would be ok paying them a salary if that was their only job but its not ok they are double dipping. Most board jobs are volunteer. Paying them $160K would not be ok when thats way more than an average teacher. Most don't have any educational background or training specific to this job. And, we don't need to pay them that much to muck things up.

The idea isn't to pay them on top of a primary job, it's to expect that being on the BOE would be their primary, if not only, job. The idea of having competent oversight of a multi-billion-dollar enterprise on a part-time or volunteer basis is a joke. They'd all come from one of the 4 categories mentioned. Why do you think it's such a mess?

That would only work if they quit their other jobs, which is doubtful. I think its a mess as they aren't financial folks and they allow their personal bias and friends/employers to take advantage of them.

I think you might mistake the suggestion that BOE members be paid a salary commensurate with our expectation of their compentency and of their time commitment as a suggestion that these BOE members be paid that much. Some of them might, if they won an election against the array of competent (likely much more so, from a financial/managerial perspective) opponents who threw their hat in the ring once a realistic compensation was offered (and understanding the expectation of professional levels of effort -- full time or more, as likely would be needed).

Anyone who is truely tallented wlll want $200-600K, and the point of boards is not to have paid positions.

The point of boards is to provide oversight & guidance. If you want good oversight & guidance, why do you not expect to pay for it?

Because we have central office who are paid oversight. The board is supposed to be a check and balances and they get a stipend, its not a paid job.

Do you not know how MCPS is organized? The central office works for the Superintendent. The half of the office that perform duties we think would be related to oversight -- getting individual schools to do things a particular way -- has almost no power to do more than provide guidelines/make recommendations. The other half are those needing oversight of their own. The Office of Shared Accountability is anemic (as well as any others that might provide a modicum of oversight-type function other than, perhaps, strict legal compliance).

All of them report up the ranks to the single point of the superintendent. There are no effective checks at the BOE in part because of who runs/gets elected given the current compensation vs. expectation scheme, in part because of the related time constraint (given the need of some to make a living) and in part because of the organization's ability to limit information going to the board. (There have been presentations with deliberately misleading data/omissions and outright lies from central office executives when questioned -- with no way for the board to test those).

For all of our sakes, but especially for the sake of the students, it needs to be a paid job.

You don't get compensated nor is it a paid job... let me guess, you are on the board? You really think some of these folks would quit their job to be on the board? Doubtful. They will just double dip. The point of a board is unbias oversite... if they are paid by MCPS, they will be bias, although they aready are.

So you think reasonably competent people are going to spend time money and effort to run for an office that requires full time hours, little to no perks, and often puts them odds with people in the public?

Part of the challenge is people have never done the math of how much things cost. For example, MCPS has about 25K employees. If on average they all were paid $50k that would be over a billion dollars already. That’s before we paid for things like benefits, maintenance of 220+ school buildings, supplies, food, transportation, technology, etc.

All of those other things do not cost $2 billion. Where is money going?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably will hear from many many heartbroken and disappointed mva families.

MVA will be at each and every BOE meeting until the MVA is restored. But, otherwise nothing will come of the BOE meeting. The BOE is a joke.

I don't know why the BOE is still allowing MVA testimonies when they clearly have the ability to screen and filter out testimonies based on topics that aren't on the BOE's agenda for that meeting.

Why screen it? MVA famlies have a right to speak and will continue.

They've already spoken. Now they're just wasting everyone's time.

They are working on funding for next school year. They can easily reopen it. Its not a waste of time if its important to them. Why are you so hateful and bitter to the MVA? What experience do you have with it?

They're not. The BoE and council had opportunities to fund it, and they chose not to. The budget situation is likely to get worse before it gets better. If Courtney and Sterling were serious about finding a long-term solution to virtual school, they'd be lobbying the state to create a program, rather than continuing to whine to the people that already told them no.

Even if the state created a program, MCPS would have to pay for it. Are you really that clueless? All the state can do is approve a private program, which will cost more than the MVA. Why the obsession with the state doing it? States only approve programs, they do not run programs.

But two BOE members are virtual because they want that option.

That's intereting isn't it. They also are known to work virtually regularly. But, some are working two jobs, not sure how they can work full time, lets say at MC and the BOE. More interesting given they are working full-time at another job, they are asking for a pay raise.

If you don't effectively compensate elected representatives for their time, you get one of these as candidates:

1) Wealthy socialites who don't need compensation
2) Folks whose alternate employment opportunities are limited to at or near minimum wage
3) Ideologues willing to sacrifice financially to push their agenda
4) Folks that will spend the absolute minimum time on the job

If you want highly capable representatives spending the more-than-full-time needed to do this job well (it covers 200+ schools and a multi-billion-dollar budget), then you need to offer commensurate compensation, say the equivalent of a GS-14 step 6 or so with the locality adjustment for this area -- somewhere north of $160k. Then you can expect them not to have other jobs.

Its a huge conflict of interest when one works for MC, and clearly cannot be working 40 hours with all her duties. It would be ok paying them a salary if that was their only job but its not ok they are double dipping. Most board jobs are volunteer. Paying them $160K would not be ok when thats way more than an average teacher. Most don't have any educational background or training specific to this job. And, we don't need to pay them that much to muck things up.

The idea isn't to pay them on top of a primary job, it's to expect that being on the BOE would be their primary, if not only, job. The idea of having competent oversight of a multi-billion-dollar enterprise on a part-time or volunteer basis is a joke. They'd all come from one of the 4 categories mentioned. Why do you think it's such a mess?

That would only work if they quit their other jobs, which is doubtful. I think its a mess as they aren't financial folks and they allow their personal bias and friends/employers to take advantage of them.

I think you might mistake the suggestion that BOE members be paid a salary commensurate with our expectation of their compentency and of their time commitment as a suggestion that these BOE members be paid that much. Some of them might, if they won an election against the array of competent (likely much more so, from a financial/managerial perspective) opponents who threw their hat in the ring once a realistic compensation was offered (and understanding the expectation of professional levels of effort -- full time or more, as likely would be needed).

Anyone who is truely tallented wlll want $200-600K, and the point of boards is not to have paid positions.

The point of boards is to provide oversight & guidance. If you want good oversight & guidance, why do you not expect to pay for it?

Because we have central office who are paid oversight. The board is supposed to be a check and balances and they get a stipend, its not a paid job.

The duties and expectations for the positions are not in line with your characterization of them. Maybe those duties and expectations should change, shifting more oversight to central office staff.

NP.

No - MCPS should not be conducting oversight of itself. An independent oversight authority is needed. The problem with the current one is that they have to rely on MCPS for their information so they are not doing a very good job. They need not only higher pay but also independent staff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the BOE managed the money properly there would be enough to fund all the things MCPS cut and pay the lower paid workers a more reasonable salary and be fully staffed. Paying the BOE more isn't going to fix the problem and have them do a better job. Nice thought though. And, $100 for someone on minimum wage can be a lot.

You presume that better BOE members attracted by reasonable compensation and working on the matter full time would not result in more effective management. I disagree.

While I agree that $100 is not nothing, I would expect more than that to be available as a result of the more effective management.

The Superintendent is the one who manages it and he got a huge raise over the former Superintendent. Board Members are a volunteer position that come with a stipend. Central office is doing the spending and primary mismanagement, but ultimately they approve it all... so, they all need to be replaced. Central office staff generally get paid very well.

Are you agreeing with me? Nothing you mention, here, is a support for an argument to oppose attracting more competent BOE candidates and the expectation of full-time/professional levels of effort with commemsurate compensation.

I agree with you we need to replace all the current board members BUT I don't agree that they should get anything more than the stipend as its a volunteer job. Most boards are volunteer jobs, as is this one. If they cannot afford it on the stipend, don't run for the position. Until we get a new board and a superintendent who ca do whats best for our kids, its only going to continue to decline.

So the current board should be replaced...by a bunch of folks who likely won't bring anything better to the table or have any more time to address the need than the current board because there isn't adequate compensation. Sure seems like a logically sound approach to getting folks who can do what is best for our kids

And if you're hoping that it would be all independently wealthy socialite types instead of the other three options, eapecially ideologues, please look at the results of the past several elections. Those candidates typically don't work any longer with the county's voting population. There aren't even district-voted seats -- only requirements to live in a district -- the whole county votes on each seat.

You state that most boards are volunteer jobs as though that is some immutable characteristic of a BOE and there's just nothing to be done about it. This not quite correct, as a county BOE member is a MD state employee, and the fatalism, there, ignores that which can be done, which is to have the county council resurrect the compensation commission to make the appropriate recommendation to the state legislature for enactment of increased compensation for the MoCo BOE.

A new board cannot be any worse than what we have now and the state clearly has guidelines in terms of compensation. THey choose to do this. No one is forcing them to. If you have a paid board, it would be a conflict of interest as they would be employees of MCPS. Even if we paid the current board $500K each, they still would do a lousy job and continue to make poor choices. Its basically a popularity contest for BOE members and 100% political. And, its not a full time position if you look at the handbook.

No, they would have the same status they currently have, but be paid a higher salary. That would encourage better candidates to run for the board seats.