Washington Post article about Former Farquhar Administrator

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Typically when there is a principal search, MCPS makes a big production of choosing a parent committee to provide their input on the candidate. For my children, there have been four such principal searches from elementary to high school.

I would be interested if the investigation looked into this part of the selection process. Our community has grown to suspect that the parent input is a shell game by MCPS.

The director chooses which parents are on the small parent panel. MCPS narrows down the selection pool for parents to interview. Finally, they individually gather input from each parent so there’s no transparency as to the community priorities and whom the panel is actually putting forward as their choice.

MCPS makes a big show stating that they collect input from all stakeholders but the reality may be far from the truth.

The process to fill principal and AP vacancies is very different after June 15. MCPS can unilaterally move admin wherever at that point. Some positions, like “acting AP” are even picked by the acting principal and returning AP. Talk about a big shell game with zero accountability!

Wasn’t the Paint Branch Principal search that Beidleman was selected from before June 15th?

Yes, it started in late May.

We had a Principal whose announcement was early June. The Director very soon sent a community email to get interested parents to join the parent panel (8 parents for a school of over 2000 students).

Didn’t the Director of Paint Branch organize a parent panel for the Principal search? If so, what information were they given about Beidleman and was he the candidate that they wanted? Or was the collecting input from all stakeholders just MCPS BS?

I’ve heard from 2 PB parents and 1 PB teacher that there wasn’t the usual parent panel this time around.

I also heard that MCPS policy moves APs that apply for their school’s principal position but don’t get it. PB supposedly had 2 really good APs that had applied for the principal position over the years but didn’t get it and had to be moved elsewhere.

I've heard a lot of things too but I wouldn't put too much stock in hearsay or gossip.

How is it hearsay when a teacher at PB told me directly this is the policy the departing AP referred to when he said he was leaving?

Isn't that literally what hearsay is? When you don't have direct knowledge, but you hear something from someone else, and you repeat it.

Considering PPs source is a teacher at the school, I think that points to credibility about the source. I’m not sure why you are trying to deflect others from sharing information they learned from Paint Branch staff about the principal search.

It’s odd that MCPS broke the normal order to interview and hire a new principal. It’s odd that APs who applied were asked to go to new schools. Was that an effort to cover the tracks that normal procedures weren’t followed? MCPS hasn’t explained these events nor have they released the Jackson Lewis report in the interest of transparency.

I'm not trying to deflect anyone. A PP asked how is it hearsay and I answered their question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thank you Alexandra and Nicole for continuing to keep MCPS to their word!

“Maryland State Inspector General for Education Richard Henry said in an email he had not received a copy of Jackson Lewis’s report. He has previously said he was waiting for Jackson Lewis’s investigation to finish before deciding if his office would get involved. On Monday, he said there were no further updates on his involvement. Generally, the office does not confirm or deny the existence of an investigation. The Montgomery County inspector general’s office said in an email it also hasn’t reviewed a copy of the report and has not decided whether it will investigate Beidleman or the school district.

None of the approximately three dozen teachers who said that Beidleman bullied, targeted, sexually harassed or retaliated against them have met with Jackson Lewis. Teachers who were contacted by MCPS said they were confused by the urgency with which the school district tried to schedule their meetings with the law firm in mid-August if the first phase of the investigation was not about their allegations against Beidleman.”

Interesting that one IG said they hadn't received it and the other said they hadn't reviewed it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is the latest story from The Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/09/11/mcps-promotion-hr-beidleman-investigation/

Lori-Christina Webb, the chief of staff for the board of education, did not respond directly to most questions but said in an email, “What I can share at this point is that the Board is processing the report from Jackson Lewis and will share additional information with the community in the coming days.”

Damn!!! Chris Cram let the board hang itself! The Post is doing a great job of holding the BOE accountable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is the latest story from The Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/09/11/mcps-promotion-hr-beidleman-investigation/

Lori-Christina Webb, the chief of staff for the board of education, did not respond directly to most questions but said in an email, “What I can share at this point is that the Board is processing the report from Jackson Lewis and will share additional information with the community in the coming days.”

Damn!!! Chris Cram let the board hang itself! The Post is doing a great job of holding the BOE accountable.

He has to protect McKnight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is the latest story from The Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/09/11/mcps-promotion-hr-beidleman-investigation/

Lori-Christina Webb, the chief of staff for the board of education, did not respond directly to most questions but said in an email, “What I can share at this point is that the Board is processing the report from Jackson Lewis and will share additional information with the community in the coming days.”

Damn!!! Chris Cram let the board hang itself! The Post is doing a great job of holding the BOE accountable.

He has to protect McKnight.

Which makes me wonder if the board and McKnight are no longer seeing eye to eye?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is the latest story from The Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/09/11/mcps-promotion-hr-beidleman-investigation/

Lori-Christina Webb, the chief of staff for the board of education, did not respond directly to most questions but said in an email, “What I can share at this point is that the Board is processing the report from Jackson Lewis and will share additional information with the community in the coming days.”

Damn!!! Chris Cram let the board hang itself! The Post is doing a great job of holding the BOE accountable.

He has to protect McKnight.

Which makes me wonder if the board and McKnight are no longer seeing eye to eye?

Possible that the board now sees her as responsible so she’s been shut out of the discussions about next steps along with her staff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Typically when there is a principal search, MCPS makes a big production of choosing a parent committee to provide their input on the candidate. For my children, there have been four such principal searches from elementary to high school.

I would be interested if the investigation looked into this part of the selection process. Our community has grown to suspect that the parent input is a shell game by MCPS.

The director chooses which parents are on the small parent panel. MCPS narrows down the selection pool for parents to interview. Finally, they individually gather input from each parent so there’s no transparency as to the community priorities and whom the panel is actually putting forward as their choice.

MCPS makes a big show stating that they collect input from all stakeholders but the reality may be far from the truth.

The process to fill principal and AP vacancies is very different after June 15. MCPS can unilaterally move admin wherever at that point. Some positions, like “acting AP” are even picked by the acting principal and returning AP. Talk about a big shell game with zero accountability!

Wasn’t the Paint Branch Principal search that Beidleman was selected from before June 15th?

Yes, it started in late May.

We had a Principal whose announcement was early June. The Director very soon sent a community email to get interested parents to join the parent panel (8 parents for a school of over 2000 students).

Didn’t the Director of Paint Branch organize a parent panel for the Principal search? If so, what information were they given about Beidleman and was he the candidate that they wanted? Or was the collecting input from all stakeholders just MCPS BS?

I’ve heard from 2 PB parents and 1 PB teacher that there wasn’t the usual parent panel this time around.

I also heard that MCPS policy moves APs that apply for their school’s principal position but don’t get it. PB supposedly had 2 really good APs that had applied for the principal position over the years but didn’t get it and had to be moved elsewhere.

I've heard a lot of things too but I wouldn't put too much stock in hearsay or gossip.

How is it hearsay when a teacher at PB told me directly this is the policy the departing AP referred to when he said he was leaving?

Isn't that literally what hearsay is? When you don't have direct knowledge, but you hear something from someone else, and you repeat it.

Considering PPs source is a teacher at the school, I think that points to credibility about the source. I’m not sure why you are trying to deflect others from sharing information they learned from Paint Branch staff about the principal search.

It’s odd that MCPS broke the normal order to interview and hire a new principal. It’s odd that APs who applied were asked to go to new schools. Was that an effort to cover the tracks that normal procedures weren’t followed? MCPS hasn’t explained these events nor have they released the Jackson Lewis report in the interest of transparency.

The PB teacher I spoke with said the AP policy predated this search. She thought the last departing AP was just a sore loser until the next one said it was MCPS policy. Whether that means an actual written policy or just “what they do” who knows

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Typically when there is a principal search, MCPS makes a big production of choosing a parent committee to provide their input on the candidate. For my children, there have been four such principal searches from elementary to high school.

I would be interested if the investigation looked into this part of the selection process. Our community has grown to suspect that the parent input is a shell game by MCPS.

The director chooses which parents are on the small parent panel. MCPS narrows down the selection pool for parents to interview. Finally, they individually gather input from each parent so there’s no transparency as to the community priorities and whom the panel is actually putting forward as their choice.

MCPS makes a big show stating that they collect input from all stakeholders but the reality may be far from the truth.

The process to fill principal and AP vacancies is very different after June 15. MCPS can unilaterally move admin wherever at that point. Some positions, like “acting AP” are even picked by the acting principal and returning AP. Talk about a big shell game with zero accountability!

Wasn’t the Paint Branch Principal search that Beidleman was selected from before June 15th?

Yes, it started in late May.

We had a Principal whose announcement was early June. The Director very soon sent a community email to get interested parents to join the parent panel (8 parents for a school of over 2000 students).

Didn’t the Director of Paint Branch organize a parent panel for the Principal search? If so, what information were they given about Beidleman and was he the candidate that they wanted? Or was the collecting input from all stakeholders just MCPS BS?

I’ve heard from 2 PB parents and 1 PB teacher that there wasn’t the usual parent panel this time around.

I also heard that MCPS policy moves APs that apply for their school’s principal position but don’t get it. PB supposedly had 2 really good APs that had applied for the principal position over the years but didn’t get it and had to be moved elsewhere.

I would be interested if a reporter could get a comment from MCPS:

1) Were the normal processes for filling a high school principal vacancy for a vacancy announced in May followed including assembling a parent group for input? If not, who made that decision and why?

2) Is it a normal practice or policy to move from a high school APs who applied for the principal position but were turned down?

Based on PPs post, it appears someone was streamlining Beidleman for the Paint Branch position. Was this a response from MCPS to move him away from the complainants at Farquhar without admitting to his sexual harassment and bullying there? If this is the MCPS response to move a bad supervisor around, is that fair to the Paint Branch staff and students given the previous allegations?

Looking into who was the Director for Paint Branch during the search for a new principal, it was Dr. Donna Redmond Jones. She was promoted this summer to Associate Superintendent with Paint Branch still under her leadership.

Here’s an article online regarding the Blake High School principal search in which she organized a parent group for input:

https://mocoshow.com/blog/blake-high-school-community-to-hold-meeting-to-discuss-process-on-search-for-new-principal/

The big question is why wasn’t the same process followed a month later for the Paint Branch search?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Typically when there is a principal search, MCPS makes a big production of choosing a parent committee to provide their input on the candidate. For my children, there have been four such principal searches from elementary to high school.

I would be interested if the investigation looked into this part of the selection process. Our community has grown to suspect that the parent input is a shell game by MCPS.

The director chooses which parents are on the small parent panel. MCPS narrows down the selection pool for parents to interview. Finally, they individually gather input from each parent so there’s no transparency as to the community priorities and whom the panel is actually putting forward as their choice.

MCPS makes a big show stating that they collect input from all stakeholders but the reality may be far from the truth.

The process to fill principal and AP vacancies is very different after June 15. MCPS can unilaterally move admin wherever at that point. Some positions, like “acting AP” are even picked by the acting principal and returning AP. Talk about a big shell game with zero accountability!

Wasn’t the Paint Branch Principal search that Beidleman was selected from before June 15th?

Yes, it started in late May.

We had a Principal whose announcement was early June. The Director very soon sent a community email to get interested parents to join the parent panel (8 parents for a school of over 2000 students).

Didn’t the Director of Paint Branch organize a parent panel for the Principal search? If so, what information were they given about Beidleman and was he the candidate that they wanted? Or was the collecting input from all stakeholders just MCPS BS?

I’ve heard from 2 PB parents and 1 PB teacher that there wasn’t the usual parent panel this time around.

I also heard that MCPS policy moves APs that apply for their school’s principal position but don’t get it. PB supposedly had 2 really good APs that had applied for the principal position over the years but didn’t get it and had to be moved elsewhere.

I've heard a lot of things too but I wouldn't put too much stock in hearsay or gossip.

How is it hearsay when a teacher at PB told me directly this is the policy the departing AP referred to when he said he was leaving?

Isn't that literally what hearsay is? When you don't have direct knowledge, but you hear something from someone else, and you repeat it.

Considering PPs source is a teacher at the school, I think that points to credibility about the source. I’m not sure why you are trying to deflect others from sharing information they learned from Paint Branch staff about the principal search.

It’s odd that MCPS broke the normal order to interview and hire a new principal. It’s odd that APs who applied were asked to go to new schools. Was that an effort to cover the tracks that normal procedures weren’t followed? MCPS hasn’t explained these events nor have they released the Jackson Lewis report in the interest of transparency.

The PB teacher I spoke with said the AP policy predated this search. She thought the last departing AP was just a sore loser until the next one said it was MCPS policy. Whether that means an actual written policy or just “what they do” who knows

Whether it’s a formal policy or just what MCPS does, it’s a bad practice. It’s almost like they want to discourage APs in the school with a principal from applying.

[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:Typically when there is a principal search, MCPS makes a big production of choosing a parent committee to provide their input on the candidate. For my children, there have been four such principal searches from elementary to high school.

I would be interested if the investigation looked into this part of the selection process. Our community has grown to suspect that the parent input is a shell game by MCPS.

The director chooses which parents are on the small parent panel. MCPS narrows down the selection pool for parents to interview. Finally, they individually gather input from each parent so there’s no transparency as to the community priorities and whom the panel is actually putting forward as their choice.

MCPS makes a big show stating that they collect input from all stakeholders but the reality may be far from the truth.

The process to fill principal and AP vacancies is very different after June 15. MCPS can unilaterally move admin wherever at that point. Some positions, like “acting AP” are even picked by the acting principal and returning AP. Talk about a big shell game with zero accountability!

Wasn’t the Paint Branch Principal search that Beidleman was selected from before June 15th?

Yes, it started in late May.

We had a Principal whose announcement was early June. The Director very soon sent a community email to get interested parents to join the parent panel (8 parents for a school of over 2000 students).

Didn’t the Director of Paint Branch organize a parent panel for the Principal search? If so, what information were they given about Beidleman and was he the candidate that they wanted? Or was the collecting input from all stakeholders just MCPS BS?

I’ve heard from 2 PB parents and 1 PB teacher that there wasn’t the usual parent panel this time around.

I also heard that MCPS policy moves APs that apply for their school’s principal position but don’t get it. PB supposedly had 2 really good APs that had applied for the principal position over the years but didn’t get it and had to be moved elsewhere.

I've heard a lot of things too but I wouldn't put too much stock in hearsay or gossip.

How is it hearsay when a teacher at PB told me directly this is the policy the departing AP referred to when he said he was leaving?

Isn't that literally what hearsay is? When you don't have direct knowledge, but you hear something from someone else, and you repeat it.

Considering PPs source is a teacher at the school, I think that points to credibility about the source. I’m not sure why you are trying to deflect others from sharing information they learned from Paint Branch staff about the principal search.

It’s odd that MCPS broke the normal order to interview and hire a new principal. It’s odd that APs who applied were asked to go to new schools. Was that an effort to cover the tracks that normal procedures weren’t followed? MCPS hasn’t explained these events nor have they released the Jackson Lewis report in the interest of transparency.

The PB teacher I spoke with said the AP policy predated this search. She thought the last departing AP was just a sore loser until the next one said it was MCPS policy. Whether that means an actual written policy or just “what they do” who knows

Whether it’s a formal policy or just what MCPS does, it’s a bad practice. It’s almost like they want to discourage APs in the school with a principal from applying.

I think MCPS is trying (appropriately, IMO) to keep staff tensions down when there's an AP (perhaps well-liked) who didn't get the P job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Typically when there is a principal search, MCPS makes a big production of choosing a parent committee to provide their input on the candidate. For my children, there have been four such principal searches from elementary to high school.

I would be interested if the investigation looked into this part of the selection process. Our community has grown to suspect that the parent input is a shell game by MCPS.

The director chooses which parents are on the small parent panel. MCPS narrows down the selection pool for parents to interview. Finally, they individually gather input from each parent so there’s no transparency as to the community priorities and whom the panel is actually putting forward as their choice.

MCPS makes a big show stating that they collect input from all stakeholders but the reality may be far from the truth.

The process to fill principal and AP vacancies is very different after June 15. MCPS can unilaterally move admin wherever at that point. Some positions, like “acting AP” are even picked by the acting principal and returning AP. Talk about a big shell game with zero accountability!

Wasn’t the Paint Branch Principal search that Beidleman was selected from before June 15th?

Yes, it started in late May.

We had a Principal whose announcement was early June. The Director very soon sent a community email to get interested parents to join the parent panel (8 parents for a school of over 2000 students).

Didn’t the Director of Paint Branch organize a parent panel for the Principal search? If so, what information were they given about Beidleman and was he the candidate that they wanted? Or was the collecting input from all stakeholders just MCPS BS?

I’ve heard from 2 PB parents and 1 PB teacher that there wasn’t the usual parent panel this time around.

I also heard that MCPS policy moves APs that apply for their school’s principal position but don’t get it. PB supposedly had 2 really good APs that had applied for the principal position over the years but didn’t get it and had to be moved elsewhere.

I've heard a lot of things too but I wouldn't put too much stock in hearsay or gossip.

How is it hearsay when a teacher at PB told me directly this is the policy the departing AP referred to when he said he was leaving?

Isn't that literally what hearsay is? When you don't have direct knowledge, but you hear something from someone else, and you repeat it.

Considering PPs source is a teacher at the school, I think that points to credibility about the source. I’m not sure why you are trying to deflect others from sharing information they learned from Paint Branch staff about the principal search.

It’s odd that MCPS broke the normal order to interview and hire a new principal. It’s odd that APs who applied were asked to go to new schools. Was that an effort to cover the tracks that normal procedures weren’t followed? MCPS hasn’t explained these events nor have they released the Jackson Lewis report in the interest of transparency.

Credibility of hearsay is low; we've all played the "telephone" game. There's a reason it's rarely allowed in courtrooms, where someone is under oath and subject to perjury laws.

Hearsay on an anonymous message board is pretty much useless for anything beyond rumor mongering.

[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:Typically when there is a principal search, MCPS makes a big production of choosing a parent committee to provide their input on the candidate. For my children, there have been four such principal searches from elementary to high school.

I would be interested if the investigation looked into this part of the selection process. Our community has grown to suspect that the parent input is a shell game by MCPS.

The director chooses which parents are on the small parent panel. MCPS narrows down the selection pool for parents to interview. Finally, they individually gather input from each parent so there’s no transparency as to the community priorities and whom the panel is actually putting forward as their choice.

MCPS makes a big show stating that they collect input from all stakeholders but the reality may be far from the truth.

The process to fill principal and AP vacancies is very different after June 15. MCPS can unilaterally move admin wherever at that point. Some positions, like “acting AP” are even picked by the acting principal and returning AP. Talk about a big shell game with zero accountability!

Wasn’t the Paint Branch Principal search that Beidleman was selected from before June 15th?

Yes, it started in late May.

We had a Principal whose announcement was early June. The Director very soon sent a community email to get interested parents to join the parent panel (8 parents for a school of over 2000 students).

Didn’t the Director of Paint Branch organize a parent panel for the Principal search? If so, what information were they given about Beidleman and was he the candidate that they wanted? Or was the collecting input from all stakeholders just MCPS BS?

I’ve heard from 2 PB parents and 1 PB teacher that there wasn’t the usual parent panel this time around.

I also heard that MCPS policy moves APs that apply for their school’s principal position but don’t get it. PB supposedly had 2 really good APs that had applied for the principal position over the years but didn’t get it and had to be moved elsewhere.

I've heard a lot of things too but I wouldn't put too much stock in hearsay or gossip.

How is it hearsay when a teacher at PB told me directly this is the policy the departing AP referred to when he said he was leaving?

Isn't that literally what hearsay is? When you don't have direct knowledge, but you hear something from someone else, and you repeat it.

Considering PPs source is a teacher at the school, I think that points to credibility about the source. I’m not sure why you are trying to deflect others from sharing information they learned from Paint Branch staff about the principal search.

It’s odd that MCPS broke the normal order to interview and hire a new principal. It’s odd that APs who applied were asked to go to new schools. Was that an effort to cover the tracks that normal procedures weren’t followed? MCPS hasn’t explained these events nor have they released the Jackson Lewis report in the interest of transparency.

The PB teacher I spoke with said the AP policy predated this search. She thought the last departing AP was just a sore loser until the next one said it was MCPS policy. Whether that means an actual written policy or just “what they do” who knows

Whether it’s a formal policy or just what MCPS does, it’s a bad practice. It’s almost like they want to discourage APs in the school with a principal from applying.

I think MCPS is trying (appropriately, IMO) to keep staff tensions down when there's an AP (perhaps well-liked) who didn't get the P job.

It comes down to - do you trust the ability of your employees to act like professionals? People can be passed over for a promotion but still work hard to support the new hire, especially if they want to apply in the future for another position.

If you are worried that the rest of the staff will be disappointed that a well liked AP was passed over, why wasn’t their opinion considered during the search process? How do those staff members feel when the AP is required to be transferred out of their school?

MCPS unnecessarily creates upheaval with this ridiculous practice if it exists.

[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:Typically when there is a principal search, MCPS makes a big production of choosing a parent committee to provide their input on the candidate. For my children, there have been four such principal searches from elementary to high school.

I would be interested if the investigation looked into this part of the selection process. Our community has grown to suspect that the parent input is a shell game by MCPS.

The director chooses which parents are on the small parent panel. MCPS narrows down the selection pool for parents to interview. Finally, they individually gather input from each parent so there’s no transparency as to the community priorities and whom the panel is actually putting forward as their choice.

MCPS makes a big show stating that they collect input from all stakeholders but the reality may be far from the truth.

The process to fill principal and AP vacancies is very different after June 15. MCPS can unilaterally move admin wherever at that point. Some positions, like “acting AP” are even picked by the acting principal and returning AP. Talk about a big shell game with zero accountability!

Wasn’t the Paint Branch Principal search that Beidleman was selected from before June 15th?

Yes, it started in late May.

We had a Principal whose announcement was early June. The Director very soon sent a community email to get interested parents to join the parent panel (8 parents for a school of over 2000 students).

Didn’t the Director of Paint Branch organize a parent panel for the Principal search? If so, what information were they given about Beidleman and was he the candidate that they wanted? Or was the collecting input from all stakeholders just MCPS BS?

I’ve heard from 2 PB parents and 1 PB teacher that there wasn’t the usual parent panel this time around.

I also heard that MCPS policy moves APs that apply for their school’s principal position but don’t get it. PB supposedly had 2 really good APs that had applied for the principal position over the years but didn’t get it and had to be moved elsewhere.

I've heard a lot of things too but I wouldn't put too much stock in hearsay or gossip.

How is it hearsay when a teacher at PB told me directly this is the policy the departing AP referred to when he said he was leaving?

Isn't that literally what hearsay is? When you don't have direct knowledge, but you hear something from someone else, and you repeat it.

Considering PPs source is a teacher at the school, I think that points to credibility about the source. I’m not sure why you are trying to deflect others from sharing information they learned from Paint Branch staff about the principal search.

It’s odd that MCPS broke the normal order to interview and hire a new principal. It’s odd that APs who applied were asked to go to new schools. Was that an effort to cover the tracks that normal procedures weren’t followed? MCPS hasn’t explained these events nor have they released the Jackson Lewis report in the interest of transparency.

The PB teacher I spoke with said the AP policy predated this search. She thought the last departing AP was just a sore loser until the next one said it was MCPS policy. Whether that means an actual written policy or just “what they do” who knows

Whether it’s a formal policy or just what MCPS does, it’s a bad practice. It’s almost like they want to discourage APs in the school with a principal from applying.

I think MCPS is trying (appropriately, IMO) to keep staff tensions down when there's an AP (perhaps well-liked) who didn't get the P job.

It comes down to - do you trust the ability of your employees to act like professionals? People can be passed over for a promotion but still work hard to support the new hire, especially if they want to apply in the future for another position.

If you are worried that the rest of the staff will be disappointed that a well liked AP was passed over, why wasn’t their opinion considered during the search process? How do those staff members feel when the AP is required to be transferred out of their school?

MCPS unnecessarily creates upheaval with this ridiculous practice if it exists.

I should add, the staff will follow the response of the well liked AP. If the AP stays at the school and supports the new hire, then they are setting an example that everyone should support the new hire. There’s no hard feelings.

Once MCPS makes the AP transfer, they can leave a bad impression behind the scenes regarding the Principal decision as they leave. MCPS looks like the bad guy forcing people to transfer just because they applied but were denied the promotion.

[Anonymous]

There is always a lot of upheaval with AP positions over the summer, districtwide, for multiple reasons.

[Anonymous]

Teachers were told that we can’t couldn’t talk about the investigation during the investigation. Can we talk about it now that it’s over?!?