Why is MCCPTA Defending McKnight?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cite your reason for thinking MCCPTA is defending McKnight. Just because they haven’t released a statement like MCEA just did?

Cathy Stocker, the Vice President of Education at the Montgomery County Council of Parent-Teacher Associations (MCCPTA) said the news of McKnight fighting her ouster came as a big surprise. While the school board has the right to hire and fire superintendents, Stocker said the MCCPTA is concerned that the decision was made without consulting major stakeholder groups.

“They also have another very important responsibility which is to clearly articulate expectations and deadlines and consequences to the executive leading the school system,” Stocker said. “And if the Board of Education did not, in fact, offer feedback and directly express to the superintendent the concerns of constituents or their own concerns, this kind of action runs the risk of looking politically expedient instead of a necessary action that serves their long term strategic plan and vision.”

“Our preference is that our collective time energy and money and money should be focused on the needs of our students,” she added. “And this kind of public spat between the Board of Education and the superintendent of schools is not serving our students.”

If MCCPTA doesn't want to have a public spat, it should talk with McKnight, who is choosing to publicly fight being dismissed. More information will be forthcoming on why McKnight is being terminated. Whatever else can be said about the BOE, members have likely reflected and consulted with legal counsel on this step and it's likely that McKnight is being terminated for cause. The Moco 360 story indicated that McKnight lied to the board about not knowing about Beidleman's years-long misconduct prior to his promotion to HS principal at Paint Branch. Whoops.

As for MCCPTA, its VP of Education Cathy Stoker seems first concerned about other stakeholders not being consulted on the matter. Legally, the BOE can't consult with outside groups, no matter how much another group wants it to, on its personnel issue with the superintendent.

[Anonymous]

I think MCCPTA’s stance is understandable. The board, thus far, has done nothing but praise and stand by McKnight. So if she’s enough of a problem to be asked to resign, the board should have engaged with its constituent organizations, which would be the MCEA, MCCPTA, MCAAP, etc.

It also is fair to be concerned that this power struggle between McKnight and the BOE will take attention and resources away from kids, which it absolutely will.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cite your reason for thinking MCCPTA is defending McKnight. Just because they haven’t released a statement like MCEA just did?

Cathy Stocker, the Vice President of Education at the Montgomery County Council of Parent-Teacher Associations (MCCPTA) said the news of McKnight fighting her ouster came as a big surprise. While the school board has the right to hire and fire superintendents, Stocker said the MCCPTA is concerned that the decision was made without consulting major stakeholder groups.

“They also have another very important responsibility which is to clearly articulate expectations and deadlines and consequences to the executive leading the school system,” Stocker said. “And if the Board of Education did not, in fact, offer feedback and directly express to the superintendent the concerns of constituents or their own concerns, this kind of action runs the risk of looking politically expedient instead of a necessary action that serves their long term strategic plan and vision.”

“Our preference is that our collective time energy and money and money should be focused on the needs of our students,” she added. “And this kind of public spat between the Board of Education and the superintendent of schools is not serving our students.”

If MCCPTA doesn't want to have a public spat, it should talk with McKnight, who is choosing to publicly fight being dismissed. More information will be forthcoming on why McKnight is being terminated. Whatever else can be said about the BOE, members have likely reflected and consulted with legal counsel on this step and it's likely that McKnight is being terminated for cause. The Moco 360 story indicated that McKnight lied to the board about not knowing about Beidleman's years-long misconduct prior to his promotion to HS principal at Paint Branch. Whoops.

As for MCCPTA, its VP of Education Cathy Stoker seems first concerned about other stakeholders not being consulted on the matter. Legally, the BOE can't consult with outside groups, no matter how much another group wants it to, on its personnel issue with the superintendent.

Isn’t the board just as complicit? They all knew about the complaints for years since 2016. They also knew about the timeline and the redactions back in October. What has changed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cite your reason for thinking MCCPTA is defending McKnight. Just because they haven’t released a statement like MCEA just did?

Cathy Stocker, the Vice President of Education at the Montgomery County Council of Parent-Teacher Associations (MCCPTA) said the news of McKnight fighting her ouster came as a big surprise. While the school board has the right to hire and fire superintendents, Stocker said the MCCPTA is concerned that the decision was made without consulting major stakeholder groups.

“They also have another very important responsibility which is to clearly articulate expectations and deadlines and consequences to the executive leading the school system,” Stocker said. “And if the Board of Education did not, in fact, offer feedback and directly express to the superintendent the concerns of constituents or their own concerns, this kind of action runs the risk of looking politically expedient instead of a necessary action that serves their long term strategic plan and vision.”

“Our preference is that our collective time energy and money and money should be focused on the needs of our students,” she added. “And this kind of public spat between the Board of Education and the superintendent of schools is not serving our students.”

If MCCPTA doesn't want to have a public spat, it should talk with McKnight, who is choosing to publicly fight being dismissed. More information will be forthcoming on why McKnight is being terminated. Whatever else can be said about the BOE, members have likely reflected and consulted with legal counsel on this step and it's likely that McKnight is being terminated for cause. The Moco 360 story indicated that McKnight lied to the board about not knowing about Beidleman's years-long misconduct prior to his promotion to HS principal at Paint Branch. Whoops.

As for MCCPTA, its VP of Education Cathy Stoker seems first concerned about other stakeholders not being consulted on the matter. Legally, the BOE can't consult with outside groups, no matter how much another group wants it to, on its personnel issue with the superintendent.

Isn’t the board just as complicit? They all knew about the complaints for years since 2016. They also knew about the timeline and the redactions back in October. What has changed?

Joel Beidleman just filed a few memos recently that showed McKnight was aware of similar behavior with MCPS admins and didn't bat an eye.

On Jan. 10, the district released an inspector general’s Memorandum of Investigation of alleged “misconduct by senior MCPS officials” based on a letter received by the school system. The IG report did not name the letter writer or the officials. But a current and a former district employee familiar with the contents of the letter both said that Beidleman authored it.

According to the IG report, the complaint alleged that, among other items, “two MCPS administrators made inappropriate jokes and statements of a sexual nature directed toward a subordinate,” and “a senior MCPS official was present at a social gathering during which an MCPS employee was intoxicated and attempted to remove their clothing in front of MCPS colleagues.”

Among the officials named in the complaint, according to the two individuals familiar with it, are McKnight and two of her chiefs.

[Anonymous]

She needs to go. I’ve seen her chaos in action. She really needs to go!

[Anonymous]

So many of you have zero understanding of MCCPTA. They cannot take a position without a vote of the membership. And there hasn't been time for that. And, look at the DCUM forums, half the people love her and think MCPS is doing great, and the other half thinks the sky is falling down. How is MCCPTA supposed to take a side, when their membership is split?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So many of you have zero understanding of MCCPTA. They cannot take a position without a vote of the membership. And there hasn't been time for that. And, look at the DCUM forums, half the people love her and think MCPS is doing great, and the other half thinks the sky is falling down. How is MCCPTA supposed to take a side, when their membership is split?

If that’s your argument for why they went public with such a shameful quote, a “no comment until we consult with our membership” would have been fine. Or a holding statement that’s generic about being concerned and working to get to the bottom of what’s going on would have been ok too. But to release a statement that makes it seem like you care more about protecting leadership who protect serial sexual harassers than the underlying problem itself is insane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So many of you have zero understanding of MCCPTA. They cannot take a position without a vote of the membership. And there hasn't been time for that. And, look at the DCUM forums, half the people love her and think MCPS is doing great, and the other half thinks the sky is falling down. How is MCCPTA supposed to take a side, when their membership is split?

Then why did the MCCPTA VP of Education release a statement? According to you, she should have waited for a vote on the matter.

I think it was a disingenuous move on the part of MCCPTA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So many of you have zero understanding of MCCPTA. They cannot take a position without a vote of the membership. And there hasn't been time for that. And, look at the DCUM forums, half the people love her and think MCPS is doing great, and the other half thinks the sky is falling down. How is MCCPTA supposed to take a side, when their membership is split?

Uh, it is overly generous to say half the people love her. There's a continuum for sure, with some people hating her guts, others indifferent with her but not impressed with her performance thus far, and others who are sychophants who support her no matter what.

But I'd say the first two groups outweigh the third by a lot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think MCCPTA’s stance is understandable. The board, thus far, has done nothing but praise and stand by McKnight. So if she’s enough of a problem to be asked to resign, the board should have engaged with its constituent organizations, which would be the MCEA, MCCPTA, MCAAP, etc.

It also is fair to be concerned that this power struggle between McKnight and the BOE will take attention and resources away from kids, which it absolutelyy will.

Uh, no. In your world, the BOE can never respond decisively to a fast-moving crisis of leadership because they need to engage a bunch of outside groups and because any response to remove a super in the midst of such a crisis pulls resources away from kids? Get a grip.

How many millions will the system have to shell out in legal fees because McKnight wanted to protect her friend more than she did the teachers and students who are subjected to his sexual harassment?

If McKnight didn’t lawyer up over the weekend and start this public feud with the BOE and, instead, had some grace about the situation that her lack of leadership has caused, there would be no "power struggle" right now. She would have done whats right and resigned.

Just because she hasnt had a formal performance review since news broke about her failures and her team's unethical and toxic behavior during the Biedelman promotion scam doesn't mean the BOE has no basis to remove her per her contract.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many of you have zero understanding of MCCPTA. They cannot take a position without a vote of the membership. And there hasn't been time for that. And, look at the DCUM forums, half the people love her and think MCPS is doing great, and the other half thinks the sky is falling down. How is MCCPTA supposed to take a side, when their membership is split?

Uh, it is overly generous to say half the people love her. There's a continuum for sure, with some people hating her guts, others indifferent with her but not impressed with her performance thus far, and others who are sychophants who support her no matter what.

But I'd say the first two groups outweigh the third by a lot.

Most people don’t have an opinion about McKnight one way or the other. She is not someone they readily see or interact with normally. Further, DCUM complains about the anti racist audit, CAL report, boundaries and things of the like while greatly under estimating the number of people who have been wanting to see these things done and come to light for years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:MCCPTA is really reading the room poorly. It looks bad on them, really.

IMO, they are run by her fan club. The teachers and BOE want her out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think MCCPTA’s stance is understandable. The board, thus far, has done nothing but praise and stand by McKnight. So if she’s enough of a problem to be asked to resign, the board should have engaged with its constituent organizations, which would be the MCEA, MCCPTA, MCAAP, etc.

It also is fair to be concerned that this power struggle between McKnight and the BOE will take attention and resources away from kids, which it absolutelyy will.

Uh, no. In your world, the BOE can never respond decisively to a fast-moving crisis of leadership because they need to engage a bunch of outside groups and because any response to remove a super in the midst of such a crisis pulls resources away from kids? Get a grip.

How many millions will the system have to shell out in legal fees because McKnight wanted to protect her friend more than she did the teachers and students who are subjected to his sexual harassment?

If McKnight didn’t lawyer up over the weekend and start this public feud with the BOE and, instead, had some grace about the situation that her lack of leadership has caused, there would be no "power struggle" right now. She would have done whats right and resigned.

Just because she hasnt had a formal performance review since news broke about her failures and her team's unethical and toxic behavior during the Biedelman promotion scam doesn't mean the BOE has no basis to remove her per her contract.

Except this isn't a fast-moving crisis of leadership. It's been a three-year-long train wreck that they have publicly endorsed and defended, until this very moment.

I'm disagreeing with anything else you're saying, because I do agree the board seemingly tried to help McKnight bow out gracefully, but she dug in her heels and refused and used the fact that the board has not left a paper trail of documentation that would justify her removal, claiming she has only been told she has performed satisfactorily. I'm sure she has been told verbally and informally about a number of things they aren't pleased with her about, but she's using formal documentation as a shield to protect herself, and unfortunately, the board gave her that ammo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCCPTA is really reading the room poorly. It looks bad on them, really.

IMO, they are run by her fan club. The teachers and BOE want her out.

The teachers have always wanted her out. The BOE just flipped, and I'm wondering which BOE members flipped on her and why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCCPTA is really reading the room poorly. It looks bad on them, really.

IMO, they are run by her fan club. The teachers and BOE want her out.

The teachers have always wanted her out. The BOE just flipped, and I'm wondering which BOE members flipped on her and why.

And while some may have flipped, others in it could be her friends filling her in on board's plans on how to handle her in this situation. Don't be so sure of anything just yet, we will learn more.