[Washington Post] Ex-Montgomery superintendent McKnight to get $1.3M in separation deal

[Anonymous]

MCEA didn’t protect their employees. Total failure on their part. More concerned about politics than the day to day life of teachers.

The BOE hired her and were responsible for supervising her. They failed. But the incumbents will get reelected.

Good for her for negotiating a good package.

[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:She must have been a special kind of awful for them to be willing to spend that amount to be rid of her.

She is the meanest person I have ever met. Central Office was a highly toxic work environment under her. I suspect that the BOE had no idea who they were truly dealing with until they tried to get rid of her. Then they saw the real person that McKnight truly is.

I don't even know how she in her soul can accept this ridiculous amount of money knowing that it would eventually come out publicly and that people would be outraged and disgusted by it all.

She has convinced herself that she did everything right and that she’s just the scapegoat/sacrificial lamb being blamed because everyone is racist. Her echo chamber is reinforcing this idea. She truly feels entitled to this money after all she’s endured.

Obviously everyone else (including the BOE) has a different perception of her abysmal leadership and job performance. If she were honest with herself about her ongoing failures, I agree she would feel great guilt and regret and would be mortified to accept this sum. This just shows us one more example about her character.

She is entitled to the money. It’s called a contract. If they didn’t think she should get it they could have gone to court. Clearly the BOE and their lawyers believe it would have cost more to go that route.

The settlement is more than three times the "maximum" payout for early termination in the contract. Clearly the BOE knew she had a lot of dirt on them and didn't want that information out in public.

What a strange conspiracy theory. Clearly the district's lawyers said they were exposed to a discrimination lawsuit. And based on the number, they must have said they had a decent chance of losing the lawsuit.

I think this is the plausible explanation of the fear tactics the lawyers used to give guidance to the BOE. What’s so confusing though is that there is no evidence that there was any discrimination in play here. Her mistakes and malfeasance were numerous, public, and had no connection to her personal background.

Don't know about the BoE but people here were out for her from day 1. The Beidleman crisis just provided an opportunity they had wanted.

I'm curious - do you NOT think the Beidelman crisis was bad? I mean, even if some folks didn't like her, or had previous experience with her that made them think she was not the best choice, was this not sufficient for anyone to lose their job over?

Yes, Beidelman should have lost his job. And he did. It's far from clear that McKnight did anything improper.

agree but there was a faction out for McKnight from the beginning and this was all the excuse they needed

Stop with the victimization. McKnight was a bully and a bad manager. The Jackson-Lewis report and the IG's report both found she knew about the Beidleman complaints, which she covered up, before she promoted him to be principal of Paint Branch HS. She lied to the BOE.

Perhaps Dr. McKnight, you should stay off DCUM and plan a nice trip somewhere for spring break.

[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:She must have been a special kind of awful for them to be willing to spend that amount to be rid of her.

She is the meanest person I have ever met. Central Office was a highly toxic work environment under her. I suspect that the BOE had no idea who they were truly dealing with until they tried to get rid of her. Then they saw the real person that McKnight truly is.

I don't even know how she in her soul can accept this ridiculous amount of money knowing that it would eventually come out publicly and that people would be outraged and disgusted by it all.

She has convinced herself that she did everything right and that she’s just the scapegoat/sacrificial lamb being blamed because everyone is racist. Her echo chamber is reinforcing this idea. She truly feels entitled to this money after all she’s endured.

Obviously everyone else (including the BOE) has a different perception of her abysmal leadership and job performance. If she were honest with herself about her ongoing failures, I agree she would feel great guilt and regret and would be mortified to accept this sum. This just shows us one more example about her character.

She is entitled to the money. It’s called a contract. If they didn’t think she should get it they could have gone to court. Clearly the BOE and their lawyers believe it would have cost more to go that route.

The settlement is more than three times the "maximum" payout for early termination in the contract. Clearly the BOE knew she had a lot of dirt on them and didn't want that information out in public.

What a strange conspiracy theory. Clearly the district's lawyers said they were exposed to a discrimination lawsuit. And based on the number, they must have said they had a decent chance of losing the lawsuit.

I think this is the plausible explanation of the fear tactics the lawyers used to give guidance to the BOE. What’s so confusing though is that there is no evidence that there was any discrimination in play here. Her mistakes and malfeasance were numerous, public, and had no connection to her personal background.

Don't know about the BoE but people here were out for her from day 1. The Beidleman crisis just provided an opportunity they had wanted.

I'm curious - do you NOT think the Beidelman crisis was bad? I mean, even if some folks didn't like her, or had previous experience with her that made them think she was not the best choice, was this not sufficient for anyone to lose their job over?

Yes, Beidelman should have lost his job. And he did. It's far from clear that McKnight did anything improper.

Sorry, but it is crystal clear that McKnight acted improperly. Her predecessors may also have acted improperly, so perhaps her impropriety is nothing new or shocking, but that does not absolve her of her responsibilities.

+1

Even if we limit the discussion of the Beidelman affair, she:

1) Oversaw a HR team that ignored both best practices and its own guidelines in refusing to investigate harassment complaints that arrived via the anonymous reporting line, via MCEA, or which were submitted officially but on an incorrect form.

2) Oversaw a team that committed fraud by backdating a signature to make investigators believe a process had been completed before it actually had

3) Had personal knowledge of retaliation against the initial investigator tasked with looking into the Beidelman allegations, after the WaPo story

4) Lied to the Board of Education about whether she knew he was under investigation at the time she recommended him for promotion

These are all fireable offenses, particularly the final one.

Then why did the BOE agree to pay her 1.3 million dollars?

Now that is the $1.3 million question. They should have fired her and just paid out her contract. Let her sue. The board had cause.

[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:She must have been a special kind of awful for them to be willing to spend that amount to be rid of her.

She is the meanest person I have ever met. Central Office was a highly toxic work environment under her. I suspect that the BOE had no idea who they were truly dealing with until they tried to get rid of her. Then they saw the real person that McKnight truly is.

I don't even know how she in her soul can accept this ridiculous amount of money knowing that it would eventually come out publicly and that people would be outraged and disgusted by it all.

She has convinced herself that she did everything right and that she’s just the scapegoat/sacrificial lamb being blamed because everyone is racist. Her echo chamber is reinforcing this idea. She truly feels entitled to this money after all she’s endured.

Obviously everyone else (including the BOE) has a different perception of her abysmal leadership and job performance. If she were honest with herself about her ongoing failures, I agree she would feel great guilt and regret and would be mortified to accept this sum. This just shows us one more example about her character.

She is entitled to the money. It’s called a contract. If they didn’t think she should get it they could have gone to court. Clearly the BOE and their lawyers believe it would have cost more to go that route.

The settlement is more than three times the "maximum" payout for early termination in the contract. Clearly the BOE knew she had a lot of dirt on them and didn't want that information out in public.

What a strange conspiracy theory. Clearly the district's lawyers said they were exposed to a discrimination lawsuit. And based on the number, they must have said they had a decent chance of losing the lawsuit.

I think this is the plausible explanation of the fear tactics the lawyers used to give guidance to the BOE. What’s so confusing though is that there is no evidence that there was any discrimination in play here. Her mistakes and malfeasance were numerous, public, and had no connection to her personal background.

Don't know about the BoE but people here were out for her from day 1. The Beidleman crisis just provided an opportunity they had wanted.

I'm curious - do you NOT think the Beidelman crisis was bad? I mean, even if some folks didn't like her, or had previous experience with her that made them think she was not the best choice, was this not sufficient for anyone to lose their job over?

Yes, Beidelman should have lost his job. And he did. It's far from clear that McKnight did anything improper.

agree but there was a faction out for McKnight from the beginning and this was all the excuse they needed

There are always disgruntled people and internet trolls who are critics of leadership. This was no different.

[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:She must have been a special kind of awful for them to be willing to spend that amount to be rid of her.

She is the meanest person I have ever met. Central Office was a highly toxic work environment under her. I suspect that the BOE had no idea who they were truly dealing with until they tried to get rid of her. Then they saw the real person that McKnight truly is.

I don't even know how she in her soul can accept this ridiculous amount of money knowing that it would eventually come out publicly and that people would be outraged and disgusted by it all.

She has convinced herself that she did everything right and that she’s just the scapegoat/sacrificial lamb being blamed because everyone is racist. Her echo chamber is reinforcing this idea. She truly feels entitled to this money after all she’s endured.

Obviously everyone else (including the BOE) has a different perception of her abysmal leadership and job performance. If she were honest with herself about her ongoing failures, I agree she would feel great guilt and regret and would be mortified to accept this sum. This just shows us one more example about her character.

She is entitled to the money. It’s called a contract. If they didn’t think she should get it they could have gone to court. Clearly the BOE and their lawyers believe it would have cost more to go that route.

The settlement is more than three times the "maximum" payout for early termination in the contract. Clearly the BOE knew she had a lot of dirt on them and didn't want that information out in public.

What a strange conspiracy theory. Clearly the district's lawyers said they were exposed to a discrimination lawsuit. And based on the number, they must have said they had a decent chance of losing the lawsuit.

I think this is the plausible explanation of the fear tactics the lawyers used to give guidance to the BOE. What’s so confusing though is that there is no evidence that there was any discrimination in play here. Her mistakes and malfeasance were numerous, public, and had no connection to her personal background.

Don't know about the BoE but people here were out for her from day 1. The Beidleman crisis just provided an opportunity they had wanted.

I'm curious - do you NOT think the Beidelman crisis was bad? I mean, even if some folks didn't like her, or had previous experience with her that made them think she was not the best choice, was this not sufficient for anyone to lose their job over?

Yes, Beidelman should have lost his job. And he did. It's far from clear that McKnight did anything improper.

Sorry, but it is crystal clear that McKnight acted improperly. Her predecessors may also have acted improperly, so perhaps her impropriety is nothing new or shocking, but that does not absolve her of her responsibilities.

+1

Even if we limit the discussion of the Beidelman affair, she:

1) Oversaw a HR team that ignored both best practices and its own guidelines in refusing to investigate harassment complaints that arrived via the anonymous reporting line, via MCEA, or which were submitted officially but on an incorrect form.

2) Oversaw a team that committed fraud by backdating a signature to make investigators believe a process had been completed before it actually had

3) Had personal knowledge of retaliation against the initial investigator tasked with looking into the Beidelman allegations, after the WaPo story

4) Lied to the Board of Education about whether she knew he was under investigation at the time she recommended him for promotion

These are all fireable offenses, particularly the final one.

Then why did the BOE agree to pay her 1.3 million dollars?

Now that is the $1.3 million question. They should have fired her and just paid out her contract. Let her sue. The board had cause.

I agree.

[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:She must have been a special kind of awful for them to be willing to spend that amount to be rid of her.

She is the meanest person I have ever met. Central Office was a highly toxic work environment under her. I suspect that the BOE had no idea who they were truly dealing with until they tried to get rid of her. Then they saw the real person that McKnight truly is.

I don't even know how she in her soul can accept this ridiculous amount of money knowing that it would eventually come out publicly and that people would be outraged and disgusted by it all.

She has convinced herself that she did everything right and that she’s just the scapegoat/sacrificial lamb being blamed because everyone is racist. Her echo chamber is reinforcing this idea. She truly feels entitled to this money after all she’s endured.

Obviously everyone else (including the BOE) has a different perception of her abysmal leadership and job performance. If she were honest with herself about her ongoing failures, I agree she would feel great guilt and regret and would be mortified to accept this sum. This just shows us one more example about her character.

She is entitled to the money. It’s called a contract. If they didn’t think she should get it they could have gone to court. Clearly the BOE and their lawyers believe it would have cost more to go that route.

The settlement is more than three times the "maximum" payout for early termination in the contract. Clearly the BOE knew she had a lot of dirt on them and didn't want that information out in public.

What a strange conspiracy theory. Clearly the district's lawyers said they were exposed to a discrimination lawsuit. And based on the number, they must have said they had a decent chance of losing the lawsuit.

I think this is the plausible explanation of the fear tactics the lawyers used to give guidance to the BOE. What’s so confusing though is that there is no evidence that there was any discrimination in play here. Her mistakes and malfeasance were numerous, public, and had no connection to her personal background.

Don't know about the BoE but people here were out for her from day 1. The Beidleman crisis just provided an opportunity they had wanted.

I'm curious - do you NOT think the Beidelman crisis was bad? I mean, even if some folks didn't like her, or had previous experience with her that made them think she was not the best choice, was this not sufficient for anyone to lose their job over?

Yes, Beidelman should have lost his job. And he did. It's far from clear that McKnight did anything improper.

Sorry, but it is crystal clear that McKnight acted improperly. Her predecessors may also have acted improperly, so perhaps her impropriety is nothing new or shocking, but that does not absolve her of her responsibilities.

+1

Even if we limit the discussion of the Beidelman affair, she:

1) Oversaw a HR team that ignored both best practices and its own guidelines in refusing to investigate harassment complaints that arrived via the anonymous reporting line, via MCEA, or which were submitted officially but on an incorrect form.

2) Oversaw a team that committed fraud by backdating a signature to make investigators believe a process had been completed before it actually had

3) Had personal knowledge of retaliation against the initial investigator tasked with looking into the Beidelman allegations, after the WaPo story

4) Lied to the Board of Education about whether she knew he was under investigation at the time she recommended him for promotion

These are all fireable offenses, particularly the final one.

Then why did the BOE agree to pay her 1.3 million dollars?

Now that is the $1.3 million question. They should have fired her and just paid out her contract. Let her sue. The board had cause.

I agree.

The key question is how did they calculate "agreed-upon wages" to equal $1.18 million?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2024/03/15/mcknight-separation-agreement-montgomery-county-schools/
By Nicole Asbury
March 15, 2024 at 5:25 p.m. EDT

Former Montgomery County Schools superintendent Monifa B. McKnight will receive $1.3 million as a part of her separation agreement with the school board, according to a document released Friday.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/47f5e0ca-3cb8-47b2-b966-8028bf4279c9.pdf?itid=lk_inline_manual_2

Most of the payout covers “agreed upon wages,” though it also includes $30,000 to cover her attorney fees, according to the agreement obtained by The Washington Post through a public records request. McKnight’s attorney, Jason Downs, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“All decisions the Board makes are made in the best interest of our students and our school system,” the school board said in a statement provided by President Karla Silvestre. “It is imperative that anything that distracts from high quality teaching and learning is minimized.”

The board’s statement did not directly reference McKnight or the details of the separation agreement.

As a part of her separation deal, McKnight agreed not to sue the school board over any matter that happened before she signed the deal on Feb. 28. But the agreement adds she is not prevented from “testifying honestly … in any action or proceeding adverse to the interests” of the school board if she were subpoenaed.

Both McKnight and the school board agreed to avoid making any disparaging statements about one another, according to the agreement.

McKnight announced on Feb. 2 that she reached a “mutually agreed separation” with the school board amid questions over how the district handled sexual harassment, bullying and other allegations involving a former principal. She was about two years into a four-year contract when she stepped down.

McKnight, who had nearly two decades of experience with the Montgomery school system, was hired as superintendent in 2022 at a base salary of $320,000 — making her one of the state’s top paid school leaders.

Among other details of the agreement: McKnight’s child is allowed to continue attending Montgomery County schools, even if her family chooses to move outside of the county.

Jill Ortman-Fouse, a former county board of education member, questioned the school system covering $30,000 of McKnight’s attorney fees. “It seems exorbitant,” Ortman-Fouse said. “It also seems weird that MCPS would be paying for her personal attorney fees.”

Since McKnight’s departure, the school board hired Monique Felder, a former North Carolina superintendent, as the district’s interim leader. The school board has launched a national search for the next superintendent and asked for community input as it undergoes the process.

“We are actively planning for the future to ensure that our schools continue to thrive and meet the needs of our diverse community,” the school board said in its statement.

She’s not to be blamed. She didn’t decide this or write it in her own contract.

[Anonymous]

I’m guessing the non disparagement clause was because instead of apologising for her mistakes, McKnight doubled down and accused the board of racism. No one wants to be accused of racism whether warranted or completely baseless. Most people don’t pay attention to the details. They just hear the word racism and freak out. It gets hard to control the narrative even if it is false

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m guessing the non disparagement clause was because instead of apologising for her mistakes, McKnight doubled down and accused the board of racism. No one wants to be accused of racism whether warranted or completely baseless. Most people don’t pay attention to the details. They just hear the word racism and freak out. It gets hard to control the narrative even if it is false

She and the NAACP were already gunning for that angle, so that’s not entirely without merit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m guessing the non disparagement clause was because instead of apologising for her mistakes, McKnight doubled down and accused the board of racism. No one wants to be accused of racism whether warranted or completely baseless. Most people don’t pay attention to the details. They just hear the word racism and freak out. It gets hard to control the narrative even if it is false

She and the NAACP were already gunning for that angle, so that’s not entirely without merit.

She promoted a serial sexual harasser because of his race. Who is the racist here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2024/03/15/mcknight-separation-agreement-montgomery-county-schools/
By Nicole Asbury
March 15, 2024 at 5:25 p.m. EDT

Former Montgomery County Schools superintendent Monifa B. McKnight will receive $1.3 million as a part of her separation agreement with the school board, according to a document released Friday.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/47f5e0ca-3cb8-47b2-b966-8028bf4279c9.pdf?itid=lk_inline_manual_2

Most of the payout covers “agreed upon wages,” though it also includes $30,000 to cover her attorney fees, according to the agreement obtained by The Washington Post through a public records request. McKnight’s attorney, Jason Downs, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“All decisions the Board makes are made in the best interest of our students and our school system,” the school board said in a statement provided by President Karla Silvestre. “It is imperative that anything that distracts from high quality teaching and learning is minimized.”

The board’s statement did not directly reference McKnight or the details of the separation agreement.

As a part of her separation deal, McKnight agreed not to sue the school board over any matter that happened before she signed the deal on Feb. 28. But the agreement adds she is not prevented from “testifying honestly … in any action or proceeding adverse to the interests” of the school board if she were subpoenaed.

Both McKnight and the school board agreed to avoid making any disparaging statements about one another, according to the agreement.

McKnight announced on Feb. 2 that she reached a “mutually agreed separation” with the school board amid questions over how the district handled sexual harassment, bullying and other allegations involving a former principal. She was about two years into a four-year contract when she stepped down.

McKnight, who had nearly two decades of experience with the Montgomery school system, was hired as superintendent in 2022 at a base salary of $320,000 — making her one of the state’s top paid school leaders.

Among other details of the agreement: McKnight’s child is allowed to continue attending Montgomery County schools, even if her family chooses to move outside of the county.

Jill Ortman-Fouse, a former county board of education member, questioned the school system covering $30,000 of McKnight’s attorney fees. “It seems exorbitant,” Ortman-Fouse said. “It also seems weird that MCPS would be paying for her personal attorney fees.”

Since McKnight’s departure, the school board hired Monique Felder, a former North Carolina superintendent, as the district’s interim leader. The school board has launched a national search for the next superintendent and asked for community input as it undergoes the process.

“We are actively planning for the future to ensure that our schools continue to thrive and meet the needs of our diverse community,” the school board said in its statement.

She’s not to be blamed. She didn’t decide this or write it in her own contract.

The settlement didn't follow the contract. She got far more money than the contract indicated for termination *without* cause.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2024/03/15/mcknight-separation-agreement-montgomery-county-schools/
By Nicole Asbury
March 15, 2024 at 5:25 p.m. EDT

Former Montgomery County Schools superintendent Monifa B. McKnight will receive $1.3 million as a part of her separation agreement with the school board, according to a document released Friday.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/47f5e0ca-3cb8-47b2-b966-8028bf4279c9.pdf?itid=lk_inline_manual_2

Most of the payout covers “agreed upon wages,” though it also includes $30,000 to cover her attorney fees, according to the agreement obtained by The Washington Post through a public records request. McKnight’s attorney, Jason Downs, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“All decisions the Board makes are made in the best interest of our students and our school system,” the school board said in a statement provided by President Karla Silvestre. “It is imperative that anything that distracts from high quality teaching and learning is minimized.”

The board’s statement did not directly reference McKnight or the details of the separation agreement.

As a part of her separation deal, McKnight agreed not to sue the school board over any matter that happened before she signed the deal on Feb. 28. But the agreement adds she is not prevented from “testifying honestly … in any action or proceeding adverse to the interests” of the school board if she were subpoenaed.

Both McKnight and the school board agreed to avoid making any disparaging statements about one another, according to the agreement.

McKnight announced on Feb. 2 that she reached a “mutually agreed separation” with the school board amid questions over how the district handled sexual harassment, bullying and other allegations involving a former principal. She was about two years into a four-year contract when she stepped down.

McKnight, who had nearly two decades of experience with the Montgomery school system, was hired as superintendent in 2022 at a base salary of $320,000 — making her one of the state’s top paid school leaders.

Among other details of the agreement: McKnight’s child is allowed to continue attending Montgomery County schools, even if her family chooses to move outside of the county.

Jill Ortman-Fouse, a former county board of education member, questioned the school system covering $30,000 of McKnight’s attorney fees. “It seems exorbitant,” Ortman-Fouse said. “It also seems weird that MCPS would be paying for her personal attorney fees.”

Since McKnight’s departure, the school board hired Monique Felder, a former North Carolina superintendent, as the district’s interim leader. The school board has launched a national search for the next superintendent and asked for community input as it undergoes the process.

“We are actively planning for the future to ensure that our schools continue to thrive and meet the needs of our diverse community,” the school board said in its statement.

The WaPo article’s title is completely racist.

The correct title should refer to Dr. McKnight by her full and correct title: “former Montgomery County Schools superintendent Monifa B. McKnight.”

Instead it’s just McKnight. It’s almost as racist as the thread title created by a racist here on DCUM which bigotedly referred to her as “Monifa.”

Kinda surprised how racist the WaPo has become.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2024/03/15/mcknight-separation-agreement-montgomery-county-schools/
By Nicole Asbury
March 15, 2024 at 5:25 p.m. EDT

Former Montgomery County Schools superintendent Monifa B. McKnight will receive $1.3 million as a part of her separation agreement with the school board, according to a document released Friday.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/47f5e0ca-3cb8-47b2-b966-8028bf4279c9.pdf?itid=lk_inline_manual_2

Most of the payout covers “agreed upon wages,” though it also includes $30,000 to cover her attorney fees, according to the agreement obtained by The Washington Post through a public records request. McKnight’s attorney, Jason Downs, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“All decisions the Board makes are made in the best interest of our students and our school system,” the school board said in a statement provided by President Karla Silvestre. “It is imperative that anything that distracts from high quality teaching and learning is minimized.”

The board’s statement did not directly reference McKnight or the details of the separation agreement.

As a part of her separation deal, McKnight agreed not to sue the school board over any matter that happened before she signed the deal on Feb. 28. But the agreement adds she is not prevented from “testifying honestly … in any action or proceeding adverse to the interests” of the school board if she were subpoenaed.

Both McKnight and the school board agreed to avoid making any disparaging statements about one another, according to the agreement.

McKnight announced on Feb. 2 that she reached a “mutually agreed separation” with the school board amid questions over how the district handled sexual harassment, bullying and other allegations involving a former principal. She was about two years into a four-year contract when she stepped down.

McKnight, who had nearly two decades of experience with the Montgomery school system, was hired as superintendent in 2022 at a base salary of $320,000 — making her one of the state’s top paid school leaders.

Among other details of the agreement: McKnight’s child is allowed to continue attending Montgomery County schools, even if her family chooses to move outside of the county.

Jill Ortman-Fouse, a former county board of education member, questioned the school system covering $30,000 of McKnight’s attorney fees. “It seems exorbitant,” Ortman-Fouse said. “It also seems weird that MCPS would be paying for her personal attorney fees.”

Since McKnight’s departure, the school board hired Monique Felder, a former North Carolina superintendent, as the district’s interim leader. The school board has launched a national search for the next superintendent and asked for community input as it undergoes the process.

“We are actively planning for the future to ensure that our schools continue to thrive and meet the needs of our diverse community,” the school board said in its statement.

The WaPo article’s title is completely racist.

The correct title should refer to Dr. McKnight by her full and correct title: “former Montgomery County Schools superintendent Monifa B. McKnight.”

Instead it’s just McKnight. It’s almost as racist as the thread title created by a racist here on DCUM which bigotedly referred to her as “Monifa.”

Kinda surprised how racist the WaPo has become.

Weak troll sauce.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m guessing the non disparagement clause was because instead of apologising for her mistakes, McKnight doubled down and accused the board of racism. No one wants to be accused of racism whether warranted or completely baseless. Most people don’t pay attention to the details. They just hear the word racism and freak out. It gets hard to control the narrative even if it is false

It wouldn't be the first time that McKnight called someone a racist just to shout them down. Those members of the board who are not African-Americans were already called out by McKnight's proxy, some members of the local NAACP chapter. There was film footage on the news in which one NAACP member accused board members of lynching McKnight.

Either the board possibly gets pulled down by being called racist or they more certainly go down by handing McKnight an exorbitant $1.3 million payout. The board had cause to fire her and if she were to call some of them racist, well I would not have bought that name-calling. In the end, she didn't say anything because she was handed that payout.

I can't support a board that writes that kind of check, especially when teachers must have an administrative committee from CO approve basic supply requests for things such as paper.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m guessing the non disparagement clause was because instead of apologising for her mistakes, McKnight doubled down and accused the board of racism. No one wants to be accused of racism whether warranted or completely baseless. Most people don’t pay attention to the details. They just hear the word racism and freak out. It gets hard to control the narrative even if it is false

It wouldn't be the first time that McKnight called someone a racist just to shout them down. Those members of the board who are not African-Americans were already called out by McKnight's proxy, some members of the local NAACP chapter. There was film footage on the news in which one NAACP member accused board members of lynching McKnight.

Either the board possibly gets pulled down by being called racist or they more certainly go down by handing McKnight an exorbitant $1.3 million payout. The board had cause to fire her and if she were to call some of them racist, well I would not have bought that name-calling. In the end, she didn't say anything because she was handed that payout.

I can't support a board that writes that kind of check, especially when teachers must have an administrative committee from CO approve basic supply requests for things such as paper.

The BOE gets what they deserve for conducting a fake national search last time to appoint McKnight.