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."
State law describes the number, districts, compensation, procedures for removal, etc., for each county (plus Baltimore city) BOE. The MCPS handbook refers to the current compensation portion of that. However, the state basically allows the counties to petition to change the specific language for their county within the law, and that includes compensation. Moreover, the section cited (3-902) states $25k ($29 for the BOE president) or whatever salary the Montgomery County Board of Education Compensation Commission decides.
The language citing a commission is unique to MoCo, and was set up, as was the $25k/$29k, by request of MoCo to the state, which enacted the associated legislative change. That commission, which, I believe, had written something suggesting $60k, was mothballed by the County Council, and they have failed to follow their own directive/timeline in resurrecting it. The Council could do so, a salary commensurate with the expectation of full time professionalism could be set, and the next election cycle could bring to the BOE candidates both with more desired qualifications and with a time commitment that would better enable oversight of such a large enterprise. This isn't some town-based education system in the northeast or one with three elementaries, a single middle, a single high school and 1800 total enrollees (e.g., Kent County); it is a system of well over 200 schools, well over 20,000 employees, well over 150,000 students and a budget of well over $3 billion -- among the very largest in the country, and requiring much more robust stakeholder representation, oversight and guidance.
The BOE members are not volunteers. They are employed and compensated by the state after having been elected (though I believe associated funding ultimately comes from MoCo). They are notionally independent of MCPS (technically, the county BOE members are directly part of the state Dept. of Ed.), and that is for the purpose of allowing the oversight, though they are functionally dependent on MCPS, not for salary funding, but for the information required to perform that oversight. Changing the compensation would not change that paradigm, but, with an expectation of the full-time+/professional commitment that clearly is needed, would better enable BOE members to consider and investigate MCPS information in performance of those oversight duties. It might even afford more time for stakeholder interaction so as better to represent stakeholder interests. A directly reporting staff that could bird-dog questions about the sometimes inadequate (or even deliberately slanted) information MCPS provides to the BOE for review also would help.
All boards have elections. They are volunteers and this isn't a full time job. Paying them for lousy work, continues to fail our kids. Its time for a new board.
You (and/or others) keep saying that when you've been shown that is not the case.
All boards have elections? Some are appointed (see the Montgomery Planning Board). Unless you are talking about the various county BOEs in Maryland. And that really has no bearing on whether the compensation offered is adequate to attract candidates with great qualifications and to ensure commensurability with the time commitment needed to perform the duties well on behalf of the community.
If you feel that the current BOE's work is inadequate and fails kids, why not ensure a more capable pool of candidates to replace them with proper compensation for the time needed not to fail them?
More money does not mean more capable and according to the boe cuts need to be made. Their stipends should be cut first.
That's being a bit daft. Intentionally? Greater compensation leads to greater overall interest and higher likelihood, then, that a more capable person will declare their candidacy. Sort of like greater compensation leads to more applicants for a job from which a hiring manager might choose, with the probability being on the side of there being a better candidate among those applicants than if a lower compensation were advertised.
The current compensation to the BOE appears to amount to less than $180k total across the seven board members. Less than $200k if you include the scholarship for the student member. Less than $350k if you impute a standard benefits cost for the seven on top of that. Likely less than $400k (certainly less than $500k) when counting any reimbursements.
It seems you would like to cut that expense. So only those independently wealthy or willing to be impoverished might be on our BOE, and we should then expect great representation, oversight and guidance from that group on a limited time basis using whatever information the career folks at MCPS central feed them. I can't possibly agree that that is at all likely.
No, its not. Its not a full time aid job, and its appauling you want to pay the BOE (yourself) that kind of money for mucking up and hurting kids. Its a volunteer position and should stay that way. Stop being greedy.
Except it is require full time hours and the BOE even had some evaluation done and presented this summer to prove it.
Anonymous wrote:Does anybody know which five schools won’t be implementing the visible student ID policy?
Would they be the five schools that already implemented it last year during the pilot? Bethesda-Chevy Chase, Walter Johnson, Richard Montgomery, Quince Orchard, and Rockville
They are all implementing it, plus 15 other schools. Only 5 are not.
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."
State law describes the number, districts, compensation, procedures for removal, etc., for each county (plus Baltimore city) BOE. The MCPS handbook refers to the current compensation portion of that. However, the state basically allows the counties to petition to change the specific language for their county within the law, and that includes compensation. Moreover, the section cited (3-902) states $25k ($29 for the BOE president) or whatever salary the Montgomery County Board of Education Compensation Commission decides.
The language citing a commission is unique to MoCo, and was set up, as was the $25k/$29k, by request of MoCo to the state, which enacted the associated legislative change. That commission, which, I believe, had written something suggesting $60k, was mothballed by the County Council, and they have failed to follow their own directive/timeline in resurrecting it. The Council could do so, a salary commensurate with the expectation of full time professionalism could be set, and the next election cycle could bring to the BOE candidates both with more desired qualifications and with a time commitment that would better enable oversight of such a large enterprise. This isn't some town-based education system in the northeast or one with three elementaries, a single middle, a single high school and 1800 total enrollees (e.g., Kent County); it is a system of well over 200 schools, well over 20,000 employees, well over 150,000 students and a budget of well over $3 billion -- among the very largest in the country, and requiring much more robust stakeholder representation, oversight and guidance.
The BOE members are not volunteers. They are employed and compensated by the state after having been elected (though I believe associated funding ultimately comes from MoCo). They are notionally independent of MCPS (technically, the county BOE members are directly part of the state Dept. of Ed.), and that is for the purpose of allowing the oversight, though they are functionally dependent on MCPS, not for salary funding, but for the information required to perform that oversight. Changing the compensation would not change that paradigm, but, with an expectation of the full-time+/professional commitment that clearly is needed, would better enable BOE members to consider and investigate MCPS information in performance of those oversight duties. It might even afford more time for stakeholder interaction so as better to represent stakeholder interests. A directly reporting staff that could bird-dog questions about the sometimes inadequate (or even deliberately slanted) information MCPS provides to the BOE for review also would help.
All boards have elections. They are volunteers and this isn't a full time job. Paying them for lousy work, continues to fail our kids. Its time for a new board.
You (and/or others) keep saying that when you've been shown that is not the case.
All boards have elections? Some are appointed (see the Montgomery Planning Board). Unless you are talking about the various county BOEs in Maryland. And that really has no bearing on whether the compensation offered is adequate to attract candidates with great qualifications and to ensure commensurability with the time commitment needed to perform the duties well on behalf of the community.
If you feel that the current BOE's work is inadequate and fails kids, why not ensure a more capable pool of candidates to replace them with proper compensation for the time needed not to fail them?
More money does not mean more capable and according to the boe cuts need to be made. Their stipends should be cut first.
That's being a bit daft. Intentionally? Greater compensation leads to greater overall interest and higher likelihood, then, that a more capable person will declare their candidacy. Sort of like greater compensation leads to more applicants for a job from which a hiring manager might choose, with the probability being on the side of there being a better candidate among those applicants than if a lower compensation were advertised.
The current compensation to the BOE appears to amount to less than $180k total across the seven board members. Less than $200k if you include the scholarship for the student member. Less than $350k if you impute a standard benefits cost for the seven on top of that. Likely less than $400k (certainly less than $500k) when counting any reimbursements.
It seems you would like to cut that expense. So only those independently wealthy or willing to be impoverished might be on our BOE, and we should then expect great representation, oversight and guidance from that group on a limited time basis using whatever information the career folks at MCPS central feed them. I can't possibly agree that that is at all likely.
No, its not. Its not a full time aid job, and its appauling you want to pay the BOE (yourself) that kind of money for mucking up and hurting kids. Its a volunteer position and should stay that way. Stop being greedy.
Except it is require full time hours and the BOE even had some evaluation done and presented this summer to prove it.
Full time? Doing what?
Report on Board Members' Duties and Responsibilities
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."
State law describes the number, districts, compensation, procedures for removal, etc., for each county (plus Baltimore city) BOE. The MCPS handbook refers to the current compensation portion of that. However, the state basically allows the counties to petition to change the specific language for their county within the law, and that includes compensation. Moreover, the section cited (3-902) states $25k ($29 for the BOE president) or whatever salary the Montgomery County Board of Education Compensation Commission decides.
The language citing a commission is unique to MoCo, and was set up, as was the $25k/$29k, by request of MoCo to the state, which enacted the associated legislative change. That commission, which, I believe, had written something suggesting $60k, was mothballed by the County Council, and they have failed to follow their own directive/timeline in resurrecting it. The Council could do so, a salary commensurate with the expectation of full time professionalism could be set, and the next election cycle could bring to the BOE candidates both with more desired qualifications and with a time commitment that would better enable oversight of such a large enterprise. This isn't some town-based education system in the northeast or one with three elementaries, a single middle, a single high school and 1800 total enrollees (e.g., Kent County); it is a system of well over 200 schools, well over 20,000 employees, well over 150,000 students and a budget of well over $3 billion -- among the very largest in the country, and requiring much more robust stakeholder representation, oversight and guidance.
The BOE members are not volunteers. They are employed and compensated by the state after having been elected (though I believe associated funding ultimately comes from MoCo). They are notionally independent of MCPS (technically, the county BOE members are directly part of the state Dept. of Ed.), and that is for the purpose of allowing the oversight, though they are functionally dependent on MCPS, not for salary funding, but for the information required to perform that oversight. Changing the compensation would not change that paradigm, but, with an expectation of the full-time+/professional commitment that clearly is needed, would better enable BOE members to consider and investigate MCPS information in performance of those oversight duties. It might even afford more time for stakeholder interaction so as better to represent stakeholder interests. A directly reporting staff that could bird-dog questions about the sometimes inadequate (or even deliberately slanted) information MCPS provides to the BOE for review also would help.
All boards have elections. They are volunteers and this isn't a full time job. Paying them for lousy work, continues to fail our kids. Its time for a new board.
You (and/or others) keep saying that when you've been shown that is not the case.
All boards have elections? Some are appointed (see the Montgomery Planning Board). Unless you are talking about the various county BOEs in Maryland. And that really has no bearing on whether the compensation offered is adequate to attract candidates with great qualifications and to ensure commensurability with the time commitment needed to perform the duties well on behalf of the community.
If you feel that the current BOE's work is inadequate and fails kids, why not ensure a more capable pool of candidates to replace them with proper compensation for the time needed not to fail them?
More money does not mean more capable and according to the boe cuts need to be made. Their stipends should be cut first.
That's being a bit daft. Intentionally? Greater compensation leads to greater overall interest and higher likelihood, then, that a more capable person will declare their candidacy. Sort of like greater compensation leads to more applicants for a job from which a hiring manager might choose, with the probability being on the side of there being a better candidate among those applicants than if a lower compensation were advertised.
The current compensation to the BOE appears to amount to less than $180k total across the seven board members. Less than $200k if you include the scholarship for the student member. Less than $350k if you impute a standard benefits cost for the seven on top of that. Likely less than $400k (certainly less than $500k) when counting any reimbursements.
It seems you would like to cut that expense. So only those independently wealthy or willing to be impoverished might be on our BOE, and we should then expect great representation, oversight and guidance from that group on a limited time basis using whatever information the career folks at MCPS central feed them. I can't possibly agree that that is at all likely.
No, its not. Its not a full time aid job, and its appauling you want to pay the BOE (yourself) that kind of money for mucking up and hurting kids. Its a volunteer position and should stay that way. Stop being greedy.
Except it is require full time hours and the BOE even had some evaluation done and presented this summer to prove it.
Full time? Doing what?
Report on Board Members' Duties and Responsibilities
Isn't it odd that they have money to pay for an outside study to increase their salary and are demanding an increase and yet, they are claiming they have no money for other truely important things. If they cut out the waste and their excess, maybe MCPS could afford to give them a raise. They should reinburse MCPS for the mismanagement. Did the board president really need multiple attorneys to prep her for a lecture that had nothing to do with MCPS or the BOE?
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."
State law describes the number, districts, compensation, procedures for removal, etc., for each county (plus Baltimore city) BOE. The MCPS handbook refers to the current compensation portion of that. However, the state basically allows the counties to petition to change the specific language for their county within the law, and that includes compensation. Moreover, the section cited (3-902) states $25k ($29 for the BOE president) or whatever salary the Montgomery County Board of Education Compensation Commission decides.
The language citing a commission is unique to MoCo, and was set up, as was the $25k/$29k, by request of MoCo to the state, which enacted the associated legislative change. That commission, which, I believe, had written something suggesting $60k, was mothballed by the County Council, and they have failed to follow their own directive/timeline in resurrecting it. The Council could do so, a salary commensurate with the expectation of full time professionalism could be set, and the next election cycle could bring to the BOE candidates both with more desired qualifications and with a time commitment that would better enable oversight of such a large enterprise. This isn't some town-based education system in the northeast or one with three elementaries, a single middle, a single high school and 1800 total enrollees (e.g., Kent County); it is a system of well over 200 schools, well over 20,000 employees, well over 150,000 students and a budget of well over $3 billion -- among the very largest in the country, and requiring much more robust stakeholder representation, oversight and guidance.
The BOE members are not volunteers. They are employed and compensated by the state after having been elected (though I believe associated funding ultimately comes from MoCo). They are notionally independent of MCPS (technically, the county BOE members are directly part of the state Dept. of Ed.), and that is for the purpose of allowing the oversight, though they are functionally dependent on MCPS, not for salary funding, but for the information required to perform that oversight. Changing the compensation would not change that paradigm, but, with an expectation of the full-time+/professional commitment that clearly is needed, would better enable BOE members to consider and investigate MCPS information in performance of those oversight duties. It might even afford more time for stakeholder interaction so as better to represent stakeholder interests. A directly reporting staff that could bird-dog questions about the sometimes inadequate (or even deliberately slanted) information MCPS provides to the BOE for review also would help.
All boards have elections. They are volunteers and this isn't a full time job. Paying them for lousy work, continues to fail our kids. Its time for a new board.
You (and/or others) keep saying that when you've been shown that is not the case.
All boards have elections? Some are appointed (see the Montgomery Planning Board). Unless you are talking about the various county BOEs in Maryland. And that really has no bearing on whether the compensation offered is adequate to attract candidates with great qualifications and to ensure commensurability with the time commitment needed to perform the duties well on behalf of the community.
If you feel that the current BOE's work is inadequate and fails kids, why not ensure a more capable pool of candidates to replace them with proper compensation for the time needed not to fail them?
More money does not mean more capable and according to the boe cuts need to be made. Their stipends should be cut first.
That's being a bit daft. Intentionally? Greater compensation leads to greater overall interest and higher likelihood, then, that a more capable person will declare their candidacy. Sort of like greater compensation leads to more applicants for a job from which a hiring manager might choose, with the probability being on the side of there being a better candidate among those applicants than if a lower compensation were advertised.
The current compensation to the BOE appears to amount to less than $180k total across the seven board members. Less than $200k if you include the scholarship for the student member. Less than $350k if you impute a standard benefits cost for the seven on top of that. Likely less than $400k (certainly less than $500k) when counting any reimbursements.
It seems you would like to cut that expense. So only those independently wealthy or willing to be impoverished might be on our BOE, and we should then expect great representation, oversight and guidance from that group on a limited time basis using whatever information the career folks at MCPS central feed them. I can't possibly agree that that is at all likely.
No, its not. Its not a full time aid job, and its appauling you want to pay the BOE (yourself) that kind of money for mucking up and hurting kids. Its a volunteer position and should stay that way. Stop being greedy.
Except it is require full time hours and the BOE even had some evaluation done and presented this summer to prove it.
Full time? Doing what?
Report on Board Members' Duties and Responsibilities
Isn't it odd that they have money to pay for an outside study to increase their salary and are demanding an increase and yet, they are claiming they have no money for other truely important things. If they cut out the waste and their excess, maybe MCPS could afford to give them a raise. They should reinburse MCPS for the mismanagement. Did the board president really need multiple attorneys to prep her for a lecture that had nothing to do with MCPS or the BOE?
It was not outside and no one ever said it was. It was a review of where the BoE spends its time and priorities.
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."
State law describes the number, districts, compensation, procedures for removal, etc., for each county (plus Baltimore city) BOE. The MCPS handbook refers to the current compensation portion of that. However, the state basically allows the counties to petition to change the specific language for their county within the law, and that includes compensation. Moreover, the section cited (3-902) states $25k ($29 for the BOE president) or whatever salary the Montgomery County Board of Education Compensation Commission decides.
The language citing a commission is unique to MoCo, and was set up, as was the $25k/$29k, by request of MoCo to the state, which enacted the associated legislative change. That commission, which, I believe, had written something suggesting $60k, was mothballed by the County Council, and they have failed to follow their own directive/timeline in resurrecting it. The Council could do so, a salary commensurate with the expectation of full time professionalism could be set, and the next election cycle could bring to the BOE candidates both with more desired qualifications and with a time commitment that would better enable oversight of such a large enterprise. This isn't some town-based education system in the northeast or one with three elementaries, a single middle, a single high school and 1800 total enrollees (e.g., Kent County); it is a system of well over 200 schools, well over 20,000 employees, well over 150,000 students and a budget of well over $3 billion -- among the very largest in the country, and requiring much more robust stakeholder representation, oversight and guidance.
The BOE members are not volunteers. They are employed and compensated by the state after having been elected (though I believe associated funding ultimately comes from MoCo). They are notionally independent of MCPS (technically, the county BOE members are directly part of the state Dept. of Ed.), and that is for the purpose of allowing the oversight, though they are functionally dependent on MCPS, not for salary funding, but for the information required to perform that oversight. Changing the compensation would not change that paradigm, but, with an expectation of the full-time+/professional commitment that clearly is needed, would better enable BOE members to consider and investigate MCPS information in performance of those oversight duties. It might even afford more time for stakeholder interaction so as better to represent stakeholder interests. A directly reporting staff that could bird-dog questions about the sometimes inadequate (or even deliberately slanted) information MCPS provides to the BOE for review also would help.
All boards have elections. They are volunteers and this isn't a full time job. Paying them for lousy work, continues to fail our kids. Its time for a new board.
You (and/or others) keep saying that when you've been shown that is not the case.
All boards have elections? Some are appointed (see the Montgomery Planning Board). Unless you are talking about the various county BOEs in Maryland. And that really has no bearing on whether the compensation offered is adequate to attract candidates with great qualifications and to ensure commensurability with the time commitment needed to perform the duties well on behalf of the community.
If you feel that the current BOE's work is inadequate and fails kids, why not ensure a more capable pool of candidates to replace them with proper compensation for the time needed not to fail them?
More money does not mean more capable and according to the boe cuts need to be made. Their stipends should be cut first.
That's being a bit daft. Intentionally? Greater compensation leads to greater overall interest and higher likelihood, then, that a more capable person will declare their candidacy. Sort of like greater compensation leads to more applicants for a job from which a hiring manager might choose, with the probability being on the side of there being a better candidate among those applicants than if a lower compensation were advertised.
The current compensation to the BOE appears to amount to less than $180k total across the seven board members. Less than $200k if you include the scholarship for the student member. Less than $350k if you impute a standard benefits cost for the seven on top of that. Likely less than $400k (certainly less than $500k) when counting any reimbursements.
It seems you would like to cut that expense. So only those independently wealthy or willing to be impoverished might be on our BOE, and we should then expect great representation, oversight and guidance from that group on a limited time basis using whatever information the career folks at MCPS central feed them. I can't possibly agree that that is at all likely.
No, its not. Its not a full time aid job, and its appauling you want to pay the BOE (yourself) that kind of money for mucking up and hurting kids. Its a volunteer position and should stay that way. Stop being greedy.
Except it is require full time hours and the BOE even had some evaluation done and presented this summer to prove it.
Full time? Doing what?
Report on Board Members' Duties and Responsibilities
Isn't it odd that they have money to pay for an outside study to increase their salary and are demanding an increase and yet, they are claiming they have no money for other truely important things. If they cut out the waste and their excess, maybe MCPS could afford to give them a raise. They should reinburse MCPS for the mismanagement. Did the board president really need multiple attorneys to prep her for a lecture that had nothing to do with MCPS or the BOE?
It was not outside and no one ever said it was. It was a review of where the BoE spends its time and priorities.
How much did that study cost? Why was it necessary? They agreed to the compensation when they ran for the election and accepted the position.
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."
State law describes the number, districts, compensation, procedures for removal, etc., for each county (plus Baltimore city) BOE. The MCPS handbook refers to the current compensation portion of that. However, the state basically allows the counties to petition to change the specific language for their county within the law, and that includes compensation. Moreover, the section cited (3-902) states $25k ($29 for the BOE president) or whatever salary the Montgomery County Board of Education Compensation Commission decides.
The language citing a commission is unique to MoCo, and was set up, as was the $25k/$29k, by request of MoCo to the state, which enacted the associated legislative change. That commission, which, I believe, had written something suggesting $60k, was mothballed by the County Council, and they have failed to follow their own directive/timeline in resurrecting it. The Council could do so, a salary commensurate with the expectation of full time professionalism could be set, and the next election cycle could bring to the BOE candidates both with more desired qualifications and with a time commitment that would better enable oversight of such a large enterprise. This isn't some town-based education system in the northeast or one with three elementaries, a single middle, a single high school and 1800 total enrollees (e.g., Kent County); it is a system of well over 200 schools, well over 20,000 employees, well over 150,000 students and a budget of well over $3 billion -- among the very largest in the country, and requiring much more robust stakeholder representation, oversight and guidance.
The BOE members are not volunteers. They are employed and compensated by the state after having been elected (though I believe associated funding ultimately comes from MoCo). They are notionally independent of MCPS (technically, the county BOE members are directly part of the state Dept. of Ed.), and that is for the purpose of allowing the oversight, though they are functionally dependent on MCPS, not for salary funding, but for the information required to perform that oversight. Changing the compensation would not change that paradigm, but, with an expectation of the full-time+/professional commitment that clearly is needed, would better enable BOE members to consider and investigate MCPS information in performance of those oversight duties. It might even afford more time for stakeholder interaction so as better to represent stakeholder interests. A directly reporting staff that could bird-dog questions about the sometimes inadequate (or even deliberately slanted) information MCPS provides to the BOE for review also would help.
All boards have elections. They are volunteers and this isn't a full time job. Paying them for lousy work, continues to fail our kids. Its time for a new board.
You (and/or others) keep saying that when you've been shown that is not the case.
All boards have elections? Some are appointed (see the Montgomery Planning Board). Unless you are talking about the various county BOEs in Maryland. And that really has no bearing on whether the compensation offered is adequate to attract candidates with great qualifications and to ensure commensurability with the time commitment needed to perform the duties well on behalf of the community.
If you feel that the current BOE's work is inadequate and fails kids, why not ensure a more capable pool of candidates to replace them with proper compensation for the time needed not to fail them?
More money does not mean more capable and according to the boe cuts need to be made. Their stipends should be cut first.
That's being a bit daft. Intentionally? Greater compensation leads to greater overall interest and higher likelihood, then, that a more capable person will declare their candidacy. Sort of like greater compensation leads to more applicants for a job from which a hiring manager might choose, with the probability being on the side of there being a better candidate among those applicants than if a lower compensation were advertised.
The current compensation to the BOE appears to amount to less than $180k total across the seven board members. Less than $200k if you include the scholarship for the student member. Less than $350k if you impute a standard benefits cost for the seven on top of that. Likely less than $400k (certainly less than $500k) when counting any reimbursements.
It seems you would like to cut that expense. So only those independently wealthy or willing to be impoverished might be on our BOE, and we should then expect great representation, oversight and guidance from that group on a limited time basis using whatever information the career folks at MCPS central feed them. I can't possibly agree that that is at all likely.
No, its not. Its not a full time aid job, and its appauling you want to pay the BOE (yourself) that kind of money for mucking up and hurting kids. Its a volunteer position and should stay that way. Stop being greedy.
Except it is require full time hours and the BOE even had some evaluation done and presented this summer to prove it.
Full time? Doing what?
Report on Board Members' Duties and Responsibilities
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."
State law describes the number, districts, compensation, procedures for removal, etc., for each county (plus Baltimore city) BOE. The MCPS handbook refers to the current compensation portion of that. However, the state basically allows the counties to petition to change the specific language for their county within the law, and that includes compensation. Moreover, the section cited (3-902) states $25k ($29 for the BOE president) or whatever salary the Montgomery County Board of Education Compensation Commission decides.
The language citing a commission is unique to MoCo, and was set up, as was the $25k/$29k, by request of MoCo to the state, which enacted the associated legislative change. That commission, which, I believe, had written something suggesting $60k, was mothballed by the County Council, and they have failed to follow their own directive/timeline in resurrecting it. The Council could do so, a salary commensurate with the expectation of full time professionalism could be set, and the next election cycle could bring to the BOE candidates both with more desired qualifications and with a time commitment that would better enable oversight of such a large enterprise. This isn't some town-based education system in the northeast or one with three elementaries, a single middle, a single high school and 1800 total enrollees (e.g., Kent County); it is a system of well over 200 schools, well over 20,000 employees, well over 150,000 students and a budget of well over $3 billion -- among the very largest in the country, and requiring much more robust stakeholder representation, oversight and guidance.
The BOE members are not volunteers. They are employed and compensated by the state after having been elected (though I believe associated funding ultimately comes from MoCo). They are notionally independent of MCPS (technically, the county BOE members are directly part of the state Dept. of Ed.), and that is for the purpose of allowing the oversight, though they are functionally dependent on MCPS, not for salary funding, but for the information required to perform that oversight. Changing the compensation would not change that paradigm, but, with an expectation of the full-time+/professional commitment that clearly is needed, would better enable BOE members to consider and investigate MCPS information in performance of those oversight duties. It might even afford more time for stakeholder interaction so as better to represent stakeholder interests. A directly reporting staff that could bird-dog questions about the sometimes inadequate (or even deliberately slanted) information MCPS provides to the BOE for review also would help.
All boards have elections. They are volunteers and this isn't a full time job. Paying them for lousy work, continues to fail our kids. Its time for a new board.
You (and/or others) keep saying that when you've been shown that is not the case.
All boards have elections? Some are appointed (see the Montgomery Planning Board). Unless you are talking about the various county BOEs in Maryland. And that really has no bearing on whether the compensation offered is adequate to attract candidates with great qualifications and to ensure commensurability with the time commitment needed to perform the duties well on behalf of the community.
If you feel that the current BOE's work is inadequate and fails kids, why not ensure a more capable pool of candidates to replace them with proper compensation for the time needed not to fail them?
More money does not mean more capable and according to the boe cuts need to be made. Their stipends should be cut first.
That's being a bit daft. Intentionally? Greater compensation leads to greater overall interest and higher likelihood, then, that a more capable person will declare their candidacy. Sort of like greater compensation leads to more applicants for a job from which a hiring manager might choose, with the probability being on the side of there being a better candidate among those applicants than if a lower compensation were advertised.
The current compensation to the BOE appears to amount to less than $180k total across the seven board members. Less than $200k if you include the scholarship for the student member. Less than $350k if you impute a standard benefits cost for the seven on top of that. Likely less than $400k (certainly less than $500k) when counting any reimbursements.
It seems you would like to cut that expense. So only those independently wealthy or willing to be impoverished might be on our BOE, and we should then expect great representation, oversight and guidance from that group on a limited time basis using whatever information the career folks at MCPS central feed them. I can't possibly agree that that is at all likely.
No, its not. Its not a full time aid job, and its appauling you want to pay the BOE (yourself) that kind of money for mucking up and hurting kids. Its a volunteer position and should stay that way. Stop being greedy.
Except it is require full time hours and the BOE even had some evaluation done and presented this summer to prove it.
Full time? Doing what?
Report on Board Members' Duties and Responsibilities
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.
As an MCPS poor, I fully support students having cell phones and mine will continue to have a cell phone. Its a parenting choice, not a school or other parent choice.
Your kid having a phone is a parenting choice. Your kids' ability to use the phone while they are in school is not. If they don't comply, you should expect them to face consequences. The world doesn't revolve around what you think is right. And if you disagree with the school's policy, you can lobby it (although the evidence on favor of restricting phone use in school is working hard against you) or you can take your kid out of public school if using phones 24/7 is that important to you.
Then they can provide pay phones. Given safety issues, changes in schedules, etc. mine will always have a phone.
I just don’t get why you don’t tell your kids to put their phones in their bags. No one is going to search their backpack. That’s what I’m telling my kids. They’ve never had functional lockers.
Anonymous wrote:Does anybody know which five schools won’t be implementing the visible student ID policy?
Would they be the five schools that already implemented it last year during the pilot? Bethesda-Chevy Chase, Walter Johnson, Richard Montgomery, Quince Orchard, and Rockville
They are all implementing it, plus 15 other schools. Only 5 are not.
I had kids at two of the pilot high schools and it was basically worthless. They don’t have enough staff to actually check the IDs. I guess it’s helpful in case they see someone acting suspiciously they can ask to see ID.
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."
State law describes the number, districts, compensation, procedures for removal, etc., for each county (plus Baltimore city) BOE. The MCPS handbook refers to the current compensation portion of that. However, the state basically allows the counties to petition to change the specific language for their county within the law, and that includes compensation. Moreover, the section cited (3-902) states $25k ($29 for the BOE president) or whatever salary the Montgomery County Board of Education Compensation Commission decides.
The language citing a commission is unique to MoCo, and was set up, as was the $25k/$29k, by request of MoCo to the state, which enacted the associated legislative change. That commission, which, I believe, had written something suggesting $60k, was mothballed by the County Council, and they have failed to follow their own directive/timeline in resurrecting it. The Council could do so, a salary commensurate with the expectation of full time professionalism could be set, and the next election cycle could bring to the BOE candidates both with more desired qualifications and with a time commitment that would better enable oversight of such a large enterprise. This isn't some town-based education system in the northeast or one with three elementaries, a single middle, a single high school and 1800 total enrollees (e.g., Kent County); it is a system of well over 200 schools, well over 20,000 employees, well over 150,000 students and a budget of well over $3 billion -- among the very largest in the country, and requiring much more robust stakeholder representation, oversight and guidance.
The BOE members are not volunteers. They are employed and compensated by the state after having been elected (though I believe associated funding ultimately comes from MoCo). They are notionally independent of MCPS (technically, the county BOE members are directly part of the state Dept. of Ed.), and that is for the purpose of allowing the oversight, though they are functionally dependent on MCPS, not for salary funding, but for the information required to perform that oversight. Changing the compensation would not change that paradigm, but, with an expectation of the full-time+/professional commitment that clearly is needed, would better enable BOE members to consider and investigate MCPS information in performance of those oversight duties. It might even afford more time for stakeholder interaction so as better to represent stakeholder interests. A directly reporting staff that could bird-dog questions about the sometimes inadequate (or even deliberately slanted) information MCPS provides to the BOE for review also would help.
All boards have elections. They are volunteers and this isn't a full time job. Paying them for lousy work, continues to fail our kids. Its time for a new board.
You (and/or others) keep saying that when you've been shown that is not the case.
All boards have elections? Some are appointed (see the Montgomery Planning Board). Unless you are talking about the various county BOEs in Maryland. And that really has no bearing on whether the compensation offered is adequate to attract candidates with great qualifications and to ensure commensurability with the time commitment needed to perform the duties well on behalf of the community.
If you feel that the current BOE's work is inadequate and fails kids, why not ensure a more capable pool of candidates to replace them with proper compensation for the time needed not to fail them?
More money does not mean more capable and according to the boe cuts need to be made. Their stipends should be cut first.
That's being a bit daft. Intentionally? Greater compensation leads to greater overall interest and higher likelihood, then, that a more capable person will declare their candidacy. Sort of like greater compensation leads to more applicants for a job from which a hiring manager might choose, with the probability being on the side of there being a better candidate among those applicants than if a lower compensation were advertised.
The current compensation to the BOE appears to amount to less than $180k total across the seven board members. Less than $200k if you include the scholarship for the student member. Less than $350k if you impute a standard benefits cost for the seven on top of that. Likely less than $400k (certainly less than $500k) when counting any reimbursements.
It seems you would like to cut that expense. So only those independently wealthy or willing to be impoverished might be on our BOE, and we should then expect great representation, oversight and guidance from that group on a limited time basis using whatever information the career folks at MCPS central feed them. I can't possibly agree that that is at all likely.
No, its not. Its not a full time aid job, and its appauling you want to pay the BOE (yourself) that kind of money for mucking up and hurting kids. Its a volunteer position and should stay that way. Stop being greedy.
Except it is require full time hours and the BOE even had some evaluation done and presented this summer to prove it.
Full time? Doing what?
Report on Board Members' Duties and Responsibilities
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}