Council hearing on MCPS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Employee 5 is probably the current QO principal that sexually harassed Beidleman back in 2012.

I hope there are complaints against this principal that they haven't lost the paperwork on. I hope the county council has this name so they can push for investigation and dismissal. I have heard this name continually and still..crickets.

Kimball had the paperwork on this one.

Sorry, I don't understand. Why would Kimball have the paperwork? Her latest job was acting chief in the Office of School Support and Well-Being.

In 2021, Title IX investigations of sexual harassment, including those of employees, was moved to MCPS Student Welfare and Compliance (SWC) unit. DCI focuses on employee misconduct while SWC focuses on students' experiences where an employee was not involved. HOWEVER, MCPS regulation ACI-RA, investigation of Title IX Sexual Harassment of MCPS Employees, designates the director of SWC as MCPS Title IX coordinator.. Title IX violations involving employees are supposed to be referred to DCI. (referencing the Jackson Lewis Report here, page 1)

It sounds like Kimball didn't complete the process for referral/referrals.

Silvestre referenced the weaknesses in the organizational construct of splitting off Title IX compliance into SWC and the effect of this regarding employee complaints at the council hearing. Council members emphasized the need to ensure ALL outstanding complaints are investigated, which should include those currently sitting in Kimball's old office. I hope that happens. At the council hearing, MCPS could not quantify the current number of outstanding complaints.

This entire matter is far from completed.

MOCO 360: McKnight hired MCPS retiree Laverne Kimball in October as acting chief in the Office of School Support and Well-Being (OSSWB). During her tenure at MCPS—prior to October—Kimball was the community superintendent who oversaw schools where Beidleman had been principal and may have been responsible for the rise of Joe Beidleman, MoCo360 reported Thursday.

Kimball did not immediately respond to MoCo360’s requests for comment on her departure from MCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Glass: BOE requires full-time status. They need to be paid more than $25K per year - it's not a living wage. A 2019 recommendation recommended $60 K. We need the BOE to succeed in overseeing a $3.2 billion budget and we need adequate resources for this.

I’m all for a full-time board if they also get the authority to determine the schools portion of the property tax. Then the council won’t be able to claim they’re funding schools when they’re actually raising taxes for something else and people will take BOE elections more seriously.

That is not going to happen. It's not how local government in Maryland is structured. So does that mean you oppose a full-time board?

If they’re not going to have full responsibility it doesn’t need to be a full-time job. I don’t need to pay for them to get more briefings on the minutiae of third-grade math curriculum.

There’s no reason government has to keep the same structure. This isn’t working.

DP. Right. Because approving a good curriculum isn't important and we should keep them to rubber-stamping whatever MCPS puts in front of them.

Have you watched many BOE meetings? Noticed how much gets dumped into presentations, there, but how many key pieces of information are left out? Seen the breadth of concern in public testimony that they rarely have time to discuss?
Realized that that is a fraction of the public's desired interaction because of a 2-minute limit and limited signup slots (that tend to get booked within hours of their being available)? Extrapolated the time it would take to make properly informed decisions?

It would be at least a full time professional's job (not talking just 40 hours, here) to do what we expect them to be able to do. That's if they had a full staff. And without the additional work of a taxing authority, though I don't think your idea, there, isn't worthy of consideration.

$25k is insulting versus the expectation and $60k is little better. If we want them to do an amount of work similar to that performed by the Council, pay them like it.

Do you really want elected individuals making detailed decisions about what the school teaches rather than professionals? Have you seen the sort of people that get elected to the BoE? Or even the county council?

We need a teacher on the board. If there can be a student there can be a teacher and enough of the conflict of interest bs, it’s time

Students aren't employees of the organization the Board oversees. That's a ridiculous suggestion. MCEA has far too much power as it is.

There is that stupid conflict of interest argument. You can’t tell me there’s a simple way to ensure an active teacher is on the board?

And who says we have to listen to mcea if we are onthere any more than any other member

You want someone with a FT job as a teacher to also be on the BOE? And when there are daytime Board meetings, do you want them to skip their role on the Board, or skip teaching their classes?🤦‍♀️

That’s one option. Another is a release from the clarssroom for the length of their term. Once again, not that hard. Just different.

And sure, someone who is a parent can serve too.

This is what happens at the state level. Not that hard

They're elected positions. I guess I wouldn't have a problem with MCPS letting a teacher take a leave of absence, similar to FMLA, to serve on the Board, if elected. But I think most people know that creates a horrible conflict of interest and wouldn't vote for such a candidate.

It would be fine to have a teacher on the board as long as they recused themselves from participating in any matter in which they had a financial ot other personal interest. Not just abstaining from voting. Recusing from participating. That’s how government ethics should work.

A fundamental responsibility of the BoE is budget. It would be inappropriate to use a Board seat on someone that can't participate is budget discussions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Employee 5 is probably the current QO principal that sexually harassed Beidleman back in 2012.

I hope there are complaints against this principal that they haven't lost the paperwork on. I hope the county council has this name so they can push for investigation and dismissal. I have heard this name continually and still..crickets.

This is the first I have heard about the current QO principal being part of this mess. Can anyone provide more specifics?

Complaint/s appear to have stayed with Kimball and was/were not forwarded to DCI.

[Anonymous]

These guys are as much to blame for the problems as anyone. These hearings are all for show so they can pretend to be surprised.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:These guys are as much to blame for the problems as anyone. These hearings are all for show so they can pretend to be surprised.

It is election year.

[Anonymous]

Why don't they bring McKnight to testify, again? She got a huge package to shut up. Too easy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These guys are as much to blame for the problems as anyone. These hearings are all for show so they can pretend to be surprised.

It is election year.

Where do you live? It is not election year for the County Council in Montgomery County, Maryland.

[Anonymous]

I think it’s just one person casting shade on the QO principal with no evidence, or they would have shared it by now. Maybe they wish she had been taken down in this debacle with them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s just one person casting shade on the QO principal with no evidence, or they would have shared it by now. Maybe they wish she had been taken down in this debacle with them.

The problem is nobody trusts MCPS to deal with misconduct appropriately so it is logical for the public to assume many leaders in MCPS have done something terrible. That's very unfortunate and is all on McKnight, Jack Smith and the BOE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Glass: BOE requires full-time status. They need to be paid more than $25K per year - it's not a living wage. A 2019 recommendation recommended $60 K. We need the BOE to succeed in overseeing a $3.2 billion budget and we need adequate resources for this.

I’m all for a full-time board if they also get the authority to determine the schools portion of the property tax. Then the council won’t be able to claim they’re funding schools when they’re actually raising taxes for something else and people will take BOE elections more seriously.

That is not going to happen. It's not how local government in Maryland is structured. So does that mean you oppose a full-time board?

If they’re not going to have full responsibility it doesn’t need to be a full-time job. I don’t need to pay for them to get more briefings on the minutiae of third-grade math curriculum.

There’s no reason government has to keep the same structure. This isn’t working.

DP. Right. Because approving a good curriculum isn't important and we should keep them to rubber-stamping whatever MCPS puts in front of them.

Have you watched many BOE meetings? Noticed how much gets dumped into presentations, there, but how many key pieces of information are left out? Seen the breadth of concern in public testimony that they rarely have time to discuss?
Realized that that is a fraction of the public's desired interaction because of a 2-minute limit and limited signup slots (that tend to get booked within hours of their being available)? Extrapolated the time it would take to make properly informed decisions?

It would be at least a full time professional's job (not talking just 40 hours, here) to do what we expect them to be able to do. That's if they had a full staff. And without the additional work of a taxing authority, though I don't think your idea, there, isn't worthy of consideration.

$25k is insulting versus the expectation and $60k is little better. If we want them to do an amount of work similar to that performed by the Council, pay them like it.

Do you really want elected individuals making detailed decisions about what the school teaches rather than professionals? Have you seen the sort of people that get elected to the BoE? Or even the county council?

We need a teacher on the board. If there can be a student there can be a teacher and enough of the conflict of interest bs, it’s time

Students aren't employees of the organization the Board oversees. That's a ridiculous suggestion. MCEA has far too much power as it is.

There is that stupid conflict of interest argument. You can’t tell me there’s a simple way to ensure an active teacher is on the board?

And who says we have to listen to mcea if we are onthere any more than any other member

You want someone with a FT job as a teacher to also be on the BOE? And when there are daytime Board meetings, do you want them to skip their role on the Board, or skip teaching their classes?🤦‍♀️

That’s one option. Another is a release from the clarssroom for the length of their term. Once again, not that hard. Just different.

And sure, someone who is a parent can serve too.

This is what happens at the state level. Not that hard

They're elected positions. I guess I wouldn't have a problem with MCPS letting a teacher take a leave of absence, similar to FMLA, to serve on the Board, if elected. But I think most people know that creates a horrible conflict of interest and wouldn't vote for such a candidate.

It would be fine to have a teacher on the board as long as they recused themselves from participating in any matter in which they had a financial ot other personal interest. Not just abstaining from voting. Recusing from participating. That’s how government ethics should work.

That’s just silly and not how government works. Do all of the county council members who own homes in moco (all of them) have to decline participating in setting real estate tax percentages in the county because it affects them? Do members of congress not get to vote on federal income tax rates because it impacts them financially?

The kinds of budget or financial decisions a teacher member of the board would participate in are so widely aggregated that it would not be improper at all for them to participate. Sure, have them recused from negotiations and ratification of teachers union contracts etc. but they could do 95% of what BOE members are expected to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sayles: Is the Damascus HS principal and football coach still employed by MCPS, during the time period when the assault case occurred, for which $10 million was awarded to the affected football players and families.


Answer: Yes, they are still employed by MCPS.

JFC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:(Remember when, hundreds of minutes ago, posters were insisting that this was going to be a meaningless charade and the fix was in for MCPS?)

What do you think changed from this hearing?

Albornoz is on the council's education committee. I think he'll press forward. He's impressive. I wish he would run for county executive.

Ugh, Albornoz is awful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:(Remember when, hundreds of minutes ago, posters were insisting that this was going to be a meaningless charade and the fix was in for MCPS?)

What do you think changed from this hearing?

Albornoz is on the council's education committee. I think he'll press forward. He's impressive. I wish he would run for county executive.

Ugh, Albornoz is awful.

+1 Yeah he's a nice person but when has he taken a politically complicated stand on something?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Glass: BOE requires full-time status. They need to be paid more than $25K per year - it's not a living wage. A 2019 recommendation recommended $60 K. We need the BOE to succeed in overseeing a $3.2 billion budget and we need adequate resources for this.

I’m all for a full-time board if they also get the authority to determine the schools portion of the property tax. Then the council won’t be able to claim they’re funding schools when they’re actually raising taxes for something else and people will take BOE elections more seriously.

That is not going to happen. It's not how local government in Maryland is structured. So does that mean you oppose a full-time board?

If they’re not going to have full responsibility it doesn’t need to be a full-time job. I don’t need to pay for them to get more briefings on the minutiae of third-grade math curriculum.

There’s no reason government has to keep the same structure. This isn’t working.

DP. Right. Because approving a good curriculum isn't important and we should keep them to rubber-stamping whatever MCPS puts in front of them.

Have you watched many BOE meetings? Noticed how much gets dumped into presentations, there, but how many key pieces of information are left out? Seen the breadth of concern in public testimony that they rarely have time to discuss?
Realized that that is a fraction of the public's desired interaction because of a 2-minute limit and limited signup slots (that tend to get booked within hours of their being available)? Extrapolated the time it would take to make properly informed decisions?

It would be at least a full time professional's job (not talking just 40 hours, here) to do what we expect them to be able to do. That's if they had a full staff. And without the additional work of a taxing authority, though I don't think your idea, there, isn't worthy of consideration.

$25k is insulting versus the expectation and $60k is little better. If we want them to do an amount of work similar to that performed by the Council, pay them like it.

Do you really want elected individuals making detailed decisions about what the school teaches rather than professionals? Have you seen the sort of people that get elected to the BoE? Or even the county council?

I absolutely want elected officials making detailed decisions about what the school teaches.

I’ve served on a curriculum committee with the MCPS “professionals” and they were too wrapped up in their own importance to notice that what they were doing wasn’t working. Instead of using off-the-shelf curriculums developed by subject matter experts, reviewed by other subject matter experts, professionally edited, with supporting material for teachers to use, and that had a track record of successful use, they used our kids as guinea pigs for years. We finally had an independent curriculum audit that said the curriculum our “professionals” developed was a failure. Committees were apparently developed to pick a better curriculum, but as best as I understand, their recommendation was overruled by MCPS “professionals” who instead selected another weak curriculum.

I think it’s time that the community’s elected officials overrule the “professionals” and get our kids an effective curriculum.

They are still doing that in secondary schools. MS science and social studies curricula are developed in-house, as are the high school curricula (excluding algebra 1 and geometry). Especially bad are the “honors” English courses, which have been called out for lack or rigor. Central office’s solution? Put in more staff time to trying to upgrade a bad in-house curriculum rather than buying an externally vetted, standards-aligned curriculum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s just one person casting shade on the QO principal with no evidence, or they would have shared it by now. Maybe they wish she had been taken down in this debacle with them.

The problem is nobody trusts MCPS to deal with misconduct appropriately so it is logical for the public to assume many leaders in MCPS have done something terrible. That's very unfortunate and is all on McKnight, Jack Smith and the BOE.

Trying to sort out if this is a personally motivated jab at the QO principal or if there were actually some allegations a of misconduct should not be so hard. If only there was, you know, a system with records that tracked this kind of thing but then that would not be MCPS.