Council hearing on MCPS

Anonymous
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?


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.


Yes!!! Especially for science. We would save so much time with planning and could differentiate more effectively if we had GOOD, professionally created curriculum aligned with standards. What they send us is needs so much work - they are revising it now, it’s a tiny bit better but not to the standard I was expecting as a teaching coming into this district.
Anonymous
Why can't they call back McKnight to testify?
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.


Kimball has the evidence.
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.


Kimball has the evidence.


Breadcrumbs in this forum. Hopefully the right people are looking here.
Anonymous
Pls vote in new board members! And vote in some people with kids in the system currently.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Why can't they call back McKnight to testify?


What would be the point? The board should have gotten all of the relevant facts related to this case from her before they fired her. So they should be able to answer any questions she would have answered. Or the remaining MCPS staff, like her underling, Brian Hull.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
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.


Kimball has the evidence.


Breadcrumbs in this forum. Hopefully the right people are looking here.


Better yet, instead of posting anonymous claims on DCUM, people with information should be contacting the inspector general's office.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
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.


Kimball has the evidence.


Breadcrumbs in this forum. Hopefully the right people are looking here.


Better yet, instead of posting anonymous claims on DCUM, people with information should be contacting the inspector general's office.


Yes this! Best way out of this culture of lies and hiding is to report what is known clearly and openly. I can’t imagine that ‘breadcrumb’ evidence spread through this forum will be much to bring issues to the light of day. I am so very ready for simple straight forward speaking.
Anonymous
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?


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.


Yes!!! Especially for science. We would save so much time with planning and could differentiate more effectively if we had GOOD, professionally created curriculum aligned with standards. What they send us is needs so much work - they are revising it now, it’s a tiny bit better but not to the standard I was expecting as a teaching coming into this district.


Agree. BOE needs to step up and call them on this. Over and over. It's ridiculous.
Anonymous
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?


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.


Yes!!! Especially for science. We would save so much time with planning and could differentiate more effectively if we had GOOD, professionally created curriculum aligned with standards. What they send us is needs so much work - they are revising it now, it’s a tiny bit better but not to the standard I was expecting as a teaching coming into this district.


Agree. BOE needs to step up and call them on this. Over and over. It's ridiculous.


It’s beyond ridiculous. The BOE, Teachers and Parents should be banned together and screaming about this. There is prepackage curriculum for homeschool that is better than what they do. If they really want teachers to put it together based on the standards then they need to grant more time for teaching teams to collaborate.

At this point they could give some parents a stipend and they would put together better without having ever read the NGSS.
Anonymous
As mentioned at the hearing, the evidence shows a culture of protecting the reputation of MCPS over protecting staff and students.

Biedleman was not the only employee MCPS received complaints about harassment and bullying in recent years. Is anyone in MCPS, the IG, or the County Council willing to relook at those cases as well. It seems that the same culture in MCPS that promoted Biedleman would allow equally damaging individuals to also continue their employment in MCPS because of MCPS response to ignore complaints.

To clean house and rebuild trust in the school system would mean to relook at other complaints that were originally ignored.
Anonymous
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?


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.


Yes!!! Especially for science. We would save so much time with planning and could differentiate more effectively if we had GOOD, professionally created curriculum aligned with standards. What they send us is needs so much work - they are revising it now, it’s a tiny bit better but not to the standard I was expecting as a teaching coming into this district.


Ela teacher here…the vast majority of ELA teachers actually want rigor. We are not OK with passing students who do not attend and are on a 2nd grade reading level. Unfortunately, central, admin, and RTS keep telling us to dumb down the “honors for all” curriculum so the kids who can’t read “have a chance.”
Anonymous
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?


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.


Yes!!! Especially for science. We would save so much time with planning and could differentiate more effectively if we had GOOD, professionally created curriculum aligned with standards. What they send us is needs so much work - they are revising it now, it’s a tiny bit better but not to the standard I was expecting as a teaching coming into this district.


Ela teacher here…the vast majority of ELA teachers actually want rigor. We are not OK with passing students who do not attend and are on a 2nd grade reading level. Unfortunately, central, admin, and RTS keep telling us to dumb down the “honors for all” curriculum so the kids who can’t read “have a chance.”


We need to kick them out of "honors" classes and put them in regular/on-level classes.

We somehow have made regular or on-level bad or negative and there's NOTHING WRONG with that.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Why can't they call back McKnight to testify?


Why would she agree to that?
Anonymous
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?


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.


Yes!!! Especially for science. We would save so much time with planning and could differentiate more effectively if we had GOOD, professionally created curriculum aligned with standards. What they send us is needs so much work - they are revising it now, it’s a tiny bit better but not to the standard I was expecting as a teaching coming into this district.


Ela teacher here…the vast majority of ELA teachers actually want rigor. We are not OK with passing students who do not attend and are on a 2nd grade reading level. Unfortunately, central, admin, and RTS keep telling us to dumb down the “honors for all” curriculum so the kids who can’t read “have a chance.”


Those 2nd grade level readers are the dyslexic kids you identified in 1st grade - and chose to ignore. A pox upon your house, MCPS. You are getting much needed review of your borderline criminal mind-set and culture.
post reply Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)
Message Quick Reply
Go to: