BOE - who are people voting for?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Apple Ballot all the way. Our entire family is fed up with the crazy legacy members in office right now.

You do realize that all those incumbent members you hate were endorsed by the Apple Ballot at one time, right? You’ll be saying the same about this new slate of apple ballot candidates once they get voted in start the job.

Most were, not all.

Nobody currently on the Apple Ballot is an incumbent.

Correct. But the PP was trying to point out that many of the incumbents had been endorsed by the Apple Ballot during earlier elections, even if they were not this year or two years ago. Specifically: Evans, Smondrowski, Silvestre, and Wolff had each been on the Apple Ballot when they first ran for the board, but were not when they ran for reelection in either 2022 or 2024.

I think the Apple Ballot got it right when it endorsed these candidates.

They did! Hard to go wrong with the Apple ballot.

+1 for Shebra Evans and the others who have had the Apple Ballot endorsement. Can’t go wrong with their picks.

Nice try. The Apple Ballot has endorsed Evans's opponent Laura Stewart.

The Apple Ballot has also endorsed Shebra Evans. That endorsement was made long before Stewart decided to run for office.

It's 2024. Endorsements from past elections aren't relevant. In 2024, the Apple Ballot decided not to endorse Evans, and instead endorsed Stewart.

I’m sure they got it right just like when they endorsed Shebra Evans.

Yes, Stewart is the better choice this year, even if Evans was a reasonable choice 8 years ago. Now it's time for a change.

I would not say that is the case. While I understand the disdain for the incumbents, and Shebra by extension of being an incumbent, if you’ve seen Laura’s interviews and forum performances, there’s definitely a lot to be concerned about. She is naive, awkward and fumbles over her words quite often. Laura Stewart is most certainly a shaky candidate.

Shebra Evans cares a lot, and has learned a lot over the past 8 years, with the mentorship of ex-longtime BOE member Mike Durso to guide her. The biggest drawback to Shebra Evans was her undying loyalty to the past superintendent.

Shebra Evans is a nice person. She likes making appearances at schools and saying "Great job, thank you so much" whenever central office staff present at board meetings. However she does not ask good questions, she does not press for more information, and she does not hold MCPS accountable. She has been there for eight years, and has been like this the whole time. She has not earned a third term.

No, she's not entirely nice. She picks and chooses who she acknowledges. She hasn't gone to all schools and she doesn't acknowledge parents and students who testify at the BOE meetings. She is part of the current board that has failed our students and staff. ALL of them should do the right thing and resign and if not, hopefully, they will be voted out. Even if she's not the problem, she hasn't stood up for whats right and advocated for change. She goes along with what the other members do. We need someone with far more skill and force than someone who you consider is "nice" and says thank you to a select group.

What about Laura Stewart makes you think she has "far more skill and force"? If she's not reading prepared remarks, she stumbles all over her words and struggles to make a point. Nothing I've seen from her participation in various candidate forums has left me with the impression that Stewart is "skilled and forceful". She seems like a really nice person but in over her head for the most part.

DP. What you mistake for stumbling over words and struggling to make a point (an accusation now levied twice in a 13 hour period in this sub-thread, and several times before in this 140+page topic) is much more the behavior and language of a person who is

1) Giving thoughtful cosideration to a posed question,

2) Providing a nuanced answer, which, given any reasonably detailed knowledge of an issue, often is required to provide proper understanding (though sound bites, by their nature, sound nice), and

3) Attempting to state that in a reasonably digestible way

all on the fly. This would be more obvious to anyone who takes the time needed to listen to the referenced discussions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this is Zimmerman or her campaign staff trying to dismiss concerns about her running for the BOE while being a teacher, which is a legitimate conflict of interest to raise, come with a better strategy. The current approach is unpersuasive.

It is not a conflict of interest at all.

Of course it is. That's why she is going to have to resign.

The question was about running for the BOE while being a teacher, and there is no expectation of resigning unless she would win the election, in which case she would need to resign before being sworn in.

You're being pedantic. The conflict of interest continues if MCEA is going to pay her while she's on the BoE.

And there is no evidence to suggest that they would or will! Stop making things up.

Right, we don't know one way or the other because she won't say. But we have good reason to think MCEA recruited her to run, and we know she'll be out of a job if she wins. We also know Jennifer Martin and David Stein were some of her first campaign contributors.

Yes, Natalie Zimmerman is a loyal union member. She is also an experienced teacher, and can bring that experience to bear on the board of education. But really, what is the choice here? You can vote for Brenda Diaz, who is a combative lunatic, or Natalie Zimmerman, who can make a substantive contribution to the board's work.

Diaz won't be able to cause any harm because the other board members and central staff will block her.

The same isn't true for Zimmerman. If you're a parent, you really ought to be concerned about whether she will push policies that are good for students, or will she pusb policies that are for teachers.

MCPS has 136 elementary schools and hasn't had anyone on the board in years who has recent experience with them. That's how we ended up with curricula like the now-abandoned Benchmark, because no one had a clue. As a parent, I would be grateful to have an ES teacher with a seat at the table.

Her experience as an elementary school teacher isn't the concern. It's the heavy involvement from the union, and the strong likelihood she'll be a stooge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Apple Ballot all the way. Our entire family is fed up with the crazy legacy members in office right now.

You do realize that all those incumbent members you hate were endorsed by the Apple Ballot at one time, right? You’ll be saying the same about this new slate of apple ballot candidates once they get voted in start the job.

Most were, not all.

Nobody currently on the Apple Ballot is an incumbent.

Correct. But the PP was trying to point out that many of the incumbents had been endorsed by the Apple Ballot during earlier elections, even if they were not this year or two years ago. Specifically: Evans, Smondrowski, Silvestre, and Wolff had each been on the Apple Ballot when they first ran for the board, but were not when they ran for reelection in either 2022 or 2024.

I think the Apple Ballot got it right when it endorsed these candidates.

They did! Hard to go wrong with the Apple ballot.

+1 for Shebra Evans and the others who have had the Apple Ballot endorsement. Can’t go wrong with their picks.

Nice try. The Apple Ballot has endorsed Evans's opponent Laura Stewart.

The Apple Ballot has also endorsed Shebra Evans. That endorsement was made long before Stewart decided to run for office.

It's 2024. Endorsements from past elections aren't relevant. In 2024, the Apple Ballot decided not to endorse Evans, and instead endorsed Stewart.

I’m sure they got it right just like when they endorsed Shebra Evans.

Yes, Stewart is the better choice this year, even if Evans was a reasonable choice 8 years ago. Now it's time for a change.

I would not say that is the case. While I understand the disdain for the incumbents, and Shebra by extension of being an incumbent, if you’ve seen Laura’s interviews and forum performances, there’s definitely a lot to be concerned about. She is naive, awkward and fumbles over her words quite often. Laura Stewart is most certainly a shaky candidate.

Shebra Evans cares a lot, and has learned a lot over the past 8 years, with the mentorship of ex-longtime BOE member Mike Durso to guide her. The biggest drawback to Shebra Evans was her undying loyalty to the past superintendent.

Shebra Evans is a nice person. She likes making appearances at schools and saying "Great job, thank you so much" whenever central office staff present at board meetings. However she does not ask good questions, she does not press for more information, and she does not hold MCPS accountable. She has been there for eight years, and has been like this the whole time. She has not earned a third term.

No, she's not entirely nice. She picks and chooses who she acknowledges. She hasn't gone to all schools and she doesn't acknowledge parents and students who testify at the BOE meetings. She is part of the current board that has failed our students and staff. ALL of them should do the right thing and resign and if not, hopefully, they will be voted out. Even if she's not the problem, she hasn't stood up for whats right and advocated for change. She goes along with what the other members do. We need someone with far more skill and force than someone who you consider is "nice" and says thank you to a select group.

What about Laura Stewart makes you think she has "far more skill and force"? If she's not reading prepared remarks, she stumbles all over her words and struggles to make a point. Nothing I've seen from her participation in various candidate forums has left me with the impression that Stewart is "skilled and forceful". She seems like a really nice person but in over her head for the most part.

DP. What you mistake for stumbling over words and struggling to make a point (an accusation now levied twice in a 13 hour period in this sub-thread, and several times before in this 140+page topic) is much more the behavior and language of a person who is

1) Giving thoughtful cosideration to a posed question,

2) Providing a nuanced answer, which, given any reasonably detailed knowledge of an issue, often is required to provide proper understanding (though sound bites, by their nature, sound nice), and

3) Attempting to state that in a reasonably digestible way

all on the fly. This would be more obvious to anyone who takes the time needed to listen to the referenced discussions.

All on the fly after happy hour with her crowd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this is Zimmerman or her campaign staff trying to dismiss concerns about her running for the BOE while being a teacher, which is a legitimate conflict of interest to raise, come with a better strategy. The current approach is unpersuasive.

It is not a conflict of interest at all.

Of course it is. That's why she is going to have to resign.

The question was about running for the BOE while being a teacher, and there is no expectation of resigning unless she would win the election, in which case she would need to resign before being sworn in.

You're being pedantic. The conflict of interest continues if MCEA is going to pay her while she's on the BoE.

And there is no evidence to suggest that they would or will! Stop making things up.

Right, we don't know one way or the other because she won't say. But we have good reason to think MCEA recruited her to run, and we know she'll be out of a job if she wins. We also know Jennifer Martin and David Stein were some of her first campaign contributors.

Yes, Natalie Zimmerman is a loyal union member. She is also an experienced teacher, and can bring that experience to bear on the board of education. But really, what is the choice here? You can vote for Brenda Diaz, who is a combative lunatic, or Natalie Zimmerman, who can make a substantive contribution to the board's work.

Diaz won't be able to cause any harm because the other board members and central staff will block her.

The same isn't true for Zimmerman. If you're a parent, you really ought to be concerned about whether she will push policies that are good for students, or will she pusb policies that are for teachers.

MCPS has 136 elementary schools and hasn't had anyone on the board in years who has recent experience with them. That's how we ended up with curricula like the now-abandoned Benchmark, because no one had a clue. As a parent, I would be grateful to have an ES teacher with a seat at the table.

Her experience as an elementary school teacher isn't the concern. It's the heavy involvement from the union, and the strong likelihood she'll be a stooge.

I don't see any evidence of that "strong likelihood."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this is Zimmerman or her campaign staff trying to dismiss concerns about her running for the BOE while being a teacher, which is a legitimate conflict of interest to raise, come with a better strategy. The current approach is unpersuasive.

It is not a conflict of interest at all.

Of course it is. That's why she is going to have to resign.

The question was about running for the BOE while being a teacher, and there is no expectation of resigning unless she would win the election, in which case she would need to resign before being sworn in.

You're being pedantic. The conflict of interest continues if MCEA is going to pay her while she's on the BoE.

And there is no evidence to suggest that they would or will! Stop making things up.

Right, we don't know one way or the other because she won't say. But we have good reason to think MCEA recruited her to run, and we know she'll be out of a job if she wins. We also know Jennifer Martin and David Stein were some of her first campaign contributors.

Yes, Natalie Zimmerman is a loyal union member. She is also an experienced teacher, and can bring that experience to bear on the board of education. But really, what is the choice here? You can vote for Brenda Diaz, who is a combative lunatic, or Natalie Zimmerman, who can make a substantive contribution to the board's work.

Diaz won't be able to cause any harm because the other board members and central staff will block her.

The same isn't true for Zimmerman. If you're a parent, you really ought to be concerned about whether she will push policies that are good for students, or will she pusb policies that are for teachers.

MCPS has 136 elementary schools and hasn't had anyone on the board in years who has recent experience with them. That's how we ended up with curricula like the now-abandoned Benchmark, because no one had a clue. As a parent, I would be grateful to have an ES teacher with a seat at the table.

Her experience as an elementary school teacher isn't the concern. It's the heavy involvement from the union, and the strong likelihood she'll be a stooge.

Why is that a bad thing? The current boe needs guidance.

[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:If this is Zimmerman or her campaign staff trying to dismiss concerns about her running for the BOE while being a teacher, which is a legitimate conflict of interest to raise, come with a better strategy. The current approach is unpersuasive.

It is not a conflict of interest at all.

Of course it is. That's why she is going to have to resign.

The question was about running for the BOE while being a teacher, and there is no expectation of resigning unless she would win the election, in which case she would need to resign before being sworn in.

You're being pedantic. The conflict of interest continues if MCEA is going to pay her while she's on the BoE.

And there is no evidence to suggest that they would or will! Stop making things up.

Right, we don't know one way or the other because she won't say. But we have good reason to think MCEA recruited her to run, and we know she'll be out of a job if she wins. We also know Jennifer Martin and David Stein were some of her first campaign contributors.

Yes, Natalie Zimmerman is a loyal union member. She is also an experienced teacher, and can bring that experience to bear on the board of education. But really, what is the choice here? You can vote for Brenda Diaz, who is a combative lunatic, or Natalie Zimmerman, who can make a substantive contribution to the board's work.

Diaz won't be able to cause any harm because the other board members and central staff will block her.

The same isn't true for Zimmerman. If you're a parent, you really ought to be concerned about whether she will push policies that are good for students, or will she pusb policies that are for teachers.

MCPS has 136 elementary schools and hasn't had anyone on the board in years who has recent experience with them. That's how we ended up with curricula like the now-abandoned Benchmark, because no one had a clue. As a parent, I would be grateful to have an ES teacher with a seat at the table.

Her experience as an elementary school teacher isn't the concern. It's the heavy involvement from the union, and the strong likelihood she'll be a stooge.

Why is that a bad thing? The current boe needs guidance.

Not from the union. They already have too much "guidance" from the union.

[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:If this is Zimmerman or her campaign staff trying to dismiss concerns about her running for the BOE while being a teacher, which is a legitimate conflict of interest to raise, come with a better strategy. The current approach is unpersuasive.

It is not a conflict of interest at all.

Of course it is. That's why she is going to have to resign.

The question was about running for the BOE while being a teacher, and there is no expectation of resigning unless she would win the election, in which case she would need to resign before being sworn in.

You're being pedantic. The conflict of interest continues if MCEA is going to pay her while she's on the BoE.

And there is no evidence to suggest that they would or will! Stop making things up.

Right, we don't know one way or the other because she won't say. But we have good reason to think MCEA recruited her to run, and we know she'll be out of a job if she wins. We also know Jennifer Martin and David Stein were some of her first campaign contributors.

Yes, Natalie Zimmerman is a loyal union member. She is also an experienced teacher, and can bring that experience to bear on the board of education. But really, what is the choice here? You can vote for Brenda Diaz, who is a combative lunatic, or Natalie Zimmerman, who can make a substantive contribution to the board's work.

Diaz won't be able to cause any harm because the other board members and central staff will block her.

The same isn't true for Zimmerman. If you're a parent, you really ought to be concerned about whether she will push policies that are good for students, or will she pusb policies that are for teachers.

MCPS has 136 elementary schools and hasn't had anyone on the board in years who has recent experience with them. That's how we ended up with curricula like the now-abandoned Benchmark, because no one had a clue. As a parent, I would be grateful to have an ES teacher with a seat at the table.

Her experience as an elementary school teacher isn't the concern. It's the heavy involvement from the union, and the strong likelihood she'll be a stooge.

I don't see any evidence of that "strong likelihood."

She's young teacher, with limited experience with MCPS, advocacy, and even teaching.

There are basically two possibilities here:
1) As someone suggested here, she's doing this as a "loyal" union member, and will follow their instructions as board business comes up. Or,
2) She was never been interested in teaching long-term, and plans to use this as stepping stone to a career in politics.

Neither is good.

[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:If this is Zimmerman or her campaign staff trying to dismiss concerns about her running for the BOE while being a teacher, which is a legitimate conflict of interest to raise, come with a better strategy. The current approach is unpersuasive.

It is not a conflict of interest at all.

Of course it is. That's why she is going to have to resign.

The question was about running for the BOE while being a teacher, and there is no expectation of resigning unless she would win the election, in which case she would need to resign before being sworn in.

You're being pedantic. The conflict of interest continues if MCEA is going to pay her while she's on the BoE.

And there is no evidence to suggest that they would or will! Stop making things up.

Right, we don't know one way or the other because she won't say. But we have good reason to think MCEA recruited her to run, and we know she'll be out of a job if she wins. We also know Jennifer Martin and David Stein were some of her first campaign contributors.

Yes, Natalie Zimmerman is a loyal union member. She is also an experienced teacher, and can bring that experience to bear on the board of education. But really, what is the choice here? You can vote for Brenda Diaz, who is a combative lunatic, or Natalie Zimmerman, who can make a substantive contribution to the board's work.

Diaz won't be able to cause any harm because the other board members and central staff will block her.

The same isn't true for Zimmerman. If you're a parent, you really ought to be concerned about whether she will push policies that are good for students, or will she pusb policies that are for teachers.

MCPS has 136 elementary schools and hasn't had anyone on the board in years who has recent experience with them. That's how we ended up with curricula like the now-abandoned Benchmark, because no one had a clue. As a parent, I would be grateful to have an ES teacher with a seat at the table.

Her experience as an elementary school teacher isn't the concern. It's the heavy involvement from the union, and the strong likelihood she'll be a stooge.

I don't see any evidence of that "strong likelihood."

She's young teacher, with limited experience with MCPS, advocacy, and even teaching.

There are basically two possibilities here:
1) As someone suggested here, she's doing this as a "loyal" union member, and will follow their instructions as board business comes up. Or,
2) She was never been interested in teaching long-term, and plans to use this as stepping stone to a career in politics.

Neither is good.

or, 3) What she has actually said:

"I am running for this office because I believe in taking action. Throughout my time in MCPS, I have seen the system fail students and educators alike. Montgomery County Public Schools has some of the greatest potential in the country to provide the highest quality public education possible to every single child – no matter their race, gender, socio-economic status, or otherwise. As an MCPS teacher, I have taken action on behalf of students and my fellow educators to capitalize on our potential and stop foundering our students’ futures. I am running so I can speak from the classroom and into policy."

https://moco360.media/voters-guide/board-of-education/natalie-zimmerman/

[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:If this is Zimmerman or her campaign staff trying to dismiss concerns about her running for the BOE while being a teacher, which is a legitimate conflict of interest to raise, come with a better strategy. The current approach is unpersuasive.

It is not a conflict of interest at all.

Of course it is. That's why she is going to have to resign.

The question was about running for the BOE while being a teacher, and there is no expectation of resigning unless she would win the election, in which case she would need to resign before being sworn in.

You're being pedantic. The conflict of interest continues if MCEA is going to pay her while she's on the BoE.

And there is no evidence to suggest that they would or will! Stop making things up.

Right, we don't know one way or the other because she won't say. But we have good reason to think MCEA recruited her to run, and we know she'll be out of a job if she wins. We also know Jennifer Martin and David Stein were some of her first campaign contributors.

Yes, Natalie Zimmerman is a loyal union member. She is also an experienced teacher, and can bring that experience to bear on the board of education. But really, what is the choice here? You can vote for Brenda Diaz, who is a combative lunatic, or Natalie Zimmerman, who can make a substantive contribution to the board's work.

Diaz won't be able to cause any harm because the other board members and central staff will block her.

The same isn't true for Zimmerman. If you're a parent, you really ought to be concerned about whether she will push policies that are good for students, or will she pusb policies that are for teachers.

MCPS has 136 elementary schools and hasn't had anyone on the board in years who has recent experience with them. That's how we ended up with curricula like the now-abandoned Benchmark, because no one had a clue. As a parent, I would be grateful to have an ES teacher with a seat at the table.

Her experience as an elementary school teacher isn't the concern. It's the heavy involvement from the union, and the strong likelihood she'll be a stooge.

I don't see any evidence of that "strong likelihood."

She's young teacher, with limited experience with MCPS, advocacy, and even teaching.

There are basically two possibilities here:
1) As someone suggested here, she's doing this as a "loyal" union member, and will follow their instructions as board business comes up. Or,
2) She was never been interested in teaching long-term, and plans to use this as stepping stone to a career in politics.

Neither is good.

You make no sense. People in education and business should be running the board. She has experience in MCPS and understands what happens in a classroom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this is Zimmerman or her campaign staff trying to dismiss concerns about her running for the BOE while being a teacher, which is a legitimate conflict of interest to raise, come with a better strategy. The current approach is unpersuasive.

It is not a conflict of interest at all.

Of course it is. That's why she is going to have to resign.

The question was about running for the BOE while being a teacher, and there is no expectation of resigning unless she would win the election, in which case she would need to resign before being sworn in.

You're being pedantic. The conflict of interest continues if MCEA is going to pay her while she's on the BoE.

And there is no evidence to suggest that they would or will! Stop making things up.

Right, we don't know one way or the other because she won't say. But we have good reason to think MCEA recruited her to run, and we know she'll be out of a job if she wins. We also know Jennifer Martin and David Stein were some of her first campaign contributors.

Yes, Natalie Zimmerman is a loyal union member. She is also an experienced teacher, and can bring that experience to bear on the board of education. But really, what is the choice here? You can vote for Brenda Diaz, who is a combative lunatic, or Natalie Zimmerman, who can make a substantive contribution to the board's work.

Diaz won't be able to cause any harm because the other board members and central staff will block her.

The same isn't true for Zimmerman. If you're a parent, you really ought to be concerned about whether she will push policies that are good for students, or will she pusb policies that are for teachers.

MCPS has 136 elementary schools and hasn't had anyone on the board in years who has recent experience with them. That's how we ended up with curricula like the now-abandoned Benchmark, because no one had a clue. As a parent, I would be grateful to have an ES teacher with a seat at the table.

Her experience as an elementary school teacher isn't the concern. It's the heavy involvement from the union, and the strong likelihood she'll be a stooge.

I don't see any evidence of that "strong likelihood."

She's young teacher, with limited experience with MCPS, advocacy, and even teaching.

There are basically two possibilities here:
1) As someone suggested here, she's doing this as a "loyal" union member, and will follow their instructions as board business comes up. Or,
2) She was never been interested in teaching long-term, and plans to use this as stepping stone to a career in politics.

Neither is good.

You make no sense. People in education and business should be running the board. She has experience in MCPS and understands what happens in a classroom.

People in education and business should be running the operations of the school. The role of the board- policy direction, oversight, and budget priorities- should be done by parents of children in the system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this is Zimmerman or her campaign staff trying to dismiss concerns about her running for the BOE while being a teacher, which is a legitimate conflict of interest to raise, come with a better strategy. The current approach is unpersuasive.

It is not a conflict of interest at all.

Of course it is. That's why she is going to have to resign.

The question was about running for the BOE while being a teacher, and there is no expectation of resigning unless she would win the election, in which case she would need to resign before being sworn in.

You're being pedantic. The conflict of interest continues if MCEA is going to pay her while she's on the BoE.

And there is no evidence to suggest that they would or will! Stop making things up.

Right, we don't know one way or the other because she won't say. But we have good reason to think MCEA recruited her to run, and we know she'll be out of a job if she wins. We also know Jennifer Martin and David Stein were some of her first campaign contributors.

Yes, Natalie Zimmerman is a loyal union member. She is also an experienced teacher, and can bring that experience to bear on the board of education. But really, what is the choice here? You can vote for Brenda Diaz, who is a combative lunatic, or Natalie Zimmerman, who can make a substantive contribution to the board's work.

Diaz won't be able to cause any harm because the other board members and central staff will block her.

The same isn't true for Zimmerman. If you're a parent, you really ought to be concerned about whether she will push policies that are good for students, or will she pusb policies that are for teachers.

MCPS has 136 elementary schools and hasn't had anyone on the board in years who has recent experience with them. That's how we ended up with curricula like the now-abandoned Benchmark, because no one had a clue. As a parent, I would be grateful to have an ES teacher with a seat at the table.

Her experience as an elementary school teacher isn't the concern. It's the heavy involvement from the union, and the strong likelihood she'll be a stooge.

I don't see any evidence of that "strong likelihood."

She's young teacher, with limited experience with MCPS, advocacy, and even teaching.

There are basically two possibilities here:
1) As someone suggested here, she's doing this as a "loyal" union member, and will follow their instructions as board business comes up. Or,
2) She was never been interested in teaching long-term, and plans to use this as stepping stone to a career in politics.

Neither is good.

or, 3) What she has actually said:

"I am running for this office because I believe in taking action. Throughout my time in MCPS, I have seen the system fail students and educators alike. Montgomery County Public Schools has some of the greatest potential in the country to provide the highest quality public education possible to every single child – no matter their race, gender, socio-economic status, or otherwise. As an MCPS teacher, I have taken action on behalf of students and my fellow educators to capitalize on our potential and stop foundering our students’ futures. I am running so I can speak from the classroom and into policy."

https://moco360.media/voters-guide/board-of-education/natalie-zimmerman/

If she wanted to take action, then she'd get into school administration. The board provides direction, but the actions are taken by school administration and staff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this is Zimmerman or her campaign staff trying to dismiss concerns about her running for the BOE while being a teacher, which is a legitimate conflict of interest to raise, come with a better strategy. The current approach is unpersuasive.

It is not a conflict of interest at all.

Of course it is. That's why she is going to have to resign.

The question was about running for the BOE while being a teacher, and there is no expectation of resigning unless she would win the election, in which case she would need to resign before being sworn in.

You're being pedantic. The conflict of interest continues if MCEA is going to pay her while she's on the BoE.

And there is no evidence to suggest that they would or will! Stop making things up.

Right, we don't know one way or the other because she won't say. But we have good reason to think MCEA recruited her to run, and we know she'll be out of a job if she wins. We also know Jennifer Martin and David Stein were some of her first campaign contributors.

Yes, Natalie Zimmerman is a loyal union member. She is also an experienced teacher, and can bring that experience to bear on the board of education. But really, what is the choice here? You can vote for Brenda Diaz, who is a combative lunatic, or Natalie Zimmerman, who can make a substantive contribution to the board's work.

Diaz won't be able to cause any harm because the other board members and central staff will block her.

The same isn't true for Zimmerman. If you're a parent, you really ought to be concerned about whether she will push policies that are good for students, or will she pusb policies that are for teachers.

MCPS has 136 elementary schools and hasn't had anyone on the board in years who has recent experience with them. That's how we ended up with curricula like the now-abandoned Benchmark, because no one had a clue. As a parent, I would be grateful to have an ES teacher with a seat at the table.

Her experience as an elementary school teacher isn't the concern. It's the heavy involvement from the union, and the strong likelihood she'll be a stooge.

I don't see any evidence of that "strong likelihood."

She's young teacher, with limited experience with MCPS, advocacy, and even teaching.

There are basically two possibilities here:
1) As someone suggested here, she's doing this as a "loyal" union member, and will follow their instructions as board business comes up. Or,
2) She was never been interested in teaching long-term, and plans to use this as stepping stone to a career in politics.

Neither is good.

or, 3) What she has actually said:

"I am running for this office because I believe in taking action. Throughout my time in MCPS, I have seen the system fail students and educators alike. Montgomery County Public Schools has some of the greatest potential in the country to provide the highest quality public education possible to every single child – no matter their race, gender, socio-economic status, or otherwise. As an MCPS teacher, I have taken action on behalf of students and my fellow educators to capitalize on our potential and stop foundering our students’ futures. I am running so I can speak from the classroom and into policy."

https://moco360.media/voters-guide/board-of-education/natalie-zimmerman/

If she wanted to take action, then she'd get into school administration. The board provides direction, but the actions are taken by school administration and staff.

Why are you threatened by her? School admin job is not the same thing. Maybe she is a good person who sees mcps needs change and the current board will not change things and just runs MCPS into deeper and deeper problems. We need more people like her to step up and take over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this is Zimmerman or her campaign staff trying to dismiss concerns about her running for the BOE while being a teacher, which is a legitimate conflict of interest to raise, come with a better strategy. The current approach is unpersuasive.

It is not a conflict of interest at all.

Of course it is. That's why she is going to have to resign.

The question was about running for the BOE while being a teacher, and there is no expectation of resigning unless she would win the election, in which case she would need to resign before being sworn in.

You're being pedantic. The conflict of interest continues if MCEA is going to pay her while she's on the BoE.

And there is no evidence to suggest that they would or will! Stop making things up.

Right, we don't know one way or the other because she won't say. But we have good reason to think MCEA recruited her to run, and we know she'll be out of a job if she wins. We also know Jennifer Martin and David Stein were some of her first campaign contributors.

Yes, Natalie Zimmerman is a loyal union member. She is also an experienced teacher, and can bring that experience to bear on the board of education. But really, what is the choice here? You can vote for Brenda Diaz, who is a combative lunatic, or Natalie Zimmerman, who can make a substantive contribution to the board's work.

Diaz won't be able to cause any harm because the other board members and central staff will block her.

The same isn't true for Zimmerman. If you're a parent, you really ought to be concerned about whether she will push policies that are good for students, or will she pusb policies that are for teachers.

MCPS has 136 elementary schools and hasn't had anyone on the board in years who has recent experience with them. That's how we ended up with curricula like the now-abandoned Benchmark, because no one had a clue. As a parent, I would be grateful to have an ES teacher with a seat at the table.

Her experience as an elementary school teacher isn't the concern. It's the heavy involvement from the union, and the strong likelihood she'll be a stooge.

I don't see any evidence of that "strong likelihood."

She's young teacher, with limited experience with MCPS, advocacy, and even teaching.

There are basically two possibilities here:
1) As someone suggested here, she's doing this as a "loyal" union member, and will follow their instructions as board business comes up. Or,
2) She was never been interested in teaching long-term, and plans to use this as stepping stone to a career in politics.

Neither is good.

or, 3) What she has actually said:

"I am running for this office because I believe in taking action. Throughout my time in MCPS, I have seen the system fail students and educators alike. Montgomery County Public Schools has some of the greatest potential in the country to provide the highest quality public education possible to every single child – no matter their race, gender, socio-economic status, or otherwise. As an MCPS teacher, I have taken action on behalf of students and my fellow educators to capitalize on our potential and stop foundering our students’ futures. I am running so I can speak from the classroom and into policy."

https://moco360.media/voters-guide/board-of-education/natalie-zimmerman/

If she wanted to take action, then she'd get into school administration. The board provides direction, but the actions are taken by school administration and staff.

Why are you threatened by her? School admin job is not the same thing. Maybe she is a good person who sees mcps needs change and the current board will not change things and just runs MCPS into deeper and deeper problems. We need more people like her to step up and take over.

Schools exist to serve students. In this case, they're represented by their parents. Unions exist to serve employees- in this case, teachers unions representing teachers.

Teachers absolutely should get a voice. And they do- through their union. They shouldn't be on the board.l

And yes, there are major problems with the board. And part of that is because they've been too far removed from parents and students. Zimmerman makes that worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this is Zimmerman or her campaign staff trying to dismiss concerns about her running for the BOE while being a teacher, which is a legitimate conflict of interest to raise, come with a better strategy. The current approach is unpersuasive.

It is not a conflict of interest at all.

Of course it is. That's why she is going to have to resign.

The question was about running for the BOE while being a teacher, and there is no expectation of resigning unless she would win the election, in which case she would need to resign before being sworn in.

You're being pedantic. The conflict of interest continues if MCEA is going to pay her while she's on the BoE.

And there is no evidence to suggest that they would or will! Stop making things up.

Right, we don't know one way or the other because she won't say. But we have good reason to think MCEA recruited her to run, and we know she'll be out of a job if she wins. We also know Jennifer Martin and David Stein were some of her first campaign contributors.

Yes, Natalie Zimmerman is a loyal union member. She is also an experienced teacher, and can bring that experience to bear on the board of education. But really, what is the choice here? You can vote for Brenda Diaz, who is a combative lunatic, or Natalie Zimmerman, who can make a substantive contribution to the board's work.

Diaz won't be able to cause any harm because the other board members and central staff will block her.

The same isn't true for Zimmerman. If you're a parent, you really ought to be concerned about whether she will push policies that are good for students, or will she pusb policies that are for teachers.

MCPS has 136 elementary schools and hasn't had anyone on the board in years who has recent experience with them. That's how we ended up with curricula like the now-abandoned Benchmark, because no one had a clue. As a parent, I would be grateful to have an ES teacher with a seat at the table.

Her experience as an elementary school teacher isn't the concern. It's the heavy involvement from the union, and the strong likelihood she'll be a stooge.

I don't see any evidence of that "strong likelihood."

She's young teacher, with limited experience with MCPS, advocacy, and even teaching.

There are basically two possibilities here:
1) As someone suggested here, she's doing this as a "loyal" union member, and will follow their instructions as board business comes up. Or,
2) She was never been interested in teaching long-term, and plans to use this as stepping stone to a career in politics.

Neither is good.

or, 3) What she has actually said:

"I am running for this office because I believe in taking action. Throughout my time in MCPS, I have seen the system fail students and educators alike. Montgomery County Public Schools has some of the greatest potential in the country to provide the highest quality public education possible to every single child – no matter their race, gender, socio-economic status, or otherwise. As an MCPS teacher, I have taken action on behalf of students and my fellow educators to capitalize on our potential and stop foundering our students’ futures. I am running so I can speak from the classroom and into policy."

https://moco360.media/voters-guide/board-of-education/natalie-zimmerman/

If she wanted to take action, then she'd get into school administration. The board provides direction, but the actions are taken by school administration and staff.

Why are you threatened by her? School admin job is not the same thing. Maybe she is a good person who sees mcps needs change and the current board will not change things and just runs MCPS into deeper and deeper problems. We need more people like her to step up and take over.

Schools exist to serve students. In this case, they're represented by their parents. Unions exist to serve employees- in this case, teachers unions representing teachers.

Teachers absolutely should get a voice. And they do- through their union. They shouldn't be on the board.l

And yes, there are major problems with the board. And part of that is because they've been too far removed from parents and students. Zimmerman makes that worse.

Of course they should be on the board. They are the ones who understand what schools need. Random people with no educational experience aren't helpful. Look what the current ones have done. They have destroyed 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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this is Zimmerman or her campaign staff trying to dismiss concerns about her running for the BOE while being a teacher, which is a legitimate conflict of interest to raise, come with a better strategy. The current approach is unpersuasive.

It is not a conflict of interest at all.

Of course it is. That's why she is going to have to resign.

The question was about running for the BOE while being a teacher, and there is no expectation of resigning unless she would win the election, in which case she would need to resign before being sworn in.

You're being pedantic. The conflict of interest continues if MCEA is going to pay her while she's on the BoE.

And there is no evidence to suggest that they would or will! Stop making things up.

Right, we don't know one way or the other because she won't say. But we have good reason to think MCEA recruited her to run, and we know she'll be out of a job if she wins. We also know Jennifer Martin and David Stein were some of her first campaign contributors.

Yes, Natalie Zimmerman is a loyal union member. She is also an experienced teacher, and can bring that experience to bear on the board of education. But really, what is the choice here? You can vote for Brenda Diaz, who is a combative lunatic, or Natalie Zimmerman, who can make a substantive contribution to the board's work.

Diaz won't be able to cause any harm because the other board members and central staff will block her.

The same isn't true for Zimmerman. If you're a parent, you really ought to be concerned about whether she will push policies that are good for students, or will she pusb policies that are for teachers.

MCPS has 136 elementary schools and hasn't had anyone on the board in years who has recent experience with them. That's how we ended up with curricula like the now-abandoned Benchmark, because no one had a clue. As a parent, I would be grateful to have an ES teacher with a seat at the table.

Her experience as an elementary school teacher isn't the concern. It's the heavy involvement from the union, and the strong likelihood she'll be a stooge.

I don't see any evidence of that "strong likelihood."

She's young teacher, with limited experience with MCPS, advocacy, and even teaching.

There are basically two possibilities here:
1) As someone suggested here, she's doing this as a "loyal" union member, and will follow their instructions as board business comes up. Or,
2) She was never been interested in teaching long-term, and plans to use this as stepping stone to a career in politics.

Neither is good.

or, 3) What she has actually said:

"I am running for this office because I believe in taking action. Throughout my time in MCPS, I have seen the system fail students and educators alike. Montgomery County Public Schools has some of the greatest potential in the country to provide the highest quality public education possible to every single child – no matter their race, gender, socio-economic status, or otherwise. As an MCPS teacher, I have taken action on behalf of students and my fellow educators to capitalize on our potential and stop foundering our students’ futures. I am running so I can speak from the classroom and into policy."

https://moco360.media/voters-guide/board-of-education/natalie-zimmerman/

If she wanted to take action, then she'd get into school administration. The board provides direction, but the actions are taken by school administration and staff.

Why are you threatened by her? School admin job is not the same thing. Maybe she is a good person who sees mcps needs change and the current board will not change things and just runs MCPS into deeper and deeper problems. We need more people like her to step up and take over.

Schools exist to serve students. In this case, they're represented by their parents. Unions exist to serve employees- in this case, teachers unions representing teachers.

Teachers absolutely should get a voice. And they do- through their union. They shouldn't be on the board.l

And yes, there are major problems with the board. And part of that is because they've been too far removed from parents and students. Zimmerman makes that worse.

Of course they should be on the board. They are the ones who understand what schools need. Random people with no educational experience aren't helpful. Look what the current ones have done. They have destroyed MCPS.

No, putting teachers in charge of the board is how you end up with schools closed for 18 months and half-days spread throughout the calendar. I know some union members want to bring back 4-day school weeks.

We shouldn't be bringing a lot of things to tje BoE. Things like curriculum should be decided by the superintendent with administrative staff and teachers. Reduce the time required to serve on the board so that working parents can hold the positions.