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: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.

She said she wants to speak from the classroom and into policy. The board is the policy-making body for 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:

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.

Yawn. Are you one of her usual haters who like to brand her as a socialite?

Laura Stewart is thoughtful and bright. She sometimes does stumble over words but she has spent YEARS doing advocacy for schools and is very well-respected in the community of policymakers and school folks. She knows how to make things happen and has an intuitive understanding of how to move change forward. I suspect she actually knows much more about MCPS policies than her opponent.

[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.

She said she wants to speak from the classroom and into policy. The board is the policy-making body for MCPS.

Policy isn't action.

[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.

It isn't if you a reasonable person, but if you're a union hating far-right fascist then sure it may be an issue.

[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:

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.

Yawn. Are you one of her usual haters who like to brand her as a socialite?

Laura Stewart is thoughtful and bright. She sometimes does stumble over words but she has spent YEARS doing advocacy for schools and is very well-respected in the community of policymakers and school folks. She knows how to make things happen and has an intuitive understanding of how to move change forward. I suspect she actually knows much more about MCPS policies than her opponent.

Laura Stewart has gotten all of her experience rising up the ranks of MCCPTA. We’ve seen how that experience translates to action at the BOE in Lynne Harris. Don’t need another.

[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.

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

It isn't if you a reasonable person, but if you're a union hating far-right fascist then sure it may be an issue.

You don't have to be MAGA to want to put the interests of students first.

[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:

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.

Yawn. Are you one of her usual haters who like to brand her as a socialite?

Laura Stewart is thoughtful and bright. She sometimes does stumble over words but she has spent YEARS doing advocacy for schools and is very well-respected in the community of policymakers and school folks. She knows how to make things happen and has an intuitive understanding of how to move change forward. I suspect she actually knows much more about MCPS policies than her opponent.

Laura Stewart has gotten all of her experience rising up the ranks of MCCPTA. We’ve seen how that experience translates to action at the BOE in Lynne Harris. Don’t need another.

I'm giving Laura a try rather than four more years of Shebra.

[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.

The fact that the Board provides “direction” only is one of the major things wrong with MCPS. Sometimes I wonder whether anyone else posting here has actually been to a school board meeting anywhere else. We are anomalous, and not in a good way. Anyone who doesn’t treat that as normal is worth a hearing, IMO.

[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.

This is Brenda Diaz, or one of her two acolytes, responding here, reduced to campaigning through DCUM. If people have sought out information about the two candidates, people can easily make a choice as the candidates have defining differences between them.

[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.

This is Brenda Diaz, or one of her two acolytes, responding here, reduced to campaigning through DCUM. If people have sought out information about the two candidates, people can easily make a choice as the candidates have defining differences between them.

As is often the case with politics, we're forced to choose between the lesser of two evils. Diaz is crazy, and won't be able to do any damageon the Board, as no one else is going to share her views. Zimmerman, however, has a shot at pushing through policies that would be terrible for kids and parents, like increasing early release days in the calendar.

[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:

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.

Yawn. Are you one of her usual haters who like to brand her as a socialite?

Laura Stewart is thoughtful and bright. She sometimes does stumble over words but she has spent YEARS doing advocacy for schools and is very well-respected in the community of policymakers and school folks. She knows how to make things happen and has an intuitive understanding of how to move change forward. I suspect she actually knows much more about MCPS policies than her opponent.

Laura Stewart has gotten all of her experience rising up the ranks of MCCPTA. We’ve seen how that experience translates to action at the BOE in Lynne Harris. Don’t need another.

I'm giving Laura a try rather than four more years of Shebra.

Two partiers. No difference.

[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.

This is Brenda Diaz, or one of her two acolytes, responding here, reduced to campaigning through DCUM. If people have sought out information about the two candidates, people can easily make a choice as the candidates have defining differences between them.

As is often the case with politics, we're forced to choose between the lesser of two evils. Diaz is crazy, and won't be able to do any damageon the Board, as no one else is going to share her views. Zimmerman, however, has a shot at pushing through policies that would be terrible for kids and parents, like increasing early release days in the calendar.

I actually don't think all of Brenda's views are invalid. I agree that her being Republican/right-aligned means POLITICALLY she won't have many allies, but her platform goals of getting rid of a LOT of nonsense that has gotten in the way of strong academic outcomes, stripped parents of an ability to transparently engage and advocate on behalf of their kids AND made our schools less safe are appealing to many people inside and outside of the board.

The issue with Diaz is that she is using valid critiques of the system as a Trojan Horse to get in there and do who knows what on behalf of right-wing activists. But many of her espoused ideas and critiques aren't without merit. In fact, she's making a lot of efforts to position herself as the candid, no-nonsense candidate.

Natalie Zimmerman, on the other hand, is full of naievete and optimism and she is coasting on her Apple Ballot endorsement. She's not campaigning hard because she's inexperienced and with the Apple Ballot behind her, she doesn't have to either.

The biggest issue is that our pipeline for BOE candidates is garbage. And that pipeline for candidates is trash because it's a horrible job. It's a part-time job with full-time hours, little direct power and control and you're on the receiving end of a whole lot of complaints and critiques.

[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.

This is Brenda Diaz, or one of her two acolytes, responding here, reduced to campaigning through DCUM. If people have sought out information about the two candidates, people can easily make a choice as the candidates have defining differences between them.

As is often the case with politics, we're forced to choose between the lesser of two evils. Diaz is crazy, and won't be able to do any damageon the Board, as no one else is going to share her views. Zimmerman, however, has a shot at pushing through policies that would be terrible for kids and parents, like increasing early release days in the calendar.

Have you never heard the analogy about the Nazi bar? One fascist is too many fascists.

[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.

This is Brenda Diaz, or one of her two acolytes, responding here, reduced to campaigning through DCUM. If people have sought out information about the two candidates, people can easily make a choice as the candidates have defining differences between them.

As is often the case with politics, we're forced to choose between the lesser of two evils. Diaz is crazy, and won't be able to do any damageon the Board, as no one else is going to share her views. Zimmerman, however, has a shot at pushing through policies that would be terrible for kids and parents, like increasing early release days in the calendar.

Have you never heard the analogy about the Nazi bar? One fascist is too many fascists.

Don't be ridiculous. She's many things, but she's not a fascist or a Nazi.

[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.

This is Brenda Diaz, or one of her two acolytes, responding here, reduced to campaigning through DCUM. If people have sought out information about the two candidates, people can easily make a choice as the candidates have defining differences between them.

As is often the case with politics, we're forced to choose between the lesser of two evils. Diaz is crazy, and won't be able to do any damageon the Board, as no one else is going to share her views. Zimmerman, however, has a shot at pushing through policies that would be terrible for kids and parents, like increasing early release days in the calendar.

Have you never heard the analogy about the Nazi bar? One fascist is too many fascists.

Don't be ridiculous. She's many things, but she's not a fascist or a Nazi.

It's an analogy. https://www.reddit.com/r/TalesFromYourServer/s/axYgmzNZuE