BOE - who are people voting for?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Like I said, all the candidates are awful.

Agree, but its a choice between the lesser of the evils and the current BOE is failing us so I'd like a fresh start.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I watched the debate. Based on it, I am going to vote for Montoya, Zimmerman, and Stewart. I don't particularly like Stewart, but she is better than Evans. The other two I feel better about.

Montoya is a know-nothing. The teachers' union regrets endorsing her. If she gets in, people will be whining about her by week 2.

She's better than the alternative.

You're wrong. She is a one-year elementary school PTA president who alienated parents at her school, ensuring that she could not even get a full complement of PTA officers last year. Instead of sticking to that job, she decides before mid-year, to run for the BOE, having little to no experience to recommend her. The teachers' union endorsement is the only thing Montoya has going for her. She has no campaign volunteers; she is completely dependent on union-loyal teachers pushing her name on the Apple Ballot on Election Day.

MCEA was completely blinded by its rage about McKnight last year, or they would never have chosen Montoya. And now, they regret what they have, because Montoya is showing herself to be a problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I watched the debate. Based on it, I am going to vote for Montoya, Zimmerman, and Stewart. I don't particularly like Stewart, but she is better than Evans. The other two I feel better about.

Montoya is a know-nothing. The teachers' union regrets endorsing her. If she gets in, people will be whining about her by week 2.

She's better than the alternative.

You're wrong. She is a one-year elementary school PTA president who alienated parents at her school, ensuring that she could not even get a full complement of PTA officers last year. Instead of sticking to that job, she decides before mid-year, to run for the BOE, having little to no experience to recommend her. The teachers' union endorsement is the only thing Montoya has going for her. She has no campaign volunteers; she is completely dependent on union-loyal teachers pushing her name on the Apple Ballot on Election Day.

MCEA was completely blinded by its rage about McKnight last year, or they would never have chosen Montoya. And now, they regret what they have, because Montoya is showing herself to be a problem.

Steward is a nigmare. I'll take anyone over her right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I watched the debate. Based on it, I am going to vote for Montoya, Zimmerman, and Stewart. I don't particularly like Stewart, but she is better than Evans. The other two I feel better about.

Montoya is a know-nothing. The teachers' union regrets endorsing her. If she gets in, people will be whining about her by week 2.

She's better than the alternative.

You're wrong. She is a one-year elementary school PTA president who alienated parents at her school, ensuring that she could not even get a full complement of PTA officers last year. Instead of sticking to that job, she decides before mid-year, to run for the BOE, having little to no experience to recommend her. The teachers' union endorsement is the only thing Montoya has going for her. She has no campaign volunteers; she is completely dependent on union-loyal teachers pushing her name on the Apple Ballot on Election Day.

MCEA was completely blinded by its rage about McKnight last year, or they would never have chosen Montoya. And now, they regret what they have, because Montoya is showing herself to be a problem.

Steward is a nigmare. I'll take anyone over her right now.

Rita, you fail to deflect from the problems with your candidacy with this post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I watched the debate. Based on it, I am going to vote for Montoya, Zimmerman, and Stewart. I don't particularly like Stewart, but she is better than Evans. The other two I feel better about.

Stewart is horrible. She treats people badly, she lies and is [b[part of all the mismanagement.[/b]

She's not on the board. Maybe you are thinking about Evans, the incumbent she's up against?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I watched the debate. Based on it, I am going to vote for Montoya, Zimmerman, and Stewart. I don't particularly like Stewart, but she is better than Evans. The other two I feel better about.

Stewart is horrible. She treats people badly, she lies and is [b[part of all the mismanagement.[/b]

She's not on the board. Maybe you are thinking about Evans, the incumbent she's up against?

Did not say on the board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I watched the debate. Based on it, I am going to vote for Montoya, Zimmerman, and Stewart. I don't particularly like Stewart, but she is better than Evans. The other two I feel better about.

Stewart is horrible. She treats people badly, she lies and is [b[part of all the mismanagement.[/b]

She's not on the board. Maybe you are thinking about Evans, the incumbent she's up against?

Did not say on the board.

The mismanagement is the fault of the people in charge, i.e. the board and central office administrators.

[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:Let's get started on next election already. How do we get better candidates and how do you increase number of more qualified candidates? What should those quals be?

You increase the number of qualified candidates by paying the board members a reasonable salary for a difficult full-time job.

More pay will not help. Most of the boe members work full time jobs and are double dipping.

That's exactly why more pay will help. You want qualified people who see board membership as their full-time job, and who don't need to work another job at the same time.

Of course they will continue their employment in less you make it a full time job and that’s not how boards work. Then it would be an mcps management team. Mcps has central office who is incompetent.

That’s precisely what we want to be: management and oversight of MCPS. The BOE needs to be full-time. Part-time status with no independent staff from management is not working.

The point of the board is to be independent, not salary employees of MCPS. They really are unnecessary as they are not providing any oversight and have no idea what they are doing and making so many mistakes and allowing so many bad things to go on. They wouldn't be missed at all if we didn't have one. That would be a huge cost savings.

So your solution to the BOE’s oversight failings is to get rid of it completely? How does that make any sense?

It would save a lot of money. There is little point to the BOE given how they have run things over the last 10-15 years.

This is a pointless line of argument. The board is going to continue to exist whether you like it or not.

What is the point of the board? We spend a fortune on staff, office space and so much more for the board and they have done a terrible job. Why are we wasting money on these people who have done a terrible job and mismanaged funds.

The amount spent on central office staff and office space is far greater. If you want to save money, start there.

We should do both. Central office can work at home or out of MCPS owned buildings. They spend what $50K a month on the BOE space? They can hold their meetings in a school auditorium for free.

You have it all worked out in your brain, don't you? You have no idea what it is like to lead a large organization such as MCPS.

I know I could probably do better and make sure all kids have what they need with the amount of money they have. I'd come in and gut it all and put more spending to educational needs, staff, student support and get the buildings repaired. And, bring in more specialized programs, more special ed programs, bring back an even better virtual program and so much more and still have money to spare.

Easy to say harder to do. What exactly are you changing in order to spend more differently? Where are the more specialized programs going and who is going to staff/run them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I watched the debate. Based on it, I am going to vote for Montoya, Zimmerman, and Stewart. I don't particularly like Stewart, but she is better than Evans. The other two I feel better about.

Stewart is horrible. She treats people badly, she lies and is [b[part of all the mismanagement.[/b]

She's not on the board. Maybe you are thinking about Evans, the incumbent she's up against?

Did not say on the board.

The mismanagement is the fault of the people in charge, i.e. the board and central office administrators.

And the public who do not demand accountability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I watched the debate. Based on it, I am going to vote for Montoya, Zimmerman, and Stewart. I don't particularly like Stewart, but she is better than Evans. The other two I feel better about.

Stewart is horrible. She treats people badly, she lies and is [b[part of all the mismanagement.[/b]

She's not on the board. Maybe you are thinking about Evans, the incumbent she's up against?

Yes, sorry thanks for fixing that.

[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:Let's get started on next election already. How do we get better candidates and how do you increase number of more qualified candidates? What should those quals be?

You increase the number of qualified candidates by paying the board members a reasonable salary for a difficult full-time job.

More pay will not help. Most of the boe members work full time jobs and are double dipping.

That's exactly why more pay will help. You want qualified people who see board membership as their full-time job, and who don't need to work another job at the same time.

Of course they will continue their employment in less you make it a full time job and that’s not how boards work. Then it would be an mcps management team. Mcps has central office who is incompetent.

That’s precisely what we want to be: management and oversight of MCPS. The BOE needs to be full-time. Part-time status with no independent staff from management is not working.

The point of the board is to be independent, not salary employees of MCPS. They really are unnecessary as they are not providing any oversight and have no idea what they are doing and making so many mistakes and allowing so many bad things to go on. They wouldn't be missed at all if we didn't have one. That would be a huge cost savings.

So your solution to the BOE’s oversight failings is to get rid of it completely? How does that make any sense?

It would save a lot of money. There is little point to the BOE given how they have run things over the last 10-15 years.

This is a pointless line of argument. The board is going to continue to exist whether you like it or not.

What is the point of the board? We spend a fortune on staff, office space and so much more for the board and they have done a terrible job. Why are we wasting money on these people who have done a terrible job and mismanaged funds.

The amount spent on central office staff and office space is far greater. If you want to save money, start there.

We should do both. Central office can work at home or out of MCPS owned buildings. They spend what $50K a month on the BOE space? They can hold their meetings in a school auditorium for free.

You have it all worked out in your brain, don't you? You have no idea what it is like to lead a large organization such as MCPS.

I know I could probably do better and make sure all kids have what they need with the amount of money they have. I'd come in and gut it all and put more spending to educational needs, staff, student support and get the buildings repaired. And, bring in more specialized programs, more special ed programs, bring back an even better virtual program and so much more and still have money to spare.

Easy to say harder to do. What exactly are you changing in order to spend more differently? Where are the more specialized programs going and who is going to staff/run them?

I’d go line by line and see where the waste is. Start with the non profits and unnecessary extras. Fix the bus contract situation. Get rid of central office staff and overhead. You need to hire better staff.

[Anonymous]

Which one of these candidates align the most with these:

1. Restoring discipline and setting high behavior expectations. Students who are violent or consistently disruptive shouldn’t remain in the classroom. Repeat offenders should only be allowed back in person after demonstrating they can handle it—virtual learning should be the only alternative for them; NOT moving them to another school.

2. Reinstating tracking. Students who are falling behind should be given specialized instruction and tutoring outside of mainstream classes to help them catch up.

3. Reintroduce free tutoring. These were effective in the past and should make a return.

4. Requiring students in all grades to read full books, not just excerpts, in English classes.

5. Celebrating/Highlighting student achievements and excellence. Bring back valedictorians and honors recognition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I watched the debate. Based on it, I am going to vote for Montoya, Zimmerman, and Stewart. I don't particularly like Stewart, but she is better than Evans. The other two I feel better about.

Stewart is horrible. She treats people badly, she lies and is [b[part of all the mismanagement.[/b]

She's not on the board. Maybe you are thinking about Evans, the incumbent she's up against?

Yes, sorry thanks for fixing that.

It’s hard to believe that the Apple Ballot endorsed Evans when she first ran. I wonder how it got it so wrong about a candidate. I always thought the Apple Ballot endorsed the best of the best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I watched the debate. Based on it, I am going to vote for Montoya, Zimmerman, and Stewart. I don't particularly like Stewart, but she is better than Evans. The other two I feel better about.

Stewart is horrible. She treats people badly, she lies and is [b[part of all the mismanagement.[/b]

She's not on the board. Maybe you are thinking about Evans, the incumbent she's up against?

Yes, sorry thanks for fixing that.

It’s hard to believe that the Apple Ballot endorsed Evans when she first ran. I wonder how it got it so wrong about a candidate. I always thought the Apple Ballot endorsed the best of the best.

Apple ballot does not endorse the best candidates.
-MCEA member.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I watched the debate. Based on it, I am going to vote for Montoya, Zimmerman, and Stewart. I don't particularly like Stewart, but she is better than Evans. The other two I feel better about.

Stewart is horrible. She treats people badly, she lies and is [b[part of all the mismanagement.[/b]

She's not on the board. Maybe you are thinking about Evans, the incumbent she's up against?

Yes, sorry thanks for fixing that.

It’s hard to believe that the Apple Ballot endorsed Evans when she first ran. I wonder how it got it so wrong about a candidate. I always thought the Apple Ballot endorsed the best of the best.

Apple ballot does not endorse the best candidates.
-MCEA member.

Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. Decide on a case-by-case basis.