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:

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:I'll take satisfaction in Harris being gone. She makes me want to slap someone.

Just wait till you see the new ones.

It was a bad choice vs. bad choice.

The losers are the students.

If you want better candidates, make the positions a reasonably attractive occupation by affording compensation similar to that which would be garnered from alternate job opportunities for those with the level of education and experience that would meet your expectations for a well qualified candidate.

+1

The BOE sucks and it's a structural issue stemming from the expectation people (predominantly women) should work for peanuts.

Boards are generally volunteer jobs with stipends.

That makes sense for a small or medium nonprofit, not a multi billion dollar school system

You get what you pay for

The state sets the stipend and why should they get more than teachers and work full time jobs.

So we get better board members. These new ones are awful.

? they haven't even started yet. Clearly the existing ones weren't great, either. No one knows if the new ones will be worse. No, we really don't know, but I think people are willing to give the new ones a try because the existing ones were awful for many years.

We don't know for certain that they'll be worse, but based on their remarks and experiences to date, we can be pretty certain that they won't be better.

I'm sure that the out going BOE members didn't have much experience in running a large, expensive school district prior to starting, and they have also probably made some questionable comments. Certainly, they've made questionable decisions as BOE members.

As stated, people want change. I guess people felt that the outgoing BOE members were so bad that no one else could be worse.

Too many scandals in the past few years under their and previous supe's leadership.

Yes, people want change, but that change can be worse if you're not careful. Look what happened at the top of the ballot. We're seeing a different version of that here at the local level.

There is no reason to believe that Montoya, Stewart, and Zimmerman will vote on BOE issues differently than Harris, Evans, and Smondrowski did.

I agree with you with regard to Stewart. She is a go-along, get-along kind of girl. But Montoya and Zimmerman have demonstrated that they are willing to challenge the status quo.

How have they demonstrated anything like that yet?

In terms of their responses in various candidate forums. They specifically answered questions about how they'd approach a variety of topics differently compared to the way the current board has.

OK, but that's more a demonstration of them answering a question at a forum, not them challenging the status quo. Let's see how they perform once they're on the board.

Obviously. Doesn't dispute the point I was making which is that the incoming BOE candidates have displayed a propensity to challenge the status quo. Whether they actually will act in that remains to be seen. But that propensity is why voters chose them over the incumbents.

I think the voters chose them because they were on the Apple Ballot and they didn't know anything else about them.

Maybe, but I think people were mostly just voting against incumbents because they were just mad and not thinking rationally. Up and down the ballot.

That could also explain MCEA's thinking.

No, they made it clear they were coming after everyone that moved to reopen schools.

Stop making stuff up.. MCEA's responsibilty is to the teachers. They are a teachers union and thats what they are paid to do.

Which is why MCEA doesn't belong anywhere near the Board.

And yes, of course they made it clear. Their initial attacks against McKnight were clearly over reopening. And they started threatening the school board members then, too.

These endorsements were more a post-Beidelman/McKnight inevitability than anything about reopening.

It's hard to say how much that impacted it after the fact, but we know they were going to do it before due to reopening.

That was in 2022, when they also didn't endorse incumbents.

That's one of the many reasons you know this has always been about reopening.

2022 reasons are not 2024 reasons.

They are. There were just more reasons in 2024. But they demonstrated in 2021 and 2022 that they were going to come after everyone involved in reopening.

Instead of listening to anonymous DCUM posters, I'm listening to David Stein, who made the case to the BOE quite clearly in his own words this week:

"Montgomery County voters clearly value and respect the views of educators in a way, quite frankly, that this board and district administration have not always done. We are the ones closest to the work. We are the ones who see the problems vividly and immediately. When educators tell you through climate surveys or otherwise that there are morale issues in certain workplaces, when we tell you that there are problems with the curriculum and services that we are delivering to students, when we tell you we don’t have enough time and we don’t have enough control over the time we do have, when we tell you our physical environments are unhealthy and unsafe, you need to listen. And then you need to act because listening is not enough. And work with us to develop solutions even when those solutions are hard and expensive."

https://montgomeryperspective.com/2024/11/08/mcea-president-sends-a-message-to-the-school-board/

Thank you for continuing to demonstrate my points. You see the union president who was behind Zimmerman's campaign threatening the other board members.

His doing his job. The board members should do theirs too.

The Board's job is to watch out for students. Or, at least, it should be. It's now stacked with people that will prioritize teachers over students, because MCEA doesn't know how to do their job any other way.

If you drive away the good teachers, or are unable to hire any new ones, how is that watching out for students? Teachers are the best people that work for MCPS. Why you are so antagonistic towards them I will never understand.

Teachers aren't the problem. MCEA is. And they do a terrible job watching out for teachers-- particularly those individuals and positions with the greatest needs.

[Anonymous]

As a longtime parent, I support each of Stein's points as efforts to improve conditions for both students and teachers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a longtime parent, I support each of Stein's points as efforts to improve conditions for both students and teachers.

Just wait until you find out what they actually want to do about them. I hope you like early release days and continued staff shortages.

Though, if you're a long-time parent, uou probably aren't going to have kids in system for much longer, so you won't have to deal with the long-term consequences.

[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:

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:I'll take satisfaction in Harris being gone. She makes me want to slap someone.

Just wait till you see the new ones.

It was a bad choice vs. bad choice.

The losers are the students.

If you want better candidates, make the positions a reasonably attractive occupation by affording compensation similar to that which would be garnered from alternate job opportunities for those with the level of education and experience that would meet your expectations for a well qualified candidate.

+1

The BOE sucks and it's a structural issue stemming from the expectation people (predominantly women) should work for peanuts.

Boards are generally volunteer jobs with stipends.

That makes sense for a small or medium nonprofit, not a multi billion dollar school system

You get what you pay for

The state sets the stipend and why should they get more than teachers and work full time jobs.

So we get better board members. These new ones are awful.

? they haven't even started yet. Clearly the existing ones weren't great, either. No one knows if the new ones will be worse. No, we really don't know, but I think people are willing to give the new ones a try because the existing ones were awful for many years.

We don't know for certain that they'll be worse, but based on their remarks and experiences to date, we can be pretty certain that they won't be better.

I'm sure that the out going BOE members didn't have much experience in running a large, expensive school district prior to starting, and they have also probably made some questionable comments. Certainly, they've made questionable decisions as BOE members.

As stated, people want change. I guess people felt that the outgoing BOE members were so bad that no one else could be worse.

Too many scandals in the past few years under their and previous supe's leadership.

Yes, people want change, but that change can be worse if you're not careful. Look what happened at the top of the ballot. We're seeing a different version of that here at the local level.

There is no reason to believe that Montoya, Stewart, and Zimmerman will vote on BOE issues differently than Harris, Evans, and Smondrowski did.

I agree with you with regard to Stewart. She is a go-along, get-along kind of girl. But Montoya and Zimmerman have demonstrated that they are willing to challenge the status quo.

How have they demonstrated anything like that yet?

In terms of their responses in various candidate forums. They specifically answered questions about how they'd approach a variety of topics differently compared to the way the current board has.

OK, but that's more a demonstration of them answering a question at a forum, not them challenging the status quo. Let's see how they perform once they're on the board.

Obviously. Doesn't dispute the point I was making which is that the incoming BOE candidates have displayed a propensity to challenge the status quo. Whether they actually will act in that remains to be seen. But that propensity is why voters chose them over the incumbents.

I think the voters chose them because they were on the Apple Ballot and they didn't know anything else about them.

Maybe, but I think people were mostly just voting against incumbents because they were just mad and not thinking rationally. Up and down the ballot.

That could also explain MCEA's thinking.

No, they made it clear they were coming after everyone that moved to reopen schools.

Stop making stuff up.. MCEA's responsibilty is to the teachers. They are a teachers union and thats what they are paid to do.

Which is why MCEA doesn't belong anywhere near the Board.

And yes, of course they made it clear. Their initial attacks against McKnight were clearly over reopening. And they started threatening the school board members then, too.

These endorsements were more a post-Beidelman/McKnight inevitability than anything about reopening.

It's hard to say how much that impacted it after the fact, but we know they were going to do it before due to reopening.

That was in 2022, when they also didn't endorse incumbents.

That's one of the many reasons you know this has always been about reopening.

2022 reasons are not 2024 reasons.

They are. There were just more reasons in 2024. But they demonstrated in 2021 and 2022 that they were going to come after everyone involved in reopening.

Instead of listening to anonymous DCUM posters, I'm listening to David Stein, who made the case to the BOE quite clearly in his own words this week:

"Montgomery County voters clearly value and respect the views of educators in a way, quite frankly, that this board and district administration have not always done. We are the ones closest to the work. We are the ones who see the problems vividly and immediately. When educators tell you through climate surveys or otherwise that there are morale issues in certain workplaces, when we tell you that there are problems with the curriculum and services that we are delivering to students, when we tell you we don’t have enough time and we don’t have enough control over the time we do have, when we tell you our physical environments are unhealthy and unsafe, you need to listen. And then you need to act because listening is not enough. And work with us to develop solutions even when those solutions are hard and expensive."

https://montgomeryperspective.com/2024/11/08/mcea-president-sends-a-message-to-the-school-board/

Thank you for continuing to demonstrate my points. You see the union president who was behind Zimmerman's campaign threatening the other board members.

His doing his job. The board members should do theirs too.

The Board's job is to watch out for students. Or, at least, it should be. It's now stacked with people that will prioritize teachers over students, because MCEA doesn't know how to do their job any other way.

If you drive away the good teachers, or are unable to hire any new ones, how is that watching out for students? Teachers are the best people that work for MCPS. Why you are so antagonistic towards them I will never understand.

Teachers aren't the problem. MCEA is. And they do a terrible job watching out for teachers-- particularly those individuals and positions with the greatest needs.

I don't believe this so would like it if you could be more specific. How does MCEA not look out for teachers? Teachers have crazy good benefits compared to the private sector which is largely because of MCEA so I'm skeptical.

[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:

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:I'll take satisfaction in Harris being gone. She makes me want to slap someone.

Just wait till you see the new ones.

It was a bad choice vs. bad choice.

The losers are the students.

If you want better candidates, make the positions a reasonably attractive occupation by affording compensation similar to that which would be garnered from alternate job opportunities for those with the level of education and experience that would meet your expectations for a well qualified candidate.

+1

The BOE sucks and it's a structural issue stemming from the expectation people (predominantly women) should work for peanuts.

Boards are generally volunteer jobs with stipends.

That makes sense for a small or medium nonprofit, not a multi billion dollar school system

You get what you pay for

The state sets the stipend and why should they get more than teachers and work full time jobs.

So we get better board members. These new ones are awful.

? they haven't even started yet. Clearly the existing ones weren't great, either. No one knows if the new ones will be worse. No, we really don't know, but I think people are willing to give the new ones a try because the existing ones were awful for many years.

We don't know for certain that they'll be worse, but based on their remarks and experiences to date, we can be pretty certain that they won't be better.

I'm sure that the out going BOE members didn't have much experience in running a large, expensive school district prior to starting, and they have also probably made some questionable comments. Certainly, they've made questionable decisions as BOE members.

As stated, people want change. I guess people felt that the outgoing BOE members were so bad that no one else could be worse.

Too many scandals in the past few years under their and previous supe's leadership.

Yes, people want change, but that change can be worse if you're not careful. Look what happened at the top of the ballot. We're seeing a different version of that here at the local level.

There is no reason to believe that Montoya, Stewart, and Zimmerman will vote on BOE issues differently than Harris, Evans, and Smondrowski did.

I agree with you with regard to Stewart. She is a go-along, get-along kind of girl. But Montoya and Zimmerman have demonstrated that they are willing to challenge the status quo.

How have they demonstrated anything like that yet?

In terms of their responses in various candidate forums. They specifically answered questions about how they'd approach a variety of topics differently compared to the way the current board has.

OK, but that's more a demonstration of them answering a question at a forum, not them challenging the status quo. Let's see how they perform once they're on the board.

Obviously. Doesn't dispute the point I was making which is that the incoming BOE candidates have displayed a propensity to challenge the status quo. Whether they actually will act in that remains to be seen. But that propensity is why voters chose them over the incumbents.

I think the voters chose them because they were on the Apple Ballot and they didn't know anything else about them.

Maybe, but I think people were mostly just voting against incumbents because they were just mad and not thinking rationally. Up and down the ballot.

That could also explain MCEA's thinking.

No, they made it clear they were coming after everyone that moved to reopen schools.

Stop making stuff up.. MCEA's responsibilty is to the teachers. They are a teachers union and thats what they are paid to do.

Which is why MCEA doesn't belong anywhere near the Board.

And yes, of course they made it clear. Their initial attacks against McKnight were clearly over reopening. And they started threatening the school board members then, too.

These endorsements were more a post-Beidelman/McKnight inevitability than anything about reopening.

It's hard to say how much that impacted it after the fact, but we know they were going to do it before due to reopening.

That was in 2022, when they also didn't endorse incumbents.

That's one of the many reasons you know this has always been about reopening.

2022 reasons are not 2024 reasons.

They are. There were just more reasons in 2024. But they demonstrated in 2021 and 2022 that they were going to come after everyone involved in reopening.

Instead of listening to anonymous DCUM posters, I'm listening to David Stein, who made the case to the BOE quite clearly in his own words this week:

"Montgomery County voters clearly value and respect the views of educators in a way, quite frankly, that this board and district administration have not always done. We are the ones closest to the work. We are the ones who see the problems vividly and immediately. When educators tell you through climate surveys or otherwise that there are morale issues in certain workplaces, when we tell you that there are problems with the curriculum and services that we are delivering to students, when we tell you we don’t have enough time and we don’t have enough control over the time we do have, when we tell you our physical environments are unhealthy and unsafe, you need to listen. And then you need to act because listening is not enough. And work with us to develop solutions even when those solutions are hard and expensive."

https://montgomeryperspective.com/2024/11/08/mcea-president-sends-a-message-to-the-school-board/

Thank you for continuing to demonstrate my points. You see the union president who was behind Zimmerman's campaign threatening the other board members.

His doing his job. The board members should do theirs too.

The Board's job is to watch out for students. Or, at least, it should be. It's now stacked with people that will prioritize teachers over students, because MCEA doesn't know how to do their job any other way.

If you drive away the good teachers, or are unable to hire any new ones, how is that watching out for students? Teachers are the best people that work for MCPS. Why you are so antagonistic towards them I will never understand.

Teachers aren't the problem. MCEA is. And they do a terrible job watching out for teachers-- particularly those individuals and positions with the greatest needs.

I don't believe this so would like it if you could be more specific. How does MCEA not look out for teachers? Teachers have crazy good benefits compared to the private sector which is largely because of MCEA so I'm skeptical.

The benefits are no longer "crazy 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:

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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll take satisfaction in Harris being gone. She makes me want to slap someone.

Just wait till you see the new ones.

It was a bad choice vs. bad choice.

The losers are the students.

If you want better candidates, make the positions a reasonably attractive occupation by affording compensation similar to that which would be garnered from alternate job opportunities for those with the level of education and experience that would meet your expectations for a well qualified candidate.

+1

The BOE sucks and it's a structural issue stemming from the expectation people (predominantly women) should work for peanuts.

Boards are generally volunteer jobs with stipends.

That makes sense for a small or medium nonprofit, not a multi billion dollar school system

You get what you pay for

The state sets the stipend and why should they get more than teachers and work full time jobs.

So we get better board members. These new ones are awful.

? they haven't even started yet. Clearly the existing ones weren't great, either. No one knows if the new ones will be worse. No, we really don't know, but I think people are willing to give the new ones a try because the existing ones were awful for many years.

We don't know for certain that they'll be worse, but based on their remarks and experiences to date, we can be pretty certain that they won't be better.

I'm sure that the out going BOE members didn't have much experience in running a large, expensive school district prior to starting, and they have also probably made some questionable comments. Certainly, they've made questionable decisions as BOE members.

As stated, people want change. I guess people felt that the outgoing BOE members were so bad that no one else could be worse.

Too many scandals in the past few years under their and previous supe's leadership.

Yes, people want change, but that change can be worse if you're not careful. Look what happened at the top of the ballot. We're seeing a different version of that here at the local level.

There is no reason to believe that Montoya, Stewart, and Zimmerman will vote on BOE issues differently than Harris, Evans, and Smondrowski did.

I agree with you with regard to Stewart. She is a go-along, get-along kind of girl. But Montoya and Zimmerman have demonstrated that they are willing to challenge the status quo.

How have they demonstrated anything like that yet?

In terms of their responses in various candidate forums. They specifically answered questions about how they'd approach a variety of topics differently compared to the way the current board has.

OK, but that's more a demonstration of them answering a question at a forum, not them challenging the status quo. Let's see how they perform once they're on the board.

Obviously. Doesn't dispute the point I was making which is that the incoming BOE candidates have displayed a propensity to challenge the status quo. Whether they actually will act in that remains to be seen. But that propensity is why voters chose them over the incumbents.

I think the voters chose them because they were on the Apple Ballot and they didn't know anything else about them.

Maybe, but I think people were mostly just voting against incumbents because they were just mad and not thinking rationally. Up and down the ballot.

That could also explain MCEA's thinking.

No, they made it clear they were coming after everyone that moved to reopen schools.

Stop making stuff up.. MCEA's responsibilty is to the teachers. They are a teachers union and thats what they are paid to do.

Which is why MCEA doesn't belong anywhere near the Board.

And yes, of course they made it clear. Their initial attacks against McKnight were clearly over reopening. And they started threatening the school board members then, too.

These endorsements were more a post-Beidelman/McKnight inevitability than anything about reopening.

It's hard to say how much that impacted it after the fact, but we know they were going to do it before due to reopening.

That was in 2022, when they also didn't endorse incumbents.

That's one of the many reasons you know this has always been about reopening.

2022 reasons are not 2024 reasons.

They are. There were just more reasons in 2024. But they demonstrated in 2021 and 2022 that they were going to come after everyone involved in reopening.

Instead of listening to anonymous DCUM posters, I'm listening to David Stein, who made the case to the BOE quite clearly in his own words this week:

"Montgomery County voters clearly value and respect the views of educators in a way, quite frankly, that this board and district administration have not always done. We are the ones closest to the work. We are the ones who see the problems vividly and immediately. When educators tell you through climate surveys or otherwise that there are morale issues in certain workplaces, when we tell you that there are problems with the curriculum and services that we are delivering to students, when we tell you we don’t have enough time and we don’t have enough control over the time we do have, when we tell you our physical environments are unhealthy and unsafe, you need to listen. And then you need to act because listening is not enough. And work with us to develop solutions even when those solutions are hard and expensive."

https://montgomeryperspective.com/2024/11/08/mcea-president-sends-a-message-to-the-school-board/

Thank you for continuing to demonstrate my points. You see the union president who was behind Zimmerman's campaign threatening the other board members.

His doing his job. The board members should do theirs too.

The Board's job is to watch out for students. Or, at least, it should be. It's now stacked with people that will prioritize teachers over students, because MCEA doesn't know how to do their job any other way.

If you drive away the good teachers, or are unable to hire any new ones, how is that watching out for students? Teachers are the best people that work for MCPS. Why you are so antagonistic towards them I will never understand.

Teachers aren't the problem. MCEA is. And they do a terrible job watching out for teachers-- particularly those individuals and positions with the greatest needs.

I don't believe this so would like it if you could be more specific. How does MCEA not look out for teachers? Teachers have crazy good benefits compared to the private sector which is largely because of MCEA so I'm skeptical.

The benefits are no longer "crazy good."

The benefits are quite good compared to the vast majority of public and private sector jobs. Health benefits in particular. I don't find the retirement package compelling. Pensions are nice in theory, but it is structured to force teachers to stay in the system. Defined-contribution plan would seen to be better for nearly everyone.

The problem is the pay. Veteran teachers get paid pretty well, but starting salaries are awful, particularly given that they're doing to same thing as people getting paid 2x as much.

And for some posititions, like STEM subjects, the pay is particularly bad in comparison to other jobs.

Workload is a huge problem, too. Particularly once you get into middle and high school, every teacher I know covering core classes works ridiculous hours to keep up with grading.

There are real problems that need to be addressed, but MCEA is more interested in maintaining the status quo to the benefit of veteran teachers who will retire in the next decade, rather than making the necessary structural changes to put us on a better course long-term.

[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:

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:I'll take satisfaction in Harris being gone. She makes me want to slap someone.

Just wait till you see the new ones.

It was a bad choice vs. bad choice.

The losers are the students.

If you want better candidates, make the positions a reasonably attractive occupation by affording compensation similar to that which would be garnered from alternate job opportunities for those with the level of education and experience that would meet your expectations for a well qualified candidate.

+1

The BOE sucks and it's a structural issue stemming from the expectation people (predominantly women) should work for peanuts.

Boards are generally volunteer jobs with stipends.

That makes sense for a small or medium nonprofit, not a multi billion dollar school system

You get what you pay for

The state sets the stipend and why should they get more than teachers and work full time jobs.

So we get better board members. These new ones are awful.

? they haven't even started yet. Clearly the existing ones weren't great, either. No one knows if the new ones will be worse. No, we really don't know, but I think people are willing to give the new ones a try because the existing ones were awful for many years.

We don't know for certain that they'll be worse, but based on their remarks and experiences to date, we can be pretty certain that they won't be better.

I'm sure that the out going BOE members didn't have much experience in running a large, expensive school district prior to starting, and they have also probably made some questionable comments. Certainly, they've made questionable decisions as BOE members.

As stated, people want change. I guess people felt that the outgoing BOE members were so bad that no one else could be worse.

Too many scandals in the past few years under their and previous supe's leadership.

Yes, people want change, but that change can be worse if you're not careful. Look what happened at the top of the ballot. We're seeing a different version of that here at the local level.

There is no reason to believe that Montoya, Stewart, and Zimmerman will vote on BOE issues differently than Harris, Evans, and Smondrowski did.

I agree with you with regard to Stewart. She is a go-along, get-along kind of girl. But Montoya and Zimmerman have demonstrated that they are willing to challenge the status quo.

How have they demonstrated anything like that yet?

In terms of their responses in various candidate forums. They specifically answered questions about how they'd approach a variety of topics differently compared to the way the current board has.

OK, but that's more a demonstration of them answering a question at a forum, not them challenging the status quo. Let's see how they perform once they're on the board.

Obviously. Doesn't dispute the point I was making which is that the incoming BOE candidates have displayed a propensity to challenge the status quo. Whether they actually will act in that remains to be seen. But that propensity is why voters chose them over the incumbents.

I think the voters chose them because they were on the Apple Ballot and they didn't know anything else about them.

Maybe, but I think people were mostly just voting against incumbents because they were just mad and not thinking rationally. Up and down the ballot.

That could also explain MCEA's thinking.

No, they made it clear they were coming after everyone that moved to reopen schools.

Stop making stuff up.. MCEA's responsibilty is to the teachers. They are a teachers union and thats what they are paid to do.

Which is why MCEA doesn't belong anywhere near the Board.

And yes, of course they made it clear. Their initial attacks against McKnight were clearly over reopening. And they started threatening the school board members then, too.

These endorsements were more a post-Beidelman/McKnight inevitability than anything about reopening.

It's hard to say how much that impacted it after the fact, but we know they were going to do it before due to reopening.

That was in 2022, when they also didn't endorse incumbents.

That's one of the many reasons you know this has always been about reopening.

2022 reasons are not 2024 reasons.

They are. There were just more reasons in 2024. But they demonstrated in 2021 and 2022 that they were going to come after everyone involved in reopening.

Instead of listening to anonymous DCUM posters, I'm listening to David Stein, who made the case to the BOE quite clearly in his own words this week:

"Montgomery County voters clearly value and respect the views of educators in a way, quite frankly, that this board and district administration have not always done. We are the ones closest to the work. We are the ones who see the problems vividly and immediately. When educators tell you through climate surveys or otherwise that there are morale issues in certain workplaces, when we tell you that there are problems with the curriculum and services that we are delivering to students, when we tell you we don’t have enough time and we don’t have enough control over the time we do have, when we tell you our physical environments are unhealthy and unsafe, you need to listen. And then you need to act because listening is not enough. And work with us to develop solutions even when those solutions are hard and expensive."

https://montgomeryperspective.com/2024/11/08/mcea-president-sends-a-message-to-the-school-board/

Thank you for continuing to demonstrate my points. You see the union president who was behind Zimmerman's campaign threatening the other board members.

His doing his job. The board members should do theirs too.

The Board's job is to watch out for students. Or, at least, it should be. It's now stacked with people that will prioritize teachers over students, because MCEA doesn't know how to do their job any other way.

If you drive away the good teachers, or are unable to hire any new ones, how is that watching out for students? Teachers are the best people that work for MCPS. Why you are so antagonistic towards them I will never understand.

Teachers aren't the problem. MCEA is. And they do a terrible job watching out for teachers-- particularly those individuals and positions with the greatest needs.

I don't believe this so would like it if you could be more specific. How does MCEA not look out for teachers? Teachers have crazy good benefits compared to the private sector which is largely because of MCEA so I'm skeptical.

Everything MCEA does is focused on maximizing the benefit to veteran teachers in social sciences/elementary positions. While there are recruiting and retention challenges for all positions, those aren't the areas at greatest need. The focus on pay raises for those positions detracts from more focused changes that would have a greater impact.

MCEA should be working to replace the current pension program with a defined contribution program. They know many teachers aren't going to stick around long enough to get a good deal from the pension.

MCEA should be broadly focusing on workload reduction, not salary increases. People aren't going to go into teaching if they know they're going to be up until 9pm grading papers and math assignments every night. Veteran teachers tend to do robotically, and often with less effort and thought than their younger colleagues. Providing additional support for grading would mean less money for teacher salaries, but that is a good tradeoff long-term.

MCEA should focus limited money for salary increases for positions with the most significant recruiting challenges, creating different pay schedules for things like STEM and SPED.

These changes would benefit the system, students, and even teachers long-term. But because they might lead to lower salary increases for senior MCEA leaders, they won't allow 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:

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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll take satisfaction in Harris being gone. She makes me want to slap someone.

Just wait till you see the new ones.

It was a bad choice vs. bad choice.

The losers are the students.

If you want better candidates, make the positions a reasonably attractive occupation by affording compensation similar to that which would be garnered from alternate job opportunities for those with the level of education and experience that would meet your expectations for a well qualified candidate.

+1

The BOE sucks and it's a structural issue stemming from the expectation people (predominantly women) should work for peanuts.

Boards are generally volunteer jobs with stipends.

That makes sense for a small or medium nonprofit, not a multi billion dollar school system

You get what you pay for

The state sets the stipend and why should they get more than teachers and work full time jobs.

So we get better board members. These new ones are awful.

? they haven't even started yet. Clearly the existing ones weren't great, either. No one knows if the new ones will be worse. No, we really don't know, but I think people are willing to give the new ones a try because the existing ones were awful for many years.

We don't know for certain that they'll be worse, but based on their remarks and experiences to date, we can be pretty certain that they won't be better.

I'm sure that the out going BOE members didn't have much experience in running a large, expensive school district prior to starting, and they have also probably made some questionable comments. Certainly, they've made questionable decisions as BOE members.

As stated, people want change. I guess people felt that the outgoing BOE members were so bad that no one else could be worse.

Too many scandals in the past few years under their and previous supe's leadership.

Yes, people want change, but that change can be worse if you're not careful. Look what happened at the top of the ballot. We're seeing a different version of that here at the local level.

There is no reason to believe that Montoya, Stewart, and Zimmerman will vote on BOE issues differently than Harris, Evans, and Smondrowski did.

I agree with you with regard to Stewart. She is a go-along, get-along kind of girl. But Montoya and Zimmerman have demonstrated that they are willing to challenge the status quo.

How have they demonstrated anything like that yet?

In terms of their responses in various candidate forums. They specifically answered questions about how they'd approach a variety of topics differently compared to the way the current board has.

OK, but that's more a demonstration of them answering a question at a forum, not them challenging the status quo. Let's see how they perform once they're on the board.

Obviously. Doesn't dispute the point I was making which is that the incoming BOE candidates have displayed a propensity to challenge the status quo. Whether they actually will act in that remains to be seen. But that propensity is why voters chose them over the incumbents.

I think the voters chose them because they were on the Apple Ballot and they didn't know anything else about them.

Maybe, but I think people were mostly just voting against incumbents because they were just mad and not thinking rationally. Up and down the ballot.

That could also explain MCEA's thinking.

No, they made it clear they were coming after everyone that moved to reopen schools.

Stop making stuff up.. MCEA's responsibilty is to the teachers. They are a teachers union and thats what they are paid to do.

Which is why MCEA doesn't belong anywhere near the Board.

And yes, of course they made it clear. Their initial attacks against McKnight were clearly over reopening. And they started threatening the school board members then, too.

These endorsements were more a post-Beidelman/McKnight inevitability than anything about reopening.

It's hard to say how much that impacted it after the fact, but we know they were going to do it before due to reopening.

That was in 2022, when they also didn't endorse incumbents.

That's one of the many reasons you know this has always been about reopening.

2022 reasons are not 2024 reasons.

They are. There were just more reasons in 2024. But they demonstrated in 2021 and 2022 that they were going to come after everyone involved in reopening.

Instead of listening to anonymous DCUM posters, I'm listening to David Stein, who made the case to the BOE quite clearly in his own words this week:

"Montgomery County voters clearly value and respect the views of educators in a way, quite frankly, that this board and district administration have not always done. We are the ones closest to the work. We are the ones who see the problems vividly and immediately. When educators tell you through climate surveys or otherwise that there are morale issues in certain workplaces, when we tell you that there are problems with the curriculum and services that we are delivering to students, when we tell you we don’t have enough time and we don’t have enough control over the time we do have, when we tell you our physical environments are unhealthy and unsafe, you need to listen. And then you need to act because listening is not enough. And work with us to develop solutions even when those solutions are hard and expensive."

https://montgomeryperspective.com/2024/11/08/mcea-president-sends-a-message-to-the-school-board/

Thank you for continuing to demonstrate my points. You see the union president who was behind Zimmerman's campaign threatening the other board members.

His doing his job. The board members should do theirs too.

The Board's job is to watch out for students. Or, at least, it should be. It's now stacked with people that will prioritize teachers over students, because MCEA doesn't know how to do their job any other way.

If you drive away the good teachers, or are unable to hire any new ones, how is that watching out for students? Teachers are the best people that work for MCPS. Why you are so antagonistic towards them I will never understand.

Teachers aren't the problem. MCEA is. And they do a terrible job watching out for teachers-- particularly those individuals and positions with the greatest needs.

I don't believe this so would like it if you could be more specific. How does MCEA not look out for teachers? Teachers have crazy good benefits compared to the private sector which is largely because of MCEA so I'm skeptical.

The benefits are no longer "crazy good."

Compared to private and county they are. And pay is reasonable given it’s a ten month job.

[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:

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:I'll take satisfaction in Harris being gone. She makes me want to slap someone.

Just wait till you see the new ones.

It was a bad choice vs. bad choice.

The losers are the students.

If you want better candidates, make the positions a reasonably attractive occupation by affording compensation similar to that which would be garnered from alternate job opportunities for those with the level of education and experience that would meet your expectations for a well qualified candidate.

+1

The BOE sucks and it's a structural issue stemming from the expectation people (predominantly women) should work for peanuts.

Boards are generally volunteer jobs with stipends.

That makes sense for a small or medium nonprofit, not a multi billion dollar school system

You get what you pay for

The state sets the stipend and why should they get more than teachers and work full time jobs.

So we get better board members. These new ones are awful.

? they haven't even started yet. Clearly the existing ones weren't great, either. No one knows if the new ones will be worse. No, we really don't know, but I think people are willing to give the new ones a try because the existing ones were awful for many years.

We don't know for certain that they'll be worse, but based on their remarks and experiences to date, we can be pretty certain that they won't be better.

I'm sure that the out going BOE members didn't have much experience in running a large, expensive school district prior to starting, and they have also probably made some questionable comments. Certainly, they've made questionable decisions as BOE members.

As stated, people want change. I guess people felt that the outgoing BOE members were so bad that no one else could be worse.

Too many scandals in the past few years under their and previous supe's leadership.

Yes, people want change, but that change can be worse if you're not careful. Look what happened at the top of the ballot. We're seeing a different version of that here at the local level.

There is no reason to believe that Montoya, Stewart, and Zimmerman will vote on BOE issues differently than Harris, Evans, and Smondrowski did.

I agree with you with regard to Stewart. She is a go-along, get-along kind of girl. But Montoya and Zimmerman have demonstrated that they are willing to challenge the status quo.

How have they demonstrated anything like that yet?

In terms of their responses in various candidate forums. They specifically answered questions about how they'd approach a variety of topics differently compared to the way the current board has.

OK, but that's more a demonstration of them answering a question at a forum, not them challenging the status quo. Let's see how they perform once they're on the board.

Obviously. Doesn't dispute the point I was making which is that the incoming BOE candidates have displayed a propensity to challenge the status quo. Whether they actually will act in that remains to be seen. But that propensity is why voters chose them over the incumbents.

I think the voters chose them because they were on the Apple Ballot and they didn't know anything else about them.

Maybe, but I think people were mostly just voting against incumbents because they were just mad and not thinking rationally. Up and down the ballot.

That could also explain MCEA's thinking.

No, they made it clear they were coming after everyone that moved to reopen schools.

Stop making stuff up.. MCEA's responsibilty is to the teachers. They are a teachers union and thats what they are paid to do.

Which is why MCEA doesn't belong anywhere near the Board.

And yes, of course they made it clear. Their initial attacks against McKnight were clearly over reopening. And they started threatening the school board members then, too.

These endorsements were more a post-Beidelman/McKnight inevitability than anything about reopening.

It's hard to say how much that impacted it after the fact, but we know they were going to do it before due to reopening.

That was in 2022, when they also didn't endorse incumbents.

That's one of the many reasons you know this has always been about reopening.

2022 reasons are not 2024 reasons.

They are. There were just more reasons in 2024. But they demonstrated in 2021 and 2022 that they were going to come after everyone involved in reopening.

Instead of listening to anonymous DCUM posters, I'm listening to David Stein, who made the case to the BOE quite clearly in his own words this week:

"Montgomery County voters clearly value and respect the views of educators in a way, quite frankly, that this board and district administration have not always done. We are the ones closest to the work. We are the ones who see the problems vividly and immediately. When educators tell you through climate surveys or otherwise that there are morale issues in certain workplaces, when we tell you that there are problems with the curriculum and services that we are delivering to students, when we tell you we don’t have enough time and we don’t have enough control over the time we do have, when we tell you our physical environments are unhealthy and unsafe, you need to listen. And then you need to act because listening is not enough. And work with us to develop solutions even when those solutions are hard and expensive."

https://montgomeryperspective.com/2024/11/08/mcea-president-sends-a-message-to-the-school-board/

Thank you for continuing to demonstrate my points. You see the union president who was behind Zimmerman's campaign threatening the other board members.

His doing his job. The board members should do theirs too.

The Board's job is to watch out for students. Or, at least, it should be. It's now stacked with people that will prioritize teachers over students, because MCEA doesn't know how to do their job any other way.

If you drive away the good teachers, or are unable to hire any new ones, how is that watching out for students? Teachers are the best people that work for MCPS. Why you are so antagonistic towards them I will never understand.

Teachers aren't the problem. MCEA is. And they do a terrible job watching out for teachers-- particularly those individuals and positions with the greatest needs.

I don't believe this so would like it if you could be more specific. How does MCEA not look out for teachers? Teachers have crazy good benefits compared to the private sector which is largely because of MCEA so I'm skeptical.

The benefits are no longer "crazy good."

The benefits are quite good compared to the vast majority of public and private sector jobs. Health benefits in particular. I don't find the retirement package compelling. Pensions are nice in theory, but it is structured to force teachers to stay in the system. Defined-contribution plan would seen to be better for nearly everyone.

The problem is the pay. Veteran teachers get paid pretty well, but starting salaries are awful, particularly given that they're doing to same thing as people getting paid 2x as much.

And for some posititions, like STEM subjects, the pay is particularly bad in comparison to other jobs.

Workload is a huge problem, too. Particularly once you get into middle and high school, every teacher I know covering core classes works ridiculous hours to keep up with grading.

There are real problems that need to be addressed, but MCEA is more interested in maintaining the status quo to the benefit of veteran teachers who will retire in the next decade, rather than making the necessary structural changes to put us on a better course long-term.

No one good in stem will teach regardless of the pay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Too bad MCEA didn't talk with any of Montoya's co-workers, also teachers, and now we're stuck with her on the Board

Given the current board she was the most not option.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll take satisfaction in Harris being gone. She makes me want to slap someone.

Just wait till you see the new ones.

It was a bad choice vs. bad choice.

The losers are the students.

If you want better candidates, make the positions a reasonably attractive occupation by affording compensation similar to that which would be garnered from alternate job opportunities for those with the level of education and experience that would meet your expectations for a well qualified candidate.

+1

The BOE sucks and it's a structural issue stemming from the expectation people (predominantly women) should work for peanuts.

Boards are generally volunteer jobs with stipends.

That makes sense for a small or medium nonprofit, not a multi billion dollar school system

You get what you pay for

The state sets the stipend and why should they get more than teachers and work full time jobs.

So we get better board members. These new ones are awful.

? they haven't even started yet. Clearly the existing ones weren't great, either. No one knows if the new ones will be worse. No, we really don't know, but I think people are willing to give the new ones a try because the existing ones were awful for many years.

We don't know for certain that they'll be worse, but based on their remarks and experiences to date, we can be pretty certain that they won't be better.

I'm sure that the out going BOE members didn't have much experience in running a large, expensive school district prior to starting, and they have also probably made some questionable comments. Certainly, they've made questionable decisions as BOE members.

As stated, people want change. I guess people felt that the outgoing BOE members were so bad that no one else could be worse.

Too many scandals in the past few years under their and previous supe's leadership.

Yes, people want change, but that change can be worse if you're not careful. Look what happened at the top of the ballot. We're seeing a different version of that here at the local level.

There is no reason to believe that Montoya, Stewart, and Zimmerman will vote on BOE issues differently than Harris, Evans, and Smondrowski did.

I agree with you with regard to Stewart. She is a go-along, get-along kind of girl. But Montoya and Zimmerman have demonstrated that they are willing to challenge the status quo.

How have they demonstrated anything like that yet?

In terms of their responses in various candidate forums. They specifically answered questions about how they'd approach a variety of topics differently compared to the way the current board has.

OK, but that's more a demonstration of them answering a question at a forum, not them challenging the status quo. Let's see how they perform once they're on the board.

Obviously. Doesn't dispute the point I was making which is that the incoming BOE candidates have displayed a propensity to challenge the status quo. Whether they actually will act in that remains to be seen. But that propensity is why voters chose them over the incumbents.

I think the voters chose them because they were on the Apple Ballot and they didn't know anything else about them.

Maybe, but I think people were mostly just voting against incumbents because they were just mad and not thinking rationally. Up and down the ballot.

That could also explain MCEA's thinking.

No, they made it clear they were coming after everyone that moved to reopen schools.

Stop making stuff up.. MCEA's responsibilty is to the teachers. They are a teachers union and thats what they are paid to do.

Which is why MCEA doesn't belong anywhere near the Board.

And yes, of course they made it clear. Their initial attacks against McKnight were clearly over reopening. And they started threatening the school board members then, too.

These endorsements were more a post-Beidelman/McKnight inevitability than anything about reopening.

It's hard to say how much that impacted it after the fact, but we know they were going to do it before due to reopening.

That was in 2022, when they also didn't endorse incumbents.

That's one of the many reasons you know this has always been about reopening.

2022 reasons are not 2024 reasons.

They are. There were just more reasons in 2024. But they demonstrated in 2021 and 2022 that they were going to come after everyone involved in reopening.

Instead of listening to anonymous DCUM posters, I'm listening to David Stein, who made the case to the BOE quite clearly in his own words this week:

"Montgomery County voters clearly value and respect the views of educators in a way, quite frankly, that this board and district administration have not always done. We are the ones closest to the work. We are the ones who see the problems vividly and immediately. When educators tell you through climate surveys or otherwise that there are morale issues in certain workplaces, when we tell you that there are problems with the curriculum and services that we are delivering to students, when we tell you we don’t have enough time and we don’t have enough control over the time we do have, when we tell you our physical environments are unhealthy and unsafe, you need to listen. And then you need to act because listening is not enough. And work with us to develop solutions even when those solutions are hard and expensive."

https://montgomeryperspective.com/2024/11/08/mcea-president-sends-a-message-to-the-school-board/

Thank you for continuing to demonstrate my points. You see the union president who was behind Zimmerman's campaign threatening the other board members.

It's not about reopening. Move on with your life.

They threatened Board members over reopening, and MCEA just made it clear they're going to act on their threats. Yes, reopening was a major part of this. They want to be prepared for their next fights against students and parents.

It's almost 2025 and you're still going on and on about 2021. We have different problems to solve now.

[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:

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:I'll take satisfaction in Harris being gone. She makes me want to slap someone.

Just wait till you see the new ones.

It was a bad choice vs. bad choice.

The losers are the students.

If you want better candidates, make the positions a reasonably attractive occupation by affording compensation similar to that which would be garnered from alternate job opportunities for those with the level of education and experience that would meet your expectations for a well qualified candidate.

+1

The BOE sucks and it's a structural issue stemming from the expectation people (predominantly women) should work for peanuts.

Boards are generally volunteer jobs with stipends.

That makes sense for a small or medium nonprofit, not a multi billion dollar school system

You get what you pay for

The state sets the stipend and why should they get more than teachers and work full time jobs.

So we get better board members. These new ones are awful.

? they haven't even started yet. Clearly the existing ones weren't great, either. No one knows if the new ones will be worse. No, we really don't know, but I think people are willing to give the new ones a try because the existing ones were awful for many years.

We don't know for certain that they'll be worse, but based on their remarks and experiences to date, we can be pretty certain that they won't be better.

I'm sure that the out going BOE members didn't have much experience in running a large, expensive school district prior to starting, and they have also probably made some questionable comments. Certainly, they've made questionable decisions as BOE members.

As stated, people want change. I guess people felt that the outgoing BOE members were so bad that no one else could be worse.

Too many scandals in the past few years under their and previous supe's leadership.

Yes, people want change, but that change can be worse if you're not careful. Look what happened at the top of the ballot. We're seeing a different version of that here at the local level.

There is no reason to believe that Montoya, Stewart, and Zimmerman will vote on BOE issues differently than Harris, Evans, and Smondrowski did.

I agree with you with regard to Stewart. She is a go-along, get-along kind of girl. But Montoya and Zimmerman have demonstrated that they are willing to challenge the status quo.

How have they demonstrated anything like that yet?

In terms of their responses in various candidate forums. They specifically answered questions about how they'd approach a variety of topics differently compared to the way the current board has.

OK, but that's more a demonstration of them answering a question at a forum, not them challenging the status quo. Let's see how they perform once they're on the board.

Obviously. Doesn't dispute the point I was making which is that the incoming BOE candidates have displayed a propensity to challenge the status quo. Whether they actually will act in that remains to be seen. But that propensity is why voters chose them over the incumbents.

I think the voters chose them because they were on the Apple Ballot and they didn't know anything else about them.

Maybe, but I think people were mostly just voting against incumbents because they were just mad and not thinking rationally. Up and down the ballot.

That could also explain MCEA's thinking.

No, they made it clear they were coming after everyone that moved to reopen schools.

Stop making stuff up.. MCEA's responsibilty is to the teachers. They are a teachers union and thats what they are paid to do.

Which is why MCEA doesn't belong anywhere near the Board.

And yes, of course they made it clear. Their initial attacks against McKnight were clearly over reopening. And they started threatening the school board members then, too.

These endorsements were more a post-Beidelman/McKnight inevitability than anything about reopening.

It's hard to say how much that impacted it after the fact, but we know they were going to do it before due to reopening.

That was in 2022, when they also didn't endorse incumbents.

That's one of the many reasons you know this has always been about reopening.

2022 reasons are not 2024 reasons.

They are. There were just more reasons in 2024. But they demonstrated in 2021 and 2022 that they were going to come after everyone involved in reopening.

Instead of listening to anonymous DCUM posters, I'm listening to David Stein, who made the case to the BOE quite clearly in his own words this week:

"Montgomery County voters clearly value and respect the views of educators in a way, quite frankly, that this board and district administration have not always done. We are the ones closest to the work. We are the ones who see the problems vividly and immediately. When educators tell you through climate surveys or otherwise that there are morale issues in certain workplaces, when we tell you that there are problems with the curriculum and services that we are delivering to students, when we tell you we don’t have enough time and we don’t have enough control over the time we do have, when we tell you our physical environments are unhealthy and unsafe, you need to listen. And then you need to act because listening is not enough. And work with us to develop solutions even when those solutions are hard and expensive."

https://montgomeryperspective.com/2024/11/08/mcea-president-sends-a-message-to-the-school-board/

Thank you for continuing to demonstrate my points. You see the union president who was behind Zimmerman's campaign threatening the other board members.

It's not about reopening. Move on with your life.

They threatened Board members over reopening, and MCEA just made it clear they're going to act on their threats. Yes, reopening was a major part of this. They want to be prepared for their next fights against students and parents.

It's almost 2025 and you're still going on and on about 2021. We have different problems to solve now.

Yes, but we also need to avoid the mistakes of the past, and MCEA has never been willing to acknowledge their role in those from covid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a longtime parent, I support each of Stein's points as efforts to improve conditions for both students and teachers.

Just wait until you find out what they actually want to do about them. I hope you like early release days and continued staff shortages.

Though, if you're a long-time parent, uou probably aren't going to have kids in system for much longer, so you won't have to deal with the long-term consequences.

They need early release for grading and other things.

[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:

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:I'll take satisfaction in Harris being gone. She makes me want to slap someone.

Just wait till you see the new ones.

It was a bad choice vs. bad choice.

The losers are the students.

If you want better candidates, make the positions a reasonably attractive occupation by affording compensation similar to that which would be garnered from alternate job opportunities for those with the level of education and experience that would meet your expectations for a well qualified candidate.

+1

The BOE sucks and it's a structural issue stemming from the expectation people (predominantly women) should work for peanuts.

Boards are generally volunteer jobs with stipends.

That makes sense for a small or medium nonprofit, not a multi billion dollar school system

You get what you pay for

The state sets the stipend and why should they get more than teachers and work full time jobs.

So we get better board members. These new ones are awful.

? they haven't even started yet. Clearly the existing ones weren't great, either. No one knows if the new ones will be worse. No, we really don't know, but I think people are willing to give the new ones a try because the existing ones were awful for many years.

We don't know for certain that they'll be worse, but based on their remarks and experiences to date, we can be pretty certain that they won't be better.

I'm sure that the out going BOE members didn't have much experience in running a large, expensive school district prior to starting, and they have also probably made some questionable comments. Certainly, they've made questionable decisions as BOE members.

As stated, people want change. I guess people felt that the outgoing BOE members were so bad that no one else could be worse.

Too many scandals in the past few years under their and previous supe's leadership.

Yes, people want change, but that change can be worse if you're not careful. Look what happened at the top of the ballot. We're seeing a different version of that here at the local level.

There is no reason to believe that Montoya, Stewart, and Zimmerman will vote on BOE issues differently than Harris, Evans, and Smondrowski did.

I agree with you with regard to Stewart. She is a go-along, get-along kind of girl. But Montoya and Zimmerman have demonstrated that they are willing to challenge the status quo.

How have they demonstrated anything like that yet?

In terms of their responses in various candidate forums. They specifically answered questions about how they'd approach a variety of topics differently compared to the way the current board has.

OK, but that's more a demonstration of them answering a question at a forum, not them challenging the status quo. Let's see how they perform once they're on the board.

Obviously. Doesn't dispute the point I was making which is that the incoming BOE candidates have displayed a propensity to challenge the status quo. Whether they actually will act in that remains to be seen. But that propensity is why voters chose them over the incumbents.

I think the voters chose them because they were on the Apple Ballot and they didn't know anything else about them.

Maybe, but I think people were mostly just voting against incumbents because they were just mad and not thinking rationally. Up and down the ballot.

That could also explain MCEA's thinking.

No, they made it clear they were coming after everyone that moved to reopen schools.

Stop making stuff up.. MCEA's responsibilty is to the teachers. They are a teachers union and thats what they are paid to do.

Which is why MCEA doesn't belong anywhere near the Board.

And yes, of course they made it clear. Their initial attacks against McKnight were clearly over reopening. And they started threatening the school board members then, too.

These endorsements were more a post-Beidelman/McKnight inevitability than anything about reopening.

It's hard to say how much that impacted it after the fact, but we know they were going to do it before due to reopening.

That was in 2022, when they also didn't endorse incumbents.

That's one of the many reasons you know this has always been about reopening.

2022 reasons are not 2024 reasons.

They are. There were just more reasons in 2024. But they demonstrated in 2021 and 2022 that they were going to come after everyone involved in reopening.

Instead of listening to anonymous DCUM posters, I'm listening to David Stein, who made the case to the BOE quite clearly in his own words this week:

"Montgomery County voters clearly value and respect the views of educators in a way, quite frankly, that this board and district administration have not always done. We are the ones closest to the work. We are the ones who see the problems vividly and immediately. When educators tell you through climate surveys or otherwise that there are morale issues in certain workplaces, when we tell you that there are problems with the curriculum and services that we are delivering to students, when we tell you we don’t have enough time and we don’t have enough control over the time we do have, when we tell you our physical environments are unhealthy and unsafe, you need to listen. And then you need to act because listening is not enough. And work with us to develop solutions even when those solutions are hard and expensive."

https://montgomeryperspective.com/2024/11/08/mcea-president-sends-a-message-to-the-school-board/

Thank you for continuing to demonstrate my points. You see the union president who was behind Zimmerman's campaign threatening the other board members.

It's not about reopening. Move on with your life.

They threatened Board members over reopening, and MCEA just made it clear they're going to act on their threats. Yes, reopening was a major part of this. They want to be prepared for their next fights against students and parents.

It's almost 2025 and you're still going on and on about 2021. We have different problems to solve now.

Yes, but we also need to avoid the mistakes of the past, and MCEA has never been willing to acknowledge their role in those from covid.

They handled Covid fine. Don’t have kids if you cannot care for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a longtime parent, I support each of Stein's points as efforts to improve conditions for both students and teachers.

Just wait until you find out what they actually want to do about them. I hope you like early release days and continued staff shortages.

Though, if you're a long-time parent, uou probably aren't going to have kids in system for much longer, so you won't have to deal with the long-term consequences.

They need early release for grading and other things.

No, they need their workloads addressed, but reducing instructional hours for students shouldn't be part of that. MCEA prefers that path, though, because they also want to also push for pay increases.

Workload is the biggest problem for classroom teachers, not pay or benefits. If we can restructure pay and benefits, and cut some other programs, we could potentially reduce course loads and hire graders for teachers with significant grading tasks, and hire more paras for classroom support.

I bet most teachers would jump for that tradeoff (and its obviously better for students), but the limited consistuency that controls MCEA isn't going to let it happen. And these new board members don't serve teachers in general, they serve MCEA.