New Superintendent to be named on February 8th

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's gonna be Dr. McKnight. I can't imagine the BoE completely neutering her the final 4 1/2 months of her interim contract.

MCEA has no confidence in her. The Administrators Union wrote a scathing letter about her, but the incompetent BoE will turn their collective heads and hire her anyway.

Thank God I'm retiring!

I am floored that with the lack of planning for COVID, the chaotic return after winter break, one student murdered, one student shot in a school bathroom, a loaded gun found in another school, numerous fights, and combine those events with two unions casting a vote of no confidence, the BOE is going to give McKnight the permanent job??? The talent pool must have been real slim pickings.

Ugh.

The open at any cost was set by Smith, not McKnight. I'm not sure what she could have done about the violence when Smith took out the SRO's. We'll have to see what she chooses to do now. I am not a fan and would have preferred someone else but someone else just posted she is bring back the SRO's but calling them something different. Maybe she was just following Smith's agenda and to give her the benefit of the doubt since we are stuck with her, maybe she'll make some positive changes.

It would behoove McKnight and bolster her reputation if her boosters stopped coming in here to blatantly lie.

I do wonder how long they can carry on this game of blaming others for her missteps.

In an organization with more than 20,000 employees - most covered by employment contracts - is she directly responsible for everyone's behavior? Or does she attempt to manage with integrity, hire as well as possible, and do her best?

In an era when when a large number of vocal people want schools virtual and a different, large number of vocal people want schools in person how does she even begin to keep most people happy?

We live in sucky times. No leader will look good despite the best efforts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As far as I'm concerned, the people who insisted that the schools be closed to in-person learning for over a year - for whatever arbitrary reason - caused many of these problems (widening learning gap between the FARMS and non-FARMS, students suffering socially and mentally, etc.) and McKnight is doing her best to clean up. Clean up will take more than the few months she's been superintendent.

You're talking about the deadly pandemic that killed millions worldwide?

DP, who agrees with the PP about the impact of prolonged virtual. Both things can be true: the pandemic itself has caused enormous stress *and so have* the extreme mitigations MCPS/MoCo has insisted on. Both things are true.

Everyone who insisted that it was fine to force virtual for as long as MCPS did because "kids are resilient," well, guess what. They're not infinitely resilient, and many of the problems we're seeing result from the school system (and too many parents, frankly) insisting that they are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will tell who is running the schools and it is the principals. Principals get minimal from central office AT BEST! We have kept schools running with limited communication, directions, goals, and direction. Also, policies change literally in 10 minutes sometimes, and we have had to constantly be on unplanned calls to make amends to messages we need to send out, and calls and announcements to family when things do not arrive in a timely manner as promised (masks and tests). It has been VERY exhausting and I know many principals throwing in the towel. Don't believe me? Go to MCPS jobs and look at how many principals are looking to leave. If you are happy with your child's school, thank the principal. If you went to 10 MCPS schools, you will notice the very noticeable variants from school to school. No school has a uniform message, plan, and structure.

This is true. Principals have been very unhappy with central office

Agreed. Mcps treats principals like garbage

That's surprising given that Dr. McKnight is a former principal and nearly all of the central office chiefs and associate superintendents are themselves former principals.

Monifa McKnight, former principal Ridgeview MS
Jimmy D'Andrea, former principal Northwest HS
Ruschelle Reuben, former principal Benjamin Banneker MS
Damon Monteleone, former principal Richard Montgomery HS
James Koutsos, former principal Clarksburg HS
Diane Morris, former principal William H. Farquhar MS
Cheryl Dyson, former principal Strathmore ES
Niki Hazel, former principal Gaithersburg ES
Everett Davis, former principal Redland MS
Eugenia Dawson, former principal Earle B. Wood MS
Dana Edwards, former principal Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. MS
Stephanie Sheron, former principal Briggs Chaney MS
Pete Cevenini, former principal Charles County Public Schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As far as I'm concerned, the people who insisted that the schools be closed to in-person learning for over a year - for whatever arbitrary reason - caused many of these problems (widening learning gap between the FARMS and non-FARMS, students suffering socially and mentally, etc.) and McKnight is doing her best to clean up. Clean up will take more than the few months she's been superintendent.

You're talking about the deadly pandemic that killed millions worldwide?

DP, who agrees with the PP about the impact of prolonged virtual. Both things can be true: the pandemic itself has caused enormous stress *and so have* the extreme mitigations MCPS/MoCo has insisted on. Both things are true.

Everyone who insisted that it was fine to force virtual for as long as MCPS did because "kids are resilient," well, guess what. They're not infinitely resilient, and many of the problems we're seeing result from the school system (and too many parents, frankly) insisting that they are.

No, you are not resilient and don’t like having your kids around. Some kids have now been in it two years. I guess we have you to thank for the unsafe schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would really love to hear from any individual who was on that "community panel."

It looks good on paper, but how meaningful were the opportunities to learn about and engage with the candidates? Do they have a sense that their feedback was received by the Board and integrated into their decision-making process?

The "Unable to Attend" asterisk does not inspire confidence. Unable to attend what? A 2-hour zoom? What are we talking about, exactly?

And if the SEAC chairs were "unable to attend," was their input solicited -- and received -- in some other way? If not -- why not?

I'm kind of imagining a back-to-school-night-style zoom with each candidate giving a 10-minute presentation, then Q&A from the chat, and each group -- what -- filling out some google form with feedback within 24 hours?

Or something superficial and lame like that.

Tell me I'm wrong. I would really like to be wrong about this. genuinely.

The board doesn't care about the community panel and it was all for show. I sat on on one with for our school and while we got to see each of the candidates it was shocking how bad two of them were and no where near qualified. Another one would have been ok but clueless about the community of the school. None, but the acting, even seemed to look at the school website or do any research into the school at all.

That tells me that the other candidates were for show, more than that the community panels were...

Was this in fact like some sort of 2-hour Zoom?
Did you have an opportunity to provide feedback to the BOE? What was that like?

Thanks for sharing your responses, I really appreciate it!

We were not allowed to ask any questions or suggest any. We just listened and was given a form to fill out on our thoughts to each candidate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's gonna be Dr. McKnight. I can't imagine the BoE completely neutering her the final 4 1/2 months of her interim contract.

MCEA has no confidence in her. The Administrators Union wrote a scathing letter about her, but the incompetent BoE will turn their collective heads and hire her anyway.

Thank God I'm retiring!

I am floored that with the lack of planning for COVID, the chaotic return after winter break, one student murdered, one student shot in a school bathroom, a loaded gun found in another school, numerous fights, and combine those events with two unions casting a vote of no confidence, the BOE is going to give McKnight the permanent job??? The talent pool must have been real slim pickings.

Ugh.

The open at any cost was set by Smith, not McKnight. I'm not sure what she could have done about the violence when Smith took out the SRO's. We'll have to see what she chooses to do now. I am not a fan and would have preferred someone else but someone else just posted she is bring back the SRO's but calling them something different. Maybe she was just following Smith's agenda and to give her the benefit of the doubt since we are stuck with her, maybe she'll make some positive changes.

It would behoove McKnight and bolster her reputation if her boosters stopped coming in here to blatantly lie.

I do wonder how long they can carry on this game of blaming others for her missteps.

I am not a fan and would have preferred someone else. She was clearly a race hire which MoCo regularly does. But, she was stuck to make changes as interim and many of these policies were set up by Smith so I don’t think she is fully to blame.

[Anonymous]

Is it true that her kids are in PG private schools? A condition of employment should be that she must live in the county. She should then enroll her own kids in public.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would really love to hear from any individual who was on that "community panel."

It looks good on paper, but how meaningful were the opportunities to learn about and engage with the candidates? Do they have a sense that their feedback was received by the Board and integrated into their decision-making process?

The "Unable to Attend" asterisk does not inspire confidence. Unable to attend what? A 2-hour zoom? What are we talking about, exactly?

And if the SEAC chairs were "unable to attend," was their input solicited -- and received -- in some other way? If not -- why not?

I'm kind of imagining a back-to-school-night-style zoom with each candidate giving a 10-minute presentation, then Q&A from the chat, and each group -- what -- filling out some google form with feedback within 24 hours?

Or something superficial and lame like that.

Tell me I'm wrong. I would really like to be wrong about this. genuinely.

The board doesn't care about the community panel and it was all for show. I sat on on one with for our school and while we got to see each of the candidates it was shocking how bad two of them were and no where near qualified. Another one would have been ok but clueless about the community of the school. None, but the acting, even seemed to look at the school website or do any research into the school at all.

That tells me that the other candidates were for show, more than that the community panels were...

Was this in fact like some sort of 2-hour Zoom?
Did you have an opportunity to provide feedback to the BOE? What was that like?

Thanks for sharing your responses, I really appreciate it!

We were not allowed to ask any questions or suggest any. We just listened and was given a form to fill out on our thoughts to each candidate.

Damn. That's what I figured -- bit it's pretty disappointing.

I suspect that they scanned the feedback forms for any particularly nasty red flags, but mostly the "community panel" was there to make it look as if there was real community input.

Doesn't sound at all like there was, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would really love to hear from any individual who was on that "community panel."

It looks good on paper, but how meaningful were the opportunities to learn about and engage with the candidates? Do they have a sense that their feedback was received by the Board and integrated into their decision-making process?

The "Unable to Attend" asterisk does not inspire confidence. Unable to attend what? A 2-hour zoom? What are we talking about, exactly?

And if the SEAC chairs were "unable to attend," was their input solicited -- and received -- in some other way? If not -- why not?

I'm kind of imagining a back-to-school-night-style zoom with each candidate giving a 10-minute presentation, then Q&A from the chat, and each group -- what -- filling out some google form with feedback within 24 hours?

Or something superficial and lame like that.

Tell me I'm wrong. I would really like to be wrong about this. genuinely.

The board doesn't care about the community panel and it was all for show. I sat on on one with for our school and while we got to see each of the candidates it was shocking how bad two of them were and no where near qualified. Another one would have been ok but clueless about the community of the school. None, but the acting, even seemed to look at the school website or do any research into the school at all.

That tells me that the other candidates were for show, more than that the community panels were...

Was this in fact like some sort of 2-hour Zoom?
Did you have an opportunity to provide feedback to the BOE? What was that like?

Thanks for sharing your responses, I really appreciate it!

We were not allowed to ask any questions or suggest any. We just listened and was given a form to fill out on our thoughts to each candidate.

Damn. That's what I figured -- bit it's pretty disappointing.

I suspect that they scanned the feedback forms for any particularly nasty red flags, but mostly the "community panel" was there to make it look as if there was real community input.

Doesn't sound at all like there was, though.

The questions were geared in a way that it could heavily favor one candidate depending on how you choose to answer it (i.e you could go off topic). It all seemed like a show to me. Two were really bad. They didn't know the school, population, what the school specialized in, one in particular was a job jumper and never had any real experience as a principal of a large school. The other was an MCPS transfer and had their good points but again, clearly didn't know the school or population.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would really love to hear from any individual who was on that "community panel."

It looks good on paper, but how meaningful were the opportunities to learn about and engage with the candidates? Do they have a sense that their feedback was received by the Board and integrated into their decision-making process?

The "Unable to Attend" asterisk does not inspire confidence. Unable to attend what? A 2-hour zoom? What are we talking about, exactly?

And if the SEAC chairs were "unable to attend," was their input solicited -- and received -- in some other way? If not -- why not?

I'm kind of imagining a back-to-school-night-style zoom with each candidate giving a 10-minute presentation, then Q&A from the chat, and each group -- what -- filling out some google form with feedback within 24 hours?

Or something superficial and lame like that.

Tell me I'm wrong. I would really like to be wrong about this. genuinely.

The board doesn't care about the community panel and it was all for show. I sat on on one with for our school and while we got to see each of the candidates it was shocking how bad two of them were and no where near qualified. Another one would have been ok but clueless about the community of the school. None, but the acting, even seemed to look at the school website or do any research into the school at all.

That tells me that the other candidates were for show, more than that the community panels were...

Was this in fact like some sort of 2-hour Zoom?
Did you have an opportunity to provide feedback to the BOE? What was that like?

Thanks for sharing your responses, I really appreciate it!

We were not allowed to ask any questions or suggest any. We just listened and was given a form to fill out on our thoughts to each candidate.

Damn. That's what I figured -- bit it's pretty disappointing.

I suspect that they scanned the feedback forms for any particularly nasty red flags, but mostly the "community panel" was there to make it look as if there was real community input.

Doesn't sound at all like there was, though.

The questions were geared in a way that it could heavily favor one candidate depending on how you choose to answer it (i.e you could go off topic). It all seemed like a show to me. Two were really bad. They didn't know the school, population, what the school specialized in, one in particular was a job jumper and never had any real experience as a principal of a large school. The other was an MCPS transfer and had their good points but again, clearly didn't know the school or population.

Just to clarify--I believe this PP is talking about principal candidate interviews, not the superintendent candidate interviews.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As far as I'm concerned, the people who insisted that the schools be closed to in-person learning for over a year - for whatever arbitrary reason - caused many of these problems (widening learning gap between the FARMS and non-FARMS, students suffering socially and mentally, etc.) and McKnight is doing her best to clean up. Clean up will take more than the few months she's been superintendent.

You're talking about the deadly pandemic that killed millions worldwide?

DP, who agrees with the PP about the impact of prolonged virtual. Both things can be true: the pandemic itself has caused enormous stress *and so have* the extreme mitigations MCPS/MoCo has insisted on. Both things are true.

Everyone who insisted that it was fine to force virtual for as long as MCPS did because "kids are resilient," well, guess what. They're not infinitely resilient, and many of the problems we're seeing result from the school system (and too many parents, frankly) insisting that they are.

No, you are not resilient and don’t like having your kids around. Some kids have now been in it two years. I guess we have you to thank for the unsafe schools.

LOL. Weak troll effort there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is it true that her kids are in PG private schools? A condition of employment should be that she must live in the county. She should then enroll her own kids in public.

I thought there were at St Anselm's

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would really love to hear from any individual who was on that "community panel."

It looks good on paper, but how meaningful were the opportunities to learn about and engage with the candidates? Do they have a sense that their feedback was received by the Board and integrated into their decision-making process?

The "Unable to Attend" asterisk does not inspire confidence. Unable to attend what? A 2-hour zoom? What are we talking about, exactly?

And if the SEAC chairs were "unable to attend," was their input solicited -- and received -- in some other way? If not -- why not?

I'm kind of imagining a back-to-school-night-style zoom with each candidate giving a 10-minute presentation, then Q&A from the chat, and each group -- what -- filling out some google form with feedback within 24 hours?

Or something superficial and lame like that.

Tell me I'm wrong. I would really like to be wrong about this. genuinely.

The board doesn't care about the community panel and it was all for show. I sat on on one with for our school and while we got to see each of the candidates it was shocking how bad two of them were and no where near qualified. Another one would have been ok but clueless about the community of the school. None, but the acting, even seemed to look at the school website or do any research into the school at all.

That tells me that the other candidates were for show, more than that the community panels were...

Was this in fact like some sort of 2-hour Zoom?
Did you have an opportunity to provide feedback to the BOE? What was that like?

Thanks for sharing your responses, I really appreciate it!

We were not allowed to ask any questions or suggest any. We just listened and was given a form to fill out on our thoughts to each candidate.

Damn. That's what I figured -- bit it's pretty disappointing.

I suspect that they scanned the feedback forms for any particularly nasty red flags, but mostly the "community panel" was there to make it look as if there was real community input.

Doesn't sound at all like there was, though.

The questions were geared in a way that it could heavily favor one candidate depending on how you choose to answer it (i.e you could go off topic). It all seemed like a show to me. Two were really bad. They didn't know the school, population, what the school specialized in, one in particular was a job jumper and never had any real experience as a principal of a large school. The other was an MCPS transfer and had their good points but again, clearly didn't know the school or population.

Just to clarify--I believe this PP is talking about principal candidate interviews, not the superintendent candidate interviews.

Correct, but I assume its the same for both.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As far as I'm concerned, the people who insisted that the schools be closed to in-person learning for over a year - for whatever arbitrary reason - caused many of these problems (widening learning gap between the FARMS and non-FARMS, students suffering socially and mentally, etc.) and McKnight is doing her best to clean up. Clean up will take more than the few months she's been superintendent.

You're talking about the deadly pandemic that killed millions worldwide?

DP, who agrees with the PP about the impact of prolonged virtual. Both things can be true: the pandemic itself has caused enormous stress *and so have* the extreme mitigations MCPS/MoCo has insisted on. Both things are true.

Everyone who insisted that it was fine to force virtual for as long as MCPS did because "kids are resilient," well, guess what. They're not infinitely resilient, and many of the problems we're seeing result from the school system (and too many parents, frankly) insisting that they are.

No, you are not resilient and don’t like having your kids around. Some kids have now been in it two years. I guess we have you to thank for the unsafe schools.

LOL. Weak troll effort there.

You are a troll and need to be a better parent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it true that her kids are in PG private schools? A condition of employment should be that she must live in the county. She should then enroll her own kids in public.

I thought there were at St Anselm's

I think its kinda silly to demand she move and change her kids to public. Most politicians and school officials don't have their kids in public.