BOE - who are people voting for?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS is led by a woman (Superintendent) and a school BOE made up of all women. Hard to blame a man for all the policy failures when those in charge are all woman. Sounds like we have a man hater on this forum.

This is one of the most laughable things I have read on DCUM in months, and it's stiff competition, so congratulations, I guess?

I'm planning to vote for Natalie Zimmerman, Laura Stewart, and either Lynne Harris or Rita Montoya (I haven't made up my mind yet).

Why Montoya over a few others in the At-Large group? Why not Kim? Or Long? Your insights could help others if you can share. Harris, an incumbent (or is this Harris herself or her super fan that loves to write here)?

DP, but in the same boat as PP.

I've been disappointed with Harris because I expected much greater circumspection (MCPS so very much needs bright lights shown on the items they gloss over/cover from view), and because she has focused on the fringier (if still very valid) agenda items more than the centrally important ones. However, I can't tell if that is because the makeup of the rest of the board, and its led-by-the-nose tendency, makes the latter particularly difficult.

So, I'm considering Montoya if she continues to show that she would be able to focus on those areas that would bring proper oversight with a move towards academic excellence -- ensuring equitable opportunity along with that -- far more than on the side shows. Certainly, her campaign positions indicate that.

Personally, though I've gotten a good rec on Kim from a DC parent, I'm concerned about her coming from a CO establishment. She could have great insight, there, but also could have a tendency to sympathize with CO. At the same time, I've seen her dive into things as though she knows it already, shutting out other voices missing important considerations. Given that, I'd need a much clearer statement from her as to her priorities (to ensure she wouldn't be aiming in the wrong direction for me) and a commitment to a shine-a-light/dig deep oversight approach. Her espousal of a return to higher academic achievement could mean an approach that provides differential resources to see all students provided reasonably equivalent opportunities at a high level, but it could also mean an approach that merely ensures that schools are resourced based on perception of community demand, where the result may be a considerably different experience for students at, say, the Pyles and Whitmans than for similar students elsewhere.

Not familiar enough with Long, either, but, while I agree with his position about IEP red tape and under-resourcing, I'm concerned that this is and would be his dominant focus, and, again, I want attention to much more than that.

I'd appreciate others' insights, as well, understanding that their priorities might be different from mine, and that shared thoughts might lead to a shift in preference.

Yet another PP, and here's my take.

For at-large, I just can't bring myself to vote for Harris again. I agree with her on the politics (LGBTQ+ equality, culturally competent education) but she's just so weak on school safety and academic excellence. There is a way to be pro-equity and have high standards for behavior and academic rigor, but she has not managed to find that balance. It's a shame, though. I wanted her to be better, because I do think her motivations are good, but we just can't stay on the current path with regards to student safety.

I'm actually not that worried about Kim focusing entirely on Potomac/Bethesda. While I'm the furthest thing from a charter school advocate, her experience at KIPP and Deal tells me that she has high standards for all kids, not just ones in her own neighborhood.

With that said, Montoya is also an intriguing candidate. I don't love the cannabis advocacy, but my experience with folks who have worked as public defenders is that they are actually really clear-eyed about the fact that some people need more support than they can get in mainstream society. Whereas Harris feels like someone who has a lot of starry-eyed ideals about how the mistaken youths just need a hug, Montoya has the professional experience to know that court-involved youth can be scary, frustrating, and need specialized help.

[Anonymous]

SRO topic was the topic at hand at the RW moderately Montgomery forum last night.

SRO's have a history in the county of dealing drugs to students and having sex with students.
If we do put them back in schools their needs to be better oversight.

So no this is not going to fix the fear mongering that Moms4Liberty is spreading all over the DMV or America First Legal that is funding candidate Mandel. Why would we vote for someone who is being funded by outside sources.

By the way they want these SRO's armed.

Do you want an officer like the one at Parkland who ran that day armed?

MCPS needs some change we all need to work together to make changes.


Do your homework and vote, please.

I listened last night with an open mind to the Moderately Montgomery RW forum. Let me just say there is nothing moderate about most of the new candidates. The hate and vitriol from most were loud and clear. Do we want hate at our BOE because Mandel, Diaz, Sharif Hidayat had some major hate going on. Anger was their process and words. Honestly, it was disturbing at best.

We need reasonable calm people on the board not liars/haters and yes they all lied last night I checked their "stories".

Please vote and please check all of their online presence because when I did I was appalled at their words.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sort of boils down to 3 groups of choices (District 2,4, at-large):
1. Incumbents - Smondrowski, Evans, Harris
2. Apple ballot (teacher's union endorsed) - Zimerman, Stewart, Montoya
3. Rebels: Diaz, Mandel, Mofor

Sorry, couldn't come up with a better name for group 3, but they are all sort of consistent in wanting big change, SROs back in schools, and stuff like that.

So if you like how things are going, vote group 1.

If you like the teacher's union (keep in mind their 2022 apple ballot picks currently sit on the board, but aren't up for election this cycle), vote group 2.

If you think big changes are needed, vote group 3.

Mandel is not an acceptable candidate.

She is Moms4Liberty

In the video, Mandel says she wants to be the voice of homeschooling and private school parents on the board.

Mandel told us about her homeschooling last night at the Moderately Moco Forum which had about 70 parents listening to a moderated BOE candidate Forum.

She said, "Phonics is the only way to teach FOURTH graders to read". She has zero experience with teaching and or public schools. Except for Book banning which she is a huge participant in. She believes "children do not need to read til fourth grade". DCUM do you agree that children do not need to learn to read til 4th grade? And that Phonics is the only method MCPS should be teaching elementary students?

Her behavior last night was not adult-like like it was hateful and childish. Honestly, it was sickening to watch how she treated others. I don't care if she has different views it was her behavior that 100% deems her unqualified.

Mandel is not qualified for anything that has to do with children.

Look up her social media postings. Reddit has many that she tried to scrub from the internet. Utube she has recorded herself omg, same with Instagram where she harrases store clerks til they cry so she can get free stuff. Yeah she literally says this on social media.

Mandel was only at this meeting to push antivax as well.

We all have a right to vote. Please do your homework before doing so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sort of boils down to 3 groups of choices (District 2,4, at-large):
1. Incumbents - Smondrowski, Evans, Harris
2. Apple ballot (teacher's union endorsed) - Zimerman, Stewart, Montoya
3. Rebels: Diaz, Mandel, Mofor

Sorry, couldn't come up with a better name for group 3, but they are all sort of consistent in wanting big change, SROs back in schools, and stuff like that.

So if you like how things are going, vote group 1.

If you like the teacher's union (keep in mind their 2022 apple ballot picks currently sit on the board, but aren't up for election this cycle), vote group 2.

If you think big changes are needed, vote group 3.

Mandel is not an acceptable candidate.

She is Moms4Liberty

In the video, Mandel says she wants to be the voice of homeschooling and private school parents on the board.

Mandel told us about her homeschooling last night at the Moderately Moco Forum which had about 70 parents listening to a moderated BOE candidate Forum.

She said, "Phonics is the only way to teach FOURTH graders to read". She has zero experience with teaching and or public schools. Except for Book banning which she is a huge participant in. She believes "children do not need to read til fourth grade". DCUM do you agree that children do not need to learn to read til 4th grade? And that Phonics is the only method MCPS should be teaching elementary students?

Her behavior last night was not adult-like like it was hateful and childish. Honestly, it was sickening to watch how she treated others. I don't care if she has different views it was her behavior that 100% deems her unqualified.

Mandel is not qualified for anything that has to do with children.

Look up her social media postings. Reddit has many that she tried to scrub from the internet. Utube she has recorded herself omg, same with Instagram where she harrases store clerks til they cry so she can get free stuff. Yeah she literally says this on social media.

Mandel was only at this meeting to push antivax as well.

We all have a right to vote. Please do your homework before doing so.

You need a hobby. You’re the same loon as yesterday that others had to ask you to stop with your nonstop ramblings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS is led by a woman (Superintendent) and a school BOE made up of all women. Hard to blame a man for all the policy failures when those in charge are all woman. Sounds like we have a man hater on this forum.

This is one of the most laughable things I have read on DCUM in months, and it's stiff competition, so congratulations, I guess?

I'm planning to vote for Natalie Zimmerman, Laura Stewart, and either Lynne Harris or Rita Montoya (I haven't made up my mind yet).

Why Montoya over a few others in the At-Large group? Why not Kim? Or Long? Your insights could help others if you can share. Harris, an incumbent (or is this Harris herself or her super fan that loves to write here)?

DP, but in the same boat as PP.

I've been disappointed with Harris because I expected much greater circumspection (MCPS so very much needs bright lights shown on the items they gloss over/cover from view), and because she has focused on the fringier (if still very valid) agenda items more than the centrally important ones. However, I can't tell if that is because the makeup of the rest of the board, and its led-by-the-nose tendency, makes the latter particularly difficult.

So, I'm considering Montoya if she continues to show that she would be able to focus on those areas that would bring proper oversight with a move towards academic excellence -- ensuring equitable opportunity along with that -- far more than on the side shows. Certainly, her campaign positions indicate that.

Personally, though I've gotten a good rec on Kim from a DC parent, I'm concerned about her coming from a CO establishment. She could have great insight, there, but also could have a tendency to sympathize with CO. At the same time, I've seen her dive into things as though she knows it already, shutting out other voices missing important considerations. Given that, I'd need a much clearer statement from her as to her priorities (to ensure she wouldn't be aiming in the wrong direction for me) and a commitment to a shine-a-light/dig deep oversight approach. Her espousal of a return to higher academic achievement could mean an approach that provides differential resources to see all students provided reasonably equivalent opportunities at a high level, but it could also mean an approach that merely ensures that schools are resourced based on perception of community demand, where the result may be a considerably different experience for students at, say, the Pyles and Whitmans than for similar students elsewhere.

Not familiar enough with Long, either, but, while I agree with his position about IEP red tape and under-resourcing, I'm concerned that this is and would be his dominant focus, and, again, I want attention to much more than that.

I'd appreciate others' insights, as well, understanding that their priorities might be different from mine, and that shared thoughts might lead to a shift in preference.

Yet another PP, and here's my take.

For at-large, I just can't bring myself to vote for Harris again. I agree with her on the politics (LGBTQ+ equality, culturally competent education) but she's just so weak on school safety and academic excellence. There is a way to be pro-equity and have high standards for behavior and academic rigor, but she has not managed to find that balance. It's a shame, though. I wanted her to be better, because I do think her motivations are good, but we just can't stay on the current path with regards to student safety.

I'm actually not that worried about Kim focusing entirely on Potomac/Bethesda. While I'm the furthest thing from a charter school advocate, her experience at KIPP and Deal tells me that she has high standards for all kids, not just ones in her own neighborhood.

With that said, Montoya is also an intriguing candidate. I don't love the cannabis advocacy, but my experience with folks who have worked as public defenders is that they are actually really clear-eyed about the fact that some people need more support than they can get in mainstream society. Whereas Harris feels like someone who has a lot of starry-eyed ideals about how the mistaken youths just need a hug, Montoya has the professional experience to know that court-involved youth can be scary, frustrating, and need specialized help.

I was at the Moderately MOCO forum of candidates last night.

It is not a "moderate organization" it's rw nonsense. In attendance out of 70 people moms4liberty were at least 60.

However, they got most of the candidates together so I thought it was a good chance to see what they were all saying.

Montoya presented very well. She was the only one to denounce Moms4liberty. My only concern with her was some of her stories, they were a little fear-mongering but that was the crowd.

But like you, while I agree with Harris's position Montoya might be a better pick. Harris let Mandel run all over her last night but my guess is she was trying to not fall into the confrontation trap Mandel was setting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS is led by a woman (Superintendent) and a school BOE made up of all women. Hard to blame a man for all the policy failures when those in charge are all woman. Sounds like we have a man hater on this forum.

This is one of the most laughable things I have read on DCUM in months, and it's stiff competition, so congratulations, I guess?

I'm planning to vote for Natalie Zimmerman, Laura Stewart, and either Lynne Harris or Rita Montoya (I haven't made up my mind yet).

Why Montoya over a few others in the At-Large group? Why not Kim? Or Long? Your insights could help others if you can share. Harris, an incumbent (or is this Harris herself or her super fan that loves to write here)?

DP, but in the same boat as PP.

I've been disappointed with Harris because I expected much greater circumspection (MCPS so very much needs bright lights shown on the items they gloss over/cover from view), and because she has focused on the fringier (if still very valid) agenda items more than the centrally important ones. However, I can't tell if that is because the makeup of the rest of the board, and its led-by-the-nose tendency, makes the latter particularly difficult.

So, I'm considering Montoya if she continues to show that she would be able to focus on those areas that would bring proper oversight with a move towards academic excellence -- ensuring equitable opportunity along with that -- far more than on the side shows. Certainly, her campaign positions indicate that.

Personally, though I've gotten a good rec on Kim from a DC parent, I'm concerned about her coming from a CO establishment. She could have great insight, there, but also could have a tendency to sympathize with CO. At the same time, I've seen her dive into things as though she knows it already, shutting out other voices missing important considerations. Given that, I'd need a much clearer statement from her as to her priorities (to ensure she wouldn't be aiming in the wrong direction for me) and a commitment to a shine-a-light/dig deep oversight approach. Her espousal of a return to higher academic achievement could mean an approach that provides differential resources to see all students provided reasonably equivalent opportunities at a high level, but it could also mean an approach that merely ensures that schools are resourced based on perception of community demand, where the result may be a considerably different experience for students at, say, the Pyles and Whitmans than for similar students elsewhere.

Not familiar enough with Long, either, but, while I agree with his position about IEP red tape and under-resourcing, I'm concerned that this is and would be his dominant focus, and, again, I want attention to much more than that.

I'd appreciate others' insights, as well, understanding that their priorities might be different from mine, and that shared thoughts might lead to a shift in preference.

Yet another PP, and here's my take.

For at-large, I just can't bring myself to vote for Harris again. I agree with her on the politics (LGBTQ+ equality, culturally competent education) but she's just so weak on school safety and academic excellence. There is a way to be pro-equity and have high standards for behavior and academic rigor, but she has not managed to find that balance. It's a shame, though. I wanted her to be better, because I do think her motivations are good, but we just can't stay on the current path with regards to student safety.

I'm actually not that worried about Kim focusing entirely on Potomac/Bethesda. While I'm the furthest thing from a charter school advocate, her experience at KIPP and Deal tells me that she has high standards for all kids, not just ones in her own neighborhood.

With that said, Montoya is also an intriguing candidate. I don't love the cannabis advocacy, but my experience with folks who have worked as public defenders is that they are actually really clear-eyed about the fact that some people need more support than they can get in mainstream society. Whereas Harris feels like someone who has a lot of starry-eyed ideals about how the mistaken youths just need a hug, Montoya has the professional experience to know that court-involved youth can be scary, frustrating, and need specialized help.

I am slowly watching the video shared at the beginning of this thread- thanks to the PP who shared that. So far, I've heard the At Large candidates and my initial thought is that Kim would make the biggest strides in aiming to bring back academic excellence. I didn't hear that from any of the other at large candidates. Harris has been disappointing. She needs to address the bigger issues and she simply has not done that in her time as a BOE member. I'm leaning towards Kim for at-large. I will watch the rest of the video later.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS is led by a woman (Superintendent) and a school BOE made up of all women. Hard to blame a man for all the policy failures when those in charge are all woman. Sounds like we have a man hater on this forum.

This is one of the most laughable things I have read on DCUM in months, and it's stiff competition, so congratulations, I guess?

I'm planning to vote for Natalie Zimmerman, Laura Stewart, and either Lynne Harris or Rita Montoya (I haven't made up my mind yet).

Why Montoya over a few others in the At-Large group? Why not Kim? Or Long? Your insights could help others if you can share. Harris, an incumbent (or is this Harris herself or her super fan that loves to write here)?

DP, but in the same boat as PP.

I've been disappointed with Harris because I expected much greater circumspection (MCPS so very much needs bright lights shown on the items they gloss over/cover from view), and because she has focused on the fringier (if still very valid) agenda items more than the centrally important ones. However, I can't tell if that is because the makeup of the rest of the board, and its led-by-the-nose tendency, makes the latter particularly difficult.

So, I'm considering Montoya if she continues to show that she would be able to focus on those areas that would bring proper oversight with a move towards academic excellence -- ensuring equitable opportunity along with that -- far more than on the side shows. Certainly, her campaign positions indicate that.

Personally, though I've gotten a good rec on Kim from a DC parent, I'm concerned about her coming from a CO establishment. She could have great insight, there, but also could have a tendency to sympathize with CO. At the same time, I've seen her dive into things as though she knows it already, shutting out other voices missing important considerations. Given that, I'd need a much clearer statement from her as to her priorities (to ensure she wouldn't be aiming in the wrong direction for me) and a commitment to a shine-a-light/dig deep oversight approach. Her espousal of a return to higher academic achievement could mean an approach that provides differential resources to see all students provided reasonably equivalent opportunities at a high level, but it could also mean an approach that merely ensures that schools are resourced based on perception of community demand, where the result may be a considerably different experience for students at, say, the Pyles and Whitmans than for similar students elsewhere.

Not familiar enough with Long, either, but, while I agree with his position about IEP red tape and under-resourcing, I'm concerned that this is and would be his dominant focus, and, again, I want attention to much more than that.

I'd appreciate others' insights, as well, understanding that their priorities might be different from mine, and that shared thoughts might lead to a shift in preference.

Yet another PP, and here's my take.

For at-large, I just can't bring myself to vote for Harris again. I agree with her on the politics (LGBTQ+ equality, culturally competent education) but she's just so weak on school safety and academic excellence. There is a way to be pro-equity and have high standards for behavior and academic rigor, but she has not managed to find that balance. It's a shame, though. I wanted her to be better, because I do think her motivations are good, but we just can't stay on the current path with regards to student safety.

I'm actually not that worried about Kim focusing entirely on Potomac/Bethesda. While I'm the furthest thing from a charter school advocate, her experience at KIPP and Deal tells me that she has high standards for all kids, not just ones in her own neighborhood.

With that said, Montoya is also an intriguing candidate. I don't love the cannabis advocacy, but my experience with folks who have worked as public defenders is that they are actually really clear-eyed about the fact that some people need more support than they can get in mainstream society. Whereas Harris feels like someone who has a lot of starry-eyed ideals about how the mistaken youths just need a hug, Montoya has the professional experience to know that court-involved youth can be scary, frustrating, and need specialized help.

I was at the Moderately MOCO forum of candidates last night.

It is not a "moderate organization" it's rw nonsense. In attendance out of 70 people moms4liberty were at least 60.

However, they got most of the candidates together so I thought it was a good chance to see what they were all saying.

Montoya presented very well. She was the only one to denounce Moms4liberty. My only concern with her was some of her stories, they were a little fear-mongering but that was the crowd.

But like you, while I agree with Harris's position Montoya might be a better pick. Harris let Mandel run all over her last night but my guess is she was trying to not fall into the confrontation trap Mandel was setting.

Did Montoya pass out joints to everyone in the audience?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sort of boils down to 3 groups of choices (District 2,4, at-large):
1. Incumbents - Smondrowski, Evans, Harris
2. Apple ballot (teacher's union endorsed) - Zimerman, Stewart, Montoya
3. Rebels: Diaz, Mandel, Mofor

Sorry, couldn't come up with a better name for group 3, but they are all sort of consistent in wanting big change, SROs back in schools, and stuff like that.

So if you like how things are going, vote group 1.

If you like the teacher's union (keep in mind their 2022 apple ballot picks currently sit on the board, but aren't up for election this cycle), vote group 2.

If you think big changes are needed, vote group 3.

Mandel is not an acceptable candidate.

She is Moms4Liberty

In the video, Mandel says she wants to be the voice of homeschooling and private school parents on the board.

Mandel told us about her homeschooling last night at the Moderately Moco Forum which had about 70 parents listening to a moderated BOE candidate Forum.

She said, "Phonics is the only way to teach FOURTH graders to read". She has zero experience with teaching and or public schools. Except for Book banning which she is a huge participant in. She believes "children do not need to read til fourth grade". DCUM do you agree that children do not need to learn to read til 4th grade? And that Phonics is the only method MCPS should be teaching elementary students?

Her behavior last night was not adult-like like it was hateful and childish. Honestly, it was sickening to watch how she treated others. I don't care if she has different views it was her behavior that 100% deems her unqualified.

Mandel is not qualified for anything that has to do with children.

Look up her social media postings. Reddit has many that she tried to scrub from the internet. Utube she has recorded herself omg, same with Instagram where she harrases store clerks til they cry so she can get free stuff. Yeah she literally says this on social media.

Mandel was only at this meeting to push antivax as well.

We all have a right to vote. Please do your homework before doing so.

Homeschooling got to her. She needs a village.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS is led by a woman (Superintendent) and a school BOE made up of all women. Hard to blame a man for all the policy failures when those in charge are all woman. Sounds like we have a man hater on this forum.

This is one of the most laughable things I have read on DCUM in months, and it's stiff competition, so congratulations, I guess?

I'm planning to vote for Natalie Zimmerman, Laura Stewart, and either Lynne Harris or Rita Montoya (I haven't made up my mind yet).

Why Montoya over a few others in the At-Large group? Why not Kim? Or Long? Your insights could help others if you can share. Harris, an incumbent (or is this Harris herself or her super fan that loves to write here)?

DP, but in the same boat as PP.

I've been disappointed with Harris because I expected much greater circumspection (MCPS so very much needs bright lights shown on the items they gloss over/cover from view), and because she has focused on the fringier (if still very valid) agenda items more than the centrally important ones. However, I can't tell if that is because the makeup of the rest of the board, and its led-by-the-nose tendency, makes the latter particularly difficult.

So, I'm considering Montoya if she continues to show that she would be able to focus on those areas that would bring proper oversight with a move towards academic excellence -- ensuring equitable opportunity along with that -- far more than on the side shows. Certainly, her campaign positions indicate that.

Personally, though I've gotten a good rec on Kim from a DC parent, I'm concerned about her coming from a CO establishment. She could have great insight, there, but also could have a tendency to sympathize with CO. At the same time, I've seen her dive into things as though she knows it already, shutting out other voices missing important considerations. Given that, I'd need a much clearer statement from her as to her priorities (to ensure she wouldn't be aiming in the wrong direction for me) and a commitment to a shine-a-light/dig deep oversight approach. Her espousal of a return to higher academic achievement could mean an approach that provides differential resources to see all students provided reasonably equivalent opportunities at a high level, but it could also mean an approach that merely ensures that schools are resourced based on perception of community demand, where the result may be a considerably different experience for students at, say, the Pyles and Whitmans than for similar students elsewhere.

Not familiar enough with Long, either, but, while I agree with his position about IEP red tape and under-resourcing, I'm concerned that this is and would be his dominant focus, and, again, I want attention to much more than that.

I'd appreciate others' insights, as well, understanding that their priorities might be different from mine, and that shared thoughts might lead to a shift in preference.

Yet another PP, and here's my take.

For at-large, I just can't bring myself to vote for Harris again. I agree with her on the politics (LGBTQ+ equality, culturally competent education) but she's just so weak on school safety and academic excellence. There is a way to be pro-equity and have high standards for behavior and academic rigor, but she has not managed to find that balance. It's a shame, though. I wanted her to be better, because I do think her motivations are good, but we just can't stay on the current path with regards to student safety.

I'm actually not that worried about Kim focusing entirely on Potomac/Bethesda. While I'm the furthest thing from a charter school advocate, her experience at KIPP and Deal tells me that she has high standards for all kids, not just ones in her own neighborhood.

With that said, Montoya is also an intriguing candidate. I don't love the cannabis advocacy, but my experience with folks who have worked as public defenders is that they are actually really clear-eyed about the fact that some people need more support than they can get in mainstream society. Whereas Harris feels like someone who has a lot of starry-eyed ideals about how the mistaken youths just need a hug, Montoya has the professional experience to know that court-involved youth can be scary, frustrating, and need specialized help.

I am slowly watching the video shared at the beginning of this thread- thanks to the PP who shared that. So far, I've heard the At Large candidates and my initial thought is that Kim would make the biggest strides in aiming to bring back academic excellence. I didn't hear that from any of the other at large candidates. Harris has been disappointing. She needs to address the bigger issues and she simply has not done that in her time as a BOE member. I'm leaning towards Kim for at-large. I will watch the rest of the video later.

If any one can remember what Harris said when running for BOE years ago, can you share what she said she would try to do? Candidates can say they will try to take on bigger issues and we may feel right now they can make biggest impact, but when they get into the role, they are not working on their own. They have to work with the other members and CO and hear complaints feedback from community. As a PP and others have pointed out, trying to work with CO and Super's staff does not yield results, answers or clarity. So, a Deputy Staff and Financial Analyst were hired, which may be needed but how do we know these two positions will be able to get the answers BOE and we need from CO?

[Anonymous]

Some of the members speak up or ask MCPS questions but look so scared. The student member typically looks least afraid. Wow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sort of boils down to 3 groups of choices (District 2,4, at-large):
1. Incumbents - Smondrowski, Evans, Harris
2. Apple ballot (teacher's union endorsed) - Zimerman, Stewart, Montoya
3. Rebels: Diaz, Mandel, Mofor

Sorry, couldn't come up with a better name for group 3, but they are all sort of consistent in wanting big change, SROs back in schools, and stuff like that.

So if you like how things are going, vote group 1.

If you like the teacher's union (keep in mind their 2022 apple ballot picks currently sit on the board, but aren't up for election this cycle), vote group 2.

If you think big changes are needed, vote group 3.

Mandel is not an acceptable candidate.

She is Moms4Liberty

In the video, Mandel says she wants to be the voice of homeschooling and private school parents on the board.

Mandel told us about her homeschooling last night at the Moderately Moco Forum which had about 70 parents listening to a moderated BOE candidate Forum.

She said, "Phonics is the only way to teach FOURTH graders to read". She has zero experience with teaching and or public schools. Except for Book banning which she is a huge participant in. She believes "children do not need to read til fourth grade". DCUM do you agree that children do not need to learn to read til 4th grade? And that Phonics is the only method MCPS should be teaching elementary students?

Her behavior last night was not adult-like like it was hateful and childish. Honestly, it was sickening to watch how she treated others. I don't care if she has different views it was her behavior that 100% deems her unqualified.

Mandel is not qualified for anything that has to do with children.

Look up her social media postings. Reddit has many that she tried to scrub from the internet. Utube she has recorded herself omg, same with Instagram where she harrases store clerks til they cry so she can get free stuff. Yeah she literally says this on social media.

Mandel was only at this meeting to push antivax as well.

We all have a right to vote. Please do your homework before doing so.

You need a hobby. You’re the same loon as yesterday that others had to ask you to stop with your nonstop ramblings.

Fact Mandel said that her words.
Fact Mandel is supported by outside sources
Fact Mandel is a horrible human see her facebook posts
Fact Mandel is online everything she posts is not acceptable for any adult to be posting much less one who runs for school board.
Fact Mandel is in a lawsuit against MCPS funded by the hateful Stephen Miller and his band of non lawyers America First legal
Fact Mandel is running as Moms4Liberty.

Concise enough for you?

I will not stop speaking up. Everything I wrote is factual. Anyone can go online and see how horrific she is and how she should not be near the education of children.

There are plenty of candidates to choose from. She is unfit as a human much less to be on the BOE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We need to bring back academic excellence for ALL. Bring back free tutoring. Make programs accessible to students who want them even if their home school doesn't offer it. Can we also bring back safety in schools? I don't know if it means bringing back SROs or bringing back repercussions that actually WORK, but we need it back. Which of these candidates want these things?

Also interested in these two things primarily and would appreciate any summary people are interested in providing.

Schools seem perfectly safe to me. Sure, there are problems, but they are no different from those in any urban area.

Then again I don't consider vaping or locked bathrooms major.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The OIG report proved that the current BOE members failed to provide proper oversight of the system.They all need to be replaced.

I realize this is your talking points and you are sticking to it, but replacing all of the board members is not one of our choices. There are 8 BoE members. Only 3 are up for re-election this cycle.

Even if every single incumbent loses, the folks we elect in 2024 are still going to need to work with the folks elected in 2022. The next two years are going to be vital for MCPS, and we don't have time to lose on culture war grandstanders, folks using BoE as a political stepping stone, or candidates who are coming in so antagonistic that they won't be able to cooperate with their colleagues to get things done.

I'm not happy with the current board, either, and am unlikely to vote for most of the incumbents. But I also very much want MCPS to succeed, for the sake of my own kids and our collective kids. This means I need to identify candidates who are solution-oriented, good team players, and actual believers in public education.

Most insightful post I have read on DCUM in quite some time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS is led by a woman (Superintendent) and a school BOE made up of all women. Hard to blame a man for all the policy failures when those in charge are all woman. Sounds like we have a man hater on this forum.

This is one of the most laughable things I have read on DCUM in months, and it's stiff competition, so congratulations, I guess?

I'm planning to vote for Natalie Zimmerman, Laura Stewart, and either Lynne Harris or Rita Montoya (I haven't made up my mind yet).

Why Montoya over a few others in the At-Large group? Why not Kim? Or Long? Your insights could help others if you can share. Harris, an incumbent (or is this Harris herself or her super fan that loves to write here)?

DP, but in the same boat as PP.

I've been disappointed with Harris because I expected much greater circumspection (MCPS so very much needs bright lights shown on the items they gloss over/cover from view), and because she has focused on the fringier (if still very valid) agenda items more than the centrally important ones. However, I can't tell if that is because the makeup of the rest of the board, and its led-by-the-nose tendency, makes the latter particularly difficult.

So, I'm considering Montoya if she continues to show that she would be able to focus on those areas that would bring proper oversight with a move towards academic excellence -- ensuring equitable opportunity along with that -- far more than on the side shows. Certainly, her campaign positions indicate that.

Personally, though I've gotten a good rec on Kim from a DC parent, I'm concerned about her coming from a CO establishment. She could have great insight, there, but also could have a tendency to sympathize with CO. At the same time, I've seen her dive into things as though she knows it already, shutting out other voices missing important considerations. Given that, I'd need a much clearer statement from her as to her priorities (to ensure she wouldn't be aiming in the wrong direction for me) and a commitment to a shine-a-light/dig deep oversight approach. Her espousal of a return to higher academic achievement could mean an approach that provides differential resources to see all students provided reasonably equivalent opportunities at a high level, but it could also mean an approach that merely ensures that schools are resourced based on perception of community demand, where the result may be a considerably different experience for students at, say, the Pyles and Whitmans than for similar students elsewhere.

Not familiar enough with Long, either, but, while I agree with his position about IEP red tape and under-resourcing, I'm concerned that this is and would be his dominant focus, and, again, I want attention to much more than that.

I'd appreciate others' insights, as well, understanding that their priorities might be different from mine, and that shared thoughts might lead to a shift in preference.

Yet another PP, and here's my take.

For at-large, I just can't bring myself to vote for Harris again. I agree with her on the politics (LGBTQ+ equality, culturally competent education) but she's just so weak on school safety and academic excellence. There is a way to be pro-equity and have high standards for behavior and academic rigor, but she has not managed to find that balance. It's a shame, though. I wanted her to be better, because I do think her motivations are good, but we just can't stay on the current path with regards to student safety.

I'm actually not that worried about Kim focusing entirely on Potomac/Bethesda. While I'm the furthest thing from a charter school advocate, her experience at KIPP and Deal tells me that she has high standards for all kids, not just ones in her own neighborhood.

With that said, Montoya is also an intriguing candidate. I don't love the cannabis advocacy, but my experience with folks who have worked as public defenders is that they are actually really clear-eyed about the fact that some people need more support than they can get in mainstream society. Whereas Harris feels like someone who has a lot of starry-eyed ideals about how the mistaken youths just need a hug, Montoya has the professional experience to know that court-involved youth can be scary, frustrating, and need specialized help.

I was at the Moderately MOCO forum of candidates last night.

It is not a "moderate organization" it's rw nonsense. In attendance out of 70 people moms4liberty were at least 60.

However, they got most of the candidates together so I thought it was a good chance to see what they were all saying.

Montoya presented very well. She was the only one to denounce Moms4liberty. My only concern with her was some of her stories, they were a little fear-mongering but that was the crowd.

But like you, while I agree with Harris's position Montoya might be a better pick. Harris let Mandel run all over her last night but my guess is she was trying to not fall into the confrontation trap Mandel was setting.

Did Montoya pass out joints to everyone in the audience?

No, but I wondered if she might, perhaps using rolling papers with her campaign website URL printed on them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS is led by a woman (Superintendent) and a school BOE made up of all women. Hard to blame a man for all the policy failures when those in charge are all woman. Sounds like we have a man hater on this forum.

This is one of the most laughable things I have read on DCUM in months, and it's stiff competition, so congratulations, I guess?

I'm planning to vote for Natalie Zimmerman, Laura Stewart, and either Lynne Harris or Rita Montoya (I haven't made up my mind yet).

Why Montoya over a few others in the At-Large group? Why not Kim? Or Long? Your insights could help others if you can share. Harris, an incumbent (or is this Harris herself or her super fan that loves to write here)?

Kim was fired from DCPS for bullying and intimidation, which are the exact things we were outraged that Joel Beidleman got away with in our system. Why would we want more of that?

https://www.washingtoninformer.com/dcps-deputy-chancellor-melissa-kim-announces-resignation/

Ok. How about Long?

Long signed up to run for BOE, but hasn't been seen since.