BOE - who are people voting for?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm not crazy about the board either, but the OIG was nonsense was just a smokescreen to appease the McKnight haters. Even the first report said this was a big nothing burger. They only later changed it to appease the crazies.

Go back to sleep Joel.

[Anonymous]

Pick 3 for Board of Education

At Large:
Harris (incumbent)
Hidayat - a former cop
Kim - fired from DC public schools
Long - hasn't been seen since filing
Mofor
Montoya-


District 2:
Diaz
Mui
Smondrowski (incumbent)
Thioye - homeschools her kids
Zimmerman - an elementary school teacher


District 4:

Evans (incumbent)

Mandel - homeschools her kids, Moms4Liberty

Stewart - supports lgbtq

[Anonymous]

I saw Hidayat debate. He will definitely hold everyone at MCPS accountable.

[Anonymous]

^ Voters who do not follow Montgomery County BOE and live in MoCo will more likely vote Apple. The other candidates have less of a chance of winning ; is this typically the way it is around here with BOE elections?

[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.

Harris wants to ditch the 50% rule and bring back final exams in high school. She wants to add additional honors programs. I don't know her position on SROs, but that is a Marc Elrich issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I saw Hidayat debate. He will definitely hold everyone at MCPS accountable.

If you mean he is rude to MCPS incumbents, and that works for you, then you should vote for him. Otherwise, I don't see anything remotely approaching accountability. He is mostly a boorish candidate who is poorly informed on issues.

[Anonymous]

4/13, 14:50 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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:4/13, 14:50 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.

No group 3 are not "rebels"
They are Moms4Liberty which is hatred and fear mongering. Unexperienced. There is no place for that group in MOCO. Where is Mandel's experience???? She homeschools and her words are horrible, who wants that on a school board. What does she bring to the table but RW garbage? Literal garbage. She lies you want that to represent the school BOE???

Let's be very clear here they are not "rebels" that will install change they don't even know how anything works.

The other two groups are people to research and decide if you want them on the BOE but group three is a no go. Who votes for the group that has zero tolerance for others, who has zero experience, who goes online and lies over and over again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I saw Hidayat debate. He will definitely hold everyone at MCPS accountable.

If you mean he is rude to MCPS incumbents, and that works for you, then you should vote for him. Otherwise, I don't see anything remotely approaching accountability. He is mostly a boorish candidate who is poorly informed on issues.

+1

[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.

Harris wants to ditch the 50% rule and bring back final exams in high school. She wants to add additional honors programs. I don't know her position on SROs, but that is a Marc Elrich issue.

Yes Harris said yes to SRO's. Last night at a forum they all voted yes to SRO's.

Some of. the candidates like Mandel, Diaz group want armed SRO's ....

[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.

Harris wants to ditch the 50% rule and bring back final exams in high school. She wants to add additional honors programs. I don't know her position on SROs, but that is a Marc Elrich issue.

They got rid of that months ago. Wish she knew more about what was going on at MCPS.

[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.

Harris wants to ditch the 50% rule and bring back final exams in high school. She wants to add additional honors programs. I don't know her position on SROs, but that is a Marc Elrich issue.

Yes Harris said yes to SRO's. Last night at a forum they all voted yes to SRO's.

Some of. the candidates like Mandel, Diaz group want armed SRO's ....

More guns at schools will end badly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You have already been told that you have no credibility with your obsessive posting on things that are not facts, but rather your opinions. You are trying to strong arm people on here with your aggressive, desperate, and emotionally imbalanced ramblings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:4/13, 14:50 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.

Pick a big change, any big change, you don't care what the big change is, as long as it's a big change?

No matter how bad things might be, it's always possible for things to get worse, and these so-called "rebels" would make things get worse. We don't need Moms4Liberty, we don't need bomb-throwers, we don't need culture warriors, and we don't need people who don't know anything and don't care to learn.

[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/

Seems exactly the type of dedicated warrior MCPS needs to improve.

Agree.

“In her role, she guided the Anacostia and Ballou redesign, created a turnaround strategy for low-performing schools, ushered in a ‘science of reading’ curriculum, and launched a pandemic-era data-tracking system intended to connect students with interventions.”