Board wants Monifa to step down

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And maybe will continue, or maybe it won't. Or perhaps something in-between.

To review, with regards to the Biedelman scandal, Robbins has provided very detailed and well sourced reporting that was verified by two different entities including the school district's own law firm. It sounds like you are trying to smear her name - what personal interest do you have in this? Since you are so concerned with ethics, tell us who you are and what connection you have to the people involved in the scandal.

I take it you don't remember her aligning herself with PAGES during the covid era?

What does that even mean?

She joined a fringe group of parents and teachers that protested the reopening of schools, advocated for an illegal teachers' strike, and encouraged teachers to lie to disrupt reopening. Robbins has never been a fan of McKnight.

To be clear, she didn't just join it. She was an enthusiastic participant.

Therefore we should ignore the many NAMED people who came forward to the press to expose Biedelman's sexual harassment and the horrific negligence with which the school system responded? Make it make sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel Monifa has to go. What credibility does she have left to lead with. If she insists on staying, she will be a lame duck and absolutely nothing will get done

You're going to have to show her the money, then. She's not going to voluntarily resign without a payout.

I’m having trouble understanding why Monifa went proactively to the press with the accusation that the board wants her out. Why stir up more public drama? Isn’t that the last thing MCPS needs? Is she just looking for a payout? Because you cannot effectively lead once you have aired your dirty laundry in public

This, the soup is spoiled. She is most likely looking for public pressure but she doesn’t get that how few people actually care about her. She should enjoy the pension and ride out into the sunset. Her appointment was bigger than her and she doesn’t get that. Any stank she causes now will just make her look like an incompetent token hire pushed out as soon as she started. You don’t get to hide from accountability at the top.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And maybe will continue, or maybe it won't. Or perhaps something in-between.

To review, with regards to the Biedelman scandal, Robbins has provided very detailed and well sourced reporting that was verified by two different entities including the school district's own law firm. It sounds like you are trying to smear her name - what personal interest do you have in this? Since you are so concerned with ethics, tell us who you are and what connection you have to the people involved in the scandal.

I take it you don't remember her aligning herself with PAGES during the covid era?

Can you remind us who PAGES was?

Therefore we should ignore the many NAMED people who came forward to the press to expose Biedelman's sexual harassment and the horrific negligence with which the school system responded? Make it make sense.

Have you been reading her articles? An awful lot of statements that people don't want their names attached to:

“... according to… and current and former high-ranking district officials’ understanding of redacted portions of that report.”

“Two former MCPS leaders told MoCo360…”

“…district officials said.”

“…allegations by a Farquhar social studies teacher…”

“…nine current and former top-level district officials told MoCo360… The officials shared this information on condition of anonymity…”

“The officials also told MoCo360…”

“…said a former MCPS high-ranking district official who is familiar with superintendent protocol.”

“The IG report did not name the letter writer or the officials. But a current and a former district employee familiar with the contents of the letter both said…”

“…according to the two individuals familiar with it…”

“The current district employee paraphrased from her recollection of the complaint…”

“…said a former MCPS administrator who claimed to have attended happy hours…”

“…according to six current and former district officials and administrators.”

“…said the former administrator, who spoke on condition of anonymity…”

“…according to central office officials at the time…”

“…according to an attendee who spoke on condition of anonymity…”

“…was one of those two anonymous teachers…”

“…three current and former central office officials who worked for MCPS at the time…”

“…said one of the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity…”

“…an anonymous Farquhar teacher’s letter…”

“…according to a former OSSWB employee.”

“Fourteen current and former central office employees said…”

“... said three session attendees who requested anonymity…”

“... said a former high-ranking central office leader, who spoke on condition of anonymity…”

“... said a former longtime central office leader who requested anonymity…”

[Anonymous]

The board needs to go- she never should have been hired and the pp is correct that mcps has been on a down ward spiral since curriculum 2 point 0.

The waste and politicking has been out of control while test scores are rigor are in the toilet.
Schools are less safe
Special needs students have been thrown under the bus (I pray for an expose on how bad things are in this sector)
And for all the lip service and money wasted, minority students have done LESS well under the equity initiatives.
These are facts and the buck stops squarely at the board of education.
McKnight was a just one symptom of the disease.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And maybe will continue, or maybe it won't. Or perhaps something in-between.

To review, with regards to the Biedelman scandal, Robbins has provided very detailed and well sourced reporting that was verified by two different entities including the school district's own law firm. It sounds like you are trying to smear her name - what personal interest do you have in this? Since you are so concerned with ethics, tell us who you are and what connection you have to the people involved in the scandal.

I take it you don't remember her aligning herself with PAGES during the covid era?

Can you remind us who PAGES was?

Therefore we should ignore the many NAMED people who came forward to the press to expose Biedelman's sexual harassment and the horrific negligence with which the school system responded? Make it make sense.

Have you been reading her articles? An awful lot of statements that people don't want their names attached to:

“... according to… and current and former high-ranking district officials’ understanding of redacted portions of that report.”

“Two former MCPS leaders told MoCo360…”

“…district officials said.”

“…allegations by a Farquhar social studies teacher…”

“…nine current and former top-level district officials told MoCo360… The officials shared this information on condition of anonymity…”

“The officials also told MoCo360…”

“…said a former MCPS high-ranking district official who is familiar with superintendent protocol.”

“The IG report did not name the letter writer or the officials. But a current and a former district employee familiar with the contents of the letter both said…”

“…according to the two individuals familiar with it…”

“The current district employee paraphrased from her recollection of the complaint…”

“…said a former MCPS administrator who claimed to have attended happy hours…”

“…according to six current and former district officials and administrators.”

“…said the former administrator, who spoke on condition of anonymity…”

“…according to central office officials at the time…”

“…according to an attendee who spoke on condition of anonymity…”

“…was one of those two anonymous teachers…”

“…three current and former central office officials who worked for MCPS at the time…”

“…said one of the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity…”

“…an anonymous Farquhar teacher’s letter…”

“…according to a former OSSWB employee.”

“Fourteen current and former central office employees said…”

“... said three session attendees who requested anonymity…”

“... said a former high-ranking central office leader, who spoke on condition of anonymity…”

“... said a former longtime central office leader who requested anonymity…”

There is a reason people are speaking anonymously, which is why it is imperative we do not ignore those that out themselves at risk to come forward publicly. Yet you pretend they don't exist. You're sick.

[Anonymous]

I hope that she steps down peacefully and that the next candidate is based on ability, not diversity. Our young deserve better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And maybe will continue, or maybe it won't. Or perhaps something in-between.

To review, with regards to the Biedelman scandal, Robbins has provided very detailed and well sourced reporting that was verified by two different entities including the school district's own law firm. It sounds like you are trying to smear her name - what personal interest do you have in this? Since you are so concerned with ethics, tell us who you are and what connection you have to the people involved in the scandal.

I take it you don't remember her aligning herself with PAGES during the covid era?

Can you remind us who PAGES was?

Therefore we should ignore the many NAMED people who came forward to the press to expose Biedelman's sexual harassment and the horrific negligence with which the school system responded? Make it make sense.

Have you been reading her articles? An awful lot of statements that people don't want their names attached to:

“... according to… and current and former high-ranking district officials’ understanding of redacted portions of that report.”

“Two former MCPS leaders told MoCo360…”

“…district officials said.”

“…allegations by a Farquhar social studies teacher…”

“…nine current and former top-level district officials told MoCo360… The officials shared this information on condition of anonymity…”

“The officials also told MoCo360…”

“…said a former MCPS high-ranking district official who is familiar with superintendent protocol.”

“The IG report did not name the letter writer or the officials. But a current and a former district employee familiar with the contents of the letter both said…”

“…according to the two individuals familiar with it…”

“The current district employee paraphrased from her recollection of the complaint…”

“…said a former MCPS administrator who claimed to have attended happy hours…”

“…according to six current and former district officials and administrators.”

“…said the former administrator, who spoke on condition of anonymity…”

“…according to central office officials at the time…”

“…according to an attendee who spoke on condition of anonymity…”

“…was one of those two anonymous teachers…”

“…three current and former central office officials who worked for MCPS at the time…”

“…said one of the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity…”

“…an anonymous Farquhar teacher’s letter…”

“…according to a former OSSWB employee.”

“Fourteen current and former central office employees said…”

“... said three session attendees who requested anonymity…”

“... said a former high-ranking central office leader, who spoke on condition of anonymity…”

“... said a former longtime central office leader who requested anonymity…”

There is a reason people are speaking anonymously, which is why it is imperative we do not ignore those that out themselves at risk to come forward publicly. Yet you pretend they don't exist. You're sick.

Someone in this thread was trying to claim she wasn't basing her articles on unnamed sources. She clearly is. And I never said there weren't reasons for it, but it still affects the credibility of the reporting.

Though, the fact that she couldn't even get former employees to speak on-the-record about suspicious, or at least odd.

She's no Woodward and Bernstein, and McKnight is no Nixon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And maybe will continue, or maybe it won't. Or perhaps something in-between.

To review, with regards to the Biedelman scandal, Robbins has provided very detailed and well sourced reporting that was verified by two different entities including the school district's own law firm. It sounds like you are trying to smear her name - what personal interest do you have in this? Since you are so concerned with ethics, tell us who you are and what connection you have to the people involved in the scandal.

I take it you don't remember her aligning herself with PAGES during the covid era?

Can you remind us who PAGES was?

Therefore we should ignore the many NAMED people who came forward to the press to expose Biedelman's sexual harassment and the horrific negligence with which the school system responded? Make it make sense.

Have you been reading her articles? An awful lot of statements that people don't want their names attached to:

“... according to… and current and former high-ranking district officials’ understanding of redacted portions of that report.”

“Two former MCPS leaders told MoCo360…”

“…district officials said.”

“…allegations by a Farquhar social studies teacher…”

“…nine current and former top-level district officials told MoCo360… The officials shared this information on condition of anonymity…”

“The officials also told MoCo360…”

“…said a former MCPS high-ranking district official who is familiar with superintendent protocol.”

“The IG report did not name the letter writer or the officials. But a current and a former district employee familiar with the contents of the letter both said…”

“…according to the two individuals familiar with it…”

“The current district employee paraphrased from her recollection of the complaint…”

“…said a former MCPS administrator who claimed to have attended happy hours…”

“…according to six current and former district officials and administrators.”

“…said the former administrator, who spoke on condition of anonymity…”

“…according to central office officials at the time…”

“…according to an attendee who spoke on condition of anonymity…”

“…was one of those two anonymous teachers…”

“…three current and former central office officials who worked for MCPS at the time…”

“…said one of the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity…”

“…an anonymous Farquhar teacher’s letter…”

“…according to a former OSSWB employee.”

“Fourteen current and former central office employees said…”

“... said three session attendees who requested anonymity…”

“... said a former high-ranking central office leader, who spoke on condition of anonymity…”

“... said a former longtime central office leader who requested anonymity…”

There is a reason people are speaking anonymously, which is why it is imperative we do not ignore those that out themselves at risk to come forward publicly. Yet you pretend they don't exist. You're sick.

Someone in this thread was trying to claim she wasn't basing her articles on unnamed sources. She clearly is. And I never said there weren't reasons for it, but it still affects the credibility of the reporting.

Though, the fact that she couldn't even get former employees to speak on-the-record about suspicious, or at least odd.

She's no Woodward and Bernstein, and McKnight is no Nixon.

You're right-I'd argue that McKnight is worse than Nixon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And maybe will continue, or maybe it won't. Or perhaps something in-between.

To review, with regards to the Biedelman scandal, Robbins has provided very detailed and well sourced reporting that was verified by two different entities including the school district's own law firm. It sounds like you are trying to smear her name - what personal interest do you have in this? Since you are so concerned with ethics, tell us who you are and what connection you have to the people involved in the scandal.

I take it you don't remember her aligning herself with PAGES during the covid era?

What does that even mean?

She joined a fringe group of parents and teachers that protested the reopening of schools, advocated for an illegal teachers' strike, and encouraged teachers to lie to disrupt reopening. Robbins has never been a fan of McKnight.

You know nothing about the group. You are just smearing people. The group worked to advocate for safe reopenings, help teachers find vaccines, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And maybe will continue, or maybe it won't. Or perhaps something in-between.

To review, with regards to the Biedelman scandal, Robbins has provided very detailed and well sourced reporting that was verified by two different entities including the school district's own law firm. It sounds like you are trying to smear her name - what personal interest do you have in this? Since you are so concerned with ethics, tell us who you are and what connection you have to the people involved in the scandal.

I take it you don't remember her aligning herself with PAGES during the covid era?

What does that even mean?

She joined a fringe group of parents and teachers that protested the reopening of schools, advocated for an illegal teachers' strike, and encouraged teachers to lie to disrupt reopening. Robbins has never been a fan of McKnight.

You know nothing about the group. You are just smearing people. The group worked to advocate for safe reopenings, help teachers find vaccines, etc.

You didn't follow their private Facebook group if you think that's all they did. And some of the more cringeworthy posts were from Robbins herself.

But thanks for implicitly backing up my assertion that she was in that group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel Monifa has to go. What credibility does she have left to lead with. If she insists on staying, she will be a lame duck and absolutely nothing will get done

You're going to have to show her the money, then. She's not going to voluntarily resign without a payout.

I’m having trouble understanding why Monifa went proactively to the press with the accusation that the board wants her out. Why stir up more public drama? Isn’t that the last thing MCPS needs? Is she just looking for a payout? Because you cannot effectively lead once you have aired your dirty laundry in public

Her reputation has been as a mean girl bully and through this move unfortunately lives down to that reputation. Because she’s clearly trying to bully the Board when the proper move would have been to privately negotiate the terms of her exit, including severance and statements. Particularly if she was so concerned about her “reputation”. After doing that, there is not a school district in their right minds that would hire her and sadly for us, Dr. Monifa McKnight is a product of the MCPS work environment. There is a very, very serious institutional culture and accountability problem there that clearly needs to be fixed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel Monifa has to go. What credibility does she have left to lead with. If she insists on staying, she will be a lame duck and absolutely nothing will get done

You're going to have to show her the money, then. She's not going to voluntarily resign without a payout.

I’m having trouble understanding why Monifa went proactively to the press with the accusation that the board wants her out. Why stir up more public drama? Isn’t that the last thing MCPS needs? Is she just looking for a payout? Because you cannot effectively lead once you have aired your dirty laundry in public

Her reputation has been as a mean girl bully and through this move unfortunately lives down to that reputation. Because she’s clearly trying to bully the Board when the proper move would have been to privately negotiate the terms of her exit, including severance and statements. Particularly if she was so concerned about her “reputation”. After doing that, there is not a school district in their right minds that would hire her and sadly for us, Dr. Monifa McKnight is a product of the MCPS work environment. There is a very, very serious institutional culture and accountability problem there that clearly needs to be fixed.

Going public didn't make a lot if sense, but maybe she figured she wanted to get out in front on the Board. They wouldn't have kept their mouths shut for long.

[Anonymous]

Just pay her off and get rid of her. MCPS wastes so much money. This would be one thing that wasn't a waste.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And maybe will continue, or maybe it won't. Or perhaps something in-between.

To review, with regards to the Biedelman scandal, Robbins has provided very detailed and well sourced reporting that was verified by two different entities including the school district's own law firm. It sounds like you are trying to smear her name - what personal interest do you have in this? Since you are so concerned with ethics, tell us who you are and what connection you have to the people involved in the scandal.

I take it you don't remember her aligning herself with PAGES during the covid era?

Can you remind us who PAGES was?

Therefore we should ignore the many NAMED people who came forward to the press to expose Biedelman's sexual harassment and the horrific negligence with which the school system responded? Make it make sense.

Have you been reading her articles? An awful lot of statements that people don't want their names attached to:

“... according to… and current and former high-ranking district officials’ understanding of redacted portions of that report.”

“Two former MCPS leaders told MoCo360…”

“…district officials said.”

“…allegations by a Farquhar social studies teacher…”

“…nine current and former top-level district officials told MoCo360… The officials shared this information on condition of anonymity…”

“The officials also told MoCo360…”

“…said a former MCPS high-ranking district official who is familiar with superintendent protocol.”

“The IG report did not name the letter writer or the officials. But a current and a former district employee familiar with the contents of the letter both said…”

“…according to the two individuals familiar with it…”

“The current district employee paraphrased from her recollection of the complaint…”

“…said a former MCPS administrator who claimed to have attended happy hours…”

“…according to six current and former district officials and administrators.”

“…said the former administrator, who spoke on condition of anonymity…”

“…according to central office officials at the time…”

“…according to an attendee who spoke on condition of anonymity…”

“…was one of those two anonymous teachers…”

“…three current and former central office officials who worked for MCPS at the time…”

“…said one of the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity…”

“…an anonymous Farquhar teacher’s letter…”

“…according to a former OSSWB employee.”

“Fourteen current and former central office employees said…”

“... said three session attendees who requested anonymity…”

“... said a former high-ranking central office leader, who spoke on condition of anonymity…”

“... said a former longtime central office leader who requested anonymity…”

There is a reason people are speaking anonymously, which is why it is imperative we do not ignore those that out themselves at risk to come forward publicly. Yet you pretend they don't exist. You're sick.

Someone in this thread was trying to claim she wasn't basing her articles on unnamed sources. She clearly is. And I never said there weren't reasons for it, but it still affects the credibility of the reporting.

Though, the fact that she couldn't even get former employees to speak on-the-record about suspicious, or at least odd.

She's no Woodward and Bernstein, and McKnight is no Nixon.

I was skeptical of Robbins’ reporting when it first came out. She had a serious conflict of interest and the Post never should have allowed her to report this story. The stories had few named sources beyond MCPS officials declining comment.

But it doesn’t matter what she reported. The Jackson Lewis report summary came out and the scandal was even worse than what was reported. Then the redacted report came out and showed even more misconduct. And then there were the three IG reports. These are official sources. They’re not infallible but they’re highly credible. They confirmed many aspects of Robbins’ reporting. They did not confirm all of her reporting. Jackson Lewis was unable to find an email to the superintendent but then we found out that MCPS purges/archives emails after a year and we still don’t know whether Jackson Lewis had access to the archive.

So discount Robbins all you want. There are plenty of reasons to do so. But the Jackson Lewis and IG reports, all of which explored different aspects of the scandal, should generally be accepted as fact. The investigators had access to contemporaneously created records and conducted extensive interviews. The official reports all provide a very strong basis for terminating the superintendent. On top of that, there’s the matter of her own conduct this week, which makes it impossible for her to manage MCPS effectively from this point forward. The board needs to act swiftly to terminate her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And maybe will continue, or maybe it won't. Or perhaps something in-between.

To review, with regards to the Biedelman scandal, Robbins has provided very detailed and well sourced reporting that was verified by two different entities including the school district's own law firm. It sounds like you are trying to smear her name - what personal interest do you have in this? Since you are so concerned with ethics, tell us who you are and what connection you have to the people involved in the scandal.

I take it you don't remember her aligning herself with PAGES during the covid era?

Can you remind us who PAGES was?

Therefore we should ignore the many NAMED people who came forward to the press to expose Biedelman's sexual harassment and the horrific negligence with which the school system responded? Make it make sense.

Have you been reading her articles? An awful lot of statements that people don't want their names attached to:

“... according to… and current and former high-ranking district officials’ understanding of redacted portions of that report.”

“Two former MCPS leaders told MoCo360…”

“…district officials said.”

“…allegations by a Farquhar social studies teacher…”

“…nine current and former top-level district officials told MoCo360… The officials shared this information on condition of anonymity…”

“The officials also told MoCo360…”

“…said a former MCPS high-ranking district official who is familiar with superintendent protocol.”

“The IG report did not name the letter writer or the officials. But a current and a former district employee familiar with the contents of the letter both said…”

“…according to the two individuals familiar with it…”

“The current district employee paraphrased from her recollection of the complaint…”

“…said a former MCPS administrator who claimed to have attended happy hours…”

“…according to six current and former district officials and administrators.”

“…said the former administrator, who spoke on condition of anonymity…”

“…according to central office officials at the time…”

“…according to an attendee who spoke on condition of anonymity…”

“…was one of those two anonymous teachers…”

“…three current and former central office officials who worked for MCPS at the time…”

“…said one of the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity…”

“…an anonymous Farquhar teacher’s letter…”

“…according to a former OSSWB employee.”

“Fourteen current and former central office employees said…”

“... said three session attendees who requested anonymity…”

“... said a former high-ranking central office leader, who spoke on condition of anonymity…”

“... said a former longtime central office leader who requested anonymity…”

There is a reason people are speaking anonymously, which is why it is imperative we do not ignore those that out themselves at risk to come forward publicly. Yet you pretend they don't exist. You're sick.

Someone in this thread was trying to claim she wasn't basing her articles on unnamed sources. She clearly is. And I never said there weren't reasons for it, but it still affects the credibility of the reporting.

Though, the fact that she couldn't even get former employees to speak on-the-record about suspicious, or at least odd.

She's no Woodward and Bernstein, and McKnight is no Nixon.

I was skeptical of Robbins’ reporting when it first came out. She had a serious conflict of interest and the Post never should have allowed her to report this story. The stories had few named sources beyond MCPS officials declining comment.

But it doesn’t matter what she reported. The Jackson Lewis report summary came out and the scandal was even worse than what was reported. Then the redacted report came out and showed even more misconduct. And then there were the three IG reports. These are official sources. They’re not infallible but they’re highly credible. They confirmed many aspects of Robbins’ reporting. They did not confirm all of her reporting. Jackson Lewis was unable to find an email to the superintendent but then we found out that MCPS purges/archives emails after a year and we still don’t know whether Jackson Lewis had access to the archive.

So discount Robbins all you want. There are plenty of reasons to do so. But the Jackson Lewis and IG reports, all of which explored different aspects of the scandal, should generally be accepted as fact. The investigators had access to contemporaneously created records and conducted extensive interviews. The official reports all provide a very strong basis for terminating the superintendent. On top of that, there’s the matter of her own conduct this week, which makes it impossible for her to manage MCPS effectively from this point forward. The board needs to act swiftly to terminate her.

PP here. Completely agree with all of that.