Board wants Monifa to step down

[Anonymous]

*some people, namely people who were called out, that is

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, I'm somewhat reluctant to engage with the discourse about the reporting for all of the reasons listed above (mostly corroboration by official sources, including those hired by MCPS) because I think the "Robbins is biased" posters are doing the same obfuscation as the "One victim sent nudes" posters.

With that said, there's a lot of misunderstanding here about how anonymous sources work.

First, we're dealing with a school district that locked one of their own compliance officers out of the system when he filed a politically damaging report. So we know this is a team willing to engage in retaliation.

Second, MCPS is a unique employer in that they are the only game in town if you want to teach in a public school in the entire county. Sure, you could move to DCPS or NoVa, but you would lose tens of thousands of dollars per year in salary depending on how they count your experience, and potentially hundreds of thousands in pensions.

Third, anonymous sources are anonymous to the readers, but not to the journalist or (crucially) their editors. At the Washington Post, every claim made by an unnamed source needs to be shown to an editor, and it must also be corroborated by another source.

All of this is to say that while the extensive use of unnamed sources in the reporting is unusual, the exact circumstances make sense. You have a demonstratedly vindictive employer, operating a functional monopoly on employment, and you have safeguards to ensure that others within the publication are triple-checking the reporting.

Basically, of all the things we should be arguing about, this is not one of them.

/journalist, but not Robbins

That makes sense for current employees. But the fact that she can't get a single *former* employee to speak on-the-record is even more usual. That doesn't necessarily mean anything is false, but does impact the credibility of the overall story.

The real risk isn't that individual reported facts are necessarily wrong. As you said, hopefully things are being corroborated to avoid blatant falsehoods. But without knowing the sources, there's no way to confirm that the *characterizations* of those interviews are accurate in her articles.

That is literally the job of her editors. Unless you have a substantiated reason to question that Alexandra’s editors failed at their job, you raising these “questions” is not in good faith. Clearly you have a vested interest in raising doubts about the veracity of her reporting.

Why is that? On whose behalf are you doing this and why?

You are exaggerating what editors are able to do. They usually don't sit in on interviews. They might listen to recordings to confirm key details, but there isn't always going to be a recording. Otherwise the most they can really do is ask to see notes from interviews, or simply ask the reporter to walk them through their sources and information.

Are those useful and generally effective safeguards? Yes. But the editors generally aren't going to be in a position to fully verify both the facts themselves, as well as verify the writing accurately characterizes the facts as conveyed by the sources.

There's a reason journalists want their sources to go on-the-record-- they know it affects the credibility of the piece.

First off, no one claimed her editors sat in on the interviews. But that's besides the point. That's not their job. Their job is to fact check and verify behind their reporter. And if they fail at their job, they're held accountable. And if the reporter fails at their job or misleads their editors, they can get reprimanded or fired. Or the paper can get sued if what they publish is false or libelous.

You still didn't answer the questions on why you're determined to softly discredit Alexandra's reporting. We're waiting for answers, since you've anointed yourself the guardian of ethics and transparency.

Clearly I must be McKnight. Or Beidleman? Or maybe his best friend, Smondroski?

What's your conspiracy theory here? Because you apparently think it is ridiculous to question the motives and reporting of individuals based on their past behavior.

DP People are questioning your motives because your posts don't offer anything substantive and relevant to the topic of this thread except "Don't trust that reporter." So what on earth is your point? As multiple posters have pointed out to you, her reporting has been verified by Jackson Lewis (hired by MCPS) and the OIG (a County Government office). What do you have to add to this discussion besides innuendo?

She continues to write articles, like the one earlier this week. People should continue to read her work with caution and healthy skepticism until corroboration from others.

Okay? Her past articles have been great which is why people will continue to read them and demand answers.

No arguement from me. I think a couple of you think I was trying to make a different point than I intended, although I'm not sure what that was.

That's because you are being very vague and very accusatory about anonymous sources with no actual evidence that anything Robbins has published was inaccurate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, I'm somewhat reluctant to engage with the discourse about the reporting for all of the reasons listed above (mostly corroboration by official sources, including those hired by MCPS) because I think the "Robbins is biased" posters are doing the same obfuscation as the "One victim sent nudes" posters.

With that said, there's a lot of misunderstanding here about how anonymous sources work.

First, we're dealing with a school district that locked one of their own compliance officers out of the system when he filed a politically damaging report. So we know this is a team willing to engage in retaliation.

Second, MCPS is a unique employer in that they are the only game in town if you want to teach in a public school in the entire county. Sure, you could move to DCPS or NoVa, but you would lose tens of thousands of dollars per year in salary depending on how they count your experience, and potentially hundreds of thousands in pensions.

Third, anonymous sources are anonymous to the readers, but not to the journalist or (crucially) their editors. At the Washington Post, every claim made by an unnamed source needs to be shown to an editor, and it must also be corroborated by another source.

All of this is to say that while the extensive use of unnamed sources in the reporting is unusual, the exact circumstances make sense. You have a demonstratedly vindictive employer, operating a functional monopoly on employment, and you have safeguards to ensure that others within the publication are triple-checking the reporting.

Basically, of all the things we should be arguing about, this is not one of them.

/journalist, but not Robbins

That makes sense for current employees. But the fact that she can't get a single *former* employee to speak on-the-record is even more usual. That doesn't necessarily mean anything is false, but does impact the credibility of the overall story.

The real risk isn't that individual reported facts are necessarily wrong. As you said, hopefully things are being corroborated to avoid blatant falsehoods. But without knowing the sources, there's no way to confirm that the *characterizations* of those interviews are accurate in her articles.

That is literally the job of her editors. Unless you have a substantiated reason to question that Alexandra’s editors failed at their job, you raising these “questions” is not in good faith. Clearly you have a vested interest in raising doubts about the veracity of her reporting.

Why is that? On whose behalf are you doing this and why?

You are exaggerating what editors are able to do. They usually don't sit in on interviews. They might listen to recordings to confirm key details, but there isn't always going to be a recording. Otherwise the most they can really do is ask to see notes from interviews, or simply ask the reporter to walk them through their sources and information.

Are those useful and generally effective safeguards? Yes. But the editors generally aren't going to be in a position to fully verify both the facts themselves, as well as verify the writing accurately characterizes the facts as conveyed by the sources.

There's a reason journalists want their sources to go on-the-record-- they know it affects the credibility of the piece.

First off, no one claimed her editors sat in on the interviews. But that's besides the point. That's not their job. Their job is to fact check and verify behind their reporter. And if they fail at their job, they're held accountable. And if the reporter fails at their job or misleads their editors, they can get reprimanded or fired. Or the paper can get sued if what they publish is false or libelous.

You still didn't answer the questions on why you're determined to softly discredit Alexandra's reporting. We're waiting for answers, since you've anointed yourself the guardian of ethics and transparency.

Clearly I must be McKnight. Or Beidleman? Or maybe his best friend, Smondroski?

What's your conspiracy theory here? Because you apparently think it is ridiculous to question the motives and reporting of individuals based on their past behavior.

DP People are questioning your motives because your posts don't offer anything substantive and relevant to the topic of this thread except "Don't trust that reporter." So what on earth is your point? As multiple posters have pointed out to you, her reporting has been verified by Jackson Lewis (hired by MCPS) and the OIG (a County Government office). What do you have to add to this discussion besides innuendo?

She continues to write articles, like the one earlier this week. People should continue to read her work with caution and healthy skepticism until corroboration from others.

Okay? Her past articles have been great which is why people will continue to read them and demand answers.

No arguement from me. I think a couple of you think I was trying to make a different point than I intended, although I'm not sure what that was.

That's because you are being very vague and very accusatory about anonymous sources with no actual evidence that anything Robbins has published was inaccurate.

This is all irrelevant because everything except the Walker story that just broke has been documented in official reports that have been released by the government. The board has access to the unredacted reports. They will make their decisions based on the official reports, not news stories.

[Anonymous]

It's more likely that the board just wants to get rid of the negative attention for a mess they're also guilty of creating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's more likely that the board just wants to get rid of the negative attention for a mess they're also guilty of creating.

+1 How many other sexual harassment complaints were not properly investigated and addressed? What about other types of complaints against employees? What about Special Education complaints?

The Board of Education has received complaints that they ignored and kept behind closed doors. Sure they should get rid of Dr. McKnight for the rot under her leadership. But the Board of Education is also guilty. They all need to go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, I'm somewhat reluctant to engage with the discourse about the reporting for all of the reasons listed above (mostly corroboration by official sources, including those hired by MCPS) because I think the "Robbins is biased" posters are doing the same obfuscation as the "One victim sent nudes" posters.

With that said, there's a lot of misunderstanding here about how anonymous sources work.

First, we're dealing with a school district that locked one of their own compliance officers out of the system when he filed a politically damaging report. So we know this is a team willing to engage in retaliation.

Second, MCPS is a unique employer in that they are the only game in town if you want to teach in a public school in the entire county. Sure, you could move to DCPS or NoVa, but you would lose tens of thousands of dollars per year in salary depending on how they count your experience, and potentially hundreds of thousands in pensions.

Third, anonymous sources are anonymous to the readers, but not to the journalist or (crucially) their editors. At the Washington Post, every claim made by an unnamed source needs to be shown to an editor, and it must also be corroborated by another source.

All of this is to say that while the extensive use of unnamed sources in the reporting is unusual, the exact circumstances make sense. You have a demonstratedly vindictive employer, operating a functional monopoly on employment, and you have safeguards to ensure that others within the publication are triple-checking the reporting.

Basically, of all the things we should be arguing about, this is not one of them.

/journalist, but not Robbins

That makes sense for current employees. But the fact that she can't get a single *former* employee to speak on-the-record is even more usual. That doesn't necessarily mean anything is false, but does impact the credibility of the overall story.

The real risk isn't that individual reported facts are necessarily wrong. As you said, hopefully things are being corroborated to avoid blatant falsehoods. But without knowing the sources, there's no way to confirm that the *characterizations* of those interviews are accurate in her articles.

That is literally the job of her editors. Unless you have a substantiated reason to question that Alexandra’s editors failed at their job, you raising these “questions” is not in good faith. Clearly you have a vested interest in raising doubts about the veracity of her reporting.

Why is that? On whose behalf are you doing this and why?

You are exaggerating what editors are able to do. They usually don't sit in on interviews. They might listen to recordings to confirm key details, but there isn't always going to be a recording. Otherwise the most they can really do is ask to see notes from interviews, or simply ask the reporter to walk them through their sources and information.

Are those useful and generally effective safeguards? Yes. But the editors generally aren't going to be in a position to fully verify both the facts themselves, as well as verify the writing accurately characterizes the facts as conveyed by the sources.

There's a reason journalists want their sources to go on-the-record-- they know it affects the credibility of the piece.

First off, no one claimed her editors sat in on the interviews. But that's besides the point. That's not their job. Their job is to fact check and verify behind their reporter. And if they fail at their job, they're held accountable. And if the reporter fails at their job or misleads their editors, they can get reprimanded or fired. Or the paper can get sued if what they publish is false or libelous.

You still didn't answer the questions on why you're determined to softly discredit Alexandra's reporting. We're waiting for answers, since you've anointed yourself the guardian of ethics and transparency.

Clearly I must be McKnight. Or Beidleman? Or maybe his best friend, Smondroski?

What's your conspiracy theory here? Because you apparently think it is ridiculous to question the motives and reporting of individuals based on their past behavior.

DP People are questioning your motives because your posts don't offer anything substantive and relevant to the topic of this thread except "Don't trust that reporter." So what on earth is your point? As multiple posters have pointed out to you, her reporting has been verified by Jackson Lewis (hired by MCPS) and the OIG (a County Government office). What do you have to add to this discussion besides innuendo?

She continues to write articles, like the one earlier this week. People should continue to read her work with caution and healthy skepticism until corroboration from others.

Okay? Her past articles have been great which is why people will continue to read them and demand answers.

No arguement from me. I think a couple of you think I was trying to make a different point than I intended, although I'm not sure what that was.

That's because you are being very vague and very accusatory about anonymous sources with no actual evidence that anything Robbins has published was inaccurate.

Do you trust everything you read as long as you haven't yet caught the author exaggerating or lying?

[Anonymous]

“Pretty sure,” eh? Well look at that standard of proof you’re upholding, there. Bravo.

[Anonymous]

Look, I know fighting on the internet is fun, but imagine what a better conversation we could be having if we ignore the trolls and the defense attorney interns, and the perpetrators themselves logging on to slut shame their victims.

[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.

So what. She exposed a cover up of sexual harassment of staff AND students. She is a bit player now. That scandal has taken on a life of its own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, I'm somewhat reluctant to engage with the discourse about the reporting for all of the reasons listed above (mostly corroboration by official sources, including those hired by MCPS) because I think the "Robbins is biased" posters are doing the same obfuscation as the "One victim sent nudes" posters.

With that said, there's a lot of misunderstanding here about how anonymous sources work.

First, we're dealing with a school district that locked one of their own compliance officers out of the system when he filed a politically damaging report. So we know this is a team willing to engage in retaliation.

Second, MCPS is a unique employer in that they are the only game in town if you want to teach in a public school in the entire county. Sure, you could move to DCPS or NoVa, but you would lose tens of thousands of dollars per year in salary depending on how they count your experience, and potentially hundreds of thousands in pensions.

Third, anonymous sources are anonymous to the readers, but not to the journalist or (crucially) their editors. At the Washington Post, every claim made by an unnamed source needs to be shown to an editor, and it must also be corroborated by another source.

All of this is to say that while the extensive use of unnamed sources in the reporting is unusual, the exact circumstances make sense. You have a demonstratedly vindictive employer, operating a functional monopoly on employment, and you have safeguards to ensure that others within the publication are triple-checking the reporting.

Basically, of all the things we should be arguing about, this is not one of them.

/journalist, but not Robbins

That makes sense for current employees. But the fact that she can't get a single *former* employee to speak on-the-record is even more usual. That doesn't necessarily mean anything is false, but does impact the credibility of the overall story.

The real risk isn't that individual reported facts are necessarily wrong. As you said, hopefully things are being corroborated to avoid blatant falsehoods. But without knowing the sources, there's no way to confirm that the *characterizations* of those interviews are accurate in her articles.

That is literally the job of her editors. Unless you have a substantiated reason to question that Alexandra’s editors failed at their job, you raising these “questions” is not in good faith. Clearly you have a vested interest in raising doubts about the veracity of her reporting.

Why is that? On whose behalf are you doing this and why?

You are exaggerating what editors are able to do. They usually don't sit in on interviews. They might listen to recordings to confirm key details, but there isn't always going to be a recording. Otherwise the most they can really do is ask to see notes from interviews, or simply ask the reporter to walk them through their sources and information.

Are those useful and generally effective safeguards? Yes. But the editors generally aren't going to be in a position to fully verify both the facts themselves, as well as verify the writing accurately characterizes the facts as conveyed by the sources.

There's a reason journalists want their sources to go on-the-record-- they know it affects the credibility of the piece.

First off, no one claimed her editors sat in on the interviews. But that's besides the point. That's not their job. Their job is to fact check and verify behind their reporter. And if they fail at their job, they're held accountable. And if the reporter fails at their job or misleads their editors, they can get reprimanded or fired. Or the paper can get sued if what they publish is false or libelous.

You still didn't answer the questions on why you're determined to softly discredit Alexandra's reporting. We're waiting for answers, since you've anointed yourself the guardian of ethics and transparency.

Clearly I must be McKnight. Or Beidleman? Or maybe his best friend, Smondroski?

What's your conspiracy theory here? Because you apparently think it is ridiculous to question the motives and reporting of individuals based on their past behavior.

DP People are questioning your motives because your posts don't offer anything substantive and relevant to the topic of this thread except "Don't trust that reporter." So what on earth is your point? As multiple posters have pointed out to you, her reporting has been verified by Jackson Lewis (hired by MCPS) and the OIG (a County Government office). What do you have to add to this discussion besides innuendo?

She continues to write articles, like the one earlier this week. People should continue to read her work with caution and healthy skepticism until corroboration from others.

Okay? Her past articles have been great which is why people will continue to read them and demand answers.

No arguement from me. I think a couple of you think I was trying to make a different point than I intended, although I'm not sure what that was.

That's because you are being very vague and very accusatory about anonymous sources with no actual evidence that anything Robbins has published was inaccurate.

Do you trust everything you read as long as you haven't yet caught the author exaggerating or lying?

And, by the way, you'd only be able to say that about Robbins if you never saw what she did with PAGES. I'm pretty sure she was the one that told parents and teachers to lie and falsely report covid cases in an attempt to get mcps to close down.

We get it, you don't like Alexandra Robbins. Womp womp. But can you at least admit that the articles she's written that have been verified by other entities have the potential to drive major positive change in MCPS? If it weren't for her Biedelman would be a high school principal right now. Imagine how he'd treat high school girls. MCPS is getting major flack right now, people will be checking in on them and making sure they aren't ignoring complaints anymore. That's huge and without Robbins, that doesn't happen.

Yes, it's true many of the basic facts in her articles have been verified. But that may not always be true.

[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?

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.

That group did and said horrible things about families that were truly struggling.

Therefore, MCPS and Biedelman are innocent! Make it make sense.

It doesn't mean that all. It just means you should be careful when reading articles built on mostly unnamed sources when they're written by someone with that history.

Should you be careful when reading a report from the Montgomery County Office of the Inspector General? Because that's what matters now, not the journalist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, I'm somewhat reluctant to engage with the discourse about the reporting for all of the reasons listed above (mostly corroboration by official sources, including those hired by MCPS) because I think the "Robbins is biased" posters are doing the same obfuscation as the "One victim sent nudes" posters.

With that said, there's a lot of misunderstanding here about how anonymous sources work.

First, we're dealing with a school district that locked one of their own compliance officers out of the system when he filed a politically damaging report. So we know this is a team willing to engage in retaliation.

Second, MCPS is a unique employer in that they are the only game in town if you want to teach in a public school in the entire county. Sure, you could move to DCPS or NoVa, but you would lose tens of thousands of dollars per year in salary depending on how they count your experience, and potentially hundreds of thousands in pensions.

Third, anonymous sources are anonymous to the readers, but not to the journalist or (crucially) their editors. At the Washington Post, every claim made by an unnamed source needs to be shown to an editor, and it must also be corroborated by another source.

All of this is to say that while the extensive use of unnamed sources in the reporting is unusual, the exact circumstances make sense. You have a demonstratedly vindictive employer, operating a functional monopoly on employment, and you have safeguards to ensure that others within the publication are triple-checking the reporting.

Basically, of all the things we should be arguing about, this is not one of them.

/journalist, but not Robbins

That makes sense for current employees. But the fact that she can't get a single *former* employee to speak on-the-record is even more usual. That doesn't necessarily mean anything is false, but does impact the credibility of the overall story.

The real risk isn't that individual reported facts are necessarily wrong. As you said, hopefully things are being corroborated to avoid blatant falsehoods. But without knowing the sources, there's no way to confirm that the *characterizations* of those interviews are accurate in her articles.

That is literally the job of her editors. Unless you have a substantiated reason to question that Alexandra’s editors failed at their job, you raising these “questions” is not in good faith. Clearly you have a vested interest in raising doubts about the veracity of her reporting.

Why is that? On whose behalf are you doing this and why?

You are exaggerating what editors are able to do. They usually don't sit in on interviews. They might listen to recordings to confirm key details, but there isn't always going to be a recording. Otherwise the most they can really do is ask to see notes from interviews, or simply ask the reporter to walk them through their sources and information.

Are those useful and generally effective safeguards? Yes. But the editors generally aren't going to be in a position to fully verify both the facts themselves, as well as verify the writing accurately characterizes the facts as conveyed by the sources.

There's a reason journalists want their sources to go on-the-record-- they know it affects the credibility of the piece.

First off, no one claimed her editors sat in on the interviews. But that's besides the point. That's not their job. Their job is to fact check and verify behind their reporter. And if they fail at their job, they're held accountable. And if the reporter fails at their job or misleads their editors, they can get reprimanded or fired. Or the paper can get sued if what they publish is false or libelous.

You still didn't answer the questions on why you're determined to softly discredit Alexandra's reporting. We're waiting for answers, since you've anointed yourself the guardian of ethics and transparency.

Clearly I must be McKnight. Or Beidleman? Or maybe his best friend, Smondroski?

What's your conspiracy theory here? Because you apparently think it is ridiculous to question the motives and reporting of individuals based on their past behavior.

DP People are questioning your motives because your posts don't offer anything substantive and relevant to the topic of this thread except "Don't trust that reporter." So what on earth is your point? As multiple posters have pointed out to you, her reporting has been verified by Jackson Lewis (hired by MCPS) and the OIG (a County Government office). What do you have to add to this discussion besides innuendo?

She continues to write articles, like the one earlier this week. People should continue to read her work with caution and healthy skepticism until corroboration from others.

Okay? Her past articles have been great which is why people will continue to read them and demand answers.

No arguement from me. I think a couple of you think I was trying to make a different point than I intended, although I'm not sure what that was.

That's because you are being very vague and very accusatory about anonymous sources with no actual evidence that anything Robbins has published was inaccurate.

Do you trust everything you read as long as you haven't yet caught the author exaggerating or lying?

And, by the way, you'd only be able to say that about Robbins if you never saw what she did with PAGES. I'm pretty sure she was the one that told parents and teachers to lie and falsely report covid cases in an attempt to get mcps to close down.

We get it, you don't like Alexandra Robbins. Womp womp. But can you at least admit that the articles she's written that have been verified by other entities have the potential to drive major positive change in MCPS? If it weren't for her Biedelman would be a high school principal right now. Imagine how he'd treat high school girls. MCPS is getting major flack right now, people will be checking in on them and making sure they aren't ignoring complaints anymore. That's huge and without Robbins, that doesn't happen.

Yes, it's true many of the basic facts in her articles have been verified. But that may not always be true.

Alright, you are being very stubborn in insisting that we all give the side eye to Robbins despite what she has achieved and the good she has done. I doubt many people will listen to you, so keep on railing against her. We'll keep our focus on holding MCPS accountable for keeping teachers and students safe from bullying and harassment. Good luck with your thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting that her dissertation was based on interviews with this group of other MS principals
https://api.drum.lib.umd.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/81271894-d2b2-4cfd-b767-909cdf1c81f8/content

You mean other Black female middle school principals employed in the same school district? Where is Burnett County anyway? The 9 pages of thank yous led me to skimming the dissertation but I couldn’t find the state name

Given the culture of cover ups for each other, is anyone looking into the other principals that were in Beidleman’s Doctoral cohort?
https://www.hood.edu/cohort-3-doctoral-bios

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2024/01/24/joel-beidleman-leaves-montgomery-county-schools/?commentID=2159d9cd-6926-405a-a247-447aee8a8e45

[Anonymous]

Now that the OIG report has come out, where do things stand? Is the Board moving forward with any actions against the superintendent?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Now that the OIG report has come out, where do things stand? Is the Board moving forward with any actions against the superintendent?

Good question. They are restricted by personnel/privacy rules but the lack of information and transparency is very frustrating for the public.