Dr. Felder - What can people share about her work as a principal at Watkins Mill ES and as a past MCPS administrator?

[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:I am not looking to tear somebody to shreds here, but Dr. Felder will probably apply for the permanent superintendent position and I would like to know more about what is was like for people to work under her supervision.

Dig up the dirt!!!

We can't afford, in oh, so many ways, another $hit show. It's early days for Dr. Felder. We don't want/need dirt. However, if there are problems, that needs to come out BEFORE the BOE hires again. Frankly, I have higher hopes for Dr. Felder than I do for the BOE.

Maybe you're out of the loop but the reason they picked folder is she's McKnight 2.0. But it's not like the mess with Beidleman was limited to McKnight's tenure. It started long before her appointment and not all that sure that 30+ anonymous complaints really carry any weight.

McKnight's mess was not just about Beidleman - she was a nightmare before that. McKnight went through leadership regularly because she was a toxic bully. Her absenteeism initiative? Just words at the beginning of the SY. Her anti-racism initiative? No follow-through after the anti-racism audit except to rail about white supremacists teaching students. Then there is the frozen budget for a budget formed under her "leadership." Mostly, McKnight liked to have her driver and security staff take her around to visit schools, which required school staff to stop the necessary daily work of education to perform for the superintendent. I sincerely hope that Felder isn't McKnight 2.0. That would be the last thing we need.

She is McK2.0 but the BoE liked McK. They only cut her lose because of public pressure and are hoping this allows them to continue with business as usual.

I think some BOE members supported McKnight, while others found her problematic. Nobody can say anything now, because of the separation agreement's confidentiality requirement.

You have to remember they offered her the job.

DP. Not all of them were on the BoE when she was offered the job.

So? The point is the board appointed her and supported until they were forced by public pressure to do otherwise.

No, they appointed her and supported her until they found out she was withholding information and lying to them.

That's not what the report said.

Yes it is.

NOT.!The report said they found no wrongdoing.

[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:I am not looking to tear somebody to shreds here, but Dr. Felder will probably apply for the permanent superintendent position and I would like to know more about what is was like for people to work under her supervision.

Dig up the dirt!!!

We can't afford, in oh, so many ways, another $hit show. It's early days for Dr. Felder. We don't want/need dirt. However, if there are problems, that needs to come out BEFORE the BOE hires again. Frankly, I have higher hopes for Dr. Felder than I do for the BOE.

Maybe you're out of the loop but the reason they picked folder is she's McKnight 2.0. But it's not like the mess with Beidleman was limited to McKnight's tenure. It started long before her appointment and not all that sure that 30+ anonymous complaints really carry any weight.

McKnight's mess was not just about Beidleman - she was a nightmare before that. McKnight went through leadership regularly because she was a toxic bully. Her absenteeism initiative? Just words at the beginning of the SY. Her anti-racism initiative? No follow-through after the anti-racism audit except to rail about white supremacists teaching students. Then there is the frozen budget for a budget formed under her "leadership." Mostly, McKnight liked to have her driver and security staff take her around to visit schools, which required school staff to stop the necessary daily work of education to perform for the superintendent. I sincerely hope that Felder isn't McKnight 2.0. That would be the last thing we need.

She is McK2.0 but the BoE liked McK. They only cut her lose because of public pressure and are hoping this allows them to continue with business as usual.

I think some BOE members supported McKnight, while others found her problematic. Nobody can say anything now, because of the separation agreement's confidentiality requirement.

You have to remember they offered her the job.

DP. Not all of them were on the BoE when she was offered the job.

So? The point is the board appointed her and supported until they were forced by public pressure to do otherwise.

No, they appointed her and supported her until they found out she was withholding information and lying to them.

That's not what the report said.

Yes it is.

NOT.!The report said they found no wrongdoing.

[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:I am not looking to tear somebody to shreds here, but Dr. Felder will probably apply for the permanent superintendent position and I would like to know more about what is was like for people to work under her supervision.

Dig up the dirt!!!

We can't afford, in oh, so many ways, another $hit show. It's early days for Dr. Felder. We don't want/need dirt. However, if there are problems, that needs to come out BEFORE the BOE hires again. Frankly, I have higher hopes for Dr. Felder than I do for the BOE.

Maybe you're out of the loop but the reason they picked folder is she's McKnight 2.0. But it's not like the mess with Beidleman was limited to McKnight's tenure. It started long before her appointment and not all that sure that 30+ anonymous complaints really carry any weight.

McKnight's mess was not just about Beidleman - she was a nightmare before that. McKnight went through leadership regularly because she was a toxic bully. Her absenteeism initiative? Just words at the beginning of the SY. Her anti-racism initiative? No follow-through after the anti-racism audit except to rail about white supremacists teaching students. Then there is the frozen budget for a budget formed under her "leadership." Mostly, McKnight liked to have her driver and security staff take her around to visit schools, which required school staff to stop the necessary daily work of education to perform for the superintendent. I sincerely hope that Felder isn't McKnight 2.0. That would be the last thing we need.

She is McK2.0 but the BoE liked McK. They only cut her lose because of public pressure and are hoping this allows them to continue with business as usual.

I think some BOE members supported McKnight, while others found her problematic. Nobody can say anything now, because of the separation agreement's confidentiality requirement.

You have to remember they offered her the job.

DP. Not all of them were on the BoE when she was offered the job.

So? The point is the board appointed her and supported until they were forced by public pressure to do otherwise.

No, they appointed her and supported her until they found out she was withholding information and lying to them.

That's not what the report said.

Yes it is.

NOT.!The report said they found no wrongdoing.

Hmmm what you smokin?

[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:I am not looking to tear somebody to shreds here, but Dr. Felder will probably apply for the permanent superintendent position and I would like to know more about what is was like for people to work under her supervision.

Dig up the dirt!!!

We can't afford, in oh, so many ways, another $hit show. It's early days for Dr. Felder. We don't want/need dirt. However, if there are problems, that needs to come out BEFORE the BOE hires again. Frankly, I have higher hopes for Dr. Felder than I do for the BOE.

Maybe you're out of the loop but the reason they picked folder is she's McKnight 2.0. But it's not like the mess with Beidleman was limited to McKnight's tenure. It started long before her appointment and not all that sure that 30+ anonymous complaints really carry any weight.

McKnight's mess was not just about Beidleman - she was a nightmare before that. McKnight went through leadership regularly because she was a toxic bully. Her absenteeism initiative? Just words at the beginning of the SY. Her anti-racism initiative? No follow-through after the anti-racism audit except to rail about white supremacists teaching students. Then there is the frozen budget for a budget formed under her "leadership." Mostly, McKnight liked to have her driver and security staff take her around to visit schools, which required school staff to stop the necessary daily work of education to perform for the superintendent. I sincerely hope that Felder isn't McKnight 2.0. That would be the last thing we need.

She is McK2.0 but the BoE liked McK. They only cut her lose because of public pressure and are hoping this allows them to continue with business as usual.

I think some BOE members supported McKnight, while others found her problematic. Nobody can say anything now, because of the separation agreement's confidentiality requirement.

You have to remember they offered her the job.

DP. Not all of them were on the BoE when she was offered the job.

So? The point is the board appointed her and supported until they were forced by public pressure to do otherwise.

No, they appointed her and supported her until they found out she was withholding information and lying to them.

That's not what the report said.

Yes it is.

NOT.!The report said they found no wrongdoing.

Hmmm what you smokin?

Not the doctored report they fabricated after the initial one cleared everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I never worked for her, but I can attest that the time when she was with AEI was a pretty good time to have a "gifted" kid in MCPS.

It is genuinely hard to talk about highly able learners, and the ways in which certain groups are not identified, and I think she threaded the needle well. There were programs to identify gifted kids in high needs elementary schools, and to nurture that talent so that they would be able to apply for criteria-based programs (HGC, at the time).

Within the confines of the political realities, she did a good job.

I think A LOT of people would disagree with your assessment that this was some kind of golden age for gifted kids in MCPS.

I'm the PP and I never said "golden age." I said "pretty good considering the political dynamics."

In the time when she was in charge of AEI, we had no "peer cohort" criterial for HGC and MS magnets, no lottery, and a full CogAT. There were "advanced" English and science classes in middle school outside the magnets, and Honors for All was not a thing. These at the things people say they want back.

Personally, I think some of the changes that came after her time were good. I think getting rid of at-home essays was absolutely good, and offering the MS test in school rather than having kids find transportation on a Saturday. But other changes were absolutely bad, and it's worth noting that for all that folks complain about Dr. Felder's focus on "equity," AEI was much better under her leadership than what came after.

But if gifted education is one of the issues someone cares about, the period when Dr. Felder was in charge was better on a lot of the metrics that folks complain about now.

Why do you think getting rid of at home essays was a good thing?

Because at home essays are written by or edited to death by parents. It’s not a true reflection of the student’s ability. Ask any private school parent.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:I am not looking to tear somebody to shreds here, but Dr. Felder will probably apply for the permanent superintendent position and I would like to know more about what is was like for people to work under her supervision.

Dig up the dirt!!!

We can't afford, in oh, so many ways, another $hit show. It's early days for Dr. Felder. We don't want/need dirt. However, if there are problems, that needs to come out BEFORE the BOE hires again. Frankly, I have higher hopes for Dr. Felder than I do for the BOE.

Maybe you're out of the loop but the reason they picked folder is she's McKnight 2.0. But it's not like the mess with Beidleman was limited to McKnight's tenure. It started long before her appointment and not all that sure that 30+ anonymous complaints really carry any weight.

McKnight's mess was not just about Beidleman - she was a nightmare before that. McKnight went through leadership regularly because she was a toxic bully. Her absenteeism initiative? Just words at the beginning of the SY. Her anti-racism initiative? No follow-through after the anti-racism audit except to rail about white supremacists teaching students. Then there is the frozen budget for a budget formed under her "leadership." Mostly, McKnight liked to have her driver and security staff take her around to visit schools, which required school staff to stop the necessary daily work of education to perform for the superintendent. I sincerely hope that Felder isn't McKnight 2.0. That would be the last thing we need.

She is McK2.0 but the BoE liked McK. They only cut her lose because of public pressure and are hoping this allows them to continue with business as usual.

I think some BOE members supported McKnight, while others found her problematic. Nobody can say anything now, because of the separation agreement's confidentiality requirement.

You have to remember they offered her the job.

DP. Not all of them were on the BoE when she was offered the job.

So? The point is the board appointed her and supported until they were forced by public pressure to do otherwise.

No, they appointed her and supported her until they found out she was withholding information and lying to them.

That's not what the report said.

Yes it is.

NOT.!The report said they found no wrongdoing.

Hmmm what you smokin?

Not the doctored report they fabricated after the initial one cleared everyone.

I am so sick of the gaslighting. Please, give your disinformation campaign a rest.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not looking to tear somebody to shreds here, but Dr. Felder will probably apply for the permanent superintendent position and I would like to know more about what is was like for people to work under her supervision.

Dig up the dirt!!!

We can't afford, in oh, so many ways, another $hit show. It's early days for Dr. Felder. We don't want/need dirt. However, if there are problems, that needs to come out BEFORE the BOE hires again. Frankly, I have higher hopes for Dr. Felder than I do for the BOE.

Maybe you're out of the loop but the reason they picked folder is she's McKnight 2.0. But it's not like the mess with Beidleman was limited to McKnight's tenure. It started long before her appointment and not all that sure that 30+ anonymous complaints really carry any weight.

McKnight's mess was not just about Beidleman - she was a nightmare before that. McKnight went through leadership regularly because she was a toxic bully. Her absenteeism initiative? Just words at the beginning of the SY. Her anti-racism initiative? No follow-through after the anti-racism audit except to rail about white supremacists teaching students. Then there is the frozen budget for a budget formed under her "leadership." Mostly, McKnight liked to have her driver and security staff take her around to visit schools, which required school staff to stop the necessary daily work of education to perform for the superintendent. I sincerely hope that Felder isn't McKnight 2.0. That would be the last thing we need.

She is McK2.0 but the BoE liked McK. They only cut her lose because of public pressure and are hoping this allows them to continue with business as usual.

I think some BOE members supported McKnight, while others found her problematic. Nobody can say anything now, because of the separation agreement's confidentiality requirement.

You have to remember they offered her the job.

DP. Not all of them were on the BoE when she was offered the job.

So? The point is the board appointed her and supported until they were forced by public pressure to do otherwise.

No, they appointed her and supported her until they found out she was withholding information and lying to them.

That's not what the report said.

Yes it is.

NOT.!The report said they found no wrongdoing.

Hmmm what you smokin?

Not the doctored report they fabricated after the initial one cleared everyone.

I am so sick of the gaslighting. Please, give your disinformation campaign a rest.

Me too! Everyone knows the first report was the only honest one.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:I am not looking to tear somebody to shreds here, but Dr. Felder will probably apply for the permanent superintendent position and I would like to know more about what is was like for people to work under her supervision.

Dig up the dirt!!!

We can't afford, in oh, so many ways, another $hit show. It's early days for Dr. Felder. We don't want/need dirt. However, if there are problems, that needs to come out BEFORE the BOE hires again. Frankly, I have higher hopes for Dr. Felder than I do for the BOE.

Maybe you're out of the loop but the reason they picked folder is she's McKnight 2.0. But it's not like the mess with Beidleman was limited to McKnight's tenure. It started long before her appointment and not all that sure that 30+ anonymous complaints really carry any weight.

McKnight's mess was not just about Beidleman - she was a nightmare before that. McKnight went through leadership regularly because she was a toxic bully. Her absenteeism initiative? Just words at the beginning of the SY. Her anti-racism initiative? No follow-through after the anti-racism audit except to rail about white supremacists teaching students. Then there is the frozen budget for a budget formed under her "leadership." Mostly, McKnight liked to have her driver and security staff take her around to visit schools, which required school staff to stop the necessary daily work of education to perform for the superintendent. I sincerely hope that Felder isn't McKnight 2.0. That would be the last thing we need.

She is McK2.0 but the BoE liked McK. They only cut her lose because of public pressure and are hoping this allows them to continue with business as usual.

I think some BOE members supported McKnight, while others found her problematic. Nobody can say anything now, because of the separation agreement's confidentiality requirement.

You have to remember they offered her the job.

DP. Not all of them were on the BoE when she was offered the job.

So? The point is the board appointed her and supported until they were forced by public pressure to do otherwise.

No, they appointed her and supported her until they found out she was withholding information and lying to them.

That's not what the report said.

Yes it is.

NOT.!The report said they found no wrongdoing.

Hmmm what you smokin?

Not the doctored report they fabricated after the initial one cleared everyone.

No report cleared everyone. Joel, enjoy Mexico.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not looking to tear somebody to shreds here, but Dr. Felder will probably apply for the permanent superintendent position and I would like to know more about what is was like for people to work under her supervision.

Dig up the dirt!!!

We can't afford, in oh, so many ways, another $hit show. It's early days for Dr. Felder. We don't want/need dirt. However, if there are problems, that needs to come out BEFORE the BOE hires again. Frankly, I have higher hopes for Dr. Felder than I do for the BOE.

Maybe you're out of the loop but the reason they picked folder is she's McKnight 2.0. But it's not like the mess with Beidleman was limited to McKnight's tenure. It started long before her appointment and not all that sure that 30+ anonymous complaints really carry any weight.

McKnight's mess was not just about Beidleman - she was a nightmare before that. McKnight went through leadership regularly because she was a toxic bully. Her absenteeism initiative? Just words at the beginning of the SY. Her anti-racism initiative? No follow-through after the anti-racism audit except to rail about white supremacists teaching students. Then there is the frozen budget for a budget formed under her "leadership." Mostly, McKnight liked to have her driver and security staff take her around to visit schools, which required school staff to stop the necessary daily work of education to perform for the superintendent. I sincerely hope that Felder isn't McKnight 2.0. That would be the last thing we need.

She is McK2.0 but the BoE liked McK. They only cut her lose because of public pressure and are hoping this allows them to continue with business as usual.

I think some BOE members supported McKnight, while others found her problematic. Nobody can say anything now, because of the separation agreement's confidentiality requirement.

You have to remember they offered her the job.

DP. Not all of them were on the BoE when she was offered the job.

So? The point is the board appointed her and supported until they were forced by public pressure to do otherwise.

No, they appointed her and supported her until they found out she was withholding information and lying to them.

That's not what the report said.

Yes it is.

NOT.!The report said they found no wrongdoing.

Hmmm what you smokin?

Not the doctored report they fabricated after the initial one cleared everyone.

I am so sick of the gaslighting. Please, give your disinformation campaign a rest.

Me too! Everyone knows the first report was the only honest one.

Agree and the truth is out there despite what the rabid haters say.

[Anonymous]

Moderate moco says she isn’t interested in position

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Moderate moco says she isn’t interested in position

Sounds like a smart lady since everyone knows the fate of anyone who accepts this post (Monifa).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Moderate moco says she isn’t interested in position

Sounds smart to me. Get the profile for four months of work in the large MCPS system, set some ground for a new person, and move on without the headaches.