Dec 18th: FY 2026 Recommended Operating Budget

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That chart showing the decline in enrollment next to a 24% increase in central staff is a pretty pointed critique of McKnight. Seems like she abused her position to give her buddies cushy jobs. And we're still paying for it in addition to the BOE hush money payout.

Agreed. Monifa padded CO with a lot of failed principals, many of whom curried favor with her. What a toxic mess.

It’s hilarious that folks are bringing McKnight into based on one slide. The presentation when taken as a whole shows is that McKnight and her team were doing things to make the system better even if folks didn’t like it and or they are ultimately hated for it. Charts show both Literacy and Math scores improving post Covid. And we known things we terrible right after the pandemic nationwide. Many parents are happy with implementation of Science of Reading and the new ES ELA curriculum. Even the slide with the arrow on McPS forward shows things moving towards alignment. And Taylor himself has admitted this isn’t all going to be right sized or achieved this year.

The point being that this presentation don’t about McKnight it’s about Taylor and the coming year.

Taylor was pointed about how nonsensical it was that CO grew by 24% while enrollment dropped 2%. You can’t spin that, and that increase in CO is a direct result of choices Monifa made when she was in charge. Get a grip.

Both Monifa and Jack.

Nope. McKnight started as interim superintendent back in 2021. Look at the chart. She owns that 24% increase.

The FY2022 budget was the last one created by Smith.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like they added almost 500 central office positions between FY21 and FY23? How is thaf even possible? What positions are we talking about here?

Staffing for the many new DEI initiatives.

Some paras are under CO, as well as some SLPs and OTs. We had this discussion last year but somehow it's always the same misinformed parents and disgruntled people complaining. There is a reason only 81 CO positions were cut, because when it was time to look at the list, many are already in schools.

It would be wise for Taylor to fix that so that when people see central office staffing numbers, they are reflective of the reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That chart showing the decline in enrollment next to a 24% increase in central staff is a pretty pointed critique of McKnight. Seems like she abused her position to give her buddies cushy jobs. And we're still paying for it in addition to the BOE hush money payout.

Agreed. Monifa padded CO with a lot of failed principals, many of whom curried favor with her. What a toxic mess.

It’s hilarious that folks are bringing McKnight into based on one slide. The presentation when taken as a whole shows is that McKnight and her team were doing things to make the system better even if folks didn’t like it and or they are ultimately hated for it. Charts show both Literacy and Math scores improving post Covid. And we known things we terrible right after the pandemic nationwide. Many parents are happy with implementation of Science of Reading and the new ES ELA curriculum. Even the slide with the arrow on McPS forward shows things moving towards alignment. And Taylor himself has admitted this isn’t all going to be right sized or achieved this year.

The point being that this presentation don’t about McKnight it’s about Taylor and the coming year.

Taylor was pointed about how nonsensical it was that CO grew by 24% while enrollment dropped 2%. You can’t spin that, and that increase in CO is a direct result of choices Monifa made when she was in charge. Get a grip.

Both Monifa and Jack.

Nope. McKnight started as interim superintendent back in 2021. Look at the chart. She owns that 24% increase.

The FY2022 budget was the last one created by Smith.

Hi Sidney Katz.
Assuming he is responsible for the increase in FY22 (I seem to recall she added positions as soon as she was appointed in 2022), this means she is only responsible for most of the 24% increase.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That chart showing the decline in enrollment next to a 24% increase in central staff is a pretty pointed critique of McKnight. Seems like she abused her position to give her buddies cushy jobs. And we're still paying for it in addition to the BOE hush money payout.

Agreed. Monifa padded CO with a lot of failed principals, many of whom curried favor with her. What a toxic mess.

It’s hilarious that folks are bringing McKnight into based on one slide. The presentation when taken as a whole shows is that McKnight and her team were doing things to make the system better even if folks didn’t like it and or they are ultimately hated for it. Charts show both Literacy and Math scores improving post Covid. And we known things we terrible right after the pandemic nationwide. Many parents are happy with implementation of Science of Reading and the new ES ELA curriculum. Even the slide with the arrow on McPS forward shows things moving towards alignment. And Taylor himself has admitted this isn’t all going to be right sized or achieved this year.

The point being that this presentation don’t about McKnight it’s about Taylor and the coming year.

Taylor was pointed about how nonsensical it was that CO grew by 24% while enrollment dropped 2%. You can’t spin that, and that increase in CO is a direct result of choices Monifa made when she was in charge. Get a grip.

Both Monifa and Jack.

Nope. McKnight started as interim superintendent back in 2021. Look at the chart. She owns that 24% increase.

The FY2022 budget was the last one created by Smith.

Hi Sidney Katz.
Assuming he is responsible for the increase in FY22 (I seem to recall she added positions as soon as she was appointed in 2022), this means she is only responsible for most of the 24% increase.

As I said, both Monifa and Jack bear responsibility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That chart showing the decline in enrollment next to a 24% increase in central staff is a pretty pointed critique of McKnight. Seems like she abused her position to give her buddies cushy jobs. And we're still paying for it in addition to the BOE hush money payout.

Agreed. Monifa padded CO with a lot of failed principals, many of whom curried favor with her. What a toxic mess.

It’s hilarious that folks are bringing McKnight into based on one slide. The presentation when taken as a whole shows is that McKnight and her team were doing things to make the system better even if folks didn’t like it and or they are ultimately hated for it. Charts show both Literacy and Math scores improving post Covid. And we known things we terrible right after the pandemic nationwide. Many parents are happy with implementation of Science of Reading and the new ES ELA curriculum. Even the slide with the arrow on McPS forward shows things moving towards alignment. And Taylor himself has admitted this isn’t all going to be right sized or achieved this year.

The point being that this presentation don’t about McKnight it’s about Taylor and the coming year.

Taylor was pointed about how nonsensical it was that CO grew by 24% while enrollment dropped 2%. You can’t spin that, and that increase in CO is a direct result of choices Monifa made when she was in charge. Get a grip.

Both Monifa and Jack.

Nope. McKnight started as interim superintendent back in 2021. Look at the chart. She owns that 24% increase.

The FY2022 budget was the last one created by Smith.

Hi Sidney Katz.
Assuming he is responsible for the increase in FY22 (I seem to recall she added positions as soon as she was appointed in 2022), this means she is only responsible for most of the 24% increase.

As I said, both Monifa and Jack bear responsibility.

Mostly if not all McKnight

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That chart showing the decline in enrollment next to a 24% increase in central staff is a pretty pointed critique of McKnight. Seems like she abused her position to give her buddies cushy jobs. And we're still paying for it in addition to the BOE hush money payout.

Agreed. Monifa padded CO with a lot of failed principals, many of whom curried favor with her. What a toxic mess.

It’s hilarious that folks are bringing McKnight into based on one slide. The presentation when taken as a whole shows is that McKnight and her team were doing things to make the system better even if folks didn’t like it and or they are ultimately hated for it. Charts show both Literacy and Math scores improving post Covid. And we known things we terrible right after the pandemic nationwide. Many parents are happy with implementation of Science of Reading and the new ES ELA curriculum. Even the slide with the arrow on McPS forward shows things moving towards alignment. And Taylor himself has admitted this isn’t all going to be right sized or achieved this year.

The point being that this presentation don’t about McKnight it’s about Taylor and the coming year.

Taylor was pointed about how nonsensical it was that CO grew by 24% while enrollment dropped 2%. You can’t spin that, and that increase in CO is a direct result of choices Monifa made when she was in charge. Get a grip.

Both Monifa and Jack.

Nope. McKnight started as interim superintendent back in 2021. Look at the chart. She owns that 24% increase.

The FY2022 budget was the last one created by Smith.

Hi Sidney Katz.
Assuming he is responsible for the increase in FY22 (I seem to recall she added positions as soon as she was appointed in 2022), this means she is only responsible for most of the 24% increase.

As I said, both Monifa and Jack bear responsibility.

Mostly if not all McKnight

Right, even if Jack did the setup, Monifa had full power and ability to undo his decisions. Monifa bears the bulk of the responsibility here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That chart showing the decline in enrollment next to a 24% increase in central staff is a pretty pointed critique of McKnight. Seems like she abused her position to give her buddies cushy jobs. And we're still paying for it in addition to the BOE hush money payout.

Agreed. Monifa padded CO with a lot of failed principals, many of whom curried favor with her. What a toxic mess.

It’s hilarious that folks are bringing McKnight into based on one slide. The presentation when taken as a whole shows is that McKnight and her team were doing things to make the system better even if folks didn’t like it and or they are ultimately hated for it. Charts show both Literacy and Math scores improving post Covid. And we known things we terrible right after the pandemic nationwide. Many parents are happy with implementation of Science of Reading and the new ES ELA curriculum. Even the slide with the arrow on McPS forward shows things moving towards alignment. And Taylor himself has admitted this isn’t all going to be right sized or achieved this year.

The point being that this presentation don’t about McKnight it’s about Taylor and the coming year.

Taylor was pointed about how nonsensical it was that CO grew by 24% while enrollment dropped 2%. You can’t spin that, and that increase in CO is a direct result of choices Monifa made when she was in charge. Get a grip.

Both Monifa and Jack.

Nope. McKnight started as interim superintendent back in 2021. Look at the chart. She owns that 24% increase.

The FY2022 budget was the last one created by Smith.

Hi Sidney Katz.
Assuming he is responsible for the increase in FY22 (I seem to recall she added positions as soon as she was appointed in 2022), this means she is only responsible for most of the 24% increase.

As I said, both Monifa and Jack bear responsibility.

Mostly if not all McKnight

Right, even if Jack did the setup, Monifa had full power and ability to undo his decisions. Monifa bears the bulk of the responsibility here.

Even if Smith "did the setup" it was the setup for the minority of the positions that were added. McKnight fully owns the majority of not all of the 24% increase in CO positions.

[Anonymous]

Of course Smith was responsible for hand-picking McKnight to be his deputy/successor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Of course Smith was responsible for hand-picking McKnight to be his deputy/successor.

Look, nobody thinks Jack Smith was a great Superintendent, but I don't recall him getting a $1.3 million payout or a cushy job at UMD after promoting a known sexual predator.

[Anonymous]

And by the way, Jack Smith was Superintendent from 2016 to 2021. But we're to believe he "did the setup" for the massive increase in CO positions that began in FY22 after keeping them flat for 5 years? GMAFB.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course Smith was responsible for hand-picking McKnight to be his deputy/successor.

Look, nobody thinks Jack Smith was a great Superintendent, but I don't recall him getting a $1.3 million payout or a cushy job at UMD after promoting a known sexual predator.

Right. If only he hadn't made the terrible decision to hire McKnight, we'd probably be in a lot better shape right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course Smith was responsible for hand-picking McKnight to be his deputy/successor.

Look, nobody thinks Jack Smith was a great Superintendent, but I don't recall him getting a $1.3 million payout or a cushy job at UMD after promoting a known sexual predator.

Right. If only he hadn't made the terrible decision to hire McKnight, we'd probably be in a lot better shape right now.

And maybe if Obama hadn't made fun of Trump at the WHCD in 2011 we'd be in a lot better shape right now.

McKnight is to blame for her own decisions. Including HER choice to massively expand CO to reward her buddies while enrollment was dropping.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course Smith was responsible for hand-picking McKnight to be his deputy/successor.

Look, nobody thinks Jack Smith was a great Superintendent, but I don't recall him getting a $1.3 million payout or a cushy job at UMD after promoting a known sexual predator.

Right. If only he hadn't made the terrible decision to hire McKnight, we'd probably be in a lot better shape right now.

The BOE is equally responsible. Not sure why people let them off the hook.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And by the way, Jack Smith was Superintendent from 2016 to 2021. But we're to believe he "did the setup" for the massive increase in CO positions that began in FY22 after keeping them flat for 5 years? GMAFB.

Huh? That's how the budget calendar works. The FY2022 budget cycle was December 2020-June 2021.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course Smith was responsible for hand-picking McKnight to be his deputy/successor.

Look, nobody thinks Jack Smith was a great Superintendent, but I don't recall him getting a $1.3 million payout or a cushy job at UMD after promoting a known sexual predator.

Right. If only he hadn't made the terrible decision to hire McKnight, we'd probably be in a lot better shape right now.

And maybe if Obama hadn't made fun of Trump at the WHCD in 2011 we'd be in a lot better shape right now.

McKnight is to blame for her own decisions. Including HER choice to massively expand CO to reward her buddies while enrollment was dropping.

Of course. Each superintendent is responsible for their own decisions.