Anonymous wrote:MCPS focuses on diversity but only in certain directions.

This and I would also include the left progressive voters as well.

Men have been running for school board. But do you think any left very progressive voter would elect one of the male candidates who ran even to provide diversity on the board?

The diversity in leadership positions and central office is also not diverse at all. I don't think they really care at this point.

Anonymous wrote:Because men are less likely to work for peanuts

No, men ran and weren't elected.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is the Board of Ed all 7 female?

That's sexist.

Because men didn't compete for these positions.

And it's another reason why boys tend to do poorly in schools. There just aren't any sane and competent men at all in senior education positions these days. So there's no intuitive understanding of what 50 percent of the student population deals with. It's a big problem.

Well, there are certainly plenty of men in the upper echelons of MCPS, and they're paid quite well. But your right, that many of those men are not sane and/or competent.

From official MCPS data (see PDF page 454):

78% of professional jobs are held by females
75% of support services jobs are held by females

That's horrible diversity.

https://ww2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/regulatoryaccountability/glance/currentyear/SAAG2023.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is the Board of Ed all 7 female?

That's sexist.

Because men didn't compete for these positions.

And it's another reason why boys tend to do poorly in schools. There just aren't any sane and competent men at all in senior education positions these days. So there's no intuitive understanding of what 50 percent of the student population deals with. It's a big problem.

Change "men" to "women" in what you wrote and people would be up in arms.

Anonymous wrote:You do know these are elected positions, right?

+1. If you want men on the board, recruit more male candidates.

You do know these are elected positions, right?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is the Board of Ed all 7 female?

That's sexist.

Because men didn't compete for these positions.

And it's another reason why boys tend to do poorly in schools. There just aren't any sane and competent men at all in senior education positions these days. So there's no intuitive understanding of what 50 percent of the student population deals with. It's a big problem.

Well, there are certainly plenty of men in the upper echelons of MCPS, and they're paid quite well. But your right, that many of those men are not sane and/or competent.

Anonymous wrote:Why is the Board of Ed all 7 female?

That's sexist.

Because men didn't compete for these positions.

And it's another reason why boys tend to do poorly in schools. There just aren't any sane and competent men at all in senior education positions these days. So there's no intuitive understanding of what 50 percent of the student population deals with. It's a big problem.

I think the current Board over-indexes on agreeableness, with the exception of Montoya. And yeah, maybe having a man or 2 there could help.

Anonymous wrote:Because men are less likely to work for peanuts

That's definitely a strong contributing factor.

I do find it troubling for the BOE to be all-female, especially given all of the developmental, emotional and psychological issues going on with the development and growth of young boys and men.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is the Board of Ed all 7 female?

That's sexist.

It is been all make too.

Male

Anonymous wrote:Why is the Board of Ed all 7 female?

That's sexist.

It is been all make too.

Just like most teaching and admin staff at MCPS schools are female (different story when it comes to maintenance and cleaning staff). MCPS focuses on diversity but only in certain directions.

Because men are less likely to work for peanuts

Why is the Board of Ed all 7 female?

That's sexist.