I don't think Felder wants the job. I want Maria Navarro or Cheryl Dyson to come back. Dyson is doing great things in Frederick County PS (they had NO principal turnover last year) and while I haven't heard a ton about Dr. Navarro in Charles County, she was a strong leader in MCPS and her departure was a loss.

Anonymous wrote:McKnight was a toxic bully. I'm hoping Felder is not.

That wasn't my impression of McKnight, but they do seem like they would push the same equity policies that divert 90% of school resources to the bottom 20%.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know what her stance is on Restorative Justice? Does she have her head in the sand or does she understand that MCPS' heavy emphasis on RJ is causing more violence in schools? To me, we need a superintendent with a no non-sense approach to this issue.

No one is going to get this job with a "bring back suspensions" approach. It's just not going to happen. The best case scenario is someone willing to walk back the RJ approach slowly.

Correct. Even if she thinks it's nonsense, she can't say that out loud. Restorative practices is enshrined at the state level and backed into the Blueprint. Unraveling the mess that comes with RJ is going to take incredible political savvy and shrewd diplomacy.

Unfortunately, I don't think Dr. Felder possesses those skills anyway.

No one needs to walk back RJ. The system needs to invest in it fully or create a thoughtful implementation plan and timeline that make it workable. That may mean it’s not implemented in the entire district at once or some other plan.

And where do you think we should NOT implement RJ? West county? Or some other plan?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know what her stance is on Restorative Justice? Does she have her head in the sand or does she understand that MCPS' heavy emphasis on RJ is causing more violence in schools? To me, we need a superintendent with a no non-sense approach to this issue.

No one is going to get this job with a "bring back suspensions" approach. It's just not going to happen. The best case scenario is someone willing to walk back the RJ approach slowly.

Correct. Even if she thinks it's nonsense, she can't say that out loud. Restorative practices is enshrined at the state level and backed into the Blueprint. Unraveling the mess that comes with RJ is going to take incredible political savvy and shrewd diplomacy.

Unfortunately, I don't think Dr. Felder possesses those skills anyway.

No one needs to walk back RJ. The system needs to invest in it fully or create a thoughtful implementation plan and timeline that make it workable. That may mean it’s not implemented in the entire district at once or some other plan.

I had heard that dr felder isn’t interested in the full time position.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know what her stance is on Restorative Justice? Does she have her head in the sand or does she understand that MCPS' heavy emphasis on RJ is causing more violence in schools? To me, we need a superintendent with a no non-sense approach to this issue.

No one is going to get this job with a "bring back suspensions" approach. It's just not going to happen. The best case scenario is someone willing to walk back the RJ approach slowly.

Correct. Even if she thinks it's nonsense, she can't say that out loud. Restorative practices is enshrined at the state level and backed into the Blueprint. Unraveling the mess that comes with RJ is going to take incredible political savvy and shrewd diplomacy.

Unfortunately, I don't think Dr. Felder possesses those skills anyway.

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know what her stance is on Restorative Justice? Does she have her head in the sand or does she understand that MCPS' heavy emphasis on RJ is causing more violence in schools? To me, we need a superintendent with a no non-sense approach to this issue.

No one is going to get this job with a "bring back suspensions" approach. It's just not going to happen. The best case scenario is someone willing to walk back the RJ approach slowly.

Does anyone know what her stance is on Restorative Justice? Does she have her head in the sand or does she understand that MCPS' heavy emphasis on RJ is causing more violence in schools? To me, we need a superintendent with a no non-sense approach to this issue.

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.

McKnight was a toxic bully. I'm hoping Felder is not.

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.

Was she involved in creating the lottery?

No. She left in 2013 and the lotteries are new. She even predates the peer cohort overhaul.

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.

Was she involved in creating the lottery?

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exactly. We don’t trust the BOE to get candidates given their current record. Anyone affiliated with MCPs if forever tainted as possibly corrupt. If MCPS or the BOE really valued diversity, they would find outside candidates.

Like Jack Smith or Josh Starr?

The consensus is they were fine. I wonder what's different?

Starr was literally forced out in the same way that Dr. McKnight was. Without the sexual harassment scandal, but using the same process.

So, the very same majority BIPOC BoE that you seem to be insinuating acted in a racially biased manner did the same with the previous white male candidate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exactly. We don’t trust the BOE to get candidates given their current record. Anyone affiliated with MCPs if forever tainted as possibly corrupt. If MCPS or the BOE really valued diversity, they would find outside candidates.

Like Jack Smith or Josh Starr?

The consensus is they were fine. I wonder what's different?

You are the only one that thought they were fine.

Not PP, but you’re not speaking for me. I had mixed feelings about Smith and liked Starr. I’m a teacher, if that matters.