If you can't run your classroom MCPS has the power to write up scathing reviews of it's teachers with the you'll never work in this town again mentality. It motivates teachers to spend their own money but then they still can make the bad reviews because there is no support for behavior either. Lol. It's a catch 22.

Anonymous wrote:I’m mad about this. Funds are frozen and we cannot buy any classroom supplies because of the budget shortfall and our office manager keeps screeching that we should not do paper assignments in class because paper is expensive and it turns out MCPS is just blowing through stacks of cash for legal settlements. It is depressing how far MCPS has fallen

[b]Don’t forget about the waste of our new reading curriculum which is astronomical. So much waste and excess. And none of it goes towards helping the reason for a school system: the children. There are no paper towels, no soap, no paper, no toner, ink cartridges, and no supply orders. Shame!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/siteassets/district/superintendent/MCPSEmploymentContract-McKnight-20220510.pdf

Even if the Board breached the contract, the damages would only be 6-12 months (or rest of contract, whichever is less). That’s IF the Board lost on breach. But the facts here are worse for her - according to the Jackson Lewis report, she apparently lied or didn’t the Board about a pending OIG investigation, and probably was aware of backdating of the HR investigation report. So she could have spent a lot of money on a lawyer and got zero damages in the end and huge reputational damage from a public case. The Board really messed up or worse here.

She wasn't arguing contract provisions-- she was arguing discrimination. That's why the settlement was so high.

It sure seemed like some people were out to get her from day one. She had a strong case for discrimination.

Some people were absolutely out to get her, but they were members of the general public. We saw some of them on this board even.

But the question isn't whether there were random people who wished a public figure would fail. The question is whether the majority Black and Hispanic board of education that controlled her McKnight's employment contract was out to get her. There's absolutely no evidence that was the case. If anything, they handed her the job on a silver platter even though she was less qualified then previous candidates.

She was given the job in good faith, by people who seemed to want her to succeed. A discrimination case would mean showing that those very people wanted her to fail and set her up to fail, rather than what actually happened, which is that they finally held her accountable for lying to them.

If people learn anything from this week's Kim Mulkey PR fiasco, it should be that smart people let unflattering stories die. They don't defend their friends or themselves because it only keeps the story alive and draws attention and gives credence to whatever wrongdoing they're alleged to have committed. It doesn't hurt or scare the newspaper industry or in this case the BOE, it hurts the individual at the center of the storm.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/siteassets/district/superintendent/MCPSEmploymentContract-McKnight-20220510.pdf

Even if the Board breached the contract, the damages would only be 6-12 months (or rest of contract, whichever is less). That’s IF the Board lost on breach. But the facts here are worse for her - according to the Jackson Lewis report, she apparently lied or didn’t the Board about a pending OIG investigation, and probably was aware of backdating of the HR investigation report. So she could have spent a lot of money on a lawyer and got zero damages in the end and huge reputational damage from a public case. The Board really messed up or worse here.

She wasn't arguing contract provisions-- she was arguing discrimination. That's why the settlement was so high.

It sure seemed like some people were out to get her from day one. She had a strong case for discrimination.

Absolutely no one was “out to get her.” Everyone wanted real leadership and she failed from the get go. She has no one to blame but herself.

MCEA came after her as soon as she made them put back on pants and come back to work.

*yawn* is it 2020 again where bitter people who have to go into the office judge everyone else? Oh it isn’t? You’re just pathetic. Got it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/siteassets/district/superintendent/MCPSEmploymentContract-McKnight-20220510.pdf

Even if the Board breached the contract, the damages would only be 6-12 months (or rest of contract, whichever is less). That’s IF the Board lost on breach. But the facts here are worse for her - according to the Jackson Lewis report, she apparently lied or didn’t the Board about a pending OIG investigation, and probably was aware of backdating of the HR investigation report. So she could have spent a lot of money on a lawyer and got zero damages in the end and huge reputational damage from a public case. The Board really messed up or worse here.

She wasn't arguing contract provisions-- she was arguing discrimination. That's why the settlement was so high.

It sure seemed like some people were out to get her from day one. She had a strong case for discrimination.

Absolutely no one was “out to get her.” Everyone wanted real leadership and she failed from the get go. She has no one to blame but herself.

MCEA came after her as soon as she made them put back on pants and come back to work.

Aww you’re adorable! Typical DCUM.. uneducated people pretending like they know anything. Keep doing you, boo.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/siteassets/district/superintendent/MCPSEmploymentContract-McKnight-20220510.pdf

Even if the Board breached the contract, the damages would only be 6-12 months (or rest of contract, whichever is less). That’s IF the Board lost on breach. But the facts here are worse for her - according to the Jackson Lewis report, she apparently lied or didn’t the Board about a pending OIG investigation, and probably was aware of backdating of the HR investigation report. So she could have spent a lot of money on a lawyer and got zero damages in the end and huge reputational damage from a public case. The Board really messed up or worse here.

She wasn't arguing contract provisions-- she was arguing discrimination. That's why the settlement was so high.

It sure seemed like some people were out to get her from day one. She had a strong case for discrimination.

Absolutely no one was “out to get her.” Everyone wanted real leadership and she failed from the get go. She has no one to blame but herself.

MCEA came after her as soon as she made them put back on pants and come back to work.

MCEA "came after her" because she was an incompetent superintendent.