Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish they'd once and a while focus on educating children instead of everything but...

Title 1 funding is about educating children.

No

Title 1 funding, like all other funding, is a necessary support for providing education, but it does not directly educate children. MCPS could have all the money in the world in its bank account, but that doesn’t mean all our children would know how to read, do basic math (let alone advanced math), know the history and civics necessary for citizens in a democracy, know enough about economics to manage their personal finances, etc.

While MCPS can always use more money, it is relatively well-funded. We live in a prosperous county that values education and is politically liberal, so we have both the motive and the means to support it.

However, we need to focus on education itself. To me, that means focusing on curriculum, grading, grouping, and especially discipline/safety. If a class is evacuated to the hallway while one student rampages in the classroom, none of the kids involved (including the one remaining in the classroom) are learning anything, no matter how much funding (Title 1 or otherwise) the school received.

I am a teacher at a Title 1 school. Title 1 often funds smaller classroom sizes, which improves education for students. So yes, Miss Oh-my-God-students-are rampaging-next-door, Title 1 is about education.

As I said before, I agree that funding is important. I just think more discussion needs to be held about what we do with funding.

Smaller classroom sizes sound great. Maybe we also need more counselors, or aides, or different procedures, etc. I’m no expert, but I think it’s a complex situation that needs to be discussed. I’m not at all certain that the discipline/safety issues are confined to Title 1 schools, but even if they are, do you think the smaller class sizes they can fund will be sufficient to ensure that students and teachers no longer have to evacuate classrooms for their personal safety and that high school bathrooms can be unlocked without being taken over by vapers?

Will the smaller class sizes in Title 1 schools mean that all kids are being taught with an effective curriculum? MCPS spent a great deal over the years developing their own (terrible) curriculum. After an outside curriculum concluded that it was, indeed terrible, it was supposed to be replaced by the rollout of a new curriculum, but then COVID occurred. Has the new curriculum rollout been completed? Is it actually effective, or even better than what we had? From what little I’ve been able to glean, it appears that MCPS overruled the reading curriculum recommendations and selected a curriculum that has had problems and may be itself replaced soon? I have no idea about the current status of the math curriculum. I think curriculum should be a primary focus for all students, regardless of where they go to school. I’m sure smaller class sizes may help Title 1 students learn any curriculum more effectively, but if that curriculum is deficient, we’ve still got a problem.

Will Title 1 funding and smaller class sizes make grading practices more useful to students and parents? When assignments are checked for completion but not graded, no one has any idea whether the student really knows the material. Doing the assignment gave them practice, but they may have been practicing and reinforcing bad habits. The same holds true for assignments that are graded but where the teacher deliberately only corrects some errors, not remarking on others. I’ve heard MCPS curriculum personnel say that they instruct teachers as policy to only focus on correcting one type of error at a time so that students don’t get discouraged. While I don’t want students to get discouraged, I think it would be pretty discouraging to find out that the way you’ve been doing something all along is actually wrong and nobody told you. Then you have the 50% rule, test retakes, and the prohibition of finals. I think the grading system has evolved to mask student’s lack of performance (which might reflect badly on MCPS), rather than to give parents an accurate understanding of a student’s mastery (or lack thereof) of the subject matter.

What about grouping practices? While I certainly oppose tracking, I think FLEXIBLE ability grouping (where students are grouped by ability with the intention of preparing them to move to higher levels) could be beneficial to all students and would be relatively cost neutral. You’d still have the same number of teachers, students, and classrooms, but each student would be able to have more time and attention focused at their instructional level. Here’s an article from the Washington Post discussing the successful use of flexible ability grouping in MCPS: https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/03/AR2007110301167.html?sid=ST2007110301386

Funding is important. I’m proud that Montgomery County generously funds MCPS. I’m glad that our federal government recognizes that low-income students may need extra support and is willing to provide the necessary extra funding. However, I think we ALSO need to discuss what we DO with the funding. We need to talk about what will best help educate our kids. Smaller classes are a great step in the right direction, but it can’t be the only one.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vote in new members. They are all very in over their heads.

The problem is most of the new people running would be in even deeper over their heads.

Not that she would have every answer in every education domain, but, given her focus on education funding, this is the kind of thing where, as a BOE member, Laura Stewart would run rings around MCPS instead of the current BOE members asking tepid questions without follow-up as MCPS dissembles.

Based on what I have been able to find online by searching for her position on issues, the only thing Laura Stewart knows about school funding is that rather than having wealthy real estate developers pay impact fees for their developments to help fund schools, she prefers to force homeowners and other moco citizens to pay for the impact of these developments by increasing our taxes.

Eh...You haven't searched much, then, have you?
That impact fee bit is a line straight from her opposition, and reflects her general advocacy for housing. It's the County Council, in its infinite wisdom, that keeps making those impact fee exemptions, over County Executive veto, associated with the housing push, clearly showing where their loyalties lie (and in whose pocket they reside).

Of course that Council bent means pretty much anyone advocating for housing can be painted in that pro-developer light. Pretty run of the mill to do so in a political campaign.

Personally, I'd agree with the notion that we shouldn't be handicapping school funding, robbing Peter to pay Paul, and that increases to transfer tax are not the right way to make things whole. Developers would be just fine without the impact tax abatement, but they are content to sit on things until they get a Council like the one we have that lets them have their cake and eat it, too.

Back to Stewart, though. She's been advocating for school funding for years at both state and local levels. She's pretty much the most knowledgeable person that MCCPTA has in that regard. Her public testimony to the BOE usually provides more meaningful information on which they can chew in the couple of minutes that she gets than the hour(s) of MCPS presentations that follow. And that's considerably less than she's been able to discuss with PTA and other folks outside of the confines of CESC.

You could look for some of that. Or really anything beyond that which an opponent is saying about her. Or, you could keep hurling that "raise taxes" trope as if it is just like that and it's the only thing out there.

+1

Laura Stewart is a prolific twitter poster and has a wealth of history of her advocacy and work on school funding issues. Just spend a few minutes on her twitter feed to see how deep her experience runs here.

I tried looking at her X feed for the wealth of history but it’s private. And for what it’s worth, her housing advocacy has been the typical supply side economics proposals that developers have pushed. None of it has increased supply or reduced prices, but if you own shares of a REIT, you’ve done really well.

Yup on the short-sightedness of that developer-pushed agenda that the County Council swallowed hook, line and sinker (if they didn't generate it, themselves). But...

There's *plenty* of non-Twitter stuff if you bother to look instead of just banging that "she took her personal Twitter feed private when she declared herself a candidate!" pearl-cutching drum.

Stewart's funding advocacy goes well beyond "give us more transfer tax" (the only option the Council was considering to even begin to make up the sxhool capital program shortfall from decades-long underfunding) to federal and state funding sources.

And her understanding of the Title I/related funding/criteria change impacts is leagues ahead of anything demonstrated by the current BOE members.

First, it was a post supportive of Stewart that directed people to the now-private twitter account, so it’s fair to point out that it can’t be viewed by the overwhelming majority of voters.

Second, she also supported cutting taxes on developers, which the council did right after raising taxes on everyone else, which she also supported even though it ultimately proved unnecessary (the money didn’t go to education). Stewart weighed in on all of this without an understanding of the underlying dynamics or a critical examination of whether similar policies had ever produced the claimed outcome here.

Nice cut-out of the rest of that post (restored, now, for any interested in clicking to show earlier posts). There's bolding available if you want to respond to a particular part. Intentionally removing that context undercuts the validity of your response.

Again, there's more than just Twitter out there, but feel free to keep beating that drum as though it is the only thing that possibly could tell you about a candidate. You're right that nobody should be referencing it if not available, but...

If you did bother to look beyond X, you'd find there's far more to Stewart's contributions toward and understanding of school funding issues than an unfortunate support of politically expedient County Council-driven tax initiatives ostensibly aimed at providing housing options on the one hand and revenue on the other that she hoped would be tied to sorely needed school improvements.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish they'd once and a while focus on educating children instead of everything but...

Title 1 funding is about educating children.

No

Title 1 funding, like all other funding, is a necessary support for providing education, but it does not directly educate children. MCPS could have all the money in the world in its bank account, but that doesn’t mean all our children would know how to read, do basic math (let alone advanced math), know the history and civics necessary for citizens in a democracy, know enough about economics to manage their personal finances, etc.

While MCPS can always use more money, it is relatively well-funded. We live in a prosperous county that values education and is politically liberal, so we have both the motive and the means to support it.

However, we need to focus on education itself. To me, that means focusing on curriculum, grading, grouping, and especially discipline/safety. If a class is evacuated to the hallway while one student rampages in the classroom, none of the kids involved (including the one remaining in the classroom) are learning anything, no matter how much funding (Title 1 or otherwise) the school received.

I am a teacher at a Title 1 school. Title 1 often funds smaller classroom sizes, which improves education for students. So yes, Miss Oh-my-God-students-are rampaging-next-door, Title 1 is about education.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vote in new members. They are all very in over their heads.

The problem is most of the new people running would be in even deeper over their heads.

Not that she would have every answer in every education domain, but, given her focus on education funding, this is the kind of thing where, as a BOE member, Laura Stewart would run rings around MCPS instead of the current BOE members asking tepid questions without follow-up as MCPS dissembles.

Based on what I have been able to find online by searching for her position on issues, the only thing Laura Stewart knows about school funding is that rather than having wealthy real estate developers pay impact fees for their developments to help fund schools, she prefers to force homeowners and other moco citizens to pay for the impact of these developments by increasing our taxes.

Eh...You haven't searched much, then, have you?
That impact fee bit is a line straight from her opposition, and reflects her general advocacy for housing. It's the County Council, in its infinite wisdom, that keeps making those impact fee exemptions, over County Executive veto, associated with the housing push, clearly showing where their loyalties lie (and in whose pocket they reside).

Of course that Council bent means pretty much anyone advocating for housing can be painted in that pro-developer light. Pretty run of the mill to do so in a political campaign.

Personally, I'd agree with the notion that we shouldn't be handicapping school funding, robbing Peter to pay Paul, and that increases to transfer tax are not the right way to make things whole. Developers would be just fine without the impact tax abatement, but they are content to sit on things until they get a Council like the one we have that lets them have their cake and eat it, too.

Back to Stewart, though. She's been advocating for school funding for years at both state and local levels. She's pretty much the most knowledgeable person that MCCPTA has in that regard. Her public testimony to the BOE usually provides more meaningful information on which they can chew in the couple of minutes that she gets than the hour(s) of MCPS presentations that follow. And that's considerably less than she's been able to discuss with PTA and other folks outside of the confines of CESC.

You could look for some of that. Or really anything beyond that which an opponent is saying about her. Or, you could keep hurling that "raise taxes" trope as if it is just like that and it's the only thing out there.

+1

Laura Stewart is a prolific twitter poster and has a wealth of history of her advocacy and work on school funding issues. Just spend a few minutes on her twitter feed to see how deep her experience runs here.

I tried looking at her X feed for the wealth of history but it’s private. And for what it’s worth, her housing advocacy has been the typical supply side economics proposals that developers have pushed. None of it has increased supply or reduced prices, but if you own shares of a REIT, you’ve done really well.

There's *plenty* of non-Twitter stuff if you bother to look instead of just banging that "she took her personal Twitter feed private when she declared herself a candidate!" pearl-cutching drum.

Stewart's funding advocacy goes well beyond "give us more transfer tax" (the only option the Council was considering to even begin to make up the sxhool capital program shortfall from decades-long underfunding) to federal and state funding sources.

First, it was a post supportive of Stewart that directed people to the now-private twitter account, so it’s fair to point out that it can’t be viewed by the overwhelming majority of voters.

Second, she also supported cutting taxes on developers, which the council did right after raising taxes on everyone else, which she also supported even though it ultimately proved unnecessary (the money didn’t go to education). Stewart weighed in on all of this without an understanding of the underlying dynamics or a critical examination of whether similar policies had ever produced the claimed outcome here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vote in new members. They are all very in over their heads.

The problem is most of the new people running would be in even deeper over their heads.

Not that she would have every answer in every education domain, but, given her focus on education funding, this is the kind of thing where, as a BOE member, Laura Stewart would run rings around MCPS instead of the current BOE members asking tepid questions without follow-up as MCPS dissembles.

Based on what I have been able to find online by searching for her position on issues, the only thing Laura Stewart knows about school funding is that rather than having wealthy real estate developers pay impact fees for their developments to help fund schools, she prefers to force homeowners and other moco citizens to pay for the impact of these developments by increasing our taxes.

Eh...You haven't searched much, then, have you?
That impact fee bit is a line straight from her opposition, and reflects her general advocacy for housing. It's the County Council, in its infinite wisdom, that keeps making those impact fee exemptions, over County Executive veto, associated with the housing push, clearly showing where their loyalties lie (and in whose pocket they reside).

Of course that Council bent means pretty much anyone advocating for housing can be painted in that pro-developer light. Pretty run of the mill to do so in a political campaign.

Personally, I'd agree with the notion that we shouldn't be handicapping school funding, robbing Peter to pay Paul, and that increases to transfer tax are not the right way to make things whole. Developers would be just fine without the impact tax abatement, but they are content to sit on things until they get a Council like the one we have that lets them have their cake and eat it, too.

Back to Stewart, though. She's been advocating for school funding for years at both state and local levels. She's pretty much the most knowledgeable person that MCCPTA has in that regard. Her public testimony to the BOE usually provides more meaningful information on which they can chew in the couple of minutes that she gets than the hour(s) of MCPS presentations that follow. And that's considerably less than she's been able to discuss with PTA and other folks outside of the confines of CESC.

You could look for some of that. Or really anything beyond that which an opponent is saying about her. Or, you could keep hurling that "raise taxes" trope as if it is just like that and it's the only thing out there.

+1

Laura Stewart is a prolific twitter poster and has a wealth of history of her advocacy and work on school funding issues. Just spend a few minutes on her twitter feed to see how deep her experience runs here.

I tried looking at her X feed for the wealth of history but it’s private. And for what it’s worth, her housing advocacy has been the typical supply side economics proposals that developers have pushed. None of it has increased supply or reduced prices, but if you own shares of a REIT, you’ve done really well.

Yup on the short-sightedness of that developer-pushed agenda that the County Council swallowed hook, line and sinker (if they didn't generate it, themselves). But...

There's *plenty* of non-Twitter stuff if you bother to look instead of just banging that "she took her personal Twitter feed private when she declared herself a candidate!" pearl-cutching drum.

Stewart's funding advocacy goes well beyond "give us more transfer tax" (the only option the Council was considering to even begin to make up the sxhool capital program shortfall from decades-long underfunding) to federal and state funding sources.

And her understanding of the Title I/related funding/criteria change impacts is leagues ahead of anything demonstrated by the current BOE members.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish they'd once and a while focus on educating children instead of everything but...

Title 1 funding is about educating children.

No

Title 1 funding, like all other funding, is a necessary support for providing education, but it does not directly educate children. MCPS could have all the money in the world in its bank account, but that doesn’t mean all our children would know how to read, do basic math (let alone advanced math), know the history and civics necessary for citizens in a democracy, know enough about economics to manage their personal finances, etc.

While MCPS can always use more money, it is relatively well-funded. We live in a prosperous county that values education and is politically liberal, so we have both the motive and the means to support it.

However, we need to focus on education itself. To me, that means focusing on curriculum, grading, grouping, and especially discipline/safety. If a class is evacuated to the hallway while one student rampages in the classroom, none of the kids involved (including the one remaining in the classroom) are learning anything, no matter how much funding (Title 1 or otherwise) the school received.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vote in new members. They are all very in over their heads.

The problem is most of the new people running would be in even deeper over their heads.

Not that she would have every answer in every education domain, but, given her focus on education funding, this is the kind of thing where, as a BOE member, Laura Stewart would run rings around MCPS instead of the current BOE members asking tepid questions without follow-up as MCPS dissembles.

Based on what I have been able to find online by searching for her position on issues, the only thing Laura Stewart knows about school funding is that rather than having wealthy real estate developers pay impact fees for their developments to help fund schools, she prefers to force homeowners and other moco citizens to pay for the impact of these developments by increasing our taxes.

Eh...You haven't searched much, then, have you?
That impact fee bit is a line straight from her opposition, and reflects her general advocacy for housing. It's the County Council, in its infinite wisdom, that keeps making those impact fee exemptions, over County Executive veto, associated with the housing push, clearly showing where their loyalties lie (and in whose pocket they reside).

Of course that Council bent means pretty much anyone advocating for housing can be painted in that pro-developer light. Pretty run of the mill to do so in a political campaign.

Personally, I'd agree with the notion that we shouldn't be handicapping school funding, robbing Peter to pay Paul, and that increases to transfer tax are not the right way to make things whole. Developers would be just fine without the impact tax abatement, but they are content to sit on things until they get a Council like the one we have that lets them have their cake and eat it, too.

Back to Stewart, though. She's been advocating for school funding for years at both state and local levels. She's pretty much the most knowledgeable person that MCCPTA has in that regard. Her public testimony to the BOE usually provides more meaningful information on which they can chew in the couple of minutes that she gets than the hour(s) of MCPS presentations that follow. And that's considerably less than she's been able to discuss with PTA and other folks outside of the confines of CESC.

You could look for some of that. Or really anything beyond that which an opponent is saying about her. Or, you could keep hurling that "raise taxes" trope as if it is just like that and it's the only thing out there.

+1

Laura Stewart is a prolific twitter poster and has a wealth of history of her advocacy and work on school funding issues. Just spend a few minutes on her twitter feed to see how deep her experience runs here.

I tried looking at her X feed for the wealth of history but it’s private. And for what it’s worth, her housing advocacy has been the typical supply side economics proposals that developers have pushed. None of it has increased supply or reduced prices, but if you own shares of a REIT, you’ve done really well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vote in new members. They are all very in over their heads.

The problem is most of the new people running would be in even deeper over their heads.

Not that she would have every answer in every education domain, but, given her focus on education funding, this is the kind of thing where, as a BOE member, Laura Stewart would run rings around MCPS instead of the current BOE members asking tepid questions without follow-up as MCPS dissembles.

Based on what I have been able to find online by searching for her position on issues, the only thing Laura Stewart knows about school funding is that rather than having wealthy real estate developers pay impact fees for their developments to help fund schools, she prefers to force homeowners and other moco citizens to pay for the impact of these developments by increasing our taxes.

? Huh? Where did you get that idea?

Her op-ed here: https://www.marylandmatters.org/2023/04/22/opinion-dont-delay-montgomery-county-school-construction-any-longer-its-time-for-a-progressive-recordation-tax-increase/

“This tax increase won’t be the full solution to our CIP budget problems, but it is an important and necessary step in providing a healthy learning spaces for our children in Montgomery County”

Shows how clueless she is about how MCPS spends money.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vote in new members. They are all very in over their heads.

The problem is most of the new people running would be in even deeper over their heads.

Not that she would have every answer in every education domain, but, given her focus on education funding, this is the kind of thing where, as a BOE member, Laura Stewart would run rings around MCPS instead of the current BOE members asking tepid questions without follow-up as MCPS dissembles.

Based on what I have been able to find online by searching for her position on issues, the only thing Laura Stewart knows about school funding is that rather than having wealthy real estate developers pay impact fees for their developments to help fund schools, she prefers to force homeowners and other moco citizens to pay for the impact of these developments by increasing our taxes.

? Huh? Where did you get that idea?

Her op-ed here: https://www.marylandmatters.org/2023/04/22/opinion-dont-delay-montgomery-county-school-construction-any-longer-its-time-for-a-progressive-recordation-tax-increase/

“This tax increase won’t be the full solution to our CIP budget problems, but it is an important and necessary step in providing a healthy learning spaces for our children in Montgomery County”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vote in new members. They are all very in over their heads.

The problem is most of the new people running would be in even deeper over their heads.

Not that she would have every answer in every education domain, but, given her focus on education funding, this is the kind of thing where, as a BOE member, Laura Stewart would run rings around MCPS instead of the current BOE members asking tepid questions without follow-up as MCPS dissembles.

Based on what I have been able to find online by searching for her position on issues, the only thing Laura Stewart knows about school funding is that rather than having wealthy real estate developers pay impact fees for their developments to help fund schools, she prefers to force homeowners and other moco citizens to pay for the impact of these developments by increasing our taxes.

Eh...You haven't searched much, then, have you?
That impact fee bit is a line straight from her opposition, and reflects her general advocacy for housing. It's the County Council, in its infinite wisdom, that keeps making those impact fee exemptions, over County Executive veto, associated with the housing push, clearly showing where their loyalties lie (and in whose pocket they reside).

Of course that Council bent means pretty much anyone advocating for housing can be painted in that pro-developer light. Pretty run of the mill to do so in a political campaign.

Personally, I'd agree with the notion that we shouldn't be handicapping school funding, robbing Peter to pay Paul, and that increases to transfer tax are not the right way to make things whole. Developers would be just fine without the impact tax abatement, but they are content to sit on things until they get a Council like the one we have that lets them have their cake and eat it, too.

Back to Stewart, though. She's been advocating for school funding for years at both state and local levels. She's pretty much the most knowledgeable person that MCCPTA has in that regard. Her public testimony to the BOE usually provides more meaningful information on which they can chew in the couple of minutes that she gets than the hour(s) of MCPS presentations that follow. And that's considerably less than she's been able to discuss with PTA and other folks outside of the confines of CESC.

You could look for some of that. Or really anything beyond that which an opponent is saying about her. Or, you could keep hurling that "raise taxes" trope as if it is just like that and it's the only thing out there.

+1

Laura Stewart is a prolific twitter poster and has a wealth of history of her advocacy and work on school funding issues. Just spend a few minutes on her twitter feed to see how deep her experience runs here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vote in new members. They are all very in over their heads.

The problem is most of the new people running would be in even deeper over their heads.

Not that she would have every answer in every education domain, but, given her focus on education funding, this is the kind of thing where, as a BOE member, Laura Stewart would run rings around MCPS instead of the current BOE members asking tepid questions without follow-up as MCPS dissembles.

Based on what I have been able to find online by searching for her position on issues, the only thing Laura Stewart knows about school funding is that rather than having wealthy real estate developers pay impact fees for their developments to help fund schools, she prefers to force homeowners and other moco citizens to pay for the impact of these developments by increasing our taxes.

Eh...You haven't searched much, then, have you?
That impact fee bit is a line straight from her opposition, and reflects her general advocacy for housing. It's the County Council, in its infinite wisdom, that keeps making those impact fee exemptions, over County Executive veto, associated with the housing push, clearly showing where their loyalties lie (and in whose pocket they reside).

Of course that Council bent means pretty much anyone advocating for housing can be painted in that pro-developer light. Pretty run of the mill to do so in a political campaign.

Personally, I'd agree with the notion that we shouldn't be handicapping school funding, robbing Peter to pay Paul, and that increases to transfer tax are not the right way to make things whole. Developers would be just fine without the impact tax abatement, but they are content to sit on things until they get a Council like the one we have that lets them have their cake and eat it, too.

Back to Stewart, though. She's been advocating for school funding for years at both state and local levels. She's pretty much the most knowledgeable person that MCCPTA has in that regard. Her public testimony to the BOE usually provides more meaningful information on which they can chew in the couple of minutes that she gets than the hour(s) of MCPS presentations that follow. And that's considerably less than she's been able to discuss with PTA and other folks outside of the confines of CESC.

You could look for some of that. Or really anything beyond that which an opponent is saying about her. Or, you could keep hurling that "raise taxes" trope as if it is just like that and it's the only thing out there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vote in new members. They are all very in over their heads.

The problem is most of the new people running would be in even deeper over their heads.

Not that she would have every answer in every education domain, but, given her focus on education funding, this is the kind of thing where, as a BOE member, Laura Stewart would run rings around MCPS instead of the current BOE members asking tepid questions without follow-up as MCPS dissembles.

Based on what I have been able to find online by searching for her position on issues, the only thing Laura Stewart knows about school funding is that rather than having wealthy real estate developers pay impact fees for their developments to help fund schools, she prefers to force homeowners and other moco citizens to pay for the impact of these developments by increasing our taxes.

? Huh? Where did you get that idea?

Anonymous wrote:I wish they'd once and a while focus on educating children instead of everything but...

Title 1 funding is about educating children.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Esther Wells always gives abit of a run down on twitter https://twitter.com/EstherLWells/status/1760793613632442379

Geez, Silvestre in the meeting asking for clarification on an acronym with which she should have been very familiar as a multi-year BOE member: CEP -Community Eligibility Provision, the non-pricing school meal service allocation mechanism for low-income area schools.

Not that I think the BOE members did (or nearly ever do) a good job questioning MCPS to draw out important data/considerations/aims/etc. to help make decisions, but expecting familiarity with acronyms in this acronym-centric region would probably be more reasonable if we had a full-time BOE who were paid a reasonably professional salary to do so.

I believe that the BOE was likely informed on the changes to free meals, including CEP. Posted elsewhere:


MCPS sent out a back-to-school email in August that included this:

Your Student’s Meals at School

Fifty-eight MCPS schools will operate under the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) starting this school year. Students enrolled at these CEP schools may receive breakfast and lunch at no cost regardless of household income. A list of the participating schools can be found here.

We encourage all families with students enrolled at non-CEP schools to complete a Free and Reduced-price Meals Application. All meals are free for students who qualify for the program.

Sure. And families were informed, too, I'd guess. I wonder how many of those family members remembered that for which "CEP" stood. Or MCPS teachers. Maybe, just maybe, I'd give the average school administrator not directly involved in a CEP/Title I program a 50/50 shot of knowing the acronym.

The point was that it may not be reasonable to expect professional-level acumen across the entirety of an enterprise as large and complex as MCPS from folks whose compensation would only cover a couple of hours a week of professional-level work.

Title 1 formula issues and terminology should be understood by BOE members. It's a big issue. If a board member doesn't have time to learn key issues, I understand that. I would support full-time pay for board members. But Silvestre, and others, knew what they were signing up for. Silvestre was so poorly prepared for the council hearing a couple of weeks back. Why did Silvestre run for board president if she cannot put in the time to carry this added responsibility?

She is a well-meaning person, and has capability, but I really hope she chooses not to run again.

Well she has a totally separate full time job and two kids. You get what you pay for with those BOE salaries.

What is her full-time job? How is it possible to work full-time and be on the BOE? Her work is okay with her taking time off during the day to engage in regular BOE/comittee meetings during the day?

She works for Montgomery College.

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/boe/members/atlarge2/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Esther Wells always gives abit of a run down on twitter https://twitter.com/EstherLWells/status/1760793613632442379

Geez, Silvestre in the meeting asking for clarification on an acronym with which she should have been very familiar as a multi-year BOE member: CEP -Community Eligibility Provision, the non-pricing school meal service allocation mechanism for low-income area schools.

Not that I think the BOE members did (or nearly ever do) a good job questioning MCPS to draw out important data/considerations/aims/etc. to help make decisions, but expecting familiarity with acronyms in this acronym-centric region would probably be more reasonable if we had a full-time BOE who were paid a reasonably professional salary to do so.

I believe that the BOE was likely informed on the changes to free meals, including CEP. Posted elsewhere:


MCPS sent out a back-to-school email in August that included this:

Your Student’s Meals at School

Fifty-eight MCPS schools will operate under the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) starting this school year. Students enrolled at these CEP schools may receive breakfast and lunch at no cost regardless of household income. A list of the participating schools can be found here.

We encourage all families with students enrolled at non-CEP schools to complete a Free and Reduced-price Meals Application. All meals are free for students who qualify for the program.

Sure. And families were informed, too, I'd guess. I wonder how many of those family members remembered that for which "CEP" stood. Or MCPS teachers. Maybe, just maybe, I'd give the average school administrator not directly involved in a CEP/Title I program a 50/50 shot of knowing the acronym.

The point was that it may not be reasonable to expect professional-level acumen across the entirety of an enterprise as large and complex as MCPS from folks whose compensation would only cover a couple of hours a week of professional-level work.

Title 1 formula issues and terminology should be understood by BOE members. It's a big issue. If a board member doesn't have time to learn key issues, I understand that. I would support full-time pay for board members. But Silvestre, and others, knew what they were signing up for. Silvestre was so poorly prepared for the council hearing a couple of weeks back. Why did Silvestre run for board president if she cannot put in the time to carry this added responsibility?

She is a well-meaning person, and has capability, but I really hope she chooses not to run again.

Well she has a totally separate full time job and two kids. You get what you pay for with those BOE salaries.

What is her full-time job? How is it possible to work full-time and be on the BOE? Her work is okay with her taking time off during the day to engage in regular BOE/comittee meetings during the day?