Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is insane. No wonder why it’s gone downhill over the decades. Why would anyone smart and hardworking want to take on another demanding job for peanuts and to get so much stress that comes with it?

There’s also no incentive or motivation besides the goodness of your heart to strive for making things great.

I used to be skeptical of a lot of corporate boards and still am to some extent but given the compensation especially the stock compensation, there’s a strong incentive to give it a lot to ensure the company is successful.

Apparently there were recently recommendations for a significant salary increase but it looks like it hasn't gone anywhere in Annapolis: https://montgomerycountymd.gov/boards/Resources/Files/sites/becc/annual-reports/BECC-Annual-Report-2024.pdf

Report is also really interesting looking at all the different tasks Board members do and how much time they spend...

Anonymous wrote:This is insane. No wonder why it’s gone downhill over the decades. Why would anyone smart and hardworking want to take on another demanding job for peanuts and to get so much stress that comes with it?

There’s also no incentive or motivation besides the goodness of your heart to strive for making things great.

I used to be skeptical of a lot of corporate boards and still am to some extent but given the compensation especially the stock compensation, there’s a strong incentive to give it a lot to ensure the company is successful.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if Brenda Wolff, Karla Silvestre, and Grace Rivera-Oven will run for reelection.

I hope not. They all need to go, especially Brenda and Karla. Karla should not be working at MC as an MCPS liaison as it’s a huge conflict of interest and probably why they push kids to Mc vs having classes at the schools.

How is that even ethically possible for Karla Silvestre? I get that a salary of 25k as an McPs board member isn’t enough to make a living but that is a massive conflict of interest.

It’s the actual job that’s the issue. And, how does she get that much time off to do board work during the day?

I mean, how do any of them get that much time off? I don't want the school board to be only for SAHMs and dilettantes, which means folks have outside jobs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually think the board members we have right now are mostly solid and much better than the previous slate with a few exceptions. The issue is that MCPS is just going to do what it’s going to do and board members can only sort of change around the edges. And quite frankly MCPS’s focus and goals do not align with mine in a lot of cases. I think they do not think of any of the students as individuals, just as members of racial groups.

Agree, and also feel my kids MCPS education is much stronger than mine was at a W 30 years ago. All this winging is misguided. People want their kids to get a good education try parenting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if Brenda Wolff, Karla Silvestre, and Grace Rivera-Oven will run for reelection.

I hope not. They all need to go, especially Brenda and Karla. Karla should not be working at MC as an MCPS liaison as it’s a huge conflict of interest and probably why they push kids to Mc vs having classes at the schools.

How is that even ethically possible for Karla Silvestre? I get that a salary of 25k as an McPs board member isn’t enough to make a living but that is a massive conflict of interest.

That 25k is something when saving up for college for your kids. Buying another car. Grooming, hair and nails care and so on. It really is a show, ask a question or two but no followup. Should be a full time job and pay but that's not going to happen.

Theyve run MCPS into the ground, how much do you think they should be paid? The salary is set by the state.

It's a chicken and egg situation. If it paid like a real full-time job, you'd get way more good candidates running, and they'd treat it like a real job and give it their full-time attention and focus.

Long overdue that we lobby the state to change the salaries, and lobby our local electeds to call for it as well (practically speaking, this will likely be a key factor.)

I think this would help. I've seen a few MCPS Board meetings online, and was not impressed with the caliber of questions coming from Board members. If they're practically volunteer Board members, that explains why they don't sound particularly informed or engaged.

Most of them don't have actual experience in business, education, etc. and really have no clue what goes on day to day.

What are you talking about. Two of them are/have been attorneys, one a principal, one a teacher, and one runs a non-profit, and one works at MC. They may not know what goes on day to day inside every school or classroom but they certainly aren’t oblivious on the whole or incompetent.

What frustrates me is how unprepared most folks from MCPS appear when coming to address the Board. Their lack of information and followup is ridiculous. Frankly, they need to spend more time in the old business section so they can make visible any follow-ups and additional Q/A for the public. Instead it’s just regulated to this site:

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/boe/meetings/memorandum/

Anonymous wrote:Based only on a smattering of meetings..

I've been disappointed with Zimmerman. Clearly capable from her campaign appearances, where she outshone other candidates on panels with her well organized answers, I haven't seen much of the expected incisive probing from her. It's as if she's part of the machine.

Wolff, too, in that regard. Rivera-Oven a bit better, but each only seem to wake up and become more probative around a subset of subjects.

Stewart is missing a lot of the data clarity that she brought to the table when testifying for MCPS. It's not so much her tendency to ramble, which I think is one way some people use to think through things newly presented (and lots of it is just dumped on them at meetings), it's that there are angles she should know, given her background, but chooses not to pursue, focusing narrowly, now, like others.

Both Montoya and Yang have provided some better questioning. Montoya has seemed harried, though, like she is trying to do two other things at the same time as the BOE meeting, and Yang seems to rush everyone along, trying, as President, to keep things moving at the expense of enough Q & A on many topics.

Silvestre seems spent, with some of her more incisive moments well in the past.

None seems to do as good a job as the SMOB, even as that high school senior can, at times, show their relative inexperience.

Stewart, Montoya and Zimmerman will have their next election cycle in 2028. We'll see which of the others run for re-election this go round.

Anonymous wrote:Based only on a smattering of meetings..

I've been disappointed with Zimmerman. Clearly capable from her campaign appearances, where she outshone other candidates on panels with her well organized answers, I haven't seen much of the expected incisive probing from her. It's as if she's part of the machine.

Wolff, too, in that regard. Rivera-Oven a bit better, but each only seem to wake up and become more probative around a subset of subjects.

Stewart is missing a lot of the data clarity that she brought to the table when testifying for MCPS. It's not so much her tendency to ramble, which I think is one way some people use to think through things newly presented (and lots of it is just dumped on them at meetings), it's that there are angles she should know, given her background, but chooses not to pursue, focusing narrowly, now, like others.

Both Montoya and Yang have provided some better questioning. Montoya has seemed harried, though, like she is trying to do two other things at the same time as the BOE meeting, and Yang seems to rush everyone along, trying, as President, to keep things moving at the expense of enough Q & A on many topics.

Silvestre seems spent, with some of her more incisive moments well in the past.

None seems to do as good a job as the SMOB, even as that high school senior can, at times, show their relative inexperience.

Stewart, Montoya and Zimmerman will have their next election cycle in 2028. We'll see which of the others run for re-election this go round.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is insane. No wonder why it’s gone downhill over the decades. Why would anyone smart and hardworking want to take on another demanding job for peanuts and to get so much stress that comes with it?

There’s also no incentive or motivation besides the goodness of your heart to strive for making things great.

I used to be skeptical of a lot of corporate boards and still am to some extent but given the compensation especially the stock compensation, there’s a strong incentive to give it a lot to ensure the company is successful.

Most board positions are not paid or get a small stipend. This gives you a small stipend. You know it when you run.

Most boards are run by wealthy, successful people. Hence why they can give their time away at free or reduced cost.

Following that model ensures the same for our public school system. Why would we want only wealthy, well-off people running for and getting elected to the school board?

Also, in corporate boards, as another PP pointed out, they usually get stock compensation. No similar equivalent for BOE members.