Where does the $3.8 billion go

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Instructional coaches are the most useless people in schools. Teachers hate them and the only people that get those jobs are people that just want to get out of the classroom. That said, they barely make a dent in the budget.

Well given that it's likely the teachers who are underperforming in some way that get instructional coaches assigned to them it's not surprising that they are not well-liked. Do you have data on whether they improve students' learning? That's what would matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know how much better the pension is than the social security the rest of us receive.

What do you want to know? I just retired this past June. I’ll draw SS when I’m eligible to do so.

The pension plans have also changed a few times for some of those who have been hired since I started 31 years ago.

+1, Teachers still receive SS, but the number of teachers that pull their full VRS benefits is probably less than 20% based on teacher attrition numbers.

What I want to know is what is the ratio of Social security payment compared to VRS

I’m assuming you’re asking about teachers that have worked for 30 years? But as someone who taught for about 10 years, my Social Security will be more than VRS.

Recent retiree here. I looked mine up. My SS estimator shows $2,150 at age 62, $3,053 at age 67, and $3,786 if I delay to age 70.
My VRS is a little over $3k.

That’s huge! VRS is massive. A little jealous btw.

ERFC helps as a supplement to VRS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Instructional coaches are the most useless people in schools. Teachers hate them and the only people that get those jobs are people that just want to get out of the classroom. That said, they barely make a dent in the budget.

Well given that it's likely the teachers who are underperforming in some way that get instructional coaches assigned to them it's not surprising that they are not well-liked. Do you have data on whether they improve students' learning? That's what would matter.

I know that the title instructional coach may be misleading, but the school based instructional coaches are not “assigned” to under-performing teachers. Those teachers actually work with someone else, from Gatehouse. The Instructional coaches responsibilities center around data mining, data reporting, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Instructional coaches are the most useless people in schools. Teachers hate them and the only people that get those jobs are people that just want to get out of the classroom. That said, they barely make a dent in the budget.

Well given that it's likely the teachers who are underperforming in some way that get instructional coaches assigned to them it's not surprising that they are not well-liked. Do you have data on whether they improve students' learning? That's what would matter.

I know that the title instructional coach may be misleading, but the school based instructional coaches are not “assigned” to under-performing teachers. Those teachers actually work with someone else, from Gatehouse. The Instructional coaches responsibilities center around data mining, data reporting, etc.

They also help facilitate useless CLT meetings and direct teachers towards FCPS resources that they already know exist.

[Anonymous]

Sooo all these post to say it’s been determined that the bulk of the $3.8 billion goes to teachers and front line staff salary and benefits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sooo all these post to say it’s been determined that the bulk of the $3.8 billion goes to teachers and front line staff salary and benefits.

Sooo in that case it's OK that there is a bunch of wasted money on people who don't do anything useful. As long as it's a small part of the $3.8 billion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sooo all these post to say it’s been determined that the bulk of the $3.8 billion goes to teachers and front line staff salary and benefits.

Sooo in that case it's OK that there is a bunch of wasted money on people who don't do anything useful. As long as it's a small part of the $3.8 billion?

I don’t think they are the most important to actual school functioning but they are important for the district for being in charge of the testing data and coming up with strategies to get or keep the numbers up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I was in grad school (in education) in 2003, we looked at the budget of our respective school systems (it was a class of educators from many counties--Arlington, FCPS, DC, Montgomery, PG, Loudoun). At that time FCPS's was appx $2.2B. I am stunned that less than 20 years later, it is almost $4B. That is a staggering amount of money. PP is correct re: the amount which goes to the people that make the system run. In 2003, it was 85%. I am pleasantly surprised that that total has risen to almost 90%.

I would like to see a citation for the claim "for every 2 people in the classroom, there is 1 that isn't".

This is an average increase of 2.7% per year over that time period. Inflation has averaged 2.6% since 2003. Sure it is a stager ring amount of money but context helps here.

Good context. I didn't do the math (should have!)--it does put the increase in perspective. Thank you.

I would agree with the math argument above if I saw the sand inflation adjustment in teacher salaries: if $50k a year in 2003 became $85k a year in 2023 ( and I mean for the same education and experience level). Which did not happen. So this is NOT due to inflation adjustments.

In 2003, starting pay with a MA was $39,184. In 2024 it’s $64,612.

In 2003, step 12 with a MA was $55,803. In 2024 it is $90,379

Page 286: https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/media/pdf/03approved.pdf

https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/media/pdf/FY2024-teacher-195-day.pdf

Actually, starting salary for MA in 2024 is $61,600. If I applied 2.7% yearly increase to 2003 salary, we are $7000 short as 39184*1.027^21=68562. That is 10% short. So.. The stating salary for MA is 10% less today than in 2003 after counting for 2.7% inflation adjustment you mentioned

DP: You have to figure in total compensation though--because health care costs far outpaced inflation--and other teachers' benefits' (pensions and other retirement benefits) costs have also outpaced inflation. Private companies have largely cut a lot of those in order to offer what seems like a higher salary. That's why total compensation packages are considered--not just salary--when looking at inflation.

Respectfully, I disagree. The insurance offered by FCPS today is horrible and very expensive. That is why I personally on my husbands plan. The retirement age is increased and formula is worse than before, and it is applied to the lower salary figures.

All this talk about total compensation is just that talk. The extras we get are stupid “wellness programs” that no one wants. I will take the extra 10% of my salary instead, thank you very much.

Could someone please provide some numbers for insurance costs for an individual? I'll be looking for a teaching job soon and would love to have some basis for comparison. Will also ask in the non-FCPS thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I was in grad school (in education) in 2003, we looked at the budget of our respective school systems (it was a class of educators from many counties--Arlington, FCPS, DC, Montgomery, PG, Loudoun). At that time FCPS's was appx $2.2B. I am stunned that less than 20 years later, it is almost $4B. That is a staggering amount of money. PP is correct re: the amount which goes to the people that make the system run. In 2003, it was 85%. I am pleasantly surprised that that total has risen to almost 90%.

I would like to see a citation for the claim "for every 2 people in the classroom, there is 1 that isn't".

This is an average increase of 2.7% per year over that time period. Inflation has averaged 2.6% since 2003. Sure it is a stager ring amount of money but context helps here.

Good context. I didn't do the math (should have!)--it does put the increase in perspective. Thank you.

I would agree with the math argument above if I saw the sand inflation adjustment in teacher salaries: if $50k a year in 2003 became $85k a year in 2023 ( and I mean for the same education and experience level). Which did not happen. So this is NOT due to inflation adjustments.

In 2003, starting pay with a MA was $39,184. In 2024 it’s $64,612.

In 2003, step 12 with a MA was $55,803. In 2024 it is $90,379

Page 286: https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/media/pdf/03approved.pdf

https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/media/pdf/FY2024-teacher-195-day.pdf

Actually, starting salary for MA in 2024 is $61,600. If I applied 2.7% yearly increase to 2003 salary, we are $7000 short as 39184*1.027^21=68562. That is 10% short. So.. The stating salary for MA is 10% less today than in 2003 after counting for 2.7% inflation adjustment you mentioned

DP: You have to figure in total compensation though--because health care costs far outpaced inflation--and other teachers' benefits' (pensions and other retirement benefits) costs have also outpaced inflation. Private companies have largely cut a lot of those in order to offer what seems like a higher salary. That's why total compensation packages are considered--not just salary--when looking at inflation.

Respectfully, I disagree. The insurance offered by FCPS today is horrible and very expensive. That is why I personally on my husbands plan. The retirement age is increased and formula is worse than before, and it is applied to the lower salary figures.

All this talk about total compensation is just that talk. The extras we get are stupid “wellness programs” that no one wants. I will take the extra 10% of my salary instead, thank you very much.

Could someone please provide some numbers for insurance costs for an individual? I'll be looking for a teaching job soon and would love to have some basis for comparison. Will also ask in the non-FCPS thread.

Cigna is 132 a check if you are by your self. I don’t have any major health conditions so I don’t have any problems with them because I rarely need them. I believe it jumps to over 400 dollars once you add another person. It should be on the FCPS site publicly

[Anonymous]

Cigna is $600/month for a family of four.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I was in grad school (in education) in 2003, we looked at the budget of our respective school systems (it was a class of educators from many counties--Arlington, FCPS, DC, Montgomery, PG, Loudoun). At that time FCPS's was appx $2.2B. I am stunned that less than 20 years later, it is almost $4B. That is a staggering amount of money. PP is correct re: the amount which goes to the people that make the system run. In 2003, it was 85%. I am pleasantly surprised that that total has risen to almost 90%.

I would like to see a citation for the claim "for every 2 people in the classroom, there is 1 that isn't".

This is an average increase of 2.7% per year over that time period. Inflation has averaged 2.6% since 2003. Sure it is a stager ring amount of money but context helps here.

Good context. I didn't do the math (should have!)--it does put the increase in perspective. Thank you.

I would agree with the math argument above if I saw the sand inflation adjustment in teacher salaries: if $50k a year in 2003 became $85k a year in 2023 ( and I mean for the same education and experience level). Which did not happen. So this is NOT due to inflation adjustments.

In 2003, starting pay with a MA was $39,184. In 2024 it’s $64,612.

In 2003, step 12 with a MA was $55,803. In 2024 it is $90,379

Page 286: https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/media/pdf/03approved.pdf

https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/media/pdf/FY2024-teacher-195-day.pdf

Actually, starting salary for MA in 2024 is $61,600. If I applied 2.7% yearly increase to 2003 salary, we are $7000 short as 39184*1.027^21=68562. That is 10% short. So.. The stating salary for MA is 10% less today than in 2003 after counting for 2.7% inflation adjustment you mentioned

DP: You have to figure in total compensation though--because health care costs far outpaced inflation--and other teachers' benefits' (pensions and other retirement benefits) costs have also outpaced inflation. Private companies have largely cut a lot of those in order to offer what seems like a higher salary. That's why total compensation packages are considered--not just salary--when looking at inflation.

Respectfully, I disagree. The insurance offered by FCPS today is horrible and very expensive. That is why I personally on my husbands plan. The retirement age is increased and formula is worse than before, and it is applied to the lower salary figures.

All this talk about total compensation is just that talk. The extras we get are stupid “wellness programs” that no one wants. I will take the extra 10% of my salary instead, thank you very much.

Could someone please provide some numbers for insurance costs for an individual? I'll be looking for a teaching job soon and would love to have some basis for comparison. Will also ask in the non-FCPS thread.

A lot of this type of info can be found on district websites. Here is the premium chart for FCPS:

https://www.fcps.edu/sites/default/files/media/pdf/employee-benefits-premiums.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For every 2 teachers (actual teachers in the classroom, working with children) there is 1 administrative person who does not work in the classroom.

Evidence?
A lot of the people you might be calling "administrators" are people who are doing pull-outs with small groups and individual kids who need them and doing targeted whole group instruction in a variety of classes to give teachers their planning periods and be there for on-site subbing. They spend just as much of their day teaching as a child's assigned teacher.

I'd like your evidence-we have an instructional coach who sits in meetings all day drinking coffee. They never get pulled to cover anything. It's quite cushy and if we are being honest unnecessary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like a disproportional share goes to the overhead and not front line staff. Welfare for those who can’t teach or apparently run a successful school district - https://wjla.com/amp/news/local/fairfax-county-public-schools-salary-data-shows-pay-gap-between-senior-staff-teachers-administrators-superintendent-education-finance-economy-community-virginia

There's not surprisingly a salary difference for admin who are taking on leadership roles (often after teaching many years), but the vast majority of the money goes to teachers and front line staff.

LOL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like a disproportional share goes to the overhead and not front line staff. Welfare for those who can’t teach or apparently run a successful school district - https://wjla.com/amp/news/local/fairfax-county-public-schools-salary-data-shows-pay-gap-between-senior-staff-teachers-administrators-superintendent-education-finance-economy-community-virginia

There's not surprisingly a salary difference for admin who are taking on leadership roles (often after teaching many years), but the vast majority of the money goes to teachers and front line staff.

LOL

Well, that's the data--86%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For every 2 teachers (actual teachers in the classroom, working with children) there is 1 administrative person who does not work in the classroom.

Evidence?
A lot of the people you might be calling "administrators" are people who are doing pull-outs with small groups and individual kids who need them and doing targeted whole group instruction in a variety of classes to give teachers their planning periods and be there for on-site subbing. They spend just as much of their day teaching as a child's assigned teacher.

I'd like your evidence-we have an instructional coach who sits in meetings all day drinking coffee. They never get pulled to cover anything. It's quite cushy and if we are being honest unnecessary.

Different teacher here. I agree. Biggest waste of money. They do not work with kids and are not helpful at all. I would estimate at least 100 or so in the district. Which is wasteful when you have positions with long term subs all year.