Reducing personnel at central office

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't know if this has been covered in the last 5-6 pages, but what CO needs is more hands to get the MCAP test results into envelopes to mail them out to families. It is beyond ridonc that students were assessed last Spring and results have yet to be seen by parents (and maybe the schools too). What meaning is there to have students sit for hours for multiple state mandated tests when results take this long to return? So which ever department it is that is in charge of mailing home assessments definitely needs more people to package, or the department needs a machine to do the packaging. And finally the actual mailing. Someone at CO should advocate for release of results earlier than it is taking now. If results can't be sent out in a timely manner, allow families to opt their kid from taking the damn tests. Get it together, Maryland! Rant over.

MCAP is a silly test that has not even been vetted. Further, it is a state test, not MCPS. The county shouldn't waste a dime on this.

Passing the MCAP in high school is a literal graduation requirement. It is very much the responsibility of MCPS to communicate results to parents. Please educate yourself.

Have they fixed all the errors with this test? It was so new and unproven that there were major issues.

What issues? They're just repackaged Pearson tests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t forget that the special Ed department is in an actual crisis. Many many schools are left with ZERO certified sped staff (especially in discrete programs such as autism or SCB) and the staff in home school model (general ed inclusion for those who don’t know) are drowning in paperwork and cannot get consults from their instructional specialists or supervisors because there is not enough support in the SPED department. Also- please note that there was ZERO budget for home school model teachers to spend on instructional materials this year. Changes need to made immediately in that department

The terrible state of the Office of Special Education is the next big MCPS scandal that should be the focus of investigation.

This. So much this. Special Education is beyond crisis state, and special ed parents are too exhausted to sound the alarm. Want to talk about pathetic Central Office staff, every single one of them who claim to work for special education need to go

Yes, SN parents are exhausted, but we still sound the alarm all the time. We are ignored, told we should be grateful for the little we do get because there are not enough staff, or we are gaslit. They get away with it because stigma against disabilities still exists. No one thinks that a child with disabilities can learn or succeed. Therefore the school system has NO curriculum packages for even the most basic, well known disabilities like dyslexia (they only have begun to roll out small amounts of OG training). And they have been able to get away with this because until 2017 the standard set by the US Supreme Court for a "free and appropriate public education" was "de minimus", meaning the school merely had to show that a special education student had made a little bit more than "no progress". Now, after Endrew F., the standard is raised a bit but still a very low bar.

Even given the low bar, I talk to parents frequently who are told, illegally, that their kids don't qualify for services or accommodations - that is a failure of central office to
properly train staff who run and participate in special ed meetings. The lack of any curriculum for common special ed problems - dyslexia, dysgraphia, ADHD, autistic learning beyond ADA, social lessons, emotional lessons, etc. is also a failure of central special ed.

The lack of classroom capacity is another big issue. It's difficult enough to get an IEP for students who need accommodations. Once an IEP is provided, many students, especially those whose parents have little social capital, simply stay in their same classroom environments and the classroom teacher is expected to take on the additional work of providing accommodations. Most classroom teachers do not have special education training, much less credentials. Often, no paras are provided. We are just expected to provide the extra (often one-on-one) education to students with IEPs while magically teaching the rest of the class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t forget that the special Ed department is in an actual crisis. Many many schools are left with ZERO certified sped staff (especially in discrete programs such as autism or SCB) and the staff in home school model (general ed inclusion for those who don’t know) are drowning in paperwork and cannot get consults from their instructional specialists or supervisors because there is not enough support in the SPED department. Also- please note that there was ZERO budget for home school model teachers to spend on instructional materials this year. Changes need to made immediately in that department

The terrible state of the Office of Special Education is the next big MCPS scandal that should be the focus of investigation.

This. So much this. Special Education is beyond crisis state, and special ed parents are too exhausted to sound the alarm. Want to talk about pathetic Central Office staff, every single one of them who claim to work for special education need to go

Yes, SN parents are exhausted, but we still sound the alarm all the time. We are ignored, told we should be grateful for the little we do get because there are not enough staff, or we are gaslit. They get away with it because stigma against disabilities still exists. No one thinks that a child with disabilities can learn or succeed. Therefore the school system has NO curriculum packages for even the most basic, well known disabilities like dyslexia (they only have begun to roll out small amounts of OG training). And they have been able to get away with this because until 2017 the standard set by the US Supreme Court for a "free and appropriate public education" was "de minimus", meaning the school merely had to show that a special education student had made a little bit more than "no progress". Now, after Endrew F., the standard is raised a bit but still a very low bar.

Even given the low bar, I talk to parents frequently who are told, illegally, that their kids don't qualify for services or accommodations - that is a failure of central office to
properly train staff who run and participate in special ed meetings. The lack of any curriculum for common special ed problems - dyslexia, dysgraphia, ADHD, autistic learning beyond ADA, social lessons, emotional lessons, etc. is also a failure of central special ed.

The lack of classroom capacity is another big issue. It's difficult enough to get an IEP for students who need accommodations. Once an IEP is provided, many students, especially those whose parents have little social capital, simply stay in their same classroom environments and the classroom teacher is expected to take on the additional work of providing accommodations. Most classroom teachers do not have special education training, much less credentials. Often, no paras are provided. We are just expected to provide the extra (often one-on-one) education to students with IEPs while magically teaching the rest of the class.

This is why CO positions need to be cu, especially those thay don't provide value or work only part kf the time in their full time jobs. Send that funding for more teachers to reduce student/teacher ratios.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn't Minifa expand the number of CO employees by 30% to help improve their focus on equity?

And how did they do?

They've done a lot to tweak the optics on closing the gap by creating more honors for all programs and reducing opportunities for advanced learners with all these lottery programs.

How did the lottery reduce opportunity for advance learners? It just made it so all advanced capable learners had a chance. And they created ELC and expanded to all ES.

DP. Have a chance at what? An accelerated local Math course? ELC? HIGH? These hardly are at the same level or breadth as the programming available at the magnets, which have far too few seats to meet the needs of the identified population. And unless you are lucky enough to be with a large cohort, many schools "implementing" the latter two are doing so without fidelity, having to reduce the intended enrichments/challenge because of more heterogeneous levels of students they are including in those classes to manage class size.

And CES, itself, is less broad than the HGC model that preceded it. One can say it is more focused to a particular test result/subject area competency, but that doesn't mean those with such results aren't highly capable in other areas. Some CES programs effectively cohort for math, some don't. Where's science in all of this?

There's been a crusade against GT programming for decades. It's ridden the wave of equity, which isn't bad in and of itself, but creates a monster when paired, with budgetary decisions of convenience drawing from old analyses showing inequitable GT identification/program admittance (which may still occur). Those have resulted in slashing of GT programming, swapping one kind of inequity for another, instead of the robust expansion that would address both.

Eliminating “gifted and talented” programs IS equity.

Are people not aware of that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn't Minifa expand the number of CO employees by 30% to help improve their focus on equity?

And how did they do?

They've done a lot to tweak the optics on closing the gap by creating more honors for all programs and reducing opportunities for advanced learners with all these lottery programs.

How did the lottery reduce opportunity for advance learners? It just made it so all advanced capable learners had a chance. And they created ELC and expanded to all ES.

DP. Have a chance at what? An accelerated local Math course? ELC? HIGH? These hardly are at the same level or breadth as the programming available at the magnets, which have far too few seats to meet the needs of the identified population. And unless you are lucky enough to be with a large cohort, many schools "implementing" the latter two are doing so without fidelity, having to reduce the intended enrichments/challenge because of more heterogeneous levels of students they are including in those classes to manage class size.

And CES, itself, is less broad than the HGC model that preceded it. One can say it is more focused to a particular test result/subject area competency, but that doesn't mean those with such results aren't highly capable in other areas. Some CES programs effectively cohort for math, some don't. Where's science in all of this?

There's been a crusade against GT programming for decades. It's ridden the wave of equity, which isn't bad in and of itself, but creates a monster when paired, with budgetary decisions of convenience drawing from old analyses showing inequitable GT identification/program admittance (which may still occur). Those have resulted in slashing of GT programming, swapping one kind of inequity for another, instead of the robust expansion that would address both.

Eliminating “gifted and talented” programs IS equity.

Are people not aware of that?

Wait! I thought it was "woke", not "equity". Dang, I'm losing track of my maga buzzwords.

[Anonymous]

If MCPS is going to reduce staff numbers, it better start in central office.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If MCPS is going to reduce staff numbers, it better start in central office.

Didn't McKnight staff up the equity division numbers by increasing CO staff by 30%?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If MCPS is going to reduce staff numbers, it better start in central office.

Didn't McKnight staff up the equity division numbers by increasing CO staff by 30%?

I don't know the specific percentage, but I know she increased staff on a steady basis.

[Anonymous]

MCPS has 2X the admin overhead with CO that FCPS has. It's kind of crazy, really. Think of how many teachers they could hire with that and how much more that would help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:MCPS has 2X the admin overhead with CO that FCPS has. It's kind of crazy, really. Think of how many teachers they could hire with that and how much more that would help.

And yet, class sizes are forecast to rise next year, with teacher layoffs and involuntary transfers taking place. Jack Smith laid off several CO staff by eliminating positions and making people (mostly women in their 50s) compete for remaining positions.

Is a similar action taking place now in MCPS's central office?

[Anonymous]

I think central staff should be rotated in and out of school postings so they have actual experience in the classroom/front office every 5 years or so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think central staff should be rotated in and out of school postings so they have actual experience in the classroom/front office every 5 years or so.

I heard that CO staff were tasked with substitute teaching, as needed. Is that true? With so many staff milling around central office, that would be a good use of their time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think central staff should be rotated in and out of school postings so they have actual experience in the classroom/front office every 5 years or so.

I heard that CO staff were tasked with substitute teaching, as needed. Is that true? With so many staff milling around central office, that would be a good use of their time.

Yes, there were people asked to sub maybe three years ago. But why pay someone $75- $100 an hour to sub? Why not get rid of that position if they aren't needed that they can sub?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think central staff should be rotated in and out of school postings so they have actual experience in the classroom/front office every 5 years or so.

I heard that CO staff were tasked with substitute teaching, as needed. Is that true? With so many staff milling around central office, that would be a good use of their time.

Yes, there were people asked to sub maybe three years ago. But why pay someone $75- $100 an hour to sub? Why not get rid of that position if they aren't needed that they can sub?

Absenteeism is still very high among teachers. At least my kid's teachers in ES seem to be out at least a week every month.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think central staff should be rotated in and out of school postings so they have actual experience in the classroom/front office every 5 years or so.

I heard that CO staff were tasked with substitute teaching, as needed. Is that true? With so many staff milling around central office, that would be a good use of their time.

Yes, there were people asked to sub maybe three years ago. But why pay someone $75- $100 an hour to sub? Why not get rid of that position if they aren't needed that they can sub?

The pay differential between teachers and co staff is obscene.