Taylor's Operating Budget releases 12/17 at 6:30 pm

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taylor wants an increase. Where is this money going? How about transparency!

Have you even bothered to look at the details? Almost all
of the increase simply goes to pay and benefits.

That's just part of the money, what about the rest of the money. MCPS has a huge budget and it should be in this kind of mess.

It's 80% of the increase.

Yes, the detailed budget breakdown is important, and presumably they'll release more information publicly as they've done in previous years, but this is a strange thing to get hung up on right now. The idea of a small increase nominally for costs beyond salaries should not be surprising or immediately viewed with suspicion. Inflation drives costs up each year- flat spending is really a cut.

They need to manage the money better. Most of us aren't getting pay raises and many are out of work, which impacts the county revenue and they are tone-deaf not to realize how many families are struggling right now.

Tightening the belt, so to speak, during economic downturns might be acceptable if it wasn't also done during economic booms. We've had 15 years of slow cuts to schools because old people never want to see their taxes go up to help kids.

You do realize many old people are on fixed incomes, right?

Unlike the old people before them?

Old people today are richer than previous generations. Especially here.

you think the majority of taxpayers are rich, and they really aren't.

Old people today are richer than the generations that came before them. And here in MoCo, they're probably sitting on several hundreds of thousands of dollars in equity.

Rich old people are far more likely to leave the state then to pay taxes they object to.

Good

Sounds good, but new rich people are unlikely to move to a state/county with high taxes and a moribund economy, which will leave MoCo with an ever decreasing number of rich people (and shrinking tax base). Who is going to fund MCPS then?

If the rich won't pay taxes, then we wouldn't be losing anything. Let the old people go, others will move in with jobs and income tax revenue.

No they won't. You are delusional.

Sounds like it's time for you to move to a red state.

DP: No, you are incorrect here. Why would job creators move to a county that the rich are fleeing, that has taxes higher than most places in the US ( and higher than its local competitors in the DMV), and that has a struggling economy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, what is really infuriating is that past generations understood the importance of education and accepted that the nature of education inherently means costs will go up *faster* than general inflation. That's reflected in the long-term trends in education funding over the last century.

This isn't a new issue. We just now have taxpayers who are unwilling to give the next generation the same benefits they received. Right around 2010 was when this shifted dramatically.

It's not just the immediate impacts to kids that we should be worried about. Education has facilitated the growth in science and technology that drives our economy. We're digging ourselves deeper and deeper into a hole because some boomers don't like taxes.

I'm looking at per pupil spending numbers (https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/OMB/Resources/Files/omb/pdfs/FY26/psprec/10-MontgomeryCountyPublicSchools-FY2026-REC-Publication-Report.pdf) and adjusting them for inflation. They don't support your assertions.'

Using the numbers in the linked document and the BLS CPI calculator, this is what I found for inflation adjusted per pupil funding amounts in November 2025 dollars:

1984-1985: $13,398
1989-1990: $16,305
1994-1995: $15,287
1999-2000: $16,244
2004-2005: $19,630
2009-2010: $23,427
2014-2015: $20,522
2019-2020: $20,477
2024-2025: $21,058
2025-2026: $22,644

The current year per pupil funding is 69% higher than 1985 per pupil funding in November 2025 dollars, and 39% higher than per pupil funding in 2000 in November 2025 dollars. Then in the 2000s Doug Duncan went on a massive spending spree, which surprise surprise was not sustainable. Per pupil funding was at a high in 2010, but with the recession, we couldn't keep that up. We are approaching another recession. It is not going to be pretty.

DP but are you looking at the total funding numbers or the county funding numbers? There's a whole bunch of reasons why federal and state funding fluctuate, but the discussion is about county-level spending on education and whether or not it has declined, correct?

I did total funding because
- it's all county taxpayer funding. County taxpayers send more to the state and federal government than what the county gets back
- when the state increases funding for schools it decreases funding for other things like public safety, transportation, etc. The county still has to provide these services. MCPS and MCEA have a history of crying foul about county funding numbers, and it's quite deceptive.

However, I have provided all the information you need to calculate the trend in inflation adjusted MCPS per pupil funding coming from the county budget, should you wish to do so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, what is really infuriating is that past generations understood the importance of education and accepted that the nature of education inherently means costs will go up *faster* than general inflation. That's reflected in the long-term trends in education funding over the last century.

This isn't a new issue. We just now have taxpayers who are unwilling to give the next generation the same benefits they received. Right around 2010 was when this shifted dramatically.

It's not just the immediate impacts to kids that we should be worried about. Education has facilitated the growth in science and technology that drives our economy. We're digging ourselves deeper and deeper into a hole because some boomers don't like taxes.

I'm looking at per pupil spending numbers (https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/OMB/Resources/Files/omb/pdfs/FY26/psprec/10-MontgomeryCountyPublicSchools-FY2026-REC-Publication-Report.pdf) and adjusting them for inflation. They don't support your assertions.'

Using the numbers in the linked document and the BLS CPI calculator, this is what I found for inflation adjusted per pupil funding amounts in November 2025 dollars:

1984-1985: $13,398
1989-1990: $16,305
1994-1995: $15,287
1999-2000: $16,244
2004-2005: $19,630
2009-2010: $23,427
2014-2015: $20,522
2019-2020: $20,477
2024-2025: $21,058
2025-2026: $22,644

The current year per pupil funding is 69% higher than 1985 per pupil funding in November 2025 dollars, and 39% higher than per pupil funding in 2000 in November 2025 dollars. Then in the 2000s Doug Duncan went on a massive spending spree, which surprise surprise was not sustainable. Per pupil funding was at a high in 2010, but with the recession, we couldn't keep that up. We are approaching another recession. It is not going to be pretty.

DP but are you looking at the total funding numbers or the county funding numbers? There's a whole bunch of reasons why federal and state funding fluctuate, but the discussion is about county-level spending on education and whether or not it has declined, correct?

I did total funding because
- it's all county taxpayer funding. County taxpayers send more to the state and federal government than what the county gets back
- when the state increases funding for schools it decreases funding for other things like public safety, transportation, etc. The county still has to provide these services. MCPS and MCEA have a history of crying foul about county funding numbers, and it's quite deceptive.

However, I have provided all the information you need to calculate the trend in inflation adjusted MCPS per pupil funding coming from the county budget, should you wish to do so.

I agree. I noticed the per pupil funding talking point is one that Elrich, Taylor and MCEA all like to tout and it always smelled a little fishy to me.

Your analysis makes a lot more sense for the reasons you mentioned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, what is really infuriating is that past generations understood the importance of education and accepted that the nature of education inherently means costs will go up *faster* than general inflation. That's reflected in the long-term trends in education funding over the last century.

This isn't a new issue. We just now have taxpayers who are unwilling to give the next generation the same benefits they received. Right around 2010 was when this shifted dramatically.

It's not just the immediate impacts to kids that we should be worried about. Education has facilitated the growth in science and technology that drives our economy. We're digging ourselves deeper and deeper into a hole because some boomers don't like taxes.

I'm looking at per pupil spending numbers (https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/OMB/Resources/Files/omb/pdfs/FY26/psprec/10-MontgomeryCountyPublicSchools-FY2026-REC-Publication-Report.pdf) and adjusting them for inflation. They don't support your assertions.'

Using the numbers in the linked document and the BLS CPI calculator, this is what I found for inflation adjusted per pupil funding amounts in November 2025 dollars:

1984-1985: $13,398
1989-1990: $16,305
1994-1995: $15,287
1999-2000: $16,244
2004-2005: $19,630
2009-2010: $23,427
2014-2015: $20,522
2019-2020: $20,477
2024-2025: $21,058
2025-2026: $22,644

The current year per pupil funding is 69% higher than 1985 per pupil funding in November 2025 dollars, and 39% higher than per pupil funding in 2000 in November 2025 dollars. Then in the 2000s Doug Duncan went on a massive spending spree, which surprise surprise was not sustainable. Per pupil funding was at a high in 2010, but with the recession, we couldn't keep that up. We are approaching another recession. It is not going to be pretty.

That's my point. When you look back over the past 100 years, you'll see a clear trend in education going up faster than inflation. Unless you want more and more screen time, the nature of education means it needs to. The main cost is labor, labor costs go up faster than inflation, and you don't want ratios to explode.

That changed in 2010, where we saw funding drop, only recently starting to catch back up. But now we're 15 years behind where we need to be. You can't blame that on the recession, because it kept going after the recession.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, what is really infuriating is that past generations understood the importance of education and accepted that the nature of education inherently means costs will go up *faster* than general inflation. That's reflected in the long-term trends in education funding over the last century.

This isn't a new issue. We just now have taxpayers who are unwilling to give the next generation the same benefits they received. Right around 2010 was when this shifted dramatically.

It's not just the immediate impacts to kids that we should be worried about. Education has facilitated the growth in science and technology that drives our economy. We're digging ourselves deeper and deeper into a hole because some boomers don't like taxes.

I'm looking at per pupil spending numbers (https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/OMB/Resources/Files/omb/pdfs/FY26/psprec/10-MontgomeryCountyPublicSchools-FY2026-REC-Publication-Report.pdf) and adjusting them for inflation. They don't support your assertions.'

Using the numbers in the linked document and the BLS CPI calculator, this is what I found for inflation adjusted per pupil funding amounts in November 2025 dollars:

1984-1985: $13,398
1989-1990: $16,305
1994-1995: $15,287
1999-2000: $16,244
2004-2005: $19,630
2009-2010: $23,427
2014-2015: $20,522
2019-2020: $20,477
2024-2025: $21,058
2025-2026: $22,644

The current year per pupil funding is 69% higher than 1985 per pupil funding in November 2025 dollars, and 39% higher than per pupil funding in 2000 in November 2025 dollars. Then in the 2000s Doug Duncan went on a massive spending spree, which surprise surprise was not sustainable. Per pupil funding was at a high in 2010, but with the recession, we couldn't keep that up. We are approaching another recession. It is not going to be pretty.

That's my point. When you look back over the past 100 years, you'll see a clear trend in education going up faster than inflation. Unless you want more and more screen time, the nature of education means it needs to. The main cost is labor, labor costs go up faster than inflation, and you don't want ratios to explode.

That changed in 2010, where we saw funding drop, only recently starting to catch back up. But now we're 15 years behind where we need to be. You can't blame that on the recession, because it kept going after the recession.

Just no

[Anonymous]

From looking at the data it looks like we dramatically increased per pupil funding in the 2000s and what we got for it was edtech crap. Gtfooh with the notion that MCPS needs yet more money to stop paying for edtech.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, what is really infuriating is that past generations understood the importance of education and accepted that the nature of education inherently means costs will go up *faster* than general inflation. That's reflected in the long-term trends in education funding over the last century.

This isn't a new issue. We just now have taxpayers who are unwilling to give the next generation the same benefits they received. Right around 2010 was when this shifted dramatically.

It's not just the immediate impacts to kids that we should be worried about. Education has facilitated the growth in science and technology that drives our economy. We're digging ourselves deeper and deeper into a hole because some boomers don't like taxes.

I'm looking at per pupil spending numbers (https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/OMB/Resources/Files/omb/pdfs/FY26/psprec/10-MontgomeryCountyPublicSchools-FY2026-REC-Publication-Report.pdf) and adjusting them for inflation. They don't support your assertions.'

Using the numbers in the linked document and the BLS CPI calculator, this is what I found for inflation adjusted per pupil funding amounts in November 2025 dollars:

1984-1985: $13,398
1989-1990: $16,305
1994-1995: $15,287
1999-2000: $16,244
2004-2005: $19,630
2009-2010: $23,427
2014-2015: $20,522
2019-2020: $20,477
2024-2025: $21,058
2025-2026: $22,644

The current year per pupil funding is 69% higher than 1985 per pupil funding in November 2025 dollars, and 39% higher than per pupil funding in 2000 in November 2025 dollars. Then in the 2000s Doug Duncan went on a massive spending spree, which surprise surprise was not sustainable. Per pupil funding was at a high in 2010, but with the recession, we couldn't keep that up. We are approaching another recession. It is not going to be pretty.

That's my point. When you look back over the past 100 years, you'll see a clear trend in education going up faster than inflation. Unless you want more and more screen time, the nature of education means it needs to. The main cost is labor, labor costs go up faster than inflation, and you don't want ratios to explode.

That changed in 2010, where we saw funding drop, only recently starting to catch back up. But now we're 15 years behind where we need to be. You can't blame that on the recession, because it kept going after the recession.

This is a disgusting and nonsensical threat. Screentime hasn't saved MCPS any money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Tonight, Dr. Taylor will release his 2027 operating budget recommendations:

This is going to drive the rest of the conversation for the school system between now and the June, so you'll want to tune in, pay attention and take lots of notes.

I predict gimmicky props and cringey dad jokes from Taylor. But given the budget shortfalls at the state and county levels, I also expect some pretty sobering statements and decisions as well as we simply don't have the money to fix all that is broken with MCPS. At least not all at once and in the face of declining enrollments and stagnant growth in the county.

Well that didn't happen. No budget was released.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, what is really infuriating is that past generations understood the importance of education and accepted that the nature of education inherently means costs will go up *faster* than general inflation. That's reflected in the long-term trends in education funding over the last century.

This isn't a new issue. We just now have taxpayers who are unwilling to give the next generation the same benefits they received. Right around 2010 was when this shifted dramatically.

It's not just the immediate impacts to kids that we should be worried about. Education has facilitated the growth in science and technology that drives our economy. We're digging ourselves deeper and deeper into a hole because some boomers don't like taxes.

I'm looking at per pupil spending numbers (https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/OMB/Resources/Files/omb/pdfs/FY26/psprec/10-MontgomeryCountyPublicSchools-FY2026-REC-Publication-Report.pdf) and adjusting them for inflation. They don't support your assertions.'

Using the numbers in the linked document and the BLS CPI calculator, this is what I found for inflation adjusted per pupil funding amounts in November 2025 dollars:

1984-1985: $13,398
1989-1990: $16,305
1994-1995: $15,287
1999-2000: $16,244
2004-2005: $19,630
2009-2010: $23,427
2014-2015: $20,522
2019-2020: $20,477
2024-2025: $21,058
2025-2026: $22,644

The current year per pupil funding is 69% higher than 1985 per pupil funding in November 2025 dollars, and 39% higher than per pupil funding in 2000 in November 2025 dollars. Then in the 2000s Doug Duncan went on a massive spending spree, which surprise surprise was not sustainable. Per pupil funding was at a high in 2010, but with the recession, we couldn't keep that up. We are approaching another recession. It is not going to be pretty.

That's my point. When you look back over the past 100 years, you'll see a clear trend in education going up faster than inflation. Unless you want more and more screen time, the nature of education means it needs to. The main cost is labor, labor costs go up faster than inflation, and you don't want ratios to explode.

That changed in 2010, where we saw funding drop, only recently starting to catch back up. But now we're 15 years behind where we need to be. You can't blame that on the recession, because it kept going after the recession.

These conversations also make it like everything is the same since 1985. There is greater technology now than in 1985. There is a larger number of students. More is required of special education.

The county needs more economic engines for sure, but people also need to understand reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, what is really infuriating is that past generations understood the importance of education and accepted that the nature of education inherently means costs will go up *faster* than general inflation. That's reflected in the long-term trends in education funding over the last century.

This isn't a new issue. We just now have taxpayers who are unwilling to give the next generation the same benefits they received. Right around 2010 was when this shifted dramatically.

It's not just the immediate impacts to kids that we should be worried about. Education has facilitated the growth in science and technology that drives our economy. We're digging ourselves deeper and deeper into a hole because some boomers don't like taxes.

I'm looking at per pupil spending numbers (https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/OMB/Resources/Files/omb/pdfs/FY26/psprec/10-MontgomeryCountyPublicSchools-FY2026-REC-Publication-Report.pdf) and adjusting them for inflation. They don't support your assertions.'

Using the numbers in the linked document and the BLS CPI calculator, this is what I found for inflation adjusted per pupil funding amounts in November 2025 dollars:

1984-1985: $13,398
1989-1990: $16,305
1994-1995: $15,287
1999-2000: $16,244
2004-2005: $19,630
2009-2010: $23,427
2014-2015: $20,522
2019-2020: $20,477
2024-2025: $21,058
2025-2026: $22,644

The current year per pupil funding is 69% higher than 1985 per pupil funding in November 2025 dollars, and 39% higher than per pupil funding in 2000 in November 2025 dollars. Then in the 2000s Doug Duncan went on a massive spending spree, which surprise surprise was not sustainable. Per pupil funding was at a high in 2010, but with the recession, we couldn't keep that up. We are approaching another recession. It is not going to be pretty.

That's my point. When you look back over the past 100 years, you'll see a clear trend in education going up faster than inflation. Unless you want more and more screen time, the nature of education means it needs to. The main cost is labor, labor costs go up faster than inflation, and you don't want ratios to explode.

That changed in 2010, where we saw funding drop, only recently starting to catch back up. But now we're 15 years behind where we need to be. You can't blame that on the recession, because it kept going after the recession.

These conversations also make it like everything is the same since 1985. There is greater technology now than in 1985. There is a larger number of students. More is required of special education.

The county needs more economic engines for sure, but people also need to understand reality.

OK Where's the budget? Let's get started reading reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, what is really infuriating is that past generations understood the importance of education and accepted that the nature of education inherently means costs will go up *faster* than general inflation. That's reflected in the long-term trends in education funding over the last century.

This isn't a new issue. We just now have taxpayers who are unwilling to give the next generation the same benefits they received. Right around 2010 was when this shifted dramatically.

It's not just the immediate impacts to kids that we should be worried about. Education has facilitated the growth in science and technology that drives our economy. We're digging ourselves deeper and deeper into a hole because some boomers don't like taxes.

I'm looking at per pupil spending numbers (https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/OMB/Resources/Files/omb/pdfs/FY26/psprec/10-MontgomeryCountyPublicSchools-FY2026-REC-Publication-Report.pdf) and adjusting them for inflation. They don't support your assertions.'

Using the numbers in the linked document and the BLS CPI calculator, this is what I found for inflation adjusted per pupil funding amounts in November 2025 dollars:

1984-1985: $13,398
1989-1990: $16,305
1994-1995: $15,287
1999-2000: $16,244
2004-2005: $19,630
2009-2010: $23,427
2014-2015: $20,522
2019-2020: $20,477
2024-2025: $21,058
2025-2026: $22,644

The current year per pupil funding is 69% higher than 1985 per pupil funding in November 2025 dollars, and 39% higher than per pupil funding in 2000 in November 2025 dollars. Then in the 2000s Doug Duncan went on a massive spending spree, which surprise surprise was not sustainable. Per pupil funding was at a high in 2010, but with the recession, we couldn't keep that up. We are approaching another recession. It is not going to be pretty.

That's my point. When you look back over the past 100 years, you'll see a clear trend in education going up faster than inflation. Unless you want more and more screen time, the nature of education means it needs to. The main cost is labor, labor costs go up faster than inflation, and you don't want ratios to explode.

That changed in 2010, where we saw funding drop, only recently starting to catch back up. But now we're 15 years behind where we need to be. You can't blame that on the recession, because it kept going after the recession.

These conversations also make it like everything is the same since 1985. There is greater technology now than in 1985. There is a larger number of students. More is required of special education.

The county needs more economic engines for sure, but people also need to understand reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, what is really infuriating is that past generations understood the importance of education and accepted that the nature of education inherently means costs will go up *faster* than general inflation. That's reflected in the long-term trends in education funding over the last century.

This isn't a new issue. We just now have taxpayers who are unwilling to give the next generation the same benefits they received. Right around 2010 was when this shifted dramatically.

It's not just the immediate impacts to kids that we should be worried about. Education has facilitated the growth in science and technology that drives our economy. We're digging ourselves deeper and deeper into a hole because some boomers don't like taxes.

I'm looking at per pupil spending numbers (https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/OMB/Resources/Files/omb/pdfs/FY26/psprec/10-MontgomeryCountyPublicSchools-FY2026-REC-Publication-Report.pdf) and adjusting them for inflation. They don't support your assertions.'

Using the numbers in the linked document and the BLS CPI calculator, this is what I found for inflation adjusted per pupil funding amounts in November 2025 dollars:

1984-1985: $13,398
1989-1990: $16,305
1994-1995: $15,287
1999-2000: $16,244
2004-2005: $19,630
2009-2010: $23,427
2014-2015: $20,522
2019-2020: $20,477
2024-2025: $21,058
2025-2026: $22,644

The current year per pupil funding is 69% higher than 1985 per pupil funding in November 2025 dollars, and 39% higher than per pupil funding in 2000 in November 2025 dollars. Then in the 2000s Doug Duncan went on a massive spending spree, which surprise surprise was not sustainable. Per pupil funding was at a high in 2010, but with the recession, we couldn't keep that up. We are approaching another recession. It is not going to be pretty.

That's my point. When you look back over the past 100 years, you'll see a clear trend in education going up faster than inflation. Unless you want more and more screen time, the nature of education means it needs to. The main cost is labor, labor costs go up faster than inflation, and you don't want ratios to explode.

That changed in 2010, where we saw funding drop, only recently starting to catch back up. But now we're 15 years behind where we need to be. You can't blame that on the recession, because it kept going after the recession.

These conversations also make it like everything is the same since 1985. There is greater technology now than in 1985. There is a larger number of students. More is required of special education.

The county needs more economic engines for sure, but people also need to understand reality.

Sounds like we could save money by using less tech. Outcomes have only gotten worse since the advent of edtech.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, what is really infuriating is that past generations understood the importance of education and accepted that the nature of education inherently means costs will go up *faster* than general inflation. That's reflected in the long-term trends in education funding over the last century.

This isn't a new issue. We just now have taxpayers who are unwilling to give the next generation the same benefits they received. Right around 2010 was when this shifted dramatically.

It's not just the immediate impacts to kids that we should be worried about. Education has facilitated the growth in science and technology that drives our economy. We're digging ourselves deeper and deeper into a hole because some boomers don't like taxes.

I'm looking at per pupil spending numbers (https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/OMB/Resources/Files/omb/pdfs/FY26/psprec/10-MontgomeryCountyPublicSchools-FY2026-REC-Publication-Report.pdf) and adjusting them for inflation. They don't support your assertions.'

Using the numbers in the linked document and the BLS CPI calculator, this is what I found for inflation adjusted per pupil funding amounts in November 2025 dollars:

1984-1985: $13,398
1989-1990: $16,305
1994-1995: $15,287
1999-2000: $16,244
2004-2005: $19,630
2009-2010: $23,427
2014-2015: $20,522
2019-2020: $20,477
2024-2025: $21,058
2025-2026: $22,644

The current year per pupil funding is 69% higher than 1985 per pupil funding in November 2025 dollars, and 39% higher than per pupil funding in 2000 in November 2025 dollars. Then in the 2000s Doug Duncan went on a massive spending spree, which surprise surprise was not sustainable. Per pupil funding was at a high in 2010, but with the recession, we couldn't keep that up. We are approaching another recession. It is not going to be pretty.

That's my point. When you look back over the past 100 years, you'll see a clear trend in education going up faster than inflation. Unless you want more and more screen time, the nature of education means it needs to. The main cost is labor, labor costs go up faster than inflation, and you don't want ratios to explode.

That changed in 2010, where we saw funding drop, only recently starting to catch back up. But now we're 15 years behind where we need to be. You can't blame that on the recession, because it kept going after the recession.

These conversations also make it like everything is the same since 1985. There is greater technology now than in 1985. There is a larger number of students. More is required of special education.

The county needs more economic engines for sure, but people also need to understand reality.

If the “reality” is a tax increase, some may accept it but many will not and will eventually move. You can’t force people to pay more taxes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taylor wants an increase. Where is this money going? How about transparency!

Have you even bothered to look at the details? Almost all
of the increase simply goes to pay and benefits.

That's just part of the money, what about the rest of the money. MCPS has a huge budget and it should be in this kind of mess.

It's 80% of the increase.

Yes, the detailed budget breakdown is important, and presumably they'll release more information publicly as they've done in previous years, but this is a strange thing to get hung up on right now. The idea of a small increase nominally for costs beyond salaries should not be surprising or immediately viewed with suspicion. Inflation drives costs up each year- flat spending is really a cut.

They need to manage the money better. Most of us aren't getting pay raises and many are out of work, which impacts the county revenue and they are tone-deaf not to realize how many families are struggling right now.

Tightening the belt, so to speak, during economic downturns might be acceptable if it wasn't also done during economic booms. We've had 15 years of slow cuts to schools because old people never want to see their taxes go up to help kids.

NO!

FY 2023, the budget was about $2.92 billion. This rose to $3.165 billion in FY 2024. For FY 2025, the budget increased again to roughly $3.32 billion. The proposed MCPS operating budget for FY 2026 is approximately $3.6 billion, with declining enrollment.

Are you familiar with the concept of inflation?

Also, the real problem is that this is part of a long-trend. People have complained about MCPS going downhill for the last 20 years, willfully ignorant of the fact that they've been cutting MCPS funding over that period.

THEY HAVE NOT BEEN CUTTING FUNDING. And, if they were transpaent, you could see the waste, cut that out and they would have plenty. MCPS is one of the highest funded schools systems. There is no excuse for the mismanagement. They don't need more money, they need competent leadership who puts students and staff first over their self interests.

Many of us have faced job loss, reduction in salaries with new jobs, etc. That's life. And, yet we manage to make it work.

How do you find the waste?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, what is really infuriating is that past generations understood the importance of education and accepted that the nature of education inherently means costs will go up *faster* than general inflation. That's reflected in the long-term trends in education funding over the last century.

This isn't a new issue. We just now have taxpayers who are unwilling to give the next generation the same benefits they received. Right around 2010 was when this shifted dramatically.

It's not just the immediate impacts to kids that we should be worried about. Education has facilitated the growth in science and technology that drives our economy. We're digging ourselves deeper and deeper into a hole because some boomers don't like taxes.

I'm looking at per pupil spending numbers (https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/OMB/Resources/Files/omb/pdfs/FY26/psprec/10-MontgomeryCountyPublicSchools-FY2026-REC-Publication-Report.pdf) and adjusting them for inflation. They don't support your assertions.'

Using the numbers in the linked document and the BLS CPI calculator, this is what I found for inflation adjusted per pupil funding amounts in November 2025 dollars:

1984-1985: $13,398
1989-1990: $16,305
1994-1995: $15,287
1999-2000: $16,244
2004-2005: $19,630
2009-2010: $23,427
2014-2015: $20,522
2019-2020: $20,477
2024-2025: $21,058
2025-2026: $22,644

The current year per pupil funding is 69% higher than 1985 per pupil funding in November 2025 dollars, and 39% higher than per pupil funding in 2000 in November 2025 dollars. Then in the 2000s Doug Duncan went on a massive spending spree, which surprise surprise was not sustainable. Per pupil funding was at a high in 2010, but with the recession, we couldn't keep that up. We are approaching another recession. It is not going to be pretty.

That's my point. When you look back over the past 100 years, you'll see a clear trend in education going up faster than inflation. Unless you want more and more screen time, the nature of education means it needs to. The main cost is labor, labor costs go up faster than inflation, and you don't want ratios to explode.

That changed in 2010, where we saw funding drop, only recently starting to catch back up. But now we're 15 years behind where we need to be. You can't blame that on the recession, because it kept going after the recession.

These conversations also make it like everything is the same since 1985. There is greater technology now than in 1985. There is a larger number of students. More is required of special education.

The county needs more economic engines for sure, but people also need to understand reality.

If the “reality” is a tax increase, some may accept it but many will not and will eventually move. You can’t force people to pay more taxes.

You can make the people who live here pay taxes.