FCPS: Preliminary Menu of Potential Reductions and Fees

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I have two in high school now and one in college. I've been through the whole cycle and nothing is worse than the effects I've seen from the combination of lack of sleep and the stress of high school on kids. And these aren't just my kids. I work in the schools and I know tons of kids.

LOL! Lots of us know tons of kids. Most of the high school teachers I know did not want the change.

My kids didn't love going to school early--but they did and did fine--as do most of them. If you think thirty minutes is going to change your life, good for you. I think it is ridiculous that FCPS is spending money on this change and turning all schools and households upside down. Rush hour is going to shock people with the buses on the road. And, the afternoon rush hour will be worse.

This was a political issue driven by people who are convinced that all will be rainbows and unicorns if their kids can just go to school thirty minutes later. What a crock.

I know 50 minutes will be a big change. I saw it every Wednesday when my kid didn't have to be to high school until 8.

I started driving my kid a few months into the school year because she was so exhausted and saving that half hour made a huge change in her overall energy level and her performance. Can't wait for the conniption you guys are going to have if they push the start time to 8:30.

+1
We've been driving too, for the same reason. Our family would be thrilled if they actually did push it to 8:30.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone tell me how we hear this song and dance every year... and then end up with a surplus?

Did the schools get all the money they were asking for? NO!

Was their a considerable increase from last year? YES!

Their projections are just that projections not actual costs! The county supervisors just refused to be extorted this time! They propose cuts to the programs that they know MOST parents will scream and shout about to force the supervisors to give more money. The need for THIS much more is not there.

Yup. Exactly. As the math proves, there are no cuts.

There have been many cuts over the recent years. This past year there were fewer cuts, but our school still lost computer help and administrative help. Parents had to do more to help out the school and we lost the ability to have children ride home on busses for playdates. The year before we saw class size increases and the school lost an aide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone tell me how we hear this song and dance every year... and then end up with a surplus?

Did the schools get all the money they were asking for? NO!

Was their a considerable increase from last year? YES!

Their projections are just that projections not actual costs! The county supervisors just refused to be extorted this time! They propose cuts to the programs that they know MOST parents will scream and shout about to force the supervisors to give more money. The need for THIS much more is not there.

Yup. Exactly. As the math proves, there are no cuts.

There have been many cuts over the recent years. This past year there were fewer cuts, but our school still lost computer help and administrative help. Parents had to do more to help out the school and we lost the ability to have children ride home on busses for playdates. The year before we saw class size increases and the school lost an aide.

But it's an actual fact that the budget was higher. The issue is simply priorities for spending.

New programs and allocations were added at the expense of the things you mention.

They had more money, they just spent it on different things.

[Anonymous]

Ask your school how many teachers got new laptops, but you had to help out in the computer lab?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone tell me how we hear this song and dance every year... and then end up with a surplus?

Did the schools get all the money they were asking for? NO!

Was their a considerable increase from last year? YES!

Their projections are just that projections not actual costs! The county supervisors just refused to be extorted this time! They propose cuts to the programs that they know MOST parents will scream and shout about to force the supervisors to give more money. The need for THIS much more is not there.

Yup. Exactly. As the math proves, there are no cuts.

There have been many cuts over the recent years. This past year there were fewer cuts, but our school still lost computer help and administrative help. Parents had to do more to help out the school and we lost the ability to have children ride home on busses for playdates. The year before we saw class size increases and the school lost an aide.

But it's an actual fact that the budget was higher. The issue is simply priorities for spending.

New programs and allocations were added at the expense of the things you mention.

They had more money, they just spent it on different things.

The number of students getting enrolled increases each year. To cover that increase in enrollment, you need more teachers and larger facilities. That's were the money is going.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone tell me how we hear this song and dance every year... and then end up with a surplus?

Did the schools get all the money they were asking for? NO!

Was their a considerable increase from last year? YES!

Their projections are just that projections not actual costs! The county supervisors just refused to be extorted this time! They propose cuts to the programs that they know MOST parents will scream and shout about to force the supervisors to give more money. The need for THIS much more is not there.

Yup. Exactly. As the math proves, there are no cuts.

There have been many cuts over the recent years. This past year there were fewer cuts, but our school still lost computer help and administrative help. Parents had to do more to help out the school and we lost the ability to have children ride home on busses for playdates. The year before we saw class size increases and the school lost an aide.

But it's an actual fact that the budget was higher. The issue is simply priorities for spending.

New programs and allocations were added at the expense of the things you mention.

They had more money, they just spent it on different things.

The number of students getting enrolled increases each year. To cover that increase in enrollment, you need more teachers and larger facilities. That's were the money is going.

Not much of it. There were 3089 more students this year, only about 1.6% more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ask your school how many teachers got new laptops, but you had to help out in the computer lab?

At some schools, teachers haven't gotten new laptops since 2010.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ask your school how many teachers got new laptops, but you had to help out in the computer lab?

At some schools, teachers haven't gotten new laptops since 2010.

If they receive new laptops next year, or the year after that, posters will be proud to point out the waste in the budget.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone tell me how we hear this song and dance every year... and then end up with a surplus?

Did the schools get all the money they were asking for? NO!

Was their a considerable increase from last year? YES!

Their projections are just that projections not actual costs! The county supervisors just refused to be extorted this time! They propose cuts to the programs that they know MOST parents will scream and shout about to force the supervisors to give more money. The need for THIS much more is not there.

Yup. Exactly. As the math proves, there are no cuts.

There have been many cuts over the recent years. This past year there were fewer cuts, but our school still lost computer help and administrative help. Parents had to do more to help out the school and we lost the ability to have children ride home on busses for playdates. The year before we saw class size increases and the school lost an aide.

But it's an actual fact that the budget was higher. The issue is simply priorities for spending.

New programs and allocations were added at the expense of the things you mention.

They had more money, they just spent it on different things.

The number of students getting enrolled increases each year. To cover that increase in enrollment, you need more teachers and larger facilities. That's were the money is going.

Not much of it. There were 3089 more students this year, only about 1.6% more.

No, that's a large number of students. It's like needing 1.5 new high schools this year -- buildings, teachers, supplies, etc. for a school district that is already overcrowded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone tell me how we hear this song and dance every year... and then end up with a surplus?

Did the schools get all the money they were asking for? NO!

Was their a considerable increase from last year? YES!

Their projections are just that projections not actual costs! The county supervisors just refused to be extorted this time! They propose cuts to the programs that they know MOST parents will scream and shout about to force the supervisors to give more money. The need for THIS much more is not there.

Yup. Exactly. As the math proves, there are no cuts.

There have been many cuts over the recent years. This past year there were fewer cuts, but our school still lost computer help and administrative help. Parents had to do more to help out the school and we lost the ability to have children ride home on busses for playdates. The year before we saw class size increases and the school lost an aide.

But it's an actual fact that the budget was higher. The issue is simply priorities for spending.

New programs and allocations were added at the expense of the things you mention.

They had more money, they just spent it on different things.

The number of students getting enrolled increases each year. To cover that increase in enrollment, you need more teachers and larger facilities. That's were the money is going.

Not much of it. There were 3089 more students this year, only about 1.6% more.

No, that's a large number of students. It's like needing 1.5 new high schools this year -- buildings, teachers, supplies, etc. for a school district that is already overcrowded.

Does this figure take into account the number of students that leave every year due to graduation, moving, etc? If so, than yes, gaining several thousand students every year is a concern. However, school systems that lose students every year consistently are typically the less-regarded ones, like PG county schools. So, it is an issue either way, and a frustrating one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone tell me how we hear this song and dance every year... and then end up with a surplus?

Did the schools get all the money they were asking for? NO!

Was their a considerable increase from last year? YES!

Their projections are just that projections not actual costs! The county supervisors just refused to be extorted this time! They propose cuts to the programs that they know MOST parents will scream and shout about to force the supervisors to give more money. The need for THIS much more is not there.

Yup. Exactly. As the math proves, there are no cuts.

There have been many cuts over the recent years. This past year there were fewer cuts, but our school still lost computer help and administrative help. Parents had to do more to help out the school and we lost the ability to have children ride home on busses for playdates. The year before we saw class size increases and the school lost an aide.

But it's an actual fact that the budget was higher. The issue is simply priorities for spending.

New programs and allocations were added at the expense of the things you mention.

They had more money, they just spent it on different things.

The number of students getting enrolled increases each year. To cover that increase in enrollment, you need more teachers and larger facilities. That's were the money is going.

Not much of it. There were 3089 more students this year, only about 1.6% more.

No, that's a large number of students. It's like needing 1.5 new high schools this year -- buildings, teachers, supplies, etc. for a school district that is already overcrowded.

Does this figure take into account the number of students that leave every year due to graduation, moving, etc? If so, than yes, gaining several thousand students every year is a concern. However, school systems that lose students every year consistently are typically the less-regarded ones, like PG county schools. So, it is an issue either way, and a frustrating one.

There's this one person who doesn't seem to understand cost of living increases and product increases year by year. So he or she keeps posting that because a budget increases each year, there are no cuts. Try to ignore this person. They've been told multiple times why there is an increase in the budget and still cuts and they keep posting their same mantra over and over regardless.