Teacher cuts

[Anonymous]

Is anybody else hearing of teacher positions being cut due to funding issues? My real estate taxes increased significantly this year. How can MCPS be underfunded?

[Anonymous]

No, they're just reallocating teachers between the schools based on changing school/class sizes.

[Anonymous]

The interim superintendent proposed that all staff development teacher positions in buildings be cut from full-time to half-time to make up for the 6 million dollar budget shortfall. This school-based position is integral for the support of implementation of curriculum, teacher support, and student support. In addition to all of their actual job duties, they run intervention groups due to the understaffing of special ed teachers and interventionists, cover classrooms when there is not sub, and cover lunch/recess duties when schools are short-staffed. A proposal to reduce school-based staff in every building, when schools are currently understaffed, is not the answer to a budget shortfall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The interim superintendent proposed that all staff development teacher positions in buildings be cut from full-time to half-time to make up for the 6 million dollar budget shortfall. This school-based position is integral for the support of implementation of curriculum, teacher support, and student support. In addition to all of their actual job duties, they run intervention groups due to the understaffing of special ed teachers and interventionists, cover classrooms when there is not sub, and cover lunch/recess duties when schools are short-staffed. A proposal to reduce school-based staff in every building, when schools are currently understaffed, is not the answer to a budget shortfall.

Now it is up to the county council to provide the funding to keep those positions at the current level. Contact your council members.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The interim superintendent proposed that all staff development teacher positions in buildings be cut from full-time to half-time to make up for the 6 million dollar budget shortfall. This school-based position is integral for the support of implementation of curriculum, teacher support, and student support. In addition to all of their actual job duties, they run intervention groups due to the understaffing of special ed teachers and interventionists, cover classrooms when there is not sub, and cover lunch/recess duties when schools are short-staffed. A proposal to reduce school-based staff in every building, when schools are currently understaffed, is not the answer to a budget shortfall.

Now it is up to the county council to provide the funding to keep those positions at the current level. Contact your council members.

And if they don't, MCPS looks at other ways to address the budget shortfall instead of cutting school-based positions.

[Anonymous]

No cuts. MCPS chooses how to allocate $. Even cutting all Staff Development teachers to .5, that would only add .5 teachers to each school building, I doubt anyone will choose to implement that suggestion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No cuts. MCPS chooses how to allocate $. Even cutting all Staff Development teachers to .5, that would only add .5 teachers to each school building, I doubt anyone will choose to implement that suggestion.

I'm not following. What do you mean cutting to .5 would add .5 to each building? Every school already has a staff development teacher, so each school would lose .5. Apparently this blanket cut will result in almost the exact 6 million amount MCPS needs to reduce to match the County Council's current funding.

[Anonymous]

I truly do not know how my school would function if our SDT was cut to .5. She already works hours beyond her current full-time position.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No cuts. MCPS chooses how to allocate $. Even cutting all Staff Development teachers to .5, that would only add .5 teachers to each school building, I doubt anyone will choose to implement that suggestion.

I'm not following. What do you mean cutting to .5 would add .5 to each building? Every school already has a staff development teacher, so each school would lose .5. Apparently this blanket cut will result in almost the exact 6 million amount MCPS needs to reduce to match the County Council's current funding.

I mean cut them to a .5 SDT which would mean their other .5 (to make a full tome 1.0) would be allocated to teaching. That's how it used to be before they were made full time SDT because of the great need of that position.

I don't see how that would amount to 6 mill?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The interim superintendent proposed that all staff development teacher positions in buildings be cut from full-time to half-time to make up for the 6 million dollar budget shortfall. This school-based position is integral for the support of implementation of curriculum, teacher support, and student support. In addition to all of their actual job duties, they run intervention groups due to the understaffing of special ed teachers and interventionists, cover classrooms when there is not sub, and cover lunch/recess duties when schools are short-staffed. A proposal to reduce school-based staff in every building, when schools are currently understaffed, is not the answer to a budget shortfall.

I’m a teacher and I think that’s a great idea. They are teachers so they can teach again. Full disclosure - I have been in multiple schools and I never understood how they justified their position at the middle school level. We always just got more busy work from them. Unless it’s testing season - they do help a lot with that.

[Anonymous]

With 210 schools, this would add about 105 teachers if all were cut to .5. That assumes the SDTs will stick around to teach and do their other related work and not quit or pursue admin instead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The interim superintendent proposed that all staff development teacher positions in buildings be cut from full-time to half-time to make up for the 6 million dollar budget shortfall. This school-based position is integral for the support of implementation of curriculum, teacher support, and student support. In addition to all of their actual job duties, they run intervention groups due to the understaffing of special ed teachers and interventionists, cover classrooms when there is not sub, and cover lunch/recess duties when schools are short-staffed. A proposal to reduce school-based staff in every building, when schools are currently understaffed, is not the answer to a budget shortfall.

I’m a teacher and I think that’s a great idea. They are teachers so they can teach again. Full disclosure - I have been in multiple schools and I never understood how they justified their position at the middle school level. We always just got more busy work from them. Unless it’s testing season - they do help a lot with that.

Most likely because you didn't see all the behind the scenes work admin was making them do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No cuts. MCPS chooses how to allocate $. Even cutting all Staff Development teachers to .5, that would only add .5 teachers to each school building, I doubt anyone will choose to implement that suggestion.

I'm not following. What do you mean cutting to .5 would add .5 to each building? Every school already has a staff development teacher, so each school would lose .5. Apparently this blanket cut will result in almost the exact 6 million amount MCPS needs to reduce to match the County Council's current funding.

I mean cut them to a .5 SDT which would mean their other .5 (to make a full tome 1.0) would be allocated to teaching. That's how it used to be before they were made full time SDT because of the great need of that position.

I don't see how that would amount to 6 mill?

From the May 1st County Council Work Session Memo:

Possible budget changes: The Interim Superintendent communicated possible areas
where the budget could be adjusted below the level requested by the Board if needed to
meet affordability levels set by the Council’s appropriation level. The letter identifies the
following as possible approaches:

-Class Size: The letter estimates that an increase in class size of one student would
achieve savings of $10.5 million; excluding Title I schools from this increase would
result in savings of $7.3 million.

-Staff Development Teachers: The letter proposes a reduction of the current
allocation of staff development teachers from a full position at every school to a 0.5
position at each school. MCPS estimates this would achieve a savings of
$8.2 million; $6.1 million if Title I schools are exempted.

- Central Services: The letter indicates that additional savings would have to be
taken from central services, but does not specify further details.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The interim superintendent proposed that all staff development teacher positions in buildings be cut from full-time to half-time to make up for the 6 million dollar budget shortfall. This school-based position is integral for the support of implementation of curriculum, teacher support, and student support. In addition to all of their actual job duties, they run intervention groups due to the understaffing of special ed teachers and interventionists, cover classrooms when there is not sub, and cover lunch/recess duties when schools are short-staffed. A proposal to reduce school-based staff in every building, when schools are currently understaffed, is not the answer to a budget shortfall.

I’m a teacher and I think that’s a great idea. They are teachers so they can teach again. Full disclosure - I have been in multiple schools and I never understood how they justified their position at the middle school level. We always just got more busy work from them. Unless it’s testing season - they do help a lot with that.

Veteran teacher and I agree with this completely. The same goes for Reading Specialists. These are 2 positions in every elementary school that are not consistently working with students, take them back to the classroom or at a minimum make them academic intervention rather than mini-administrators.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The interim superintendent proposed that all staff development teacher positions in buildings be cut from full-time to half-time to make up for the 6 million dollar budget shortfall. This school-based position is integral for the support of implementation of curriculum, teacher support, and student support. In addition to all of their actual job duties, they run intervention groups due to the understaffing of special ed teachers and interventionists, cover classrooms when there is not sub, and cover lunch/recess duties when schools are short-staffed. A proposal to reduce school-based staff in every building, when schools are currently understaffed, is not the answer to a budget shortfall.

I’m a teacher and I think that’s a great idea. They are teachers so they can teach again. Full disclosure - I have been in multiple schools and I never understood how they justified their position at the middle school level. We always just got more busy work from them. Unless it’s testing season - they do help a lot with that.

Most likely because you didn't see all the behind the scenes work admin was making them do.

Maybe we are lucky, but our staff development teacher at our elementary school is amazing. She provides so much support for the teachers and kids, runs the staff meetings, and does all the busywork that central office requires of the school.