$9 million in Blueprint funding in jeopardy for MCPS due to failure to meet AIB deadlines

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like MCEA is holding it up. Surprise, surprise.

I would not be quick to lay blame at MCEA’s feet. It could very well be that April Key sucks at her job and fumbled here and is the source of the delay.

It certainly wouldn’t be her first time mucking things up.

The article said the union was the hold-up. It's obviously referring to MCEA.

It didn’t say they were a hold-up it said what the current status was. That doesn’t mean that MCEA has done anything wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As far as I can see, foot-dragging on this is a good thing. No one from the state has explained how anyone is supposed to fund and staff this pie-in-the-sky Blueprint mandate. The 25% funding release is probably about 2% of what would actually be needed. The legislature can tell everyone all it wants to have universal pre-K and class sizes of 15 and magically include every special education student in gen ed and make them achieve a diploma. The paper that's written on, and the paper the school systems are writing to claim how they'll achieve it by making 2+2 equal 5, are worthless.

The AIB can squawk all it wants and it won't change those facts. It's unrealistic and underfunded. People have been saying this for awhile. Now it'll magically be OK if we write some plans on paper? Uh-huh.

You’re saying this but wasn’t the MCPS BOE in favor of overturning Hogan’s veto when the Blueprint was passed?

Hogan warned that the Blueprint was unsustainable and overly ambitious but MCPS BOE was all in on the Blueprint. MCPS can’t cry now that the bill is due, they voted for the Blueprint!

Where do you see MCPS crying? MCPS like all LEAs have noted to the AIB the challenges of implementing Blueprint, but in the interim have been doing what is necessary. They’ve been in support of the work but acknowledge it’s challenging.

And given that they’ve also had other unexpected things to occur, that distract from this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like MCEA is holding it up. Surprise, surprise.

I would not be quick to lay blame at MCEA’s feet. It could very well be that April Key sucks at her job and fumbled here and is the source of the delay.

It certainly wouldn’t be her first time mucking things up.

The article said the union was the hold-up. It's obviously referring to MCEA.

It didn’t say they were a hold-up it said what the current status was. That doesn’t mean that MCEA has done anything wrong.

Read it again. They strongly implied MCEA hasn't agreed to terms yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As far as I can see, foot-dragging on this is a good thing. No one from the state has explained how anyone is supposed to fund and staff this pie-in-the-sky Blueprint mandate. The 25% funding release is probably about 2% of what would actually be needed. The legislature can tell everyone all it wants to have universal pre-K and class sizes of 15 and magically include every special education student in gen ed and make them achieve a diploma. The paper that's written on, and the paper the school systems are writing to claim how they'll achieve it by making 2+2 equal 5, are worthless.

The AIB can squawk all it wants and it won't change those facts. It's unrealistic and underfunded. People have been saying this for awhile. Now it'll magically be OK if we write some plans on paper? Uh-huh.

Increased services are worth increased taxes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As far as I can see, foot-dragging on this is a good thing. No one from the state has explained how anyone is supposed to fund and staff this pie-in-the-sky Blueprint mandate. The 25% funding release is probably about 2% of what would actually be needed. The legislature can tell everyone all it wants to have universal pre-K and class sizes of 15 and magically include every special education student in gen ed and make them achieve a diploma. The paper that's written on, and the paper the school systems are writing to claim how they'll achieve it by making 2+2 equal 5, are worthless.

The AIB can squawk all it wants and it won't change those facts. It's unrealistic and underfunded. People have been saying this for awhile. Now it'll magically be OK if we write some plans on paper? Uh-huh.

You’re saying this but wasn’t the MCPS BOE in favor of overturning Hogan’s veto when the Blueprint was passed?

Hogan warned that the Blueprint was unsustainable and overly ambitious but MCPS BOE was all in on the Blueprint. MCPS can’t cry now that the bill is due, they voted for the Blueprint!

Where do you see MCPS crying? MCPS like all LEAs have noted to the AIB the challenges of implementing Blueprint, but in the interim have been doing what is necessary. They’ve been in support of the work but acknowledge it’s challenging.

And given that they’ve also had other unexpected things to occur, that distract from this.

Selfi-inflicted wounds caused by MCPS management’s incompetence and dysfunction are not valid reasons to blow off compliance deadlines and obligations.

It’s time for MCPS leadership to start behaving like adults.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As far as I can see, foot-dragging on this is a good thing. No one from the state has explained how anyone is supposed to fund and staff this pie-in-the-sky Blueprint mandate. The 25% funding release is probably about 2% of what would actually be needed. The legislature can tell everyone all it wants to have universal pre-K and class sizes of 15 and magically include every special education student in gen ed and make them achieve a diploma. The paper that's written on, and the paper the school systems are writing to claim how they'll achieve it by making 2+2 equal 5, are worthless.

The AIB can squawk all it wants and it won't change those facts. It's unrealistic and underfunded. People have been saying this for awhile. Now it'll magically be OK if we write some plans on paper? Uh-huh.

Increased services are worth increased taxes

We already did. We just increased taxes to fund public education last year: https://dcist.com/story/23/05/25/md-montgomery-county-council-property-taxes-hike/

It is unrealistic to keep taxing the public to fund unrealistic and reckless choices that MCPS feels entitled to make.

MCPS has a lot of money. They lack competence, discipline and leadership, which more money will not and cannot fix. That’s a culture problem.

And Taylor needs to root out the cultural rot ASAP and improve results before even thinking of asking taxpayers for another red cent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As far as I can see, foot-dragging on this is a good thing. No one from the state has explained how anyone is supposed to fund and staff this pie-in-the-sky Blueprint mandate. The 25% funding release is probably about 2% of what would actually be needed. The legislature can tell everyone all it wants to have universal pre-K and class sizes of 15 and magically include every special education student in gen ed and make them achieve a diploma. The paper that's written on, and the paper the school systems are writing to claim how they'll achieve it by making 2+2 equal 5, are worthless.

The AIB can squawk all it wants and it won't change those facts. It's unrealistic and underfunded. People have been saying this for awhile. Now it'll magically be OK if we write some plans on paper? Uh-huh.

Increased services are worth increased taxes

We already did. We just increased taxes to fund public education last year: https://dcist.com/story/23/05/25/md-montgomery-county-council-property-taxes-hike/

It is unrealistic to keep taxing the public to fund unrealistic and reckless choices that MCPS feels entitled to make.

MCPS has a lot of money. They lack competence, discipline and leadership, which more money will not and cannot fix. That’s a culture problem.

And Taylor needs to root out the cultural rot ASAP and improve results before even thinking of asking taxpayers for another red cent.

We haven't implemented the blueprint yet. Things like universal preK and smaller class sizes are worth increased taxes. Whether or not existing programs can be cut is a different issue.

But most of the budget, and most of the annual spending increases, come in the form of teacher salary and benefits. It may be possible to save some money at the margins, and that's worth attempting to do, but it isn't going to change the reality or trajectory of spending. Between being in a HCOL area and benefit costs that will continue to grow at rates exceeding inflation, teachers are always going to be expensive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As far as I can see, foot-dragging on this is a good thing. No one from the state has explained how anyone is supposed to fund and staff this pie-in-the-sky Blueprint mandate. The 25% funding release is probably about 2% of what would actually be needed. The legislature can tell everyone all it wants to have universal pre-K and class sizes of 15 and magically include every special education student in gen ed and make them achieve a diploma. The paper that's written on, and the paper the school systems are writing to claim how they'll achieve it by making 2+2 equal 5, are worthless.

The AIB can squawk all it wants and it won't change those facts. It's unrealistic and underfunded. People have been saying this for awhile. Now it'll magically be OK if we write some plans on paper? Uh-huh.

Increased services are worth increased taxes

We already did. We just increased taxes to fund public education last year: https://dcist.com/story/23/05/25/md-montgomery-county-council-property-taxes-hike/

It is unrealistic to keep taxing the public to fund unrealistic and reckless choices that MCPS feels entitled to make.

MCPS has a lot of money. They lack competence, discipline and leadership, which more money will not and cannot fix. That’s a culture problem.

And Taylor needs to root out the cultural rot ASAP and improve results before even thinking of asking taxpayers for another red cent.

We haven't implemented the blueprint yet. Things like universal preK and smaller class sizes are worth increased taxes. Whether or not existing programs can be cut is a different issue.

But most of the budget, and most of the annual spending increases, come in the form of teacher salary and benefits. It may be possible to save some money at the margins, and that's worth attempting to do, but it isn't going to change the reality or trajectory of spending. Between being in a HCOL area and benefit costs that will continue to grow at rates exceeding inflation, teachers are always going to be expensive.

How did your reply address anything I said?

You keep saying these are worth increased taxes. I pointed out we DID increase taxes for that purpose.

Furthermore, MCPS structurally ALWAYS gets equal or MORE money to what it got the year before. We have been throwing more and more money at MCPS FOR YEARS and it has not improved the system or the outcomes. Throwing more money will not fix the severe, deep dysfunction and mismanagement that exists within MCPS.

And if you think there's no limit to the amount of tax increases you can impose on the public without serious backlash or consequence, you're living in a fool's paradise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As far as I can see, foot-dragging on this is a good thing. No one from the state has explained how anyone is supposed to fund and staff this pie-in-the-sky Blueprint mandate. The 25% funding release is probably about 2% of what would actually be needed. The legislature can tell everyone all it wants to have universal pre-K and class sizes of 15 and magically include every special education student in gen ed and make them achieve a diploma. The paper that's written on, and the paper the school systems are writing to claim how they'll achieve it by making 2+2 equal 5, are worthless.

The AIB can squawk all it wants and it won't change those facts. It's unrealistic and underfunded. People have been saying this for awhile. Now it'll magically be OK if we write some plans on paper? Uh-huh.

Increased services are worth increased taxes

We already did. We just increased taxes to fund public education last year: https://dcist.com/story/23/05/25/md-montgomery-county-council-property-taxes-hike/

It is unrealistic to keep taxing the public to fund unrealistic and reckless choices that MCPS feels entitled to make.

MCPS has a lot of money. They lack competence, discipline and leadership, which more money will not and cannot fix. That’s a culture problem.

And Taylor needs to root out the cultural rot ASAP and improve results before even thinking of asking taxpayers for another red cent.

We haven't implemented the blueprint yet. Things like universal preK and smaller class sizes are worth increased taxes. Whether or not existing programs can be cut is a different issue.

But most of the budget, and most of the annual spending increases, come in the form of teacher salary and benefits. It may be possible to save some money at the margins, and that's worth attempting to do, but it isn't going to change the reality or trajectory of spending. Between being in a HCOL area and benefit costs that will continue to grow at rates exceeding inflation, teachers are always going to be expensive.

How did your reply address anything I said?

You keep saying these are worth increased taxes. I pointed out we DID increase taxes for that purpose.

Furthermore, MCPS structurally ALWAYS gets equal or MORE money to what it got the year before. We have been throwing more and more money at MCPS FOR YEARS and it has not improved the system or the outcomes. Throwing more money will not fix the severe, deep dysfunction and mismanagement that exists within MCPS.

And if you think there's no limit to the amount of tax increases you can impose on the public without serious backlash or consequence, you're living in a fool's paradise.

We didn't increase taxes to fund the blueprint because we're not yet funding the blueprint. Whoever told you otherwise is mistaken.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As far as I can see, foot-dragging on this is a good thing. No one from the state has explained how anyone is supposed to fund and staff this pie-in-the-sky Blueprint mandate. The 25% funding release is probably about 2% of what would actually be needed. The legislature can tell everyone all it wants to have universal pre-K and class sizes of 15 and magically include every special education student in gen ed and make them achieve a diploma. The paper that's written on, and the paper the school systems are writing to claim how they'll achieve it by making 2+2 equal 5, are worthless.

The AIB can squawk all it wants and it won't change those facts. It's unrealistic and underfunded. People have been saying this for awhile. Now it'll magically be OK if we write some plans on paper? Uh-huh.

Increased services are worth increased taxes

We already did. We just increased taxes to fund public education last year: https://dcist.com/story/23/05/25/md-montgomery-county-council-property-taxes-hike/

It is unrealistic to keep taxing the public to fund unrealistic and reckless choices that MCPS feels entitled to make.

MCPS has a lot of money. They lack competence, discipline and leadership, which more money will not and cannot fix. That’s a culture problem.

And Taylor needs to root out the cultural rot ASAP and improve results before even thinking of asking taxpayers for another red cent.

We haven't implemented the blueprint yet. Things like universal preK and smaller class sizes are worth increased taxes. Whether or not existing programs can be cut is a different issue.

But most of the budget, and most of the annual spending increases, come in the form of teacher salary and benefits. It may be possible to save some money at the margins, and that's worth attempting to do, but it isn't going to change the reality or trajectory of spending. Between being in a HCOL area and benefit costs that will continue to grow at rates exceeding inflation, teachers are always going to be expensive.

Yep salary and benefits make up 90% of the budget.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As far as I can see, foot-dragging on this is a good thing. No one from the state has explained how anyone is supposed to fund and staff this pie-in-the-sky Blueprint mandate. The 25% funding release is probably about 2% of what would actually be needed. The legislature can tell everyone all it wants to have universal pre-K and class sizes of 15 and magically include every special education student in gen ed and make them achieve a diploma. The paper that's written on, and the paper the school systems are writing to claim how they'll achieve it by making 2+2 equal 5, are worthless.

The AIB can squawk all it wants and it won't change those facts. It's unrealistic and underfunded. People have been saying this for awhile. Now it'll magically be OK if we write some plans on paper? Uh-huh.

Increased services are worth increased taxes

We already did. We just increased taxes to fund public education last year: https://dcist.com/story/23/05/25/md-montgomery-county-council-property-taxes-hike/

It is unrealistic to keep taxing the public to fund unrealistic and reckless choices that MCPS feels entitled to make.

MCPS has a lot of money. They lack competence, discipline and leadership, which more money will not and cannot fix. That’s a culture problem.

And Taylor needs to root out the cultural rot ASAP and improve results before even thinking of asking taxpayers for another red cent.

We haven't implemented the blueprint yet. Things like universal preK and smaller class sizes are worth increased taxes. Whether or not existing programs can be cut is a different issue.

But most of the budget, and most of the annual spending increases, come in the form of teacher salary and benefits. It may be possible to save some money at the margins, and that's worth attempting to do, but it isn't going to change the reality or trajectory of spending. Between being in a HCOL area and benefit costs that will continue to grow at rates exceeding inflation, teachers are always going to be expensive.

How did your reply address anything I said?

You keep saying these are worth increased taxes. I pointed out we DID increase taxes for that purpose.

Furthermore, MCPS structurally ALWAYS gets equal or MORE money to what it got the year before. We have been throwing more and more money at MCPS FOR YEARS and it has not improved the system or the outcomes. Throwing more money will not fix the severe, deep dysfunction and mismanagement that exists within MCPS.

And if you think there's no limit to the amount of tax increases you can impose on the public without serious backlash or consequence, you're living in a fool's paradise.

We didn't increase taxes to fund the blueprint because we're not yet funding the blueprint. Whoever told you otherwise is mistaken.

You must be a politician, or a lawyer, which is why you're trying to split hairs.

The 2023 increase was in fact largely to bolster and improve MCPS. You can't turn around after hitting up taxpayers in 2023 with an increase and say they need ANOTHER tax increase for schools, but this time to support the Blueprint for Maryland and think that will land well.

The average citizen does not care which bucket or funding vehicle you're citing for the increase. They're just going to bristle at continuously being asked to shoulder the cost of funding schools via tax increases repeatedly. And that ask is even more unreasonable to make given the sad, broken state of MCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As far as I can see, foot-dragging on this is a good thing. No one from the state has explained how anyone is supposed to fund and staff this pie-in-the-sky Blueprint mandate. The 25% funding release is probably about 2% of what would actually be needed. The legislature can tell everyone all it wants to have universal pre-K and class sizes of 15 and magically include every special education student in gen ed and make them achieve a diploma. The paper that's written on, and the paper the school systems are writing to claim how they'll achieve it by making 2+2 equal 5, are worthless.

The AIB can squawk all it wants and it won't change those facts. It's unrealistic and underfunded. People have been saying this for awhile. Now it'll magically be OK if we write some plans on paper? Uh-huh.

Increased services are worth increased taxes

We already did. We just increased taxes to fund public education last year: https://dcist.com/story/23/05/25/md-montgomery-county-council-property-taxes-hike/

It is unrealistic to keep taxing the public to fund unrealistic and reckless choices that MCPS feels entitled to make.

MCPS has a lot of money. They lack competence, discipline and leadership, which more money will not and cannot fix. That’s a culture problem.

And Taylor needs to root out the cultural rot ASAP and improve results before even thinking of asking taxpayers for another red cent.

We haven't implemented the blueprint yet. Things like universal preK and smaller class sizes are worth increased taxes. Whether or not existing programs can be cut is a different issue.

But most of the budget, and most of the annual spending increases, come in the form of teacher salary and benefits. It may be possible to save some money at the margins, and that's worth attempting to do, but it isn't going to change the reality or trajectory of spending. Between being in a HCOL area and benefit costs that will continue to grow at rates exceeding inflation, teachers are always going to be expensive.

How did your reply address anything I said?

You keep saying these are worth increased taxes. I pointed out we DID increase taxes for that purpose.

Furthermore, MCPS structurally ALWAYS gets equal or MORE money to what it got the year before. We have been throwing more and more money at MCPS FOR YEARS and it has not improved the system or the outcomes. Throwing more money will not fix the severe, deep dysfunction and mismanagement that exists within MCPS.

And if you think there's no limit to the amount of tax increases you can impose on the public without serious backlash or consequence, you're living in a fool's paradise.

We didn't increase taxes to fund the blueprint because we're not yet funding the blueprint. Whoever told you otherwise is mistaken.

You must be a politician, or a lawyer, which is why you're trying to split hairs.

The 2023 increase was in fact largely to bolster and improve MCPS. You can't turn around after hitting up taxpayers in 2023 with an increase and say they need ANOTHER tax increase for schools, but this time to support the Blueprint for Maryland and think that will land well.

The average citizen does not care which bucket or funding vehicle you're citing for the increase. They're just going to bristle at continuously being asked to shoulder the cost of funding schools via tax increases repeatedly. And that ask is even more unreasonable to make given the sad, broken state of MCPS.

No, you apparently weren't paying attention. The increase went to paying for salary increases (necessary due to inflation) and higher benefit costs. There was no plan to implement the new programs or initiatives that are part of the blueprint.

I suppose you could argue those increases weren't necessary, but generally the moderate pay increases and maintaining benefits for MCPs staff are well-suppported in the community.

You could also argue that MCPS for years should have been cutting programs and spending. That's a perfectly valid position to hold.

But you can't claim the increases weren't necessary for the blueprint. They weren't. And you'd know that if you followed along with the budget process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A better article that isn’t just click bait

https://marylandmatters.org/2024/11/21/blueprint-board-approves-another-15-school-district-plans/

So the largest school systems across the state are still in line for approval. Nothing to see here.

+1. They have until December 11th.

They were officially warned and chastised by the AIB. Y’all have seriously selective reading comprehension.

So what they are warned and chastised? They have until Dec 11th to submit.
Nothing to see here except your false grievances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A better article that isn’t just click bait

https://marylandmatters.org/2024/11/21/blueprint-board-approves-another-15-school-district-plans/

So the largest school systems across the state are still in line for approval. Nothing to see here.

+1. They have until December 11th.

They were officially warned and chastised by the AIB. Y’all have seriously selective reading comprehension.

So what they are warned and chastised? They have until Dec 11th to submit.
Nothing to see here except your false grievances.

Because they could find themselves in a situation where MCEA torpedoes the whole thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A better article that isn’t just click bait

https://marylandmatters.org/2024/11/21/blueprint-board-approves-another-15-school-district-plans/

So the largest school systems across the state are still in line for approval. Nothing to see here.

+1. They have until December 11th.

They were officially warned and chastised by the AIB. Y’all have seriously selective reading comprehension.

So what they are warned and chastised? They have until Dec 11th to submit.
Nothing to see here except your false grievances.

You MCPS acolytes work overtime to backbend and justify any and every wrong committed by this system.