Reducing personnel at central office

[Anonymous]

So the new one had financial improprieties at a previous job and she is qualified because of.......um not sure

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Source?

The data was posted here in the past 30 days. You'll need to find it yourself.

No such data was posted. Data that couldn't be reasonably compared was posted.

[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?

Nah. That's just a perceived effect of misappropriation of the word to fence it in.

Equity would provide reasonably equivalent support to each student's need. GT is just one of those needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Nah. That's just a perceived effect of misappropriation of the word to fence it in.

Equity would provide reasonably equivalent support to each student's need. GT is just one of those needs.

Perhaps that's what it what once meant but now equity refers to focusing exclusively on the bottom 20% of students and ignoring the needs of all others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Nah. That's just a perceived effect of misappropriation of the word to fence it in.

Equity would provide reasonably equivalent support to each student's need. GT is just one of those needs.

Perhaps that's what it what once meant but now equity refers to focusing exclusively on the bottom 20% of students and ignoring the needs of all others.

"Equity" is just MAGA red meat around here.

[Anonymous]

What about the people that got caught breaking rules of reporting the rapes like in damascus. I heard that legally they were suppose to report the rapes instead of cover them up. How do they still have six figure jobs managing others when they failed in their duty of reporting rapes. Remember big old CC.

[Anonymous]

I'm a teacher and can confirm that the vast majority of central office jobs are total wastes of time and money. They don't help kids. They bump all problems raised to them back down to building administration. They just sit at their desks, have 'meetings', and collect outrageous salaries. Honestly if they cut every co job besides payroll, hr, and special education outplacement and outside provider coordinators, it would make zero difference in how schools are operated day-to-day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What about the people that got caught breaking rules of reporting the rapes like in damascus. I heard that legally they were suppose to report the rapes instead of cover them up. How do they still have six figure jobs managing others when they failed in their duty of reporting rapes. Remember big old CC.

Because nobody holds them accountable! The school board knows absolutely nothing about how the CO is run. The superintendent is either friends with the CO or running around doing photo ops at different schools. Their salaries are a complete waste of money that should be spent on the kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What about the people that got caught breaking rules of reporting the rapes like in damascus. I heard that legally they were suppose to report the rapes instead of cover them up. How do they still have six figure jobs managing others when they failed in their duty of reporting rapes. Remember big old CC.

by reporting, you mean illegally releasing info on pending investigations involving minors?

[Anonymous]

No I mean going to the police and saying I am a teacher/coach/principal and a violent incident just occurred. You do this when you find out about it. I am 100% on this and if you are staff you know too. I know that staff knows because we have trainings on what to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm a teacher and can confirm that the vast majority of central office jobs are total wastes of time and money. They don't help kids. They bump all problems raised to them back down to building administration. They just sit at their desks, have 'meetings', and collect outrageous salaries. Honestly if they cut every co job besides payroll, hr, and special education outplacement and outside provider coordinators, it would make zero difference in how schools are operated day-to-day.

But compliance with state and federal law would be nonexistent. Curriculum evaluation, procurement, and resource coordination would not happen which means teachers and staff would have even more sourcing and coordination of that then they do now. We’d have no compiled data of schools and programs which means we’d have even less understanding of how individual schools and the district are doing. There would not have been any coordinated effort to roll out science of reading. Etc. Etc. And we would certainly have more inequity than now.

CO may have some bloat, but I can assure you that in order to do things at scale requires people to be in charge of managing collaboration, communication, finance, and a whole host of other things.

[Anonymous]

But they put people in the CO that have been involved in coverups. I guess they need a big CO's for big CU's.

[Anonymous]

Maybe they should create a new division of the Central Office charged with reducing personnel at the CO?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Source?

The data was posted here in the past 30 days. You'll need to find it yourself.

No such data was posted. Data that couldn't be reasonably compared was posted.

I remember reading it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But they put people in the CO that have been involved in coverups. I guess they need a big CO's for big CU's.

Or at least one large enough to process all the anonymous complaints....