DCPS cuts - Murch might lose school counselor position?

[Anonymous]

I heard at the meeting at Deal that Murch may lose the funding for its school counselor position. I have 2 kids at Murch and this was news to me. I thought that one of the perks of autonomous status was having more control over the budget. I've asked around a bit at the school since but no one seems to know much about it. Anyone have any info? Anyone who has been through a similar cut have ideas on how to try to save the position? It's my understanding that the HSA is allowed to pay the salary but that the job would be without benefits. The counselor does a great job and it would be a true loss IMHO.

[Anonymous]

Everyone is loosing something. When budgets get cut this is what happens. Find the LSAT notes for your school see if they have the budget discussion. They would have to have signed off on that cut.

[Anonymous]

I beleive the LSAT recommendations (to keep counselor) were not part of the budget that the principal submitted. There are real issues with the principal and this is exemplary of them- she runs solo, and as far as I can see, ignores the community and teachers input.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everyone is loosing something. When budgets get cut this is what happens. Find the LSAT notes for your school see if they have the budget discussion. They would have to have signed off on that cut.

The LSAT did not sign off on that cut but the principal can disregard their advise I think, and she did. The LSAT is the local school advisory team- she can choose to overrule or ignore. She did this without actually notifying them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone is loosing something. When budgets get cut this is what happens. Find the LSAT notes for your school see if they have the budget discussion. They would have to have signed off on that cut.

The LSAT did not sign off on that cut but the principal can disregard their advise I think, and she did. The LSAT is the local school advisory team- she can choose to overrule or ignore. She did this without actually notifying them.

LSAT is purely advisory. Principals only have to consider the opinions of the LSAT. Furthermore, if you look at the budget guidelines that are available you will notice that the counselor position at the elementary level is not one that is required or highly encouraged. Many schools are doing away with the counselor in favor of other positions in the school. Not just Murch. I'm not a current parent but I am becoming increasingly annoyed with all the posts that are negative and conspiracy theory laden against schools, Principals and the system. If we spent half as much time thinking of strategic ways to support our local schools as we do bashing them we would have a much more viable vehicle to educate our children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone is loosing something. When budgets get cut this is what happens. Find the LSAT notes for your school see if they have the budget discussion. They would have to have signed off on that cut.

The LSAT did not sign off on that cut but the principal can disregard their advise I think, and she did. The LSAT is the local school advisory team- she can choose to overrule or ignore. She did this without actually notifying them.

I just looked and don't see any LSATnotes posted after January. Anything the parents can do? I think the counselor is great and a real asset to the school. She has really spearheaded the Responsive Classroom Program coming to Murch for example. I suppose there is no way for the HSA to fund the position independent of the principal cutting it?

[Anonymous]

Parents can chip in to supplement the lost budget from the central office.

[Anonymous]

Yes there are cuts but the bigger issue at Murch is that the current principal has alienated many excellent teachers by how she speaks to them , how she speaks about them... Have you been to a meeting where she rolls her eyes and speaks to the teacher making a presentation like a baby? She is not professional in her dealings with them. I've been a Murch parent for 4 principals and I have never felt do worried that so many excellent teachers will leave . The school - pre-counselor, was a very different place and teachers had a hard time without a cohesive discipline plan . The counselor has brougt on responsive classroom (RC) the school strategic planning meetings last year identified RC as a key need and the HSA has spent tens of thousands of dollars training teachers and staff this year in RC. Why the principal does not think it's important to keep the counselor is beyond me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes there are cuts but the bigger issue at Murch is that the current principal has alienated many excellent teachers by how she speaks to them , how she speaks about them... Have you been to a meeting where she rolls her eyes and speaks to the teacher making a presentation like a baby? She is not professional in her dealings with them. I've been a Murch parent for 4 principals and I have never felt do worried that so many excellent teachers will leave . The school - pre-counselor, was a very different place and teachers had a hard time without a cohesive discipline plan . The counselor has brougt on responsive classroom (RC) the school strategic planning meetings last year identified RC as a key need and the HSA has spent tens of thousands of dollars training teachers and staff this year in RC. Why the principal does not think it's important to keep the counselor is beyond me.

Different Murch parent poster, I have seen how disrespectfully she speaks to staff and have heard how disrespectfully she speaks of parents. She's not super professional in her direct dealings with parents either. Lots of the same "dominating" dismissive behavior, eye rolls and such.

Is it this counselor she wants to be rid of or the position? Anyone at a school able to work around a "personality" like this? The HSA has the $ for the salary, I'm unclear on how the benefits work with parent funded staff. Not sure how the parents can restore something to a budget that the principal has omitted.

[Anonymous]

Lafayette, Janney, Mann, and Key all pay for staff salary as well as benefits. You can ask them about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lafayette, Janney, Mann, and Key all pay for staff salary as well as benefits. You can ask them about it.

Thanks, that is helpful info. Ah, then it might be a matter of having the funds in hand to cover one but not the other. Would gladly chip in to cover the benefits portion if the principal can be persuaded to reinstate the position. I'm sure many other parents would feel the same way, this is really all being kept on the down low though. That is how the principal likes to play things. It's a terrible fit for the Murch culture which likes to be involved and help raise the barn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lafayette, Janney, Mann, and Key all pay for staff salary as well as benefits. You can ask them about it.

Thanks, that is helpful info. Ah, then it might be a matter of having the funds in hand to cover one but not the other. Would gladly chip in to cover the benefits portion if the principal can be persuaded to reinstate the position. I'm sure many other parents would feel the same way, this is really all being kept on the down low though. That is how the principal likes to play things. It's a terrible fit for the Murch culture which likes to be involved and help raise the barn.

If the LSAT did not approve of this cut, there is a process for appeal. Talk to the WTU building rep about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone is loosing something. When budgets get cut this is what happens. Find the LSAT notes for your school see if they have the budget discussion. They would have to have signed off on that cut.

The LSAT did not sign off on that cut but the principal can disregard their advise I think, and she did. The LSAT is the local school advisory team- she can choose to overrule or ignore. She did this without actually notifying them.

LSAT is purely advisory. Principals only have to consider the opinions of the LSAT. Furthermore, if you look at the budget guidelines that are available you will notice that the counselor position at the elementary level is not one that is required or highly encouraged. Many schools are doing away with the counselor in favor of other positions in the school. Not just Murch. I'm not a current parent but I am becoming increasingly annoyed with all the posts that are negative and conspiracy theory laden against schools, Principals and the system. If we spent half as much time thinking of strategic ways to support our local schools as we do bashing them we would have a much more viable vehicle to educate our children.

Then, apparently Murch isn't serious about supporting students with special needs. Eliminate that counselor position and you can expect to pay for a lot more private placements.

I can't speak for every parent of an SN student, but hello Murch? You WILL give my child everything he needs in public school or else you will be paying for private school. Plus transportation, of course.

[Anonymous]

I was told by the central office that they are moving toward having full time social workers in the elementary schools with a 1/2 time counselor position. That is probably a good idea for the populations of most DCPS schools. Probably the inverse of what is needed at Murch and other Ward 3 schools, particularly as most school counselors, if not all, have an MSW. Not sure how that is playing into any budget cuts at Murch or what sounds like some personality conflicts. I think that with autonomous status the principal could probably work around losing the counselor, sounds like the problem is that her priorities may be different than those of the community. Not sure what there is to do about that.

[Anonymous]

The Murch LSAT meets on Monday April 4 at 5 pm. This subject will certainly be addressed, so if people have strong opinions they should go to the meeting.