what is going to happen to teachers' salaries next year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Looks like a 6% raise but staffing cuts

Wow! So some people are going to lose their jobs, but those who remain will get a fairly significant raise?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like a 6% raise but staffing cuts

and increase in classroom sizes

decrease in planning time

increase in other areas of responsibility

basically, if you are saved to work, you will be reid's minions

And they can easily fund the proposed cuts by eliminating the 5% raise for central office staff.

The cuts proposed are almost all instructional based. Reid literally created positions that we did not have previously. What I would like to see is a list of Gatehouse people, their salaries, their jobs, and who is getting a 5 percent raise. Why do all of these higher up people already making over 200,000 need a 5 percent raise? They are not in the trenches day to day. As a parent, we should be pushing the school board to truly make more cuts to Gatehouse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like a 6% raise but staffing cuts

and increase in classroom sizes

decrease in planning time

increase in other areas of responsibility

basically, if you are saved to work, you will be reid's minions

How are they reducing planning time? The bargaining agreement provides elementary teachers with a minimum of 300 minutes of planning time with at least 240 unencumbered. It states that there can be no more than 60 minutes of mandatory collaborative time and the planning will be provided in increments no less than 30 minutes during the instructional day.

That’s in the contract and it’s not like the pay raise that was dependent upon another factor such as funding.

[Anonymous]

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1920642590367429074.html?fbclid=IwY2xjawKK0HxleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBicmlkETFCMmNRZ0RxdUI5QVVVS0o0AR6swCqb4FUZx0jQeZxjq2o6PwJtst9stZsBfRxfNSQRp2NuxDXyoHxepxSirw_aem_wl47pUV6g8oXU-lSpWrHoA

Here is a decent, though somewhat politicized, discussion, of the budget meeting. It includes slides with details on staffing cuts.

As both a teacher and parent, this makes me sick to my stomach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1920642590367429074.html?fbclid=IwY2xjawKK0HxleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBicmlkETFCMmNRZ0RxdUI5QVVVS0o0AR6swCqb4FUZx0jQeZxjq2o6PwJtst9stZsBfRxfNSQRp2NuxDXyoHxepxSirw_aem_wl47pUV6g8oXU-lSpWrHoA

Here is a decent, though somewhat politicized, discussion, of the budget meeting. It includes slides with details on staffing cuts.

As both a teacher and parent, this makes me sick to my stomach.

I’d rather they reduce coaching positions than any of the following:
*Special eduction leads
*AART
*Classroom monitors

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you mean by “accept”? What other options are there once it’s decided?

I don’t think teachers will get 7%, but I also don’t think it will be zero.

There are plenty of other options in surrounding counties, especially with the current teacher shortage. The 7% was supposed to bring FCPS teacher salaries closer to what other counties are paying their teachers, so if FCPS doesn't come through, there are better paying options nearby.

I just took a teaching job with Fairfax. I applied to several other districts as well, and Fairfax pay was by far the highest at my pay grade. Even when the numbers didn't look higher, Fairfax tends to place new employees at a higher step than many other counties do, which means the salary scales don't necessarily tell the whole picture.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like a 6% raise but staffing cuts

and increase in classroom sizes

decrease in planning time

increase in other areas of responsibility

basically, if you are saved to work, you will be reid's minions

And they can easily fund the proposed cuts by eliminating the 5% raise for central office staff.

The cuts proposed are almost all instructional based. Reid literally created positions that we did not have previously. What I would like to see is a list of Gatehouse people, their salaries, their jobs, and who is getting a 5 percent raise. Why do all of these higher up people already making over 200,000 need a 5 percent raise? They are not in the trenches day to day. As a parent, we should be pushing the school board to truly make more cuts to Gatehouse.

There’s some information in answers to C20 and C91 here:
https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/budget/sites/budget/files/Assets/Documents/fy2026/QA/FY_2026_QA.pdf

Reid has doubled the number of chiefs in FCPS since she got here. I believe they all make 250,00 or more. They also each have staff that just does admin for them, not substantive stuff. She has also added many “senior manager” positions. The school board doubled their staff just a couple of months ago. The IT department is huge because they keep trying to put out kids on screens for everything. None of these people deserve 5% raises when the rest of the area is getting laid off or no raises. The only good news is she has asked central office departments to cut 3% of their spending but she said that might be contracts, not employees. FCPS also gives all their employees a second pension that other districts don’t give but they never mention that when to they cry poverty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1920642590367429074.html?fbclid=IwY2xjawKK0HxleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBicmlkETFCMmNRZ0RxdUI5QVVVS0o0AR6swCqb4FUZx0jQeZxjq2o6PwJtst9stZsBfRxfNSQRp2NuxDXyoHxepxSirw_aem_wl47pUV6g8oXU-lSpWrHoA

Here is a decent, though somewhat politicized, discussion, of the budget meeting. It includes slides with details on staffing cuts.

As both a teacher and parent, this makes me sick to my stomach.

What is that nonsense about a "gold-plated pension plan"??? FCPS did away with that years ago. They also traded the once great health care benefits for Kaiser HMO and an overpriced OAP plan from Cigna.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1920642590367429074.html?fbclid=IwY2xjawKK0HxleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBicmlkETFCMmNRZ0RxdUI5QVVVS0o0AR6swCqb4FUZx0jQeZxjq2o6PwJtst9stZsBfRxfNSQRp2NuxDXyoHxepxSirw_aem_wl47pUV6g8oXU-lSpWrHoA

Here is a decent, though somewhat politicized, discussion, of the budget meeting. It includes slides with details on staffing cuts.

As both a teacher and parent, this makes me sick to my stomach.

I’d rather they reduce coaching positions than any of the following:
*Special eduction leads
*AART
*Classroom monitors

I think all teachers would second this. Most coaches do little besides make more work for other teachers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like a 6% raise but staffing cuts

and increase in classroom sizes

decrease in planning time

increase in other areas of responsibility

basically, if you are saved to work, you will be reid's minions

How are they reducing planning time? The bargaining agreement provides elementary teachers with a minimum of 300 minutes of planning time with at least 240 unencumbered. It states that there can be no more than 60 minutes of mandatory collaborative time and the planning will be provided in increments no less than 30 minutes during the instructional day.

That’s in the contract and it’s not like the pay raise that was dependent upon another factor such as funding.

That comes down to about 45 minutes per day. Not sure how anyone can plan for almost 7 hours of instruction in 45 minutes, especially when it's usually during specials and includes the time it takes to walk all the kids down to specials and then pick them up and walk them back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1920642590367429074.html?fbclid=IwY2xjawKK0HxleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBicmlkETFCMmNRZ0RxdUI5QVVVS0o0AR6swCqb4FUZx0jQeZxjq2o6PwJtst9stZsBfRxfNSQRp2NuxDXyoHxepxSirw_aem_wl47pUV6g8oXU-lSpWrHoA

Here is a decent, though somewhat politicized, discussion, of the budget meeting. It includes slides with details on staffing cuts.

As both a teacher and parent, this makes me sick to my stomach.

What is that nonsense about a "gold-plated pension plan"??? FCPS did away with that years ago. They also traded the once great health care benefits for Kaiser HMO and an overpriced OAP plan from Cigna.

I agree, the tone was very right-leaning, but the slides and the quotes from school board members are worth reading. I couldn't find the slides anywhere else. I'm a military spouse teacher who has moved in and out of the area over the past decade or so and I'm always in a probationary status (first 3 years). I worry that my position will be on the chopping block with these cuts. We're heading into my spouse's retirement, and I was in hopes that I would finally have some professional stability. Also, class size makes a huge difference instructionally. In other districts where I have had classes of 25 students or less at the secondary level, I am able to check with and work with students much more effectively. I really feel that math and English classes, especially at the middle school level, should be capped at 20 students. Those classes are so foundational.

[Anonymous]

I thought they changed the formula for ESOL to yield more staff (saw it on one of the budget doc.) but now they are reducing AART? How is this equitable? We value both ESOLs and AARTs in our schools.

[Anonymous]

Reid’s proposed cuts don’t raise classroom sizes. They said it would reduce staff by an average of 1.5 staff members per school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Reid’s proposed cuts don’t raise classroom sizes. They said it would reduce staff by an average of 1.5 staff members per school.

By increasing the denominator in the staffing ratio by 1. i.e.: Class caps are increasing by 1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like a 6% raise but staffing cuts

and increase in classroom sizes

decrease in planning time

increase in other areas of responsibility

basically, if you are saved to work, you will be reid's minions

How are they reducing planning time? The bargaining agreement provides elementary teachers with a minimum of 300 minutes of planning time with at least 240 unencumbered. It states that there can be no more than 60 minutes of mandatory collaborative time and the planning will be provided in increments no less than 30 minutes during the instructional day.

That’s in the contract and it’s not like the pay raise that was dependent upon another factor such as funding.

That comes down to about 45 minutes per day. Not sure how anyone can plan for almost 7 hours of instruction in 45 minutes, especially when it's usually during specials and includes the time it takes to walk all the kids down to specials and then pick them up and walk them back.

The PP cited a “reduction” in planning time. This is not a reduction. It’s what is in the negotiated contact. I’m not debating whether it is enough.