How would you cut the budget?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:County revenue is going to plunge because... you think property values are going to plummet, or...?

Are you an idiot? Individual and corporate bankruptcies are going to go through the roof. Trump is destroying the American economy, and Fairfax will be hit very hard. Property values are indeed going to plummet, and local residential and commercial tax bases will implode.

Anyone who has a job should consider themselves lucky right now, and not be pretending the county can award FCPS staff, including teachers, substantial raises negotiated in a different economic environment. And all the retirement plans that are designed to benefit FCPS retirees are based on assumptions that are being turned on their head, so those plans could very shortly be insolvent in relatively short order as well.

The best the county can do is try to control costs and manage its existing liabilities.

[Anonymous]

I’d stop bussing kids to AAP center schools unless they don’t have local level IV. I’d also eliminate middle school AAP centers for the same reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You might be surprised to learn that teacher and instructional aid salary only makes up 41% of the budget. It is common misconception that is driven by FCPS messaging.

For example, the FCPS FY Toolkit (https://www.fcps.edu/fy-2026-budget-toolkit) includes the following statements:

“More than 85% of the budget is dedicated to instruction and reflects the needs of our community’s young people in response to the changing world around us. Budget priorities include providing competitive compensation for all employees, including a 7% salary increase for all staff. The majority of the budget increase is dedicated to that proposed 7% pay increase.”

and

“Breaking Down the Budget: Investing in Our Classrooms
Did you know that more than 85% of FCPS’ budget stays in our classrooms?”

Every presentation I have seen about budget needs highlights the salary differences between FCPS and surrounding districts based on teacher salary charts. The argument is always the same: competitive teacher salaries are essential for recruitment and retention.

If FCPS already pays bus drivers, custodians, principals, school-based counselors, and/or central office employees more than or commensurate amounts as other districts, should all these employees should get a 7% raise based on a disparity in teacher pay with other districts, if the primary goal is to increase teacher recruitment and retention?

It seems like there is an opportunity to make teacher pay more competitive, even with a reduced budget. I sincerely believe that every employee is an essential member of the team to support student learning. However, when the budget is tight, it is worth looking to see if a 7% raise is necessary for all employees of FCPS if the goal is teacher recruitment and retention, especially if those other positions already receive competitive levels on compensation.

Unless, of course, the true goal held by leadership is to scapegoat teachers for budget shortfalls.

+1
They blame it on the teachers because they think that will get them the money.

Thank you for posting this. Claiming that 85% is spent on instruction (I suspect that Reid's $500K is included in that) and then illustrating that only 41% is spent on classroom instruction is revealing.

I was a teacher. This is egregious. Every line item should be examined.

Thank you! I am a teacher and it sometimes feels like shouting into the wind when I try to separate actual teacher salaries from the total budget numbers FCPS puts out to justify their budget asks.

I got the 41% number directly from a SB rep. I posed the following question:

“What percentage of the FCPS budget is exclusively teacher and instructional aid salary? Just teacher and instructional aid salary. Not training, administration, support, or any other associated costs. Strictly the salary of teachers and instructional aids as a percentage of the total budget.”

And got the following answer:

“41% of the FCPS budget is teacher and IA salaries.”

I recognize that the total cost of compensation and training are not fully encompassed in salary. However, I framed the question strictly in terms of salary for the following reasons:

1) the 7% raise ask in the budget is only for salary

2) the salary charts for teachers in surrounding jurisdictions, not training/support/other compensation are used to compare/justify budget asks.

I wanted to compare apples and apples. FCPS is asking for money based on salary comparisons, and the public believes that number accounts for 85% of the total budget.

While there are many “supportable interpretations” of the 85% number put forth by FCPS, it can be misleading. It’s like I tell my students when they submit written work: your goal should not be to submit written work that makes it possible for the reader to understand the information that you intend to convey, you should instead submit work that makes it difficult for the reader to misunderstand what you have written.

Verily, much of the increased spending since 2021 is not general education teacher salaries

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You might be surprised to learn that teacher and instructional aid salary only makes up 41% of the budget. It is common misconception that is driven by FCPS messaging.

For example, the FCPS FY Toolkit (https://www.fcps.edu/fy-2026-budget-toolkit) includes the following statements:

“More than 85% of the budget is dedicated to instruction and reflects the needs of our community’s young people in response to the changing world around us. Budget priorities include providing competitive compensation for all employees, including a 7% salary increase for all staff. The majority of the budget increase is dedicated to that proposed 7% pay increase.”

and

“Breaking Down the Budget: Investing in Our Classrooms
Did you know that more than 85% of FCPS’ budget stays in our classrooms?”

Every presentation I have seen about budget needs highlights the salary differences between FCPS and surrounding districts based on teacher salary charts. The argument is always the same: competitive teacher salaries are essential for recruitment and retention.

If FCPS already pays bus drivers, custodians, principals, school-based counselors, and/or central office employees more than or commensurate amounts as other districts, should all these employees should get a 7% raise based on a disparity in teacher pay with other districts, if the primary goal is to increase teacher recruitment and retention?

It seems like there is an opportunity to make teacher pay more competitive, even with a reduced budget. I sincerely believe that every employee is an essential member of the team to support student learning. However, when the budget is tight, it is worth looking to see if a 7% raise is necessary for all employees of FCPS if the goal is teacher recruitment and retention, especially if those other positions already receive competitive levels on compensation.

Unless, of course, the true goal held by leadership is to scapegoat teachers for budget shortfalls.

+1
They blame it on the teachers because they think that will get them the money.

Thank you for posting this. Claiming that 85% is spent on instruction (I suspect that Reid's $500K is included in that) and then illustrating that only 41% is spent on classroom instruction is revealing.

I was a teacher. This is egregious. Every line item should be examined.

Thank you! I am a teacher and it sometimes feels like shouting into the wind when I try to separate actual teacher salaries from the total budget numbers FCPS puts out to justify their budget asks.

I got the 41% number directly from a SB rep. I posed the following question:

“What percentage of the FCPS budget is exclusively teacher and instructional aid salary? Just teacher and instructional aid salary. Not training, administration, support, or any other associated costs. Strictly the salary of teachers and instructional aids as a percentage of the total budget.”

And got the following answer:

“41% of the FCPS budget is teacher and IA salaries.”

I recognize that the total cost of compensation and training are not fully encompassed in salary. However, I framed the question strictly in terms of salary for the following reasons:

1) the 7% raise ask in the budget is only for salary

2) the salary charts for teachers in surrounding jurisdictions, not training/support/other compensation are used to compare/justify budget asks.

I wanted to compare apples and apples. FCPS is asking for money based on salary comparisons, and the public believes that number accounts for 85% of the total budget.

While there are many “supportable interpretations” of the 85% number put forth by FCPS, it can be misleading. It’s like I tell my students when they submit written work: your goal should not be to submit written work that makes it possible for the reader to understand the information that you intend to convey, you should instead submit work that makes it difficult for the reader to misunderstand what you have written.

Verily, much of the increased spending since 2021 is not general education teacher salaries

Specifically, from 2021 to 2025, School Operting Fund increased spending by $754 million. Kindergarten and Gen Ed teacher salaries for elementary, middle, and high school increased only $100 million.

[Anonymous]

And, here is a piece of advice from an old teacher.

The teachers' unions look promising, but buyer beware!

It starts with a good motive, but then, as a classroom teacher, you need to pay attention to what they negotiate.
You will find, as time goes on, that a lot of the negotiation goes to time off for union leaders. Then, the union starts allotting higher pay to the leaders--just look at Randi Weingarten's salary and benefits. This goes on at local levels, too.
The "carrot" is that they will "protect" you. But, most of their time is spent protecting inferior teachers who make teachers look bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You might be surprised to learn that teacher and instructional aid salary only makes up 41% of the budget. It is common misconception that is driven by FCPS messaging.

For example, the FCPS FY Toolkit (https://www.fcps.edu/fy-2026-budget-toolkit) includes the following statements:

“More than 85% of the budget is dedicated to instruction and reflects the needs of our community’s young people in response to the changing world around us. Budget priorities include providing competitive compensation for all employees, including a 7% salary increase for all staff. The majority of the budget increase is dedicated to that proposed 7% pay increase.”

and

“Breaking Down the Budget: Investing in Our Classrooms
Did you know that more than 85% of FCPS’ budget stays in our classrooms?”

Every presentation I have seen about budget needs highlights the salary differences between FCPS and surrounding districts based on teacher salary charts. The argument is always the same: competitive teacher salaries are essential for recruitment and retention.

If FCPS already pays bus drivers, custodians, principals, school-based counselors, and/or central office employees more than or commensurate amounts as other districts, should all these employees should get a 7% raise based on a disparity in teacher pay with other districts, if the primary goal is to increase teacher recruitment and retention?

It seems like there is an opportunity to make teacher pay more competitive, even with a reduced budget. I sincerely believe that every employee is an essential member of the team to support student learning. However, when the budget is tight, it is worth looking to see if a 7% raise is necessary for all employees of FCPS if the goal is teacher recruitment and retention, especially if those other positions already receive competitive levels on compensation.

Unless, of course, the true goal held by leadership is to scapegoat teachers for budget shortfalls.

+1
They blame it on the teachers because they think that will get them the money.

Thank you for posting this. Claiming that 85% is spent on instruction (I suspect that Reid's $500K is included in that) and then illustrating that only 41% is spent on classroom instruction is revealing.

I was a teacher. This is egregious. Every line item should be examined.

Thank you! I am a teacher and it sometimes feels like shouting into the wind when I try to separate actual teacher salaries from the total budget numbers FCPS puts out to justify their budget asks.

I got the 41% number directly from a SB rep. I posed the following question:

“What percentage of the FCPS budget is exclusively teacher and instructional aid salary? Just teacher and instructional aid salary. Not training, administration, support, or any other associated costs. Strictly the salary of teachers and instructional aids as a percentage of the total budget.”

And got the following answer:

“41% of the FCPS budget is teacher and IA salaries.”

I recognize that the total cost of compensation and training are not fully encompassed in salary. However, I framed the question strictly in terms of salary for the following reasons:

1) the 7% raise ask in the budget is only for salary

2) the salary charts for teachers in surrounding jurisdictions, not training/support/other compensation are used to compare/justify budget asks.

I wanted to compare apples and apples. FCPS is asking for money based on salary comparisons, and the public believes that number accounts for 85% of the total budget.

While there are many “supportable interpretations” of the 85% number put forth by FCPS, it can be misleading. It’s like I tell my students when they submit written work: your goal should not be to submit written work that makes it possible for the reader to understand the information that you intend to convey, you should instead submit work that makes it difficult for the reader to misunderstand what you have written.

Verily, much of the increased spending since 2021 is not general education teacher salaries

Specifically, from 2021 to 2025, School Operting Fund increased spending by $754 million. Kindergarten and Gen Ed teacher salaries for elementary, middle, and high school increased only $100 million.

FCPS can begin by eliminating Nardos’ King’s position as Chief Equity Officer, along with her full-time staff of more than 60 people.

Eliminating her department serves both to redirect the salary funds toward something useful while also preserving federal educational funds for all of FCPS’ benefit.

[Anonymous]

The school board needs to cut the increases over the past several years AND teachers should not get a 7 percent increase. Most jobs around the area are more like a 2 percent increase and many lost their jobs all together. Treat it like the 2009 crash.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The school board needs to cut the increases over the past several years AND teachers should not get a 7 percent increase. Most jobs around the area are more like a 2 percent increase and many lost their jobs all together. Treat it like the 2009 crash.

Does anyone know what the police and fire departments are getting as far as pay increases, or is that not yet set?

[Anonymous]

Hiring freeze at Gatehouse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The school board needs to cut the increases over the past several years AND teachers should not get a 7 percent increase. Most jobs around the area are more like a 2 percent increase and many lost their jobs all together. Treat it like the 2009 crash.

Does anyone know what the police and fire departments are getting as far as pay increases, or is that not yet set?

Not finalized yet, but uniformed police are scheduled for 6.58% next year. Their increase was 10.69% this year and 12.83% last year before because they moved through the collective bargainig process a little more quickly than the teachers. Uniformed fire is scheduled for 5.58% next year. They got 7.85% and 7.83% last year, also due to collective bargaining.

Teachers got 4.00% this year, so less than their county counterparts who are also eligible for collective bargaining. The 7.00% for next year is their first increase under collective bargaining. Given the teacher shortage and the superintendent's recent significant raise, not a great idea to cut the teachers' collectively bargained increase, especially after fulfilling collective bargaining agreements with police and fire.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The school board needs to cut the increases over the past several years AND teachers should not get a 7 percent increase. Most jobs around the area are more like a 2 percent increase and many lost their jobs all together. Treat it like the 2009 crash.

Does anyone know what the police and fire departments are getting as far as pay increases, or is that not yet set?

Not finalized yet, but uniformed police are scheduled for 6.58% next year. Their increase was 10.69% this year and 12.83% last year before because they moved through the collective bargainig process a little more quickly than the teachers. Uniformed fire is scheduled for 5.58% next year. They got 7.85% and 7.83% last year, also due to collective bargaining.

Teachers got 4.00% this year, so less than their county counterparts who are also eligible for collective bargaining. The 7.00% for next year is their first increase under collective bargaining. Given the teacher shortage and the superintendent's recent significant raise, not a great idea to cut the teachers' collectively bargained increase, especially after fulfilling collective bargaining agreements with police and fire.

Everything can and should be revisited with Trump slashing federal jobs and destroying the savings of many Fairfax families.

[Anonymous]

50% of Gatehouse staff should go. It would be a win-win. Less crap from Gatehouse getting in the way of teachers working in the classroom AND a cost reduction.

[Anonymous]

They could give teachers a 7% raise and cut other places.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The school board needs to cut the increases over the past several years AND teachers should not get a 7 percent increase. Most jobs around the area are more like a 2 percent increase and many lost their jobs all together. Treat it like the 2009 crash.

Does anyone know what the police and fire departments are getting as far as pay increases, or is that not yet set?

Not finalized yet, but uniformed police are scheduled for 6.58% next year. Their increase was 10.69% this year and 12.83% last year before because they moved through the collective bargainig process a little more quickly than the teachers. Uniformed fire is scheduled for 5.58% next year. They got 7.85% and 7.83% last year, also due to collective bargaining.

Teachers got 4.00% this year, so less than their county counterparts who are also eligible for collective bargaining. The 7.00% for next year is their first increase under collective bargaining. Given the teacher shortage and the superintendent's recent significant raise, not a great idea to cut the teachers' collectively bargained increase, especially after fulfilling collective bargaining agreements with police and fire.

Thank you. That’s helpful info.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The school board needs to cut the increases over the past several years AND teachers should not get a 7 percent increase. Most jobs around the area are more like a 2 percent increase and many lost their jobs all together. Treat it like the 2009 crash.

Does anyone know what the police and fire departments are getting as far as pay increases, or is that not yet set?

Not finalized yet, but uniformed police are scheduled for 6.58% next year. Their increase was 10.69% this year and 12.83% last year before because they moved through the collective bargainig process a little more quickly than the teachers. Uniformed fire is scheduled for 5.58% next year. They got 7.85% and 7.83% last year, also due to collective bargaining.

Teachers got 4.00% this year, so less than their county counterparts who are also eligible for collective bargaining. The 7.00% for next year is their first increase under collective bargaining. Given the teacher shortage and the superintendent's recent significant raise, not a great idea to cut the teachers' collectively bargained increase, especially after fulfilling collective bargaining agreements with police and fire.

Everything can and should be revisited with Trump slashing federal jobs and destroying the savings of many Fairfax families.

Are you suggesting that the county pull back on the raises that the police and fire departments already got? Or that only the teachers should lose out on collectively bargained salary increases, because it took them a bit longer to negotiate?

FCPS’s own recent study showed that school-based staff are already paid below market salaries. Maybe it’s time to revisit salaries that are above-market value instead?