Dec 18th: FY 2026 Recommended Operating Budget

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does a zero-based budget mean?

Absolutely nothing. MCPS has used zero-based budgeting for years.

Yeah zero based budgeting is really just a buzzword. In practice they are looking mainly at changes to the current year's budget, rather than scrutinizing every dollar in the budget, which is an enormous task.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does a zero-based budget mean?

Absolutely nothing. MCPS has used zero-based budgeting for years.

Yeah zero based budgeting is really just a buzzword. In practice they are looking mainly at changes to the current year's budget, rather than scrutinizing every dollar in the budget, which is an enormous task.

What you’re talking about is not zero based budgeting. You are describing year-to-year budgeting or what some refer to as traditional budgeting.

Zero based budgeting takes more time and work and is what Taylor specifically noted they were engaging in this year. Starting at zero, adding in what is required, then needed, then desired.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does a zero-based budget mean?

Absolutely nothing. MCPS has used zero-based budgeting for years.

Yeah zero based budgeting is really just a buzzword. In practice they are looking mainly at changes to the current year's budget, rather than scrutinizing every dollar in the budget, which is an enormous task.

What you’re talking about is not zero based budgeting. You are describing year-to-year budgeting or what some refer to as traditional budgeting.

Zero based budgeting takes more time and work and is what Taylor specifically noted they were engaging in this year. Starting at zero, adding in what is required, then needed, then desired.

Given he is only proposing reducing central office staff by 82, I really doubt that

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does a zero-based budget mean?

Absolutely nothing. MCPS has used zero-based budgeting for years.

Yeah zero based budgeting is really just a buzzword. In practice they are looking mainly at changes to the current year's budget, rather than scrutinizing every dollar in the budget, which is an enormous task.

What you’re talking about is not zero based budgeting. You are describing year-to-year budgeting or what some refer to as traditional budgeting.

Zero based budgeting takes more time and work and is what Taylor specifically noted they were engaging in this year. Starting at zero, adding in what is required, then needed, then desired.

Given he is only proposing reducing central office staff by 82, I really doubt that

Surprise, surprise: Taylor might have just been telling us what we wanted to hear.

But I agree, if the net-result of zero-based budgeting is just a cut of 82 CO staff, I too doubt that true zero-based budgeting was implemented.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does a zero-based budget mean?

Absolutely nothing. MCPS has used zero-based budgeting for years.

Yeah zero based budgeting is really just a buzzword. In practice they are looking mainly at changes to the current year's budget, rather than scrutinizing every dollar in the budget, which is an enormous task.

What you’re talking about is not zero based budgeting. You are describing year-to-year budgeting or what some refer to as traditional budgeting.

Zero based budgeting takes more time and work and is what Taylor specifically noted they were engaging in this year. Starting at zero, adding in what is required, then needed, then desired.

Given he is only proposing reducing central office staff by 82, I really doubt that

Surprise, surprise: Taylor might have just been telling us what we wanted to hear.

But I agree, if the net-result of zero-based budgeting is just a cut of 82 CO staff, I too doubt that true zero-based budgeting was implemented.

Maybe he is. But as we always ask, who and what should be cut?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like former BOE member Jeanette Dixon thinks Taylor is asking for too much with his budget:

It's interesting that she uses her status as a former board member to sway current board decisions.

What did Jeanette Dixon do to limit wasteful spending when she was on the board? Don’t criticize it now.

And this is why we can’t get anything done because folks are focus on what Jeanette Dixon did or didn’t do in the past. Her point now is valid. Everyone of common sense knows that MCPS needs a big budget ask to get things right, just as they know that most other Supers have never been able to make such a big ask. Also it’s well known that this is supposed to be another fiscally difficult year.

Further there are some things listed here while nice are unrealistic. 688 Special Ed positions while secondary teachers continue to suffer with classroom sizes well above 30. And no mention of the type of Special Ed positions. Program and program location study as discretionary though it’s been stated repeatedly will be done alongside the boundary study. In fact Taylor said doing it in house was more effective and less costly than letting the hired boundary study contractor do it. And do all the BOE’s priorities, I heard no actual mention of how this budget helps to address them (sure I can make some inferences and assumptions but I shouldn’t have to).

Meanwhile we want folks to waste time, energy and likely dollars trying to turn the Transition half-day into a whole day. Like who the hell cares.

You can't possibly be questioning the need for those special education positions. They're absolutely needed. And MCPS should be paying those positions more so that they can fill them.

+1 This. MCPS is on the verge of facing major lawsuit for not meeting IDEA. SPED programs are running on fumes. There have been major cuts to autism programs, staffing ratios are not compliant, and non-public placements have long waitlists and are $100k/per kid. There is a cohort of SN kids who the county has no where to put - literally they aren’t allowed to enter the building of their homeschools (though assigned on paper) and they don’t have a spot in a non-placement. So they are home on home and hospital instruction while they wait. Hop to the SN board and you’ll see how needed a SPED overhaul is…

I’d rather see MCPS putting that $100k/student private tuition for non-public into hiring more sped teachers….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does a zero-based budget mean?

Absolutely nothing. MCPS has used zero-based budgeting for years.

Yeah zero based budgeting is really just a buzzword. In practice they are looking mainly at changes to the current year's budget, rather than scrutinizing every dollar in the budget, which is an enormous task.

So it sounds meaningless. Yet another MCPS talking poing without basis in fact.

[Anonymous]

This is what happens when you have unscrupulous people who lack integrity like Peter Moran, April Key and Dana Edwards and others with unchecked power. In the private sector, we call this corruption. In MCPS it is called another day at the office and trying to stay ahead of the lawsuits, instead of engaging in practices that are not unlawful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like former BOE member Jeanette Dixon thinks Taylor is asking for too much with his budget:

It's interesting that she uses her status as a former board member to sway current board decisions.

What did Jeanette Dixon do to limit wasteful spending when she was on the board? Don’t criticize it now.

And this is why we can’t get anything done because folks are focus on what Jeanette Dixon did or didn’t do in the past. Her point now is valid. Everyone of common sense knows that MCPS needs a big budget ask to get things right, just as they know that most other Supers have never been able to make such a big ask. Also it’s well known that this is supposed to be another fiscally difficult year.

Further there are some things listed here while nice are unrealistic. 688 Special Ed positions while secondary teachers continue to suffer with classroom sizes well above 30. And no mention of the type of Special Ed positions. Program and program location study as discretionary though it’s been stated repeatedly will be done alongside the boundary study. In fact Taylor said doing it in house was more effective and less costly than letting the hired boundary study contractor do it. And do all the BOE’s priorities, I heard no actual mention of how this budget helps to address them (sure I can make some inferences and assumptions but I shouldn’t have to).

Meanwhile we want folks to waste time, energy and likely dollars trying to turn the Transition half-day into a whole day. Like who the hell cares.

You can't possibly be questioning the need for those special education positions. They're absolutely needed. And MCPS should be paying those positions more so that they can fill them.

+1 This. MCPS is on the verge of facing major lawsuit for not meeting IDEA. SPED programs are running on fumes. There have been major cuts to autism programs, staffing ratios are not compliant, and non-public placements have long waitlists and are $100k/per kid. There is a cohort of SN kids who the county has no where to put - literally they aren’t allowed to enter the building of their homeschools (though assigned on paper) and they don’t have a spot in a non-placement. So they are home on home and hospital instruction while they wait. Hop to the SN board and you’ll see how needed a SPED overhaul is…

I’d rather see MCPS putting that $100k/student private tuition for non-public into hiring more sped teachers….

Yes, legally MCPS must fill the special ed positions. They are failing to provide pretty much the minimum, and there is a lawsuit waiting for sure if this continues. Cost savings can’t be found in SPED right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like former BOE member Jeanette Dixon thinks Taylor is asking for too much with his budget:

It's interesting that she uses her status as a former board member to sway current board decisions.

What did Jeanette Dixon do to limit wasteful spending when she was on the board? Don’t criticize it now.

And this is why we can’t get anything done because folks are focus on what Jeanette Dixon did or didn’t do in the past. Her point now is valid. Everyone of common sense knows that MCPS needs a big budget ask to get things right, just as they know that most other Supers have never been able to make such a big ask. Also it’s well known that this is supposed to be another fiscally difficult year.

Further there are some things listed here while nice are unrealistic. 688 Special Ed positions while secondary teachers continue to suffer with classroom sizes well above 30. And no mention of the type of Special Ed positions. Program and program location study as discretionary though it’s been stated repeatedly will be done alongside the boundary study. In fact Taylor said doing it in house was more effective and less costly than letting the hired boundary study contractor do it. And do all the BOE’s priorities, I heard no actual mention of how this budget helps to address them (sure I can make some inferences and assumptions but I shouldn’t have to).

Meanwhile we want folks to waste time, energy and likely dollars trying to turn the Transition half-day into a whole day. Like who the hell cares.

You can't possibly be questioning the need for those special education positions. They're absolutely needed. And MCPS should be paying those positions more so that they can fill them.

+1 This. MCPS is on the verge of facing major lawsuit for not meeting IDEA. SPED programs are running on fumes. There have been major cuts to autism programs, staffing ratios are not compliant, and non-public placements have long waitlists and are $100k/per kid. There is a cohort of SN kids who the county has no where to put - literally they aren’t allowed to enter the building of their homeschools (though assigned on paper) and they don’t have a spot in a non-placement. So they are home on home and hospital instruction while they wait. Hop to the SN board and you’ll see how needed a SPED overhaul is…

I’d rather see MCPS putting that $100k/student private tuition for non-public into hiring more sped teachers….

Until MCEA allows MCPS to restructure SPeD pay they're going to have a very hard time recruiting for those positions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like former BOE member Jeanette Dixon thinks Taylor is asking for too much with his budget:

It's interesting that she uses her status as a former board member to sway current board decisions.

What did Jeanette Dixon do to limit wasteful spending when she was on the board? Don’t criticize it now.

And this is why we can’t get anything done because folks are focus on what Jeanette Dixon did or didn’t do in the past. Her point now is valid. Everyone of common sense knows that MCPS needs a big budget ask to get things right, just as they know that most other Supers have never been able to make such a big ask. Also it’s well known that this is supposed to be another fiscally difficult year.

Further there are some things listed here while nice are unrealistic. 688 Special Ed positions while secondary teachers continue to suffer with classroom sizes well above 30. And no mention of the type of Special Ed positions. Program and program location study as discretionary though it’s been stated repeatedly will be done alongside the boundary study. In fact Taylor said doing it in house was more effective and less costly than letting the hired boundary study contractor do it. And do all the BOE’s priorities, I heard no actual mention of how this budget helps to address them (sure I can make some inferences and assumptions but I shouldn’t have to).

Meanwhile we want folks to waste time, energy and likely dollars trying to turn the Transition half-day into a whole day. Like who the hell cares.

You can't possibly be questioning the need for those special education positions. They're absolutely needed. And MCPS should be paying those positions more so that they can fill them.

+1 This. MCPS is on the verge of facing major lawsuit for not meeting IDEA. SPED programs are running on fumes. There have been major cuts to autism programs, staffing ratios are not compliant, and non-public placements have long waitlists and are $100k/per kid. There is a cohort of SN kids who the county has no where to put - literally they aren’t allowed to enter the building of their homeschools (though assigned on paper) and they don’t have a spot in a non-placement. So they are home on home and hospital instruction while they wait. Hop to the SN board and you’ll see how needed a SPED overhaul is…

I’d rather see MCPS putting that $100k/student private tuition for non-public into hiring more sped teachers….

Until MCEA allows MCPS to restructure SPeD pay they're going to have a very hard time recruiting for those positions.

+1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Though the net total of students is about the same, individual schools' populations have changed and APs are assigned by school #s and student population needs, like Title 1 schools.

It's bizarre to me that between FY21 FY25 they added in total over 200 staff in the following categories:
- Executive
- Administrative (directors, supervisors, program coordinators, executive assistants)
- Business/Operations Administrator (leadership positions supervised by directors and supervisors)
- Other professional (12-month instructional/evaluation specialists)
- Principal/Assistant Principal
- Other Support Personnel (business, technology, human resources, communications, printing and other support staff)

And in FY25 they CUT 258 teaching positions leading to some massive class sizes.

It really feels like the priorities are way off.


Where did you find the FY21 and FY25 data? I tried searching this thread, but couldn’t find the source.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like former BOE member Jeanette Dixon thinks Taylor is asking for too much with his budget:

It's interesting that she uses her status as a former board member to sway current board decisions.

What did Jeanette Dixon do to limit wasteful spending when she was on the board? Don’t criticize it now.

And this is why we can’t get anything done because folks are focus on what Jeanette Dixon did or didn’t do in the past. Her point now is valid. Everyone of common sense knows that MCPS needs a big budget ask to get things right, just as they know that most other Supers have never been able to make such a big ask. Also it’s well known that this is supposed to be another fiscally difficult year.

Further there are some things listed here while nice are unrealistic. 688 Special Ed positions while secondary teachers continue to suffer with classroom sizes well above 30. And no mention of the type of Special Ed positions. Program and program location study as discretionary though it’s been stated repeatedly will be done alongside the boundary study. In fact Taylor said doing it in house was more effective and less costly than letting the hired boundary study contractor do it. And do all the BOE’s priorities, I heard no actual mention of how this budget helps to address them (sure I can make some inferences and assumptions but I shouldn’t have to).

Meanwhile we want folks to waste time, energy and likely dollars trying to turn the Transition half-day into a whole day. Like who the hell cares.

You can't possibly be questioning the need for those special education positions. They're absolutely needed. And MCPS should be paying those positions more so that they can fill them.

+1 This. MCPS is on the verge of facing major lawsuit for not meeting IDEA. SPED programs are running on fumes. There have been major cuts to autism programs, staffing ratios are not compliant, and non-public placements have long waitlists and are $100k/per kid. There is a cohort of SN kids who the county has no where to put - literally they aren’t allowed to enter the building of their homeschools (though assigned on paper) and they don’t have a spot in a non-placement. So they are home on home and hospital instruction while they wait. Hop to the SN board and you’ll see how needed a SPED overhaul is…

I’d rather see MCPS putting that $100k/student private tuition for non-public into hiring more sped teachers….

Until MCEA allows MCPS to restructure SPeD pay they're going to have a very hard time recruiting for those positions.

+1.

Special education teachers, SLPs, OTs, and paraeducators working with children with special needs should have a separate pay scale that is 20% higher than the standard scales (with benefits for all SPED paraeducators). Throw in a signing bonus with a 5 year commitment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Though the net total of students is about the same, individual schools' populations have changed and APs are assigned by school #s and student population needs, like Title 1 schools.

It's bizarre to me that between FY21 FY25 they added in total over 200 staff in the following categories:
- Executive
- Administrative (directors, supervisors, program coordinators, executive assistants)
- Business/Operations Administrator (leadership positions supervised by directors and supervisors)
- Other professional (12-month instructional/evaluation specialists)
- Principal/Assistant Principal
- Other Support Personnel (business, technology, human resources, communications, printing and other support staff)

And in FY25 they CUT 258 teaching positions leading to some massive class sizes.

It really feels like the priorities are way off.


Where did you find the FY21 and FY25 data? I tried searching this thread, but couldn’t find the source.

Table 5 in the budget books. google MCPS operating budget and click on archive on the left for past budget books.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Though the net total of students is about the same, individual schools' populations have changed and APs are assigned by school #s and student population needs, like Title 1 schools.

It's bizarre to me that between FY21 FY25 they added in total over 200 staff in the following categories:
- Executive
- Administrative (directors, supervisors, program coordinators, executive assistants)
- Business/Operations Administrator (leadership positions supervised by directors and supervisors)
- Other professional (12-month instructional/evaluation specialists)
- Principal/Assistant Principal
- Other Support Personnel (business, technology, human resources, communications, printing and other support staff)

And in FY25 they CUT 258 teaching positions leading to some massive class sizes.

It really feels like the priorities are way off.


Where did you find the FY21 and FY25 data? I tried searching this thread, but couldn’t find the source.

Which sections cover Reading Specialist, Math Coaches, Social Workers, since they were all added since then.

They also cut close to 80CO positions in FY25.