$9 million in Blueprint funding in jeopardy for MCPS due to failure to meet AIB deadlines

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As far as I can see, foot-dragging on this is a good thing. No one from the state has explained how anyone is supposed to fund and staff this pie-in-the-sky Blueprint mandate. The 25% funding release is probably about 2% of what would actually be needed. The legislature can tell everyone all it wants to have universal pre-K and class sizes of 15 and magically include every special education student in gen ed and make them achieve a diploma. The paper that's written on, and the paper the school systems are writing to claim how they'll achieve it by making 2+2 equal 5, are worthless.

The AIB can squawk all it wants and it won't change those facts. It's unrealistic and underfunded. People have been saying this for awhile. Now it'll magically be OK if we write some plans on paper? Uh-huh.

Increased services are worth increased taxes

We already did. We just increased taxes to fund public education last year: https://dcist.com/story/23/05/25/md-montgomery-county-council-property-taxes-hike/

It is unrealistic to keep taxing the public to fund unrealistic and reckless choices that MCPS feels entitled to make.

MCPS has a lot of money. They lack competence, discipline and leadership, which more money will not and cannot fix. That’s a culture problem.

And Taylor needs to root out the cultural rot ASAP and improve results before even thinking of asking taxpayers for another red cent.

We haven't implemented the blueprint yet. Things like universal preK and smaller class sizes are worth increased taxes. Whether or not existing programs can be cut is a different issue.

But most of the budget, and most of the annual spending increases, come in the form of teacher salary and benefits. It may be possible to save some money at the margins, and that's worth attempting to do, but it isn't going to change the reality or trajectory of spending. Between being in a HCOL area and benefit costs that will continue to grow at rates exceeding inflation, teachers are always going to be expensive.

How did your reply address anything I said?

You keep saying these are worth increased taxes. I pointed out we DID increase taxes for that purpose.

Furthermore, MCPS structurally ALWAYS gets equal or MORE money to what it got the year before. We have been throwing more and more money at MCPS FOR YEARS and it has not improved the system or the outcomes. Throwing more money will not fix the severe, deep dysfunction and mismanagement that exists within MCPS.

And if you think there's no limit to the amount of tax increases you can impose on the public without serious backlash or consequence, you're living in a fool's paradise.

We didn't increase taxes to fund the blueprint because we're not yet funding the blueprint. Whoever told you otherwise is mistaken.

You must be a politician, or a lawyer, which is why you're trying to split hairs.

The 2023 increase was in fact largely to bolster and improve MCPS. You can't turn around after hitting up taxpayers in 2023 with an increase and say they need ANOTHER tax increase for schools, but this time to support the Blueprint for Maryland and think that will land well.

The average citizen does not care which bucket or funding vehicle you're citing for the increase. They're just going to bristle at continuously being asked to shoulder the cost of funding schools via tax increases repeatedly. And that ask is even more unreasonable to make given the sad, broken state of MCPS.

No, you apparently weren't paying attention. The increase went to paying for salary increases (necessary due to inflation) and higher benefit costs. There was no plan to implement the new programs or initiatives that are part of the blueprint.

I suppose you could argue those increases weren't necessary, but generally the moderate pay increases and maintaining benefits for MCPs staff are well-suppported in the community.

You could also argue that MCPS for years should have been cutting programs and spending. That's a perfectly valid position to hold.

But you can't claim the increases weren't necessary for the blueprint. They weren't. And you'd know that if you followed along with the budget process.

You are ignoring my main point about the political realities of MCPS asking for another tax increase after they just asked for and got one in 2023. But I know that you’re doing that on purpose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As far as I can see, foot-dragging on this is a good thing. No one from the state has explained how anyone is supposed to fund and staff this pie-in-the-sky Blueprint mandate. The 25% funding release is probably about 2% of what would actually be needed. The legislature can tell everyone all it wants to have universal pre-K and class sizes of 15 and magically include every special education student in gen ed and make them achieve a diploma. The paper that's written on, and the paper the school systems are writing to claim how they'll achieve it by making 2+2 equal 5, are worthless.

The AIB can squawk all it wants and it won't change those facts. It's unrealistic and underfunded. People have been saying this for awhile. Now it'll magically be OK if we write some plans on paper? Uh-huh.

Increased services are worth increased taxes

We already did. We just increased taxes to fund public education last year: https://dcist.com/story/23/05/25/md-montgomery-county-council-property-taxes-hike/

It is unrealistic to keep taxing the public to fund unrealistic and reckless choices that MCPS feels entitled to make.

MCPS has a lot of money. They lack competence, discipline and leadership, which more money will not and cannot fix. That’s a culture problem.

And Taylor needs to root out the cultural rot ASAP and improve results before even thinking of asking taxpayers for another red cent.

We haven't implemented the blueprint yet. Things like universal preK and smaller class sizes are worth increased taxes. Whether or not existing programs can be cut is a different issue.

But most of the budget, and most of the annual spending increases, come in the form of teacher salary and benefits. It may be possible to save some money at the margins, and that's worth attempting to do, but it isn't going to change the reality or trajectory of spending. Between being in a HCOL area and benefit costs that will continue to grow at rates exceeding inflation, teachers are always going to be expensive.

How did your reply address anything I said?

You keep saying these are worth increased taxes. I pointed out we DID increase taxes for that purpose.

Furthermore, MCPS structurally ALWAYS gets equal or MORE money to what it got the year before. We have been throwing more and more money at MCPS FOR YEARS and it has not improved the system or the outcomes. Throwing more money will not fix the severe, deep dysfunction and mismanagement that exists within MCPS.

And if you think there's no limit to the amount of tax increases you can impose on the public without serious backlash or consequence, you're living in a fool's paradise.

We didn't increase taxes to fund the blueprint because we're not yet funding the blueprint. Whoever told you otherwise is mistaken.

You must be a politician, or a lawyer, which is why you're trying to split hairs.

The 2023 increase was in fact largely to bolster and improve MCPS. You can't turn around after hitting up taxpayers in 2023 with an increase and say they need ANOTHER tax increase for schools, but this time to support the Blueprint for Maryland and think that will land well.

The average citizen does not care which bucket or funding vehicle you're citing for the increase. They're just going to bristle at continuously being asked to shoulder the cost of funding schools via tax increases repeatedly. And that ask is even more unreasonable to make given the sad, broken state of MCPS.

No, you apparently weren't paying attention. The increase went to paying for salary increases (necessary due to inflation) and higher benefit costs. There was no plan to implement the new programs or initiatives that are part of the blueprint.

I suppose you could argue those increases weren't necessary, but generally the moderate pay increases and maintaining benefits for MCPs staff are well-suppported in the community.

You could also argue that MCPS for years should have been cutting programs and spending. That's a perfectly valid position to hold.

But you can't claim the increases weren't necessary for the blueprint. They weren't. And you'd know that if you followed along with the budget process.

You are ignoring my main point about the political realities of MCPS asking for another tax increase after they just asked for and got one in 2023. But I know that you’re doing that on purpose.

And with increased services, which will come with the implementation if the blueprint, it is reasonable to expect to have to pay more.

Recent budget increases have not gone to providing more services. They didn't even substantially go to things that would be considered bloat. Instead they went to salary increases that largely just kept up with COL adjustments, as well as increased costs to maintain benefits. If you think teachers are overpaid, then I suppose you would consider those increases wasteful, but I don't think most people would agree with you.

The underlying problem is that our tax base has not increased as much as the increasws cost of labor. As long as that continues, tax rates will need to increase unless we cut pay, benefits, or services.

[Anonymous]

And yes, taxes are unpopular, but that doesn't mean they're unnecessary or unwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A better article that isn’t just click bait

https://marylandmatters.org/2024/11/21/blueprint-board-approves-another-15-school-district-plans/

So the largest school systems across the state are still in line for approval. Nothing to see here.

+1. They have until December 11th.

They were officially warned and chastised by the AIB. Y’all have seriously selective reading comprehension.

So what they are warned and chastised? They have until Dec 11th to submit.
Nothing to see here except your false grievances.

You MCPS acolytes work overtime to backbend and justify any and every wrong committed by this system.

What wrong did MCPS commit in this instance? Did you read why it hasn't been submitted? Or is that above your reading comprehension level?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A better article that isn’t just click bait

https://marylandmatters.org/2024/11/21/blueprint-board-approves-another-15-school-district-plans/

So the largest school systems across the state are still in line for approval. Nothing to see here.

+1. They have until December 11th.

They were officially warned and chastised by the AIB. Y’all have seriously selective reading comprehension.

So what they are warned and chastised? They have until Dec 11th to submit.
Nothing to see here except your false grievances.

Because they could find themselves in a situation where MCEA torpedoes the whole thing.

Stop blaming MCEA. This is the BOE and MCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A better article that isn’t just click bait

https://marylandmatters.org/2024/11/21/blueprint-board-approves-another-15-school-district-plans/

So the largest school systems across the state are still in line for approval. Nothing to see here.

+1. They have until December 11th.

They were officially warned and chastised by the AIB. Y’all have seriously selective reading comprehension.

So what they are warned and chastised? They have until Dec 11th to submit.
Nothing to see here except your false grievances.

Because they could find themselves in a situation where MCEA torpedoes the whole thing.

Stop blaming MCEA. This is the BOE and MCPS.

Leggett was clear that MCEA agreeing to terms is the hold-up. What terms, and why they're even involved, is unclear.

[Anonymous]

Mcea should be blames for accepting very expensive dues while not protecting teachers from violent students and the admin that always want to blame teachers calling student behavior bad classroom management. They should also be blamed for teachers being made to work extreme overtime hours without payment or even reporting the hours worked ie making us lie on our time sheets to cover up the problem of one of the reasons for teacher burn out. Basically mcea should take responsibility and admit that they are focussed on politics and conflicts of interest while teachers suffer and can't keep up with the u reasonable sands of the degraded profession. Their not doing what we pay them to do which is to work in our favor and support us

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A better article that isn’t just click bait

https://marylandmatters.org/2024/11/21/blueprint-board-approves-another-15-school-district-plans/

So the largest school systems across the state are still in line for approval. Nothing to see here.

+1. They have until December 11th.

They were officially warned and chastised by the AIB. Y’all have seriously selective reading comprehension.

So what they are warned and chastised? They have until Dec 11th to submit.
Nothing to see here except your false grievances.

Because they could find themselves in a situation where MCEA torpedoes the whole thing.

Stop blaming MCEA. This is the BOE and MCPS.

Leggett was clear that MCEA agreeing to terms is the hold-up. What terms, and why they're even involved, is unclear.

Leggett is long gone. Of course he blames others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A better article that isn’t just click bait

https://marylandmatters.org/2024/11/21/blueprint-board-approves-another-15-school-district-plans/

So the largest school systems across the state are still in line for approval. Nothing to see here.

+1. They have until December 11th.

They were officially warned and chastised by the AIB. Y’all have seriously selective reading comprehension.

So what they are warned and chastised? They have until Dec 11th to submit.
Nothing to see here except your false grievances.

Because they could find themselves in a situation where MCEA torpedoes the whole thing.

Stop blaming MCEA. This is the BOE and MCPS.

Leggett was clear that MCEA agreeing to terms is the hold-up. What terms, and why they're even involved, is unclear.

Leggett is long gone. Of course he blames others.

He chairs the board! Did you even bother to read the article?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A better article that isn’t just click bait

https://marylandmatters.org/2024/11/21/blueprint-board-approves-another-15-school-district-plans/

So the largest school systems across the state are still in line for approval. Nothing to see here.

+1. They have until December 11th.

They were officially warned and chastised by the AIB. Y’all have seriously selective reading comprehension.

So what they are warned and chastised? They have until Dec 11th to submit.
Nothing to see here except your false grievances.

Because they could find themselves in a situation where MCEA torpedoes the whole thing.

Stop blaming MCEA. This is the BOE and MCPS.

Leggett was clear that MCEA agreeing to terms is the hold-up. What terms, and why they're even involved, is unclear.

Leggett is long gone. Of course he blames others.

He chairs the board! Did you even bother to read the article?

And?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As far as I can see, foot-dragging on this is a good thing. No one from the state has explained how anyone is supposed to fund and staff this pie-in-the-sky Blueprint mandate. The 25% funding release is probably about 2% of what would actually be needed. The legislature can tell everyone all it wants to have universal pre-K and class sizes of 15 and magically include every special education student in gen ed and make them achieve a diploma. The paper that's written on, and the paper the school systems are writing to claim how they'll achieve it by making 2+2 equal 5, are worthless.

The AIB can squawk all it wants and it won't change those facts. It's unrealistic and underfunded. People have been saying this for awhile. Now it'll magically be OK if we write some plans on paper? Uh-huh.

Increased services are worth increased taxes

We already did. We just increased taxes to fund public education last year: https://dcist.com/story/23/05/25/md-montgomery-county-council-property-taxes-hike/

It is unrealistic to keep taxing the public to fund unrealistic and reckless choices that MCPS feels entitled to make.

MCPS has a lot of money. They lack competence, discipline and leadership, which more money will not and cannot fix. That’s a culture problem.

And Taylor needs to root out the cultural rot ASAP and improve results before even thinking of asking taxpayers for another red cent.

We haven't implemented the blueprint yet. Things like universal preK and smaller class sizes are worth increased taxes. Whether or not existing programs can be cut is a different issue.

But most of the budget, and most of the annual spending increases, come in the form of teacher salary and benefits. It may be possible to save some money at the margins, and that's worth attempting to do, but it isn't going to change the reality or trajectory of spending. Between being in a HCOL area and benefit costs that will continue to grow at rates exceeding inflation, teachers are always going to be expensive.

How did your reply address anything I said?

You keep saying these are worth increased taxes. I pointed out we DID increase taxes for that purpose.

Furthermore, MCPS structurally ALWAYS gets equal or MORE money to what it got the year before. We have been throwing more and more money at MCPS FOR YEARS and it has not improved the system or the outcomes. Throwing more money will not fix the severe, deep dysfunction and mismanagement that exists within MCPS.

And if you think there's no limit to the amount of tax increases you can impose on the public without serious backlash or consequence, you're living in a fool's paradise.

We didn't increase taxes to fund the blueprint because we're not yet funding the blueprint. Whoever told you otherwise is mistaken.

You must be a politician, or a lawyer, which is why you're trying to split hairs.

The 2023 increase was in fact largely to bolster and improve MCPS. You can't turn around after hitting up taxpayers in 2023 with an increase and say they need ANOTHER tax increase for schools, but this time to support the Blueprint for Maryland and think that will land well.

The average citizen does not care which bucket or funding vehicle you're citing for the increase. They're just going to bristle at continuously being asked to shoulder the cost of funding schools via tax increases repeatedly. And that ask is even more unreasonable to make given the sad, broken state of MCPS.

No, you apparently weren't paying attention. The increase went to paying for salary increases (necessary due to inflation) and higher benefit costs. There was no plan to implement the new programs or initiatives that are part of the blueprint.

I suppose you could argue those increases weren't necessary, but generally the moderate pay increases and maintaining benefits for MCPs staff are well-suppported in the community.

You could also argue that MCPS for years should have been cutting programs and spending. That's a perfectly valid position to hold.

But you can't claim the increases weren't necessary for the blueprint. They weren't. And you'd know that if you followed along with the budget process.

You are ignoring my main point about the political realities of MCPS asking for another tax increase after they just asked for and got one in 2023. But I know that you’re doing that on purpose.

Quit griping here. If you don't want tax increases that will be necessary to meet the many unfunded mandates from the Blueprint, first write Montgomery County state Senator Nancy King, who spearheaded the Blueprint, and then write all your state representatives, who likely voted for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A better article that isn’t just click bait

https://marylandmatters.org/2024/11/21/blueprint-board-approves-another-15-school-district-plans/

So the largest school systems across the state are still in line for approval. Nothing to see here.

+1. They have until December 11th.

They were officially warned and chastised by the AIB. Y’all have seriously selective reading comprehension.

So what they are warned and chastised? They have until Dec 11th to submit.
Nothing to see here except your false grievances.

Because they could find themselves in a situation where MCEA torpedoes the whole thing.

Stop blaming MCEA. This is the BOE and MCPS.

Leggett was clear that MCEA agreeing to terms is the hold-up. What terms, and why they're even involved, is unclear.

Leggett is long gone. Of course he blames others.

He chairs the board! Did you even bother to read the article?

And?

He's not long gone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As far as I can see, foot-dragging on this is a good thing. No one from the state has explained how anyone is supposed to fund and staff this pie-in-the-sky Blueprint mandate. The 25% funding release is probably about 2% of what would actually be needed. The legislature can tell everyone all it wants to have universal pre-K and class sizes of 15 and magically include every special education student in gen ed and make them achieve a diploma. The paper that's written on, and the paper the school systems are writing to claim how they'll achieve it by making 2+2 equal 5, are worthless.

The AIB can squawk all it wants and it won't change those facts. It's unrealistic and underfunded. People have been saying this for awhile. Now it'll magically be OK if we write some plans on paper? Uh-huh.

Increased services are worth increased taxes

We already did. We just increased taxes to fund public education last year: https://dcist.com/story/23/05/25/md-montgomery-county-council-property-taxes-hike/

It is unrealistic to keep taxing the public to fund unrealistic and reckless choices that MCPS feels entitled to make.

MCPS has a lot of money. They lack competence, discipline and leadership, which more money will not and cannot fix. That’s a culture problem.

And Taylor needs to root out the cultural rot ASAP and improve results before even thinking of asking taxpayers for another red cent.

We haven't implemented the blueprint yet. Things like universal preK and smaller class sizes are worth increased taxes. Whether or not existing programs can be cut is a different issue.

But most of the budget, and most of the annual spending increases, come in the form of teacher salary and benefits. It may be possible to save some money at the margins, and that's worth attempting to do, but it isn't going to change the reality or trajectory of spending. Between being in a HCOL area and benefit costs that will continue to grow at rates exceeding inflation, teachers are always going to be expensive.

How did your reply address anything I said?

You keep saying these are worth increased taxes. I pointed out we DID increase taxes for that purpose.

Furthermore, MCPS structurally ALWAYS gets equal or MORE money to what it got the year before. We have been throwing more and more money at MCPS FOR YEARS and it has not improved the system or the outcomes. Throwing more money will not fix the severe, deep dysfunction and mismanagement that exists within MCPS.

And if you think there's no limit to the amount of tax increases you can impose on the public without serious backlash or consequence, you're living in a fool's paradise.

We didn't increase taxes to fund the blueprint because we're not yet funding the blueprint. Whoever told you otherwise is mistaken.

You must be a politician, or a lawyer, which is why you're trying to split hairs.

The 2023 increase was in fact largely to bolster and improve MCPS. You can't turn around after hitting up taxpayers in 2023 with an increase and say they need ANOTHER tax increase for schools, but this time to support the Blueprint for Maryland and think that will land well.

The average citizen does not care which bucket or funding vehicle you're citing for the increase. They're just going to bristle at continuously being asked to shoulder the cost of funding schools via tax increases repeatedly. And that ask is even more unreasonable to make given the sad, broken state of MCPS.

No, you apparently weren't paying attention. The increase went to paying for salary increases (necessary due to inflation) and higher benefit costs. There was no plan to implement the new programs or initiatives that are part of the blueprint.

I suppose you could argue those increases weren't necessary, but generally the moderate pay increases and maintaining benefits for MCPs staff are well-suppported in the community.

You could also argue that MCPS for years should have been cutting programs and spending. That's a perfectly valid position to hold.

But you can't claim the increases weren't necessary for the blueprint. They weren't. And you'd know that if you followed along with the budget process.

You are ignoring my main point about the political realities of MCPS asking for another tax increase after they just asked for and got one in 2023. But I know that you’re doing that on purpose.

Quit griping here. If you don't want tax increases that will be necessary to meet the many unfunded mandates from the Blueprint, first write Montgomery County state Senator Nancy King, who spearheaded the Blueprint, and then write all your state representatives, who likely voted for it.

Shouldn't the state democrats who voted to override Hogan's veto of the Blueprint for this very reason have come up with a plan on how to fund this stuff when they decided to override his veto?

Anyway, your point is well taken and I will be writing to my state legislators, but still you would think they would have had a plan when they decided to overrule Hogan's veto. Or even if they didn't have one then in 2022, they should have developed one now by 2024.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As far as I can see, foot-dragging on this is a good thing. No one from the state has explained how anyone is supposed to fund and staff this pie-in-the-sky Blueprint mandate. The 25% funding release is probably about 2% of what would actually be needed. The legislature can tell everyone all it wants to have universal pre-K and class sizes of 15 and magically include every special education student in gen ed and make them achieve a diploma. The paper that's written on, and the paper the school systems are writing to claim how they'll achieve it by making 2+2 equal 5, are worthless.

The AIB can squawk all it wants and it won't change those facts. It's unrealistic and underfunded. People have been saying this for awhile. Now it'll magically be OK if we write some plans on paper? Uh-huh.

Increased services are worth increased taxes

We already did. We just increased taxes to fund public education last year: https://dcist.com/story/23/05/25/md-montgomery-county-council-property-taxes-hike/

It is unrealistic to keep taxing the public to fund unrealistic and reckless choices that MCPS feels entitled to make.

MCPS has a lot of money. They lack competence, discipline and leadership, which more money will not and cannot fix. That’s a culture problem.

And Taylor needs to root out the cultural rot ASAP and improve results before even thinking of asking taxpayers for another red cent.

We haven't implemented the blueprint yet. Things like universal preK and smaller class sizes are worth increased taxes. Whether or not existing programs can be cut is a different issue.

But most of the budget, and most of the annual spending increases, come in the form of teacher salary and benefits. It may be possible to save some money at the margins, and that's worth attempting to do, but it isn't going to change the reality or trajectory of spending. Between being in a HCOL area and benefit costs that will continue to grow at rates exceeding inflation, teachers are always going to be expensive.

How did your reply address anything I said?

You keep saying these are worth increased taxes. I pointed out we DID increase taxes for that purpose.

Furthermore, MCPS structurally ALWAYS gets equal or MORE money to what it got the year before. We have been throwing more and more money at MCPS FOR YEARS and it has not improved the system or the outcomes. Throwing more money will not fix the severe, deep dysfunction and mismanagement that exists within MCPS.

And if you think there's no limit to the amount of tax increases you can impose on the public without serious backlash or consequence, you're living in a fool's paradise.

We didn't increase taxes to fund the blueprint because we're not yet funding the blueprint. Whoever told you otherwise is mistaken.

You must be a politician, or a lawyer, which is why you're trying to split hairs.

The 2023 increase was in fact largely to bolster and improve MCPS. You can't turn around after hitting up taxpayers in 2023 with an increase and say they need ANOTHER tax increase for schools, but this time to support the Blueprint for Maryland and think that will land well.

The average citizen does not care which bucket or funding vehicle you're citing for the increase. They're just going to bristle at continuously being asked to shoulder the cost of funding schools via tax increases repeatedly. And that ask is even more unreasonable to make given the sad, broken state of MCPS.

No, you apparently weren't paying attention. The increase went to paying for salary increases (necessary due to inflation) and higher benefit costs. There was no plan to implement the new programs or initiatives that are part of the blueprint.

I suppose you could argue those increases weren't necessary, but generally the moderate pay increases and maintaining benefits for MCPs staff are well-suppported in the community.

You could also argue that MCPS for years should have been cutting programs and spending. That's a perfectly valid position to hold.

But you can't claim the increases weren't necessary for the blueprint. They weren't. And you'd know that if you followed along with the budget process.

You are ignoring my main point about the political realities of MCPS asking for another tax increase after they just asked for and got one in 2023. But I know that you’re doing that on purpose.

Quit griping here. If you don't want tax increases that will be necessary to meet the many unfunded mandates from the Blueprint, first write Montgomery County state Senator Nancy King, who spearheaded the Blueprint, and then write all your state representatives, who likely voted for it.

NP. I'm voting with my feet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As far as I can see, foot-dragging on this is a good thing. No one from the state has explained how anyone is supposed to fund and staff this pie-in-the-sky Blueprint mandate. The 25% funding release is probably about 2% of what would actually be needed. The legislature can tell everyone all it wants to have universal pre-K and class sizes of 15 and magically include every special education student in gen ed and make them achieve a diploma. The paper that's written on, and the paper the school systems are writing to claim how they'll achieve it by making 2+2 equal 5, are worthless.

The AIB can squawk all it wants and it won't change those facts. It's unrealistic and underfunded. People have been saying this for awhile. Now it'll magically be OK if we write some plans on paper? Uh-huh.

Increased services are worth increased taxes

We already did. We just increased taxes to fund public education last year: https://dcist.com/story/23/05/25/md-montgomery-county-council-property-taxes-hike/

It is unrealistic to keep taxing the public to fund unrealistic and reckless choices that MCPS feels entitled to make.

MCPS has a lot of money. They lack competence, discipline and leadership, which more money will not and cannot fix. That’s a culture problem.

And Taylor needs to root out the cultural rot ASAP and improve results before even thinking of asking taxpayers for another red cent.

We haven't implemented the blueprint yet. Things like universal preK and smaller class sizes are worth increased taxes. Whether or not existing programs can be cut is a different issue.

But most of the budget, and most of the annual spending increases, come in the form of teacher salary and benefits. It may be possible to save some money at the margins, and that's worth attempting to do, but it isn't going to change the reality or trajectory of spending. Between being in a HCOL area and benefit costs that will continue to grow at rates exceeding inflation, teachers are always going to be expensive.

How did your reply address anything I said?

You keep saying these are worth increased taxes. I pointed out we DID increase taxes for that purpose.

Furthermore, MCPS structurally ALWAYS gets equal or MORE money to what it got the year before. We have been throwing more and more money at MCPS FOR YEARS and it has not improved the system or the outcomes. Throwing more money will not fix the severe, deep dysfunction and mismanagement that exists within MCPS.

And if you think there's no limit to the amount of tax increases you can impose on the public without serious backlash or consequence, you're living in a fool's paradise.

We didn't increase taxes to fund the blueprint because we're not yet funding the blueprint. Whoever told you otherwise is mistaken.

You must be a politician, or a lawyer, which is why you're trying to split hairs.

The 2023 increase was in fact largely to bolster and improve MCPS. You can't turn around after hitting up taxpayers in 2023 with an increase and say they need ANOTHER tax increase for schools, but this time to support the Blueprint for Maryland and think that will land well.

The average citizen does not care which bucket or funding vehicle you're citing for the increase. They're just going to bristle at continuously being asked to shoulder the cost of funding schools via tax increases repeatedly. And that ask is even more unreasonable to make given the sad, broken state of MCPS.

No, you apparently weren't paying attention. The increase went to paying for salary increases (necessary due to inflation) and higher benefit costs. There was no plan to implement the new programs or initiatives that are part of the blueprint.

I suppose you could argue those increases weren't necessary, but generally the moderate pay increases and maintaining benefits for MCPs staff are well-suppported in the community.

You could also argue that MCPS for years should have been cutting programs and spending. That's a perfectly valid position to hold.

But you can't claim the increases weren't necessary for the blueprint. They weren't. And you'd know that if you followed along with the budget process.

You are ignoring my main point about the political realities of MCPS asking for another tax increase after they just asked for and got one in 2023. But I know that you’re doing that on purpose.

Quit griping here. If you don't want tax increases that will be necessary to meet the many unfunded mandates from the Blueprint, first write Montgomery County state Senator Nancy King, who spearheaded the Blueprint, and then write all your state representatives, who likely voted for it.

Shouldn't the state democrats who voted to override Hogan's veto of the Blueprint for this very reason have come up with a plan on how to fund this stuff when they decided to override his veto?

Anyway, your point is well taken and I will be writing to my state legislators, but still you would think they would have had a plan when they decided to overrule Hogan's veto. Or even if they didn't have one then in 2022, they should have developed one now by 2024.

Why? Schools in Maryland are mostly funded at the county level, but we still have laws, regulations, and standards for schools at the state level. Why not let each county decide for themselves how they want to fund it?