All that DRAMA and now a $34M slush fund at FCPS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Well, y'all voted against the meals tax. You told FCPS what you want from the schools, and you told them that smaller class sizes were not something you wanted.

According to some, the Meals Tax failed because it appeared that the School system had sufficient funds and wasn't spending wisely. The evidence of a $34M "surplus" seems to support that view. The School Board claimed to not have the money - now it appears that they have the money - so their claim to need to increase class sizes doesn't hold water - so reduce class sizes. I don't recall anyone saying they didn't want smaller class sizes - the School Board said they would rather use limited funds to pay teachers more instead of decreasing class sizes. Now it appears they can do both.

by the way - some of us voted for the Meals Tax - about 225,000 voters - so get over your "y'all". If FCPS shows that it can manage the money it has to get what we want including smaller class sizes, than maybe more voters will consider giving more support in the future.

You need to understand the facts before you spout off about FCPS "not spending wisely." Please read from 10:29's post. I've copied it here for you. You'll need a calculator. When you're done, please come back and share how FCPS is not able to "manage the money." Please share how you're able to budget and spent your own finances within 1 percent.

The FY2017 budget was $2,665,000,000. At the end of the fiscal year on June 30, there was $33,000,000 left over. That was due to things like energy costs not being what they predicted they might be.

So let's see by what percentage of the total budget did FCPS miss the mark? Type in 33,000,000. Now hit the divide button because you're trying to figure out what part of the entire budget was not spent. Now type in 2,665,000,000.

Multiple that answer by 100. That is the percentage of the budget that FCPS has leftover and will carry forward to future budgets. That is the percentage by which FCPS missed the mark.

For those playing along at home without a calculator, the grand total is a whopping ONE PERCENT.

In layman's terms, that would be the same as if you budgeted $1000 to go on your family vacation, and at the end of the trip, you laid out all your receipts and realized you'd actually underspent by $10. TEN DOLLARS. That is ONE PERCENT of your total vacation budget that was leftover.

You are correct, as was PP, but the thread has legs because the neo-Confederates want to suggest that renaming Stuart HS will blow up the budget. Never mind that the projected cost of renaming Stuart would only be about .02% of the FY2018 budget, and less than that assuming some private donations.

I will happily vote for Karen Keys-Kamarra or any other candidate who seems to grasp math or at least has other supporters who do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they have this money why aren't the reducing class size for middle and high school? Wasn't the cut smaller than their surplus? What excuse now do they have for increasing class sizes? I don't care as much that they have a surplus, but now that one exists some of those cuts to the budget should get their funding back.

^^^ This...

And, today, they are going to vote to spend $$$ to change the name of Stuart.

And not on class size? That is ridiculous.

Well, y'all voted against the meals tax. You told FCPS what you want from the schools, and you told them that smaller class sizes were not something you wanted.

According to some, the Meals Tax failed because it appeared that the School system had sufficient funds and wasn't spending wisely. The evidence of a $34M "surplus" seems to support that view. The School Board claimed to not have the money - now it appears that they have the money - so their claim to need to increase class sizes doesn't hold water - so reduce class sizes. I don't recall anyone saying they didn't want smaller class sizes - the School Board said they would rather use limited funds to pay teachers more instead of decreasing class sizes. Now it appears they can do both.

by the way - some of us voted for the Meals Tax - about 225,000 voters - so get over your "y'all". If FCPS shows that it can manage the money it has to get what we want including smaller class sizes, than maybe more voters will consider giving more support in the future.

That's not how schools work. Taxpayers don't give them more money "when they how they can manage money better" by making school parents happier by axing this program, funding that program, etc.

Actually they do. Did you even follow this year's budget? The BOS specifically said the failure of the meals tax prompted them to not raise real estate taxes this year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Well, y'all voted against the meals tax. You told FCPS what you want from the schools, and you told them that smaller class sizes were not something you wanted.

According to some, the Meals Tax failed because it appeared that the School system had sufficient funds and wasn't spending wisely. The evidence of a $34M "surplus" seems to support that view. The School Board claimed to not have the money - now it appears that they have the money - so their claim to need to increase class sizes doesn't hold water - so reduce class sizes. I don't recall anyone saying they didn't want smaller class sizes - the School Board said they would rather use limited funds to pay teachers more instead of decreasing class sizes. Now it appears they can do both.

by the way - some of us voted for the Meals Tax - about 225,000 voters - so get over your "y'all". If FCPS shows that it can manage the money it has to get what we want including smaller class sizes, than maybe more voters will consider giving more support in the future.

You need to understand the facts before you spout off about FCPS "not spending wisely." Please read from 10:29's post. I've copied it here for you. You'll need a calculator. When you're done, please come back and share how FCPS is not able to "manage the money." Please share how you're able to budget and spent your own finances within 1 percent.

The FY2017 budget was $2,665,000,000. At the end of the fiscal year on June 30, there was $33,000,000 left over. That was due to things like energy costs not being what they predicted they might be.

So let's see by what percentage of the total budget did FCPS miss the mark? Type in 33,000,000. Now hit the divide button because you're trying to figure out what part of the entire budget was not spent. Now type in 2,665,000,000.

Multiple that answer by 100. That is the percentage of the budget that FCPS has leftover and will carry forward to future budgets. That is the percentage by which FCPS missed the mark.

For those playing along at home without a calculator, the grand total is a whopping ONE PERCENT.

In layman's terms, that would be the same as if you budgeted $1000 to go on your family vacation, and at the end of the trip, you laid out all your receipts and realized you'd actually underspent by $10. TEN DOLLARS. That is ONE PERCENT of your total vacation budget that was leftover.

You are correct, as was PP, but the thread has legs because the neo-Confederates want to suggest that renaming Stuart HS will blow up the budget. Never mind that the projected cost of renaming Stuart would only be about .02% of the FY2018 budget, and less than that assuming some private donations.

I will happily vote for Karen Keys-Kamarra or any other candidate who seems to grasp math or at least has other supporters who do.

You are not grasping math. They cut close to $23 million in general ed teacher positions. They are bring back less than $2 million for those teacher positions.

[Anonymous]

10:43 again. Sorry. It was $14.7 million that they cut from teacher positions to increase class size. Still I'm not interested in hearing about spending on name changes particularly those that only involve private funding till that money is restored.

[Anonymous]

You are correct, as was PP, but the thread has legs because the neo-Confederates want to suggest that renaming Stuart HS will blow up the budget. Never mind that the projected cost of renaming Stuart would only be about .02% of the FY2018 budget, and less than that assuming some private donations.

I will happily vote for Karen Keys-Kamarra or any other candidate who seems to grasp math or at least has other supporters who do.

Good for you. I will not vote for someone who is on record supporting the name changes of three schools. Where does it end? Wasted money is wasted money.

Have you even read the stuartfacts.com page? Especially, the allegations vs the facts? I doubt it.

[Anonymous]

I'll happily vote for someone who says "I'll consider the views of everyone in evaluating a proposed name change. One of the key indicators of community support for a name change is the ability of the proponents to raise sufficient funds to make the name change without reducing funds allocated by the County and State for the education of students. Raising sufficient funds will be a very convincing indication of the interest of a significant portion of the community to change a name and I will consider it in that light. In contrast, insufficient fund raising will be an indication that a small minority is proposing a change to the detriment of the large majority and I will likely vote against that proposal."

That person has my vote.

Ending the year with a surplus of $34M, after having claimed insufficient funds to maintain/reduce class sizes is a good reason to vote against the incumbents (note the Schultz and Wilson voted against that budget).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'll happily vote for someone who says "I'll consider the views of everyone in evaluating a proposed name change. One of the key indicators of community support for a name change is the ability of the proponents to raise sufficient funds to make the name change without reducing funds allocated by the County and State for the education of students. Raising sufficient funds will be a very convincing indication of the interest of a significant portion of the community to change a name and I will consider it in that light. In contrast, insufficient fund raising will be an indication that a small minority is proposing a change to the detriment of the large majority and I will likely vote against that proposal."

That person has my vote.

Ending the year with a surplus of $34M, after having claimed insufficient funds to maintain/reduce class sizes is a good reason to vote against the incumbents (note the Schultz and Wilson voted against that budget).

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'll happily vote for someone who says "I'll consider the views of everyone in evaluating a proposed name change. One of the key indicators of community support for a name change is the ability of the proponents to raise sufficient funds to make the name change without reducing funds allocated by the County and State for the education of students. Raising sufficient funds will be a very convincing indication of the interest of a significant portion of the community to change a name and I will consider it in that light. In contrast, insufficient fund raising will be an indication that a small minority is proposing a change to the detriment of the large majority and I will likely vote against that proposal."

That person has my vote.

Ending the year with a surplus of $34M, after having claimed insufficient funds to maintain/reduce class sizes is a good reason to vote against the incumbents (note the Schultz and Wilson voted against that budget).

Well, they started out the year with a surplus of $32m from the year prior, so really they only ended up $2m ahead. That seems like pretty good budgeting to me, not bad budgeting.

[Anonymous]

12:08 So you think spending on a name change is more important than restoring the teacher positions that are being eliminated at that same school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll happily vote for someone who says "I'll consider the views of everyone in evaluating a proposed name change. One of the key indicators of community support for a name change is the ability of the proponents to raise sufficient funds to make the name change without reducing funds allocated by the County and State for the education of students. Raising sufficient funds will be a very convincing indication of the interest of a significant portion of the community to change a name and I will consider it in that light. In contrast, insufficient fund raising will be an indication that a small minority is proposing a change to the detriment of the large majority and I will likely vote against that proposal."

That person has my vote.

Ending the year with a surplus of $34M, after having claimed insufficient funds to maintain/reduce class sizes is a good reason to vote against the incumbents (note the Schultz and Wilson voted against that budget).

Well, they started out the year with a surplus of $32m from the year prior, so really they only ended up $2m ahead. That seems like pretty good budgeting to me, not bad budgeting.

STOP MAKING SENSE PP! Stop using math correctly! It messes with the narrative that OP and others have created to support their theory that someone is always swindling them and that running a 3 billion dollar budget school system is simple. Kinda reminds me of a government leader who thinks fixing healthcare, which is 1/6 of our economy, is an easy task that can be done in a few weeks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:12:08 So you think spending on a name change is more important than restoring the teacher positions that are being eliminated at that same school?

If the students feel that strongly about it, and given the history of Stuart himself and the timing of the decision to name the HS that, it's very possible that they do, then I'm not going to tell them no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:12:08 So you think spending on a name change is more important than restoring the teacher positions that are being eliminated at that same school?

If the students feel that strongly about it, and given the history of Stuart himself and the timing of the decision to name the HS that, it's very possible that they do, then I'm not going to tell them no.

What about the students and parents that want teachers instead? Or the fact that the school board isn't even looking into private money for this change? How strongly can they really be about it if they aren't willing to raise any funds?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:12:08 So you think spending on a name change is more important than restoring the teacher positions that are being eliminated at that same school?

If the students feel that strongly about it, and given the history of Stuart himself and the timing of the decision to name the HS that, it's very possible that they do, then I'm not going to tell them no.

+1000.

The people lobbying against the name change didn't say anything about teacher salaries when money was being spent on turf fields around the county. And that was before the last round of teacher raises. Few of them supported the meals tax, either.

But they are more than happy to put a price tag on correcting a social injustice and expect others to foot the bill.

They'd have more credibility if their "Stuart Facts" site wasn't such an obvious compilation of "Lost Cause" myths. They are very much in the tradition of those who claimed we couldn't afford to desegregate the schools, couldn't afford to educate black kids, and couldn't afford to abolish slavery - after all the Southern economy depended on it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:12:08 So you think spending on a name change is more important than restoring the teacher positions that are being eliminated at that same school?

If the students feel that strongly about it, and given the history of Stuart himself and the timing of the decision to name the HS that, it's very possible that they do, then I'm not going to tell them no.

What about the students and parents that want teachers instead? Or the fact that the school board isn't even looking into private money for this change? How strongly can they really be about it if they aren't willing to raise any funds?

How is it a "fact" that the School Board isn't looking into private money? One of the working groups set up months ago was asked to identify funding mechanisms, but not to raise money yet.

It seems they ought to determine, as a matter of principle, that the current name is inappropriate. Then they can explore ways to offset the cost.

No one believes for a second that FCPS would name a school after a Confederate general today, and the name is an albatross across the neck of FCPS. Time to get rid of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:12:08 So you think spending on a name change is more important than restoring the teacher positions that are being eliminated at that same school?

If the students feel that strongly about it, and given the history of Stuart himself and the timing of the decision to name the HS that, it's very possible that they do, then I'm not going to tell them no.

What about the students and parents that want teachers instead? Or the fact that the school board isn't even looking into private money for this change? How strongly can they really be about it if they aren't willing to raise any funds?

Is that even an option? I know some districts are happy to allow rich parents or wealthy PTAs to provide funds for school services including paying for additional teachers, but that's prohibited in FCPS, rightly IMO.