Dec 18th: FY 2026 Recommended Operating Budget

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many teachers and paras are locked in by pension and health care. There is a huge penalty if you retire early. Heck you aren’t even eligible for anything in the pension system unless you have been in Maryland for 10 years working full time.

Every staff member I know plans to leave at full retirement age. For many it is around 60 or so. Younger teachers have to work 5 years longer than that and get a smaller pension.

I know one teacher staying longer. They say they need the money to take care of adult children. But they are basically working at half the pay rate now since they are pushing off collecting the pension.

FYI, teachers put in 7.5% of our salaries into the pension. It’s not some sort of free benefit or something. Teacher submissions account for about 75% of teacher pensions paid out. The counties and state cover the rest. It’s only about 50% of the final salary. It will be less for younger teachers eventually.

This is not true. You can't fund 50% of final salaries for life with 7.5% contributions. My guess is you moved the decimal point over.

No, she flipped the teacher share versus the state/local share. The state/local share covers >75%.

Thanks! That definitely did not look right.

Looking into this a bit more, I think the previous poster made a different mistake when she claimed 75% of pension payments came from teacher payments.

I think she was misinterpreting that the pension system as a whole is only about 75% after including employer/employee contributions and investment income.

Ultimately the state will need to make up the difference.

But no, the 7.5% that teachers pay certainly doesn't cover 75% of costs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many teachers and paras are locked in by pension and health care. There is a huge penalty if you retire early. Heck you aren’t even eligible for anything in the pension system unless you have been in Maryland for 10 years working full time.

Every staff member I know plans to leave at full retirement age. For many it is around 60 or so. Younger teachers have to work 5 years longer than that and get a smaller pension.

I know one teacher staying longer. They say they need the money to take care of adult children. But they are basically working at half the pay rate now since they are pushing off collecting the pension.

FYI, teachers put in 7.5% of our salaries into the pension. It’s not some sort of free benefit or something. Teacher submissions account for about 75% of teacher pensions paid out. The counties and state cover the rest. It’s only about 50% of the final salary. It will be less for younger teachers eventually.

Paras make minimum wage and don’t often get benefits.

Then clearly this isn’t a job that can be worked by people who don’t have a higher earning spouse or a couple roommates.

There is the way we want things to be and then there is reality. If you want things to be different then you do the advocacy work with the people who can make the changes (county council, state politicians, federal politicians, MCEA, etc) and in the meantime you make plans for reality.

Like many private sector workers who have moved jobs and occasionally states for better salaries and who put away 15-20% of their income for retirement because they don’t have a pension.

You really are talking out of the air because MCEA isn't going to help. No, not all have high income spouses. There is a reason why we don't have enough para's/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many teachers and paras are locked in by pension and health care. There is a huge penalty if you retire early. Heck you aren’t even eligible for anything in the pension system unless you have been in Maryland for 10 years working full time.

Every staff member I know plans to leave at full retirement age. For many it is around 60 or so. Younger teachers have to work 5 years longer than that and get a smaller pension.

I know one teacher staying longer. They say they need the money to take care of adult children. But they are basically working at half the pay rate now since they are pushing off collecting the pension.

FYI, teachers put in 7.5% of our salaries into the pension. It’s not some sort of free benefit or something. Teacher submissions account for about 75% of teacher pensions paid out. The counties and state cover the rest. It’s only about 50% of the final salary. It will be less for younger teachers eventually.

Paras make minimum wage and don’t often get benefits.

Then clearly this isn’t a job that can be worked by people who don’t have a higher earning spouse or a couple roommates.

There is the way we want things to be and then there is reality. If you want things to be different then you do the advocacy work with the people who can make the changes (county council, state politicians, federal politicians, MCEA, etc) and in the meantime you make plans for reality.

Like many private sector workers who have moved jobs and occasionally states for better salaries and who put away 15-20% of their income for retirement because they don’t have a pension.

While I certainly don’t think the pay is acceptable, I do know a paraeducator who is single. They pay is still slightly better than child care centers, and the benefits are much better if you can get one of those positions.

Unfortunately, the para positions assigned to kids with special needs and behavioral problems generally don’t get benefits. As a result, there’s high turnover and staff quality varies wildly. The first priority should be extending benefits to all para positions.

Since this thread is about the presented budget, the first step should be CO/Superintendent explaining what the 688 requested Special Ed positions are to be, along with explanation of the cost analysis done to determine if a position should be salary only/salary +benefits and the necessary salary benchmarking.

I disagree, although mostly because the tone of your post suggests a inappropriate level of micromanagement. Though it's certainly reasonable to expect a breakdown of positions and a description of why they're needed. But you seemed to be expecting much more time, effort, and formality, by both MCPS and the Board. e.g., you seeemed to be suggesting a compensation study for these positions separate from the policies and practices for existing special education positions.

More generally, the Board micromanaging foundation positions like these is not going to be productive. They'd be at the mercy of central admin staff for the accuracy of the justification, so there's no way to avoid deferring to admin's judgement on the details.

But there are broader issues that should be raised. 688 positions, depending on how they're being counted and what they might he replacing, is a lot. If they're needed, and I highly doubt anyone with insight into the current state of MCPS special education programs would question whether they are, the major issue should be what structural, institutional, or procedural failure led to this getting so bad?

And while I think it would be a waste of time to a special compensation study solely for these new positions, there does seem to be a need to do that for paraeducators more generally, including MCPS's practices for staffing and determining which positions receive benefits (and how well that plays out in practice).

When 688 positions are requested in this financial climate and morale climate, a reasonable business person ask not only why and what purpose they serve, but also what is being offered that would see them likely be filled. That later means understanding what the standard employment package has been vs what is to be offered or marketed in these positions to entice people to apply and accept. And whether you believe it or not, in order to gain some trust MCPS and the BOE should be prepared to deliver this level of scrutiny (micromanagement). Given what I’ve seen of their presentations to the BoE and I’d go so far as to say it’s actually needed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many teachers and paras are locked in by pension and health care. There is a huge penalty if you retire early. Heck you aren’t even eligible for anything in the pension system unless you have been in Maryland for 10 years working full time.

Every staff member I know plans to leave at full retirement age. For many it is around 60 or so. Younger teachers have to work 5 years longer than that and get a smaller pension.

I know one teacher staying longer. They say they need the money to take care of adult children. But they are basically working at half the pay rate now since they are pushing off collecting the pension.

FYI, teachers put in 7.5% of our salaries into the pension. It’s not some sort of free benefit or something. Teacher submissions account for about 75% of teacher pensions paid out. The counties and state cover the rest. It’s only about 50% of the final salary. It will be less for younger teachers eventually.

Paras make minimum wage and don’t often get benefits.

Then clearly this isn’t a job that can be worked by people who don’t have a higher earning spouse or a couple roommates.

There is the way we want things to be and then there is reality. If you want things to be different then you do the advocacy work with the people who can make the changes (county council, state politicians, federal politicians, MCEA, etc) and in the meantime you make plans for reality.

Like many private sector workers who have moved jobs and occasionally states for better salaries and who put away 15-20% of their income for retirement because they don’t have a pension.

You really are talking out of the air because MCEA isn't going to help. No, not all have high income spouses. There is a reason why we don't have enough para's/

The point you seem to be missing is that no one is locked in. Everyone is free to leave, but chooses to stay for whatever their reason. That doesn’t change the fact that the pension system is costly. Should everyone in the school district be offered the pension? That question is debatable. Should the current pension system continue or be dissolved, employees given a pay raise and then save on their own like most other employees? Again debatable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many teachers and paras are locked in by pension and health care. There is a huge penalty if you retire early. Heck you aren’t even eligible for anything in the pension system unless you have been in Maryland for 10 years working full time.

Every staff member I know plans to leave at full retirement age. For many it is around 60 or so. Younger teachers have to work 5 years longer than that and get a smaller pension.

I know one teacher staying longer. They say they need the money to take care of adult children. But they are basically working at half the pay rate now since they are pushing off collecting the pension.

FYI, teachers put in 7.5% of our salaries into the pension. It’s not some sort of free benefit or something. Teacher submissions account for about 75% of teacher pensions paid out. The counties and state cover the rest. It’s only about 50% of the final salary. It will be less for younger teachers eventually.

Paras make minimum wage and don’t often get benefits.

Then clearly this isn’t a job that can be worked by people who don’t have a higher earning spouse or a couple roommates.

There is the way we want things to be and then there is reality. If you want things to be different then you do the advocacy work with the people who can make the changes (county council, state politicians, federal politicians, MCEA, etc) and in the meantime you make plans for reality.

Like many private sector workers who have moved jobs and occasionally states for better salaries and who put away 15-20% of their income for retirement because they don’t have a pension.

You really are talking out of the air because MCEA isn't going to help. No, not all have high income spouses. There is a reason why we don't have enough para's/

The point you seem to be missing is that no one is locked in. Everyone is free to leave, but chooses to stay for whatever their reason. That doesn’t change the fact that the pension system is costly. Should everyone in the school district be offered the pension? That question is debatable. Should the current pension system continue or be dissolved, employees given a pay raise and then save on their own like most other employees? Again debatable.

It would make sense to phase out the pension system with new employees but reality is they need something to keep teachers. Many do leave after a few years. Are you willing to replace them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many teachers and paras are locked in by pension and health care. There is a huge penalty if you retire early. Heck you aren’t even eligible for anything in the pension system unless you have been in Maryland for 10 years working full time.

Every staff member I know plans to leave at full retirement age. For many it is around 60 or so. Younger teachers have to work 5 years longer than that and get a smaller pension.

I know one teacher staying longer. They say they need the money to take care of adult children. But they are basically working at half the pay rate now since they are pushing off collecting the pension.

FYI, teachers put in 7.5% of our salaries into the pension. It’s not some sort of free benefit or something. Teacher submissions account for about 75% of teacher pensions paid out. The counties and state cover the rest. It’s only about 50% of the final salary. It will be less for younger teachers eventually.

Paras make minimum wage and don’t often get benefits.

Then clearly this isn’t a job that can be worked by people who don’t have a higher earning spouse or a couple roommates.

There is the way we want things to be and then there is reality. If you want things to be different then you do the advocacy work with the people who can make the changes (county council, state politicians, federal politicians, MCEA, etc) and in the meantime you make plans for reality.

Like many private sector workers who have moved jobs and occasionally states for better salaries and who put away 15-20% of their income for retirement because they don’t have a pension.

While I certainly don’t think the pay is acceptable, I do know a paraeducator who is single. They pay is still slightly better than child care centers, and the benefits are much better if you can get one of those positions.

Unfortunately, the para positions assigned to kids with special needs and behavioral problems generally don’t get benefits. As a result, there’s high turnover and staff quality varies wildly. The first priority should be extending benefits to all para positions.

Since this thread is about the presented budget, the first step should be CO/Superintendent explaining what the 688 requested Special Ed positions are to be, along with explanation of the cost analysis done to determine if a position should be salary only/salary +benefits and the necessary salary benchmarking.

I disagree, although mostly because the tone of your post suggests a inappropriate level of micromanagement. Though it's certainly reasonable to expect a breakdown of positions and a description of why they're needed. But you seemed to be expecting much more time, effort, and formality, by both MCPS and the Board. e.g., you seeemed to be suggesting a compensation study for these positions separate from the policies and practices for existing special education positions.

More generally, the Board micromanaging foundation positions like these is not going to be productive. They'd be at the mercy of central admin staff for the accuracy of the justification, so there's no way to avoid deferring to admin's judgement on the details.

But there are broader issues that should be raised. 688 positions, depending on how they're being counted and what they might he replacing, is a lot. If they're needed, and I highly doubt anyone with insight into the current state of MCPS special education programs would question whether they are, the major issue should be what structural, institutional, or procedural failure led to this getting so bad?

And while I think it would be a waste of time to a special compensation study solely for these new positions, there does seem to be a need to do that for paraeducators more generally, including MCPS's practices for staffing and determining which positions receive benefits (and how well that plays out in practice).

When 688 positions are requested in this financial climate and morale climate, a reasonable business person ask not only why and what purpose they serve, but also what is being offered that would see them likely be filled. That later means understanding what the standard employment package has been vs what is to be offered or marketed in these positions to entice people to apply and accept. And whether you believe it or not, in order to gain some trust MCPS and the BOE should be prepared to deliver this level of scrutiny (micromanagement). Given what I’ve seen of their presentations to the BoE and I’d go so far as to say it’s actually needed.

You know pay, benefits, and even wage studies are governed by the CBAs, right? They're not doing something special. They can't. Yes, this is an important issue, but its a longer-term issue than can be addressed within the budget request.

And even if it could be done, what you're suggesting would be ridiculous in the corporate world. Do you think a corporate Board of Directors would do what you're proposing? No, because it would be pointless. If you don't trust the day-to-day leadership, you're not going to be able to trust what they tell you. But without them, you can't reliably get the data and do the analysis that would necessary to make any sort of informed decison.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many teachers and paras are locked in by pension and health care. There is a huge penalty if you retire early. Heck you aren’t even eligible for anything in the pension system unless you have been in Maryland for 10 years working full time.

Every staff member I know plans to leave at full retirement age. For many it is around 60 or so. Younger teachers have to work 5 years longer than that and get a smaller pension.

I know one teacher staying longer. They say they need the money to take care of adult children. But they are basically working at half the pay rate now since they are pushing off collecting the pension.

FYI, teachers put in 7.5% of our salaries into the pension. It’s not some sort of free benefit or something. Teacher submissions account for about 75% of teacher pensions paid out. The counties and state cover the rest. It’s only about 50% of the final salary. It will be less for younger teachers eventually.

Paras make minimum wage and don’t often get benefits.

Then clearly this isn’t a job that can be worked by people who don’t have a higher earning spouse or a couple roommates.

There is the way we want things to be and then there is reality. If you want things to be different then you do the advocacy work with the people who can make the changes (county council, state politicians, federal politicians, MCEA, etc) and in the meantime you make plans for reality.

Like many private sector workers who have moved jobs and occasionally states for better salaries and who put away 15-20% of their income for retirement because they don’t have a pension.

While I certainly don’t think the pay is acceptable, I do know a paraeducator who is single. They pay is still slightly better than child care centers, and the benefits are much better if you can get one of those positions.

Unfortunately, the para positions assigned to kids with special needs and behavioral problems generally don’t get benefits. As a result, there’s high turnover and staff quality varies wildly. The first priority should be extending benefits to all para positions.

Since this thread is about the presented budget, the first step should be CO/Superintendent explaining what the 688 requested Special Ed positions are to be, along with explanation of the cost analysis done to determine if a position should be salary only/salary +benefits and the necessary salary benchmarking.

I disagree, although mostly because the tone of your post suggests a inappropriate level of micromanagement. Though it's certainly reasonable to expect a breakdown of positions and a description of why they're needed. But you seemed to be expecting much more time, effort, and formality, by both MCPS and the Board. e.g., you seeemed to be suggesting a compensation study for these positions separate from the policies and practices for existing special education positions.

More generally, the Board micromanaging foundation positions like these is not going to be productive. They'd be at the mercy of central admin staff for the accuracy of the justification, so there's no way to avoid deferring to admin's judgement on the details.

But there are broader issues that should be raised. 688 positions, depending on how they're being counted and what they might he replacing, is a lot. If they're needed, and I highly doubt anyone with insight into the current state of MCPS special education programs would question whether they are, the major issue should be what structural, institutional, or procedural failure led to this getting so bad?

And while I think it would be a waste of time to a special compensation study solely for these new positions, there does seem to be a need to do that for paraeducators more generally, including MCPS's practices for staffing and determining which positions receive benefits (and how well that plays out in practice).

When 688 positions are requested in this financial climate and morale climate, a reasonable business person ask not only why and what purpose they serve, but also what is being offered that would see them likely be filled. That later means understanding what the standard employment package has been vs what is to be offered or marketed in these positions to entice people to apply and accept. And whether you believe it or not, in order to gain some trust MCPS and the BOE should be prepared to deliver this level of scrutiny (micromanagement). Given what I’ve seen of their presentations to the BoE and I’d go so far as to say it’s actually needed.

You know pay, benefits, and even wage studies are governed by the CBAs, right? They're not doing something special. They can't. Yes, this is an important issue, but its a longer-term issue than can be addressed within the budget request.

And even if it could be done, what you're suggesting would be ridiculous in the corporate world. Do you think a corporate Board of Directors would do what you're proposing? No, because it would be pointless. If you don't trust the day-to-day leadership, you're not going to be able to trust what they tell you. But without them, you can't reliably get the data and do the analysis that would necessary to make any sort of informed decison.

Almost all the Chief positions are open for application right now🙂. MCPS has had several scandals in recents years, has gone though multiple Supers, dealt with a humiliating IG report, and is still in the midst of the bus contract problem. Needing to provide specifics around these 688 Special Education positions should be expected by everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many teachers and paras are locked in by pension and health care. There is a huge penalty if you retire early. Heck you aren’t even eligible for anything in the pension system unless you have been in Maryland for 10 years working full time.

Every staff member I know plans to leave at full retirement age. For many it is around 60 or so. Younger teachers have to work 5 years longer than that and get a smaller pension.

I know one teacher staying longer. They say they need the money to take care of adult children. But they are basically working at half the pay rate now since they are pushing off collecting the pension.

FYI, teachers put in 7.5% of our salaries into the pension. It’s not some sort of free benefit or something. Teacher submissions account for about 75% of teacher pensions paid out. The counties and state cover the rest. It’s only about 50% of the final salary. It will be less for younger teachers eventually.

Paras make minimum wage and don’t often get benefits.

Then clearly this isn’t a job that can be worked by people who don’t have a higher earning spouse or a couple roommates.

There is the way we want things to be and then there is reality. If you want things to be different then you do the advocacy work with the people who can make the changes (county council, state politicians, federal politicians, MCEA, etc) and in the meantime you make plans for reality.

Like many private sector workers who have moved jobs and occasionally states for better salaries and who put away 15-20% of their income for retirement because they don’t have a pension.

While I certainly don’t think the pay is acceptable, I do know a paraeducator who is single. They pay is still slightly better than child care centers, and the benefits are much better if you can get one of those positions.

Unfortunately, the para positions assigned to kids with special needs and behavioral problems generally don’t get benefits. As a result, there’s high turnover and staff quality varies wildly. The first priority should be extending benefits to all para positions.

Since this thread is about the presented budget, the first step should be CO/Superintendent explaining what the 688 requested Special Ed positions are to be, along with explanation of the cost analysis done to determine if a position should be salary only/salary +benefits and the necessary salary benchmarking.

I disagree, although mostly because the tone of your post suggests a inappropriate level of micromanagement. Though it's certainly reasonable to expect a breakdown of positions and a description of why they're needed. But you seemed to be expecting much more time, effort, and formality, by both MCPS and the Board. e.g., you seeemed to be suggesting a compensation study for these positions separate from the policies and practices for existing special education positions.

More generally, the Board micromanaging foundation positions like these is not going to be productive. They'd be at the mercy of central admin staff for the accuracy of the justification, so there's no way to avoid deferring to admin's judgement on the details.

But there are broader issues that should be raised. 688 positions, depending on how they're being counted and what they might he replacing, is a lot. If they're needed, and I highly doubt anyone with insight into the current state of MCPS special education programs would question whether they are, the major issue should be what structural, institutional, or procedural failure led to this getting so bad?

And while I think it would be a waste of time to a special compensation study solely for these new positions, there does seem to be a need to do that for paraeducators more generally, including MCPS's practices for staffing and determining which positions receive benefits (and how well that plays out in practice).

When 688 positions are requested in this financial climate and morale climate, a reasonable business person ask not only why and what purpose they serve, but also what is being offered that would see them likely be filled. That later means understanding what the standard employment package has been vs what is to be offered or marketed in these positions to entice people to apply and accept. And whether you believe it or not, in order to gain some trust MCPS and the BOE should be prepared to deliver this level of scrutiny (micromanagement). Given what I’ve seen of their presentations to the BoE and I’d go so far as to say it’s actually needed.

You know pay, benefits, and even wage studies are governed by the CBAs, right? They're not doing something special. They can't. Yes, this is an important issue, but its a longer-term issue than can be addressed within the budget request.

And even if it could be done, what you're suggesting would be ridiculous in the corporate world. Do you think a corporate Board of Directors would do what you're proposing? No, because it would be pointless. If you don't trust the day-to-day leadership, you're not going to be able to trust what they tell you. But without them, you can't reliably get the data and do the analysis that would necessary to make any sort of informed decison.

Almost all the Chief positions are open for application right now🙂. MCPS has had several scandals in recents years, has gone though multiple Supers, dealt with a humiliating IG report, and is still in the midst of the bus contract problem. Needing to provide specifics around these 688 Special Education positions should be expected by everyone.

Let’s go one step further, can you imagine going to your boss and saying, I’d like 688 positions and millions allocated for this, but aside from department I have zero idea what category positions will be allocated to, what total compensation package will be for a given role, nor if a bonus or other special benefit will be needed despite knowing these are currently hard to recruit positions and knowing we are facing a potential budget crunch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many teachers and paras are locked in by pension and health care. There is a huge penalty if you retire early. Heck you aren’t even eligible for anything in the pension system unless you have been in Maryland for 10 years working full time.

Every staff member I know plans to leave at full retirement age. For many it is around 60 or so. Younger teachers have to work 5 years longer than that and get a smaller pension.

I know one teacher staying longer. They say they need the money to take care of adult children. But they are basically working at half the pay rate now since they are pushing off collecting the pension.

FYI, teachers put in 7.5% of our salaries into the pension. It’s not some sort of free benefit or something. Teacher submissions account for about 75% of teacher pensions paid out. The counties and state cover the rest. It’s only about 50% of the final salary. It will be less for younger teachers eventually.

Paras make minimum wage and don’t often get benefits.

Then clearly this isn’t a job that can be worked by people who don’t have a higher earning spouse or a couple roommates.

There is the way we want things to be and then there is reality. If you want things to be different then you do the advocacy work with the people who can make the changes (county council, state politicians, federal politicians, MCEA, etc) and in the meantime you make plans for reality.

Like many private sector workers who have moved jobs and occasionally states for better salaries and who put away 15-20% of their income for retirement because they don’t have a pension.

While I certainly don’t think the pay is acceptable, I do know a paraeducator who is single. They pay is still slightly better than child care centers, and the benefits are much better if you can get one of those positions.

Unfortunately, the para positions assigned to kids with special needs and behavioral problems generally don’t get benefits. As a result, there’s high turnover and staff quality varies wildly. The first priority should be extending benefits to all para positions.

Since this thread is about the presented budget, the first step should be CO/Superintendent explaining what the 688 requested Special Ed positions are to be, along with explanation of the cost analysis done to determine if a position should be salary only/salary +benefits and the necessary salary benchmarking.

I disagree, although mostly because the tone of your post suggests a inappropriate level of micromanagement. Though it's certainly reasonable to expect a breakdown of positions and a description of why they're needed. But you seemed to be expecting much more time, effort, and formality, by both MCPS and the Board. e.g., you seeemed to be suggesting a compensation study for these positions separate from the policies and practices for existing special education positions.

More generally, the Board micromanaging foundation positions like these is not going to be productive. They'd be at the mercy of central admin staff for the accuracy of the justification, so there's no way to avoid deferring to admin's judgement on the details.

But there are broader issues that should be raised. 688 positions, depending on how they're being counted and what they might he replacing, is a lot. If they're needed, and I highly doubt anyone with insight into the current state of MCPS special education programs would question whether they are, the major issue should be what structural, institutional, or procedural failure led to this getting so bad?

And while I think it would be a waste of time to a special compensation study solely for these new positions, there does seem to be a need to do that for paraeducators more generally, including MCPS's practices for staffing and determining which positions receive benefits (and how well that plays out in practice).

When 688 positions are requested in this financial climate and morale climate, a reasonable business person ask not only why and what purpose they serve, but also what is being offered that would see them likely be filled. That later means understanding what the standard employment package has been vs what is to be offered or marketed in these positions to entice people to apply and accept. And whether you believe it or not, in order to gain some trust MCPS and the BOE should be prepared to deliver this level of scrutiny (micromanagement). Given what I’ve seen of their presentations to the BoE and I’d go so far as to say it’s actually needed.

You know pay, benefits, and even wage studies are governed by the CBAs, right? They're not doing something special. They can't. Yes, this is an important issue, but its a longer-term issue than can be addressed within the budget request.

And even if it could be done, what you're suggesting would be ridiculous in the corporate world. Do you think a corporate Board of Directors would do what you're proposing? No, because it would be pointless. If you don't trust the day-to-day leadership, you're not going to be able to trust what they tell you. But without them, you can't reliably get the data and do the analysis that would necessary to make any sort of informed decison.

Almost all the Chief positions are open for application right now🙂. MCPS has had several scandals in recents years, has gone though multiple Supers, dealt with a humiliating IG report, and is still in the midst of the bus contract problem. Needing to provide specifics around these 688 Special Education positions should be expected by everyone.

Let’s go one step further, can you imagine going to your boss and saying, I’d like 688 positions and millions allocated for this, but aside from department I have zero idea what category positions will be allocated to, what total compensation package will be for a given role, nor if a bonus or other special benefit will be needed despite knowing these are currently hard to recruit positions and knowing we are facing a potential budget crunch.

It sounds like you didn't bother to look at the Special Education budget. The positions are listed.

Compensation is governed by the CBA already. You can look up those terms yourself, too.

[Anonymous]

Where in the budget are they listed? I didn’t see anything specific - meaning broken down into which programs and which level (ES, MS, HS, or special program). The budget did not look specific to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where in the budget are they listed? I didn’t see anything specific - meaning broken down into which programs and which level (ES, MS, HS, or special program). The budget did not look specific to me.

It provides the breakdown for SPED teachers and paraeducators. But true, it doesn't break things down by grade level (although it does break out special programs). I'm not sure what you think you or the Board would be able to do with that information.

Can you imagine a private corporation with 25,000 employees going to their Board of Directors to approve each new position description? Or a federal agency having to their oversight committee?

[Anonymous]

They also don't list what grades teacher positions will be assigned to. Or the specific schools. Why aren't you complaining about that? You seem to have some ulterior motive for making it especially difficult to add SPED positions, which is quite odd given the state of special education in MCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where in the budget are they listed? I didn’t see anything specific - meaning broken down into which programs and which level (ES, MS, HS, or special program). The budget did not look specific to me.

Many SPED positions, especially paras legally needed for one to one, follow student needs. If a school has incoming SPED students whose IEP calls for 1 to 1 para support, the para is needed at that school at that grade. Right now there are so few paras that this legal need is not being met. MCPS is dodging being sued by stating they are trying and unable to fill these legally required positions and so should not be liable. But, this excuse will only last so many years. Please ask questions about this on the SPED forum if you are unfamiliar with the issue, it is shameful.

Instead of just thinking of SPED classrooms and programs, where yes the need for a certain number of teachers and paras is linked to school/grade, think of mainstreamed SPED kids who are in regular classes for either all or a part of their day. This is where the bulk of the para hires are needed. If you think of the number of schools in MCPS then the number of hires is actually low. And again, currently SPED kids whose IEPs (legally required accommodations) call for 1 to 1 para support, are going without and the excuse provided being no paras are available despite MCPS hiring for these positions. So, yes something needs to be done to attract staff to these legally required positions.

Also, currently MCPS is having trouble staffing with SPED teachers its programs and is having to pay for expensive outsourcing to private schools. Part of the issue at MCPS is retention. Having more paras in the SPED classrooms to support teachers would lower the burden on SPED teachers. Again please go on SPED forums to see the extent of this issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where in the budget are they listed? I didn’t see anything specific - meaning broken down into which programs and which level (ES, MS, HS, or special program). The budget did not look specific to me.

Many SPED positions, especially paras legally needed for one to one, follow student needs. If a school has incoming SPED students whose IEP calls for 1 to 1 para support, the para is needed at that school at that grade. Right now there are so few paras that this legal need is not being met. MCPS is dodging being sued by stating they are trying and unable to fill these legally required positions and so should not be liable. But, this excuse will only last so many years. Please ask questions about this on the SPED forum if you are unfamiliar with the issue, it is shameful.

Instead of just thinking of SPED classrooms and programs, where yes the need for a certain number of teachers and paras is linked to school/grade, think of mainstreamed SPED kids who are in regular classes for either all or a part of their day. This is where the bulk of the para hires are needed. If you think of the number of schools in MCPS then the number of hires is actually low. And again, currently SPED kids whose IEPs (legally required accommodations) call for 1 to 1 para support, are going without and the excuse provided being no paras are available despite MCPS hiring for these positions. So, yes something needs to be done to attract staff to these legally required positions.

Also, currently MCPS is having trouble staffing with SPED teachers its programs and is having to pay for expensive outsourcing to private schools. Part of the issue at MCPS is retention. Having more paras in the SPED classrooms to support teachers would lower the burden on SPED teachers. Again please go on SPED forums to see the extent of this issue.

Thank you!!! This is exactly my point. MCPS might well and truly need 688 SPED positions. And I doubt most people disagree. What folks are saying is that given realities, MCPS at this point should be REALLY prepared to discuss the who, what, why, and how of their budget request, especially for this section because the number of positions requested is so large and SPED is being given particular focus. (ex: we have a current backlog of 100 students needing a 1-1 paras. We’ve been trying for 2 years to recruit these positions at X salary. We’ve contracted out for X number at X rate which comes out to be X dollars more or less than if the person was employee by MCPS. Our previous recruitment hasn’t been successful, so in this budget and with our association partners we have added a signing bonus of x dollars and are positioning this positions to have a lesser case load. Ideally if we hire even X number that would allow for SPEd teacher to have X less students and X more minutes back for planning.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where in the budget are they listed? I didn’t see anything specific - meaning broken down into which programs and which level (ES, MS, HS, or special program). The budget did not look specific to me.

Many SPED positions, especially paras legally needed for one to one, follow student needs. If a school has incoming SPED students whose IEP calls for 1 to 1 para support, the para is needed at that school at that grade. Right now there are so few paras that this legal need is not being met. MCPS is dodging being sued by stating they are trying and unable to fill these legally required positions and so should not be liable. But, this excuse will only last so many years. Please ask questions about this on the SPED forum if you are unfamiliar with the issue, it is shameful.

Instead of just thinking of SPED classrooms and programs, where yes the need for a certain number of teachers and paras is linked to school/grade, think of mainstreamed SPED kids who are in regular classes for either all or a part of their day. This is where the bulk of the para hires are needed. If you think of the number of schools in MCPS then the number of hires is actually low. And again, currently SPED kids whose IEPs (legally required accommodations) call for 1 to 1 para support, are going without and the excuse provided being no paras are available despite MCPS hiring for these positions. So, yes something needs to be done to attract staff to these legally required positions.

Also, currently MCPS is having trouble staffing with SPED teachers its programs and is having to pay for expensive outsourcing to private schools. Part of the issue at MCPS is retention. Having more paras in the SPED classrooms to support teachers would lower the burden on SPED teachers. Again please go on SPED forums to see the extent of this issue.

Thank you!!! This is exactly my point. MCPS might well and truly need 688 SPED positions. And I doubt most people disagree. What folks are saying is that given realities, MCPS at this point should be REALLY prepared to discuss the who, what, why, and how of their budget request, especially for this section because the number of positions requested is so large and SPED is being given particular focus. (ex: we have a current backlog of 100 students needing a 1-1 paras. We’ve been trying for 2 years to recruit these positions at X salary. We’ve contracted out for X number at X rate which comes out to be X dollars more or less than if the person was employee by MCPS. Our previous recruitment hasn’t been successful, so in this budget and with our association partners we have added a signing bonus of x dollars and are positioning this positions to have a lesser case load. Ideally if we hire even X number that would allow for SPEd teacher to have X less students and X more minutes back for planning.)

1:1 paraeducators (mostly) aren't funded this way. They're considered temporary employees. There are different line items these come from.

Some the positions are going into special education programs, but most seem to be going to support the home school model. Roughly speaking, MCPS groups kids with IEPs into a couple classrooms per grade, and then staffs the room with one or two paraeducators based on grade level and classroom needs.

Those aren't 1:1s. They serve everyone with IEPs into the class. And when an IEP says a student will receive, say, 10 hours a week of specialized instruction or support from a paraeducator, that's 10 hours from a shared paraeducator that is simultaneously supporting 10+ kids in the room.

There are FTEs set aside for a base level of those kinds of positions. If the school finds that a room needs more support and don't someone to internally reallocate, then they need to put in a critical staffing request for a part-time/temp paraeducator. You can see them shifting some money from that pot into the FTE pot (look at the decrease in "Supporting Services Part Time".

1:1s mostly get handled through critical staffing, too. MCPS generally won't agree to put a 1:1 into an IEP explicitly. They'll put in hours and hope that they'll be able to cover it with a shared paraeducator. This seems to be a standard operating practice within MCPS even in cases where the IEP team knows the child will ultimately need a 1:1. I've been through this several times as a parent.

I initially fought this when developing the IEPs, but at this point we all know the school will need to come up with a 1:1 each year even though its not in the IEP. You'd think want to plan ahead of time for the need, but I get the impression central doesn't let them.

The bulk of these new positions are full-time paraeducators with benefits. Those positions aren't hard to fill. Lots of child care workers would love to get one of those positions because the pay is competitive and the benefits are great.

The requested number of Special Education teachers will probably be challenging to recruit. But MCPS can't unilaterally make compensation changes to those positions, including bonuses. Those need to be negotiated with MCEA, who has been reluctant to go along with recruitment incentives for special educators. It's not ideal, but the best thing for MCPS to do is to create the positions and then point to the shortage to renegotiate with MCEA when they ultimately can't fill them all.

188 isn't that many when you remember there are 200+ schools. So obviously not all schools would get a another special education teacher. Presumably they're going to assign them where there's the greatest need, which will change over time. I do wish they would say more about how and where they'll assign them, but I think that's more of an implementation detail for central admin than a policy issue for the board.

You seem to be expecting a level of quantifiable specificity that isn't realistic. Particularly at the elementary schools, adding just a couple high support needs kids can really change the workload for special education teachers, particularly if the school can't get extra paraeducators approved.