Dec 18th: FY 2026 Recommended Operating Budget

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:General education HS teacher here. Paras are not all that useful in high school. Many kids assigned a para in high school who follows them in general ed classes are embarrassed to have a para and ignore them completely. There are a few good paras who will still do a lot and help other kids in the classroom but most just sit in a corner on their phone. The paras often don’t understand the class content so are of limited help to the student. It is an inefficient model. Smaller class sizes would help all students

You are not the first MCPS educator I’ve heard complain about the lack of professionalism and efficacy of paras in high school. I hope you’re sharing this opinion with leadership.

+1 Because what this show is that it would be more beneficial to have content Paras who could help support the classroom as a whole and thus the individual students by allow for more small group. Also, some of those dollars could be used for in-school and after school tutoring support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:General education HS teacher here. Paras are not all that useful in high school. Many kids assigned a para in high school who follows them in general ed classes are embarrassed to have a para and ignore them completely. There are a few good paras who will still do a lot and help other kids in the classroom but most just sit in a corner on their phone. The paras often don’t understand the class content so are of limited help to the student. It is an inefficient model. Smaller class sizes would help all students

You are not the first MCPS educator I’ve heard complain about the lack of professionalism and efficacy of paras in high school. I hope you’re sharing this opinion with leadership.

+1 Because what this show is that it would be more beneficial to have content Paras who could help support the classroom as a whole and thus the individual students by allow for more small group. Also, some of those dollars could be used for in-school and after school tutoring support.

Smaller classroom sizes would help everyone. Math and science teachers could provide more individual help to struggling students. History and English teachers could give better writing feedback. Paras help more with behavior issues than actual learning at least at the high school level. I have seen some paras just do the work for their students (often by googling answers or by asking the teacher).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It’s not 188, it’s 688 SPED positions. So it’s likely a combination of new para and SPED teacher positions and possibly reclassification of existing positions. Again, why explanation is needed.

500 paraeducators, some of which are converted from the temp positions, as shown in the budget. As I said, those won't be hard to fill because most come with benefits.

It's 188 special education teachers. Those will be harder to fill. As I said, I suspect MCPS will ultimately need to negotiate with MCEA on special incentives. But that will need to get negotiated later.

If I remember right there was an incentive one year asking currently Sped certified teachers to transfer back into Sped positions, but only 2 or so out of 60 went through with it for a one time $5k bonus. It was just to meager to consider seriously by most. Sped is also notorious hard to stay up to date with. Teachers tend to settle into one school, so asking them to perhaps change schools as well re-enter Sped is just too much for only $5k one time.

5k doesn't make up for the workload. Give them more time to do paperwork and I'm sure many of us would return.

The problem is that no one becomes a teacher to do loads and loads of mind numbing paperwork. The paperwork is not particularly important or helpful either. Just needs to be done so MCPS is in compliance with the law and doesn’t get sued by litigious parents

As you noted MCPS can’t change the paperwork requirements or needs so it’s just an sucky part of the job just like all jobs have sucky parts. There may be potential for some Scribe/Admin support. But if not, I suspect the more teachers and Paras that are available would lead to each individual person having a little less paperwork.

All jobs have sucky parts for sure. But when the sucky part takes up 70% of your time and you are dragging it home with you to finish on weekends just so some compliance boxes get checked, it is time to move on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:General education HS teacher here. Paras are not all that useful in high school. Many kids assigned a para in high school who follows them in general ed classes are embarrassed to have a para and ignore them completely. There are a few good paras who will still do a lot and help other kids in the classroom but most just sit in a corner on their phone. The paras often don’t understand the class content so are of limited help to the student. It is an inefficient model. Smaller class sizes would help all students

You are not the first MCPS educator I’ve heard complain about the lack of professionalism and efficacy of paras in high school. I hope you’re sharing this opinion with leadership.

+1 Because what this show is that it would be more beneficial to have content Paras who could help support the classroom as a whole and thus the individual students by allow for more small group. Also, some of those dollars could be used for in-school and after school tutoring support.

Smaller classroom sizes would help everyone. Math and science teachers could provide more individual help to struggling students. History and English teachers could give better writing feedback. Paras help more with behavior issues than actual learning at least at the high school level. I have seen some paras just do the work for their students (often by googling answers or by asking the teacher).

Yes but smaller classroom sizes is a much more costly endeavor requiring personnel and space. The Superintendent has already acknowledged that is not going to happen in this year’s budget and I suspect not in next year’s either (at least not in totality), so it is time to think of new ideas. Such as assistant teachers, where and how Paras can better support, providing tutoring, helping teachers with grading, Substitute coverage etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It’s not 188, it’s 688 SPED positions. So it’s likely a combination of new para and SPED teacher positions and possibly reclassification of existing positions. Again, why explanation is needed.

500 paraeducators, some of which are converted from the temp positions, as shown in the budget. As I said, those won't be hard to fill because most come with benefits.

It's 188 special education teachers. Those will be harder to fill. As I said, I suspect MCPS will ultimately need to negotiate with MCEA on special incentives. But that will need to get negotiated later.

If I remember right there was an incentive one year asking currently Sped certified teachers to transfer back into Sped positions, but only 2 or so out of 60 went through with it for a one time $5k bonus. It was just to meager to consider seriously by most. Sped is also notorious hard to stay up to date with. Teachers tend to settle into one school, so asking them to perhaps change schools as well re-enter Sped is just too much for only $5k one time.

5k doesn't make up for the workload. Give them more time to do paperwork and I'm sure many of us would return.

The problem is that no one becomes a teacher to do loads and loads of mind numbing paperwork. The paperwork is not particularly important or helpful either. Just needs to be done so MCPS is in compliance with the law and doesn’t get sued by litigious parents

As you noted MCPS can’t change the paperwork requirements or needs so it’s just an sucky part of the job just like all jobs have sucky parts. There may be potential for some Scribe/Admin support. But if not, I suspect the more teachers and Paras that are available would lead to each individual person having a little less paperwork.

All jobs have sucky parts for sure. But when the sucky part takes up 70% of your time and you are dragging it home with you to finish on weekends just so some compliance boxes get checked, it is time to move on.

The paperwork is onerous for sure but it’s not 70% of the job. That would mean teachers are doing mostly nothing in the classroom which we know isn’t true. And having more personnel including administrative support would help.

[Anonymous]

Does anyone know how/why we spend more for elementary students than secondary? Because secondary schools have more staff, more class, athletics, and more specialized equipment needs. What am I missing?

Is it just because there are more elementary school buildings?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know how/why we spend more for elementary students than secondary? Because secondary schools have more staff, more class, athletics, and more specialized equipment needs. What am I missing?

Is it just because there are more elementary school buildings?

Somewhat related, there's a large increase in elementary's "other non-position salaries." What does that mean/include?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know how/why we spend more for elementary students than secondary? Because secondary schools have more staff, more class, athletics, and more specialized equipment needs. What am I missing?

Is it just because there are more elementary school buildings?

The class sizes are significantly lower by law in elementary school so you need more teachers. https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/news/bulletin/2024-06/june-12-2024/understanding-the-class-size-guidelines-increase/

Kindergarten has a class cap of 25 and class size increases through elementary but never over 29. In secondary school English is 30 and other classes are 33.

But more pertinent, If you think that perhaps 4 elementary schools feed 1 high school. These 4 elementary schools must each have janitorial, groundskeepers, security, front office, IT support, cafeteria, administrative and guidance. And each elementary school must have electric, phones, plumbing, water, repairs, hvac, etc…. When you get to HS you condense into just maintaining one building. Basically in high school it is one larger property to maintain and staff while in elementary school it is many more smaller properties to maintain and staff. It is cheaper to have the one larger than 4 smaller. If we wanted to cut costs long run we could build up one elementary school to the size of the high school and sell off the other properties. I am not supporting this since I like the smaller schools for the younger kids but fiscally 1 large school is cheaper to maintain and staff than 4 small schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know how/why we spend more for elementary students than secondary? Because secondary schools have more staff, more class, athletics, and more specialized equipment needs. What am I missing?

Is it just because there are more elementary school buildings?

The class sizes are significantly lower by law in elementary school so you need more teachers. https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/news/bulletin/2024-06/june-12-2024/understanding-the-class-size-guidelines-increase/

Kindergarten has a class cap of 25 and class size increases through elementary but never over 29. In secondary school English is 30 and other classes are 33.

But more pertinent, If you think that perhaps 4 elementary schools feed 1 high school. These 4 elementary schools must each have janitorial, groundskeepers, security, front office, IT support, cafeteria, administrative and guidance. And each elementary school must have electric, phones, plumbing, water, repairs, hvac, etc…. When you get to HS you condense into just maintaining one building. Basically in high school it is one larger property to maintain and staff while in elementary school it is many more smaller properties to maintain and staff. It is cheaper to have the one larger than 4 smaller. If we wanted to cut costs long run we could build up one elementary school to the size of the high school and sell off the other properties. I am not supporting this since I like the smaller schools for the younger kids but fiscally 1 large school is cheaper to maintain and staff than 4 small schools.

This makes sense. Thanks for explaining

[Anonymous]

I wish there was a way to increase rigor in middle school so students are better prepared by the time they get to highschool

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know how/why we spend more for elementary students than secondary? Because secondary schools have more staff, more class, athletics, and more specialized equipment needs. What am I missing?

Is it just because there are more elementary school buildings?

The class sizes are significantly lower by law in elementary school so you need more teachers. https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/news/bulletin/2024-06/june-12-2024/understanding-the-class-size-guidelines-increase/

Kindergarten has a class cap of 25 and class size increases through elementary but never over 29. In secondary school English is 30 and other classes are 33.

But more pertinent, If you think that perhaps 4 elementary schools feed 1 high school. These 4 elementary schools must each have janitorial, groundskeepers, security, front office, IT support, cafeteria, administrative and guidance. And each elementary school must have electric, phones, plumbing, water, repairs, hvac, etc…. When you get to HS you condense into just maintaining one building. Basically in high school it is one larger property to maintain and staff while in elementary school it is many more smaller properties to maintain and staff. It is cheaper to have the one larger than 4 smaller. If we wanted to cut costs long run we could build up one elementary school to the size of the high school and sell off the other properties. I am not supporting this since I like the smaller schools for the younger kids but fiscally 1 large school is cheaper to maintain and staff than 4 small schools.

That’s what I suspected, thanks for confirming. Those secondary class guidelines are laughable. Maybe they work for homerooms, but many actual classes definitely have more than 30.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know how/why we spend more for elementary students than secondary? Because secondary schools have more staff, more class, athletics, and more specialized equipment needs. What am I missing?

Is it just because there are more elementary school buildings?

The class sizes are significantly lower by law in elementary school so you need more teachers. https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/news/bulletin/2024-06/june-12-2024/understanding-the-class-size-guidelines-increase/

Kindergarten has a class cap of 25 and class size increases through elementary but never over 29. In secondary school English is 30 and other classes are 33.

But more pertinent, If you think that perhaps 4 elementary schools feed 1 high school. These 4 elementary schools must each have janitorial, groundskeepers, security, front office, IT support, cafeteria, administrative and guidance. And each elementary school must have electric, phones, plumbing, water, repairs, hvac, etc…. When you get to HS you condense into just maintaining one building. Basically in high school it is one larger property to maintain and staff while in elementary school it is many more smaller properties to maintain and staff. It is cheaper to have the one larger than 4 smaller. If we wanted to cut costs long run we could build up one elementary school to the size of the high school and sell off the other properties. I am not supporting this since I like the smaller schools for the younger kids but fiscally 1 large school is cheaper to maintain and staff than 4 small schools.

That’s what I suspected, thanks for confirming. Those secondary class guidelines are laughable. Maybe they work for homerooms, but many actual classes definitely have more than 30.

Try doing science labs with 32 students and 1 teacher. Guess what - it doesn’t work but MCPS doesn’t care

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:General education HS teacher here. Paras are not all that useful in high school. Many kids assigned a para in high school who follows them in general ed classes are embarrassed to have a para and ignore them completely. There are a few good paras who will still do a lot and help other kids in the classroom but most just sit in a corner on their phone. The paras often don’t understand the class content so are of limited help to the student. It is an inefficient model. Smaller class sizes would help all students

You are not the first MCPS educator I’ve heard complain about the lack of professionalism and efficacy of paras in high school. I hope you’re sharing this opinion with leadership.

+1 Because what this show is that it would be more beneficial to have content Paras who could help support the classroom as a whole and thus the individual students by allow for more small group. Also, some of those dollars could be used for in-school and after school tutoring support.

Smaller classroom sizes would help everyone. Math and science teachers could provide more individual help to struggling students. History and English teachers could give better writing feedback. Paras help more with behavior issues than actual learning at least at the high school level. I have seen some paras just do the work for their students (often by googling answers or by asking the teacher).

Yes but smaller classroom sizes is a much more costly endeavor requiring personnel and space. The Superintendent has already acknowledged that is not going to happen in this year’s budget and I suspect not in next year’s either (at least not in totality), so it is time to think of new ideas. Such as assistant teachers, where and how Paras can better support, providing tutoring, helping teachers with grading, Substitute coverage etc.

He isn’t really going to manage the money responsibly. Sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know how/why we spend more for elementary students than secondary? Because secondary schools have more staff, more class, athletics, and more specialized equipment needs. What am I missing?

Is it just because there are more elementary school buildings?

The class sizes are significantly lower by law in elementary school so you need more teachers. https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/news/bulletin/2024-06/june-12-2024/understanding-the-class-size-guidelines-increase/

Kindergarten has a class cap of 25 and class size increases through elementary but never over 29. In secondary school English is 30 and other classes are 33.

But more pertinent, If you think that perhaps 4 elementary schools feed 1 high school. These 4 elementary schools must each have janitorial, groundskeepers, security, front office, IT support, cafeteria, administrative and guidance. And each elementary school must have electric, phones, plumbing, water, repairs, hvac, etc…. When you get to HS you condense into just maintaining one building. Basically in high school it is one larger property to maintain and staff while in elementary school it is many more smaller properties to maintain and staff. It is cheaper to have the one larger than 4 smaller. If we wanted to cut costs long run we could build up one elementary school to the size of the high school and sell off the other properties. I am not supporting this since I like the smaller schools for the younger kids but fiscally 1 large school is cheaper to maintain and staff than 4 small schools.

That’s what I suspected, thanks for confirming. Those secondary class guidelines are laughable. Maybe they work for homerooms, but many actual classes definitely have more than 30.

Try doing science labs with 32 students and 1 teacher. Guess what - it doesn’t work but MCPS doesn’t care

Our science has more than 32 but the kids don’t do labs. They wasted a week going over the lab rules and zero labs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:General education HS teacher here. Paras are not all that useful in high school. Many kids assigned a para in high school who follows them in general ed classes are embarrassed to have a para and ignore them completely. There are a few good paras who will still do a lot and help other kids in the classroom but most just sit in a corner on their phone. The paras often don’t understand the class content so are of limited help to the student. It is an inefficient model. Smaller class sizes would help all students

You are not the first MCPS educator I’ve heard complain about the lack of professionalism and efficacy of paras in high school. I hope you’re sharing this opinion with leadership.

The paras cannot help if they don’t understand the content. Many just have hs diplomas. You aren’t going to get good candidates with minimum wage and no benefits.