Dec 18th: FY 2026 Recommended Operating Budget

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remember that some of these SS, English and gym positions are often working in some of the most difficult schools as well. It’s really hard to compare difficulty. Every teacher has strengths and weaknesses, but obviously there are some teachers who do the minimum (or less) out there for a variety of reasons.

It isn't about the difficulty of the position- it's about the difficulty of filling the position. SPED, and to a lesser extent, STEM, positions have consistently been the hardest to fill.

There is a legal right, enshrined in COMAR, to appropriate enrichments to address the differential needs of those identified as GT. Missing are the specifics of compliance afforded to SPED in both state and federal law and the penalties associated with non-conpliance.

Society willingly turns a blind eye to unmet GT need, as most view that as something extra for the privileged vs. something necessary for the underprivileged. Funny thing is that a considerably disproportionate amount of SPED accommodation goes to those folks priveleged enough to have the resources to pursue independent identification of need and legal challenges to system decisions.
This. You can’t just decide to pay special education teachers more because some of you have a vested interest in special education. There is a shortage of physics teachers especially for advanced courses like AP and IB physics. Should we pay physics teachers more? What about advanced CS teachers? The problem with special education is that due to lawsuits, etc., the documentation and paperwork requirements have exploded. The job requirements need to be pared down

Yes, we probably should pay STEM teachers more. I think most people realize that, teachers unions have broadly been fighting to push that off as long as possible.

That being said, there's no legal right to advanced physics or computer science courses, but there is a legal right to FAPE for children with special needs. Regardless of how we deal with STEM positions long-term, we should be addressing the current disaster in special education. Increasing staff and pay for SPED is a necessary first step.

There is a legal right, enshrined in COMAR, to appropriate enrichments to address the differential needs of those identified as GT. Missing are the specifics of compliance afforded to SPED in both state and federal law and the penalties associated with non-conpliance.

Society willingly turns a blind eye to unmet GT need, as most view that as something extra for the privileged vs. something necessary for the underprivileged. Funny thing is that a considerably disproportionate amount of SPED accommodation goes to those folks priveleged enough to have the resources to pursue independent identification of need and legal challenges to system decisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remember that some of these SS, English and gym positions are often working in some of the most difficult schools as well. It’s really hard to compare difficulty. Every teacher has strengths and weaknesses, but obviously there are some teachers who do the minimum (or less) out there for a variety of reasons.

It isn't about the difficulty of the position- it's about the difficulty of filling the position. SPED, and to a lesser extent, STEM, positions have consistently been the hardest to fill.

There is a legal right, enshrined in COMAR, to appropriate enrichments to address the differential needs of those identified as GT. Missing are the specifics of compliance afforded to SPED in both state and federal law and the penalties associated with non-conpliance.

Society willingly turns a blind eye to unmet GT need, as most view that as something extra for the privileged vs. something necessary for the underprivileged. Funny thing is that a considerably disproportionate amount of SPED accommodation goes to those folks priveleged enough to have the resources to pursue independent identification of need and legal challenges to system decisions.
This. You can’t just decide to pay special education teachers more because some of you have a vested interest in special education. There is a shortage of physics teachers especially for advanced courses like AP and IB physics. Should we pay physics teachers more? What about advanced CS teachers? The problem with special education is that due to lawsuits, etc., the documentation and paperwork requirements have exploded. The job requirements need to be pared down

Yes, we probably should pay STEM teachers more. I think most people realize that, teachers unions have broadly been fighting to push that off as long as possible.

That being said, there's no legal right to advanced physics or computer science courses, but there is a legal right to FAPE for children with special needs. Regardless of how we deal with STEM positions long-term, we should be addressing the current disaster in special education. Increasing staff and pay for SPED is a necessary first step.

There is a legal right, enshrined in COMAR, to appropriate enrichments to address the differential needs of those identified as GT. Missing are the specifics of compliance afforded to SPED in both state and federal law and the penalties associated with non-conpliance.

Society willingly turns a blind eye to unmet GT need, as most view that as something extra for the privileged vs. something necessary for the underprivileged. Funny thing is that a considerably disproportionate amount of SPED accommodation goes to those folks priveleged enough to have the resources to pursue independent identification of need and legal challenges to system decisions.

Those aren't the resource intensive kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remember that some of these SS, English and gym positions are often working in some of the most difficult schools as well. It’s really hard to compare difficulty. Every teacher has strengths and weaknesses, but obviously there are some teachers who do the minimum (or less) out there for a variety of reasons.

It isn't about the difficulty of the position- it's about the difficulty of filling the position. SPED, and to a lesser extent, STEM, positions have consistently been the hardest to fill.

There is a legal right, enshrined in COMAR, to appropriate enrichments to address the differential needs of those identified as GT. Missing are the specifics of compliance afforded to SPED in both state and federal law and the penalties associated with non-conpliance.

Society willingly turns a blind eye to unmet GT need, as most view that as something extra for the privileged vs. something necessary for the underprivileged. Funny thing is that a considerably disproportionate amount of SPED accommodation goes to those folks priveleged enough to have the resources to pursue independent identification of need and legal challenges to system decisions.
This. You can’t just decide to pay special education teachers more because some of you have a vested interest in special education. There is a shortage of physics teachers especially for advanced courses like AP and IB physics. Should we pay physics teachers more? What about advanced CS teachers? The problem with special education is that due to lawsuits, etc., the documentation and paperwork requirements have exploded. The job requirements need to be pared down

Yes, we probably should pay STEM teachers more. I think most people realize that, teachers unions have broadly been fighting to push that off as long as possible.

That being said, there's no legal right to advanced physics or computer science courses, but there is a legal right to FAPE for children with special needs. Regardless of how we deal with STEM positions long-term, we should be addressing the current disaster in special education. Increasing staff and pay for SPED is a necessary first step.

There is a legal right, enshrined in COMAR, to appropriate enrichments to address the differential needs of those identified as GT. Missing are the specifics of compliance afforded to SPED in both state and federal law and the penalties associated with non-conpliance.

Society willingly turns a blind eye to unmet GT need, as most view that as something extra for the privileged vs. something necessary for the underprivileged. Funny thing is that a considerably disproportionate amount of SPED accommodation goes to those folks priveleged enough to have the resources to pursue independent identification of need and legal challenges to system decisions.

Those aren't the resource intensive kids.

Agree that it takes far fewer resources to address GT than to address SPED. That's as it should be -- SPED challenges tend to be far more compex, on average.

Funny thing, then, that GT doesn't get served with the same fidelity to intent as SPED when doing so would be so much less expensive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remember that some of these SS, English and gym positions are often working in some of the most difficult schools as well. It’s really hard to compare difficulty. Every teacher has strengths and weaknesses, but obviously there are some teachers who do the minimum (or less) out there for a variety of reasons.

It isn't about the difficulty of the position- it's about the difficulty of filling the position. SPED, and to a lesser extent, STEM, positions have consistently been the hardest to fill.

There is a legal right, enshrined in COMAR, to appropriate enrichments to address the differential needs of those identified as GT. Missing are the specifics of compliance afforded to SPED in both state and federal law and the penalties associated with non-conpliance.

Society willingly turns a blind eye to unmet GT need, as most view that as something extra for the privileged vs. something necessary for the underprivileged. Funny thing is that a considerably disproportionate amount of SPED accommodation goes to those folks priveleged enough to have the resources to pursue independent identification of need and legal challenges to system decisions.
This. You can’t just decide to pay special education teachers more because some of you have a vested interest in special education. There is a shortage of physics teachers especially for advanced courses like AP and IB physics. Should we pay physics teachers more? What about advanced CS teachers? The problem with special education is that due to lawsuits, etc., the documentation and paperwork requirements have exploded. The job requirements need to be pared down

Yes, we probably should pay STEM teachers more. I think most people realize that, teachers unions have broadly been fighting to push that off as long as possible.

That being said, there's no legal right to advanced physics or computer science courses, but there is a legal right to FAPE for children with special needs. Regardless of how we deal with STEM positions long-term, we should be addressing the current disaster in special education. Increasing staff and pay for SPED is a necessary first step.

There is a legal right, enshrined in COMAR, to appropriate enrichments to address the differential needs of those identified as GT. Missing are the specifics of compliance afforded to SPED in both state and federal law and the penalties associated with non-conpliance.

Society willingly turns a blind eye to unmet GT need, as most view that as something extra for the privileged vs. something necessary for the underprivileged. Funny thing is that a considerably disproportionate amount of SPED accommodation goes to those folks priveleged enough to have the resources to pursue independent identification of need and legal challenges to system decisions.

Those aren't the resource intensive kids.

Agree that it takes far fewer resources to address GT than to address SPED. That's as it should be -- SPED challenges tend to be far more compex, on average.

Funny thing, then, that GT doesn't get served with the same fidelity to intent as SPED when doing so would be so much less expensive.

No, I meant the people using expensive private diagnoses, paid advocates, and lawyers generally to get accomodations aren't the resource intensive students with special needs. Except for maybe the small group pursuing private placement.

And MCPS already pays a lot for magnet programs, IB, AP classes, and Montgomery College classes. If we can do more there, great, but that isn't a dumpster fire with safrty and legal violatins that SPED is.

[Anonymous]

Unlike SPED, the state of advanced classes and enrichment programs in MCPS doesn't create a safety and disruption problem for all students.

How often do see posts compaining about severely disruptive behaviors of students in classrooms? Not all of these students have special needs, but many do, even if they aren't formally diagnosed yet. I know some here would prefer to warehouse these kids like the good ol' days, but besides being illegal, it's expensive, too.

It's in everyone's interests to have better special education services and supports.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remember that some of these SS, English and gym positions are often working in some of the most difficult schools as well. It’s really hard to compare difficulty. Every teacher has strengths and weaknesses, but obviously there are some teachers who do the minimum (or less) out there for a variety of reasons.

It isn't about the difficulty of the position- it's about the difficulty of filling the position. SPED, and to a lesser extent, STEM, positions have consistently been the hardest to fill.

There is a legal right, enshrined in COMAR, to appropriate enrichments to address the differential needs of those identified as GT. Missing are the specifics of compliance afforded to SPED in both state and federal law and the penalties associated with non-conpliance.

Society willingly turns a blind eye to unmet GT need, as most view that as something extra for the privileged vs. something necessary for the underprivileged. Funny thing is that a considerably disproportionate amount of SPED accommodation goes to those folks priveleged enough to have the resources to pursue independent identification of need and legal challenges to system decisions.
This. You can’t just decide to pay special education teachers more because some of you have a vested interest in special education. There is a shortage of physics teachers especially for advanced courses like AP and IB physics. Should we pay physics teachers more? What about advanced CS teachers? The problem with special education is that due to lawsuits, etc., the documentation and paperwork requirements have exploded. The job requirements need to be pared down

Yes, we probably should pay STEM teachers more. I think most people realize that, teachers unions have broadly been fighting to push that off as long as possible.

That being said, there's no legal right to advanced physics or computer science courses, but there is a legal right to FAPE for children with special needs. Regardless of how we deal with STEM positions long-term, we should be addressing the current disaster in special education. Increasing staff and pay for SPED is a necessary first step.

There is a legal right, enshrined in COMAR, to appropriate enrichments to address the differential needs of those identified as GT. Missing are the specifics of compliance afforded to SPED in both state and federal law and the penalties associated with non-conpliance.

Society willingly turns a blind eye to unmet GT need, as most view that as something extra for the privileged vs. something necessary for the underprivileged. Funny thing is that a considerably disproportionate amount of SPED accommodation goes to those folks priveleged enough to have the resources to pursue independent identification of need and legal challenges to system decisions.

Those aren't the resource intensive kids.

Agree that it takes far fewer resources to address GT than to address SPED. That's as it should be -- SPED challenges tend to be far more compex, on average.

Funny thing, then, that GT doesn't get served with the same fidelity to intent as SPED when doing so would be so much less expensive.

No, I meant the people using expensive private diagnoses, paid advocates, and lawyers generally to get accomodations aren't the resource intensive students with special needs. Except for maybe the small group pursuing private placement.

And MCPS already pays a lot for magnet programs, IB, AP classes, and Montgomery College classes. If we can do more there, great, but that isn't a dumpster fire with safrty and legal violatins that SPED is.

Understood, then. But even those accommodations cost more per pupil than appropriate GT accommodation would.

As for the programs mentioned, they don't come close to meeting the need, as evidenced by the small proportion of magnet seats vs. those identified via lottery for ES & MS. The consistency of levels of and fidelity to enrichment standards at local schools for those 9 grades (6 after initial SIPPI in 2nd) is woefully poor across the system. HS may have AP/IB/MC options, but these are not available at all HS's across enough subjects/at high enough levels to ensure need is met, especially for those outliers in lower-performing schools. HS magnets also are overbooked, especially at the high end (e.g., SMCS, RMIB).

None of this is to say that SPED is funded at an appropriate level or that associated operations are managed well enough by the system, though it would be a mistake to expect anything close to perfection, given the difficulties inherent in meeting associated legal standards (not to mention the correlated variance in individual need). Adhering to statute certainly would be nice...

Still, it is reasonable to compare the relative effectiveness of the system's meeting GT need vs. meeting SPED need, and to encourage attention to the former if it lags.

[Anonymous]

There is a lot of disproportion in the resources that are allotted to special ed programs. Bridge programs typically have advocates and litigious parents with money, and therefore, get more staffing and smaller class sizes. They also have an exclusive RTSE for their program even though the total amount of students in HS Bridge programs is less than 50. Compare that to SCB and LFI - they share a RTSE with LAD. It’s not fair and no one listens when teachers voice their concerns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is a lot of disproportion in the resources that are allotted to special ed programs. Bridge programs typically have advocates and litigious parents with money, and therefore, get more staffing and smaller class sizes. They also have an exclusive RTSE for their program even though the total amount of students in HS Bridge programs is less than 50. Compare that to SCB and LFI - they share a RTSE with LAD. It’s not fair and no one listens when teachers voice their concerns.

Programs like Bridge work BECAUSE they have more staffing and smaller class sizes. I say that as a parent who tried and failed to get my kid into that program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remember that some of these SS, English and gym positions are often working in some of the most difficult schools as well. It’s really hard to compare difficulty. Every teacher has strengths and weaknesses, but obviously there are some teachers who do the minimum (or less) out there for a variety of reasons.

It isn't about the difficulty of the position- it's about the difficulty of filling the position. SPED, and to a lesser extent, STEM, positions have consistently been the hardest to fill.

There is a legal right, enshrined in COMAR, to appropriate enrichments to address the differential needs of those identified as GT. Missing are the specifics of compliance afforded to SPED in both state and federal law and the penalties associated with non-conpliance.

Society willingly turns a blind eye to unmet GT need, as most view that as something extra for the privileged vs. something necessary for the underprivileged. Funny thing is that a considerably disproportionate amount of SPED accommodation goes to those folks priveleged enough to have the resources to pursue independent identification of need and legal challenges to system decisions.
This. You can’t just decide to pay special education teachers more because some of you have a vested interest in special education. There is a shortage of physics teachers especially for advanced courses like AP and IB physics. Should we pay physics teachers more? What about advanced CS teachers? The problem with special education is that due to lawsuits, etc., the documentation and paperwork requirements have exploded. The job requirements need to be pared down

Yes, we probably should pay STEM teachers more. I think most people realize that, teachers unions have broadly been fighting to push that off as long as possible.

That being said, there's no legal right to advanced physics or computer science courses, but there is a legal right to FAPE for children with special needs. Regardless of how we deal with STEM positions long-term, we should be addressing the current disaster in special education. Increasing staff and pay for SPED is a necessary first step.

There is a legal right, enshrined in COMAR, to appropriate enrichments to address the differential needs of those identified as GT. Missing are the specifics of compliance afforded to SPED in both state and federal law and the penalties associated with non-conpliance.

Society willingly turns a blind eye to unmet GT need, as most view that as something extra for the privileged vs. something necessary for the underprivileged. Funny thing is that a considerably disproportionate amount of SPED accommodation goes to those folks priveleged enough to have the resources to pursue independent identification of need and legal challenges to system decisions.

Which is really interesting as GT is classed under Special Education. Further, some of what many GT students need is not just academic but Social and Emotional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Remember that some of these SS, English and gym positions are often working in some of the most difficult schools as well. It’s really hard to compare difficulty. Every teacher has strengths and weaknesses, but obviously there are some teachers who do the minimum (or less) out there for a variety of reasons.

It isn't about the difficulty of the position- it's about the difficulty of filling the position. SPED, and to a lesser extent, STEM, positions have consistently been the hardest to fill.

There is a legal right, enshrined in COMAR, to appropriate enrichments to address the differential needs of those identified as GT. Missing are the specifics of compliance afforded to SPED in both state and federal law and the penalties associated with non-conpliance.

Society willingly turns a blind eye to unmet GT need, as most view that as something extra for the privileged vs. something necessary for the underprivileged. Funny thing is that a considerably disproportionate amount of SPED accommodation goes to those folks priveleged enough to have the resources to pursue independent identification of need and legal challenges to system decisions.
This. You can’t just decide to pay special education teachers more because some of you have a vested interest in special education. There is a shortage of physics teachers especially for advanced courses like AP and IB physics. Should we pay physics teachers more? What about advanced CS teachers? The problem with special education is that due to lawsuits, etc., the documentation and paperwork requirements have exploded. The job requirements need to be pared down

Yes, we probably should pay STEM teachers more. I think most people realize that, teachers unions have broadly been fighting to push that off as long as possible.

That being said, there's no legal right to advanced physics or computer science courses, but there is a legal right to FAPE for children with special needs. Regardless of how we deal with STEM positions long-term, we should be addressing the current disaster in special education. Increasing staff and pay for SPED is a necessary first step.

There is a legal right, enshrined in COMAR, to appropriate enrichments to address the differential needs of those identified as GT. Missing are the specifics of compliance afforded to SPED in both state and federal law and the penalties associated with non-conpliance.

Society willingly turns a blind eye to unmet GT need, as most view that as something extra for the privileged vs. something necessary for the underprivileged. Funny thing is that a considerably disproportionate amount of SPED accommodation goes to those folks priveleged enough to have the resources to pursue independent identification of need and legal challenges to system decisions.

Which is really interesting as GT is classed under Special Education. Further, some of what many GT students need is not just academic but Social and Emotional.

GT is its own hot mess of hell in MCPS. I don’t think much can be done to help GT kids until a better distinction is able to be drawn between academically accelerated kids who work hard and get plenty of extra academic enrichment from GT kids whose needs can only be met in actually GT programming, which AP classes are not. Most kids are not GT (by its definition GT is outside the norm.) The GT identification testing in elementary school needs to make distinctions between smart kids and GT kids. Too many kids are identified as GT to make that a valuable category for provided correct instruction. I think MCPS is full of parents who think there kids need GT programming when actually what they need is advanced and accelerated programs such as AP classes or classes at Montgomery College. And certainly MCPS needs to do a better job serving the needs of accelerated learners so they can be challenged and grow. GT kids are different since the usual accelerated learning programs will not serve them well. And these kids can become disruptive in the classroom just like other SPED kids whose needs are not being met.

[Anonymous]

This is what happens when you have fraudulent, dishonest and criminal administrators such as Peter Moran, calling the shots.

[Anonymous]

The comments complaining about GT programs in MCPS really feel a lot like a rich person complaining about their taxes. Maybe you have a point, and maybe things could be handled better. But I hope you understand how good you have it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The comments complaining about GT programs in MCPS really feel a lot like a rich person complaining about their taxes. Maybe you have a point, and maybe things could be handled better. But I hope you understand how good you have it.

Not all GT kids are rich. And not all GT kids sit compliantly, especially when unengaged.

[Anonymous]

Having experienced a MS GTLD classroom it is not what is expected or perceived. Although I also saw a push for students who had more significant psychological needs and these programs seemed to enhance those issues.

I would also agree that all discrete programs should have their own RTSE or program coordinator in their building. These students and programs deserve that at a minimum.

I never understood why LFI and SCB seem to be the only discrete programs that do not have their own and they seem to be growing the largest.


Not to say the other programs do not also need this but I think it is really unfair to the LFI and SCB programs who over the last 5 years have grown in size and the needs of the students have increased.

Putting them in isolated islands, one classroom in each school will not help and only further isolate the students and staff.

I hope this is being considered in the budget.

[Anonymous]

The MCPS website says that on Jan 13th, they will publish an excel spreadsheet with specific details. What kind of details can we expect? The specific CO positions that have been cut?