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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Increased services are worth increased taxes

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

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

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

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

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

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

How did your reply address anything I said?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because the county school systems have made it clear they don’t have the funds at the county level to do what the state is asking? Again, that’s why Hogan vetoed the bill. Neither the state nor the county has the budget to fund the Blueprint at its current scope and ambition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Increased services are worth increased taxes

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

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

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

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

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

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

How did your reply address anything I said?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because the county school systems have made it clear they don’t have the funds at the county level to do what the state is asking? Again, that’s why Hogan vetoed the bill. Neither the state nor the county has the budget to fund the Blueprint at its current scope and ambition.

They have the money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Increased services are worth increased taxes

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

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

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

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

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

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

How did your reply address anything I said?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because the county school systems have made it clear they don’t have the funds at the county level to do what the state is asking? Again, that’s why Hogan vetoed the bill. Neither the state nor the county has the budget to fund the Blueprint at its current scope and ambition.

They have the money.

https://marylandmatters.org/2024/08/18/moore-warns-of-difficult-fiscal-decisions-ahead/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Increased services are worth increased taxes

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

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

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

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

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

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

How did your reply address anything I said?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because the county school systems have made it clear they don’t have the funds at the county level to do what the state is asking? Again, that’s why Hogan vetoed the bill. Neither the state nor the county has the budget to fund the Blueprint at its current scope and ambition.

The counties do have the money, but they may need to raise taxes to provide it to schools.

Why would increased state taxes be preferable to increased county taxes? I really don't get it.

[Anonymous]

This was my absolute favorite line from the article

“I’m not afraid of raising taxes,” said Montgomery County Executive Marc Elrich (D).

That’s because you’ve only ever worked for the state, ergo the state is always right and just.

Marc, you’re 77 years old. I encourage you to get a small job, not with government just once before you see the great beyond.

This right here ladies and gentlemen is the reason for term limits. No new perspectives. Tired solutions. No one who has ever held a productive - in the true liberal economic sense - job in his 77 years on earth would utter these words.

I’m not afraid of raising taxes,” said Montgomery County Executive Marc Elrich (D).

No Marc you’re not because you’ve yet to see the consequences of this action - raising taxes on an actual productive member of society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Increased services are worth increased taxes

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

MCPS HAS the money. They misspend it.
It is unrealistic to keep taxing the public to fund unrealistic and reckless choices that MCPS feels entitled to make.

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

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

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

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

How did your reply address anything I said?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because the county school systems have made it clear they don’t have the funds at the county level to do what the state is asking? Again, that’s why Hogan vetoed the bill. Neither the state nor the county has the budget to fund the Blueprint at its current scope and ambition.

They have the money.

https://marylandmatters.org/2024/08/18/moore-warns-of-difficult-fiscal-decisions-ahead/

[Anonymous]

The hold up is that blueprint requires some sort of staff development/leadership pathway for teachers. Problem is MCPS doesn’t want to really do this in a way that actually gives staff autonomy or pay raises even that that is the clear expectation of blueprint.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Increased services are worth increased taxes

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

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

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

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

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

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

How did your reply address anything I said?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because the county school systems have made it clear they don’t have the funds at the county level to do what the state is asking? Again, that’s why Hogan vetoed the bill. Neither the state nor the county has the budget to fund the Blueprint at its current scope and ambition.

They have the money.

Where are "they" hiding the money? Under your bed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This was my absolute favorite line from the article

“I’m not afraid of raising taxes,” said Montgomery County Executive Marc Elrich (D).

That’s because you’ve only ever worked for the state, ergo the state is always right and just.

Marc, you’re 77 years old. I encourage you to get a small job, not with government just once before you see the great beyond.

This right here ladies and gentlemen is the reason for term limits. No new perspectives. Tired solutions. No one who has ever held a productive - in the true liberal economic sense - job in his 77 years on earth would utter these words.

I’m not afraid of raising taxes,” said Montgomery County Executive Marc Elrich (D).

No Marc you’re not because you’ve yet to see the consequences of this action - raising taxes on an actual productive member of society.

Elrich was an MCPS math teacher. Productive enough job for you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was my absolute favorite line from the article

“I’m not afraid of raising taxes,” said Montgomery County Executive Marc Elrich (D).

That’s because you’ve only ever worked for the state, ergo the state is always right and just.

Marc, you’re 77 years old. I encourage you to get a small job, not with government just once before you see the great beyond.

This right here ladies and gentlemen is the reason for term limits. No new perspectives. Tired solutions. No one who has ever held a productive - in the true liberal economic sense - job in his 77 years on earth would utter these words.

I’m not afraid of raising taxes,” said Montgomery County Executive Marc Elrich (D).

No Marc you’re not because you’ve yet to see the consequences of this action - raising taxes on an actual productive member of society.

Elrich was an MCPS math teacher. Productive enough job for you?

Still state paid gig. That’s my point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The hold up is that blueprint requires some sort of staff development/leadership pathway for teachers. Problem is MCPS doesn’t want to really do this in a way that actually gives staff autonomy or pay raises even that that is the clear expectation of blueprint.

I don't want MCEA in leadership positions either.

[Anonymous]

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

MCEA is the only reason our planning time is protected in writing. They're working on giving teachers more autonomy over this time in the latest revisions. What are you talking about? Get involved and you might actually be informed about what they do for teachers. They send emails REGULARLY about negotiations and what they are working to achieve. MCPS mandates our time sheets, much like most salaried workers, we don't report overtime.

[Anonymous]

For one our contracted hours are not protected when we have to fill out incorrect information on purpose as if the problem is solved by us manipulating reported data against our own interest. Secondly, how is our planning time protected when teachers have to use our planning time to cover other teachers classes very frequently by using our planning time. Thirdly, how are we protected as professionals when admin creates a paper trail of bad reviews criticizing our plans as we have our planning time taken away (even though we are contracted to have it- it's like no one care about contract law if it is about lowly teachers) as we are forced to donate it as the same admin we help hack us.
I don't recommend teaching as profession until these issues that corrupt the industry are resolved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For one our contracted hours are not protected when we have to fill out incorrect information on purpose as if the problem is solved by us manipulating reported data against our own interest. Secondly, how is our planning time protected when teachers have to use our planning time to cover other teachers classes very frequently by using our planning time. Thirdly, how are we protected as professionals when admin creates a paper trail of bad reviews criticizing our plans as we have our planning time taken away (even though we are contracted to have it- it's like no one care about contract law if it is about lowly teachers) as we are forced to donate it as the same admin we help hack us.
I don't recommend teaching as profession until these issues that corrupt the industry are resolved.

If you're that miserable, get a different job.

[Anonymous]

I feel it is important to speak out for all of the cover ups and conflicts of interest that mcps and mcea use regularly which contribute to degrading the profession, student learning, and society in general. It's also to show the public the reasons that teachers are leaving and saying " no more".