Dec 18th: FY 2026 Recommended Operating Budget

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think financially the consortium program no longer makes sense. All of these schools are in the Woodward boundary study so that could be the device to make each school diverse and end choice/bussing. The MCPS portion of the study is also looking to make programs more equitable across the county and certainly having school choice only in that one area is not equitable. MCPS after the boundary study could save lots of money by eliminating that consortium. That gets rid of lots of bussing plus all staff that oversaw the logistics of that program. The special programs housed at each school could be either closed or distributed differently to make county access to those programs more equitable. I do not see a future where MCPS is flush with money again so focusing schools back on the basics of teaching academics and offering less choice/bussing could free up lots of money that could then be used for smaller class sizes for the entire county, more para educators and more resources for English learners and special education - two areas that are underfunded and struggling. Really all kids in the county should have access at their local schools to desirable programs and courses.

The DCC schools are included in the boundary study. The NEC schools are not.

You are right! I forgot about the NEC schools. My guess would be if MCPS uses the boundary study to eliminate choice in the DCC then they could use the concurrent program offering study to eliminate choice in the NEC in some back door manner. I am not a fan of eliminating choice. I just think in a shrinking funding county that bad choices will need to be made to lower class size, something all schools need. I would rather have much smaller classes for all schools than school choice for a few schools.

I don’t see the full elimination of choice happening because it’s one of the only ways that advanced learners are being served in the county. What I can see happening is less choices. I heard there is something like 100 programs. And while I’m sure they all offer something that students want, it may not be feasible to have that many. It may be more impactful to turn some of these programs into Summer

Also, there seems to be some choice/signature programs that despite different names and schools seem on their face to be offering the same thing. These programs could likely benefit from some standardization and alignment.

Will see in a few days how much our new Superintendent is willing to shake things up and how he’ll ensure the political winds.

It’s a choice to not serve advanced learners at their home schools. I have kids at various grades in DCC schools, including at a Title I elementary school where there are plenty of smart and capable kids who qualify for and could benefit from the CES curriculum and compacted math. Instead, MCPS lotteries spots to the CES and then offers ELC and virtual compacted math to the left behinds. This continues into middle school with the lottery magnet programs and advanced history classes and math classes at the local school, and ends with kids being shuffled around into DCC schools and programs under the banner of “choice.” I’d rather they have the magnet options at their home schools and that kids didn’t have to have their friend groups randomly split up every couple of years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think financially the consortium program no longer makes sense. All of these schools are in the Woodward boundary study so that could be the device to make each school diverse and end choice/bussing. The MCPS portion of the study is also looking to make programs more equitable across the county and certainly having school choice only in that one area is not equitable. MCPS after the boundary study could save lots of money by eliminating that consortium. That gets rid of lots of bussing plus all staff that oversaw the logistics of that program. The special programs housed at each school could be either closed or distributed differently to make county access to those programs more equitable. I do not see a future where MCPS is flush with money again so focusing schools back on the basics of teaching academics and offering less choice/bussing could free up lots of money that could then be used for smaller class sizes for the entire county, more para educators and more resources for English learners and special education - two areas that are underfunded and struggling. Really all kids in the county should have access at their local schools to desirable programs and courses.

The DCC schools are included in the boundary study. The NEC schools are not.

You are right! I forgot about the NEC schools. My guess would be if MCPS uses the boundary study to eliminate choice in the DCC then they could use the concurrent program offering study to eliminate choice in the NEC in some back door manner. I am not a fan of eliminating choice. I just think in a shrinking funding county that bad choices will need to be made to lower class size, something all schools need. I would rather have much smaller classes for all schools than school choice for a few schools.

I don’t see the full elimination of choice happening because it’s one of the only ways that advanced learners are being served in the county. What I can see happening is less choices. I heard there is something like 100 programs. And while I’m sure they all offer something that students want, it may not be feasible to have that many. It may be more impactful to turn some of these programs into Summer

Also, there seems to be some choice/signature programs that despite different names and schools seem on their face to be offering the same thing. These programs could likely benefit from some standardization and alignment.

Will see in a few days how much our new Superintendent is willing to shake things up and how he’ll ensure the political winds.

It’s a choice to not serve advanced learners at their home schools. I have kids at various grades in DCC schools, including at a Title I elementary school where there are plenty of smart and capable kids who qualify for and could benefit from the CES curriculum and compacted math. Instead, MCPS lotteries spots to the CES and then offers ELC and virtual compacted math to the left behinds. This continues into middle school with the lottery magnet programs and advanced history classes and math classes at the local school, and ends with kids being shuffled around into DCC schools and programs under the banner of “choice.” I’d rather they have the magnet options at their home schools and that kids didn’t have to have their friend groups randomly split up every couple of years.

Yup. The "choice" here is very misleading and fragments community building that would otherwise happen organically if our neighborhood schools actually remained neighborhood schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think financially the consortium program no longer makes sense. All of these schools are in the Woodward boundary study so that could be the device to make each school diverse and end choice/bussing. The MCPS portion of the study is also looking to make programs more equitable across the county and certainly having school choice only in that one area is not equitable. MCPS after the boundary study could save lots of money by eliminating that consortium. That gets rid of lots of bussing plus all staff that oversaw the logistics of that program. The special programs housed at each school could be either closed or distributed differently to make county access to those programs more equitable. I do not see a future where MCPS is flush with money again so focusing schools back on the basics of teaching academics and offering less choice/bussing could free up lots of money that could then be used for smaller class sizes for the entire county, more para educators and more resources for English learners and special education - two areas that are underfunded and struggling. Really all kids in the county should have access at their local schools to desirable programs and courses.

The DCC schools are included in the boundary study. The NEC schools are not.

You are right! I forgot about the NEC schools. My guess would be if MCPS uses the boundary study to eliminate choice in the DCC then they could use the concurrent program offering study to eliminate choice in the NEC in some back door manner. I am not a fan of eliminating choice. I just think in a shrinking funding county that bad choices will need to be made to lower class size, something all schools need. I would rather have much smaller classes for all schools than school choice for a few schools.

I don’t see the full elimination of choice happening because it’s one of the only ways that advanced learners are being served in the county. What I can see happening is less choices. I heard there is something like 100 programs. And while I’m sure they all offer something that students want, it may not be feasible to have that many. It may be more impactful to turn some of these programs into Summer

Also, there seems to be some choice/signature programs that despite different names and schools seem on their face to be offering the same thing. These programs could likely benefit from some standardization and alignment.

Will see in a few days how much our new Superintendent is willing to shake things up and how he’ll ensure the political winds.

It’s a choice to not serve advanced learners at their home schools. I have kids at various grades in DCC schools, including at a Title I elementary school where there are plenty of smart and capable kids who qualify for and could benefit from the CES curriculum and compacted math. Instead, MCPS lotteries spots to the CES and then offers ELC and virtual compacted math to the left behinds. This continues into middle school with the lottery magnet programs and advanced history classes and math classes at the local school, and ends with kids being shuffled around into DCC schools and programs under the banner of “choice.” I’d rather they have the magnet options at their home schools and that kids didn’t have to have their friend groups randomly split up every couple of years.

Yup. The "choice" here is very misleading and fragments community building that would otherwise happen organically if our neighborhood schools actually remained neighborhood schools.

There is no way to offer all of the “choice” or magnet programs at all schools. This is why they exist the way they do. Offering ELC and Compacted math at all schools is a way to help meet the needs of all advance learners and is actually a model I support as most ES can support offering CES in their school. Which is why some form of choice will still need to exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Superintendent Thomas Taylor will present his Fiscal Year 2026 Recommended Operating Budget on Wednesday, Dec. 18 at 6 p.m. Watch the presentation live on the MCPS website or on the MCPS-TV YouTube channel.

Here's a thread about Moore and Blueprint

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1245567.page

[Anonymous]

Will we hear tonight which programs and positions are being cut?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Will we hear tonight which programs and positions are being cut?

I'm not sure if he'll include that in his formal presentation to the community, but I'm sure it will be communicated internally, which means it'll leak out here or in the media.

[Anonymous]

Grace Rivera-Oven is not there tonight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How about restorative justice coaches. They can go back to the classroom too. Also, the SSL office. We can also cut the NEC and the DCC offices. Why do we have the consortiums anyway? Kids mostly choose schools off of where their friends are going and who has the best sports teams.

You're right! Why have consortiums when we can return to busing to address segregation? Who needs choice?

[Anonymous]

I’m sorry. Where is there segregation when nearly all MCPS schools are majority minority?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Will we hear tonight which programs and positions are being cut?

didn't hear that -- but heard an addition of 688 special education positions. WTH???? There's a zero percent chance that 688 special ed positions can be filled. MCPS has had many, many open special ed teaching positions year after year after year. Not saying that it's not something to aspire to, but 688 is a made up number and a pipe dream at the same time.

[Anonymous]

Agreed. Not sure how many of the 688 would be teacher vs para but either way, no one is interested in doing either job. Esp the TPT para jobs with no benefits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will we hear tonight which programs and positions are being cut?

didn't hear that -- but heard an addition of 688 special education positions. WTH???? There's a zero percent chance that 688 special ed positions can be filled. MCPS has had many, many open special ed teaching positions year after year after year. Not saying that it's not something to aspire to, but 688 is a made up number and a pipe dream at the same time.

It's based on existing guidelines on how many staff are needed to serve the # of students with special ed plans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agreed. Not sure how many of the 688 would be teacher vs para but either way, no one is interested in doing either job. Esp the TPT para jobs with no benefits.

It was brought up that there would be differential pay for paras based on their responsibilities.

[Anonymous]

I really appreciated his recognition of the issues with central office and his willingness to call out the way it's grown in size without actually making things better. Curious to hear more about what exactly the reorganization looks like and where they're cutting the $7M from.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m sorry. Where is there segregation when nearly all MCPS schools are majority minority?

I'm sorry, where on the west side do you live?