MCPS faces Teacher shortage next year

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:McKnight is flat out lying in these quoted statements. I’m new to MCPS this year in a part time position that was created by combining sections (thus increasing class size) to make a full time position part time. This happened a lot in secondary schools because principals were given less FTE’s due to declining enrollment at most schools.


https://bethesdamagazine.com/bethesda-beat/schools/mcps-looks-to-substitutes-to-help-offset-staff-vacancies-as-first-day-of-school-nears/

Which quoted statement in particular are you claiming isn't true? If enrollment declined at a school, doesn't it make sense that fewer FTEs would be allotted?

Don't know but am thrilled McKnight was able to head off this crisis before it became a problem. Kudos to her and MCPS for a job well done!

I’ve been in MCPS long enough that I remember when core MS classes sat 40-45 students. It was not a good ratio for meeting the needs of students. And those weren’t inclusion classes so there was a narrower range of needs than in today’s classes of 22-25 students. If you have had concerns about your child not getting enough attention/assistance/feedback in the past, wait until your DC is one of 44 students in a class.

I’m a McKnight supporter generally, but in this case nothing has been solved by combining sections to reduce FT positions.

40-45? Really? when and where was this?

Hard to believe they could even fit that many teenagers in one classroom. I seriously doubt those numbers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm trying to apply for a job that is on the MCPS careers page (internal) and I guarantee there are no other bites for this job. MCPS HR is just completely useless. They are dead souls who do not care AT ALL about hiring. School starts in less than 3 weeks. You'd think they'd be motivated. They literally do not care about hiring anyone.

Why do you think no one else is applying? And are you getting no call or what is happening?

I don't want to out myself. My complaint is not with the school but HR. Just repeating in a deadpan voice the wrong info which I already had and knew was wrong, which was from the website. I was trying to get accurate info. You'd think MCPS HR would have that. Literally did not care. Just kept referring me to the website and the incorrect info there.

They should be busting butts to get jobs filled. They should have a sense of urgency. Instead of rising to the challenge, they just sound defeated already.

[Anonymous]

MCPS has 98% of positions filled.

As for teachers, the bulk of unfilled positions are in Special Ed, then ES level.

https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2022/08/amid-teacher-shortage-montgomery-co-public-schools-says-school-system-is-98-staffed/

[Anonymous]

Well, one of their vacant positions is chief of HR....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:McKnight is flat out lying in these quoted statements. I’m new to MCPS this year in a part time position that was created by combining sections (thus increasing class size) to make a full time position part time. This happened a lot in secondary schools because principals were given less FTE’s due to declining enrollment at most schools.


https://bethesdamagazine.com/bethesda-beat/schools/mcps-looks-to-substitutes-to-help-offset-staff-vacancies-as-first-day-of-school-nears/

Which quoted statement in particular are you claiming isn't true? If enrollment declined at a school, doesn't it make sense that fewer FTEs would be allotted?

Don't know but am thrilled McKnight was able to head off this crisis before it became a problem. Kudos to her and MCPS for a job well done!

I’ve been in MCPS long enough that I remember when core MS classes sat 40-45 students. It was not a good ratio for meeting the needs of students. And those weren’t inclusion classes so there was a narrower range of needs than in today’s classes of 22-25 students. If you have had concerns about your child not getting enough attention/assistance/feedback in the past, wait until your DC is one of 44 students in a class.

I’m a McKnight supporter generally, but in this case nothing has been solved by combining sections to reduce FT positions.

Our ms classes are typically 30-37 students.

Same at my MS. There were a bit smaller before all the staffing cuts last year. It’s going to be tight this year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:McKnight is flat out lying in these quoted statements. I’m new to MCPS this year in a part time position that was created by combining sections (thus increasing class size) to make a full time position part time. This happened a lot in secondary schools because principals were given less FTE’s due to declining enrollment at most schools.


https://bethesdamagazine.com/bethesda-beat/schools/mcps-looks-to-substitutes-to-help-offset-staff-vacancies-as-first-day-of-school-nears/

Which quoted statement in particular are you claiming isn't true? If enrollment declined at a school, doesn't it make sense that fewer FTEs would be allotted?

Don't know but am thrilled McKnight was able to head off this crisis before it became a problem. Kudos to her and MCPS for a job well done!

I’ve been in MCPS long enough that I remember when core MS classes sat 40-45 students. It was not a good ratio for meeting the needs of students. And those weren’t inclusion classes so there was a narrower range of needs than in today’s classes of 22-25 students. If you have had concerns about your child not getting enough attention/assistance/feedback in the past, wait until your DC is one of 44 students in a class.

I’m a McKnight supporter generally, but in this case nothing has been solved by combining sections to reduce FT positions.

40-45? Really? when and where was this?

Hard to believe they could even fit that many teenagers in one classroom. I seriously doubt those numbers.

2004, teaching at Wood MS, I had a loud and lengthy argument with a counselor about her attempt to add a 46th student to my 7th period class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:McKnight is flat out lying in these quoted statements. I’m new to MCPS this year in a part time position that was created by combining sections (thus increasing class size) to make a full time position part time. This happened a lot in secondary schools because principals were given less FTE’s due to declining enrollment at most schools.


https://bethesdamagazine.com/bethesda-beat/schools/mcps-looks-to-substitutes-to-help-offset-staff-vacancies-as-first-day-of-school-nears/

Which quoted statement in particular are you claiming isn't true? If enrollment declined at a school, doesn't it make sense that fewer FTEs would be allotted?

Don't know but am thrilled McKnight was able to head off this crisis before it became a problem. Kudos to her and MCPS for a job well done!

I’ve been in MCPS long enough that I remember when core MS classes sat 40-45 students. It was not a good ratio for meeting the needs of students. And those weren’t inclusion classes so there was a narrower range of needs than in today’s classes of 22-25 students. If you have had concerns about your child not getting enough attention/assistance/feedback in the past, wait until your DC is one of 44 students in a class.

I’m a McKnight supporter generally, but in this case nothing has been solved by combining sections to reduce FT positions.

40-45? Really? when and where was this?

Hard to believe they could even fit that many teenagers in one classroom. I seriously doubt those numbers.

2004, teaching at Wood MS, I had a loud and lengthy argument with a counselor about her attempt to add a 46th student to my 7th period class.

That seems like a failure on the part of the principal to allow that situation to occur.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:McKnight is flat out lying in these quoted statements. I’m new to MCPS this year in a part time position that was created by combining sections (thus increasing class size) to make a full time position part time. This happened a lot in secondary schools because principals were given less FTE’s due to declining enrollment at most schools.


https://bethesdamagazine.com/bethesda-beat/schools/mcps-looks-to-substitutes-to-help-offset-staff-vacancies-as-first-day-of-school-nears/

Which quoted statement in particular are you claiming isn't true? If enrollment declined at a school, doesn't it make sense that fewer FTEs would be allotted?

Don't know but am thrilled McKnight was able to head off this crisis before it became a problem. Kudos to her and MCPS for a job well done!

HAHAHA. it’s not “headed off” and no one solved the problem. Don’t believe the spin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:McKnight is flat out lying in these quoted statements. I’m new to MCPS this year in a part time position that was created by combining sections (thus increasing class size) to make a full time position part time. This happened a lot in secondary schools because principals were given less FTE’s due to declining enrollment at most schools.


https://bethesdamagazine.com/bethesda-beat/schools/mcps-looks-to-substitutes-to-help-offset-staff-vacancies-as-first-day-of-school-nears/

Which quoted statement in particular are you claiming isn't true? If enrollment declined at a school, doesn't it make sense that fewer FTEs would be allotted?

Don't know but am thrilled McKnight was able to head off this crisis before it became a problem. Kudos to her and MCPS for a job well done!

HAHAHA. it’s not “headed off” and no one solved the problem. Don’t believe the spin.

PR team working a late one…

[Anonymous]

Don’t trust the PR spin or McKnight yet. I am still seeing 471 positions available. It is laughable to depend on substitutes especially for SPED. No sub wants to be long term unless they are desperate for work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don’t trust the PR spin or McKnight yet. I am still seeing 471 positions available. It is laughable to depend on substitutes especially for SPED. No sub wants to be long term unless they are desperate for work.

That's not what it says on the careers page. It's like 240. And apparently some are in the process of being filled -- like 90. I wonder if they'll up date the numbers there daily.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don’t trust the PR spin or McKnight yet. I am still seeing 471 positions available. It is laughable to depend on substitutes especially for SPED. No sub wants to be long term unless they are desperate for work.

Long term subs make more money than regular subs. Why would the prefer daily sub jobs when they pay less and the kids behave worse?

[Anonymous]

Look at the number of paraeducator positions that are unfilled.

-Look how many are cobbled together, meaning a few hours of paraeducator work with students + a few hours of lunch and recess coverage

-Look how many are TPT (temporary part time - low hourly rate with no benefits for working FT)

While not as important as a teacher, if your child was in a classroom with the child who needed the paraeducator, has potential to not go well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t trust the PR spin or McKnight yet. I am still seeing 471 positions available. It is laughable to depend on substitutes especially for SPED. No sub wants to be long term unless they are desperate for work.

Long term subs make more money than regular subs. Why would the prefer daily sub jobs when they pay less and the kids behave worse?

No grading.
No planning.
No meetings.
No contacting parents.
No work outside of contact hours.

The question is why anyone would want to be a long-term sub. They do everything a teacher does, for less money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Look at the number of paraeducator positions that are unfilled.

-Look how many are cobbled together, meaning a few hours of paraeducator work with students + a few hours of lunch and recess coverage

-Look how many are TPT (temporary part time - low hourly rate with no benefits for working FT)

While not as important as a teacher, if your child was in a classroom with the child who needed the paraeducator, has potential to not go well.

They're always TPT. It's unconscionable that they are paid so little and get no benefits. Might as well work at Starbucks.