FCPS Budget

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder how much FCPS would save if we got rid of AAP Centers.

I'm not saying get rid of AAP, I'm saying Centers. That would significantly reduce bussing costs and reduce the number of AARTs that are required.

This would reduce bussing but how would it reduce staff? With no centers FCPS would need to keep an AART at each school.

AARTs at LLIV schools are part-time. Two schools can share an AART. This would reduce staff. But it would be a huge reduction in bus costs. Like in the millions.

8 million. Which isn’t really that much at all in a 4 billion budget, but you can nitpick the things you don’t like even if they don’t take that much money.

You think $8 Million is not a lot of money?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder how much FCPS would save if we got rid of AAP Centers.

I'm not saying get rid of AAP, I'm saying Centers. That would significantly reduce bussing costs and reduce the number of AARTs that are required.

This would reduce bussing but how would it reduce staff? With no centers FCPS would need to keep an AART at each school.

AARTs at LLIV schools are part-time. Two schools can share an AART. This would reduce staff. But it would be a huge reduction in bus costs. Like in the millions.

8 million. Which isn’t really that much at all in a 4 billion budget, but you can nitpick the things you don’t like even if they don’t take that much money.

You think $8 Million is not a lot of money?

You judge the dollars spent by the value received. This is a huge waste of 8 million dollars. The schools would be better served by an additional teacher. Much better served. Or two or three additional instructional aides that can actually help in the classroom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I used to complain about the coaches, but now I think there are far bigger fish to fry…the Willow Oaks and Gatehouse bloat. If you read the vacancies every week, you start to find positions that are very clearly pet projects and positions that are heavily duplicated. There is FAR more bloat outside of schools than in them. FCPS likes to crow about how they have fewer non-school based positions than their area counterparts, but that is easy when they are so large…every county regardless of size needs a licensure specialist, an HR head, a food services head, a safety head, etc.
A few examples that could go:
-There are multiple data specialists in some offices, yet we need a contract for some Harvard students.
-We have a bunch of Get 2 Green coordinators, which in better budget years, was a nice to have.
-We have a ton of special projects type people in Instructional Services…I’m looking at you, Global Classroom Project and POG POL.
-We have a bunch of equity/cultural responsiveness facilitators in the Equity Office
-The website/Atlas team is huge for the number of programs they run
-We ran just fine without all the executive principals and their assistants. And without all the regions we have now. The current structure with all the region superintendents and executive principals is absurd and make it so our principals don’t stay in their jobs as long as they used to.

Pro tip for people within FCPS: You can pull specific numbers/look at job titles by going to the directory, looking at the asst supt or manager for a group, and then looking at who reports to them and then keep drilling down.

+1. We have so many wasteful positions and programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder how much FCPS would save if we got rid of AAP Centers.

I'm not saying get rid of AAP, I'm saying Centers. That would significantly reduce bussing costs and reduce the number of AARTs that are required.

This would reduce bussing but how would it reduce staff? With no centers FCPS would need to keep an AART at each school.

AARTs at LLIV schools are part-time. Two schools can share an AART. This would reduce staff. But it would be a huge reduction in bus costs. Like in the millions.

8 million. Which isn’t really that much at all in a 4 billion budget, but you can nitpick the things you don’t like even if they don’t take that much money.

You think $8 Million is not a lot of money?

It is 2% of the budget, but honestly, my kids are done with AAP (or not doing AAP) and so you can advocate for this. You can also see that people will stay in Arlington or a cheaper district rather than move here with the promise of AAP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder how much FCPS would save if we got rid of AAP Centers.

I'm not saying get rid of AAP, I'm saying Centers. That would significantly reduce bussing costs and reduce the number of AARTs that are required.

This would reduce bussing but how would it reduce staff? With no centers FCPS would need to keep an AART at each school.

AARTs at LLIV schools are part-time. Two schools can share an AART. This would reduce staff. But it would be a huge reduction in bus costs. Like in the millions.

8 million. Which isn’t really that much at all in a 4 billion budget, but you can nitpick the things you don’t like even if they don’t take that much money.

You think $8 Million is not a lot of money?

You judge the dollars spent by the value received. This is a huge waste of 8 million dollars. The schools would be better served by an additional teacher. Much better served. Or two or three additional instructional aides that can actually help in the classroom.

Agreed, but 8$ million wouldn’t get a teacher in every school. That is 80-100 teachers. There are way more schools than that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder how much FCPS would save if we got rid of AAP Centers.

I'm not saying get rid of AAP, I'm saying Centers. That would significantly reduce bussing costs and reduce the number of AARTs that are required.

This would reduce bussing but how would it reduce staff? With no centers FCPS would need to keep an AART at each school.

AARTs at LLIV schools are part-time. Two schools can share an AART. This would reduce staff. But it would be a huge reduction in bus costs. Like in the millions.

8 million. Which isn’t really that much at all in a 4 billion budget, but you can nitpick the things you don’t like even if they don’t take that much money.

You think $8 Million is not a lot of money?

You judge the dollars spent by the value received. This is a huge waste of 8 million dollars. The schools would be better served by an additional teacher. Much better served. Or two or three additional instructional aides that can actually help in the classroom.

Agreed, but 8$ million wouldn’t get a teacher in every school. That is 80-100 teachers. There are way more schools than that.

Are there instructional coaches in high schools and middle schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder how much FCPS would save if we got rid of AAP Centers.

I'm not saying get rid of AAP, I'm saying Centers. That would significantly reduce bussing costs and reduce the number of AARTs that are required.

This would reduce bussing but how would it reduce staff? With no centers FCPS would need to keep an AART at each school.

AARTs at LLIV schools are part-time. Two schools can share an AART. This would reduce staff. But it would be a huge reduction in bus costs. Like in the millions.

8 million. Which isn’t really that much at all in a 4 billion budget, but you can nitpick the things you don’t like even if they don’t take that much money.

You think $8 Million is not a lot of money?

You judge the dollars spent by the value received. This is a huge waste of 8 million dollars. The schools would be better served by an additional teacher. Much better served. Or two or three additional instructional aides that can actually help in the classroom.

Agreed, but 8$ million wouldn’t get a teacher in every school. That is 80-100 teachers. There are way more schools than that.

Well, you could replace every instructional coach with a teacher. That would help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder how much FCPS would save if we got rid of AAP Centers.

I'm not saying get rid of AAP, I'm saying Centers. That would significantly reduce bussing costs and reduce the number of AARTs that are required.

This would reduce bussing but how would it reduce staff? With no centers FCPS would need to keep an AART at each school.

AARTs at LLIV schools are part-time. Two schools can share an AART. This would reduce staff. But it would be a huge reduction in bus costs. Like in the millions.

8 million. Which isn’t really that much at all in a 4 billion budget, but you can nitpick the things you don’t like even if they don’t take that much money.

You think $8 Million is not a lot of money?

You judge the dollars spent by the value received. This is a huge waste of 8 million dollars. The schools would be better served by an additional teacher. Much better served. Or two or three additional instructional aides that can actually help in the classroom.

Agreed, but 8$ million wouldn’t get a teacher in every school. That is 80-100 teachers. There are way more schools than that.

Are there instructional coaches in high schools and middle schools?

Not every ES has coaches.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder how much FCPS would save if we got rid of AAP Centers.

I'm not saying get rid of AAP, I'm saying Centers. That would significantly reduce bussing costs and reduce the number of AARTs that are required.

This would reduce bussing but how would it reduce staff? With no centers FCPS would need to keep an AART at each school.

AARTs at LLIV schools are part-time. Two schools can share an AART. This would reduce staff. But it would be a huge reduction in bus costs. Like in the millions.

8 million. Which isn’t really that much at all in a 4 billion budget, but you can nitpick the things you don’t like even if they don’t take that much money.

You think $8 Million is not a lot of money?

You judge the dollars spent by the value received. This is a huge waste of 8 million dollars. The schools would be better served by an additional teacher. Much better served. Or two or three additional instructional aides that can actually help in the classroom.

Agreed, but 8$ million wouldn’t get a teacher in every school. That is 80-100 teachers. There are way more schools than that.

Are there instructional coaches in high schools and middle schools?

Yes. And for principals to "buy" a true instructional coach position (vs. a resource teacher position that is a regular teacher contract vs. the longer instructional coach contract) it costs them 2 teacher positions. The Dean of Students positions that have proliferated at the middle/high schools are also "bought" positions by the principals, not postions the county mandates or includes in their staffing formulas. Principals get a staffing formula each spring that gives them x number of teacher positions, x number of office staff, sped teachers, counselors, etc. The instructional coaches and deans are not mandated-- that is the principal making the choice to have fewer English teachers (or whatever) in order to have a coach. But the coaches take some of the paperwork/meeting burden off of the admin, so they like them. At the expense of fewer people actually in classrooms with students.

I have nothing against the coaches. I've worked with some that are genuinely there to help. But now that our class sizes have ballooned, I think the county needs to take a serious look at the trades principals are making. With that being said, because the principals aren't complaining about the coaches and because the head of the coaching program is a FCPS golden girl, the coaches aren't going anywhere. But your elementary school music and PE teachers may be next year if word on the FCPS street is to be believed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can you be more specific? What about the budget?

Keep hearing whispers of budget shortfall and money seems super tight.

Fire Reid and save on her bloated salary.

Fire 20% of gatehouse. Do this every year for 3 more years and the headcount will shrink by about 50%. Now you are only slightly bloated.

[Anonymous]

Like many have said, start with reducing staff and consultants at Gatehouse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Like many have said, start with reducing staff and consultants at Gatehouse.

Please, GAC is a wee bit of the budget. You barely save anything even if you slash a third of it. The real money is in the instructional positions that exist in every school as there are hundreds.

Prime example is School Based Technology Specialist. No idea why an ES with 300 kids needs the same full time position as a 1,300 kid high school. Cut half of the positions and reinvest!

Also, for f’s sake get rid of AAP centers and buses

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Knowing we have a Superintendent and Board that, in most cases, doesn't have the skills to manage and lead a school system the size of FCPS what do we to bring FCPS back to being one of the premier school systems in the United States? Where would you cut funding and where would you increase while looking to maintain a flat or reduced overall budget?

1-cut a bunch of high priced Gatehouse positions, and also the instructional services ones where people are paid to make boring slide shows and deliver bad PD that teachers absolutely loathe
2-cut all the school-based instructional coaches and anyone else in a non-administrative but also non-teaching position

That right there would make life much better for teachers and maybe allow us to actually do our jobs instead of checking boxes for the county's "accountability."

You sound like a teacher who doesn’t want to be held accountable for what you teach and how you teach it. Teaching methods and curriculum constantly shift, you’re employed to keep up and teach using specific methods as dictated by Gatehouse.

You sound like the Gatehouse staff that provides the training. I can tell you with 100% accuracy that I know the proven methods better than the staff presenting the training on the same method.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Like many have said, start with reducing staff and consultants at Gatehouse.

Please, GAC is a wee bit of the budget. You barely save anything even if you slash a third of it. The real money is in the instructional positions that exist in every school as there are hundreds.

Prime example is School Based Technology Specialist. No idea why an ES with 300 kids needs the same full time position as a 1,300 kid high school. Cut half of the positions and reinvest!

Also, for f’s sake get rid of AAP centers and buses

The specialists at Willow Oaks (the bulk are at Willow Oaks, not GAC) are more than "a wee bit of the budget." If you were to survey staff actually working with students in schools, I would expect that the majority would rather keep their SBTS, who help staff with all the software programs and accounts and tech setup (basically everything except the actual hardware) vs. keeping the pet project specialists at Willow Oaks. If you want to get rid of some tech positions, there are layers upon layers of SBTS manager types and other special projects tech people at Willow Oaks and Wilton Woods that could go in a tough budget year.

[Anonymous]

The above is fair, but I take the other poster’s point that I’m not sure a 350 student school needs a full time SBTS if it’s the same staffing a high school gets. That makes no sense. I’d rather my kid’s ES have reading or math help.