Montgomery County Proposed Budget for 2011 Concern?

Anonymous
Is anyone concerned about the cuts that are being proposed for the budget? Is there anything parents can do?

SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL BUDGET REDUCTIONS
In the event that Montgomery County Public Schools does not receive local funding for the
Fiscal Year 2011 Operating Budget at the minimum Maintenance of Effort (MOE) level, it will be
necessary to consider significant service reductions in the base budget. The amount of reductions
will depend on how much local funding is actually received compared to the amount required by
the Maintenance of Effort. The following list contains potential major reductions in the budget.
The list is not in any priority order, but will give stakeholders an overall idea of what reductions
may be necessary to consider before the FY 2011 Operating Budget is approved in June 2010.
Description FTE Savings
SYSTEMWIDE REDUCTIONS
A Class size – Increase class size by an average of 1 student per
class at each school level. This would reduce staffing by 240
classroom teacher positions.
240.0 $15,442,455
B Academic intervention teachers – Reduce by 20 percent
additional teacher staffing for direct support to struggling
students and for intervention programs. Currently, there are
128.9 academic intervention teachers. (Reduced by 9.8 positions
in FY 2010)
24.0 $1,662,397
C Special program teachers – Reduce by 20 percent additional
positions allocated to support special programs, including
immersion, magnet, IB, signature, and other special programs.
Currently, there are 64.6 special program teachers. (Reduced by
16.9 positions in FY 2010)
12.9 $832,487
D Staff development substitutes – Reduce by 20 percent
availability of substitutes for job-embedded staff development
activities in schools.
$290,000
E Counselors, psychologists, and pupil personnel workers –
Reduce previous increase of 18.0 FTE in counselors,
psychologists, and pupil personnel workers. This would increase
the ratio of students to professionals for each of these positions.
18.0 $2,329,642
Item Description FTE Savings
2
F Maintenance positions – Reduce 6.0 positions in the Division of
Maintenance.
6.0 $480,000
G Building service worker positions – Reduce 30.0 building
service worker positions in schools and administrative offices.
30.0 $1,200,000
H Transportation for optional regular education programs -
Eliminate transportation to optional regular education programs
outside normal attendance zones, including magnet, immersion,
IB, high school consortia, and other special programs. Fees are
not permitted for these services. This reduction would not
impact special education transportation.
65.0 $4,900,000
I Bus Fuel – Purchase regular diesel fuel rather than biodiesel fuel
for school buses.
$400,000
J Bus Replacement – Obtain a waiver to continue use of 23 older
school buses.
$250,000
K Central office administrative expenditures – Reduce 30.0 central
office administrative positions. Reduce non-position central
office expenditures (4 percent of total central office), including
temporary part-time salaries, supplies, and other expenditures.
(Over last two years, central office cuts have totaled $17
million—a 13 percent reduction in these expenditures.)
30.0 $6,000,000
L Purchase fewer textbooks and instructional materials by
eliminating the budgeted 6 percent inflationary increase in this
category.
$1,650,000
ELEMENTARY REDUCTIONS
M Focus teachers – Reduce by 20 percent additional staffing for
elementary schools that have above average levels of poverty.
Currently, there are 47.1 focus teacher positions.
9.4 $605,680
N Reading initiative teachers – Eliminate 8.0 reading initiative
teachers by increasing class size to 19 students. Current class
size for reading in grades 1 and 2 in non-focus schools is 17.
Currently, there are 75.7 elementary school reading initiative
teachers.
8.0 $513,437
Item Description FTE Savings
3
O Staff development and reading teachers – In the past, all
elementary schools received a 1.0 staff development teacher and
a 1.0 reading specialist. In FY 2010, the allocation for the
smallest schools was reduced by a total of .5, giving schools a
choice of which position to reduce. It may be necessary to make
further cuts in the smallest schools.
5.0 $322,170
P Media assistants – Reduce 40 media assistant positions in
elementary schools. Currently, there are 192.5 media assistants
and this reduction would require changing staff ratios K-12.
(Reduced by 5.0 in FY 2010)
40.0 $2,311,360
Q Elementary school regular education paraeducators – Reduce by
10 percent regular education paraeducators that provide
instructional support to elementary classroom teachers.
Currently, there are 271.25 regular education paraeducators.
27.1 $1,011,562
R Elementary school activity buses and extracurricular activity
stipends – Reduce activity bus availability or extracurricular
activity stipends. A total of $1.1 million is budgeted for these
expenditures.
$600,000
SECONDARY REDUCTIONS
S Middle School Magnet Consortium – Reduce 8.0 additional
teacher positions that allow for an eight-period day with
specialized course offerings in the three middle schools in the
magnet consortium. (Argyle, Loiederman, Parkland).
8.0 $515,472
T Secondary School Extracurricular activities - Reduce stipends
and other expenses that support extracurricular activities,
including athletics, at the secondary level. This could result in
added extracurricular fees to offset budget reductions.
$1,000,000
U Staff development teachers – Reduce 10.6 staff development
teacher positions. Staff development teachers in middle and
high schools would teach one class period daily instead of
devoting the entire day to staff development activities.
10.6 $682,000
Total 534.0 $42,998,662
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Is anyone concerned about the cuts that are being proposed for the budget? Is there anything parents can do?

A Class size – Increase class size by an average of 1 student per
class at each school level. This would reduce staffing by 240
classroom teacher positions.



Yes, of course, I am totally concerned about this. Nobody wants to have larger class sizes or a reduction in services, especially cuts that will affect special education and special programs like immersion/magnet. These are the types of programs that MoCo has always bragged about and certainly the reason many of us chose MoCo for a school system. I really could care less about the expensive white boards that all the MoCo schools seem to be buying and the artificial turf fields that are being installed - beautiful facilities mean nothing if the core educational services aren't there. This county has had its priorities out of whack for too long and now the kids who need the services the most will suffer.
Anonymous
A note on the white boards: at our school all the boards were purchased by the PTA with money donated by parents for that purpose. With regard to MoCo's budget, the county budget last year was $4.3 billion, 50% of that for schools. I'm sure Weast could find more actual fat in there, but he likes to use scare tactics instead. Furthermore, I'm not convinced that MoCo has any ability to handle the budget and accounting function-I doubt there's enough detailed data on their spending so that they can make truly informed decisions.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:A note on the white boards: at our school all the boards were purchased by the PTA with money donated by parents for that purpose. With regard to MoCo's budget, the county budget last year was $4.3 billion, 50% of that for schools. I'm sure Weast could find more actual fat in there, but he likes to use scare tactics instead. Furthermore, I'm not convinced that MoCo has any ability to handle the budget and accounting function-I doubt there's enough detailed data on their spending so that they can make truly informed decisions.


Wow! How many Promethean boards did your PTA purchase? They cost about $6000 EACH!
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:A note on the white boards: at our school all the boards were purchased by the PTA with money donated by parents for that purpose. With regard to MoCo's budget, the county budget last year was $4.3 billion, 50% of that for schools. I'm sure Weast could find more actual fat in there, but he likes to use scare tactics instead. Furthermore, I'm not convinced that MoCo has any ability to handle the budget and accounting function-I doubt there's enough detailed data on their spending so that they can make truly informed decisions.


Wow! How many Promethean boards did your PTA purchase? They cost about $6000 EACH!


The school has at least two, they may have three. And yes, they do cost $6000 each. One family donated the entire $6000 for one board. Other elementaries near us have more boards. I don't think we're a particularly rich PTA either.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:A note on the white boards: at our school all the boards were purchased by the PTA with money donated by parents for that purpose. With regard to MoCo's budget, the county budget last year was $4.3 billion, 50% of that for schools. I'm sure Weast could find more actual fat in there, but he likes to use scare tactics instead. Furthermore, I'm not convinced that MoCo has any ability to handle the budget and accounting function-I doubt there's enough detailed data on their spending so that they can make truly informed decisions.


Wow! How many Promethean boards did your PTA purchase? They cost about $6000 EACH!


The school has at least two, they may have three. And yes, they do cost $6000 each. One family donated the entire $6000 for one board. Other elementaries near us have more boards. I don't think we're a particularly rich PTA either.


FYI

Keep maintenance in mind, as services/replacement parts are expensive.
Anonymous
Our elementary has a promethean board in every single classroom - even the art room - and they were all paid for by the county. That seems like a complete waste of money to me, especially since many teachers don't even know how to use them as anything more than a $6000 chalkboard.
Anonymous
What can parents do? Get rid of Weast.
Anonymous
Parents can call, write a letter, or email BOE members and Montgomery County Council, voicing their opinion.
Anonymous
Sign the petition at http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/save-the-buses
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Is anyone concerned about the cuts that are being proposed for the budget? Is there anything parents can do?

A Class size – Increase class size by an average of 1 student per
class at each school level. This would reduce staffing by 240
classroom teacher positions.



Yes, of course, I am totally concerned about this. Nobody wants to have larger class sizes or a reduction in services, especially cuts that will affect special education and special programs like immersion/magnet. These are the types of programs that MoCo has always bragged about and certainly the reason many of us chose MoCo for a school system. I really could care less about the expensive white boards that all the MoCo schools seem to be buying and the artificial turf fields that are being installed - beautiful facilities mean nothing if the core educational services aren't there. This county has had its priorities out of whack for too long and now the kids who need the services the most will suffer.


Why do immersion/magnet kids "need services the most"? I thought all our kids deserved good educational service.

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Sign the petition at http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/save-the-buses


Maybe it's just my computer, but I can't page back and read all the petition comments. The pages I can see, though, have comments from people who don't even live in Maryland, let alone MoCo, and from people who think they're saving the Metro buses. The worth of the exercise is devalued when people who aren't even stakeholders are allowed to sign the petition.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Sign the petition at http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/save-the-buses


Maybe it's just my computer, but I can't page back and read all the petition comments. The pages I can see, though, have comments from people who don't even live in Maryland, let alone MoCo, and from people who think they're saving the Metro buses. The worth of the exercise is devalued when people who aren't even stakeholders are allowed to sign the petition.


I'm not sure why your computer does not enable you to see all comments, but over 1000 people have signed this petition so far, almost all of them are from Maryland, and many of them explained quite clearly why they think the buses are important.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Is anyone concerned about the cuts that are being proposed for the budget? Is there anything parents can do?

A Class size – Increase class size by an average of 1 student per
class at each school level. This would reduce staffing by 240
classroom teacher positions.



Yes, of course, I am totally concerned about this. Nobody wants to have larger class sizes or a reduction in services, especially cuts that will affect special education and special programs like immersion/magnet. These are the types of programs that MoCo has always bragged about and certainly the reason many of us chose MoCo for a school system. I really could care less about the expensive white boards that all the MoCo schools seem to be buying and the artificial turf fields that are being installed - beautiful facilities mean nothing if the core educational services aren't there. This county has had its priorities out of whack for too long and now the kids who need the services the most will suffer.


Why do immersion/magnet kids "need services the most"? I thought all our kids deserved good educational service.


The cuts will disproportionately affect students with disabilities.
http://parentscoalitionmc.blogspot.com/2010/01/board-weast-mute-as-parents-choke-back.html
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Is anyone concerned about the cuts that are being proposed for the budget? Is there anything parents can do?

A Class size – Increase class size by an average of 1 student per
class at each school level. This would reduce staffing by 240
classroom teacher positions.



Yes, of course, I am totally concerned about this. Nobody wants to have larger class sizes or a reduction in services, especially cuts that will affect special education and special programs like immersion/magnet. These are the types of programs that MoCo has always bragged about and certainly the reason many of us chose MoCo for a school system. I really could care less about the expensive white boards that all the MoCo schools seem to be buying and the artificial turf fields that are being installed - beautiful facilities mean nothing if the core educational services aren't there. This county has had its priorities out of whack for too long and now the kids who need the services the most will suffer.


Why do immersion/magnet kids "need services the most"? I thought all our kids deserved good educational service.


The cuts will disproportionately affect students with disabilities.
http://parentscoalitionmc.blogspot.com/2010/01/board-weast-mute-as-parents-choke-back.html


Frankly, while I think the Parents Coalition is doing work that should be done, I am getting tired of reading their website. The problem I have is that their views are always anti-MCPS, always anti-Weast (even if he often deserves it), always anti-MC Council, etc. The link you provided is a discussion of special needs preschool also, it is not a discussion of school for all special needs students. The coalition viewpoints just don't seem balanced or comprehensive. I wish they were because it could be a great place for discussion.
Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)
Go to: