Reply to Dec 18th: FY 2026 Recommended Operating Budget

Forum Index » Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS)

Reply to "Dec 18th: FY 2026 Recommended Operating Budget "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Many teachers and paras are locked in by pension and health care.  There is a huge penalty if you retire early.  Heck you aren’t even eligible for anything in the pension system unless you have been in Maryland for 10 years working full time.

Every staff member I know plans to leave at full retirement age.  For many it is around 60 or so.  Younger teachers have to work 5 years longer than that and get a smaller pension.

I know one teacher staying longer. They say they need the money to take care of adult children. But they are basically working at half the pay rate now since they are pushing off collecting the pension.

FYI, teachers put in 7.5% of our salaries into the pension.  It’s not some sort of free benefit or something.  Teacher submissions account for about 75% of teacher pensions paid out.  The counties and state cover the rest.   It’s only about 50% of the final salary.  It will be less for younger teachers eventually.[/quote]

Paras make minimum wage and don’t often get benefits.  [/quote]

Then clearly this isn’t a job that can be worked by people who don’t have a higher earning spouse or a couple roommates.

There is the way we want things to be and then there is reality. If you want things to be different then you do the advocacy work with the people who can make the changes (county council, state politicians, federal politicians, MCEA, etc) and in the meantime you make plans for reality.

Like many private sector workers who have moved jobs and occasionally states for better salaries and who put away 15-20% of their income for retirement because they don’t have a pension.[/quote]

While I certainly don’t think the pay is acceptable, I do know a paraeducator who is single. They pay is still slightly better than child care centers, and the benefits are much better if you can get one of those positions.

Unfortunately, the para positions assigned to kids with special needs and behavioral problems generally don’t get benefits. As a result, there’s high turnover and staff quality varies wildly.  The first priority should be extending benefits to all para positions.[/quote]

Since this thread is about the presented budget, the first step should be CO/Superintendent explaining what the 688 requested Special Ed positions are to be, along with explanation of the cost analysis done to determine if a position should be salary only/salary +benefits and the necessary salary benchmarking.[/quote]

I disagree, although mostly because the tone of your post suggests a inappropriate level of micromanagement. Though it's certainly reasonable to expect a breakdown of positions and a description of why they're needed. But you seemed to be expecting much more time, effort, and formality, by both MCPS and the Board. e.g., you seeemed to be suggesting a compensation study for these positions separate from the policies and practices for existing special education positions.

More generally, the Board micromanaging foundation positions like these is not going to be productive. They'd be at the mercy of central admin staff for the accuracy of the justification, so there's no way to avoid deferring to admin's judgement on the details.

But there are broader issues that should be raised. 688 positions, depending on how they're being counted and what they might he replacing, is a lot. If they're needed, and I highly doubt anyone with insight into the current state of MCPS special education programs would question whether they are, the major issue should be what structural, institutional, or procedural failure led to this getting so bad?

And while I think it would be a waste of time to a special compensation study solely for these new positions, there does seem to be a need to do that for paraeducators more generally, including MCPS's practices for staffing and determining which positions receive benefits (and how well that plays out in practice).[/quote]

When 688 positions are requested in this financial climate and morale climate, a reasonable business person ask not only why and what purpose they serve, but also what is being offered that would see them likely be filled.  That later means understanding what the standard employment package has been vs what is to be offered or marketed in these positions to entice people to apply and accept.  And whether you believe it or not, in order to gain some trust MCPS and the BOE should be prepared to deliver this level of scrutiny (micromanagement).  Given what I’ve seen of their presentations to the BoE and I’d go so far as to say it’s actually needed.[/quote]

You know pay, benefits, and even wage studies are governed by the CBAs, right? They're not doing something special. They can't. Yes, this is an important issue, but its a longer-term issue than can be addressed within the budget request.

And even if it could be done, what you're suggesting would be ridiculous in the corporate world. Do you think a corporate Board of Directors would do what you're proposing? No, because it would be pointless. If you don't trust the day-to-day leadership, you're not going to be able to trust what they tell you. But without them, you can't reliably get the data and do the analysis that would necessary to make any sort of informed decison.[/quote]

Almost all the Chief positions are open for application right now🙂.  MCPS has had several scandals in recents years, has gone though multiple Supers, dealt with a humiliating IG report, and is still in the midst of the bus contract problem.  Needing to provide specifics around these 688 Special Education positions should be expected by everyone.[/quote]

Let’s go one step further, can you imagine going to your boss and saying, I’d like 688 positions and millions allocated for this, but aside from department I have zero idea what category positions will be allocated to, what total compensation package will be for a given role, nor if a bonus or other special benefit will be needed despite knowing these are currently hard to recruit positions and knowing we are facing a potential budget crunch. [/quote]

It sounds like you didn't bother to look at the Special Education budget. The positions are listed.

Compensation is governed by the CBA already.  You can look up those terms yourself, too.
[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics