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]Where in the budget are they listed? I didn’t see anything specific - meaning broken down into which programs and which level (ES, MS, HS, or special program). The budget did not look specific to me. [/quote]

Many SPED positions, especially paras legally needed for one to one, follow student needs.  If a school has incoming SPED students whose IEP calls for 1 to 1 para support, the para is needed at that school at that grade.   Right now there are so few paras that this legal need is not being met.  MCPS is dodging being sued by stating they are trying and unable to fill these legally required positions and so should not be liable.  But, this excuse will only last so many years.  Please ask questions about this on the SPED forum if you are unfamiliar with the issue,  it is shameful.

Instead of just thinking of SPED classrooms and programs,  where yes the need for a certain number of teachers and paras is linked to school/grade, think of mainstreamed SPED kids who are in regular classes for either all or a part of their day.  This is where the bulk of the para hires are needed.  If you think of the number of schools in MCPS then the number of hires is actually low.  And again, currently SPED kids whose IEPs (legally required accommodations) call for 1 to 1 para support, are going without and the excuse provided being no paras are available despite MCPS hiring for these positions.  So, yes something needs to be done to attract staff to these legally required positions.

Also, currently MCPS is having trouble staffing with SPED teachers its programs and is having to pay for expensive outsourcing to private schools.  Part of the issue at MCPS is retention. Having more paras in the SPED classrooms to support teachers would lower the burden on SPED teachers.  Again please go on SPED forums to see the extent of this issue.  
[/quote]

Thank you!!! This is exactly my point.  MCPS might well and truly need 688 SPED positions.  And I doubt most people disagree.  What folks are saying is that given realities, MCPS at this point should be REALLY prepared to discuss the who, what, why, and how of their budget request, especially for this section because the number of positions requested is so large and SPED is being given particular focus. ([i]ex: we have a current backlog of 100 students needing a 1-1 paras. We’ve been trying for 2 years to recruit these positions at  X salary.  We’ve contracted out for X number at X rate which comes out to be X dollars more or less than if the person was employee by MCPS.  Our previous recruitment hasn’t been successful, so in this budget and with our association partners we have added a signing bonus of x dollars and are positioning this positions to have a lesser case load.  Ideally if we hire even X number that would allow for SPEd teacher to have X less students and X more minutes back for planning.)[/i][/quote]

1:1 paraeducators (mostly) aren't funded this way. They're considered temporary employees. There are different line items these come from.

Some the positions are going into special education programs, but most seem to be going to support the home school model. Roughly speaking, MCPS groups kids with IEPs into a couple classrooms per grade, and then staffs the room with one or two paraeducators based on grade level and classroom needs.

Those aren't 1:1s. They serve everyone with IEPs into the class. And when an IEP says a student will receive, say, 10 hours a week of specialized instruction or support from a paraeducator, that's 10 hours from a shared paraeducator that is simultaneously supporting 10+ kids in the room.

There are FTEs set aside for a base level of those kinds of positions. If the school finds that a room needs more support and don't someone to internally reallocate, then they need to put in a critical staffing request for a part-time/temp paraeducator. You can see them shifting some money from that pot into the FTE pot (look at the decrease in "Supporting Services Part Time".

1:1s mostly get handled through critical staffing, too. MCPS generally won't agree to put a 1:1 into an IEP explicitly. They'll put in hours and hope that they'll be able to cover it with a shared paraeducator. This seems to be a standard operating practice within MCPS even in cases where the IEP team knows the child will ultimately need a 1:1. I've been through this several times as a parent.

I initially fought this when developing the IEPs, but at this point we all know the school will need to come up with a 1:1 each year even though its not in the IEP. You'd think want to plan ahead of time for the need, but I get the impression central doesn't let them.

The bulk of these new positions are full-time paraeducators with benefits. Those positions aren't hard to fill. Lots of child care workers would love to get one of those positions because the pay is competitive and the benefits are great.

The requested number of Special Education teachers will probably be challenging to recruit. But MCPS can't unilaterally make compensation changes to those positions, including bonuses. Those need to be negotiated with MCEA, who has been reluctant to go along with recruitment incentives for special educators. It's not ideal, but the best thing for MCPS to do is to create the positions and then point to the shortage to renegotiate with MCEA when they ultimately can't fill them all.

188 isn't that many when you remember there are 200+ schools. So obviously not all schools would get a another special education teacher. Presumably they're going to assign them where there's the greatest need, which will change over time. I do wish they would say more about how and where they'll assign them, but I think that's more of an implementation detail for central admin than a policy issue for the board.

You seem to be expecting a level of quantifiable specificity that isn't realistic. Particularly at the elementary schools, adding just a couple high support needs kids can really change the workload for special education teachers, particularly if the school can't get extra paraeducators approved.[/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