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]Remember that some of these SS, English and gym positions are often working in some of the most difficult schools as well.  It’s really hard to compare difficulty.  Every teacher has strengths and weaknesses, but obviously there are some teachers who do the minimum (or less) out there for a variety of reasons.[/quote]

It isn't about the difficulty of the position- it's about the difficulty of filling the position. SPED, and to a lesser extent, STEM, positions have consistently been the hardest to fill.[/quote]

There is a legal right, enshrined in COMAR, to appropriate enrichments to address the differential needs of those identified as GT.  Missing are the specifics of compliance afforded to SPED in both state and federal law and the penalties associated with non-conpliance.

Society willingly turns a blind eye to unmet GT need, as most view that as something extra for the privileged vs. something necessary for the underprivileged.  Funny thing is that a considerably disproportionate amount of SPED accommodation goes to those folks priveleged enough to have the resources to pursue independent identification of need and legal challenges to system decisions.
This. You can’t just decide to pay special education teachers more because some of you have a vested interest in special education. There is a shortage of physics teachers especially for advanced courses like AP and IB physics. Should we pay physics teachers more? What about advanced CS teachers? The problem with special education is that due to lawsuits, etc., the documentation and paperwork requirements have exploded. The job requirements need to be pared down [/quote]

Yes, we probably should pay STEM teachers more. I think most people realize that, teachers unions have broadly been fighting to push that off as long as possible.

That being said, there's no legal right to advanced physics or computer science courses, but there is a legal right to FAPE for children with special needs. Regardless of how we deal with STEM positions long-term, we should be addressing the current disaster in special education. Increasing staff and pay for SPED is a necessary first step.[/quote]

Those aren't the resource intensive kids.[/quote]

Agree that it takes far fewer resources to address GT than to address SPED.  That's as it should be -- SPED challenges tend to be far more compex, on average.

Funny thing, then, that GT doesn't get served with the same fidelity to intent as SPED when doing so would be so much less expensive.[/quote]

[b]No, I meant the people using expensive private diagnoses, paid advocates, and lawyers generally to get accomodations aren't the resource intensive students with special needs.[/b] Except for maybe the small group pursuing private placement.

And MCPS already pays a lot for magnet programs, IB, AP classes, and Montgomery College classes. If we can do more there, great, but that isn't a dumpster fire with safrty  and legal violatins that SPED is.[/quote]

Understood, then.  But even those accommodations cost more per pupil than appropriate GT accommodation would.

As for the programs mentioned, they don't come close to meeting the need, as evidenced by the small proportion of magnet seats vs. those identified via lottery for ES & MS.  The consistency of levels of and fidelity to enrichment standards at local schools for those 9 grades (6 after initial SIPPI in 2nd) is woefully poor across the system.  HS may have AP/IB/MC options, but these are not available at all HS's across enough subjects/at high enough levels to ensure need is met, especially for those outliers in lower-performing schools.  HS magnets also are overbooked, especially at the high end (e.g., SMCS, RMIB).

None of this is to say that SPED is funded at an appropriate level or that associated operations are managed well enough by the system, though it would be a mistake to expect anything close to perfection, given the difficulties inherent in meeting associated legal standards (not to mention the correlated variance in individual need).  Adhering to statute certainly would be nice...

Still, it is reasonable to compare the relative effectiveness of the system's meeting GT need vs. meeting SPED need, and to encourage attention to the former if it lags.[/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