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]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]

Which is really interesting as GT is classed under Special Education.  Further, some of what many GT students need is not just academic but Social and Emotional.[/quote]

GT is its own hot mess of hell in MCPS.  I don’t think much can be done to help GT kids until a better distinction is able to be drawn between academically accelerated kids who work hard and get plenty of extra academic enrichment from GT kids whose needs can only be met in actually GT programming, which AP classes are not.  Most kids are not GT (by its definition GT is outside the norm.) The GT identification testing in elementary school needs to make distinctions between smart kids and GT kids.  Too many kids are identified as GT to make that a valuable category for provided correct instruction. I think MCPS is full of parents who think there kids need GT programming when actually what they need is advanced and accelerated programs such as AP classes or classes at Montgomery College.  And certainly MCPS needs to do a better job serving the needs of accelerated learners so they can be challenged and grow. GT kids are different since the usual accelerated learning programs will not serve them well.  And these kids can become disruptive in the classroom just like other SPED kids whose needs are not being met. [/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