Your writing style is a little stilted, OP. ChatGPT?

Anyway. MCPS does spend an enormous amount on both gifted and SN programs, which is why it has jumped on the "equity" movement to curtail ALL special programs. I had a kid in their gifted, talented and learning disabled program, and a kid in one of their magnets, so from my perspective, this is all very sad, and I wish every child could be placed in the situation that best corresponds to their needs.

Anonymous wrote:This post makes no sense as it started from a McPS topic. The MCPS budget breakdown can easily be found and folks would see that the Special Education allocation is more than the MS allocation. Further, self contained classrooms are more expensive because they house less students which means you need more of them, which means more staff and space.

True but they are less expensive then hiring a 1:1 aide for the kids who end up in the self contained classrooms. And they decrease the disruptions in the class with the kid with a 1:1 aide who ends up in the self contained classroom because there is a space for that child to go.

The issue is that we don’t have enough of the appropriate environment to help kids who need that level of help, it is expensive to provide individual aids for all the kids that should be in a different environment, and it is detrimental to everyones ability to learn by not having enough of the appropriate environment.

This post makes no sense as it started from a McPS topic. The MCPS budget breakdown can easily be found and folks would see that the Special Education allocation is more than the MS allocation. Further, self contained classrooms are more expensive because they house less students which means you need more of them, which means more staff and space.

Aren’t teachers in MA the highest or second highest paid in the country? I don’t think teacher salary issues are consistent across state lines.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where did you get the idea that self-contained classrooms don't have paraeducators? Despite working in a public school system, it doesn't appear you have much direct knowledge of special needs programs.

My DD was in self-contained at Langley and there were always two teachers or a teacher and a paraeducator.

And higher needs classrooms typically have 1:2 staffing.

Anonymous wrote:Where did you get the idea that self-contained classrooms don't have paraeducators? Despite working in a public school system, it doesn't appear you have much direct knowledge of special needs programs.

My DD was in self-contained at Langley and there were always two teachers or a teacher and a paraeducator.

Where did you get the idea that self-contained classrooms don't have paraeducators? Despite working in a public school system, it doesn't appear you have much direct knowledge of special needs programs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was in ES in the late 70s and remembered kids, mostly boys, who were in a separate class but we had lunch, recess, field trips together. Now I realize, they were probably kids with ADHD, other learning disabilities, or behavioral issues. I think they integrated in junior high. Why can’t they do that now? Why did they stop? What changed?

They didn't stop. They expanded it. It's called "self-contained". But it's extremely expensive to provide for everyone who needs it it's not in the budget.

I'm currently employed within the Boston Public School system and felt the need to share some thoughts on the financial aspect of our educational structure.

Firstly, the idea that specialized classes for children with particular needs are prohibitively expensive is a misconception.

It would be more cost-effective to establish self-contained classes with adequately compensated teachers than to assign a 1:1 aide for every child. Even if we had to employ additional staff for such classes, the overall expenditure would still be less.

To give a clearer picture, let's delve into some figures: A recent [report](https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2023/public-school-spending.html#:~:text=Of%20the%20100%20largest%20school,District%20in%20Georgia%20(%2418%2C492)%2C) indicates that the average spending per student ranges between $20,000 to $30,000 annually. It's a reasonable assumption that students without special needs might fall on the lower end of this spectrum.

Now, considering the salaries: A teacher's median salary in Boston stands at approximately $60,000 annually. When juxtaposed with the per-student spending figures, there seems to be a disparity. How does this reconcile?

Furthermore, the base salary for paraprofessionals varies widely, ranging from $20,000 to $40,000. Although many earn less than the upper limit, if we go by the published statistics, the numbers are still significant.

It's essential to acknowledge the sentiment that teachers appear underpaid. This perception isn't unfounded. However, it's also crucial to highlight that the teachers' union has been resistant to some logical compromises. One such example is the reluctance to adopt a differential pay structure, where educators handling more challenging classrooms could be compensated more than those managing less demanding environments.

What's frustrating is the lack of a detailed financial breakdown. The Boston Public School system boasts a budget of $1.3 billion. Yet, without a clear itemized list, it's challenging to identify where all the funds are allocated. For context, a quick online search reveals that schools in the DC area have even higher per-student expenditures.

In conclusion, a transparent financial breakdown is crucial. It would provide clarity on where the funds are being utilized and whether the current allocation supports the optimal educational environment for all students.

Are all the gen ed students just herded together into the cafeteria and taught by the one non sped teacher the school can afford after your plan takes effect?

?
We used to have self contained classes. They did not break the bank (or teachers). The current model is what is doing both.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was in ES in the late 70s and remembered kids, mostly boys, who were in a separate class but we had lunch, recess, field trips together. Now I realize, they were probably kids with ADHD, other learning disabilities, or behavioral issues. I think they integrated in junior high. Why can’t they do that now? Why did they stop? What changed?

They didn't stop. They expanded it. It's called "self-contained". But it's extremely expensive to provide for everyone who needs it it's not in the budget.

I'm currently employed within the Boston Public School system and felt the need to share some thoughts on the financial aspect of our educational structure.

Firstly, the idea that specialized classes for children with particular needs are prohibitively expensive is a misconception.

It would be more cost-effective to establish self-contained classes with adequately compensated teachers than to assign a 1:1 aide for every child. Even if we had to employ additional staff for such classes, the overall expenditure would still be less.

To give a clearer picture, let's delve into some figures: A recent [report](https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2023/public-school-spending.html#:~:text=Of%20the%20100%20largest%20school,District%20in%20Georgia%20(%2418%2C492)%2C) indicates that the average spending per student ranges between $20,000 to $30,000 annually. It's a reasonable assumption that students without special needs might fall on the lower end of this spectrum.

Now, considering the salaries: A teacher's median salary in Boston stands at approximately $60,000 annually. When juxtaposed with the per-student spending figures, there seems to be a disparity. How does this reconcile?

Furthermore, the base salary for paraprofessionals varies widely, ranging from $20,000 to $40,000. Although many earn less than the upper limit, if we go by the published statistics, the numbers are still significant.

It's essential to acknowledge the sentiment that teachers appear underpaid. This perception isn't unfounded. However, it's also crucial to highlight that the teachers' union has been resistant to some logical compromises. One such example is the reluctance to adopt a differential pay structure, where educators handling more challenging classrooms could be compensated more than those managing less demanding environments.

What's frustrating is the lack of a detailed financial breakdown. The Boston Public School system boasts a budget of $1.3 billion. Yet, without a clear itemized list, it's challenging to identify where all the funds are allocated. For context, a quick online search reveals that schools in the DC area have even higher per-student expenditures.

In conclusion, a transparent financial breakdown is crucial. It would provide clarity on where the funds are being utilized and whether the current allocation supports the optimal educational environment for all students.

Are all the gen ed students just herded together into the cafeteria and taught by the one non sped teacher the school can afford after your plan takes effect?

What a random post.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was in ES in the late 70s and remembered kids, mostly boys, who were in a separate class but we had lunch, recess, field trips together. Now I realize, they were probably kids with ADHD, other learning disabilities, or behavioral issues. I think they integrated in junior high. Why can’t they do that now? Why did they stop? What changed?

They didn't stop. They expanded it. It's called "self-contained". But it's extremely expensive to provide for everyone who needs it it's not in the budget.

I'm currently employed within the Boston Public School system and felt the need to share some thoughts on the financial aspect of our educational structure.

Firstly, the idea that specialized classes for children with particular needs are prohibitively expensive is a misconception.

It would be more cost-effective to establish self-contained classes with adequately compensated teachers than to assign a 1:1 aide for every child. Even if we had to employ additional staff for such classes, the overall expenditure would still be less.

To give a clearer picture, let's delve into some figures: A recent [report](https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2023/public-school-spending.html#:~:text=Of%20the%20100%20largest%20school,District%20in%20Georgia%20(%2418%2C492)%2C) indicates that the average spending per student ranges between $20,000 to $30,000 annually. It's a reasonable assumption that students without special needs might fall on the lower end of this spectrum.

Now, considering the salaries: A teacher's median salary in Boston stands at approximately $60,000 annually. When juxtaposed with the per-student spending figures, there seems to be a disparity. How does this reconcile?

Furthermore, the base salary for paraprofessionals varies widely, ranging from $20,000 to $40,000. Although many earn less than the upper limit, if we go by the published statistics, the numbers are still significant.

It's essential to acknowledge the sentiment that teachers appear underpaid. This perception isn't unfounded. However, it's also crucial to highlight that the teachers' union has been resistant to some logical compromises. One such example is the reluctance to adopt a differential pay structure, where educators handling more challenging classrooms could be compensated more than those managing less demanding environments.

What's frustrating is the lack of a detailed financial breakdown. The Boston Public School system boasts a budget of $1.3 billion. Yet, without a clear itemized list, it's challenging to identify where all the funds are allocated. For context, a quick online search reveals that schools in the DC area have even higher per-student expenditures.

In conclusion, a transparent financial breakdown is crucial. It would provide clarity on where the funds are being utilized and whether the current allocation supports the optimal educational environment for all students.