Anonymous wrote:Watching the BOE meetings is depressing. CO lies constantly or just says things that make no sense. They are a joke. It is embarrassing.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The mcps balloon has popped.

Sadly this will be the downfall of public education in this area. County council failing to recognize that if you don’t pay teachers their COLA or steps, while raising insurance premiums with worse coverage, teachers will leave. It won’t be the teachers within 5 or 7 years of retiring, but those that are only five or seven years into teaching, the brightest and most capable ones won’t see the value in staying. You can’t take home less money each year and still pay the bills when inflation is skyrocketing.

Was that money guaranteed to go to the teachers ONLY, and not for any other purpose? If not, then I’m in favor of cutting MCPS’ budget to ensure that less of my tax dollars are wasted by the current leadership.

Yes, MCPS bargained a contractor with the teachers and is committed to paying them the COLA they agreed to. If the funding is not passed they will have to go back on their word and renegotiate the contract to take the raises away (unless the union refuses, but they won't since the alternative is laying off hundreds of teachers.) But if the funding does pass, the contract is binding as-is and the money goes to teachers getting their COLAs.

Watching the BOE meetings is depressing. CO lies constantly or just says things that make no sense. They are a joke. It is embarrassing.

Anonymous wrote:I’m an MCPS employee, a parent of MCPS students, and a Montgomery County homeowner. I’m glad the county council is listening to those of us who said we cannot afford to write MCPS a blank check. I’d love to see the council go line by line through MCPS’ budget.

Ditto.

You either cut services or you increase taxes.

We can't write them a blank check and need to actually review their budget and hold them accountable. There is wasted funds on central office, constant curriculum changes, implementing thing while hog instead of piloting them. Every $ that goes to direct instruction and teachers is great, $ for real capital improvement to aging facilities is great. $ for dubious central office positions, $ for exorbitant curriculum costs, vendor contracts etc all needs to be reviewed.

All of central office can be removed without impact. That money saved should be re distributed to teacher salaries.

I’m an MCPS employee, a parent of MCPS students, and a Montgomery County homeowner. I’m glad the county council is listening to those of us who said we cannot afford to write MCPS a blank check. I’d love to see the council go line by line through MCPS’ budget.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The mcps balloon has popped.

Sadly this will be the downfall of public education in this area. County council failing to recognize that if you don’t pay teachers their COLA or steps, while raising insurance premiums with worse coverage, teachers will leave. It won’t be the teachers within 5 or 7 years of retiring, but those that are only five or seven years into teaching, the brightest and most capable ones won’t see the value in staying. You can’t take home less money each year and still pay the bills when inflation is skyrocketing.

Was that money guaranteed to go to the teachers ONLY, and not for any other purpose? If not, then I’m in favor of cutting MCPS’ budget to ensure that less of my tax dollars are wasted by the current leadership.

No guarantees. Taylor needs to party.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The mcps balloon has popped.

Sadly this will be the downfall of public education in this area. County council failing to recognize that if you don’t pay teachers their COLA or steps, while raising insurance premiums with worse coverage, teachers will leave. It won’t be the teachers within 5 or 7 years of retiring, but those that are only five or seven years into teaching, the brightest and most capable ones won’t see the value in staying. You can’t take home less money each year and still pay the bills when inflation is skyrocketing.

Was that money guaranteed to go to the teachers ONLY, and not for any other purpose? If not, then I’m in favor of cutting MCPS’ budget to ensure that less of my tax dollars are wasted by the current leadership.

Taking home less money in real terms is what nearly everyone else who is employed is doing right now. Why should teachers be any different?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The mcps balloon has popped.

Sadly this will be the downfall of public education in this area. County council failing to recognize that if you don’t pay teachers their COLA or steps, while raising insurance premiums with worse coverage, teachers will leave. It won’t be the teachers within 5 or 7 years of retiring, but those that are only five or seven years into teaching, the brightest and most capable ones won’t see the value in staying. You can’t take home less money each year and still pay the bills when inflation is skyrocketing.

Anonymous wrote:The mcps balloon has popped.

Sadly this will be the downfall of public education in this area. County council failing to recognize that if you don’t pay teachers their COLA or steps, while raising insurance premiums with worse coverage, teachers will leave. It won’t be the teachers within 5 or 7 years of retiring, but those that are only five or seven years into teaching, the brightest and most capable ones won’t see the value in staying. You can’t take home less money each year and still pay the bills when inflation is skyrocketing.

The mcps balloon has popped.

Good, it’s about time. Mcps can ask for anything they want but they don’t have to get what they demand. Student numbers are declining. They haven’t been good stewards of taxpayer money. They have got themselves into this mess and refuse to be responsible and accountable.

Agenda: https://montgomerycountymd.granicus.com/AgendaViewer.php?view_id=169&event_id=16861

The last of the 1:30 PM items is the "hearing" for the County-Executive-proposed county income tax rates. They intend to vote that proposal (3.3% across the board) down the next day (Wed, 5/13), per their straw vote last week, in favor of one proposed by Council President Fani-Gonzàlez (progressive up to that 3.3%). This bakes in decisions about property tax, eliminating the $692 owner-occupancy credit in lieu of Elrich's proposal to increase (to a much smaller degree) the property tax rate on all properties.

Unfortunately, signups for speaking slots closed Monday at 2 PM even though the item did not appear on last Thursday's publication of hearing items. The straw vote that saw this come into play happened on Friday. One might imagine this is a convenience for the Council not to have to hear from the public, except, perhaps, from those in the know as a performative matter.

While each proposal envisions a total of nearly $180M less for MCPS than the Superintendent-recommended/BOE-requested budget, it had been the hope that the Council would work to provide enough revenue to fund the system better. Instead, they are set to reduce revenues, and for multiple years.

For this coming fiscal year, the budget status report outlining the funding effects (including that for MCPS) is scheduled for immediately afterwards (2 PM, but may happen earlier if the 1:30 hearing items go off without folks showing up). The staff report for that, including a rather incomplete/slanted comparison of the tax structures proposed is at:

https://montgomerycountymd.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=169&event_id=16861&meta_id=222752

No specifics for MCPS (BOE, not Council, oversees MCPS line item funding), just ~$18M of cuts times 10 tranches, totalling ~$180M.

In the straw vote, all three of the Councilmembers current vying for the County Executive position voted against Fani-Gonzàlez's proposal, but it appears only one, Jawando, had proposed an alternative, with whatever faults and rejected by the others, that would have cut a lower amount from the MCPS line item ($30M instead of $180M). Given the 6-5 positioning of the straw vote, it would have been interesting to see which, if any, of the three would have voted in favor, instead, had the initial whip count been 5-6.