Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This article is ridiculous. Everyone familiar with MCPS knows that big cost drivers are not teachers but the ever growing and expanding number of administrators in the Central Office making over $200k.

The other area where MCPS wastes a lot of money is with consulting contracts. Some of these expensive consultants are MCPS central office retirees.

People have been begging for an audit of MCPS for years. If Friedson thinks that a 2 hour meeting to get a kindergarten level understanding of costs areas is sufficient then he’s only fooling himself. That guy is a low IQ idiot.

It's perfectly rational to express concern about the number of administrative positions, but they make up a small fraction of the budget. They don't even make up that much of the increase. It's teacher salaries and benefits.

All I know is that the council has repeatedly specifically funded more teaching positions to reduce class sizes and more in-school support positions like counselors and MCPS has in return reprogrammed these positions to central office administrators. The bloat is serious and it’s real. Meanwhile, as MCPSs budget demands keep going up and up,
parents are being asked to provide more and more direct financial support to classrooms. Before we left MCPS, I was spending about $1000 per year to a combination of PTA, classroom supplies and Amazon wish lists. And I wasn’t alone. It’s not normal to run a school system with a multi-billion operating budget like this.

It is absolutely horrific what is going on. Teachers hear another teacher got something, and now that department asks for things that should be fixed or replaced by MCPS (Central office). For example, a Smart Board that is an essential part of teaching in classrooms these days..but now families are being asked to fund for the board?? WTF. Council - are you understanding this? Dr.Taylor - do you know and understand? Or when they build schools and don't place fans in the gyms? With the heat amd weather nowadays, you would think fans are a must in gyms!! If they couldn't install ceiling fans, MCPS should be buying those HUGE fans to be used in the gyms or in classrooms that are in old school buildings, not coming from PTA!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This article is ridiculous. Everyone familiar with MCPS knows that big cost drivers are not teachers but the ever growing and expanding number of administrators in the Central Office making over $200k.

The other area where MCPS wastes a lot of money is with consulting contracts. Some of these expensive consultants are MCPS central office retirees.

People have been begging for an audit of MCPS for years. If Friedson thinks that a 2 hour meeting to get a kindergarten level understanding of costs areas is sufficient then he’s only fooling himself. That guy is a low IQ idiot.

It's perfectly rational to express concern about the number of administrative positions, but they make up a small fraction of the budget. They don't even make up that much of the increase. It's teacher salaries and benefits.

All I know is that the council has repeatedly specifically funded more teaching positions to reduce class sizes and more in-school support positions like counselors and MCPS has in return reprogrammed these positions to central office administrators. The bloat is serious and it’s real. Meanwhile, as MCPSs budget demands keep going up and up,
parents are being asked to provide more and more direct financial support to classrooms. Before we left MCPS, I was spending about $1000 per year to a combination of PTA, classroom supplies and Amazon wish lists. And I wasn’t alone. It’s not normal to run a school system with a multi-billion operating budget like this.

Do you think MCPS is unique with their administrative positions?

Regardless, administrative positions are a small part of the budget overall, and a small part of increased spending each year. You can't address the budget and revenue/spending issues without dealing with the major cost driver: teacher salaries and benefits. Realistically, we need to accept there teachers are more expensive today than they were 20 years ago, but we do need to think about where and how to best spend that money.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This article is ridiculous. Everyone familiar with MCPS knows that big cost drivers are not teachers but the ever growing and expanding number of administrators in the Central Office making over $200k.

The other area where MCPS wastes a lot of money is with consulting contracts. Some of these expensive consultants are MCPS central office retirees.

People have been begging for an audit of MCPS for years. If Friedson thinks that a 2 hour meeting to get a kindergarten level understanding of costs areas is sufficient then he’s only fooling himself. That guy is a low IQ idiot.

It's perfectly rational to express concern about the number of administrative positions, but they make up a small fraction of the budget. They don't even make up that much of the increase. It's teacher salaries and benefits.

All I know is that the council has repeatedly specifically funded more teaching positions to reduce class sizes and more in-school support positions like counselors and MCPS has in return reprogrammed these positions to central office administrators. The bloat is serious and it’s real. Meanwhile, as MCPSs budget demands keep going up and up,
parents are being asked to provide more and more direct financial support to classrooms. Before we left MCPS, I was spending about $1000 per year to a combination of PTA, classroom supplies and Amazon wish lists. And I wasn’t alone. It’s not normal to run a school system with a multi-billion operating budget like this.

Anonymous wrote:This article is ridiculous. Everyone familiar with MCPS knows that big cost drivers are not teachers but the ever growing and expanding number of administrators in the Central Office making over $200k.

The other area where MCPS wastes a lot of money is with consulting contracts. Some of these expensive consultants are MCPS central office retirees.

People have been begging for an audit of MCPS for years. If Friedson thinks that a 2 hour meeting to get a kindergarten level understanding of costs areas is sufficient then he’s only fooling himself. That guy is a low IQ idiot.

It's perfectly rational to express concern about the number of administrative positions, but they make up a small fraction of the budget. They don't even make up that much of the increase. It's teacher salaries and benefits.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This article is ridiculous. Everyone familiar with MCPS knows that big cost drivers are not teachers but the ever growing and expanding number of administrators in the Central Office making over $200k.

The other area where MCPS wastes a lot of money is with consulting contracts. Some of these expensive consultants are MCPS central office retirees.

People have been begging for an audit of MCPS for years. If Friedson thinks that a 2 hour meeting to get a kindergarten level understanding of costs areas is sufficient then he’s only fooling himself. That guy is a low IQ idiot.

The cost driver is the state maintenance of effort requirement. It prohibits the school system from finding any cuts or efficiencies. You can cap increases by using the maintenance of effort law as a ceiling and not a floor. But the Council doesn't have the courage to do that.

So the state maintenance of effort requirement isn't a cost driver in practice, because it never forces us to spend more.

Anonymous wrote:This article is ridiculous. Everyone familiar with MCPS knows that big cost drivers are not teachers but the ever growing and expanding number of administrators in the Central Office making over $200k.

The other area where MCPS wastes a lot of money is with consulting contracts. Some of these expensive consultants are MCPS central office retirees.

People have been begging for an audit of MCPS for years. If Friedson thinks that a 2 hour meeting to get a kindergarten level understanding of costs areas is sufficient then he’s only fooling himself. That guy is a low IQ idiot.

The cost driver is the state maintenance of effort requirement. It prohibits the school system from finding any cuts or efficiencies. You can cap increases by using the maintenance of effort law as a ceiling and not a floor. But the Council doesn't have the courage to do that.

Anonymous wrote:Surprise!

They're running out of money again. How long until another tax increase after they just raised property taxes?

Maybe we have too many undocumented migrants placing tremendous strain on our schools?

It's already $20k+ per pupil yet standards and outcomes are declining. MCPS is just one expensive baby sitting program. I am sick and tired of justifying tax increases with the same of stupid arguments of 'It's for the schools!' and 'It's for education!'. Those stupid taking points try to shutdown all debate in order to give MCPS carte Blanche to spend whatever they want with zero accountability and forced budgeting.

Broke already after tax increases, what a joke:

https://moco360.media/2024/11/07/mcps-projecting-5-million-deficit/


They are going to tax our residents out of existence.

The last tax increase didn’t go to education, even though it was required to go to education by state law. The county ended up with a big surplus, some of which went to subsidize businesses under a law that Andrew Friedson sponsored.

This article is ridiculous. Everyone familiar with MCPS knows that big cost drivers are not teachers but the ever growing and expanding number of administrators in the Central Office making over $200k.

The other area where MCPS wastes a lot of money is with consulting contracts. Some of these expensive consultants are MCPS central office retirees.

People have been begging for an audit of MCPS for years. If Friedson thinks that a 2 hour meeting to get a kindergarten level understanding of costs areas is sufficient then he’s only fooling himself. That guy is a low IQ idiot.

Anonymous wrote:MCPS used to be a full 50% of the budget so I think they should get more money. Now, there are more kids participating in FARMs and need more support. Way more special ed students, who also need more support. And, the infrastructure is an effing mess - some schools are old and falling apart (Damascus, Eastern, Wootton, Magruder), others are crazy overcrowded with no relief in sight.

We need the Planning Board to stop focusing on only Housing development (and listening to Dan Reed), and look at the entire infrastructure (schools, police, community centers, fire, libraries, etc., etc.)

MCPS used to be a shining star, now it's a black eye. Needs a huge infusion of funds to fix infrastructure and try and keep teachers and hire more special ed teachers.

Saying they waste money is like saying you waste money by occasionally buying a Starbucks or Avacado Toast - it's a massive system, and there's always parts here and there that any one individual disagree with

No, it’s more like them eating fancy pastries every day and complaining that since they’re malnourished they need to start topping their pastries with gold leaf.

MCPS has a lot of problems and when they don’t have an easy fix they think that throwing more money in the pot will somehow magically solve everything. They don’t use the money they have wisely, and if you gave them more, I have every confidence they would find even more extraneous ways to spend it, which might be very nice, but wouldn’t solve the underlying problems. I think giving them 100% of the county budget would produce negligible educational benefit and they’d still insist that if the county just invested even more money in education, it would make things better.

For example, we funded their vanity project of a curriculum for years. Only after it had failed students for years did an outside curriculum audit force them to change course and now we are finally using phonics to teach reading. I don’t know if buying an off-the-shelf curriculum is cheaper or more expensive than hiring an entire department of curriculum “experts”, but even if it is I think it’s far more cost effective to pay for a proven curriculum than to keep pouring money down a black hole for a curriculum that is just unworkable. This is just one of countless cases.

Basically, if something is a bad idea, throwing more money at it isn’t going to make it better. Moreover, there are things we could do (reform the grading system, restore finals, have flexible ability grouping (not tracking), impose a more effective discipline policy, etc.) that could provide substantial benefits without requiring massive financial investments.

MCPS needs to start making better choices with the funding it has before the county gives it more to waste.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't forget that Maryland state revenues are not going to sustain funding either. In large part due to education funding.

https://marylandmatters.org/2024/11/12/five-year-state-budget-projection-foresees-enormous-gap-not-seen-in-two-decades/

They all REALLY need to get their finances in order.

Do you think the state of MD will rethink the Blueprint for Education? We could not afford it to begin with.

We don't talk about the B word...

Anonymous wrote:Stop ALL consultants. No arts grants to KID museum, no legal consultants, no clericalism consultants. Assess anything intangible that's being purchased year after year like IT systems and licenses for lunch payment, outside curriculum etc. With a budget so large there are plenty of inefficiencies no one digs into but they add up.

Lots will be cut due to "events from last week." Some things, such as the un-user-friendly platforms need to go.

Anonymous wrote:OP, did you just start paying attention to county budgets yesterday? MCPS has accounted for half the county budgets for years if not decades.

Here is some background from 2010 that may help you understand some of the dynamics in MCPS budgets.

https://montgomeryperspective.com/2010/03/23/madaleno-rocks-moco-on-teacher-pensions/

Obviously not.

Anonymous wrote:Don't forget that Maryland state revenues are not going to sustain funding either. In large part due to education funding.

https://marylandmatters.org/2024/11/12/five-year-state-budget-projection-foresees-enormous-gap-not-seen-in-two-decades/

They all REALLY need to get their finances in order.

Do you think the state of MD will rethink the Blueprint for Education? We could not afford it to begin with.

MCPS used to be a full 50% of the budget so I think they should get more money. Now, there are more kids participating in FARMs and need more support. Way more special ed students, who also need more support. And, the infrastructure is an effing mess - some schools are old and falling apart (Damascus, Eastern, Wootton, Magruder), others are crazy overcrowded with no relief in sight.

We need the Planning Board to stop focusing on only Housing development (and listening to Dan Reed), and look at the entire infrastructure (schools, police, community centers, fire, libraries, etc., etc.)

MCPS used to be a shining star, now it's a black eye. Needs a huge infusion of funds to fix infrastructure and try and keep teachers and hire more special ed teachers.

Saying they waste money is like saying you waste money by occasionally buying a Starbucks or Avacado Toast - it's a massive system, and there's always parts here and there that any one individual disagree with